An emptier Hell than most believe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kah07
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In my opinion Hell is teeming with rebellious self-centred sinners. 😦 The pain in Hell is indescribable. :eek:

I beleive my opinion accords with many Saints’s opinions.

I hope I am wrong but I beleive I am right.

That is why we must preach the Good News to everyone (including our atheist friends and co-workers) or risk our eternal salvation…boy am I falling short in that regard
 
Reward them? I don’t know anyone who rewards their children when they do wrong unless they have serious emotional issues. If we who are imperfect wouldn’t reward our children when they do wrong then why would God who is perfect?

Forgive them? God forgave all humanity on the Cross. The problem doesn’t lay with the forgiver. It lies with the forgivee. If the forgivee rejects the forgiveness then the forgiver can’t be blamed for the rejection. If the forgivee rejects the forgiveness in life and forever in hell then what good does the forgiveness do them? God never stops loving any of His children, but some of His children stop loving Him.

Show mercy to them? God shows His mercy towards them by depriving them of His presence which they hate. He shows His mercy towards them by only giving them the punishment that will satisfy Divine justice and no more.
That’s very well put. Amen to that
 
SSTeacher;6539190:
I’ve a feeling Holmes would probably refer to that as a chronological inexactitude
but I’ll accept the Vulcan version. šŸ™‚

Timidly,
Mick
:thumbsup:LOL! Is that anything like Jessie Jackson saying Bill Clinton had not lied but had committed a terminological inexactitude?
Nah, nobody talks like Jessie Jackson. šŸ™‚
But regarding the quote of my signature, Socrates has something relevant to say:

In any case, the question we’ve got to consider is not who said it, but whether or not the statement is true.

(Charmides, 161)
I like it. You wouldn’t get away with that line in a court of law, though. šŸ˜‰

Cordially,
Mick
šŸ‘
 
In my opinion Hell is teeming with rebellious self-centred sinners. 😦 The pain in Hell is indescribable. :eek:

I believe my opinion accords with many Saints’s opinions.
Would you mind providing some sources (apart from Saint Faustina and the Fatima apparitions)? I’d like to follow up. šŸ™‚

Appreciatively,
Mick
šŸ‘
 
If we’re both thinking about love as agape love, then, I guess I’d start off by saying that it means total commitment i.e. love with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and perhaps throw in the description Saint Paul provided in the love chapter, as it’s so called: Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self–seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.

So this is the yardstick, then? You can correct me if I’m awry.
Well, I’d say this yardstick is not so much an explanation of what Love *is *as it is a description of what Love does. As far as describing how to love, I’d say this is an extremely helpful list. However, it is not an exhaustive one, for it does not say, ā€œLove is forgiving,ā€ and ā€œLove is merciful,ā€ and I’m sure you and I both agree that the way we most want God to love us is to show mercy to and forgive us.
So, based on these ideas, I guess it’s possible to say that the love of God could be described as 100% of God. That would be more powerful than anything humans could imagine (dunno about Vulcans, but I’ll assume that if they stoop to historical revisionism, they’d probably be in pretty much the same boat as we are :)).
I’m sure their ancient philosophers who brought their race from the brink of self-extinction would have been partial to, ā€œLove is not easily angered.ā€

😃
So if God’s love prompts Him to reward, forgive, and show mercy to all (by His very nature he can’t do anything else as far as His creatures are concerned) then since some end up in heaven and some end up in hell (assuming hell is populated) the different states people are experiencing must be something to do with the reaction of different individuals to the love of God when they come into His presence. Doesn’t Catholicism embrace a belief that is referred to as the Beatific Vision? I read an Orthodox viewpoint somewhere or other (that’s probably a reflection of an old idea), which suggested that heaven or hell are states that simply reflect the individual’s reaction to the love of/presence of God – since God is love (cf. 1 John 4:8, 16), His love and His presence amount to the same thing. It was something along those lines, anyway. Not sure if that gets me anywhere, though.
Yes, you might be right. Other thoughtful Catholics here at this forum have mentioned the same idea, but none has said whether this is Catholic dogma, or merely speculation on the part of some Church Fathers.
However, viewed from a child’s perspective, which is how Jesus told us to live, I would say that hell doesn’t sound like any kind of reward since it involves great pain and suffering; that hell doesn’t sound like forgiveness but more like punishment; and that hell doesn’t sound like mercy being shown since mercy is being given what one doesn’t deserve. Now, perhaps that means I’m not thinking about agape love but that I’m simply being sentimental? Sounds as though you may be able to teach me something, though. Take me through it slowly and I’ll do my best to keep up. šŸ™‚

Incidentally, I just got back from Vespers (so a blessed LORD’S Day to you :)) and I’ve some stuff to do so I’m off the computer now until late tomorrow afternoon at the earliest.

Busily,
Mick
šŸ‘
Always good to read your thoughts, Mick. Thanks for giving me something to think about, and more questions to ask. In fact, just thought of one now (I know, not another one!) but I do think your answers are helping us get closer to the truth. As I was reading your reply, two things came to mind:

First, I agree that God does not forgive, nor does He reward, those in Hell–at least, He does not reward the damned with the blessings of Heaven. This, then tells me that, although God is capable of all aspects of Love, He does not love everyone in every way. I suppose that the way He loves depends on the way each allows Him to love. He is potentially 100% loving, and those in Heaven likely receive as much as His full and complete loving, but He must be actually less than 100% loving to those in Hell.

Second, I’m not so sure that God does not show mercy to those in Hell. You see, it seems to me that God’s Divine Justice demands that there be degrees of punishment in Hell. For example, it would be unjust if Adolph Hitler–who was responsible for the death and suffering of perhaps millions–received the same suffering in Hell as a woman who had an abortion and then committed suicide. Both are guilty of mortal sin, but Hitler even more so. Thus, He should receive the lion’s share of the agony. So my question is, don’t you agree?
 
Would you mind providing some sources (apart from Saint Faustina and the Fatima apparitions)? I’d like to follow up. šŸ™‚

Appreciatively,
Mick
šŸ‘
Dear, Mick

Sorry I have to be so brief…in a rush…To get you started Saint John Bosco’s visions of hell also St Teresa of Avila, St Clare of Montefalco, Saint Bernadette are some others…I am sure many CA readers will help me out

God Bless John
 
Reward them? I don’t know anyone who rewards their children when they do wrong unless they have serious emotional issues. If we who are imperfect wouldn’t reward our children when they do wrong then why would God who is perfect?
Agreed.
Forgive them? God forgave all humanity on the Cross. The problem doesn’t lay with the forgiver. It lies with the forgivee. If the forgivee rejects the forgiveness then the forgiver can’t be blamed for the rejection. If the forgivee rejects the forgiveness in life and forever in hell then what good does the forgiveness do them? God never stops loving any of His children, but some of His children stop loving Him.
Agreed.
Show mercy to them? God shows His mercy towards them by depriving them of His presence which they hate. He shows His mercy towards them by only giving them the punishment that will satisfy Divine justice and no more.
Then God’s Divine Justice–rather than being opposed to Divine Mercy–results in His loving mercy! Yes, that makes sense to me.

šŸ‘

But I want to be sure I understand you. Are you saying that those in Hell who suffer more, experience more of God’s presence; but those in Hell who suffer less, experience less of His presence?

🤷
 
Agreed.

Agreed.

Then God’s Divine Justice–rather than being opposed to Divine Mercy–results in His loving mercy! Yes, that makes sense to me.

šŸ‘

But I want to be sure I understand you. Are you saying that those in Hell who suffer more, experience more of God’s presence; but those in Hell who suffer less, experience less of His presence?

🤷
Goodness Gracious, what do they teach you guys over there on Vulcan?:rolleyes:

Those in hell experience the absence of God. They suffer the loss of God and that is the primary punishment of hell. Those in hell who commit a greater degree of evil will experience a greater degree of God’s wrath, not His presence. Those who suffer less experience less of God’s wrath.

The soul in hell is all alone. The only company they have is satan, and it’s minions, and the worm that doesn’t die. There are no other presences there. Every soul there is completely alone. The worm that doesn’t die could be satan, I’m not sure about that.

I also want to be clear that all the torments of hell combined do not even come close to equaling the loss of God. The loss of God for those in hell equals His absence. We can’t even begin to imagine the infinite beauty and majesty of almighty God. The soul will see this and will suffer horribly over this loss, and for this they hate God.
 
Goodness Gracious, what do they teach you guys over there on Vulcan?:rolleyes:

Those in hell experience the absence of God. They suffer the loss of God and that is the primary punishment of hell. Those in hell who commit a greater degree of evil will experience a greater degree of God’s wrath, not His presence. Those who suffer less experience less of God’s wrath.

The soul in hell is all alone. The only company they have is satan, and it’s minions, and the worm that doesn’t die. There are no other presences there. Every soul there is completely alone. The worm that doesn’t die could be satan, I’m not sure about that.

I also want to be clear that all the torments of hell combined do not even come close to equaling the loss of God. The loss of God for those in hell equals His absence. We can’t even begin to imagine the infinite beauty and majesty of almighty God. The soul will see this and will suffer horribly over this loss, and for this they hate God.
Yes, I see, my friend Cranster. Sorry, it appears I was confused for a moment!

:o

You see, in this conversation

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6540937#post6540937

two thoughtful Catholic friends of mine are making the argument that the presence of God brings satisfaction to those in Heaven, but pain to those in Hell. So I thought that you were speaking of God somehow diminishing His presence, or diminishing awareness of His presence, in Hell (e.g., post 151 at that link).

I now see my error: Rather than saying that, you are instead making the point that God completely *removes *His presence in Hell. But there is something I don’t understand. If God is omnipresent–or everywhere there–then how can He *not *be present there in Hell?

🤷
 
But there is something I don’t understand. If God is omnipresent–or everywhere there–then how can He *not *be present there in Hell?

🤷
I’m going to refer to a teaching by John Paul 2, and Saint Thomas Aquinas.

Pope John Paul II pointed out that the essential characteristic of heaven, hell or purgatory is that they are states of being of a spirit (angel/demon) or human soul, rather than places, as commonly perceived and represented in human language. This language of place is, according to the Pope, inadequate to describe the realities involved, since it is tied to the temporal order in which this world and we exist. In this he is applying the philosophical categories used by the Church in her theology and saying what St. Thomas Aquinas said long before him.

ā€œIncorporeal things are not in place after a manner known and familiar to us, in which way we say that bodies are properly in place; but they are in place after a manner befitting spiritual substances, a manner that cannot be fully manifest to us.ā€ [St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Supplement, Q69, a1, reply 1]

This goes somewhat with the concept of time that I mentioned a few posts back. Time according to Einstein can’t be separated from space. He called it spacetime, It’s one substance. If you remove time you also remove space.

Neither heaven or hell exist in spacetime. They exist in eternity. There is literally no space or place in the purely temporal concept of spacetime for God to be in. God is pure spirit. God is simple, which means that He can’t be divided into parts. If God has no parts then God does not occupy space. This doesn’t mean God in not omnipresent. God transcends both space and time, and cannot be contained by either. God is present in space in a purely spiritual way and does not occupy the space in which He’s present. I think it would be more appropriate to think of space as contained within God rather than God contained wit in space. Rather than using the temporal concept of heaven, hell, and purgatory in spacetime it might be more accurate to describe them in statetimeless.

Presence is an inadequate term when talking about God. I think it may be more fitting to use the term communion. Those going to heaven are destined for communion with God. Those condemning themselves to hell through their own free will are deprived of communion with God. So those in the state of hell will be completely deprived of communion with God while God is still omnipresent even though there is no physical space to be present in. Souls in hell are deprived of communion with God in the spiritual place of statetimeless. Bottom line… God can be everywhere, and still not be in communion with souls in hell.

Kinda hard to talk about things beyond human experience. You have to throw out the known and familiar when talking about the spiritual realm.
 
Dear, Mick

Sorry I have to be so brief…in a rush…To get you started Saint John Bosco’s visions of hell also St Teresa of Avila, St Clare of Montefalco, Saint Bernadette are some others…I am sure many CA readers will help me out

God Bless John
Thank you for your help, John.

Gratefully,
Mick
šŸ‘
 
SSTeacher;6541612:
…I like it. You wouldn’t get away with that line in a court of law, though. šŸ˜‰

Cordially,
Mick
šŸ‘
LOL! Would you be surprised to see that Socrates agrees?
Yes, I’m surprised. But I like surprises. šŸ™‚
SSTeacher;6539193:
If we’re both thinking about love as agape love, then, I guess I’d start off by saying that it means total commitment i.e. love with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and perhaps throw in the description Saint Paul provided in the love chapter, as it’s so called: Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self–seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.

So this is the yardstick, then? You can correct me if I’m awry.
Well, I’d say this yardstick is not so much an explanation of what Love *is *as it is a description of what Love does. As far as describing how to love, I’d say this is an extremely helpful list. However, it is not an exhaustive one, for it does not say, ā€œLove is forgiving,ā€ and ā€œLove is merciful,ā€ and I’m sure you and I both agree that the way we most want God to love us is to show mercy to and forgive us.
I think I’d be unable to describe what love is if I were unable to give examples of what love does. We can perhaps agree (for the purposes of dialogue, anyway) that they are similar. I think it can reasonably be inferred from Saint Paul’s description of what love is/does that love is forgiving since He declares that it keeps no record of wrongs. And according to the Psalmist, so great is God’s love for those who fear Him that ā€œas far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us.ā€ Same idea. The proviso that the Psalmist adduces shouldn’t be overlooked, of course, but it’s perhaps permissible to suggest that God’s love also includes God’s forgiveness. Incidentally, don’t you think it’s interesting that the Psalmist chooses to declare ā€œfrom east to westā€ and not ā€œfrom north to southā€?

I don’t know if I can get away with suggesting that God’s love also includes God’s mercy. I’ll certainly try, though. Remember the parable of the unmerciful servant?
Then the master called the servant in. ā€œYou wicked servant,’ he said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?ā€ In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. ā€œThis is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart.ā€
Noting that this parable includes both the concepts of mercy and forgiveness and appears to treat them as synonymous there seems now to be good reason to think that love in action includes being merciful and being forgiving. So, yes, I can agree with you that the way we most want God to love us is to show mercy to us and forgive us. In fact, I might even infer that God will love us in the same way that He is telling us to love. I want to be cautious here, of course, as it’s but an inference.
SSTeacher;6539193:
So, based on these ideas, I guess it’s possible to say that the love of God could be described as 100% of God. That would be more powerful than anything humans could imagine (dunno about Vulcans, but I’ll assume that if they stoop to historical revisionism, they’d probably be in pretty much the same boat as we are :)).
I’m sure their ancient philosophers who brought their race from the brink of self-extinction would have been partial to, ā€œLove is not easily angered.ā€

😃
Indeed. šŸ™‚
SSTeacher;6539193:
So if God’s love prompts Him to reward, forgive, and show mercy to all (by His very nature he can’t do anything else as far as His creatures are concerned) then since some end up in heaven and some end up in hell (assuming hell is populated) the different states people are experiencing must be something to do with the reaction of different individuals to the love of God when they come into His presence. Doesn’t Catholicism embrace a belief that is referred to as the Beatific Vision
? I read an Orthodox viewpoint somewhere or other (that’s probably a reflection of an old idea), which suggested that heaven or hell are states that simply reflect the individual’s reaction to the love of/presence of God – since God is love (cf. 1 John 4:8, 16), His love and His presence amount to the same thing. It was something along those lines, anyway. Not sure if that gets me anywhere, though.Yes, you might be right. Other thoughtful Catholics here at this forum have mentioned the same idea, but none has said whether this is Catholic dogma, or merely speculation on the part of some Church Fathers.
I don’t think it’s Catholic dogma but I’ll allow myself to be corrected by any Catholic that cares to interpolate. I’ve found an Orthodox source for the idea that I had in mind, though. It’s lengthy and certainly polemical, passim. Still, never mind, eh? šŸ™‚ Click here

Cordially,
Mick
šŸ‘
 
SSTeacher;6539193:
However, viewed from a child’s perspective, which is how Jesus told us to live, I would say that hell doesn’t sound like any kind of reward since it involves great pain and suffering; that hell doesn’t sound like forgiveness but more like punishment; and that hell doesn’t sound like mercy being shown since mercy is being given what one doesn’t deserve. Now, perhaps that means I’m not thinking about agape love but that I’m simply being sentimental? Sounds as though you may be able to teach me something, though. Take me through it slowly and I’ll do my best to keep up. šŸ™‚

Incidentally, I just got back from Vespers (so a blessed LORD’S Day to you :)) and I’ve some stuff to do so I’m off the computer now until late tomorrow afternoon at the earliest.

Busily,
Mick
šŸ‘
Always good to read your thoughts, Mick. Thanks for giving me something to think about, and more questions to ask. In fact, just thought of one now (I know, not another one!) but I do think your answers are helping us get closer to the truth. As I was reading your reply, two things came to mind:

First, I agree that God does not forgive, nor does He reward, those in Hell–at least, He does not reward the damned with the blessings of Heaven. This, then tells me that, although God is capable of all aspects of Love, He does not love everyone in every way. I suppose that the way He loves depends on the way each allows Him to love. He is potentially 100% loving, and those in Heaven likely receive as much as His full and complete loving, but He must be actually less than 100% loving to those in Hell.
I think the argument is that God is in fact 100% loving to every human being created in His image. For those who have cooperated with God and kept His commandments and have therefore grown in holiness while they lived on earth (with holiness being defined as a characteristic unique to God’s character that becomes the goal for human moral character) God’s love brings them just as close to Him as Jesus prayed for in John 17 because they are equipped to receive God’s love. But to those whose characters are ungodly God’s love is necessarily torturous. It’s really an awful thing to contemplate. I have to admit it seems to make sense, though.
Second, I’m not so sure that God does not show mercy to those in Hell. You see, it seems to me that God’s Divine Justice demands that there be degrees of punishment in Hell. For example, it would be unjust if Adolph Hitler–who was responsible for the death and suffering of perhaps millions–received the same suffering in Hell as a woman who had an abortion and then committed suicide. Both are guilty of mortal sin, but Hitler even more so. Thus, He should receive the lion’s share of the agony. So my question is, don’t you agree?
When ā€œGod’s Justice Demandsā€¦ā€ is the assumption used as the starting point I feel prompted to question it rather than accept it. How does one understand the Atonement? Why did Christ have to die on the Cross? If the answer is, ā€œTo satisfy God’s justice,ā€ I think I’d request further details about the presuppositions and the subsequent route taken to arrive at that conclusion.

As far as degrees of punishment are concerned, that seems to me to take the dialogue into the ā€œlet the punishment fit the crimeā€ arena. And it’s therein that I think I have to be a little cautious about projecting onto God my personal opinions about what fits and what doesn’t fit. Recall the parable of the laborers in the vineyard? The guys who came along last do the least amount of work and yet get the same reward as the guys who’ve been at it slogging out in the sun all day. Obviously the lesson Christ was imparting would sound like nonsense if He had been conducting a seminar on Industrial Relationships. But He wasn’t. He was talking about what the kingdom of heaven is like, as He generally was whenever He spoke in parables.

The Catholic doctrine of mortal sin isn’t one that I (as an Orthodox Christian) believe so the comparison between Hitler and a woman who had an abortion doesn’t raise for me the hampering questions that I think would arise if I were a Catholic.

In conclusion, let me state this. I believe there’s a difference between justice and judgment. Both are God’s prerogative. No question about that. But Saint James, in his general letter to the Church, declares that mercy triumphs over judgment (cf. James 2:13b). He doesn’t say that mercy triumphs over justice. God’s mercy upon the greater – and even the greatest – sinner in no way intrudes upon God’s justice. God’s justice identifies and categorizes the sin as great or greater. But His mercy is even greater still, as He shows when He uses it in His judgment. With that in mind, we can begin to appreciate the danger we put ourselves in when we judge others. In our humanity we can understand judgment only in terms of punishment and condemnation. But God’s ways are not our ways (cf. Isaiah 55:8–9). If we could only judge as God does, we would be so different. We’d never say a bad word about anybody ever again.

In Christ,
Mick
šŸ‘
 
Kinda hard to talk about things beyond human experience. You have to throw out the known and familiar when talking about the spiritual realm.
I agree without qualification. And because that’s evident to me I’m able to retain my hope that everybody will be saved. God wants it to happen (cf. 1 Timothy 2:4) and although I haven’t the faintest idea how He will do it I believe that with God all things are possible (cf. Matthew 19:26).

Hopefully,
Mick
šŸ‘
 
The Catholic doctrine of mortal sin isn’t one that I (as an Orthodox Christian) believe so the comparison between Hitler and a woman who had an abortion doesn’t raise for me the hampering questions that I think would arise if I were a Catholic.

In Christ,
Mick
šŸ‘
I believe that God loves Hitler and a woman who had an abortion equally and infinitely. Since we aren’t capable of knowing the state of either soul right before death, and how it dealt with God’s final appeal to avail themselves of His love and mercy. That makes us uniquely unqualified to pass judgement on either. In fact we are warned not to judge because the measure with which we judge others is the same measure we judge ourselves. So we can say neither is in hell.
 
Yes, I’m surprised. But I like surprises. šŸ™‚ …
So do I. I find them fascinating! If you are interested in hearing Socrates speak of his, as well as any true philosopher’s, inept ability in a court of law, read on. Otherwise, skip to another post.

**Socrates. **Then, as this is your wish, I will describe the leaders [of philosophy]; for
there is no use in talking about the inferior sort. In the first
place, the lords of philosophy have never, from their youth upwards,
known their way to the Agora, or the dicastery, or the council, or any
other political assembly; they neither see nor hear the laws or
decrees, as they are called, of the state written or recited; the
eagerness of political societies in the attainment of office-clubs,
and banquets, and revels, and singing-maidens,-do not enter even
into their dreams. Whether any event has turned out well or ill in the
city, what disgrace may have descended to any one from his
ancestors, male or female, are matters of which the philosopher no
more knows than he can tell, as they say, how many pints are contained
in the ocean. Neither is he conscious of his ignorance. For he does
not hold aloof in order; that he may gain a reputation; but the
truth is, that the outer form of him only is in the city: his mind,
disdaining the littlenesses and nothingnesses of human things, is
ā€œflying all abroadā€ as Pindar says, measuring earth and heaven and the
things which are under and on the earth and above the heaven,
interrogating the whole nature of each and all in their entirety,
but not condescending to anything which is within reach.

** Theodorus. **What do you mean, Socrates?

** Soc. **I will illustrate my meaning, Theodorus, by the jest which
the clever witty Thracian handmaid is said to have made about
Thales, when he fell into a well as he was looking up at the stars.
She said, that he was so eager to know what was going on in heaven,
that he could not see what was before his feet. This is a jest which
is equally applicable to all philosophers. For the philosopher is
wholly unacquainted with his next-door neighbour; he is ignorant,
not only of what he is doing, but he hardly knows whether he is a
man or an animal; he is searching into the essence of man, and busy in
enquiring what belongs to such a nature to do or suffer different from
any other;-I think that you understand me, Theodorus?

** Theod. **I do, and what you say is true.

** Soc.** And thus, my friend, on every occasion, private as well as
public, as I said at first, when he appears in a law-court, or in
any place in which he has to speak of things which are at his feet and
before his eyes, he is the jest, not only of Thracian handmaids but of
the general herd, tumbling into wells and every sort of disaster
through his inexperience. His awkwardness is fearful, and gives the
impression of imbecility. When he is reviled, he has nothing
personal to say in answer to the civilities of his adversaries, for he
knows no scandals of any one, and they do not interest him; and
therefore he is laughed at for his sheepishness; and when others are
being praised and glorified, in the simplicity of his heart he
cannot help going into fits of laughter, so that he seems to be a
downright idiot. When he hears a tyrant or king eulogized, he
fancies that he is listening to the praises of some keeper of cattle-a
swineherd, or shepherd, or perhaps a cowherd, who is congratulated
on the quantity of milk which he squeezes from them; and he remarks
that the creature whom they tend, and out of whom they squeeze the
wealth, is of a less traitable and more insidious nature. Then, again,
he observes that the great man is of necessity as ill-mannered and
uneducated as any shepherd-for he has no leisure, and he is surrounded
by a wall, which is his mountain-pen. Hearing of enormous landed
proprietors of ten thousand acres and more, our philosopher deems this
to be a trifle, because he has been accustomed to think of the whole
earth; and when they sing the, praises of family, and say that someone
is a gentleman because he can show seven generations of wealthy
ancestors, he thinks that their sentiments only betray a dull and
narrow vision in those who utter them, and who are not educated enough
to look at the whole, nor to consider that every man has had thousands
and ten thousands of progenitors, and among them have been rich and
poor, kings and slaves, Hellenes and barbarians, innumerable. And when
people pride themselves on having a pedigree of twenty-five ancestors,
which goes back to Heracles, the son of Amphitryon, he cannot
understand their poverty of ideas. Why are they unable to calculate
that Amphitryon had a twenty-fifth ancestor, who might have been
anybody, and was such as fortune made him and he had a fiftieth, and
so on? He amuses himself with the notion that they cannot count, and
thinks that a little arithmetic would have got rid of their
senseless vanity. Now, in all these cases our philosopher is derided
by the vulgar, partly because he is thought to despise them, and
also because he is ignorant of what is before him, and always at a
loss.
 
** Theod. **That is very true, Socrates.

** Soc. **But, O my friend, when he draws the other into upper air, and
gets him out of his pleas and rejoinders into the contemplation of
justice and injustice in their own nature and in their difference from
one another and from all other things; or from the commonplaces
about the happiness of a king or of a rich man to the consideration of
government, and of human happiness and misery in general-what they
are, and how a man is to attain the one and avoid the other-when
that narrow, keen, little legal mind is called to account about all
this, he gives the philosopher his revenge; for dizzied by the
height at which he is hanging, whence he looks down into space,
which is a strange experience to him, he being dismayed, and lost, and
stammering broken words, is laughed at, not by Thracian handmaidens or
any other uneducated persons, for they have no eye for the
situation, but by every man who has not been brought up a slave.
Such are the two characters, Theodorus: the one of the freeman, who
has becomes trained in liberty and leisure, whom you call the
philosopher-him we cannot blame because he appears simple and of no
account when he has to perform some menial task, such as packing up
bed-clothes, or flavouring a sauce or fawning speech; the other
character is that of the man who is able to do all this kind of
service smartly and neatly, but knows not how to wear his cloak like a
gentleman; still less with the music of discourse can he hymn the true
life aright which is lived by immortals or men blessed of heaven.

** Theod. **If you could only persuade everybody, Socrates, as you do me,
of the truth of your words, there would be more peace and fewer
evils among men.

philosophy.eserver.org/plato/theaetetus.txt

Socrates also had some unflattering things to say of lawyers, by way of contrast to philosophers. That’s not to say that he believed all lawyers to fit his description, but only those who disdained becoming lovers of wisdom and truth (for that is what the word philosophy literally means.) If you care to hear his opinion of such lawyers, just let me know.
 
… I think I’d be unable to describe what love is if I were unable to give examples of what love does. We can perhaps agree (for the purposes of dialogue, anyway) that they are similar.
Perhaps, but I have my doubts at the moment. Please let me ask you this: If I were to ask you, ā€œWhat is color?ā€ and you were to answer, ā€œRed,ā€ and someone else were to answer, ā€œWhite,ā€ and yet another were to answer, ā€œColor is Blue,ā€ would any of you have answered my question?

🤷
I think it can reasonably be inferred from Saint Paul’s description of what love is/does that love is forgiving since He declares that it keeps no record of wrongs. And according to the Psalmist, so great is God’s love for those who fear Him that ā€œas far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us.ā€ Same idea. The proviso that the Psalmist adduces shouldn’t be overlooked, of course, but it’s perhaps permissible to suggest that God’s love also includes God’s forgiveness. Incidentally, don’t you think it’s interesting that the Psalmist chooses to declare ā€œfrom east to westā€ and not ā€œfrom north to southā€?
Yes, I like the thought of that! and I have no doubt that all forgiveness is love, but is all love forgiveness? Tell me, Teacher, does God the Father love God the Son?

🤷
I don’t know if I can get away with suggesting that God’s love also includes God’s mercy. I’ll certainly try, though. Remember the parable of the unmerciful servant?

Noting that this parable includes both the concepts of mercy and forgiveness and appears to treat them as synonymous there seems now to be good reason to think that love in action includes being merciful and being forgiving. So, yes, I can agree with you that the way we most want God to love us is to show mercy to us and forgive us. In fact, I might even infer that God will love us in the same way that He is telling us to love. I want to be cautious here, of course, as it’s but an inference.
Yes, you might be on to something there! It is certainly true that we are to love as God loves us.

šŸ‘

ā€œA new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.ā€

(John 13:34-35)

And it seems that if you or I refuse to show the specific love called forgiving, God will not forgive us.

ā€œDo not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.ā€

(Luke 6:37)

Although, much needs to be investigated to be certain of the meaning of His words.

šŸ™‚
 
… I don’t think it’s Catholic dogma but I’ll allow myself to be corrected by any Catholic that cares to interpolate. I’ve found an Orthodox source for the idea that I had in mind, though. It’s lengthy and certainly polemical, passim. Still, never mind, eh? šŸ™‚ Click here

Cordially,
Mick
šŸ‘
It’s certainly worth considering, and it is one currently being carefully considered in another discussion thread here at the forum. If you are interested, see post 151 at this link:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6535533#post6535533

But the idea has its thoughtful critics. Cranster, in this discussion thread, is one. Baptists and Evangelicals of my past are others, for they told me that God is a loving God, but He is also a just God, and His justice demands that His love ends where the Gates of Hell begin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top