Explain the justice of hell.

[dedo]

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?

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.

I am not exactly sure who goes to hell and who does not. Thus, I can’t say that “not believing” sends people to hell.

However, Jesus Christ offers forgiveness and deliverance from whatever causes people to go to hell, for anyone who wants it.

So from my point of view, why risk it? Allowing yourself to be changed is just a matter of whether or not you are willing to show up and try. Seeking God is a worthwhile occupation that lasts a lifetime.

As far as “not believing”, I guess that depends on whether or not “believing” results in any change / evidence that the “believer” or seeker can have in this life to know that God does indeed exist.

I am satisfied that God exists. So working to become a better Christian is a reasonable thing to do.

 

[dedo]

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.

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

I really don’t know because I don’t have the perspective of viewing creation from God’s point of view. From the Bible, it seems that both people in Heaven and Hell do receive some understanding of why they end up where they end up.

It may be that you could say: "Why not do “x, y, or z,” with the people who end up in hell? It may be that those solutions would be worse than the Heaven / Hell / Purgatory solution that Catholics believe in.

Thus, for me, the logical approach is to “see for myself” if God exists by seeking God.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

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

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

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

Was it not your claim:

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).

To which I replied:

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?

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

If God is omniscient, how could he fail to have realized from the dawn of time that the date chosen to harvest such a soul would coincide with their departure from loving him? Since none are driving God’s schedules other than God, why could God not have adjusted his time-frame accordingly?

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

But given that this parable was about reward, did it not suggest that God would reward all labor equally? Why else would those who grumbled about their “reward” be reprimanded? Who is it who could complain about the amount of grace received?

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

Thank you. Same to you.

 

[Anthony_V]

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

Just to help you out, we ought to make the distinction between “perfect” and “complete”. All absolute qualities, including perfection, are applied to a subject in a way that is proper to its nature.
For example, if I had a perfect pencil, it would be due to the pencil’s perfect ability to carry out its desired end. It would have a perfect eraser and a nice pointy graphite tip that would never break. It would be an entirely different think to say a “perfect” human. Our ability to meet the desired end, which is the ability to be completed by God, is perfect.
Most of us, at least I hope, do not have a perfect eraser sticking out our posterior, nor have an indestructible piece of graphite sticking out the top of our noggin.

If you do, well, I feel bad for you.

Now, in order for the pencil to be “complete”, it must meet its desired end. I haven’t met many pencils who do the writing for me, it would seem a pencil is not “complete” in that sense. It requires a writer, or a drawer! No telling what wonderful things could be done with that pencil!
Likewise is the same for us humans. We don’t meet our desired end by ourselves, which is to be completed by God (It says so in the description). And so for us, to be complete is to be united with God.

Consider it also, this way. While its not a good parallel on God’s part, it works quite well for us: You have two puzzle pieces that fit together. If the puzzle piece was imperfect, it would not fit properly into the other one. It would not be able to carry out the function of its puzzle-piece nature! Now, if the puzzle piece was perfect in its nature (whole and totally intact), it is still not complete, because it has not met its desired end (to be united to the counterpart). I hope this helps.

Pax Christi,
Anthony

 

[Jelrak_TB]

If you have the time, I suggest you read the book of Job, in the old Testament. And then parallel that with the Gospel of John in the new Testament.

I am afraid that I do not much understand the purpose behind the book of Job. Certainly on a surface level it appears to be that one who perseveres against adversity without calling God into question will be rewarded, but what of the darker picture it seemingly paints?

Is not God portrayed as a truly callous figure divorced from the emotions of men? Are not his antics childish? Are we to take away from it the concept that we are the playthings of God to be used or abused with no greater care than as an ante in a bet with the devil? What loving father would behave this way?

Further, are we to give as little account to the loss of Job’s wives and children as does that stalwart: are they not as easy for him to have replaced as sheep and houses?

Further still, does it not underline the suspicion that a man’s family might be taken from him merely to illustrate a point or lesson? Does this not greatly reduce the possibility that our relationship with God is to be on an individual level?

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

Thank you for your hopeful sentiments. My wish is that you will not lose this positive outlook.

 

[Anthony_V]

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 understand you more clearly now. Certainly, God calls us each moment of our lives to him; sometimes it affects people in a very grave way. Nonetheless, it begs the person the question of, “what will you do to change your life?” Some people make a full 180, like Saul when he was knocked off his horse. Others let it impact their emotions, but don’t let their emotions move their will. Still others let their emotions move their will, but do not follow through such that they do not will to train their lower appetites to be subservient to their upper.

If God is omniscient, how could he fail to have realized from the dawn of time that the date chosen to harvest such a soul would coincide with their departure from loving him? Since none are driving God’s schedules other than God, why could God not have adjusted his time-frame accordingly?

And yet we try, day in and day out, to change God’s schedule to meet our needs. Or we decide that there is no schedule besides our own. When we go trying to make it all about “me”, we meet dead ends. Catastrophe is a result of sin, because it is us trying to* change* God’s plan. Because God’s plan is the only one that results in salvation, gravely changing it results in damnation. I feel like that answer is lacking. Maybe you’ll catch something I didn’t.

But given that this parable was about reward, did it not suggest that God would reward all labor equally? Why else would those who grumbled about their “reward” be reprimanded? Who is it who could complain about the amount of grace received?

Looking back on Matthew 5:45, it would seem that the parable is indeed talking about sufficient grace for salvation, not the superabundance of grace in beatific vision.

Peace, love, and joy,
Anthony

 

[Jelrak_TB]

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

And what of those who neither fill their lives with these substitutes, nor find God’s words particularly fulfilling?

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

OK.

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

Is an open gate an invitation by a master for his slaves to flee? And should the slaves flee and be recaptured, how much different might a master behave from God at the time of the fall: his words full of threats, the outlining of punishments, and his warnings of future and greater hardships to come?

What broken friendship places one party entirely in the power of the other?

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

If such is the case, clearly there is little hope for mankind. After all, who among us, would have been so foolish to have eaten from the tree of knowledge prior to eating of the one of eternal life?

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

How again does this give an example of an individual who fears his friend?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Why would a super intelligent and loving being decide to punish people forever based on what they believe about what they can not be sure about or fully understand? Why does it make sense to reward faith, when its lack of basis in proof and observable certainty makes it arbitrary, and usually just whatever somebody’s parents believed?

He is the source of intelligence; yes. And his Logic, by definition, is itself Love.
The alternative to logic is Chaos or nothingness.

Consider: If you are ignorant of Gravity, or stove heat, or … you will still fall down – be burned, … because that is the Logic of gravity, stove heat, …
Logic can’t also be an all encompasing illogic; There is no utopia of arbitrary logic.
Heaven itself will require discipline, and changing of inappropriate thinking in order to enter.

I also want to make the point that Faith itself can be reasoned to. Abraham, for example, reasoned from his experience that there was a resurrection – and he gave proof of his conviction to his servants before preparing to “sacrifice” his son. Faith, then, can ultimately found through reason and experience;

If you can know what truth is, you can (with difficulty) find the answer called God by a process of elimination. But, you may not like the journey.

Why make the punishment for what people do in their life infinitely disproportional to what they have done, based instead on a simple black and white arbitrary qualification?

To this question you are going to get a disparity of answers; The Catholic tradition does not, in fact, define this formally. I would say you are in error about the “infinitely disproportional” part. In fact, the very logic which those in Hell use – is still a reflection of God. That logic, is therefore still Love, and still good. But it is incompatible with total peace or more importantly, of sharing a life of peace with others capable of total peace.

I would offer to you this idea: Someone must hold (cradle, bear, juggle even) the souls in hell. That is, without logic – they would become mindless animals; and without God to continually be the Truth value of logic – they would cease to exist all together. I expect God, and perhaps even some of us – will be linked to those in hell through a communion (baptism) which will make some suffer in hell far more than others.
That is, some people must bear rule over the unruly. How it is that they (angels?) will do this is something of a deep mystery.

In order for God to create, he had to make something less than himself. Which means, it couldn’t be perfect by itself – or it would “Be” God. God can’t create God.

There is only one way in which we can overcome all of ignorance that causes us to hurt each other both knowingly and unknowingly – and that is to be told or informed of all necessary things by God. We are not infinite that we can be told all things, but we are capable of understanding enough to listen to what options are allowable (a law of communication). In heaven, we are told, God himself will wipe away every tear.

If you are really willing, I would be happy to discuss qualms that you have with what I have said.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

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

Lack of proper experience.

If one were to have been in a boating accident and nearly drown due to a lack of a life preserver, how likely might the one be to repeat the mistake?

If one burns his/her hand on a hot stove, how often must this happen before the one realizes that the surface is hot?

If one sticks his/her tongue to a post in sub-zero weather, resulting in it being stuck fast, how often must he/she repeat the experiment?

 

[Anthony_V]

I am afraid that I do not much understand the purpose behind the book of Job. Certainly on a surface level it appears to be that one who perseveres against adversity without calling God into question will be rewarded, but what of the darker picture it seemingly paints?

Is not God portrayed as a truly callous figure divorced from the emotions of men? Are not his antics childish? Are we to take away from it the concept that we are the playthings of God to be used or abused with no greater care than as an ante in a bet with the devil? What loving father would behave this way?

Further, are we to give as little account to the loss of Job’s wives and children as does that stalwart: are they not as easy for him to have replaced as sheep and houses?

Further still, does it not underline the suspicion that a man’s family might be taken from him merely to illustrate a point or lesson? Does this not greatly reduce the possibility that our relationship with God is to be on an individual level?

Job is likely a story, and not so much an account. Goodness, its long though. It seems to say the same thing over and over and over… zzz. But in retrospect, its always a theological masterpiece. It reminds me of the movie “Cast Away”. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen it. The exposition is about half the movie, but in its entirety, the story-line is incredible. Now, some people might watch Cast Away and think it was the most boring movie ever. It’s because the sentiments go deeper than the first impression. It’s very bittersweet and savory, like a fine wine.
So what is the point of Job? Why would God do this to Job, an upright man? There’s several ways we can take this, but all of them require a great deal of intellect to appreciate. Here’s a brief commentary from the United State’s Conference of Catholic Bishops:

The Book of Job, named after its protagonist (apparently not an Israelite; cf. Ez 14:14, 20), is an exquisite dramatic treatment of the problem of the suffering of the innocent. The contents of the book, together with its artistic structure and elegant style, place it among the literary masterpieces of all time. This is a literary composition, and not a transcript of historical events and conversations.
The prologue (chaps. 1–2) provides the setting for Job’s testing. When challenged by the satan’s questioning of Job’s sincerity, the Lord gives leave for a series of catastrophes to afflict Job. Three friends come to console him. Job breaks out in complaint (chap. 3), and a cycle of speeches begins. Job’s friends insist that his plight can only be a punishment for personal wrongdoing and an invitation from God to repent. Job rejects their inadequate explanation and challenges God to respond (chaps. 3–31). A young bystander, Elihu, now delivers four speeches in support of the views of the three friends (chaps. 32–37). In response to Job’s plea that he be allowed to see God and hear directly the reason for his suffering, the Lord answers (38:1–42:6), not by explaining divine justice, but by cataloguing the wonders of creation. Job is apparently content with this, and, in an epilogue (42:7–17), the Lord restores Job’s fortune.
The author or authors of the book are unknown; it was probably composed some time between the seventh and fifth centuries B.C. Its literary pattern, with speeches, prologue and epilogue disposed according to a studied plan, indicates that the purpose of the writing is didactic. But the lessons that the book teaches are not transparent, and different interpretations of the divine speeches and of the final chapter are possible. The Book of Job does not definitively answer the problem of the suffering of the innocent, but challenges readers to come to their own understanding.

In light of this, let’s take a look at the vineyard parable and Matthew 5:45. God is not vengeful being. He does not punish the evil-doers because of their many sins, so to speak. Even the just are afflicted with this human condition.

If you’ve ever done any reading on the life of a space station astronaut, you’ll see that they are working out literally 24/7. Why is this? There is no resistance to their muscles! Still, some come back to earth unable to walk because of excessive muscle loss. Gravity provides the resistance we need to keep our muscles strong. It also allows us to attain higher levels of fitness. It would be fruitless to put a weak person in space to get stronger. Their muscles would decay almost entirely, and they wouldn’t be able to move around.

While there isn’t an absolute reason why God allows suffering (very much case by case), it is my opinion that this resistance is here to build us up, not tear us down. For this, he doesn’t give us any more than we can’t handle, since he doesn’t demand the impossible, and wills our salvation.

Peace,
Anthony

 

[Hypnotoad]

Lack of proper experience.

If one were to have been in a boating accident and nearly drown due to a lack of a life preserver, how likely might the one be to repeat the mistake?

If one burns his/her hand on a hot stove, how often must this happen before the one realizes that the surface is hot?

If one sticks his/her tongue to a post in sub-zero weather, resulting in it being stuck fast, how often must he/she repeat the experiment?

I’m not asking you to answer a question with a question. I’m asking for you to explain the ones that didn’t change even though they had proper experience. Sorry for the confusion.

For example, how would you explain ex cons who committ crimes so they can be put back in prison?

 

[Anthony_V]

And what of those who neither fill their lives with these substitutes, nor find God’s words particularly fulfilling?

That ought to be looked at on a case by case basis. I don’t know anyone who would turn down an eternity in bliss. Furthermore, God does not call every person to the same way of life. He designed us to live out a certain vocation that is optimal to our happiness. If we aren’t at least fulfilled, then we ought to step back (again on a case by case basis) and discern if that it indeed the way of life God is calling such a person to.

Is an open gate an invitation by a master for his slaves to flee? And should the slaves flee and be recaptured, how much different might a master behave from God at the time of the fall: his words full of threats, the outlining of punishments, and his warnings of future and greater hardships to come?

Well, that’s the point. They were in an intimate friendship with God. They weren’t slaves, they were friends. When they retreated from the friendship, they became slaves to themselves. It’s important to understand that many of the old Testament books are theological events, not actual accounts.

What broken friendship places one party entirely in the power of the other?

God is always the first mover. He does his part. He offers us reconciliation through Jesus Christ. He cannot, however, reconcile us to himself on our behalf.

If such is the case, clearly there is little hope for mankind. After all, who among us, would have been so foolish to have eaten from the tree of knowledge prior to eating of the one of eternal life?

They certainly ate from the tree of life before hand. This is why they were immortal. They wouldn’t die unless they ate from the tree of knowledge. The immortality was dependent on their relationship with God, not so much the fruit of life.

How again does this give an example of an individual who fears his friend?

Why am I trying to prove that again? I think we’re seeing past each other.

 

[minkymurph]

No, but I was curious just the same.

Well, perhaps I’m loosing my sense of humour.

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

Point taken.

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

Because Jesus had not come in flesh and the Holy Spirit had not been poured out. Of course I admit it’s a theory and despite Jesus having come in flesh and the Holy Spirit being poured out, we continue to incorrectly describe God. Why does God not simply correct all these errors? I would argue He does. However, he doesn’t do it by making sure no one thinks anything inaccurate in the first place. My theory is the OT is more about telling us what God is not as opposed to what He is; a history of how the human race struggles in its relationship with God, and the OT records how the Israelites misunderstood many things, so we may understand the struggle of coming to know God, that others struggled with their understanding of God in the same way we do. Now that does not mean they didn’t know anything at all. They had knowledge of the Divine Law, and they knew God through the Law and the written word. However, can you really know someone from reading about them and being told about them? Up to a point yes. However, to really know someone requires engagement with them on an intimate level. The most intimate way to know God is through the Incarnation when He became flesh.

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

To clarify my original point, I was referring to:

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

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

I’d have to look up the passage to understand the context in which this was said and I just don’t have time at the minute. So I’ll come back to you in more detail. Off the top of my head I would say was the disaster decreed because of a bad decision or course of action, and the Israelites could have avoided disaster had they taken a different course?

 

[minkymurph]

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

God is omniscient and he does answer prayers - just not always in the way we think he should. Does God know in advance of someone being born what course they will take in life, and in spite of the fact they will ultimately reject him choose to let them be born and go to hell anyway? To be honest I don’t really know. I don’t really know because I don’t have foreknowledge, or what it means to have foreknowledge. If I knew for certain someone was going to turn out bad in advance of their birth would I let them be born? I honestly don’t know.

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

This parent did. His son died. Thousands of people on the train survived, who would otherwise have been killed. Was he an unloving father?

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

Yes, one could conjure up all sorts of images,

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

Good question. I’m not sure I could give you a very satisfactory answer to that one either. The only thing I would say is to be just, you would have to apply your super powers equally to all students and ensure none of them would turn to a life of crime. That would ultimately result in a very superficial world, where no one had to take responsibility for their own actions, because the person with the super powers would make sure nothing bad ever happened.

 

[minkymurph]

God is omniscient and he does answer prayers - just not always in the way we think he should. Does God know in advance of someone being born what course they will take in life, and in spite of the fact they will ultimately reject him choose to let them be born and go to hell anyway? To be honest I don’t really know. I don’t really know because I don’t have foreknowledge, or what it means to have foreknowledge. If I knew for certain someone was going to turn out bad in advance of their birth would I let them be born? I honestly don’t know.

Had another think about this.

There’s no doubt foreknowledge and free will are difficult concepts, and a bit of a conundrum. Theologians have come up with all sorts of explanations over the years in an attempt to answer that question, and I don’t think anyone has ever answered it in a totally adequate or satisfactory way. What I would say, and again its not a very satisfactory answer, is justice is involved because God is not unjust.

Catholics believe God desires all humanity to enter heaven. Therefore, we all have the potential, for want of a better phrase, to share the eternal life of God. Therefore, someone who ultimately rejects God has the potential not to do so. If God new for certain, and in advance, that someone would ultimately reject Him, can it deemed just never to give them the opportunity to choose a different course? I would say it can’t be deemed just, even if you know for certain the person will never accept the opportunity.

To explain further, if a judge is faced with a defendant, and all evidence points to the fact they’re a pretty hopeless case and will certainly continue to lead a life of crime, he or she can has the power to bail them or suspend their sentence, which they may do and they may not do. In considering all the evidence, they may decide to be lenient and give the person the opportunity to change their ways in spite of an overwhelming degree of certainty they in relation to the above. Let’s go further and say the judge has foreknowledge and knows for certain the person will not take the opportunity to make good. They still may give them the opportunity in the interests of justice. Does that make sense or is it a bad argument?

 

[didymus]

One thing I’ve wondered: would the souls in Hell be happy in Heaven? Would living in the the beatific vision be more painful to them than the torments of Hell?

Also, keep in mind that Hell is not the same for everyone, just as Heaven isn’t. I (if I make it) will have a much lower place than my namesake the apostle.
Likewise, I’d assume someone who raised as a Christian but rejects the truth but otherwise lives a decent life will go to Hell, but not so deep as a murderer.

My biggest problem: why does God let Satan roam to tempt us? Okay, we have free will which we will abuse, I get that. But why let Satan constantly try to drag us down? It’s like a loving parent letting their kid hang out with a drug dealer.

 

[minkymurph]

One thing I’ve wondered: would the souls in Hell be happy in Heaven? Would living in the the beatific vision be more painful to them than the torments of Hell?

Also, keep in mind that Hell is not the same for everyone, just as Heaven isn’t. I (if I make it) will have a much lower place than my namesake the apostle.
Likewise, I’d assume someone who raised as a Christian but rejects the truth but otherwise lives a decent life will go to Hell, but not so deep as a murderer.

My biggest problem: why does God let Satan roam to tempt us? Okay, we have free will which we will abuse, I get that. But why let Satan constantly try to drag us down? It’s like a loving parent letting their kid hang out with a drug dealer.

I would say there’s a difference between hanging out with a dealer, and locking your kid in a room with a drug dealer, and drugs, against their will. We would keep our children away from a drug dealer, but to what extent should we go to limit their activities, I mean the legal ones not the drug dealing, in socieity? If you catch my drift.
God does not prevent Satan from tempting us anymore than He prevents the drug dealer from tempting us. I would say it comes back to the point I was making about living in a world were God made sure nothing bad ever happened. I don’t know I’ve explained what I’m getting at very well.

 

[steve_b]

Might not the reason they may be surprised that God might condemn them to Hell to be found in your quote above?

If being good only to those who are good to one is not being perfect as God is perfect, might one not expect God to follow his own advice? Instead, if one finds only that God treats those who have been good to him with goodness and those who have been evil to him with evil, is he not breaking his own perfect standard?

The point of that passage is to show God loves perfectly, it’s not meant to show the consequences / punishment for our disobedience. That comes in other passages…

 

[SonCatcher]

Is God’s stipulation that either a soul is able to successfully join him in Heaven or else suffer eternally, just? Why only two options from a being comprised solely of love?

The separation itself is the punishment.

Well I think I already said this, but if I have, here it is again for you. I don’t not want to be with god, I don’t think god exists. You seem to be onboard with almost every other believer, in assuming that the unbeliever actually does believe your god exists, and is in some sort of rebellion or denial. Which is not true; we sincerely think your god does not exist. That does not equate to us not wanting anything to do with your god, if he did exist. But belief in your god is a prerequisite for any sort of desire to be with or without your god.

Belief or lack thereof is irrelevant. At the termination of any person’s life, God’s presence is revealed so the individual is acutely aware. If that person is well-disposed toward being in God’s presence, he enters it (possibly with some prior purification). If the person avoids God’s presence then he remains out of it.

The key is: while the person is still living, it is impossible to know with absolute certainty how he will react at that time.

 

[sw85]

Just to help you out, we ought to make the distinction between “perfect” and “complete”. All absolute qualities, including perfection, are applied to a subject in a way that is proper to its nature.
For example, if I had a perfect pencil, it would be due to the pencil’s perfect ability to carry out its desired end. It would have a perfect eraser and a nice pointy graphite tip that would never break. It would be an entirely different think to say a “perfect” human. Our ability to meet the desired end, which is the ability to be completed by God, is perfect.
Most of us, at least I hope, do not have a perfect eraser sticking out our posterior, nor have an indestructible piece of graphite sticking out the top of our noggin.

If you do, well, I feel bad for you.

Now, in order for the pencil to be “complete”, it must meet its desired end. I haven’t met many pencils who do the writing for me, it would seem a pencil is not “complete” in that sense. It requires a writer, or a drawer! No telling what wonderful things could be done with that pencil!
Likewise is the same for us humans. We don’t meet our desired end by ourselves, which is to be completed by God (It says so in the description). And so for us, to be complete is to be united with God.

Consider it also, this way. While its not a good parallel on God’s part, it works quite well for us: You have two puzzle pieces that fit together. If the puzzle piece was imperfect, it would not fit properly into the other one. It would not be able to carry out the function of its puzzle-piece nature! Now, if the puzzle piece was perfect in its nature (whole and totally intact), it is still not complete, because it has not met its desired end (to be united to the counterpart). I hope this helps.

Pax Christi,
Anthony

Thank you for the clarification!