Why couldn’t God obliterate hell

[JerryZ]

Well look at what you are proposing. A god that will destroy those who do not conform to his whims.

I hope that you can catch the issue. GOD loves even the Devil but at the same time HE is just. HE will not force anyone to accept HIM. Hence HE separates Himself from those who reject HIM. And the place they have chosen to be in, we call it hell. Hell simply means that GOD has withdrawn HIS presence from there.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Is hell really that simple according to Catholic theology: that is, “G-d has withdrawn His presence from there”? Is there no physical and emotional pain and suffering experienced for eternity by those in hell? Is it not punishment for making the wrong moral choice in exercising one’s free will?

 

[AlbMagno]

Yes, but this pain is the “natural” (or supernatural, better said) consequence of withdrawing from God, as God is pure Love (pure Good Will); so, without it; all you have is hatred, indifference, loneliness, etc. which are the things that “compose” Hell.

 

[Vico]

According to Judaism, G-d may obliterate the souls of the truly wicked. It is not dogmatic in Judaism but one is allowed to believe that. It would be a divine act of mercy.

Some Jews believe there is eternal damnation for some.

Daniel 12:2

2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

 

[steve-b]

edward_george1:

This question, it seems, or some version thereof, gets asked about twice a week on here.

And there has never been a satisfactory answer. Not even remotely satisfactory. The reason is simple: “God’s alleged nature is incompatible with useless, gratuitous suffering”. The suffering in hell (if true) cannot be redemptive, or educational in nature, since it does not end. The only “nature” would be vindictive and punishing - which cannot be compatible with “love”.

From conception, we are immortal. We live forever. Question is, where is forever going to be?

Suffering in hell is true. The one who created us told us that in advance.

Since We don’t live in a consequence free existence…

THEN

THOSE in hell , chose not to Love God on HIS terms. Ergo eternal separation occurs between them and God at judgement…

Economist:

As a matter of fact, if I would be given the honor to have a conversation with God, my first question would refer to the “problem of evil”, and hell is just a subset of that question. But unfortunately such an honor is not granted.

Speaking economically and rationally

God leaves no one out of the economy of grace. As it is said, this is what God desires. (open the link) AND He doesn’t force ANYONE to be saved or to love Him

Now if people ignore this grace, and God’s desire for everyone, based on everyone doing what He says to do, then those who ignore this, is NOT on God, but the person’s choice(s) they make…which have consequences

 

[STT]

No rational being choose Hell.

 

[stpurl]

Do you believe that no human being can ever choose to act irrationally? The fact that a being can possess the capacity to reason does not ensure said being will always act reasonably or rationally.

 

[Economist]

From conception, we are immortal.

Any evidence for that? Because much as I respect your opinion, you need to substantiate your claims.

Nice of you to tell me about your ideas, but they are not rational. And there is no evidence at all. First, why only two choices? Why not three? Or four? Or a million? God - as you depict him is very tightfisted with choices. Then, it is obvious that in this existence we are separated from God. No “beatific” vision, actually no vision at all. No conversation, no information. And this existence is not eternal suffering. Of course it could be much better.

What is that “grace” you speak of? And if God wanted to have everyone saved, why not create everyone directly into that “saved” status?

But your answer did not touch on my question. The suffering in hell cannot be redemptive. It cannot be educational. The only possibility is vengeful, to cause suffering as a punishment. And in my neck of the woods vengeful, gratuitous suffering or punishment cannot be reconciled with “love”.

Do you believe that no human being can ever choose to act irrationally? The fact that a being can possess the capacity to reason does not ensure said being will always act reasonably or rationally.

There are levels of irrationality. Try to take a hot iron, and burn a child (or any animal) with it. Next time they will try to avoid the pain. That is one of the problematic claims about Christianity. We have absolutely no evidence of this afterlife, be it pleasant or painful. And we must “choose” with our eyes closed - so to speak. Why can’t we have a guided tour of these “choices”, so we can know what the choices entail?

 

[Gorgias]

And there has never been a satisfactory answer. Not even remotely satisfactory.

That’s a subjective perspective. You would do as well to be honest about it and simply say, “I don’t like that answer.”

The reason is simple: “God’s alleged nature is incompatible with useless, gratuitous suffering”. The suffering in hell (if true) cannot be redemptive, or educational in nature, since it does not end.

“useless, gratuitous” and “not 'redemptive, educational” are not equivalent. You’re moving the goalposts, whether or not you recognize it. Perhaps your dissatisfaction with the answer begins with your invalid conflation, here.

Since you already sleep 8 hours a day that would mean approximately 26 1/2 years of their 80 year life was spent in wrongdoing. … I think my math explains why people like me don’t believe.

Yes – because your math conflates “eternity” with “temporal duration”. The two aren’t the same, nor can they be compared. As you say, “apples and oranges”.

Also even in human trials, the duration of an evil act does not correspond to the duration of the sentence.

I never thought of it that way. Good point!

Is there no physical and emotional pain and suffering experienced for eternity by those in hell? Is it not punishment for making the wrong moral choice in exercising one’s free will?

The Church teaches that the primary suffering of hell is separation from God.

No rational being choose Hell.

Rational people can make irrational choices. And then bear the consequences of them.

Any evidence for that? Because much as I respect your opinion, you need to substantiate your claims.

Since the claim involves the supernatural, the proof is likewise supernaturally given, and not merely empirical.

Then, it is obvious that in this existence we are separated from God. No “beatific” vision, actually no vision at all. No conversation, no information.

What a myopic, 21st-century perspective! How conditioned it is by modern methods of communication!

Our “conversation” and “information” comes by way of written sources. Prior to the most recent few hundred years, written letters were the way that people who were separated by distance communicated. And yes, that means that they shared information.

The suffering in hell cannot be redemptive. It cannot be educational. The only possibility is vengeful, to cause suffering as a punishment.

Nope, that’s not the only possibility. What about “just consequences”?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

From conception, we are immortal.

Any evidence for that? Because much as I respect your opinion, you need to substantiate your claims.

Nice of you to tell me about your ideas, but they are not rational. And there is no evidence at all. First, why only two choices? Why not three? Or four? Or a million? God - as you depict him is very tightfisted with choices. Then, it is obvious that in this existence we are separated from God. No “beatific” vision, actually no vision at all. No conversation, no information. And this existence is not eternal suffering. Of course it could be much better.

As St Paul responded to why we believe what we believe

1 Corinthians 15:13-23

Without that everything is nonsense.

BTW, lots of eye witnesses to that event.

And you’re free to reject this. Lots of people do. We’ll ALL find out who’s right and who’s wrong in the end

Economist:

What is that “grace” you speak of? And if God wanted to have everyone saved, why not create everyone directly into that “saved” status?

We were. However, going back to our first parents, they blew it. And they couldn’t pass onto to us what THEY lost themselves.

You’re an Economist. When someone loses all they had, can they leave what they lost to their kin?

Economist:

But your answer did not touch on my question. The suffering in hell cannot be redemptive. It cannot be educational. The only possibility is vengeful, to cause suffering as a punishment. And in my neck of the woods vengeful, gratuitous suffering or punishment cannot be reconciled with “love”.

On this side of eternity we have ALL the opportunity via Jesus, to correct our faults here before we die. That ends here. On the other side, it’s too late to be sorry for all the screw ups in this lfe… As an Economist you’d understand that perfectly using purely secular reasoning re: post death of a client etc etc.

 

[Economist]

That’s a subjective perspective.

There has never been a satisfactory explanation for the problem of evil. Otherwise it would be readily available for everyone (especially in the age of information abundance). As a matter of fact, not even the best theologians or the most educated members of the clergy say: “this the explanation for the problem of evil”. They have nothing to say, except maybe it is a “mystery”.

The Church teaches that the primary suffering of hell is separation from God.

Unfortunately the teaching of the church is irrelevant for those who are independent thinkers, and not even all the members of the church accept it. And since in this existence we ARE separated from God, and this existence in not unbearable suffering, the teaching is unacceptable. Not to mention that “hell” was described in many different ways. So not even the church has any idea about the actual nature of hell.

Suffering, which teaches us to “mend our ways”, so we can learn from our errors - can be justified (as long as it is not excessive). That is all. But in hell there is no “extra” opportunity to build on our new knowledge.

Since the claim involves the supernatural, the proof is likewise supernaturally given, and not merely empirical.

We live in the natural world. If the “proof” is not in our realm, it is meaningless.

What a myopic, 21st-century perspective! How conditioned it is by modern methods of communication!

Our “conversation” and “information” comes by way of written sources. Prior to the most recent few hundred years, written letters were the way that people who were separated by distance communicated. And yes, that means that they shared information.

How do you separate the correct information from the incorrect one? Do you trust anyone and everyone? Is it possible that the claimant is incorrect, or malicious? If you really lived according to this principle, you would be an excellent target for all the “snake-oil” peddlers. But I am very sure you do not live according to this principle. So why do you badmouth me for living the same way as you, yourself do? Isn’t that hypocritical?

Nope, that’s not the only possibility. What about “just consequences”?

The basic principle is: “without full knowledge there cannot be full responsibility”. If we do not have full disclosure, no punishment can be “just”. And this principle is also independent from the platform (be it physical or non-physical).

So the correct method would be “full disclosure” of the ways and means of our expected behavior, and then “full disclosure” of the consequences. If all that would be provided, then the consequences would be “just”. (But, of course there is still a fly in the ointment. According to some teaching, there is no way to earn salvation. Not even the best, most pious, humble behavior or prayerful life will “earn” the necessary “brownie points” to get to heaven. “Just” consequences? you say? Hardly. )

 

[Economist]

And you’re free to reject this. Lots of people do. We’ll ALL find out who’s right and who’s wrong in the end

I reject it. And I can hardly wait to see that “end”. I am looking forward to have a conversation with God, after all none of his followers can argue for him.

We were. However, going back to our first parents, they blew it. And they couldn’t pass onto to us what THEY lost themselves.

Sorry, you need to learn your own religion. The first parents did not lose anything. God was the one who cursed the whole creation.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

And you’re free to reject this. Lots of people do. We’ll ALL find out who’s right and who’s wrong in the end

I reject it. And I can hardly wait to see that “end”. I am looking forward to have a conversation with God, after all none of his followers can argue for him.

So did a portion of His own disciples. They argued to His face that they didn’t believe in what He was teaching them. And they walked away. They saw His miracles, saw Him raise people from the dead, and still they left Him. Did He go after them? Nope! He let them go.

If one isn’t going to heaven, I wouldn’t count too much, on having a discussion with God in the next life.

We were. However, going back to our first parents, they blew it. And they couldn’t pass onto to us what THEY lost themselves.

Economist:

Sorry, you need to learn your own religion. The first parents did not lose anything. God was the one who cursed the whole creation.

It was due to the consequences of that first sin… that Adam & Eve committed. They lost sanctifying grace, which they couldn’t regain, and as a result couldn’t pass on what they lost.

 

[AlbMagno]

And since in this existence we ARE separated from God

We are not separated from God. First, if we were, we would all stop existing. Second, those who receive the Sacraments are in union with God, the Baptism makes our bodies Temples of the Holty Spirit, and Communion gives us a 100% union with God, physically and spiritually, like being in Heaven.

Now, we can say that we are not 100% in union with God all the time, and, when we are, our corrupt bodies (Original Sin) don’t (normally) perceive sensory difference. When we are called to God after our dead, we will be in 100% union/communion with God; and when we resurrect in glorified body, we will be fully aware of this union/communion.

Now, you can say that you don’t believe in this, but I am clarifying in what we believe.

 

[Economist]

If one isn’t going to heaven, I wouldn’t count too much, on having a discussion with God in the next life.

What do you mean? No judgment, no chance to present a defense? That is more like a kangaroo court. I would not think that God is like that… do you?

It was due to the consequences of that first sin… that Adam & Eve committed.

I am hesitant to use the expression that comes to mind… so let me just say: "God overreacted " We are not talking about some physical result: “you jump off a high cliff onto a concrete pavement - and therefore you die.” It is much like a parent telling his child: “don’t touch that candy” (instead of removing it from the child’s reach) and when the child disobeys, the parent grabs a cat-o-nine-tails and beats the the child within a hair-width of his death. And then kicks him out of the house?

A real loving parent does not act like: “one strike and you are out. One disobedience and I kick you out.” A real loving parent does not create “traps” just to catch the child in disobedience.

Now, you can say that you don’t believe in this, but I am clarifying in what we believe.

Indeed. I respect what you believe, but that is neither here, nor there. When we are hungry, God does not give us food, when we are sick, God does not heal us, when we are sad, God does not comfort us… to me this is total separation.

The point is that you cannot “exonerate” God. With absolute power and absolute knowledge comes absolute responsibility. Whether God’s will is active or merely permissive, the “buck stops with him”. The excuse of “free will” does not work. If you foresee an event that you do not want to happen, and you have the power to prevent, and you do nothing, but allow it to happen… you still have full responsibility.

 

[Vico]

…
The point is that you cannot “exonerate” God. With absolute power and absolute knowledge comes absolute responsibility. Whether God’s will is active or merely permissive, the “buck stops with him”. The excuse of “free will” does not work. If you foresee an event that you do not want to happen, and you have the power to prevent, and you do nothing, but allow it to happen… you still have full responsibility.

God cannot be exonerated for God is perfect. You give a conditional: “If you foresee an event that you do not want to happen, and you have the power to prevent” – which in this case God has not power to prevent since it is a logical impossibility to allow rational creature to share in the divine nature without proof of charity, which occurs only through demonstration of it through trial involving the free will.

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

What kind of ‘proof’ are you looking for?
We are not born in a vacuum; The Catholic Church teaches that human reason
works with Grace to receive a reasoned faith, not a blind faith.
We believe God revealed God & God’s Ways to fullness through the Theophany of Jesus Christ being fully human and fully Divine. There was a skeptic named Lee Strobel; who set out on a journey to disprove the Resurrection & Miracles. After two years of exhaustive journalistic scholarly techniques; he realized we would not have Christianity without those things. The prevailing view in the 1st Century was the Messiah would come and immediately bring peace to the world; and subjugate The Roman Empire for Israel. A sure sign to most that someone was not The Messiah would be his failure to do so; and death.
Writing was extremely expensive in ancient times. The cost of employing scribes, the ink, the parchment. The secular world hardly cared about this new ‘troublesome’ sect; so not very much was written about it; yet texts survive.
Personally, I asked those difficult questions of how can a completely Benevolent God;
all Powerful, all Knowing, and all Seeing allow so much evil to form such unearned suffering. This is related to science’s ‘hard problem’ of consciousness. And, also, The Ascension. The Bible does offer different descriptions of our plane of existence.
(Science itself strongly theorizes other planes of existence; like Einstein’s description of 90 degrees from everything; and there are others.)
Personally, I thing we are still being created in a living story; The Valley of Decision, Baca (Tears); and Shadow of The Valley of Death. I believe that Jesus Christ entered into this story as the path to live Eternally. I believe that the Divine Revelation shows us that we needed to not only know their is good v. evil; but the effects of free will when not accepting Grace to live by God for inner harmony, self giving charity, to be like God. But it is left up to each person. I believe The First Day isn’t completed that God is showing us the separation of the Light of Christ and Darkness; and that the other days theological happen concurrently. I believe that those who choose Darkness; will not be able to act out after the end of time. That their main torment is that while blaming God; they cannot have pleasure for pleasure’s sake in prestige or anything else; not even masochistic pleasure which relies on having someone to manipulate.
~
I believe that Heaven is a place of having \willingly been conformed to God; it is the funnest place to be; where everyone looks out for everyone else’s good in the manner of God always Present, the source of life, love, peace, joy and everything.
~cont…

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

I believe that since we are in the image and likeness of God; our own nature knows we do not exist for futility in a chaotic happenstance where suffering is arbitrary; especially, since Jesus Christ Literally through The Spirit; took upon Himself all unearned suffering; that there is a rhyme & reason to it. We each according knowledge decide on God; either directly through Jesus Christ (and unless a hypocrite God saves the person.) But also, since Jesus Christ said that someone can be mistaken regarding Him; but if someone blasphemes The Holy Spirit it will not be forgiven in this life or the next; that He can obtain someone’s Salvation by His Merits; but they are still saved by Him.
The Church teaches this, also.
Peace.

 

[John121]

Let me tell you something the angels in heaven love God but most of all they fear God so you might not agree with him but the truth is if you do not listen and do what he says he has created a place so horrible that no horror movie can depict and it’s no wonder that once good fallen angels turned so evil into demons because pain and suffering normally creates more pain and suffering…

The fallen angels try there hardest to destroy humans because they have been tortured and through this pure hatred comes out !

 

[stpurl]

You aren’t answering my question.
Do you believe that no human being can ever choose to act irrationally?

If you don’t, you must offer a proof to bolster your claim, not simply try to complain that Christianity ‘doesn’t answer you’.