What makes a God who allows eternal suffering worthy of my worship?

[Absalom]

Jaxboy:

Let me start by saying that I am not Catholic, nor am I a Christian. I do believe in God. I do not believe in hell. I ask this question honestly, seeking an answer from the Catholic perspective:

What makes a God who allows eternal suffering worthy of my worship?

Whether that God allows eternal suffering or not, if He is so determined to have me freely choose to be in eternal happiness with Him that he will humble Himself to become a fleshly being and suffer and die so that I may believe in Him and have a fighting chance, then He’s got my vote.

 

[ahimsaman72]

john doran:

you are confusing logic with something like predictability; i am using “logic” in it’s technical sense, as something like “A branch of philosophy and mathematics that deals with the formal principles, methods and criteria of validity of inference, reasoning and knowledge”.

it is impossible to engage in rational conversation with someone else without assuming the laws of logic. so, if you deny them, or try to suspend them, it is no wonder that you get nowhere.

is that sort of like the mistake someone makes when they presume to attribute a concept like “power” to god when they say something like “if we do something god cannot prevent, then he is not omnipotent. if he is omnipotent than he is not merciful”?

just wondering.

then using logic - validate the resurrection of Christ through reasoning and knowledge.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Is it that people who cannot believe in eternal suffering have a reason to worry? If so, what they need to do is get rid of their sins, reform themselves; learn to hope, pray, and work for their eternal reward.

The fear of God is a potent stimulant to do good and avoid evil. To deny that hell is forever is to deny that actions have consequences; as if a drunk driver could indulge himself on the expressway with impunity because surely God would not let him die forever.

 

[BibleReader]

Jaxboy:

Let me start by saying that I am not Catholic, nor am I a Christian. I do believe in God. I do not believe in hell. I ask this question honestly, seeking an answer from the Catholic perspective:

What makes a God who allows eternal suffering worthy of my worship?

Perhaps you misunderstand the nature of Man, the nature of Evil, and the nature of Hell.

It is sometimes said that “Hell has no walls.” The folks there won’t be prisoners. They’ll hate it there, because they’ll be there with selfish animals, gnawing at each other, like themselves.

But, they will hate the divine presence, outside of Hell, more – wildly.

This has to do with the nature of man.

The Adam and Eve story is really a “thin-sliced hypothetical.” It is a picture of what Man WOULD do, in the case of EVERY SINGLE MORAL DECISION, in the absence of the grace of the cross, which has always extended forwards and backwards in time, for all of human history.

In the case of all of those found in a state of net rejection of the concept of “taking a chance on Christ” at the end of time, they will be deprived of that grace, and the “thin-sliced hypothetical” will suddenly become real and apply to every ongoing moment of the mental existence of the damned: They’ll become raging God-hating animals who DESPISE His presence, and prefer a room full of Hellish, self-aggrandizing animals like themselves to the presence of a loving God.

In other words, at their judgment they will merely be given their wish – away-ness from God – to the fullest extent, and deprived of the grace of the cross, fully, because they rejected the grace of the cross partially – to the extent that they found it inconvenient – in their lives.

The damned will then march to Hell flags flying!!!

Get it?

Perhaps, at the end of time, God will let you try to persuade them to leave the Hellish existence of Hell, so that you can try to prove to yourself that God “allows eternal suffering.”

What will happen? THE DAMNED WILL TELL YOU TO GET LOST!

 

[jimmy]

Jaxboy:

Let me start by saying that I am not Catholic, nor am I a Christian. I do believe in God. I do not believe in hell. I ask this question honestly, seeking an answer from the Catholic perspective:

What makes a God who allows eternal suffering worthy of my worship?

Hell is just the lack of God. It is a place where we do not know God. Each person makes there choice to follow God in action and thought and everything. It is us who choose whether we want God or not. Its not like God set a particular place aside and called it hell. Hell is just what is not heaven. When we die will will be judged by our choice. If we want to know God, we will know him. If we do not want to know God, then we will not know him. It all comes down to our choice in this world.

 

[jimmy]

Jaxboy:

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Let me take your response one step at a time

“If a person comes to conclude that God exists it follows that God always was and is the source of all things including life and our own lives and the fulfillment of all things including our lives.”

I agree with this, except, perhaps, the idea that God is the fulfillment of all things, because I’m not sure what that means.

“This being isn’t subject to our judgement of worthiness or in anyway requires worship. ‘We’ need to worship God because in this being we find what sustains and fulfills our lives.”

I agree that God does not require our worship. He is not subject to our judgement of worthiness, however, we are free to judge Him. Now, if we are to believe the God of the Bible is the true God, then He is capable of many things both merciful and wrathful. One of these is allowing hell to exist. I do not believe myself heartless enough to allow someone to suffer eternal torment. Am I, therefore, more merciful than God? If so, I choose not to worship that God.

“It’s not a selfish desire that God wants our worship, it’s the desire that what has been created can fulfill the destiny it was created for.”

I believe that what you are saying here is that God did not put us here to worship Him, but to fulfill our destiny. That’s a whole other discussion

Hell is what is not heaven. If we do not go to heaven then we will be in hell. Hell is not necisarilly a specific place, it is just not heaven. It is the lack of the knowledge of God or the vision of God, which is what makes it hell.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Jaxboy:

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Let me take your response one step at a time …
I agree that God does not require our worship. He is not subject to our judgement of worthiness, however, we are free to judge Him. Now, if we are to believe the God of the Bible is the true God, then He is capable of many things both merciful and wrathful. One of these is allowing hell to exist. I do not believe myself heartless enough to allow someone to suffer eternal torment. Am I, therefore, more merciful than God? If so, I choose not to worship that God.
…

Hi Jaxboy;

Yes, we are free to judge God, but we err to the extent we judge God according to human standards. God allows Hell to exist because he is a God of infinite justice as well as a God of infinite mercy. Catholics believe that once we die, our position with respect to the acceptance or rejection of God is made absolute. In other words we cannot repent of our sins and seek God’s mercy after death. We are who we have chosen to be - for eternity. Therefore, we reside either in Hell, or in Heaven, for eternity. You seem to hold the understanding that after death one can repent and seek God’s mercy. Is there some authority for that position in Scripture? Elsewhere?

Peace and Charity,

 

[Philthy]

Jaxboy:

Let me start by saying that I am not Catholic, nor am I a Christian. I do believe in God. I do not believe in hell. I ask this question honestly, seeking an answer from the Catholic perspective:

What makes a God who allows eternal suffering worthy of my worship?

Hi Jaxboy-

Lots of approaches to this, but I’ll just bring out two points.
You have assumed that the possibility of no eternal suffering exists. Exactly how do you arrive at this conclusion? Simply because you can conceive of it? Christians base their belief in Hell on Revelation from God. This revelation is backed up by many prophecies fulfilled over thousands of years including the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In addition, we have not only the written testimony of the eyewitnesses of these wondrous events but the ultimate testimony that they died agonizing deaths at the hands of others (unlike the cheap martyrdom of today) rather than betray the Truth they knew and loved. If you haven’t read any of St.Paul’s letters or the Acts of the Apostles from the New Testament you should give it a try - incredible read. You will “get it” as you listen to Paul go on and on about the person of Jesus Christ - especially when you realize he started out killing Christians until Christ revealed himself to Paul.

Secondly what makes you think your worship is worth anything at all? What need does any God have of your worship anyhow? If you think God benefits from your worship, you are sadly mistaken. Humility is the starting point for coming to God - I recommend you start on your knees. From dust you came and to dust you shall return. The sooner you realize your meaninglessness independent of God the sooner you will begin to understand how great is our God.

Phil

 

[michaelp]

Philthy:

Secondly what makes you think your worship is worth anything at all? What need does any God have of your worship anyhow? If you think God benefits from your worship, you are sadly mistaken. Humility is the starting point for coming to God - I recommend you start on your knees. From dust you came and to dust you shall return. The sooner you realize your meaninglessness independent of God the sooner you will begin to understand how great is our God.

Phil

Phil, this is a very good response. Thanks for the insight. It puts God back on the throne. I find great comfort in His aseity.

I also find great comfort in C.S. Lewis’ statement that “the doors of hell are locked, but they are locked from the inside.”

Michael

 

[Philthy]

Jaxboy:

Fix:

My own answer to my question is “Nothing about a God who allows eternal suffering is worthy of anyone’s worship”. Therefore, the God I believe in does not allow eternal suffering. Therefore, there is no hell.

OK, let me explain some basics regarding logic.
A premise is a factual statement used to support a conclusion.
At least two premises are required to reach a conclusion.
A conclusion is derived of logical necessity from the stated premises.
The conclusion is prefaced with “Therefore or then” to indicate that it is the conclusion.
The simplest form of this is the syllogism. Here are two forms:

All A is B * If all A is B
All B is C * And all B is C
Therefore all A is C. * Then all A is C

Now let’s look at your logic:

“Nothing about a God who allows eternal suffering is worthy of anyone’s worship”.

Well I’m sorry to break the news to you, but you can’t derive a conclusion from thin air. You need some support for your conclusion - otherwise it’s not a conclusion - it’s simply an opinion, and an unsubstantiated one at that.

“Therefore, the God I believe in does not allow eternal suffering.”

Slightly better, but still not quite there. You haven’t arrived at the reality of a God existing that does not allow eternal suffering - so you can’t quite believe in one yet. Your best try is “In order to believe in a God worth worshipping I need to believe in the absense of eternal suffering.”

And your coup de grace:

“Therefore, there is no hell.”

Well, I guess for technical accuracy you should have made a statement like, “Hell is eternal suffering” and then your big conclusion. Here, like this:

• I believe that nothing about a God who allows eternal suffering is worthy of anyone’s worship.
• In order to believe in a God worth worshipping I need to believe in the absense of eternal suffering."
• Hell is eternal suffering
• **Therefore **in order to believe in a god worth worshipping I need to believe in the absense of hell

Much better. Notice, however, that a lot has changed. No longer do you arrive at “therefore there is no hell”, but simply that in order to believe that god is worth worshipping you need to believe in the absense of hell" That’s a pretty whimpy conclusion. The biggest problem is you have nothing to support your first premise. How could you possibly be in a position to judge an eternal matter? Nope Im afraid you simply like that first conclusion - we all won’t agree with it - and that wrecks your entire line of logic. Even if you could correct all the subsequent errors, we still arrive at a logical necessity ultimately based on your erroneous opinion.

Phil

 

[Genesis315]

Thata boy (girl?) Philthy!:clapping:

 

[Philthy]

michaelp:

Phil, this is a very good response. Thanks for the insight. It puts God back on the throne. I find great comfort in His aseity.

I also find great comfort in C.S. Lewis’ statement that “the doors of hell are locked, but they are locked from the inside.”

Michael

Hi Michael!

Thank you for the kind words. I’m embarassed to say I haven’t read any of CSLewis, though I did attend an enjoyable playof his (The LIon, The Witch and the Closet"?) with my son’s 3rd grade class. It was very obviously written by a Christian as a metaphor for Christs sacrificial nature, but no one else seemed to see it that way except me
How do you find so much time to read?

Still no word from Pax?

Phil

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Philthy:

Well, I guess for technical accuracy you should have made a statement like, “Hell is eternal suffering” and then your big conclusion. Here, like this:

I believe that nothing about a God who allows eternal suffering is worthy of anyone’s worship.

In order to believe in a God worth worshipping I need to believe in the absense of eternal suffering."

Hell is eternal suffering

**Therefore **in order to believe in a god worth worshipping I need to believe in the absense of hell

Much better. Notice, however, that a lot has changed. No longer do you arrive at “therefore there is no hell”, but simply that in order to believe that god is worth worshipping you need to believe in the absense of hell" That’s a pretty whimpy conclusion. The biggest problem is you have nothing to support your first premise. How could you possibly be in a position to judge an eternal matter? Nope Im afraid you simply like that first conclusion - we all won’t agree with it - and that wrecks your entire line of logic. Even if you could correct all the subsequent errors, we still arrive at a logical necessity ultimately based on your erroneous opinion.

Phil

Dear Phil,

I don’t believe you have actually found a logical flaw in Jax’s reasoning. As I understood it, Jaxboy’s assertions were made in order to explain his/her personal opinion, the construction of which may have been slightly clumsy but not subject to the same scrutiny as if it were presented as an actual proof.

Overall, you have not proven any fallacy in the original statements, but just showed that they constitute a personal opinion rather than a proof which I didn’t think needed to be proven. What I am more concerned with is how you would address the issue from your own heart as opposed to through an attempt at a logical exercise.

What makes a God who allows eternal suffering worthy of our worship? The issue here is that Jax has found a collision between his/her sense of conscience and the apparent behavior of this alleged “supreme being” which would be considered cruel under our own “God-given” system of ethics as we humans perceive them.

Under what conditions might humans worship a supreme being? One, if they think the being is worthy of worshipping. Two is that they might become convinced that it is helpful to our own souls to worship, regardless of whether of not God “deserves” it. Three is that we must because we are commanded to – based on fear of punishment, which seems to me to be the least noble of reasons but certainly the one that seems to be most pervasive.

It also seems to me that anyone who worships God because of fear of punishment has gained nothing because it is phony, ill-motivated worship. Kind of like a person dancing when the bad guy shoots a gun toward his feet is not a dance of worship of the bad guy but a survival response.

That really speaks to another even slightly larger issue, which is the double bind that religion typically puts us in. We are required and commanded, under pain of eternal punishment, to do something that is only meaningful if it is done out of free will.

Alan

 

[gelsbern]

This was sent to me via email just the other day, I think it fits the topic.

A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut and his beard trimmed. As
the barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation. They
talked about so many things and various subjects.

When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said: “I
don’t believe that God exists.”

“Why do you say that?” asked the customer.

“Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God doesn’t
exist. Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people? Would
there be abandoned children? If God existed, there would be neither
suffering nor pain. I can’t imagine a loving God who would allow all of
these things.”

The customer thought for a moment, but didn’t respond because he didn’t want
to start an argument. The barber finished his job and the customer left the
shop. Just after he left the barbershop, he saw a man in the street
with long, stringy, dirty hair and an untrimmed beard. He looked dirty and
unkempt.

The customer turned back and entered the barber shop again and he said to
the barber: “You know what? Barbers do not exist.”

“How can you say that?” asked the surprised barber. “I am here, and I am a
barber… And I just worked on you!”

“No!” the customer exclaimed. “Barbers don’t exist because if they did,
there would be no people with dirty long hair and untrimmed beards, like
that man outside.”

"Ah, but barbers DO exist! " answered the barber. " What happens, is, people
do not come to me. "

“Exactly!”- affirmed the customer. “That’s the point! God, too, DOES
exist! What happens, is, people don’t go to Him and do not look for Him.
That’s why there’s so much pain and suffering in the world.”

 

[john_doran]

ahimsaman72:

then using logic - validate the resurrection of Christ through reasoning and knowledge.

i’m honestly not sure what you’re asking me to do here…

i suspect, however, that you are continuing to misunderstand my use of the word “logic”, and that you believe i have made the claim that the resurrection of christ is somehow capable of logically certain proof. such a thing, of course, cannot be done, and nor have i ever even implied that it can.

the role logic would play in any bit of reasoning i could give you concerning the plausibility of christ’s resurrection would be simply to ensure that my conclusions followed properly from my premises - basically, logic can only verify the validity and/or soundness of the reasoning. it is only a formal discipline, after all, much like math.

so. any attempt at a logical “validation” of christ’s resurrection would consist simply in demonstrating that the proposition “christ was raised from the dead” is logically possible - i.e. that it does not violate any logical norms. and it doesn’t.

if, on the other hand, you are asking me to provide some kind of demonstration that the proposition “christ was raised from the dead” is actually true, any such “proof” would consist in the provision of premises i believed to be true which would in turn provide evidence for the truth of that particular proposition. it would not, to be sure, establish its truth with deductive (i.e. logical) certainty, by any means, and i never claimed that it would. in fact, any such proof might not even be very compelling to a great many people.

but the demonstration could certainly be done logically, i.e. in conformity with the principles of reasoning.

 

[ahimsaman72]

john doran:

i’m honestly not sure what you’re asking me to do here…

i suspect, however, that you are continuing to misunderstand my use of the word “logic”, and that you believe i have made the claim that the resurrection of christ is somehow capable of logically certain proof. such a thing, of course, cannot be done, and nor have i ever even implied that it can.

This was my point.

the role logic would play in any bit of reasoning i could give you concerning the plausibility of christ’s resurrection would be simply to ensure that my conclusions followed properly from my premises - basically, logic can only verify the validity and/or soundness of the reasoning. it is only a formal discipline, after all, much like math.

Yes, we all use logic to come to conclusions and that is the only way we know anything. I am a human. I have a name. I am a human with a name. My name is X. It cannot be X and not X at the same time and in the same sense. I cannot be alive and dead. I’m either alive or I’m dead. Law of identity, law of non-contradiction and law of excluded middle. That’s my uneducated understanding.

Sometimes I think illogically and make illogical statements or premises and for that you will just have to forgive me . I’ve learned a lot from the people here on this forum who have challenged me and for that I am grateful. When I slip up and make erroneous statements, I am reverting back to my old ways. Sometimes I speak with the heart and not with the mind.

Peace…

 

[wcknight]

Proof of God’s (or Hells) existence.

God is not logical or physical. He can not be proved or disproved. There are no mathematical formulas, pictures or fingerprints.

The only ‘evidence’ we have is from some writings about events that happened hundreds of years ago. And some testimony from some folks who have had encounters with Him or His agents (angels) or friends (saints).

It is all hearsay unless you happen to experience His magic in your life.

BUT just because you do not have any first hand experience with Him doe not mean He does not exist. Someone who has never fallen in love before, may have only heard about it from friends or books, but love does exist.

Even if they do not experience love firsthand. It is there. It may not exist for them (yet or ever), but it is there throughout other folks experience.

IF I were to believe only the things I personally saw or experienced firsthand, there would be no Australia, no Anartica, no Indian Ocean, no Africa or a whole lot of other things. At some point after enough witnesses or verifications, one comes to believe that such things are in fact real.

IF you were to search hard enough, you would find many testimonies from folks who have encountered God firsthand. You may claim that these folks are delusional, or chronic liars.

But this can be true about anything that one has no first hand knowledge of. When the volume of evidence (even though second or third hand) reaches a certain point, it is no longer the folks claiming that such things happened, are dellusional, but the denial of such things is the delusion.

It is remotely possible that all these folks are wrong, but the possibility that thay are all wrong greatly decreases because of the sheer numbers of such events.

IF you really want to find God, read about all the dealings He had with His best friends, the saints. For starters, Padre Pio (from early 1900’s to 1960’s) , St Anthony of Padua, St Catherine of Sienna, St. Juan Diego, St Bernadette, St Francis of Assisi. Some of them are really interesting characters.

The story of Juan Diego, even has physical evidence of the miracle he encountered, it hangs in a Basilica just outside Mexico City. There is plenty of evidence of God, most just ignore it.

For those who believe no evidence is necessary, for those who do not, no amount of evidence is ever enough.

Christ’s Peace

 

[jdnation]

That’s an excellent story gelsbern!

Also to chime in about logic:

What we mean by God being a logical God and still omnipotent is that He can do things that are not contradictory by definition.

For example omnipotence and a heavy rock. One cannot be omnipotent and be limited to being unable to lift a rock. Those two things can’t be harmonized.

Another example is the square-circle.

Something cannot be both a square (four equal sides and four equal corners) and a circle (something with no sides and no corners).

By the very definition these are contradictory. Unharmonious.

If you still think you can harmonize such things, try to tell me what will happen when the sword that can cut through anything meets the indestructable shield? We would call such a thing a paradox. Can this situation ever occur? Never… it’s unfathomable.

For things like free will, it is God who CHOOSES not to control human will, not that he is unable to… why? BEcause He wants humans to freely love him. But he cannot both control something and make its choices free at the same time. Such a situation cannot be logically reconciled.
For things as a man rising from the dead. This is not inconsistent, it is simply a reverse from dead to alive, it is not both dead and alive, it is simply supernatural, above natural laws. Not illogical.

 

[ahimsaman72]

jdnation:

That’s an excellent story gelsbern!

Also to chime in about logic:

What we mean by God being a logical God and still omnipotent is that He can do things that are not contradictory by definition.

For example omnipotence and a heavy rock. One cannot be omnipotent and be limited to being unable to lift a rock. Those two things can’t be harmonized.

Another example is the square-circle.

Something cannot be both a square (four equal sides and four equal corners) and a circle (something with no sides and no corners).

By the very definition these are contradictory. Unharmonious.

If you still think you can harmonize such things, try to tell me what will happen when the sword that can cut through anything meets the indestructable shield? We would call such a thing a paradox. Can this situation ever occur? Never… it’s unfathomable.

For things like free will, it is God who CHOOSES not to control human will, not that he is unable to… why? BEcause He wants humans to freely love him. But he cannot both control something and make its choices free at the same time. Such a situation cannot be logically reconciled.
For things as a man rising from the dead. This is not inconsistent, it is simply a reverse from dead to alive, it is not both dead and alive, it is simply supernatural, above natural laws. Not illogical.

I understand your logic (pun) used here. It makes a lot of sense. Now - about natural and supernatural laws. Now we have duality. We have on the one hand natural laws and on the other supernatural. Natural is easy enough (relatively) to verify. We can use the scientific method to come to conclusions about our natural world. Supernatural law is quite different it seems. What are those laws? Are they different from natural laws? Can they possibly differ from natural laws. What method can we use to validate the supernatural world?

It seems impossible to validate anything supernatural. Each religion has their understanding of the supernatural. This is the crux of the matter for me. Maybe it makes sense to everybody else, but certainly not to me. I don’t see how one can validate something that cannot be gained through empirical methods. I would welcome further thoughts.

You spoke well in your last paragraph about God choosing not to control humans, though He possibly could control them. That sticks with me and is reasonable. Thank you for your insights.

Peace…

 

[nan]

I recommend the book “The Great Divorce”, both because it addresses the subject of hell AND it is written by C.S.Lewis.