Posted on 09/26/2010 2:35:35 PM PDT by NYer
If God is Love, why is there Hell? And why is it eternal? In a word there is Hell because of respect. God has made us free and respects that freedom. Our freedom is absolutely necessary if we are to love. Now suppose a young man wanted a young lady to love him. Suppose again he found a magic potion with which to lace her drink. So she drinks and suddenly, presto., she “loves” him! Is it love? No, it’s chemicals. Love, to be love, has to be free. The yes of love is only meaningful if we were free to say no. God invites us to love him. Love has to be free. There has to be a hell. Ther has to be a real alternative, a real choice. God will not force us to love him or to come to heaven with him.
But wait a minute, doesn’t everyone want to go to heaven? Yes, but it often a heaven as they define it, not the real heaven. Many people’s understanding of heaven is a very egocentric thing where they will be happy on their terms, where what pleases merely them will be available in abundance. But the real heaven is the Kingdom of God in all its fullness. Truth be told, while everyone wants to go to a heaven as they define it, NOT everyone wants to live in the Kingdom of God in all its fullness. Consider some of the following examples:
Now my point is this: If heaven isn’t just of our own design but things like these are features of the real heaven, the real Kingdom of God, then doesn’t it seem clear that there actually are many who don’t want to go to heaven? You see everyone wants to go to heaven (the heaven of their own design), but NOT everyone wants to live in the Kingdom, which is what heaven really is. Now God will not force any one to live where they do not want to live. He will not force anyone to love Him or what he loves. We are free to choose his kingdom or not.
Perhaps a brief story will illustrate my point. I once knew a woman in one of my parishes who in many way was very devout. She went to daily Mass and prayed the rosary most days. But there was one thing about her that was very troubling, she couldn’t stand African Americans. She often told me, “I can’t stand Black People! They’re moving into this neighborhood and ruining everything! I wish they’d go away.” I remember scolding her a number of times for this sort of talk. But one day I thought I’d make it plain. I said, “You know you don’t really want to go to heaven.” She said, “Of course I do Father. God and the Blessed Mother are there. I want to go.” “No you won’t be happy there,” I said. “Why? Want are you talking about Father?” “Well you see there are Black people in heaven and you’ve said you can’t stand to be around them. So I’m afraid you wouldn’t be happy there. And God won’t make you live some place where you are not happy. So I don’t think you want to go to heaven.” I think she go the message because I noticed she started to improve.
But that’s just it, isn’t it? God will not force us to live in the Kingdom if we really don’t want or like what that kingdom is. We can’t just invent our own heaven. Heaven is a real place and has contours and realities of its own that we can’t just brush aside. Either we accept heaven as it is or we ipso facto choose to live apart from it and God. So Hell has to be. It is not a pleasant place but I suppose the saddest thing about the souls in that are there is that they wouldn’t be happy in heaven anyway. A pretty sad and tragic plight, not to be happy anywhere. But understand this too. God has not utterly rejected even the souls in Hell. Somehow he still provides for their basic needs. They continue to exist and thus God continues to sustain them with what ever is required to provide for that existence. He does not anihilate them or snuff them out. He respects their wishes to live apart from the kingdom and its values. He loves them but respects their choice.
But why is Hell eternal? Here I think we encounter a mystery about ourselves. God seems to be teaching us that there comes a day when our decisions are fixed forever. For now we always have the possibility of changing our mind so the idea of a permanent decision seems strange to us. But I think that those of us who are a bit older can testify that as we get older we get a little more set in our ways and it’s harder to change. Perhaps this is a little foretaste of a time when our decisions will be forever fixed and we will never change. The Fathers of the Church used an image of pottery to teach on this. Think of wet clay on a potters wheel. As long as the clay is moist and still on the wheel it can be shaped and reshaped. But once it is put in the kiln, in the fire, its shape is fixed forever. And so it is with us that when we appear before God who is a Holy Fire, our fundamental shape will be forever fixed, our decisions final. For now this is mysterious to us and we only sense it vaguely but since heaven and hell are eternal, it seems this forever fixed state is in our future.
So here is the best I can do on a difficult topic. But Hell has to be. It’s about God’s respect for us. It’s about our freedom and summons to love. It’s about the real heaven. It’s about what we really want in the end. The following video is Fr. Robert Barron’s take on the matter.
“it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks” Acts 9:5
To answer your question, neither, a train is not free, it has no choice but to go down the tracks. Mere movement in a predetermined path is not freedom. I do like your train analogy so let’s try this. The choice this article gives you is the first train stop, the “work camp” or further down the tracks to the “death camp” to use some Nazi imagery for the sake of simplification not morality. I think I’ll stick to my car.
I choose to do good because I want to do good, like I have chosen to serve my country for 18 years because I wanted to, not because I was drafted, or needed money for college or wanted a good retirement. I don’t do it to salute officers and calling over educated fools people “sir” all day long. I do it despite the clowns I have have to endure because I believe in what I am doing. I don’t do it for any expectation of some reward after I am done working. I don’t care for accolades promotions or retirement. I serve because I believe in the mission I perform.
I’m not a hedonist, I am not seeking to do whatever I like, whenever I like. I am saying this article says I am given two choices, one not that great, the other horrific and I am supposed to gratefully choose the not great because it is not horrific. “You can eat tofu the rest of your life, or I can set you on fire after I dump gasoline on you.” Really? that’s my choice? That’s what I can look forward to forever?
I’m not convinced of such a fate, and I am not willing to trust people dead 3000 years for 100% accuracy on the subject. I see no reason to believe their word against anyone else. You asking me to put all my eggs in one basket on the word of more or less goat herders dead 100 generations, based on no evidence whatsoever. And if that is right, I get to be a maid and toady for all eternity. I find such a “reward” underwhelming.
I do not believe in the notion of a god that knows me intimately, and wants me to be happy, because I see not a shred of evidence, in fact I see more and more quite the opposite; and I reject the idea that any god that were such a being would lay down a “worship me or die” ultimatum on anyone.
Lewis also had this question in very similar words. He added to it that any 'God' who would permit a world like this one could not be worthy of anything above contempt. I do hope that one day you read Lewis. He's VERY readable, if nothing else.
I would qualify the "mere conjecture" statement this way: Admittedly the core of the Xtian proclamation is based on 'revelation," that is, stuff one could not 'know' unless it was disclosed. You couldn't dope it out. We not only admit that, we proclaim it.
But, while I blended revealed and 'reasonable' stuff in My's previous posts, I do think that there are some questions about what we technically call "the Great Hoo-Hoo in the Sky" that can be answered by reason alone.
(But then, we Catholics do not think reason is merely a meat computer but is the faculty whereby we can discern some of the truth.) I think Aristotle does a pretty good job of making a persuasive, if not conclusive, 'proof' of God which is worth far more attention than it has gotten for the past 150 years or so.
Again, as the risk of flogging the decaying corpse of a dead horse: Your attitude seems so suggest that God's 'requirements' are not intrinsically related to our good. The basic image is Door A and Door B -- and other than the fact that God like A and hates B there is no important difference between the doors.
If that were indeed the case, then God would be a bully. Incidentally, there is a flavor of that in Islam: You must obey God even if he commands evil. And, again, the problem is that "Good" is a standard somehow "above" God, or at least alongside of God.
And that would not be true monotheism OR it devalues "God" or "Good".
Lewis also addresses the "insecurity" and "praise" thing. To condense unmercifully: If I see a truly beautiful sunset, I naturally will call my wife and tell her to come see it. Then we will say to one another, "Isn't that SOMEthing?" which amounts to our asking each other to praise the sunset.
And if somebody were to look at the sunset and show not interest, we'd think maybe he was colorblind or had no aesthetic sense, the way some people really are 'tone-deaf.' We would pity him, a little, and think there was something wrong with his perceptive faculties, not with the sunset.
It's similar with music or wine. Almost anyone can taste that a good Lafitte-Rothschild is better than screw-top wine. But a little effort at tasting will enrich the enjoyment. And most 8 year olds don't get much of Bach. But a 30 year old who doesn't enjoy Bach has a problem. And people with good ears or good palates hear Bach or taste the Bordeaux and look at each other and invite each other to join in an expression of appreciation.
I don't get the "sending your little sister" part of your post. Sorry.
One way to express ONE classic argument against God is:
If God is God, he is not good;
If God is good, he is not God.
This is to ask the question about how a good, all-powerful God could let all this bad stuff happen. And that's an excellent question to which I have never found an emotionally satisfactory answer, though the question troubles me less than it used to.
But from the point of view of thoughtful monotheism, once one has decided that monotheism is it, the question cannot be asked. This is because God is identical with TRUE Good, Justice, Mercy and all like that. That's not a matter of revelation; it's a matter of what must follow from the hypothesis of one supreme being.
One last shot at the bullying thing: You have acute appendicitis. Is the doctor a bully to say, "You must have surgery or you will die." You are weak. Is the trainer a bully to say that unless you exercise you will not remain weak but will in fact get weaker?
Some others said what you want is "license." That may be one way of expressing it, but maybe it's not the best way of PERSUADING the concept.
Did you know "Torah" means not only "Law" but also "Teaching" or "Instruction?" There are times when we appreciate instructions because it is only by following them that we can assemble the bicycle, or whatever. Is it so hard to imagine that by resisting some inclinations, by obliging ourselves to do things we don't especially FEEL like doing we might turn out happier than we would if we always let our inclinations determine our actions.
Again, I am not trying to convince you to become a Christian, or even a Theist. I have a very limited goal: to present a way of understanding how some people answer the quite reasonable questions and complaints you raise. I hope this is at least clarifying.
I LOVE it! No wonder we haven't made the sale.
- "Come unto me all ye that travail and are heavy-laden, and I will give you tofu."
- "Uh, thanks, Lord, but, pass!"
Matthew 25:46 "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."
Luke 16:23 "And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom."
Revelation 14:11 " And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name."
Rather than that, the guy seems to be suggesting that Hell is the flip side of God's willingness to respect our free will.
Whereas love leads to good things (and we know it does), Hell would be the creation of people living according to their own baser instincts.... in that sense, Hell may be not unlike one of those especially grim inner city areas we all want to avoid.
I respect someone who says, "You have not shown me that God is good; you have only shown me that He insists on His way."
Can we really call what we preach "good news" is all we have to say is, "God has put you in a dreadful predicament but has kindly given you a way out." If that is the sum of the Gospel, then I can easily understand a man, and I mean "Man!", saying, well I'd rather suffer than abase myself before a bully.
Don't get me wrong, please. I think a certain kind of humiliation is essential to spiritual health and wholeness. I think that, since I am a subordinate creature, my joy is only to be found in submission to Him who made and saved me.
But we Christians in our various denominations have down a very bad job in persuasively portraying God as anything other than someone who comes to earth to say, "You all have broken a bunch of arbitrary rules that you didn't know you had to follow, but I will forgive you if you worship me."
It's not enough to say, But He's NOT a bully!" Why should MS not just say, "Why should I believe YOU?"
It's not enough to say, "But the Bible says [thus and such]," when his response will likely be, "That book is, according to you, nothing more than the words of the Great Bully. Even if I believed you and thought it was His Word (which I don't -- why should I believe YOU?), He's still a bully."
"No, you're wrong," has never struck me as a good answer. Not at the beginning of a conversation, anyway.
Good post! I recognize Father Corapi in those words. :-)
Kingdom this,Kingdom that.
No matter where you go or what you do,God will always be with you.
Accepting this in all its finality is what leads to Heaven.
And thank you for applying Godwins law to a perfect analogy.
You can’t answwer the question, so you bring up the nazi’s, that gives me an automatic win, and you change the topic.
Had you stuck to the question you would have to admit your error.
Thank you, he is one of my favorites
Me too.
It strikes me as silly that any human would presume to judge God. He is God and can do as He pleases. Whether we like it or not is irrelevant.
Well, yeah. In the particular event, it's ridiculous for a theist to presume to judge.
But, well, the problem can be expressed like this: Do we mean anything when we say "God is good"? If we can't make a general 'judgment,' if He can do anything and it will be 'good' because he did it, then it's hard to know what 'good' means.
We are told to have an injection, which includes the 'evil' of pain, because "It's good for you." So is that all that good means -- just whatever makes our life longer and more pleasant?
I'm guessing McCloud-Strife [hereinafter MS] won't buy that because he engaged in a profession which required him to be prepared to suffer great evil because he thought there was some objective 'good' or 'justice' which was greater than himself, and worthy of his service.
So is there a kind of unitary moral code such that "justice" and "righteousness" mean something like the same thing when we apply those terms to men, human deeds, and to God and Divine deeds? If not, Is saying "God is good" nothing different from saying "God is God"?
What the Greeks called "The Good" and "The One" was sort of the bare outline, discerned dimly because it was discerned without the assistance of positive revelation, was identified by the early Xtian thinkers with our God. He is dimly known and seen in the sacrifice of people like MS, and even in MS's insistence on knowledge and justice.
We Christians almost all claim some experience, which we call 'salvation' (among other things) in which we find ourselves able and willing to claim that it was God acting in our lives. A consequence of that experience is that we are willing to trust that God does justice (the perfection of which is mercy, in Catholic thought -- if not always in Catholic behavior) even when we can't discern it.
But we have what seems to us to be the gift of faith, we see in the Bible God's self-disclosure. But MS does not have that faith or that opinion of Scripture.
So how to we, respecting God AND respecting MS whom we think God made and loves, engages MS where He is and answer his not totally off the wall (though, we think, pretty much entirely wrong) charges and questions? That is the problem that I, at least, wrestle with.
It probably started with the Congregationalist John Edward's famous sermon "Sinners in the hands of an angry God". . . or at least with liberal secularists teaching in high school and college about that sermon. But if you actually read that sermon in its entirety, it's not really what the secularists made it out to be. Edwards was a pretty good theologian.
There have always been fire and brimstone preachers, but it's they that are trying to scare their listeners into the pews and their wallets into the collection plate . . . not God.
Lewis in his 20s was standing exactly where you are standing. He was very intelligent, a combat veteran and an atheist.
It is difficult, because we have a limited view of things, whereas God sees all, knows how all things fit together for good, and how all things affect eternity. What can look like it's not "good" from a human perspective may obviously look entirely different to God.
A hell that includes punishment and isn't just "separation from God" may not seem just. But scripture talks about the punishment fitting the crime so to speak. The level of punishment in hell isn't the same for Hitler as it would be for the average guy who behaved in a pretty decent fashion but never chose to receive Christ. In that respect, God is just.
Salvation, however, is pure mercy. I guess someone could say that is unjust - why should some be spared and not all? But except for Calvinists, Christians generally believe God's mercy is available to all through Christ. We just have to choose to trust Him.
Forget the word “nazi”, and any other cannotations other than what this article promises eternal praise, worship, and deeds for god 24/7 being in church forever (ie work camp)or fiery death further down the tracks(ie death camp).
You asked which is freer, the train moving down the tracks or or train the jumps it’s rails. To which I directly responded. Neither is free when you only have one choice for direction. How is it freedom when when you move according to someone elses dictates irregardless of your wants, needs, or desires? Having only 1 choice not your own is not free. So how is that not an answer to your question? It’s a false dilemna and I reject the choices on it’s face. I’ll still prefer my car instead a path towards two bad “choices” that are not really choices at all. Does 2+2 = “6” or “Cheese cake”?
Just so I am clear you refuse to answer the question becasue you are wrong, or don’t want to look foolish, which is it?
You wish me to answer your question. OK, here is a direct answer, the train that moves down the track is “more free”.
Now you can answer my question. Do you think you scored some kind of debating point with me because your a dim bulb, or because you are some kind of bully? I I want a direct answer, and I only want one of MY choices I have given you. Just so we are clear.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.