Be Warned & Believe what you Truly Will

[ahs]

Destruction is the exact word Jesus uses, correct…? How can something that leads to destruction imply “eternal damnation” Once something is destroyed there is nothing left.
Logic is logic

You’re thinking in human terms, not Godly. We only know what destruction is relative to our human existence. We have no clue what “destruction” can mean in eternity. God is eternal, therefore, if He destroys something, it is eternal destruction, not destruction stuck in time, as we are stuck in time.

If we humans destroy something, we spend an amount of time destroying it until there is nothing left to destroy, because over time, we have exhausted the ability to destroy it furhter.

However, God is not restricted by time. He is not bound by the “time” that we experience. He can destroy without exhausting the ability to destroy further because there not a time factor that has limited or exhausted His ability. So, the act of destruction in eternity does not have the same meaning of destruction on Earth. It can reasonably be argues that to be destroyed in eternity is an eternal process of destruction…one that never ends…eternal damnation.

ahs

 

[Shike]

I thought the primary importance involved acts of charity which are inspired by Gods Love through felt care and concern for others. .Inspiration is all that can cause true virtue. Not directives suggesting that fear is the motivator.

Acts of charity inspired by Gods love don’t happen apart from the process of salvation. Although directives can’t cause love directly because of human free-will, going against the directives of the Church would be a bad idea.

And of course you should love your neighbor… and not because you’d go to hell if you didn’t. Nonetheless, if you are trapped in sin and are literally destroying yourself, then refraining from destructive behavior because of fear of hell is better than destroying yourself.

Ever since a Toddler , raised Catholic, I have never believed such a place existed. The idea of hell is not a reality in my life.

And belief about something can be different from the actual reality of something. An extreme example: I could believe I am the reincarnation of Elvis Presley. But in point of fact, I would not be. Just the same, the Church teaches that hell exists. You would be wise to take that into account and not ignore Her teaching.

Would it be possible to walk into a Church on Christmas Day , only to hear a huge Sermon about hell…? of course not. Everyday should have the ambiance of Christmas Day in the good interior life. The idea of a hell just does not fit in.

Deny hell and you deny the reality of sin. So I definitely could imagine hearing a homily about hell on Christmas Day, since the reason God became man was to liberate us from the power of Satan.

No mortal could reject a creator of this universe. It is illogical. No one can really even imagine God outside of prayer. One cannot reject what one does not know…this again is logical

You seem to be right that one cannot reject what one doesn’t know. But to say that God hasn’t revealed himself through the Church or hasn’t made Himself known through creation itself is ridiculous. It is true that we cannot fully comprehend God and circumscribe Him inside a neat little mental-concept box, but that isn’t to say that we can’t know anything about God. Obviously you know about prayer and working on your relationship with God.

So my argument still stands and needs to be dealt with.

Comfortable expectation in another’s misery in an infinite torment would be absolute ill-will …as we know,what we expect by choice, is what we desire.

Your second sentence doesn’t matter because the first doesn’t apply.

• First of all, who says anyone is comfortable about the idea of someone going to hell?
• Second, there is no one living side by side next to us during our every day life that we could point a finger saying that “you’re going to hell”. We can always point out what is sinful, but we cannot judge who is going to hell and who isn’t.

As I said before, hell is necessitated by God’s love, as strange as that might sound at first hearing.

I’m glad you enjoy the entries.

ciao,
Michael

 

[coolduude]

The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity.

 

[ahs]

FurtherSuntime: I hope this does not come across as judgemental…it is not intended to be. But it seems you are fixated on a notion that you are in full communion with the Church on your position that the existence of Hell can be denied.

“Can. 209 §1. The Christian faithful, even in their own manner of acting, are always obliged to maintain communion with the Church.
§2. With great diligence they are to fulfill the duties which they owe to the universal Church and the particular church to which they belong according to the prescripts of the law.”

By denying the Church teaching on Hell, you are out of communion with the Church because you are rejecting the teaching of the Church that Hell exists.

CCC 1033 – 1037 details the Church teaching on Hell and the existence of Hell, supported by Scripture.

CCC 817 describes the fact that a denial of Church teaching incurs human sin.

CCC 2089 defines incredulity and hersey as an obstinate doubt regarding a truth of the Church which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.

The only ground you can stand on is that no one yet has pointed to where the existence of Hell is a “truth…which must be believed…”. However, because the existence of Hell is a teaching of the Magisterium of the Church, and you have set your opinion in direct opposition to that teaching, you have violated Cannon Law 227 in your proclamation that Hell does not exist, and therefore have met the description of the incredulous heresy described in CCC 2089. The existence of Hell is a “truth…which must be believed…” because it is a truth that the Magesterium has proclaimed. You further complicated matters by calling yourself Catholic and as representing the Catholic faith while proclaiming your views, which directly violates Can. 227 again as well as Can. 216.

*“Can. 227 The lay Christian faithful have the right to have recognized that freedom which all citizens have in the affairs of the earthly city. When using that same freedom, however, they are to take care that their actions are imbued with the spirit of the gospel and are to heed the doctrine set forth by the magisterium of the Church. In matters of opinion, moreover, they are to avoid setting forth their own opinion as the doctrine of the Church.”

“Can. 216 Since they participate in the mission of the Church, all the Christian faithful have the right to promote or sustain apostolic action even by their own undertakings, according to their own state and condition. Nevertheless, no undertaking is to claim the name Catholic without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority.”*

Further, by denying the existence of hell, and further by proclaiming it as you have, you are working contrary to the message of salvation because salvation is not needed if there is no eternal damnation to be saved from. So you have also violated Cannon Law 211.

“Can. 211 All the Christian faithful have the duty and right to work so that the divine message of salvation more and more reaches all people in every age and in every land.”

You have also violated Cannon Laws 212 and 225: you have not obediently followed what the sacred pastors have declared, and you have worked against the message of salvation by claiming that Hell does not exist…which means there would be nothing to be saved from.

*“Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

Can. 225 §1. Since, like all the Christian faithful, lay persons are designated by God for the apostolate through baptism and confirmation, they are bound by the general obligation and possess the right as individuals, or joined in associations, to work so that the divine message of salvation is made known and accepted by all persons everywhere in the world. This obligation is even more compelling in those circumstances in which only through them can people hear the gospel and know Christ.”*

You are not in communion with the Catholic Church if your intent is to prove that Hell does not exist, or to imply that there is no eternal damnation. You have violated no less then 6 Cannon Laws of the Catholic Faith. The poster who said you must renounce your denial of Hell or leave the Catholic Faith was correct. It may not be in the CCC, but it is a fact supported by Cannon Law and the definition of what a Catholic is and the Profession of our Faith.

 

[ahs]

Where is this statement in the catechism?

You have to read Cannon Law, define Catholicism, and review the profession of faith of the Catholic Church to conclude what “coolduude” stated. His statement is not supported ver batim in the CCC, but it is supported in CCC+Cannon Law+Profession of Faith.

 

[coolduude]

FurtherSuntime: I hope this does not come across as judgemental…it is not intended to be. But it seems you are fixated on a notion that you are in full communion with the Church on your position that the existence of Hell can be denied.

“Can. 209 §1. The Christian faithful, even in their own manner of acting, are always obliged to maintain communion with the Church.
§2. With great diligence they are to fulfill the duties which they owe to the universal Church and the particular church to which they belong according to the prescripts of the law.”

By denying the Church teaching on Hell, you are out of communion with the Church because you are rejecting the teaching of the Church that Hell exists.

CCC 1033 – 1037 details the Church teaching on Hell and the existence of Hell, supported by Scripture.

CCC 817 describes the fact that a denial of Church teaching incurs human sin.

CCC 2089 defines incredulity and hersey as an obstinate doubt regarding a truth of the Church which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.

The only ground you can stand on is that no one yet has pointed to where the existence of Hell is a “truth…which must be believed…”. However, because the existence of Hell is a teaching of the Magisterium of the Church, and you have set your opinion in direct opposition to that teaching, you have violated Cannon Law 227 in your proclamation that Hell does not exist, and therefore have met the description of the incredulous heresy described in CCC 2089. The existence of Hell is a “truth…which must be believed…” because it is a truth that the Magesterium has proclaimed. You further complicated matters by calling yourself Catholic and as representing the Catholic faith while proclaiming your views, which directly violates Can. 227 again as well as Can. 216.

*“Can. 227 The lay Christian faithful have the right to have recognized that freedom which all citizens have in the affairs of the earthly city. When using that same freedom, however, they are to take care that their actions are imbued with the spirit of the gospel and are to heed the doctrine set forth by the magisterium of the Church. In matters of opinion, moreover, they are to avoid setting forth their own opinion as the doctrine of the Church.”

“Can. 216 Since they participate in the mission of the Church, all the Christian faithful have the right to promote or sustain apostolic action even by their own undertakings, according to their own state and condition. Nevertheless, no undertaking is to claim the name Catholic without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority.”*

Further, by denying the existence of hell, and further by proclaiming it as you have, you are working contrary to the message of salvation because salvation is not needed if there is no eternal damnation to be saved from. So you have also violated Cannon Law 211.

“Can. 211 All the Christian faithful have the duty and right to work so that the divine message of salvation more and more reaches all people in every age and in every land.”

You have also violated Cannon Laws 212 and 225: you have not obediently followed what the sacred pastors have declared, and you have worked against the message of salvation by claiming that Hell does not exist…which means there would be nothing to be saved from.

*“Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

Can. 225 §1. Since, like all the Christian faithful, lay persons are designated by God for the apostolate through baptism and confirmation, they are bound by the general obligation and possess the right as individuals, or joined in associations, to work so that the divine message of salvation is made known and accepted by all persons everywhere in the world. This obligation is even more compelling in those circumstances in which only through them can people hear the gospel and know Christ.”*

You are not in communion with the Catholic Church if your intent is to prove that Hell does not exist, or to imply that there is no eternal damnation. You have violated no less then 6 Cannon Laws of the Catholic Faith. The poster who said you must renounce your denial of Hell or leave the Catholic Faith was correct. It may not be in the CCC, but it is a fact supported by Cannon Law and the definition of what a Catholic is and the Profession of our Faith.

You have to read Cannon Law, define Catholicism, and review the profession of faith of the Catholic Church to conclude what “coolduude” stated. His statement is not supported ver batim in the CCC, but it is supported in CCC+Cannon Law+Profession of Faith.

:clapping:

I remove my hat to you :tiphat:

 

[FurtherSuntime]

:clapping:

I remove my hat to you :tiphat:

Coolduude: I think something needs to be explained with respects to yours and others obvious and aggressive attitude here.

Firstly: Exactly what do you know with respects to my understanding where a very unrepentant and sinful person passé’s on in life and is faced with the reality, of a Creation made by God?

Nothing… Nothing because no one has asked that question. . I thought about this missing link in the morning while going over Tantum Ergo’s thought provoking entry.

As well , I have had the opportunity to “study” an enormously evil individual.
An absolute menace to society in every imaginable way …He readily admitts rather having the consciousness similar to a dog so that conscience would not interfere with his existence.(after explaining the mind) I am very interested in the human mind and soul & have been interviewing this individual over a three year period which includes many many dynamics

Obviously there are consequences with respects to human life after death. Creation is all about…consequence.

Since Tantum Ergo’s explanation unfolds a new perspective with regards to what happens to the soul of an unrepentant sinner after death , the idea of exactly what hell is, cannot be identical in all peoples imagination. Theres just no way. I have my own vision on consequence which may be, or could be argued further dis-advantageous than Tantum Ergo’ description
Here is Tantum Ergo’s thought:

“The justice of hell is that it is eternal because the sin is eternal. The mercy is that the person still exists and not only that, exists in the full ‘enjoyment’ of having chosen HIS (or HER) own way. . .forever. The ‘torment’ is a consequence of both the justice and the mercy – justice demands that what was done wrong must be ‘paid for’, mercy keeps the punishment mere ‘physical pain’ and not annihilation”…

If you follow the thread you will notice that I have requested a possible source or elaboration regarding this explanation of what hell is. Many people including myself understand hell to be a
basic torture chamber where consciousness or awareness due to pain would not be possible.
Last night I found out differently.

Obviously, the nature of hell needs to be outlined in exact terms. People cannot read peoples minds or vague idea’s in a location like hell. .

I do not rush these matters. Your posts seem very anxious with demands. I’m thinking this added personal data may help.

 

[coolduude]

Coolduude: I think something needs to be explained with respects to yours and others obvious and aggressive attitude here.

Agressive? I made a sarcastic remark, yes, and that much I will admit. But I will not apologize for my ‘comments’ (emoticons) in response to ahs’ post. He stated the truth, and I will not apologize for my reaction.

Firstly: Exactly what do you know with respects to my understanding where a very unrepentant and sinful person passé’s on in life and is faced with the reality, of a Creation made by God?

Not quite sure what you mean by this to be honest.

Obviously, the nature of hell needs to be outlined in exact terms. People cannot read peoples minds or vague idea’s in a location like hell. .

See:
CCC 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.” 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.

 

[ahs]

I think something needs to be explained with respects to yours and others obvious and aggressive attitude here.

Why do you see my post as aggressive (I assume you are speaking of my post, ifI 'm wrong, please correct me)?

You denounced the existence of hell, identified yourself as a Catholic, and claimed to be in communion woth the Pope (and thereby also the Church). I pointed out that you are wrong in your claim and also that you violated Church Law. It is important to point that out because you have identified yourself as a Catholic in union with the Pope.

That’s not aggression, that is just pointing out the truth so that you do not cause scandal in leading Catholics away from Church teaching by convincing them of something that is contrary to Church teaching.

Was it aggressive to say you must denounce your claim or leave the Church? Perhaps. But that also is simple truth. Perhaps a more “charitible” way to say it is this: In your refusal to denounce a claim that you have made publically and obstinately, that claim begin contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Faith, you have thereby removed any Catholic indentity from yourself except in name alone.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Why do you see my post as aggressive (I assume you are speaking of my post, ifI 'm wrong, please correct me)?

You denounced the existence of hell, identified yourself as a Catholic, and claimed to be in communion woth the Pope (and thereby also the Church). I pointed out that you are wrong in your claim and also that you violated Church Law. It is important to point that out because you have identified yourself as a Catholic in union with the Pope.

That’s not aggression, that is just pointing out the truth so that you do not cause scandal in leading Catholics away from Church teaching by convincing them of something that is contrary to Church teaching.

Was it aggressive to say you must denounce your claim or leave the Church? Perhaps. But that also is simple truth. Perhaps a more “charitible” way to say it is this: In your refusal to denounce a claim that you have made publically and obstinately, that claim begin contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Faith, you have thereby removed any Catholic indentity from yourself except in name alone.

I just read my previous post twice. I hear what your saying. If you read my post a few times with patience you will hopefully hear what I’m trying to communicate with respects to this issue.

As stated … I believe there is consequence for all,after life. My perception of consequence for the sinner , is different than the Saint or pious individual. ( as clearly mentioned)

The idea forwarded of hell mentioned is new to myself. It is not a chamber of horror which dismantles consciousness due to severe pain , (or the like)

Since the idea above of hell represents something different . Other idea’s using the same word
must be a reality. That is why , I asked for possible data in this matter.

My thinking of consequence may differ slightly again, depending on individual understanding.
Obviously the word hell , can be ascribed to a consequence, a logical consequence, however,
un-desirable relative to goodness. There would not seem to be more. in explanation.

Everyones idea of consequence is going to be different using the same word …Hell. So whats the bottom line in your own words …or, where is the FULL explanation as to what hell is?

We now have two understandings in Catholicism as far as I can see.

1. A burning fire of everlasting torment.
2. A state of conscious awareness, within the depths of hell

My obvious question is…How can torment be such that it allows the added faculty of conscious awareness.? I think this is a fair question. Fair because both ideas above contradict each other. There must be as many idea’s as there would be people who believe in a defined consequence of existence after death… justifying how life is lived

Therefore why can’t I use my interpetation of what unfortuanately happens to an evil person, & label it hell. ?

(Won’t be back till later tonight)

 

[Shike]

1. A burning fire of everlasting torment.
2. A state of conscious awareness, within the depths of hell

Please explain in detail why these two statements are irreconcilable. As of right now they are both compatible, and very easily so.

Why must you think that pain stops consciousness? Consciousness is presupposed for pain to exist.

But you do understand the point of other posters on the teaching of the Church, and how hell cannot be discarded? Yes?

 

[ddarko]

What do you know with respects to my understanding where a very unrepentant and sinful person passé’s on in life and is faced with the reality, of a Creation made by God?

Nothing… Nothing because no one has asked that question. . I thought about this missing link in the morning while going over Tantum Ergo’s thought provoking entry.

Should have thought about it earlier before you decided to make a gung-ho thread about your newly discovered “teaching on hell”.

As well , I have had the opportunity to “study” an enormously evil individual.
An absolute menace to society in every imaginable way …He readily admitts rather having the consciousness similar to a dog so that conscience would not interfere with his existence.(after explaining the mind) I am very interested in the human mind and soul & have been interviewing this individual over a three year period which includes many many dynamics

I this stuff for real ? If I may suggest, if he is such a big menace, you first notify the authorities about him.

Obviously there are consequences with respects to human life after death. Creation is all about…consequence.

And yet it took you till Tantum Ergo’s post to THINK about this missing link

Since Tantum Ergo’s explanation unfolds a new perspective with regards to what happens to the soul of an unrepentant sinner after death , the idea of exactly what hell is, cannot be identical in all peoples imagination. Theres just no way. I** have my own vision on consequence which may be, or could be argued further dis-advantageous **than Tantum Ergo’ description

The man who argued that eternal torment was incompatible has a MUCH MORE DISADVANTAGEOUS view of hell. That’s quiet the interesting jump in positions.

Have you ever thought of going on a break and first thinking through everything before you present them as ABSOLUTE teaching of FurtherSuntime?

If you follow the thread you will notice that I have requested a possible source or elaboration regarding this explanation of what hell is. Many people including myself understand hell to be a
basic torture chamber where consciousness or awareness due to pain would not be possible.
Last night I found out differently.

You had a dream in which you visited the place ?

Obviously, the nature of hell needs to be outlined in exact terms. People cannot read peoples minds or vague idea’s in a location like hell.

JUST DON’T GO THERE. It’s a bad place and it exists and if you go there, there is no coming out. That’s all you need to know.

You are putting so much thought in to figuring out hell as if you are planing to take a trip there.

I do not rush these matters. Your posts seem very anxious with demands. I’m thinking this added personal data may help.

Your posts seem very anxious with sharing your “new” discoveries on Church teachings. Might I suggest, that you first read the Catechism and perhaps the summa and get a background of what already EXISTS. It will save you time re-inventing the wheel and save you from the sin of promoting heretical ideas.

This is after all not the first time you got things wrong. First it was with Divine Providence and now its come to hell, literally.

God Bless

 

[ahs]

F. Suntime
If you have read my entries you will see that this statement does not apply to my thinking…I have never believed such a place existed. The idea of hell is not a reality in my life…

F Suntime
…There is an understanding and the idea and word hell, are not allowed in my household alongside my statue of Mary, pictures of Jesus and the ambiance of my home. Reason being, hell just doesn’t fit in with the theme…
…Would it be possible to walk into a Church on Christmas Day , only to hear a huge Sermon about hell…? of course not. Everyday should have the ambiance of Christmas Day in the good interior life. The idea of a hell just does not fit in…

…I am in full agreement and comply with the codes of behavour set out by The Catholic Church my entire life.As such , I am a Catholic in good standing and in Comunion with the Pope…

…All who embrace Hell are not in Communion with God…I can see this is a most neccesary thread

What part of those quotes from you am I misunderstanding? You said you do not believe in hell, this thread is you obstinate public rejection of the Hell as taught by the Church, you claim that, while denouncing Hell, you are in communion with the Church, and that all who embrace Hell are not in communion with the Church.

The “all who embrace Hell” part could be argued. If you meant “all who embrace (meant to mean “love” or “cherish” Hell” then you are correct. If you mean “all who embrace the teaching of the Church reagrding Hell” then you are wrong.

That you believe the notion of Hell has no place with God’s mercy or your statues of Mary, you are also wrong. Not only according to Church teaching, but you are wrong because Hell shows us that God is just, and because Hell is the reality that Mary and all the other saints have worked so hard to keep us from experiencing by leading us to Christ. Without Hell, why would Christ have needed to save us, and why would teh saints need to show us the way to Christ?

Now, with your own quotes I have posted here, refer back to post #44.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Please explain in detail why these two statements are irreconcilable. As of right now they are both compatible, and very easily so.

Why must you think that pain stops consciousness? Consciousness is presupposed for pain to exist.

But you do understand the point of other posters on the teaching of the Church, and how hell cannot be discarded? Yes?

Google conscious awareness. It is very straight forward. For example, when one laughs, self awareness or consciousness is largely dislodged. Highly intoxicated again barely conscious.

Imagine sticking your hand only in a 1000 degree wood stove to insert a piece of wood . The pain simply in the hand will dislodge conscious awareness to the extent of not even knowing consciously whether your male or female. Your awareness is reduced to whole attention in getting your hand out from the pain of the fire. I hope this gives you an idea in order to properly use and apply the word conscious awareness.

Can you provide a full description of hell, in order to determine if it is acceptable and in keeping with the Faith? Where is your description so that we can add it to the two we already have. Attention to awareness, and torment will allow for thourough examination

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Ive decided looking at the latest posts, that a specific and well ordered interest in the issue will be necessary to continue.

I’m simply not interested in entertaining uneducated viewpoints emerging out of emotional dispositions. This is reasonable in light of all.

Getting down to exactly what this is about, including exactly what we are we being taught to believe makes sense to myself.

Obviously there are conflicting idea’s. I will make a suggestion. Time is important.

Two days , return on Saturday. If one cannot see conflicting issues, I would recommend review .

If the thread goes dormant, that will be fine. Ive learned quite a bit here, in many different ways:thumbsup:

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Should have thought about it earlier before you decided to make a gung-ho thread about your newly discovered “teaching on hell”.

I this stuff for real ? If I may suggest, if he is such a big menace, you first notify the authorities about him.

And yet it took you till Tantum Ergo’s post to THINK about this missing link

The man who argued that eternal torment was incompatible has a MUCH MORE DISADVANTAGEOUS view of hell. That’s quiet the interesting jump in positions.

Have you ever thought of going on a break and first thinking through everything before you present them as ABSOLUTE teaching of FurtherSuntime?

You had a dream in which you visited the place ?

JUST DON’T GO THERE. It’s a bad place and it exists and if you go there, there is no coming out. That’s all you need to know.

You are putting so much thought in to figuring out hell as if you are planing to take a trip there.

Your posts seem very anxious with sharing your “new” discoveries on Church teachings. Might I suggest, that you first read the Catechism and perhaps the summa and get a background of what already EXISTS. It will save you time re-inventing the wheel and save you from the sin of promoting heretical ideas.

This is after all not the first time you got things wrong. First it was with Divine Providence and now its come to hell, literally.

God Bless

In view of this post and others, it is entirely obvious that your thinking style is such that, large amounts of extra time is required. I’m happy to do this however don’t think it would help the thread due to the nature of explaining. We would wind up in off topic distractions to the subject. ( quantity in required feedback…

PM any time, there is no question or confusion Ive seen flow from your pen , which imparts
questionable logic or thinking on my part, which I cannot provide satisfactory response.

 

[4Horsemen]

Sr. Lucy, the eldest of the 3 Fatima children describes Hell in the following link. Although Catholics are not required to believe in personal visions or anything outside the Deposit of Faith, it would be wise to heed what Our Lady said as she showed the children that Hell is real and that there are souls of the damned as well as demons. On October 13, 1917, the Miracle of the Sun testified to the truth of what was shown. (There is so much more. Just google Fatima and the vision of Hell).

fatima.org/essentials/facts/hell.asp

 

[Shike]

Google conscious awareness. It is very straight forward. For example, when one laughs, self awareness or consciousness is largely dislodged. Highly intoxicated again barely conscious.

Imagine sticking your hand only in a 1000 degree wood stove to insert a piece of wood . The pain simply in the hand will dislodge conscious awareness to the extent of not even knowing consciously whether your male or female. Your awareness is reduced to whole attention in getting your hand out from the pain of the fire. I hope this gives you an idea in order to properly use and apply the word conscious awareness.

Two things:

1. You are mixing up your terminology. Self-awareness is not the same as consciousness. Consciousness is the awareness of an experience, any experience. The experience doesn’t necessarily have to be of the self.
2. Your example of the stove doesn’t prove what you think it does. The person in your example is aware of his hand in the stove. If your claim is that his self-awareness decreases or stops, you are wrong. He is focusing on his hand, a part of himself. Or if instead your claim is that consciousness simpliciter decreases or stops, you are wrong. He is having a conscious experience.

And this is a hidden third thing: After addressing your concerns about my argument for hell given the nature of free-will and God’s love (found in post #27), you did not engage with my argument. I hope you do.

ciao,
Michael

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Know the whole story and then some.4 horesman. As well , you know we have already discussed this…will you provide the link or shall I…?

Just to recap…Believing in hell , the eternal furnace idea which is frankly what hell is known to be…is ill-will. Where man has a choice,theres simply no way to avoid the outrageous indifference. In fact , it is insane.

1. Apparently, there are different views on what hell is. Including an idea which allows for an un-repentant sinner to maintain his obstinate will. Basically no different than an eternal earthly existence of absolute selfishness. Gnashing at the teeth I suppose in continuing with the selfish life accustomed to on earth. Torment is included some how. If so tormented, what in the world is the significance of the continued obstinate will. What can one will, while being tormented. Torment websters…"severe body suffering… This is ridiculous to say the least.
2. Another obvious view is the straight forward popular approach, fire. all consumed and tormented . Not only does this idea conflict with above, what is the point . The sinner in torment (severe bodily suffering) won’t even have the where with all to understand anything but pain, never mind justification. There no relative significance other than a suffering entity which cannot even associate to self, due to torment. This idea is completely illogical for that reason

I now realize I can call my perspective “hell”. ( referred to earlier)

The only logical (hell) represents the means by which consequence can be served in a rational manner. Loss of self awareness proportionate, to quantity of selfishness or ill will.

The idea avoids subjectivity to ill-will, by virtue of absolute justice, which simply reflects within eternity, what is true… in self. What we reap we sow.

Unfortunate for the sinner , but only by proportionate quantity, of loss to self awareness. . A perfect fairness.
No ill-will required to believe. The sinner recieves exactly, what he or she deserves. This is the consequence I was speaking of earlier. This is “my idea” of hell.

Anything… including my above idea can be dramatized into fiery words, flames, tormented consciousness or what have you…Why…? because of the vagueness we know, exists.

Look at it this way, my fiery flames of hell eliminate the hatred and leave whats left, which may be slight, or in grandioso proprtion , as it should rightfully be.
Other flames of hell suggested in vague viewpoint, sustain the hatred, sustain the gnashing of the teeth into and within Gods realm of existence. Knowledge of this is clearly not…heavenly bliss…Thus indifference, thus required ill will, by choice in desire of circumstance.

Common sense prevails . Its what Spirituality is all about…No doubt about it:thumbsup:

I will drop back on the weekend.

 

[ddarko]

Look at it this way, my fiery flames of hell eliminate the hatred and leave whats left, which may be slight, or in grandioso proprtion , as it should rightfully be.
Other flames of hell suggested in vague viewpoint, sustain the hatred, sustain the gnashing of the teeth into and within Gods realm of existence. Knowledge of this is clearly not…heavenly bliss…Thus indifference, thus required ill will, by choice in desire of circumstance.

See the bolded sections above, Mivart had similar views to what is stated there and his teachings were condemned by the Congregation of the Index and the Holy Office on 14 and 19 July, 1893 (cf. “Civiltà Cattolica”, I, 1893, 672)

So your idea of things getting easier in hell, gnashing of teeth is not sustained etc are condemned by the Catholic Church.

And your phrase

“…sustain the hatred, sustain the gnashing of the teeth into and within Gods realm of existence.”

is even more confusing.

In short, why this sudden kick to spread condemned teaching? Why not HUMBLE yourself and accept the Church teachings and those of SAINTS whose knowledge had come before you?

God Bless