Choosing Hell vs Choosing One's Self

[paziego]

I don’t know how this is going to be received, but here goes. I for one, as for me, personally I think hell (horror, pain, frustration, sealed forever in that state with no hope of relief or of seeing an end to one’s torment ) is a disproportionate punishment. I resent the fact that it’s either bliss and joy or pure misery and despair. I wish there was a milder option if one was found not worthy of Heaven. Given that God is the absolute source of anyhting good, that alternative would necessarily involve annihilation, i.e. the ceasing to exist of souls. To me, hell is torture for the sake of torture, no good could ever come out of the suffering of the damned, actually, one good could come out of hell in its retributive justice aspect: the glorification of God’s justice/the “God will not be mocked” thing. I’m sorry to say but, to me, this idea seems to paint God as an egomaniac. But I see nothing wrong with people being denied Heaven, it’s what is done to those who are denied heaven which concerns and troubles me.

Now, having said that, I can deplore that say, the gravitational pull of a planet is relative to its mass, I may disagree with the law of gravity, but ultimately God made the laws of physics. I may lament the pull of sin in my own particualr life, but things are what they are: a personal judgement awaits everyone of us at the end of our earthly life, the state of our souls at death determines where we “spend” eternity. Eternity is either pure joy or pure torment, both fates are irrevocable and irreversible, there is, alas, no milder alternative to Heaven than hell. I may disagree, I may come up with brilliant arguments why the reality of hell doesn’t befit a God whose essence and main attribute is love, but it is what it is. Nothing can change the fact that God takes sin supremely seriously. To God, if you die with an unrepentant mortal sin, you have effectively chosen sin over him.

I completely agree that hell is disproportionate and entails a God different from the one professed by the catholic church. And I also agree that God’s rules are God’s rules, and no matter what we say or believe they are constant and unchanging. It is for that reason that I disagree with the catholic model; I find it internally incoherent.

Because I disagree with the Catholicism’s model of salvation and damnation and their understanding of God, I also disagree with their definition of sin.

Much of what we describe as sin in only sinful superficially, but under the surface is a reaching out for what is good. They say pride is the root of all sin, but we are entitled to a special sort of pride due to our special nature. That doesn’t mean we should think we are better than or equal to God, but it does mean that we are deserving of justice and love - and we know this. We may try to find it in the wrong places, meaning that we are making a mistake in the means rather than the ends - is that what sin is? But people guilty of these ‘sins’ are only wrong in how they love God, not in failing to love God. We can’t consider them to be wilfully separating themselves from Him.

 

[TheHolyGhost]

I disagree with the statement I highlighted. They have chosen to be separated from God by not even considering His will is in a particular circumstance. Many, it seems, act as if God does not exist. How is this not a choice to be separated from Him?

God wills that all His creatures are happy and many times people look for happiness in the wrong places and tend to conflate pleasure for true happiness. However, does a mistake like that warrant their eternal separation from goodness? The fact that goodness and joy exist on this earth is due to God’s existence and if sin is chosen because a person sees some perceived good, in a way they are still choosing goodness (God) and not choosing depravity for the sake of being depraved. So how can it be said that people who choose sin choose not to be with God (Goodness)?

 

[sousley]

It most countries there is not only an ample variety of bibles, churches and TV preachers, but also of other faiths, denominations between them, and philosophical ideas of all shapes and sizes. It is your choice which ones you choose to investigate, and it is your choice whether you place your faith in them and begin to steward you life according to their teaching. Someone who takes themselves seriously is entitled to ask questions and consider the religious ideas by which they are to live their lives. If there was anything inherently wrong with doing so, then it would be wrong for Protestants, Muslims or Buddhists to question their faith and convert to Catholicism.

I’m not saying that it is impossible for people to act immorally. What I am saying is that despite their actions people do desire God, even if they don’t believe it themselves. I’m pretty sure that a lot of people who consciously live immoral lives crave justice more than anyone else; they are inviting it to happen, challenging it to manifest itself - perhaps because they feel like the victims of injustice themselves, in some way they try to hold the world at ransom. But underpinning all this is a craving for justice (the most heartfelt kind), which ultimately is a craving for God. The most intense form of love is that which is mixed with a false hate. Sure it is much better if they can overcome that misguided sense of hate, but even if they don’t their love and thirst for justice is still there, defining their lives. Why would they go to hell?********

As I read your thoughts, I have to admit I’m struggling to “get on the same page”. It seems as though you have a more particular set of circumstances in mind and I can only offer to you in a general way; though I could be wrong. We can probably both agree that inner dispositions such as personal piety and invincible ignorance of truth are not assessments we are privy to make, as only God alone can measure such things. We are then only left with our sensory perceptions, which I my opinion, are an inadequate measure of the whole being. My only warning is that we shouldn’t try to con ourselves into excusing willful acts by claiming invincible ignorance. I personally know individuals that, by their own admission, refuse to pursue a deeper relationship with God due to an unwillingness to enter into discipleship for fear of having to reform their lives. The feeling is by “staying ignorant” they can claim invincible at particular judgment, not recognizing their ignorance is, in fact, willful and is unlikely to con God. It is the definite downside of the modern OSAS doctrine, or “I got saved” as a one-time event philosophy. The perception is since I’m already going straight to heaven anyway, why bother with discipleship?

But I don’t think that is exactly what you’re talking about. Your second paragraph interested me. Both love and hate require us to offer something of ourselves to other, though clearly not in the same way. The opposite is use, which only takes from other to benefit ourselves; as you point out “perhaps because they feel like the victims of injustice themselves, in some way they try to hold the world at ransom”. Clearly there is not giving of self (love) in this sentiment, no love of neighbor as self, no forgiveness of other for our perceived maltreatment; if not faced and redirected, we can see this is contrary to God’s justice. My thought on the conclusion is that the person is attempting to have God conform to their sense of justice. The trouble with hate is that it nurtures unforgiveness. We know that God has spoken on this, the feast of jubilees (old) and in the Gospel (new). But just because we know these things, does it make it easy to “drop our baggage and become an instrument of God’s love at the drop of a hat? Not by a long shot and not by our own efforts. We all need the help of His grace to unite our sufferings with Jesus and by that same grace, hope to see Him when our struggles of this life are over.

 

[paziego]

As I read your thoughts, I have to admit I’m struggling to “get on the same page”. It seems as though you have a more particular set of circumstances in mind and I can only offer to you in a general way; though I could be wrong. We can probably both agree that inner dispositions such as personal piety and invincible ignorance of truth are not assessments we are privy to make, as only God alone can measure such things. We are then only left with our sensory perceptions, which I my opinion, are an inadequate measure of the whole being. My only warning is that we shouldn’t try to con ourselves into excusing willful acts by claiming invincible ignorance. I personally know individuals that, by their own admission, refuse to pursue a deeper relationship with God due to an unwillingness to enter into discipleship for fear of having to reform their lives. The feeling is by “staying ignorant” they can claim invincible at particular judgment, not recognizing their ignorance is, in fact, willful and is unlikely to con God. It is the definite downside of the modern OSAS doctrine, or “I got saved” as a one-time event philosophy. The perception is since I’m already going straight to heaven anyway, why bother with discipleship?

But I don’t think that is exactly what you’re talking about. Your second paragraph interested me. Both love and hate require us to offer something of ourselves to other, though clearly not in the same way. The opposite is use, which only takes from other to benefit ourselves; as you point out “perhaps because they feel like the victims of injustice themselves, in some way they try to hold the world at ransom”. Clearly there is not giving of self (love) in this sentiment, no love of neighbor as self, no forgiveness of other for our perceived maltreatment; if not faced and redirected, we can see this is contrary to God’s justice. My thought on the conclusion is that the person is attempting to have God conform to their sense of justice. The trouble with hate is that it nurtures unforgiveness. We know that God has spoken on this, the feast of jubilees (old) and in the Gospel (new). But just because we know these things, does it make it easy to “drop our baggage and become an instrument of God’s love at the drop of a hat? Not by a long shot and not by our own efforts. We all need the help of His grace to unite our sufferings with Jesus and by that same grace, hope to see Him when our struggles of this life are over.

I couldn’t agree more with you more. Wilfully neglecting the study of the faith is no excuse.
It can work both ways though, as some people can stay ignorant in order to remain within a particular denomination, choosing to become ‘active nominal’ members instead. Conversely, the study of one’s faith in pursuit of a deeper relationship with God may also lead someone out of that denomination. I agree with you entirely that faith, and its practice, are not a one-time event; and neither is salvation, in my opinion.

The example I used in my second paragraph was quite extreme. Of course, in between love and hate there are degrees of warm and bittersweet love. Holding the world at ransom is perhaps more of a hateful act, but a hateful act towards what? Perhaps it is an inconsiderate approach, but the hate would not be directed at the world, but at the notion of injustice. To desire justice is to love one’s neighbour as self, since you desire the same principle for each other.

Also, my use of the expression ‘holding the world at ransom’ put a particularly negative connotation on all forms of action against injustice. To hold the world at ransom would (perhaps) be an immature and inconsiderate option. Granted. But it is also conceivable that someone could sacrifice themselves in order to gain justice for the majority, even if it excluded them. So there can be good intention and self giving in the context of challenging an injustice (whether perceived or real) and a sense of victimhood.

Whatever someone’s sense of justice is, it must have something in common with God’s. There must be some feature by virtue of which both are considered justice. Furthermore, justice must always be good; there is no negative justice (unlike legal systems). A person desiring a personal notion of justice is someone who desires a good thing ‘not in its maximum degree’. If a person desires an imperfect justice, is it any different from being imperfectly united with the church, and therefore not necessarily excluded from salvation?

On a personal note, I am still learning about God’s justice, and how exactly it is defined. It may well be that people are dissatisfied with a certain model of justice, not because they are failing morally, but because the model of justice is false.