What is your position concerning the concept of hell?

[SSTeacher]

Hi Stevie,

Mick I believe that you are being a little condescending here but here goes:

Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt.

1. I have no idea of the tone used by Padre Pio but, if you know anything of him, you will know that he said what he meant.

I recall reading a book about him back in the 1970s. As I recall, he was a Franciscan friar with the “stigmata” who kept “bilocating,” causing his fellow friars to complain about it. That sounds very odd to somebody who isn’t necessarily in tune with Catholicism as you may perhaps be able to appreciate. The reason I asked if you knew what tone of voice he used in his response to people who were struggling with the nature and attributes of God – which is why somebody would not want to believe in hell – is because on paper the retort sounds very smug. It put me in mind of the intrusive and judgmental types I encountered during my time as an Evangelical. Just as soon as they heard something with which they disagreed, out poured the childish annoyance and the sarcasm. I wondered if Padre Pio was that type of guy – the guy who can’t bear it when he comes up against somebody who doesn’t believe as he does and is so full of spiritual pride that he takes it personally and he just has to have the last word by way of some cutting remark. In this case, I inferred from what you wrote that the friar had formulated a “standard” cutting remark that he trotted out every time he encountered somebody who didn’t believe as he did. Do you see how I was thinking? I didn’t mean to sound condescending. Please forgive me.

1. We are not required to believe private revelations but as this one was backed up by a miracle witnessed by up to 70,000 people and reported in the anti-Catholic press, I think that we can give it credibility.

But I venture respectfully to suggest that the “we” doesn’t necessarily include “we non–Catholics.” Unless the Catholic Magisterium officially endorses them and directs them to be placed in the category of doctrine i.e. that which must be believed, it seems to me that visions claimed by Catholics for Catholics have little weight as an apologetic tool. Does that seem reasonable to you? After all, if the Archbishop of Canterbury claimed to have received some kind of private revelation and the anti–Anglican press reported it as genuine as far as could be ascertained after consideration of the known facts, you wouldn’t accept it as a compelling argument for the truth of Anglicanism over Catholicism, would you?

3, I am not ‘plugging’ anything, if you are interested just google the names.
This is frightening stuff to me as well as everyone else (I know that I am a sinner) and I take no pleasure in reporting these relevant pieces of information (as I consider them) but do so in order that people can consider them as I have.

I agree that the whole idea of hell – eternal damnation – is extremely frightening and I hope you won’t feel insulted if I declare that I think trying to frighten people into loving God is a dismal way to conduct apologetics. For me, this sort of thing is in the same category as “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” and the like. The Catholic Church, as far as I’m aware, hasn’t declared anybody to be in hell – not even Judas – and I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable for we non–Catholics to expect all Catholics to follow the official line since the mark of a good Catholic, as Catholic theologian Frank Sheed has pointed out, is to do as the Catholic Church teaches.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

hi mick…yes…it makes sense, but this is where a persons concept of deity/higher intelligence comes into play…is a person cast into a netherworld or is the person’s punishment for his evil ways a miserable life caused by karma/consequences of behavior/some intangible other?..frederick

Right. All of these considerations make sense for most people, endorsing the notion that most people have a sense of justice or fairness. Few people have any difficult with the idea that they will go to heaven when they die and live in total happiness for all eternity but when it comes to the idea of hell there are plenty of objections, which is quite understandable.

You don’t believe in either heaven or hell yet you do accept the idea of some sort of punishment or reward in the afterlife as a result of the decree/judgment by the God who created heaven and earth, right? What I’m trying to ascertain is which attributes you ascribe to God and from there I ought to be able fully to appreciate your belief about the non–existence of hell.

Convivially,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

SS Teacher - I think this is a GREAT question.
I will go with option H. What’s option H, you say?
Hell’s real, and I’m afraid when I die I’m going somewhere in a handbasket.
Srsly.
I don’t know if I’m going to make it up to heaven. It’s not looking promising…
I’m getting worried.

Man, life was like a hundred times easier as an atheist.
Ah, for the good ol days…

I don’t entirely understand the ‘universalist’ view that everyone gets to heaven.
Not everyone wants heaven.
Why would God MAKE someone spend eternity with Him if they don’t want to?
If someone believes in Heaven (eternity WITH God), then I don’t think it would be a great leap in logic to say that there could be an eternity WITHOUT God.

Hi yellowbicycle,

Well put.

Appreciatively,
Mick

 

[StevieD]

Hi Stevie,

Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt.

I recall reading a book about him back in the 1970s. As I recall, he was a Franciscan friar with the “stigmata” who kept “bilocating,” causing his fellow friars to complain about it. That sounds very odd to somebody who isn’t necessarily in tune with Catholicism as you may perhaps be able to appreciate. The reason I asked if you knew what tone of voice he used in his response to people who were struggling with the nature and attributes of God – which is why somebody would not want to believe in hell – is because on paper the retort sounds very smug. It put me in mind of the intrusive and judgmental types I encountered during my time as an Evangelical. Just as soon as they heard something with which they disagreed, out poured the childish annoyance and the sarcasm. I wondered if Padre Pio was that type of guy – the guy who can’t bear it when he comes up against somebody who doesn’t believe as he does and is so full of spiritual pride that he takes it personally and he just has to have the last word by way of some cutting remark. In this case, I inferred from what you wrote that the friar had formulated a “standard” cutting remark that he trotted out every time he encountered somebody who didn’t believe as he did. Do you see how I was thinking? I didn’t mean to sound condescending. Please forgive me.

But I venture respectfully to suggest that the “we” doesn’t necessarily include “we non–Catholics.” Unless the Catholic Magisterium officially endorses them and directs them to be placed in the category of doctrine i.e. that which must be believed, it seems to me that visions claimed by Catholics for Catholics have little weight as an apologetic tool. Does that seem reasonable to you? After all, if the Archbishop of Canterbury claimed to have received some kind of private revelation and the anti–Anglican press reported it as genuine as far as could be ascertained after consideration of the known facts, you wouldn’t accept it as a compelling argument for the truth of Anglicanism over Catholicism, would you?

I agree that the whole idea of hell – eternal damnation – is extremely frightening and I hope you won’t feel insulted if I declare that I think trying to frighten people into loving God is a dismal way to conduct apologetics. For me, this sort of thing is in the same category as “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” and the like. The Catholic Church, as far as I’m aware, hasn’t declared anybody to be in hell – not even Judas – and I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable for we non–Catholics to expect all Catholics to follow the official line since the mark of a good Catholic, as Catholic theologian Frank Sheed has pointed out, is to do as the Catholic Church teaches.

Cordially,
Mick

If the Archibishop of Canterbury claimed a vision and predicted the time of a visible sign to confirm it and many thousands of people witnessed the sign, then I promise you that I would carefully examine his claims and all the surrounding circumstances. If you choose not to investigate or to ignore the warnings at Fatima and regard them as being untrue or for Catholics only, then that is entirely your decision of course.
The Church teaches that those who die in ‘mortal sin’ are eternally separated from God (Catechism 1861). Since we cannot know what was in the heart of anyone (even the most radical sinner) at the very point of death, we cannot say that any named individual (e.g.Judas, Stalin, Hitler etc) is in hell and it would be to judge others to affirm such a conclusion. However if you were to ask do I believe (or any Catholic that I have ever spoken to on the subject) that ***every ***person in history who was in grave sin, repented before death, I would have to say that whilst it is possible, it seems to be extremely improbable. Jesus certainly seems to indicate that some people are going there at the time of his return (Matt. 24:40 and Matt. 25:31 - 46).

 

[StevieD]

my friend…i am a 46 year old man who was raised at a christian boarding school…the conclusions that i have come to were reached after many, many years of consideration, self-analysis and lifes little situations…btw…thank you for the accounts of near-death experiences…i would recommend that you read some medical accounts regarding hallucinations that were the result of oxygen starvation of the brain caused by near-death experiences……frederick

My friend, I am not sure why your age is relevant but I am considerably older than you are! And have done quite a bit of research myself. Medicine seeks to explain the** euphoric **near death experiences and I believe that they have a point in many cases of euphoric near death experiences. However the cases I quote were certainly not euphoric. Just take a look - I am only saying that they are worth considering, no more.

 

[SSTeacher]

If the Archibishop of Canterbury claimed a vision and predicted the time of a visible sign to confirm it and many thousands of people witnessed the sign, then I promise you that I would carefully examine his claims and all the surrounding circumstances. If you choose not to investigate or to ignore the warnings at Fatima and regard them as being untrue or for Catholics only, then that is entirely your decision of course.
The Church teaches that those who die in ‘mortal sin’ are eternally separated from God (Catechism 1861). Since we cannot know what was in the heart of anyone (even the most radical sinner) at the very point of death, we cannot say that any named individual (e.g.Judas, Stalin, Hitler etc) is in hell and it would be to judge others to affirm such a conclusion. However if you were to ask do I believe (or any Catholic that I have ever spoken to on the subject) that ***every ***person in history who was in grave sin, repented before death, I would have to say that whilst it is possible, it seems to be extremely improbable. Jesus certainly seems to indicate that some people are going there at the time of his return (Matt. 24:40 and Matt. 25:31 - 46).

Comment duly noted.

Peace,
Mick

 

[jmcrae]

After all, if the Archbishop of Canterbury claimed to have received some kind of private revelation and the anti–Anglican press reported it as genuine as far as could be ascertained after consideration of the known facts, you wouldn’t accept it as a compelling argument for the truth of Anglicanism over Catholicism, would you?

If the sun stopped in its course to dance at the time, and if this stopping and dancing of the sun were reported by news agencies all over the world, and if scientists from all over the world were using a lot of long words to explain that they have no idea why that happened, I’d definitely want to know what was up, and I’d certainly take it seriously.

Wouldn’t you?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Here are some opinions:

a) No such place actually exists
b) It’s just a figurative idea without any reality attached to it
c) It’s total separation from God forever
d) Hell is present in the here and now
e) Only the very wicked people will go to hell
g) It doesn’t matter because there’s no such thing as an afterlife
g) It doesn’t matter because all people will end up in heaven anyway

Feel free to transcribe some sentences detailing the influences that led you to your present opinion.

Grace and peace,
Mick

It is a powerful meme.

 

[StrawberryJam]

If the sun stopped in its course to dance at the time, and if this stopping and dancing of the sun were reported by news agencies all over the world, and if scientists from all over the world were using a lot of long words to explain that they have no idea why that happened, I’d definitely want to know what was up, and I’d certainly take it seriously.

Wouldn’t you?

What is there about this particular event that needs to be taken seriously? I fail to see what it is.
Another broad vauge prophecy that provides what value to anyone?

 

[SSTeacher]

If the sun stopped in its course to dance at the time, and if this stopping and dancing of the sun were reported by news agencies all over the world, and if scientists from all over the world were using a lot of long words to explain that they have no idea why that happened, I’d definitely want to know what was up, and I’d certainly take it seriously.

Wouldn’t you?

Yes, very seriously. (cf. Joshua 10:13–14)

Seriously,
Mick

 

[John7]

Hell
Hell is naked
Hell is naked before God
Job 26:6
Hell is naked before him [God]
and destruction hath no covering

 

[StrawberryJam]

Hell
Hell is naked
Hell is naked before God
Job 26:6
Hell is naked before him [God]
and destruction hath no covering

Well, then Hell is on earth. Because the first people naked before God were Adam and Eve. God killed animals to clothe them after their disobedient ways.

Lots of blood when God gets mad.

 

[SSTeacher]

Hell
Hell is naked
Hell is naked before God
Job 26:6
Hell is naked before him [God]
and destruction hath no covering

The above quote is from the KJV but the NIV renders the verse thus:

Death is naked before God; Destruction lies uncovered.

Biblically,
Mick

 

[jargon631]

My friend, I am not sure why your age is relevant but I am considerably older than you are! And have done quite a bit of research myself. Medicine seeks to explain the** euphoric **near death experiences and I believe that they have a point in many cases of euphoric near death experiences. However the cases I quote were certainly not euphoric. Just take a look - I am only saying that they are worth considering, no more.

hmmmm…my age is relevent in the context of showing that i didnt reach my conclusions without having considered the material for some time…i DO understand what you are saying, but i was fed the same things by the adventists for almost two decades and i have zero belief in them…zero…i dont believe in spiritual visions anymore than i believe in heaven/hell……fd

 

[jargon631]

You don’t believe in either heaven or hell yet you do accept the idea of some sort of punishment or reward in the afterlife as a result of the decree/judgment by the God who created heaven and earth, right?
Convivially,
Mick


well…i believe that the possibility exists…fd

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;5324551:

You don’t believe in either heaven or hell yet you do accept the idea of some sort of punishment or reward in the afterlife as a result of the decree/judgment by the God who created heaven and earth, right?

Convivially,
Mick

well…i believe that the possibility exists…fd

I guess that means you haven’t decided what God is like. What attributes do you currently assign to God?

Curiously,
Mick

 

[jargon631]

I guess that means you haven’t decided what God is like. What attributes do you currently assign to God?

Curiously,
Mick

hi mick…i agree that the possibility exists ecause no one can know with 100% surety…fd

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;5346232:

I guess that means you haven’t decided what God is like. What attributes do you currently assign to God?

Curiously,
Mick

hi mick…i agree that the possibility exists because no one can know with 100% surety…fd

Hey again, Frederick,

Theists don’t usually assert that they know anything with 100% surety, either, because there has to be some room left for faith. But theists do generally assign certain attributes to God meaning that they posit to some extent what God is like. I daresay most theists might suggest that God is omnipotent and omniscient and omnipresent and that He is infinite, which leads to the conclusion that He formally possesses the absolute perfections and that He eminently possesses the relative perfections. For example, theists might affirm that God is perfectly wise i.e. that He knows all things because He knows the causes of all things but they wouldn’t declare that God is perfectly logical because that implies the power of passing from the known to the unknown and since God knows everything in the first place the idea collapses in on itself. The proposal, then, would be that God formally possesses wisdom as it is in itself but He eminently possesses logic i.e. that He is the source, perfect in itself, from which logic is derived.

So, since you have an open mind about these things and don’t object to discussing them, what attributes do you assign to the God that you are prepared to concede might exist? Or do you stay within the parameters defined by the professional agnostics whom I believe sometimes maintain that the perfections theists ascribe to God are anthropomorphisms i.e. mere imitations of human perfections?

Curiously,
Mick

 

[jargon631]

well…ya got me mick…you know i hate established parameters as an absolute truth, lol…i would say that any being that was powerful enough to create the infinite multiverse, would have unlimited power…i have no doubt of that…my problems arise with all the behaviors that man attributes to god…not necessarily the theist’s “perfections”, but all the dour, angry, vengeful, hating things…bear in mind that i dont think the creator is some kind of cream puff…far from it…i just think that any behaviors that we attribute to god are filtered through our own weak perceptions…you know, mick…im being a lot less coherent than i would like…i just did the new athens to the far side of st. louis round trip in about 4 hours and my eyeballs are spinning in my head…i’ll get back soon and be less frazzled, mano…frederick

 

[SSTeacher]

well…ya got me mick…you know i hate established parameters as an absolute truth, lol…i would say that any being that was powerful enough to create the infinite multiverse, would have unlimited power…i have no doubt of that…my problems arise with all the behaviors that man attributes to god…not necessarily the theist’s “perfections”, but all the dour, angry, vengeful, hating things…bear in mind that i dont think the creator is some kind of cream puff…far from it…i just think that any behaviors that we attribute to god are filtered through our own weak perceptions…you know, mick…im being a lot less coherent than i would like…i just did the new athens to the far side of st. louis round trip in about 4 hours and my eyeballs are spinning in my head…i’ll get back soon and be less frazzled, mano…frederick

Hi Frederick,

I’ll give you a day or so to get back into your routine and then post a response whereupon we can continue our dialogue.

Helpfully,
Mick