Well…eh…unfortunately (nay, fortunately), there is this thing called free will that factors into the equation. Without it, love can’t exist.If I am created by a loving creator, Steve, then there is not a single chance I will go to hell.
Perfect love isn’t conditional, and if God sends people to hell, or even creates or tolreates anything like hell, His love isn’t perfect.
If I am here to be in union with the One who created me, then I will be in union with the One who created me.
For economy’s sake, I shall answer Steve’s post, but what I say here also answers ahs’ and Elisabeth’s objection.Well…eh…unfortunately (nay, fortunately), there is this thing called free will that factors into the equation. Without it, love can’t exist.
His perfect love isn’t conditional; He will certainly love us even if we choose (with that free will) to spend eternity without Him.
He didn’t create Hell. Hell is the absence of Him, a necessary by-product of the creation of free will. As such, He must (and does) “tolerate” it.
When you think of Hell as an earthly physical location (such as an airport security line, the dentist’s chair, the Department of Motor Vehicles, or Bakersfield), then there is logic to your statement. However, the afterlife is a state of either communion or isolation. It’s not about geography. It’s about one’s mental and soul ‘map’ that is the fruit of our life’s works. In fact it is said by some visionaries that what characterizes Hell is the torment of permanent, self-inflicted, earned isolation.if God’s love is indeed perfect and unconditional, there cannot possibly be a place where his love cannot be or isn’t.
if Hell is possible, then Hell is a place where all the people whio did not choose God are happy.in His absence…
Hell is the “place” where God’s love, which burns infinitely radiant, is eternally rejected. It’s not that it doesn’t exist there. It’s that it’s mere presence there is the source of anguish and torment for those who are sealed in their eternal choice to hate Him.It’s really simple: if God’s love is indeed perfect and unconditional, there cannot possibly be a place where his love cannot be or isn’t. So Hell is not a neccesray by-product of the creation of free will.
If God has perfect love, then Hell is impossible.
Interesting. I suppose here you are presuming that God’s love is imperfect, and our happiness is therefore arbitrary. I suppose to many, this would be a wonderful reality. But the truth is that Hell is not a happy place. Why? Because happiness cannot be found without aligning ourselves with the source of it, God. And Hell is that eternal place of aligning ourselves eternally against it. Thus, Joy is not possible.And if Hell is possible, then Hell is a place where all the people whio did not choose God are happy.in His absence.
So, those who choose Him are happy in His presence and those who do not choose Him are happy in His absence.
Ow, but then I don’t have to fear anything. I haven’t chosen isolation.When you think of Hell as an earthly physical location (such as an airport security line, the dentist’s chair, the Department of Motor Vehicles, or Bakersfield), then there is logic to your statement. However, the afterlife is a state of either communion or isolation. It’s not about geography. It’s about one’s mental and soul ‘map’ that is the fruit of our life’s works.In fact it is said by some visionaries that what characterizes Hell is the torment of permanent, self-inflicted, earned isolation.
No, I amprsuming God’s love is perfect. So, if He allows us to choose Hell, He can only do so if Hell is in our bets interest.Originally posted by Steve GC
Interesting. I suppose here you are presuming that God’s love is imperfect, and our happiness is therefore arbitrary. I suppose to many, this would be a wonderful reality. But the truth is that Hell is not a happy place.
Then the pople in Hell don’t want to be there? So they are not there out of teir own free will after all?Why? Because happiness cannot be found without aligning ourselves with the source of it, God. And Hell is that eternal place of aligning ourselves eternally against it. Thus, Joy is not possible.
Anyone who has chosen to reject God, and God’s commands has chosen isolation for his or her afterlife.Ow, but then I don’t have to fear anything. I haven’t chosen isolation.
God is pure love, pure goodness, pure truth. He cannot be associated with evil. Evil cannot exist within God, or be any part of a real relationship with God. Therefore, by choosing evil, and/or choosing to reject God, the person isolates himself. It’s that simple.If God is truly perfectly loving, then it’s impossible to isolte yourself from Him,
Nope. It is not possible to choose happiness apart from God, ultimately, because he is the source of true happiness, the fount of joy. Hell is not a happy place, but a place of self-chosen torment, earned by those who have substituted self-love for love of God and God’s commands.unles it’s actually in you self-interest to isolate yourself from Him. And if that’s the case, Hell is a happy ‘state’ for those who prefer it to Heaven.
If the accused was God, the accused walks away quite justly. The choice is “live” or “die”. The choice that atheists want–namely, “redefine what life requires in order for it to not be death”–is not one of the choices. Frankly, it is infantile to want it to be. You want to live without God? You’d have an easier time living without eating or drinking. Eating and drinking is part of life. God is everything, including the source of the food and drink.Your honour, it’s not my fault that he is dead, I said,“Give me your money or die”, and he didn’t give me his money.
So it was his own choice, wasn’t it?
And the accused walked away a free man.
Steve, Nate, Easterjoy, Elizabeth, ahs and everybody else hereBelorg, you’re an interesting person. I’ve had discourse with quite a few atheists, and you’re the first I’ve come across who actually looks to redefine who God is. Most just try to refute His existence altogether. What I’m guessing is that your re-definition of divine concepts is your way of demonstrating the fallacy of theism?
Unfortunately your logic falls flat, because to refute theism, you have to atleast maintain basic definitions that theists themselves have used from the beginning. Claiming that because God loves perfectly, all will be saved (or atleast ultimately eternally happy) is a non-sequitur. Loving perfectly means he offers His love to all, and that offering is infinitely perfect and pure. Key word = “offers”…which presupposes a required response from the target of that love, either acceptance or rejection. You’re trying to set it up as if perfect love equates to happiness for all, as if it’s forced upon us regardless of our disposition. You won’t sway anyone with that sort of illogic; that doesn’t even hold water in the real world. But I’ll admit your logic succeeds in keeping you in your comfort zone, which likely is of high priority for you.
My guess is that you don’t actually think that God exists, much less Hell…otherwise why label yourself atheist? So, I won’t try to refute your illogical re-definitions, but will just suggest that you consider moving out of your comfort zone for awhile?
You should read the thread. There is a lengthy discussion within this thread that adresses that.So the CC is against granting homosexuals their 14th amendment rights to equal protection under the law?
Am I reading your opinion correctly friend?
jomoco
So your answer is yes, the CC is against granting homosexuals equal protections under the law?It’s not just the “civil union” aspect. It is the fact that in granting civil unions to homosexuals, society is encouraging homsexual activity, which is gravely sinful, not just in the Catholic Church, but in any Christian religion that adheres to Sacred Scripture.
Granting these same-sex unions is inviting people with a same-sex attraction to engage in an act that can lead them into Hell. That’s what the fuss is about.
ahs
The equal protection clause does not encompass the creation of new laws, or addenda to existing laws. Nor does it encompass attempts to abolish existing laws. The Church is involved in encouraging the faithful to be active in all of these things - again, none of which violate equal protection.So your answer is yes, the CC is against granting homosexuals equal protections under the law?
Hopefully you don’t truly reflect the CC’s stance?
Please clarify my friend?
jomoco
It doesn’t sound like you read the thread. SteveGC has given a good explanation above. And as to what I am saying I personally believe, and that the Church teaches, can be found here:So your answer is yes, the CC is against granting homosexuals equal protections under the law?
Hopefully you don’t truly reflect the CC’s stance?
Please clarify my friend?
jomoco
First of all, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the guarantee of equal treatment within the equal protection clause does not mean that governments cannot ever treat different people differently. For example, states need not permit children to drive cars, for example, nor must they allow senior citizens to enroll in grammar school. As a basic rule, the Court has said that it is reasonable for states to build categories or classifications into the laws that they pass, and in fact, the “rational basis test” is one of the standards used by the courts to determine whether these classifications are fair. Also known as the Lindsley test, this standard says that if the reasons for treating people differently are reasonable and logically related to the law’s purpose, then they are constitutional.Don’t get excited guys. I know that the CC is completely against granting homosexuals their 14th amendment rights to equal protections under the law.
I just wanted to read your rationalizations for reaching such a traditional error?
Thanks for clarifying this important matter, I think?
jomoco
Does that mean you aren’t going to read the Catechism paragraphs I linked above? Instead, without educating yourself on the actual teachings of the Church, you are going to make a broad sweeping and erroneous judgement and call that the Church’s teaching? Wouldn’t you rather take some time and learn the whole truth? :coffeeread:Don’t get excited guys. I know that the CC is completely against granting homosexuals their 14th amendment rights to equal protections under the law.
I just wanted to read your rationalizations for reaching such a traditional error?
Thanks for clarifying this important matter, I think?
jomoco
Specifically homosexual “marriage” (an invented construct) has not been categorized as a “right” by the Supreme Court. Traditional marriage (man/woman) has. No “right” is being denied.So the CC is against granting homosexuals their 14th amendment rights to equal protection under the law?