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

[Nimeniton]

Indeed it is. Unless you want to be like the Detective who says, “What if the butler did it?” and then when pressed as to why he said that responds, “I didn’t say I believed it. I’m just sayin. And I said it for no reason.” :whacky:

That is unfair because I did say it for a reason to demonstrate that Lewis had not considered all the options. Look I understand that the idea of a debate about Jesus’ divinity excites you but it does not interest me. If you set up a new title I am sure someone will take up the challenge of “Is Jesus = to or inferior to the Father” i.e is he or is he not God and then quote John 14:28 and John 10:30. have fun!

 

[Nimeniton]

The points A and B I am referring to are these:

So with reference to your statement that Christ never made the claims attributed to him, going by Scripture He did - both indirectly and directly. Indirectly He made this claim at Caesaria Philipi through Peter and directly to the Samaritan woman at the well. But there are also other allusions to His divinity that He made in scripture.

With regards your point B that Christ is a composite as some has suggested, as I said, these people ignored Christ’s Jewishness. C S Lewis may be addressing a modern audience but any analysis of Christ has to situate Christ within His own milieu. Scripture teaches that He is the fulfilment of Torah so He cannot be seen as a composite figure of several “god like” figures” if that is what you mean by composite.

The error arises when people pluck Jesus out of His Jewish millieu. The New Testament by itself does not make sense if detached from the OT. It has to be read in reference to the Old Testament. The Church Fathers understood scripture this way: the old is revealed in the new, the new is hidden in the old.

I am sorry but I still do not see the connection between the Jewish context and Jesus as a composite figure. I also do not understand what all the fuss is about to what I comsidered was only an aside I was making. Why is it so important to defend C S Lewis’ position that there are only three options?

 

[Nimeniton]

I had a friend who was very New Age and she said to me that Jesus could not have said those things that were attributed to Him in the Bible but how did she know that for a fact? She is almost 2000 years removed from the event and ignorant of the Jewish culture and religion in Jesus time.

As probably we all are

 

[benedictus2]

I am sorry but I still do not see the connection between the Jewish context and Jesus as a composite figure. I also do not understand what all the fuss is about to what I comsidered was only an aside I was making. Why is it so important to defend C S Lewis’ position that there are only three options?

Because the other option is erroneous.

Jesus was a Jew and He claims to fulfill the Torah. If He is the fulfillment of the Torah, then His coming into this world has to be understood in light of Jewish revelation. So Hindus and Buddhists can’t start making up stories trying to make him another enlightened being or guru.

If one does not understand Judaism, one will not understand Jesus. That is why the third option you supplied (the composite) has no merit in light of this fact, unless I completely misunderstand what you mean here by composite.

This is not just to support CS Lewis’ options but also to show the error in this bid by some other religions to claim Jesus as their own and in the process completely corrupt His teachings.

 

[benedictus2]

As probably we all are

Which is true that is why we need to keep going back to history.

 

[benedictus2]

Thanks you for your response PR. There is hope after all!

After years of being involved at multiple levels of engagement within the Methodist, Baptist, and evangelical teachings it became impossible to ignore the message of Jesus is the one way and the only way. As mentioned in prior posts this led to me wondering “what does it mean if Christians’ are right”? And the unfortunate answer I kept returning to was the unfathomable number of people suffering eternally in damnation.

That all depends on what you think we are right about. We are most likely right but your understanding of what we are right about is most likely in error.

Coupled with a creator that would have known this outcome through omniscience, I could not accept this as the ultimate creation of a perfect entity. The ease in which evil people could have deathbed conversions, and the eternity of suffering for good people who just didn’t find the evidence necessary to believe was not reconcilable to me.

Who said that those who sincerely - through no fault of their own - did not come to know Christ will be consigned to the kind of “hell” of your understanding?

I think all this alarm is for no reason brought about by ignorance of corret Christian teaching.

There is something that I would like to stress though. One will have a hard time coming to know God so long as one aims to bring God to heel.

My view of humanity is that we are loving, caring, and at our core imbued with an unlimited capacity for good.

That is only partly true. Evil abounds in this world But also Grace. And Grace is not of man but of God. If there is any good that we find it is because of grace.

While there are certainly exceptions, we as a species are capable of much more love than hate and good than evil.

And boy have we shown the kind of unmitigated evil that we are capable of. Just open the daily paper and it stares you right in the face. The history books tell the same tell. Mind you I am not saying that there is no good but evil is every where and it all stems from the lies. We have bought the lies of the devil in one form or another.

If we are the ultimate image of our creator then I can only hope that I have this concept of hell wrong, because even in our limited capacity as humans we would never create a system designed to punish eternally.

Right now we are not the ultimate image of our creator. That is what salvation is all about though - to shape us into the image of Christ.

And yes you got quite a few concepts wrong. So basically, you’ve been torturing your mind over nothing.

 

[PRmerger]

Already done to Benedictus2. I am not interested in opening up a debate on the divinity of Jesus. The subject is of no interest to me. If you want to please start another title

Well then don’t question his divinity on a Catholic forum.

It’s like going to a cruciverbalist forum and saying, “I think crossword puzzles are boring!” and then when people address your post you respond with, “I have no desire to discuss crossword puzzles.”

 

[DazedConfused]

I think someone (PR?) has already pointed out the rather alarmist tone in the kind of “statistics” you are providing here. The Church has never taught that we can definitely say how many, if there are any people in hell.

One thing that might help is to clarify our concept of hell.

I completely agree that we need to clarify our concept of hell. I understand hell to be eternal pain and suffering and not somewhere anyone would ever choose to go, let alone want to be. Perhaps my understanding of the nature of hell is too extreme, too harsh, and hell is in fact not that bad. I do know a lot of effort is put forth to avoid going to hell, and I can only assume that it is the worse possible outcome when considering an eternal afterlife. I would assert that a desired eternal afterlife would be anything other than hell.

If you end up in heaven or purgatory then you are not in hell. Conversely, if you are not in heaven or purgatory is there another destination besides hell? The alarmist tone is due to the eternal nature of the afterlife and that 5-6 billion people living today, including myself, are not Christians. I realize that after Vatican II some hope for non-Christians getting to heaven was provided for by the Catholic Church. This interests me very much, as does PR’s assertion that non-Christians can also get to purgatory.

Can living my life through good works, loving my neighbor, caring for my family, inquiring about the nature of the universe and our existence get me to heaven or purgatory? OR, can it get me to anywhere other than hell?

 

[PRmerger]

Well i did and still hold by it. Claiming to be God is not the prerogative of the insane.

Well, if you actually are God, then this is true. Otherwise, it is the classic definition of narcissim. It is a* personality disorder.*

There are even people who are willing to back their claims and they are not insane either. Their reasons for believing they are God may not be valid but that is another matter.

Can you provide a name of someone who has a current claim to be God?

 

[DazedConfused]

How do you know what degree of evidence “everyone” has been given?

With an omniscient Creator this is no “will”. There is only the Eternal Now.

To the first point I am positing that anyone in hell did not receive enough evidence. For something that is eternal I would expect that an omniscient creator would overachieve in the evidence providing department. An omniscient being should understand the sliding scale of evidence that different people need to truly believe.

To the second point we simply disagree about the nature of omniscience. My understanding is that omniscience does not limit the ability to perceive time the way we do, and that despite God being in the eternal now, the knowledge is there for all souls if they will enter heaven, purgatory, or hell.

 

[PRmerger]

If one does not understand Judaism, one will not understand Jesus. That is why the third option you supplied (the composite) has no merit in light of this fact, unless I completely misunderstand what you mean here by composite.

Exactly. No 1st century Jew would ever have been stupid enough to misunderstand some itinerant rabbi’s preaching to be saying “I am God” unless he actually said, “I am God”.

As Peter Kreeft says:: "There isn’t another idea a Jew would be less likely to believe. Imagine this: the transcendent God who for millenia had strictly forbidden his chosen people to confuse him with a creature as the pagans did – this Creator-God became a creature, a man – a crucified criminal. Hardly a myth that naturally arises in the Jewish mind."

Now, if Jesus had preached to a bunch of Hindus or Buddhists, “I am God!” he would have been met with a very different, affirming response, no?

Indeed: it is quite crucial to understand the Jewish civilization and Judaic mindset when one analyzes the Incarnation.

 

[PRmerger]

I completely agree that we need to clarify our concept of hell. I understand hell to be eternal pain and suffering and not somewhere anyone would ever choose to go, let alone want to be. Perhaps my understanding of the nature of hell is too extreme, too harsh, and hell is in fact not that bad.

Oh, DC, hell is definitely “that bad”. Do whatever you can to avoid it!

If you end up in heaven or purgatory then you are not in hell. Conversely, if you are not in heaven or purgatory is there another destination besides hell?

No. There is no other choice: heaven or hell.

Can living my life through good works, loving my neighbor, caring for my family, inquiring about the nature of the universe and our existence get me to heaven or purgatory? OR, can it get me to anywhere other than hell?

There is no way into heaven except through Jesus, and through His Body, the Catholic Church.

Strive to enter.

 

[PRmerger]

To the first point I am positing that anyone in hell did not receive enough evidence.

This is an unsupported argument.

And real life, our daily existence, points to the inanity of the above conjecture. For are not real folks, each and every day, choosing a hellish existence, living lives of sin and desperation, despite all the evidence that their choices are leading them into misery and chaos?

Yet they choose it anyway.

 

[PRmerger]

For something that is eternal I would expect that an omniscient creator would overachieve in the evidence providing department.

God gives all of us enough light for those of us who want to find him, but not too much that we would be compelled to belief against our will. He wants us to want to love him, not to be forced to love him!

An omniscient being should understand the sliding scale of evidence that different people need to truly believe.

And what makes you believe that he hasn’t provided this “sliding scale of evidence”?

Have you ever read CS Lewis’ “The Last Battle”? If so, do you remember the dwarves in the stable at the end of the book?

To the second point we simply disagree about the nature of omniscience. My understanding is that omniscience does not limit the ability to perceive time the way we do, and that despite God being in the eternal now, the knowledge is there for all souls if they will enter heaven, purgatory, or hell.

There is nothing contrary to Catholicism in the above statement, DC.

 

[PRmerger]

God gives all of us enough light for those of us who want to find him, but not too much that we would be compelled to belief against our will. He wants us to want to love him, not to be forced to love him!

To follow up on this thought:

Blaise Pascal gave a most excellent argument for why God does not compel us to belief:

“It was not, then, right that He should appear in a manner manifestly divine, and completely capable of convincing all men; but it was also not right that He should come in so hidden a manner that He could not be known by those who should sincerely seek Him. He has willed to make himself quite recognisable by those; and thus, willing to appear openly to those who seek Him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from Him with all their heart, He so regulates the knowledge of Himself that He has given signs of Himself, visible to those who seek Him, and not to those who seek Him not. There is enough light for those who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.”

and this:

“If there were no obscurity, man would not be sensible of his corruption; if there were no light, man would not hope for a remedy. Thus, it is not only fair, but advantageous to us, that** God be partly hidden and partly revealed;** since it is equally dangerous to man to know God without knowing his own wretchedness, and to know his own wretchedness without knowing God.”

 

[DazedConfused]

God gives all of us enough light for those of us who want to find him, but not too much that we would be compelled to belief against our will. He wants us to want to love him, not to be forced to love him!

And what makes you believe that he hasn’t provided this “sliding scale of evidence”

Anyone in hell did not have sufficient evidence or they wouldn’t be there.

I see an ongoing discourse here, among multiple posters, that truly puzzles me. Specifically the continued message that it is a “choice” to go to hell. That somehow a rational, intelligent individual would choose eternal damnation and suffering over any other available alternative is absurd. An eternity of suffering is very different from living “x” years on earth and failing to find adequate evidence.

This thread is testament to the very struggle of why those outside of religion like myself have such difficulty accepting the core message of salvation. I find the discourse very interesting, however I am not sure that we will ever reach consensus. Rather, we are bound to our perspectives and endless philosophical disagreements.

My greatest hope is that it’s as difficult to get into hell as it seems to be to get into heaven.

 

[PRmerger]

Anyone in hell did not have sufficient evidence or they wouldn’t be there.

How do you respond to this, DC: anyone who sins does not have sufficient evidence that it is bad, or else they wouldn’t sin.

Makes no sense in the real word, eh?

It’s like saying: I lost my patience with my children–they were getting on my nerves and I chose to scream at them–I chose to do this, but it’s only because I didn’t have sufficient evidence that it would be a bad thing.

That’s :whacky:, no?

What we know about the human condition is that we know something is wrong, but the other side delights us so, and we choose it anyway.

 

[PRmerger]

Specifically the continued message that it is a “choice” to go to hell. That somehow a rational, intelligent individual would choose eternal damnation and suffering over any other available alternative is absurd.

It *is * indeed absurd.

Yet reality bears out that rational, intelligent individuals choose ALL THE TIME an earthly version of damnation and suffering, each and every time they sin.

 

[benedictus2]

I completely agree that we need to clarify our concept of hell. I understand hell to be eternal pain and suffering and not somewhere anyone would ever choose to go, let alone want to be. Perhaps my understanding of the nature of hell is too extreme, too harsh, and hell is in fact not that bad.

But it will be THAT bad. If that is your destination it will be because you chose it. I read of a man totally addicted to cigarettes. He was in hospital having undergone tracheotomy and he was riddled with cancer including mouth cancer. He couldn’t use his mouth to smoke anymore so he smokes through his nose. I think this is the kind of trajectory that sin has for us. The more we sin the more bound we get that even when given the grace to repent we choose not to. So people in hell choose in the very depths of their being to be there.

Can living my life through good works, loving my neighbor, caring for my family, inquiring about the nature of the universe and our existence get me to heaven or purgatory? OR, can it get me to anywhere other than hell?

Jesus said that “what soever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do to me. Now enter in the Kingdom.”

So what’s the catch? Without proper grounding in Christ, even the good can become an obstacle to salvation because we can idolize these “goods” and see them as ends in themselves. Caring for one’s family can become an obsession - we have seen the Mafia.

Truth must inform all these “nice” works because without truth - evils such as abortion and euthanasia can be twisted to seem like “good works” and “loving my neighbour”. Adultery could go in the same category.

Those who are truly ignorant will be judged accordingly. There is however a tendency to rationalize and then claim ignorance. The Spirit is always at work bringing light but the devil is equally at work to confuse. I think the Spirit’s work is stronger so our rationalization of our sins (and our rationalization to avoid having to believe in Christ) is a choice we have made despite the grace that the Holy Spirit brings.

For some it is no longer a case of not knowing, rather it is a refusal to know because acknowleging the knowledge will mean changing.

 

[Nimeniton]

Well then don’t question his divinity on a Catholic forum.

It’s like going to a cruciverbalist forum and saying, “I think crossword puzzles are boring!” and then when people address your post you respond with, “I have no desire to discuss crossword puzzles.”

I was not questioning Jesus divinity on a Catholic forum, I was questioning Lewis’s logic. I am beginning to get irritated by all these accusations which you do not even back up with quotes. As you know I am an atheist. Therefore the question of Jesus’ divinity is of no interest to me. That is an issue for Christians. And why should I be drawn into a debate on the matter if only to be accused of questioning Jesus’ divinity on a Catholic forum. It feels like “I am damned if I do and I am damned if I do not”. I don’t think you are playing fair and feel very disappointed in the way you are pursuing this discussion. I would have thought better of you.

May I re-iterate , hopefully, for the last time. I was only questioning Lewis’ logic!