Why would god send people to hell?

[Scott_Waddell]

Check out G.K. Chesterton’s Orthodoxy and the chapter called “Paradoxes of Christianity”. Chesterton said he converted not from great preaching or apologetics, but by those who poo-pooed Christianity because every complaint they came up with they would contradict later. Here we have the classic God is a meanie because there is Hell. But you would not have to search long to find someone complaining about the death-bed conversion of a wicked man and therefore God is too merciful.

Scott

 

[Absalom]

Scott Waddell:

Check out G.K. Chesterton’s Orthodoxy and the chapter called “Paradoxes of Christianity”. Chesterton said he converted not from great preaching or apologetics, but by those who poo-pooed Christianity because every complaint they came up with they would contradict later. Here we have the classic God is a meanie because there is Hell. But you would not have to search long to find someone complaining about the death-bed conversion of a wicked man and therefore God is too merciful.
Scott

Thanks. Reading Chesterton (and Lewis, and Aquinas, and Augustine . . .) is one of those things that I’ve been meaning to get around to for a long time and haven’t done it. Maybe I’ll just go ahead and do that. I’ll just have to force myself to put the Bible, Flannery O’Connor, and some other things down for a while.:crying:

 

[Pious_Redeemer]

Well, IMHO, I personally believe that one should act good (well) in accordance with our Churches’ moral theology, and this unconditionally. Allthough I don’t have many Catholic practising friends here in Belgium, some of them hold the following “logic”: “I’ve donated some money for the victims of the tsunami, so now I’ve earned my place in Heaven”, or “I attend mass every week, so, naturally, I will go to Heaven after I die”. It seems to me that, in these two examples, they donate money and attend mass in order to get a personal benefit (go to Heaven), and they do these things only to get this benefit. IMHO, “going to heaven” as a reward should not be a motivation to act and behave in a Chistian way - at least, not the only motivation. Only our Lord decides who will join him, His Wisdom is unfathomable to/for us humans. One should try to help the sick, poor, blind, crippled, prostitutes, deaf, … people for their own physical and spiritual health, just as our Lord has done. These marginalised people are often “scapegoats” for crimes they did’nt commit. Our Lord stood up for (defended) these people and proved their accusators wrong or narrow minded: “He among you who is without sin, let him cast the first stone” (literal translation in English taken from my Catholic Dutch Holy Bible).
The same goes for sin and confession. They say: “I’ve done something sinful, no problem, I’ll just confess it to a priest and I’ll be forgiven”. IMHO, they seem to forget the feeling of remorse. It’s not enough to have sinned and to go to a priest and talk about it with him (allthough in Belgium, it’s quite hard to find a priest who takes personal confessions nowadays). There must be honest and serious remorse - how could you otherwise repent your sins truthfully?

 

[Ignatius]

ja3712:

nt.

Hell is separation from God. God does not send people to Hell, they choose not to be joined to Him themselves. He invites all to be with Him for all eternity.

God bless you.

 

[jman507]

Why would it matter if hell came from past religions? If God is the Allmighty First mover of creation, He could have made it so that we did have some knowledge of Himself. It could have been cloudy, which allowed some who received His revalation to combine with other knowledge floating around at the time. As time went on, and with more revalation there where more connections of what was good and what wasn’t quite right that could be discerened. It was a rather slow development, much the same as a community as an indvidual. Holiness doesn’t happen overnight, it is a slow process. Also the claim isn’t man alone with his limitations decided what is scripture, the claim is God also allowed his Hold Spirit to be in the process. Maybe there is others more knowledgeable in the subject, if so you can argue where I’m wrong.

 

[MaggieOH]

God does not send any spirit to hell. The spirit of the person chooses to go to hell by making the choice to follow Satan instead of God.

It is all about choice. When Adam and Eve chose to listen to Satan and to disobey God’s Will then they chose to move away from the source of Life.

Scripture sets out instance after instance of man turning his back on God, of worshipping false gods instead of the One True God, of sacrificing their children up to Astarte, instead of giving worship to God.

It is also in Scripture that you will find the answer to your question. When the rich man failed to feed the beggar at his gate, when he chose to worship money instead of taking care of the poor, he turned his back on God and ended up in the lake of fire. He had a choice, that is to follow Moses and the Prophets and he made the choice to not listen to the prophets.

This is in essence the same choice that we have today. We can either choose to listen to the Gospel message of life, or choose the culture of death, and in making that choice, end up in the state of “death”.

Maggie

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Monarchy:

Do you believe in the “Law of Kharma”? Let me tell you - It’s pretty rough!

Do you believe in “Cause and Effect”? Do you believe that actions have consequences? or, Do you believe that nothing we do, no mater how vile or good, goes unrewarded?

Ar you willing to accept the rewards for you good deeds? If you are, then why not the consequences for those that are evil?

Monarchy:

Any diety that would allow eternal punishment cannot be good. Non-existance would be more merciful.

If a rapist told a woman “strip and don’t scream or I’ll kill you” and she ran and screamed, by your logic she is at fault when he kills her. He told her what would happen if she didn’t listen. He would have no moral culpability (sp?) at all.

You see, Monarchy, for justice to be justice it has to be just. Both the Good and the Bad have to be rewarded, according to the merits of the deed.

It’s that way with the “Law of Karma” and the “Law of Cause and Effect”. If you’re willing to accept those NEW AGE (actually Hindu-Buddhist) concepts, as so many in our society claim, why aren’t you willing to accept the Law of Moses and the Forgiveness of Sins in Jesus Christ?

You’ve got it all wrong, The Rapist in your story is the one who has to worry, because Cosmic Law convicts automatically, not like our civil law…And, the accurate simuli is actually, “Don’t step on the loose gravel by the cliff. You might fall down the cliff, and you just might do it when I can’t catch you.”

So, Monarchy, how long are you going to kick against the goads and rebel against the Salvation available to you in Christ Jesus Our Lord?

Blessings and Peace, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Absalom!:

Thanks. Reading Chesterton (and Lewis, and Aquinas, and Augustine . . .) is one of those things that I’ve been meaning to get around to for a long time and haven’t done it. Maybe I’ll just go ahead and do that. I’ll just have to force myself to put the Bible, Flannery O’Connor, and some other things down for a while.:crying:

Now Absalom! :tsktsk:

(Takes a stern tone) Stop your crying and read your Chesterton and your Lewis! They’re good for you!

Your first assignment will be a nice THIN book that you can read in INSTALLMENTS by C.S.Lewis called The Screwtape Letters. I’m sure someone here will have a G.K Chesterton ready for you when you’ve finished that one.

Blessings and Peace, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

jman507:

Why would it matter if hell came from past religions? If God is the Allmighty First mover of creation, He could have made it so that we did have some knowledge of Himself. It could have been cloudy, which allowed some who received His revalation to combine with other knowledge floating around at the time. As time went on, and with more revalation there where more connections of what was good and what wasn’t quite right that could be discerened. It was a rather slow development, much the same as a community as an indvidual. Holiness doesn’t happen overnight, it is a slow process. Also the claim isn’t man alone with his limitations decided what is scripture, the claim is God also allowed his Hold Spirit to be in the process. Maybe there is others more knowledgeable in the subject, if so you can argue where I’m wrong.

Jman507:

I don’t thing that you’re very far off it at all. Good post.

MIchael

 

[Monarchy]

Absalom!:

If you need proof that He was God, then you have no business asking for such proof. How about you prove He wasn’t God, and if you want, I’ll even invite you to prove that there is no God period. Can you do that?

Because that isn’t how logic works. The person making the postitive assertion must show proof.

If God is Who Christians say He is, then He can do anything and be any way He darn well pleases. If there is no God, then there is no good or bad. Humans have proven quite definitively that morality (good/bad) becomes relative when it is left up to them. If God is Who He says He is and Who we believe He is, then He is good if He says He is good simply by the very fact that He said it.

Sorry, need a little more than “He is because he says he is”.

 

[Absalom]

Traditional Ang:

Now Absalom! :tsktsk:

(Takes a stern tone) Stop your crying and read your Chesterton and your Lewis! They’re good for you!

Your first assignment will be a nice THIN book that you can read in INSTALLMENTS by C.S.Lewis called The Screwtape Letters. I’m sure someone here will have a G.K Chesterton ready for you when you’ve finished that one.

Blessings and Peace, Michael

Actually, I have read The Screwtape Letters! I need to get around to Chesterton now.

 

[Monarchy]

Traditional Ang:

Monarchy:

Do you believe in the “Law of Kharma”? Let me tell you - It’s pretty rough!

No

Do you believe in “Cause and Effect”? Do you believe that actions have consequences? or, Do you believe that nothing we do, no mater how vile or good, goes unrewarded?

I believe that they have consequences in the real world.

Are you willing to accept the rewards for you good deeds? If you are, then why not the consequences for those that are evil?

If I robbed a bank, I would expect to be put in prison. I would not expect to be tortured endlessly while there as that would be cruel and unusual punishment.

You see, Monarchy, for justice to be justice it has to be just. Both the Good and the Bad have to be rewarded, according to the merits of the deed.

Why doesn’t the penal system torture inmates 24/7? Because it is wrong. If God wanted to punish evil, how about non-existance? How about time in hell equivelant to the crime? Eternal torture is evil. An infinite punishment for a finite crime is evil. If he is all-powerful, he has the ability to stop it. If he doesn’t, he is moraly culpable.

It’s that way with the “Law of Karma” and the “Law of Cause and Effect”. If you’re willing to accept those NEW AGE (actually Hindu-Buddhist) concepts, as so many in our society claim, why aren’t you willing to accept the Law of Moses and the Forgiveness of Sins in Jesus Christ?

I don’t except Karma.

You’ve got it all wrong, The Rapist in your story is the one who has to worry, because Cosmic Law convicts automatically, not like our civil law…And, the accurate simuli is actually, “Don’t step on the loose gravel by the cliff. You might fall down the cliff, and you just might do it when I can’t catch you.”

If god is not moraly culpable for allowing an evil that he can stop, why should the rapist be?

So, Monarchy, how long are you going to kick against the goads and rebel against the Salvation available to you in Christ Jesus Our Lord?

Blessings and Peace, Michael

As long as I’m shown nothing but hearsay as to his actual existance and reserection.

 

[Absalom]

Monarchy:

Because that isn’t how logic works. The person making the postitive assertion must show proof.

Sorry, need a little more than “He is because he says he is”.

What authority dictates how logic works in your universe? a statement like that one above sounds like it comes from a pretty authoritative source. In fact, it sounds like a rule.

If you came to me and said, “There is no sky. What you think is the sky is actually an illusion,” whose shoulders would the burden of proof fall upon?

My point about proof was that its ridiculous to ask for empirical proof from a religion that says that such proof cannot be found - one must believe by the grace of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Monarchy]

Absalom!:

What authority dictates how logic works in your universe? a statement like that one above sounds like it comes from a pretty authoritative source. In fact, it sounds like a rule.

You cannot physically prove the non-existance of anything, therfore the person making the positive assertion (i.e. there is a god, santa, easter bunny, etc…) is bound by logic to prove their assertion to be true.

If you came to me and said, “There is no sky. What you think is the sky is actually an illusion,” whose shoulders would the burden of proof fall upon?

If I claim that something doesn’t exist, I am making a positive assertion, and am therefore bound by logic to prove my case.

My point about proof was that its ridiculous to ask for empirical proof from a religion that says that such proof cannot be found - one must believe by the grace of the Holy Spirit.

Yet it is a religion that would change science text books to include their ‘proof’.

 

[Grace_and_Glory]

Monarchy:

You cannot physically prove the non-existance of anything, therfore the person making the positive assertion (i.e. there is a god, santa, easter bunny, etc…) is bound by logic to prove their assertion to be true.

If I claim that something doesn’t exist, I am making a positive assertion, and am therefore bound by logic to prove my case

What do you really think? In the same post, you first said that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something; therefore, whoever says that something exists is bound to prove it. Then, you said that if you claim that something doesn’t exist, you are bound by logic to prove that it doesn’t exist. So, are you bound by logic to prove nonexistence or not? According to your last post, the answer is no and yes.
According to your first premise, it is impossible to prove that God does not exist. According to your second, the burden is on you, who assert that He does not exist, to prove His nonexistence. Good luck with that. I’m just a little confused because I thought this post was your attempt to explain why you didn’t have to prove God’s nonexistence.
Now I’d like to get back on the topic of why God would allow Hell, because the existence of God is really a topic for another thread. I don’t think Hell is God’s way of eternally torturing people. The way I see it, Hell is a natural consequence of free will and an all-good God. If God is all good and we choose not to follow Him, clearly we are choosing against the good. If we choose against the good, it is impossible for us to experience anything other than misery. You might think that it would be better not to exist than to be in Hell. Why doesn’t God use nonexistence as punishment? I don’t know everything, but I will try to answer this question. First of all, existence is in itself a good. Second of all, there is no such thing as a finite crime against an infinitely good God. Harming a fly is less evil than harming a dog is less evil than harming a child. There is a clear heirarchy. If it is gravely wrong to harm a human being, which I think you seem to agree with, it is even more gravely wrong to harm God. Now, I know you don’t believe this, but given that I’m assuming you want to know why the Christian God would allow Hell, I will add that God is so good and so loving that He does not want us to go to Hell, which is exactly what each of us deserves. He would rather die an excruciating death than to allow us to all be doomed to Hell. It is up to us to open ourselves to that mercy and grace.

 

[fellicia]

Everyone has a choice. If a person does not wish to spend life on earth with God in their lives why would they want to spend eternity with him?

 

[Genesis315]

Think of it this way. God is perfect good and love. Being totally and eternally separated from good and love would the most horrible thing ever–Hell.

 

[Monarchy]

Grace and Glory:

What do you really think? In the same post, you first said that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something; therefore, whoever says that something exists is bound to prove it.

Wrong. I said whomever is making the positve assertion (i.e. something does or does not exist) has the burden of proof. the person skeptical of the claim has no burden of proof.

Then, you said that if you claim that something doesn’t exist, you are bound by logic to prove that it doesn’t exist. So, are you bound by logic to prove nonexistence or not? According to your last post, the answer is no and yes.

If I claim something doesn’t exist (god, santa, global warming, etc…), it is a positive assertion. I therefore have the buden of proof. However, you cannot physically prove the non-existance of anything. You can logical show why something is unlikely to be true (i.e. pointing out that if santa were to visit every house on the planet, his sleigh would have to be going so fast that it would turn to ash from the friction with the atmoshpere).

According to your first premise, it is impossible to prove that God does not exist. According to your second, the burden is on you, who assert that He does not exist, to prove His nonexistence. Good luck with that. I’m just a little confused because I thought this post was your attempt to explain why you didn’t have to prove God’s nonexistence.

See above

Now I’d like to get back on the topic of why God would allow Hell, because the existence of God is really a topic for another thread. I don’t think Hell is God’s way of eternally torturing people. The way I see it, Hell is a natural consequence of free will and an all-good God. If God is all good and we choose not to follow Him, clearly we are choosing against the good.

From what I read in the bible, God is clearly not good.

If we choose against the good, it is impossible for us to experience anything other than misery. You might think that it would be better not to exist than to be in Hell. Why doesn’t God use nonexistence as punishment?

Because it doesnt work as well as a derrent for the church to use against the masses to control them.

I don’t know everything, but I will try to answer this question. First of all, existence is in itself a good. Second of all, there is no such thing as a finite crime against an infinitely good God.

Really, Why?

Harming a fly is less evil than harming a dog is less evil than harming a child. There is a clear heirarchy. If it is gravely wrong to harm a human being, which I think you seem to agree with, it is even more gravely wrong to harm God. Now, I know you don’t believe this, but given that I’m assuming you want to know why the Christian God would allow Hell, I will add that God is so good and so loving that He does not want us to go to Hell, which is exactly what each of us deserves.

I’m sorry but even Hitler doesn’t deserve eternal torture.

He would rather die an excruciating death than to allow us to all be doomed to Hell. It is up to us to open ourselves to that mercy and grace.

He does the dooming, and chooses to send us there. he doesn’t HAVE to do anything if he is God. He can choose. Or does he not have free will?

 

[Absalom]

Monarchy:

Yet it is a religion that would change science text books to include their ‘proof’.

If you’re talking about evolution or the big-bang theory or whatever, I have no problem with either of those theories and they do not pose a threat to my faith. Don’t categorize me or make assumptions about what a believe.

 

[Monarchy]

Absalom!:

If you’re talking about evolution or the big-bang theory or whatever, I have no problem with either of those theories and they do not pose a threat to my faith. Don’t categorize me or make assumptions about what a believe.

I said religion, not you personaly. In many areas of the contry they are making concerted efforts to change science curicculms.