The Problem of Hell

[Betterave]

Betterave:

1. I dont know what you are talking about when you say I am not responding to your points directly. Did I miss a post? What points are you saying I am not responding to you on?

You were being humorous before, but this kind of obtuseness is just tiresome. If your reading comprehension is really so poor that you genuinely need to ask this question, I’m afraid I’ll prefer not to waste my time posting anything further for you to read. The most obvious ‘points’ you are missing are mainly the ones ending in this funny little symbol: ? This strange looking curlicue with a dot at the end of it is used to… (just kidding, I’m sure you know what a question mark is and what its purpose is).

1. Jews absolutely had a doctrine on the resurrection. You could not be more wrong. In fact, it was a defining line between the Pharisees and Sadducees. Jesus was asked specifically about the resurrection on more than one occasion.

Obviously! That’s my point, JP! Pharisees and Sadducees were both Jews; therefore “the Jews” did not have a doctrine of resurrection.

You logic that Jews lacked knowledge of a resurrection and therefore it made sense they lacked knowledge of Hell does not work. Please try again.

Obviously the lack of Jewish consensus on eschatological matters is a good reason for thinking that there was room for God’s revelation on the subject to be finalized. Certainly there is no definitive word offered by the OT Jewish prophets on the subject, contrary to what you seem to suggest. And FYI, we in the Church believe we are God’s chosen people, we are the new Israel, there is no more a distinction between Jew and Greek - that’s just something for you to think about and to please keep in mind in writing future comments.

 

[fhansen]

Betterave and davidv:
Even though I strongly disagree with that idea, you have a greater problem with that logic to overcome. The fact is that Jews were God’s chosen people, and we know what the prophets and anointed said from God was true. They existed parallel in time with the Greeks, and had a very different teaching of the afterlife.

If the NT is to be believed at all, an incidental fact recorded in it is that Pharisees and Sadducees had a very different view of the afterlife, different from each other.

 

[Betterave]

500 posts is a bit much. God sends people to hell, people don’t send themselves to hell. Just like a judge sends a murderer to jail. If that murderer never got caught, I am pretty sure he wouldn’t check himself into jail. The judge sent him there. If the judge said “you should probably go to jail, but it is your choice”…I am pretty sure 100% of criminals would say “I’m not going to jail.”

Either God sends people to hell or hell does not exist.

Correct. Hell does exist; therefore God does send people to hell. Did anyone deny this?

p.s. Interesting fact: some criminals actually do want to get caught and be punished, including some who have been deemed not guilty due to insanity and who are being denied punishment. Sorry I can’t refer you to any literature on it, but I’m pretty certain it’s true. Of course, those who *don’t *want to be justly punished are thereby all the more guilty and deserving of punishment (a rather important point, this).

 

[Shin]

Yes, we all have via the natural law, a built in sense of justice. Everyone is born with it, we understand ‘an eye for an eye’, we understand if someone steals something from us, we are owed that back, and some more for the grievance of it being stolen.

This being built into man, once man confronts God and sees no longer darkly due to sin, but clearly – he sees the true weight of his sins, in the weight of reality, in their measure against whom he has sinned against.

And that weight, that immeasurable weight, immediately forces him to realize the justice of the immeasurable pains that accompany him forever in Hell.

I read once that soul in Hell, were it to be removed from that place there and brought to Heaven, that such a soul would suffer even more greatly than when it was in Hell, because of the internal anguish of the injustice of its removal.

We all have a conscience, how we are raised and our sins obscure it, we cover it up, wall it up, because we live in a sinful world, and to be sensitive to it prevents us from doing many things we regard as basic, and would cause us to grieve at many things we have been trained not to grieve at, but rather take pleasure in.

But it’s still there, written in the heart of every single person.

The truths about the afterlife were known to Adam and Eve, and their descendents… gradually these truths were obscured… only to be re-revealed in Judaism, though not entirely then… That these truths are spread throughout the world and not only remembered in Judaism is a testament to their truth, not against Judaism, though I must add the simplistic representation of Hades as closer to Catholic Hell than the Judaic afterlife is a complete miscasting of the various states in the afterlife, and misunderstanding of the historic beliefs of the Greeks in Hades and the Jews in the afterlife.

 

[johnnyprc]

Ok Betterave,

Are you saying you have points in all this rambling you wanted me to really answer? Here it is for all to review:

---

The truth (as I see it ) is that I did respond directly to your points (see #474). You are the one who did not respond directly to my direct response, so, not wanting to try to hit a moving target, I did not respond directly to the new points you raised in your non-response to my original direct response. Make sense?

…and…

*…so now who’s ‘lying’? (…to himself, perhaps?) Maybe it’s not as clear as you first thought? In any case, what lie are you referring to here? “Lie” is strong language, so please do point out the lie you are referring to, and do so directly.

On history vs. theology: the truth is, these are not mutually exclusive categories, as you seem to think. Is that what you really think?*

---

If those are the questions (?) you seriously wanted me to answer you need to take the condescending commentary out first. I’m not going to answer everything that has a (?) as we need to try to stay on subject. You don’t even ask questions that make any sense.

 

[Betterave]

PA = please answer

Ok Betterave,

Are you saying you have points in all this rambling you wanted me to really answer? YES Here it is for all to review [IN PART - YOU MISSED POST 474]:

---

The truth (as I see it ) is that I did respond directly to your points (see #474). You are the one who did not respond directly to my direct response, so, not wanting to try to hit a moving target, I did not respond directly to the new points you raised in your non-response to my original direct response. Make sense? [PA]

…and…

…so now who’s ‘lying’? (…to himself, perhaps?) Maybe it’s not as clear as you first thought? In any case, what lie are you referring to here? “Lie” is strong language, so please do point out the lie you are referring to, and do so directly. [PA]

On history vs. theology: the truth is, these are not mutually exclusive categories, as you seem to think. Is that what you really think? [PA]

---

If those are the questions (?) you seriously wanted me to answer you need to take the condescending commentary out first. I’m not going to answer everything that has a (?) as we need to try to stay on subject. You don’t even ask questions that make any sense. [PERHAPS THE LACK OF ‘SENSE’ IS BETTER ATTRIBUTED TO THE QUESTIONEE THAN TO THE QUESTIONS IN THIS CASE - THAT’S CERTAINLY MY VIEW OF THE MATTER ]

Oh - so you want me to pretend like what you’re saying sounds reasonable to me? You want to write condescendingly without having that called into question? You’re a demanding fellow johnny! How about this: you go on believing whatever you want to believe IN PRIVATE and don’t worry about whether it’s true or reasonable. But when you try to share your beliefs with others concentrate above all on not being a hypocrite (e.g., making condescending comments, then insisting that you will not reply to condescending responses to your condescension). Would you mind trying to do that? ¶

 

[Gregory_I]

Johnnyprc

You have a mixed up view of the Church.

The Greek conception of Hell is not wrong because it is pagan. And the Jewish Conception of Hell is not right because it is Jewish. The Jews received no revelation on the state after death.

1. It is possible for us to have a darkened knowledge of truth apart from God, because God has left his image in our hearts: That image consists of his attributes. One is Justice. We recognize in ourselves the need to be justly punished for our wrongs, and if not here, then it must be in the afterlife. Man can arrive at that conception on His own.
2. Death holds terror for all. In the Jewish mind, the terror was of being forgotten, undone, going down into sheol, the grave. A place of darkness and at least temporary obliteration.

In the Greek mind, Death Held both the terror of just punishments, yet also the promise of just reward. Because God is Just, and because there is a life after death, and because the soul exists after death, it follows we can expect to receive that which is just after death.

Now at the time of Alexander the great, when greek thought was spreading throuout his empire, it was natural that jews would come in contact with it. But there is nothing objectionable in the Greek idea, generally speaking, because it is a further refinement of the Jewish Idea. However, the Jews DID have a vague hope for a ressurection. So, take the good ideas of the Greeks about the intermediate state of the dead, take the good ideas of the Jews, about a hoped for ressurection, and you arrive at a somewhat Christian view of Hell, death and punishment. This is the view Christ posited in his parable of the Rich man and Lazarus

NOW, the Church is the Oracle of God on earth. She is endowed with authority to make judgements in matters of faith and morals. The church has spoken, and thus we believe. Christianity is the FULFILLMENT of all our hopes expressed in other faiths. So the greek view was a darkened vision of the truth, as was the Jewish. The Christian, is the ultimate.

 

[BTTG]

Hey, I am writing a paper on the the problem of hell and wold like to hear your opinions/ answers on this “problem”, (anihilationism): We are finite beings and therefore can only sin a finite amount. So our temporal sins can only warrant a temporal punishment. Therefore, If God is all just, then hell cannot be eternal. This annihilationist view is held by Seventh day Adventists and Jehovah Witnesses. It must be admitted that this is, at least at first glance, a powerful argument. God could damn people for aeons and aeons and then annihilate them instead of damning them for eternity.

• Thanks in advance!

This is a good discussion. Scripturally, where does it say that a person could go to hell when they die?

 

[johnnyprc]

Betterave:

You’re off in your own little world there - please take your medicine. You need it. Please remember: By Doctor’s directions only.

Take care bud and go back to bed. Get that rest. Nite, nite.

 

[johnnyprc]

Gregory I:

Whereas you make some good points, there are a few things I have to disagree about.

1. Jews where given some idea of the state of death. See Ps. 146:4, Eccl. 9:5,10, Ezek 18:4 just to reference a couple. There are many more.
2. Yes, Jews did believe in a resurrection, and so did the apostles. A resurrection from what though?..certainly not an existence in Hell (do you really think Lazarus was being tortured?). There were not different places people went when they died in Judaism…only one place “the common grave of mankind” (Sheol).
3. Since we know God has not created anything directly since He went into resting, how could a place like Hell come into existence? Did God allow Satan to create it? (though I dont want to get into this, as this line of thought can get too abstract, admittedly)
4. I cannot get my mind around how the Greeks could get something right on the state of the dead without God’s directly help in understanding such. Others have suggested this line of thought, but I think you should consider what would be more likely:

a. Greeks came up with the concept of Hell prior to Christians by chance or inspiration of demons, or;

b. The Church, influenced by traditions of men wrapped the Greek teaching on Hell and the afterlife into their doctrine so that gentiles could relate to a place they already believed in.

The Church has a history of doing the later, and in my mind, is way more plausible than (a). Just because the Church did this, doesn’t make it real. There are other theological issues of Hell that don’t compute - but I think the historical relevance of my point adds to its poorly developed tradition. This forum asks the question “The Problem of Hell”, and the answer is: Hell, the way the Church teaches it, does not exist.

 

[slywakka250]

Billions of men have lived and each one has a unique eternal destination.

Consider how horrible it would be if more people choose hell than choose heaven.
What if less than one percent of every man and woman who will ever live chooses heaven?
what if its less than one out of a a hundred thousand who choose heaven?

The point is that it is necessary, if we really all do have a unique destination for all eternity, that there be a ratio representing how many make it to heaven versus how many make it to hell.

My biggest problem with hell is the determining factor of this ratio.

How is the percentage of people in heaven versus hell determined?

If the universe could be repeated from creation all over again, would the ratio be the same? what if the fall could be avoided? what everybody fell and nobody accepted Christ? if we all have free will, it should have been possible theoretically that all without exception are saved, or that all without exception are lost in hell.

If God really gives us all free will, then this ratio should be ours to determine as the aggregate of all our individual decisions, even if it may be the case that God knows what the final result will be, it is still our doing and our free will which creates the final ratio.

But all are made for heaven, or so I hope. (otherwise some would be predestined to hell, a truly abhorrent point of view)

I will say a final ratio of “1” means that all make it to heaven. this would be universal salvation. This what God wants,(as a loving God must); I’m going to assume it is only us that harms this perfect plan, not God predestining anybody to hell.

After the final judgement, we will be able to see the final ratio as the “difficultly level” of salvation. This makes a lot of sense. If the ratio is 1, than heaven is easy because everybody found a way to get there. If the ratio is .05 (5 percent in heaven, the rest in hell), then we can clearly say that only those who really ran the race to claim the prize, the true athletes and winners, make it to heaven.

Grace isn’t cheap. The Gospel shows us this. Salvation does not come easy! this seems to be the message of scripture. Therefore, I assert there is perhaps a very high difficulty level to attaining salvation.

But a loving God woudn’t make salvation some sort of great difficulty!! I think we forget that it is God who created our will, our intellect, our minds, and our bodies. He created our nature as FINITE (he did not create us as his (God’s) equals) and it is God who set the limits of our nature! We have limits on our knowledge, on our physical and spiritual abilities.

Our finite nature with free will created the possibility of evil, but it is God who determined the extent of this possibility of evil. So therefore, if it is the case that God created our nature with a very high possibility of rejection of him(a low final ratio), then this is supremely unjust.

my conclusion:

If God created our nature with even the possibility of one person rejecting him (a final ratio less than 1) he is supremely unjust.

[note that my conclusion here does not conflict with the idea that God needed to allow for rejection of him, to give us the dignity of free will. I am saying that the just thing for God to do, would have been to create man with free will with the possibility of hell, but to give man an intellect and nature, and knowledge, such that no one would be stupid enough to actually choose hell, while hell may remain a possibility in theory only

To the extent that he has to give us a nature capable of choosing hell (in order to give us the true dignity of free will), he effectively damns a certain ratio to hell; this is preposterous, and supremely unjust! ]

 

[Betterave]

Betterave:

You’re off in your own little world there - please take your medicine. You need it. Please remember: By Doctor’s directions only.

Take care bud and go back to bed. Get that rest. Nite, nite.

Cute, johnny, but again, if you want to make thoughtless, ignorant, hypocritical, condescending remarks like this, you should try to keep them IN PRIVATE (preferably in your own mind). What’s the point of advertising to the CAF-world that you’re this kind of person? Of course, the other question is: what’s the point of *being *this kind of person… Oh well. Nite nite to you too.

 

[Betterave]

But a loving God woudn’t make salvation some sort of great difficulty!! I think we forget that it is God who created our will, our intellect, our minds, and our bodies. He created our nature as FINITE (he did not create us as his (God’s) equals) and it is God who set the limits of our nature! We have limits on our knowledge, on our physical and spiritual abilities.

Is there any reason not to extend this argument about a loving God so as to say a loving God wouldn’t make it so easy to sin? And yet anyone who is serious about examinations of conscience can see that it is very easy to sin. So where do you go from there?

Our finite nature with free will created the possibility of evil, but it is God who determined the extent of this possibility of evil. So therefore, if it is the case that God created our nature with a very high possibility of rejection of him(a low final ratio), then this is supremely unjust.

How is this not a non sequitur?

my conclusion:

If God created our nature with even the possibility of one person rejecting him (a final ratio less than 1) he is supremely unjust.

And this too?

 

[slywakka250]

Betterave:

How is this not a non sequitur?

I’ll try again. It takes me time to think these things through. I’ll start with your premise.

1. God has created the nature of man such as to make sinning(and choosing hell) easy.

If anyone(or large numbers) go to hell, this premise must be true.

1. If God has created the nature of man such as to make sinning easy, then God has created the conditions by which eternal torture of some is unavoidable.

this is obvious as well if we take easy to mean easy as in commonly practiced, at least by one person.

1. It is unjust to create the conditions by which eternal torture of some is unavoidable.

I do not mean here to say that eternal torture is not a just punishment.

God created all of the conditions for man’s existence.First, God created the material world and engineered man’s senses so that he could see, hear, touch, smell, and taste. He created all of nature for man to behold and to enjoy. Second, God created man’s reason, and all the operations of his mind, his ability to form judgments between right and wrong, his intuition, and all the desires of man’s heart.

Finally, God created man’s free will, such that he knows exactly how man’s free will works. God created the process of man’s free will, such that he knows the intricacy of it, what will make it choose one thing, and what will make it choose another. So much so that he knows everything we will freely choose before we freely choose it. While our choices may be our responsibility, we can only exercise our responsibility within the conditions which God has set. The conditions are utterly immutable, as God is unchanging.

It would be unjust if these conditions were such that some men would necessarily choose hell. You see, God can have us retain our free will, but still create conditions of exercising it where it is absolutely certain that at least one will choose hell.

If this is the case, then God has effectively damned that one person, who ever he is to hell, my creating a universe with unfavorable conditions. While God may attempt to skirt the issue by saying the man freely choose his fiery fate, the blame still rests with God for creating conditions that necessitated the doom of this one man, so God is fully to blame as the efficient cause of the doom of this one man.

 

[johnnyprc]

Cute, johnny, but again, if you want to make thoughtless, ignorant, hypocritical, condescending remarks like this, you should try to keep them IN PRIVATE (preferably in your own mind). What’s the point of advertising to the CAF-world that you’re this kind of person? Of course, the other question is: what’s the point of *being *this kind of person… Oh well. Nite nite to you too.

Betterave: You are the one keeping this going, and the first to hurl out insults - and the record will show I even tried to ignore you once, but you kept it up. Anyway, in the interest of stopping our unproductive and unChristain rant, I will not insult you. Lets agree to stop.

 

[johnnyprc]

slywakka250:

To further your comments, I think it is very interesting to note that Catholics believe many more people will go to Hell than Heaven. Now, I will have Catholics say “this is not true”. However, they have to acknowledge that on MANY occasions Jesus and bible writers state more people will be destroyed (go to Hell) than will gain entry into God’s kingdom. Mt. 7:13-15

Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventist believe God gave people the right to “give the gift of life back”. That is what “free will” is, since our life is something we didn’t already have without God. The notion of Hell and eternal punishment was to keep people coming to church.

It is interesting too that Catholics recently backed away from the doctrine of “limbo” for kids not baptized. Maybe the Church will back away altogether from Hell, as they seem to be toning it WAY WAY down in the last 100 years. Give it a couple more hundred years and it will be something else altogether.

 

[slywakka250]

slywakka250:
It is interesting too that Catholics recently backed away from the doctrine of “limbo” for kids not baptized. Maybe the Church will back away altogether from Hell, as they seem to be toning it WAY WAY down in the last 100 years. Give it a couple more hundred years and it will be something else altogether.

The issue of eternal torture is so pressing to each individual soul, that if the Church truly believes in it, it should be proclaimed constantly with fire and brimstone sermons every day of the week! or at least once a year! I go to Mass quite a bit at several different parishes and I can’t remember a priest who actually said that hell was a real possibility, in the explicit language necessary to convey its reality.

This gives me hope; The Church has never officially declared a single man to be in hell, An appropriate development of doctrine guided by the Holy Spirit, could very well be a form of universal salvation; perhaps God is waiting until the end of the world nears to reveal something as earth shattering as the Catholic Church teaching universal salvation as dogma. I won’t hold my breath, but your raise an important point.

 

[Betterave]

I’ll try again. It takes me time to think these things through. I’ll start with your premise.

1. God has created the nature of man such as to make sinning(and choosing hell) easy.

If anyone(or large numbers) go to hell, this premise must be true.

1. If God has created the nature of man such as to make sinning easy, then God has created the conditions by which eternal torture of some is unavoidable.

this is obvious as well if we take easy to mean easy as in commonly practiced, at least by one person.

1. It is unjust to create the conditions by which eternal torture of some is unavoidable.

I do not mean here to say that eternal torture is not a just punishment.

(3) here doesn’t seem to add up. It is unjust to create the conditions by which eternal torture of some is unavoidable ONLY IF that eternal torture is itself unjust.

But that eternal punishment is not unjust; therefore it is not unjust to create the conditions…(etc.).

 

[Betterave]

The issue of eternal torture is so pressing to each individual soul, that if the Church truly believes in it, it should be proclaimed constantly with fire and brimstone sermons every day of the week! or at least once a year! I go to Mass quite a bit at several different parishes and I can’t remember a priest who actually said that hell was a real possibility, in the explicit language necessary to convey its reality.

This gives me hope; The Church has never officially declared a single man to be in hell, An appropriate development of doctrine guided by the Holy Spirit, could very well be a form of universal salvation; perhaps God is waiting until the end of the world nears to reveal something as earth shattering as the Catholic Church teaching universal salvation as dogma. I won’t hold my breath, but your raise an important point.

Of course, it may be that most priests are headed for hell for their failure to preach about it. (This is the burden of the prophetic office: to suffer the penalty for the sins of those whose sin you were to afraid to correct - see the book of the prophet Ezekiel on this, I believe.) Not a cheery thought, and I hope it’s not true, but…

 

[slywakka250]

(3) here doesn’t seem to add up. It is unjust to create the conditions by which eternal torture of some is unavoidable ONLY IF that eternal torture is itself unjust.

But that eternal punishment is not unjust; therefore it is not unjust to create the conditions…(etc.).

OK, so if God created the conditions by which justice would be carried out, this would be a good thing. This seems to be what you are saying.

But my assertion is that God created the conditions not merely for perfect justice to be carried out, but the conditions by which one person necessarily has just punishment applied to himself. He could have created conditions where the just punishment of eternal torture could have been avoided for all, but he he did not. how can we say it is just if he set the game so that one person must go to hell???

if you say that no one must go to hell, that we all have a choice, I answer back that you only have a choice in the way God designed your free will to operate, and the conditions placed on the action of your free will, make it necessary that one or more go to hell! (if it is indeed the case that one goes to hell)