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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rozellelily
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Faith is absent if one rejects even one teaching. Otherwise it’s just pride, not faith.
Can you please elaborate what this means?
For example there are a lot of Catholics today (or even Muslims etc) who believe some things but reject other teachings such as many are pro gay marriage (even many Muslims in Australia here are pro gay marriage)…
Likewise,there are a lot of people who have “rejected” religious institutions such as the Catholic Church and found religion “too rule based” and now consider themselves jusr faithful believers of Jesus.
 
Last edited:
Maybe people were at one time,but I’m not sure how much that works now.
It seems to me that the threat/fear of burning hell fire is not a very effective “evangelicals tool” anymore (at least not here in Australia).
The people it seems to “draw the most attention from” are people that are already Christians.
 
Sorry but what does own title refer to and how does it differ from owning the slave themselves?

Forgive me if I’ve misunderstood what you are saying but I’m quite sure it is against the teachings of Jesus to own/acquire/hold another person against their will as a slave even if the “slavemaster” does not physically abuse them as it is an assault against a persons dignity.
Hypothetically,even if they were to be fed and housed well and were given money it is still wrong.

Thankfully we don’t have chattel slavery in today’s society,but we do still have “forced labour by duress”.
I mean for example a Philipino maid who works next to nothing or the Indians working in construction in Dubai who are mistreated,overworked,housed in overcrowding and just generally exploited due to their need/poverty.

http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/forced-labour/lang--en/index.htm
 
Last edited:
I’ve even heard the damned choose hell because it’s less suffering than facing God’s wrath.
 
40.png
Pup7:
But wouldn’t you think it would be there? It’s a core belief that we are entitled to it and expect it to be protected.
Yes, I would expect it to be in there.
The right to privacy, which is what I was actually talking about in the quote above, should be in the Constitution.

And yet it isn’t. And yet we know it exists, we believe in it, and we sue when it’s violated.

Child labor isn’t in the Catechism or the US Constitution. Labor laws in general aren’t in either document either. Protection of children isn’t codified in the Constitution or in the CCC. We all know those rules exist, though. They’re written elsewhere.

Slavery was once codified in the Constitution. We repealed it. But we didn’t rewrite the document. The amendment is still there, floating around for all to see. Wow.

See how that works?
 
Last edited:
It seems to me that the threat/fear of burning hell fire is not a very effective “evangelicals tool” anymore (at least not here in Australia).
Maybe, but the original post was a direct question. And various forces in soceity like to push the idea hell really isn’t that bad.

A lot of this isn’t just genuine introspection; it’s the result of an agenda.
 
Last edited:
You’re forgetting deliberate consent. 😉
implied 😉
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.
Hence my “perhaps” Thanks for clarifying though.
 
But how could a (for example) divorced and remarried person know that this was considered a mortal sin but not be consenting to it?
Pope Francis raises the example of a person who feels compelled by their life situation to choose a new marriage, even though she has full knowledge that it’s gravely sinful. It’s the classic example of “not deliberate consent.”
So doesn’t it equal that knowledge does mean consent (providing the person acted on it by going ahead and remarrying).
No, it doesn’t. Let’s look at another example: a 14-year-old girl gets pregnant. Her parents offer an ultimatum: either she gets an abortion or they’ll kick her out of their house. She knows the gravity of the sin, and does not consent to the abortion, but feels that she has no other choice than to allow her parents’ desire to be fulfilled.

In this case, there’s grave sin and full knowledge, but given the duress that the teen is under, there is not deliberate consent.
 
To take young black women in Africa at the point of a gun and whip and to tie them up and then tie them with rope on the floor of a ship and then transport them to the United States and then to auction them off as slaves to the highest bidder, and to whip them into submission should be absolutely and essentially wrong, IMHO. I am some what surprised that you do not think so.
You’re behind the times. This is happening in Libya and they are being trafficked into Italy.

Also, Black men and children were also taken. It wasn’t just the women. But slavery has existed as long as recorded history and probably before. You would very well to know others besides Black women were enslaved even if Black women are the virtue-signal flavor of the month in American left-wing world.

And really, @Pup7 isn’t for slavery.
 
Hence my “perhaps” Thanks for clarifying though.
Yes, but your assertion of “full knowledge” and yet “not fully aware” are talking about the same criterion (i.e., knowledge), and not at all about the criterion of ‘consent’. 😉
 
Yes, but I thought it was understood from the circumstances of the discussion that the person was consenting to the objectively sinful action. The only question remaining was therefore about their subjective knowledge or understanding.
 
Hell is a spiritual state; imagine being in a horrible demonic nightmare never being able to wake up; however the spiritual realm is much more real than the physical realm, as the physical world is like an echo of a spiritual reality. heaven is a spiritual state; yet at the resurrection, the damned and the saved will be united with their bodies; the saved with glorified bodies, while the damned will have their bodies deformed by their state of their sins.

When all truth is revealed all will know how the saved were sanctified by responding to God’s grace and becoming children of God; and how the damned demonized themselves by rejecting God and becoming children of the devil. so everyone will belong where they belong and all will know and understand the justice of it. nobody goes to hell by accident.
 
I can understand the second example as being duress,regarding the first example I’m not understanding what it means by due to life situation?
Perhaps that could refer to financial circumstances in a African or Middle Eastern country,but I don’t think it would in countries like Australia or Us where women are “expected” to work/fend for themselves?
 
And really, @Pup7 isn’t for slavery.
Oh, he knows that I’m not. He’s attempted to twist word after word I’ve said, but deep down he knows better. I don’t even think it’s THAT far down, to be honest.
 
Again - that old chestnut. Let it die, man. No one here is a moron.

Of course they did. I’m more than functionally literate although you keep talking to me as though I’m an imbecile. So did the Baptists. So did a lot of religions in a lot of places. So did Islam, actually. Slavery was legal in the Kingdom until 1962. I actually met a former Sudanese slave when I lived in Riyadh. No one disputed that.

You used that as a deflection, as only the two of you were laboring the point about the past when everyone else was attempting to educate both of you on what current and basic doctrine is. It’s why I ignored it. It had nothing to do with my point as I was continuously saying “it’s not in the CCC”, while the two of you attempted to twist what I was saying into “Pup7 is pro slavery”.

I got told my support of my religion and its documents was “sickening and wrong” in that whole diatribe, which was completely uncalled for. I got told I’ve “been duped” like I’m an uneducated idiot. I know I am not. So I’m done with that. Because you can be an atheist (or just disagree with Catholicism from some other viewpoint) and still be rational and respectful.
 
Last edited:
One thing that “concerns” me is regarding the belief of hell as a literal burning torture place as this to me seems to be in direct contradiction to everything that is taught about loving ones neighbor and being kind and loving.
I want to tread carefully with your question and comment.

First, Hell is the eternal separation from God. The torture of hell described in many passages of Scripture, range. And it is punishment. Even in the prayer to Saint Michael, “…humbly pray, Oh Prince of the Heavenly Host, to cast into Hell Satan, and all the evil spirits…”

I have always found it scary. For if God loves, why would we pray to purposely place even angel’s in Hell?

Those Angel’s are bound to Hell. Not because God is without mercy, for even them. But, they are pure spirits without error. Yet, they do the most prideful thing an angel could do. They choose their own idea’s, belief’s, and purposes over God. That is, “non-servium.” They do not serve.

Hence, why the one angel went down to Eve, and asked if she could eat anything she wanted in the garden. And she said yes, except for the tree of good and evil. Where then the angel said she surely will not die. And will become like god’s. So the angel told her that God was a liar.

The angel fell, and wanted to take down Adam and Eve with him. It was rebellion. And so the battle ensued thereafter. Wherefore God put enmity between her seed and the devil’s.

And so the fall happened.

Hell is the place people choose over God. A state and a place. For just as Adam and Eve chose freely to break from God’s Covenant and love. The fruit they ate, as it were, told them life without God, out of His love, was all the more. That God was holding something from them, by telling them not to eat it. And so they stumble, fell, and did fall. Instead of them going to Hell, He intervened by asking where they were. Calling them out in the midst of their shame and sin, “Who told you were naked?”

Thus, the reason Hell is there, because, it’s a choice. For God made the soul eternal. To exist forever. But when a person chooses something out of God’s presence. He or she wants to be sustained by anything but God. So thus Hell exists. God allows Hell, because He doesn’t want the soul to be destroyed and removed from existence. God cannot repent for the life of a human He made. He cannot contradict Himself. So, for the consequence of people who do not want His love and mercy. To live in His presence. Because He is God and Eternal. He sustains all things. And when someone chooses to be apart from that reality of God. The consequences spell out. Again, God tells us Hell exists because He does not want us to go there.

Suffering here exists as a last resort of God’s sign to tell us sin exists. It is to lift us up to the desire of Baptism. To something outside of His love is wrong, dangerous, and evil.

So, Hell exists because the Eternal Separation the souls suffers for wanting to not be with God. When God is all love. Thus the soul opposes God’s very nature, love itself.
 
This is a bit off track but what exactly is it that “goes” to hell-the soul or the senses(IOW the brain)?

Also,can a persons soul choose to reject being with God but their will (mind,freedhoice) not?
Ie:is it known whether the will and the soul can be in contradiction?
 
I can understand the second example as being duress,regarding the first example I’m not understanding what it means by due to life situation?
Needing to take care of a young family, for example.
Perhaps that could refer to financial circumstances in a African or Middle Eastern country,but I don’t think it would in countries like Australia or Us where women are “expected” to work/fend for themselves?
But what if you have more responsibilities than you can care for, and have bleak prospects without entering into another marriage? What then?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top