Why couldn’t God obliterate hell

  • Thread starter Thread starter JonahKane
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A rational being never chooses an irrational act. There are only conflicts within between different interests some we call evil others we call good. Most people are inclined toward what we call them good. The desire for evil, however, could be higher than the desire for good in some people we call them a minority.
 
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.
We need to see the world from point of view of other indivduals who we cal them devils. These individuals have the tendency within toward what we call it evil. This is a part of their nature.
 
Are you talking about the actual fallen angels or people who are called devil’s metaphorically?
 
I’m sorry, but that seems like gibberish to me.
So all acts are rational?

The criteria to judge are based on 'conflict of interest?"

Why are some things called good?
Who chooses?

Sorry but you really are only working on not ‘rational thinking’ but a kind of emotionalism.
 
Again, lots of fuzzy, cloudy statements. What is this tendency toward “evil”?
What makes something ‘evil’?
If a person tends to ‘evil’ does that somehow excuse him or her from choosing what would be an irrational act if the person were instead 'tending to ‘good’?

Who chooses?
When did this view come about?
Who espouses this view?
What are their credentials?
 
The story of fallen beings is not a proper answer to the problem of the existence of evil. Where does the first tendency toward doing evil come from? Was it a part of their nature or someone else influence them? Accepting that God is good and cannot possibly create an evil nature or influence individuals to do evil leads to a contradiction with the existence of evil since God is the creator of everything and He is the first Being.
 
I’m sorry, but that seems like gibberish to me.
It is not gibberish.
So all acts are rational?
Yes, since there is always a want behind an act. That is true even when we want to prove our free will and perform an act that people call it irrational. This want that you want to prove your free will is the source of your decision. So was doing a wrong act is rational when you want to prove your free will? Yes, it is since it is more important to you to show that you are free than commiting a wrong act.
The criteria to judge are based on 'conflict of interest?"
Yes. There is no need for judgment if there is no conflict of interest. We do what we should do after a judgment is made in a situation with a conflict of interest.
Why are some things called good?
Because a good act is in favor of what the nature of the most people dictates.
Who chooses?
The agent with free will.
Sorry but you really are only working on not ‘rational thinking’ but a kind of emotionalism.
I am rationalising wants. Wants are due to emmotions (no emotion no want).
 
Again, lots of fuzzy, cloudy statements. What is this tendency toward “evil”?
A tendency is the result of existing an emotion when you want to do something.
What makes something ‘evil’?
What is against the nature of majority of people.
If a person tends to ‘evil’ does that somehow excuse him or her from choosing what would be an irrational act if the person were instead 'tending to ‘good’?
How a person with tendency or want to do good would do evil? Could you please give an example?
Who chooses?
The free agent.
When did this view come about?
I don’t know if other people have such a view. This is my view anyway since a long time ago.
Who espouses this view?
My view at least.
What are their credentials?
Thier/my reason.
 
I was not making any argument based on fallen angels. I was simply asking for a clarification from you on the meaning of your post. I am still confused.
 
Thank you for your replies. Basically, you have ‘feelings’ which you are trying to present as reasoning. They are yours alone, yet you speak as if they are ‘gospel true’ or accepted by, as you put it, ‘the majority of the people’, when they are nothing of the kind.

But it’s good that you have been upfront and hopefully as you do more studying on this question you will recognize the truth of the Catholic position.
 
STT claim that a certain aspects of his world view is accepted by ‘the majority of people’ does have some causes by making that claim. One of the reasons for our current society problems is the widespread ambivalence of eternal consequences.
There is a recent widespread bias developed over the course of 200 years or more; in academia & other venues against The Biblical world view.
Some of this was purposely grown, but only got it’s power through complacency.
Continued complacency, rather than creative, compassionately, recognizing the dignity & value of the persons effected by always being respectful; never using emotionally charged answers or subtle judgmental remarks. The immense lack of knowing there are eternal consequences, even among those who hold to a kind of presumption & despair do not matter because God is merciful type of belief in The Gospel, only hurts society on every level. We know that Jesus Christ is completely all powerfully merciful; but we should also know, that self belief in one’s own form of piety could be a type of vanity even doing good works for self gratification. Don’t we need to reintroduce more effectively, “By this we can be sure that we have come to know Him: if we keep His commandments.” 1 John 2:3 with a focus on growing in Grace means greater objective virtue revealed in clarity in Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, & Sacred Magisterium; which is how The Holy Spirit guides us to know God’s Ways & how to practice diligently, joyfully, willingly giving greater inner peace & authentic heartfelt concern for others. Strength not to ‘unlearn’ practicing these things by peer pressure in the emotional part of relationships? .
There’s even a type of philosophical/ideological thinking that proposed in holds a Biblical world view; but remakes Jesus Christ as some kind of ‘Christ Consciousness’ and holds their Biblical interpretations extremely flexible & changeable. For example, some secretly or openly hold that Jesus Christ’s Resurrection isn’t literal but resurrected ‘in our hearts.’ Also, they give ‘naturalist’ explanations for The Miracles of Jesus Christ and other Biblical accounts of Signs that God gave.
~
Basically, an extreme bias toward the thinking that God & morality are changeable human reasoned constructs, mores, and norms is widespread and dangerous; even in current realities in the status quo in which we live.
~
One of their main propaganda tools, is the claim that the multicultural Judaeo Christianity; sometimes using the political part of Zionism; but in general that Judaeo Christianity is cultural biased, non inclusive, imperialistic and oppressive of other cultural religions & some of their other facets. They point at the harsh realities of cultural biases on all sides in the history of Evangelization by fallible people as one of their evidences.
(cont…)
 
~(cont…)
One of the saddest things is that this faction, almost ‘oligarchical’ power in the open society nations is almost completely opposed to objective understanding of self-evident inalienable truths given by our Creator/Nature’s God/Laws of Nature; with ill formed philosophical arguments exalting autonomy over objective ethics. The culture of death is extremely pervasive. Every single time ‘moral relativism’ rises; the basic human Spiritual, mental, emotional, & physical needs are used to justify oppression and cultures of death. While this is most easily seen in totalitarian states; it also happens in open societies by a dictatorship of moral relativism; using increased peer pressure to conform or be complacent; along side gradually increased legislation & adjudications to curtail or oppress freedom of religion, moral conscience, direct free speech widely visible in venues of society like media & education of impressionable youth & others toward the relativist agendas.
~
The remedy of the ambivalence of eternal consequence certainly is not ‘hell fire and brimstone’ conveyances. But Jesus Christ Himself was not lacking in conveying it. We do need creative, compassionate Holy Spirit guided ways, that is for sure in the current climate & dispositions. Somehow we need to be reminded.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top