Explain the justice of hell.

[dedo]

And Allah through the prophet Muhammed forms a divine institution, not a human one… Once again, why doesn’t god just communicate directly with us? How do you know that whatever men do within the church or according to being “connected” with god is actually god? After all, Muslims would say the same things about their institutions and feelings.

How so? Just because the truth does matter does not mean you are capable of finding it when it comes to unanswerable questions. With those types of questions you are left with your best guess, which is formulated by your biases and which side of the arguments is most convincing to you, neither of which is something you can choose.

Many believers do believe that God communicates directly with the believer. We cannot explain what “feelings etc.” are experienced by other people in other belief systems.

My experience of God’s communication have convinced me that:

1. God communicates; however, one factor that effects whether or not I “hear” the communication is the effort I put into seeking God. This is not a linear correlation. Even Mother Teresa was reported to have experienced periods when she could not perceive God. It also seems to be related to whether or not I am trying to full fill some purpose that I believe God wants me to do.
2. The communication is not designed that I can use it to convince someone else of God’s existence. That can only occur if the communication effects behavior. The behavior is what changes others. If God where to provide clear “evidence” of His existence that people could “see” without seeking God then many people would accept God, and retain false perceptions about His nature.
3. I don’t know about “unanswerable questions” except to say that once there was something that really bothered me about God re: His ability to see the future coexisting with man’s free will. “Coincidentally”, at that time I was in a religious book store and I picked up a book that just happened to address the exact issue I was upset about.

Thus, it goes back to seeking God. If a person seeks God, then sometimes the answers just “appear” just when you need them.

This is only my experience. I cannot explain every experience of every person.

 

[dedo]

For those adventurous Catholics I highly suggest Rob Bell’s “Love Wins” for a totally different and radical concept of hell.

It shook my traditionalism and clinging to the Anglo-Catholic traditions of the Episcopal High Church to my very foundations of how I understood Christianity.

I won’t go into detail but read that and your definition of hell will be radically different from when you started.

Thanks for the tip. I downloaded this on my Kindle.

 

[steve_b]

Except how can I be any of those things if I don’t even think God exists?

I don’t “not recognize” god, I don’t think he exists. You can’t be in some kind of rebellious denial or opposition to something you don’t think exists.

So god takes the unintentional mistake that somebody made in life and makes them unable to correct it for eternity. Why? What if they would have changed their mind if he had given them more reason to? Why wait till they die, then give them the proof they didn’t have, only to say it doesn’t matter what you think now, because you are dead and you will never get to change your mind, have fun in hell. Where is the justice in that?

It would be like me, say an absent father, getting back custody and saying that I had a rule you were supposed to follow, and since you didn’t, now I’m going to punish you severely. Where’s the sense in that?

Faith and atheism are both intentional. Both require an act of the human will, and the human will continues to act to maintain them. Neither are accidents. Neither are unintentional

From the beginning God desired everyone to be saved from hell. In fact He even told us that. [1 Timothy 2:4 He[/COLOR] wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.] *So nobody is sandbagged. Everybody has a chance at salvation. No one goes to heaven or hell by accident. No one is forced into either. By showing that God wants all to be saved, God stacked the deck in His favor for our benefit, but He doesn’t force anyone to do anything, otherwise He would be going against the very free will He gave us. Since He desires us to be saved, He also made us with a predisposition towards Him. That means a person has to work at denying God.

Because He left His Church, His spirit to teach His Church about the mysteries of God, and life after this one, His sacraments, and His promises, He sure can’t be confused with an absentee Father*

 

[jmvizanko]

Faith and atheism are both intentional. Both require an act of the human will, and the human will continues to act to maintain them. Neither are accidents. Neither are unintentional

Because you say so? Don’t think so. My atheism is not intentional, I am an atheist because I think it makes the most sense to be. That is not a decision. And you can call me a liar, but that won’t make it so. Only to the people who necessarily need, for the coherence of their faith and their god to be just, that not believing their religion is a choice does it follow that it is, without an actual reason for it being so.

That means a person has to work at denying God.

So you honestly think that all the non-Christians in the world are actively working to deny your god? Nope, they just don’t think your god is real. Once again, its what they think, not what they choose. And mostly these people that think a different religion than yours is true, is simply because that is what they were raised to believe, not because they are actively denying the god and religion that you think permeates everybody’s reality, even though it doesn’t.

Because He left His Church, His spirit to teach His Church about the mysteries of God, and life after this one, His sacraments, and His promises, He sure can’t be confused with an absentee Father

Yes, because his church and “spirit” are enough to convince anyone outside of the faith of his presence, over all the other religions, so well… Which is why most of the world doesn’t believe what you do… Just because you are lost in being convinced that the truth of your religion is supremely apparent to everyone in the world does not make it so. If it was, there would be a much more equal distribution of your faith across the globe. That the vast majority of people in say, Muslim regions, are Muslim, proves that its just not the case.

 

[steve_b]

Because you say so? Don’t think so. My atheism is not intentional, I am an atheist because I think it makes the most sense to be.

i.e. you will it. It’s an act of your will. Just as faith is an act of my will
j:

So you honestly think that all the non-Christians in the world are actively working to deny your god?

The vast majority of people seek God. Divine revelation was needed to get the correct information correctly.
j:

its what they think, not what they choose.

To make choices is an act of the will.
j:

And mostly these people that think a different religion than yours is true, is simply because that is what they were raised to believe, not because they are actively denying the god and religion that you think permeates everybody’s reality, even though it doesn’t.

The fact they believe in God shows an act of the will. And they are already disposed to a higher being. The fact you don’t believe is an act of the will also.
j:

Yes, because his church and “spirit” are enough to convince anyone outside of the faith of his presence, over all the other religions, so well… Which is why most of the world doesn’t believe what you do… Just because you are lost in being convinced that the truth of your religion is supremely apparent to everyone in the world does not make it so. If it was, there would be a much more equal distribution of your faith across the globe. That the vast majority of people in say, Muslim regions, are Muslim, proves that its just not the case.

~ 20% of the planet is Catholic. ~ 28% of the planet is Christian when including all forms of Christianity. Unfortunately the largest non Catholic Christian group, are ex Catholics. Our work is cut out for us that’s for sure.

Muslims are ~1.2 B.

If we talk about the God of Abraham, and stop right there in identifying agreement in at least that, we have ~46% of the planet . That’s Christianity + Islam

As I understand, ~90% of the world’s population believes in “God”. Therefore, it’s as I said earlier. The vast majority of people believe in God. It’s an act of their will to do so, just as it is in an act of your will to deny God.

Now regarding the topic of the thread. Hell exists because free will exists.

 

[Lochias]

Because you say so? Don’t think so. My atheism is not intentional, I am an atheist because** I think it makes the most sense to be.** That is not a decision. And you can call me a liar, but that won’t make it so. Only to the people who necessarily need, for the coherence of their faith and their god to be just, that not believing their religion is a choice does it follow that it is, without an actual reason for it being so.

You think. To think is an act of the will. A person doesn’t simply think without certain processes going on that affirm that thought. You think it makes the most sense for there not to be a God, therefore, your thought is a product of your will.

So you honestly think that all the non-Christians in the world are actively working to deny your god? Nope, they just don’t think your god is real. Once again, its what they think, not what they choose. And mostly these people that think a different religion than yours is true, is** simply because that is what they were raised to believe**, not because they are actively denying the god and religion that you think permeates everybody’s reality, even though it doesn’t.

This thought is a little absurd. If everyone was inevitably bound by the traditions and thoughts by which they were raised, there would be no Catholics at all. I think you do a great many people an injustice. Can a man raised in poor circumstances become wealthy, or not? Similarly with both Catholics choosing atheism, and atheists becoming Catholic.

 

[jmvizanko]

You think. To think is an act of the will. A person doesn’t simply think without certain processes going on that affirm that thought. You think it makes the most sense for there not to be a God, therefore, your thought is a product of your will.

Is you thinking that 2+2=4 an act of your will? Could you choose to think that 2+2=5?

This thought is a little absurd. If everyone was inevitably bound by the traditions and thoughts by which they were raised, there would be no Catholics at all. I think you do a great many people an injustice. Can a man raised in poor circumstances become wealthy, or not? Similarly with both Catholics choosing atheism, and atheists becoming Catholic.

Then explain why such high percentages retain the religion of their surroundings in so many regions in the world that are predominantly one religion. I recognize that some people do change religions, even though I, like above, do not really see that as a choice. But that’s a small minority of people.

 

[davidv]

Is you thinking that 2+2=4 an act of your will? Could you choose to think that 2+2=5?

Then explain why such high percentages retain the religion of their surroundings in so many regions in the world that are predominantly one religion. I recognize that some people do change religions, even though I, like above, do not really see that as a choice. But that’s a small minority of people.

When you accept that 2+4=4 is true and 2+2=5 is not, this was an act of the will.

 

[jmvizanko]

When you accept that 2+4=4 is true and 2+2=5 is not, this was an act of the will.

How so? Somebody explained it you and from then on out, unless somebody convinced you somehow otherwise, you inalterably thought it was true.

Could you will yourself to believe that Christianity is not true?

 

[davidv]

How so? Somebody explained it you and from then on out, unless somebody convinced you somehow otherwise, you inalterably thought it was true.

Could you will yourself to believe that Christianity is not true?

Why not? Many thousands do so every day, despite the explanations for it that have been given.

 

[ivebeenshown]

So god takes the unintentional mistake that somebody made in life and makes them unable to correct it for eternity. Why? What if they would have changed their mind if he had given them more reason to? Why wait till they die, then give them the proof they didn’t have, only to say it doesn’t matter what you think now, because you are dead and you will never get to change your mind, have fun in hell. Where is the justice in that?

That might be a more Protestant view. In the Catholic view, we believe that God considers ignorance in individuals when judging one’s soul.

Part of a parable from Christ:

“The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows."

“Blows” can include purgatory, which is not an eternal punishment.

There are people who break a law they were unaware of and submit to the judicial system, then there are those who violate a law they were aware of and cause a disturbance within the courtroom when they are being judged.

 

[ivebeenshown]

How so? Somebody explained it you and from then on out, unless somebody convinced you somehow otherwise, you inalterably thought it was true.

Could you will yourself to believe that Christianity is not true?

You might say that belief is an act of the will inasmuch as people willingly hear or turn away evidence.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

He didn’t change His mind. He warned Adam. Adam didn’t obey so the consequences happened.

But did he not then send Jesus to reopen the very gates he had closed? If Jesus was also God, did not God effectively undo what God had previously done?

It was the consequence of Adam’s sin that prevented humanity from entering heaven. Before Adam, there were no human beings made to the image and likeness of God.

Why might it have seemed necessary to close Heaven for thousands of years based solely on the actions of Adam and Eve?

That was certainly the biggest issue

It could be said that way too.

He more than proved Himself. That’s why ALL the beginners (converts) were Jews.

Did not Simon Magus claim to possess similar powers? Would it have been proper to convert to follow him based on such evidence?

Further, why might the vast majority of Jews who did not convert be potentially blameworthy simply because of a desire to remain faithful to God?

As you know, many Jews didn’t make the mistake…

Given that only a small minority appeared to have recognized Jesus as the messiah while the vast overwhelming majority did not, should Jesus’ mission be viewed as an unmitigated success or as a surprising* failure?

*Surprising insofar as one might not expect an almighty deity to fare so poorly in an attempt to properly communicate to the very people he had purportedly chosen to foster as his very children.

Yes it’s different.

refering back to the previous entry, I’d say justice not revenge. As Jesus said Himself, He came to do the will of the Father…perfectly.

Was it the will of the Father to convert only a minority of the Jews? If not, how might Jesus have accomplished God’s will with perfection?

Not sure. I haven’t read all the posts of others.

OK

Since they are the only ones we have, I’d say they are the best terms and conditions.

If one were to present different terms and conditions than these, how might they be properly evaluated as superior or inferior if “the best terms” are made so simply because “they are the only ones we have”?

If you see, you don’t need faith. The definition of faith is

Heb 11:1
faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

That’s why Jesus said to Thomas

[Jn 20:29]
You have believed because you see. Blessed are those who have not seen yet believe.

Why might it be better to believe without seeing than to believe after seeing? If the answer is that the former requires trust, might it not be fair to consider whether the one demanding such a faith might be properly trustworthy? How might one determine this level of trustworthiness if evidence to denote same appears to be lacking?

Further, if the goal of this life is for one to become more trusting of the world’s creator, why might there exist so many means of being harmed through exhibiting same? Why might a young woman who is convinced that God has reformed the heart of a formerly troubled young man be punished by assault when her trust is proven to be misplaced?

Yes He supports free will. That’s what makes us responsible for what we do.

Yet does he seemingly support free “good” will in equal measure to free “evil” will? If one were to wish to donate to charity and another should wish to defraud the donor, whose will is it that God appears to fully support?

If we had no free will, then no there would be no glory. But then, why would God incarnate, live, teach us what to believe, suffer a horrible death, rise from the dead, ascend back to heaven, for creatures that have no free will? Who weren’t made to His image and likeness? Nor could possibly live as He expected of us? The fact He became like us in all things but sin, established His Church, His sacraments, left specific orders for all of us to follow, says to me, He expects us to do His will, because we can.

Is a king laudable for making a proclamation that his will shall be done and transgressors shall be tormented for their rebellion? What if this same king were to go to battle and defeat a notorious enemy while narrowly escaping death in order that his subjects might retain the freedom of continuing to chose to do his will?

Are not the rebellious equally tormented regardless of the efforts of their king?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

It may be to someone. My understanding of the Prodigal Son is he is not only forgiven, he doesn’t have to ask for it. The father sees him from a long way off, and the fact is making his way back is enough for the father to forgive. Not only does the father forgive him, he embraces him and throws a party to celebrate the fact he has returned. The story suggests a change of heart which we can assume then leads to a change of lifestyle. There is nothing in this story I can see that relates to judgement.

Precisely so, but as the example offered specifically pertained to a post judgement situation, might it be clearer why the story of the Prodigal Son appears a somewhat imperfect fit in response?

I would imagine the parent would feel pleasure they had a change of heart, as God does when we have a change of heart. I don’t imagine a loving parent would derive an emotion such as pleasure from their child’s incarceration. However, if the child knew what the penalty was for the crime prior to committing it, was fully culpable and aware of all the consequences, and through their own free will chose to commit it, can it be said they have chosen prison for themselves? It is also an established fact may convicted of serious crimes such as rape re-offend.

I would say if someone should be given a reprieve, they would not be in hell in the first place. My understanding of it is those who are in hell have no desire for God’s love or forgiveness, or to share the life of God and never will have, for eternity. Hell is the absence of God’s love and forgiveness. Those in hell will know what it is to exist without God’s love. However, the will never want it, and never want to share the life of God, or the life of others who do. I also have a theory ‘hell’ is of one’s own making, in that people create their own hell - but it’s only a theory.

A change of heart prior to arrest (or after release) is one topic apart from what is being sought here: what is being examined is why God might devise a system in which change appears impossible once in Hell.

No. Would you say God does?

Would God’s final decision over who descends to an eternity of torment suggest otherwise?

As I understand it, Jesus performed miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit. Someone else might pick me up on my theology here, but this is how I understand Catholic teaching on the Trinity and the Incarnation.

Jesus did not cease to be God. Being emptied of all Godly knowledge means not knowing, not ceasing to be. In becoming Incarnate, Jesus had both a divine nature and a human nature that were joined, what is called the hypostatic union.

Catholics also believe in the Trinity. Meaning, Jesus did not cease to be in union with God the Father and the Holy Spirit. The union being the sharing of the divine nature.

In other words, there are many means by which is was possible for Jesus to perform miracles.

To clarify, is it your belief that Jesus knew nothing of God other than what was taught to him by humans until a later contact with the Holy Spirit? Once so contacted, however, did he not necessarily, from that point onwards, share a potent longing for his return to Heaven?

Further, when might this contact with the Holy Spirit have taken place?

Finally, if Mary and Jesus were both purportedly born without Original Sin, and thereby remained free from transgressions as a result, would not God’s apparent cursing of the rest of mankind (with being born under such auspices) be paramount to a willful participation in the destruction of much of humanity?

To clarify, if none were born with Original Sin would not all have apparently behaved as Mary and Jesus?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

i.e. you will it. It’s an act of your will. Just as faith is an act of my will

This is true to some extent: when provided with what might otherwise appear illogical in a faith, a theist might choose to consider it a “mystery” and carry on with belief while an atheist might choose to consider it an “impossible contrivance brought about by a theologian caught in a bind” and so remove himself from the congregation.

Based on these considerations, why might a god of love choose to punish the atheist and reward the theist for such seemingly subjective choices?

Now regarding the topic of the thread. Hell exists because free will exists.

Would it not be equally plausible to claim that Hell seemingly exists because no free will ultimately exists?

If free will were to ultimately exist, who might choose to reside eternally in torment when they might otherwise freely choose any other alternative?

Further, if all goodness comes from God, and a sinner might choose an overabundance of chocolate cake and be fixated on its creamy goodness, would not an eternity in Hell seemingly rob them of their beloved chocolate cake along with every other future choice? Why might a lover of chocolate cake then choose to reside in Hell?

If chocolate cake is from God, could it not be termed that the sinner simply loves only a part of God, but overwhelmingly so?

Alternately, if chocolate cake is not of God, will it abound in Hell?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

In discussion with many an atheist, they present two challenges concerning belief in God; it can’t proven and therefore it is irrational to believe in God, and consequent to this, it’s somewhat unintelligent to believe in God and more intelligent to reject belief in God. Of course there are other reasons but I’ll stick to the above for now.

I have found there are atheists who accept life is not an x + y = equation. As human, everything we believe is not based on irrevocable evidence. We believe many things that cannot be irrevocably proven or established by empirical evidence. To hope and believe is an essential element of what it is to human. If we ceased to hope and believe, we would cease to be human, we would be Vulcan’s like Spock. In discussion with atheists they will readily apply this principle in many circumstances, as it can be established we believe many things that cannot irrevocably be proven or established as a consequence of empirical evidence. Therefore, the atheist position a belief that cannot be irrevocably proven or established as a consequence of empirical evidence is flawed.

Is it not seemingly important to understand that which is most urgent, as concretely as might be possible? How often might warning citations be allowed to whimsical interpretation? Are deadly dangers to be warned about poetically? Are traffic signals open to interpretation?

Why might the atheist be suspect for noting that a god seemingly willing to treat the life of a human as sufficiently inferior to not even warrant unambiguous instructions (while still being held direly accountable for missteps) might not exist as described?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

The third issue then is, is belief in God unintelligent?

I heard many an atheist say belief in God is ‘unintelligent’ because it is not ‘fact.’ I believe it was Socrates who said there are no such thing as ‘facts’ - there are notions and opinions but there are no ‘facts.’ But no matter.

We humans believe many things that cannot be categorized as ‘fact.’ Therefore, can believing something that is not a ‘fact’ be deemed ‘unintelligent?’ Reasonable, open-minded atheists who know something about education will agree speculative and imaginative thought is an essential element of cognitive development. There are those who would not concede this, and are of the opinion children and young people should be taught nothing but ‘fact.’ But thankfully it’s unlikely such atheists will ever control the education system.

Speculative and imaginative thought cannot be categorized as ‘fact.’ However, neither can it be categorized as ‘unintelligent’ due to the absence of ‘facts.’ The capacity to reason and engage in speculative and imaginative thought is an essential element of what it is to be human, and distinguishes us from the animal kingdom. Although sometimes I wonder. Therefore, the atheist position belief in God should be rejected on the basis it is ‘unintelligent’ is also flawed, as it would appear this opinion is based on the argument it ‘unintelligent’ to believe anything that is not a ‘fact.’

Agreed. It does not appear justifiable to claim that a given belief in God is an “unintelligent” belief any more than it is to claim that an atheistic lack of belief is equally so.

 

[steve_b]

But did he not then send Jesus to reopen the very gates he had closed?

Yes. Which proves God is a loving God beyond compare, and He doesn’t want anyone to perrish.

So with Jesus life death and resurrection, He made it possible for all to be saved.
J:

If Jesus was also God, did not God effectively undo what God had previously done?

Gen 3:15 describes the plan of God to save humanity immediately after Adam fell. This passage is called the protoevangelium, the fortelling of the good news, the Gospel to come. We’re living with the consequences of the fall, but we don’t have to be stuck with it for all eternity.
J:

Why might it have seemed necessary to close Heaven for thousands of years based solely on the actions of Adam and Eve?

Do you have children…grandchildren…great grandchildren? If you were given a great inheritance but lost it, would you be able to pass onto your future generations what you lost? No.

We are all from Adam. We inherit from him, Adam’s nature after the fall. We inherit the downward pull to sin
J:

Did not Simon Magus claim to possess similar powers? Would it have been proper to convert to follow him based on such evidence?

He apparantly impressed a few followers. I suppose his claim to fame is, he’s considered the father of heresies, i.e. he was considered the 1st heretic…
newadvent.org/cathen/13797b.htm
J:

Further, why might the vast majority of Jews who did not convert be potentially blameworthy simply because of a desire to remain faithful to God?

Even Paul was frustrated with his own people, and he made powerful arguments. All I can say, (this is my observation and opinion) the apostles went for the low hanging fruit. iow, they didn’t beat anyone over the head, they preached the good news and people who were disposed came easily. They didn’t spend much time with difficult people who weren’t interested. They moved on
J:

Given that only a small minority appeared to have recognized Jesus as the messiah while the vast overwhelming majority did not, should Jesus’ mission be viewed as an unmitigated success or as a surprising* failure?

There’s an OT passage I think summarizes this

“today I put before you life and death, blessings and curses, choose life” [Dt 30:19 ]

People really have been given free will by God. He doesn’t violate that.
J:

*Surprising insofar as one might not expect an almighty deity to fare so poorly in an attempt to properly communicate to the very people he had purportedly chosen to foster as his very children.

Given all God has done for our benefit, He doesn’t force people to believe in Him. When people say they love God, but their actions and life style suggest differently, it’s probably safe to say they love God on their terms rather than His.
J:

Was it the will of the Father to convert only a minority of the Jews? If not, how might Jesus have accomplished God’s will with perfection?

As I quoted on an earlier post,* “He desires all to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth”*Therefore, He gives everyone the ability to say yes to Him. But through hardness of heart or mired down in sin, they just won’t come around
J:

If one were to present different terms and conditions than these, how might they be properly evaluated as superior or inferior if “the best terms” are made so simply because “they are the only ones we have”?

People HAVE tried to present different terms and conditions over the milleniums. Look at all the divisions from the Church for example, which btw, is condemned in the very scriptures these dividers profess to follow “alone”
J:

Why might it be better to believe without seeing than to believe after seeing? If the answer is that the former requires trust, might it not be fair to consider whether the one demanding such a faith might be properly trustworthy? How might one determine this level of trustworthiness if evidence to denote same appears to be lacking?

You’re assuming the evidence is lacking or at least un trustworthy…
J:

Further, if the goal of this life is for one to become more trusting of the world’s creator, why might there exist so many means of being harmed through exhibiting same? Why might a young woman who is convinced that God has reformed the heart of a formerly troubled young man be punished by assault when her trust is proven to be misplaced?

are you asking, why do bad things happen to good people?
J:

Yet does he seemingly support free “good” will in equal measure to free “evil” will? If one were to wish to donate to charity and another should wish to defraud the donor, whose will is it that God appears to fully support?

I refer back to the earlier quote

*“today I put before you life and death, blessings and curses, choose life” [Dt 30:19 ] *

The choice is there. Life or death, blessings or curses. Obviously God wants us to always choose Life and Blessings. But the reality of free will is, one could choose curses and death. Not what God wants but the choice is there as are the consequences. That’s why there is hell. And people don’t accidently go there.
J:

Is a king laudable for making a proclamation that his will shall be done and transgressors shall be tormented for their rebellion? What if this same king were to go to battle and defeat a notorious enemy while narrowly escaping death in order that his subjects might retain the freedom of continuing to chose to do his will?

Are not the rebellious equally tormented regardless of the efforts of their king?

Jesus didn’t suffer so we don’t have to suffer

 

[qwfeghy]

LOLhttp://www.50centloseweight.com

 

[minkymurph]

Precisely so, but as the example offered specifically pertained to a post judgement situation, might it be clearer why the story of the Prodigal Son appears a somewhat imperfect fit in response?

It’s true, to my knowledge, The Prodigal Son is not about judgement. It’s about repentance and forgiveness. I believe the point in question related to a child in prison. The Prodigal Son was in a sense, ‘in prison,’ - one of his own making. The Father did not shield him from the consequences of his actions; by making sure nothing untoward happened to him as a consequence of squandering his inheritance. This does not mean the Father enjoyed seeing him in the state he was in, or had no regard for him. What would the son have learned if his Father had made sure nothing untoward happened to him? That he could do what he wanted and the Father would make sure there where no consequences? Not a good lesson for life. However, when the son saw the error of his ways and desired to return to his Father, the Father not only forgave him but was overjoyed, ran to embrace him, and celebrated his return.

In relation to what we were discussing, a loving parent would not enjoy their child being in prison. However, it would be in the child’s interests to ensure they never face the consequences of their actions. If they commit a serious crime, the chances are they will go to prison. The parent hopes their child never will commit a serious crime, and they teach them values in order to avoid that. However, there comes a point in time when the child must choose whether to embrace those values for themselves, or reject them.