Does God love those in hell?

[Feedmysheep]

Awful Things,

1. Your quotes from Revelation are isolated and removed from their context. I will go back and re-read the entire passages when I have time. As a fellow Catholic, you know how often the symbolism of Revelation is twisted. BTW, are all the quoted passages spoken by an angel? Since the topic is human rejoicing at human suffering. I’m not sure one can submit angelic rejoicing at human suffering as evidence.
2. The Scriptural references all speak of rejoicing in God’s justice. Not rejoicing in other’s suffering. Big difference. Even Moses rejoiced in God’s glory, not simply in Pharaoh’s destruction.
3. Church Fathers and Church teachings often intersect, but not always. After all, we’ve all had the fact the St. Jerome didn’t agree with the inclusion of the deuterocanonical books of the Bible, and Aquinas (? Augustine?) One of them) not agreeing with the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as taught by the Church flung in our faces by non-Catholics.
4. You said:

The suffering is, to us, a sign of God’s justice.

Wrong. The suffering is, to us, a horrible by-product of God’s justice, not a sign of it. It is the human element left over after God has prevailed. It is not a cause for rejoicing.

And now that I’ve re-read your last post, I see Aquinas covered all this, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with him.

 

[Awful_Things]

Awful Things,

1. Your quotes from Revelation are isolated and removed from their context. I will go back and re-read the entire passages when I have time. As a fellow Catholic, you know how often the symbolism of Revelation is twisted. BTW, are all the quoted passages spoken by an angel? Since the topic is human rejoicing at human suffering. I’m not sure one can submit angelic rejoicing at human suffering as evidence.
2. The Scriptural references all speak of rejoicing in God’s justice. Not rejoicing in other’s suffering. Big difference. Even Moses rejoiced in God’s glory, not simply in Pharaoh’s destruction.
3. Church Fathers and Church teachings often intersect, but not always. After all, we’ve all had the fact the St. Jerome didn’t agree with the inclusion of the deuterocanonical books of the Bible, and Aquinas (? Augustine?) One of them) not agreeing with the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as taught by the Church flung in our faces by non-Catholics.
4. You said: Wrong. The suffering is, to us, a horrible by-product of God’s justice, not a sign of it. It is the human element left over after God has prevailed. It is not a cause for rejoicing.

And now that I’ve re-read your last post, I see Aquinas covered all this, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with him.

 

[FCEGM]

It seems that God loves all of us … no matter what we believe.
I tend to think those that are in hell chose their separation from God.

Does God, who is defined as love, still love those that have eternally turned away from Him?

Just wondering.

michel

We didn’t bring ourselves into existence, so we remain in relationship to the One Who IS and gave/gives us life. We are free, however, to choose whether we will accept His invitation of grace to live with Him forever or to live apart from Him forever.

So, those in Hell have freely chosen to separate themselves from God, but He is present to them for His love for all He has created never changes. The separation the damned have chosen is from their side and thus His love for them can only be experienced as eternal fire and torment. There is nothing in them that corresponds to His love. Consider Scripture’s words that “our God is a consuming fire” - in order to survive in and find joy and salvation in that fire one must himself (by correspondence to His grace) become one with the fire of Divine Love - this the damned cannot do.

 

[FCEGM]

Good question. Personally, I believe that once they are in hell, the link between them and God is severed completely since He no longer knows them as they are now under a new master and a different dominion.

Perhaps in the final moments of the judgement, it really pains God to be sending the person to hell, and a part of Him (out of love, not weakness or uncertainty) doesn’t want to do it (as up until this point they still belong to Him), but after He does it, He moves on from His attachment to that soul since theres nothing He can do for it anymore.

Perhaps He doesn’t love them so much as He feels a great, unending sorrow for them, if even that. I don’t think you can call it love, because now they are everything He is not, and they’re that way forever now. There’s nothing left FOR Him to love. They’re eternally dead and cursing His name- a mirror image of Satan.

While God does not stop loving those in Hell, it is not true that He experiences sorrow over their decision to separate themselves from Him. In God is all joy and peace and glory, thus there can be nothing in Himself which allows for eternal sadness - either in Himself or in those who participate in His glory. Scripture tells us clearly that there is no grieving in Heaven:

Revelation Ch. 21:1-4: And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the first heaven and the first earth was gone, and the sea is now no more. And I John saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice from the throne, saying: Behold the tabernacle of God with men, and he will dwell with them. And they shall be his people; and God himself with them shall be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes: and death shall be no more, nor mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow shall be any more, for the former things are passed away.

Further, St. Thomas Aquinas writes in his Summa Theologica:

Mercy is especially to be attributed to, as seen in its effect, but not as an affection of passion. In proof of which it must be considered that a person is said to be merciful [misericors], as being, so to speak, sorrowful at heart [miserum cor]; being affected with sorrow at the misery of another as though it were his own. Hence it follows that he endeavors to dispel the misery of this other, as if it were his; and this is the effect of mercy. To sorrow, therefore, over the misery of others belongs not to God; but it does most properly belong to Him to dispel that misery, whatever be the defect we call by that name. . . .[Summa Theologica, Question 21, article 3.

This from The Great Divorce by C. S. Lewis is also to the point:

“That sounds very merciful: but see what lurks behind it.”

“What?”

“The demand of the loveless and the self-imprisoned that they should be allowed to blackmail the universe: that till they consent to be happy (on their own terms) no one else shall taste joy: that theirs should be the final power; that Hell should be able to veto Heaven.”

“I don’t know what I want, Sir.”

“Son, son, it must be one way or the other. Either the day must come when joy prevails and all the makers of misery are no longer able to infect it: or else for ever and ever the makers of misery can destroy in others the happiness they reject for themselves. I know it has a grand sound to say ye’ll accept no salvation which leaves even one creature in the dark outside. But watch that sophistry or ye’ll make a Dog in a Manger the tyrant of the universe.”

[/quote]

 

[FCEGM]

True. It hasn’t helped Catholic understanding when, for example, the last lines from Psalm 63 are omitted from Morning Prayer of the Divine Office:

“May those who are hounding me to death go down to the depths of the earth, given over to the blade of the sword, and left as food for jackals. Then the king shall rejoice in God, all who swear by him shall gain recognition, for the mouths of liars shall be silenced.”

 

[abenassi]

I would put aside what we “think” or " believe" … but go to Scripture.

Psalms 5:5 “The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.”

Romans 9: 10 - 15 “And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? **Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.” **

Psalms 11:5-6 “The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth. **Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup.” **

From what I understand, the semitic use of the word hate as it applies to God means that He loved them less. But he still loves them. Cultural usage of words - yet another pitfall of personal interpretation apart from the Church.

 

[Awful_Things]

From what I understand, the semitic use of the word hate as it applies to God means that He loved them less. But he still loves them. Cultural usage of words - yet another pitfall of personal interpretation apart from the Church.

To make this claim, there is probably a Church document or some section of Church writings that back up your definition of “hating” meaning simply to love them less? Otherwise it is a strong suggestion to say that malachi_a_serva is interpreting it wrong to suggest that, by hate, that God has ceased the active willing of his love (or grace). I could be wrong - you might very well be interpreting according to Church teaching. Please assist me by pointing to the relevant passages from Church documents.

 

[larsegarots]

God’s love is unconditional. If we were to say that God no longer loves us when we were in hell - then God’s love would be conditional.

The bible contradicts this:

The LORD tests righteous people, but he hates wicked people and the ones who love violence. (Psalm 11:5)

Does a parent no longer love their child when they are no longer connected to their child? No! Seperation is not a condition for a parents love for thier child and then so much more for God’s love for us.

I agree with you over the bible verse.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I think that God continues to love them and this is a part of their punishment. They have rejected that love and find it painful. Sort of like being out in a bright tropical sunshine with no sun blocker. They try to find a rock to hide under.

I like this. They are loved by God in as much as they are created by God and thus good by nature. To exist is an absolute good in itself. Evil is not a thing (like a black blob of ooze), but rather is a corruption or lesser degree of this absolute good. God loves what is naturally good, even if it is a lesser degree.

This natural love should not be confused with the “God loves the righteous but hates the sinner” type love.

The way I see it, when it come’s to hell, we have to take into consideration what is above nature, or supernatural. Those in hell experience God supernatural love as someone without sunblock, those in Heaven have sunblock (sanctifying grace) and can experience God’s supernatural love in a extraordinary way. The sun’s rays are not evil in themself, they are just dangerous if not approached properly.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

To make this claim, there is probably a Church document or some section of Church writings that back up your definition of “hating” meaning simply to love them less? Otherwise it is a strong suggestion to say that malachi_a_serva is interpreting it wrong to suggest that, by hate, that God has ceased the active willing of his love (or grace). I could be wrong - you might very well be interpreting according to Church teaching. Please assist me by pointing to the relevant passages from Church documents.

When Jesus told His would be followers, “Unless you hate mother and father and children…you cannot be my disciple.” Obviously, He meant love God more than mother or father, not strictly “hate” mother or father.

 

[Awful_Things]

When Jesus told His would be followers, “Unless you hate mother and father and children…you cannot be my disciple.” Obviously, He meant love God more than mother or father, not strictly “hate” mother or father.

Fair enough.

 

[notsmart]

It seems that God loves all of us … no matter what we believe.
I tend to think those that are in hell chose their separation from God.

Does God, who is defined as love, still love those that have eternally turned away from Him?

Just wondering.

michel

Hm, interesting question. Another thing to wonder. From my non christian view, (as I am not baptised) I would say, it causes God pain to know of even one soul in hell, but perhaps, he is not, as he has given them, their ultimate choice they decided.

Thats why I dont understand why I cant simply get baptised, when I desire it. If I go to hell in this state, would God be sad? Would he even care? Or would he be angry with anyone who delayed me?

All interesting thoughts I can ponder about till who knows when.

I finally got a CCC, maybe its in there. Who knows how to find it!

Its not like there is a section for : If you want to know about how God sees those in Hell category… At least, It does not appear to be laid out that way.

 

[FCEGM]

Hm, interesting question. Another thing to wonder. From my non christian view, (as I am not baptised) I would say, it causes God pain to know of even one soul in hell, but perhaps, he is not, as he has given them, their ultimate choice they decided.

Thats why I dont understand why I cant simply get baptised, when I desire it. If I go to hell in this state, would God be sad? Would he even care? Or would he be angry with anyone who delayed me?

All interesting thoughts I can ponder about till who knows when.

I finally got a CCC, maybe its in there. Who knows how to find it!

Its not like there is a section for : If you want to know about how God sees those in Hell category… At least, It does not appear to be laid out that way.

Michel, you may have missed this:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4032027&postcount=24