Hell made better

[sonofbarry]

Hi, this is highly speculative and rather ‘left-field’.

So, I’ve read the platitude many times that “God doesn’t send us to Hell; we choose to go there” and that “Hell is removal from God”. I’ve even read (on this forum, I believe) that the Devil is not in Hell, and that he has little or nothing to do with it. There’s no fire or horned demons getting about. I’ve even read that there is no devil.
The punishment, if any, is entirely self-inflicted. I suppose that’s the ultimate punishment: the one you could have avoided.

Anyway… whatever one’s reasons for ending up in Hell, it’s supposedly a sorry state of existence.

What if the more moderate souls in Hell had the power of rationality and worked out, eventually, that they didn’t want this. They know that God loves them, but they fully admit that they didn’t confess mortal sins such as purposefully skipping Mass on one Sunday to go and watch the football, or the many times they masturbated as teenagers (you know, not ‘deal-breakers’, but still designated Mortal Sins).
Therefore, they also know that God is ultimately unforgiving and they have no chance of even doing time in Purgatory, much less getting to Heaven. They know that they are stuck here.

So, they decide to ‘make a go of it’. These moderate, unforgiven (apparently, unforgivable) souls create their own existence where they understand each other and look after each other. After all, it’s forever, and there’s no god, so they do whatever they can to make it a bit more amenable.

Is it possible that there is a hierarchy in Hell, and that some souls are there for comparatively minor offences? It follows (well, I think it does) that those who really don’t want to be there, but are doomed forever, might create their own ‘moderate’ version of Hell. They might reach out to others. They might even entreat God to reconsider their plight.

It doesn’t seem so silly now.

 

[Wesrock]

So, I’ve read the platitude many times that “God doesn’t send us to Hell; we choose to go there” and that “Hell is removal from God”. I’ve even read (on this forum, I believe) that the Devil is not in Hell, and that he has little or nothing to do with it. There’s no fire or horned demons getting about. I’ve even read that there is no devil.
The punishment, if any, is entirely self-inflicted. I suppose that’s the ultimate punishment: the one you could have avoided.

I’m not a fan of the platitudes. Some go so far as to make it sound like something Hell is something outside of God’s control, that He absolutely nothing to do with it. I do understand what can be properly meant when someone says “we doom ourselves to hell” or whatever, but some people take this too literally. There is a devil, but Hell is not his kingdom, it’s a place where he is punished. Same with all the fallen angels.

Therefore, they also know that God is ultimately unforgiving and they have no chance of even doing time in Purgatory, much less getting to Heaven. They know that they are stuck here.

So, they decide to ‘make a go of it’. These moderate, unforgiven (apparently, unforgivable) souls create their own existence where they understand each other and look after each other. After all, it’s forever, and there’s no god, so they do whatever they can to make it a bit more amenable.

Is it possible that there is a hierarchy in Hell, and that some souls are there for comparatively minor offences? It follows (well, I think it does) that those who really don’t want to be there, but are doomed forever, might create their own ‘moderate’ version of Hell. They might reach out to others. They might even entreat God to reconsider their plight.

It doesn’t seem so silly now.

Masturbation and skipping mass are grave matter. That doesn’t make every occurrence a mortal sin.

As for the rest of your post, you said it was highly speculative, but it misses the mark on why Hell is eternal. It’s not that God is incapable or unwilling of forgiving them or that any finite number of sins is unforgivable, it’s that the souls in Hell never repent of their sins and continue to sin, “loving their own misery” so to speak. They never entreat God to forgive them. They never repent. They make an irrevocable choice at their death. Irrevocable not in some legal sense where they later regret their choice but God took the prior choice as final; it’s irrevocable on the human side of things, in that it’s not in their nature anymore to change directions.

Church teaching is that the punishments of hell may vary according to the gravity of unrepented sins. We don’t really know exactly what the manner of their bodily existence will be after the resurrection, but I’ve a hard time imagining it as some type of society comparable to todays, where people walk around talking to each other and living their “lives” and socializing.

 

[wild_thing]

God is Love. He is also Just. That is why there is hell. No one is in hell who did not choose to go there. No one. So what you are speculating doesn’t make any sense. They absolutely want to be in hell, because the damned cannot bear to be by God. God is all pure, all light, all holiness. To see oneself compared to this holiness is so awful that the damned would rather be in hell. In hell, they scream and curse and hate God, the Saints, and each other. Because there is no love in hell, there would be no ‘teaming up’ as you have suggested, because the souls hate each other and want everyone else to be as miserable as themselves.

There is a hierarchy in hell, so to speak- you suffer according to your sins and their degree. So someone who committed many more sins of a serious nature would suffer more than someone who committed less sins. It also depends on your circumstances, disposition, motivations, and the inner workings of your heart- all of which we humans cannot see in each other, that is why ONLY God can judge each soul justly. And He does judge justly. Every soul will agree with His judgement.

 

[truetofaith]

Go to your Bible & read about hell…especially about Lazarus & the rich man. Lazarus was in the bosom of Abraham ( Heaven ) & the rich man in torment & begged for a drop of water to cool his burning tongue.

 

[midori]

St. Catherine of Genoa had an interesting thing that she wrote. One bit goes:

After death free will can never return, for the will is fixed as it was at the moment of death.

Basically, there is no good outside of God. Hell is eternal separation from God. So if you’re eternally separated from God, no matter how much you might want to “make the best of it”— if you don’t have God’s grace, there’s no success in your endeavours.

For example, you might look at the Passion narrative that we read about every Triduum. One story goes along the lines of, the demons realized that all the circumstances they were setting up-- the execution of Jesus-- would result in the salvation of mankind. And that’s bad, if you’re a demon, right? So they tried to put the brakes on the whole thing. Like, for example, with Pilate’s wife trying to discourage him from following through because of her dream. But even though their plan was a “good” plan-- to prevent the execution of an innocent person-- because it did not have God’s grace behind it, they were unable to stop the people they had previously inspired-- like Judas, or the Chief Priests and Scribes, and whatever other leadership was leading this project-- to do wrong. So they had done wrong; they changed their minds; and they couldn’t stop the wrong they had set out to accomplish. So, after they realized that they couldn’t prevent it, they doubled-down on it with as much hate and violence and spite as they could inspire. But there is no “good” without God’s hand in it somewhere.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Read the Lives of the Saints.

Some of them had to put up with a lot of earthly difficulties.

 

[GEddie]

Hell is bodily. It has to be, else whatever those who go there are, they would not be human beings.

I for one have severe doubts as to all the modern preaching that attempts to gentle Hell down. If all that were true, then our LORD was mistaken in His preaching of a vivid, frightening Hell, and He is not mistaken.

ICXC NIKA

 

[sonofbarry]

Thanks, everyone, for the thoughtful replies.
I honestly expected to be kicked three blocks down the road for this, but you have all shown that unusual ideas can at least be discussed around here.

 

[Gorgias]

What if the more moderate souls in Hell

What does “more moderate” mean in this context? That they chose against God while alive, but didn’t really mean it? Or maybe, they didn’t understand the choice? That’s not the definition of who’s in hell – both of these types of “more moderate” souls would have been guilty of grave sin, but not mortal sin. And, it’s only unrepented mortal sin (that is, grave sin that is both understood as such and is freely chosen) that condemns a person to hell.

So, what’s the description of the ‘more moderate’ person that you’re positing here?

had the power of rationality and worked out, eventually, that they didn’t want this.

OK. So… you’re not talking about after the end of time, right? After all, before the end of time, those who have died don’t have physical bodies. Aquinas would argue that, without a physical body, we can’t ratiocinate. Therefore, this can’t happen until after the final judgment (when human souls are re-united with (glorified) bodies).

If that’s the case, then what would cause them to “work out” things in a different way? After all, at the final judgment, they will have seen their choices and the finality in the judgment. Once going through that experience, there’s only the regret that they chose the way they did. And, no matter what they do in hell, they’ll never get what they lost. So, what would they do, in order to bring themselves comfort, if they already know they can never have what they could have had?

In other words, the joy of heaven isn’t in getting wings and a harp, or floating on the clouds, or even – as it were – being back in the presence of loved ones. The joy of heaven is in the Beatific Vision – that is, being in the direct presence of God. Next to that, it’s as if nothing matters. Having experienced that presence, albeit briefly, at the final judgment, I think I’d say that this would be the mindset of the condemned, as well: now that they’ve experienced it, but are experiencing the consequence of their decision to reject God, nothing can replace it or provide comfort in its absence.

At least, that’s how it seems to me at first blush.

Therefore, they also know that God is ultimately unforgiving

No… it’s not that God is unforgiving, it’s that they cannot repent (and thereby, be forgiven). Why do I say it that way? Keep reading…

These moderate, unforgiven (apparently, unforgivable) souls

What would cause them to repent? After all, forgiveness is all about repentance. Repentance is based either on the fear of punishment (or conversely, the fear of the loss of eternal bliss) or the love of God.

These souls have already lost eternal bliss and are being punished, so there’s not that motivation. They also have knowingly and willingly turned away from the love of God in life – what would make them turn back to him in hell?

It’s an interesting thought experiment, but I’m just not seeing it…

 

[mikekle]

How do we know people in hell can even communicate with others there with them? Maybe everyone is sort of in their own private hell?

I have never thought about what the OP suggested before though, I guess anything is possible, but the situation OP describes involves passage of time, it takes TIME for all them to come to this realization, set it in motion, etc but there is no time in hell, so…?

 

[tonyrey]

Hell is bodily. It has to be, else whatever those who go there are, they would not be human beings.

I for one have severe doubts as to all the modern preaching that attempts to gentle Hell down. If all that were true, then our LORD was mistaken in His preaching of a vivid, frightening Hell, and He is not mistaken.

ICXC NIKA

Hyperbole was a common feature of Jewish culture in the time of Our Lord in addition to which it is only too easy in the cut and thrust of daily life to forget the effect our sins may have on the lives of others - and in extreme cases drive them to kill or commit suicide. Mild warnings are hopelessly inadequate when it comes to the attraction of pleasure, comfort, wealth, power and the esteem of others. Jesus was wise because it is better to exaggerate than be mild and mealy-mouthed when dealing with the danger of eternal isolation from God.

 

[GEddie]

Hyperbole was a common feature of Jewish culture in the time of Our Lord in addition to which it is only too easy in the cut and thrust of daily life to forget the effect our sins may have on the lives of others - and in extreme cases drive them to kill or commit suicide. Mild warnings are hopelessly inadequate when it comes to the attraction of pleasure, comfort, wealth, power and the esteem of others. Jesus was wise because it is better to exaggerate than be mild and mealy-mouthed when dealing with the danger of eternal isolation from God.

Sorry, this was our LORD, not some country preacher.

He knew His words would be exaggerated, expanded upon, even weaponized after He had gone. So why use **untrue **illustrations of a horrid, physical Hell if the reality wasn’t so bad?

ICXC NIKA

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

That they chose against God while alive, but didn’t really mean it?

Who “chooses” against God? Only a disgruntled Christian can “choose” against God, believers of other deities, or unbelievers do not and cannot “reject” God. They simply do not believe in the Christian God.

Of course, only a seriously demented psychopath can come up with the idea of eternal torture… It might be informative to read the book written by the Rev. John Furniss: The Sight of Hell (saintsbooks.net/books/Fr.%20John%20Furniss%20-%20The%20Sight%20of%20Hell.html) Take a few minutes, and see what kind of person could put together such a horrible writ.

A few words about repentance and forgiveness. In my life I committed many acts that SOME Catholics might consider grave or maybe even mortal sins. But that is only their opinion. My conscience is clear. I never committed an act which I would need to ask for forgiveness. After all I am not an idiot, and only an idiot would knowingly and volitionally commit an act which she considers inappropriate. So I do not need forgiveness, and if I am mistaken, and some of my acts require “eternal torture”, then the “judge” is not someone that merits “worship”.

 

[Wesrock]

Who “chooses” against God? Only a disgruntled Christian can “choose” against God, believers of other deities, or unbelievers do not and cannot “reject” God. They simply do not believe in the Christian God.

You’ve a very narrow view of God.

Of course, only a seriously demented psychopath can come up with the idea of eternal torture… It might be informative to read the book written by the Rev. John Furniss: The Sight of Hell (saintsbooks.net/books/Fr.%20John%20Furniss%20-%20The%20Sight%20of%20Hell.html) Take a few minutes, and see what kind of person could put together such a horrible writ.

And perhaps a distorted take on hell and its purpose, too. I suppose you’d think Socrates and Plato were also seriously demented psychopaths?

A few words about repentance and forgiveness. In my life I committed many acts that SOME Catholics might consider grave or maybe even mortal sins. But that is only their opinion. My conscience is clear. I never committed an act which I would need to ask for forgiveness. After all I am not an idiot, and only an idiot would knowingly and volitionally commit an act which she considers inappropriate. So I do not need forgiveness, and if I am mistaken, and some of my acts require “eternal torture”, then the “judge” is not someone that merits “worship”.

You have *never *felt pressure to lie because of shame or embarrassment? Perhaps to cover tracks over a mistake you made at work or at home or among friends? Or perhaps wronged somebody out of misguided feelings of anger or attachment? You’ve never gotten angry and spoke more harshly than you meant to? Or overindulged yourself even if it could have benefited someone else? Or, you know, spoken harshly and insultingly at people over the Internet or in persons and accusing them of being idiots or uneducated or psychopaths? Is every choice you make so cold blooded and dispassionately reasoned? And certainly feeling like you’ve done nothing wrong is not the same as having done nothing wrong. shrugs

And you continue to repeat caricatures about Hell, even after repeated corrections and clarifications. But that and the heat in your comments is par for the course.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

You’ve a very narrow view of God.

Maybe this is news to you, but you have EXACTLY the same amount of solid information about God as I do… namely NONE. Your belief is unfounded. I only get my “information” about God from you and the other believers. And what the believers SAY about God, and the reality, which we observe are completely incompatible. It is my “fault”, that I accept the reality, that I observe, and discard the so-called arguments of the apologists. It would be simply wonderful to have a conversation with some rational believers. It happens rarely, but when it happens, it is most uplifting.

And perhaps a distorted take on hell and its purpose, too. I suppose you’d think Socrates and Plato were also seriously demented psychopaths?

Were they the ones who originally INVENTED this horrible concept called “hell”? I don’t think so. Besides hell cannot have any purpose, except revenge, or torture. Many times I saw people “arguing” that there MUST be a place for people, who do not want to be in heaven, and they even say that hell is the sign of “mercy” and “love”… after all to be forced to be with God would be even worse for those who “reject” God. Well, sorry to say that these people are simply idiots. There are many other solutions for those who would not want to be with God, beside the eternal torture. As a matter of fact, let’s see what would happen to someone, who does not deserve heaven and would be given the chance to get to heaven. Would that person demand to be thrown into hell, for eternal torture? I don’t think so.

By the way, one of the worst arguments I ever heard that NO ONE deserves anything better than hell, that NO behavior is “good enough” to deserve heaven. It does not matter how wonderful life you live, how much you worship God, it is still not sufficient to “deserve” heaven. No wonder that some poor nincompoops develop a serious amount of scrupulosity. To live your whole life under the belief that you are unworthy, that you deserve nothing but hell, no matter how hard you try - is a horrible position to be in.

You have *never *felt pressure to lie because of shame or embarrassment? Perhaps to cover tracks over a mistake you made at work or at home or among friends? Or perhaps wronged somebody out of misguided feelings of anger or attachment? You’ve never gotten angry and spoke more harshly than you meant to? Or overindulged yourself even if it could have benefited someone else? Or, you know, spoken harshly and insultingly at people over the Internet or in persons and accusing them of being idiots or uneducated or psychopaths? Is every choice you make so cold blooded and dispassionately reasoned? And certainly feeling like you’ve done nothing wrong is not the same as having done nothing wrong. shrugs

There is some “minor” difference between telling someone off and throwing someone into a gas chamber. No, I never tortured anyone, nor did I murder anyone. What I did (and I do not deny anything) might be a “mortal sin” in your eyes, but your opinion simply does not count. Anyone, who declares a perfectly normal and natural act of LOVE to be sinful does not deserve to be taken seriously. Especially, since you declare LOVE to be the foundation of your whole belief system.

And you continue to repeat caricatures about Hell, even after repeated corrections and clarifications. But that and the heat in your comments is par for the course.

Caricature? You gotta be kidding. Everything I say is founded on YOUR (plural) arguments. I did not invent anything. Nor do I distort what you say.

 

[tonyrey]

Who “chooses” against God? Only a disgruntled Christian can “choose” against God, believers of other deities, or unbelievers do not and cannot “reject” God. They simply do not believe in the Christian God.

Of course, only a seriously demented psychopath can come up with the idea of eternal torture… It might be informative to read the book written by the Rev. John Furniss: The Sight of Hell (saintsbooks.net/books/Fr.%20John%20Furniss%20-%20The%20Sight%20of%20Hell.html) Take a few minutes, and see what kind of person could put together such a horrible writ.

A few words about repentance and forgiveness. In my life I committed many acts that SOME Catholics might consider grave or maybe even mortal sins. But that is only their opinion. My conscience is clear. I never committed an act which I would need to ask for forgiveness. After all I am not an idiot, and only an idiot would knowingly and volitionally commit an act which she considers inappropriate. So I do not need forgiveness, and if I am mistaken, and some of my acts require “eternal torture”, then the “judge” is not someone that merits “worship”.

It’s good to know you** believe **you have a conscience but on what is the distinction between good and evil based in an amoral, purposeless and meaningless universe?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

It’s good to know you** believe **you have a conscience but on what is the distinction between good and evil based in an amoral, purposeless and meaningless universe?

Doncha wurry your purty lil’ head over such cumplicated matturz… it is over your pay-grade.

Try to figure out how can a tasteless and non-nutritious barrel contain a tasty, nutritious beer, which is composed of tasteless water and some non-nutritious ingredients (like barley, yeast and hops). Once you understand this, you can answer your own previous question. In the meantime, we can meet in a pub somewhere, and I can treat you EITHER a pint of good beer and OR the raw ingredients just placed into a jar and have it forced down your throat. Let’s see if you can understand the difference.

 

[Gorgias]

Who “chooses” against God? Only a disgruntled Christian can “choose” against God, believers of other deities, or unbelievers do not and cannot “reject” God. They simply do not believe in the Christian God.

So, you choose against belief in God and His revelation of eschatology. That’s a choice. You don’t have to be disgruntled to make that choice.

Of course, only a seriously demented psychopath can come up with the idea of eternal torture… It might be informative to read the book written by the Rev. John Furniss: The Sight of Hell (saintsbooks.net/books/Fr.%20John%20Furniss%20-%20The%20Sight%20of%20Hell.html)

It was very informative! From the first paragraph, I read, “It seems likely that hell is in the middle of the earth.” That tells me everything I need to know: he’s not teaching what the Church teaches. So, any person can write whatever they want; that doesn’t imply that it’s accurate, however, or in concert with Church teaching. Thanks for helping demonstrate the difference.

A few words about repentance and forgiveness. In my life I committed many acts that SOME Catholics might consider grave or maybe even mortal sins. But that is only their opinion.

Psst… it’s not the “opinion of some Catholics” that matters. It’s what God says is mortal sin that matters. That’s a pretty big distinction.

My conscience is clear.

That’s immaterial. Your conscience tells you what you should do, based on your best understanding. That doesn’t imply that your best understanding is correct. (After all, your conscience could tell you that you should blow through every red light you encounter. Sooner or later, though, you’ll experience some really negative effects from relying on a conscience that’s in error. )

I never committed an act which I would need to ask for forgiveness. After all I am not an idiot, and only an idiot would knowingly and volitionally commit an act which she considers inappropriate.

That’s not true. People do things that are inappropriate all the time.

So I do not need forgiveness, and if I am mistaken, and some of my acts require “eternal torture”, then the “judge” is not someone that merits “worship”.

You didn’t read my discussion of the difference between ‘grave’ and ‘mortal’ sin, and the (different) consequences between them, did you? I’m not making the claim that you assert I’m making. In other words, you’re tilting at windmills, here: sin that is not committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent is not mortal sin, and does not lead to damnation. (Of course, if you should have known, and you’re just being obstinate, that’s a different matter.)

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

So, you choose against belief in God and His revelation of eschatology. That’s a choice. You don’t have to be disgruntled to make that choice.

Not so fast. I did not decide not to believe in God (or using different words: I did not choose not to believe in God). I did investigate the “pros” and “cons” presented by the apologists (formal or self-proclaimed) and reached the conclusion that their arguments are self-contradictory and nonsensical. That does not mean that I “rejected” God. I reject the arguments for God. Do you see the difference?

It was very informative! From the first paragraph, I read, “It seems likely that hell is in the middle of the earth.” That tells me everything I need to know: he’s not teaching what the Church teaches. So, any person can write whatever they want; that doesn’t imply that it’s accurate, however, or in concert with Church teaching. Thanks for helping demonstrate the difference.

Interesting. I don’t think that you reject the WHOLE bible, JUST because it contains the obviously incorrect assertion that the circumference of a circle is THREE times the diameter. So Furniss has some unsupported ideas… just like anyone else who speaks about hell. But what he describes about hell is widely accepted by the “traditional” Catholics, who are upset by the “watered down” version of hell that is propagated by the “librul” apologists (like simple separation from God). And I find his “analysis” horrible and nauseating. If you have not read the whole thing, maybe you should. Maybe you would see why most people reject the “traditional” concept of hell as a sick, disgusting, horrific and despicable concept. Don’t judge the book by the cover.

Psst… it’s not the “opinion of some Catholics” that matters. It’s what God says is mortal sin that matters. That’s a pretty big distinction.

Not really. It is the OPINION of some Catholics that it is the direct “revelation” from God. God does not speak to us, and there is no evidence that God EVER spoke to us. There is no direct evidence that God actually exists. Speculations, yes, actual evidence, no.

That’s immaterial. Your conscience tells you what you should do, based on your best understanding. That doesn’t imply that your best understanding is correct.

It does not matter. All that matters is that I listen to my conscience. And I am required to follow my conscience. Of course I am also aware of the caveat, that my conscience must be “well-formed”. Which means that it must coincide with the teachings of the Church. Why “worry” about the conscience is a mystery. The Church simply could declare that its teachings must be followed to the “T”, and forget about that pesky conscience.

That’s not true. People do things that are inappropriate all the time.

I am not responsible for OTHER people’s actions. I never committed anything that I would have considered inappropriate, so there is nothing I would need to “repent”.

You didn’t read my discussion of the difference between ‘grave’ and ‘mortal’ sin, and the (different) consequences between them, did you? I’m not making the claim that you assert I’m making. In other words, you’re tilting at windmills, here: sin that is not committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent is not mortal sin, and does not lead to damnation. (Of course, if you should have known, and you’re just being obstinate, that’s a different matter.)

I have been aware of the difference between the “grave matter” and the “mortal sin” a very long time ago. I may or may not agree that a certain act is a “grave matter”, and if I don’t agree, then even if I commit that act it is not done with full knowledge, even though it may have been committed with deliberate consent. And I am the only one who is qualified do decide if I should have known it. There is no objectively presented list of the “do’s” and “don’t’s” akin to the laws. Hell, not even the Catholic church has created a definitive list of the “sins”.

 

[Gorgias]

Not so fast. I did not decide not to believe in God (or using different words: I did not choose not to believe in God). … I reject the arguments for God. Do you see the difference?

The difference between “I do not believe in God” and “I do not believe in God because I reject the arguments for His existence”? Not really.

Interesting. I don’t think that you reject the WHOLE bible, JUST because it contains the obviously incorrect assertion that the circumference of a circle is THREE times the diameter.

The Bible is a collection of books of varying genres. Moreover, the Bible is a book that uses a variety of literary techniques. Further, it is a book whose aim is to describe God’s plan for our salvation. So, sure – it is a book that is written by a variety of ancient writers, who have certain (ancient) ideas about the natural world. Yet, since its goal is salvation, rather than science, I can overlook the means that they employ in service of their goal – the description of how we can attain to heaven.

Furniss, on the other hand, is not attempting poetry or allegory; he is attempting a literal discussion that includes cosmology. When he gets it wrong, he is no longer speaking for the Church (that’s the way that ‘infallibility’ works for priests: when a priest speaks in line with the teachings of the Church, he is echoing the Church’s infallibility; when he speaks out of line with that teaching, he is no longer supported by the authority of the Church). Therefore, since he’s off the ranch on this one, I do reject what he says.

So Furniss has some unsupported ideas… But what he describes about hell is widely accepted by the “traditional” Catholics

Again: the Church is not a book club, in which everyone gets their own opinion. Nor is it a democracy, in which each argue for his own point and then we vote for which argument we like best. It is the vehicle that Jesus founded in order that His teaching might be spread to all the world. Not Furniss’ teaching; not many traditional Catholics’ teaching: Jesus’ teaching. When one strays from that, then we shrug and say “not authoritative. Thanks for playing; please come again.”

Maybe you would see why most people reject the “traditional” concept of hell as a sick, disgusting, horrific and despicable concept.

You can judge whichever spin on Church teaching you like. However, unless you’re addressing what the Church actually teaches, then you’re on your own with your windmill-tilting.

Don’t judge the book by the cover.

I didn’t. I judged it by its contents, and since I rejected the contents, I reject your claims that it represents Church teaching. Important distinction, there.

It is the OPINION of some Catholics that it is the direct “revelation” from God. … there is no evidence that God EVER spoke to us. There is no direct evidence that God actually exists.

Which, when it all boils down, is just another way of saying “it is VL’s opinion that there is no direct revelation from God.” That’s fine, and you’re entitled to your opinion. That doesn’t make it true, however.

All that matters is that I listen to my conscience. And I am required to follow my conscience. Of course I am also aware of the caveat, that my conscience must be “well-formed”. Which means that it must coincide with the teachings of the Church.

Perfect. You’ve got it, then!

Good luck with that conscience of yours, then, which apparently has decided that you’re wiser than Jesus, his apostles, and two thousand years of rather intelligent philosophers and theologians!

Why “worry” about the conscience is a mystery. The Church simply could declare that its teachings must be followed to the “T”, and forget about that pesky conscience.

Why? Because it speaks to the core of God’s plan: each one of us has the free ability to choose God or reject Him. If you choose Him, then you should follow the plan He’s constructed. If you reject Him, you’re following your conscience (down a dead-end street). The choice is yours… always!

I am not responsible for OTHER people’s actions.

No, but your claim was that only idiots do what is inappropriate. Don’t move the goalposts, now…!

I never committed anything that I would have considered inappropriate, so there is nothing I would need to “repent”.

It’s refreshing to know that there’s at least one perfect person gracing these boards… :bowdown:

I have been aware of the difference between the “grave matter” and the “mortal sin” a very long time ago. I may or may not agree that a certain act is a “grave matter”, and if I don’t agree, then even if I commit that act it is not done with full knowledge, even though it may have been committed with deliberate consent.

Correct.

And I am the only one who is qualified do decide if I should have known it.

Actually… no. God is. (Which is why, ultimately, it’s His judgment and His alone that matters.)

There is no objectively presented list of the “do’s” and “don’t’s” akin to the laws.

Hmm… I seem to recall this book entitled… what was it now? Oh yeah – “the Catechism of the Catholic Church”!

Hell, not even the Catholic church has created a definitive list of the “sins”.

Not as a ‘list’, per se, but certainly, there are resources out there for you. (They tried the ‘authoritative list’ centuries ago. Priests had, at their disposal, a book of penances, which described the proper penance for each sin. A list like that just doesn’t work, though. We humans are awful creative – we come up with new ways to sin and new nuances on vice all the time. )