The Problem of Hell

[Betterave]

If you have examined doubts and rejected them with well thought out analysis that’s one thing, if you reject them because, well, they just can’t be true, that’s quite another.

Right, that’s why I’ve been giving you a well thought out analysis of your fallacious arguments… what’s your point?

More than happy to.

I’ll believe it when I see it.

Based on the fact that you’re telling me that truth is ‘revealed’ through the Holy Spirit, but you are not able to provide evidence to that effect. We must simply take the word of these men who claim to speak for God. No documentation, no chain of evidence. Just “I was inspired by the Holy Spirit, therefore you must do (or not do) X because God has ruled”. I’ve met people who claim to speak for God, most of them live in the subway.

When did I tell you that? I could tell you that, I suppose, but I’m pretty sure I didn’t. Please read and respond to what I actually tell you. (If perchance you’re keeping track, this “I was inspired…therefore…”-nonsense is another very obvious straw man fallacy.)

Then what is?

Somebody already answered your question upthread, I’m pretty sure. Moses is the ‘traditional’ author, meaning that the content of the books is associated with Moses and the prestige of his name, not that he actually wrote the books down. To compare with Islam again, wherein Muhammad is held to have dictated the Qur’an to followers who memorized it word for word and wrote it down and compiled it into one book after he died, the literary tradition of the Hebrew scriptures is much more heavily dependent upon relatively loose oral (and literary) traditions coming from a variety of sources. This should be obvious if you’ve ever looked through a Bible. I’m no expert on this. If you’re really interested, pick up a study Bible and read the introductions and notes.

Well, because you’ve claimed your faith is infallible, and infallible is infallible.

Right, infallible is infallible… and a non sequitur is a non sequitur. What *else *do you think ‘infallible’ means (besides ‘infallible’)??

Please answer me this: Did you really think that our faith teaches that each of us Catholics is personally infallible in every little thing he or she posts on some internet forum?

 

[Cristiano]

I understand that you were presenting a simplified answer in the hopes that it would be helpful to Seeker, but I think that strictly speaking you didn’t really answer some of his questions.

On infallibility, my understanding is that the Church clearly teaches what I stated, in particular, that infallibility is a negative charism, in that it *prevents *the pope from teaching error. In order to make positive statements the Pope has to do his homework and consultation just like anyone else, he can’t just pick up the God-phone and ask God directly the answer to some question (at least that’s not essential to the charism). I don’t think that was obvious in your response.

Messenger isn’t necessarily a bad term, but “just a messenger” is misleading, for the reasons cited above. ‘Messenger’ has overly passive connotations, to my mind, and seems likely to encourage some of the gross misconceptions Seeker obviously has.

Yeah! Now I get what you were talking about. I completely agree with you and I like how you describe it. Thanks

 

[Seeker2010]

I have the impression that you are not acting with intellectual honesty.

I am sorry you feel that way, it is not my intent. I seek out the truth, but ‘the church is infallible because they say they’re infallible’ is simply not good enough for me, even if it is for you. It may come off sounding like a petulant child asking ‘Why?’ over and over again, but it is what it is. If at the end of the day the best you guys can do is ‘because the church said so’ than perhaps we are wasting each others time.

I suppose part of my motivation is fear. Having been raised Christian, it was drummed into my head at an early age that I better believe, lest I face all of eternity being tortured. But as a rational adult, I have examined those teachings and found them lacking in underlying support, and counter to many logical points of order.

As an example, it is said that Christ made the ultimate sacrifice when he gave his life so that we may receive salvation. OK. Except…

He started out as a spirit in heaven, spent a few decades down here, and ended up as a spirit in heaven. What did he really sacrifice?

And even assuming there is an actual sacrifice I’m not seeing, what’s the point? Why is it necessary, if God of the bible is all-powerful and almighty, why can’t he just change the rules without requiring a sacrifice from his ‘Son’? What kind of loving God is appeased by a sacrifice? And, what does it mean to be the ‘Son’ of God in the first place, are we not all his children? Is there something different between A Son and THE Son?

And then there’s the question of why, if God knows and sees all, including that which is to come, he didn’t start ‘In The Beginning’ with the post-JC rules?

Then I question why belief is important. I mean, compared to a God who is powerful enough to create the universe from his imagination, I am puny. A bug. Not even, so why would it be important that I believe stories that don’t make sense (and some of which, like the global flood, that we know to a scientific certainty did not occur) from thousands of years ago? I have a fish tank, but fish are not pets, they are wild animals in captivity. I care about them, and I do what I can to take care of them, but I do not consider, nor care, whether or not my fish are aware of, or believe in, my existence, I will care for them nonetheless for they did not ask to be put in my tank. They probably think of me as some sort of weird big fish, who they’re afraid of but at the same time whenever I’m around the water seems to fill up with food. Maybe my fish think that I am God!

And I suppose the biggest question of all is why he would create a system in the first place that ends up wherein most of his children, whom he is said to love, will be tortured for all of eternity. And what kind of loving God tortures even those truly evil souls who actually deserve punishment? We humans, for the most part, don’t even resort to torture.

So when I look at it through the eye of logic, it just does not make any sense to me, so I’m struggling to figure out why it does make sense to others, and I am afraid that my very intellect may just end up being the source of eternal torture should my analysis prove flawed. And I don’t think it’s fair that I be tortured, much less for all of eternity, for analyzing something and being honest about my findings. Even if I’m wrong.

The closest thing we have to eyewitness testimony of the nature and reality of the afterlife are NDE survivors, and their message is that religion is flawed. Rather than study that and learn from it, it’s dismissed as ‘tricks of demons’. Seems to me a God who requires belief but allows other supernatural creatures to basically cheat and provide illusions that affect belief is cruel and sadistic.

You say that you do not believe the documents of the Church. That means that you do not believe that what the Church states is also what the Church teaches. This is nothing to do with authority, this is just about documentation of a beliefs.

Until recently, I did not even know the documents to which you refer even existed. If I am discussing legal or political issues with someone who suggests that I read something in the Constitution, before I do so I’ll need to understand why the Constitution has relevance and authority to whatever the question at hand is.

You have said that when the Pope declares ABC as sinful, he is just the messenger, that he is reporting communications from up above. Betterave disagrees and opines that it could very well be a decision made by one or more holy men, and not a decree of God. Certainly, there is nothing in the bible that says that.

So I am attempting to ascertain that if it’s not in the bible, yet it’s preached as truth, from whence did that information arise, and how can I as a mere mortal determine if it’s really a directive from God, or if it’s just other mortals giving me their unfounded opinion. And if it is in fact the declaration of holy men, when were they given the authority to make such decisions?

The arguments that you presented are not accurate.

That’s fine, if that’s the case, point my errors out to me. That is how one learns.

I can bet that you take the word of so many called scientist because they tell you (without showing it) that they have a chain of evidence.

What is it that science teaches us that you think is done without evidence?

 

[davidv]

I am sorry you feel that way, it is not my intent. I seek out the truth, but ‘the church is infallible because they say they’re infallible’ is simply not good enough for me, even if it is for you.

It shouldn’t be good enough for Catholics either, because it is not true. The Church has the gift of infallibility because it was given to her by God.

It may come off sounding like a petulant child asking ‘Why?’ over and over again, but it is what it is. If at the end of the day the best you guys can do is ‘because the church said so’ than perhaps we are wasting each others time.
{snip}

See above.

Edit: Note: This is one of those cases mention by another poster where your argument is in error.

 

[davidv]

{snip}
As an example, it is said that Christ made the ultimate sacrifice when he gave his life so that we may receive salvation. OK. Except…

He started out as a spirit in heaven, spent a few decades down here, and ended up as a spirit in heaven. What did he really sacrifice?
{snip}

Why do you think that that being crucified as criminal despite being innocent of any crime isn’t a sacrifice?

 

[Seeker2010]

The Church has the gift of infallibility because it was given to her by God.

And we know this, how, exactly?

 

[Seeker2010]

Why do you think that that being crucified as criminal despite being innocent of any crime isn’t a sacrifice?

It was painful, to be sure, extremely, but was also temporary and the loss of his human life was spiritually meaningless (as he returned to the form that he had before he was human). A couple of hours of pain vs. infinity in heaven (as the Son of God, no less) doesn’t really seem like that big of a sacrifice. What has he lost?

 

[davidv]

And we know this, how, exactly?

To answer would take us far off topic. Please start another thread if you desire to pursue it further.

 

[davidv]

It was painful, to be sure, extremely, but was also temporary and the loss of his human life was spiritually meaningless (as he returned to the form that he had before he was human).

How do you know this?

A couple of hours of pain vs. infinity in heaven (as the Son of God, no less) doesn’t really seem like that big of a sacrifice. What has he lost?

If you don’t know, I don’t think I could explain it to you.

 

[Betterave]

I am sorry you feel that way, it is not my intent. I seek out the truth, but ‘the church is infallible because they say they’re infallible’ is simply not good enough for me, even if it is for you. It may come off sounding like a petulant child asking ‘Why?’ over and over again, but it is what it is. If at the end of the day the best you guys can do is ‘because the church said so’ than perhaps we are wasting each others time.

I suppose part of my motivation is fear. Having been raised Christian, it was drummed into my head at an early age that I better believe, lest I face all of eternity being tortured. But as a rational adult, I have examined those teachings and found them lacking in underlying support, and counter to many logical points of order.

As an example, it is said that Christ made the ultimate sacrifice when he gave his life so that we may receive salvation. OK. Except…

He started out as a spirit in heaven, spent a few decades down here, and ended up as a spirit in heaven. What did he really sacrifice?

And even assuming there is an actual sacrifice I’m not seeing, what’s the point? Why is it necessary, if God of the bible is all-powerful and almighty, why can’t he just change the rules without requiring a sacrifice from his ‘Son’? What kind of loving God is appeased by a sacrifice? And, what does it mean to be the ‘Son’ of God in the first place, are we not all his children? Is there something different between A Son and THE Son?

And then there’s the question of why, if God knows and sees all, including that which is to come, he didn’t start ‘In The Beginning’ with the post-JC rules?

Then I question why belief is important. I mean, compared to a God who is powerful enough to create the universe from his imagination, I am puny. A bug. Not even, so why would it be important that I believe stories that don’t make sense (and some of which, like the global flood, that we know to a scientific certainty did not occur) from thousands of years ago? I have a fish tank, but fish are not pets, they are wild animals in captivity. I care about them, and I do what I can to take care of them, but I do not consider, nor care, whether or not my fish are aware of, or believe in, my existence, I will care for them nonetheless for they did not ask to be put in my tank. They probably think of me as some sort of weird big fish, who they’re afraid of but at the same time whenever I’m around the water seems to fill up with food. Maybe my fish think that I am God!

And I suppose the biggest question of all is why he would create a system in the first place that ends up wherein most of his children, whom he is said to love, will be tortured for all of eternity. And what kind of loving God tortures even those truly evil souls who actually deserve punishment? We humans, for the most part, don’t even resort to torture.

So when I look at it through the eye of logic, it just does not make any sense to me, so I’m struggling to figure out why it does make sense to others, and I am afraid that my very intellect may just end up being the source of eternal torture should my analysis prove flawed. And I don’t think it’s fair that I be tortured, much less for all of eternity, for analyzing something and being honest about my findings. Even if I’m wrong.

The closest thing we have to eyewitness testimony of the nature and reality of the afterlife are NDE survivors, and their message is that religion is flawed. Rather than study that and learn from it, it’s dismissed as ‘tricks of demons’. Seems to me a God who requires belief but allows other supernatural creatures to basically cheat and provide illusions that affect belief is cruel and sadistic.

Until recently, I did not even know the documents to which you refer even existed. If I am discussing legal or political issues with someone who suggests that I read something in the Constitution, before I do so I’ll need to understand why the Constitution has relevance and authority to whatever the question at hand is.

You have said that when the Pope declares ABC as sinful, he is just the messenger, that he is reporting communications from up above. Betterave disagrees and opines that it could very well be a decision made by one or more holy men, and not a decree of God. Certainly, there is nothing in the bible that says that.

So I am attempting to ascertain that if it’s not in the bible, yet it’s preached as truth, from whence did that information arise, and how can I as a mere mortal determine if it’s really a directive from God, or if it’s just other mortals giving me their unfounded opinion. And if it is in fact the declaration of holy men, when were they given the authority to make such decisions?

That’s fine, if that’s the case, point my errors out to me. That is how one learns.

What is it that science teaches us that you think is done without evidence?

Okay, so you have lots of issues. Thanks for sharing them. Now let’s start again. Hi, I’m Dave. I understand you want to understand this strange thing called the Catholic Church, the largest and oldest institution in the world. Your curiosity is quite understandable, the Church has always seemed strange to outsiders (even many ‘insiders,’ even sincere believers, have a very shaky understanding of lots of issues). Let’s agree to address one issue at a time. Twelve at a time is just not feasible. Where would you like to start (please: one issue at a time)?

(Feel free to start a new thread if that would be appropriate.)

 

[Seeker2010]

Where would you like to start (please: one issue at a time)?

OK, fair enough, let’s start with one that is close enough to the named topic that it doesn’t require a new thread.

And I suppose the biggest question of all is why he would create a system in the first place that ends up wherein most of his children, whom he is said to love, will be tortured for all of eternity. And what kind of loving God tortures even those truly evil souls who actually deserve punishment? We humans, for the most part, don’t even resort to torture.

 

[davidv]

OK, fair enough, let’s start with one that is close enough to the named topic that it doesn’t require a new thread.

And I suppose the biggest question of all is why he would create a system in the first place that ends up wherein most of his children, whom he is said to love, will be tortured for all of eternity. And what kind of loving God tortures even those truly evil souls who actually deserve punishment? We humans, for the most part, don’t even resort to torture

The statement above contains a huge assumption, namely, that “most of his children, whom he is said to love, will be tortured for all of eternity.” As a Catholic, I don’t believe this to be true. What evidence do you have that it is so?

 

[Cristiano]

…I suppose part of my motivation is fear. Having been raised Christian, it was drummed into my head at an early age that I better believe, lest I face all of eternity being tortured. But as a rational adult, I have examined those teachings and found them lacking in underlying support, and counter to many logical points of order.

As an example, it is said that Christ made the ultimate sacrifice when he gave his life so that we may receive salvation. OK. Except…

He started out as a spirit in heaven, spent a few decades down here, and ended up as a spirit in heaven. What did he really sacrifice?..

From your statement I do not believe that you were raised as a Christian. Your comment about the incarnation, death and resurrection shows a complete basic ignorance of Christianity. If you are really honest first study the fundamental tenets of Christianity and then argue against them. I still think that you just want to argue against your own interpretation of what Christianity could be and not of what it is really about. I do not have any major problem with you being against Christianity, my problem is that you arguing about something that Christians do not really follow.

 

[Seeker2010]

What evidence do you have that it is so?

I’m going to answer this assuming that which I think I know about Catholicism is accurate. If I have made a fallacy, please feel free to let me know.

First, the church teaches that only those who have be baptized IN (or at least BY) the church are even hypothetically eligible for salvation.

Since only about 33% of humans self-identify just as Christian, much less Catholic, that leaves 2/3’s of us out in the cold. When you consider that only a sub-set of Christians are Catholic (I know not what that number is), it’s even worse.

Even assuming that 100% of baptized Catholics are given salvation, that still means a great majority of us are headed for eternal torture, and indeed the church teaches that cannot be the case. For to receive salvation, one must not only believe, but one must die when NOT in a state of mortal sin.

So a young, 20-something married couple who has sex using a condom is in mortal sin, but they go to confession and are released from that sin, so when they are killed in a car crash on the way home, they go to heaven. On the other hand, an identical couple who dies in a car crash while on the way to confess is doomed to hell. And, yet another identical couple, Christian, but not catholic, who does not believe in (or participate in) confession, lives a long, loving, kind life, and yet is damned to hell because they used a condom decades earlier.

My examples notwithstanding, to be Catholic requires one to believe that non-Catholics are destined for hell, regardless of their behavior or beliefs. Since the number of non-catholics outnumber the number of catholics by a large margin, it therefore requires you toe believe that your God has created a system in which, as previously stated,

a system in the first place that ends up wherein most of his children, whom he is said to love, will be tortured for all of eternity.

I have committed many acts that catholicism considers a mortal sin. I’ve used condoms. I’ve fornicated. I’ve even committed adultery as your church defines it, though my wife and I do not consider our actions as adulterous. And yet despite my sexual sins, I’m basically a good guy.

I don’t harm people, I don’t kill people, and I damn sure don’t rape people. Most folks that I interact with consider me to be a good guy, and I have a LOT of friends, for whom I do good things.

But despite the fact that I am good and kind to people, because I look at the Jesus story and say, ‘Well, it just may not be accurate’ I am to be punished by eternal torture.

Does that seem like the act of a just, loving God?

 

[Seeker2010]

\ my problem is that you arguing about something that Christians do not really follow.

Is it, or is it not, the teachings of your church that if an individual (say you, or I) does not believe the right things, then they are not eligible for salvation?

If that is accurate, then how is it reasonable that someone who examines the available evidence and concludes that the evidence is insufficient is sentenced to eternity in torture?

 

[davesmith]

Hello,

According to me they are eligible for salvation.

Thanks,
Dave Smith

 

[Cristiano]

Is it, or is it not, the teachings of your church that if an individual (say you, or I) does not believe the right things, then they are not eligible for salvation?

If that is accurate, then how is it reasonable that someone who examines the available evidence and concludes that the evidence is insufficient is sentenced to eternity in torture?

Your fist statement could be either correct or wrong depending on other assumptions. It is too general.

I think that you are mixing apples and oranges between the first and the second statements. Let us start with the first statement and assume that is always correct. That does not imply that the second is correct. In the first there is a causality associated with belief and if I understand correctly in the second there is a causality associated with physical evidence.

Let us assume that I am correct when I understand that you talk about physical evidence. In that case I would agree that I do not have access to enough physical evidence and so I can state that such evidence is not sufficient by itself to make a case. However, the lack of sufficient accessible evidence does not make the belief automatically unreasonable.

A few weeks ago I found a very nice article giving a simple explanation of Godel’s incompleteness theorem. The article could help you with an understanding why a lot of people can believe even without direct physical evidence of facts. I am going to look at it and post the link when I find it.

This kind of conversation it is like when some people that just know classical mechanics decide to disregard quantum mechanics. They do that following this logic: “An elementary particle is a point particle. A point cannot revolve around itself and so we cannot have an angular momentum (spin) associated with it, thus quantum mechanics is wrong and electrons do not exist”

In the field of mathematics great works have been done based on the use of conjectures. Some historical conjectures have been known as theorems where the original proof has “been lost” and nobody has been able to reproduce.

 

[momor]

Is it, or is it not, the teachings of your church that if an individual (say you, or I) does not believe the right things, then they are not eligible for salvation?

If that is accurate, then how is it reasonable that someone who examines the available evidence and concludes that the evidence is insufficient is sentenced to eternity in torture?

Hi,
I believe that a person who truly seeks answers to moral questions with an open mind and heart isn’t offensive to God and it is possible to go to heaven even if you are not Christian. God will judge their intentions. However, I don’t think most people do this. I think most of the questioning that people do in our day and age has more to do with looking for loopholes to allow them to sin and get away with it.

 

[Seeker2010]

I believe that a person who truly seeks answers to moral questions with an open mind and heart isn’t offensive to God and it is possible to go to heaven even if you are not Christian.

The 40-year old rational me agrees with you, but the 5-year-old kid stuck in my brain who is afraid of an eternity of being cut by razor blades and subsequently dunked in alcohol raises doubts.

 

[Cristiano]

The 40-year old rational me agrees with you, but the 5-year-old kid stuck in my brain who is afraid of an eternity of being cut by razor blades and subsequently dunked in alcohol raises doubts.

Maybe the 5-year-old stuck in your brain is just trying to keep the 40-year-old honest and motivated. Do not forget that the stick and carrot works, sometime we need them both!