Explain the justice of hell.

[epan]

Nothing we do in this world or the next is without consequence. Free will is the ability to decide what consequence we want. We are free to choose to do something against God for which the consequence is Hell. But we are also free to choose to instead do something that corresponds with god’s will instead, for which the consequence is heaven. This is true free will.

The ability to do things that don’t matter is not free will and if everything you did didn’t matter, you would find you soon lost interest in it.

This statement is equivalent to saying that a cashier at gunpoint is exercising free will by refusing to hand over the loot. The consequence that the cashier is freely choosing is to be wounded or killed. Others would say that the gunman has coerced the cashier with the threat of violence. Those same people might say that the threat of hell is coercion.

Let’s look at it another way. Would you assert that the cashier is exercising free will by choosing to be wounded?

 

[Jehannette]

Sorry. Your statement is logically inconsistent. Can you explain in more sensible terms what you are trying to say?

Let me quote the section from Florence more completely:

Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.

Some individuals who are consigned to Hell will suffer more, others less, just as some in Heaven will have greater happiness, others less so.

 

[jmvizanko]

The first issue is if you’re going to present arguments against what someone believes, it is first necessary to know what they believe. Presenting arguments or facts for the purpose of changing someone’s mind serves no purpose if it’s not what that someone believes in first place. Therefore, the point I was attempting to make was yes, present arguments against what someone believes - but stick to what they believe, not what they don’t. I say this because when engaged in debate with some atheists they often do this - debate beliefs you don’t actually hold - and I fail to see how this is beneficial.

Have I swayed far from accurately addressing things that Catholics believe? For any instance of that I apologize. However, it would be good to be pointed out where I have done so.

And yes, many people, atheists included, find it easy to attack a strawman. I prefer to debate with ideas coming from people, as attacking strawmen is on the same level as racism. Different people have different ideas, and I think many atheist and theists have good reasons for believing what they do, and many do not.

The second issue is if one presents arguments against what someone believes, or doesn’t as the case may be, one must be prepared to handle counter-arguments. In relation to choice, was one of the arguments you presented not believing something does not require making a choice? The counter-argument I presented was it does. If you do not agree with this, fine and yes, you are entitled to present counter-arguments to that. However, your post suggests you are now saying choice isn’t really relevant, which I don’t think is a good answer. I think it’s ducking the question. However, in fairness I may be misinterpreting you’re meaning. Am I?

I don’t think believing or not believing is entirely based on choice. I am willing to say I don’t really understand the workings of the mind to say choice is not involved, but my main argument is that there is a component, and possibly a large component, to belief that has nothing to do with choice. At the end, I don’t know. But to me anyway, it does seem that many truths one holds are not chosen, and that to disbelieve them would not be a choice, it would be denial or lying to oneself, because one cannot help but believe what they truly believe.

I would also argue if there is no choice involved on either side we are just engaging in a mindless robotic debate. In addition, more than one atheist has told me they have the freedom to choose what to believe, whereas I don’t. In other words, I get the impression they pride themselves on their ability to choose.

If there is no choice involved, or any free will at all for that matter, then yes, in the end this is a robotic debate. However, I once again think its not as black and white as that, and that there is free will on some level. And even if there isn’t, the illusion that there is is a very convincing illusion at that. Either way, they are interesting conversations. And many of them are had because we think some ideas are better for the world and some are not. So even if this is robotic, if you think your ideas are better, and you convince people of that, you are doing something good, robotic or not.

And I haven’t encountered any conversation involving an atheist that seemed to “pride themselves on their ability to choose,” let alone think they have any choice in it at all, but I’ll take your word for it. In my experience, most atheists think they don’t have much say in what they believe, and its one of the things that lends to why they are atheists with respect to the major theologies; because they involve punishment based on belief. They kind of go hand in hand. Just as belief being a choice is necessary for punishment based on belief being just to a theist.

 

[Jehannette]

Have I swayed far from accurately addressing things that Catholics believe? For any instance of that I apologize. However, it would be good to be pointed out where I have done so.

Cool signature. I used to be a negative/weak atheist. The Miracle of the Sun convinced me that the divine was, indeed, real:

The Protestant apologist Dr. William Lane Craig provides excellent reasons to believe in Christ’s Resurrection. Finally, the Epistle of Clement was, for me, “the bridge” between the New Testament and the writings of the Fathers:

earlychristianwritings.com/1clement.html

Salvation is a gift, which one receives in sacramental Baptism, or, if “through no fault of one’s own,” in Baptism of Desire and/or Blood, the later, however, being avenues that one cannot, of one’s own free will, choose to partake of. The CCC states the matter clearly:

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

So, salvation is a gift from God, but it’s a gift that we can throw away if we, by an act of our own free will, die in a state of mortal sin.

P.S. I forgot Dr. Francis Collins (“how could I?!”) who often mentions that “there is more to the spirit than just atoms and molecules.” I agree.

 

[jmvizanko]

Cool signature. I used to be a negative/weak atheist.

Thanks for the completely unexpected compliment. And I also used to be a Catholic.

The Protestant apologist Dr. William Lane Craig provides excellent reasons to believe in Christ’s Resurrection. Finally, the Epistle of Clement was, for me, “the bridge” between the New Testament and the writings of the Fathers:

earlychristianwritings.com/1clement.html

That’s a lot to check out. I’ll get back to you on it.

So, salvation is a gift from God, but it’s a gift that we can throw away if we, by an act of our own free will, die in a state of mortal sin.

This is something I never understood. Its one thing for a god that cares about belief to not forgive somebody that doesn’t believe. But for a god to not forgive somebody, FOREVER, because they did something he didn’t like, that in many cases probably involved somebody doing something that the person wanted to do in the universe he created that made it something somebody might want to do, that doesn’t really hurt anybody, is perhaps the infinite definition of unjust. For instance masturbation. If I masturbate, and don’t feel guilty or repentent about it at all, and I don’t go to confession, and die, and I’m Catholic, I’m going to hell. Unless I have that wrong.

P.S. I forgot Dr. Francis Collins (“how could I?!”) who often mentions that “there is more to the spirit than just atoms and molecules.” I agree.

Of course there is more to us than just atoms and molecules. Even if you look at the universe from a strictly materialist standpoint, the totality of the expression of the laws of the universe is immeasurably and unimaginably complex and beautiful.

 

[Jehannette]

Thanks for the completely unexpected compliment. And I also used to be a Catholic.

I checked out the link. Is this an accepted miracle and/or something you experienced? Or just something you know about and accept? Honestly, the text was a bit incoherent and I’m not really sure what to think about it.

I was not alive in 1917.

This is something I never understood. Its one thing for a god that cares about belief to not forgive somebody that doesn’t believe. But for a god to not forgive somebody, FOREVER, because they did something he didn’t like, that in many cases probably involved somebody doing something that the person wanted to do in the universe he created that made it something somebody might want to do, that doesn’t really hurt anybody, is perhaps the infinite definition of unjust. For instance masturbation. If I masturbate, and don’t feel guilty or repentent about it at all, and I don’t go to confession, and die, and I’m Catholic, I’m going to hell. Unless I have that wrong.

Who cares what you think? (Serious, not trying to be belligerent here.) We’re talking about Revelation here, that is, revealed Truth. Masturbation is sinful not because it hurts anyone but because it is contrary to divine and natural law; we know this based upon Revelation.

Of course there is more to us than just atoms and molecules. Even if you look at the universe from a strictly materialist standpoint, the totality of the expression of the laws of the universe is immeasurably and unimaginably complex and beautiful.

Off-topic, I know, but where does “free will” come from then? If the conversation laws of physics are, indeed, immutable, then how can any of us really “choose” to do anything? Still off-topic, I know, but the case of the late Pam Reynolds provides testimony that the conscious self survives the physical death of one’s brain.

 

[jmvizanko]

I was not alive in 1917.

So then why do you believe it? It sounds like a mushroom trip to me.

Who cares what you think? (Serious, not trying to be belligerent here.) We’re talking about Revelation here, that is, revealed Truth. Masturbation is sinful not because it hurts anyone but because it is contrary to divine and natural law; we know this based upon Revelation.

Who cares what anyone thinks? The whole point here is discussing ideas. And I find it EXTREMELY difficult to believe in a god that sends somebody to hell forever for doing something that he made feel incredibly good, without any inherent feeling that you are doing harm to anybody, including yourself.

Off-topic, I know, but where does “free will” come from then? If the conversation laws of physics are, indeed, immutable, then how can any of us really “choose” to do anything?

Perhaps we can’t? Its an eternally argued problem in philosophy. But in my mind it doesn’t really matter. Even if free will is an illusion, its such an infinitely complex illusion that you might as well call it real.

Still off-topic, I know, but the case of the late Pam Reynolds provides testimony that the conscious self survives the physical death of one’s brain.

Do you have a good summary of why this testimony has an merit to it or some sort of wonderful link?

 

[minkymurph]

Have I swayed far from accurately addressing things that Catholics believe? For any instance of that I apologize. However, it would be good to be pointed out where I have done so.

My comments were in response to another poster, CarolVP, who wrote it had been suggested God takes some lascivious delight in torturing poor, deluded souls who were born somewhere in place and time without any real understanding of how to reach Heaven. This is not what Catholics believe. I believe CarolVP was responding to you. It may not have been your intention to suggest this, but there is obviously some reason why CarolVP thought this had been suggested.

And yes, many people, atheists included, find it easy to attack a strawman. I prefer to debate with ideas coming from people, as attacking strawmen is on the same level as racism. Different people have different ideas, and I think many atheist and theists have good reasons for believing what they do, and many do not.

I would agree attacking strawmen is on the same level as racism, and I agree many people have good reasons for believing what they do.

I don’t think believing or not believing is entirely based on choice. I am willing to say I don’t really understand the workings of the mind to say choice is not involved, but my main argument is that there is a component, and possibly a large component, to belief that has nothing to do with choice. At the end, I don’t know.

Belief is not entirely based on choice. We are all products of our upbringing, the culture and the faith community we are, (or are not ) raised in. My mother used to say your religion is an accident of birth. Therefore, it’s fair to say there is a component of belief, or in fact lack of it, that it not based on a conscious choice.

But to me anyway, it does seem that many truths one holds are not chosen, and that to disbelieve them would not be a choice, it would be denial or lying to oneself, because one cannot help but believe what they truly believe.

If there is no choice involved, or any free will at all for that matter, then yes, in the end this is a robotic debate. However, I once again think its not as black and white as that, and that there is free will on some level. And even if there isn’t, the illusion that there is is a very convincing illusion at that. Either way, they are interesting conversations. And many of them are had because we think some ideas are better for the world and some are not. So even if this is robotic, if you think your ideas are better, and you convince people of that, you are doing something good, robotic or not.

So, would you say convincing people of our own personal ideas, because in our eyes our ideas are ‘better’ than there’s is a good thing? Sounds a bit elitist and dictatorial to me. I mean, you couldn’t say convincing someone of your own ideas because you believe them to be better than the one’s they have is very democratic, could you?

In addition, a convincing argument, or ‘idea’ is not necessarily based on truth. Whether or not this is important depends, I suppose how interested one is in truth. What ideas are good for the world, and what one’s are not? Are the same ideas good for everyone, or are some good for some but bad for others? If we convince someone else of our ideas, how does that benefit them?

And I haven’t encountered any conversation involving an atheist that seemed to “pride themselves on their ability to choose,” let alone think they have any choice in it at all, but I’ll take your word for it. In my experience, most atheists think they don’t have much say in what they believe, and its one of the things that lends to why they are atheists with respect to the major theologies; because they involve punishment based on belief. They kind of go hand in hand. Just as belief being a choice is necessary for punishment based on belief being just to a theist.

It was put to me by an atheist, they wanted to convince me there was no God so, like them, I would be free to think for myself which would make my life better. In their opinion, they were free to think for themselves because they were an atheist, whereas I was not.
Unfortunately for the guy concerned, his argument wasn’t very convincing as he hasn’t worked in years, lives off the state, can’t hold down a relationship, and goes through life in a haze of alcohol and cannabis fumes. :hypno: As such, I don’t think this particular atheist was in a position to advise me on how to improve my life, or assert he had greater freedom of thought.

Where I say you do have a point is on punishment based on belief. I wouldn’t imagine you are of the opinion all punishment is unjust. Therefore, what would you consider just punishment, and what would you consider unjust?

 

[Jehannette]

So then why do you believe it? It sounds like a mushroom trip to me.

Have you read what Richard Dawkins has to say about it:

“On the face of it mass visions, such as the report that seventy thousand pilgrims at Fatima in Portugal in 1917 saw the sun ‘tear itself from the heavens and come crashing down upon the multitude’, are harder to write off. It is not easy to explain how seventy thousand people could share the same hallucination. But it is even harder to accept that it really happened without the rest of the word, outside Fatima, seeing it too — and not just seeing it, but feeling it as the catastrophic destruction of the solar system, including acceleration forces sufficient to hurl everybody into space. David Hume’s pith test for a miracle comes irresistibly to mine: ‘No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish.’

It may seem improbable that seventy thousand people could simultaneously be deluded, or could simultaneously collude in a mass lie. Or that history is mistaken in recording that seventy thousand people claimed to see the sun dance. Or that they all simultaneously saw a mirage (they had been persuaded to stare at the sun, which can’t have done much for the eyesight.) But any of those apparent improbabilities is far more probable than the alternative: that the Earth was suddenly yanked sideways in its orbit, and the solar system destroyed, with nobody outside Fatima noticing. I mean, Portugal is not that isolated.” (The God Delusion, pages 91-92)

Based upon what Dawkins says, I am a believer, notwithstanding that Richard gets a number of his facts wrong and never addresses the “distant witnesses” who were dozens of miles away from the epicenter of the event.

Who cares what anyone thinks? The whole point here is discussing ideas. And I find it EXTREMELY difficult to believe in a god that sends somebody to hell forever for doing something that he made feel incredibly good, without any inherent feeling that you are doing harm to anybody, including yourself.

Just because something is sad does not mean that it is not true. I could go to the doctor and be told by him/her that I have cancer and only have six months to live. I could even choose to ignore my doctor’s advice, but doing so would not change the fact that I have cancer.

Perhaps we can’t? Its an eternally argued problem in philosophy. But in my mind it doesn’t really matter. Even if free will is an illusion, its such an infinitely complex illusion that you might as well call it real.

I believe that free will comes from an immaterial spirit and not from the firing of neurons in a mammalian brain.

Do you have a good summary of why this testimony has an merit to it or some sort of wonderful link?

Her testimony shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that consciousness can continue after brain death, which, if true, would falsify materialism.

 

[paul_c]

Belief is not entirely based on choice. We are all products of our upbringing, the culture and the faith community we are, (or are not ) raised in. My mother used to say your religion is an accident of birth. Therefore, it’s fair to say there is a component of belief, or in fact lack of it, that it not based on a conscious choice.

Don’t be so sure. There are lots of people who abandon the faith of their parents and convert to new faiths or to no faith at all. Sure, there’s an element of what you are exposed to, but you still have to make a decision on what you believe.

 

[minkymurph]

Don’t be so sure. There are lots of people who abandon the faith of their parents and convert to new faiths or to no faith at all. Sure, there’s an element of what you are exposed to, but you still have to make a decision on what you believe.

That’s true. I abandoned the faith of my parents and converted to a new faith. The reason I did so was because I reached a point where I did not believe the faith I was raised in to be true. So, I had a choice to make. However, I would say I am still a product of my upbringing and culture, in that my upbringing and culture impact on how I see my faith and the world in general, and is part of what makes me the person I am today. If I had been raised in a different faith and culture, it is impossible to know what I would think and who I would be.

I do not intend to infer it is ‘wrong’ to understand the world in light of the these things. To the contrary, I think it is essential to understanding who we are and our relationship with God. What I was getting at is not many of us are totally objective. Alternatively, if the atheist was raised in a different faith and culture, could they be so sure they would not believe in God? In which case, to what extent is their position their own choice, and to what extent are they influenced by the modern world?

You are absolutely right that at some point, you have to make a decision on what you believe, and not just accept it because you were raised in that faith, or because the majority of people around you practice that faith. Not everyone makes that choice. People who do are often very comfortable with their faith, and able to experience a deep sense of spirituality.

 

[jmvizanko]

Don’t be so sure. There are lots of people who abandon the faith of their parents and convert to new faiths or to no faith at all. Sure, there’s an element of what you are exposed to, but you still have to make a decision on what you believe.

So then are you trying to say that the people in regions of the world, that are predominantly not Christian, are just more evil on the whole? Why isn’t the distribution of Christianity more uniform if it is entirely just the right choice a good person makes eventually?

 

[jmvizanko]

Have you read what Richard Dawkins has to say about it:

No actually, I hadn’t even heard of the event until now. And after doing some further reading, I’m really wondering what the fuss is about. You have a lot of people seeing what they expected to see. A lot of people staring at the sun and then seeing strange visual effects. And you have a lot of believers there that saw nothing. There’s a lot of power in expectation bias, placebo, and mind over matter, let alone what happens to your vision after you stare at the sun for a while.

Just because something is sad does not mean that it is not true. I could go to the doctor and be told by him/her that I have cancer and only have six months to live. I could even choose to ignore my doctor’s advice, but doing so would not change the fact that I have cancer.

Yes, but if god exists, he is in control of everything. So why give anyone cancer. Why make anything enjoyable that would send you to hell? Why send anyone to hell, instead of, you know, just forgiving them? Or why not send people to hell for a while for punishment and then forgive them? Yes, just because something is sad does not mean it is not true. But when you introduce a being that can do anything, the question becomes, why does anything have to be infinitely sad, let alone sad?

I believe that free will comes from an immaterial spirit and not from the firing of neurons in a mammalian brain.

So when somebody’s personality is completely altered by brain trauma, they still have the same immaterial spirit and just a clogged vehicle for communication? I’ll go with who we are is entirely based on the circuitry in the brain.

Her testimony shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that consciousness can continue after brain death, which, if true, would falsify materialism.

What part exactly proves anything beyond reasonable doubt?

 

[Jehannette]

No actually, I hadn’t even heard of the event until now. And after doing some further reading, I’m really wondering what the fuss is about. You have a lot of people seeing what they expected to see. A lot of people staring at the sun and then seeing strange visual effects. And you have a lot of believers there that saw nothing. There’s a lot of power in expectation bias, placebo, and mind over matter, let alone what happens to your vision after you stare at the sun for a while.

They weren’t staring at the sun; Dawkins was wrong. Rather, the crowd was facing the opposite direction to the sun.

Yes, but if god exists, he is in control of everything. So why give anyone cancer. Why make anything enjoyable that would send you to hell? Why send anyone to hell, instead of, you know, just forgiving them? Or why not send people to hell for a while for punishment and then forgive them? Yes, just because something is sad does not mean it is not true. But when you introduce a being that can do anything, the question becomes, why does anything have to be infinitely sad, let alone sad?

Your questions are meaningless. I cannot explain why the Triune God, a Perfect Being, does what He does; we know certain things to be true based upon Revelation.

So when somebody’s personality is completely altered by brain trauma, they still have the same immaterial spirit and just a clogged vehicle for communication? I’ll go with who we are is entirely based on the circuitry in the brain.

No one is claiming that the brain is not important, just that human consciousness and free will is not the result of “my neurons made me do it.”

What part exactly proves anything beyond reasonable doubt?

Pam Reynolds went into a state of brain death, yet she was able to describe what was happening to her during that time.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c View Post
Don’t be so sure. There are lots of people who abandon the faith of their parents and convert to new faiths or to no faith at all. Sure, there’s an element of what you are exposed to, but you still have to make a decision on what you believe.

 

[paul_c]

No actually, I hadn’t even heard of the event until now. And after doing some further reading, I’m really wondering what the fuss is about. You have a lot of people seeing what they expected to see. A lot of people staring at the sun and then seeing strange visual effects. And you have a lot of believers there that saw nothing. There’s a lot of power in expectation bias, placebo, and mind over matter, let alone what happens to your vision after you stare at the sun for a while.

There is much more to Fatima than the Miracle of the Sun. It is an approved miracle of the Catholic church. Did you know that Jacinto, the youngest visionary is also an incorrupt saint. Her body was exhumed many years after her death, yet suffered no decay. And they had several prophesies which came true. Try this web site to educate yourself: ewtn.com/fatima/apparitions/

You might also want to learn about the Miracles at Lourdes: catholicpilgrims.com/lourdes/ba_bernadette_intro.htm

Yes, but if god exists, he is in control of everything. So why give anyone cancer. Why make anything enjoyable that would send you to hell? Why send anyone to hell, instead of, you know, just forgiving them? Or why not send people to hell for a while for punishment and then forgive them? Yes, just because something is sad does not mean it is not true. But when you introduce a being that can do anything, the question becomes, why does anything have to be infinitely sad, let alone sad?

The problem you are having is that your perspective is infinitely different than that of God. You view everything from a secular atheist view, where the most important thing is a person’s comfort and where death is the absolute end of everything. But God does not think this way. For Him, death is simply the transition from life on earth to life in heaven or hell. And what is important to God is love, the action of doing things for others without expecting anything in return, not comfort. You see, when we love God and our neighbor, we are doing what we have been called to do and that leads to heaven. But if we are unwilling to love, then we will be condemned. And you see, everyone has trials in life that give them an opportunity to love or not love. You see when someone suffers, it is an opportunity for others to love them and for them to experience love. That is why suffering exists on earth. And that is why every person has trials on earth.

So when somebody’s personality is completely altered by brain trauma, they still have the same immaterial spirit and just a clogged vehicle for communication? I’ll go with who we are is entirely based on the circuitry in the brain.

You can believe whatever you want, but that doesn’t make it true. The circuitry of the brain exists in a corpse, yet it can not think. It still needs that spark of life we call the soul.

What part exactly proves anything beyond reasonable doubt?

The existence of God is all around us. You just ignore the clues he has given us. Do you recognize that the universe operates under a finite set of physical laws? Do you not recognize that laws need a law giver and also someone to maintain them? How do explain that without God? And do you not realize that order takes intelligence and effort and that order on a universal scale requires infinite power and infinite intelligence? And do you not recognize that it takes a force to move an object. There had to be a prime mover to put the universe in action. That prime mover we call God. These logical proofs of God’s existence are far from new.

Another point of thought for you. Science attempts to answer the questions of HOW things work. But science can never answer the more important question of WHY things exist. That is the province of religion. Can an atheist ever answer the question, " Why do I exist?" It is only in answering this question can life have any meaning. Are you prepared to say that life has NO meaning? Really, in your experience is anything really without meaning or ramification?

Here is the meaning of life from the Catholic Catechism: scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p6.htm#I
358 God created everything for man,but man in turn was created to serve and love God and to offer all creation back to him:

 

[je333]

No, that’s not entirely correct. Jesus descended to Hell to save the righteous dead, not everyone but Satan. The church has never taught that everyone gets to heaven, which is what you are implying here. this is the section of the Catholic Catechism that relates to this reading: scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a5p1.htm

Yes, I agree and according to CCC, it also says that:
1058 The Church prays that no one should be lost: “Lord, let me never be parted from you.” If it is true that no one can save himself, it is also true that God “desires all men to be saved” (1 Tim 2:4), and that for him “all things are possible” (Mt 19:26).

V. THE LAST JUDGMENT

1038 The resurrection of all the dead, “of both the just and the unjust,”[621] will precede the Last Judgment. This will be “the hour when all who are in the tombs will hear [the Son of man’s] voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.”[622] Then Christ will come “in his glory, and all the angels with him … Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left… And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”[623]

1039 In the presence of Christ, who is Truth itself, the truth of each man’s relationship with God will be laid bare.[624] The Last Judgment will reveal even to its furthest consequences the good each person has done or failed to do during his earthly life: All that the wicked do is recorded, and they do not know. When “our God comes, he does not keep silence.”. . . he will turn towards those at his left hand: . . . "I placed my poor little ones on earth for you. I as their head was seated in heaven at the right hand of my Father - but on earth my members were suffering, my members on earth were in need. If you gave anything to my members, what you gave would reach their Head. Would that you had known that my little ones were in need when I placed them on earth for you and appointed them your stewards to bring your good works into my treasury. But you have placed nothing in their hands; therefore you have found nothing in my presence."[625]

1040 The Last Judgment will come when Christ returns in glory. Only the Father knows the day and the hour; only he determines the moment of its coming. Then through his Son Jesus Christ he will pronounce the final word on all history. We shall know the ultimate meaning of the whole work of creation and of the entire economy of salvation and understand the marvellous ways by which his Providence led everything towards its final end. The Last Judgment will reveal that God’s justice triumphs over all the injustices committed by his creatures and that God’s love is stronger than death.[626]

1041 The message of the Last Judgment calls men to conversion while God is still giving them “the acceptable time, . . . the day of salvation.”[627] It inspires a holy fear of God and commits them to the justice of the Kingdom of God. It proclaims the “blessed hope” of the Lord’s return, when he will come “to be glorified in his saints, and to be marvelled at in all who have believed.”[628]

Since this is solely about the preliminary judgement and the last judgment of the RICH MEN, what I gathered from all of these is that God gives them many, many chances to change [on their attachments to wealth and money which is a form of worship(idolatory) and their hesitation to relinguish them for the needy] even on the LAST/FINAL judgement.

 

[CarolVP]

You have no “right” to Heaven, which means that God can punish you in Hell in any manner that He wishes.

This has been badly put, but is, in essence, correct. We have no natural right to heaven, and our first parents were graciously given the opportunity to reach heaven, out of love. As creatures of the Creator, strictly speaking, we have no natural right to anything. Just as a potter is perfectly free to destroy his/her own pottery creation, so God is perfectly justified in refusing us any part in His Divine Life. We don’t deserve it as creatures, and as sinners, we deserve it even less. As Creator, He is also free to destroy us, if He so wished.

This truth is extremely difficult to swallow, and is repellent to us. We believe that we are **owed **so very much. We want to be the controllers of our own destinies. We want to be paid for our good deeds, and have our bad deeds ignored. We rebel at the idea of having to acknowledge any higher Being’s rights over us. This is our natural reaction to the imposition of conditions.

Unless, however, we accept that a greater Being actually created us, and is actually the one in control, we can never accept His rules of living. Once we do accept that this higher Being** is** the one in control, then we will find it easier to seek His will, and all that it involves. It doesn’t make the following of the rules very much easier, but at least we can acknowledge that the higher Being (as Creator) has the right to lay down the rules.

 

[CarolVP]

And I also used to be a Catholic.

May I ask, what made you leave the Catholic Church?

And, did you leave the Church to seek/reach higher standards of moral living?

 

[paul_c]

You have no “right” to Heaven, which means that God can punish you in Hell in any manner that He wishes.

For the record, this quote doesn’t come from me.
CarolVP;9424051:

This has been badly put, but is, in essence, correct. We have no natural

right to heaven, and our first parents were graciously given the opportunity to reach heaven, out of love. As creatures of the Creator, strictly speaking, we have no natural right to anything. Just as a potter is perfectly free to destroy his/her own pottery creation, so God is perfectly justified in refusing us any part in His Divine Life. We don’t deserve it as creatures, and as sinners, we deserve it even less. As Creator, He is also free to destroy us, if He so wished.

This truth is extremely difficult to swallow, and is repellent to us. We believe that we are **owed **so very much. We want to be the controllers of our own destinies. We want to be paid for our good deeds, and have our bad deeds ignored. We rebel at the idea of having to acknowledge any higher Being’s rights over us. This is our natural reaction to the imposition of conditions.

Unless, however, we accept that a greater Being actually created us, and is actually the one in control, we can never accept His rules of living. Once we do accept that this higher Being** is** the one in control, then we will find it easier to seek His will, and all that it involves. It doesn’t make the following of the rules very much easier, but at least we can acknowledge that the higher Being (as Creator) has the right to lay down the rules.
yes, God has set the rules and as creator, has the right to do so. But we need also to recognize that the rules are defined for our own good. If we follow them, we lead life to the fullest both on earth and in heaven. If we choose our own way instead, we will not be doing what is best for us, leading to unhappiness in this life and condemnation in the next.