Why couldn’t God obliterate hell

[John121]

I would ask you kindly as a person who has seen Visions of Hell to understand that there are things I don’t agree with God I fundamentally don’t agree with Hell because I either lack the knowledge God has or even if I had his knowledge would still not agree with that level of torture.

You must respect those that can enforce such punishments on your soul it is not worth thousands of years if not millions of years of pain over disagreements such as words.

The trinity is the superior power in the universe and I would say existence to a certain degree.

There are things that are not spoken of in this world because if people new they would not live from such fright of there existence unfortunately because of the lack of evidence of these things due to there secrecy people are in more danger of experiencing them !

 

[meltzerboy2]

So ultimately, it seems that what you would like is, instead of a faith-based belief system of religion, a full-blown knowledge system of G-d and His requirements based on empirical evidence. Is that correct? If so, what would happen to faith and hope and prayer and free will and a myriad of other things that are part of most religions? Are these things unworthy, in your view, because they are below the absolute level of certainty? And, by the way, what is certainty in the secular realm, since our knowledge does seem to change from one generation to the next and does appear to differ based on our cultural and personal experiences? Should we then be eternal skeptics of just about everything, given we cannot know anything for certain, even that our own reason is programmed to function efficiently?

 

[CRV]

When we are hungry, God does not give us food,

Really? Who do you think creates or brings into existence our food?

when we are sick, God does not heal us,

Really? Who do you think gives people the desire in their heart to heal others, to study and want to be doctors, nurses etc. Who do you think gave these people the intelligence to study,learn, understand, and apply this knowledge? Who do you think gave scientists the brilliant intellect to research, think outside the box, pursue and find solutions to problems? Who do you think grants the miraculous healings which medical science cannot explain?

when we are sad, God does not comfort us

Really? Who do you think inspires the goodwill of those around us who do try to console us, support us, encourage us. Who gives our friends/families etc the desire to help us, comfort us, help us, share our burdens with us?

Perhaps instead of expecting God to fit into your understanding, perhaps you should ask Him sincerely for the gift of Faith.

 

[AlbMagno]

I understand what you are trying to say obedience and faith in God, but it sounded like you are saying him to believe and follow God out of fear.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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?

Final judgement is not a court setting.

People who die in mortal sin, go immediately to hell.

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

Economist:

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.

Read the story again. God warned them in advance what the consequences would be if they ate the fruit. As in disobeyed what God told them to avoid.

They disobeyed and the consequences took place

 

[John121]

Following God out of fear is ok if you struggle to love him…

Proverbs 9:10
The fear of the lord is the begging of wisdom

 

[goout]

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”.

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.

When you have a problem with good your thinking here will have some validity.
Do you have a problem with good? Is good the fault of God?

The poster is correct. This question is asked non-stop, as if complaining about suffering will alleviate suffering.
Complaining about suffering and blaming the god that you don’t even believe in…(let that sink in)… solves nothing.

 

[goout]

If you take a look around you, it’s plain to see that human beings freely choose relationships. We all say we want love, and we still have divorce.
We all say we want love, and we still have run ins with others, and hate them and have separation. Separation is part of the human condition.

And the atheist says hell is not a real possibility of human freedom.
That’s irrational.

 

[IWantGod]

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”.

I would like to know how hell is not possible. It’s not like we as Christians wouldn’t prefer heaven regardless of our decisions. We are human just like you are.

Hell is a natural by-product of freewill. If we are destined for eternity as a natural end, and If by choice you are incompatible with God, then how can you enjoy the fruits of an eternal heaven?

This idea of hell being an eternal torture chamber, while popular, is not an idea that i agree with and neither is it unquestionable catholic teaching. The idea of hell is often portrayed as an outcome of judgement and so it appears as if we have a God who intentionally condemns, almost out of spite assuming he could have chosen otherwise. But you must understand that God’s nature condemns anything that is not good forever. It is not so much a decision but rather it is the nature of God. And so it is reasonable to argue that any act which is not love is not in heaven; not out of spite but rather because it is impossible.

Absolute goodness is the antithesis of evil, so i ask you, if we as humans cling to evil, how is it possible not go to hell for all eternity?

 

[IWantGod]

If people freely choose to reject God and suffer in hell for it why can’t God just wipe them out of existence end there suffering and obliterate them they have made there decision why must they suffer for it?

The goodness or value of your existence is not conditional on your choices or desires. If your existence is good, then it would not be an act of love to obliterate you from existence, even if you are suffering forever.

I guess God doesn’t agree with existential-euthanasia.

 

[Fauken]

Following God out of fear is ok if you struggle to love him…

Proverbs 9:10
The fear of the lord is the begging of wisdom

“Fear of the Lord” is not literal fear of God. It’s more like “Awe of the Lord”. That is the Catholic understanding of it.

http://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/fear-of-the-lord-the-beginning-of-wisdom

 

[goout]

Following God out of fear is ok if you struggle to love him…

Proverbs 9:10
The fear of the lord is the begging of wisdom

Did you hear about the jail break?
The prison doors flew open and they all just stood there, because the light was so bright and they didn’t know how to act, and the possibilities were unfathomable.

 

[Gorgias]

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”.

Patently false.

The “best theologians and clergy” talk about God’s plan, the Scriptural assertion that He works all things for good for those who believe in Him, and about secondary causation and free will. If all you get out of the answers you’ve heard is “it’s a mystery”, I suspect that this is more your opinion than what you’ve read.

Unfortunately the teaching of the church is irrelevant for those who are independent thinkers

So, wait: the definition of “independent thinker” is “someone who disagrees with everyone else”? Or, is it just an alternate title to dress up the moniker “unbeliever” and make that position seem more noble?

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

If the supernatural world exists, then we live “in” it, as well. Not in the same way that we live “in the natural world”, of course, but nevertheless. And therefore… not meaningless, but highly critical!

If you really lived according to this principle, you would be an excellent target for all the “snake-oil” peddlers.

Non sequitur. “Belief in written sources” does not imply “belief in every written source”. C’mon… you can do better than that, can’t you?

The basic principle is: “without full knowledge there cannot be full responsibility”.

A few thoughts:

• if you want to posit a “basic principle”, then you need to get buy-in on it first. That means that you have to prove that it’s not only reasonable, but also actually correct. If you want to talk about this particular “basic principle”, that might be an interesting discussion. Otherwise, quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
• Let’s see if we can’t find a counter-example to disprove your “basic principle”, shall we? Oh, look! In jurisprudence, we see that this “basic principle” isn’t followed! Ignorantia juris non excusat is a basic legal principle that explicitly contradicts your “basic principal”. So… I guess we can dispense of yours, then?
• In any case, in our current context, what would “full knowledge” look like? If it’s a physical impossibility, then your aphorism dissolves into “no one is responsible for their actions”. Yeah. That works well…

Proverbs 9:10
The fear of the lord is the begging of wisdom

Umm… “beginning”, not “begging”, of wisdom.

 

[IWantGod]

So, wait: the definition of “independent thinker” is “someone who disagrees with everyone else”? Or, is it just an alternate title to dress up the moniker “unbeliever” and make that position seem more noble?

Well done!

 

[tafan2]

So, wait: the definition of “independent thinker” is “someone who disagrees with everyone else”? Or, is it just an alternate title to dress up the moniker “unbeliever” and make that position seem more noble?

These days, no atheist or agnostic person can lay claim to being an independent thinker. They all follow the same here mentality with regards to religious questions. They rarely appear to be sincerely seeking answers. The questions they pose are repetitive and are only posed in a poorly cloaked effort to trap or to proselytize others.

 

[tafan2]

Why not? This is often repeated, but we have all seen people whose pride can seem boundless. Heck, most of us, if we honestly look at our past actions can see times when our pride caused us to refuse any concession at all on a particular matter, when our dislike of an opposing person caused us to dig in our heels beyond reason.

 

[Gorgias]

They all follow the same here mentality with regards to religious questions.

The questions they pose are repetitive and are only posed in a poorly cloaked effort to trap or to proselytize others.

Yep. From the perspective of six-odd years reading and posting at CAF, I’m really dumbfounded that the arguments put forth, and the objections raised and answers given, really are the same old story, over and again. And yet, they’re given with such bravado, as if they were the original thoughts of these posters! (I wonder if they realize that it’s terribly obvious that they’re just copy-and-pasting from a playbook?)

At least Christians have the honesty to admit that our arguments come from our sacred texts…

 

[goout]

Atheism is the flip side of fundamentalism. They both address the same God.
(unfortunately, I have to say that the atheist has the more sane position on the god of fundamentalism).

But the reason these things go in forever circles is that we are not talking about the same God.

 

[tafan2]

To be fair, there are at times threads in the philosophy forum started by Catholics thinking they have an “original argument”, and without exception they seem to be flawed arguments. I do, at times, wish Catholics would spend their time understanding existing arguments than trying to make up new ones.

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

It stands to reason the same themed discussion will receive thematically the same valid and invalid ideas conveyed.
Isn’t each of these discussion based on God revealed God and God’s Ways;
in The Laws of Nature more clearly through Jesus Christ and The Gospel;
with an even more specific that The Holy Spirit guides the custodial chain;
of proper interpretations of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium;
with specific faith & morals Doctrines & Dogmas;
verses;
God and morality are changeable human reasoned societal constructs and mores?
~
Since we are not brought into the womb in a vacuum; our understanding in our particular time; and all of it’s clarifications are based on the generations before us.
~
The Divine Revelation giving a structure of an admittedly difficult to comprehend reality of suffering; with an end result.
Those who claim otherwise, from the reasoned faith (philosophy/theology) handed down to us perspective; give many ideas that we live in an arbitrary futile existence.
How can these type of answers be for an individual’s good or the common good?
~
That being said; it is possible; that someone lacking understanding of Jesus Christ and The Gospel of Life, Salvation, and objective justice for every human person as best we are able in providence and the final conclusion; can by God’s Grace; live for justice for everyone by intent to help one another. For, Jesus Christ did say, that mistakes regarding Him can be forgiven; but blaspheming The Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this life or the next. The does not mean, at all, complacency for prudently planting seeds; or discussions with someone of this view; for Evangelization & manifest justice in providence for the common good require compassionate due diligence for the good of the other.
~
The answer of human kind’s free will decided to let evil causing unearned suffering by God’s Permission must have a Divine Benevolent Reason; and that to bring about Perfect Justice; Jesus Christ, surrounded on all sides with no escape in Providence; for our benefit; & Salvation took all unearned suffering upon Himself is a way to express what we believe. Does it answer all of the ‘whys?’ Certainly not; but since we have a reasoned faith handed down to us; those who just call it myths & fairy tale hope; it seems to me give zero rhyme or reason to evil & unearned suffering. Two of their answers are arbitrary futile happenstance or human reason itself will form a relativistic in morality ‘inclusive’ ‘coexistence’ ‘tolerant’ ‘peaceful’ society more and more. Both, from The Gospel point of view allow for objective disharmony and are complacent for justice for every single human being; but sometimes promote some type of social justice for their agenda.
It seems in this life a person can choose Christ or aspects of chaos; and their free will gives each of them Eternal consequences. Peace.