Does a person have to believe in literal burning hell to be Catholic

[laylow]

I agree with them. I would take physical pain over being surrounded by hatred and futility for eternity, absolutely. It isn’t even close.

That isn’t to say that I don’t think that Hell could have a physical aspect to it. I do think it says that disaffection from loving and being loved really is the greatest torture that a human can suffer, without any doubt.

I think burn victims would say the same thing, frankly.

I would disagree. I have plenty of experience of both and the physical pain causes all the other pains when it is nonstop. It’s the perpetuity that makes it intolerable. I can tell you stories, but the only thing on your mind is that you want it to end…anyway possible.

 

[PetraG]

I would disagree. I have plenty of experience of both and the physical pain causes all the other pains when it is nonstop. It’s the perpetuity that makes it intolerable. I can tell you stories, but the only thing on your mind is that you want it to end…anyway possible.

You would put eternal separation from the love of God on that list of things that are more tolerable than unrelenting physical pain? You would give up everyone you love and who loves you, if only you can be guaranteed that you will not suffer physical pain?

 

[laylow]

You would put eternal separation from the love of God on that list of things that are more tolerable than unrelenting physical pain?

Well, I don’t really know what it means, so based on that, I would have put the pain as being more intolerable.

 

[PetraG]

If its any consolation, I have the same struggle. Especially since many children are born into terrible circumstance, develop anti-social issues like conduct disorder, personality disorder, and their inability to attach to God (as well as others) is a result of lack of nurture, and stable home life. It seems inconsistent with my understanding of God that he would doom such people to eternal fire, even if they don’t “choose” to be with him. I mean, why eternal punishment of fire? Why not someplace like the old Catholic description of Limbo? It does not make sense to me.

Objective wrong-doing and culpability are not the same thing.

 

[AlNg]

I don’t believe there were any executions, though I may be wrong. Either way, during the Papal States, the Church did not run a country, the Pope did. He as both a religious and political ruler, and any executions would have been enacted under his authority as the sovereign ruler of a political state; not as the head of Christ’s Church.

The Pope was the head of the papal states and there were a whole lot of executions under his government. For example, Giovanni Battista Bugatti, was executioner of the Papal States between 1796 and 1861, and he carried out approximately 516 executions during that period alone.

 

[PetraG]

Well, I don’t really know what it means, so based on that, I would have put the pain as being more intolerable.

Consider it separation from patience, kindness, emotional support, concern for your well-being that comes from outside your concern for yourself, social intercourse of every kind, and so on: disaffection from the source of life and from other living things.

 

[AlNg]

You would put eternal separation from the love of God on that list of things that are more tolerable than unrelenting physical pain? You would give up everyone you love and who loves you, if only you can be guaranteed that you will not suffer physical pain?

Burning forever in horrific fire seems pretty harsh to me.

 

[PetraG]

Burning forever in horrific fire seems pretty harsh to me.

Being confined in the isolation of a self-centered and loveless nature seems worse to me. Perhaps Holy Scriptures uses the image of fire because people are more sensitive to physical suffering than they are cognizant of the spiritual harms from which they suffer and which they perpetuate.

 

[AlNg]

Being confined in the isolation of a self-centered and loveless nature seems worse to me.

US prisons can condemn a person to solitary confinement but not torture by fire and burning. Americans even send teenagers in prison to solitary confinement.

 

[PetraG]

They are not utterly isolated from all human contact and time in prison is not an eternity.

Just because you would find it easier to go a day without eating than going a day with a piece of glass in your shoe does not mean that the piece of glass will eventually kill you but refusing to eat forever won’t. Some of the most harmful things in life can be borne for a short time.

 

[Gorgias]

I would have to be made aware of the distinction in order to consider it to be from an authority.

Thank you. That’s my point precisely; I’m glad you see it, too. So, if you discount God’s existence, based on an event that you are unable to distinguish between “naturally caused” and “supernaturally caused”… why would that cause you to conclude that God doesn’t exist? (“Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence”, remember… )

Not less intelligent, but less knowledgeable. Just like us “brights” will be to the future beings after we are long gone.

Are you sure about that? They could survive in conditions that would swamp the cast of “Naked and Afraid” in a weekend. Individually, they probably knew more about nature than most of the inhabitants of Blue States put together. Now… they didn’t know science the way we do, but… how does that make their testimony about the resurrection of a man less credible? (It doesn’t. It just betrays the prejudice that moderns have against anything that precedes them.)

Which makes it the least likely scenario, so the likely scenario is that the people proposing the miracle are lying.

No… it is only proposed when the more likely scenarios have been exhausted. Haven’t read your Doyle, have you? “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”

Christians seem quite pleased to tell everyone else they are wrong and that since they are, they are going to hell.

I can’t defend the doctrinal errors of others. Would you like me to make you defend some of the more silly assertions out of your camp?

Probably doesn’t feel good to realize the shoe could fit on the other foot as well.

Only if one is feeling wounded about his own publicly displayed errors, I would think.

Interesting, since moving the goalposts is a common tactic of the believer, maybe someone who does it often, is able to spot it more easily.

Wow. Two distinct ad hominem attacks in one sentence. Bravo!

And it’s impossible to ignore something that did not occur.

You seem expert at it, my friend.

 

[laylow]

Consider it separation from patience, kindness, emotional support, concern for your well-being that comes from outside your concern for yourself, social intercourse of every kind, and so on: disaffection from the source of life and from other living things.

Would probably be easier for me honestly.

 

[Genesis315]

Personally, for whatever reason, I find the conceptualizations of Hell as dark and cold, like in one of Dante’s circles, more impactful to me. Whatever imagery helps keep you out of it (Our Lord used different images Himself) is good I guess.

 

[laylow]

Thank you. That’s my point precisely; I’m glad you see it, too. So, if you discount God’s existence, based on an event that you are unable to distinguish between “naturally caused” and “supernaturally caused”… why would that cause you to conclude that God doesn’t exist? (“Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence”, remember… )

Then how do you distinguish that anything doesn’t exist?

Are you sure about that? They could survive in conditions that would swamp the cast of “Naked and Afraid” in a weekend. Individually, they probably knew more about nature than most of the inhabitants of Blue States put together. Now… they didn’t know science the way we do, but… how does that make their testimony about the resurrection of a man less credible? (It doesn’t. It just betrays the prejudice that moderns have against anything that precedes them.)

Possibly. But if they had it video-recorded, it would be a whole lot more convincing!

No… it is only proposed when the more likely scenarios have been exhausted. Haven’t read your Doyle, have you? “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”

Exactly how is the impossible being eliminated?

I can’t defend the doctrinal errors of others. Would you like me to make you defend some of the more silly assertions out of your camp?

That wasn’t the point I was trying to make. My point was doctrine says if you don’t believe then you are damned, if I’m not mistaken.

I don’t have a camp, I fly solo.

Only if one is feeling wounded about his own publicly displayed errors, I would think.

I don’t understand this response.

Wow. Two distinct ad hominem attacks in one sentence. Bravo!

What fun is a debate without a few attacks! While your thought was apparently that by pointing those out, you could avoid answering the important part of the statement. I’ll assume silence is validity.

You seem expert at it, my friend.

Sure, let’s play the twisty tie game.

 

[Gorgias]

Then how do you distinguish that anything doesn’t exist?

We’re not talking about the existence of certain events, we’re talking about their causes. That’s what you’re looking to get at here, anyway, right – the supernatural causes of miracles?

Possibly. But if they had it video-recorded, it would be a whole lot more convincing!

Yes. Let’s go with that as the basis for evidence…

Exactly how is the impossible being eliminated?

We’re talking about determining the causes of miracles. When we determine that a natural cause is impossible, then we eliminate it from consideration.

My point was doctrine says if you don’t believe then you are damned, if I’m not mistaken.

You’re mistaken.

I don’t have a camp, I fly solo.

…he says, in unison with myriad others.

you could avoid answering the important part of the statement.

Psst… I did. I pointed out that it was a logical fallacy.

I’ll assume silence is validity.

Your assertion that God hasn’t attempted to reveal himself to you is becoming more and more clear…

 

[Socrates92]

It’s hard to grasp how it is freely chosen.

For example a person who gets a civil divorce and remarries but is unrepentant-are they really rejecting Gods love and choosing to be in fire for eternity if they accept the other majority of his ways/teachings?

Assuming you are talking about someone who was married in the Church, and is fully aware of the Church’s teaching on marriage, and its gravity, then yes. If that person is not fully aware (ie; full knowledge, and therefore full consent is absent), then perhaps not - God is the judge. The fact that they accept other teachings is irrelevant. Faith is absent if one rejects even one teaching. Otherwise it’s just pride, not faith.

 

[Gorgias]

Assuming you are talking about someone who was married in the Church, and is fully aware of the Church’s teaching on marriage, and its gravity, then yes.

You’re forgetting deliberate consent.

If that person is not fully aware (ie; full knowledge, and therefore full consent is absent), then perhaps not

consent does not flow from knowledge, per se. one can know something without consenting to it, even as he does it.

 

[Wingz]

I think the concepts of heaven and hell have been surrounded by misinformation and misconception. After doing research on these topics for some time Here is what I have found.

1. Sheol- There is a part of the Apostles Creed that states Jesus descended into Hell. This is actually taken from the Greek word for Hades which is actually different from Hell. Hades or in Hebrew -Sheol- is similar to the concept of “underworld” This is where people who died before Jesus or do not have faith go. These people are awaiting judgment day. Sheol is similar to the concept of limbo.
2. On judgment day the dead in Sheol would be raised except this time they will not be judged according to their faith but according to their works. (Their lives on Earth and the good that they did.) Those that did good works will go to heaven. Those that did not will stay on Earth.
3. Fire will drop from the sky (2 Peter 3:10) It will burn the Earth and the people there, along with everything else on Earth will be tortured and destroyed. Eventually everything including those on Earth and the Earth itself and the heavens will be destroyed.
4. A new heaven and a new Earth will be created. The people who had been saved will go to back to this new Earth

Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,”[a] for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. - Revelations 21:1

This means that in a sense, this Earth will become Hell, and then be destroyed. This suggests that the wicked would not be tortured for eternity but will die. The Bible calls this the second death.

Although some have suggested that only their physical selves would be destroyed not their spirit. Their spirit would continue to live in torture in Hell. This view does not believe that Earth would become Hell but that Hell would come after the Earth is destroyed.
However the Bible says that the wicked will perish not that they will be eternally tortured which suggests this view is not accurate.

 

[Rozellelily]

No disrespect,but I think it’s very flippant to assume what burns victims would do without asking them.
It’s easy to make your presumption when removed from the situation.

It’s a bit of a romanticised view to think I would rather physically be on fire for eternity then to face the spiritual realities of being separated from God.
That doesn’t of course in anyway reduce the torment of being separated from God.
Unfortunately there are situations in life where certain people are able to neither love nor are loved by anyone and no doubt this is a torture in its own rights,but literally burning…on fire…forever…,I can only assume that you have never been burnt in a fire.

 

[Rozellelily]

But how could a (for example) divorced and remarried person know that this was considered a mortal sin but not be consenting to it?
So doesn’t it equal that knowledge does mean consent (providing the person acted on it by going ahead and remarrying).

I hope that makes sense