Explain the justice of hell.

[Jelrak_TB]

The experience of a being, whether human or supernatural, is proper to his nature. I couldn’t tell you how God experiences time in depth, because I am not God. What I can tell you, though, is that God invented time, matter, and energy, but he is not bound by it unless voluntarily. That is to say, time and eternity can co-exist without necessarily intermingling (as mind boggling as it seems).

Does this mean that souls who join God in Heaven become god-like in their experiences of time from thence forth? If so, how is the moment of their transition acknowledged from God’s point of view or from the point of view of their contemporaries already so-gifted?

Shall we put it this way: God’s omnipotence is always reserved in himself. He is limited to only what he wills.

So it is God’s express will that he be unable to save those he shunts to Hell? Why would a God of infinite love and mercy will such a thing?

Yay! Time to answer that brilliant question from earlier. There is no indissoluble reasoning behind it because we do not know the intrinsic nature of grace (nor is it relevant). The short answer, however, is still no. I commend to you a brilliant ex-Calvinist, now Catholic theologian by the name of Lawrence Feingold.

How might one more clearly explain that Jesus is not a failure despite having failed? Or is it your view that his failures count for nothing in his eyes since they were willfully allowed to happen?

Are you able to summarize how Lawrence Feingold answers this question?

Again, the experience of a soul is proper to his nature. Likewise for his choices and his abilities. A person is held up to the culpability of their abilities. The angels only had to sin once to merit eternal death. We, however, do not have infused knowledge (lack of ignorance). To better understand this, I again commend to you Dr. Lawrence Feingold. He does a wonderful job at explaining original justice (which is what this topic is called in fancy-people lingo). Be sure to take the time to listen to everything he has to say. I have loads of time because I’m still in high school and not college or the workforce :extrahappy:, so I understand if it may take a few days or so for you, who I assume has a life, to get back!

So do a wolf and a deer share the same observation of time? Does a hunter and the deer? Does the devil and a hunter?

If God does not share our view of time, how is he able to answer prayers?

If you have the time, do you mind summarizing “original justice”?

Thank you.

 

[sw85]

**Oh, I don’t doubt the existence of God. I do seriously doubt man made constructs and suppositions based on what is often 3rd hand (at best) accounts and writings made with long forgotten or lost political and/or personal motives. And, I used the phrase “I can’t imagine” quite deliberately. I cannot imagine God acting as a scorned teenage girl throwing a hissy fit because mortal men make errors despite good intent. I literally cannot reconcile Hell with God’s goodness except in the rarest of circumstances and due to deliberate, premeditated evil and outright rejection of all that is good. Hitler, for example, comes to mind. But, I’m not convinced that all violence is automatically damning. The Maori, for example, were an isolated people trained from birth to value warfare and fighting, something alien to me except as a last resort. **

So you acknowledge there is at least one possible way to reconcile the existence of Hell with God’s goodness? Then what is there to object to? Any further failures to understand the nature of damnation can only be failures on your own part, failures of imagination or understanding. Don’t feel bad about it: there’s much we cannot know this side of the grave.

Do not think of Hell as the product of a courtroom hearing wherein the gravity of crime is weighed and a sentence tailored to fit it. The problem with courtrooms is that all participants in them are ontologically equivalent, so that a crime against Joe merits the same punishment as a crime against Sally, Pierre, Vladimir, Ramon, Muhammad, or Atushi. God is not ontologically equivalent to us. A crime against Him is, in fact, substantially worse than a crime against Sally, Pierre, et al. Given that God created us, given that everything we are and everything we have we owe to Him, it follows that He is entitled to total and unqualified gratitude and obedience. Anything less than this is a sin. Spurning eternal good merits eternal punishment. There’s another way to reconcile the two; far be it from me to assert it’s the correct answer.

But let’s try a third one, one that envisions Hell not as a punishment but as a consequence. Imagine a man whom a woman loves very dearly. He spurns her advances over and over again. Heartbroken, she wastes away of grief and dies. Too late, the man realizes that he has spurned a truer love than any he could find at the bottom of a whiskey bottle or in a face on the TV, that he has treated this woman who loved unconditionally abominably and destroyed her as a result. He feels grief. As well he ought to – do you deny that grief is a proper response to such a realization? And if it is proper, it must logically be good. Grief is not so much a punishment as simply a fact: it’s what happens when you spurn love. Why, then, should a man not feel eternal grief, having spurned eternal love?

I am not entirely familiar with your conception of God, hence my interest. I do find the vast man made interpretations, rules & changing traditions puzzling. As I’ve said, I do believe in God, but cannot reconcile the beliefs of many which to me essentially ascribe to the almighty human frailties, human emotion and human weakness. From many of the posts here I detect considerable results oriented points & justification. People, for whatever reason, wish a certain set of facts to be true & then construct complicated scenarios for such.

Yes, lots of people do that. This is true of atheists, though, too. Far too many times I have heard someone say they apostasized from Catholicism because it is “homophobic” – in other words, because it did not match up with their pre-existing prejudices. The question of God’s existence and nature should properly be understood as a question about first principles. It should not be conditioned by other considerations; rather, all other considerations ought to be conditioned by the answer to that question.

For myself, Catholicism is not a “convenient” set of beliefs. It entails a large number of obligations and duties I did not choose and would not have chosen on my own. It has required me to give up a number of bad habits and sacrifice some goods (like eating meat on Fridays during Lent) for a greater good. It requires me to profess faith in a soteriological system that, if true, will damn every member of my immediate family to Hell. And I am powerless to do anything about that. I don’t believe it because it suits me. It doesn’t suit me. I had to remake me to suit it. That’s what you do with truth.

If you’re not convinced of the truth, well, that’s where, as you say, exploring comes in. Read some books on the topic. Again, Edward Feser’s “The Last Superstition” (polemically anti-atheist) and “Aquinas” (drier, more academic) come in. Much of what the Church holds to be true about God are simple truths revealed by reason, uncovered on the basis of straightforward extrapolation from a small set of presuppositions that are obviously and nonnegotiably true.

 

[sw85]

Please elaborate. Because one child anywhere dying from some excruciatingly painful disease contradicts your claim.

Well, no, that’s far from true. Again, God’s goodness is a metaphysically necessary truth, not an evidential one. No evidential claims can contradict it, unless you can demonstrate that there’s no possible way to reconcile the fact of evil with God’s goodness. But there are several possible ways to do so. For instance, I could point out that the ultimate standard by which “goodness” is measured is being, so that the highest good is total perfection of being. 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.

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. This is similar to how God being “all-creating” does not mean He actualizes every possible being; it simply means everything that exists can be attributed to Him. Likewise, everything that is good can be attributed to God.

Those are at least two possible explanations. 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.

Once again, can you elaborate a bit? Its not necessarily directly relevant to this thread, but I would love to know why you think he actually is good, especially considering the OP topic at hand.

I would love to be able to type up a cogent defense of natural theology, but I’m afraid it’s a bit too herculean of a task for a forum post. This is a tradition about 2400 years old, after all. The books I related earlier (Feser’s “Aquinas” and “The Last Superstition” – be aware the latter book is very polemical) do an admirable job of making the case for the Catholic conception of God.

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

 

[Jelrak_TB]

The Church is one in doctrine. Also please site your source regarding the Ethiopian catholic Bible containig 6 more books than that of the Roman Rite.

My recollection of facts was in error: it was the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible that held this difference. I apologize for the confusion.

Still, if it may be permitted, might one inquire why the Orthodox and Catholic texts might differ in such a way given their common origin?

No, the child is not misinformed. No one is in Hell because they were not given the necessary means to go to Heaven. I’m not trying to be mean but if you want to discuss the justice of Hell based on Catholic belief then please do so. In the Catholic faith we believe the souls in Hell rejected God even after they were given sufficient knowledge and grace to avoid it but they rejected God and chose to be obstinate in their sin. If you want to discuss a Hell in were souls are there through no fault of their own then you want to discuss a Hell that me and the Catholic Church does not believe in.

Fair enough.

So is it your view that, all things being equal, if two individuals are committed to a life of self-interest, but only one of them has considered the possibility of God, the danger of entering Hell is primarily at that one’s feet and not that of the other?

Or is it your belief that there are none so ignorant so as to properly exploit this difference?

Because these souls give glory to God’s justice and because something is better than nothing.

Is this from the point of view of the creator or the created?

Once again they had sufficient knowledge and grace to avoid their sins but they chose to sin anyway and oppose God who is Love itself. Hell is more than just for a being that would reject the goodness of God.

Please do not be offended if I find this curious; however, as I have no further questions along this line, I will leave your response to stand.

The obstinate sinners in this life are not free from torment. They are the most unhappy beings that roam the Earth and they know this.

Are they unhappy because they feel ill-suited to this world? Or are they unhappy because they must bear the responsibilities of their choices alone? Or is it possible they have allegedly divorced themselves from the source of happiness because they also predict the same deity to be the source of misery?

I apologize if some of my responses seem like I’m being short with you.

Think nothing of it: your time is valuable. I respect that and hope not to be wasting it unduly.

 

[clmowry]

Does this mean that souls who join God in Heaven become god-like in their experiences of time from thence forth? If so, how is the moment of their transition acknowledged from God’s point of view or from the point of view of their contemporaries already so-gifted?

I think this question gets at where you will actually have to start the conversation if you are going to make any progress on the subjects of heaven and hell.

What is the nature of a purely spiritual being?

At the instance of the death of our physical bodies what do we become?

I think you need a common conceptual understanding of what we will be before you can hope to discuss the differences between the states of an eternal soul oriented towards God and the eternal soul oriented towards its self.

Trying to imagine heaven or hell from the point of view of a physical being subject to change over time is probably a futile effort.

Chuck

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Nope they will not be surprised.

Then why have they striven to be 99% good?

The anaology is about justice my friend not about how you would feel. A person that says they are not sorry for their crimes and admits if allowed to go free or be paroled they would do them again, deserves to be prison for life without parole; regardless of the fact that they were once a good samaritan.

Does justice serve its own end? Or is justice a means to an end?

If one have a favorite dog that goes feral in its old age, does one take more or less care in having it put down than if the animal were a dangerous aggressor from the very first?

As stated above they are not sorry for their fault and would gladly do it again and again. So what cure to you propose for someone like that?

Let us suppose that I were a world-renown psychologist who was proven to have such a cure. Would it be wrong to apply it?

Additionally, would justice be served by applying it?

Would the victims of the crimes be less pleased to see the aggressor cured of his aggression than to imagine him spending the rest of his days in prison?

Would the aggressor be more or less likely to show true contrition with the removal of the root cause of his evil disposition?

They rejected teh beatific vision which is why they reside in Hell.

Was it not your earlier position that they had not yet had the opportunity to see this vision? If not able to see it, how could they have rejected it?

I disagreed with your use of a 3 year old because a three year old does not have the use of reason; an 18 year old does which is why they are called an adult and why they must take full respocibility for their actions. Any parent will tell you that regardless of their age a son or daughter is considered a child in their eyes.

Are we not more comparable to the reasoning ability of a 3-year-old than to that of an adult when compared to God? Is not a 3-year-old responsible for his/her actions within the scope of his/her reasoning ability? Does a 3-year-old who refuses to eat supper still gain dessert?

Alternately, does the parent of a 3-year-old who refuses to eat supper on his birthday deny him his birthday cake?

Nope the fault is with the person since their love was never genuine.

Is it possible to exist in terms that are less than black and white? Is it not possible to fall in and out of love naturally? Even in simple things, such as: may one not love their job one week and despise it the next?

Sure but I’m not going to promise that I will be able to answer your questions since it may be difficult to find the words to describe my personal relationship with God.

I will agree to match your candor to the best of my ability as well. Feel free to ignore any questions with which you are not comfortable.

When did you first realize a love for God? Was it after hearing a certain story or observing a certain way of living or some other experience? How old were you? Did your family share this love?

How does your love of God feel now? Is it tangible? Do you feel great anticipation before entering his church each and every time? Does it remain steady or is it growing steadily with time?

Do you feel his comfort or experience a quiet longing for his presence when you have been too long removed from his presence (ie.is it tangible)? Does it make it difficult to concentrate on other things through the day? Are you strained with anticipation for the next time you may again enter his house?

Do you speak about him consistently with others and attempt to insert him into every topic so that it ends by revolving around him?

Do you experience fear that he may not be as glorious as you hope or are you firmly convinced about his nature?

Does he speak unequivocally to you when you ask him a question? Is he always close to you or at times does he seem distant?

Becuase the soul rejected God while having sufficent knowedge and grace there is no such thing as them having a mild hatred for God.

So is there no such thing as a mild rejection?

If one is approached by another who claims to love them, but the feeling is not mutual, is the one forced to accept them if there is no feeling of complete hatred? Or is it sufficient merely to hold a feeling of mild indifference or dislike in order to reject their advances?

The answer is no. Someone that has a guilty conscience but will not do what is necessary to rid themselve of the guilt aren’t comforted by a kind word from a loved one even in this life.

Please do not take offense if I disagree with this assessment. It is my express experience that a kind word may be all that is needed to melt one holding a grudge or a secret guilt. The exhibition of caring concern and deep-seated compassion is rarely a wasted effort.

Yes since they will be One with God and His will.

Is it that they will share in God’s indifference? Or is it that they will cease to have the same attachments that they once had on Earth? Will their knowledge outstrip their love?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I think this question gets at where you will actually have to start the conversation if you are going to make any progress on the subjects of heaven and hell.

What is the nature of a purely spiritual being?

At the instance of the death of our physical bodies what do we become?

I think you need a common conceptual understanding of what we will be before you can hope to discuss the differences between the states of an eternal soul oriented towards God and the eternal soul oriented towards its self.

Trying to imagine heaven or hell from the point of view of a physical being subject to change over time is probably a futile effort.

Chuck

This is possible, given the association of matter, energy, and space-time, but it is no less fascinating to explore.

 

[Anthony_V]

So does this mean that God no longer loves the souls in Hell, or, since he is omniscient and so knew they would end up there eventually, does it mean that he never loved them to begin with?

Certainly not. As I stated before, God gives each person enough graces for salvation. God does not demand the impossible! It is a matter of our response to the graces. Going back to the medicine analogy, it doesn’t matter how potent the medicine might be. If one does not take it, the will not receive its effects.

If he loved them during their stay on Earth, how was he able to remain eternal, and unchanging, by no longer loving them after death?

This is not a matter of God not loving us. It is, in fact, a matter of him loving them and being merciful unto them even in their eternal disobedience. Better to be damned in hell than damned in heaven (even if it was logically possible).

Alternately, if he loves them still while they are in Hell, would this mean that God might be able to love that which is evil? Would it mean that he necessarily shares in their pain through the part of love that is empathy?

It’s important to remember that God does not love in the same way that we do. Here’s a short clip by a theologian by the name of Jimmy Akin. He answers the question quite well! Here’s another quick article you could look at.

Or is he ignorant of their pain in light of the fact that he is not present in Hell? If so, does this mean that he equally might no longer be aware of the soul therein? Is God able to forget?

No, God is not ignorant of pain based on the state of the soul, because God is not ignorant. Some mystics have deduced that the reason Christ sweated blood in the garden of Gethsemane was because he saw all the souls that would reject him. Nor does God forget things. He is the pinnacle of knowledge-- which is omniscience. I’m sure he’s aware of the soul, but the specifics of his feelings towards that soul is far beyond our comprehension. It’s too big for us to understand emotions in light of an eternal creator who doesn’t experience things the way we do (save through Jesus Christ).

Since it seems reasonable to foresee that certain personalities are more prone to alcoholism than others, is it just for an omniscient parent to watch his child take his first drink when knowing the certain outcome? Is not a great deal of the cure to be found in the prevention of the disease? With the analogy of the weed, is not a good gardener one who removes the weeds before they take firm root?

I think the weed analogy might not be the best one. Human nature is not bad. It’s perfectly human. I will further this answer later.

What determines that the roots are permanent? Why would a loving God and a perfect redeemer not be able or willing to save all? Why would the damned not merely move on to the next test or the next level of refinement?

The roots are permanent when the nature of the being’s judgment has reached it’s natural end. That is to say, our time to be reconciled to God is here and now, until our death. When we die, we suffer natural consequences of those actions (which is effectively part of judgment). You must understand that God gives every person enough grace for salvation. On top of that, God is super abundant-- he gives us even more graces than we need! Our participation in his graces are due to our will to receive them, not God’s will to give them.

I think the bigger question you are trying to stab at is why God doesn’t give infinite amount of graces. That is the great unknown. However it does not make him any less benevolent (because he gives us both a sufficient and on top of that a super-abundant amount of graces to begin with). All that is to say that he does not damn anyone to hell.

Does a smelter discard its imperfect creations or are they not instead reprocessed until a desirable outcome is reached?

God doesn’t make imperfect creations. We fall short of the creator. The guilt of failure lies upon us, not God. It is in his mercy that God offers to place us in the crucible and reconcile us to himself.

So why are not all who would merit Hell merely placed in Purgatory?

For the same reason rehabilitation would not benefit someone who doesn’t intend on a least trying to stop drinking. Purgatory externally moves the willing soul to internally change.

Does this mean that once in Heaven, a soul no longer learns?

In you mean in a manner that is proper to learning as we do with a body, then yes. At the Parousia, we are given the preternatural gift of infused knowledge-- that is, the lack of ignorance. We will not meet any other souls after death until the Parousia.

Why would God not approve of allowing the medicine to be available if he is perfect love?

The medicine is always available. The question is if the patient has chosen to take it. See above at the permanence of the roots.
What part of his nature demands that those in Hell remain there if there were any way for him to imagine their redemption and release?

It’s not so much a demand on part of his nature, but on part of our willful dispositions. Redemption (the medicine) can only be given when the soul is willing to take it.

Thank you for taking the time to share your insights.

My pleasure!

Peace and Joy,
Anthony

 

[Anthony_V]

If so, how would that be substantially different from narcissism: the loving us us because we love him as a means of reflecting his own self-love?

You are precisely right! Wonderful conclusion. One must consider for what purpose narcissism is disordered, though. Humans are attracted to good things because it is our nature to appreciate and rejoice in God (fittingly). If we seek ourselves, our acts are disordered, because we have deceived ourselves into thinking that we are God, and we are the source of our true happiness. God, however, does not seek himself, and nor does he need anything to complete himself. He loves us by giving us good things, and, well, being our Father. Most times, people have bad perceptions of God because they have had a bad relationship with their father (or whoever is the male-figure in their life).

Alternately, if God is pure, unconditional love–indeed, the wellspring of love itself–how could one’s actions, reactions, or purposeful insults have any bearing on God’s determination to love the one? If God could neither be harmed nor countermanded by the actions of his creations, why would he offer incentives and disincentives to those who might choose to live with him?

The law [of man] entered in so that transgression might increase but, where sin increased, grace overflowed all the more,
Romans 5:20

You are quite right. This is the meaning of Christ’s passion, death, and resurrection for our sake. And indeed, this is in line with God’s sovereign benevolence! Consider this passage from Isaiah:
[BIBLEDRB]Isaiah 43: 21-25[/BIBLEDRB]

Because of his willful benevolence, he longs for us, and pines for our reconciliation to him.
The child analogy becomes little more than obsolete here. A child is not entirely culpable for his actions because his understanding has not grown enough to know right from wrong. While we are like the child in some regards (the act of sinning does not damn us straight to hell), grave matter in which we are of both full consent and full knowledge that it is grave can and will damn us unless we choose to repent and be reconciled to God (keeping in mind there is no limit on the amount of times or gravity of sin that God will forgive us).

Also, is a god of infinite love truly satisfied to be surrounded with those who chose to love him mainly out of fear of his purported wrath? What gentle, loving parent would be satisfied to receive the love of their child primarily due to such conditions?

If it gets their attention, and keeps them from falling into sin, then it is a fear derived from love. We call this attrition (as opposed to contrition). Certainly, one would have a hard time loving someone who they fear. As we grow in faith, we rely less and less on attrition, and more and more on contrition. A mature soul will do what is right purely out of love of God, who has first loved them.

Why would affection not find its source in love? Why would bad choices be equal to a lack of love? Might one suspect that there are many children whose parents still love them in spite of bad choices? Might it be equally likely that there are many children who have made such choices who still harbor love for their parents?

Sorry! I used the wrong word! I meant to use infatuation, which I will go ahead and define as a pseudo-love in which the person seeks something merely for their own benefit. It is derivative of the human nature to receive love in both the upper and lower appetites in totality of God’s grace. Certainly, children can make bad choices, and then love their parents thereafter (VIA repentance). However, it is tragically illogical to truly love someone while purposefully hurting them out of seeking personal gain. And they would not truly love said person again until they made an internal disposition to amend their wrongdoings (repentance).

Why would one be unable to lose one’s love for God? What might obstruct such a loss of love if one loved a concept of what they thought was God at one stage and then learned a new concept that caused that love to fade? Additionally, what would prevent such a one to learn an even more refined concept of God in order to love him anew?

It would be fairly easy to lose one’s love for God. If one does not intrinsically have the ability to love God (which includes all creatures), then the ability to love God and be intimate with him is a grace from God himself. Upon rejection of said grace, the said grace has no effect without repentance. We sink into a darkness, and the grace has nothing of which to meet its ends. A person is responsible for not abusing the grace he is given, not God. If a person is given the grace to love God (which we all are offered every moment of our lives), this grace must be responded to in order to be efficacious.

Who might it be suggested one ask to ensure they are not giving God offense? If the Church, what happens if the one asking does not believe them? If it is a friend, what happens if the one asking does not believe him? If an apologist, what happens if the apologist refuses to respond?

The Church, of course. God, in his benevolence, must provide a way for them to objectively seek out his will (and avoid sin). If the one does sincerely not believe, then what culpability does he have? It is often joked about that the greatest amount of souls are saved by the eighth of the seven sacraments-- ignorance.

Is a lover adamant about loving one who does not appear to be courting them?

Certainly, but I don’t understand your point in this context.

Thank for your sincere efforts.

My pleasure!

Peace and Joy,
Anthony

 

[Anthony_V]

Does this mean that souls who join God in Heaven become god-like in their experiences of time from thence forth? If so, how is the moment of their transition acknowledged from God’s point of view or from the point of view of their contemporaries already so-gifted?

Yes and no to the first question. We then experience things in terms of eternity (VIA spirit), but not infinitely as God does. Things that are superior to human nature, but not proper to God alone are called preternatural. In you second question, I have no idea! And thank goodness we don’t know for sure! How convoluted would that be? I surmise that would be more of a question geared towards beatific vision and the state of a soul rather than the nature of a soul, however.

So it is God’s express will that he be unable to save those he shunts to Hell? Why would a God of infinite love and mercy will such a thing?

Actually, the opposite is true. He reserves the power of freedom within the creature solely for the purpose of doing that which is benevolent-- love.

I think you might be trying to ask a greater question: “why does God give us love even if he knows we will abuse it?” The answer is that he is superabundant. He gives us love, even when he knows we will reject it. And then the naturally following question is this: “why would God create us if he foresees we would end up damned?”

While we don’t specifically know the nature of how God foresees things, the problem here with the proposal of God predestining us to damnation lies wherein we are constricting God to a human perception of reality, because that’s all we know how to understand. One theory is that God doesn’t know what you’re going to do before you do it. Rather, he is seeing you as you do it at every point in time all at once (which sounds proper to both his omnipotence and omniscience). We think of things in a very time-line type manner, because that’s all we know. We can’t say anything for sure, because we simply aren’t God. A lot of people struggle with the concept that Divine foreknowledge does not necessitate Divine causation.

How might one more clearly explain that Jesus is not a failure despite having failed? Or is it your view that his failures count for nothing in his eyes since they were willfully allowed to happen?

Strictly speaking, he came to provide us with the ability to merit to be coerced to live with him in Heaven, which is presented to each individual soul at every moment of their life. Is that salvation? Yes. But it is proper to the manner of freedom that we have as humans. Also yes. He didn’t come to save one person in specific, if that’s what you’re asking. He wants all of us.

Are you able to summarize how Lawrence Feingold answers this question?

Not particularly. The podcast is chalk full of necessary concepts that all rely on each other. It would probably take longer for me to explain it than you to listen to it.

So do a wolf and a deer share the same observation of time? Does a hunter and the deer? Does the devil and a hunter?

Possibly. This not to say that each nature has its own unique way of experiencing time, but rather that the nature experiences time in a way that is proper to its nature. I’m sure a dog and a cat probably experience time in a very similar way.

If God does not share our view of time, how is he able to answer prayers?

In a way that is proper to his supernatural abilities. Again, another unknown to us. He is not restricted to what we can logically fathom!

If you have the time, do you mind summarizing “original justice”?

I can give you a definition, but you’ll have to listen to the podcast to hear all the context.
Original Justice is the original grace of friendship that Adam and Eve had with God, alongside the four (sometimes shown as three) preternatural gifts which he gave them to sustain this friendship.
Thank you.

You’re very welcome!

Peace and Joy,
Anthony

 

[minkymurph]

Thank you for your frank honesty. So is it your opinion that an individual who was banished to Hell might redeem herself after the fact and enter Heaven at a later date? Similarly, do you believe it is possible to originally merit Heaven only to lose that privilege at a later date?

Good questions.

Firstly I would say I am not God. I have not been given the authority to judge, I firmly believe judgement of individuals is God’s business and God’s business alone. What I have to offer you is a human opinion and one that is based on my own reasoning. Therefore, no one else is compelled to accept what I would say. My opinions are no more, or no less, valid than anyone else’s.

According to Catholic belief, nothing suggests a person may be redeemed from hell if they enter hell following the point of death. The reason being it involves final judgement. As far as I know Catholics do believe in the past people may have been redeemed from hell.

The reason being prior to the sacrifice of Christ, it was not possible for anyone to enter heaven because the sacrifice of Christ had not been made. As Jesus said, no one has ascended to heaven before he who descended. That does not mean everyone necessarily entered hell. Catholics have a belief in purgatory, and that state was the resting place of the faithful until the sacrifice of Christ was made. The creed of the Church states Jesus descended into hell. The creed we say now is descended to the dead. However, there is a belief Jesus freed those in hell in addition to those in purgatory once the sacrifice was made. Now the sacrifice has been made, the faithful no longer enter the state of hell but can enter heaven or purgatory. As that sacrifice has been made our believe is no, on is not redeemed from hell and can enter heaven at a later time. They may enter purgatory and enter heaven at a later time, but not hell because the person concerned has chosen that. They have no desire to be in heaven and eternally in God’s presence.

Is it possible to originally merit heaven only to loose that privilege later? Yes. People can change their mind. They may have a belief in God then at a later time, choose to reject Him and not change their mind. Catholics do not believe it is not possible to loose salvation. They believe one can loose salvation by one’s own choice. However, the final judgement is not made on the basis of what spiritual condition a person was in at the time of death. therefore, while it is possible to loose salvation at one point, it is possible God will still give us salvation because salvation is not based on merit. Salvation is a gift. None of us earn it and the reality is we accept salvation, by acting in a way we believe we should, and reject salvation by acting in a way we believe we should not on a daily basis.
People who loose salvation do so because that is what they desire. However, salvation cannot be earned simply by merit. It’s not something we have a right to.

God takes all things into account and salvation is not about ‘timing.’ As in, were we doing everything ‘right’ at the point of death? I can recall a poster on CAF (Protestant) who was very distressed due to the fact that her niece was a drug addict at the point of death. Consequently, she believed she was in hell. However, she went on to say how she had been a lovely child, a very kind person and had a lot of good qualities. In my response, I stated that God would not judge purely on what she was doing at the time of death. God also knows why she turned to drugs and by all accounts was pretty messed up for lots of reasons. God knows why she was messed up and turned to drugs. God knows all her good qualities and knows outcomes.

Some of us are fortunate enough to live long enough to make amends and change our course of action. Others are tragically struck down when young and don’t have that opportunity. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I believe God takes that into account. If the person had not been struck down through tragic circumstances, they may well have changed the course of their life. Only God knows what someone may have done had they not been cut down by tragic circumstances, why at the point of death they were messed up, and how culpable they were, and significantly how culpable others were in contributing to their messed up state, and the course of their life and what kind of person they were prior to the messed up state.

Personally speaking, I’m a big softy and there are not too many people I would condemn to hell. I think you would have to be pretty bad to go there. You would have to know God exists, that above all things He is love and recoil from that because goodness is not in your heart and not someone you desire. You desire only what is wicked and recoil from God because He is love and goodness. I also remember the words of Jesus, judge not others lest you yourself will be judged accordingly. He who condemns his brother to the fires of Gehenna will himself be condemned.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

@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.

newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm

catholic-pages.com/morality/sin.asp

newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm

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.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I don’t know , but I will make a comparison.
I cant stop worrying that I may take too deep of a breath, and swallow the moon!
I believe that to be illogical, so it never really crosses my mind!

I had to laugh when visualizing this, but might not the main difference perhaps be that everyone around you is not constantly warning you of, or implying, such a possibility?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Certainly not. As I stated before, God gives each person enough graces for salvation. God does not demand the impossible! It is a matter of our response to the graces. Going back to the medicine analogy, it doesn’t matter how potent the medicine might be. If one does not take it, the will not receive its effects.

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?

This is not a matter of God not loving us. It is, in fact, a matter of him loving them and being merciful unto them even in their eternal disobedience. Better to be damned in hell than damned in heaven (even if it was logically possible).

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?

It’s important to remember that God does not love in the same way that we do.

No, God is not ignorant of pain based on the state of the soul, because God is not ignorant. Some mystics have deduced that the reason Christ sweated blood in the garden of Gethsemane was because he saw all the souls that would reject him. Nor does God forget things. He is the pinnacle of knowledge-- which is omniscience. I’m sure he’s aware of the soul, but the specifics of his feelings towards that soul is far beyond our comprehension. It’s too big for us to understand emotions in light of an eternal creator who doesn’t experience things the way we do (save through Jesus Christ).

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?

The roots are permanent when the nature of the being’s judgment has reached it’s natural end. That is to say, our time to be reconciled to God is here and now, until our death. When we die, we suffer natural consequences of those actions (which is effectively part of judgment). You must understand that God gives every person enough grace for salvation. On top of that, God is super abundant-- he gives us even more graces than we need! Our participation in his graces are due to our will to receive them, not God’s will to give them.

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 think the bigger question you are trying to stab at is why God doesn’t give infinite amount of graces. That is the great unknown. However it does not make him any less benevolent (because he gives us both a sufficient and on top of that a super-abundant amount of graces to begin with). All that is to say that he does not damn anyone to hell.

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?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Part II

God doesn’t make imperfect creations. We fall short of the creator. The guilt of failure lies upon us, not God. It is in his mercy that God offers to place us in the crucible and reconcile us to himself.

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?

For the same reason rehabilitation would not benefit someone who doesn’t intend on a least trying to stop drinking. Purgatory externally moves the willing soul to internally change.

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?

In you mean in a manner that is proper to learning as we do with a body, then yes. At the Parousia, we are given the preternatural gift of infused knowledge-- that is, the lack of ignorance. We will not meet any other souls after death until the Parousia.

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?

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?

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?

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?

It’s not so much a demand on part of his nature, but on part of our willful dispositions. Redemption (the medicine) can only be given when the soul is willing to take it.

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?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

You are precisely right! Wonderful conclusion. One must consider for what purpose narcissism is disordered, though. Humans are attracted to good things because it is our nature to appreciate and rejoice in God (fittingly). If we seek ourselves, our acts are disordered, because we have deceived ourselves into thinking that we are God, and we are the source of our true happiness. God, however, does not seek himself, and nor does he need anything to complete himself. He loves us by giving us good things, and, well, being our Father. Most times, people have bad perceptions of God because they have had a bad relationship with their father (or whoever is the male-figure in their life).

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

You are quite right. This is the meaning of Christ’s passion, death, and resurrection for our sake. And indeed, this is in line with God’s sovereign benevolence! Consider this passage from Isaiah:
[BIBLEDRB]Isaiah 43: 21-25[/BIBLEDRB]

Because of his willful benevolence, he longs for us, and pines for our reconciliation to him.
The child analogy becomes little more than obsolete here. A child is not entirely culpable for his actions because his understanding has not grown enough to know right from wrong. While we are like the child in some regards (the act of sinning does not damn us straight to hell), grave matter in which we are of both full consent and full knowledge that it is grave can and will damn us unless we choose to repent and be reconciled to God (keeping in mind there is no limit on the amount of times or gravity of sin that God will forgive us).

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

If it gets their attention, and keeps them from falling into sin, then it is a fear derived from love. We call this attrition (as opposed to contrition). Certainly, one would have a hard time loving someone who they fear. As we grow in faith, we rely less and less on attrition, and more and more on contrition. A mature soul will do what is right purely out of love of God, who has first loved them.

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

Sorry! I used the wrong word! I meant to use infatuation, which I will go ahead and define as a pseudo-love in which the person seeks something merely for their own benefit. It is derivative of the human nature to receive love in both the upper and lower appetites in totality of God’s grace. Certainly, children can make bad choices, and then love their parents thereafter (VIA repentance). However, it is tragically illogical to truly love someone while purposefully hurting them out of seeking personal gain. And they would not truly love said person again until they made an internal disposition to amend their wrongdoings (repentance).

Fair enough.

It would be fairly easy to lose one’s love for God. If one does not intrinsically have the ability to love God (which includes all creatures), then the ability to love God and be intimate with him is a grace from God himself. Upon rejection of said grace, the said grace has no effect without repentance. We sink into a darkness, and the grace has nothing of which to meet its ends. A person is responsible for not abusing the grace he is given, not God. If a person is given the grace to love God (which we all are offered every moment of our lives), this grace must be responded to in order to be efficacious.

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?

The Church, of course. God, in his benevolence, must provide a way for them to objectively seek out his will (and avoid sin). If the one does sincerely not believe, then what culpability does he have? It is often joked about that the greatest amount of souls are saved by the eighth of the seven sacraments-- ignorance.

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?

Certainly, but I don’t understand your point in this context.

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?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Yes and no to the first question. We then experience things in terms of eternity (VIA spirit), but not infinitely as God does. Things that are superior to human nature, but not proper to God alone are called preternatural. In you second question, I have no idea! And thank goodness we don’t know for sure! How convoluted would that be? I surmise that would be more of a question geared towards beatific vision and the state of a soul rather than the nature of a soul, however.

OK.

Actually, the opposite is true. He reserves the power of freedom within the creature solely for the purpose of doing that which is benevolent-- love.

I think you might be trying to ask a greater question: “why does God give us love even if he knows we will abuse it?” The answer is that he is superabundant. He gives us love, even when he knows we will reject it. And then the naturally following question is this: “why would God create us if he foresees we would end up damned?”

While we don’t specifically know the nature of how God foresees things, the problem here with the proposal of God predestining us to damnation lies wherein we are constricting God to a human perception of reality, because that’s all we know how to understand. One theory is that God doesn’t know what you’re going to do before you do it. Rather, he is seeing you as you do it at every point in time all at once (which sounds proper to both his omnipotence and omniscience). We think of things in a very time-line type manner, because that’s all we know. We can’t say anything for sure, because we simply aren’t God. A lot of people struggle with the concept that Divine foreknowledge does not necessitate Divine causation.

If God did possess foreknowledge as part of his omniscience, but chose only to intervene in response to certain prayers and not others, would not the charge of divine causation be a fair one?

Strictly speaking, he came to provide us with the ability to merit to be coerced to live with him in Heaven, which is presented to each individual soul at every moment of their life. Is that salvation? Yes. But it is proper to the manner of freedom that we have as humans. Also yes. He didn’t come to save one person in specific, if that’s what you’re asking. He wants all of us.

Is it fair to ask if he wants all of us equally? If so, why would he appear to interact with some (even hardened sinners) and not others?

Also, is it possible that the desire to merit coercion might be stronger in some than others? If so, is God obligated to put more effort into the coercion of those whose desire is not as strong?

Not particularly. The podcast is chalk full of necessary concepts that all rely on each other. It would probably take longer for me to explain it than you to listen to it.

It is not possible for me to listen to it so if there are any points strong enough to merit discussion, please feel free to bring them forth. Alternately, if there is a written transcript I will be pleased to peruse it.

Possibly. This not to say that each nature has its own unique way of experiencing time, but rather that the nature experiences time in a way that is proper to its nature. I’m sure a dog and a cat probably experience time in a very similar way.

If each nature does not possess a unique means of experiencing time, how does its possession of a different nature have any bearing on its time perception? If no bearing, might my original question at this point still remain unanswered?

In a way that is proper to his supernatural abilities. Again, another unknown to us. He is not restricted to what we can logically fathom!

If not restricted to what one might logically fathom, how is he restricted in other matters such as the redemption of souls from Hell?

I can give you a definition, but you’ll have to listen to the podcast to hear all the context. Original Justice is the original grace of friendship that Adam and Eve had with God, alongside the four (sometimes shown as three) preternatural gifts which he gave them to sustain this friendship. Thank you.

Were Adam and Eve truly in a friendship with God? If so, why did they fear him?

Thank you again for your consistent efforts.

 

[Anthony_V]

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?

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!

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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?

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?

 

[Anthony_V]

If God did possess foreknowledge as part of his omniscience, but chose only to intervene in response to certain prayers and not others, would not the charge of divine causation be a fair one?

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”.

Is it fair to ask if he wants all of us equally? If so, why would he appear to interact with some (even hardened sinners) and not others?

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?

Also, is it possible that the desire to merit coercion might be stronger in some than others? If so, is God obligated to put more effort into the coercion of those whose desire is not as strong?

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.

It is not possible for me to listen to it so if there are any points strong enough to merit discussion, please feel free to bring them forth. Alternately, if there is a written transcript I will be pleased to peruse it.

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

If each nature does not possess a unique means of experiencing time, how does its possession of a different nature have any bearing on its time perception? If no bearing, might my original question at this point still remain unanswered?

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.

If not restricted to what one might logically fathom, how is he restricted in other matters such as the redemption of souls from Hell?

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”.

Were Adam and Eve truly in a friendship with God? If so, why did they fear him?

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

Thank you again for your consistent efforts.

My pleasure!

Peace, Love, and Joy,

Anthony

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Good questions.

Firstly I would say I am not God. I have not been given the authority to judge, I firmly believe judgement of individuals is God’s business and God’s business alone. What I have to offer you is a human opinion and one that is based on my own reasoning. Therefore, no one else is compelled to accept what I would say. My opinions are no more, or no less, valid than anyone else’s.

Fair enough.

According to Catholic belief, nothing suggests a person may be redeemed from hell if they enter hell following the point of death. The reason being it involves final judgement. As far as I know Catholics do believe in the past people may have been redeemed from hell.

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?

Now the sacrifice has been made, the faithful no longer enter the state of hell but can enter heaven or purgatory. As that sacrifice has been made our believe is no, on is not redeemed from hell and can enter heaven at a later time. They may enter purgatory and enter heaven at a later time, but not hell because the person concerned has chosen that. They have no desire to be in heaven and eternally in God’s presence.

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?

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

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?

Is it possible to originally merit heaven only to loose that privilege later? Yes. People can change their mind. They may have a belief in God then at a later time, choose to reject Him and not change their mind. Catholics do not believe it is not possible to loose salvation. They believe one can loose salvation by one’s own choice. However, the final judgement is not made on the basis of what spiritual condition a person was in at the time of death. therefore, while it is possible to loose salvation at one point, it is possible God will still give us salvation because salvation is not based on merit. Salvation is a gift. None of us earn it and the reality is we accept salvation, by acting in a way we believe we should, and reject salvation by acting in a way we believe we should not on a daily basis.
People who loose salvation do so because that is what they desire. However, salvation cannot be earned simply by merit. It’s not something we have a right to.

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?

God takes all things into account and salvation is not about ‘timing.’ As in, were we doing everything ‘right’ at the point of death? I can recall a poster on CAF (Protestant) who was very distressed due to the fact that her niece was a drug addict at the point of death. Consequently, she believed she was in hell. However, she went on to say how she had been a lovely child, a very kind person and had a lot of good qualities. In my response, I stated that God would not judge purely on what she was doing at the time of death. God also knows why she turned to drugs and by all accounts was pretty messed up for lots of reasons. God knows why she was messed up and turned to drugs. God knows all her good qualities and knows outcomes.

Some of us are fortunate enough to live long enough to make amends and change our course of action. Others are tragically struck down when young and don’t have that opportunity. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I believe God takes that into account. If the person had not been struck down through tragic circumstances, they may well have changed the course of their life. Only God knows what someone may have done had they not been cut down by tragic circumstances, why at the point of death they were messed up, and how culpable they were, and significantly how culpable others were in contributing to their messed up state, and the course of their life and what kind of person they were prior to the messed up state.

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

Personally speaking, I’m a big softy and there are not too many people I would condemn to hell. I think you would have to be pretty bad to go there. You would have to know God exists, that above all things He is love and recoil from that because goodness is not in your heart and not someone you desire. You desire only what is wicked and recoil from God because He is love and goodness. I also remember the words of Jesus, judge not others lest you yourself will be judged accordingly. He who condemns his brother to the fires of Gehenna will himself be condemned.

Thank you for that. You certainly come across as soft-hearted and fair minded.

Regards,

Jelrak TB