(August 28, 2018 at 11:48 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:(August 28, 2018 at 11:04 am)SteveII Wrote: Why is this doctrine constantly mischaracterized? Is it because if you phrase it the way you do it sound more incredulous/ridiculous? It makes the objection no more than a straw man. People do not go to hell because they failed to "love God back". They go to hell because their sins have not been atoned for. Period.
1. Hell is not so much self-imposed as a consequence of your decision not to seek atonement (or do the best you can with the information God made available to you and respond to him in some way).
2. No grudge. Just a state of existence that is now fully separated from God compared to your life where God's presence was all around you in some way. It is quite possible (as Neo was discussing) that once a soul is really separated from God, it does not desire God nor anything resembling the Good (with a capital G).
3. False analogy. God does not make decisions based on emotions. They are based on essential characteristics of love, justice, holiness, and mercy. As essential characteristics, one cannot be set aside when convenient. They all govern all the time. This is also the answer to whether God loves people in Hell. Yes, he loves all of his creation but it does not matter because there are other constraints in place.
Now you might say what if the system was that when we all die, we are given another chance to respond to God and take the atonement offered? Wouldn't that be the logical equivalent of everyone getting into heaven no matter what their choices in life were--because really, who would refuse it standing before the eternal creator of the universe? Is that compatible with God's holiness and justice to have an automatic safety net (to say nothing of all the effort in the main theme/thread of the Bible that eventually leads to the cross and the NT Christian life)? I don't think that is consistent at all with what we know about God and his original purpose and desire for us.
Another thing, it seems that the mortal component of our existence is the window of opportunity to respond to God. To claim that was not enough time, not clear enough, or somehow unfair is not a logical argument--it is an emotional argument without any real justification when closely examined.
Steve, though this is a different take than mine, you could very well be right about it. I admit my views on how it will all work and who goes to Heaven/Hell are guesses based on my understanding of God. Ultimately I know that it isn't my place to make conclusions about this, as I am not some sort of gatekeeper to the afterlife. I'm not trying to challenge you, just some genuine questions and comments about what you wrote above:
- Don't you think there are ways of following Christ without consciously knowing you are following Christ? For example, Ghandi. He wasn't Christian. But he still lived by the same principles that Jesus advocated. He strived to love others. He valued humility and charity. He strived to live a life of virtue and dignity. I'm sure he probably felt remorse for his wrong doings. He wasn't christian so I'm sure he didn't specifically pray saying "Jesus, I lost my patience with my friend today. Please forgive me Lord" ... but I imagine he felt remorse nonetheless. ...And I'm not talking about just him, but any other human who, for whatever reason, isn't technically a Christian, but by the way they live their lives, they follow Christ. Does that not count for anything? Does the person have to consciously say "I believe that Jesus is God?"
It depends. If they have been exposed to the Gospel and have had time to consider it and pursue questions, then that person (like Ghandi) has actually rejected what God has offered. There is no salvation for such a person no matter how sincere they are in serving humanity or some other greater good. On the other hand, I believe that in the absence of the direct knowledge of the Gospel, one can be saved by a sincere response to God as he has revealed himself. I don't mean person so-and-so was a really good person who fed the poor. I mean a specific response to something God revealed to him/her. The Catholics call this doctrine Invincible Ignorance.
Quote:- I would also like to comment on your second to last paragraph. You said that if people were given a chance after dying to see God before them, they would all accept God, regardless of how they were like in life. Maybe I'm wrong, but I am inclined to not underestimate people's pride. Their sense of entitlement. Their refusal to admit wrongdoings. If someone was a complete POS in this life, I find it hard to believe that he would stand before goodness and love itself and genuinely humble himself before It.
Thoughts?
Could be. I don't know how much pride a dead human can have facing an omnipotent, omniscient, holy, eternally-existing creator of the universe. Depends if we imagine a plain room with a two chairs and a table with a guy with the name tag "Peter" or standing in the presence of God and the hosts of angels. I don't think the whole concept is compatible with the thousands of years God took to promise and then orchestrate the events of the NT, the very clear message of the NT (Jesus spoke more on Hell than anyone else), the instruction on a spirit-filled life throughout the epistles, and then on that basis the 20 centuries of people feeling compelled to evangelize the world for what...the first of two chances at heaven?
