Explain the justice of hell.

[Anthony_V]

If God does not make imperfect creations, does he at the least assist in them from time to time? Or is it your view that a child born with fetal alcohol syndrome is perfect?

Yes to the first question. Our tendency to sin is a result of the fall. God graced Adam and Eve with the gifts of integrity (lack of tendency to sin), impassibility (lack of ability to experience pain), infused knowledge (lack of ignorance), and immortality (lack of physical tendency to decay). The second question is a bit of a non-sequitur. You are trying to assume that a world of death and decay is natural. This is not the case. The passions and tendencies that God gives us are neutral. God gives each and every one of us a tendency to seek goods. Does this mean that the tendency is bad, because we become materialistic when we abuse it? God gives us the tendency to love our sexuality. Does this mean that the tendency is bad, because we become empty when we abuse it? No! The passions that God gives us are meant to be used in order with the intention they were created for. Things are meant to be used as expressions of generosity towards another as gifts, and enriching our understanding of Genesis:
[BIBLEDRB]Genesis 1:10-12[/BIBLEDRB]

Have you known many who have ardently refused to change their mind on all things for the duration of their life? Would it be inconceivable for them to wish to change their mind over a period of a thousand years? Over a period of a million? If they will never change their minds, what type of existence are they maintaining and is it merciful to allow them to remain in that state?

They are maintaining an existence that is proper to their nature. Throughout our life, we are developing a disposition in our spirit to act in infinity. When we die, those dispositions and tendencies, as with our spirit, enter into eternity. It is not proper that the spirit exists in time as the body does. These dispositions are the fruits of our life on earth. If we are disposed to not love God into eternity, then we have merited hell for sake of the least sorrowful experience.

If no other souls are met until the Parousia, are the dead in a state of suspended animation so that the gap in time appears seamless? Or are they instead in a type of solitary confinement?

From what I gather, it’s the completion of intimacy with God. So, if that is the case, then the soul would be in an unphased gaze of bliss into the eyes of God until said parousia. The speculation on the relativity between eternity and time here becomes quite mind twisting. There aren’t many things we could say for sure.

If they have received all knowledge that will be available, do they become like God in their knowledge or does he keep certain aspects back that they will never attain?

The lack of ignorance is the lack of resistance to whatever knowledge and wisdom God wishes to give you. So, it is essentially up to God, yes.

If all knowledge is infused at once, do they maintain much of their former selves, which one might expect would be greatly diminished in a vast tidal wave of near infinite knowledge?

Infused knowledge is a lack of ignorance to what God wishes you to know. That decision of what he wants you to know is certainly up to him.

If not, how would they differ materially one from another? If not, would not such a knowledge infusion benefit the souls in Hell so that they might join the common order of things?
Alternately, if they retain individuality, would it not be a greatly altered self than the one prior to the knowledge infusion? If so, might this not also serve as a remedy to those souls suffering in Hell?

This has been speculated upon since the beginning of Christendom itself. It really depends on the theologian you ask. Since its not a necessity, I don’t have a specific stance on it. I’m more of a “it is what it is” kind of guy. I’ll leave sensationalism to whomever is interested

If a patriotic security agent is captured by enemies on Earth, how long might he be expected to resist the demand to divulge state secrets should he experience severe torture? If the maximum time possible is suggested to reside within the scope of weeks, why might any longer duration in Hell be required for an equal change of opinion?

Additionally, why is it only one’s enemies on Earth that might be expected to inflict torment while after death it is committed on behalf of mankind’s alleged best friend possible?

See above to the question of “have you known many who have ardently refused…”. If that doesn’t answer your question, then you’ll have to restate what you are trying to understand.

Peace, Love, and Joy,
Anthony

 

[Anthony_V]

So God’s narcissism is good while ours is bad?

Right. The denotation is bad, obviously, because we use it in context with humans, or entities with human like natures.

But is it true there is no limit to the number of times God will forgive a sinner?

Strictly speaking, yes. In all practicality, no. I understand what you are saying, however, and it is a very astute observation. The problem with us not having infinite chances to be reconciled to God (in practicality) would lie on our inherit loss of physical immortality by original sin.

Is it a fear derived from love or a fear derived from self-preservation?

I should clarify-- a fear derived from God’s love of them.

Was not your earlier position that those in Hell had never truly loved God? My original question was to wonder how a god of love might cast an individual into Hell who had at one time loved him and then later grown colder: was God not partially responsible for the outcome by choosing the time at which to claim the soul of the former lover?

I do believe I have erred on that latter position. Allow me to correct myself:

No. -]Was the love truly love if they fell away from it?/-] [God’s] love doesn’t fail. People do. At their judgment, they will have no love to claim. We can only love God with his son’s sacred heart (love of God is naturally reserved to the trinity). If we do not possess such grace, then how are we to love God?

I got myself twisted up in the eternal nature of beatific vision vs. the temporal nature of perfect contrition. How embarrassing! If you need me to clarify further, I should do so willingly out of recompense!

Is it then better for one to hope not to believe the Church in response to questions? Or is it better to hope to believe? If both outcomes might lead the one to Heaven, are not those who believe at a grave disadvantage considering their daily struggles against sin versus one who does not believe and therefore potentially entertains no such struggles?

In practicality, every person knows about certain aspects if they have gravely sinned. For instance, murder, rape, violence, malice, offenses against those who are innocent etc. If you are not reconciled to God through the Church, then you are betting your chances on a true contrition. If you find the Church, then you have a surefire chance to be reconciled to God through his Church. Furthermore, we are all called to a life of holiness starting here and now, so as to be united with God into eternity. If you never know Christ through the Church, then how much longer will purgatory be than a person who strives each and every day to grow in holiness? Our souls could be compared to a water balloon. When we are in a state of sanctifying grace with God, our water balloon is filled up to its prior capacity. The more grace you receive, the bigger that balloon gets. If you mortally sin, all the water it let out, and you must be reconciled to God again to fill the balloon again (as you were before you mortally sinned). This balloon will only expand as much as you accept God’s grace. The souls in Heaven, who received the sacraments extremely often will have a bigger capacity for God’s grace than those who were saved by ignorance. Their reward in heaven will be greater than those who were saved merely by ignorance. Furthermore, someone who is receiving the sacraments and is being exposed to the reality of our call to holiness will not be as prone to gravely sin as someone who is ignorant.

If a man does not feel God’s presence, and by extension does not feel his love, is he expected to feel anything positive towards such a disconnected god?

The disconnect is on our own part, not on God’s. Certainly, we feel that longing for a greater good each moment of our misery due to the disconnect between our lower and upper appetites. There are several ways you could approach your question. I’ll try a few of the many:
A) We don’t feel God’s embrace as often as he is embracing us due to the disconnect between our lower and upper appetites. That is to say, we only feel this embrace when our lower appetites (which basically have a mind of their own) happen to feel the same way about a greater goodness that our upper appetites do.
B) We don’t feel God’s embrace due to our sin, which results in a subconscious disposition to search for sin to achieve what we are deceived to think is happiness.
C) We don’t feel God’s embrace due to the sin of our neighbors, who create an atmosphere that moves our lower appetites to want sin, in hope that we might be happy, while our upper appetites want God, so that we might be happy.
D) We don’t feel the entirety of God’s embrace due to the distance of virtue between us and him. When there is a spiritual chasm between two people, there is not an absolute spiritual intimacy.

 

[jmvizanko]

But this is necessarily God, so whatever God chooses to create must, of necessity, be imperfect – which is convertible with evil. Otherwise, he’d just be creating more of Himself, which is a silly thing to think.

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

Or we can say (and I think this is ultimately correct) that God being “all-good” does not require that He actualize every possible good.

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?

And bear in mind that the problem of evil depends for its rhetorical force on the claim that there is no possible way to reconcile the fact of evil with the existence of God. It suffices to show that this argument is false simply by demonstrating that there are ways to reconcile the two, even if we have no way of knowing (and this side of the grave, I don’t believe we do) which one is correct.

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

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.

The very, very reductive version is that goodness and being are convertible. God is pure being. Therefore, God is pure goodness.

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

 

[Christine85]

This is a hard topic to discuss as its quite a grey area I believe. In my class Ecclesiology and Ecumenism at my Theology College, I learnt that the Catholic Church believes that the Kingdom of God does not necessarily have to be within the Church. My understanding of this was that the point was some people who do not profess to believe in God , may in fact be living their lives in a Christ like manner unknowingly, therefore ,in the end Christ will be the judge. I dont think the Church is as harsh as what some make it out to be as it does not condemn people to hell if they are not Catholic.

My opinion on hell is , that if you have lived a horrid life, hurt people, loved yourself more than others and live with a strong sense of self pride and have a violent and aggressive attitude, then , basically you reap what you sow. That’s truly the point here, you reap what you sow, as it says in the Bible.

If you spend your whole life doing horrible things, (I think I have provided a small example of these things above, though in the end , really, who am I to judge), and live in darkness, then when you die how do you think the state of your soul would be? You werent happy/living in love on earth so why would you expect to be that way when you die?

Basically, God is love, he understands so much to an extent that we can never fathom. I truly believe in the gift of faith, and I suppose I choose to believe that there is a God, to be quite honest , because I saw for myself that living without God was not the life I wanted to live. In the end I chose to humble myself and work at choosing God over myself.

Peace be with you. You are in my prayers +++

 

[Searcher360]

One factor conspicuously missing from these discussions is the mental state and capability of humans in general. How does one determine true rejection of God from mental illness, a mere difference in brain wiring or chemical issues more medical than anything else. Some people are born happy, others profoundly retarded. Some are capable of deep thoughts, while others lucky to walk and talk at the same time.

What would have been viewed as possession by the devil, a rather quaint and superstitious concept to me, is now regarded as mental illness. In other words, I see some here judging others and assuming God will likewise judge them, but nowhere do I see any accounting for the likelihood that some (many? most?) people just don’t have the mental horsepower to engage in the deep and pondered rejection of God many here seem to assume is a common occurrence. Across the world many people are only thinking of survival.

I see a lot of armchair quarterbacking, to use a simplistic phrase by those eager to prove how much they know, but not much recognition of what many scientists & philosophers alike view as innate nature & biology. Like it or not, we are in effect intelligent animals with hard wired needs for food, shelter and reproduction. I’d like to see posters here address the undeniable fact that what many here view as sin is, to me, the result of genetics and hard wired behavior. Discuss?

 

[dedo]

I don’t understand Hell, just as there are many things I don’t understand.

From what I have read, Hell likely exists and it is not a place you want to go to. Thus, it is a good idea to make every effort not to go there.

For me, that means seek God and work to obey Him. In the seeking, you have the opportunity to learn about God.

What I have learned so far, is that God is good. Why a good God would create a Hell, I don’t know. My limited understanding only comes from the Bible, and from analogies.

By analogy, I mean in this world we know that there are people (criminals, abusive, manipulative, etc.) that you would not allow in your home because such people would harm your family. That is the understanding that comes closest for me. Before the fall of the angels, the bad angels were in Heaven, and they tried to wreck the place.

The Grace of God is such that even if you now are the type of person who would “wreck the place”, He will redeem you and change you into something better–if you will allow yourself to be changed. Everything that I have learned from my search for God has helped me in this regard, although I still have a long way to go.

Father Barron’s description does not work that well for me because he describes the person who goes to Hell as someone who won’t “join the party”. Well I don’t go to many parties, so that analogy doesn’t work for me.

 

[minkymurph]

Why, in your opinion, would God proclaim something with finality when he is by nature an infinite being? Why would an entity without beginning or end have finite desires?

Finite and eternal are two different things. ‘Finite’ is a human expression. We often use human terms to explain what is not human because of our limited language. We human like certainty and like finite answers to questions because that is how we think. We don’t think in terms of eternal, or a better word may be ‘unending’ because of our human understanding that everything has a beginning and an end. As human, we cannot really comprehend eternity. To illustrate, we accept space has no end - but can we really comprehend something without an end? Can we really get our heads around what it means physically? Not really, because everything we know has a beginning and an end. In addition, God does not have desires in a human sense because God is not human. Therefore, God does not think in human terms and does not apply human reasoning to situations.

Is it possible to imagine a person who fits this description? Is it possible to imagine a person who enjoys the pleasures of this world who would at the same time reject Heaven in favor of torment over an ideological difference of opinion with God? If one might imagine such a necessarily strange individual, would such a one necessarily be evil throughout?

A person who rejects God has no desire to be with Him eternally. That desire is eternal and not something they think at a certain point in time in their life for an infinite number of reasons. I don’t think anyone would be sent to hell for a difference of opinion with God. Do we not all have differences of opinion with God at many points in time throughout our lives?
A difference of opinion is not necessarily rejection. In addition, is the person rejecting God Himself, or the image of God others have created? We are all a little guilty of creating God in our own image, presuming to know what He thinks, wants and desires, and what He is like. We create a God that we want, one that meets with our approval and will do what we think is right which may not be who God is at all. Would such a person be necessarily evil throughout? That is something only God can know. The strange thing about human nature is there are people who are capable of evil acts with an evil intention, yet at the same time are capable of great good with a good intention.

It is certainly strange to imagine a person who would believes God exists, that He is goodness and love yet rejects Him. What we have been told is it can happen. As James says in his epistle, ‘So you believe in God do you? The ‘demons’ believe and shudder.’ I’m not going to into a debate as to whether the devil is a actual person and all that. The point I would take from it is real person or an illustrative character of evil, God’s opposite, Satan knew Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God yet rejected him.

Is one able to imagine a person who loves her family, but dislikes God?

Depends what you mean by ‘dislikes God.’ Why do they 'dislike God? Do they dislike the image of God that has been created, or God Himself? Can you dislike something you do not believe exists? Alternatively, it is possible to love many things and not God.

Our family are people we live with and know intimately. We engage with them and have a willingness to love them because they are our family irrespective of their faults and failings. One cannot know God unless one has a desire to engage Him and enter into a relationship with Him. If someone throughout their lives has no desire to enter into a relationship with God or engage him, that may be rejection. However only God can know.

Is it not true to say there are times when we don’t love our family? Does this mean we reject them? At a certain point in time when our relationship with them is not good, perhaps. It is fair to say the same follows with God because relationships are hard work.
Like I said, salvation is not about timing.

Also, given Jesus’ suggestions that those who merit Hell are in the majority, is it possible to imagine any large percentage of people in one’s own circle of acquaintances who would be willing to take such a principled stance of hatred that they would prefer to burn eternally rather than to admit defeat on such an important front?

Did Jesus suggest those who merit Hell are in the majority? Do they literally burn? These things depend on your point of view and interpretation of scripture.

Is damnation something one might claim a right to instead? Is it possible to change one’s mind in Hell so as to be allowed re-entrance into Heaven? If not, why would a loving father ensure that Hell’s population would necessarily increase over time while Heaven’s depletes? Might it not at some point in the future of infinity be then possible that Hell might contain more denizens who long to be with God than those who wish to actually remain with him in Heaven?

I don’t think damnation is a ‘right.’ I don’t God adheres to the ECHR or the American Constitution.

Someone who is in hell is someone who God knows will not change their mind. In my view, if they would change their mind they would not be there, they would be in purgatory.

If timing is not relevant, why might Jesus have called all to repentance?

Because from a Catholic perspective, repentance is ongoing. We do not believe in repentance as a one off act that covers sins for all time.

 

[jmvizanko]

My opinion on hell is , that if you have lived a horrid life, hurt people, loved yourself more than others and live with a strong sense of self pride and have a violent and aggressive attitude, then , basically you reap what you sow. That’s truly the point here, you reap what you sow, as it says in the Bible.

If you spend your whole life doing horrible things, (I think I have provided a small example of these things above, though in the end , really, who am I to judge), and live in darkness, then when you die how do you think the state of your soul would be? You werent happy/living in love on earth so why would you expect to be that way when you die?

Well you won’t hear an argument from me over works deserving punishment or reward depending on what they are. But no punishment should be eternal. And I hope I’m wrong when I get the slight impression that maybe you think that most unbelievers fall into this grouping of terrible people substantially more than believers. I’m not assuming that’s what your getting at, but then, I’m surprised at how many people just assume, like they’ve never met one, that atheists are terrible people.

Basically, God is love, he understands so much to an extent that we can never fathom.

Well once its beyond our ability to fathom, you either have faith that god has his reasons or you think a lack of reasons makes that god’s existence less likely, at least on a topic like this. I’m in the latter camp.

I truly believe in the gift of faith, and I suppose I choose to believe that there is a God, to be quite honest , because I saw for myself that living without God was not the life I wanted to live.

So you were an unbeliever who decided that god exists because you need him? Or were you a believer in some sort of rebellious stage for a while?

In the end I chose to humble myself and work at choosing God over myself.

Well I for one am not an unbeliever because I prefer myself to some higher power. I just think that higher power most likely isn’t there.

 

[steve_b]

How often does a loving parent, whose child is ailing, allow the child to decide if he/she should take the medicine that will allow a cure? If the child is ailing, is he/she in any position to think reasonably about the outcome of his/her refusal?

So is it correct to surmise that God loves the souls in Hell, but does nothing to ease their suffering because he also loves their ability to choose more than he appreciates their discomfort? Or does he fully appreciate their discomfort, but merely chooses to feel bad about it instead of taking meaningful action?

If God does not love as we do, how is our love of him supposed to be meaningful? If God does not share any of the spectrum of emotions as we do, what type of relationship is possible? Is a man able to have a meaningful relationship with a scorpion?

All of this suggests limits. Is God restricted by these limits voluntarily or are they set against his will? If against his will, how is this possible? If voluntarily, why are they useful for explaining why a loving creator cannot do something positive instead of negative?

Is my understanding correct to interpret this answer as: God chooses to do nothing after a soul’s death to provide a greater scope of salvation, therefore God is unable to do anything about the suffering of souls in Hell aside from loving them without purpose or effect?

I concede that that is something which interests me greatly. If a being is proclaimed to have infinite love and compassion, how does one explain the sudden and seemingly arbitrary limits on these attributes?

Matthew 5: 43 - 48

"You have heard that it was said, `You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?

And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?

You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

This is how God loves and wants us to imitate this love ourselves. Since we are made in His image and likeness, He’s already wired us to be predisposed naturally to want to be with Him. Not to mention His great sacrifice for our benefit. Therefore, If one spends this life going away from God, ungrateful for what has been done for them, why should that person be surpriseed their fate for all eternity is not only seperation from God but from any perk even the slightest perk. God eternalizes the direction that person was going in. God didn’t force that direction. The person chose that.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

@Jelrak TB,

After seeing your questions I have come to the conclusion that we are going to make very little headway in understanding the justice of Hell until you understand the nature of sin. I say this because it is difficult to explain the justice of Hell when you view sin as littering and Hell as the death penalty. With that said I’m going to provide you with some links in the hopes that you will read them.

Did I cause so much offense as to merit this much reading?

newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm

The essence I have derived from this article is that God punishes infinitely because an offense against him is an infinite offense due to his existing as a being of infinite stature. In other words, because God is powerful, an offense against him is counted as very, very important much like we humans might consider an offense against a king to count more than an offense against a poor peasant.

Might one ask why such a thing might be considered rational? In the instance of mankind, is not an offense against a king counted more severely because the king has more power to wield in retribution? Also, is not a king a greater target because of his stature and therefore a greater disincentive for harming him must be established?

In the case of God, since none may harm him either materially, spiritually, or emotionally, how is his response one of justice rather than merely suggestive of a being that might hold an infinite grudge? In other words, if one is perfectly immune to a given attack (such as being threatened with a water pistol) why would one expect a completely fanatical response from a being comprised of love?

catholic-pages.com/morality/sin.asp

This article gives a good explanation of sins and their degrees, but fails to explain the key point that it seemingly takes for granted: that one might lose sensitivity to the gravity of sin through its repetition or through mis-education does not suggest that a sense of right and wrong is divinely imprinted in the being of the transgressor since it is subject to change. If one is able to lose sensitivity to such an allegedly vital moral barometer, what would be its purpose in existing? Those resistant to sin would hardly require it, and those too deep in sin to notice seemingly cannot make use of it to effect a recovery.

Is it not much like providing a teacher who never knows more than the students?

newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

This article, which emphasizes the necessity of God “avenging” sin, seemingly departs from the view of a loving God and replaces it with an image of a middle-eastern type of being committed retribution for the sake of honor.

Is not the concept of considering God the greatest, wisest, most loving, and most perfect of beings while at the same time suggesting he is unable to rise above petty jealousies a seemingly strong contradiction?

If simple annihilation of evildoers is not good enough, as suggested by this article (they must actually be made to suffer), why not? The answer provided suggests only that it is necessary because evil must always be punished, but does this not merely suggest that evil must be treated with evil and good with good? Where are the uplifting insights that evil should be treated with good and good with more good still? How is good to prevail if it is reserved only for the very good?

“The damned are confirmed in evil; every act of their will is evil and inspired by hatred of God.”

This statement lends a best example of the simplistic caricature that is made of a soul purportedly destined for Hell made throughout this article. According to scripture, are not the means of attaining Hell varied and wide in scope? If those who allegedly attain Hell were as described above would not their number be necessarily few? And yet Jesus himself claims that wide is the road to perdition and many are those who follow it–often suggesting that it is even a majority. Who among us has such raw evildoers among the majority of their acquaintances?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm

This article is very interesting, but suggests some very strange possibilities:

1. God might choose to gather to his bosom creatures who will never understand him and to whom he is unable to impart understanding.

→ Would not this one-sided relationship necessarily grow thin from lack of proper communication and understanding? Especially over a period of millions of years without the slightest shred of progress? Also, how is God unable to reach mankind in understanding? Is Jesus too preoccupied to act as liaison?

1. God’s beatific vision gives everyone a feeling of perfect love and harmony.

→ Is Heaven then merely an eternally drugged state in which further progress in intellect and understanding are impossible?

1. None are able to fall away from God or choose to no longer love him so great is the effect of his presence.

→ If this were so, how did the angels first rebel? Also, if the effect of his love were so potent, why would not the souls in Hell have been instantly converted by near proximity? Would not the keeping of them at all possible distance not be the most certain and necessarily purposeful way of keeping them apart and at odds?

3b) Freedom from sin is a direct result of no longer wishing to sin due to God’s presence.

→ Does this not suggest that either free will is lacking in Heaven or else free will is perfectly compatible with a world in which no evil exists (which would stand against all arguments to the contrary that seek to dispel the argument from evil) and does it not also suggest that evil on Earth is as a direct result of God’s purposeful distance from his creation? Does not such a necessity suggest that not only is God the author of evil (much like one carrying a torch that he purposefully covers is responsible for the ensuing darkness), but also that it is his express intention and will for it to exist as it does?

1. There is not the least pain or sadness.

→ In one paragraph we are informed that one of the chief joys of Heaven (aside from the addictive beatific vision) is the reunification of those who had been separated by death, but here we are informed that they are perfectly happy regardless. Are they not then seemingly struck shallow for not missing, or even remarking upon, those souls who are eternally absent (i.e. in Hell)?

Could one imagine a congratulatory conversation of reunification in Heaven that might make only a passing mention of the fact that “mother” was languishing in Hell, lol?

Alternately, which mother in Heaven would not petition God eternally for the release of a child in Hell, regardless of the crimes, thus potentially greatly impacting her happiness?

Inexplicably, is it not claimed that Mary, in her apparitions is often greatly distressed for the souls destined for Hell? Could one imagine her appearing distraught while on Earth, only to return to Heaven in a high-spirited, festive mood? Where is Jesus’ quiet sorrow for the loss of God’s children?

As for the personal questions regarding my relationship with God, I will save them and respond back to them when ready; either by making a new thread or contacting you via PM. Thank you of your time.

Thank you, I look forward to that. I hope you understand my questions regarding your links are genuine and not of a personal nature. I do appreciate your continued efforts.

Regards,

Jelrak TB

 

[jmvizanko]

By analogy, I mean in this world we know that there are people (criminals, abusive, manipulative, etc.) that you would not allow in your home because such people would harm your family. That is the understanding that comes closest for me. Before the fall of the angels, the bad angels were in Heaven, and they tried to wreck the place.

The Grace of God is such that even if you now are the type of person who would “wreck the place”, He will redeem you and change you into something better–if you will allow yourself to be changed. Everything that I have learned from my search for God has helped me in this regard, although I still have a long way to go.

How can you “allow yourself to be changed” if you don’t think that form of change is possible and/or completely made up? And I can understand not wanting to allow criminals and abusive people into your home. But why not allow a decent fellow who just happens to not believe certain things into your house? How does not believing certain things necessarily make someone a bad person?

Father Barron’s description does not work that well for me because he describes the person who goes to Hell as someone who won’t “join the party”. Well I don’t go to many parties, so that analogy doesn’t work for me.

Its an analogy. You don’t have to go to many “parties” (however you seem to be tightly defining the word to mean) to understand it. Father Barron seems to think that atheists are just miserable people that want to remain miserable even though they know the way (being a Christian) to be happy. This is the opposite of the truth. Many atheists are happy, including myself, and we TRULY think the “party” that Father Barron speaks of is imaginary.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

It would be incorrect to assume that every person has the same amount of culpability. “Child” tends to insinuate that we are stupid beings who have very little intellect upon which to build our understanding of God. I find quite the opposite to be true!

But in relation to God might it not be supposed that we are all very “stupid” indeed?

I wouldn’t say he appreciates their discomfort at all! Considering their state of corruption beyond disrepair (from the dignity of the freedom in which they have), he allows them to spend eternity away from him to experience less misery than they do.

Is this to mean that he neither loves them enough to take action, nor does he appreciate their discomfort? How could a being of love be so disconnected from such agonies?

Because we are specially designed to receive his love. How wonderful is that? Though it is not immediately due to us per nature, our nature is designed to seek supernatural goodness. In the Holy Trinity, The Father is the lover, the Son is the beloved, and the Holy Spirit is the love. In Christ’s redemption, we become his brothers and sisters, which in turn makes us out to be sons and daughters of the Father. We are designed to be elevated to be the beloved of the Father in Christ.

Was not your earlier position that God does not love as we do? If not, how is it that we are specifically designed to receive this love for which we have no correlation or understanding? Is not the concept of a loving father, obedient son, and personified loving spirit understandable? Is not the structure of a loving family equally understandable? If so, in what way is God’s loving nature different from ours?

God is indirectly, but voluntarily, restricted by these limits solely for the purpose out of our love for him. Love of God is sharing in his divine life. Figuratively, we become his spouse. He makes sacrifices for us for our well-being. Should he deprive the righteous of heaven due to the evils of their brothers and sisters?

Why would an almighty creator god of love be required to deprive any of Heaven in order to treat differently those destined for Hell? Is it beyond his ability to create two Heavenly orders, for example? If not, is not his solution of Hell solely at his own discretion? If so, what type of personality requires that one’s enemies suffer whilst they, in turn, enjoy great satisfaction and happiness?

This goes in hand with the reason as to why God does not give us an infinite amount of grace. All we know is that he gives us both enough graces, and more than we need on top of that.

If it were true that God provides more grace than is required for the salvation of all, why are not all saved?

It would seem that these “limits” are little more than propriety in regards to a creature’s nature. Why doesn’t God give a dog as much grace as he does a human? Why not a tree as much as a dog? Is God evil because he doesn’t give a dog as much intellect as a human? Or is God justified in giving the dog what is proper to his nature? Is God evil in not giving us infinite graces? Or is he benevolent in giving us more grace than what is proper to us?

Is it fair to assume that God provides more (intellect or grace) to those whom he likes best? If not, why was Satan, who was provided with the greatest intellect and outward beauty, deemed God’s favored creation? Alternately, why would God deprive his favored of the attributes most necessary to their salvation? If one might assume that God so provides, might not his lack of provision suggest that he does not care as greatly for animals of the lower orders? Would such not clearly suggest that God does not like dogs?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

The answer is that God responds to all prayers. His will and plan is for our happiness. If what we ask for does not coincide with our ultimate happiness, he should not give it. The necessity of prayer is that to receive which God is eager to give us. “Knock and the door shall be opened”.

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?

The dispositions of a hardened sinner and a righteous person are quite different. If the will is appropriated towards autonomy, how much harder will it be to become submissive?

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

If you are asking if God possibly desires hardened criminals more than he does the righteous, I would say that it seems so. The more a person falls into sin, the more it would seem God might offer him graces. It would be important to note, however, that as long as said person has free will (which is always), he would have the same culpability as a righteous one. Also to be said, this phenomenon is mutually exclusive of the apparent lessening of culpability in ignorance.

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?

I will certainly type it out for you later, and PM it to you.

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.

In order for two natures to be separate, they must have distinctions. This does not mean, however that natures cannot have basic similarities; natures can have objective hierarchies. For example, it would be proper to assume that God, as having a nature beyond all natures, has a different perception of time than any other nature due to the relevant difference in his properties and ours. God is omniscient, omnipotent, and eternal. It would seem that qualities such as these would make a very distinct difference between his perception of time and ours.

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?

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?

Divine Revelation. For instance, we can deduce what God is capable of by the natures he has given us. All that is natural is a revelation in and of itself. To remain damned in hell after death is proper to our nature, which he has given us. We don’t, however, know God’s omnipotent, omniscient, and supernal nature barely at all. For instance, we see a dog. The dog’s nature will always be dog nature, otherwise it wouldn’t be a dog. The matter of the dog’s consummation of his nature is exclusive from the nature of God. Otherwise, we could question virtually anything (including whether a dog is, indeed, a dog) because God is “not restricted to what one might logically fathom”.

OK.

Yes. I’d have to see the context in which the “fear” is placed. Hebrew has different denotations than

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

What type of friend is it that one fears?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Yes to the first question. Our tendency to sin is a result of the fall. God graced Adam and Eve with the gifts of integrity (lack of tendency to sin), impassibility (lack of ability to experience pain), infused knowledge (lack of ignorance), and immortality (lack of physical tendency to decay). The second question is a bit of a non-sequitur. You are trying to assume that a world of death and decay is natural. This is not the case. The passions and tendencies that God gives us are neutral. God gives each and every one of us a tendency to seek goods. Does this mean that the tendency is bad, because we become materialistic when we abuse it? God gives us the tendency to love our sexuality. Does this mean that the tendency is bad, because we become empty when we abuse it? No! The passions that God gives us are meant to be used in order with the intention they were created for. Things are meant to be used as expressions of generosity towards another as gifts, and enriching our understanding of Genesis:

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)?

They are maintaining an existence that is proper to their nature. Throughout our life, we are developing a disposition in our spirit to act in infinity. When we die, those dispositions and tendencies, as with our spirit, enter into eternity. It is not proper that the spirit exists in time as the body does. These dispositions are the fruits of our life on earth. If we are disposed to not love God into eternity, then we have merited hell for sake of the least sorrowful experience.

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?

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

From what I gather, it’s the completion of intimacy with God. So, if that is the case, then the soul would be in an unphased gaze of bliss into the eyes of God until said parousia. The speculation on the relativity between eternity and time here becomes quite mind twisting. There aren’t many things we could say for sure.

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?

The lack of ignorance is the lack of resistance to whatever knowledge and wisdom God wishes to give you. So, it is essentially up to God, yes.

Infused knowledge is a lack of ignorance to what God wishes you to know. That decision of what he wants you to know is certainly up to him.

This has been speculated upon since the beginning of Christendom itself. It really depends on the theologian you ask. Since its not a necessity, I don’t have a specific stance on it. I’m more of a “it is what it is” kind of guy. I’ll leave sensationalism to whomever is interested

OK.

See above to the question of “have you known many who have ardently refused…”. If that doesn’t answer your question, then you’ll have to restate what you are trying to understand.

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.”

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?”

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Right. The denotation is bad, obviously, because we use it in context with humans, or entities with human like natures.

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

Strictly speaking, yes. In all practicality, no. I understand what you are saying, however, and it is a very astute observation. The problem with us not having infinite chances to be reconciled to God (in practicality) would lie on our inherit loss of physical immortality by original sin.

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?

I should clarify-- a fear derived from God’s love of them.

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 do believe I have erred on that latter position. Allow me to correct myself:

I got myself twisted up in the eternal nature of beatific vision vs. the temporal nature of perfect contrition. How embarrassing! If you need me to clarify further, I should do so willingly out of recompense!

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)?

In practicality, every person knows about certain aspects if they have gravely sinned. For instance, murder, rape, violence, malice, offenses against those who are innocent etc. If you are not reconciled to God through the Church, then you are betting your chances on a true contrition. If you find the Church, then you have a surefire chance to be reconciled to God through his Church. Furthermore, we are all called to a life of holiness starting here and now, so as to be united with God into eternity. If you never know Christ through the Church, then how much longer will purgatory be than a person who strives each and every day to grow in holiness? Our souls could be compared to a water balloon. When we are in a state of sanctifying grace with God, our water balloon is filled up to its prior capacity. The more grace you receive, the bigger that balloon gets. If you mortally sin, all the water it let out, and you must be reconciled to God again to fill the balloon again (as you were before you mortally sinned). This balloon will only expand as much as you accept God’s grace. The souls in Heaven, who received the sacraments extremely often will have a bigger capacity for God’s grace than those who were saved by ignorance. Their reward in heaven will be greater than those who were saved merely by ignorance. Furthermore, someone who is receiving the sacraments and is being exposed to the reality of our call to holiness will not be as prone to gravely sin as someone who is ignorant.

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?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

The disconnect is on our own part, not on God’s. Certainly, we feel that longing for a greater good each moment of our misery due to the disconnect between our lower and upper appetites. There are several ways you could approach your question. I’ll try a few of the many:
A) We don’t feel God’s embrace as often as he is embracing us due to the disconnect between our lower and upper appetites. That is to say, we only feel this embrace when our lower appetites (which basically have a mind of their own) happen to feel the same way about a greater goodness that our upper appetites do.
B) We don’t feel God’s embrace due to our sin, which results in a subconscious disposition to search for sin to achieve what we are deceived to think is happiness.
C) We don’t feel God’s embrace due to the sin of our neighbors, who create an atmosphere that moves our lower appetites to want sin, in hope that we might be happy, while our upper appetites want God, so that we might be happy.
D) We don’t feel the entirety of God’s embrace due to the distance of virtue between us and him. When there is a spiritual chasm between two people, there is not an absolute spiritual intimacy.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

This is a hard topic to discuss as its quite a grey area I believe. In my class Ecclesiology and Ecumenism at my Theology College, I learnt that the Catholic Church believes that the Kingdom of God does not necessarily have to be within the Church. My understanding of this was that the point was some people who do not profess to believe in God , may in fact be living their lives in a Christ like manner unknowingly, therefore ,in the end Christ will be the judge. I dont think the Church is as harsh as what some make it out to be as it does not condemn people to hell if they are not Catholic.

My opinion on hell is , that if you have lived a horrid life, hurt people, loved yourself more than others and live with a strong sense of self pride and have a violent and aggressive attitude, then , basically you reap what you sow. That’s truly the point here, you reap what you sow, as it says in the Bible.

If you spend your whole life doing horrible things, (I think I have provided a small example of these things above, though in the end , really, who am I to judge), and live in darkness, then when you die how do you think the state of your soul would be? You werent happy/living in love on earth so why would you expect to be that way when you die?

What if one spends one’s life doing slightly bad things? Or if one spends one’s life doing largely neutral things? Or if one spends only a small portion of one’s life doing horrible things? Or if one spends one’s life merely watching television?

Basically, God is love, he understands so much to an extent that we can never fathom. I truly believe in the gift of faith, and I suppose I choose to believe that there is a God, to be quite honest , because I saw for myself that living without God was not the life I wanted to live. In the end I chose to humble myself and work at choosing God over myself.

Peace be with you. You are in my prayers +++

Thank you for caring enough to write and voice your concerns.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

One factor conspicuously missing from these discussions is the mental state and capability of humans in general. How does one determine true rejection of God from mental illness, a mere difference in brain wiring or chemical issues more medical than anything else. Some people are born happy, others profoundly retarded. Some are capable of deep thoughts, while others lucky to walk and talk at the same time.

What would have been viewed as possession by the devil, a rather quaint and superstitious concept to me, is now regarded as mental illness. In other words, I see some here judging others and assuming God will likewise judge them, but nowhere do I see any accounting for the likelihood that some (many? most?) people just don’t have the mental horsepower to engage in the deep and pondered rejection of God many here seem to assume is a common occurrence. Across the world many people are only thinking of survival.

I see a lot of armchair quarterbacking, to use a simplistic phrase by those eager to prove how much they know, but not much recognition of what many scientists & philosophers alike view as innate nature & biology. Like it or not, we are in effect intelligent animals with hard wired needs for food, shelter and reproduction. I’d like to see posters here address the undeniable fact that what many here view as sin is, to me, the result of genetics and hard wired behavior. Discuss?

These are important points. Thank you for bringing them forward.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I don’t understand Hell, just as there are many things I don’t understand.

From what I have read, Hell likely exists and it is not a place you want to go to. Thus, it is a good idea to make every effort not to go there.

For me, that means seek God and work to obey Him. In the seeking, you have the opportunity to learn about God.

What I have learned so far, is that God is good. Why a good God would create a Hell, I don’t know. My limited understanding only comes from the Bible, and from analogies.

By analogy, I mean in this world we know that there are people (criminals, abusive, manipulative, etc.) that you would not allow in your home because such people would harm your family. That is the understanding that comes closest for me. Before the fall of the angels, the bad angels were in Heaven, and they tried to wreck the place.

Assuming you were possessed of the power, would your solution for those criminal, abusive, manipulative types be to:

A) Kill them.
B) Torture them.
C) Cure them.

The Grace of God is such that even if you now are the type of person who would “wreck the place”, He will redeem you and change you into something better–if you will allow yourself to be changed. Everything that I have learned from my search for God has helped me in this regard, although I still have a long way to go.

Father Barron’s description does not work that well for me because he describes the person who goes to Hell as someone who won’t “join the party”. Well I don’t go to many parties, so that analogy doesn’t work for me.

I agree with you there: parties are for the light-hearted…and my heart is far from light.