Having a problem believing in Hell

[fide]

Well…
If you are aware an action is a serious transgression against God
AND you are completely free to choose not do it
AND you commit the sin…

With the three explicit conditions necessary for a mortal sin I fail to see how it can be viewed as anything but a rejection of God.
Anything less, and it may not be a mortal sin.

It is explained, I think, by the skillful mental gymnastics of a man seeking to justify himself. God is removed from his considerations. He knows it is a transgression against a law, and he is choosing to do it because he wants to - it will please him in some way to do this. And God? “God will understand. I’m not a bad person.”

Sadly, I am involved in a thead in which abortion is being discussed.
The abortionist is guilty of the worst king of acts. It is difficult to imagine that he perceived some good in the things he was doing.
At this time I cannot agree that every choice is toward some perceived good.

I think that Thomas Aquinas shows that this is the case, convincingly. The abortionist? Again, you must understand the ability of man to justify his acts and make them seem good in his own eyes - or if not good, at least better than the alternatives. The abortionist is “helping” these “poor women.” He is making a lot of money “easily” - with one simple medical procedure - and helping “his own family to live very well financially.” He is a champion for women’s rights. He is a hero for freedom of choice. Etc. etc. etc. It is very sick, but the conscience of man can be very sick outside of Christ.

 

[Pieman333272]

I understand all that. So let me re-phrase. One unconfessed sin that is of grave matter, done with free will and full knowledge, and has had ample time to get confessed, is a Hell-sentence.

Usually, but not all of the people you mentioned had enough details to be able to be decreed to be in a state of mortal sin.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Hello,

As the title states, I’m having a huge problem believing that there is a Hell, or at least that certain things the Church considers mortal sins would land you there. The specific “sins” have all been said before; masturbation, apostasy, birth control, missing one Mass. I started to look around at my family and friends. My older brothers and their wives, who have used birth control for years. My atheistic neighbor who is a wonderful family man and helps out around the block whenever he’s asked. My formerly-Catholic-who-turned-evangelical-aunt who is probably the warmest and kindest person I’ve ever known. Catholic doctrine demands that I believe that all these people would go to Hell if they died suddenly right now.

I used to think that Hell was just for murderers and such. Then I got older and learned all the Catholic prohibitions. Really turned me off. How in God’s name can you equate rape or murder with masturbation?

I’ve heard the counter to this; that it’s all God’s law, which has been clearly handed down and taught through the ages and we’re given the choice and all that. But, sorry, I just can’t see it. I can’t see my brother sent to Hell for birth control usage while Pol-Pot (let’s say he made a deathbed repentance/conversion) will eventually make it to Heaven. That makes zero sense.

I don’t have a problem believing in Hell. The night my father died he appeared in my room, apologised, we argued and conversed and then he gave this terrifying scream and disappeared. I believe he’s in Hell. That was 32 years ago and I still remember the scream.

However like you I have trouble accepting that what might be called “ordinary sins” result in Hell. According to Catholic and even Protestant doctrine, my mother would be in Hell, yet she could generally be regarded as a very good person. I hope she’s in Purgatory.

However the reality is that we all make a choice as to whether we’ll choose God or not. As CS Lewis put, on the day of our judgment, we will either say to God, “Thy will be done”, or God will say to us, “Your will be done!”

I confess I don’t understand it, nor am I easy about what I suspect is a fair element of predestination. One of the things my father said when he appeared in my room the night he died was “I always was doomed! I really didn’t have any choice!” When I argued back, saying that couldn’t be right, he replied, “Oh, it’s right, all right. You can see that from here!” Yet later in the same conversation he said, “I was WILLING!” (to do the stupid, cruel, vindictive things that condemned him). I’d say he was very willing. Yet at the same time, I have this uneasy feeling of predestination.

What I do know is that our society is very blase about judgement. I think a lot of people get a hell(!) of a shock (pun intended) when they die and find out that physical death isn’t the end, and that eternity is staring them in the face and something that never even entered their minds is about to judge them.

 

[The_Exodus]

Just curious: even if that disagreement is with a declared dogma?

Yes, even if that disagreement is over an established dogma. Culpability has to do with what the mind understands and the subsequent act of will that is made on that understanding. In cases where there is so much disagreement and confusion, it is very likely that each person will not fully understand what the other is thinking. Only God has the totally correct knowledge of who believes what, and what knowledge each person is acting on for what intention.

spock:

Well, that brings up a pragmatic question: “how can such a search take place?”. For a catholic it is simple: look at the cathecism. But for anyone else?

The search for truth touches on every aspect of human existence. The atheist who is honestly and diligently searching for truth in whatever literature he is reading is very much like the Catholic who opens the catechism. Each person is trying to understand truth, and, by extention (even if they do not know it) God.

spock:

That is confusing. What the heck is the “invisible” part of the church? How can one be part of the “invisible” church if one is not part of the “visible” one?

Man in Africa who has never heard of Jesus, lives a good life, is honest, loves his family. Such would be a human being, influenced by God’s grace, who is an “invisible” member of the Church. He is a child of God, and anyone who is a child of God, is part of his bride, which is the Church, or the people of God.

I used the term “visible” to indicate those who can be visibly seen to attend church somewhere. This does not, necessarily, make them “true” members however.

 

[Spock]

Yes, even if that disagreement is over an established dogma. Culpability has to do with what the mind understands and the subsequent act of will that is made on that understanding. In cases where there is so much disagreement and confusion, it is very likely that each person will not fully understand what the other is thinking. Only God has the totally correct knowledge of who believes what, and what knowledge each person is acting on for what intention.

Sounds pretty good. I don’t think that the majority of the posters will agree with it, but that is a different issue.

The search for truth touches on every aspect of human existence. The atheist who is honestly and diligently searching for truth in whatever literature he is reading is very much like the Catholic who opens the catechism. Each person is trying to understand truth, and, by extention (even if they do not know it) God.

I cannot agree with the singular use of “truth”. There are zillions of true propositions, and indeed we all try to “find” them. The trouble is that catholicsm confuses a true proposition with an “ought to” statement. This would lead quite far, so I will not elaborate here.

Man in Africa who has never heard of Jesus, lives a good life, is honest, loves his family. Such would be a human being, influenced by God’s grace, who is an “invisible” member of the Church. He is a child of God, and anyone who is a child of God, is part of his bride, which is the Church, or the people of God.

Well, this is the so-called “conversion by redefinition”. Don’t just refer to people who never heard of God, or Jesus. Consider those, who have heard of them, and reject the concept. Mind you, that does not mean that they “reject” God.

I used the term “visible” to indicate those who can be visibly seen to attend church somewhere. This does not, necessarily, make them “true” members however.

Agreed.

 

[vz71]

Don’t just refer to people who never heard of God, or Jesus. Consider those, who have heard of them, and reject the concept. Mind you, that does not mean that they “reject” God.

They will be faced with the truth of God that is entirely different from what they were expecting.

God is still theirs to accept or reject.

I doubt you will be able to get anyone here to tell you for certain what any given persons judgement will be. It is between that person and God. No one else is qualified to make the call.

 

[Betterave]

They will be faced with the truth of God that is entirely different from what they were expecting.

God is still theirs to accept or reject.

I doubt you will be able to get anyone here to tell you for certain what any given persons judgement will be. It is between that person and God. No one else is qualified to make the call.

Maybe we can’t know for certain about any individual. At the same time, abstractly considered, isn’t it hard to see how someone who rejects the concept of God and Jesus (or even someone who fails to try to properly understand the concept of God and Jesus) can fail to be rejecting God and Jesus?

 

[vz71]

Maybe we can’t know for certain about any individual. At the same time, abstractly considered, isn’t it hard to see how someone who rejects the concept of God and Jesus (or even someone who fails to try to properly understand the concept of God and Jesus) can fail to be rejecting God and Jesus?

I can see it well.
But I do not wish to make that call.

What I will say for certain is that the person that rejects God and Jesus through their life is going to be in a very difficult position.
Theirs is still to accept or reject…but they have spent a lifetime rejecting. So how can we expect them to do anything other then continue with what they have been doing all along when the final decision is facing them.

Of course, people surprise me every day.

 

[Spock]

God is still theirs to accept or reject.

How could anyone “accept” or “reject” anything, when the very existence of that something is in doubt? If someone believes that God exists, then it is sensible to expect to “accept” or “reject” God. But if someone does not believe that then it is impossible to “accept” or “reject”. So obvious.

 

[vz71]

How could anyone “accept” or “reject” anything, when the very existence of that something is in doubt? If someone believes that God exists, then it is sensible to expect to “accept” or “reject” God. But if someone does not believe that then it is impossible to “accept” or “reject”. So obvious.

At final judgement, doubt will in fact be removed.
The truth will be standing in front of you.

You can accept the truth and follow his word, or you can reject it.
The decisions you make in this life will dictate the outcome of that judgement.

 

[The_Exodus]

How could anyone “accept” or “reject” anything, when the very existence of that something is in doubt? If someone believes that God exists, then it is sensible to expect to “accept” or “reject” God. But if someone does not believe that then it is impossible to “accept” or “reject”. So obvious.

You are assuming that you know your own will and motivations 100%. I don’t think that is the case for anybody.

For what it’s worth, as far as I know, you may be invincibly ignorant and are actually holding on to the “true” concept of God in your own mind, and rejecting all the “false” strawmen of what he really is. I do not think that is the case, based on your typical snide attitude and flippant dismissal of many points I have brought up to you in the past (which rather indicates to me a lack of sincerity in searching for truth), but I may be mistaken.

At the same time, I may be totally pridefully driven in my own search. I may be pursuing “god” for all the wrong reasons, and may still harbor in my sole some deepseeded idea that I “deserve” to be saved. I don’t think that is the case, mind you, but I could be wrong.

No one can know with absolute certainty that they are saved, though we can be comforted by a feeling of peace and trust in God.

 

[ConstantineTG]

How could anyone “accept” or “reject” anything, when the very existence of that something is in doubt? If someone believes that God exists, then it is sensible to expect to “accept” or “reject” God. But if someone does not believe that then it is impossible to “accept” or “reject”. So obvious.

It depends on how someone doesn’t believe. Do they not believe because of ignorance to the fact? Or do they not believe because they have rejected the fact? Ignorance can be excused, willful rejection cannot.

 

[Brooklyn]

I agree, but through circumstances that most people can’t control, many do not receive the the proper word of God. So why will they suffer for it? Again, there is no conclusive argument that they will enter heaven. The only thing the Church teaches is that God is indeed merciful and can choose to save those who did not get to know Him in their earthly lives through no fault of their own. How and why, we don’t exactly now. Remember the parable of two sons? One acknowledged their father but did not do his will. The other disregarded the father but later on did what he asked. Being a Christian is acknowledging The Father. But thats only one part of it. Those who actually do the will of The Father are the ones to be saved.

This is exactly what causes so much consternation for people. The whole question of unbaptized babies going to hell. It seems so unjust. The Church’s answer for this was limbo - not hell, but paradise without being in the presence of God. My own personal feeling on this is that these babies, just as adults, will somehow have a chance to say yes or no to God just as older children and adults do. No one goes to heaven or hell by default. We all make that choice. But that’s no longer good enough.

And what about those who truly, through no fault of their own, have never heard the Word of God. I still contend that this applies to very few people in our modern world. A recent survey was done in which people were asked questions about the Bible and religion. The ones who scored best were agnostics and atheists, and Catholics scored the worst.

Do we believe that we inherited our first parents’ sin. Does their banishment from the Tree of Life apply to us? If it doesn’t, then why did Christ have to be born a man and then die? Does Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross wash away the sins of those who aren’t even aware of him and have never consciously said yes to him? That doesn’t seem possible to me. Could our Blessed Mother have conceived Christ by the Holy Spirit without consenting to it?

We are either all born with original sin and doomed to hell without the sacrifice of Christ or we aren’t. In past ages this was never a problem. This is what people believed. But now that we are all so politically correct and unwilling to judge one another, we have a real problem with this. Now we feel that so and so is just too “good” to go to hell. But I think we have a very warped view of what “good” is. As the Apostle Paul said, no one does good, not one.

 

[tonyrey]

Does Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross wash away the sins of those who aren’t even aware of him and have never consciously said yes to him? That doesn’t seem possible to me.

 

[ConstantineTG]

This is exactly what causes so much consternation for people. The whole question of unbaptized babies going to hell. It seems so unjust. The Church’s answer for this was limbo - not hell, but paradise without being in the presence of God. My own personal feeling on this is that these babies, just as adults, will somehow have a chance to say yes or no to God just as older children and adults do. No one goes to heaven or hell by default. We all make that choice. But that’s no longer good enough.

I think thats the point, we make the choice. But what if we didn’t?

And what about those who truly, through no fault of their own, have never heard the Word of God. I still contend that this applies to very few people in our modern world. A recent survey was done in which people were asked questions about the Bible and religion. The ones who scored best were agnostics and atheists, and Catholics scored the worst.

The Catholics scored the worse because they were largely unaware of other faiths than their own. Don’t forget that the questions in that survey were knowledge of different faiths, not just of Catholicism. This doesn’t reflect that Catholics do not know their own faith. They just don’t know much of others.

Also, awareness is different from actualy knowledge. Lets flip the switch for a bit. Say Buddhism is the true religion. Do you right now can say that you know enough of Buddhism to make a choice whether to accept it or not? You know about Buddhism, who have an idea of who is/are Buddha, but do you really know about Buddhism well enough? Was there a willful rejection of Buddhism on your part or just passive ignorance?

Do we believe that we inherited our first parents’ sin. Does their banishment from the Tree of Life apply to us? If it doesn’t, then why did Christ have to be born a man and then die? Does Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross wash away the sins of those who aren’t even aware of him and have never consciously said yes to him? That doesn’t seem possible to me. Could our Blessed Mother have conceived Christ by the Holy Spirit without consenting to it?

Actually it is taught that the righteous people before Christ went to limbo, and that Christ “descended unto Hades” to deliver the Gospel to them and liberate them and bring them to heaven.

We didn’t inherit the sin of Adam and Eve. What we inherited is their fallen nature. Its in the Catechism. Actually the contencious part of Original Sin especially when speaking with Eastern Christians is the choice of terminology of the West. Why use “Sin” and then say that this type of sin is not something we directly committed and are directly guilty of? It adds to the confusion. Every other sin is something we commit and we personally are guilty off, why is Original Sin suddenly different?

We are either all born with original sin and doomed to hell without the sacrifice of Christ or we aren’t. In past ages this was never a problem. This is what people believed. But now that we are all so politically correct and unwilling to judge one another, we have a real problem with this. Now we feel that so and so is just too “good” to go to hell. But I think we have a very warped view of what “good” is. As the Apostle Paul said, no one does good, not one.

Actually a good study of Eastern theology on how “Original Sin” is understood there brings into a different light how and why one who is not baptized may and can be saved. In one aspect, it is understood that man by himself is sinful, perhaps because our bodies are physical and mortal that our instincts are bound to the physical and mortal world. In the beginning Adam and Eve were imbuned with the fullness of grace, such as Mary. But because of sin they have lost this grace that gave us holiness and immortality. Baptism restores the ability to fill ourselves with grace once again.

I wouldn’t read into one understanding of Original Sin as the be-all, end-all of the doctrine. What you percieve as “political correctness” is actually development of doctrine where we better understand it through our own development and understanding, and with comparing with the other traditions of our Church with their own understanding of the topic.

 

[Betterave]

Actually a good study of Eastern theology on how “Original Sin” is understood there brings into a different light how and why one who is not baptized may and can be saved. In one aspect, it is understood that man by himself is sinful, perhaps because our bodies are physical and mortal that our instincts are bound to the physical and mortal world. In the beginning Adam and Eve were imbuned with the fullness of grace, such as Mary. But because of sin they have lost this grace that gave us holiness and immortality.

That interesting, but I don’t understand what difference/clarification your formulation here is supposed to introduce.

Baptism restores the ability to fill ourselves with grace once again.

…And I don’t understand this one at all. (It sounds plainly wrong to me.)

 

[Spock]

It depends on how someone doesn’t believe. Do they not believe because of ignorance to the fact? Or do they not believe because they have rejected the fact? Ignorance can be excused, willful rejection cannot.

What do you call a “fact” here? I am aware of the fact that the catholic church exists. I am aware of what the bible says. I am aware of the cathecism. I am aware of what the church “claims”. I am aware of the fact that the church’s claims are not substantiated to my satisfaction. Yes, you see it correctly: to my satisfaction. That is the key here.

 

[tonyrey]

In one aspect, it is understood that man by himself is sinful, perhaps because our bodies are physical and mortal that our instincts are bound to the physical and mortal world.

To attribute sinfulness to **our physical nature ** implies that life in this world is radically evil…

 

[fide]

What do you call a “fact” here? I am aware of the fact that the catholic church exists. I am aware of what the bible says. I am aware of the cathecism. I am aware of what the church “claims”. I am aware of the fact that the church’s claims are not substantiated to my satisfaction. Yes, you see it correctly: to my satisfaction. That is the key here.

Well, Mr. Spock, faith is truly a great mystery! Faith is of another order entirely from human deductions. Logical conclusions are only consequences of initial unprovable but acceptable premises. Grace takes us to another perspective entirely - to new premises, and hence to new conclusions and indeed to new horizons, a new creation: a world above this present one, a super-natural universe. And it is beyond our requirements, greater than our satisfactions.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That interesting, but I don’t understand what difference/clarification your formulation here is supposed to introduce.

…And I don’t understand this one at all. (It sounds plainly wrong to me.)

How can it sound wrong? When God created Adam and Eve, he called this creation “very good”. Their relationship with God was so close that they can see God because they are filled with God. When they sinned, that relationship with God has become fractured and humanity was deprived of God’s grace. The Sacraments, starting with Baptism, allows for us to receive grace once again.