God can handle quite a lot of things which mortals cannot
. Further, God only needs to handle the perpetual torment of the unsaved if it is true that they are perpetually tormented, which has yet to be established.The saved receive eternity in bliss, while the unsaved receive annihilation. The contrast between them is the punishment, in much the same way that little Sally being given a gold star for doing her homework perfectly but little Johnny not being given one for not doing his perfectly is a punishment for Johnny.
But those in heaven are not mere mortals. They have been glorified and perfected and now have infused knowledge of God’s righteousness.God can handle quite a lot of things which mortals cannot
Yet to be established? This has been firmly established by the teaching authority of the Church.
No, the saved receive eternal life, while the unsaved receive eternal punishment. Saying the eternal punishment is actually annihilation is a false interpretation and is not supported by the teachings of the Church.
The primary purpose of punishment is to redress the disorder caused by the injustice committed. Only secondarily can (not necessarily will) punishment have the purpose of rehabilitation.
Scripture states that the purpose of God’s wrath is to demonstrate the righteousness and glory of God.
While I would have to agree that they are no longer technically mortal, inasmuch as they are not going to die again, they are still not God, which means that they do not have all of God’s capacities. Since they do not have all of God’s capacities, what reason do we have for assuming that they have this particular one?
Because I am not a Catholic, I do not believe that everything which the Catholic Church says is necessarily true. If you can demonstrate to me that it is, then I will agree that this has been established. I should warn you, however, that I tend to be rather sceptical about absolutes, and have previously investigated such claims without being convinced.
How can one ‘redress the disorder’ this way? The disorder is initially created by the culprit perpetrating violence against the system. To claim that further violence against the culprit will somehow restore harmony is … perplexing. Instead of the nett total of suffering being reduced, it has been increased: the suffering of the culprit’s victims is not taken away by the punishment of the victim, and so it continues, and to that has been added the suffering of the culprit.
Can you tell me where you find that? I did a search and came up empty.
I never claimed that those in heaven would have all the capacities of God. In fact, I am saying specifically that we do not have the capacity to love as God does. God loves our friends and family infinitely more than we could. This is why I stated that those in heaven can understand and even appreciate the perfect righteousness of an all-holy God in condemning an unrepentant person, even a friend or family member, not to mention that the perfection of one’s love for God once in heaven would eclipse our love for others. Christ hints at the magnitude of difference that we are to have for God over and above our family – and this while still in our imperfection on earth.
Then how could I possibly prove anything to you? If I demonstrate anything, you could always have recourse by stating I don’t believe this or that… or I am rather skeptical about absolutes. Technically, I cannot even quote you chapter and verse from scripture since you could always claim that either the bible is in error in this regard, or that a certain passage of scripture has been obscured and corrupted over time or intentionally by the Church, or that a certain scripture is not an absolute, etc. I mean, how do you know that there is even a heaven? What investigation lead you to this conclusion, especially since you do not accept absolutes, and with what certainty can you know that you are correct?
So a criminal guilty of a capital offense should not go to prison since this does not redress the disorder caused, and in fact, “the suffering of the culprit’s victims is not taken away by the punishment of the victim, and so it continues, and to that has been added the suffering of the culprit.” Now using your reasoning, the criminal should not go to prison. After all, what good would it do? For instance, the rape victim still endures the scars from the rape. A prison sentence of the offender does not erase that. The murder victim is still dead. A prison sentence of the offender does not bring that person back to life. In fact, a prison sentence increases the net total suffering, and an “increase of suffering is not a good”; therefore, there should be no prison sentence. Am I right?
It doesn’t matter where you can find that since you are skeptical of absolutes and you do not necessarily believe that what the Catholic Church says is true. But one example is when God allowed Pharoah’s heart to be hardened (cf Rom 9:14-24??).
I will go with Moses too, but I will go with the whole of the context of scripture also. I didn’t say that God could not relent. In fact, Scripture speaks of God having patience with the unrepentant precisely in order to give them time to repent e.g., Rom 9:22. But scripture also speaks of the fate of those who ultimately do not repent; God’s patience eventually runs out (see 2 Thess. 1:6-10, Jude 5-7).
How can we claim this? What is our source for this?
Great! I am not conversing with anyone silly.
I do not know that there is a heaven, nor do I know that there is a God. All I can prove is my own existence, and that only to myself. Instead, I choose to believe that there is a heaven, and that there is a God, and that my Beloved exists, etc. How much certainty there is in these things varies: denying the existence of God or my Beloved would require a rejection of the most basic sensory data, which would be tantamount to accusing myself of complete schizoid delusion.
This is not quite true. Using my reasoning, a criminal should not go to prison as punishment. I would suggest that criminals should go to prison as a security measure, i.e., to protect the rest of the population. In prison, attempts at rehabilitation can be made, but the prisoner is also prevented from recommitting the crime (assuming that the prison is properly managed), which is a nett good.
While you could retreat into defensiveness at this point, you might consider that, if it did not matter to me, I am unlikely to have asked about it. Even if we do assume that Paul is necessarily correct in all that he says, please note that vv. 22-3 are hypothetical, and not actual assertions.
God claimed to have lost patience with the Sodomites, and Abraham argued against punishing them (Ex 18). Go claimed to have lost patience with the Israelites, and Moses argued against punishing them. An angel complained that God was mistreating the Jews (Zech 1). Should I fail to follow their example, and argue against God losing patience with creatures which were made imperfect?
We can claim this through deduction. Those who are in heaven shall be like Him, for they will see Him as He is (according to 1 John). We know that those in heaven will be made perfect and complete (according to Hebrews). We know that there will not be anymore tears (according to Revelation); i.e., no more sadness, heartache, anger, etc. Yet we know that not all will be saved, regardless of whether one argues if the punishment is eternal torment or annihilation. How do you propose to reconcile all these conditions occurring simultaneously?
Allow me to be somewhat skeptical if after 989 posts on the CA forums (as well as discussions and reading you certainly have had elsewhere) you still do not believe the Bible to be necessarily correct, not sure about heaven or God. You later state that you choose to believe in an omnipotent and benevolent God. That being the case, wouldn’t you believe it possible (and most probable) that this God would then be able to successfully communicate His revelation to us?Great! I am not conversing with anyone silly.
Let me assure you, then, that I am also sceptical of what I believe, and willing to listen to all kinds of arguments, and to investigate them honestly.
I am a relativist and a historicist, not a postmodernist. I do not believe that the Bible is necessarily correct, but I do believe that it is honest in its attempt to be so.
Your profile states that you are a liberal Christian. This sounds more like the belief of an agnostic.
What security measure is former Enron’s CEO Jeff Skilling prison serving? And you can bet that Skilling is viewing his 24 yr sentence as punishment? What about Dr. Clara Harris’ prison term for killing her husband David? It’s not likely that she is any threat to society, so her prison term certainly cannot be considered as a security measure. And if prison is not to be considered as punishment (I guarantee you that Dr. Harris sees it as otherwise), are you saying the criminals are not to be punished? Sounds as if you do not believe in any punishment whatsoever, which demonstrates your apparent difficulty in understanding God’s capacity to punish. Perhaps we are getting to the root cause?
I’m not retreating into defensiveness; I’m merely stating the obvious. You do not accept the authority of the Catholic Church; you do not believe that the Bible is necessarily true. So short of an audible voice from heaven, you can always dismiss any source that I provide. And Paul is phrasing is as such because he is trying to dismiss the argument that some may propose that their commission of evil is not their fault since God made them that way. If you read Exodus, it’s clear that God’s glory and majesty is shown through God’s destruction of Pharoah and his army.
Did you happen to read the rest of the story? God eventually did punish Sodom once the righteous left and the magnitude of Sodom’s sin came to full measure. By the way, I never claimed that God was not merciful, but time eventually runs out. Otherwise, how do you account for all the passages in scripture where people are in fact punished? Do you claim that God is not merciful because he punishes? This should prove that mercy does not preclude punishment, as you seem to indicate. Yes, God is merciful, but He is just.
Amen! Again, mercy does not preclude punishment. By the way, God made the rules and expected them to be followed. What God was rebuking the people for was the outward performance without the inward conviction. Jesus pointed out something similar to the Pharisees. He rebuked them in Matt 23 (Seven Woes) not for following the rules, but for hypocritically following the rules. And in verse 23, Jesus states that they have neglected the weightier matters of the law (i.e., the spirit and intent behind the law). But notice that Jesus states that they should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former (i.e., still follow the rules).
Bingo! And since I’m not God, if I were to present an unambiguous text of perpetual suffering for the unsaved, you will simply dismiss it as one of those places where the Bible is apparently in error. By the way, you mean to tell me that all of the New Testament references to eternal punishment and/or exclusion from heaven are ambiguous: Matthew 3:12, 5:21-22, 5:29, 7:12-13, 8:12, 10:28, 11:20-24, 12:36, 13:40-42, 13:50, 18:8-9, 18:32-35, 22:13, 23:15, 23:33, 24:50-51, 25:30, 25:41, 25:46; Mark 9:45-46; Luke 8:31, 10:15, 12:5, 12:47-48, 13:6-9, 13:27-28, 16:28; John 3:36, 5:28-29; Romans 1:18-32, 2:5-11, 6:21, 8:13, 9:22, 11:22; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21, 6:8; Ephesians 5:4-7; Philippians 3:18-19; Colossians 3:5-6; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9; 1 Timothy 6:9; Hebrews 10:26-30; James 3:6; 2 Peter 2:4, 2:9, 2:17, 2:20-21; Jude 6, 7, 13; Revelation 2:11, 14:10-11, 19:3, 19:20, 20:10-15, 22:14-15.
Mercy frequently does preclude punishment, which is the whole point of mercy
. However, this does not mean that it always does so, merely that God’s demonstrated preference is for mercy as opposed to the exaction of punishment.Yet did he ever suggest any such religious adhherence to anyone else, i.e., was it a general instruction to all or one only ever delivered to one group which was composed entirely of people who claimed to be more faithful in their religious observance? What was his response to those who complained about his disciples picking heads of grain on the Sabbath (Mt 12:1-8)? What was his response to those who brought the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11)?
My friend, while you seem to have taken it into your heart to make hostile judgements about my future behaviour, the fact remains that I have yet to demonstrate any of them as true. Is this the charity which Catholics claim to be so important?
Eternal punishment? No.
That is an interesting question. 1 John 3:2 refers to the appearance of Christ, not specifically to heaven: it seems more likely to be the return heralding the millenial reign on earth. Considering Hebrews 13:21 and Revelation 21:4, I would have to say that the text presents a unified claim that the saved are without sadness in heaven. I see no reason to argue with this.
I am sorry, but the verse which you quoted does not refer to punishment: it refers to judgement, the act of making a decision as to worth. The punishment for all the wicked, in v. 15, is identical: to be thrown into the lake of fire, “which is the second death” (v.14). Since death is cessation, there is no implication of suffering here, either.
I am bemused that you imagine that discussions here would make me believe that either the Bible or Catholicism is necessarily true: I have seen more evidence of sectarian hostility than I have of theological justification. If you shall know them by their fruits…
It could, if one chose to equate admission of a lack of proof with profession of a lack of belief. If I had proof, I would not ‘believe’: I would know. Without proof, I believe.
I think that you may have forgotten that I said that, when someone is punished for their crime, “Instead of the nett total of suffering being reduced, it has been increased: the suffering of the culprit’s victims is not taken away by the punishment of the victim, and so it continues, and to that has been added the suffering of the culprit.”
You said that it did not matter where you found the reference; I said that it did. Evidently, the judgements which you have made about my beliefs are obvious to you, but not to me.
In Exodus 14:31, it states that the people feared and believed God and his servant Moses because of God’s great power, which might indicate martial glory, but no reference is made to righteousness.
Which was exactly my point, otherwise you would have to conclude that everytime God punishes, it was because He refused mercy, and we know that is not true.Mercy frequently does preclude punishment, which is the whole point of mercy
What difference does that make? You were referring to your sig-line, which was to the Jews. I referenced Jesus’ response to the Jews.
This is obviously one disadvantage of communicating via posts rather than via telephone or face-to-face, else you would know that I am not being hostile. Read my posts as if given in a docile tone and not in a rant and rave tone that is apparently coming across to you. In fact, I’m not sure why you suggest that my words provided in textual form are hostile. I am merely repeating what you have clearly admitted previously… namely, that you do not necessarily believe that the Bible is correct or that you do not believe in the authority of the Catholic Church, yet you ask for the ‘source’ from which I derive my position. Well, if I provide a source, how does that help you? What ‘source’ would you accept? Remember, I’m not being hostile, I’m asking in all sincerity. I merely posit the idea that my ‘source’ is most probably irrelevant to you based on the above said statements. How you can possibly construe this as being hostile is beyond me?
“They will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (Rev 20:10); This does not equal perpetual punishment? How?
While ‘eternal’ can certainly have a qualitative sense to it, we obviously attribute a durative sense to it when referring to eternal life. So why then when the same word is used to describe punishment, the meaning is changed?
No, this is in regard to the ultimate glorification of the saved when they will see Him face to face.
I’m sorry, but judgment does not necessarily only refer to the act of making a decision as to worth, especially when speaking specifically of the damned - punishment and condemnation are clearly in view. For example, John 5:29 speaks of those who do good will rise to life, while those who do evil will rise to judgment. Obviously, we will all be judged, but in this context, it specifically refers to the punishment of condemnation of the unsaved.
How is this just that all of the wicked suffer the same fate. Also, upon what basis do you conclude that “death is cessation”? And no implication of suffering?.. Yeah, no suffering being thrown into the lake of fire.
Not surprisong considering that you take it as an act of hostility if I disagree with you.
I haven’t forgotten - just confused. You stated that a prison term shouldn’t be considered as punishment. Then what is the punishment that you speak of? You used the word punishment, but what constitutes the criminal’s punishment if it’s not the prison term?
So Jeff Skilling’s sentence is to protect society from what? I could almost guarantee you that he sees his prison term as punishment for his crime and not at all as rehabilitative. And I know for a fact that Dr. Clara Harris sees her term as punishment, and she is not at all a danger to society.
You’ve indicated your beliefs on this very thread, so how are they not known to you? Case in point: if I state that you are wrong regarding the primary purpose of punishment, and I proceed to tell you that the primary purpose is to redress the disorder caused by the offense, you will ask me for a source. I reply that it doesn’t matter what my reference is; you say that it does. I then state that this comes from the teaching of the Catholic Church - in this case, the Catechism. You reply that you do not accept the authority of the Catholic Church. That’s why I say that it doesn’t matter where I find the reference. This isn’t that difficult to follow.
Everything that God does is for his glory, otherwise He would be acting against His nature. If God inflicts punishment on someone (or someones), then He must be righteous in doing so.
As you noted, the reference in John has only those who have worked evil rising to judgement, whereas the reference in Revelation has all of the dead being judged ‘according to their works’. While John is using judgement as a metonym for punishment, Revelation is not.
I see nothing unjust in them suffering the same annihilation, and would hate to meet a god who would design the system of carefully-graded tortures needed to mete out just the right amount of agony were it differentiated.
What I take as acts of hostility are such negative characterisations as that one: you are accusing me of unreasonable behaviour, whatever your ‘tone of voice’.
The issue is not that it should not be considered punishment, but that it should not be intended as punishment. The criminal’s freedom being curtailed is a punishment, which, unless it makes the criminal better, produces no good.
I did not say that my beliefs are unknown to me; I said that your judgements are not obvious to me.
It is not at all difficult to follow; the only problem is that you are supplying my side of the dialogue. This is what I mean by hostility: you are imputing me with contentious behaviour which I have yet to demonstrate. I like the Catechism: I think that it has a lot of good ideas in it. As for the ideas in it which I do not like, I am perfectly willing to discuss them, and will not dismiss them as you continue to claim I will.
This argument is based on the presumption that everything that God does must be right. As common as this presumption is, neither Abraham nor Moses held it. They judged God’s plans according to an independent standard of righteous. The angel in Zechariah 1 did likewise for God’s actions.
What is there in the text that makes you so utterly certain that it cannot refer to the Second Coming and the Millenium?
This does equal perpetual punishment, but the only people actually described as meeting this fate are the devil, the beast, and the false prophet, i.e., the second beast from ch. 13. Since none of these is actually human, I had excluded them from the beginning of the discussion.
I do not think that the meaning changes. I do think that we need to note that the punishment, not the sufferer, is described as eternal. Annihilation is an eternal punishment.
I don’t know that I agree with that. Yes, the section in general regarding the Great White Throne judgment is for all, but the second statement regarding those being judged according to their deeds seems to be referring to those whose name does not appear in the book of life and are cast into the lake of fire and does not explicitly reference anything concerning the saved; i.e., those whose names are written in the book of life.
I do find it unjust for an unrepentant Hitler type who systematically murders 6,000,000+ to undergo the same punishment as an unrepentant murderer of one.
Adam did not cease to exist on the very day he ‘died’ after eating the forbidden fruit. Also, it would be quite difficult to suffer the second death if one ceased to exist following the first death.
A moth does not have an immortal soul, and we are not necessarily talking about a physical fire that can physically consume body and soul.
You provided the data for such a judgment. I stated that perpetual torment has been firmly established by the teaching authority of the Church in Post #24 to which you replied in Post #25 that you do not believe everything that the Catholic Church teaches is necessarily true. So all I am saying is even if I cited an official statement from Council X or papal document from Pope Y as my ‘source’ - how would that have changed your response? And in Post #27 you stated that you do not believe that the Bible is necessarily correct.
It is just if the criminal undergoes punishment regardless of whether he is rehabilitated.
See next post.
You did dismiss them in general. I didn’t even have time to come back with an official Church statement from Council X or papal document from Pope Y, but you did dismiss it in general; see Post #25.
So you claim that God could do something that is not right. Wow! Abraham and Moses certainly did not consider that God could be unrighteous. And their proposal of an alternative course of action does not necessarily imply that the original course of action was wrong. This also does not account for God’s sovereignty in His purpose or perhaps God using the opportunity to test the faith of Abraham and Moses in allowing them to deliberate in their owns minds how to handle a particular situation.
What is there in the text that makes you so utterly certain that it does refer to the Second Coming and the Millenium?
So why does this not include the immortal souls of the unsaved? These are the souls who will be asked to depart from Him into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels. So its perpetual torment for the demons but not immortal souls of the unsaved? And even if I grant you this point (which I don’t), how does this square with your theory that punishment serves no good purpose unless rehabilitative? Does this only apply to human beings since you admit the perpetual torment does apply to the demons? And what about all the parables of Jesus indicating the fate of those (human beings) cast out into utter darkness where there is the wailing and gnashing of teeth. Does this not indicate torment and suffering?
, not the sufferer, is described as eternal. Annihilation is an eternal punishment.
Eternal punishment aside, would you hate to meet a master (cf Luke 12:41-48 ) who clearly demonstrates that degrees of punishment are suffered based on different offenses?