Don Bosco's vision of Hell

[omgriley]

Right. I was not arguing otherwise. I just think that both things are true. Since the Fall, mankind must be saved from the bondage of sin in order to be able to fulfill the intentions God has for us.

Of course. I’m on board with you 100%.

My intent in pointing out that we are saved from eternal damnation was not to deny that we are also saved in order that we can be happy with God. It’s just my experience that some who insist on expressing only the aspect of being “saved for…” are also the same people who deny the existence of Hell or eternal punishment.

 

[Teek]

I’m not sure what the argument is about, here.

Any time you are saved FROM something, you are saved FOR something. Any time you are saved FOR something, you are saved FROM something.

I have always understood Dr. Hahn’s statement to mean that what we are saved from is incredible and awe inspiring, and yet even that reality pales almost to nothing in comparison to the immensity of what we are saved for!

It is kind of like… the difference between me and an amoeba is drastically enormous. But it pales in significance when I look at the distance between myself and God.

It doesn’t mean that the distance between myself and an amoeba is irrelevant or meaningless. It’s actually quite vast and informative. On my better days.

But that vast gulf between God and man that God crosses to draw us to Him is so thunderously enormous that contemplating ways to come closer to Him can take me much further than contemplating ways to get farther from the amoeba. Even on my worst days.

In the same way, knowing what we are saved from is enormous. And yet it pales in significance to knowing why we were saved, how we were saved, and what we were saved for.

Obedience out of fear is valuable and legitimate, but the fullness of life is found in obedience out of love.

 

[2towers]

I now see others (that I might have judged before as being less worthy in some way) as at least as worthy.

Oh I could not agree more. That is the foundation of Saint Ignatius’s spiritual exercises. Whose sins are we to focus on in the first place but our own. The more truthful we are about ourselves and our passions, the more futile, it is to be comparing my sins against others. The mere question of judging others sins misses the entire point of things.

Yes there are times when we have to consider or evaluate others, such as in hiring someone, or who goes out with your daughter, [I am not getting into that whole “judge not” argument.] but in terms of “sin management” comparing oneself to others looses value. We are not allowed in Heaven on a “top” percentage basis, so such actions are self defeating in a huge way. I hope I have made my point correctly.

 

[Teek]

Just to be sure…

“Sin management” is to be applied to one’s own self. However, it is still necessary to be aware of truth in dealing with others. It isn’t about judging others, but about the objective reality that there is a right way and a wrong way, and it is necessary in relationships to remain aware of this—not to judge others, but because it is truth.

It isn’t a “relative” comparison at all. It is a measurement of how you conform to Truth. If only one person conforms to Truth, so to speak, then only one person gets let in. If 98% of people do, 98% of people do. It isn’t a comparison between individuals, like qualifying for finals in a race—the best 8 make the final heat—but rather it is you, alone, with God and your choices. So comparison with others is completely irrelevant, though others think that is what we are doing.

That is majorly putting words into your…post. But I wanted to be certain I had the right sense of it…

 

[2towers]

It isn’t a “relative” comparison at all. It is a measurement of how you conform to Truth

Yep. Absolutely. If I start looking around at others, when it comes to MY sins, I have already failed.

 

[setarcos]

Sorry for not being prompt with a reply, life has a way of throwing delaying curve balls at one.
So, in answer to you questions; it is my understanding, to put it short and sweet, that the Magisterium consists of the Pope and the Bishops in full communion with him which disseminate the teaching of the faith to the faithful, to varying degrees of infallibility from the Pope ex cathedra down to the Catholic Theologians who are neither specifically authoritative nor infallible but serve in an informative capacity.
Specifically Pope John Paul II apologized for, but not limited to and against the recommendations of Church theologians and other clergy, the legal process endured by Galileo and for condemning his views on earth not being the center of the universe, Catholic involvement in the African slave trade, the Churches involvement burnings at the stake and the religious wars following the protestant reformation, injustices committed against women, violation of their rights, and the historical denigration of women, the inactivity and silence of many Catholics during the Holocaust, for promotion of anti-Semitism displayed by some, for the execution of Jan Hus, for violating the rights of ethnic groups and peoples and showing contempt for their cultures and religious traditions, the Spanish inquisition in which, headed by Spain’s first official Grand inquisitor, Tomas de Torquemada, some 2000 people were burned at the stake and or tortured, for the actions of the crusader attack on Constantinople, and in his first e-mail for the Catholic sex abuse cases, the Church-backed “Stolen Generations” of aboriginal children in Australia, and to China for the behavior of Catholic missionaries in colonial times.
Now your statement…

Church means the Magisterium and the declaration of divinely revealed Truths which are eternal and must be held by all the faithful. In this sense the Church is never wrong.

In this context you seem to be confining Christ’s Church to the Magisterium and the divinely revealed truths they produce and not to the whole body of Christ’s faithful as scripture seems to indicate. In other words when people who are members of the Catholic Church fail to follow its precepts they are while committing the act no longer a member of the body of Christ? Including when members of the Magisterium fail to follow their own divinely revealed truths? Here is the conundrum, we cannot follow a divinely revealed truth that is incapable of being understood. The Magisterium passes on divinely revealed truth to the faithful which of necessity must be capable of understanding in the content of its message. So what are we to make of it if the Magisterium acts according to its own understanding of the divinely passed on truths in an official capacity and then has to apologize for their actions which they based on this understanding? Does this not undermine their assertion that they are passing on divinely inspired truth?

 

[setarcos]

Here’s a thought, in creating a creature who supposedly has free will to transgress against Gods wishes causing specific undesirable repercussions and in that same creature a desire not to suffer that in essence in my opinion effects the desire to be with God though it may not increase proportionately a love for God. In creating a specific punishment and letting the creature be aware of that punishment in light of the creatures choosing not to worship God in effect enforces the creatures desire to be with God in order to avoid that punishment. It is an innate quality in every normal creature to desire to live and not die, even in spite of an undesirable quality of life. In my opinion a true Love of God is Love professed in spite of or even despite lacking the “reward” of Heaven versus the punishment of hell. This could only be achieved without the knowledge of such coercive possibilities. Tethering love of God to Heaven or hell possibilities makes it impossible for legitimate Love to take place or at least to identify legitimate Love. What if God grants eternal life, apart from eternal punishment, giving his creatures free reign to choose whatever path they may while providing for those choices to be incapable of harming others despite whether or not they choose to Love God by worshiping him? What if God made it know that no matter what his creatures have an expiration date but they are free to choose to worship him out of Love anyway. Would it not be a truer Love if those in either case chose to Love God despite having no added benefit in doing so? On a side note I believe love is not a choice but a grace given by God to his children. It is innate within the creature and is shown externally through expression in the actions of the creature. One can no more create Love through active force than one can create hate by active force against those we love. Here’s a thought experiment…if your family is forcibly captured and enslaved by evil people and you are told that all of you will be executed but if you show that you hate your spouse and children then your family will be released unharmed, through the mere action of abuse, such as striking each and belittling them with your words can you create true hatred of your family simply by these acts? It is not the choice to act itself which creates love or hate, it is the impetus already innate within us which is expressed in our action that is the creative force actualizing love granted by grace to Gods children.

 

[setarcos]

Why pray tell do you believe we actually have free will. Putting aside all the dogma and doctrine being spoon fed to us, give me an example of free will in action.
The point is that God made meaningful a particular struggle according to his rules. Our choices are influenced by our innate desires which he created. The desire to live and not die for instance. One can still be a slave when the choices are confined to particular rules. Am I not still a slave if I’m forced to wear chains and told when I can eat but given the choice between bread and water or nothing for lunch? Free will in the creature is a farce. The only thing that matters is Gods will. Our will in no way effects God, God’s will however profoundly effects us.

He loves us enough to respect our free will, and respect it in truth.

What do you mean by this? If God hadn’t granted the delusion of free will in his creatures would this be disrespect? What do you mean respect in truth? If Gods nature is such that he cannot lie how is his truth respectful if he has no choice but the truth? Respect is a choice made not a forced reality. God is what he is. His creation is his will, not out of respect but for his own Glory so says scripture.

 

[Teek]

If we don’t have free will, we are just complex chemical reactions responding to the environment. There would be no fault, no innocence or guilt. It would all just be the way it is. No justice, because the rapist just did it because his “choices are influenced by (his) innate desires which (God) created.”

You are accountable for your actions, not because we are all buying into some game of the gods, but because you have a choice. And you choose your action.

Our will doesn’t have to affect God for it to be free. His will effects us because if He didn’t will us to be, we wouldn’t be. That is a pretty fundamental effect, but for our good, not control.

“He loves us enough to respect our free will, and respect it in truth.”

What do you mean by this? If God hadn’t granted the delusion of free will in his creatures would this be disrespect? What do you mean respect in truth? If Gods nature is such that he cannot lie how is his truth respectful if he has no choice but the truth? Respect is a choice made not a forced reality. God is what he is. His creation is his will, not out of respect but for his own Glory so says scripture.

By “respect our free will,” I mean that when we make a choice to do something He does not overrule it. If I choose to do something evil, I can do something evil. I meant “in truth,” because if He were to grant free will, and you chose a course of action and He said, “but not THAT!” he would not be respecting your free will in truth. To say we have free will would be lip service, not true free will.

I used the word “respect” in the way we say someone “respects” the right to bear arms. Or doesn’t. It makes a difference. God respects our free will.

Yes, God is Truth. I didn’t say his truth is respectful. I said that He respects free will in truth, a statement which is consistent with His being Truth.

Yes, God does not have to respect our free will. But what He does informs our being so it is exceedingly important to us that He does.

Where does it say that in scripture? Obviously for His glory, but not that alone.

 

[Teek]

Why pray tell do you believe we actually have free will.

Quite frankly, because you felt the need to ask that question, and be bothered by answers I gave, and decided to reply. If it isn’t your free will, whose will are you doing?

 

[BornInMarch]

I looked up a description of his vision and I have to say I feel sorry for Bosco. He spent his life taking care of youths, and an angel showed them burning in Hell. Then the angel basically told him that his attempts to warn them wouldn’t work, and then burns him. Talk about having a bad day.

 

[setarcos]

Sounds like satanic manipulation to me?

 

[gfvh]

That vision is one of the reasons I am a catholic now. Incredible how much good fear can do to people. Nevertheless I was wrong. Because I thought one can go to hell by stealing stationery, or going out of the bedroom in the night like the kids in Don Bosco’s school. (Was it a school?) But if you read the whole book (Is it a book?) you can see that that was a warning. Nonetheless you go to hell by sins of impurity, of course.

 

[guanophore]

Sounds like satanic manipulation to me?

Are you saying that Don Bosco’s vision of Hell is a satanic manipulation?

 

[irishcolleen45]

I’ve read it at least three times and each time I get more out of it. His guide did give him some advice in helping the boys. So they weren’t all lost.
However, it made me reevaluate how I make a confession as well as how in the past I had allowed some people to influence my behavior and not always in my best interest. The comment about wanting human respect resonates with me.

 

[setarcos]

If we don’t have free will, we are just complex chemical reactions responding to the environment. There would be no fault, no innocence or guilt. It would all just be the way it is. No justice, because the rapist just did it because his “choices are influenced by (his) innate desires which (God) created.”

Why do you make this statement as if it’s self evident that this could not be possible? Merely making this statement does not preclude its possibility. It would merely mean moving from one defining system to another. No fault, innocence or guilt? Again there is no reason why the defining source of these things has to be God. Is there? If God doesn’t exist fault is imparted to mans comprehension through these other processes. In either case fault itself is meaningless apart from its defining source and its enforcement. In the case of God he decides who is at fault through transgression which he has defined. In the case of “natural” process fault is defined through mans evolved consciousness by difining what is transgression.
What makes you think we have a choice apart from our innate tendencies imparted to us through our nature? We are accountable for our actions simply because we are held accountable. Whether it be from God or some other source.

By “respect our free will,” I mean that when we make a choice to do something He does not overrule it. If I choose to do something evil, I can do something evil. I meant “in truth,” because if He were to grant free will, and you chose a course of action and He said, “but not THAT!” he would not be respecting your free will in truth. To say we have free will would be lip service, not true free will.

How is it that you believe you CAN make a choice apart from your innate nature and the subconscious influences which effect your propensities to choose? In this age of advanced Neurological studies an ever increasing abundance of evidence seems to indicate that there are so many factors which may influence the choices you make which you yourself are not aware of that the concept of truly free will is at best a delusion. You don’t simply choose to do evil or choose to do good. These choices are never done on an equal footing. Studies have even shown that our ability to exercise our so called “free” will ebbs and flows depending on our current status, fatigue, hunger, distraction, state of emotion, imbalances in our homeostasis etc…
Your definition of respect of our free will does not fit with scripture. Scripture tells us that God will and has disrupted the free will of Men to serve his purposes. The Egyptian Pharaoh in exodus is one case in point.

 

[setarcos]

Where does it say that in scripture? Obviously for His glory, but not that alone.

Yes, that alone! All things God does, we do, anything does, is for the glorification of God alone.
Throughout scripture verse after verse affirms this. Here are a few:
Ephesians 1:9 ; he made known to us his will because it pleased HIM
Colossians 1:16 ; ALL things were created not simply by him…but FOR HIM
Isaiah 43 God created everyone for HIS Glory
Isaiah 48:9-11 God here says …“for my own name’s sake”, “for the sake of my praise”, and again in verse 11 he says “for my own sake”, twice, he does things and “I will not yield my glory to another.” Are you picking up a theme here?
All things were done by him and for him. The God of the bible clearly does all things for and seeks all things to Glorify himself! He will share his Glory with no one!

 

[setarcos]

I may be merely acting according to the dictates of my innate preferences which may be determined by those chemical reactions reactions you mentioned and my forced response in accordance with natural laws, or it may be that I am acting according to the Will of the only one who definitionally could have a free will…GOD. Science has shown that my choices are made microseconds, if not seconds before I am even aware of them. This alone shows that whoever, or whatever is making the choice I act on it is not me.

 

[setarcos]

I’m in no position to declare what the source of Don Bosco’s “vision” - I thought it was said it was a dream he had? - is. It would seem to me that it could be possible that it was some sort of satanic manipulation meant to cause suffering and disillusionment.

 

[2towers]

Aren’t you at the end of your rope defending Catholic beliefs tonight? I am. There is free will.