What do you consider proof of God, if anything?

[MindOverMatter]

Eternal damnation does contradict the benevolence of an almighty God, though. If the concept “purgatory” were always meant by the word “hell” then this particular objection would evaporate.

Interesting. But, what if purgatory becomes eternal hell, not by the will of God, but by the freewill of the human person. This would mean that there is always in principle the possibility of salvation from hell, but that some would forever reject Gods will. In which case it would not be incorrect to speak of an eternal hell, if hell is defined as that which is the eternal will to be apart from God. I admit, one cannot easily imagine why one would want to stay in purgatory forever, but in principle this interpretation of purgatory refutes your objection of eternal hell being a contradiction to Gods Love.

By the way, I’m not sure whether or not this interpretation is acceptable to Catholic Teaching, so i must say that its just an idea. But i do not think that the traditional concept of hell is necessarily in contradiction with the “greater good” for human-kind either.

 

[DavidHume]

Interesting. But, what if purgatory becomes eternal hell, not by the will of God, but by the freewill of the human person. This would mean that there is always in principle the possibility of salvation from hell, but that some would forever reject Gods will. In which case it would not be incorrect to speak of an eternal hell, if hell is defined as that which is the eternal will to be apart from God. I admit, one cannot easily imagine why one would want to stay in purgatory forever, but in principle this interpretation of purgatory refutes your objection of eternal hell being a contradiction to Gods Love.

Yes, it does address my objection, as would voluntary immortality (i.e. one can choose heaven or nonexistence).

By the way, I’m not sure whether or not this interpretation is acceptable to Catholic Teaching, so i must say that its just an idea. But i do not think that the traditional concept of hell is necessarily in contradiction with the “greater good” for human-kind either.

As far as I know universal reconcilation is heterodox but not heretical. At least Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor says as much.

But hellfire’s just too darn compelling of a social engineering tool to avoid using…

 

[JDaniel]

I don’t think so. Perhaps rehabilitation and apokatastasis is part of a perfect creation. It might contradict the dogmas of your particular religion, but I see no logical contradiction.

“Perhaps” is not much of a confidence engendering start for a statement attempting to establish some kind of verisimilitude. Anyway, I was under the impression that that was what we were about. It may not be a logical contradiction, but, contradictions come about from more places than just logic. And, this one is from revelation. This would ask the Christian to throw out almost the entire biblical compilation.

Regarding apokatastasis (a word I haven’t heard in a while), it would seem that, as they say, the jury is still (slightly) out on this doctrine. I seem to remember that Augustine wasn’t enamored by it. But, it has been lingering around for centuries. I suppose its inclusion in Catholic dogma would be to your liking?

Eternal damnation does contradict the benevolence of an almighty God, though. If the concept “purgatory” were always meant by the word “hell” then this particular objection would evaporate.

I see that it would. Well, I’m not sure you will get what you want, but, I won’t say “never.” I think, as I said before, that the creative effects of a Perfect Creator, although not perfect in themselves, cannot have rehabilitatability within them as an imperfection. I think rehabilitatability dampens Free Will substantially. If God wants perfect love from us - and I conceive that He does - absolute rehabilitatability would beget a type of love that is somewhat less than perfect love.

You see, I can’t imagine that a benevolent god would allow significant pain from torture, or death, without holding the human perpetrator(s) responsible into eternity. Moreover, I can’t imagine that even a benevolent god would accept a soul who spent 75 years on earth hating Him and spitting on Him whenever he had the opportunity.

Do you not think the rehabilitation of such a person, and his subsequent acceptance, would not be a betrayal of the rest of us? Why would a benevolent God favor such a person over those who have kept His commandments? Why would God slap us in the face like that? Why would every single soul be of such greater importance that He could simply throw out “fairness?” Why would God lie to the rest of us in that way? Or, why would God permit His Church to promulgate the lie after telling the church He would not?

I think that this entire question has numerous twists and turns, by the very nature of what it is. It is the promulgation and propagation of reciprocal Love. It is the promulgation and propagation of reciprocal Free Will. It is the promulgation and propagation of His Commandments. It is the promulgation and propagation of actions to be taken. It is the promulgation and propagation of intellectual capacity. It is the unfortunateness that not-God effects must have such imperfection in their deep-most natures. It is the promulgation and propagation of exigencies that mitigate such condemnation for the vast majority of us.

You want this mitigation situation to be absolutely perfect, rosy, sweet smelling, wonderful, etc. I say, it can’t happen.

jd

 

[MindOverMatter]

Yes, it does address my objection, as would voluntary immortality (i.e. one can choose heaven or nonexistence).

Voluntary non-existence would contradict the nature of God, since God is good, And God is existence, and therefore existence is Good; and so it is good to exist. Thus any person that comes into being is necessarily immortal. It cannot be any other way.

As far as I know universal reconcilation is heterodox but not heretical. At least Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor says as much.

But hellfire’s just too darn compelling of a social engineering tool to avoid using…

Yes it is true that religion has been and can be hijacked for social engineering projects due to the concepts involved. However, it is wishful thinking to make the charge that Christianity and Judaism, including hell and heaven, were simply made up by the rich and powerful in order to control everyone. Its a conspiracy theory inspired by Marxists. Concepts such as Hell and Heaven necessarily follow from Gods nature, as understood by Christians.

One can profit just as much on the nature of mortality-the fear of death, due to the fact that most people learn to tolerate existence only because they fear death.

 

[JDaniel]

But hellfire’s just too darn compelling of a social engineering tool to avoid using…

Goodness!

You must really think bad of the Church, the Church Fathers and, of course, Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit?

jd

 

[DavidHume]

Goodness!

You must really think bad of the Church, the Church Fathers and, of course, Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit?

It does seem, from a review of the history of the Church’s history, that I would more readily agree with many heresies over orthodoxy, e.g. Arius, Origen, Marcion, Copernicus, etc.

Part of it might be due to some rebellious portion of my temperament, but no doubt part of it is due to the fact that these ideas were motivated by reason and were quashed by dogmatic fiat.

 

[DavidHume]

This would ask the Christian to throw out almost the entire biblical compilation.

Not a problem for me.

Regarding apokatastasis (a word I haven’t heard in a while), it would seem that, as they say, the jury is still (slightly) out on this doctrine. I seem to remember that Augustine wasn’t enamored by it. But, it has been lingering around for centuries. I suppose its inclusion in Catholic dogma would be to your liking?

Sure, in that I don’t consider a God which does not secure it to be particularly worthy of worship, and all things being equal it’d be good to be worshipping a God that is worthy of worship.

You see, I can’t imagine that a benevolent god would allow significant pain from torture, or death, without holding the human perpetrator(s) responsible into eternity. Moreover, I can’t imagine that even a benevolent god would accept a soul who spent 75 years on earth hating Him and spitting on Him whenever he had the opportunity.

Do you not think the rehabilitation of such a person, and his subsequent acceptance, would not be a betrayal of the rest of us?

No more than Jesus dining with sinners represented a betrayal of the righteous, nor the welcome of the prodigal son represented a betrayal of his brother. God does have eternity to wait for prodigal children to come home. Wouldn’t a benevolent God wait?

Why would a benevolent God favor such a person over those who have kept His commandments? Why would God slap us in the face like that? Why would every single soul be of such greater importance that He could simply throw out “fairness?” Why would God lie to the rest of us in that way? Or, why would God permit His Church to promulgate the lie after telling the church He would not?

It seems to me that you are admitting that your belief in Hell and eternal damnation – aside from the scriptural and dogmatic basis – is motivated by your own desires and feelings. Just like the brother of the prodigal son.

You want this mitigation situation to be absolutely perfect, rosy, sweet smelling, wonderful, etc. I say, it can’t happen.

That’s at least one good reason why your avatar’s religion byline reads “Catholic” while mine reads “atheist.”

 

[alacoque]

I’m curious what people consider as proof that there is a God, or if you even think proof is possible. Has anyone had what they would consider a miracle happen, seen an angel, seen a person healed by prayer, etc? I don’t believe because I have never seen any proof, so I am curious what others have seen or what they would even consider proof. My purpose is not to try and explain anything away, I’m actually just genuinely curious about other’s experiences and logic on this subject.

Yes, I consider proof of God’s existence possible…firstly, in general, by human reason objectively and honestly observing the reality around us. But, this is general - i.e. that a creator does exist - and is not the same thing as the ‘proof’ of a personal God. Knowing THAT He exists is not the same thing as knowing Him and who He is.

Concerning the latter: For me, the proof has been first, my assent of faith to believe (based on natural reason and the logic of the proposition), followed by, secondly, personal experience of Him, revealed, and a friendship / relationship with Him.

Regarding your other questions, yes, personally, I have witnessed a miracle and encounters with angels, but these are not ‘proofs’, since different people will interpret them different ways and, as the saying goes, “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who do not believe, no proof is possible”. And, in any case, my belief would not rest on these instances, but rather on my own, personal relationship with God and the fact that I know Him.

That’s my answer to your question.

 

[DavidHume]

Yes it is true that religion has been and can be hijacked for social engineering projects due to the concepts involved. However, it is wishful thinking to make the charge that Christianity and Judaism, including hell and heaven, were simply made up by the rich and powerful in order to control everyone. Its a conspiracy theory inspired by Marxists. Concepts such as Hell and Heaven necessarily follow from Gods nature, as understood by Christians.

It seems to me that a Hell of eternal torment specifically follows from various proclamations of church and earthly authorities.

One can profit just as much on the nature of mortality-the fear of death, due to the fact that most people learn to tolerate existence only because they fear death.

On the whole I find existence quite pleasant. Perhaps that is partially an accident of the station and age into which I was born, or of my own fortunes.

edit: clarified what was meant by “Hell”

 

[QuickCat]

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” Colossians 2:8. You want proof that the Bible is the Word of God? On word - JEWS!

 

[QuickCat]

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” Colossians 2:8. You want proof of God? On word - JEWS!

 

[JDaniel]

Not a problem for me.

It was almost a rhetorical question!

Sure, in that I don’t consider a God which does not secure it to be particularly worthy of worship, and all things being equal it’d be good to be worshipping a God that is worthy of worship.

Well, I guess we’ll ultimately find out whose opinion is is the better one.

No more than Jesus dining with sinners represented a betrayal of the righteous, nor the welcome of the prodigal son represented a betrayal of his brother. God does have eternity to wait for prodigal children to come home. Wouldn’t a benevolent God wait?

There’s a considerable difference here. On the one hand, the sinners and the prodigal son can rehabilitate while here on earth. This is where it should take place; where God intended it to take place. Not after it’s too late.

It seems to me that you are admitting that your belief in Hell and eternal damnation – aside from the scriptural and dogmatic basis – is motivated by your own desires and feelings. Just like the brother of the prodigal son.

To some extent, I am. To another extent, I would hope He keeps His promises to us. It’s very simple, (1) I do not want to be one of some bad person’s torturees, then see him basking around in Heaven, in the afterlife; and, (2) I would really hope that there is a real deterrent that would deter an explosive increase of torturing people. I realize that this is just one example of grave sin, but, it has applicability to all “sin” according to their various degrees of graveness. The vast majority of sin is not grave; it is venial. Venial sin won’t prevent one from obtaining Heaven.

That’s at least one good reason why your avatar’s religion byline reads “Catholic” while mine reads “atheist.”

Uh! I forgot! :banghead:

jd

 

[Thales]

No more than Jesus dining with sinners represented a betrayal of the righteous, nor the welcome of the prodigal son represented a betrayal of his brother. God does have eternity to wait for prodigal children to come home. Wouldn’t a benevolent God wait?

If you think of time as being a created aspect of the physical world and not present in the afterlife, “eternity to wait for prodigal children to come home” does not apply after death. At least, you might say, the prodigal children do not have eternity to wait to come home.

It might be interesting to think of the fall of the angels. I heard the question asked; since the angels have free will, can some of them that are currently in heaven still fall and is it possible for those in hell to be redeemed? The answer was no, because the angels are non-physical, eternal beings created before time was instituted. At the moment of their creation they immediately either fell or were preserved. In a way their ultimate decisions were made in the moment of their creation. It’s a hard thing to wrap your mind around, what decision making and free will would look like outside of time and space, but it might lend insight into the importance physical life has on the afterlife and redemption.

 

[jean8]

I’m curious what people consider as proof that there is a God, or if you even think proof is possible. Has anyone had what they would consider a miracle happen, seen an angel, seen a person healed by prayer, etc? I don’t believe because I have never seen any proof, so I am curious what others have seen or what they would even consider proof. My purpose is not to try and explain anything away, I’m actually just genuinely curious about other’s experiences and logic on this subject.

My dear doubting friend,
“A God who allowed us to prove His existence would be an idol.”
Dietrick Bonhoeffer.

God bless you as the Holy Spirit guides your search.
jean

 

[alacoque]

DavidHume: You said:

No more than Jesus dining with sinners represented a betrayal of the righteous, nor the welcome of the prodigal son represented a betrayal of his brother. God does have eternity to wait for prodigal children to come home. Wouldn’t a benevolent God wait?

The last part of this statement makes no logical sense viz the nature of God. i.e. ‘God has eternity to wait for prodigal children to come home. Wouldn’t a benevolent God wait?’

As another poster mentioned…to the degree that this makes logical sense, it does so only ‘in time’; only as long as the prodigal or sinner is living and has the option of exercising their free will in a choice for good. If that’s what you meant to say, all is good…ignore the rest of this post.

When you start getting into eternity, however, a statement like that loses sense. There is no time in eternity. In addition, once the prodigal or sinner dies and is no longer within’ the realm of ‘time’, their decision / choice is permanent.

Also, to have God ‘waiting’ in eternity not only ignores the absence of time in eternity and it’s absence to God, but says that God ‘waits’ for something (in eternity). Why would God wait? God knows everything; He is omniscient. He does not have to wait and see what we will do or decide (even in this world of time). He already knows all our choices, decisions and actions. To portray Him as ‘waiting’, during eternity, says first, that eternity passes in increments, like time does (which we know it does not) and also that God is not aware of what ‘might happen in the next moment of eternity’. The whole thing just doesn’t make sense.

Once the soul has passed out of this world and on to the next, why would God “wait” for anything…He already knows everything about that soul and, in any event, there IS no more time for the soul to change its mind.

I’m leaning toward thinking that you meant prior to death (that God is patient and waits for us all of our lives, to see the light) and that you weren’t intending to say the latter…because the latter isn’t sensible.

 

[DavidHume]

When you start getting into eternity, however, a statement like that loses sense. There is no time in eternity. In addition, once the prodigal or sinner dies and is no longer within’ the realm of ‘time’, their decision / choice is permanent.

Thanks for your response, alacoque. Unfortunately I think that accepting your definition of eternity, “permanent” also has no meaning, since on that plane infinite time and instantaneous have no difference.

Perhaps this is my naivete, but I consider an “afterlife” to have some temporal component, just not one that is related to the material universe.

Indeed, the Nicene Creed uses the phrase “the life of the world to come” – and to me, life implies change. I find the stasis that you seem to be implying quite unappealing. It doesn’t make sense to me as any sort of heaven.

Indeed, consider purgatory. The notion is that there is an extra life beyond this one, where sinners can continue to atone for a limited time, until they are pure enough to enter heaven. So clearly God can “wait” longer than a mere earthly lifetime.

 

[alacoque]

Thanks for your response, alacoque. Unfortunately I think that accepting your definition of eternity, “permanent” also has no meaning, since on that plane infinite time and instantaneous have no difference.

Perhaps this is my naivete, but I consider an “afterlife” to have some temporal component, just not one that is related to the material universe.

Indeed, the Nicene Creed uses the phrase “the life of the world to come” – and to me, life implies change. I find the stasis that you seem to be implying quite unappealing. It doesn’t make sense to me as any sort of heaven.

Indeed, consider purgatory. The notion is that there is an extra life beyond this one, where sinners can continue to atone for a limited time, until they are pure enough to enter heaven. So clearly God can “wait” longer than a mere earthly lifetime.

Very good (and deep/profound) points…very worthy of you and of discussion but I’m not so sure we can thoroughly and completely explore, explain or understand them all. Much of this is very mysterious stuff for us - at least here and now.

I certainly cannot definitively interpret and define, much less explain all of what you addressed, but can only give my comments, based on my understanding of the faith.

1. ‘permanence’ viz my definition of eternity (i.e. no time there). I maintain that position and I don’t necessarily think that the IDEA of what you label ‘permanence’ necessarily excludes the fact that eternity is an ‘eternal now’. Maybe that’s a better way of saying it: the afterlife is ‘eternal’…rather than saying it’s ‘permanent’.
2. I can do nothing about nor address the fact that you consider the afterlife to have some temporal aspect to it. You think what you think. It’s your opinion, so it is what it is. Nothing except getting there will let any of us know, fully, what we have been talking about here.
3. Same as #2 regarding your belief that ‘life’ implies change. I agree that it definitely does here, in this world…but whether it necessarily has to have that attribute is not definitive. We’ll find out for sure when we get there, no?
4. Purgatory: Pretty much the same thing, again. The Church teaches us that while there is an aspect of ‘duration’ to Purgatory (simply because we are not yet in eternity), we are not to think of it in terms of ‘time’ as we know it here. Also, by making the distinction between Purgatory / duration involved and eternity, I think the teaching is clear that eternity is NOT a duration or time scenario. But, again, to be redundant (sorry… ) we really can’t know yet.

I know that we cannot say how ‘duration’ of a sort exists while time does not - at least in the sense that we know it and experience it. And, our experience is so limited (we know only the world / life we live in), it would seem to be a gross error to limit anything or everything else God created to our limited experience.

I’m not aware of any instruction or writings of the Church, faithful theologians or saints, early Church fathers, doctors of the Church, etc., that say anything about time or anything like time (i.e. having a linear aspect and/or of things being in sequence of any kind. Everything I am aware of confirms the ‘eternal’ aspect of God (and, in the end, the ‘afterlife’ or the ‘next world’ or whatever you want to call it amounts to life in and with God, so will contain no aspect that does not belong to His nature…and time does not belong to God’s nature; He is outside time; time is a created thing).

you are certainly entitled to your opinions, whatever they are, and you raise interesting points to discuss

 

[1holycatholic]

Indeed, the Nicene Creed uses the phrase “the life of the world to come” – and to me, life implies change. I find the stasis that you seem to be implying quite unappealing. It doesn’t make sense to me as any sort of heaven.

God is referred to as a “Living God”, yet God is atemporal.

This thread has become interesting.

 

[alacoque]

Thanks for your response, alacoque. Unfortunately I think that accepting your definition of eternity, “permanent” also has no meaning, since on that plane infinite time and instantaneous have no difference.

Perhaps this is my naivete, but I consider an “afterlife” to have some temporal component, just not one that is related to the material universe.

Indeed, the Nicene Creed uses the phrase “the life of the world to come” – and to me, life implies change. I find the stasis that you seem to be implying quite unappealing. It doesn’t make sense to me as any sort of heaven.

Indeed, consider purgatory. The notion is that there is an extra life beyond this one, where sinners can continue to atone for a limited time, until they are pure enough to enter heaven. So clearly God can “wait” longer than a mere earthly lifetime.

By the way, DH - who says that the non-existence of ‘time’ as we know it is equal to ‘stasis’. Again, you are using “earth-terms” (sorry - I coined a phrase ) and limiting youself extremely, I think. Because we cannot conceive of something understandable in our current language, concepts and terms, does not mean it cannot and does not exist.

 

[alacoque]

To David H…

I shouldn’t post this because it will throw everything into a whole 'nother type of chaos, but I can’t resist…

It is this: Scripture and the Church both tell us that, in the end, there will be a ‘new heavens and a new earth’. So how, exactly, does THAT fit in with the whole “time” discussion and words like ‘eternal’, ‘infinite’ etc…?

my answer is that at some point (for sure, that point) we run smack dab into the ultimate mystery of God, His creation, His essence, nature and that of His life…and, frankly, I don’t have an answer to that question I just posed…

I just think it’s interesting…if you don’t take is so far as to tie a knot in your poor brain…