Why did God create me if he knew I would spend an eternity in hell?

[Qoeleth]

Many…cannot find rest in creation with the idea of hell. I’m included in the many. I choose non existence in potencial bliss with any understanding of an eternal torture chamber. It is a ridiculous notion born out of the same mind which burned people at the steak for no good reason. Hardly God like.

There is no demand in salvation to precisly believe a hell exists. Jesus never even uttered the word hell in the bible. Only once and its unclear , as examined by the experts. Hell is referred to the on going life bereft of living in a proper manner… Its hell.The cross which we all carry is much lighter than the cross of physical progress in aversion to priority …good will.

.

Actually, Jesus talks about hell quite a lot, especially in the Gospel of Matthew. You will find more references to hell (eternal punishment) in that Gospel than the rest of the Bible combined. Check it out.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Actually, Jesus talks about hell quite a lot, especially in the Gospel of Matthew. You will find more references to hell (eternal punishment) in that Gospel than the rest of the Bible combined. Check it out.

I’m glad someone made this style of commentary. When Jesus mentions Hell, he is clearly suggesting …“hell on earth , without the life of peace and caring” For example…

Better a man pluck out his eye, than be in hell…something very similar, go ahead and quote if you like…now please pay attention,

If the eye is “not” plucked out, it is not absolute consequence that he or she will …NOT atone
and regret the evil or what have you…not to mention the balance of life , sickness, death and all the moments a person finds self examination.
Now…we know then that the hell Jesus was referring to was clearly NOT this torture chamber that many desire, but the on-going life in anxiety for survival through…what ? FEAR. IN SURVIVAL…social…money ect ect ect.

I’m going to explain something for the last time for a while. Fear of God as we know is the least of all grace’s. Hell discussions are not of too much interest as I have no…need for it.

If hell exists…and a person goes to heaven, tell me what is the difference between eternity and a luscious never ending stuffing of the sense’s on earth, with an Idi Amin, tossing people into a torture chamber as they are born, because in a past life they goofed up…prob for many reasons that the fat ones were never even challeged about…? No difference.

You guys want eternity with dripping blood to act as… demarcation in appreciation. No doubt:

The soul is a thing of measure. It cannot be defiled by virtue of atonement at the last second.

The measure of the soul “proportionately”, is realized after we pass on. Little self worthy measure in sincere pious disposition, charity, good will and so on…little realized afterlife…“proportion”

Now the good part. Comfort in mindless suffering anywhere, or outright indifference to another child of God, under any circumstances which are outside of

…prudent well tempered justice in a charitable tone , for the sole intent in the sanctification of the soul…

              is....    ILL-WILL:thumbsup:

In principal the soul can only be in a specific state

Presence of ill will depreciates measure in the soul. The mind is fussing about the material world playing games with the aspect in conquer out of insecurity. A material way of life.

Yes…hell is of this world…not the next. If the mind dwells in the material it will not be able to recognize itself once the material is without in, our passing on.

It is more logical that one who harbors this ill-will through the torture chamber belief system will
not proportionately comprehend a great deal of self in the after life existence. Reason being, they are of the material and the belief did not draw the depths of Gods Love into their being.

Very little to contribute, the believer in eternal punishment properly looses the bulk of self in the afterlife:thumbsup:

Many Christians want it all…Things are changing…God wants change as that is what God is all about…No…?

What the heck do you guys think growth is…God does nothing but change, where do you think the love comes from anyway…? Pure contained eternal & evolving growth. The love within the Trinity…

Mystery, Mystery,…guess what? its your mystery not mine by a long shot.

I have rushed today and its just as well, these discussions are dwindling …quality in rebut is without.These comments are not directed at anyone specifically. I am fed up with this site and
due to an exciting responsibility, a big event is in motion and will be taking a good week off

 

[benedictus2]

I have another short lunch break so will address the rest of the previous post later.

I intentionally changed to word attribute…as you complained
I used the …GOD IS LOVE…over and over in previous posts so you could NOT wiggle out
of addressing my logical point, you are very aware of this. .

Yes, I do realize that you used “is” but your use of “is” was more in keeping with your use of “attribute”. The explanations that you have given even when you said “God IS love” was an explanation based on an understanding that this is an attribute rather than this is God’s very being.

If I change the wording from limitation to…“circumstance which cannot be” or “without” which means the same thing you will argue.file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Cory/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msoclip1/03/clip_image001.gif

Nope, I will not argue with that because I have already explained that the exclusion is an exclusion in so far as the principle of non-contradiction applies.

You will argue becuase I believe the idea of God in your mind most co-relates of how YOU THINK you would BE…if you were God. Man wants God to be like himself so he can relate …to himself for higher self realization. A pre-historic insecurity.

Far from it. My idea of God is so far from what God I think I would be. So far beyond it. I can’t even begin to grasp what it means to be just pure love in being.

Besides, this is not about my idea of God but whether our approaches are correct.

In your first post you said God is All loving and we need to define what that All loving means.

Whether it is being itself or just an attribute makes a whole lot of difference.

If you regard it as attribute and I see it as essence then obviously it’s hard to continue discussion because we need to start with a common ground.

My post is entirely logical and in keeping with all that we reasonably know. As well let me tell you something…

Not exactly since you are taking an assumption (God is all loving) that you can’t reasonably know. So we are both approaching this from assumptions.

The idea, which for the most part is all we can have on this side of reality is further plausible as it provides hope where there is no hope.

You are then saying that plausibility of this idea derives from this ability to provide hope.

There are so many implications its ridiculous…

Try to provide a consequence in result of offered thinking.

1. A person goes to church, love God and is terribly burned, or tortured over seas for no good reason. The mind cannot avoid idea’s of rejection where your idea of God is concerned.
   Its Sunday…time to go to church…NO WAY. God you say ?..look at me…youv’e GOT to be joking:!

1. Try explaining man shovelling intentionally burned bodys into a pit…or to a father who watchs his children intentionally tossed into an oven…try and tell him YOUR IDEA OF GOD MAKES SENSE…again, NO WAY

But you are muddying the water here. The discussion is not even remotely related to these examples. You’ve sort of jumped around.

I think this is more in line with my conversation with Spock.

You cannot do it. Not a chance. Your stuck with your favorite word…MYSTERY.:a cop out

What has that got to do with our discussion? I was not even talking about mystery.

There are many other extrodinairy understandings , the most of which is the clear approach to God himself without human clutter.

That doesn’t make sense. How can you approach God without human clutter when every person attempting this is human and so therefore has human clutter?

Human clutter, guilt, illogical and contradictory suggestions of God are the reasons why…people are not buying the God idea and getting with a real participation in hope for reason. No Doubt about it. As well many instances of
loss of faith are due to failed understandings

Again, this is not what we are talking about.

If you will keep to the points being discussed it will make for a clearer dialogue.

This is fast becoming like:
Husband: You’ve overdrawn our account with your shopping
Wife: (Crying) You don’t love me anymore. You probably don’t love me anymore that is why you are late for dinner every evening.

 

[benedictus2]

I see the misunderstanding. TO the person, who does not know about the helpers, it does not matter if there is one or more.

Actually it did matter. To the person/child who was fed and educated by an unknown person, the existence of the unknown person mattered because were it not for this person he would not have been fed and educated.The fact of being educated and fed mattered to him.

For the outsider, who knows the extent of the contrubition it matters. But the outsider can experience the extra help.

That is not what the example was all about. If you re-read it you will know what I mean.

It would be nice if there would be some substantiation for this proposition. I give credit to the people around me, I give credit to my parents, etc…

But then again, you are asking for natural substantiation for a supernatural being.

It depends. If the happiness is brought forth by someone, then I thank the responsible party for it. If it is due to some natural causes, then I do not give thanks to anyone.

But this is just the point, one is left in this blackhole of gratitude if one sees that the causes are natural – similar to the existential angst that another poster mentioned in another thread.

Again, if it impacts my life, then I can detect it.

You can detect the effect but not necessarily aware of the cause as I have explained before.
You are happy about the effect (being fed, cared for) but not cognizant of the cause.

Thank you. Typos can be really annoying when they change what one wants to say.

I make far too many of them that I only hope that despite them what I write still makes sense.

What can I say? I am ready to accept God, if and when he chooses to manifest himself. If he does not wish to do it, then it is God’s fault that I cannot experience him.

In a way yes, but assent to God is not entirely due to “experiencing” Him. There was an atheist who described his conversion as “reading his way into the Church”. There is an assent that can be given purely from reason. But I think God does meet us halfway in this.

Give me an example.

Purely from experience, I knew that my ex-boyfriend “loved” me waaaay before we even went out on a date or even before we spoke. But that of course does not classify as “love” in the manner of true love. Then he started doing nice things for me and that sort of confirmed it. He found out my name through a friend and he said that he made my name his screen saver. That was months before we even got to talking.

 

[Spock]

Actually, we aren’t. You may be lucky enough not to have ever experienced, for yourself or in a loved one, mental illness or disorders. People who actively seek pain (cutting, for example). People who do not want happiness. And the number of those with such illness is not small.

Are you trying to say that the mentally disordered people are the actual representation of “human nature”?

So it’s all right for YOU to speak authoritatively about bliss and claim it’s happiness, but it’s not all right for ME to say differently?

I presented my opinion, which is underscored by the way humans understand this word. Should I refer to the dictionaries?

This came out of left field. I said nothing about marriage so I don’t know why you brought it in.

You talked about “fornication” which means “sex outside marriage”.

. .and it is NOT a ‘piece of paper’ anyway.

The “paper” does not add anything to the relationship.

And you base this on. . .your feelings. But I base this on what God has actually said.

I do not deny that I base what I said on my internal conviction, as you said: “feelings”. My feelings are based upon the assumption that God is a loving being, who “values” love over and above everything. You do the same, but you don’t realize that you merely believe that you “know” what God said. There is absolutely no evidence that God actually said anything of the kind.

If God exists, and has given us spoken teaching in Scripture, and has sent the Holy Spirit and established a Church with authority to preach those teachings, and I tell you what those teachings are, how am I being ‘not humble?’

The beginning “IF” is the operating word. But it is not certain that God exists. It is not certain at all that he gave his “will” in the scriptures, it is not certain that he established the Catholic Church and imbued it with absolute authority. These are simply your beliefs (shared with millions of others) but they are still just an assumption. And it is very interesting that not only the non-Catholic Christians do not accept your words, but millions of Catholics doubt and deny some of the “official” teachings of the Church. (Look at the millions of faithful Catholics who practice artifical birth control and accept abortions.)

I would like to hear God’s own commands, issued directly to us. And I have my serious doubts that they would coincide with what we read the Bible, or what is being taught by the Church. Let’s ask God to come down, and decide this problem for us.

 

[Spock]

But then again, you are asking for natural substantiation for a supernatural being.

Of course I do. If a supernatural being interacts with our world, there must be an interface. In that interface we can “catch” the supernatural being. I still do not believe in magic. I do not believe that there is a causative agent, who simply “wills” - “let there be light, and there was light”.

But this is just the point, one is left in this blackhole of gratitude if one sees that the causes are natural.

I don’t think it is a black hole. I give credit where credit is due.

Purely from experience, I knew that my ex-boyfriend “loved” me waaaay before we even went out on a date or even before we spoke.

You saw his behavior, didn’t you? There are other forms of communication apart from the verbal one. We are well attuned to pick up the signs of a smile, of a tender look. So I don’t think your example works.

 

[benedictus2]

Of course I do. If a supernatural being interacts with our world, there must be an interface. In that interface we can “catch” the supernatural being. I still do not believe in magic. I do not believe that there is a causative agent, who simply “wills” - “let there be light, and there was light”.

But we are not talking about the mode of interaction between the Supernatural being and the natural being. You were asking for proof of the existence of this Supernatural being, and you are saying that this needs to be a natural proof.
As regards interface. The interface between the supernatural and the natural has to be a supernatural aspect of the natural (i.e. soul of man). The soul can then be said to be the interface.

I don’t think it is a black hole. I give credit where credit is due.

Perhaps so. But since your claim that “there is no God” cannot be proved, it admits a possibility that there is. And if there is, then you are not giving credit where credit is due.

You saw his behavior, didn’t you? There are other forms of communication apart from the verbal one. We are well attuned to pick up the signs of a smile, of a tender look. So I don’t think your example works.

Not quite since it preceded smile, tender look or behaviour. It was like, just a recognition of his soul. I don’t know how else to explain it. So I suppose it boils down to experience again, which is subjective.

 

[benedictus2]

The inability in Gods association with negativism would not be a limitation but a foreign matter of the material, relative toThe Trinity

To know and understand negativism, is to fully experience consequence as well…“motive”

Only according to your definition of nagetavism. You are limiting knowledge of the negative only to that where the consequence is experienced.

But that is not workable because we can know the negative/evil without experiencing its consequence.

You are putting a limitation that is not reasonable.

Knowledge is not and cannot be limited to experience.

Dis-allowing God to experience motive in negativity, adequately demonstrates that God is not all knowing in area’s bereft of the Love within The Trinity, as we understand.

Only because of the limitations you have put on what knowing the negative means.

Gods all knowing is certain to be, only within the love attribute of our… All Loving God.

Of evil or anti creation momentum, individual dis-order … all God knows is the need for his love.

Firstly, we do not say that evil is the absence of love, but the absence of good. We do not even say that it is the absence of the Sum of All Goodness.
Absence of love is not the same as absence of good.

Otherwise, we are asking God to relate , with understanding through experience, a vacancy of the required God Love.

No, we are saying that since God created us, He knows that a turning away from Him is detrimental to our happiness. God does not need to experience our unhappiness to know that we are unhappy.

In the similar manner that one does not need to be a drug addict to know that the drug addict is in a terrible mess.

However, in Christian theology, God did do that by becoming one of us.

How then can God know, what it is like to be without God as he is God?

But who is saying that evil is to be without God?
Evil is the absence of good. It is not being without God.

Therefore God is not all knowing in area’s which are not …within the understood composition of what …The Trinity Is.

Only if you are proposing that there are areas that are not within the purview of the Trinity. You see you have imposed unreasonable limitations on God, you have sort of boxed God when you cannot do that since being God, He cannot be boxed.

You have limited him by terminology and proceeded to make your case from this wrong premise.

Re last paragraph in your post:
Genuine Human Love is always true. However it can only be given or received in ability and comprehension of understood expectations. Confusions arise out of stability. ( fear, poor upbringing, possible addictions, general expectations ect) It is the human love which is obviously relative.

I agree

Therefore our “perception” of Gods loving attribute is relative. If this is so, which is hard to argue, the active participation in Gods love, is subject to only partial truth . God’s love could not be 100% acknowledged. Thus the virtue humility.

That makes sense. But that is completely different to what you said before since you wrote that it is God’s love that is relative, not our perception of it.

And of course our perception of God’s love is relative for the simple fact that it is perception hence subjective and therefore relative.

Since we know we are subject to human negativism through motive in experience, our perception of …“God knowing our motives by experience” suggests that God was in fact a human being and not God.

Again, that is only true because of the limitations you have imposed about on what this knowing of negativism encompasses.

Take that away and everything changes.

 

[benedictus2]

I’m glad someone made this style of commentary. When Jesus mentions Hell, he is clearly suggesting …“hell on earth , without the life of peace and caring” For example…

Actually that is not correct.

Refer to Matthew 13:42, Matthew 25:41

Better a man pluck out his eye, than be in hell…something very similar, go ahead and quote if you like…now please pay attention,

If the eye is “not” plucked out, it is not absolute consequence that he or she will …NOT atone and regret the evil or what have you.

That is a misrepresentation of Mark 9. You cannot get that kind of exegesis from the text. The plucking is not about atoning but rather taking out of the cause of the sin.

.not to mention the balance of life , sickness, death and all the moments a person finds self examination.

You cannot get that from the text either. You are reading something into the text rather than allowing it to speak for itself.

Now…we know then that the hell Jesus was referring to was clearly NOT this torture chamber that many desire,

Exactly how do we KNOW that? And why do you say that many desire it to be a torture chamber

but the on-going life in anxiety for survival through…what ? FEAR. IN SURVIVAL…social…money ect ect ect.

Again, there is nothing to support that kind of reading of the text. As a rule, when one is making an exegesis on a text, it has to be based on the text.

 

[benedictus2]

I’m going to explain something for the last time for a while. Fear of God as we know is the least of all grace’s.

Only if you misinterpret what it means.

Hell discussions are not of too much interest as I have no…need for it.

So you discuss only things that you have a need for?

If hell exists…and a person goes to heaven, tell me what is the difference between eternity and a luscious never ending stuffing of the sense’s on earth, with an Idi Amin, tossing people into a torture chamber as they are born, because in a past life they goofed up…prob for many reasons that the fat ones were never even challeged about…? No difference.

Because you clearly have a wrong understanding of hell and how one ends up in it.
Here’s a link to clarify that.

youtube.com/watch?v=x8zhnooySk4

You guys want eternity with dripping blood to act as… demarcation in appreciation. No doubt:

Why do you say that and can you prove it? Please don’t add unnecessary unfounded, comments which does not in anyway help the discussion. Your post started of reasoned and is degenerating into a rant.

The soul is a thing of measure.

What, how and why?

It cannot be defiled by virtue of atonement at the last second.

If “atonement at the last second” counts, then why would a soul need atonement at the last second if it is not defiled? What is there to atone for?

The measure of the soul “proportionately”, is realized after we pass on. Little self worthy measure in sincere pious disposition, charity, good will and so on…little realized afterlife…“proportion”

Whatever does that mean " the measure of a soul? Do you think God measures our soul, is that how you conceive eternity?

Now the good part. Comfort in mindless suffering anywhere, or outright indifference to another child of God, under any circumstances which are outside of
…prudent well tempered justice in a charitable tone , for the sole intent in the sanctification of the soul… is… ILL-WILL:thumbsup:

And that makes absolutely no sense. Maybe if you reduce your use of ellipsis and too many breaks, it will make more sense. But I copied and did that to this section but still the sense eludes me.

In principal the soul can only be in a specific state

Okay?

Presence of ill will depreciates measure in the soul. The mind is fussing about the material world playing games with the aspect in conquer out of insecurity. A material way of life.

You have a very strange way of viewing the soul. Depreciates measure?

I don’t know perhaps you are trying to be poetic but logical debate and poetry just does not seem to mesh well.

Yes…hell is of this world…not the next. If the mind dwells in the material it will not be able to recognize itself once the material is without in, our passing on.

There is pain in this world, but this does not constitute hell for the simple reason that we deem hell as eternal.

It is more logical that one who harbors this ill-will through the torture chamber belief system will not proportionately comprehend a great deal of self in the after life existence. Reason being, they are of the material and the belief did not draw the depths of Gods Love into their being.

Why would you think that to propose hell is to harbour ill will? That does not make sense.

Very little to contribute, the believer in eternal punishment properly looses the bulk of self in the afterlife:thumbsup:

How so?

Many Christians want it all…Things are changing…God wants change as that is what God is all about…No…?

And how do you know this for a fact? Did He tell you? What sort of change has he told you?

What the heck do you guys think growth is…

Maybe you can enlighten us

God does nothing but change,

And you know this how?

where do you think the love comes from anyway…? Pure contained eternal & evolving growth.

And upon what do you base this conclusion?

The love within the Trinity…

And can you explain how the love within the Trinity is pure, contained eternal & evolving growth.

From where I am sitting, that smacks of a lot of New Age ideas that to my mind is just total nonsense.

Mystery, Mystery,…guess what? its your mystery not mine by a long shot.

It is also a mystery to you. You have attempted to unravel the mystery above but all you have come up with is (to my mind) …hogwash. It sounds like a piddly little brain thinking it is big enough to fathom the the breadth, height, width, and fullness of God. It is never wise to attempt to fit the ocean into a 9 Litre bucket.

I have rushed today and its just as well, these discussions are dwindling …quality in rebut is without.

Sorry to say this but you have contributed to that dwindling. As I have said before… you started off rational and ended up ranting.

Focus. You need to keep focused and stick to the issues.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Are you trying to say that the mentally disordered people are the actual representation of “human nature”?
Are YOU trying to say that those people with mental disorders (which according to NAMI is as high as 20% of the population at a given time) aren’t human? Are ‘lesser’ humans? What about people with physical disorders? Are they less?

I presented my opinion, which is underscored by the way humans understand this word. Should I refer to the dictionaries?

You talked about “fornication” which means “sex outside marriage”.

The “paper” does not add anything to the relationship. And your ‘proof’ of this? (As an aside, are you my age --54–or maybe 10 years or so older, because, frankly, my older sister the former hippie and her friends in the 1960s used to ‘say’ this all the time as they bounced from relationship to relationship in the commune. . .until they were ‘left’ by the partner and had some kind of need and found out how hard it was to get somebody to pay child support --or how hard it was to get visitation rights–or alimony–WITHOUT that ‘piece of paper’. As an aside, every one of them eventually married, at some point, with ceremonies and in some cases with great pomp!–so it’s amazing that they decided after all that the piece of paper was necessary and worthwhile)

I do not deny that I base what I said on my internal conviction, as you said: “feelings”. My feelings are based upon the assumption that God is a loving being, who “values” love over and above everything. You do the same, but you don’t realize that you merely believe that you “know” what God said. There is absolutely no evidence that God actually said anything of the kind. Because you do not accept the written evidence, the oral evidence, or the continued evidence of the Holy Spirit guiding the Catholic Church. However, since one of us is claiming something that is absolutely contradictory to the other, one of us must be wrong. You have just your own limited, human, fallible self to rely on. I have an entire Church with brains as good (and better) than mine who have been studying this for some 2000 years. IOW, I have a whole group of people and a lot of empirical evidence to support me.

The beginning “IF” is the operating word. But it is not certain that God exists. It is not certain at all that he gave his “will” in the scriptures, it is not certain that he established the Catholic Church and imbued it with absolute authority. These are simply your beliefs (shared with millions of others) but they are still just an assumption. And it is very interesting that not only the non-Catholic Christians do not accept your words, but millions of Catholics doubt and deny some of the “official” teachings of the Church. (Look at the millions of faithful Catholics who practice artifical birth control and accept abortions.) Not strange at all. Truth exists whether or not it is accepted by a given individual at a given time.

I would like to hear God’s own commands, issued directly to us. And I have my serious doubts that they would coincide with what we read the Bible, or what is being taught by the Church. Let’s ask God to come down, and decide this problem for us.

Ah. I would recommend you pull out (or access on line) your Bible and open to the Book of Wisdom, chapter 1.

There comes a time, my dear friend, when we have explored and we have pondered all the ‘evidence’. . . and then we come to the paradox (read G. K. Chesterton’s Orthodoxy and The EverLasting Man) that we need to go ‘beyond’ the purely physical and earthly limitations (which include all the ‘evidence’ and all our ‘reason’) and make a leap of faith. Faith is, by definition, what we cannot know for CERTAIN but what we can rationally hope for.

Until you’re ready for that, I hope you will at least keep that possibility open.

 

[Spock]

Are YOU trying to say that those people with mental disorders (which according to NAMI is as high as 20% of the population at a given time) aren’t human? Are ‘lesser’ humans? What about people with physical disorders? Are they less?

Well, I have no idea where that 20% came from. Looking at the number of people in the insane asylums, I would think that the 20% is seriously blown out of proportion (a fraction of one percent is more probable). Yes, I think that clinically insane people are not fully human (though they still should be treated decently) and I also think that people with physical disabilities are fully human.

Because you do not accept the written evidence, the oral evidence, or the continued evidence of the Holy Spirit guiding the Catholic Church.

Exactly. I do not.

However, since one of us is claiming something that is absolutely contradictory to the other, one of us must be wrong.

True.

You have just your own limited, human, fallible self to rely on.

Well, I am not really “alone”. If you would like to play the “numbers game” there are more people who doubt the Church, who do not subscribe to the Bible, than those who do. But I don’t play that game. Let’s just talk about the facts and not how many people believe those facts.

I have an entire Church with brains as good (and better) than mine who have been studying this for some 2000 years. IOW, I have a whole group of people and a lot of empirical evidence to support me.

The numbers game still does not work. It is just an old fallacy (argumentun ad numeram).

There comes a time, my dear friend, when we have explored and we have pondered all the ‘evidence’. . . and then we come to the paradox (read G. K. Chesterton’s Orthodoxy and The EverLasting Man) that we need to go ‘beyond’ the purely physical and earthly limitations (which include all the ‘evidence’ and all our ‘reason’) and make a leap of faith. Faith is, by definition, what we cannot know for CERTAIN but what we can rationally hope for.

Sorry. That does not work for me. Just because I really, really would like something to be true, I cannot bring myself to believe it without that “sordid, down-to-earth” evidence and reason.

Until you’re ready for that, I hope you will at least keep that possibility open.

Oh I am open all right.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, I have no idea where that 20% came from. Looking at the number of people in the insane asylums, I would think that the 20% is seriously blown out of proportion (a fraction of one percent is more probable). Yes, I think that clinically insane people are not fully human (though they still should be treated decently) and I also think that people with physical disabilities are fully human.

Ah. Well, I can direct you to the NAMI website (National Alliance for the Mentally Ill). You see, mental illness is not limited to people in 'insane asylums. Mental disorders include things like depression, anxiety, phobias, panic attacks, neuroses and psychoses. They include things like PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder). Now, a person can have an episode of clinical depression and with a combination of perhaps medication and therapy, that depression can lift. And the person may never suffer another clinical depression again. Or. . .he may.

A person may develop a phobia or fear, perhaps of flying in a plane. . .again, with behavioral therapy and meditation and relaxation techniques may conquer that phobia. Or. . .it may be much harder to eradicate.

I’m actually kind of surprised that a poster of your intelligence assumed ‘mental illness’ meant only some kind of ravening, ‘fraction of a percent’ cliched lunatic. However, I do work in the medical field though I’m obviously no doctor! and perhaps more people in that field are more aware than the average ‘man on the street’ of what mental illness is and how pervasive its effects are. For while 20% is a pretty fair estimate for a the percentage of people who will suffer at mental illness AT SOME POINT IN THEIR LIVES (and that goes up to and includes such senile dementia as Alzheimers’), you have to factor in that all these people have family and friends and coworkers etc. whose lives will be affected by that person’s illness. And not necessarily all in a bad way, either. Becoming more aware that mental illness is NOT some kind of horrid stigma helps a person to be much more caring and competent in helping those with such illness, and their families and friends too.

And even those ‘monsters’. . .that fraction. . .are still human, Spock.

Exactly. I do not.
And I. . .do. I hope some day you will too.

True.

Well, I am not really “alone”. If you would like to play the “numbers game” there are more people who doubt the Church, who do not subscribe to the Bible, than those who do. But I don’t play that game. Let’s just talk about the facts and not how many people believe those facts.

The numbers game still does not work. It is just an old fallacy (argumentun ad numeram). I don’t THINK I’m playing the numbers game. What I was saying, probably imperfectly, was that I’m not just gabbling some kind of ‘private revelation’ that I’ve pulled out and am claiming a ‘personal opinion’ as ‘God-given truth.’ Thing is, as I’ve said, Truth stays truth even if everybody in the universe is going around saying it’s a lie. But again, basically I’m saying that I have 2000 years worth of ‘backing’ that I can refer to, to help me make an informed decision; I’m not working ‘in the dark’ or re-inventing the wheel.

Sorry. That does not work for me. Just because I really, really would like something to be true, I cannot bring myself to believe it without that “sordid, down-to-earth” evidence and reason.

Oh I am open all right.

Did you ever check out Wisdom 1?
“Seek the Lord with sincerity of heart, because He is found by those who do not put Him to the test and manifests Himself to those who do not distrust Him. . .”

Ask yourself, “Are you looking for the Lord because if He is Who He is --Lord, Creator, God and Father–He should be adored by you, known by you, loved by you and served by you”. . .or are you looking because you think He ‘ought to’ be making Himself known to YOU?

 

[greylorn]

I understnad your position. Perhaps the Church should keep out of metaphysics, cosmology and ontology. Jesus himself did not seem concerned with such things.

In fact, people like the New Atheists are rejecting Christianity because of its metaphysics and cosmology, but seldom because they reject the ethics of compassion and justice.

I’m surprised— and delighted— to find some intelligent agreement on such an issue. Thank you!

 

[greylorn]

Qoeleth;8019813:

It is implicit in His teaching that God is a loving Father who cares for all His creatures.

That is precisely where they are inconsistent. Why treat others as our brothers and sisters if we have no Father? It works in theory but not in practice if we are to judge by all the injustice and suffering in the world.

Everything the Church chooses to believe is “implicit” somewhere in the Bible. With enough implicitness, there are no reins on dogma.

You are totally missing the point.

 

[Spock]

Did you ever check out Wisdom 1? “Seek the Lord with sincerity of heart, because He is found by those who do not put Him to the test and manifests Himself to those who do not distrust Him. . .”

Before someone can be “put to the test” we need an ironclad, surefire proof that this being exists. I do not trust, nor distrust God. I do not follow nor reject God. I am simply not convinced that God exists.

Ask yourself, “Are you looking for the Lord because if He is Who He is --Lord, Creator, God and Father–He should be adored by you, known by you, loved by you and served by you”. . .or are you looking because you think He ‘ought to’ be making Himself known to YOU?

If God cares about me, then he should manifest his existence to me. If God does not care about me, then why should I care about him? What you said about “adored, loved and served” are all secondary to “known”. Without “knowing” the rest is just a chimera. If God would manifest his existence to me, that would not force me to do the rest (adore, love and serve him). It would be an incentive to look into the matter, and come to a decison if I should love, serve and adore God - not out of fear of course, but rather because God merits love and adoration. The “serving” part is just a joke. If God is self-sufficient, then he needs nothing, and definitiely not a “servant”.

 

[Qoeleth]

Speculation about hell is as difficult as speculation about heaven. But hell is an important image in the Christian imagination. In our hearts, we need to carry this fear, a fear of something worse than death. If we feared nothing worse than death, to continue with life would often seem pointless. Without fear, there is no hope. Since Christians are oriented towards an eternal hope, we need to have the converse, an eternal fear (at the very least, that this hope may not be realised). Whether it is objectively true, “Not even a sage can discover it, although he may claim to know.” (Qo 9:15). But it is true in the sense of being useful, in giving the basis for an ethic and a hope which transcends the here-and-now of personal self-interest.

St. Augustine said “This life, for mortals, is the wrath of God. This world is a small scale hell.”
Schopenhauer also said “The world is hell, and men are one one hand the devils in it, and on the other hand the tormented souls.”

I prefer to think of the world as purgatory, a place in which we pay the price (in suffering and separation from God) for our sins- at a fundamental level “original sin”, i.e. the “sin of existing” (Sartre)

 

[benedictus2]

I understnad your position. Perhaps the Church should keep out of metaphysics, cosmology and ontology. Jesus himself did not seem concerned with such things.

Why? If Jesus is God, and the Catholic Church is about the business of God, then metaphysics, cosmology and ontology concern the Church.

In fact, people like the New Atheists are rejecting Christianity because of its metaphysics and cosmology, but seldom because they reject the ethics of compassion and justice.

And why should the New Atheists whose philosophies are unsound be the basis of what the Church should and should not engage in?

Jesus is not just about justice and compassion. This is where a lot make the errror. Christianity is not about soppy ideas of justice and love. Soppy perspective on justice and compassion, these things one can arrive at without Jesus Christ. The Gospel is the Person of Jesus Christ, it is about the God who became incarnate and as such has much to do with cosmology, methaphysics and ontology.

*“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” *Robert Jastrow - founding director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies

 

[benedictus2]

Everything the Church chooses to believe is “implicit” somewhere in the Bible. With enough implicitness, there are no reins on dogma.

You are totally missing the point.

No, you are missing the point. Why should dogma be reigned? What makes you an authority on which point the line should be drawn?

 

[tonyrey]

Speculation about hell is as difficult as speculation about heaven. But hell is an important image in the Christian imagination. In our hearts, we need to carry this fear, a fear of something worse than death. If we feared nothing worse than death, to continue with life would often seem pointless. Without fear, there is no hope. Since Christians are oriented towards an eternal hope, we need to have the converse, an eternal fear (at the very least, that this hope may not be realised). Whether it is objectively true, “Not even a sage can discover it, although he may claim to know.” (Qo 9:15). But it is true in the sense of being useful, in giving the basis for an ethic and a hope which transcends the here-and-now of personal self-interest.

St. Augustine said “This life, for mortals, is the wrath of God. This world is a small scale hell.”
Schopenhauer also said “The world is hell, and men are one one hand the devils in it, and on the other hand the tormented souls.”

I prefer to think of the world as purgatory, a place in which we pay the price (in suffering and separation from God) for our sins- at a fundamental level “original sin”, i.e. the “sin of existing” (Sartre)

I agree with you - to some extent - because we need not only to fear but to be terrified of ** evil**. The notion that it is merely a human idea paves the way for every atrocity that has ever been committed. That is why Jesus who was motivated by love and compassion for us gave us the stark warning about everlasting hellfire and torment in graphic terms even children can understand. When we choose to be evil we destroy ourselves. We become inhumane and inhuman - and diabolical.

Christianity is based on love and love does not hesitate to present the truth, no matter how harsh and unpleasant. Those who deliberately and wantonly inflict unnecessary suffering on others are often mentally ill but sometimes they are fully responsible for what they have done. They take sheer delight in having others in their power and at their mercy because they become like gods in total control of their little world. Few people reach this stage but when we put ourselves before others we are on the slippery slope to hell. Petty thieves become hardened criminals.

God created us for heaven but our capacity for love is also a capacity for self-love which can become excessive and lead to self-destruction. Moral laws are not human conventions but** truths about personal development** which we ignore at our peril…