Explain the justice of hell.

[Jelrak_TB]

Jelrak,
I think the basic problem you are having is one of point of view. You are clearly grounded in the secular, so your values are secular. What you see as important is not what God sees as important.

It is possible. Whereas one of my nature might value consistency, clarity, honor, respect, and fair-dealings; seemingly God places these lower in importance than obedience without question (faith), detached curiosity (tests whose outcome might include an eternity of torment), and ongoing intrigue.

What God values is love, which is defined as doing something for someone else without expecting anything in return.

Is this how God treated the Middianites or the Canaanites? Is this how he treats mankind? Does he allow them the reward of eternal happiness without expecting anything in return?

Doing God’s will means doing things for others. Those that go to heaven will be those that are selfless and humble and when they get there, they will encounter a world where everyone is looking out for everyone else’s well being.

This is admirable. It is strongly hoped that this is reality, but feared it is not.

Contrast this to the secular view, where what everyone values is their own comfort and power. When these people die, the will also find themselves condemned to a world of like minded people. They will create their own suffering, as each person tries to take advantage of the other, just as they did on earth. They will not have the advantage of having selfless people to take care of them, so they will ultimately descend into anarchy and despair. This suffering is of their own doing, not God’s.

It has been the experience of this poster that when the chips were down, it was overwhelmingly the secular who came to lend assistance: the church-going were far too busy passing judgement in order to justify inaction. Alternately, it has been seen that the church-going will strongly assist one-another. Is it perhaps the case that each group might simply assist its own members?

As for suffering itself, this is seen differently by the God fearing and the secularist. Those that understand God’s plan, recognize that life is the great test to see which world you ultimately want. Your heaven or hell begins on earth. You see, human suffering is a path to love. Those that suffer open themselves up to love and provide an opportunity for others to love them. Someone who never suffers, never experiences love (again, someone doing something for them without return) because they are in need of nothing. In life, though, everyone suffers and everyone has access to those who are suffering and need their love. Secularists can’t see this though because they aren’t tuned into love. All they see is the discomfort.

This is perhaps the strongest point in favor of Christianity: that not only might suffering have meaning, but that it is necessary. There is an acknowledged truth that true empathy requires previous suffering. Also, true love requires the ability to give to another what is lacking. That the world might be filled with suffering might merely be because God wishes all to acquire true loving concern for one another in Heaven.

Alternately, would this suggest that the souls in Hell might have greater empathy than those in Heaven after a thousand years? Might God ultimately be tempted to favor them in the end since only they might be able to plumb the true depths of feeling in a way more similar to God’s own abilities?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

There is a huge difference in what you are saying. The office thief is deterred from stealing because of the threat of some penalty. The Christian is deterred from sinning, not because of the the threat of penalty, but because he desires what is best for others and realizes that sin hurts them and he wants to avoid this… In other words, the thief acts out of self interest, while the Christian acts out of love. This is the difference between those that enter hell and those that enter heaven…

Hopefully in my ignorance I will not offend, but is not the Christian afraid of eternal damnation? Is that not potentially the greatest deterrent possible?

Further, could not the atheist thief be instructed on how the theft impacts his character–which, it must be assumed, he esteems as much as any Christian–so as to cause him to rethink his actions? Alternately, could he not learn to love his superior sufficiently to realize the theft might reflect poorly upon him and so desist?

In fine, it would appear that the Christian may have a moral advantage from the point of view of not requiring a need to love all those they might encounter in order not to be tempted to take advantage of them (since by loving a single entity, God, they are able to substitute him for any other), but if the psychology behind the good behavior appears repeatable in the case of the atheist, wherein might enter the supernatural? In other words, if the atheist has rejected God, is he not necessarily in league with God’s enemies? If so, how might he be expected to behave properly in any context?

And yet, seemingly, he does…or else might not a visit to Japan be something of a nightmare?

 

[minkymurph]

We can’t worry about how Calvinists misread certain scriptures to proof text some position they have that is condemned by the Church. Since God *“desires all to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth” [1 Tim 2:4] *, then we know God desires no one to go to hell, nor does he predestine anyone to hell (double predestination), a calvinistic position which the Church condemns. God desires everyone to be with Him but He forces no one against their will.

The fact He knows in advance who will refuse Him, and who will choose Him, doesn’t mean He forced those positions against a person’s will. We have free will which is truly free by design… The fact few are chosen, should give everyone pause about their choices

I was pretty sure you would refute the pre-destination bit. However, it’s the few are chosen that is problematic. ‘Few’ can be interpreted as a limited number and as you quite rightly say, God desires all to be saved.

The New Jerusalem Bible reads, not all are chosen which puts a different slant on the things. Jesus makes this statement after relating the parable about the wedding feast and the wedding garment. It’s a very interesting parable, in that it says everyone the servants could find on the road were invited to the wedding feast, and the wedding hall was filled with good and bad alike. A man who is not wearing a wedding garment is thrown out. As you rightly infer, he received an ‘invitation,’ which the parable states at the outset. However, he was perhaps one who ‘wasn’t interested’ and ‘maltreated and killed’ servants of the king who offered them the invitation.

Apologies if I appear to be nit-picking, but I think it is important to the discussion on the thread. I would read this passage of scripture as, it is not that few are chosen that should make everyone pause, but rather rejection of the ‘invitation’ that has been sent out, This to me can be can interpreted as rejection of God’s ‘invitation,’ then attempting to come into God’s presence when one does not want to be there, which is illustrated by not wearing the wedding garment. This is why the person concerned is called but not ‘chosen,’ rather than because ‘few’ are chosen. Further to the wedding hall being filled with ‘good and bad alike,’ ‘good’ and ‘bad’ take up the ‘invitation’ and want to be there. In other words, it’s not so much the living a ‘good’ life, (not that we have a licence to live a bad one) but acceptance of the ‘invitation’ and desire to be at the ‘wedding.’ Those who claim to live ‘good’ lives may not be at the ‘wedding.’ Others who don’t appear to live particularly good lives may be.

 

[CarolVP]

Which of these positions expressed by Catholics here might be considered most correct:

1. God judges mankind and so enforces a standard regarding who might enter Heaven/Purgatory: those who do not meet the criteria are sent to Hell?
2. Individuals may ‘freely choose’ to send themselves to Hell (a locale where God is absent) if they would rather not be near to God, but otherwise he welcomes all?
3. Individuals who are not willing to receive God’s love find themselves burned by it in the afterlife because there is no hiding from an omnipresent God whose love shines as a refining fire for the saved and a burning scourge for the damned?

Obviously, number 2 is closest to what I believe, since it is an attempt to re-state my position. There is distortion in your re-statement, however, since it implies people making conscious decisions to actually “go to Hell”.

The decision is made to renounce God, or to refuse to love or obey Him. Not all would decide the following - “Yes, I prefer Hell. No matter how loving God is, or how much He wants me with Him in eternity, I want Hell.” Some may decide this - I don’t know. Most choose sin (rejection of God & His laws) over love of God, however, because they choose what they believe to be a ‘better’ choice than another, usually from short-term self-interest.

Sin is the choice of a wrong action over a right action. A sinful life is one where evil/wrong decisions are made repeatedly, and through habit, sometimes from weakness, sometimes from laziness, sometimes from convenience, sometimes from pride, et cetera, or in combinations of these. Some people have mental conditions which pre-dispose them to sinful actions. Only God can judge our intentions, and only God knows our minds/mental states when we commit sin.

Even where a person has no knowledge of the existence of God, he has a notion of what is right and what is wrong, and is required to act upon it. God will judge all according to what they have been given. More is always expected from those who have been given more. (A pagan simpleton, therefore, has more chance of attaining Heaven, in some ways, than an intelligent, arrogant and acquisitive Catholic.) All have a chance to repent before death, however.

God does want us all in Heaven, because He loves us all. He created us to live with Him in eternity. If we reject His way of love, and will not repent, then we have rejected His plan for us, which He has allowed us to do. No one in Heaven will say, “I was forced to be here.”

No one in Hell will say, either, “I was forced to be here.”

 

[steve_b]

I was pretty sure you would refute the pre-destination bit. However, it’s the few are chosen that is problematic. ‘Few’ can be interpreted as a limited number and as you quite rightly say, God desires all to be saved.

The New Jerusalem Bible reads, not all are chosen which puts a different slant on the things. Jesus makes this statement after relating the parable about the wedding feast and the wedding garment. It’s a very interesting parable, in that it says everyone the servants could find on the road were invited to the wedding feast, and the wedding hall was filled with good and bad alike. A man who is not wearing a wedding garment is thrown out. As you rightly infer, he received an ‘invitation,’ which the parable states at the outset. However, he was perhaps one who ‘wasn’t interested’ and ‘maltreated and killed’ servants of the king who offered them the invitation.

Apologies if I appear to be nit-picking, but I think it is important to the discussion on the thread. I would read this passage of scripture as, it is not that few are chosen that should make everyone pause, but rather rejection of the ‘invitation’ that has been sent out, This to me can be can interpreted as rejection of God’s ‘invitation,’ then attempting to come into God’s presence when one does not want to be there, which is illustrated by not wearing the wedding garment. This is why the person concerned is called but not ‘chosen,’ rather than because ‘few’ are chosen. Further to the wedding hall being filled with ‘good and bad alike,’ ‘good’ and ‘bad’ take up the ‘invitation’ and want to be there. In other words, it’s not so much the living a ‘good’ life, (not that we have a licence to live a bad one) but acceptance of the ‘invitation’ and desire to be at the ‘wedding.’ Those who claim to live ‘good’ lives may not be at the ‘wedding.’ Others who don’t appear to live particularly good lives may be.

Re: predestination, it’s double predestination that’s the problem, not predestination itself.
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/TULIP.htm

Re: few are chosen, that signals to me, while everyone is invited, few make it favorably through final judgement.

 

[minkymurph]

Re: predestination, it’s double predestination that’s the problem, not predestination itself.
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/TULIP.htm

Re: few are chosen, that signals to me, while everyone is invited, few make it favorably through final judgement.

I agree it’s not predestination that is the problem; (Mary and John the Baptist were predestined, and Samuel?) but the double predestination.

The problem is ‘few’ making it through to the final judgement. That is the bit that’s too close to the Calvinist idea of a small ‘elect.’ I don’t think that is what Jesus is explaining in the parable of the wedding feast, that only a ‘few’ will make it through to the final judgement. I don’t think that’s what the parable is about. Revelation also talks about a ‘great crowd’ no man can number before the throne of God. That’s not a ‘few’ people.

This reasoning is also problematic for other reasons; it suggests God only approves of a relatively small number of people, only this number of people will ultimately have a love for God, which makes you think is there any point if I am not one of those few, God is hard to please, what makes these ‘few’ distinctive from everyone else in terms of gaining God’s approval?

Do you see where I’m coming from?

 

[steve_b]

I agree it’s not predestination that is the problem; (Mary and John the Baptist were predestined, and Samuel?) but the double predestination.

The problem is ‘few’ making it through to the final judgement. That is the bit that’s too close to the Calvinist idea of a small ‘elect.’ I don’t think that is what Jesus is explaining in the parable of the wedding feast, that only a ‘few’ will make it through to the final judgement. I don’t think that’s what the parable is about. Revelation also talks about a ‘great crowd’ no man can number before the throne of God. That’s not a ‘few’ people.

This reasoning is also problematic for other reasons; it suggests God only approves of a relatively small number of people, only this number of people will ultimately have a love for God, which makes you think is there any point if I am not one of those few, God is hard to please, what makes these ‘few’ distinctive from everyone else in terms of gaining God’s approval?

Do you see where I’m coming from?

Re: “few are chosen”, or “wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it” all gets back to choices we’ve made.

we hope for Perseverance till the end oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Final_Perseverance

because after that comes

Particular judgment newadvent.org/cathen/08550a.htm

and

Final Judgment newadvent.org/cathen/08552a.htm

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Obviously, number 2 is closest to what I believe, since it is an attempt to re-state my position. There is distortion in your re-statement, however, since it implies people making conscious decisions to actually “go to Hell”.

The decision is made to renounce God, or to refuse to love or obey Him. Not all would decide the following - “Yes, I prefer Hell. No matter how loving God is, or how much He wants me with Him in eternity, I want Hell.” Some may decide this - I don’t know. Most choose sin (rejection of God & His laws) over love of God, however, because they choose what they believe to be a ‘better’ choice than another, usually from short-term self-interest.

Sin is the choice of a wrong action over a right action. A sinful life is one where evil/wrong decisions are made repeatedly, and through habit, sometimes from weakness, sometimes from laziness, sometimes from convenience, sometimes from pride, et cetera, or in combinations of these. Some people have mental conditions which pre-dispose them to sinful actions. Only God can judge our intentions, and only God knows our minds/mental states when we commit sin.

Even where a person has no knowledge of the existence of God, he has a notion of what is right and what is wrong, and is required to act upon it. God will judge all according to what they have been given. More is always expected from those who have been given more. (A pagan simpleton, therefore, has more chance of attaining Heaven, in some ways, than an intelligent, arrogant and acquisitive Catholic.) All have a chance to repent before death, however.

God does want us all in Heaven, because He loves us all. He created us to live with Him in eternity. If we reject His way of love, and will not repent, then we have rejected His plan for us, which He has allowed us to do. No one in Heaven will say, “I was forced to be here.”

No one in Hell will say, either, “I was forced to be here.”

Thank you for the clarification of your position.

Three questions:

1. Might God discontinue his love for those in Hell?
   a) If so, why?
   b) If not, what form of love might he be capable of harboring for beings sentenced to an eternity of torment for having allegedly rejected him?
2. If Hell is a choice, would it be a conscious or unconscious one? Would one attain Hell by having more faults than virtues or would it require only a single, grievous fault to so arrive?
3. If those in Hell might claim not to be forced to be therein, might they leave at any time?
   a) If not, how might they claim not to be so forced?
   b) If so, why might they voluntarily remain?

 

[minkymurph]

Re: “few are chosen”, or “wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it” all gets back to choices we’ve made.

we hope for Perseverance till the end oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Final_Perseverance

because after that comes

Particular judgment newadvent.org/cathen/08550a.htm

and

Final Judgment newadvent.org/cathen/08552a.htm

Perhaps we are coming at this from different perspectives.

I looked up the links you gave me, and I see nothing that to the effect that only a small number of elite will get into heaven. No one knows what percentage of the human race will enter heaven and what percentage will not. To be honest, I don’t even see the relevance of this line of thinking.

A ‘wide’ gate is easier to go through and a ‘broad road’ easier to walk. I don’t think Jesus was referring to ‘numbers’ at all, but rather the degree of effort involved.

 

[steve_b]

Perhaps we are coming at this from different perspectives.

I looked up the links you gave me, and *I see nothing that to the effect that only a small number of elite will get into heaven. *No one knows what percentage of the human race will enter heaven and what percentage will not. To be honest, I don’t even see the relevance of this line of thinking.

Yes, we don’t know how God defines “many” and “few”. I’m not speculating on how many is “many” or how few is “few”. I’m just observing the words used. “Many” while I’m sure is a large number, “many” doesn’t equal “all” so that’s why I concluded with, our choices we make, matter.
m:

A ‘wide’ gate is easier to go through and a ‘broad road’ easier to walk. I don’t think Jesus was referring to ‘numbers’ at all, but rather the degree of effort involved.

Why not both, numbers & effort? It is clear to me from those passages, that “effort” is associated with the right road, and the right destination, NOT the other road which while easy, leads in the wrong direction with a bad result. Does He say there are consequences to which road people are on? Yes. Does it effect numbers of people depending on the road they’re on? Yes.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

Maybe we’re looking at this in a wrong direction. Maybe it isn’t so much about a “place” called heaven and hell where an old bearded man sending people to. It’s more like a state of the soul, as the demon in Dr. Faustus told us that his soul is in hell no matter where he is. A person who consciously objects God, refuse to accept Him, separates himself from the eternal Love, Justice, and Joy. Imagine these attributes taken away, what do you have left? Misery, darkness, evil, and sufferings. It is just, because it provides freedom. And freedom, isn’t that’s what we all appreciate?

 

[CarolVP]

Thank you for the clarification of your position.

Three questions:

1. Might God discontinue his love for those in Hell?
   a) If so, why?
   b) If not, what form of love might he be capable of harboring for beings sentenced to an eternity of torment for having allegedly rejected him?
2. If Hell is a choice, would it be a conscious or unconscious one? Would one attain Hell by having more faults than virtues or would it require only a single, grievous fault to so arrive?
3. If those in Hell might claim not to be forced to be therein, might they leave at any time?
   a) If not, how might they claim not to be so forced?
   b) If so, why might they voluntarily remain?

I had a quick look at this thread yesterday, but had problems trying to isolate one question at a time, in order to attempt a response to individual questions. Then, the family took the computer…Anyway:

1. God’s love continues for all souls, as His special creation. Being the source and summit of all love, and being Love itself, His love would not be extinguished. He would, however, permit the defiant soul to be away from Him, since he/she had total free will to make that decision. Anyone in Hell has no excuse** whatsoever** for being there. It is because of their own decision. You seem to be under the illusion that it is God’s will that those souls suffer. It is not. Are you also implacably against God and any concept of His love? Are you talking or thinking or reasoning yourself into a refusal to see?

Nothing that I can say can change an obdurate refusal to see how** justice demands** that those who choose to reject God decide their own futures. You cannot see the gravity of the crime of rejection of the God who offers so much. Just as there are, on earth, crimes of such magnitude and horror that nothing seems sufficient to bring the victims justice, so it is with sins against God. Moreover, the sins which we naturally recoil against in this life (such as the torture and murder of innocents - and most especially children), are also reviled by God. All sins against our fellow human beings are also sins against God.

Sin is defined as an offence against God, and there are many actions, classified by the Catholic Church as sins, which you would agree to be wrong. Your ‘conscience’ gives you that knowledge and insight. You already have moral standards. As a Catholic, I have higher moral standards to attain to. I am not claiming to be anything less than a sinner, however. I am simply stating a fact.

1. A. As I have already said, there wouldn’t be many people who say - “I choose Hell. I know what it is, and I choose to go there.” There may be some. These people are, most likely, dyed-in-the-wool atheists who have decided that they do not care whether there is Hell or not. They will not love or serve God, even if He happens to exist. They, privately, however, hope that they are right. They fully expect to be annihilated after death, and fervently hope that they are.

Any decision against God must be a conscious one, to some degree at least. It is possible to imagine someone ignoring every aid and indication to find out about the existence and love of God, and who thus spends life “without God”, so to speak. The decision to refuse to sincerely seek God, therefore, is a conscious decision.

Could such a decision ever be fully and properly unconscious? I really don’t know. I also can’t say how God would judge such a person. The person would certainly be judged by his/her deeds. If the deeds indicated a total lack of any effort to behave morally, based on an unconscious rejection of God, then it would seem that the deliberate sins themselves would constitute deliberate rejection of God.

Only God can ever judge a particular person’s soul. Only He has the total knowledge of our hearts, wills and intentions. I can, however, be guided by my conscience, my principles, and by my Catholic Faith, to know how to act. I must avoid sinful behaviour. In order to do so, I need to know what is sinful and what is not.

B. Hell is for those who reject God to the end, without final repentance. Whether they have spent their whole lives rejecting God through their sinful actions, or have started out well and then finally rejected Him, it doesn’t matter, strictly speaking. It is in no way a balancing of the sins on one side, against the good deeds on the other. A person could be extremely sinful for the vast majority of his/her life, and then repent and try to make amends towards the end. The repentance can even be at the final moment before death, as stated many times.

A sinful life is usually begun in bad habits. Just as one can have a bad habit of not cleaning one’s teeth, so it is with sin. Small sins in childhood gradually become more serious sins in adulthood. Sins against purity are usually begun in adolescence. Any sinful habit, unchecked, leads the soul into further sin. It is in the nature of man.

A morally-upright life, on the other hand, provided it is lived in humility (as opposed to pride and arrogance) and true love for God (rather than for self-interest), is habitually inclined towards Heaven. Such a person is always at risk of committing sin, naturally, but is habitually inclined against sin. If such a person falls into grave sin, it would be unlikely for him/her to stay that way. It is, of course, possible, but not terribly likely. I also believe that God gives us many, many chances to repent before death. A truly loving God always gives enough opportunities for repentance.

1. Sadly, those in Hell may never leave. The chances to love God are only given in this life, and are there up until the moment of death. The decision is made on earth.

 

[CarolVP]

Frankly, I struggle with the concepts of timelessness and the essence of heaven and hell. I would agree with you that a major difference between heaven and hell is the beatific vision. But what does it mean to be in the state of perfect love? Is it true that there are no needs in heaven, or is that no needs are left unmet? I have been taught that love is an action: if so, doesn’t it make sense that in heaven everyone acts for the good of all. I’d be interested in how you understand love if different from this.

Your struggle with timelessness is the struggle of all human beings. God must be outside of time and space. Otherwise He could not have created it. Wrapping our minds around this sends us into spins. This is why we simply have to accept the truth of it, whether we understand it or not. So also with the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity, and many other theological concepts. We have to accept even non-theological concepts, too. The idea of billions of stars, for instance. Try to think in billions - we can’t.

You have been taught that love is an action. Okay. I have been taught that love is in the will. Love shows itself in service. A mother who attends to a crying child is doing an act of service, out of the will to love. The secular, mistaken view of love is that it is a feeling. This is why, of course, lust, fornication and adultery are so rife (and so destructive) in today’s society.

Love being ‘an action’ is fine, except that, as a definition, I don’t believe it applies to what Heaven is like. All actions must tend towards something - righting a wrong, fixing a problem, tending to needs. In Heaven, we will have arrived. We will have the Beatific Vision. We will be in God’s love. I can’t say it any more clearly than that, although others may be able to.

God bless.

 

[CarolVP]

Did not the church find itself faulty on several occasions? Is this not why there were elected anti-popes and why the Vatican was temporarily moved to France? Did it not recently admit to having been wrong to imprison Galileo? [Jelrak TB]

The faultlessness of the Catholic Church is not predicated on what individual, sinful, fallible persons have done. The Church can only ever teach God’s Truth in matters of Faith and Morals. In other areas, there can be faulty decisions made. Decisions made, by particular people, at certain times, only shows that the true Church is run by weak and sinful people.

A. Anti-popes were elected when certain factions decided that they didn’t like the choice of the true pope. An anti-pope is not a true pope. There can only ever be either no pope (after one pope’s death) or one living, legitimate pope. Each time that there was an anti-pope or anti-popes (since at one time there were two anti-popes), there was only one true pope. The Holy Spirit inspired the Conclave to elect a legitimate pope. Sinful and politically-minded members of the Conclave decided that the Holy Spirit’s decision was wrong. The fault lies with the sinfulness of those jostling for power, and not with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit or the Infallibility of the Church. Nor does this negate the authority of the Church.

B. The story of the move to France was akin to the story of the anti-popes. The move to Avignon was political and disgraceful, but it does not prove that the Church is faulty. The Church was established by Jesus Himself, and has His authority and promise of infallibility. While the ‘anti-popes’ were operating, and the political shenanigans were going on apace, there were no doctrines essential to Faith and Morals being taught. This is where the Church’s infallibility lies. It’s the same basic principle as where a language school teaches say, Japanese, although some of the teachers may be criminally-minded. The badness of the teachers extends only to their moral behaviour, and not to how well they teach Japanese. *

C. I don’t really know about the Church admitting that it was wrong about Galileo (although I do have a vague recollection), but I do know a bit about Galileo. I thought that the admittance was that the decision had been too harsh, or something like that…

In any case, the story of Galileo should be better known, since it is the basis of so much mis-information against the Catholic Church, and about history.

1. Galileo was not* the first to believe that the earth revolved around the sun. The heliocentric theory was proposed by the Greeks, centuries earlier.

1. The secular scientific establishment at the time totally opposed the theory.

1. The theory itself was not even fully correct.

1. Galileo was a very arrogant man, and a trouble-maker.

1. Galileo wrote about, and taught, the theory, using it to deliberately oppose the Bible and the Church authorities.

1. Galileo was asked to cease creating trouble. He agreed to do so.

1. Galileo then wrote a dialogue, based on his heliocentric theory, using characters in conversation with each other. The pope was cast in the character of a donkey.

1. Eventually, the Church authorities banished Galileo to house-arrest, at his villa away from Rome. This was where he died.

The way that the Church authorities dealt with Galileo may have been done better, in hindsight. This case only proves, however, that the people making decisions are fallible. It does not prove that Christ’s Church is faulty in what it claims to be responsible for teaching - God’s Truth on Faith and Morals.

 

[CarolVP]

Did not the populace also find the church faulty? Is this not why the Reformation occurred? [Jelrak TB]

The Catholic clergy, around the time of the Protestant revolution, were morally lax, and were a disgrace. The populace were correct to expect their clergy to adhere to high standards of behaviour. We still expect it today, and we have the right to expect it. We also expect our clergy to teach correctly, and to be well-versed in Scripture and Theology.

This, however, does not justify rejecting the Church as the true Church established by Christ. Yes, the clergy needed to lift their game. Yes, the Church needed to teach Virtue in deed as well as in word. The Shepherds were neglecting their Flock, and they needed to get their act together.

What Martin Luther did was not justified in any way. If he had nailed the Theses to the door, and then fixed his own life-style, while waiting for his challenge to authorities to bear fruit, it would have been one thing. But he did nothing of the sort. He was a dissolute priest himself, who found sexual and other moral virtues difficult to achieve. Instead of trying harder to be a good priest, by more prayer and avoidance of sources of temptation (he was an alcoholic, for one) he decided that the Church was wrong, and that he was right. He declared that the Church wasn’t teaching the Scriptures, despite the fact that, as a priest himself, he had to have been trained in the Scriptures.

The list of what Luther did could go on and on. When deciding for himself what should or should remain as part of the Canon of the Bible, he ditched what didn’t suit his new paradigm for the ‘reformed’ Church. He changed certain words and phrases of the Bible, and proposed whole new meanings for traditional teachings. He kept the Mass as it was, however, because the Catholic Mass was no threat to his new understandings of Scripture.

I divert. In summary, the answer to your objection is that, Yes - the clergy were corrupt and at fault, and Yes, they needed to repent and reform, but No - this did not mean that the Catholic Church was officially teaching error. Nor did it mean that the Catholic Church was not the true Church begun by Jesus, which was what the “Reformation” pretended.

There is either one true Church begun by Jesus Christ, or there are none at all. There can’t be several, or many, or hundreds, or thousands. Protestants “re-formed” themselves, separating themselves away from the one true Church. The original grievances were legitimate, but what they did in response was not.

 

[CarolVP]

Why might truth be incredibly complicated? Is it not often misrepresentations that are complicated and truths that are simple?

For instance, if God were to claim “Love your enemies and do not kill,” is this particularly complicated to understand or translate?

Alternately, if God were to claim to be the originator of this same message while having previously spent a great deal of time killing and hating his enemies, would this not necessarily become complicated? [Jelrak TB]

A. Truth always becomes complicated when human beings get involved. The Scriptures are certainly not simple documents. They are God’s Word, but they are also written by different men, using each particular person’s skills, styles and perspectives. They are inspired by God, which means that they are true, but they are written by men, which makes them less easy to understand.

The truths are simple. This is why the core truths can be identified and compressed into a child’s catechism. This is why the truths can be made into a fresco or stained glass window for the illiterate to ‘read’ and understand.

On the other hand, there are some truths which are beyond man’s comprehension. God is outside of us, and way beyond us. Aspects of His nature are far beyond our understanding, just as aspects of man’s nature are way beyond the understanding of a dog, and that aspects of a dog’s nature are way beyond the understanding of an earthworm.

The facts are that the Bible is not a simple document, despite the fact that the core truths are simple. God has also willed to reveal much more than some simple truths. The less simple truths must be accepted along with the more simple ones, even if it is simply on the basis of faith. Faith is belief based on trust. If I trust that God has inspired the Scriptures, and I trust that they must be (therefore) true, then I will accept them even when I do not fully understand them.

B. The Old Testament is not my forte in any way, and those who are more scholarly may be able to answer better. This is my understanding of how it would seem that the God of the Old Testament is different from the God of the New…
I don’t accept that God spent a great deal of His time hating and killing His enemies, for a start. Some time may have been spent where the Chosen People were expected to defend themselves and the One, True God. The way that these events were reported may make this seem that God was vengeful, but Scripture was written by particular men for particular purposes, to reveal God’s truth. God’s inspiration of Scripture doesn’t mean that the instruments He used to write it (mere mortals) understood things perfectly. They wrote as they understood, and God permitted it to be unclear at times.

Because of this, I accept Scripture as inspired by God, but the Old Testament as giving way to the New. The Old Law gave way to the New, the Old Covenant to the New. Jesus is the Messiah prophesied by the O.T. and the fulfilment of all that the O.T. promised. Jesus ratified much of the O.T. but raised it to a higher level of sanctification. Much more is expected of the Christian than was expected of the Jew, although all had/have to follow God and His laws.

 

[CarolVP]

Wow!!! This topic seems miles from its original question!

Is God incapable of properly communicating simple truths to his creation or is he unwilling?

To clarify, would it not appear that either God is to be viewed as a bungler who is not to be trusted to communicate to his creation directly or else the Church did not truly believe the message to be divinely enough inspired to withstand careful scrutiny? [Jelrak TB]

What God is capable of and what He permits are two different things. We might wish that He made things clearer, to our satisfaction, but we are not God. We don’t make the rules.

God has decided that His created world reveals His existence and His special Revelation is through the ‘instruments’ He has chosen - mere mortals.

I don’t know** why** God has chosen the less clear way of communicating, and could also wish that it were clearer. I do know that He exists, however, and I trust that His ways are not my ways.

God is not a bungler, because a bungler is an imperfect being, and God is perfect.

Re. the statement about the Church “not truly believing the message to be divinely enough inspired to withstand careful scrutiny”. What is the point of this? The Church was begun by Jesus Himself. The Church’s credentials are documented into the past 2000 years. The Church gave the Bible to the world - the Church wrote and compiled and verified the accuracy of the Books of the Bible as they are. The Church has the job of safeguarding the teachings as given by Jesus, as well as the accuracy of the Biblical translations. The Church has the job of transmitting God’s Truth through the ages. The salvation of souls is at stake.

 

[CarolVP]

Why, then, might it be supposed that such rules are no longer enforced? Is the Church’s duty in this regard now complete? [Jelrak TB]

I have already answered this question, in the original posting.

God bless.

 

[minkymurph]

Yes, we don’t know how God defines “many” and “few”. I’m not speculating on how many is “many” or how few is “few”. I’m just observing the words used. “Many” while I’m sure is a large number, “many” doesn’t equal “all” so that’s why I concluded with, our choices we make, matter.

Why not both, numbers & effort? It is clear to me from those passages, that “effort” is associated with the right road, and the right destination, NOT the other road which while easy, leads in the wrong direction with a bad result. Does He say there are consequences to which road people are on? Yes. Does it effect numbers of people depending on the road they’re on? Yes.

I agree with what you say. What I thought was a too close to Calvinism, is the idea of ‘few’ being chosen, as they believe was the majority of people will reject God and go to Hell, and only a small minority, relatively speaking, will enter heaven, and we don’t know that.

Sorry for nit-picking on use of the word ‘few,’ it’s just something I felt needed clarified.

Thank you for doing that.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I had a quick look at this thread yesterday, but had problems trying to isolate one question at a time, in order to attempt a response to individual questions. Then, the family took the computer…Anyway:

1. God’s love continues for all souls, as His special creation. Being the source and summit of all love, and being Love itself, His love would not be extinguished. He would, however, permit the defiant soul to be away from Him, since he/she had total free will to make that decision. Anyone in Hell has no excuse** whatsoever** for being there. It is because of their own decision. You seem to be under the illusion that it is God’s will that those souls suffer. It is not.

Then how might it be possible for such eternal suffering to occur if it is against the will of an omnipotent deity comprised of love?

Why arbitrarily make any process that might involve the unintentional rejection of an unknown being, so excruciatingly final?

Why such a seemingly simplistic response to rejection? If one is to love one’s enemies while on Earth, and treat them with kindness, why might God banish his enemies and treat them with a punishment of infinite magnitude?

Are you also implacably against God and any concept of His love? Are you talking or thinking or reasoning yourself into a refusal to see?

It would seem decidedly preferable to find existing a loving god harboring positive feelings for mankind, but would such a being truly tolerate the apparent misrepresentations made about it in the Old Testament without a word of correction?

Nothing that I can say can change an obdurate refusal to see how** justice demands** that those who choose to reject God decide their own futures. You cannot see the gravity of the crime of rejection of the God who offers so much. Just as there are, on earth, crimes of such magnitude and horror that nothing seems sufficient to bring the victims justice, so it is with sins against God. Moreover, the sins which we naturally recoil against in this life (such as the torture and murder of innocents - and most especially children), are also reviled by God. All sins against our fellow human beings are also sins against God.

How might such crimes be reviled by God and yet seemingly sanctioned by him in ancient scripture?

Sin is defined as an offence against God, and there are many actions, classified by the Catholic Church as sins, which you would agree to be wrong. Your ‘conscience’ gives you that knowledge and insight. You already have moral standards. As a Catholic, I have higher moral standards to attain to. I am not claiming to be anything less than a sinner, however. I am simply stating a fact.

Fair enough.

1. A. As I have already said, there wouldn’t be many people who say - “I choose Hell. I know what it is, and I choose to go there.” There may be some. These people are, most likely, dyed-in-the-wool atheists who have decided that they do not care whether there is Hell or not. They will not love or serve God, even if He happens to exist. They, privately, however, hope that they are right. They fully expect to be annihilated after death, and fervently hope that they are.

This must necessarily be a small percentage of atheists who “fervently hope [to be annihilated].” The experience brought about by association with many strong atheists is that, while they may view it as an inevitability, death is all the more tragic due to its seeming finality.

Any decision against God must be a conscious one, to some degree at least. It is possible to imagine someone ignoring every aid and indication to find out about the existence and love of God, and who thus spends life “without God”, so to speak. The decision to refuse to sincerely seek God, therefore, is a conscious decision.

OK

Could such a decision ever be fully and properly unconscious? I really don’t know. I also can’t say how God would judge such a person. The person would certainly be judged by his/her deeds. If the deeds indicated a total lack of any effort to behave morally, based on an unconscious rejection of God, then it would seem that the deliberate sins themselves would constitute deliberate rejection of God.

Only God can ever judge a particular person’s soul. Only He has the total knowledge of our hearts, wills and intentions. I can, however, be guided by my conscience, my principles, and by my Catholic Faith, to know how to act. I must avoid sinful behaviour. In order to do so, I need to know what is sinful and what is not.

B. Hell is for those who reject God to the end, without final repentance. Whether they have spent their whole lives rejecting God through their sinful actions, or have started out well and then finally rejected Him, it doesn’t matter, strictly speaking. It is in no way a balancing of the sins on one side, against the good deeds on the other. A person could be extremely sinful for the vast majority of his/her life, and then repent and try to make amends towards the end. The repentance can even be at the final moment before death, as stated many times.

Why might a god, who is allegedly timeless, choose to isolate only a moment in time during which to assess the value of an individual?

Why might an individual who has loved God throughout a majority of his/her existence be worthy of being discarded if death should arrive at a time of moral weakness? What loving parent might eternally judge the worthiness of future association with a child based upon an interview held on an arbitrary day?