A reasonable concept of hell

[billcu1]

The way I learned about this in High School is that people in Hell don’t even want out. People in Hell have chosen to be there. They have chosen to be eternally separated from God. And being in an eternal state would mean that they won’t change their mind. It isn’t that they are “trapped” or “imprisoned” in Hell. They remain there eternally because that is their choice, and they won’t change their minds.

I can’t see how someone could continue in that state for eternity if I am look correctly at that. There must be something wrong somewhere. Surely everyone at some point “gets hungry” and begins to seek for something else. Like here on earth one can make a hell for themselves. It’s enough for me I have suffered here long enough to want to follow a perfect will other than my own.

 

[billcu1]

Heresy of heresies, it’s Origenism!

What do you mean?

 

[billcu1]

Seeing as we can’t say who is in hell, I would at least say that those who are in hell are there of their own choosing and deserve to be there. You may need to read up on the teachings of purgatory, a “place” where those who are destined for heaven are purged of any uncleanliness remaining.

You also might have to consider that such an opinion of hell as depicted by the buddhists might play nicely with our emotions, but doesn’t necessarily make it true. Even if we have a hard time believing something, that doesn’t make it wrong. And as humans after the fall, we are flawed, and our understanding imperfect. So, just because something makes more sense to you, that doesn’t make it true. People make a lot of irrational decisions that seemed rational to them.

I don’t think of the buddhists and what I quoted meaning that they’re necessarily wrong as there maybe something about their teaching that is not fully clear to us or we’re misunderstanding. We are on the outside looking in. I mean kinda like those outside the church looking in and saying they’re worshiping Mary!

 

[ajecphotos]

At the core of this doubt about Hell is our humanity. We don’t want to think that people can be eternally condemend to Hell, for sins they committed in a relatively short earthly life.

Unfortunately there is nothing in the words of Christ that indicate Hell is temporary. Nor do I think it is subjective.

I’ve written ad infinitum that the night my own father died, he appeared in my room. After an apology, a discussion and argument, he disappared, but not before giving this terrifying scream. And it was quite obvious that he could see something coming for him. I didn’t see it - just him. The scream was so frightening that I started to scream, and all I could see was him - nothing else.

It wasn’t a “subjective” experience - he was absolutely terrified. And it was crystal clear that something was coming for him.

Let’s consider what happens to a person who’s gone to Hell. They’re surrounded by an atmosphere of complete evil; absolute despair and the screams and tortures of the damned; decay and the grotesque images of demons and, i believe, the hideous condemned, since I believe they also lost their human image.

How are they going to repent? There would be nothing in their immediate surroundings to draw them on. And if they were to be plucked from Hell, would they then begin to repent? Or would they just go back to their rebellious attitude towards God, now they were released from their torture?

When Christ was going to drive the Legion of demons out of the possessed man, there was no sign they intended to repent, despite the fact they knew first hand the consequences. They preferred rebellion.

They just wanted to avoid going back to Hell, but knew also that at some time in the future, there was going to be a payback - “Have you come to torture us before the time?”

Purgatory however would be what might be called a “cleansiing fire”, but without the horrible atmosphere of hell. Compare for example a pure gas flame to the stench of a burning rubber dump (and I grew up near a factory that made rubber products, so I’m aware of that smell).

It wouldn’t be pleasant, especially in the lower stages (it could be almost heavenly in the upper stages), but it would not have the hopelessness of Hell. There would always be a sense of moving towards the beatific vision, however painful that might be.

I don’t like the thought of Hell. I don’t even like God much sometimes, as I think He can be very unfair. But I’m afraid I believe in the old fashioned concept of Hell - eternal, horrible, inescapable.

It’s a morbid subject, like discussing the death penalty. But I don’t think we should kid ourselves about its reality.

Thank you for that thought provoking post

 

[billcu1]

Contin…

So is your Buddhist version of hell reasonable? Yes but only if:

· God is not Personal.
· God is not Love.
· God is not Just.

Which would result in the reality that;
· God does not exist
· Love does not exist
· Justice does not exist

God bless

I’m confused. I have a priest and a R(name removed by moderator)oche I rarely see. So I know in depth both religions. I’m not so confused when I understand each. But saying that God does not exist? God is beyond words like “exist” and “non-existant”. So no God doesn’t “exist” like us as a being I don’t believe if my Thomism is right. Buddhists are non-theists. The idea of a creator God doesn’t come up. That’s not being atheistic and saying there’s no God it just isn’t a model of the equation. There’s love. But I’ll stop there. How do you deduce or induce your answer?

 

[billcu1]

Also why is heaven temporary and hell eternal? Jesus said I go to prepare a place for you. And the scripture says heaven and earth will pass away. But Paul says in Corinthians that eventually that which is not perfect will become perfect or something like that. Man will eventually become the unmoved and mover of all things. God wants us to be just like him.

 

[billcu1]

At the core of this doubt about Hell is our humanity. We don’t want to think that people can be eternally condemend to Hell, for sins they committed in a relatively short earthly life.

Unfortunately there is nothing in the words of Christ that indicate Hell is temporary. Nor do I think it is subjective.

I’ve written ad infinitum that the night my own father died, he appeared in my room. After an apology, a discussion and argument, he disappared, but not before giving this terrifying scream. And it was quite obvious that he could see something coming for him. I didn’t see it - just him. The scream was so frightening that I started to scream, and all I could see was him - nothing else.

It wasn’t a “subjective” experience - he was absolutely terrified. And it was crystal clear that something was coming for him.

Let’s consider what happens to a person who’s gone to Hell. They’re surrounded by an atmosphere of complete evil; absolute despair and the screams and tortures of the damned; decay and the grotesque images of demons and, i believe, the hideous condemned, since I believe they also lost their human image.

How are they going to repent? There would be nothing in their immediate surroundings to draw them on. And if they were to be plucked from Hell, would they then begin to repent? Or would they just go back to their rebellious attitude towards God, now they were released from their torture?

When Christ was going to drive the Legion of demons out of the possessed man, there was no sign they intended to repent, despite the fact they knew first hand the consequences. They preferred rebellion.

They just wanted to avoid going back to Hell, but knew also that at some time in the future, there was going to be a payback - “Have you come to torture us before the time?”

Purgatory however would be what might be called a “cleansiing fire”, but without the horrible atmosphere of hell. Compare for example a pure gas flame to the stench of a burning rubber dump (and I grew up near a factory that made rubber products, so I’m aware of that smell).

It wouldn’t be pleasant, especially in the lower stages (it could be almost heavenly in the upper stages), but it would not have the hopelessness of Hell. There would always be a sense of moving towards the beatific vision, however painful that might be.

I don’t like the thought of Hell. I don’t even like God much sometimes, as I think He can be very unfair. But I’m afraid I believe in the old fashioned concept of Hell - eternal, horrible, inescapable.

It’s a morbid subject, like discussing the death penalty. But I don’t think we should kid ourselves about its reality.

How would we repent. In that atmosphere. Show an act of kindness. Take on another’s pain. No demon could stand that they’d kill you. You’d change hell with a seed of hope. You’d begin repenting there Imagine! An act of love in hell. When you turn on a light it swallows the darkness. The darkness doesn’t swallow it.

 

[billcu1]

Ah and this is the fallacy of the enlightenment that knowledge will automatically produce morality. If this was the case then educated people would be the most moral individuals in society but alas it is not the case my friend. Saying “someone just didn’t have enough knowledge which is why they did so and so” or that they were “not thinking sanely” denies many truths, one being free will and the other being God’s love and justice. You deny free will because you claim those with knowledge or who are thinking “sanely” could never oppose truth or reject it, then you deny God’s love with this belief by saying He therefore can be accused of not supplying sufficient knowledge for his creations to always make the correct choice, and you deny His justice by saying He would condemn a being tell hell for invincible ignorance.

In Scriptures there is called the “hardening of the heart” and this can be seen as the consequence of sin which is the rejection of God. For human beings this hardening can be slow and for others it can be quick. Regardless what is clear is once this hardening has been completed by the free choice of the individual, God then respects their choice.

"And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense"–Romans 1:28

Notice the scriptures say “as they liked not to have God in their knowledge”. Ask yourself how could a person not like to have God if they did not know God? They couldn’t, so what this means is the person knew God but rejected Him. Now let’s stop and remember who the Scriptures say hell was created for?

"Then shall he say also to those on the left, Go from me, cursed, into eternal fire, prepared for the devil and his angels"–Matthew 25:41

Angels unlike humans are purely spiritual beings. They’re pure intellect and pure will, and so there is no such thing as an ignorant angel or an angel who has not made up their mind. While humans on the other hand have to traverse the planes of knowledge (abcdefghigklmnopqrstuvwxyz) due to being created body and soul, the angel can go from (a,z) instantaneously. This means when the devil and the other angels rejected God they did so with their entire being. They knew God and all of His goodness and they flat out rejected it because they loved themselves more. They told God “Yes I know you created me and that you love me but I’m telling you there is no room in my heart for you!”

The spirit of the world would tell Joseph and our Blessed Mother who was carrying the Christ in her womb the same thing.

"And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him up in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn"-- Luke 2:7

How could there be no room in the inn for a pregnant woman and her husband? It’s because those in the inn did not want to make room for them. No one wanted to sacrifice for the love of neighbor. No one had the spirit of charity because they loved themselves more! God cannot entire a heart that makes no room for Him! Love cannot be forced on those who do not want it!

Hell is an eternal separation from God not because God does not want these souls close to Him but because hell is the Eternal Inn that says to God; THERE IS NO ROOM FOR YOU HERE! Their torment like all obstinate sinners who live today is that this choice of self-love over Divine love never fills them; it just drags them deeper and deeper into their own misery until that day comes when they take their own life just to escape themselves.

Oh my friend our God loves but your Buddhist version of Hell does not acknowledge this. You expect Love to forgive those who do not want forgiveness. I wonder if you expect wives to keep forgiving their husbands when they cheat on them and tell them they have no intention of ever stopping. No the wives soon realize that no matter how much love they have or give their husbands there is nothing that can force their husbands to love them back and that even their very desire to forgive them has no affect if their husbands do want their forgiveness. But even worse would we have the audacity to look at such wives as not being loving enough because their husbands continue in such a state?

You expect Love to forgive those who do not want forgiveness.

Eventually. Unlike God though we don’t have alot of time

I believe Love can eventually turn the world upside down. That’s the christ’s entire message. One loving act in hell would catch on and destroy it.

 

[Khalid]

What do you mean?

Origenism is an ancient heresy (whether or not, or how much, it’s related to the man Origen is neither here nor there) which espoused several of the ideas you have and their logical corollaries in a way that, at the time, was neo-Platonist, and came from neo-Platonic philosophy, but today appears for all practical purposes to be Buddhist. Two of the anathematized teachings were the apokatastasis (universal restoration, even for the Devil, as, according to universalist logic, why should the evil devil suffer eternally when evil men do not?) and the metempsychosis, the “transmigration of souls”, commonly known as reincarnation.*

On the view that Hell is not eternal, Hell does not exist: only Purgatory does. What of those who hate God? Shall Dawkins be forced by the God of love to kneel before the Lord he hates?

I mean that your idea is materially heretical (e.g. it’s condemned but I assume that you did not know that it was), and I’m pointing it out to you, so it’s now formally heretical (it’s condemned and you know that it is, now that you have been told). Since I am not the Magisterium, you have no reason to accept that my informing you of the condemnation of said doctrines by the Catholic Church in any way reflects the reality of the situation, so, in stead, I will let the Magisterium speak:

The Catechism (check the references to find canons of councils, Biblical texts, and the writings of the Angelic Doctor as well for support):

1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves … To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.”

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. (614) Jesus solemnly proclaims that he “will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,” (615) and that he will pronounce the condemnation: “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!” (616)

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.” (617) 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.

1036 … “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.” (618)

• Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where “men will weep and gnash their teeth.” (619)

612 1 Jn 3:14-15.
613 Cf. Mt 25:31-46.
614 Cf. Mt 5:22,29; 10:28; 13:42,50; Mk 9:43-48.
615 Mt 13:41-42.
616 Mt 25:41.
617 Cf. DS 76; 409; 411; 801; 858; 1002; 1351; 1575; Paul VI, CPG § 12.
618 Mt 7:13-14.
619 LG 48 § 3; Mt 22:13; cf. Heb 9:27; Mt 25:13,26,30,31-46.

“DS” is the Denzinger-Schonmetzer Enchiridion Symbolorum (Compendium of Creeds), the standard reference containing virtually all of the Magisterial documents of the Church. (617) affirms the existence of Hell, with reference to nearly ten different Magisterial condemnations of denying it (such is the persistence of the heresy: the most prominent Catholic theologians of the twentieth century, Rahner and Balthasar, both published writings containing heretical ideas about Hell).

The numbering of the Denzingers available online can be slightly different, as can be the ones available in print (the new polyglot from Ignatius, which I use, the Denzinger-Hunermann 43rd edn.; the DH is newer than the DS, and was not available when the Catechism was published: it is updated to include documents through the reign of Benedict XVI), and some do not give the sources.

From Anthemas against Origen, promulgated by the Synod of Constantinople of 543, and confirmed by Pope Vigilius (DH p. 543 commentary): the ninth anathema of which states (DH §411) “If anyone says or holds that the punishment of demons and impious men is temporary and that it will have an end at some time, that is to say, there will be a complete restoration apokatastasis of demons or impious men, let him be anathema anathema sit .”

And so on. I can multiply examples from other magisterial documents: I used the one above because it helps to explain why I used the term “Origenism”, as it’s the only canon I know of that condemns the proposition that Hell is not eternal and Origen’s teaching of that heresy at the same time. There are other canons that condemn Origen (from II Constantinople), and that condemn universalism (too many to number from many synods and councils, local and ecumenical, ancient and modern), but none other that condemn them together.

 

[Khalid]

*This is the logical conclusion of the solely purgative purpose of the universalist afterlife, since, from within realist metaphysics (those of Plato or Aristotle), a “disembodied soul” (which actually makes no sense in Aristotle’s metaphysic) can not change its will: therefore it must be put in a new body to exercise its will again and draw close to God. In this way, universal reconciliation (the most extreme form of salvation by grace alone) is at the same time matched to Pelagianism (the most extreme version of salvation by works, independent of God), a manifest contradiction. If you don’t understand why a disembodied soul can not “change his mind”, so to speak, don’t worry, just know that it doesn’t work under the systems of Plato or Aristotle (which were adopted by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas respectively, and thus synthesized by the Church and found the basis for the Church’s explication of Biblical anthropology).

“The End.”

The post was too long to fit in one posting, so I split it up and removed excess content by means of ellipses. I hope my answer has been helpful and has given you the resources to further learn the mind of the Church on this matter, and pray that it will lead you to reconsider and submit your private interpretation to the mind of the Church, which is the mystical body of Christ, on this matter: “for no prophecy is by private interpretation, but of the Spirit of God”.

In Christ,

“Khalid”

 

[sw85]

Everyone could do with a little more humility in respecting the plain words of Jesus Christ, the consensus of the Church fathers, the unbroken and unanimous witness of the Magisterium, and the writings of countless saints before rejecting those things as “unreasonable.”

 

[billcu1]

Origenism is an ancient heresy (whether or not, or how much, it’s related to the man Origen is neither here nor there) which espoused several of the ideas you have and their logical corollaries in a way that, at the time, was neo-Platonist, and came from neo-Platonic philosophy, but today appears for all practical purposes to be Buddhist. Two of the anathematized teachings were the apokatastasis (universal restoration, even for the Devil, as, according to universalist logic, why should the evil devil suffer eternally when evil men do not?) and the metempsychosis, the “transmigration of souls”, commonly known as reincarnation.*

On the view that Hell is not eternal, Hell does not exist: only Purgatory does. What of those who hate God? Shall Dawkins be forced by the God of love to kneel before the Lord he hates?

I mean that your idea is materially heretical (e.g. it’s condemned but I assume that you did not know that it was), and I’m pointing it out to you, so it’s now formally heretical (it’s condemned and you know that it is, now that you have been told). Since I am not the Magisterium, you have no reason to accept that my informing you of the condemnation of said doctrines by the Catholic Church in any way reflects the reality of the situation, so, in stead, I will let the Magisterium speak:

The Catechism (check the references to find canons of councils, Biblical texts, and the writings of the Angelic Doctor as well for support):

"1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves … To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.”

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. (614) Jesus solemnly proclaims that he “will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,” (615) and that he will pronounce the condemnation: “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!” (616)

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.” (617) 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.

1036… “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.” (618)

• Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where “men will weep and gnash their teeth.” (619)

612 1 Jn 3:14-15.
613 Cf. Mt 25:31-46.
614 Cf. Mt 5:22,29; 10:28; 13:42,50; Mk 9:43-48.
615 Mt 13:41-42.
616 Mt 25:41.
617 Cf. DS 76; 409; 411; 801; 858; 1002; 1351; 1575; Paul VI, CPG § 12.
618 Mt 7:13-14.
619 LG 48 § 3; Mt 22:13; cf. Heb 9:27; Mt 25:13,26,30,31-46.

“DS” is the Denzinger-Schonmetzer Enchiridion Symbolorum (Compendium of Creeds), the standard reference containing virtually all of the Magisterial documents of the Church. (617) affirms the existence of Hell, with reference to nearly ten different Magisterial condemnations of it (such is the persistence of the heresy: the most prominent Catholic theologians of the twentieth century, Rahner and Balthasar, were both heretics when it came to Hell).

The numbering of the Denzingers available online can be slightly different, as can be the ones available in print (the new polyglot from Ignatius, which I use, the Denzinger-Hunermann 43rd edn.), and some do not give the sources.

From Anthemas against Origen, promulgated by the Synod of Constantinople of 543, and confirmed by Pope Vigilius (DH p. 543 commentary): the ninth anathema of which states (DH §411) “If anyone says or holds that the punishment of demons and impious men is temporary and that it will have an end at some time, that is to say, there will be a complete restoration apokatastasis of demons or impious men, let him be anathema anathema sit .”

And so on. I can multiply examples from other magisterial documents: I used the one above because it helps to explain why I used the term “Origenism”, as it’s the only canon I know of that condemns the proposition that Hell is not eternal and Origen’s teaching of that heresy at the same time. There are other canons that condemn Origen (from II Constantinople), and that condemn universalism (too many to number from many synods and councils, local and ecumenical, ancient and modern), but none other that condemn them together.

I know Gahenna was an area outside Jerusalem that was a “trash dump”. They burned bodies and trash in that area.
Why is Hell eternal and Heaven not?
Jesus said “I go to prepare a place for you” Create heaven. And “heaven and earth shall pass away…”
Paul talks about in Corinthians the final result of man. God’s biggest wish is for us to be just like him. The unmoved and mover of all things. heaven won’t be needed then.

 

[Khalid]

Heaven is eternal too. The word doesn’t always mean the same thing (nor does the same English word always translate the same Greek or Hebrew word) in the Bible. The “heavens and the earth” that shall pass away are the same “heavens and earth” spoken of in Genesis 1:1, a merism meaning “everything”, i.e. the universe. “The universe will pass away, but my words will not pass away.”

Or how the birds “fly across the face of the heaven”. The first heaven - the atmosphere. The second heaven - interstellar space. The third heaven - the extra-spatial and extra-temporal abode of God. The first two will pass away: the third will never pass away.

The state of the blessed (heaven, the third heaven) is eternal and will never be destroyed.

The idea that we become God in the sense that you are speaking - unmoved, which means uncreated - is not even Christian, in addition to being logically absurd. We come to be by grace what God is by nature: but we can not become by nature what God is by nature. The finite can not become infinite: the created can not become uncreated.

 

[billcu1]

Heaven is eternal too. The word doesn’t always mean the same thing (nor does the same English word always translate the same Greek or Hebrew word) in the Bible. The “heavens and the earth” that shall pass away are the same “heavens and earth” spoken of in Genesis 1:1, a merism meaning “everything”, i.e. the universe. “The universe will pass away, but my words will not pass away.”

Or how the birds “fly across the face of the heaven”. The first heaven - the atmosphere. The second heaven - interstellar space. The third heaven - the extra-spatial and extra-temporal abode of God. The first two will pass away: the third will never pass away.

The state of the blessed (heaven, the third heaven) is eternal and will never be destroyed.

The idea that we become God in the sense that you are speaking - unmoved, which means uncreated - is not even Christian, in addition to being logically absurd. We come to be by grace what God is by nature: but we can not become by nature what God is by nature. The finite can not become infinite: the created can not become uncreated.

St. Paul saith, “When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done
away.”6 Now mark what is “that which is perfect,” and “that which is in part.”
“That which is perfect” is a Being, who hath comprehended and included all things in
Himself and His own Substance, and without whom, and beside whom, there is no true
Substance, and in whom all things have their Substance. For He is the Substance of all things,
and is in Himself unchangeable and immoveable, and changeth and moveth all things else.
But “that which is in part,” or the Imperfect, is that which hath its source in, or springeth
from the Perfect; just as a brightness or a visible appearance floweth out from the sun or a
candle, and appeareth to be somewhat, this or that. And it is called a creature; and of all
these “things which are in part,” none is the Perfect. So also the Perfect is none of the things
which are in part. The things which are in part can be apprehended, known, and expressed;
but the Perfect cannot be apprehended, known, or expressed by any creature as creature.
Therefore we do not give a name to the Perfect, for it is none of these. The creature as
creature cannot know nor apprehend it, name nor conceive it.

Theologia Germanica

 

[Heliotropium]

I’m confused. I have a priest and a R(name removed by moderator)oche I rarely see. So I know in depth both religions.

Then you know the two are not compatible.

But saying that God does not exist? God is beyond words like “exist” and “non-existant”. So no God doesn’t “exist” like us as a being I don’t believe if my Thomism is right.

Incorrect my friend. I never said God exists like humans exist. Yet this does not mean we cannot apply the word “exist” to God, since He does exist eternally; He is Existence itself.

Buddhists are non-theists.

I know.

The idea of a creator God doesn’t come up.

I know.

That’s not being atheistic and saying there’s no God it just isn’t a model of the equation.

Ah but it is part of the equation when you are trying to propose your “reasonable hell” towards Catholics who believe in a Personal, Creator, who is eternal. What do you think hell is but the rejection of the Eternal Good who is God? One would think the rejection of the eternal good would create an eternal hell. Sounds logicaly reasonable.

There’s love. But I’ll stop there. How do you deduce or induce your answer?

Unfortunately not, since if you remove the source of love which is God -who is Love itself- you cannot have love. This is why Satan, demons and the damned cannot be saved. They have rejected God and have removed His image from them and therefore have removed the source of all love from their souls. Even worse they freely chosen to remove all ability to love God and have turned inward towards themselves.

 

[Heliotropium]

You expect Love to forgive those who do not want forgiveness.

Love cannot forgive those who do not want forgivenss! That is the point. You cannot save those who do not want to be saved or heal those who do not want to be healed. To force these things on a being negates their free will to accept or reject that which can only be offered.

Eventually. Unlike God though we don’t have alot of time

God is not subject to time. He is eternal, hence why the rejection of Him comes at an eternal consequence.

I believe Love can eventually turn the world upside down. That’s the christ’s entire message.

I believe this too but Christ never said this would happen without our cooperation! This is a relationship my friend and while God loves us, it is on our part to accept His love and reciprocate it. Take the sun. It surrounds the house, but it cannot entire the house throught the windows if we close the blinds and will that they stay shut!

One loving act in hell would catch on and destroy it.

Hell is the house where all the inhabitants have chosen to keep the blinds shut for eternity and God allowing them their choice is mercy since a person who is in darkness for so long cannot stand to be in the sun. In fact it would be more painful for them to be with God and in His presence than to be in hell.

God Bless

 

[billcu1]

Love cannot forgive those who do not want forgivenss! That is the point. You cannot save those who do not want to be saved or heal those who do not want to be healed. To force these things on a being negates their free will to accept or reject that which can only be offered.

God is not subject to time. He is eternal, hence why the rejection of Him comes at an eternal consequence.

I believe this too but Christ never said this would happen without our cooperation! This is a relationship my friend and while God loves us, it is on our part to accept His love and reciprocate it. Take the sun. It surrounds the house, but it cannot entire the house throught the windows if we close the blinds and will that they stay shut!

Hell is the house where all the inhabitants have chosen to keep the blinds shut for eternity and God allowing them their choice is mercy since a person who is in darkness for so long cannot stand to be in the sun. In fact it would be more painful for them to be with God and in His presence than to be in hell.

God Bless

As far as buddhism and christianity not being compatible I have seen nothing but compatibility except the theistic idea seems to simply not be there. And evil I think is greatly explained by the Kaballah’s “Breaking of the shells” or Tikkun. The “night side of Eden”
May God bless you too. I may be into buddhism but I am a theist myself.

 

[Heliotropium]

As far as buddhism and christianity not being compatible I have seen nothing but compatibility except the theistic idea seems to simply not be there. And evil I think is greatly explained by the Kaballah’s “Breaking of the shells” or Tikkun. The “night side of Eden”
May God bless you too. I may be into buddhism but I am a theist myself.

Buddhism and Catholicism are incompatible because detachment is not an end but the means to an end who is God. Nature abhors a vacuum and a space witch is empty will become filled, and this is the perfection of Catholicism because we empty ourselves to have Christ live in us. Truth, Morality, Goodness, and Love; all of these are not things but a Personal Being; God. Who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Buddha claimed to know the way, while Christ claimed to be the Way.

 

[billcu1]

Buddhism and Catholicism are incompatible because detachment is not an end but the means to an end who is God. Nature abhors a vacuum and a space witch is empty will become filled, and this is the perfection of Catholicism because we empty ourselves to have Christ live in us. Truth, Morality, Goodness, and Love; all of these are not things but a Personal Being; God. Who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Buddha claimed to know the way, while Christ claimed to be the Way.

Jesus said “He appears to those who seek him. Not to those who stand in temples and cry Lord Lord”

These “two” ways to the same thing have opened my eyes to so many inexplicable things. What you said Chirist said I kind of have my reservations about. We have a religion here. Religion tends to seek control. What better way to control than to be the only way or you pay in the dearest way you know how. By hell fire. Control through fear and God is not of fear. Jesus said I am the way sounds to me like the son is the way. In which he spoke of himself symbolically as being the son.
As far as “detachment” be careful how you interpret that. We are dealing with two different cultures here. What do you mean by detachment. Try Atisha and Nargajuna. I’m not sure your understanding it. All the things you mentioned Love and so on is taught by buddhism. yes I agree with you that’s a being. But non-theists don’t look at it like that. No big deal. IMO

I see these things in the church. sickness, aging and death. All these things aren’t necessary. In the true church there is no aging or death. No one needs to die. This is part of the right hand a part of the body like the catholic church is the left hand.

 

[Heliotropium]

Jesus said “He appears to those who seek him. Not to those who stand in temples and cry Lord Lord”

These “two” ways to the same thing have opened my eyes to so many inexplicable things. What you said Chirist said I kind of have my reservations about. We have a religion here. Religion tends to seek control. What better way to control than to be the only way or you pay in the dearest way you know how. By hell fire. Control through fear and God is not of fear. Jesus said I am the way sounds to me like the son is the way. In which he spoke of himself symbolically as being the son.
As far as “detachment” be careful how you interpret that. We are dealing with two different cultures here. What do you mean by detachment. Try Atisha and Nargajuna. I’m not sure your understanding it. All the things you mentioned Love and so on is taught by buddhism. yes I agree with you that’s a being. But non-theists don’t look at it like that. No big deal. IMO

I see these things in the church. sickness, aging and death. All these things aren’t necessary. In the true church there is no aging or death. No one needs to die. This is part of the right hand a part of the body like the catholic church is the left hand.

It’s interesting because you say the two are compatible and yet you are giving more and more examples of anti-Catholic teaching. The more you defend your position the more you prove my argument that the two are not compatible.

Either way I think this discussion is going to go nowhere fast and prayer will benefit us more at this point then continuing on.

God Bless.