Will I go to hell?

[NonServiam]

NonServiam:

Brooklyn:

He says he has not hidden himself from man and in fact, has made himself plainly invisible.

Plainly invisible? Well, I would agree with that, certainly.Now you have me confused. You say that God is plainly visible? What am I missing?

You’re missing the actual words of our conversation and the important distinction between the words “visible” and “invisible.”

Here’s one of the problems we’re having: you’re not really carefully reading what I have to say, and this example – where you miss the difference between “invisible” and “visible,” which is easy to do when you’re reading quickly and not thinking very hard about the arguments – demonstrates your refusal to seriously engage with my words.

This is something I see a lot from believers (and I’m trying not to be offensive when I say that, but I have to truthfully report my experience): you guys often miss the words I actually use and respond not to anything I say but to what you assume I “must” be saying.

When you do that, you’re having an argument with someone you’ve constructed in your head, not with the flesh and blood person typing at a computer here.

 

[Brooklyn]

You’re missing the actual words of our conversation and the important distinction between the words “visible” and “invisible.”

Here’s one of the problems we’re having: you’re not really carefully reading what I have to say, and this example – where you miss the difference between “invisible” and “visible,” which is easy to do when you’re reading quickly and not thinking very hard about the arguments – demonstrates your refusal to seriously engage with my words.

This is something I see a lot from believers (and I’m trying not to be offensive when I say that, but I have to truthfully report my experience): you guys often miss the words I actually use and respond not to anything I say but to what you assume I “must” be saying.

When you do that, you’re having an argument with someone you’ve constructed in your head, not with the flesh and blood person typing at a computer here.

I’m sorry I misread that statement. But I did not misread the intent of your post and responded accordingly. I would ask that even if you do not respond to what I posted, at least you would give it some thought, for the sake of your eternity. What have you got to lose?

 

[NonServiam]

If you turn away, you have not destroyed God’s love for you. But you have destroyed your chance to spend eternity with him.

Well, we have very different definitions of “love,” then.

As I said, if I had a child who hated and rejected me, I would never (ever, ever, ever) allow that child to suffer, if I had the power to prevent it. To me, caring for and protecting someone else – regardless of what that person thinks of you – is love in its purest and most unconditional form, the kind of love that parents owe to children.

As a result, I really cannot respect the god-being you depict in your posts. But since I am not convinced that this god-being is even real, whether I like him or not is totally irrelevant.

 

[Brooklyn]

Well, we have very different definitions of “love,” then.

As I said, if I had a child who hated and rejected me, I would never (ever, ever, ever) allow that child to suffer, if I had the power to prevent it. That, to me, is love.

As a result, I really cannot respect the god-being you depict in your posts. But since I am not convinced that this god-being is even real, whether I like him or not is totally irrelevant.

How very, very sad. And I sincerely mean that.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

Could you repeat the answer – then I’ll tell you whether it makes sense.

Well, OK. But your lines below kind of tell me that it won’t sway you anyways! Here goes:

If we could ‘prove’ Gods existence, then we would be compelled to believe in Him… God gave us the free will to seek and find Him, or NOT to seek and find Him.

But, in one sense at least, it doesn’t matter if you have an internally-consistent explanation for the lack of evidence: the fact is that there isn’t sufficient evidence, and in the face of a claim that does not have sufficient evidence, the appropriate thing to do is to not accept the claim. (Assuming, of course, that one is interested in having an accurate understanding of reality)

 

[NonServiam]

If we could ‘prove’ Gods existence, then we would be compelled to believe in Him… God gave us the free will to seek and find Him, or NOT to seek and find Him.

Well, I agree that sufficient evidence of God’s existence would indeed compel us to believe that he exists. But merely knowing that he exists wouldn’t – by itself – compel us to respect him, worship him, or obey him.

The conversation I had with Brooklyn illustrates this well. If God tomorrow provided indisputable evidence that he is real – let’s say that he appears to everyone simultaneously and broadcasts a message across earth that everyone can hear at once – then I would no longer be an atheist. That is, I would not longer lack a belief that a god exists: I would be convinced that he is real.

But I wouldn’t automatically respect or worship this being: I would have to learn more about him first. And, as I’ve been indicating, if he’s anything like the being Brooklyn was presenting, I wouldn’t respect him, nor would I want to worship him. Of course, I’m hoping that if there is a God, he’s significantly different than the way Brooklyn portrays him: I would have to learn more about the God who had revealed himself to the whole earth in an unambiguous way and decide whether I actually did respect him and want to worship him.

And this raises an interesting question: if there is a God, and if he wants people to worship him, why wouldn’t he reveal himself to everyone unambiguously? Knowing that he exists is a necessary first step to coming to love and worship him – before we know that he’s even real, love and worship simply aren’t possible, or they are only possible by those credulous enough to accept he exists without sufficient evidence.

EDIT: So, in short, I don’t think that knowing that God exists would take away free will at all. On the contrary, I think that knowing that God exists is a necessary precondition to freely choosing to worship him.

 

[Robertanthony]

Strictly speaking, atheism isn’t the belief that no gods exist. It’s the lack of belief in gods.

This isn’t some semantic game.

I can’t prove that there’s no Bigfoot, but I’m still an aBigfootist (someone who doesn’t accept that Bigfoot is real). I don’t go around staunchly believing that there’s no Bigfoot and there could never be a Bigfoot, and I can prove that there’s no Bigfoot, darn it!

It’s just that there’s not sufficient evidence to think that there is a Bigfoot, so I don’t accept that there is a Bigfoot. I’m a non-believer with regards to Bigfoot.
In a similar way, I can’t prove that there’s no God, but I’m still an atheist (someone who doesn’t accept that God is real). I don’t go around staunchly believing that there’s no God and there could never be a God, and I can prove that there’s no God, darn it!

It’s just that there’s not sufficient evidence to think that there is a God, so I don’t accept that there is a God. I’m a non-believer with regards to God.

[Obviously, I’m not trying to compare your God and Bigfoot: I know that the claims are different. I’m comparing the standards of evidence and belief in each case]

Does that make the logic clearer?

To any reasonable being, proof of a Creator’s existence is all around you. If you were raised by unloving, cruel parents who put you down constantly and ridiculed you, you’ll probably grow up convinced that there is something singularly flaw, wrong and unlovable about you. Guess what? You’d be wrong yet you’d hang on for dear life to that erroneous belief. Why should atheism triumph over theism when you can’t prove either, as you don’t seem to believe in anything without empirical evidence of its existence. Atheism is no more rational than theism, rationally speaking. Believe in anything you want, that elves exist, that Nessy is hiding in the slime of a dark Scottish loch if you will, but that there exists a Creator should be a given in the same way that it’s a given that if I fail to breathe for long enough, death will follow.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

Well, we have very different definitions of “love,” then. As I said, if I had a child who hated and rejected me, I would never (ever, ever, ever) allow that child to suffer, if I had the power to prevent it. To me, caring for and protecting someone else – regardless of what that person thinks of you – is love in its purest and most unconditional form, the kind of love that parents owe to children. As a result, I really cannot respect the god-being you depict in your posts. But since I am not convinced that this god-being is even real, whether I like him or not is totally irrelevant.

And yet, God sent us his Son to suffer and die at the hands of people who hated and rejected him out of love for you.

 

[Gorgias]

Strictly speaking, atheism isn’t the belief that no gods exist. It’s the lack of belief in gods.

However, although there’s not some pantheon of deities you subscribe to, you do have a system of beliefs (based, as they are, purely on your philosophical outlook) to which you suscribe. That is, there are the hallmarks of ‘religion’ to your atheism. You have a certain set of doctrines and dogmas, you are dealing with questions of the meaning of life and whether there’s life after death. You are ‘doing religion’.

That’s a discussion for another time, though. At hand is your challenge of why a loving God would doom his children to eternal suffering. You use the example of what a loving human parent would do:

when I do have kids, if they choose to “reject” me – for whatever reason – I would still love and support them.

It’s his life: if he wants to “reject” me and go do something else, then that’s his choice, but I’m always going to love him

So… what does “support” mean here? You’ve hit on it: while you will still love your child, you will allow him to make his own choices with his life, even if it’s something you disagree with. We’re on the same page here: that’s how we believe God acts.

I’m certainly not going to build a torture chamber and punish him for all eternity (oh wait, oops…I mean I’m certainly not going to stand idly by and allow him to suffer forever, if there’s something I can do about it).

Aah… here’s the rub. Caught up in medieval depictions of what “suffering” in hell means, are we? Let’s talk a little bit about what hell is, and then I think your argument about ‘rejection’ and ‘punishment’ will go away. Hell is simply this: an eternity spent without God and even without the hope of God. Now, what people will do in hell is another thing altogether, but the upshot is that if you really reject God, then you are requesting to spend eternity without Him.

Yet, you make an interesting claim: what if you’re not rejecting God? Will you spend an eternity without God? Interesting thought experiment. It seems that you’re asking, “what if I’m wrong? What if God does exist, and I just can’t bring myself to see it?” As Catholics, we believe that God means it when he says that he desires all souls to be with him in heaven. And, we look to the teachings of the Church (cf Lumen Gentium §§14-16), where we see that those who have not had the opportunity to say ‘yes’ to God’s gift of grace are, nonetheless, still able to achieve salvation.

And yet, there’s a certain incongruity in your claim: that God rejects you because you can’t prove God exists. That, of course, is purely specious. The question is never purely about the application of logic to a given set of propositions. Rather, it’s about the interplay between logic and faith. So, the answer to your question is “no, God will not reject you, per se, because you can’t come to a logical conclusion about the existence of God”; rather, taking a line from Pirsig, the real answer is ‘mu’: “‘not yes, not no.’… the context of the question is such that a yes or no answer is in error and should not be given. ‘Unask the question’ is what it says.”

Your approach in this case fails, because it’s making an invalid assumption: that complete knowledge about something is necessary before making any sort of judgment about it. That’s not even the standard that science holds itself to – if it were, it would be completely useless! No – the real standard is to take a look at all the evidence and reach the best conclusion possible. And that standard always requires an interpretive approach and a bit of faith. (The notion that we will find a “God particle” or uncover the truth about the Big Bang is itself an assertion of faith – faith that’s looking toward science, of course, but definitely one of faith!)

In any case, your question comes down to whether God will give you what you’re requesting, even if you don’t realize you’re requesting it. If you’re searching for truth the best way you know how, and not simply digging in your heels against a notion that you (think you) understand and therefore logically reject, then the Church says that there’s the possibility of salvation for you, even though we don’t know the mechanics of how that would work.

 

[PennyinCanada]

I haven’t read the last five pages but I’ll just jump in, kay?
You are like the guy who’s holding the winning LottoMax in his hand. He says his life has been perfectly fine up till now, things are going great, having that money will just change everything. I don’t want it to change, he says.

You’re not considering what your life would be like with Christ. By walking in grace, you can *pull down the power of God *and change lives, be a force for good in this world. Draw blessings down upon the hurting, the grieving, the least, in this world. You can be a force now. The question of ‘can I get to heaven’ is self centered and lacking any imagination. You’ve got right now, not necessarily tomorrow, and the sooner you get plugged in to the power of God the better for all of us. I wish this for you today that you ‘cash in’ what’s already yours and change the world.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

Well, I agree that sufficient evidence of God’s existence would indeed compel us to believe that he exists. But merely knowing that he exists wouldn’t – by itself – compel us to respect him, worship him, or obey him.

100% true. Agreed. The gift of free will insures it. That would then take away the “I can’t ‘reject’ God because I don’t believe there is God” line of reasoning. You would have to own the rejection and doom yourself for eternity. You will have to own it anyway, just later. We all will. Why not err on the side of caution and seek? Intellectual pride?

 

[HelenRose]

I am an atheist. I was raised a Catholic, but recently stopped believing in God because of intellectual objections (which are a topic for another discussion, not this one). I still am a moral person, and my behavior hasn’t changed since I stopped believing. Most of my friends still think that I am Catholic, because the only change in my behavior that could possibly tip them off is that I no longer go to mass. So my question is, if I am wrong about Catholicism, do you believe that it is possible for a former-Catholic atheist who lives a moral life to get into heaven?

Oh, and one last thing: please don’t try to psychoanalyze me. I am not asking this because I’m afraid of hell (I don’t even believe it exists) and I do not secretly believe in God and am not secretly angry at him. Let’s stick to the relevant topic please!

I have no idea whether or not you are going to Hell. This in God’s decision alone.
However you are playing with fire.

I believe that it is a bad idea to presume God’s Mercy. I also believe it is not a good idea to presume God’s Judgement.

What bothers me in your question is that you are asking us whether or not you are going to Hell or Heaven. We can not with certainty give you an answer.

If you are wrong about Catholicsim, you should be asking yourself this question and more important, you should be asking God this question.

 

[justice99]

I ask once more, you have already gotten enough answers, what else are you looking for?

 

[Poseidon]

I will never understand the logic of atheists…

They cannot ‘prove’ God does not exist.
We cannot ‘prove’ God exists.

So they believe in something that cannot be proven. Because they are using intellect to explain things.

Um, no. You are the one who believes in something that cannot be proven. I am the one who disbelieves in something that cannot be proven.

 

[Cristiano]

That’s a good question. I have had Christian teaching, and for the most part I still follow it (obviously excepting things like praying, going to mass, etc.). But there are also some very good ethical systems that don’t require religious belief - reciprocation, humanism, etc.

For something to be moral three factors must fall into place
1- Intent must be right
2- act cannot be intrinsically immoral
3- circumstances must be right

Some of the so called ethical systems that you mention do not meet point 1 (e.g. reciprocity)

 

[Cristiano]

Um, no. You are the one who believes in something that cannot be proven. I am the one who disbelieves in something that cannot be proven.

But you still base you life believing a zillion things that you are not able to prove.

 

[Robertanthony]

I find a watch lying on the floor somewhere, since I didn’t see who made it, it’s perfectly reasonable (sic) to assert that nobody did (make it). A reasonable position would be to say: “Somebody made it I just don’t know who did.” If I had to choose between making a watch and this universe, I think the 1st option would be more within my human reach.

 

[Bonjovie]

I always wonder at such vehement insistence on keeping truly innocent souls out of Heaven. Good thing it’s not up to you. Or me, for that matter.

(Chuckle) Except no one is really innocent, JacarandaPurple. No one really merits heaven not even the blessed virgin Mother. Those who, out of ignorance and lack of understanding that is not culpable, do not believe in God or in His Christ stand in the same condition as all those who died before Christ to me. It seems that they will be faced with their own particular judgement, but it is not a case of CAN or WILL or even MIGHT. Only God knows. We don’t have that luxury. We have heard and come to believe and that means we cannot hide under the umbrella of invincible ignorance. We may still be ignorant of certain things or may be disappointed with the behaviour of some people and these may affect our willingness to continue to believe in God, but it can never be invincible because our Faith is not about knowledge alone, it’s about grace and the Spirit. To reject the Faith, you reject the Spirit and the grace. So if you already had the grace and threw it away, and you die without having recovered it, how can you claim invincible ignorance? The Spirit of Christ makes us cry,Abba, Father. It is the Spirit that gives us the gift of Faith. If we lose the Giver, we lose the gift and we lose our invitation to his eternal banquet. Simple!

 

[Cristiano]

…Oh, and one last thing: please don’t try to psychoanalyze me. I am not asking this because I’m afraid of hell (I don’t even believe it exists) and I do not secretly believe in God and am not secretly angry at him. Let’s stick to the relevant topic please!

By the way it sounds like you are begging to have your ideas and behaviors analyzed because you start your argument going against the principle of non contradiction.

 

[Poseidon]

But you still base you life believing a zillion things that you are not able to prove.

Such as?