Hell

[MrSnaith]

Well, I’ll leave the “burning questions” to you all, who seem to be full of the knowledge of good and evil.
I reckon one of the circles of my inferno, I’d be surrounded by evangelists waving their bibles and quoting scripture they personally interpreted, and perhaps a few catholics into the bargain waving their catechisms doing likewise.
As life is full of surpises, I reckon death may be too.

Pax.

May God bless you and keep you all the days of your life.

Et cum spiritu tuo.

 

[MacQ]

May God bless you and keep you all the days of your life.

Et cum spiritu tuo.

Thanks…same to you.

 

[thistle]

Why have a second (final) judgement then?

Did you actually read the church teachings on the 2 judgements that MrSnaith quoted for you. That tells you clearly what they are about.

Also, for the final time WE DO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS AFTER DEATH. To deny this or have stubborn doubts about it is heresy as it is an infallible teaching of the Church.
As soon as you are dead the soul either goes immediately to Hell if in a state of mortal sin or is immediately saved (Heaven or Purgatory first).

IF YOU DIE IN A STATE OF MORTAL SIN THERE IS NO CHANCE TO CHANGE YOUR MIND AND REPENT AFTER YOU ARE DEAD!

 

[TRH1292]

Actually, I’m not sure either…or why you’re jumping on me, for that matter.
I opined that it seemed to me that people were arguing something no one could know (like angels on the head of a pin).
Others countered that they do know that at the moment of death (the earthly death of the body as defined by us)… there is some kind of irrevocable condemnation of some people at that moment.

So…if that is the case, I’d say why pray for the dead?

And since I don’t buy that these self appointed catechism cut and pasters DO know what happens or when, I will continue to pray for the dead, knowing that God is the one who sorts it out.

Because you keep taking Church teachings you do like, and using them to deny Church teachings you don’t like and then denying you are doing so. It’s annoyed pretty much every person you have spoken to on this thread. Nobody claimed to know the exact moment of death or when a soul leaves the body. They only claimed to profess the Teaching of the Holy Church, that repentance is not possible after death and other related teachings. I repeat: **The Church that teaches that we should pray for the dead is the same Church that teaches repentance is not possible after death. ** I have no idea why it is so hard to grasp basic truths of the faith. You are literally the only person who even brought up the idea of not praying for the dead, something no one else even suggested.

It is not an act or arrogance to simply believe the teachings of the Church. We assuredly can know something if the Church teaches it, regardless of if it pleases you or us.

 

[TRH1292]

So…if that is the case, I’d say why pray for the dead?

The Church prays for the dead on the assumption they are in Purgatory, commending them to the mercy of God that they may be cleansed and behold the beatific vision.

 

[MacQ]

Nobody claimed to know the exact moment of death or when a soul leaves the body. .

Well, I think THAT is part of the issue…nobody does know that part.

Nor does anyone really know whether there is anyone who…at whatever point that is…would reject God.
I have never denied the teachings, but I have not made assumptions beyond the teachings.

Here is an article where it’s better articulated than I have been able to do, if you’re interested.

catholic-sf.org/news_select.php?newsid=6&id=58364

 

[MacQ]

As soon as you are dead the soul either goes immediately to Hell if in a state of mortal sin or is immediately saved (Heaven or Purgatory first).

I’d say as soon as God decides you’re dead.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Do you guys even know what you’re arguing about anymore?

I’m not arguing, I’m just trying to do the “job” that God gave me.

 

[Tom_Baum]

I do, but sadly there are some who apparently think that they have a direct pipeline to God over and above the Magisterium and that whatever is “revealed” to them is more important than the truth of the Faith.

I’m done. It’s become rather apparent that Tom refuses to listen to reason.

Actually, I am using reason in listening to God and trying to do what God chose me to do.

God gave us “reason” and I think/believe that one of the things that Jesus attempted to teach us was that all of us are to use our “reasoning ability”, not just the “higher-ups”, just as Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to all of us, not just the “higher-ups”.

 

[MrSnaith]

Actually, I am using reason in listening to God and trying to do what God chose me to do.

God gave us “reason” and I think/believe that one of the things that Jesus attempted to teach us was that all of us are to use our “reasoning ability”, not just the “higher-ups”, just as Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to all of us, not just the “higher-ups”.

Yes, we are to use our reason. Yes, we are to be obedient to the will of God. Yes, Jesus sends the Holy Spirit to each one of us.

However, I would put the question to you: should we be obedient to the Bible? If the answer is yes, then I ask why?

I hope you would assert that it is the inspired word of God. If you do, I answer that the Magesterium is also inspired, and therefore we should be obedient to it. That doesn’t mean “don’t use your own reason.” It does mean, however, that if you receive a “special revelation,” that it must be in conformity with Magesterial teaching. Why? Because truth doesn’t contradict itself.

No one person is infallible (except, of course, the Divine persons Father, Son and Holy Ghost). Not me. Not you. Not even Pope Francis. What? Not Pope Francis!? No, not even Pope Francis. Pope Francis’ office is infallible. It’s an important distinction, because Pope Benedict was not infallible prior to taking the office, nor is he infallible now, after leaving the office. Nor was he infallible in everything he said, even if it did pertain to faith and morals, while he was in office. Only when he spoke out of, or from the office of Peter were his words infallible. The office is what holds infallibility, not the person.

Why is the Papal Office infallible? Because Christ instituted it as such. Why? Because had he not, you would have as many denominations and more of “Christianity” that are found in the Protestant circles. The simple fact is, when a person receives what they believe to be Divine instruction, or communication, they may be incorrect in believing it’s source is God. It may from God. It may be from the person’s own psyche. It may be demonic in origin. This is fact. Therefore, in order to give us certainty of truth, Christ established an office that could speak the truth without error, as Peter did when he said “You are Christ, the Son of the living God.” And this inspiration came from the Father, as Jesus says.

Sure, God could give each of us this kind of inspiration. But we observe that this isn’t the way God chose to go, and somehow thinking that you were the special exception is arrogance. If you are not in line with Magesterial teaching, which we know is inspired by the Spirit of Truth, then you are not in line with the Spirit of Truth.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Amandil

You wrote, “That’s obviously not a failure of God, for God desires all men to be saved.”

You seem to think/believe that God is Omnipotent but yet you write that God appears to be impotent in bringing about His “desires”, why would you think that God can not and will not bring His “desires” to Fruition?

Then you wrote, “So then it must be entirely the fault of men, namely those who refuse salvation.”

Are you saying that it will be “man’s fault” that God’s Will (God’s desires) will be thwarted?

I happen to believe that “God’s Will” will come to Fruition and that Jesus not only taught us to pray “… Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done on earth as it is in heaven…” but in teaching us to pray this prayer might have also wanted us to “ponder” just what the words say, could be that Jesus was trying to instill some “hope”.

As I have said many times, maybe some of us should hope beyond what we believe is hope-able.

You also wrote, “The bottom line is that He still radically respects our free will.”

Partial free will is no free will at all, but the “bottom line” is that God Is God and we are not God and it is God’s Plan, not ours.

 

[Aloysium]

Actually, I am using reason in listening to God and trying to do what God chose me to do.

God gave us “reason” and I think/believe that one of the things that Jesus attempted to teach us was that all of us are to use our “reasoning ability”, not just the “higher-ups”, just as Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to all of us, not just the “higher-ups”.

This is going off topic but this is very interesting.

Am I the final arbiter of truth for myself?

Not that long ago, I did not believe the Eucharist to be the body and blood of Christ.
It made absoutely no sense to me. Being honest with myself, I would have said, “no”.

Conversions can take years or a split second. I pray for God’s grace that I may grow in love, understanding, knowledge and wisdom: the truth to be ultimately found in Him.

Back to the OP:
I have faith and hope in God’s mercy that actions that could condemn me now, would not have in earlier states of ignorance; also that the judgement of God, who has all eternity to listen to our last few thoughts and the prayers for us past, present and future, takes all into consideration.

 

[MrSnaith]

You seem to think/believe that God is Omnipotent but yet you write that God appears to be impotent in bringing about His “desires”, why would you think that God can not and will not bring His “desires” to Fruition?

Tomorrow, we begin the Lenten season. We must fast and abstain tomorrow. Now consider this: for the sake of argument, let’s say it’s tomorrow, Ash Wednesday, and I’m currently fasting. Someone places a sizzling, delicious-looking, delicious-smelling onion-and-mushroomy steak on a plate in front of me, with a knife and fork. It is entirely within my power to eat that steak, right then and there. Moreover, I may desire dearly to eat that steak right then and there. Do I? I will not if I have a proper sense of goodness, understanding that the spiritual benefits I would receive from delaying such good and natural gratification would be very efficacious for me.

Likewise, God has the power, and even the desire that all should be saved. However, just because God has both the power and the desire doesn’t mean that all men will be saved. Why? Is it because somehow men “thwart” God’s will? No. It’s because it is also God’s will that we should choose Him freely, and of the two goods, a freely chosen salvation, even if that also means a freely chosen damnation, is infinitely greater than a forced salvation on all. God wants lovers, not pets. Thus, even an omnipotent God wouldn’t have all men find salvation even if He desired that, if some of those men refused it.

Partial free will is no free will at all, but the “bottom line” is that God Is God and we are not God and it is God’s Plan, not ours.

I don’t think you have a proper understanding of free will. The only will that is absolutely free is God’s. Why? Because God is the only infinite being. A finite being is just that, finite; limited. If a being is limited, then his will is not unlimited. It is limited by the constraints of his being. Even angels have some limits to their wills. But that doesn’t mean we don’t have free wills. It just means that we don’t have absolutely free wills.

Moreover, as ordered beings, our wills are made more free through alignment with that order, and made less free by deviating from that order. Why? Because when we exercise our will contrary to order, we damage ourselves, which in turn limits our capacity for free chocie. We find our deepest freedom not in exercising our own wills contrarily to God’s, but rather in exercising our own wills in unity with God’s. By definition, our wills are “partial,” and yet are still free.

As far as God’s plan goes, yes He has a plan, and we don’t always live according to that plan. Do you believe that it was God’s plan for you, or anyone else, to sin? If not, yet you believe that men have sinned, then in this very simple sense, God’s plan, God’s will for us, for you, did not occur. Not by any impotence of God. Rather, it was due to His permissive will that we were allowed to choose at all.

 

[Tom_Baum]

MrSnaith

You wrote, “However, I would put the question to you: should we be obedient to the Bible? If the answer is yes, then I ask why?”

I can not answer the “we” part since I can not speak for any other person but as for me, I am not to be “obedient” to the Bible but to God and the root of the word “obedient” is “to listen”.

The Bible is about God, the Bible is not God.

The Bible can and sometimes does help lead someone to God.

You also wrote, “Sure, God could give each of us this kind of inspiration. But we observe that this isn’t the way God chose to go, and somehow thinking that you were the special exception is arrogance. If you are not in line with Magesterial teaching, which we know is inspired by the Spirit of Truth, then you are not in line with the Spirit of Truth.”

Just because God doesn’t give “everyone” a revelation, does not mean that God gives no one a revelation.

As far as “thinking that you were the special exception is arrogance”, first off, if by “special exception” you mean that “God chose me to speak”, I don’t think/believe that God chose me, I know that God chose me and second, are you saying that all of God’s messengers were/are “arrogant”?

Who are you or me or anyone else to tell God just what God can do and when God can do it and just how God is to do it?

I did not ask for this “job” but I have said YES.

I don’t know a lot but I do “know” a little, there are those things that I believe but do not “know” and to me the words (know and believe) do NOT mean the same thing.

 

[MrSnaith]

Just because God doesn’t give “everyone” a revelation, does not mean that God gives no one a revelation.

Yes this is true. However, it wasn’t my point that God doesn’t reveal Himself to some people and not to others. My point was that if God does, His revelation would not be contrary to, or even something “extra” to what He has already revealed in Scripture and Tradition, which is held by the Magesterium. God doesn’t do that.

As far as “thinking that you were the special exception is arrogance”, first off, if by “special exception” you mean that “God chose me to speak”, I don’t think/believe that God chose me, I know that God chose me and second, are you saying that all of God’s messengers were/are “arrogant”?

No, I don’t mean you to be arrogant in thinking that God spoke to you. God spoke directly to the prophets, and spoke intimately with the saints. What I am saying is that it’s arrogant to think that God would give you a special revelation that He has not given to His appointed teaching Church, especially if it contradicts a teaching of His appointed teaching Church.

Who are you or me or anyone else to tell God just what God can do and when God can do it and just how God is to do it?

I haven’t told God any of that, nor have I been the decider of any of that. It’s the other way around. God has told us all of that, through His Word, which is held by the teaching authority known as the Church.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Aloysium

You wrote, “Not that long ago, I did not believe the Eucharist to be the body and blood of Christ.
It made absoutely no sense to me. Being honest with myself, I would have said, “no”.”

Before the Holy Spirit revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist Is Jesus on 29 Jan 2000, I did believe what Jesus told us but until it was revealed to me, I could not say that I “know” that the Catholic Eucharist Is Jesus because I did not know, I believed and I happen to believe that this “believing” was/is a “gift” from God.

I very much believe that God knew that I needed to “know”, not just believe, some things, to even attempt to do what God chose me to do and I do “ponder” some of the things that I have “experienced”.

I was taught in 2nd grade that God Is Love and as you said about the Eucharist, “It made absoutely no sense to me”, that is what I thought in 2nd grade about the statement “God Is Love” but I accepted it even tho I didn’t have a clue what it meant, however, when I met God the Father, I came to the realization that the statement “God Is Love” is quite literal in that God is a Being of Love as opposed to Love being an attribute of God and this “fact” is what all else flows about God, so to speak.

 

[Amandil]

Amandil

You wrote, “That’s obviously not a failure of God, for God desires all men to be saved.”

You seem to think/believe that God is Omnipotent…

I don’t “think”, I know.

…but yet you write that God appears to be impotent in bringing about His “desires”, why would you think that God can not and will not bring His “desires” to Fruition?

Because, as part of His plan, He permits human free will to thwart His desires.

Which not only presupposes omnipotence but also allows for human free choice(omniscience).

You have a problem recognizing this because you are a human experiencing time as one moment chaning to another. Where God is not limited as you are and sees all time as “present” as they are actually happening. Thus He has no problem reconciling or orchestrating events, past, present, or future with either particular choices that we make in time or the particular prayers we pray in time.

Thus a prayer you make yesterday and which was answered today He would have seen not only the prayer but the numerous circumstances that brought about that prayer and would have already enacted the circumstances to answering that prayer all in one simultaneous moment.

None of that means that your free will was violated. Only that it was anticipated.

The same goes for those who freely choose to sin and not repent. His grace and call to convert is evident in every cataclysm which the sinner suffers(because sin is it’s own punishment). God allows us to reap the “benefits” of our sins so that we turn back to Him.

Yet there are those, no matter how many cataclysms they suffer as a result of their sins, they will never choose God over the sin they love.

And God allows them to make that choice, therefore hell exists.

Then you wrote, “So then it must be entirely the fault of men, namely those who refuse salvation.”

Are you saying that it will be “man’s fault” that God’s Will (God’s desires) will be thwarted?

Yes. Again, this presupposes omnipotence and omniscience.

I happen to believe that “God’s Will” will come to Fruition and that Jesus not only taught us to pray “… Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done on earth as it is in heaven…” but in teaching us to pray this prayer might have also wanted us to “ponder” just what the words say, could be that Jesus was trying to instill some “hope”.

As others have said, God’s will includes man’s radical freedom. So how does God reconcile His will “for all men to be saved” and the fact that His will permits, radically permits, that His children refuse Him?

Hell.

As I have said many times, maybe some of us should hope beyond what we believe is hope-able.

To an extent. But false hopes are another thing entirely, just like false loves, it’s believing a lie.

I’d rather believe Christ than lie to myself.

You also wrote, “The bottom line is that He still radically respects our free will.”

Partial free will is no free will at all, but the “bottom line” is that God Is God and we are not God and it is God’s Plan, not ours.

You need to discern if what you are speaking of is really “God’s plan”, or your own. Froim what I am reading of you now, it’s more like the latter.

 

[Tom_Baum]

MrSnaith

You wrote, “Likewise, God has the power, and even the desire that all should be saved. However, just because God has both the power and the desire doesn’t mean that all men will be saved. Why? Is it because somehow men “thwart” God’s will? No. It’s because it is also God’s will that we should choose Him freely, and of the two goods, a freely chosen salvation, even if that also means a freely chosen damnation, is infinitely greater than a forced salvation on all. God wants lovers, not pets. Thus, even an omnipotent God wouldn’t have all men find salvation even if He desired that, if some of those men refused it.”

So since “God has the power, and even the desire that all should be saved” and “it is also God’s will that we should choose Him freely” and you can’t figure out how God can do both of these, are you saying that God can’t bring this about?

By the way I did not write, “Even Jesus, several times in fact, insisted that “many” will not be saved. That’s obviously not a failure of God, for God desires all men to be saved. So then it must be entirely the fault of men, namely those who refuse salvation.”, someone else did, I was just commenting on it.

You then wrote, “I don’t think you have a proper understanding of free will. The only will that is absolutely free is God’s. Why? Because God is the only infinite being. A finite being is just that, finite; limited. If a being is limited, then his will is not unlimited. It is limited by the constraints of his being. Even angels have some limits to their wills. But that doesn’t mean we don’t have free wills. It just means that we don’t have absolutely free wills.”

We either have free will or we don’t have free will and if we don’t have free will than that means that we can not sin since we can not be held responsible for our actions unless our actions are freely chosen by us.

I happen to believe that we have free will, do you?

You also wrote, “As far as God’s plan goes, yes He has a plan, and we don’t always live according to that plan. Do you believe that it was God’s plan for you, or anyone else, to sin? If not, yet you believe that men have sinned, then in this very simple sense, God’s plan, God’s will for us, for you, did not occur. Not by any impotence of God. Rather, it was due to His permissive will that we were allowed to choose at all.”

Since I believe that God is Omniscient, I believe that God knows everyone, (past, present, future) and everything about everyone.

God’s Plan is creation itself and the pivotal point of God’s Plan is God becoming One of us for ALL of us.

 

[Tom_Baum]

I don’t “think”, I know.

Because, as part of His plan, He permits human free will to thwart His desires.

Which not only presupposes omnipotence but also allows for human free choice(omniscience).

You have a problem recognizing this because you are a human experiencing time as one moment chaning to another. Where God is not limited as you are and sees all time as “present” as they are actually happening. Thus He has no problem reconciling or orchestrating events, past, present, or future with either particular choices that we make in time or the particular prayers we pray in time.

Thus a prayer you make yesterday and which was answered today He would have seen not only the prayer but the numerous circumstances that brought about that prayer and would have already enacted the circumstances to answering that prayer all in one simultaneous moment.

None of that means that your free will was violated. Only that it was anticipated.

The same goes for those who freely choose to sin and not repent. His grace and call to convert is evident in every cataclysm which the sinner suffers(because sin is it’s own punishment). God allows us to reap the “benefits” of our sins so that we turn back to Him.

Yet there are those, no matter how many cataclysms they suffer as a result of their sins, they will never choose God over the sin they love.

And God allows them to make that choice, therefore hell exists.

Yes. Again, this presupposes omnipotence and omniscience.

As others have said, God’s will includes man’s radical freedom. So how does God reconcile His will “for all men to be saved” and the fact that His will permits, radically permits, that His children refuse Him?

Hell.

To an extent. But false hopes are another thing entirely, just like false loves, it’s believing a lie.

I’d rather believe Christ than lie to myself.

You need to discern if what you are speaking of is really “God’s plan”, or your own. Froim what I am reading of you now, it’s more like the latter.

I know that I am human and I believe, not know, that God “knew” absolutely everything about me before creation itself and not just me but everyone.

I know that some can not reconcile God knowing everything and us having free will and I can understand that since it goes against what we, as humans, can comprehend but that is not the only thing about God that is beyond our human comprehension.

The only things that I “know” about God are those things that God has revealed to me, there are many things that I believe about God.

I happen to believe that belief is a “gift” from God, sometimes I wonder why so many, that believe in God, belittle “belief”?

Since God called His creation “good”, I trust that God has a Plan worthy of being called GOOD NEWS and that that Good News is for ALL of God’s creation.

 

[MrSnaith]

So since “God has the power, and even the desire that all should be saved” and “it is also God’s will that we should choose Him freely” and you can’t figure out how God can do both of these, are you saying that God can’t bring this about?

Nope, that’s not what I’m saying. What God does or does not do has nothing to do with whether or not I can figure it out.

By the way I did not write, “Even Jesus, several times in fact, insisted that “many” will not be saved. That’s obviously not a failure of God, for God desires all men to be saved. So then it must be entirely the fault of men, namely those who refuse salvation.”, someone else did, I was just commenting on it.

I never quoted you as saying that.

We either have free will or we don’t have free will and if we don’t have free will than that means that we can not sin since we can not be held responsible for our actions unless our actions are freely chosen by us.

I happen to believe that we have free will, do you?

Yes, I do believe we have free will. In fact, I’m pretty sure I was very clear about that. You haven’t addressed any of my points regarding free will, though.

Since I believe that God is Omniscient, I believe that God knows everyone, (past, present, future) and everything about everyone.

God’s Plan is creation itself and the pivotal point of God’s Plan is God becoming One of us for ALL of us.

I agree with both of these statements. Again, however, you didn’t address any of my points or questions.