Compartmentalization due to hell

[EasternCelt]

So, just so we’re clear, you state that because of what I had written before I should be denied absolution, then I question you as to why you think I lack charity and should not receive absolution, and you say that if I really understood what charity was I wouldn’t know why you were denied me absolution. You strike me as someone who doesn’t like to give clear answers and who likes to type a lot of content without really saying anything. So I’ll ask again: what about my words would suggest a lack of charity toward my neighbor? We have already discussed above that the church allows imperfect contrition and I clearly stated that I follow the Commandments out of fear of hell which is, definitionally, imperfect contrition. Am I open to moving toward perfect contrition? I would like to, but this is a serious topic that I have to figure out before that will be possible.

 

[Gorgias]

I do not believe that the so-called “free will argument” for hell answers the problem at all adequately, indeed I think it presents more problems considering our current spiritual understanding of our condition; it essentially is allowing the equivalent of spiritual toddlers to choose their fate in a high stakes game of life or death which I hope to we all find unacceptable. I would not allow my 16 month old to play in traffic even if that was her will because I cherish her (and her mother) above anyone else .

The thing is, even if we are ‘spiritual toddlers’, we’re still capable of making informed decisions. When you buy a car, do you have complete and total knowledge? Of course not. Yet, you educate yourself and therefore, you have sufficient knowledge to make an informed, free will decision. Same thing here. For some reason, I’ve found, when folks talk about ‘free will’, they bemoan the fact that we don’t have perfect free will, or perfect reason. That’s immaterial: the real question is whether you have sufficient free will in order to choose God. If you do, then God’s plan is just. And… you do.

I hold some bitterness toward God himself because he allows such a thing as eternal hell vs. an expanded purgatorial existence.

Think about that for a second. As a disembodied soul, you cannot ratiocinate. You can’t think through things. That means that you cannot repent. An “expanded purgatorial existence” would boil down to eternal ‘cleansing’, without the hope of ever being cleansed. It would mean no repentance of mortal sin, and therefore, no hope of attaining to heaven. That would be more just?

one finds oneself just seeking to follow God’s commandments out of fear instead of out of love.

One cannot act out of love of God and of His mercy toward the Just?

anyone else feel like they have to compartmentalize this portion of theological speculation away in order to pursue religion in their lives?

Not really, because I don’t see the “problem of evil” as intractable. God gives us sufficient abilities to make a reasoned choice. He sets up a choice to be made. He honors our choice. That sounds like both ‘justice’ and ‘mercy’ to me.

 

[EasternCelt]

One cannot act out of love of God and of His mercy toward the Just?

Would you mind clarifying what you mean here? Thanks.

 

[Gorgias]

Sorry, this is what I’m asking for clarification on; I only got part of the quote in the last post.

LOL! I was sitting here, scratching my head, thinking, “umm… which ‘mercy’?”

OK: so, you said:

the demonstration of the full attributes of God (his mercy toward the Just and his wrath toward the Wicked). Now, being God, He can obviously choose to do this if he likes because, well, he’s God after all, but then one finds oneself just seeking to follow God’s commandments out of fear instead of out of love.

But, then, having asserted both “God’s mercy toward the Just” and “God’s wrath toward the Wicked”, you claim that people act out of one intent only: fear.

I’m asking why – if God is showing “mercy toward the Just” – you aren’t willing to consider that people choose God out of a desire for His love and mercy? Rather, you’re presuming that the only choice is “oh, man! I want to avoid wrath!”

I mean, when you give Mom her Mother’s Day present, is it primarily driven by your wish to demonstrate your love of her? Or is it primarily driven by a desire for her not to come down on you like a ton of bricks?

 

[EasternCelt]

I see what you’re saying now. I would say that I would be on-board with what you’re saying if the threat of hell wasn’t the consequence of embracing or rejecting a relationship. My wife could have freely rejected me, but she chose to embrace the relationship freely without any real consequences; she was not going to be sentenced to eternal misery for rejecting my love. This is why embracing or rejecting God is not equivalent to other relationships: you reject God and you get full retribution for all eternity; it’s not strictly a free choice.

Anyway, I love my mama, but if I didn’t reciprocate that love, ole Mom’s not chucking me in a furnace and sustaining my existence in that miserable state for all eternity. Lol

 

[Gorgias]

My wife could have freely rejected me, but she chose to embrace the relationship freely without any real consequences; she was not going to be sentenced to eternal misery for rejecting my love.

You don’t have a high opinion of the value of the experience of your love, then?

However, there’s a difference between your example of marital love and the situation with us and God: there’s already an existing relationship between us and God. You and your wife, before you are married? Not so much.

This is why embracing or rejecting God is not equivalent to other relationships: you reject God and you get full retribution for all eternity

No: you reject God and you get what you wish – no relationship with Him for all eternity. How’s that not fair?

Anyway, I love my mama, but if I didn’t reciprocate that love, ole Mom’s not chucking me in a furnace and sustaining my existence in that miserable state for all eternity. Lol

There are two aspects to this question: the notion of the relationship, and the notion of the consequences. The example of your mom speaks to the first, but not the second, so we can’t really use it to address that aspect of the question.

The second aspect – that of the justice of eternal separation – requires a distinct analysis. Part of that analysis requires us to think about the differences about a life in the temporal universe and life in eternity. That part of the analysis beckons us to consider whether actions in the physical universe (bounded by time) can justly have a relationship to eternity (and vice versa).

In considering this question, it’s important to note that sometimes, the notion of ‘duration’ comes up and is approached in a way that (IMHO) is misleading. In the physical universe, there is this notion of ‘duration’. However, in eternity, no such notion exists – eternity is an endless “now”, not a string of moments of “now” (as we experience it in the universe). In our present life, when we consider the impact of events, we naturally factor in ‘duration’: being held against our will today but not tomorrow isn’t as egregious as being held against our will for ten years. In eternity, it’s different: we can’t say that an eternal “now” compares to 100 years (or 1000, or 10^1000); it’s just “now”.

So, I’d argue, the assertion that hell is unjust because of the ‘duration’ of eternity is one that doesn’t hold up to logic. Instead, the real questions we have to ask would be “is it just for an event in eternity to have effects in the temporal universe? is it just for an event in the temporal universe to have effects in eternity?”

Once we commit to wrapping our heads around that question, I think we can make some headway with the ‘problem of evil’…

 

[Pug]

and the idea that God’s justice somehow requires an eternal inflicted punishment seems contradictory.

I think the CCC agrees with you, even if it is hard to hear it say that. For example, when talking of the double consequence of sin (eternal verses temporal) it opines in 1472:

These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin.

Granted, they don’t mention the pain of sense, but they are talking about the consequences of sin. Of course, older sources are not going to sound like this so much.

 

[Aloysium]

Anyway, I love my mama, but if I didn’t reciprocate that love, ole Mom’s not chucking me in a furnace and sustaining my existence in that miserable state for all eternity. Lol

At issue is not loving. What else is there in life, seriously?

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Part of issue is recognizing how ancient and medieval Christians were willing to talk about hell in their culture. Perhaps pain of sense and hellfire was more accessible to them, and perhaps it makes little sense — too mythic or too vengeful for us in our modern culture. This doesn’t say who is more right or who is more wrong, but it makes us wonder to what extent development of past theological concepts is able to occur, once we acknowledge that our understanding is affected in the culture we live in.

I mean face it, the idea of hell as a torture chamber was more accessible to a Medieval sensibility.

 

[Pug]

Perhaps it is understandable as a way to communicate the horrendous nature of sin.

 

[adgloriam]

Hell absolutely is coercion

Coercion is pressuring you to do something you don’t want.

 

[adgloriam]

@EasternCelt fwiw, I really enjoyed your OP and I’m frequently left in the maze of pros/cons you described since I read approximately the same books. However, life has taught me that you’ll easily get overworked (or overwhelmed by hardship) and will have little time left to ponder on these issues - or for any devotion. And I don’t like the labyrinth exposition that comes along with these concepts (the making of those original writers) - I don’t think it’s pedagogical. (It’s also part mystery, you’re not supposed to be entirely certain of your salvation…or so it seems.)

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I think a fundamental issue here is seeing “the threat of hell” as being a threat of physical or mental punishment, like you’re going to be chucked in a furnace, tormented by fear and anxiety, etc. if you don’t submit to a relationship.

“The Threat of Hell” is simply the threat of separation from God. If your wife chose to be in a relationship with you, it means that she thought a relationship with you would be much more pleasant than living without you. For many people who are deeply in love, the idea of lifelong (much less eternal) separation from their loved one is a horrible, hellish idea. I have a friend right now dealing with the after effects of having their spouse abruptly without warning walk out and divorce them, and this person I would say is going through hell on various levels even though the walkout happened quite some time ago and the person is even in a new, supportive relationship.

So the choice to not have a relationship with God simply means you chose to be eternally separated from God. God tries to explain to us that this option is ultimately hellish. It still looks pretty good to some folks, just like rejecting a supportive relationship in favor of having the freedom to get drunk and sleep with a different person every week might look pretty good to some people. Ultimately they realize it was an empty, wrong choice. Ultimately, those who reject God realize their choice was empty and wrong and that being in the relationship with God is for our greatest good, because God is everything good.

It’s not like God is saying, “Choose me or I put you in the eternal fire.” More like God is saying, “If you don’t choose me, you’ll end up feeling like you’re in an eternal fire because I’m everything good in the world, put together, and you don’t know what you’re missing.”

There is no need for me to compartmentalize this. It’s like if I’d chosen to not marry my husband, taken to the mega level. I would be a lesser person and almost certainly less happy if I had not married him. He didn’t need to threaten me with anything to get me to choose him, I could see myself that choosing him was the better alternative. Just like I can see myself that choosing God is the better alternative.

 

[LawyersGunsAndMoney]

I think of Hell as the natural consequence of our concupiscence. Like, left to my own devices, I will gravitate away from God and toward Hell.

Imagine it as though you’re clinging to the side of a cliff over a huge drop. Your grip is weakening. God is there saying “give me your hand, I’ll pull you up”. If I refuse, I will inevitably fall to my death when my own strength gives out. That doesn’t mean God is chucking me over the side. He’s there offering to help. But if I refuse to accept, I’ll eventually fall.

 

[goout]

The problem with “the problem of hell” is there is no problem with heaven.
Why is heaven not a problem to be immersed in just like the problem of hell?

This kind of problem is an attempt at spiritual accounting. And any accountant who doesn’t include the asset side is doing bad accounting.
And the good thing about heaven is, acceptance of and gratitude for the asset side wipes the whole ledger clean.

 

[Pug]

It’s not like God is saying, “Choose me or I put you in the eternal fire.” More like God is saying, “If you don’t choose me, you’ll end up feeling like you’re in an eternal fire because I’m everything good in the world, put together, and you don’t know what you’re missing.”

I think the “you don’t know what you are missing” bothers some people (they forget the part about the good). It makes me remember something.

I remember a Jack Chick anti-Catholic propaganda tract that depicted the poor repentant Catholic in hell saying something like if only I had known that I was going against God’s will by participating in sacraments. And I found Chick’s depiction to be an ugly depiction of God, one where hapless people of goodwill who loved Jesus and tried their best to follow the gospel and were dumped in hell regardless, because they hadn’t figured out the magic formula. It depicted God as out to get you.

Of course it is not like that, and of course Tis_Bearself did not say anything like that!, but I think a lot of people see hell as like that, that there is some hidden knowledge you need to have.

(Jack Chick is/was against Catholicism)

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The weird thing about Chick was that he portrayed God as a loving alternative to Hell in a lot of other strips that didn’t focus so much on Catholics being evil minions of a satanic Pope. He has comics where the believers are very sweet people who genuinely try to help others in need. He also shows people being saved over very little, just basically accepting God as their savior a minute before they die.

The main problem I personally have when thinking about Heaven and Hell is that I can’t think of why someone would truly reject God, and therefore it’s hard for me to imagine anybody going straight to Hell rather than just to Purgatory for a really long time at most. I am sure there are people out there who have rejected God. I just have a hard time picturing what this would truly look like. Perhaps a Madalyn Murray O’Hair? IDK.

 

[Gorgias]

The problem with “the problem of hell” is there is no problem with heaven.
Why is heaven not a problem to be immersed in just like the problem of hell?

This. THIS!!!

Unless you say “God’s mercy is cool, but God’s justice is unjust”, then there’s no “problem of hell.” At best, there’s a problem of misunderstanding the question. (IMNSHO, of course… )

 

[Pug]

I’ve tried to tell myself several things in answer to how someone could truly reject God in the end:

a) we manage to sin just fine even though it is irrational, so perhaps it is likewise with rejecting God
b) perhaps the person might refuse a particular doctrine, saying it is pernicious, and thus reject spending heaven with such a God
c) maybe there are people who demand to have it their way and tell God to take a hike (maybe like fallen angels?)

Or, as you mention, an active atheist of some sort.

 

[Pug]

Well, there is a problem with Heaven. Ask the elder brother in the parable about the prodigal.