Who says we 'choose' Hell?

[Trurl]

Proving the point being made. The unbeliever most make a great leap of faith to discount the evidence.

That alleged “evidence” is not an evidence at all… so no leap of “faith” is required. I need no “leap of faith” to discard the assertion that there is a “seven-headed, fire-breathing magical dragon” in your basement. As long as there is no concrete, PHYSICAL evidence forthcoming, it is just an EMPTY, unsubstantiated assertion. To forestall your next possible argument: “there is nothing, but physical evidence that would be accepted”. Hearsay stories are dime a dozen, and they are irrelevant.

 

[bilop]

That alleged “evidence” is not an evidence at all… so no leap of “faith” is required. I need no “leap of faith” to discard the assertion that there is a “seven-headed, fire-breathing magical dragon” in your basement. As long as there is no concrete, PHYSICAL evidence forthcoming, it is just an EMPTY, unsubstantiated assertion. To forestall your next possible argument: “there is nothing, but physical evidence that would be accepted”. Hearsay stories are dime a dozen, and they are irrelevant.

Something like 70,000 people, including many atheists and skeptics saw the “Miracle of the Sun” at Fatima. Eyewitness accounts were published immediately after.

Many incorruptible Saints’ bodies still exist, go and see them yourselves.

A medical committee has verified dozens of miraculous healings at Lourdes.

You don’t like what the evidence says, so you ignore it.

God is 100% spirit, there CAN’T be physical evidence of his existence. He exists wholely outside the realm of matter, except during the life of Jesus.

God Bless

 

[Giants]

Who says?

The vast majority of mankind intuitively knows and believes God exists. I say it’s up to the 5% who don’t believe to provide evidence the 95% who do.

I mean if 95% of the world says the sky is blue, and someone comes along saying it’s red, I don’t feel any need to prove my position to him.

God Bless

Pretty obvious argumentum ad populum, here. Additionally, the belief in blue sky is a properly basic belief. The belief in God is not. So this is a failed analogy, in any case.

 

[davidv]

That alleged “evidence” is not an evidence at all… so no leap of “faith” is required. I need no “leap of faith” to discard the assertion that there is a “seven-headed, fire-breathing magical dragon” in your basement. As long as there is no concrete, PHYSICAL evidence forthcoming, it is just an EMPTY, unsubstantiated assertion. To forestall your next possible argument: “there is nothing, but physical evidence that would be accepted”. Hearsay stories are dime a dozen, and they are irrelevant.

Thank for proving the point. Ignor the evidence and pretend it doesn’t exist. Quite a leap.

 

[Robertanthony]

an atheist doesn’t need evidence to prove that god doesn’t exist. It is up to us theists to prove that he does.

What qualifies you to determine who has the burden of proof? Capitalize “God” next time, okay? Don’t if you refer to Greek mythology gods.
You putting the burden of proof on believers is a way to try to conveniently avoid exposing the precarity of the building of your limited worldview. The Big Bang was an idea that came from a Catholic Priest, but the complexity of us human beings, the fact that most of us who aren't psychopaths have a built-in sense of right and wrong (morality), the complexity and order found in the universe, the sheer magnitude of the billions of galaxies, if you think seriously that all that can come from a random, spontaneous cosmic explosion that no external agent (God) orchestrated or set in motion or spoke into existence, then you need to share with us naïve believers your ground-breaking, unprecedented explanation. What was in the primordial matter that contained morality, or speech?

 

[JRKH]

I am sure you can foresee the next problem: “even if the very best is not what the other party wishes?”. Should we respect the wishes of the other party, or should we impose what WE consider the best for them?

We cannot impose…but we can choose not to participate. We can explain why and encourage them not to participate in the detrimental behavior.
That is what one does when one truly loves.
And if the other party chooses to continue the detrimental behavior…Then he who loves is saddened by this fact. And even more so because they know there is nothing more that they can do. Except pray…

The bottom line on all of this - since we began by talking about Love being the universal “good” that one will be judged by - is that at Judgement, the one outside of the Church, will be judged by how perfectly they have loved…and they will be judged by perfect Love itself.
That may not be the “party line” for many theologians, but this is something of a grey area and so, after much thought over many years, this is what makes the most sense to this gent.

Peace
James

 

[Robertanthony]

That alleged “evidence” is not an evidence at all… so no leap of “faith” is required. I need no “leap of faith” to discard the assertion that there is a “seven-headed, fire-breathing magical dragon” in your basement. As long as there is no concrete, PHYSICAL evidence forthcoming, it is just an EMPTY, unsubstantiated assertion. To forestall your next possible argument: “there is nothing, but physical evidence that would be accepted”. Hearsay stories are dime a dozen, and they are irrelevant.

You juxtaposing God and a magical dragon doesn’t reinforce your position, it only lessens your credibility as a debater. If you think they are equally plausible, then you’re as much a thinker as I am an elf.

 

[Trurl]

We cannot impose…but we can choose not to participate. We can explain why and encourage them not to participate in the detrimental behavior.
That is what one does when one truly loves.
And if the other party chooses to continue the detrimental behavior…Then he who loves is saddened by this fact. And even more so because they know there is nothing more that they can do. Except pray…

Indeed. We have a pretty decent agreement.

The bottom line on all of this - since we began by talking about Love being the universal “good” that one will be judged by - is that at Judgement, the one outside of the Church, will be judged by how perfectly they have loved…and they will be judged by perfect Love itself.
That may not be the “party line” for many theologians, but this is something of a grey area and so, after much thought over many years, this is what makes the most sense to this gent.

Apart from the disagreement about God being the “perfect Love” I see no more problems. The topic of the thread was “do we choose hell”? And my view has not changed, no, we do not choose hell. If there is a hell (which I don’t believe) then it is a place of eternal punishment and torture. And a “perfect Love” would never impose such a punishment. It would always give another chance. Of course that follows from the secular definition of “love”.

 

[Trurl]

You juxtaposing God and a magical dragon doesn’t reinforce your position, it only lessens your credibility as a debater. If you think they are equally plausible, then you’re as much a thinker as I am an elf.

Obviously you miss the point. To demand to prove the LACK of something is nonsensical (as they demanded: “prove that God does not exist”). One cannot prove a universal negative (except in an axiomatic system). So maybe you DO have nice, pointy ears?

Actually, the dragon is “merely” magical (so it is “NOT logically impossible”), while God has many “self-contradictory and mutually exclusive attributes” (and as such it is logically impossible). And you cannot redefine a logical contradiction into a “mystery”. But that belongs to a different thread.

 

[wanabesaint]

Maybe for those that base all on intellect and not faith, its good to ask, If some one sins against you, and you hold their tresspases against them. Then you have came to sin…

If you forgive them, then you teach to others to forgive and be free of sin.
If you teach revenge then you teach hate to others.

God is all loving, but also a pure state is heaven, nothing impure, as a hard heart/mean spirited goes to heaven.

God hates Hate, and for Hate their is Hell…Living the Seven Deadly sins, that which kills your soul, is Hate that sends you to Hell…Deadly Sins means they kill your Soul…
Go study the seven deadly sins, realize what they bring to you, and then you will understand the reality of, Hell. Especially when you realize by living the seven deadly sins you bring others to hell if you live them and spread them by example.
The seven deadly sins are the intellectual realization of Hell.

For sin is that which erases chairty of the Heart, and the Seven deadly sins erase your charity of heart, towards others. and by your example, you then teach it to others.
God destroyed the people of sodame and gamora, such doesnt please him, and its good to ask if He did so then, why would he not today?

Those that say they Know Jesus, but dont follow the Ten Commandments are liars, and liars go to Hell. Everybody knows that…

 

[JRKH]

Indeed. We have a pretty decent agreement.

Apart from the disagreement about God being the “perfect Love” I see no more problems. The topic of the thread was “do we choose hell”? And my view has not changed, no, we do not choose hell. If there is a hell (which I don’t believe) then it is a place of eternal punishment and torture. And a “perfect Love” would never impose such a punishment. It would always give another chance. Of course that follows from the secular definition of “love”.

Understood my friend.

It has been wonderful talking with you on this.
I believe that, as Jesus said to the rich young man, “you are not far from the kingdom…”
I hope that you will continue to pursue these matters - especially the idea of Love, not as the world defines it, but true deep agape Love… Love willing to lay down it’s life…
Be open to where this idea of universal, self giving Love leads you.
None of us may ever come to the full and correct understanding and application of it in our lives, but with Love at our core…Love that gives and does not require or take, but receives and gives thanks…With Agape at our core…we cannot go too far wrong…

As My Lord said…All of the Law and the Prophets are summed up in two commands (requirements)…Love God and Love neighbor as you love yourself.

I hope to see you someday in heaven.

Peace
James

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Maybe for those that base all on intellect and not faith, its good to ask, If some one sins against you, and you hold their tresspases against them. Then you have came to sin…

What does it mean to “hold their trespasses against them”?

 

[zro_x]

Obviously you miss the point. To demand to prove the LACK of something is nonsensical (as they demanded: “prove that God does not exist”). One cannot prove a universal negative (except in an axiomatic system).

agreed

Actually, the dragon is “merely” magical (so it is “NOT logically impossible”), while God has many “self-contradictory and mutually exclusive attributes” (and as such it is logically impossible). And you cannot redefine a logical contradiction into a “mystery”. But that belongs to a different thread.

Disagree here, but as you say, this is a topic for another thread.

What qualifies you to determine who has the burden of proof? Capitalize “God” next time, okay? Don’t if you refer to Greek mythology gods.

Whoops, sorry.

You putting the burden of proof on believers is a way to try to conveniently avoid exposing the precarity of the building of your limited worldview.

I’m a Catholic! How does accepting the burden of proof help me to cover up my poor worldveiw construction? On the contrary, I’m subjecting it to more rigorous tests.

The Big Bang was an idea that came from a Catholic Priest, but the complexity of us human beings, the fact that most of us who aren’t psychopaths have a built-in sense of right and wrong (morality), the complexity and order found in the universe, the sheer magnitude of the billions of galaxies, if you think seriously that all that can come from a random, spontaneous cosmic explosion that no external agent (God) orchestrated or set in motion or spoke into existence, then you need to share with us naïve believers your ground-breaking, unprecedented explanation. What was in the primordial matter that contained morality, or speech?

Though atheists do have explanations for some of these objections, that would be a subject for another thread. The point I’m trying to make is that they don’t need to have an explanation! You’re point of view seems to be “If science can’t explain it,God must be directly responsible.” If we had been having this conversation thousands of years ago, you might be asking me for explanations of sickness and death, the phases of the moon, or why crops grow better in some years rather than others. What scientist could possibly have immagined the answers at that time?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I think that a lot of the disagreement comes from confusion about what people mean when they say people “choose” Hell. Nobody chooses torture over God, of course. I don’t really think any believers actually meant that. I think what they mean is that if you choose some material thing over God, it’s going to end up being Hell whether you think it will be or not.

Of course, such a statement is controversial in itself and can obviously be disputed, but the concept itself makes more sense than choosing eternal torture over eternal happiness.

 

[shoe]

I believe that God gave His creatures the free-choice of will to choose their eternal destiny; and I think that Joshua 24:15, which says, “But if it seem evil to you to serve the Lord, you have your choice: choose this day that which pleaseth you, whom you would rather serve…but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord,” indicates as much. I think that one of the reasons that God came to earth in the person of Jesus was not only to manifest His love for all mankind but also to persuade them to choose Heaven over hell: “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4).

 

[Robertanthony]

I’m a Catholic! How does accepting the burden of proof help me to cover up my poor worldveiw construction? On the contrary, I’m subjecting it to more rigorous test.

Sorry, i was lead to believe you were an atheist. Nothing wrong with your worldview, then. Depending on the quality of my sleep my reading skills can go from average to abyssal.

 

[zro_x]

Sorry, i was lead to believe you were an atheist. Nothing wrong with your worldview, then. Depending on the quality of my sleep my reading skills can go from average to abyssal.

That’s fine. It could happen to anyone.

 

[Trurl]

Understood my friend.

It has been wonderful talking with you on this.
I believe that, as Jesus said to the rich young man, “you are not far from the kingdom…”
I hope that you will continue to pursue these matters - especially the idea of Love, not as the world defines it, but true deep agape Love… Love willing to lay down it’s life…
Be open to where this idea of universal, self giving Love leads you.
None of us may ever come to the full and correct understanding and application of it in our lives, but with Love at our core…Love that gives and does not require or take, but receives and gives thanks…With Agape at our core…we cannot go too far wrong…

As My Lord said…All of the Law and the Prophets are summed up in two commands (requirements)…Love God and Love neighbor as you love yourself.

I hope to see you someday in heaven.

Peace
James

Thank you very much for both the conversation and your kind words.

 

[Trurl]

I think that a lot of the disagreement comes from confusion about what people mean when they say people “choose” Hell. Nobody chooses torture over God, of course. I don’t really think any believers actually meant that. I think what they mean is that if you choose some material thing over God, it’s going to end up being Hell whether you think it will be or not.

I am simply delighted to see your post. I just wonder if those who use those ill-begotten words (people “choose” hell) are too dumb to understand what they say; or do they have such a poor command of the language, that they do not know any better; or are they so hypocritical that they knowingly distort the language in they attempt to “whitewash” God? (Caveat: this was a qurestion, not a statement!)

Of course, such a statement is controversial in itself and can obviously be disputed, but the concept itself makes more sense than choosing eternal torture over eternal happiness.

Well, the question could and should be explored.

Usually an analogy is offered: “if one decides to jump off from a cliff, AND is aware of the law of gravity, then one actually and volitionally chooses the outcome: a serious injury or death”. That is a good obeservation of the physical world, and a very poor analogy. There are two problems. One: the outcome is a physical effect, and not the result of a judgment. Two, anyone can educate themselves about the laws of gravity, so they will KNOW the outcome.

Sometimes, another analogy is offered: “if one is aware that certain criminal actions carry specific repercussions, AND performs those actions AND is caught, AND is convicted, then “effectively” he “chose” the punishment”. Which is sheer baloney (am I allowed to use “baloney”, or is it “disrespectful”??). First, the outcome is not a physical consequence, it is an artificial, judicial procedure, which might or might not take place. The perpetrator can hope that he will not be discovered, that the jury will acquit him, or the prosecution will “mess up” and so on… there is no physical cause-and-effect chain between the act and the punishment. And it is a punishment, all right, not just an “outcome”.

So neither one of the analogies work. Even if some actions would merit the eternal punishment in hell, we are NOT AWARE of it. True, SOME believers assert it, but they do not speak for God, and they have NO credibility among the non-christians. As such all the non-believers can claim “invincible ignorance”. (Usually this is the point when the upset believers start to derail the thread by challenging why are their words not credible.)

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Nobody chooses torture over God, of course. I don’t really think any believers actually meant that. I think what they mean is that if you choose some material thing over God, it’s going to end up being Hell whether you think it will be or not.

Because of the context in which some believers utter the phrases I think that some do literally mean that a person has chosen eternal torture. But for the sake of discussion let’s say that I am in 100% agreement with you. If they meant differently then wouldn’t it be advantageous to use words that better express their intended meaning? Instead of saying “You are choosing hell over God” why not say “You are taking a risk that could put you in hell” (or something similar). Now that I think about it that type of wording also better describes some of the other example situations that people have introduced to this thread. Such as some one that engages in theft is “taking a risk that could put him in jail” as opposed to “choosing jail.”