No, I did not miss it. In that post you kept repeating the error of mistakenly thinking that the concept of “immortal soul” is somehow the equivalent to the definition of a geometric object. Side bar follows: Actually a four sided triangle is NOT impossible. All you need to do is to draw the triangle on a rubber sheet, and then apply the proper topological transformation, and the triangle becomes a four sided (or five sided) object, or even a circle. Of course you need to study topology to understand that.
However, there is no definition which would say that the soul MUST be immortal, otherwise it is not a soul. (By the way, the “soul” of animals is not even assumed to be immortal.) The “immortality” of the soul is just an unfounded human concoction. And there is no epistemological method to find out if this “soul” is immortal or not.
Who has said that the soul could continue to exist “even if God decides not to sustain it anymore”?
Let’s clarify. I say that the existence of the soul is
contingent upon God’s will to sustain it. If God decides to stop sustaining the soul, then it will simply cease to exist. God can choose to sustain the soul, or can decide not to support it. And since God sovereign, he cannot be forced (not even by the laws of logic) to choose ONE of these options. So the soul is “immortal” IF God decides to sustain it, and it is “mortal”, if God chooses NOT to sustain it.
And that indeed, would be profanity sine fine. Or…hell.
You simply don’t get it. The question was: “is there a third option between accepting a marriage proposal and rejecting it”? The concept of “
tertium non datur” is only applicable in axiomatic systems, not in real life. So I provided a third option, which you cannot refute. One can choose an intermediate option for human relationship, which is not marriage, and yet it is meaningful relationship. And hell is not a certainty… after all we can always choose to repent.
This indicates such an impoverished understanding of the Godhead.
Yeah, I am aware that you like to say disparaging remarks without explanations. But you are mistaken. There are three options. The first one is to choose to worship God. The second one is to rebel against God. And the third one is to stay neutral.
For the record: “I am not going into details, but I assert that I am DEFINITELY
NOT against God.”
“There are some things in life which are gray, therefore the afterlife must be gray!”
No, not because of that. According to the Catholic teaching, there are several “possibilities” in the afterlife:
- heaven
- hell, and
- purgatory.
Moreover there is a fourth option,
- limbo
which you may or may not believe in, but you are free to believe, if you so choose. So the definitive Catholic teaching does not “enforce” the heaven-hell dichotomy (no “black-and-white” scenario), regardless of what you say.
God’s love is ever present, shining on the souls of those who find it odious.
Please give me just one example of someone who
actually experienced God love (even if not the beatific vision), and found it “odious”. Because that is something that I am not capable to imagine.
Secondly, I’m going out on a limb and going to venture that it’s not a major obstacle for you. I am going to say that you, too, have an issue below the belt that is the reason you’re not a Believer.
That “limb” was very thin, so much so that it already broke under your weight. You have no information about me, except what you deduced from those few posts I made so far. And that is precious little. It is not wise to make unfounded assumptions on insufficient information. You cannot know if I am a believer or not. I may even be a very strict, ultra-orthodox Catholic, who likes to test the strength of your faith by presenting hard-hitting scenarios. Of course you are free to believe whatever you want.
What would that evidence look like to you, Vera?
Open another thread if you are interested. I am NOT about to derail this one.
Vera_Ljuba
But the source of my perplexity, and I would venture to say Vera_Ljuba’s as well, is the disproportion between a solitary sin, a single act, not particularly vicious or heinous to the human eye, and an eternity of misery, torment and despair as a result? God being perfectly just, why doesn’t he weigh the good deeds versus the bad deeds, and reward or punish accordingly? One skipped mass and you’re eternal cell mates with Marc Dutroux, Wolfgang Přiklopil and Aleister Crowley? To me that is a parody of justice. It’s even lower than human justice.
