J
JRKH
Guest
I have no answer for this other than to say that the story was used as a parable to get a point across rather than describing a historical event…
Peace
James
- Status
Peace
James
A
ApologiaSophia
Guest
This is exactly what we’ve debated on the last thread about hell. There is no logical proof that says hell is inherently compatible with a benevolent loving God. We might debate what kind of hell would be a “just” hell, or how hell could make better sense of the theological data, but to say they are incompatible is an assumption. A speculative opinion rooted more in emotion than reason. We can agree to disagree, but there is no proven inconsistency.EXACTLY.
some people dont want to see that fact because there is no other way to justify hell.
hell is incompatible with the idea of a loving god. so it must be that its those going there who wants it!!!
senseless.
Regardless, a criminal may not choose prison, but they do choose crime. Every man is a sinner and has fallen short of God’s glory. This goes into salvation theology. Just because a person has not chosen hell outright does not mean that they did not choose to walk the path that led them there.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
…For some people, so far, and not to mention we aren’t completely separate in the same way those are who are in Hell.we arent being with God now. its fine.
A
ApologiaSophia
Guest
True, but if you look on the last page of Mere Christianity C. S. Lewis also had some very… controversial views on salvation. It seems like anyone pursuing Christ without knowing they were pursuing him explicitly, will obtain salvation on Lewis’s view.
P
Portofino
Guest
It is questionable whether there is empircal or rational evidence that hell exists, to begin with (apart from the question of whether it is merciful or just).
What I do know – human nature being what it is – is that, “if hell didn’t exist, we would have to invent it.” By that I mean that human being reflexively tend to believe that wrongdoing must be punished; that retributive justice is demanded.
There are many human beings I’ve encountered who not only are in support of the death penalty, but who would like to see the re-institution of torture for the most heinous of crimes (otherwise known as “cruel and unusual punishment”). For example, if they could kill the perpetrator of the Aurora shooting multiple times, one for every victim he killed, they would satisifed. If the perpetrator could feel all of the mental anguish and terror of each victim – and experience all of the physical pain – it would be the most satisfying form of justice.
On this level, hell is the ultimate in human satisfaction.
I’ve also witnessed Christians – not on this forum, but on other internet venues – who have admitted that they would be disappointed if universal salvation were true, feeling that it’s “not fair”. They want someone like Hitler to be rotting in hell; their sense of justice revolts against anything different. They would not want universalism to be true, even if it were true.
Those Christians who have rejected the doctrine of hell tend to take to heart the following passage from Matthew:
38 “You have heard that it was said, **‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
Sounds like an optimistic form of invincible ignorance to me.
A
ApologiaSophia
Guest
I dont know, i disagree with him, but i do not know that it is invincible ignorance. I think he is suggesting that Christ is the only way to God. Those of other religions, being ignorant, do not know they are pursuing Christ, but they are chasing the “light” by which their heart may be illuminated by Christ, thought they may not have explicit knowledge that it is Christ. They have accepted Christ without explicit knowledge of doing so. Thats how i understand it. I disagree, but it is a fascinating position (i think i have portrayed it accurately). If nothing else it proposes a solution to this dilemma, even if it be a false one.
T
Tietjen
Guest
And this is an example of an opinion based on limited knowledge. Now what? Shall you opine that life is nothing more than an illusion?
Your point can be the case when speaking of a civil justice system. However, that is not what is being discussed here. It helps when we are both comparing apples to apples. Even the atheist who is willing to listen to and contemplate the possibility of God can understand that IF there is a God then the possibility that this God being perfect can likewise be a possibility. If, therefore, a perfect God MAY exist, it is ridiculous to believe that a mere human will somehow outwit him, or expect “an error on the part of the prosecution…” This assumes of course that we are both defining “perfect” in the same way.
Okay, so we are on the same sheet so far.
For those that do have access to the Church and/or Bible, the above statement is not true. And to some degree or another, it is the same for those without access to either yet who recognize (via their God given consciences) that God exists and that they will therefore pursue a relationship with him based on the knowledge that they do have.
I disagree on the credibility statement that you made which by my very statement disapproves your use of the word “absolutely.” Perhaps, what you meant to say was that, “In your opinion…” since that is actually what we are discussing here after all; unless of course you are suggesting that your opinion is always factual and beyond reproach; in which case, we have a whole other topic which goes beyond this one. As to the example that you chose to use citing masturbation “…bringing down the full wrath of the vengeful God…” please define the meaning of “full wrath.” Are you suggesting that “full” means the complete, as in God has reached some type of a limit in relation to the amount of wrath he can wrought? If so, then perhaps you and I are unable to have this conversation because we have such completely differing views of God. My God is not limited in anything he chooses. But that is really a side issue and I’ll get back on topic. IMHO and limited understanding of God’s mind, it is not so much that he is wielding vengeance on all who have unrepentant sins (whether that be masturbation or otherwise) it is simply that he is denying unrepentant sinners from being in his presence. If someone comes to my front door and knocks and I look through the peep hole and see it is someone that I do not want to open the door for, am I bring down my “full wrath” and being vengeful by not opening the door? Because I can certainly assure you that I have the ability to be far more vengeful if I were to choose to do so. How much more vengeful can an unlimited God be if he chose that route.
Again, this is your opinion. A perfect and unlimited God is perfectly able to discern the hearts of his creations. Here is where I believe (my opinion), that you and I cannot understand where each other are coming from. When I think of God, I think of a truly perfect being, unable to make mistakes and not limited in any way. When you think of the possibility of God, I believe that you are basing him on only those things that you and those around you are capable of. So, you assume that he can do an unjust thing (or at least in your mind the thing that is being done is unjust). However, that is only your perspective and at best is limited to your experiences and opinions gained while walking this earth for the few decades that you have. You are closed to the possibility that there can actually exist something that has more knowledge of what is and is not “just” than you do.
Allow me to give you a simple scenario. Say you are a painter of portraits. You create all kinds of paintings and have a studio filled with your works. Now say that one day a busted water pipe causes some of your paintings to become ruined. You decide to go through and trash the paintings that do not meet your standards. Is that unjust? Do you not have the right to remove those paintings that you created and own based on whatever standard YOU have set? If you do have that right, how is it that you can call God’s decision to weed out his works based on standards that he sets as being unjust? If he created us, how is it that the creations have an authority over him to decide issues of justice?
See, this is why a conversation concerning God as he relates to justice is futile when the parties involved cannot even begin from the same starting point. Before we can debate this, we need to be coming from the same basic premise, otherwise neither of us will make any progress. Peace.
J
JDaniel
Guest
Qoeleth:
If a person commits a fairly heinous crime, such as a pre-meditated murder, do you think that person has chosen a life of flight? Do you think such a person has chosen a life of almost always looking over his shoulder? Do you think that person will always be on particular lookout every time he drives a car? Do you that that person would probably change his identity? (One could go on and on; there are many more considerations such as these.) Would you not consider that person’s life a living hell?
So, I suppose we can choose how we spend the rest of our lives.
God bless,
jd
T
Trurl
Guest
In this we agree.
What constitutes “ample” warning? Of course the “scriptures” do not count, being a human concoction. My conscience definitely tells me that the golden rule is the only necessary “rule of thumb” for a good ethical system, but it does NOT tell me that contraceptive sex would be a “heinous sin” which merits eternal punishment. And it most certainly does not tell me that engaging in contraceptive sex somehow “rejects” God.
T
Trurl
Guest
In most aspects of life, I am sure, you are perfectly rational. Even people in the loony bin are quite rational apart from their delusions. They are even rational about their neighbor’s delusions. Suppose there is Joe, who believes that he is a hen, and Jack wo believes that he is Napoleon. Joe will probably ask Jack: “where is his army”? And Jack will demand Joe to “lay an egg”. They are perfectly rational in regard of each other.
Just like in this case. If someone believes that there are fairies, goblins, poltergeists, demons, angels, devils and all sorts of magical creatures, then they are delusional in that respect. Of course, all you have to do to convince me is “demonstrate the validity of your beliefs”. Can you do that?
T
Trurl
Guest
Yes I agree, with the caveat that: IF he knows that it is against the law. (Now there is an oft-misquoted “rule”: ignorance of law excuses nothing - and it is simply incorrect. If one can be reasonably expected to know the law, then it would be a factor in delivering the sentence.)
Of course you used the words: “caught” and “punished”. The word punishment means that the person does not choose the outcome, the punishment must be applied by the system. There would be one exception: if the perpetrator gives himself up to the law and asks to be sentenced according to the law. In this ONLY case does the person choose the punishment.
There is no such thing as “natural moral law”.
T
Trurl
Guest
I have that access and for me it is a true statement. I simply reject the unsupported arguments of the believers, precisely since they are unsupported. Faith means nothing to me, “revelation” is just a meaningless phrase. Prove to me that there is a God, prove to me that God’s view is expressed by the opinion of the believers, and you will have a convert. But empty assertions are dime a dozen.
This is your view of “hell”, which is not the usually accepted one. Maybe the good, old torture, fire, brimstone, gnashing of teeth is becoming politically incorrect theese days.
But right now we are separated from God, and this existence is not too bad, most of the time. After all we have been chased away from God’s presence when the “original sin” happened. So, if this is “hell”… it ain’t too bad.The allegory is incorrect. Those painitings are inanimate objects. We are not.
Nope. Once a sentient being is created, it cannot be “used” as just a piece of furniture.
Now that is very true, and I agree. It would be quite interesting to create a few threads with the only purpose to attempt to find a common, mutually acceptable definition for some concepts, so that we could have a common starting ground.
Of course, I already tried it several times in the past decade or so… and they were failures. When the pertinent concepts are applied to humans, we can have a good agreement. But as soon as the concept are applied to God, the believers start to redefine these concepts in a totally different manner. And that is the fundamental problem.
J
JRKH
Guest
You have given a very nice description here.
In parallels very nicely the Church’s position as expressed in the Catechism;
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
This then is the “official” description of how this can occur.
Now what I like particularly about your description above is your reference to, “the “light” by which their heart may be illuminated by Christ”, for in order to know if the person is on the “right track” we need to know what that “light” is and to know that we need to know what is the light that Christ brought into the world…Not the name(s) but the essences.
What Scripture points very clearly to is that Agape Love is that light. There are many examples, both explicit and implicit that bear this out. Perhaps the most explicit is this one.
1John 4:7-8
7 Beloved, let us love one another; for love is of God, and he who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 He who does not love does not know God; for God is love.
“He who loves is born of God and knows God…for God is Love.” How powerful a statement and how inclusive. Like the Judgement passage in Mt 25:31-46, this passage is about who the person is in their core being - a child of light (love) or a child of darkness (hate).
In the Gospels, Jesus tells us that it is Love that underpins all of the law and prophets (Mt 22:36-40)…He also tells the disciples that the world will know that they are His disciples by their Love (John 13:34-35)…and then of course we have St Paul’s incredibly beautiful exposition on the absolutely foundational necessity of Love contained in 1 Corinthians 13:1-13.
So - the “light” that you refer to above…if it is of God…will be love…Agape…Selflessness.
And if we see that light in one not of the Christian faith, how can we deny that such a one is a disciple of Christ - even without their knowledge? Likewise when we see no light coming from one who claims discipleship, should we not be reminded of Jesus own words that "not all who cry Lord Lord will enter the Kingdom, but rather those who do the will of my Father. (Mt 7:21) And the Father is Love so Love is His Will.
That is my take on the subject anyway.
Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
You ask a very good question. I’m not sure that I have a very good answer, but I’ll try to share my perspective on this matter.
The story you refer to is a parable designed to teach certain lessons. For that reason certain points are brought out while others are not. But let us work with what we have.
In his life, the rich man lived in luxury and yet was aware of the poor surrounding him - how could he not have been when Lazarus lay at his very own gate. Yet - he made no provision. We know this because the parable relates that Lazarus desired to be fed…not that he was fed by the scraps from the rich man’s table. Yet - did not OT Jewish law require that the rich provide for the poor?
You say that it seems reasonable to assume that during his life, the rich man assumed he was going to heaven. I agree, he most likely did. But heaven - that is Love - was not what he embraced.
It’s an interesting thing about humans that we can become so wrapped up in our own self righteousness that we don’t even realize that we are embracing the very thing that we desire the least.
Ever know someone who was never in the wrong?..If they got a traffic ticket, it was the @#$% cop’s fault, not his for doing 50 in a 25 zone…Don’t get a raise? The boss is greedy. Never mind that they are the last one to work and the first to leave, habitually tardy and as likely to call in “sick” as not to. Their life is filled with anger at the other guy. With how he never receives his due. etc…
Yet even this person, if you ask him, will not think he deserves hell. He will think this, even as he is embracing hell. Even as he is building walls between himself and God.
So when God is speaking to St Catherine and describes the person reaching out at death to make their own that which they embraced in life, this is the sort of “poster child” person I immediately think of. The person of anger, of selfishness, of greed.
Of course they did not realize it in life. They were ruled by their appetites instead of God’s will. And yet there was the teachings of God in the world…Love your neighbor as yourself and do unto others aa you would have them do unto you.
And just as Father Abraham explains in the parable…They have Moses and the prophets to obey (just as we have Christ)…these people choose not to listen.
And when they die…Their spots will likely not change. That which they embraced in life, is what they will embrace in death…And of course, just as they did in life, they will not be happy and they will grouse about it…Just as the rich man does in the parable.
Sorry to get so wordy…It’s hard to really explain it quickly…I hope this helps a bit.
Peace
James
B
bilop
Guest
Since you’re the one making the accusations of deulusion, why don’t you demonstrate the validity of your beliefs? Prove there is no God, and no Hell. Prove that masturbation isn’t a mortal sin.
S
sophion
Guest
you mean its possible to be completely separate from a supposedly OMNIPRESENT Being?sophion;10015661:
…For some people, so far, and not to mention we aren’t completely separate in the same way those are who are in Hell.we arent being with God now. its fine.
religion is so full of holes.
B
bilop
Guest
God still knows about you in Hell, you just don’t experience Him.you mean its possible to be completely separate from a supposedly OMNIPRESENT Being?
religion is so full of holes.
V
vames
Guest
There are a few different aspects in what you say. First - how can only one mortal sin lead a person to eternal punishment/hell (this would be “the full wrath”), since it’s only one sin, as opposed to a life of sinfulness and purposely separated from God. Here’s a simple explanation regarding this:
youtube.com/watch?v=uQ8CDmXYugw
Then is the gravity of the sin - how can an act of masturbation (or missing a Mass on Sunday or defying the rules of Church on fasting and abstinence) be equivalent to a murder or a suicide, so that all people get the same eternal punishment, without nuances, only because of what the Church teaches about mortal sin at a certain moment in time? This is a valid question, I guess; we have, for example, that old question about people who were eating meat on Fridays in defiance of Church rules before Vatican II and were told that they would go to hell precisely because they were defying the Church.
And then is the question of the balance between one or more sins and an otherwise just life. Suppose that someone was a good Catholic throughout his life, but happened to commit a mortal sin and then suddenly died before having the chance to repent. Would such a case be inconceivable? And if not, then what happens to his/her soul?
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
Yes, there is. Most people have at least a rudimentary feeling of what the basics of it are too.
- Status