Who says we 'choose' Hell?

[JRKH]

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!)

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.)

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.”

If I may offer my perspective…Since I am one of these people who have used this phrase…And I do think I have at least a reasonable command of language…

We all will use certain phrases as a quick response to certain “common” questions. Mostly the idea is not to shut down conversation, but rather to get the other person’s attention and to consider another set of possibilities.
In the case of “People choose hell”, it is most commonly used in response to some accusation about God “sending” people to hell.
By responding to a (often times) quick and direct question with a quick and direct answer, a premise is established for further exploration of the issue.
In fact, the very title of this thread is a reasonable “next question”…
So - we begin with the “slogan” or “sound-bite” statement that summarizes the idea and then we go from there…
It may not be the best approach with every person…but hopefully the conversation develops well and everyone learns something.

Peace
James

 

[Marc_Anthony]

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.”

I think JRKH said it best.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

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!)

I’m glad you’re delighted to see my post. And once again I would say that JRKH’s answer is pretty good.

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.)

The idea here is that if you know that something is wrong and you do it despite knowing that it’s wrong, you are choosing the bad over the good, and God is the good. You’ve decided to do the wrong thing. If you don’t think it’s the wrong thing, it’s not a mortal sin. If it’s not serious enough, it’s not a mortal sin. And when you die you get to do what you really want, good or bad. If you don’t ask forgiveness for doing bad, then you get to continue, because if you don’t regret why force you to stop doing something you don’t want to do? But it will never be fulfilling, and done forever it is torture, especially when you realize that lost your great chance to do good. Now it’s gone, and you’re stuck.

Are their tortures in Hell? Bitter, evil people aren’t going to treat other bitter, evil people particularly well. Read “The Great Divorce” by C.S. Lewis. Wonderful, wonderful book.

I think you’re mixing concepts when talking about invincible ignorance. Mortal sin, sin that will put you in Hell, requires three conditions: 1) Full knowledge 2) Full Consent of will 3) Grave matter. If ANY one of the three is not present the sin is not mortal, but minor, and it will not land you In Hell.

Invincible ignorance is a different concept. It applies to people who are ignorant of Christ but not through any fault of their own. In fact, though this sounds like a simple statement, it really isn’t. What counts as “through no fault of their own”? Let’s just assume for a moment that Catholicism is true. If you, an atheist, have really investigated the matter but still come to the honest conclusion that Catholicism is not true and atheism really is preferable position to theism, then you may misunderstand the thing that makes Catholicism true, and be ignorant, in a sense, of the real teaching. Of course, this is a complex matter and there is a LOT of debate on whether that would fall under the umbrella. I suggest reading C.S. Lewis’s essay “Man or Rabbit”. Highly enlightening (and short).

 

[saveusfromhell]

If two teams play in a final and post-match there is a gathering organized, in either teams respective clubs rooms. after the final whistle, obviously the victorious team will go back and celebrate through the night, while the losing team will go back to its clubrooms into a totally depressing atmosphere, with its supporters, knowing that this is where they are going why don’t the losing team choose to go and celebrate with the victorious team and celebrate their opponents victory, is it because they know they don’t belong?

 

[Trurl]

We all will use certain phrases as a quick response to certain “common” questions. Mostly the idea is not to shut down conversation, but rather to get the other person’s attention and to consider another set of possibilities.

What is the point to give a response that is imprecise? (I hope that this word in not insulting.) The phrase “choose hell” conjures up a mental image that the person stands in front of two doors, one leads to heaven, the other leads to hell (both marked accordingly!), and the person contemplates which door to open, and after deliberation he “chooses” the door to hell. That is what “choose” means. It means knowledge, and intent. One knows what the choice entails, and one intends to make that choice.

In the case of “People choose hell”, it is most commonly used in response to some accusation about God “sending” people to hell.

Why is that an “accusation”? How would someone get into hell, except by force? No sane person would bang on the door of hell, and demand admittance to experience eternal torture? Someone must grab that “soul” and drag into that “uncomfortable” place.

It is a catholic doctrine that immediately upon the moment of death, the final judgment occurs and there is no “appeal”, there is no “second chance”. Maybe it is God’s bosom-buddy (Satan, which whom God likes to make a friendly bet over the fate of some unsuspecting human… does the name of Job ring a bell?) who sends his little demons to execute the sentence… and drag the person into the eternal fire.

By responding to a (often times) quick and direct question with a quick and direct answer, a premise is established for further exploration of the issue.

What is the point of giving an incorrect answer? It is “improductive” to say the least.

It may not be the best approach with every person…but hopefully the conversation develops well and everyone learns something.

I rather doubt that it is an acceptable approach at all. It certainly tries convey the image that God has nothing to do with the whole process. You could say that the person did something that MUST be punished with eternal torture, and since God is “infinitely just”, he delivers the just sentence. It will be challeneged, but at least no one would accuse YOU of trying to “whitewash” God.

 

[Trurl]

The idea here is that if you know that something is wrong and you do it despite knowing that it’s wrong, you are choosing the bad over the good, and God is the good. You’ve decided to do the wrong thing. If you don’t think it’s the wrong thing, it’s not a mortal sin. If it’s not serious enough, it’s not a mortal sin.

You pointed out the important question: “I do NOT know that it is a wrong thing”. That is the pivotal point.

And when you die you get to do what you really want, good or bad. If you don’t ask forgiveness for doing bad, then you get to continue, because if you don’t regret why force you to stop doing something you don’t want to do? But it will never be fulfilling, and done forever it is torture, especially when you realize that lost your great chance to do good. Now it’s gone, and you’re stuck.

That is not what the catholic doctrine says. When you die, the book is closed, there is no second chance, there is no repentance, there in no more Mr Nice Guy. There is judgment and case closed…

I think you’re mixing concepts when talking about invincible ignorance. Mortal sin, sin that will put you in Hell, requires three conditions: 1) Full knowledge 2) Full Consent of will 3) Grave matter. If ANY one of the three is not present the sin is not mortal, but minor, and it will not land you In Hell.

Well, I have asked these two questions MANY times, and never received an answer. I even asked the apologists and no answer was given. Question #1: What is a “grave matter”? OR Who decides what is a “grave matter”? Question #2: "What constitutes “full knowledge”? At least the full consent of will is unambiguous. But the rest is undefined. Different people consider different matters to be “grave”. And so far I have not seen a coherent definition of “full knowledge”. Some people mumble about some “natural moral law” which is scratched into our “heart”! (The misquote is intentional!) What a joke.

Invincible ignorance is a different concept. It applies to people who are ignorant of Christ but not through any fault of their own. In fact, though this sounds like a simple statement, it really isn’t. What counts as “through no fault of their own”? Let’s just assume for a moment that Catholicism is true. If you, an atheist, have really investigated the matter but still come to the honest conclusion that Catholicism is not true and atheism really is preferable position to theism, then you may misunderstand the thing that makes Catholicism true, and be ignorant, in a sense, of the real teaching. Of course, this is a complex matter and there is a LOT of debate on whether that would fall under the umbrella.

You see that all this is theoretical, without getting down to the dirty details, the specifics. You say it is a “complex” matter. Maybe so. But if something cannot be put into simple, everyday terms, than it should not be a “law”. The letter of the law is what counts, not the intent. I have no special “love” for the lawyers, but all those “whereupon”-s and “wheretofore”-s and such play a very important purpose, remove the ambiguity. One must be aware, crystal clear if an action is according to the law, or not. Otherwise the whol legal process goes downhill.

When one of the supreme court justices was asked about pornography, he replied: “I cannot define it, but I know when I see it”. That is why there should be no anti-porn laws, it cannot be defined, it is all subjective.

 

[JRKH]

What is the point to give a response that is imprecise? (I hope that this word in not insulting.) The phrase “choose hell” conjures up a mental image that the person stands in front of two doors, one leads to heaven, the other leads to hell (both marked accordingly!), and the person contemplates which door to open, and after deliberation he “chooses” the door to hell. That is what “choose” means. It means knowledge, and intent. One knows what the choice entails, and one intends to make that choice.

I certainly agree with your description here…
In fact, I have to say that in a very real sense it proves our point.
The person who has been exposed to the Gospel is aware of the two doors. He is aware of the actions that open one door or the other. The actions he chooses in life determine which door will be open to him at death.
So - Each morning when we wake up, we are faced with these two doors. We are given the keys to open one or the other. Love, faith and hope open one door. Hate rejection and despair open the other.
It is each person’s choice…Pick one.

Now in the Gospel, the image used is not doors but gates, “Enter the narrow Gate”. Also the image of a path, or road is used. The path to hell is wide and many find it. The path to heaven is narrow. This is perhaps a better image than doors…for in setting ourselves on a particular path, we choose the destination. The path of Love and faith goes to heaven, the path of Hate and rejection goes to hell…
Each path is clearly marked…
Does a person choose their path or not?

Peace
James

 

[Trurl]

The person who has been exposed to the Gospel is aware of the two doors.

You see, my friend, I have been exposed, and I am not aware of those doors (or gates or paths). I used to be a believer for about 2 short decades of my live, but not for the last 4+ decades. I am only aware that life is short, it will end, and then all that will be left of me is memories in the mind of some people whose life I have touched. And then they will die, and I might “survive” as a picture in the family album - as long as that album survives. That is it. I am not sad or depressed because of this outcome. To be honest, I would prefer to live much, much longer. To see what the world will be in a few hundred or thousand years - but only if I could retain my physical and mental faculties. But that is just wishful thinking.

Each path is clearly marked…

We disagree here. I see no marks, no path. I am unable to choose either one, because I do NOT see the paths. Only a christian believer can “convince” himself that there is a path, and there is “choice”, and they will NEVER choose the wrong path - knowingly and deliberately. They might make a “mistake” - after all “sin is missing the mark!”, but mistakes are at most momentary “lapses”.

 

[JRKH]

You see, my friend, I have been exposed, and I am not aware of those doors (or gates or paths). I used to be a believer for about 2 short decades of my live, but not for the last 4+ decades.

Having been exposed, you must be aware. You can decline to accept, but that is not the same thing as being unaware.

I am only aware that life is short, it will end, and then all that will be left of me is memories in the mind of some people whose life I have touched. And then they will die, and I might “survive” as a picture in the family album - as long as that album survives.

And that my friend is your faith. Accepted with just as much fervor and just as little “evidence” as our own.

That is it. I am not sad or depressed because of this outcome. To be honest, I would prefer to live much, much longer. To see what the world will be in a few hundred or thousand years - but only if I could retain my physical and mental faculties. But that is just wishful thinking.

And this is where you and I differ…I fully expect to live forever…I expect that you will too…

We disagree here. I see no marks, no path. I am unable to choose either one, because I do NOT see the paths. Only a christian believer can “convince” himself that there is a path, and there is “choice”, and they will NEVER choose the wrong path - knowingly and deliberately. They might make a “mistake” - after all “sin is missing the mark!”, but mistakes are at most momentary “lapses”.

Well I would say that this is not limited to Christian believers. But yes - we who are believers strive not to choose the wrong path. We also try to hep others see the light of the path of Love and faith in God.

If we are wrong…we’ve lost nothing…but of course we aren’t wrong…

Peace
James

 

[wanabesaint]

Have to admit, their are some sharp and knowledgable people here, and thanks to them.
and yes the New Liberalized faith is definitely flourishing, devoid of exposure to what was said often by Saints, who were Saints in the sense of events that science will never be able to explain, but Faith in the One True Gods uncomprehendable to Man does.
and, also interjecting their was once a Great Native American Indian Chief, and he scolded the Christian faiths because, The argued over who had the right God, to which he said they never argued over that, they called it the Great Spirit.

Humans Choose Hell in their mere arguing over religion.
If one taught a child to molest other children, they would be choosing Hell…
If one was engaged in the Sacrament of Marriage, and commited adultry, would they not be choosing Hell?
If one enticed a women into Premarital sex, would they not be chooosing Hell?

You people might as well be arguing over if All Dogs go to Heaven, it would be about as wise…

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Having been exposed, you must be aware. You can decline to accept, but that is not the same thing as being unaware.

Being told isn’t quite the same as being aware. If we lived in a world where there could be no differences between what is said and what occurs then I would agree with you. But we don’t. And even a well meaning person can give information that doesn’t match what has happened or will happen.

I’ve been told that a service person will arrive at my house by 10:00 with the person not showing up at all, or that my flight would leave by one hour before there was a decision to push the flight off 45 minutes earlier. See the potential for difference?

 

[Robertanthony]

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!)

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”.

Using “baloney” in that sense isn’t disrespectful, but calling Satan “God’s bosom buddy” is. You make it way too complicated. No one has a hard and fast assurance of salvation, someone can be reasonably assured that they’re going to Heaven. The criminal analogy has its merit, I think: I’m sure a % of those who are damned knew what they were doing wasn’t pleasing to God (regardless of its illegality in society), they thought they could sin and evade the consequences by performing good deeds, thinking God is so good and loving he can’t condemn anyone to Hell, thinking they would repent later on or on their death-bed (sin of presumption). Nobody choose Hell per se, they make decisions that show a desire to not submit to God, perhaps they consciously want nothing to do with God and say arrogantly, “Who is God?”, by their acts they have separated from God and if they die without having seriously turned away from those decisions (AKA repent) then God will simply seal their decision and effectively “send” these people to spend eternity apart from him. Much like a judge who sends a criminal to prison because he/she has committed a crime, the commission of which sends you, under most circumstances, to jail.

PLease consider Pascal’ s wager. I assume you’re well into your 60’s, what does it cost you to go to Church weekly and on other days of obligation, go to Confession once a month, avoid all sins but especially potentially mortal ones, perhaps throw in a daily recitaion of a Rosary Mystery for good measure, are all these things a price too heavy to pay for an eternity of joy and bliss in the presence of God? Arguing endlessly on whether God does send people or people send themselves is a moot point in the final analysis, because **the outcome is the same **(utter pain and misery for eternity) if someone ends up in Hell, it is sadly a final destination in the most absolute sense.

 

[Trurl]

Having been exposed, you must be aware. You can decline to accept, but that is not the same thing as being unaware.

Not really. I am only aware that SOME people hold this opinion. I am not aware that their opinion corresponds to reality. This is an excellent example of showing one of the stumbling blocks in the conversations. Knowing other people’s opinion is not the same than “knowing” that those opinions are correct. People can be genuinely mistaken, even billions of them can hold incorrrect opinions.

Other people used to say that if one is aware of what the church teaches about sexual matters, then one is not in the position to assert ignorance that - for example - non-procreative sex is evil - after all he HAS BEEN TOLD! Having been told is a completely different matter than “knowing” something. How many times was I forced to show this distinction, and it still raises its “ugly head”.

And that my friend is your faith. Accepted with just as much fervor and just as little “evidence” as our own.

Oh, that “pesky” evidence. Another very interesting subject, for sure. My “evidence” against the “resurrection” (for example) is that we are aware of the laws of physics, those laws have been verifed innumerable times, and never have we witnessed a reversal of entropy. Never have we seen even one vase junping up from the floor and re-assemble itself - and that would be much simpler than having a body’s decomposition reversed. My “little” evidence is all around you, the whole science and technology, which form a coherent unity. An analogy would be: “my evidence is that if you drop a pebble, it will fall down - while your evidence is that (according to some story) there was one instance, thousands of years ago, when one pebble - allegedly - fell up”. So, I rather disagree that our “faiths” are equally well established. Not to mention that to call both positions as “faith” serves only one purpose: to muddy the waters. To call a “reasonable expectation supported by trillions of pieces of evidence” to be the equivalent of “faith” is almost an insult.

 

[Trurl]

The criminal analogy has its merit, I think: I’m sure a % of those who are damned knew what they were doing wasn’t pleasing to God (regardless of its illegality in society), they thought they could sin and evade the consequences by performing good deeds, thinking God is so good and loving he can’t condemn anyone to Hell, thinking they would repent later on or on their death-bed (sin of presumption).

If there are such people (which is a reasonable assumption) then they can only be believers. No atheist can fall into this category. For atheists the concept of “sin” in an empty idea.

Nobody choose Hell per se, they make decisions that show a desire to not submit to God, perhaps they consciously want nothing to do with God and say arrogantly, “Who is God?”, by their acts they have separated from God and if they die without having seriously turned away from those decisions (AKA repent) then God will simply seal their decision and effectively “send” these people to spend eternity apart from him. Much like a judge who sends a criminal to prison because he/she has committed a crime, the commission of which sends you, under most circumstances, to jail.

Again that can apply only to believers. Whatever I do, does not “intend” to separate me from God, after all I do not believe that God exists. How could I wish to “separate” myself from a nonexistent entity? If you say that whether I intend to get separated or not, some actions will separate me from God - even if that was not the intention - then you run into the problem of punishing someone who did not commit an ill-intended act, who is ignorant that such act has certain consequences. And that would be the non-plus-ultra of unjust behavior.

If you read my post above to James, I am sure you will see that I explained the difference between being aware of something and being aware that some people hold a certain opinion.

PLease consider Pascal’ s wager. I assume you’re well into your 60’s, what does it cost you to go to Church weekly and on other days of obligation, go to Confession once a month, avoid all sins but especially potentially mortal ones, perhaps throw in a daily recitaion of a Rosary Mystery for good measure, are all these things a price too heavy to pay for an eternity of joy and bliss in the presence of God? Arguing endlessly on whether God does send people or people send themselves is a moot point in the final analysis, because **the outcome is the same **(utter pain and misery for eternity) if someone ends up in Hell, it is sadly a final destination in the most absolute sense.

Nope, Pascal’s wager is ridiculously incorrect. Moreover, to do what you suggest would be “mockery”. God is supposedly smart enough to see if those motions you suggest are “honest” or simply “hedging one’s bets”.

 

[Michael19682]

Being told isn’t quite the same as being aware. If we lived in a world where there could be no differences between what is said and what occurs then I would agree with you. But we don’t. And even a well meaning person can give information that doesn’t match what has happened or will happen.

I’ve been told that a service person will arrive at my house by 10:00 with the person not showing up at all, or that my flight would leave by one hour before there was a decision to push the flight off 45 minutes earlier. See the potential for difference?

the original misnomer originated from:

The person who has been exposed to the Gospel is aware of the two doors

Both doors exist; but because a door is commonly associated with and valued not for being a door per se but for what is beyond, the confusion results. The gospel shows both doors, and glimpses of what is beyond each. For me, the one doors leads to joy, the other to pain. If a person has never experienced pain, the entire discussion is moot. In the other case, being told is roughly equivalent to being aware – if only you accept the argument of prefigurement.