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

[Gorgias]

That explanation is satisfying to you?

If you destroy your relationship with your significant other – and I mean destroy, not just do a little harm or merely aggravate it – then wouldn’t that loss of relationship persist until you two reconcile?

That’s what’s at stake here. If you want to call God ‘unreasonable’ for His Decalogue, have at it. But, it’s what He commanded.

(And so, my answer is ‘yes’ – it’s satisfying to me. But, then again, I claim to follow God and his commandments. )

 

[laylow]

If you destroy your relationship with your significant other – and I mean destroy, not just do a little harm or merely aggravate it – then wouldn’t that loss of relationship persist util you two reconcile?

That’s what’s at stake here. If you want to call God ‘unreasonable’ for His Decalogue, have at it. But, it’s what He commanded.

(And so, my answer is ‘yes’ – it’s satisfying to me. But, then again, I claim to follow God and his commandments. )

Interesting. Thanks for answering.

 

[Gorgias]

Interesting. Thanks for answering.

You’re welcome. So… turnabout is fair play – what’s your answer to my question?

Gorgias:

If you destroy your relationship with your significant other – and I mean destroy, not just do a little harm or merely aggravate it – then wouldn’t that loss of relationship persist until you two reconcile?

 

[Socrates92]

Also, and I know it’s not a great analogy,but a (loving) human parent would never harm their child by a literal fire no matter how disobedient their child was.

Right. But, would a loving parent force their child into the torment of being somewhere that they absolutely reject?

To elaborate a bit more, the distinction between God, and the analogous parent(s) is quite drastic. A loving parent might cut off a son/daughter who had effectively disowned them from a large inheritance, based on the reason that that son or daughter had rejected them. The connection you have to make is that our inheritance from God literally includes everything that is good in the created universe. This includes freedom from suffering. Evil and suffering is ultimately just the absence of some good that should be there. Absolute rejection of the source of the good means absolute rejection of all good itself. Because we are both physical and spiritual beings, such rejection means that we choose, almost by definition, infinite spiritual and physical torment for ourselves.

The difference between God and an earthly parent is that the parent is not the source of all that is good. Rejection of said parent therefore does not mean rejection of all that is good (although it’s still a pretty douchebag move in itself)

 

[Gorgias]

To elaborate a bit more, the distinction between God, and the analogous parent(s) is quite drastic.

That’s why it’s just an analogy.

A loving parent might cut off a son/daughter who had effectively disowned them from a large inheritance, based on the reason that that son or daughter had rejected them.

Annnnnd… isn’t that exactly the case with the loss of salvation due to sin?

Absolute rejection of the source of the good means absolute rejection of all good itself. Because we are both physical and spiritual beings, such rejection means that we choose, almost by definition, infinite spiritual and physical torment for ourselves.

Not torment imposed, though, which is what @Rozellelily was trying to get at, I think. It’s torment freely chosen.

(In the case of the examples that are meant to demonstrate God’s unjust treatment of humanity, however, the scenario is always venial sin (that is, grave sin which does not rise to the level of mortal sin) – which, of course, does not bring with it condemnation.)

 

[laylow]

If you destroy your relationship with your significant other – and I mean destroy, not just do a little harm or merely aggravate it – then wouldn’t that loss of relationship persist until you two reconcile?

I don’t oppose to the statement itself, but in the manner at which it was arrived and the context it was used. If God exists, I do not believe we have his word. Therefore I do not believe something like missing a mass would be a sufficient enough transgression against God to allow for eternal punishment. Of course, I also reject the whole concept of hell, so I can’t imagine we will get very far in the discussion.

I see no evidence for an intervening god, so I belief that would make me atheistic, but remain open-minded to a theistic god if I encounter intervention. I am agnostic, because I cannot know if there is a supreme being, although I certainly believe it is possible. By re-accepting Catholicism, I believe I would be doing a disservice to any supreme-being that may exist and a disservice to some human beings who are discriminated against because who they go to bed with and in what position, and so on.

 

[AlNg]

So you think slavery is an essential teaching of the Catholic Church?

I think that human trafficking and buying and selling of women and children should be declared to be essentially and absolutely wrong. 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.

There are only a handful of infallible teachings of the CC and slavery is not one of them.

Sorry, but I can’t go along with approving the enslavement of young black women and their children. I am not convinced by your arguments as I am of the opinion that human trafficking and enslavement of Black Africans is essentially and absolutely morally wrong.

 

[Pup7]

The spin here is literally out of control.

You’ve lost the plot, my friend. Please show where anyone here has advocated slavery.

Better yet, quote it from the CURRENT Catechism. :woman_facepalming:t3:

Having thought about it I’m actually offended by the twist you’ve attempted to put on my post - not that it matters one whit to anyone but me.

 

[AlNg]

he spin here is literally out of control.

You’ve lost the plot, my friend. Please show where anyone here has advocated slavery.

See the post by laylow above ( is it post #104?) where he says that slavery was allowed in the past.
Is it correct or not that you implied that slavery is not essentially wrong and is not an essential teaching?

So you think slavery is an essential teaching of the Catholic Church?

Would I be guilty of heresy if I believe that human trafficking in children and enslavement of Black Africans, tieing them up and whipping them into submission, and then selling them to the highest bidder, is essentially wrong and as such should be an essential teaching of any Church?

 

[AlNg]

It’s torment freely chosen.

I don’t believe that anyone in his right mind would deliberately choose eternal fire and torment in hell. When mortal sin is committed, it is hoped that a merciful and gracious God will forgive the weakness which caused or at least was involved when you did commit that sin. If at a ballpark, you eat a hot dog on a Friday day of abstinence, you are choosing to satisfy your hunger and your weakness to avoid hunger pains and starvation, you are not choosing to go to hell and endure horrific torment and everlasting fire.

 

[Pup7]

Pup7:

he spin here is literally out of control.

You’ve lost the plot, my friend. Please show where anyone here has advocated slavery.

See the post by laylow above ( is it post #104?) where he says that slavery was allowed in the past.
Is it correct or not that you implied that slavery is not essentially wrong and is not an essential teaching?

So you think slavery is an essential teaching of the Catholic Church?

Would I be guilty of heresy if I believe that human trafficking in children and enslavement of Black Africans, tieing them up and whipping them into submission, and then selling them to the highest bidder, is essentially wrong and as such should be an essential teaching of any Church?

I’m still trying to figure out why you insist anyone here has said slavery is an essential teaching. Because we’ve repeatedly said it’s not.

Catholic doctrine - ANY church’s doctrine - isn’t a social commentary on the problems of the world. Our Constitution - essentially the “dogma” of our nation - doesn’t do that, either.

Why are you insisting that anyone here advocates or has advocated for slavery? No one here has said or implied any such thing. Not one soul.

 

[Pup7]

Would I be guilty of heresy if I believe that human trafficking in children and enslavement of Black Africans, tieing them up and whipping them into submission, and then selling them to the highest bidder, is essentially wrong and as such should be an essential teaching of any Church?

No. Why would you? Why do you think you would?

It’s not an essential teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[laylow]

No. Why would you? Why do you think you would?

It’s not an essential teaching of the Catholic Church.

I’m pretty sure that AINg is asserting that it should have been essential teaching. That is quite a glaring omission from an “inerrant” word when other crazy ideas such as to what days of the week you must rest and eat certain foods are emphasized.

 

[TheLittleLady]

We choose hell in this life.

God is a perfect gentleman, He will never force Himself on those who have rejected Him. While He loves those people so much that He became man and died to save them, He allows them hell because that is what they want.

God never tortures anyone.

 

[Pup7]

I’m not getting that from his questions, actually. And no, it shouldn’t have been.

Dogma and doctrine aren’t political statements. And slavery was a political statement, not a Church teaching.

The reason I don’t think that’s what he’s saying is because he’s also insisting the Church should include anti-human trafficking statements as doctrine. That’s not what doctrine is.

And this doesn’t fit with what you’re saying either:

Would I be guilty of heresy if I believe that human trafficking in children and enslavement of Black Africans, tieing them up and whipping them into submission, and then selling them to the highest bidder, is essentially wrong and as such should be an essential teaching of any Church?

And why would he say this:

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.

…because where have I said that that is okay?

 

[laylow]

I’m not getting that from his questions, actually. And no, it shouldn’t have been.

Dogma and doctrine aren’t political statements. And slavery was a political statement, not a Church teaching.

The reason I don’t think that’s what he’s saying is because he’s also insisting the Church should include anti-human trafficking statements as doctrine. That’s not what doctrine is.

So is it more importantly to teach people fairly and correctly or believe the correct doctrine?

 

[Pup7]

The CCC does that.

Church doctrine is a statement of what the Church believes in a religious sense - not what its political or human rights beliefs are. It’s basically the rules for being a Catholic and how to be a Catholic.

Should the US Constitution state what the political stance of the US is on human trafficking and that it’s wrong? Same thing. That’s not where that’s done.

 

[laylow]

Church doctrine is a statement of what the Church believes in a religious sense - not what its political or human rights beliefs are. It’s basically the rules for being a Catholic and how to be a Catholic.

Should the US Constitution state what the political stance of the US is on human trafficking and that it’s wrong? Same thing. That’s not where that’s done.

So is homosexuality church doctrine?

 

[Pup7]

In what regard?

 

[laylow]

In what regard?

Relative to our conversation.