Explain the justice of hell.

[Jelrak_TB]

As Catholics we believe in Purgatory. Once in Pergatory, eventually you will end up in Heaven after being purged of our attachment to sin. Topic for a different thread though…

This is a fair retort. However, is not Purgatory merely Heaven by alternate means?

 

[Anthony_V]

Which parent of a kidnapped child might truly be less happy to discover the child’s tortured body instead of the child living and unharmed? Or is it presumed that parents who do not recover their children safe and sound simply failed to pray?

Be at peace, my brother! You are so shaken up out of empathy! You will have your chance to serve those that are suffering; But for now, I tell you be at peace inside yourself! :console:

Throughout our whole time on earth, God is trying to pull us closer. This is not to say God only gives us graces unless we ask for them. No, we have life regardless. But saving grace, that is freely given and freely received. God does not demand the impossible. Be at peace.

Is it impossible to break even the mightiest of stallions or does it merely require a different technique and more time?

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.

I was responding to your original statement that some souls might require more coercion than others. In this sense it seemed unclear as to how to explain the distribution of this “desire” for coercion: if stronger in some, was it not provided as such by the creator? If weaker, was not its lack the fault of not providing more at the moment of the individual’s design? How then might one blame the one whose drive for coercion was found to be lacking?

Oh, I understand now. We all desire coercion equally. It is our proper, although supernatural, end.

This is far too generous a demand on your time. I would be doing you a grave disservice should I accept such an offer, but thank you anyway. Sincerely.

My peace to you.

Yet how different might that perception be if our ultimate destiny is to reside with God in his own domain? If Jesus is at once God and himself, does this not suggest that God is able to at the very least mimic our sense of time? If so, would dwelling with him in eternity force him to maintain such a mimicry for our benefit or would he elevate us to his own view of a perpetual now?

Again, one of the greater mysteries of grace. I don’t know, but you are welcome to speculate. Whatever it might be, though, it would be proper to the relationship between him and all applicable creation. You would likely have to bring that question to a Catholic theology professor for some theories.

If so elevated, could the saints to whom one might pray be in such a state whereby they might be perceiving and answering their own prayers?

No, not necessarily. To be elevated in virtue does not mean to be elevated in intrinsic potency. Rather, saintly intercession is indeed that which it is called: an intercession for a grace, not a giving of the grace itself. Any intercessory knowledge thereof is a matter of God sharing said knowledge to the saints.

If a true friendship, why would they doubt his word? Why would they be at his mercy? Why would they hide?

While Adam and Eve were holy, they didn’t yet have beatific vision; for this, they could sin against God. How, exactly, they were to go about attaining beatific vision is speculated, but it did not necessitate sinning and being reconciled. The covenant of friendship they had with God was indeed a grace, but a conditional one. So to speak, they were at their own mercy, not God’s. I once heard a religious sister once jokingly say, “the depressing part about being in a relationship with God is that if something is wrong, its automatically your fault!” While it paints God as sort of this stoic being, it does convey a decently important perspective: God will never break his promises. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be seeing the words “do not be afraid” over and over in the Bible (depending on your translation, a little over 365 times). To fear God, used in the sense throughout the Bible, is to be stunned by the contrast of righteousness and sinfulness. It invokes a desire to adopt a penitential attitude, and amend your wrongdoings. In “fearing God”, as it were, we are fearing our sins and our downfalls* in light of God’s righteousness*. No wonder Adam and Eve hid! How embarrassing it would be to stand spiritually naked in front of the king of the universe.

What type of friend is it that one fears?

[BIBLEDRB]John 15:15[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[SMA_12]

If God is pure love, what is the greatest thing one might fear if encountering him after death? Might one merely feel a moment of chagrin before God embraces the one and proceeds to point out all of the instances in the one’s life where he was supported by God unawares? Alternately, if God is not pure love, but is instead Biblically vindictive, might not a coexistence with such a one for an eternity be the purest torment?

If I am correctly understanding your scenario of God being pure love, I do not see much that is incorrect in your interpretation, nor do I see anything that contradicts what I have already said. Maybe I am reading it wrong? If not, then yes our biggest fear should be the moment we realize all of the instances in our lives where we have let God down. As someone stated earlier on this thread, and I am paraphrasing, no one ever went to Hell kicking and screaming, believing that some big mistake had been made in their judgement.

As for you alternate point, we believe that God IS indeed pure love, so this scenario is not applicable.

 

[Anthony_V]

Why would God assist to create those born without the ability to reason right from wrong as it relates to the future (fetal alcohol syndrome)?

By their consent, to save them.

Does this not suggest that life on Earth is more important than the spiritual life afterwards given that in the spiritual realm one may neither change nor learn anything, nor exercise free-will? To what purpose is an afterlife that maintains a longer duration than Earthly life, but with fewer options and fewer potential points of interest?

No, actually not. Heaven is supernatural end that is proper to us, as humans. Earthly life is not. Catholics believe in a doctrine called “resurrection of the body”. Perhaps you ought to look into that.

Also, how does the spirit allegedly exist in time on Earth, but not afterwards?

There are many answers and theories on the relationship between the body and spirit. If you are interested, here’s an article that you can take a look at to give you some fundamentals of the subject.

So after the parousia do souls even notice one another, so accustomed might they have become to gazing blissfully in one direction? Also, what point is there in praying to saints for intercession if they have not yet arrived at a state where they might communicate with others?

Here’s a link that will get you started on your question. Scroll down to the bottom of the page to the subtitle of “Universal and cosmic eschatology”. Above that Subtitle is a section on Hell. That might also clear some things up. When you’re ready to ask more questions, feel free to do so.

The essence of my understanding of your response is that “God, does not wish for natures to be able to change after death, therefore they do not.”

Correct.

My second question would remain, “Why is it that on Earth men might fear torture at the hands of their enemies, but in death they might fear it at the behest of a loving god?”

I think I understand what you’re getting at. This is due to the propriety of the human nature towards supernatural bliss, and not reconciliation so much. So when we are out of God’s friendship, we are like a fish out of water. The natural effect, for the fish due to his nature, is to die. Now, this death is not due to the nature being unchanged, but because land is not proper to the fish! Consequence is natural to freedom. If it wasn’t, then there wouldn’t be such a thing as freedom. Consider this:
There are two doors. One is labeled “A”, and the other is labeled “B”.
Now, it is proper to our free nature to be able to step through one of those doors by our own consent, is it not? If we wanted to step through door “B”, but before we could, God transformed us into a frog such that we wouldn’t have free will anymore, what a deceptive liar God would be! There would appear to be a choice, but really our only option would be door “A”. Furthermore, if God did indeed turn us into frogs before we could assume our choice, it would be scandalous against our image of God in freedom! Our free will can’t be taken away! We can submit, which is to give our free will away, but it cannot be taken by force; otherwise, he’s not benevolent!

 

[Jelrak_TB]

It would be foolish to assume that one must have an infinite knowledge and wisdom to be culpable of anything. We have a conscience, do we not? And is it possible to violate this conscience? If the answer is yes, then we have a culpability to a greater or lesser extent. Now, the formation of that conscience is another matter, but for the subject at hand it would be foolhardy to assume that we aren’t held up to a moral standard of sorts! And certainly someone as tender-hearted as yourself could understand that. We are designed for love.

Then might not my original analogy of the 3-year-old child remain acceptable?

The action, my friend, has been taken! Was he not knocking at the door their entire life? It is my opinion that Christ is suffering far more than any of the souls in hell by our rejection of him.

If God almighty were to knock at a door, how might one explain it being possible to ignore?

If Jesus is suffering regarding the souls in Hell, is he miserable in Heaven? Is God ignorant of his son’s discomfort?

If God might ignore the suffering of his own son, how much more might we expect him to remain aloof from our own suffering?

Excellent question. This is the mystery of grace. We aren’t quite sure how it works. All we know is that, while it does not internally change our nature, it elevates our nature to the virtue of God’s. In such a way, the chasm of virtue between us is conditionally bridged, and we may become intimate with him.

If we do not understand it–and will never understand it even in death–is it unimportant? If not unimportant, why might a loving creator wishing for an intimate relationship with mankind fail to make an effort to explain it? How might a spouse love her husband if he fails to explain much of his mind and heart to her, but merely soothes her with surface gestures?

Damnation is not a necessity.

Thank you.

The possibility of damnation, however, is indeed necessary. And the reality of that possibility lies on the shoulders of the creature, not the creator. Keep heart, though. While, like I said earlier, I’m not too much into speculation on matters that aren’t immediately necessitous, I think it would be reasonable to assume that most souls are indeed saved. Most, likely by the skin of their teeth moments before their death; but none-the-less, we have a tendency to turn a contrite heart towards God in seemingly hopeless circumstances.

If damnation is not a necessity, is any explanation as to the reasonableness of its purported reality truly good enough to juxtapose with the concept of it having its source in a being of infinite love? Must not one or the other concept necessarily fail?

Not all scholastic theologians will give you the same answer (as there are many different types of answers). In our feeble intellect, wrapping our brains around the grand scheme of things is quite difficult. I think this article might give you some food for though on this subject. If you feel inclined to, we can look into this a little deeper. This will outline a lot of the differences between Catholic scholasticism, mainstream Protestantism, and Calvinism/Evangelicalism.

Does God care nothing for these Protestant sects? Why is no clarifying Spirit extended to them long enough for them to understand their errors?

If a farmer claimed to have given sufficient grain to have nourished all of his hens, yet an inspection of their coop discovered several in advance starvation, might one either conclude that the farmer had miscalculated in his portions, or consider that it might be incumbent upon him to discover an alternate form of sustenance for those unwilling to eat grain?

Alternately, what mother might continue to daily heap mashed peas on the plate of an infant who has consistently determined that he/she would rather “wear them than eat them”?

Oh dear… Of course not! We, as humans, have a tendency to always look at things in light of relativity. We look at patterns, sequences, classifications, structures, etc. in an attempt to simplify things so that we may understand it. We’re always thinking of things in relations to us. God’s love, however, cannot be simplified in light of our understanding. In this way, he perfectly loves each nature in a way that is proper to it.
I think I used “grace” (earlier) in a confusing context. Grace is a free gift. It comes from the latin word gratia. This can mean many things-- including the possession of qualities, friendship with God etc. In terms of salvation, it is a free gift from God that, upon like free response, sanctifies the receiver more unto like Christ.

And yet is it not telling that no dogs are offered an eternal reward?

Did God not also take great pains to infest most of them with fleas?

In terms of Lucifer, he was favored by God in the sense of his qualities. He was brilliant, he was beautiful, he was charismatic, etc. Before time, God had this idea of an angel named Lucifer. Lucifer, being an idea, was not inherently deserving of being himself with such qualities; all glory and honor is due to God. In this sense, Lucifer received the grace of such qualities. In relations to the other angels, we don’t know how much salvific grace he received; we at least know it was sufficient, in light of God’s benevolence.

If God might have favorites (for any reason), might he not also have least favorites? If least favorites, might he not also have those he dislikes outright (such as Pharaoh or some of the pharisees)?

If one whom God has favored might yet fall from Heaven, what hope might exist for one whom God might barely tolerate?

Alternately, how certain might one be that God does not actively suppress those whom he dislikes so that they may not attain Heaven?

 

[minkymurph]

And yet even if only a minority were able, would it not cause difficulties for the statement: “we are unable to visualize infinities”?

I don’t think I said we are unable to visualize infinities. We can visualize it. The point I was making is we cannot fully comprehend it because we have a limited understanding of it.

Is this not odd considering all of creation supposedly calls out praises for its creator?

You don’t mean to tell me you took the comment I made seriously? Where’s you’re sense of humor?

Yet many higher order mammals appear to mourn their dead.

They do. I think you know that’s not the point I was making.

This is a fair possibility, but did Jesus ever countermand any of the dictates of scripture? Did he clarify a singly instance in which God was alleged to have made outrageous demands (such as the merciless massacre of the Canaanites)? Instead, when given the strongest opportunity possible to distance himself from any portion of it, what was his response other than to validate the entire work by claiming not one dash amongst the texts need be changed?

To be honest, I don’t really know what your getting at here. You need to be a bit more specific for me to offer a response.

Did not the Holy Spirit also allegedly play a role in ensuring that the Old Testament remain as a testament to God’s words and acts? Might not one have expected the Holy Spirit to reject large swaths of these texts as being falsely attributed to God if it truly were the case? Might not one have expected this Advocate to especially object to the claim that God would send lying spirits to thwart his enemies–for, after all, if God might lie to his enemies, how might one be certain that his word is always true even to the stalwart?

I’m not going to answer this and I’ll explain why. Everything you have written in relation to scripture to me, is in accordance with not only a Protestant understanding of scripture, but perhaps a fundamentalist one. I cannot answer questions in accordance with how someone else understands and interprets scripture. It would wrong of me to try to explain what someone else believes. Those who interpret scripture a certain way and have a different understanding of ‘inspiration’ are better placed to respond to challenges to that concept than someone who doesn’t share it.

I would politely suggest if your going to discuss scripture with a Catholic, you need a better understanding of how Catholics read and interpret scripture, (and their is a degree of diversity among Catholics) and their understanding of the term ‘inspiration.’ You will never be able to discuss scripture with a Catholic until such times as you understand not all Catholics have a fundamentalist take on scripture. The question you have asked here is one for someone who has a fundamentalist understanding of scripture. I don’t so I can’t answer you.

Assuming that such claims are legitimate…

Assuming they are.

Is not the potter responsible for the maintenance of his clay? Is not its lack of malleability his responsibility for having allowed dryness to set in? Why would God blame the clay when it was he who withheld the water?

Yes, the potter is responsible for the clay because clay does have the capacity to think for itself. Humans do. What I used was an illustration. It was not my intention it should be taken literally. The whole point of the passage of scripture I used was that God did not withhold water. This passage of scripture states the clay cannot say to the potter why dis you make me this way? The point being, the clay has chosen not to become a work of art because that is what it wants, and not because God has given the clay no choice other than to become anything else other than an unmalleable lump. The ‘clay’ (human not inanimate material) did not want the water on offer. God does not blame the ‘clay’ for what it is not responsible for. That would be unjust. Blaming the clay for what it is responsible for is not unjust. If the ‘clay’ does not want the water that is on offer, the clay is responsible for the fact it becomes an unmalleable lump.

 

[minkymurph]

If God is omniscient, would he not have known from the beginning of time exactly how each and every soul would progress? Additionally, does God not intervene in certain Earthly cases at the behest of prayer? Juxtaposed, how is it explicable that God is able to both foresee the results of his lack of intervention (Hell) and yet at the same time choose inaction? Would a loving parent merely watch as a freight train bore down on their child heedlessly walking the tracks, regardless of how rebellious the teenager?

Again, I would say Catholics do not believe in Calvin’s concept of predestination. To me, that is what you are eluding to here. It would be wrong of me as a Catholic to attempt to explain Calvin’s concept of predestination. You need to take this up with someone who believes that.

However, would a loving parent control their child’s every move? Imagine a parent with superpowers. What if that parent used their superpowers to make sure their child never made a bad decision, or did anything to cause anyone else pain? It’s funny you mention a train. I can tell you of a real life scenario. A military commander was faced with a choice. I believe his son was trying to repair a railway bridge. I can’t remember the exact circumstances not. However, the military commander had a choice. Allow the train to proceed along the bridge which would result in the death of his son, or halt the train and cause the death of hundreds of people on the train? Now, this is not a story it actually happened. What do you think the military commander decided? What would you have decided? Would you have found the choice an easy one to make?

I once asked 12 -13 year old pupils a question in school. Imagine I was a teacher with superpowers. Imagine I used those powers to make sure all pupils were in school on time, had their homework done, were quiet in class, listened to everything I said, and completed classwork well and on time because I wanted them to get the best from their education. You would have to say my motive is a good one. However, I asked the class what sort of teacher I would be? What do you think their reply was?

 

[Anthony_V]

We also use “selfishness” in the context of humans. Is God selfish? Would his selfishness be good?

What reason is selfishness disordered? It is keeping all to oneself out of lack of charity. God gives abundantly. And more importantly, he is the fountain of charity. I don’t see that as a reason to see him as selfish. In regards to narcissism, we must also remember that while God loves himself in the trinity as the fount of all that is good, he is also the fount of virtue and humility. Narcissism would seem to have different effects on creatures that God.

If prior to Original Sin mankind was able to be forgiven infinitely, why was Original Sin not simply forgiven? Would that not suggest that Original Sin was not a sin? And what places such constraints of non-forgiveness on an all-powerful being who has infinite love and mercy except when such attributes are actually in demand?

Strictly speaking, mankind was not able to be forgiven before the fall; they had not, well, fallen. Furthermore, this Original sin isn’t so much a positive figure inasmuch as a negative. It’s a lack of Original justice (four preternatural gifts, and sanctifying grace) that was present before the fall. When Adam and Eve lost Original justice, they lost the virtue that made them close to God (and to grow closer). The whole point of reconciliation to God is to restore this friendship with him, which is the reason for our existence. The amount of forgiveness that God can give out is unlimited. The amount that we can receive (due to the restraint of time) forgiveness is limited. So, God is still infinitely benevolent.

If God’s love of them might instill such a fear, and mankind is hardwired to flee from his fears, is mankind hardwired to flee from God’s love?

I don’t understand how you deduced this concept. Could you elaborate?

So does God share culpability for choosing their moment of death or not (given that he might have chosen them to die when they were still in love with him, but instead chose otherwise)?

It is not God’s will that one should die in a state of mortal sin. Consider a person who commits suicide. Is that death the one that God willed? Consider a drunk driver who dies in a wreck. Is it God’s fault for our abuse of our freedom? It would be reasonable for God to call someone home when they ought to be in a state of grace, not simply when they are. Things run on God’s schedule, not ours.

Is not the purpose of the parable of the vineyard (and the workers hired at different times throughout the day, but who all end up with equal payment) to explicitly claim that all will receive the same reward in Heaven?

God distributes graces unequally. Does God give all peoples sufficient grace (which is what this passage is speaking about)? Yes, he does! The superabundance of grace on top of that, however, is not equal. Heaven is sufficient for our eternal happiness, no doubt. But additional graces upon that is unequally given, as well as unequally merited.

Be at peace, my brother.
In peace, love, and joy,
Anthony

 

[Jelrak_TB]

First of all, God does not look down wrathfully at those who have taken the fall. His heart is filled with sorrow.

My apologies. Let us amend it to a picture of him staring down sorrowfully–perhaps even waving sadly?

But he cannot change the decisions we make, because he gave us free will. Without such free will, we could not choose to follow him, we would be forced, which is not loving.

Could he not at the least strive to remove the conflicting directions given by the charlatans in his name?

He cannot remove the cliff, as it would not be just. There once was a world with no “cliff”, the Garden of Eden. But we chose to abandon God anyway, so now we must choose to seek Him.

Could we perhaps agree that the Fall merely lost for mankind the map needed to avoid the cliff?

Might it also be suggested that one capable of creating a cliff is also able to have it removed? However, if it is a necessary part of the landscape, let us agree that it shall remain–if for no greater reason than for the shade it provides to the oasis below.

I feel your pain in regards to all of the conflicting advice and misconceptions out there. That’s why Christ gave us the Catholic Church to guide us, and to do so with consistency, using tools such as the Bible to help us along the way.

What then should one make of Allah and his Prophet who categorically deny the purported truth of this guiding light? Is not at some point the choice largely subjective?

I am not claiming to have all the answers, and I realize a lot of this will not make a whole heck of a lot of sense if you don’t even believe in God. It’s discouraging to attack the dilemma with reason alone, the burden is too much for anyone. That’s why a " leap of faith" is required. Thats when God truly does start speaking very clearly. You can’t expect to hear a clear message from someone you don’t even believe in.

And yet you take time to offer what guidance you may. Thank you for that. Sincerely.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Be at peace, my brother! You are so shaken up out of empathy! You will have your chance to serve those that are suffering; But for now, I tell you be at peace inside yourself! :console:

Throughout our whole time on earth, God is trying to pull us closer. This is not to say God only gives us graces unless we ask for them. No, we have life regardless. But saving grace, that is freely given and freely received. God does not demand the impossible. Be at peace.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.

Will not a thirsty horse drink? Will not one given the spur, run?

Oh, I understand now. We all desire coercion equally. It is our proper, although supernatural, end.

My peace to you.

Again, one of the greater mysteries of grace. I don’t know, but you are welcome to speculate. Whatever it might be, though, it would be proper to the relationship between him and all applicable creation. You would likely have to bring that question to a Catholic theology professor for some theories.

OK.

No, not necessarily. To be elevated in virtue does not mean to be elevated in intrinsic potency. Rather, saintly intercession is indeed that which it is called: an intercession for a grace, not a giving of the grace itself. Any intercessory knowledge thereof is a matter of God sharing said knowledge to the saints.

The elevation to which I was referring was that of synchronicity with God’s perception of time.

While Adam and Eve were holy, they didn’t yet have beatific vision; for this, they could sin against God. How, exactly, they were to go about attaining beatific vision is speculated, but it did not necessitate sinning and being reconciled. The covenant of friendship they had with God was indeed a grace, but a conditional one. So to speak, they were at their own mercy, not God’s. I once heard a religious sister once jokingly say, “the depressing part about being in a relationship with God is that if something is wrong, its automatically your fault!” While it paints God as sort of this stoic being, it does convey a decently important perspective: God will never break his promises. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be seeing the words “do not be afraid” over and over in the Bible (depending on your translation, a little over 365 times). To fear God, used in the sense throughout the Bible, is to be stunned by the contrast of righteousness and sinfulness. It invokes a desire to adopt a penitential attitude, and amend your wrongdoings. In “fearing God”, as it were, we are fearing our sins and our downfalls* in light of God’s righteousness*. No wonder Adam and Eve hid! How embarrassing it would be to stand spiritually naked in front of the king of the universe.

Does this paint an image of a true friendship? Is it not more that of a lenient master and his slaves?

How might one also consider the intelligence of Adam and Eve? Were they above or below average? Might not their particular test have been passable by a later generation?

[BIBLEDRB]John 15:15[/BIBLEDRB]

Was Jesus then “afraid” of his audience? Was his audience afraid of him? If neither, how does this give an example of an individual who fears his friend?

 

[Anthony_V]

Well laid out. As you have suggested, these are but a few. Perhaps we might also add:

E) One might feel repulsed by God after reading of his Old Testament exploits.

F) One might feel uneasy attempting to love a creature that seemingly behaves at odds with one’s own moral compass when one considers how difficult one might find it to torment one’s enemy for an eternity, but how willfully simple God and his adherents apparently find the practice.

G) One might feel disconnected from a god capable of painstakingly creating Ebola so as to afflict the occasional village or lime disease to infect the occasional child foolish enough to venture into his wilderness to admire its beauty.

H) One might harbor distrust of a being that demands unlimited obedience while withholding vital clues of as to its true purposes and aims for its creation–a being that is purposefully enigmatic and methodically secretive.

I) One might ponder in confusion the numerous rival religions and conflicting sects, some of whose primary creeds were formed by committee amidst great haranguing and name-calling.

J) One might consider the Church itself and see little evidence of God’s involvement therein; concluding that such a disinterested god is no longer soliciting adherents.

K) Perhaps one might note God’s apparent absence during great atrocity (such as when a tsunami might sweep thousands of children out to sea) or during personal tragedy and be merely returning the sentiment of disinterest.

L) Perhaps one might have laid great trust in a god only to have been seriously let down enough to doubt all things formerly assumed; to find, when honest questions are asked, that many are ever willing to blame a lack of contact with God on the one questing, but never on the god itself.

M) Perhaps one might question the validity of a god that claims to desire mankind’s love while refusing to interact with most of said mankind, followed by sentencing the majority to needlessly languish in an inferno while assuring all that his goodness is supreme and that those in Heaven will never miss the fallen.

N) One might question the logic of a god that is purported to be a supra-genius who would be content to surround itself with creatures of mediocre intelligence for an eternity during which they might not further progress–one might question the type of relationship possible and surmise it might at best be little more than akin to a scientist collecting gerbils.

O) Perhaps one is cautious to trust a being who, rather than warn the Wise Men to avoid speaking to Herod at all, merely suggests they detour on their return so as to protect Jesus from danger; leaving the hundreds of other young children destined to be slaughtered to their doom.

P) Or, perhaps a god that requires worship so ardently that its demands for same are repeated hundreds of times in its book of lore make one a bit concerned that such a being with so obviously little self-esteem cannot be trusted to also be good.

I hope these addenda are plain and bring no offense, as none was intended. You have been most forthright. I appreciate your continued understanding in this matter.

Regards,

Jelrak TB

If you have the time, I suggest you read the book of Job, in the old Testament. And then parallel that with the Gospel of John in the new Testament. We are so inclined to presume that the world we live in is hopeless, and that we are subject to the most wretched infirmities that could exist. But this is the reason that God became man, to testify to us that there is hope, and that he will bridge again that path to true happiness. It is a cross to bear, yes, just as Christ did. So God daily calls every single person on the planet to attend to those who are suffering. He calls us to be his hands and feet. He calls us to be the hospital for the sick. He calls us to show love towards one another. He is begging us to intercede for his people! But we don’t, because its too “painful”, or we don’t believe him. It is those that are suffering who experience the most pain, not us! Each day, he sends miracles our way to change us, and open our eyes. But we ignore them. We look at the miracles of the past, and discredit them. He calls us to have a sense of responsibility for our brothers and sisters; when we don’t, there is chaos and hopelessness:
[BIBLEDRB]Genesis 4:9[/BIBLEDRB]
All of humanity is a community. We were designed to live in a blissful community in Heaven forever. But our first parents, even, rejected that. The abuse of being together in bliss together results in us falling down together. God is calling us to stand back up together, each and every day; to stop hating each other, and start loving each other; to be at peace with ourselves, and be at peace with others; to serve God as we ought to, for the sake of our happiness. God demands that we do his will, because he demands that we be ultimately happy. That is love.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

If I am correctly understanding your scenario of God being pure love, I do not see much that is incorrect in your interpretation, nor do I see anything that contradicts what I have already said. Maybe I am reading it wrong? If not, then yes our biggest fear should be the moment we realize all of the instances in our lives where we have let God down.

My point was to illustrate the likeliest result of encountering a god of love by surprise. Might not such a god find the concept of Hell to be inconceivable?

As someone stated earlier on this thread, and I am paraphrasing, no one ever went to Hell kicking and screaming, believing that some big mistake had been made in their judgement.

But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.
Luke 12:4-6

Why would one fear a being who merely provides according to one’s wishes?

As for you alternate point, we believe that God IS indeed pure love, so this scenario is not applicable.

OK.

 

[Anthony_V]

Will not a thirsty horse drink? Will not one given the spur, run?

That’s precisely the problem! Humanity is so thirsty for God, but they’re trying to fulfill themselves with all the wrong things. God is saying, “look! I will complete you! I will make you happy!”, but we insist on drugs, alcohol, sex, money, hatred, and other sensible goods. Anything that is gratifying is acceptable to the lower appetites, even when it is disordered, because we are designed to be filled with a supernatural goodness. We spend so much time preoccupying ourselves with trying to fill our life with “stuff”, that we ignore God. And then we get depressed because its not working, and its not enough. So we either realize that we need God, or we try to fill our lives with “stuff” again.

The elevation to which I was referring was that of synchronicity with God’s perception of time.

If you mean to ask how God is synchronized with time, I really don’t know. It’s more a speculated topic, and thus not my forte.

Does this paint an image of a true friendship? Is it not more that of a lenient master and his slaves?

A lenient master and his slaves would be if Adam and Eve were not given the option to sin. They would be puppets. A true friendship is by choice, and can be broken.

How might one also consider the intelligence of Adam and Eve? Were they above or below average? Might not their particular test have been passable by a later generation?

They were filled with knowledge, wisdom, understanding, etc. to the greatest extent that human nature can contain.

Was Jesus then “afraid” of his audience? Was his audience afraid of him? If neither, how does this give an example of an individual who fears his friend?

When we are not in a friendship with God, we are slaves to our mortal sins. When we have been freed from our mortal sins, we are in a friendship with God, (and thus in a state of grace).

 

[Jelrak_TB]

By their consent, to save them.

Which fetal alcohol child was ever able to give such a consent?

No, actually not. Heaven is supernatural end that is proper to us, as humans. Earthly life is not. Catholics believe in a doctrine called “resurrection of the body”. Perhaps you ought to look into that.

There are many answers and theories on the relationship between the body and spirit. If you are interested, here’s an article that you can take a look at to give you some fundamentals of the subject.

This was quite interesting, in spite of its failure to explain the relationship between the spirit and its experience of time–aside from demonstrating that none have yet resolved it.

Here’s a link that will get you started on your question. Scroll down to the bottom of the page to the subtitle of “Universal and cosmic eschatology”. Above that Subtitle is a section on Hell. That might also clear some things up. When you’re ready to ask more questions, feel free to do so.

Correct.

If correct, then would not another interpretation of this statement read: “The reason that a soul might remain in an eternal hell without possibility of escape is because God wills it to be so”?

I think I understand what you’re getting at. This is due to the propriety of the human nature towards supernatural bliss, and not reconciliation so much. So when we are out of God’s friendship, we are like a fish out of water. The natural effect, for the fish due to his nature, is to die. Now, this death is not due to the nature being unchanged, but because land is not proper to the fish! Consequence is natural to freedom. If it wasn’t, then there wouldn’t be such a thing as freedom. Consider this:
There are two doors. One is labeled “A”, and the other is labeled “B”.
Now, it is proper to our free nature to be able to step through one of those doors by our own consent, is it not? If we wanted to step through door “B”, but before we could, God transformed us into a frog such that we wouldn’t have free will anymore, what a deceptive liar God would be! There would appear to be a choice, but really our only option would be door “A”. Furthermore, if God did indeed turn us into frogs before we could assume our choice, it would be scandalous against our image of God in freedom! Our free will can’t be taken away! We can submit, which is to give our free will away, but it cannot be taken by force; otherwise, he’s not benevolent!

My question could actually be simplified to: “Why is something that is evil and committed by evildoers on Earth equally committed by a loving deity after death?”

But if one considers the above analogies fairly, might one not interject an additional insight? In the case of the fish, is it not strange that the fish is drawn to seek the shore–perhaps even against all logic or tender desire? Equally, in the case of the two doors, is not mankind drawn towards one by nature?

Additionally, is it not deceptive to consider that those who are drawn to the fulfilling of natural appetites are lured towards the second door with promises of said fulfillment, only to be denied more of same once an entry is effected?

In other words, if an unwillingness to resist the lure of too much chocolate cake is what ultimately sent a soul to Hell, why is there not there to be found chocolate cake as advertised? Would one who desired chocolate cake truly find the fires of Hell to be an adequate supplement? Would they not feel cheated?

Who could be said to have chosen Hell if all they were actually choosing was chocolate cake?

 

[Hypnotoad]

If perfect knowledge of our punishment was the only thing needed to stop sin then I wonder how one would explain repeat offenders?

 

[Anthony_V]

Then might not my original analogy of the 3-year-old child remain acceptable?

For practical purposes, yes. For analytic purposes, no.

If God almighty were to knock at a door, how might one explain it being possible to ignore?

By not opening it, and then becoming accustom the knocking, as if it were nothing.

If Jesus is suffering regarding the souls in Hell, is he miserable in Heaven? Is God ignorant of his son’s discomfort?

I said “Christ” in specific so as to emphasize the point that Christ was incarnate, and suffered. While God is three persons, he is one essence–one substance. They relate to each other in an incredibly intimate fashion.

If we do not understand it–and will never understand it even in death–is it unimportant? If not unimportant, why might a loving creator wishing for an intimate relationship with mankind fail to make an effort to explain it? How might a spouse love her husband if he fails to explain much of his mind and heart to her, but merely soothes her with surface gestures?

I don’t remember saying that we wouldn’t ever understand more of it. If I have, please pardon my error. While we will never understand all of it, we will continually understand and appreciate this inexhaustible source of awe and wonder more and more in the beatific vision.

If damnation is not a necessity, is any explanation as to the reasonableness of its purported reality truly good enough to juxtapose with the concept of it having its source in a being of infinite love? Must not one or the other concept necessarily fail?

We’re seeing past each other. Damnation is not necessary in the sense that one does not have to enter into “door B” for it to exist. If one is to walk through door B, however, then damnation of the individual is necessary. I’ll try and put this in another way.
It is not necessary that any given soul in all history should merit damnation of his own accord for Hell to truly be an option. If a soul were to merit Hell, though, then Hell is the only option.

Does God care nothing for these Protestant sects? Why is no clarifying Spirit extended to them long enough for them to understand their errors?

All in good time.

If a farmer claimed to have given sufficient grain to have nourished all of his hens, yet an inspection of their coop discovered several in advance starvation, might one either conclude that the farmer had miscalculated in his portions, or consider that it might be incumbent upon him to discover an alternate form of sustenance for those unwilling to eat grain?

You are quick to assume that there is goodness other than God. If there were many gods, then your story would be sound. But since there is only one source of goodness, and one source of benevolence, there is only grain to eat.

Alternately, what mother might continue to daily heap mashed peas on the plate of an infant who has consistently determined that he/she would rather “wear them than eat them”?

If mashed potatoes are the only food, then there wouldn’t be much of an option.

And yet is it not telling that no dogs are offered an eternal reward?
Did God not also take great pains to infest most of them with fleas?

And in the beginning, God made the flea collar

If God might have favorites (for any reason), might he not also have least favorites? If least favorites, might he not also have those he dislikes outright (such as Pharaoh or some of the pharisees)?
If one whom God has favored might yet fall from Heaven, what hope might exist for one whom God might barely tolerate?

Again, God is objective, not subjective.

Alternately, how certain might one be that God does not actively suppress those whom he dislikes so that they may not attain Heaven?

There isn’t a matter of “dislike”. Again, there is sufficient, and then abundance. So, it would be more a matter of “like”, and “really like”. Because he’s objective, “like” would still mean “like” even alongside “really like”. It wouldn’t be as if “really like” is the new “like”. If that, like, makes sense, man.

 

[Anthony_V]

Which fetal alcohol child was ever able to give such a consent?

I don’t follow.

This was quite interesting, in spite of its failure to explain the relationship between the spirit and its experience of time–aside from demonstrating that none have yet resolved it.

My apologies That’s a question for someone who’s smarter than me.

If correct, then would not another interpretation of this statement read: “The reason that a soul might remain in an eternal hell without possibility of escape is because God wills it to be so”?

Yes and no. In the sense of “it beats the alternative of being damned in heaven”, then yes. In the sense of “God, who has an eternal will, has eternally damned a person to hell before all time,” then no.

My question could actually be simplified to: “Why is something that is evil and committed by evildoers on Earth equally committed by a loving deity after death?”

The consequence of hell is a side-effect of the design of our nature-- to only be truly happy with God.

But if one considers the above analogies fairly, might one not interject an additional insight? In the case of the fish, is it not strange that the fish is drawn to seek the shore–perhaps even against all logic or tender desire? Equally, in the case of the two doors, is not mankind drawn towards one by nature?

I would say both, equally, but for different reasons. The higher appetites would be drawn to door A, while the lower to door B. It seems, from a social aspect, that the tendency towards one or the either is also dependent on how acceptable the Church or its teachings are. That is to say, if God is calling person A to deliver the message of holiness by example to person B, but fails to do so, then person B suffers on behalf of person A, inasmuch as person A suffers. This is not to say that the tendencies of person B are steeply inclined towards disordered conduct by nature. We live in a modern society that focuses a lot on the lower appetites. So we are more prone to door B, unfortunately.

Additionally, is it not deceptive to consider that those who are drawn to the fulfilling of natural appetites are lured towards the second door with promises of said fulfillment, only to be denied more of same once an entry is effected?

Properly, yes. This is the reason many turn to serving God and others rather than themselves. They understand, by their nature, that they are designed for greater things.

In other words, if an unwillingness to resist the lure of too much chocolate cake is what ultimately sent a soul to Hell, why is there not there to be found chocolate cake as advertised? Would one who desired chocolate cake truly find the fires of Hell to be an adequate supplement? Would they not feel cheated?
Who could be said to have chosen Hell if all they were actually choosing was chocolate cake?

Pretend chocolate cake is autonomy. That’s all we’ve ever wanted! To make ourselves experience pleasure and gratification on command! Right?
The reality of eating chocolate cake for the rest of eternity comes as bitter to most. Especially when you realize at judgment that it doesn’t make you happy; when you realize what you forfeited was happiness, and now your just stuck with chocolate cake (which you only liked because you thought it made you happy).

 

[sw85]

But its not silly to think of himself creating something that has unfairness, pain, and cruelty? Why not stick to perfection?

No, it’s not. Imperfection is a necessary feature of creation. Perfect creation is a non sequitur – that which is perfect is God, who is uncreated.

Sure. Buy why not “un-actualize” the worst evils, such as the completely unnecessary terrible diseases that kill children? What possible reasons could he have for not doing so?

Why do it? Nothing in His nature requires it, and it’s at least conceivable that evil produces greater good. Some worldly goods, after all, such as charity, self-sacrifice, and patience, presuppose evil.

It is only false if the ways to reconcile the two are convincing. They are to you but not to me.

Doesn’t matter. It is possible to reconcile them. I have demonstrated that. Therefore, it must not be the case that there is no possible way to reconcile the fact of God’s existence with the fact of evil in the world.

You can say, at best, “I’m not aware of any way to reconcile them.” But from your own viewpoint, that is just as likely to be evidence of a deficiency in understanding or imagination on your part as it is to be evidence that the two are irreconcilable. In fact you have no reason or manner for choosing between either conclusion.

Once again, I can understand that to create something independent of himself, perhaps that allows for evil. But why cruel and unfair evil, as is much the case with so many of the world’s evils? Why run the universe with things like terrible diseases that hit random people, including children? Until you can answer that question, your theoretical reconciling ideas don’t hold much weight in my eyes.

Who cares why? There must logically be answer because God’s existence is incontrovertible. Our inability to answer it can only be a failure of understanding on our part. Which stands to reason, since we see as through a mirror, darkly.

And lets not forget the topic of this thread. At least a child suffering a terrible disease only experiences that disease for a finite time. With hell, you have a “perfectly good” being creating the ultimate evil, an eternity of suffering for even just one, let alone many souls. To me that is the very definition of the opposite of something an infinitely good force or being would do.

Suffering, even eternal suffering, is emphatically not the ultimate evil according to natural law ethics, according to which evil is convertible with imperfection or nonbeing. Pure evil would therefore be pure nonbeing – i.e., total destruction, i.e., annihilationism.

There are in fact instances in which it would be evil not to inflict suffering. For instance, in order to instill my child with respect for my authority (which after all I exercise for his own good), it might occasionally be necessary for me to swat his hand or bottom.

Suffering is only the ultimate evil according to utilitarian ethics. But utilitarianism is flatly incompatible with Catholicism. If you’re going to approach the issue begging the question against Catholicism, you’re naturally going to arrive at unsatisfactory answers.

I don’t follow. What exactly makes goodness and being convertible, and what exactly do you mean by convertible?

Again, I don’t have time or patience in summarizing several millennia of natural theology. Check out the Feser books I mentioned previously (especially “Aquinas”); he does a better job than I could hope to do, anyway.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I don’t think I said we are unable to visualize infinities. We can visualize it. The point I was making is we cannot fully comprehend it because we have a limited understanding of it.

OK.

You don’t mean to tell me you took the comment I made seriously? Where’s you’re sense of humor?

No, but I was curious just the same.

They do. I think you know that’s not the point I was making.

Ah, but is it my job to let you off lightly?

To be honest, I don’t really know what your getting at here. You need to be a bit more specific for me to offer a response.

My question is related to why one might imagine God to have merely been incorrectly described during Old Testament times when Jesus (as well as the Holy Spirit) seemingly avoided any opportunity to clarify these alleged errors.

I’m not going to answer this and I’ll explain why. Everything you have written in relation to scripture to me, is in accordance with not only a Protestant understanding of scripture, but perhaps a fundamentalist one. I cannot answer questions in accordance with how someone else understands and interprets scripture. It would wrong of me to try to explain what someone else believes. Those who interpret scripture a certain way and have a different understanding of ‘inspiration’ are better placed to respond to challenges to that concept than someone who doesn’t share it.

I would politely suggest if your going to discuss scripture with a Catholic, you need a better understanding of how Catholics read and interpret scripture, (and their is a degree of diversity among Catholics) and their understanding of the term ‘inspiration.’ You will never be able to discuss scripture with a Catholic until such times as you understand not all Catholics have a fundamentalist take on scripture. The question you have asked here is one for someone who has a fundamentalist understanding of scripture. I don’t so I can’t answer you.

Might I quietly suggest that the best means of understanding scripture from a Catholic point of view might be to discuss it with one?

To clarify my original point, I was referring to:

1 Kings 22:23
23 “So now the LORD has put a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you.”

If this is not understood literally, what might be its metaphoric meaning?

Assuming they are.

Yes, the potter is responsible for the clay because clay does have the capacity to think for itself. Humans do. What I used was an illustration. It was not my intention it should be taken literally. The whole point of the passage of scripture I used was that God did not withhold water. This passage of scripture states the clay cannot say to the potter why dis you make me this way? The point being, the clay has chosen not to become a work of art because that is what it wants, and not because God has given the clay no choice other than to become anything else other than an unmalleable lump. The ‘clay’ (human not inanimate material) did not want the water on offer. God does not blame the ‘clay’ for what it is not responsible for. That would be unjust. Blaming the clay for what it is responsible for is not unjust. If the ‘clay’ does not want the water that is on offer, the clay is responsible for the fact it becomes an unmalleable lump.

OK. I apologize for interpreting it differently.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Again, I would say Catholics do not believe in Calvin’s concept of predestination. To me, that is what you are eluding to here. It would be wrong of me as a Catholic to attempt to explain Calvin’s concept of predestination. You need to take this up with someone who believes that.

What would be the Catholic perspective? That God is not omniscient, that God does not answer prayers, or both?

However, would a loving parent control their child’s every move? Imagine a parent with superpowers. What if that parent used their superpowers to make sure their child never made a bad decision, or did anything to cause anyone else pain?

This is a fair dilemma. Might such a parent refrain from involvement save in moments of dire peril? Consider, if a parent did have such powers and yet failed to save their child from permanent destruction could such a parent be called loving?

It’s funny you mention a train. I can tell you of a real life scenario. A military commander was faced with a choice. I believe his son was trying to repair a railway bridge. I can’t remember the exact circumstances not. However, the military commander had a choice. Allow the train to proceed along the bridge which would result in the death of his son, or halt the train and cause the death of hundreds of people on the train? Now, this is not a story it actually happened. What do you think the military commander decided? What would you have decided? Would you have found the choice an easy one to make?

youtube.com/watch?v=pgnZL7UNwAI

I once asked 12 -13 year old pupils a question in school. Imagine I was a teacher with superpowers. Imagine I used those powers to make sure all pupils were in school on time, had their homework done, were quiet in class, listened to everything I said, and completed classwork well and on time because I wanted them to get the best from their education. You would have to say my motive is a good one. However, I asked the class what sort of teacher I would be? What do you think their reply was?

I had to laugh as I visualized one of my former teachers showing up on my doorstep in superman garb warning me that I was about to arrive late for one of my finals. Thank you for that.

My only response to your analogy, which is a good one, is that if you did indeed have such powers and you failed to apply them to a specific student who would, as a result of scholastic failure, ultimately turn to a life of crime and self-destruction, would you be vindicated in your neutrality?