|
|
|
|
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 5/27/2008 8:06:11 AM | if your child did something to go to jail would you still love them?
Hell is not jail.
Hell is were you burn in for eternity.
Jail is where you go when you commit a crime not for failing to love someone.
Unless of course you think god considers not loving him a crime.
And then to burn in hell because you don't?
Love me or die is not a healthy type of love IMO. | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 5/27/2008 8:25:10 AM | | o.kif your child did something that involved the death penalty would you still love him?i am assuming you dont believe in hell. | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 5/27/2008 8:37:47 AM | Hell is not jail.
Hell is were you burn in for eternity.
Jail is where you go when you commit a crime not for failing to love someone.
Unless of course you think god considers not loving him a crime.
And then to burn in hell because you don't?
Love me or die is not a healthy type of love IMO.
Hell is a myth!
There is nothing in scripture containing the word 'hell' in the original manuscripts, hell as you understand it to be guy named Ray, originated in pagan mythology and was adopted into christianity by the Roman Catholic Church, along with the myth of purgatory.
So your premise is incorrect and therefore your entire line of reasoning is corrupted. | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 5/27/2008 9:08:30 AM | sam-spade wrote:
There is no God. There is no Allah. There are no aliens. We are alone. The universe is ours. The only thing we'll ever find are rocks, sand, water, and the odd plant or bug. That's it folks.
You say it so authoritatively - I admire your dedication to your perception of reality, sometimes that is the best we can muster up.
I'm amazed that we still, after 50,000 years, pray to imaginary figureheads. Cave men worshiped fire, cool trees, then big stones, statues, and we're still doing it. When will we wake up.
A vast majority of the world's populace assert that we are awake. Further one of the best test of the accuracy and truth of an assertion is the number of people who by consensus acknowledge the truth of something and over the test of time continue to acknoledge it's truth.
50,000 years, tried and true! And yes, people's belief systems have evolved, as you are good enough to point out to us. I know of no instances of man worshiping fire, trees stones or statues and we do not at this time. I think by projecting your concepts as to someone holding fire in respect; using statues to honor their deity the way some might use a picture of mom in the hall way to honor their mother; and to assume that this constitutes worship - it is assumptive and erroneous.
Where is god? Is there anything wrong with checking in once in a while?
Great questions - all of them. God is in Heaven. The Bible is full of stories of God checking in on a pretty considtant basis. There are people in this day and age who recall such instances of God checking into our lives as well.
To be fair - God is propbably checking into your life more often than you realize - but since you refuse to acknowledge the existance of a God you, no doubt, attribute the presence to any number of other things - shame.
We don't need a god to tell us it's wrong to hurt people.
Those of us who don't won't - but if you read The Book of The Letter of James it is very clearly spelled out for THE FAITHFUL as to why God's laws are presented to us and what we are to do in submission to them and why.
We know it's not good. At this point in our history, the belief in a God is only hurting humanity.
When you weigh out the number of advances in civilization which have been made in honor of God, architectue, music, medicine, etc. you will find that without God we would likely still be wandering in the dark ages.
If there was a god, as we know it now, I certainly wouldn't side with that azzhole.
First you refer to the creator of the universe in such a manner and then you complain about them sending you to Hell? I think that fact that you refer to the creator in such a manner represents a very clear indicator that it is not the creator but ourselves who sends us anywhere but His presence.
My mom would put a whuppin on me for using that kind of language, but a little barbon based homosapean expects to use such language with the creator of the universe and, what, be invited for a malt?
Imagine an all loving god, burning someone forever in hell fire because he created someone who was defective?
Please do yourselves a favor and go back and read the story first. In The Beginning hamunity was created in a state of perfection. The story explains that we fell from perfection and are in a state of reconcilliation.
It is ignorant to call names and ridicule a book you refuse to read.
Let's face it, someone who chops up little kids with an ax is DEFECTIVE.
What the...? What are you even talking about? Yes someone who chops up little kids is defective, but what does that have to do with my belife in God?
If you don't believe, aren't you defective as well?
So if I don't believe in God - OR IF I DO - I am chopping up little kids? Think it through before posting please.
Fvck him/her then.
It's Him - and you will be sorry you every even thought that one day soon. | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 5/27/2008 9:15:26 AM | Hell is as much a myth as evolution or for that matter quantum physics is a myth...
Hell
This subject is treated under eight headings: (I) Name and Place of Hell; (II) Existence of Hell; (III) Eternity of Hell; (IV) Impenitence of the Damned; (V) Poena Damni; (VI) Poena Sensus; (VII) Accidental Pains of the Damned; (VIII) Characteristics of the Pains of Hell.
Name and place of hell
The term hell is cognate to "hole" (cavern) and "hollow". It is a substantive formed from the Anglo-Saxon helan or behelian, "to hide". This verb has the same primitive as the Latin occulere and celare and the Greek kalyptein. Thus by derivation hell denotes a dark and hidden place. In ancient Norse mythology Hel is the ill-favoured goddess of the underworld. Only those who fall in battle can enter Valhalla; the rest go down to Hel in the underworld, not all, however, to the place of punishment of criminals.
Hell (infernus) in theological usage is a place of punishment after death. Theologians distinguish four meanings of the term hell:
hell in the strict sense, or the place of punishment for the damned, be they demons or men; the limbo of infants (limbus parvulorum), where those who die in original sin alone, and without personal mortal sin, are confined and undergo some kind of punishment; the limbo of the Fathers (limbus patrum), in which the souls of the just who died before Christ awaited their admission to heaven; for in the meantime heaven was closed against them in punishment for the sin of Adam; purgatory, where the just, who die in venial sin or who still owe a debt of temporal punishment for sin, are cleansed by suffering before their admission to heaven. The present article treats only of hell in the strict sense of the term.
The Latin infernus (inferum, inferi), the Greek Hades, and the Hebrew sheol correspond to the word hell. Infernus is derived from the root in; hence it designates hell as a place within and below the earth. Haides, formed from the root fid, to see, and a privative, denotes an invisible, hidden, and dark place; thus it is similar to the term hell. The derivation of sheol is doubtful. It is generally supposed to come from the Hebrew root meaning, "to be sunk in, to be hollow"; accordingly it denotes a cave or a place under the earth. In the Old Testament (Septuagint hades; Vulgate infernus) sheol is used quite in general to designate the kingdom of the dead, of the good (Genesis 37:35) as well as of the bad (Numbers 16:30); it means hell in the strict sense of the term, as well as the limbo of the Fathers. But, as the limbo of the Fathers ended at the time of Christ's Ascension, hades (Vulgate infernus) in the New Testament always designates the hell of the damned. Since Christ's Ascension the just no longer go down to the lower world, but they dwell in heaven (2 Corinthians 5:1). However, in the New Testament the term Gehenna is used more frequently in preference to hades, as a name for the place of punishment of the damned. Gehenna is the Hebrew gê-hinnom (Nehemiah 11:30), or the longer form gê-ben-hinnom (Joshua 15:8), and gê-benê-hinnom (2 Kings 23:10) "valley of the sons of Hinnom". Hinnom seems to be the name of a person not otherwise known. The Valley of Hinnom is south of Jerusalem and is now called Wadi er-rababi. It was notorious as the scene, in earlier days, of the horrible worship of Moloch. For this reason it was defiled by Josias (2 Kings 23:10), cursed by Jeremias (Jeremiah 7:31-33), and held in abomination by the Jews, who, accordingly, used the name of this valley to designate the abode of the damned (Targ. Jon., Gen., iii, 24; Henoch, c. xxvi). And Christ adopted this usage of the term. Besides Hades and Gehenna, we find in the New Testament many other names for the abode of the damned. It is called "lower hell" (Vulgate tartarus) (2 Peter 2:4), "abyss" (Luke 8:31 and elsewhere), "place of torments" (Luke 16:28), "pool of fire" (Revelation 19:20 and elsewhere), "furnace of fire" (Matthew 13:42, 50), "unquenchable fire" (Matthew 3:12, and elsewhere), "everlasting fire" (Matthew 18:8; 25:41; Jude 7), "exterior darkness" (Matthew 7:12; 22:13; 25:30), "mist" or "storm of darkness" (2 Peter 2:17; Jude 13). The state of the damned is called "destruction" (apoleia, Phil., iii, 19, and elsewhere), "perdition" (olethros, 1 Timothy 6:9), "eternal destruction" (olethros aionios, 2 Thessalonians 1:9), "corruption" (phthora, Galatians 6:8), "death" (Romans 6:21), "second death" (Revelation 2:11 and elsewhere).
Where is hell? Some were of opinion that hell is everywhere, that the damned are at liberty to roam about in the entire universe, but that they carry their punishment with them. The adherents of this doctrine were called Ubiquists, or Ubiquitarians; among them were, e.g., Johann Brenz, a Swabian, a Protestant theologian of the sixteenth century. However, that opinion is universally and deservedly rejected; for it is more in keeping with their state of punishment that the damned be limited in their movements and confined to a definite place. Moreover, if hell is a real fire, it cannot be everywhere, especially after the consummation of the world, when heaven and earth shall have been made anew. As to its locality all kinds of conjectures have been made; it has been suggested that hell is situated on some far island of the sea, or at the two poles of the earth; Swinden, an Englishman of the eighteenth century, fancied it was in the sun; some assigned it to the moon, others to Mars; others placed it beyond the confines of the universe [Wiest, "Instit. theol.", VI (1789), 869]. The Bible seems to indicate that hell is within the earth, for it describes hell as an abyss to which the wicked descend. We even read of the earth opening and of the wicked sinking down into hell (Numbers 16:31 sqq.; Psalm 54:16; Isaiah 5:14; Ezekiel 26:20; Philippians 2:10, etc.). Is this merely a metaphor to illustrate the state of separation from God? Although God is omnipresent, He is said to dwell in heaven, because the light and grandeur of the stars and the firmament are the brightest manifestations of His infinite splendour. But the damned are utterly estranged from God; hence their abode is said to be as remote as possible from his dwelling, far from heaven above and its light, and consequently hidden away in the dark abysses of the earth. However, no cogent reason has been advanced for accepting a metaphorical interpretation in preference to the most natural meaning of the words of Scripture. Hence theologians generally accept the opinion that hell is really within the earth. The Church has decided nothing on this subject; hence we may say hell is a definite place; but where it is, we do not know. St. Chrysostom reminds us: "We must not ask where hell is, but how we are to escape it" (In Rom., hom. xxxi, n. 5, in P.G., LX, 674). St. Augustine says: "It is my opinion that the nature of hell-fire and the location of hell are known to no man unless the Holy Ghost made it known to him by a special revelation", (De Civ. Dei, XX, xvi, in P.L., XLI, 682). Elsewhere he expresses the opinion that hell is under the earth (Retract., II, xxiv, n. 2 in P.L., XXXII, 640). St. Gregory the Great wrote: "I do not dare to decide this question. Some thought hell is somewhere on earth; others believe it is under the earth" (Dial., IV, xlii, in P.L., LXXVII, 400; cf. Patuzzi, "De sede inferni", 1763; Gretser, "De subterraneis animarum receptaculis", 1595).
Existence of hell
There is a hell, i.e. all those who die in personal mortal sin, as enemies of God, and unworthy of eternal life, will be severely punished by God after death. On the nature of mortal sin, see SIN; on the immediate beginning of punishment after death, see PARTICULAR JUDGMENT. As to the fate of those who die free from personal mortal sin, but in original sin, see LIMBO (limbus parvulorum).
The existence of hell is, of course, denied by all those who deny the existence of God or the immortality of the soul. Thus among the Jew the Sadducees, among the Gnostics, the Seleucians, and in our own time Materialists, Pantheists, etc., deny the existence of hell. But apart from these, if we abstract from the eternity of the pains of hell, the doctrine has never met any opposition worthy of mention.
The existence of hell is proved first of all from the Bible. Wherever Christ and the Apostles speak of hell they presuppose the knowledge of its existence (Matthew 5:29; 8:12; 10:28; 13:42; 25:41, 46; 2 Thessalonians 1:8; Revelation 21:8, etc.). A very complete development of the Scriptural argument, especially in regard to the Old Testament, may be found in Atzberger's "Die christliche Eschatologie in den Stadien ihrer Offenbarung im Alten und Neuen Testament", Freiburg, 1890. Also the Fathers, from the very earliest times, are unanimous in teaching that the wicked will be punished after death. And in proof of their doctrine they appeal both to Scripture and to reason (cf. Ignatius, "Ad Eph.", v, 16; "Martyrium s. Polycarpi", ii, n, 3; xi, n.2; Justin, "Apol.", II, n. 8 in P.G., VI, 458; Athenagoras, "De resurr. mort.", c. xix, in P.G., VI, 1011; Irenaeus, "Adv. haer.", V, xxvii, n. 2 in P.G. VII, 1196; Tertullian, "Adv. Marc.", I, c. xxvi, in P.L., IV, 277). For citations from this patristic teaching see Atzberger, "Gesh. der christl. Eschatologie innerhalb der vornicanischen Zeit" (Freiburg, 1896); Petavius, "De Angelis", III, iv sqq.
The Church professes her faith in the Athanasian Creed: "They that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire" (Denzinger, "Enchiridion", 10th ed., 1908, n.40). The Church has repeatedly defined this truth, e.g. in the profession of faith made in the Second Council of Lyons (Denx., n. 464) and in the Decree of Union in the Council of Florence (Denz., N. 693): "the souls of those who depart in mortal sin, or only in original sin, go down immediately into hell, to be visited, however, with unequal punishments" (poenis disparibus).
If we abstract from the eternity of its punishment, the existence of hell can be demonstrated even by the light of mere reason. In His sanctity and justice as well as in His wisdom, God must avenge the violation of the moral order in such wise as to preserve, at least in general, some proportion between the gravity of sin and the severity of punishment. But it is evident from experience that God does not always do this on earth; therefore He will inflict punishment after death. Moreover, if all men were fully convinced that the sinner need fear no kind of punishment after death, moral and social order would be seriously menaced. This, however, Divine wisdom cannot permit. Again, if there were no retribution beyond that which takes place before our eyes here on earth, we should have to consider God extremely indifferent to good and evil, and we could in no way account for His justice and holiness. Nor can it be said: the wicked will be punished, but not by any positive infliction: for either death will be the end of their existence, or, forfeiting the rich reward of the good, they will enjoy some lesser degree of happiness. These are arbitrary and vain subterfuges, unsupported by any sound reason; positive punishment is the natural recompense of evil. Besides, due proportion between demerit and punishment would be rendered impossible by an indiscriminate annihilation of all the wicked. And finally, if men knew that their sins would not be followed by sufferings, the mere threat of annihilation at the moment of death, and still less the prospect of a somewhat lower degree of beatitude, would not suffice to deter them from sin.
Furthermore, reason easily understands that in the next life the just will be made happy as a reward of their virtue (see HEAVEN). But the punishment of evil is the natural counterpart of the reward of virtue. Hence, there will also be punishment for sin in the next life. Accordingly, we find among all nations the belief that evil-doers will be punished after death. This universal conviction of mankind is an additional proof for the existence of hell. For it is impossible that, in regard to the fundamental questions of their being and their destiny, all men should fall into the same error; else the power of human reason would be essentially deficient, and the order of this world would be unduly wrapt in mystery; this however, is repugnant both to nature and to the wisdom of the Creator. On the belief of all nations in the existence of hell cf. Lüken, "Die Traditionen des Menschengeschlechts" (2nd ed., Münster, 1869); Knabenbauer, "Das Zeugnis des Menschengeschlechts fur die Unsterblichkeit der Seele" (1878). The few men who, despite the morally universal conviction of the human race, deny the existence of hell, are mostly atheists and Epicureans. But if the view of such men in the fundamental question of our being could be the true one, apostasy would be the way to light, truth, and wisdom.
Eternity of hell
Many admit the existence of hell, but deny the eternity of its punishment. Conditionalists hold only a hypothetical immortality of the soul, and assert that after undergoing a certain amount of punishment, the souls of the wicked will be annihilated. Among the Gnostics the Valentinians held this doctrine, and later on also Arnobius, the Socinians, many Protestants both in the past and in our own times, especially of late (Edw. White, "Life in Christ", New York, 1877). The Universalists teach that in the end all the damned, at least all human souls, will attain beatitude (apokatastasis ton panton, restitutio omnium, according to Origen). This was a tenet of the Origenists and the Misericordes of whom St. Augustine speaks (De Civ. Dei, XXI, xviii, n. 1, in P.L., XLI, 732). There were individual adherents of this opinion in every century, e.g. Scotus Eriugena; in particular, many rationalistic Protestants of the last centuries defended this belief, e.g. in England, Farrar, "Eternal Hope" (five sermons preached in Westminster Abbey, London and New York, 1878). Among Catholics, Hirscher and Schell have recently expressed the opinion that those who do not die in the state of grace can still be converted after death if they are not too wicked and impenitent.
The Holy Bible is quite explicit in teaching the eternity of the pains of hell. The torments of the damned shall last forever and ever (Revelation 14:11; 19:3; 20:10). They are everlasting just as are the joys of heaven (Matthew 25:46). Of Judas Christ says: "it were better for him, if that man had not been born" (Matthew 26:24). But this would not have been true if Judas was ever to be released from hell and admitted to eternal happiness. Again, God says of the damned: "Their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched" (Isaiah 66:24; Mark 9:43, 45, 47). The fire of hell is repeatedly called eternal and unquenchable. The wrath of God abideth on the damned (John 3:36); they are vessels of Divine wrath (Romans 9:22); they shall not possess the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:10; Galatians 5:21), etc. The objections adduced from Scripture against this doctrine are so meaningless that they are not worth while discussing in detail. The teaching of the fathers is not less clear and decisive (cf. Patavius, "De Angelis", III, viii). We merely call to mind the testimony of the martyrs who often declared that they were glad to suffer pain of brief duration in order to escape eternal torments; e.g. "Martyrium Polycarpi", c. ii (cf. Atzberger, "Geschichte", II, 612 sqq.). It is true that Origen fell into error on this point; but precisely for this error he was condemned by the Church (Canones adv. Origenem ex Justiniani libro adv. Origen., can. ix; Hardouin, III, 279 E; Denz., n. 211). In vain attempts were made to undermine the authority of these canons (cf.****mp, "Die origenistischen Streitigkeiten", Münster, 1899, 137). Besides even in Origen we find the orthodox teaching on the eternity of the pains of hell; for in his words the faithful Christian was again and again victorious over the doubting philosopher. Gregory of Nyssa seems to have favoured the errors of Origen; many, however, believe that his statements can be shown to be in harmony with Catholic doctrine. But the suspicions that have been cast on some passages of Gregory of Nazianzus and Jerome are decidedly without justification (cf. Pesch, "Theologische Zeitfragen", 2nd series, 190 sqq.). The Church professes her faith in the eternity of the pains of hell in clear terms in the Athanasian Creed (Denz., nn. 40), in authentic doctrinal decisions (Denz, nn. 211, 410, 429, 807, 835, 915), and in countless passages of her liturgy; she never prays for the damned. Hence, beyond the possibility of doubt, the Church expressly teaches the eternity of the pains of hell as a truth of faith which no one can deny or call in question without manifest heresy.
But what is the attitude of mere reason towards this doctrine? Just as God must appoint some fixed term for the time of trial, after which the just will enter into the secure possession of a happiness that can never again be lost in all eternity, so it is likewise appropriate that after the expiration of that term the wicked will be cut off from all hope of conversion and happiness. For the malice of men cannot compel God to prolong the appointed time of probation and to grant them again and again, without end, the power of deciding their lot for eternity. Any obligation to act in this manner would be unworthy of God, because it would make Him dependent on the caprice of human malice, would rob His threats in great part of their efficacy, and would offer the amplest scope and the strongest incentive to human presumption. God has actually appointed the end of this present life, or the moment of death, as the term of man's probation. For in that moment there takes place in our life an essential and momentous change; from the state of union with the body the soul passes into a life apart. No other sharply defined instant of our life is of like importance. Hence we must conclude that death is the end of our probation; for it is meet that our trial should terminate at a moment of our existence so prominent and significant as to be easily perceived by every man. Accordingly, it is the belief of all people that eternal retribution is dealt out immediately after death. This conviction of mankind is an additional proof of our thesis.
Finally, the preservation of moral and social order would not be sufficiently provided for, if men knew that the time of trial were to be continued after death.
Many believe that reason cannot give any conclusive proof for the eternity of the pains of hell, but that it can merely show that this doctrine does not involve any contradiction. Since the Church has made no decision on this point, each one is entirely free to embrace this opinion. As is apparent, the author of this article does not hold it. We admit that God might have extended the time of trial beyond death; however, had He done so, He would have permitted man to know about it, and would have made corresponding provision for the maintenance of moral order in this life. We may further admit that it is not intrinsically impossible for God to annihilate the sinner after some definite amount of punishment; but this would be less in conformity with the nature of man's immortal soul; and, secondly, we know of no fact that might give us any right to suppose God will act in such a manner.
The objection is made that there is no proportion between the brief moment of sin and an eternal punishment. But why not? We certainly admit a proportion between a momentary good deed and its eternal reward, not, it is true, a proportion of duration, but a proportion between the law and its appropriate sanction. Again, sin is an offence against the infinite authority of God, and the sinner is in some way aware of this, though but imperfectly. Accordingly there is in sin an approximation to infinite malice which deserves an eternal punishment. Finally, it must be remembered that, although the act of sinning is brief, the guilt of sin remains forever; for in the next life the sinner never turns away from his sin by a sincere conversion. It is further objected that the sole object of punishment must be to reform the evil-doer. This is not true. Besides punishments inflicted for correction, there are also punishments for the satisfaction of justice. But justice demands that whoever departs from the right way in his search for happiness shall not find his happiness, but lose it. The eternity of the pains of hell responds to this demand for justice. And, besides, the fear of hell does really deter many from sin; and thus, in as far as it is threatened by God, eternal punishment also serves for the reform of morals. But if God threatens man with the pains of hell, He must also carry out His threat if man does not heed it by avoiding sin.
For solving other objections it should be noted:
God is not only infinitely good, He is infinitely wise, just, and holy.
No one is cast into hell unless he has fully and entirely deserved it.
The sinner perseveres forever in his evil disposition.
We must not consider the eternal punishment of hell as a series of separate of distinct terms of punishment, as if God were forever again and again pronouncing a new sentence and inflicting new penalties, and as if He could never satisfy His desire of vengeance. Hell is, especially in the eyes of God, one and indivisible in its entirety; it is but one sentence and one penalty. We may represent to ourselves a punishment of indescribable intensity as in a certain sense the equivalent of an eternal punishment; this may help us to see better how God permits the sinner to fall into hell -- how a man who sets at naught all Divine warnings, who fails to profit by all the patient forbearance God has shown him, and who in wanton disobedience is absolutely bent on rushing into eternal punishment, can be finally permitted by God's just indignation to fall into hell.
In itself, it is no rejection of Catholic dogma to suppose that God might at times, by way of exception, liberate a soul from hell. Thus some argued from a false interpretation of 1 Peter 3:19 sq., that Christ freed several damned souls on the occasion of His descent into hell. Others were misled by untrustworthy stories into the belief that the prayers of Gregory the Great rescued the Emperor Trajan from hell. But now theologians are unanimous in teaching that such exceptions never take place and never have taken place, a teaching which should be accepted. If this be true, how can the Church pray in the Offertory of the Mass for the dead: "Libera animas omnium fidelium defunctorum de poenis inferni et de profundo lacu" etc.? Many think the Church uses these words to designate purgatory. They can be explained more readily, however, if we take into consideration the peculiar spirit of the Church's liturgy; sometimes she refers her prayers not to the time at which they are said, but to the time for which they are said. Thus the offertory in question is referred to the moment when the soul is about to leave the body, although it is actually said some time after that moment; and as if he were actually at the death-beds of the faithful, the priest implores God to preserve their souls from hell. But whichever explanation be preferred, this much remains certain, that in saying that offertory the Church intends to implore only those graces which the soul is still capable of receiving, namely, the grace of a happy death or the release from purgatory.
Impenitence of the damned
The damned are confirmed in evil; every act of their will is evil and inspired by hatred of God. This is the common teaching of theology; St. Thomas sets it forth in many passages. Nevertheless, some have held the opinion that, although the damned cannot perform any supernatural action, they are still able to perform, now and then, some naturally good deed; thus far the Church has not condemned this opinion. The author of this article maintains that the common teaching is the true one; for in hell the separation from the sanctifying power of Divine love is complete. Many assert that this inability to do good works is physical, and assign the withholding of all grace as its proximate cause; in doing so, they take the term grace in its widest meaning, i.e. every Divine co-operation both in natural and in supernatural good actions. The damned, then, can never choose between acting out of love of God and virtue, and acting out of hatred of God. Hatred is the only motive in their power; and they have no other choice than that of showing their hatred of God by one evil action in preference to another. The last and the real cause of their impenitence is the state of sin which they freely chose as their portion on earth and in which they passed, unconverted, into the next life and into that state of permanence (status termini) by nature due to rational creatures, and to an unchangeable attitude of mind. Quite in consonance with their final state, God grants them only such cooperation as corresponds to the attitude which they freely chose as their own in this life. Hence the damned can but hate God and work evil, whilst the just in heaven or in purgatory, being inspired solely by love of God, can but do good. Therefore, too, the works of the reprobate, in as far as they are inspired by hatred of God, are not formal, but only material sins, because they are performed without the liberty requisite for moral imputability. Formal sin the reprobate commits then only, when, from among several actions in his power, he deliberately chooses that which contains the greater malice. By such formal sins the damned do not incur any essential increase of punishment, because in that final state the very possibility and Divine permission of sin are in themselves a punishment; and, moreover, a sanction of the moral law would be quite meaningless.
From what has been said it follows that the hatred which the lost soul bears to God is voluntary in its cause only; and the cause is the deliberate sin which it committed on earth and by which it merited reprobation. It is also obvious that God is not responsible for the reprobate's material sins of hate, because by granting His co-operation in their sinful acts as well as by refusing them every incitement to good, He acts quite in accordance with the nature of their state. Therefore their sins are no more imputable to God than are the blasphemies of a man in the state of total intoxication, although they are not uttered without Divine assistance. The reprobate carries in himself the primary cause of impenitence; it is the guilt of sin which he committed on earth and with which he passed into eternity. The proximate cause of impenitence in hell is God's refusal of every grace and every impulse for good. It would not be intrinsically impossible for God to move the damned to repentance; yet such a course would be out of keeping with the state of final reprobation. The opinion that the Divine refusal of all grace and of every incitement to good is the proximate cause of impenitence, is upheld by many theologians, and in particular by Molina. Francisco Suárez considers it probable. Scotus and Vasquez hold similar views. Even the Fathers and St. Thomas may be understood in this sense. Thus St. Thomas teaches (De verit., Q. xxiv, a.10) that the chief cause of impenitence is Divine justice which refuses the damned every grace. Nevertheless many theologians, e.g. Francisco Suárez, defend the opinion that the damned are only morally incapable of good; they have the physical power, but the difficulties in their way are so great that they can never be surmounted. The damned can never divert their attention from their frightful torments, and at the same time they know that all hope is lost to them. Hence despair and hatred of God, their just Judge, is almost inevitable, and even the slightest good impulse becomes morally impossible. The Church has not decided this question. The present author prefers Molina's opinion.
But if the damned are impenitent, how can Scripture (Wisdom 5) say they repent of their sin? They deplore with the utmost intensity the punishment, but not the malice of sin; to this they cling more tenaciously than ever. Had they an opportunity, they would commit the sin again, not indeed for the sake of its gratification, which they found illusive, but out of sheer hatred of God. They are ashamed of their folly which led them to seek happiness in sin, but not of the malice of sin itself (St. Thomas, Theol. comp., c. cxxv).
Poena damni
The poena damni, or pain of loss, consists in the loss of the beatific vision and in so complete a separation of all the powers of the soul from God that it cannot find in Him even the least peace and rest. It is accompanied by the loss of all supernatural gifts, e.g. the loss of faith. The characters impressed by the sacraments alone remain to the greater confusion of the bearer. The pain of loss is not the mere absence of superior bliss, but it is also a most intense positive pain. The utter void of the soul made for the enjoyment of infinite truth and infinite goodness causes the reprobate immeasurable anguish. Their consciousness that God, on Whom they entirely depend, is their enemy forever is overwhelming. Their consciousness of having by their own deliberate folly forfeited the highest blessings for transitory and delusive pleasures humiliates and depresses them beyond measure. The desire for happiness inherent in their very nature, wholly unsatisfied and no longer able to find any compensation for the loss of God in delusive pleasure, renders them utterly miserable. Moreover, they are well aware that God is infinitely happy, and hence their hatred and their impotent desire to injure Him fills them with extreme bitterness. And the same is true with regard to their hatred of all the friends of God who enjoy the bliss of heaven. The pain of loss is the very core of eternal punishment. If the damned beheld God face to face, hell itself, notwithstanding its fire, would be a kind of heaven. Had they but some union with God even if not precisely the union of the beatific vision, hell would no longer be hell, but a kind of purgatory. And yet the pain of loss is but the natural consequence of that aversion from God which lies in the nature of every mortal sin.
Poena sensus
The poena sensus, or pain of sense, consists in the torment of fire so frequently mentioned in the Holy Bible. According to the greater number of theologians the term fire denotes a material fire, and so a real fire. We hold to this teaching as absolutely true and correct. However, we must not forget two things: from Catharinus (d. 1553) to our times there have never been wanting theologians who interpret the Scriptural term fire metaphorically, as denoting an incorporeal fire; and secondly, thus far the Church has not censured their opinion. Some few of the Fathers also thought of a metaphorical explanation. Nevertheless, Scripture and tradition speak again and again of the fire of hell, and there is no sufficient reason for taking the term as a mere metaphor. It is urged: How can a material fire torment demons, or human souls before the resurrection of the body? But, if our soul is so joined to the body as to be keenly sensitive to the pain of fire, why should the omnipotent God be unable to bind even pure spirits to some material substance in such a manner that they suffer a torment more or less similar to the pain of fire which the soul can feel on earth? The reply indicates, as far as possible, how we may form an idea of the pain of fire which the demons suffer. Theologians have elaborated various theories on this subject, which, however, we do not wish to detail here (cf. the very minute study by Franz Schmid, "Quaestiones selectae ex theol. dogm.", Paderborn, 1891, q. iii; also Guthberlet, "Die poena sensus" in "Katholik", II, 1901, 305 sqq., 385 sqq.).
It is quite superfluous to add that the nature of hell-fire is different from that of our ordinary fire; for instance, it continues to burn without the need of a continually renewed supply of fuel. How are we to form a conception of that fire in detail remains quite undetermined; we merely know that it is corporeal. The demons suffer the torment of fire, even when, by Divine permission, they leave the confines of hell and roam about on earth. In what manner this happens is uncertain. We may assume that they remain fettered inseparably to a portion of that fire.
The pain of sense is the natural consequence of that inordinate turning to creatures which is involved in every mortal sin. It is meet that whoever seeks forbidden pleasure should find pain in return. (Cf. Heuse, "Das Feuer der Hölle" in "Katholik", II, 1878, 225 sqq., 337 sqq., 486 sqq., 581 sqq.; "Etudes religieuses", L, 1890, II, 309, report of an answer of the Poenitentiaria, 30 April, 1890; Knabenbauer, "In Matth., xxv, 41".)
Accidental pains of the damned
According to theologians the pain of loss and the pain of sense constitute the very essence of hell, the former being by far the most dreadful part of eternal punishment. But the damned also suffer various "accidental" punishments.
Just as the blessed in heaven are free from all pain, so, on the other hand, the damned never experience even the least real pleasure. In hell separation from the blissful influence of Divine love has reached its consummation.
The reprobate must live in the midst of the damned; and their outbursts of hatred or of reproach as they gloat over his sufferings, and their hideous presence, are an ever fresh source of torment.
The reunion of soul and body after the Resurrection will be a special punishment for the reprobate, although there will be no essential change in the pain of sense which they are already suffering.
As to the punishments visited upon the damned for their venial sins, cf. Francisco Suárez, "De peccatis", disp. vii, s. 4.
Characteristics of the pains of hell
(1) The pains of hell differ in degree according to demerit. This holds true not only of the pain of sense, but also of the pain of loss. A more intense hatred of God, a more vivid consciousness of utter abandonment by Divine goodness, a more restless craving to satisfy the natural desire for beatitude with things external to God, a more acute sense of shame and confusion at the folly of having sought happiness in earthly enjoyment -- all this implies as its correlation a more complete and more painful separation from God.
(2) The pains of hell are essentially immutable; there are no temporary intermissions or passing alleviations. A few Fathers and theologians, in particular the poet Prudentius, expressed the opinion that on stated days God grants the damned a certain respite, and that besides this the prayers of the faithful obtain for them other occasional intervals of rest. The Church has never condemned this opinion in express terms. But now theologians are justly unanimous in rejecting it. St. Thomas condemns it severely (In IV Sent., dist. xlv, Q. xxix, cl.1). [Cf. Merkle, "Die Sabbatruhe in der Hölle" in "Romische Quartalschrift" (1895), 489 sqq.; see also Prudentius.]
However, accidental changes in the pains of hell are not excluded. Thus it may be that the reprobate is sometimes more and sometimes less tormented by his surroundings. Especially after the last judgment there will be an accidental increase in punishment; for then the demons will never again be permitted to leave the confines of hell, but will be finally imprisoned for all eternity; and the reprobate souls of men will be tormented by union with their hideous bodies.
(3) Hell is a state of the greatest and most complete misfortune, as is evident from all that has been said. The damned have no joy whatever, and it were better for them if they had not been born (Matthew 26:24). Not long ago Mivart (The Nineteenth Century, Dec., 1892, Febr. and Apr., 1893) advocated the opinion that the pains of the damned would decrease with time and that in the end their lot would not be so extremely sad; that they would finally reach a certain kind of happiness and would prefer existence to annihilation; and although they would still continue to suffer a punishment symbolically described as a fire by the Bible, yet they would hate God no longer, and the most unfortunate among them be happier than many a pauper in this life. It is quite obvious that all this is opposed to Scripture and the teaching of the Church. The articles cited were condemned by the Congregation of the Index and the Holy Office on 14 and 19 July, 1893 (cf. "Civiltà Cattolia", I, 1893, 672).
Sources
PETER LOMBARD, IV sent., dist. xliv, xlvi, and his commentators; ST. THOMAS, I:64 and Supplement 9:97, and his commentators; SUAREZ, De Angelis, VIII; PATUZZI, De futuro impiorum statu (Verona, 1748-49; Venice, 1764); PASSAGLIA, De aeternitate poenarum deque igne inferno (Rome, 1854); CLARKE, Eternal Punishment and Infinite Love in The Month, XLIV (1882), 1 sqq., 195 sqq., 305 sqq.; RIETH, Der moderne Unglaube und die ewigen Strafen in Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, XXXI (1886), 25 sqq., 136 sqq.; SCHEEBEN-KÜPPER, Die Mysterien des Christenthums (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1898), sect. 97; TOURNEBIZE, Opinions du jour sur les peines d'Outre-tombe (Paris, 1899); JOS. SACHS, Die ewige Dauer der Höllenstrafen (Paderborn, 1900); BILLOT, De novissimis (Rome, 1902); PESCH, Praelect. dogm., IX (2nd. ed., Freiburg, 1902), 303 sqq.; HURTER, Compendium theol. dogm., III (11th ed., Innsbruck, 1903), 603 sqq.; STUFLER, Die Heiligkeit Gottes und der ewige Tod (Innsbruck, 1903); SCHEEBEN-ATZBERGER, Handbuch der kath. Dogmatik, IV (Freiburg, 1903), sect. 409 sqq.; HEINRICH-GUTBERLET, Dogmatische Theologie, X (Münster, 1904), sect. 613 sqq.; BAUTZ, Die Hölle (2nd. ed., Mainz, 1905); STUFLER, Die Theorie der freiwilligen Verstocktheit und ihr Verhältnis zur Lehre des hl. Thomas von Aquin (Innsbruck, 1905); various recent manuals of dogmatic theology (POHLE, SPECHT, etc.); HEWIT, Ignis Æternus in The Cath. World, LXVII (1893), 1426; BRIDGETT in Dub. Review, CXX (1897), 56-69; PORTER, Eternal Punishment in The Month, July, 1878, p. 338.
About this post
APA citation. Hontheim, J. (1910). Hell. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved May 27, 2008 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm
MLA citation. Hontheim, Joseph. "Hell." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 27 May 2008 .
Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Michael T. Barrett. Dedicated to the Poor Souls in Purgatory.
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is feedback732 at newadvent.org. (To help fight spam, this address might change occasionally.) Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.
BOOYAH BEEATCHES! | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 5/27/2008 9:26:03 AM |
o.kif your child did something that involved the death penalty would you still love him?i am assuming you dont believe in hell.
If my child did something that involved the death penalty I wouldn't send them to their death saying "I love you."
Hell, I wouldn't send anyone to their eternal death if I loved them and they didn't love me.
What do you think I am?
A sadist? | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 5/27/2008 9:38:00 AM | If my child did something that involved the death penalty I wouldn't send them to their death saying "I love you."
Hell, I wouldn't send anyone to their eternal death if I loved them and they didn't love me.
What do you think I am?
A sadist?
if you are not sending them to their eternal death where are you sending them? | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 5/27/2008 9:44:59 AM | | hell,hades what have you.it is all avoided by simply giving yourself to christ.after which all sin is erased in his name.all you have to do then is fallow the rewards of the lord.the gift is the reason you fallow his word.its not to find forgivness it is the beauty bestowed apon your soul.we are allready forgivin,or savior did so on the cross. | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 5/27/2008 9:52:14 AM |
About this post
APA citation. Hontheim, J. (1910). Hell. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved May 27, 2008 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm
MLA citation. Hontheim, Joseph. "Hell." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 27 May 2008 .
Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Michael T. Barrett. Dedicated to the Poor Souls in Purgatory.
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is feedback732 at newadvent.org. (To help fight spam, this address might change occasionally.) Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.
BOOYAH BEEATCHES!
As I have said and you have also elaborated upon...hell is a myth that was invented by the Roman catholic Church.....
Better biblical scholarship has mooted this false doctrine of eternal hellfire though, and an awakaning to the Truth and grace of Christ is on the rise.
for those who would prefer a more indepth study on this topic
http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/jesusteachingonhell.html
A vast majority of the world's populace assert that we are awake. Further one of the best test of the accuracy and truth of an assertion is the number of people who by consensus acknowledge the truth of something and over the test of time continue to acknoledge it's truth.
I think it was Ronnie James Dio's, Black Sabbath song that says it best...
"If you listen to fools, the mob rules" | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 5/27/2008 11:19:07 AM | Nobody on this forum is going to prove god either exists or doesn't exist to the other party. All that is happening is you are arguing. Nobody is doing anything but angering the other side of this debate.
Some of you need to lay off. ESPECIALLY those of you who are posting OTHER people work. I'm not saying you can't quote, but don't waste my time by posting a page of some other persons work.
Another thing, religion is all about choice, if you choose a religion, great, you believe in it, but that doesn't mean that everyone else should. If your goal in life is to convert as many people as you can to your religion, you are doing it wrong. So all of you trying to convert people should do the good thing and stop posting.
All that is happening is a flame war, and I personally hate seeing people waste time and resources on something that is such a horrendous waste of time. For the sakes of yourself and your deity(or lack thereof) just stop. Neither side is going to win this, and there will NEVER be an end to the little mind war going on between believers and non believers. | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 5/27/2008 11:44:09 AM | Lashandra said to sam spade (and I cannot help responding)
Where is god? Is there anything wrong with checking in once in a while?
Great questions - all of them. God is in Heaven. The Bible is full of stories of God checking in on a pretty considtant basis.
The last time I checked, the Christian god hadn't paid us a visit in over 2,000 years... As George Carlin said once... god's an absentee landlord.
If there was a god, as we know it now, I certainly wouldn't side with that azzhole.
First you refer to the creator of the universe in such a manner and then you complain about them sending you to Hell?
Do you really think a being who supposedly created EVERYTHING really gives a rip if someone calls him a name? Of course... there's your implied threat that to call your god a name will send that person to Hell.
If someone called me an ***hole and I slapped him, I'd go to jail... anything more than a slap and they check my sanity or anger management, killing for it would get me in the loony bin for sure... so what would it make a person (or god) if that person sent someone to be tortured for all eternity for calling HIM a name?
Imagine an all loving god, burning someone forever in hell fire because he created someone who was defective?
Please do yourselves a favor and go back and read the story first. In The Beginning hamunity was created in a state of perfection. The story explains that we fell from perfection and are in a state of reconcilliation.
It is ignorant to call names and ridicule a book you refuse to read.
God created Adam and screwed up because he created lust and love in Adam but didn't create a mate for him... so Adam begged God for a mate and God created Lilith, who was VERY imperfect, so God had to erase her and start over, making Eve. Soon after Eve there was that whole apple thing. . .
Where exactly is this "perfect" humanity you're speaking of? Heck... where's the god who got it RIGHT? It sure isn't the Christian god.
I have read your book many times. I've lead Sunday school classes and prayer meetings. I ridicule the book because it deserves ridicule.
Fvck him/her then.
It's Him - and you will be sorry you every even thought that one day soon.
Ah yes... more THREATS. That's the way to convince people... "My GOD is a loving, forgiving, wonderful GOD, and if you call HIM a name he's going to torture you for all of eternity."
It's all quite pitiful.
James, Seattle, Washington, USA, Earth | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 5/27/2008 1:54:37 PM | Nobody on this forum is going to prove god either exists or doesn't exist to the other party. All that is happening is you are arguing. Nobody is doing anything but angering the other side of this debate.
Some of you need to lay off. ESPECIALLY those of you who are posting OTHER people work. I'm not saying you can't quote, but don't waste my time by posting a page of some other persons work.
Another thing, religion is all about choice, if you choose a religion, great, you believe in it, but that doesn't mean that everyone else should. If your goal in life is to convert as many people as you can to your religion, you are doing it wrong. So all of you trying to convert people should do the good thing and stop posting.
All that is happening is a flame war, and I personally hate seeing people waste time and resources on something that is such a horrendous waste of time. For the sakes of yourself and your deity(or lack thereof) just stop. Neither side is going to win this, and there will NEVER be an end to the little mind war going on between believers and non believers.
i fail to see where i have shown anger.my posts were simply testimony.now why i spelled follow,"fallow"kind of irks me.lol.
you are right,believing in god is a choice.i pray that everyone is blessed with the glory of the lord.i do not however judge those who choose not to.to do so would be believing that i am better than them.i am not better than any of gods children.nor them me. | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 5/27/2008 2:06:36 PM | Hell is a myth!
Amen, Consigliere! 
| |
|
| Is there a thought?
Posted: 5/27/2008 2:14:21 PM | Do you think god rolls the dice on people? I don't think so. How can your god force people to love him? Love me or I'll kill ya. No! I'll burn ya forever.
Baloney. | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 5/27/2008 3:43:21 PM | Fleur de lis
Everytime I read your posts I am reminded to lighten up a bit and not take everything so seriously...you truly are a breath of fresh air.......
however I find it dificult to read this type of postings I have quoted below, from lashandra's cut and paste, and not raise up a standard of truth to expose these foolish lies and false doctrines.
If we abstract from the eternity of its punishment, the existence of hell can be demonstrated even by the light of mere reason. In His sanctity and justice as well as in His wisdom, God must avenge the violation of the moral order in such wise as to preserve, at least in general, some proportion between the gravity of sin and the severity of punishment. But it is evident from experience that God does not always do this on earth; therefore He will inflict punishment after death. Moreover, if all men were fully convinced that the sinner need fear no kind of punishment after death, moral and social order would be seriously menaced. This, however, Divine wisdom cannot permit.
These words come directly from an antichrist spirit that has the purpose of de-throning the grace of God under the guise of a angel of light...Jesus warned us of these wolves in sheeps clothing who would introduce heresies to mislead and scatter the sheep. As well, Paul told of those who would introduce these 'damnable heresies' of eternal damnation.... And through the theologians who regurgitate these pagan traditions causing the 'theology of crappola' quoted above is exactly how they have accomplished this.
What a pathetic God they represent, defeated by sin and unable to manifest the superior wisdom to overcome, even if God does everything He can do by giving us the life of His Son...it still hasn't solved the problem of the consequences of sin. These writers and theologians are spiritually bankrupt and void of any faith or grace, and are causing the children to stumble...and because of this they are in desperate need of rebuking.
As far as them denying Christ, read what they say... there is no Savior according to thier good news and gospel, every man stands alone in judgment of himself concerning sin, and we better not step out of line or the Lord will smite us to a place we will never see mercy again. I do realize it is difficult for those trapped in hypocrsy to see how everyone is a sinner and that God actually knows and understands this, but this hypocrisy is no excuse for thier error, and because they have taken it upon themselves to become teachers..then they are now being judged with a harsher judgment regarding the truth.
But it is evident from experience that God does not always do this on earth; therefore He will inflict punishment after death.
The bible states that God's wrath was delivered in full measure in about 70 AD, if a person understands the prophetic end of the heavens and earth to be the cataclysmic end to the age of the law and the Temple in which the law is structured... They will understand that the fullness of God's wrath is demonstrated in the earthly realm and not in the afterlife..
1 Thessalonians 2
16Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.
Is it really any wonder why people reject God's grace in Christ and have sought out a more meaningful philosophy and religion that actually makes some sense to them.
I've quoted this comment before, but it is probably a good time to insert it again into the forum to refute the supposed wisdom quoted above....
If the Bible is true when it says that God is love (1 Jn. 4:8), then can God do anything distinct and separate from His love? We have perverted the love of God by saying that God's punishments are solely a demonstration of His justice. Jonathan Edwards went so far as to say, “Hell is perfect hatred without love.” What a perversion of the marvelous love of the Father! If the majority of the Church is right and punishment will never end, then God cannot love those to whom He torments forever. And if this is the case, then Jonathan Edwards is right, and “eternal” punishment is simply a demonstration of God's justice without His love.
But I am here to argue that God can do nothing apart from His love. Even His punishments serve a purpose to the offender (Is. 4:4; 26:9). God is perfect holiness, and as such, He must deal with sin. But He is also perfect love. So anything God does must demonstrate both. We cannot separate God's justice from His love otherwise we create a schizophrenic god with two very different personalities. Yet this is what most of the Church teaches. If hell is “eternal”, then God has done something apart from His love. Why do I say that? Because for love to really be love, some act must be accomplished toward another person with no thought of itself. In other words, to say someone loves, he must perform some act of love outside of himself, and then, it must have the purpose of bettering that individual. Even punishment must have the goal to better a person otherwise it is not love.
Getting back to my analogy of a parent. If I truly love my children, then every thing I do to (and for) them will be for their betterment, not simply to satisfy my own selfish desire for justice. So if I spank my children, as painful as it is to them, it must be done with a desire to better them in some way. If not, then I cannot say that I have truly loved them. 1 Corinthians 13 is a beautiful description of how we are to manifest love.
Love is patient and kind. Love knows neither envy nor jealousy. Love is not forward and self-assertive, nor boastful and conceited. She does not behave unbecomingly, nor seek to aggrandize herself, nor blaze out in passionate anger, nor brood over wrongs. She finds no pleasure in injustice done to others, but joyfully sides with the truth. She knows how to be silent. She is full of trust, full of hope, full of patient endurance. (1 Cor. 4-7, Weymouth NT)
So let me ask you then, what is the purpose of “eternal” punishment? If God's punishment never ends, then what purpose does it hold for the offender? What betterment to the sinner? The answer is none. And if there is no intent on correcting the behavior of the offender, the only purpose it could serve would be to either satisfy God's own sense of justice or to teach the poor sinner an “eternal” lesson. And in either case, this would be a selfish act because he would be thinking solely of himself. Certainly God would not have the best interest of the sinner at heart if His punishments continued without end. And isn't this what love is—being concerned for the welfare of another? The very essence of love is the idea that it is purely unselfish—it thinks not of itself (1 Cor. 13:8). If God acts in the manner prescribed by orthodox Christianity, how then can this be love? The idea of “eternal” hell shows that we believe in a god who acts simply to satisfy his own need for justice and revenge. Therefore, this is an act that cannot be considered love because it does not result in the betterment of the sinner. And if this is the case, then God is not love, at least to the great majority of those He torments “eternally.”
| |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 5/28/2008 12:24:48 AM | | It's from Latin phrase meaning "bringer of light": Lux Um Ferrios = Lucifer. | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 5/28/2008 5:40:51 AM | godliketoaster writes (and cool screenname, by the by...):
Nobody on this forum is going to prove god either exists or doesn't exist to the other party. All that is happening is you are arguing. Nobody is doing anything but angering the other side of this debate.
There is great wisdom in your words God Like Toaster (and coming from the tender age of 18)!
I find it amusing at best - I mean, my goal is to find a mate whith simillar beliefs - so naturally being a God fearing church goer, I log onto a forum called "Is There A God" expecting intelligent conversation - but that is not what I have found.
Some of you need to lay off. ESPECIALLY those of you who are posting OTHER people work. I'm not saying you can't quote, but don't waste my time by posting a page of some other persons work.
It isn't a waste of your time unless you stop to read it. I know it sucks - but have you read some of the rediculous posts in here? It's all one can do to try to inject some sanity into some of the discussions to, like, take some scholarly work and quote from it.
I mean yo have people in here taking about Aliens, UFO's, Unicorns, Fairies, etc... it gets old fast.
Another thing, religion is all about choice, if you choose a religion, great, you believe in it, but that doesn't mean that everyone else should. If your goal in life is to convert as many people as you can to your religion, you are doing it wrong. So all of you trying to convert people should do the good thing and stop posting.
Or, those who take exception with it COULD stope reading, but which came first; the chicken or the egg.
Look, the bottom line is of the approximate 450 posts in this thread, over 75% believe in a God, Gods, Goddesses, some kind of deity - so I just can't understand why a polite discussion on God and the existance of God has to bring about such discord.
Unless there are just some poeple who want to force their opinnion down everyon esle's throat - and truth be told, although I am a devout Roman Catholic, I side with The Pope who has stated that, while The Roman Catholic Church is The legitimate Church founded by Jesus Christ - I also side with him inasmuch as he states that LESS MEMBERS WHO ARE MORE SERIOUS is the correct measure.
Therefore, I know I won't win anyone over in this place - and truthfully, by the looks of it, wouldn't want to... if you know what I mean.
All that is happening is a flame war, and I personally hate seeing people waste time and resources on something that is such a horrendous waste of time. For the sakes of yourself and your deity(or lack thereof) just stop. Neither side is going to win this, and there will NEVER be an end to the little mind war going on between believers and non believers.
Philippians 2:9-11
9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father. | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 5/28/2008 5:50:49 AM | Lashandra 777 posted:
Or, those who take exception with it COULD stope reading, but which came first; the chicken or the egg.
The chicken?
Look, the bottom line is of the approximate 450 posts in this thread, over 75% believe in a God, Gods, Goddesses, some kind of deity - so I just can't understand why a polite discussion on God and the existance of God has to bring about such discord.
Right you are. I came here to find people POLITELY discuss their ideas regarding the questions "Is There A God".
Instead I have read and responded to people who want to bash The Church and Her pofession of faith in God.
This is the nature of it, however, that those who are without The Saving Grace will throw rocks at those of us who are Under The Blood. And really, if Satan came to tempt Our Savior in his time - why should you or I be any different?
"The Matrix is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth."
--- Morpheus "The Matrix" | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 5/28/2008 6:53:03 AM | LashAndra777 wrote
It's from Latin phrase meaning "bringer of light": Lux Um Ferrios = Lucifer.
Don't you mean Lucem Ferre?
In Latin, the word "Lucifer", meaning "Light-Bringer" (from lux, lucis, "light", and ferre, "to bear, bring"), is a name for the "Morning Star" (the planet Venus in its dawn appearances).
The Latin Vulgate version of the Bible used this word twice to refer to the Morning Star: once in 2 Peter 1:19 to translate the Greek word "Φωσφόρος" (Phosphoros), which has exactly the same literal meaning of "Light-Bringer" that "Lucifer" has in Latin; and once in Isaiah 14:12 to translate "הילל" (Hêlēl), which also means "Morning Star".
In the latter passage the title of "Morning Star" is given to the tyrannous Babylonian king, who the prophet says is destined to fall.
This passage was later applied to the prince of the demons, and so the name "Lucifer" came to be used for Satan, and was popularized in works such as Dante's Inferno and Milton's Paradise Lost, but for English speakers the greatest influence has been its use in the King James "Protestant" Version for what more modern English versions translate as "Morning Star" or "Day Star". | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 5/28/2008 7:33:16 AM |
The Roman Catholic Church is The legitimate Church founded by Jesus Christ
The problem with a statement like that is its divisiveness. The "legitimate Church of Jesus Christ" is the Christian Church. There is no Supremacy, No Authority, no Legitimacy of one over the other. ALL are equals in the inheritance. ALL are co-heirs with Jesus Christ. ALL are servants at the table, no servant higher than the other. ALL. Not the Pope's Church. ALL.
For this Pope, as for others, equality among Christians is not on the basis of their relationship to Jesus, but their relationship to the Catholic Church. And that is not "legitimate". | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 5/28/2008 9:59:48 AM | romanticoptimist posted:
"The Roman Catholic Church is The legitimate Church founded by Jesus Christ"... The problem with a statement like that is its divisiveness. The "legitimate Church of Jesus Christ" is the Christian Church.
We are moving from "Is There A God" to "How Does The Church Observe God" - which I will try to speak to respectful of individual differences and with sensativity to the fact that my belief, regardless of how many millions of others may or may not adhere to, is only that - MY belief.
I respect your veiw point as being fundamentally valid with a caveat (and this is a point which nobody else needs to accept nor endorse).
The caveat is that The Catholic Church is religeously viewed by we Catholics as the "mother church"/original church from which other subsequent church's who identify themselves as Christian in place of Catholic slintered from.
There is no Supremacy, No Authority, no Legitimacy of one over the other.
Perhaps in my zeal I overstated the point of legitimacy because I do not set my words as authoritative nor about the proposition of The Roman Catholic Church, Her Magisterium nor certainly the of The Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI.
The reason for the statement was dran from policy decreed via The Vatican, Jul. 12, 2007. The Vatican issued a new doctrinal statement confirming the essential role of the Catholic Church in God's plan for salvation.
The short document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), presented in question-and-answer format, addresses questions about the teaching of the Second Vatican Council that [the Church founded by Jesus Christ "subsists" in the Catholic Church].
The CDF affirms that while other Christian bodies can play a role in bringing people to salvation,[ it is in the Catholic Church that "the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth."]
The Vatican document makes a further distinction between Orthodox churches that have preserved valid sacraments, and should be recognized as "sister churches," and Protestant groups that have not preserved the Eucharistic presence.
The document, entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," is approved by Pope Benedict XVI and signed by Cardinal William Levada and Archbishop Angelo Amato, the prefect and secretary, respectively, of the CDF.
The full text of the document is available on the Vatican web site.
Granted, there are some who will disagree and I respect their right and privilledge to do so. But my decision to accept, protect and promulgate this finding of truth, as I accept it to represent is a matter of my religeous freedom for which I am prepared to be forgiven.
Respectfully yours - Dreamboat333. | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 5/28/2008 10:36:13 AM |
The caveat is that The Catholic Church is religeously viewed by we Catholics as the "mother church"/original church from which other subsequent church's who identify themselves as Christian in place of Catholic slintered from.
What other opinion could be formed if a church considers themselves as the first church of Christ established on earth. It is not a question of whether the Catholic Church considers themselves as the true representation of God on earth...I don't think that a church or denomination will be found that doesn't make this claim of being the true and first church. And contrary to Protestant doctrine being the first break or split from the original church..I hardly think so. protestant doctrine never came about for centuries, yet Paul speaks of these divisions in the church as being active and initaited in the very first century...'I am of Christ, I am of Paul, I am of Apollos....these were differences in doctrines and were splitting the church before catholic doctrine ever came about and made itself a denomination.
The true church is spiritual and is based on the revelation that Jesus is the Christ and this revelation comes from the Father. A person is joined to the spiritual church when they have this revelation of Christ implanted in thier own spirit and mind and not until.
The pattern of speech in the New Testament is 'spiritual'...
spiritual gifts, spiritual bodies, spiritual meanings to the word of God, spiritual worship, spiritual words, spiritual truths, spiritual discernment, spiritual food, spiritual seed, spiritual church(New Jerusalem)
So I would deny that the Catholic church is the prophesied 'New Jerusalem' and spiritual church spoken of in the New Testament. Anyone can become a member of a physical organization, I could become a Catholic if I so choose to, but in doing so doesn't qualify me as having a spiritual revelation from the Father that Jesus is the Christ. The question of 'is there a God' is moot to one who belongs to the spiritual church and body of Christ, because if this question is even present in the mind, then obviously the person has no revelation as Peter had of Christ being the Son of God. And without this, then the foundation of the spiritual church of New Jerusalem is not even a reality in a person's life. | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 5/28/2008 11:38:01 AM | I don't see the point in quoting Catholic sources to refute my statement that the only "legitimate Church" of Jesus Christ is the "Christian Church", not the "Catholic Church". What does Jesus say about the claim that the Catholic Church is the only legitimate Church? What does Paul say? Peter? John? James? Find me support for the legitimacy of the statement, "The Roman Catholic Church is the legitimate Church founded by Jesus Christ", other than the spurious claim regarding the "keys" and Peter -- because even if that could be established, you would still have to establish that Jesus intended the authority of Peter to be passed on by the laying of hands, show a continuous, undivided, and uncontested process to the current Pope, and show that Jesus has placed the Catholic Church above all other Christian groups. Show me that Jesus Himself legitimises the claim. And do it without appeal to Catholic tradition and teaching.
When I hear this argument about the authority and superiority of the Catholic Church (or the Southern Baptists, or the Pentecostals, or the Charismatics, or any other group), I'm reminded of the story Jesus told about seeking the higher place at the table and then being told to move to a lower place and the embarrassment that causes. The message is clear - claim you are the superior Christian, claim your church has the superior position, seek out the higher seat, and you will suffer the embarrassment of being demoted.
By the way, in regard to protecting and supporting the Catholic Church, let's say your Catholic Bishop tells you to have no fellowship with the local Baptist Christians, some of whom are your fiends. DO you obey your Church and accept his authority or do you disagree and continue with your friendship? What's more important, your relationship to other Christians or the authority of the Catholic Church.
If you knew something that was harmful to the Catholic Church and was a crime or an immoral act, would you reveal it or not? What is more important, the truth and justice or the Catholic Church? | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 5/28/2008 12:47:28 PM | romanticoptimist writes:
I don't see the point in quoting Catholic sources to refute my statement that the only "legitimate Church" of Jesus Christ is the "Christian Church", not the "Catholic Church".
I appreciate that you disagree with me - and I uphold your right to do so. I am the genuine article freind. I respect your search for the truth.
I do not seek to refute your statement - only to better define my own statement and that is why I, as a devout Catholic, quote to you from what I understand to be The Church which is and was founded by Jesus Christ.
What does Jesus say about the claim that the Catholic Church is the only legitimate Church?
That is a good question, and I am glad you asked because the answer is in the question. What Jesus said about the claim the the Catholic Church is THE CHURCH is as follows: Matthew 16 "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church"... New American Bible Copyright © 1991, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Docterine.
Now this was, according to my humble understanding of the teachings of my Church, which is and was founded by Jesus Christ and is comprised of we, the faitful who are The Body of Christ, the establishment of Apostolic Succession:
http://www.transporter.com/FatherPeffley/Apologetics/deed.html
"The Roman Catholic Church is the legitimate Church founded by Jesus Christ", other than the spurious claim regarding the "keys" and Peter -- because even if that could be established, you would still have to establish that Jesus intended the authority of Peter to be passed on by the laying of hands, show a continuous, undivided, and uncontested process to the current Pope
I know. I understand. I have been where you are going and I have found answers to these questions. This is why I say with an uttermost peace of heart and mind that I am content with The Church and seek only to conform to the will og God as expressed through the teachings of The Magisterium.
You have your rights and I enjoy these very same rights. I try to enjoy them with a contrite heart and a willingness to serve.
When I hear this argument about the authority and superiority of the Catholic Church (or the Southern Baptists, or the Pentecostals, or the Charismatics, or any other group), I'm reminded of the story Jesus told about seeking the higher place at the table and then being told to move to a lower place and the embarrassment that causes.
This is interesting brother - because when I think of it I always think of that part in The Bible (which we repeate together as one body at every Mass) where the soldier says of his suffering slave: "Lord I am not worthy to recieve you, but only ay the word and I shall be healed"...
Luke Chapter 7
1 When he had finished all his words to the people, he entered Capernaum.
2: A centurion 3 there had a slave who was ill and about to die, and he was valuable to him.
3: When he heard about Jesus, he sent elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and save the life of his slave.
4:They approached Jesus and strongly urged him to come, saying, "He deserves to have you do this for him,
5: for he loves our nation and he built the synagogue for us."
6: And Jesus went with them, but when he was only a short distance from the house, the centurion sent friends to tell him, "Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof. 4
7: Therefore, I did not consider myself worthy to come to you; but say the word and let my servant be healed.
8: For I too am a person subject to authority, with soldiers subject to me. And I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come here,' and he comes; and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it."
9 :When Jesus heard this he was amazed at him and, turning, said to the crowd following him, "I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith."
10: When the messengers returned to the house, they found the slave in good health.
If you knew something that was harmful to the Catholic Church and was a crime or an immoral act, would you reveal it or not? What is more important, the truth and justice or the Catholic Church?
The Church, in my belief system IS truth and justice as established by Christ and through which He operates.
I understand that you disagree with me and I hope that we can politely agree to disagree because I firmly believe that I will not change your mind, which is ultimately between you and God anyway.
Please try to understand that I live by these teachings and I fully embrace the fact. No amount of public scorn or humiliation will change that fact. When my saviour hung from the cross he begged forgiveness for the people who did that to Hou.
Who am I, a lowly sinner, to hold a grudge against my brothers in light of His grace? I only say Peace Be With You. Wherever you worship, be there come Sunday morning.
| |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 5/28/2008 2:14:54 PM | I'm sure He's/She's/It's not too concerned about being blasphemed.
That could be, Evolving62 - but I still don't like it
There are hypocrites who get bent if you criticise their lifestyle - but then turn around and belittle yours
| |
|
|
| Page 21 of 26
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 |
|
Home
login 
