Well, that all depends upon the point one is trying to make, I guess.
I do not agree that the existence of unequal experiences implies punishment. It isn’t that you are not being allowed to watch TV–you would have chosen not to watch TV. Whether it is possible for you to “change your desire” after death is another metaphysical matter.
I don’t see the property “allowing choice” as necessarily contradictory with the property “loving”.
If it’s only a different experience you choose yourself, then, as I wrote before, the heaven/hell point is moot. Everybody will be happy and satisfied in the afterlife. That’s fine with me, but you’ll have to admit that few christians support this opinion.
NO!
GOD isn’t stupid enough to be a christian.
the old testament says SHEOL not HELL.
HELL is roman paganism.
Born Again Heisenberg Heretic
B.A.H.H. cannot be sheep
Dal Timgar
I see no reason to assume that if an afterlife exists and if God exists and if one’s experiences of/with.in realtion to God in teh afterlife are restricted by one’s free choices then everybody will be happy and satisfied.
Sometimes I make choices which do not ultimately result in my happiness.
What a beautiful mind. Simply beautiful. Thank you, Spiritus.
dreamer:
“Since he sent Jesus” “he must know?”
In other words, if he hadn’t sent Jesus he wouldn’t know?
In other words, he’s not omniscient?
No. In other words, you’re denying the antecedent. The proper question was not, “if he hadn’t sent Jesus he wouldn’t know?” but rather “if he hadn’t known, he wouldn’t have sent Jesus?”.
Didn’t Dante have a spot a bit above the circles of hell for people who were generally good? It was still hell, though.
A side note: Isnt it a little odd that so much of the idea of how christianity works comes from an Italian poet who wrote in alternately rhyming triplets?
Then we come back once again to my first point : if people sent to hell aren’t happy and stay unhappy forever, it’s a punishment for the choices made. Not being happy forever may be less unpleasant than burning forever, but it doesn’t change a thing on the principle. It’s still contradictory with the concept of an "all-loving " god.
This is a point about which I have been curious for years -
Are there sins for which no forgiveness/absolution can be given?
In other words, are there things a Christian can do which will, ABSOLUTELY, get them a one-way ticket to Hell - No amount of contrition or repentance can POSSIBLY save her/his soul?
If so:
please identify:
a) sin
b) denomination
I had believed that the Catholic ‘Mortal Sins’ were such things, but have been subsequently assured that any priest can grant a death-bed absolution (within specified limits)
Nearly as odd as the notion that it does.
One. The moral decision that you don’t love love.
A loving parent disciplines thier child - to do otherwise is bordering on the abusive. The hardest part of being a loving parent is to let your children grow up and make thier own way in life - especially when thier choices include rejecting you and your way of life. You could chain them to a pillar and try to force them to love you, but is that “all-loving”?
God doesn’t want your forced love, nor your unwilling presence after you die…
The notion of a happier afterlife for those who worship him is forced love. The only alternative to an all-access Heaven that doesn’t make God seem like a petulant child would be one Heaven for the believers and another Heaven – exactly the same in all respects except who’s in it – for the non-believers.
What alternative is there for a God that has limitless love and mercy for his own creations, whom he made with limited love and capacity to forgive?
Mainstream Catholic here.
The call to salvation is universal, and extends to non-Christians and atheists. Those who “seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, section 847). This includes those who look for God but do not find Him, and still try to live a moral life – the position of most atheists.
The only people who are positively excluded from salvation are those who exclude themselves. “They could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.” (Catechism, section 846)
Heaven is to be united with God. Hell is to be separated from him. The only people who are separated from God are those who knowingly choose to be. God does not “condemn them to Hell”; they freely choose Hell. I’m inclined to assume that not many people do this.
So all you sincere, virtuous atheists out there are going to be OK. Bet you’re glad to here that.
But where do you get such a notion? Besides, were it so, how effective was it in forcing you?
Not really, because in my universe, heaven and hell don’t exist.
There is no ‘ok’ to be after death. There is only to decompose.
I always heard that suicide was an unforgivable sin, presumably since the person who committed it would no longer be around to repent and because it was a refusal of “God’s gift of life.”
I still say there’s no heaven, no hell, no god, Jesus was an admirable teacher and the bible as we know it today has been so vulnerable to politics and passing fads and the failure of translation that we don’t know what really happened at all.
happyheathen, “Are there sins for which no forgiveness/absolution can be given?” I cannot say factually whether this is true or not, but it seems to be a logical necessity. If one wishes to deny god forever (a god which grants absolute free will), one must be able to do so. Whether that is considered a “sin” or not is (to me) irrelevant.
That would be Limbo, which was for those that had died before Jesus died on the cross for their sins and therefore they could not go to heaven. It would also be for those that had never heard of Jesus. It is also believed by some that this is where Jesus went between Friday evening and Sunday morning. He went there to get Adam and Eve, Abraham, Moses and some other up standing citizens, so that they could enjoy heaven.
Dante used a little poetic license, but I don’t think there are any church beliefs, practices or theories based on what Dante said. Mostly what happens is that people are introduced to some of Christianity’s beliefs when they have to read Dante. This is when you have to pay attention or flunk a test, whereas in Sunday School you didn’t pay attention (that is if you went to Sunday School).
Well let’s see if we can figure this problem out.
y = the 99 sheep that were in the flock
z = the 1 lost sheep
x = total sheep in the entire flock or x = y+z / x = 99 + 1/ x = 100
There evidently were 100 sheep in all.
That would be Limbo, which was for those that had died before Jesus died on the cross for their sins and therefore they could not go to heaven. It would also be for those that had never heard of Jesus. It is also believed by some that this is where Jesus went between Friday evening and Sunday morning. He went there to get Adam and Eve, Abraham, Moses and some other up standing citizens, so that they could enjoy heaven.
Dante used a little poetic license, but I don’t think there are any church beliefs, practices or theories based on what Dante said. Mostly what happens is that people are introduced to some of Christianity’s beliefs when they have to read Dante. This is when you have to pay attention or flunk a test, whereas in Sunday School you didn’t pay attention (that is if you went to Sunday School).
Well let’s see if we can figure this problem out.
y = the 99 sheep that were in the flock
z = the 1 lost sheep
x = total sheep in the entire flock or x = y+z / x = 99 + 1/ x = 100
There evidently were 100 sheep in all.