HELL

[Catholic_Lady]

Typical mistake, the commandments are not cumulative. Just because God commanded Noah to build an ark doesn't mean all believers must become sailors. The antediluvians had one command: be fruitful and multiply. The lack of explicit laws during the preflood period did not absolve people from justice. Following the flood the Noahide rules govern. The Abrahamic period was an age of conscience. Then came the ancient Israelite theocracy that required its own form of governance. When the temple was destroyed so also was temple worship. Christ raised a new temple in the heart of each man and woman and along with it a deeper understanding of the principles of justice and mercy behind the laws of each dispensation.

Well put, Chad. 

[Homeless Nutter]

There's nothing in Catholic doctrine that says Hell is a "punishment" God casts on us. [...]

Ahem...

From Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1034 Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.612 Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,"613 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"614

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."615 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P2O.HTM

[Thumpalumpacus]

Some of you are still acting as though it's a "punishment" cast by God, that no one deserves. It's not. It's a state of being that a person puts themselves in, and in doing so, they make themselves pretty miserable.

That's why I called it mental acrobatics. Theists do that in various shapes or form when it comes to the topic of hell. As I said, the Catholic stance is only the nicer version of the Evangelical position. But both have in common that they shift responsibilities in order to keep god free from any blame. It's the individual condemning themselves.

What it reminds me of is Franz Kafka's "the Trial", which more or less makes the same point. And there's a reason why Kafkaesk has become the word for surreal distortion.

Just wanted to point out that the quote attributed to me was actually written by CL.

[Catholic_Lady]

Judging from some of the questions/comments, I can see that some of you simply did not understand the original post lol. I'm sorry, but I just don't know how to make it any more clear. I thought the article explained the concept pretty well. Some of you are still acting as though it's a "punishment" cast by God, that no one deserves. It's not. It's a state of being that a person puts themselves in, and in doing so, they make themselves pretty miserable.

That's your definition of it, which is no more informed than anyone else's here.

That is true. But when someone asks me questions/makes comments to me about the definition of Hell that is not the one I believe in, it makes me think they probably just don't understand the one I actually believe in. ...If that makes sense lol. 

It's like, I say everything I say in the OP, and then someone comes on here and says to me "Well, I just don't get why a loving God would punish people." Ok, right. I don't either lol. That's not what I believe.

Haha, what else am I supposed to say to that person?

[abaris]

That's why I called it mental acrobatics. Theists do that in various shapes or form when it comes to the topic of hell. As I said, the Catholic stance is only the nicer version of the Evangelical position. But both have in common that they shift responsibilities in order to keep god free from any blame. It's the individual condemning themselves.

What it reminds me of is Franz Kafka's "the Trial", which more or less makes the same point. And there's a reason why Kafkaesk has become the word for surreal distortion.

Just wanted to point out that the quote attributed to me was actually written by CL.

Sorry, Parker.... I just wanted to extract CLs quote, since I didn't want to look it up. Somehowyour name got stuck.

[pocaracas]

That's why I called it mental acrobatics. Theists do that in various shapes or form when it comes to the topic of hell. As I said, the Catholic stance is only the nicer version of the Evangelical position. But both have in common that they shift responsibilities in order to keep god free from any blame. It's the individual condemning themselves.

What it reminds me of is Franz Kafka's "the Trial", which more or less makes the same point. And there's a reason why Kafkaesk has become the word for surreal distortion.

Just wanted to point out that the quote attributed to me was actually written by CL.

I fixed that quote attribution for you all! The bill will be in the mail within a few days.

[Iroscato]

Just wanted to point out that the quote attributed to me was actually written by CL.

I fixed that quote attribution for you all! The bill will be in the mail within a few days.

Who is Bill and why have you mailed him that is a cruel thing to do.

[Catholic_Lady]

There's nothing in Catholic doctrine that says Hell is a "punishment" God casts on us. [...]

Ahem...

From Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1034 Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.612 Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,"613 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"614

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."615 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P2O.HTM

HN, this is specifically addressed in the article I posted on the OP:

For example, The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, a large 1995 publication edited by several theologians under the direction of the Rev. Richard P. McBrien of Notre Dame, defines hell as ''the eternal loss of God'' and bluntly warns that biblical images of infernal torments are not to be taken literally but instead symbolize suffering ''inherent in the state of sin.''

In 1994 the church released the new Catholic Catechism, which contains more than 700 pages explaining Catholic beliefs but devotes only five paragraphs to hell. While the catechism says that Jesus spoke of hell as an ''unquenchable fire,'' it says hell's primary punishment is ''eternal separation from God,'' which results from an individual's conscious decision.

[pocaracas]

I fixed that quote attribution for you all! The bill will be in the mail within a few days.

Who is Bill and why have you mailed him that is a cruel thing to do.

It's a bill, not a Bill. Can't you read?!

[Clueless Morgan]

That second one is the big question. There is a theory I've heard, and that is that God keeps Himself hidden from us in this life because otherwise many people would blame Him for anything that went wrong, and always ask Him for things.

People already "always ask [God] for things" though.  That's what intercessory prayer is: petitioning God to intercede on their, or another's, behalf.

And God (every god, not just the Christian one) is/are already blamed for lots of things.

Thus, to avoid being blamed for things and avoid being asked for things cannot be an explanation for divine hiddenness because those thing are already demonstrably happening with your god.

I'm just trying to imagine... if God was someone we could see and talk with every day, and we developed a personal relationship with Him in that way like we would with a friend, considering who He is (all powerful and all that), we'd probably demand a lot from Him.

I don't accept the idea that if we developed the kind of relationship with a god we had with our friends that we would then start making demands of that god.  Most people who maintain friendships with people who are, let's say, socioeconomically better off than themselves don't go around demanding that that friend pay their bills for them.  There are some people who do take advantage of other people in that way, yes.  Granted.  But most don't.

We'd probably get down right pissed off at Him every time something very unfortunate happened in our lives. He'd be the scapegoat, and he'd be hated. We'd hate Him. Hating God is not good for our own well being, so it is for our own sake that He does not present Himself openly in our everyday lives.

But if we had the kind of relationship you imagine or hope that we might have with a God who makes itself known to us (a friendship), then that god could explain its rationale for its actions to us when we question it - and if that god is omnipotent then it could explain its rationale to us in such a way that we would understand why the thing that happened had to happen.  Although, if you want to get really picky, if this god really is omnipotent, then it could make all things happen without also requiring that those things be accompanied by pain, destruction and death, and if this god really is a benevolent god it would make sure that pain, destruction and death are avoided because intentionally making someone suffer is not a benevolent act.  And if this god is omniscient, then it would know the outcome of all actions it could/would take and whether anyone would suffer and thus avoid those actions that lead to suffering.  Classic Problem of Evil stuff.

It seems to me that if you make the reasonable assumptions that someone who calls themselves your friend would (1) make themselves known to you (otherwise, how could you have a friendship with them?  I mean, other than a completely delusional one that exists only in the mind of one party in the relationship) and (2) that this friend would explain themselves to you if you questioned their actions or motives, and the, to me, seriously overreaching assumption that (3) some god or other exists, then, again, to me, the most reasonable conclusion to draw from the facts that (1) this god doesn't make itself known to us, and (2) this god doesn't deem it necessary to explain itself when questioned by a "friend", is that this god doesn't want a friendship with humanity in the way you, CL, seem to want from it.