Hell

[asquared]

yes, let the punishment fit the crime. The crime that merits hell is the rejection of heaven. The soul cannot be forced to enter heaven. If the soul rejects heaven, the only other alternative is non-heaven, that is, hell. At the final judgement the soul will be given the knowledge needed to make that choice, and be making a choice in eternity, not in temporal constraints. It is called free will.

 

[pittsburghjeff]

FelixBlue:

I reject the doctrine of hell for the following reasons:

1. The punishment outweighs the crime.

Man’s concept of justice is and has always been that a punishment should be proportional to the crime. Even in our most draconian view of justice, an eye was demanded of an eye, etc.

First of all, it may be wrong to think of hell as a punishment in the strict sense of the word. Hell is the product of a free choice. You choose to turn away from God, who has revealed himself to you through his Son.

When you dive into a swimming pool with no water and crack your head open, are you being punished for jumping? Not in the strict sense of the word. It is a product of your free choice. Sure, you did not choose to have your head spattered on concrete. But you chose to jump. When we commit sin, we are choosing to jump. And along with that choice comes the consequence of hell.

God does not want to punish you. But because He loves you, he gives you free will and allows you to freely choose hell.

1. *Full culpability requires full knowledge. But here, even though the crime is technically against the Infinite/Eternal God, man does not have full knowledge of God. At best, man’s knowledge is abstract. *
   There is no need to have full knowledge of every detail of God. The fact is that you have full knowedge of His Law. How, through His Son, His Church, His Word, and the natural law that he wrote in your heart. You have full knowledge of evil when you are committing it. Come on now, you know when you have committed a mortal sin.

God loves us and that is why he has allowed us to have any knowledge of Him at all. He has revealed enough of Himself to us to allow us to choose between life or death (heaven or Hell).
*
3. Can we be blamed? Yes…but only to a degree. And degrees are finite. Hell is not. Thus no hell.*

But your forget that God’s forgiveness is also infinite if you are truly sorry and ask for his forgiveness. Sure, we all sin. But being sent to hell surely requires more than sinning otherwise we would all be in trouble. It requires a rejection of God himself either through our minds or in our actions. Man may have a proclavity to sin. But it would be wrong to say man has a proclavity to keep sinning unrepentant and reject God. After all God created us with a need for Him. It

*4. Although there are many other arguments (most having to do with the nature of God), the strongest argument in my view is the following:

We (from bishops to priests to the average Joe Layman) simply do not behave as though people are going to hell.*

Yeah well if we don’t drive like we are worried about a car accident. Just look out at any freeway at the way people drive. That does not mean that people don’t wrap their cars around telephone poles.

People having sex don’t act like sex is connected to pregnancy, even though everyone knows that you create babies with sex. They are somehow suprived when they get pregnant.

The point is human beings always think bad things happen to other people and not them. We tend to think we are gods. Most of us know there is a hell. We know there are car accidents too. But we think those things happen to others.

I hope these reponses help.

Jeff

 

[amarkich]

Yes it is hard to believe that people act as though there is no hell but most do not recognize that the house is on fire.

Whose fault is this?

I don’t remember a single sermon at Mass in the last 20 years that mentioned people going to Hell (or even mention Hell iteself).

That is because you need to go back 40 years or more in order to find orthodoxy among most in the Church. In any event, there have been several things addressed so far. First of all, if there is no Hell (for the reasons provided), then also there is no Heaven. If we cannot have infinite punishment, we also cannot have infinite rewards. I agree that arguing from authority is the weakest of all arguments (as Saint Thomas Aquinas says), but it is still a valid argument. If you are looking for a reason not to defect from the Faith (other than the three-step proof concerning the Church: proof for the existence of God, proof for Christianity and the Bible, proof that the Church is the only true Church) regarding Hell, you would do well to read some of the treatises on Hell. As for your actual argument, proposition 1 fails because of Saint Anslem’s statement (as you pointed out): an offense against God is infinite, for God is all-good and deserving of all love. For one who is inferior to God to sin against Him is an infinitely evil act. This act is deserving of an infinitely damning punishment. Your second proposition asserts that full culpability requires full knowledge. Even if this proposition is accepted as true, this does not negate the concept of Hell. The sufferings of those in Hell differ based on the degrees of crimes as well as by the amount of knowledge of each soul. The souls of those who die without being told the Truth of the Church will suffer much less than those who knew the Church and rejected Her. The punishments of Hell, while eternal, are not necessarily the punishments of full culpability because there are different degrees of suffering, c.f., Council of Lyons II: “The souls of those who die with mortal sin or with original sin only descend immediately into hell to be punished with different punishments.” Proposition 3 asserts that because we have insufficient consent of the will, we cannot suffer eternal punishments. You then state that the degree of our culpability is not full, so we therefore cannot suffer eternally because eternal punishment is infinite. The problem with this is the same as with proposition 2. The fact that Hell is eternal does not negate the fact that the punishments are varying. The fact that the pains of Hell vary in order to perfectly fit the crimes committed is proof that the pains of Hell are not full, not infinite, because they are varying. The fact that the pains are eternal does not mean that they are infinite. These terms do not mean the same thing (at least not in theological terms). Something which is eternal is that which is everlasting, existing outside of time, without an end. Something which is infinite is that which is boundless, having no limits, and is unable to be measured. The fact that the pains of Hell vary in degree illustrates that these pains are not infinite while they are eternal.
(Continued below)

 

[amarkich]

(Continued from above)
Your final proposition is an extrinsic argument which is not valid for a few reasons. The biggest problem with this proposition is that it fails to recognize the history of the world and the attitude of people in a time other than ours. The fact that people today (even Catholics) are so impious, so licentious, and have such a little fear of God does not prove that God should not be feared if not only for the simple fact that people in the past (even as recent as the earliest twentieth century) had a great fear of God. In addition to the fact that people in the past had a great fear of God, so also many people today have a fear of God and of Hell. All the Saints had a fear of God and His just punishments. Scripture is full of this same fear; read some of the Psalms. Further, the Church as the Institution of Christ (regardless of how members of the hierarchy act) is very adamant about the prospects of Hell and the various necessities to avoid Hell. The Church mandates that all infants be baptized within a few weeks after birth, knowing that without being washed in the waters of Baptism, one cannot come to the glories of Heaven. Further, the Church teaches the absolute necessity of being a member of the Church in order to be saved. The Church also teaches the necessity of dying in the state of grace in order to be saved. I quoted the Council of Lyons II earlier about those who will be damned because of sin. This same message was asserted in the Council of Florence as follows: “The souls of those who die with mortal sin or original sin only descend immediately into Hell.” That same Council decreed the following about those who will go to Hell:
“[The Roman Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (emphasis added)

The Council is very clear on what must be done in order to be saved and states very clearly the punishments that will be incurred by those who do not follow that which is necessary for salvation. Further, did the missionaries who were martyred for the Faith die for nothing? If Hell did not exist (according to our actions), why did the missionaries spend their lives converting all to the truth and saving them from eternal punishments? I think it is clear by the actions of Catholics (and even those of false religions) throughout history that there is a Hell. The argument by people’s actions is ruled out immediately once history is taken into account. Please consider my comments and find a treatise on Hell, preferably one written by a Saint. God bless.

 

[buffalo]

C’ mon people. He gives you every chance and more to get to heaven. Only stubborn unrepentant people will end up there. You get chance after chance after chance - so what’s the big deal. If hell exists try not to end up there. If you don’t believe in it you have nothing to worry about then do you?

 

[Riley259]

AnAtheist:

An omniscient being who omnipotently creates humans, exactly knowing who’s going to heaven and hell, when he creates them and the universe in a certain way, does practically choose. The personal choose (aks free will) is just an illusion when exercised in front of an oniscient god, because it was already predestined by that god’s knowledge.

Ah, you’ve stumbled upon one of the great mysteries of our faith - the idea that God is all sovereign AND that we possess free will. This is something that our finite minds can’t completely grasp no matter how hard we try but its still true because anything is possible with God. Atheists want complete control and don’t want to depend on anyone for all the answers so I’m pretty sure that you’ll dismiss my answer outright - that’s a shame.

 

[Riley259]

Mijoy2:

Your approach is all about punishment and the lack of logic surrounding the degree of this punishment. I agree, and struggle with the same issues. But I try to not let my struggles trump the Word of God.

“Mental gymnastics”, good term, sometimes I feel if there were an olympic event that held such a gymnastic I’d be in the running for the gold.

You may view this as an intellectual cop-out but I’ll state it anyhow:

I trust there is a Hell, because Jesus said so.

I trust people are there, because (I believe) Jesus strongly insinuated it.

I trust Jesus is perfectly just, because He is God and is perfect.

I trust no loving “good” person will end up Hell, because (I do not believe) I would not be unfaithful to the Church and the Magisterium if I held this belief. And I do not believe Jesus ever said there was.

I trust my capacity to understand all of the mysteries of our faith to be woefully inadaquet, because no matter how hard I bang my head against the wall to get satisfactory answers new questions seem to emerge.

I trust in the Lord, because I must. I’ve lived without Him and it was “Hell”.

Sorry if you see this as a cop-out, but I am getting to old and too tired for mental gymnastics. Now, I simply admit my lack of capacity to ever fully understand it all and try to just love and trust Jesus.

I try to have faith that when the last day comes these mysteries will be revealed to me and I will understand and see the love and justice in it all.

Good answer - I share your sentiments. Two excellent sources that address this problem are “The Problem of Pain” by C.S. Lewis, and “Handbook of Christian Apologetics” by Peter Kreeft and Ron Tacelli.

 

[mercygate]

FelixBlue:

I too wish to accept the authority of the Church. So rest assured of my tremendous desire to fully accept the Church’s teaching.

Surely you have reasons for accepting the authority of the Church. Surely your reason must not be “I accept the authority of the Church based upon its authority”. That would be circular. Rather, you accept the Magisterium because what it teaches appears to line up with reality…it appears to be truthful, etc.

So my point? The doctrine of hell seems to undermine that “lining up with reality”. It undermines the authority of the Church.

Let’s take another look at this. We do not accept the authority of the Magisterium because is lines up with reality. Catholics accept the authority of the Church based on a path of reasoning, well outlined in Karl Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism. The argument runs like this:

Of all ancient manuscripts, the manuscripts we have of New Testament Scripture are more numerous, more congruous among themselves, and more closely contemporeaneous with the events they record than are the manuscripts of any other ancient authors, whose authenticity no one challenges. Therefore, we can be sure that we have a reliable text.

The Jesus described in these manuscripts is either a madman or he is exactly who he claimed to be. Since the witness of the early Church, not just of the Scriptural texts, which alone could not confirm their own authenticity, indicates that those who knew Jesus, those who experienced the Church of the apostolic age, were willing to endure extraordinary trials and appalling martyrdoms for their belief, we can conclude that Jesus was, in fact, raised from the dead, that he appeared to hundreds in his glorified Body, and that he ascended into heaven, subsequently sending the Holy Spirit upon the disciples at Pentecost. Logic here compels us to rule out the madman theory and assent to the hypothesis that Jesus is God. If that is so, it means that he did what he said he would do. One of the things he said he would do is build a Church upon the rock of Peter. The writings of the Apostolic and sub-apostolic age verify that the Church which identified itself as the Church founded by Jesus Christ is the same Church as the Church we know as the Catholic Church today. Therefore, if Jesus is God and keeps his promises, one of the promises he made is that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church.

Is that a good enough reason to accept the authority of the Church?

Oh-oh. The gates of *what? *

 

[Ellen]

I have a rather simplicistic reply, compared to all the others I’ve read:

This seems to be a problem not of just accepting the authority of the Church, but accepting the authority of the Scriptures, as well. Yes, I know we’re not Sola Scriptura people, but hell is something that most Christians, even the most fundamentalist, agree on, b/c it is laid out pretty clearly in the Bible. So, by rejecting hell, are you saying that the Bible is incorrect (after all, if it’s wrong about hell, how do you know anything in there’s the truth)? If so, then the issue doesn’t seem to be should you remain a Catholic, but should you remain a Christian at all? Or, for that matter, a Jew, as wouldn’t the OT be false as well as the NT?

What kind of “proof” do you want, if you won’t even accept the Scriptures on this one? No one’s going to come back from hell and tell you about it.

And, if the big issue is actually your second point, that we don’t behave as if people are at risk of hell. Well, I agree. But it is hard knowing what to do about that. We definitley should be preaching more on sin (all of us, priests, prot. ministers, and laypeople), but on the other hand, you can’t spend all of your time doing this. First of all, here in America, you can’t shove religion down someones throat. You could stand on a corner and yell. I’ve seen people do that. Pretty much everyone makes fun of them until someone gets mad and call the police, then they are cited for public disturbance. Second, we have jobs to do and families to care for. That takes up the majority of my time. We small children, it’s impossible to go out for hours everyday and warn people about hell. I share the gospel when I can, and make no secret of the sinfulness of some actions and their consequences (hell) in appropriate situations. People could get on T.V. and preach, and lots do, protestant and catholic, but no one can be forced to watch. It is a dilemma, but what can we really do? As lots of other posters have mentioned, we all do have free will.

Ellen

 

[FelixBlue]

Ellen:

This seems to be a problem not of just accepting the authority of the Church, but accepting the authority of the Scriptures, as well. Yes, I know we’re not Sola Scriptura people, but hell is something that most Christians, even the most fundamentalist, agree on, b/c it is laid out pretty clearly in the Bible.

And, if the big issue is actually your second point, that we don’t behave as if people are at risk of hell. Well, I agree. But it is hard knowing what to do about that. We definitley should be preaching more on sin (all of us, priests, prot. ministers, and laypeople), but on the other hand, you can’t spend all of your time doing this. First of all, here in America, you can’t shove religion down someones throat. You could stand on a corner and yell. I’ve seen people do that. Pretty much everyone makes fun of them until someone gets mad and call the police, then they are cited for public disturbance. Second, we have jobs to do and families to care for. That takes up the majority of my time. We small children, it’s impossible to go out for hours everyday and warn people about hell. I share the gospel when I can, and make no secret of the sinfulness of some actions and their consequences (hell) in appropriate situations. People could get on T.V. and preach, and lots do, protestant and catholic, but no one can be forced to watch. It is a dilemma, but what can we really do? As lots of other posters have mentioned, we all do have free will.

Ellen

I can only make a brief reply because I have to run off to an engagement. But here it is:

1. Scripture is simply NOT CLEAR about the doctrine of final and permanent damnation. There are a number of passages to the contrary. How many can you proffer to the effect of an eternal damnation? Again, the point here for me is not punishment or restorative discipline, but permanent, eternal damnation.
2. The early Fathers (for the first 500 years) are not clear on this either. Yes, one can marshall evidence for eternal damnation during this early period, but looking at some key early theologians (Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzen, Clement of Alexandria, Origen) it seems the argument goes to those who argued for the final recapitulation of all things (the apakatastasis in Greek–sp?).

The fact, in my studies, is that the doctrine of eternal damnation is a later development…and frankly, even that hasn’t been defined by the Catholic Church in any sort of definitive, final way.

Regarding your other point, I agree: standing out on street corners is absurd. But that kind of activity is precisely what knowing some are going to hell demands. If you know someone is drowning, you jump in, clothes and all, to save him. In the same way, if you know many are going to hell, you do all you can, however ridiculous and absurd, to save them. This logic seems irrefutable…even against the argument (excuse) of prudence, etc. Yes, it is absurd! Yes, people (good Catholics) behave as though it is absurd. That’s why I conclude there must be no hell.

Still, we have good news to preach: the salvation of Christ, which brings true happiness…a happiness found no where else.

 

[The_Augustinian]

1. Scripture is simply NOT CLEAR about the doctrine of final and permanent damnation.

You’re Catholic, not Protestant. The Scriptures aren’t totally clear on things like Sacred Tradition, the Marian Dogmas, and even the Trinity!

2. The early Fathers (for the first 500 years) are not clear on this either. Yes, one can marshall evidence for eternal damnation during this early period, but looking at some key early theologians (Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzen, Clement of Alexandria, Origen) it seems the argument goes to those who argued for the final recapitulation of all things (the apakatastasis in Greek–sp?).

The apokatastasis was condemned by the Council of Constantinople in 543. This is pretty early, relatively speaking.

True, Church Fathers may disagree on certain things. They’re not the entire Church, whom we look to for the final say on these doctrinal matters. And, did you notice anybody defending apokatastasis after Constantinople? I don’t think so.

Also, look to the basis of the apokatastasis; it seems to me to be Pelagian. Look at the Catholic Encyclopedia article here.

There’s a difference between saving a drowning person and saving a soul: the soul is saved by the free reception of God’s grace. Like I said before, we cannot pressure them, or else they may end up rejecting God and the Faith altogether. Or do you not believe that Prudence is a virtue?

Your argument goes something like this:

1. If people do not act like something exists, it must not exist.
2. People do not act like Hell exists.
3. Therefore, it must not exist.

Notice any problems in your premises?

I’m sorry, I know I sound a little grumpy. Perhaps I am. I just don’t get why a fine, orthodox Catholic gentleman like you would go down this heretical path. I hope you reconsider.

God bless,

The Augustinian

 

[flick427]

The best way I’ve found to accept Hell as a reality though I don’t like it of course is this:

God gave man free will.
We can chose Him, or we can choose sin.
While God Judges us, He actually shows us mercy (read the Divine Mercy diary by Saint Faustina).
God is giving us the option and giving us his grace and mercy to help us to choose Him. Going to hell is more a decision of the soul that rejects God and his Love. People go to Hell because we choose to through our unfaithfullness and sin, and essentially, our rejection of God and His Love. I think the harder thing to understand is not so much how God could allow us to go to hell, but why we would choose to sin and deny Someone who Loves us unconditionally.
Look at a marriage…The husband and his beautiful, loving, moral and prayerful Catholic wife have been married 10 years. The husband decides to have an affair (a series of them creating a relationship) with another younger woman who is not as beautiful as his wife, but attractive in a way that is lustful and sleazy…a temptress type perhaps. He does this even though he may claim to love his wife, tell her this, and know for a fact that his wife is taking care of him and loving him more than any other woman ever could. Foolishly, the husband falls for this younger woman because he can’t resist. The wife finds out and though she is torn apart enough to make her want to die of the hurt and betrayal…she promises that she will do anything to save the relatonship (provided it does not conflict with her morals) and forgives him. The wife welcomes him back home and for some reason the husband declines, choosing to leave for the younger woman. The husband thinks that the temptress is what he is really looking for and thinks he loves her…he is a blind fool…him and his wife are both religious (perhaps Catholic) so they know for a fact it is wrong, yet he chooses to leave because he desires the young lustful woman. The wife of course, agonizes over this and promises she will never remarry, she could not bear it because she loved him too much and can’t understand why her husband would leave her for such a fate.
This is exactly why people (like the husband) go to hell…we know somehthing is wrong and choose it even though we know God is better. God constantly forgives and gives us the graces to change just as the wife forgives and welcomes the husband back and is always open and willing to accept us back (no matter what!) There is nothing God will not forgive, but he will not be able to accept us back if we do not want it. This is called “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew Ch 12) This is the only thing God can’t not forgive because he can’t forgive something we do not accept. Jesus was in agony over this in the Garden. So we should pray that God will give us the grace to accept Him and his Holy Spirit that we may be with Him in Heaven for eternity.

Anytime, you want to understand our relationship to God better…observe the sacrament of marriage.

 

[Sheen]

FelixBlue:

But with hell, the punishment far exceeds the nature of the crime … some will argue that the crime is actually infinite in dimension because it is against God.

And some will argue correctly. Adam, a finite being, sinned against God, who is infinite. Adam, being finite, could never offer an infinite atonement, yet this is exactly what is required. That is precisely why only Jesus Christ, who is both God (infinite) and man (finite) can make atonement.

FelixBlue:

Full culpability requires full knowledge.
Man does not have full knowledge.
Therefore, man is not fully culpable.

That’s simply bad logic, FelixBlue. One does not need full knowledge of God to be fully culpable for his sins.

Case in point: We can know, without any doubt, that murder is a grave offense against God. If I murder a fellow human being, I am fully culpable for my actions. My being fully culpable does not require my full knowledge of all that God is. I know fully well that it is wrong to murder; I do it anyway. Ergo, I am fully culpable for my actions.

FelixBlue:

Although there are many other arguments (most having to do with the nature of God), the strongest argument in my view is the following:

We (from bishops to priests to the average Joe Layman) simply do not behave as though people are going to hell… The Church teaches that there is hell and that some are going to eternally be separated from God. But we (in general) behave as though notihing is going on.

That’s interesting in that I find that to be the very weakest argument of all. You are generalizing and basing the existence/non-existence of hell on the behavior of some people. Quite to the contrary, I can point out case after case, example after example, of people right here in my little town who work tirelessly to bring about the Christianization of our culture.

And frankly, were I to base my belief in Jesus Christ and His promise of heaven on the actions of some Christians I know, I would be darn certain neither Jesus Christ nor His heaven existed.

 

[Sheen]

FelixBlue:

Scripture is simply NOT CLEAR about the doctrine of final and permanent damnation.

Man, I could fill up quite a lot of space disproving that one!

FelixBlue:

There are a number of passages to the contrary.

Cite six.

FelixBlue:

Again, the point here for me is not punishment or restorative discipline, but permanent, eternal damnation.

Your argument is semantical. Eternal punishment is eternal damnation, and there are plenty of references that very bluntly and explicitly speak of eternal damnation/punishment. One is not eternally punished in heaven, nor is one eternally punished in purgatory. That leaves . . .

The KJV uses the explicit term “eternal damnation” a multitude of times. Other translations of the same verses use “condemnation” or speak of the “unquenchable fires of Gehenna.” They are all speaking of the same thing; i.e., a punishment that never ends for the unrepentant.

FelixBlue:

The early Fathers (for the first 500 years) are not clear on this either. Yes, one can marshall evidence for eternal damnation during this early period

Yes, they are clear, and yes, there is evidence for eternal damnation - and a heck of a lot of it.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing in 110 A.D.: ”A man become so foul will depart into unquenchable fire; and so also will anyone who listens to him.”

St. Polycarp, writing between 155 and 157 A.D.: *To them, [the martyrs] the fire of their cruel torturers was cold. They kept before their eyes their escape from the **eternal and unquenchable fire.” ** *

The Letter to Diognetus, which was written somewhere between A.D. 125/200: ”… if we neglect His commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal punishment.”

And though there are many, many more, I cite just one more for you here:

Justin Martyr, writing between A.D. 148-155]: ”…every many will receive the eternal punishment or reward which his actions deserve. Indeed, if all men recognized this, no one would choose evil even for a short time, knowing that he would incur the eternal sentence of fire.”

FelixBlue:

but looking at some key early theologians (Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzen, Clement of Alexandria, Origen) it seems the argument goes to those who argued for the final recapitulation of all things (the apakatastasis in Greek–sp?).

No, it does not. The doctrine of Apokatastasis was never a predominant or prevailing teaching of the Church and was, in fact, formally condemned at the Council of Constantinople in 543 A.D., from which time it was considered heterodox by the Church. Indeed, among those you cite, some teachings were able to be reconciled to Church doctrine. Others, like Gregory of Nazianzen ultimately decided neither for nor against it, leaving it up to God.

FelixBlue:

In the end, I can only believe in all being saved by the wonderful, creative grace of God…… Still, we have good news to preach: the salvation of Christ, which brings true happiness…a happiness found no where else.

Saved from what?

And if all are ultimately saved, why did Jesus bother spending so much time teaching us about avoiding sin and about striving to be holy?

What’s my motivation to do any of that? It’s a complete waste of time if there is no eternal separation from God. I can do whatever I want with no eternal consequences.

 

[anthony81OR]

One of my friend ask me, if God loves everyone so much, why is there a Hell? I explain to her in my own words. God give us free will. He gives us the right to chose if we want to love God or reject him. If we reject him, there is a Hell. If we love him, we would have more than happiness but, we would have everything else. More than what we have right now. For purgatory, I call it, “A make-up test.” Which, there is no way to fail. I know that, no one wants to end up in Hell but, it’s not our choice but, it’s their own choice. Just love one another and, just try your best to love God and, I know you’ll do fine. Sin, to me. Just don’t worry about sin, if you are worried, then go to Confession. Confession is a great sacrament that shows that, God truly love us. Always pray. I admit, I do not pray that much and, I know I should. Anyway, if anyone got any more interesting question, just feel free to ask. I love this forum because, it says to be open about how we want to say and, if we need help with our faith, just ask and you will definitely receive.
Anthony

 

[BLB_Oregon]

The Church does not teach that some are going to be eternally separated from God. The Church specifically refrains from that because eternal judgement belongs entirely and only to God.

The Church teaches that the possibility of Hell is real because our free will includes meaningful choices that will be honored by God, including the choice to separate ourselves from God, who provides for all our well-being: physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual. The Church teaches that God is All-Loving, All-Merciful, and All-Just, and that these attributes of God are never at cross-purposes. Therefore, the punishment of Hell is necessarily just.

That the freedom of our individual daily choices is tempered by factors outside our control does not remove our essential freedom to choose, unless we are insane. You imply that our final assignment to heaven rests only on such temporal choices, but such may not be the case.

Consider this possibility: consider the possibility that the choice of Heaven is ultimately made at some instant at or near the time of death, an instant at which all outside interference with our free will has been utterly removed. Consider that at that instant we will actually not living in time, but in eternity, and that we will be fully aware of all the ramifications of our decision and all that lead up to it.

The choice of Heaven, however, is a positive choice. We will not be forced into Heaven. And it will not be a simple choice between harps and gold pavement vs. fire and brimstone. It will be the choice of whether we will fully and irreversibly immerse ourselves in the Will of God. Is it not possible that if we do not use the free will we have during our lifetimes to dispose ourselves to following the will of God, we may find at the moment of death that we cannot force ourselves to make the difficult choice in favor of Heaven? Isn’t it possible that Hell, even with its pains, might nevertheless beckon some because it allows them to continue to eternally follow their own awful wills? Might that not actually seem to these the lesser punishment? Might it be possible that no one who faces the full truth about their own lives without the merits of Jesus to hang on to will have the wherewithal to make the jump into the paradise of losing themselves in God? Might not a soul in mortal sin also be expected to continue to render itself impenetrable to the grace of repentance?

Anyone might finish a race run on a fair course, but the truth is that the finishers, generally speaking, will be those who have trained for it. I am not saying that the last judgement will be as I have described it, only that a fully conceivable and just path to eternal damnation obviously exists, one that is based on our choices in this life. Although I hate to, I will stray into “fire insurance” theory a bit here… why would a sane person assume such a thing is impossible?

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Sheen:

And if all are ultimately saved, why did Jesus bother spending so much time teaching us about avoiding sin and about striving to be holy?

What’s my motivation to do any of that? It’s a complete waste of time if there is no eternal separation from God. I can do whatever I want with no eternal consequences.

But if anyone has even a shred of the attitude it takes to choose Heaven, why would they want to continue to follow their own awful wills instead of the will of God? It would be like a two-year-old putting off potty training because they don’t really have to know how to keep the load out of their pants until preschool!

Jesus bothered to teach us about avoiding sin and striving to be holy because that is the only way we are ever going to realize the joy intended for us from the beginning of time. That is what He meant by “The Kingdom of God is at hand!” Come and get it, right now! You don’t have to wait!

And as Fr. Richard Rohr has said: Brothers and sisters, don’t you realize… if that is not the Good News, there can be no Good News?

 

[SedesDomi]

Sheen:

And if all are ultimately saved, why did Jesus bother spending so much time teaching us about avoiding sin and about striving to be holy?

What’s my motivation to do any of that? It’s a complete waste of time if there is no eternal separation from God. I can do whatever I want with no eternal consequences.

This question of the eternality of suffering in the afterlife was what initially drove me out of Protestantism, and Christianty in general. I thought, how could a loving God put a time limit on when a person could decide to choose him? What if someone, after suffering in hell for 2 years, says “Hey, Hell isn’t what I thought it was going to be! No parties! No loose women! No Coors! Maybe I should rethink my whole approach to life!” Why would God refuse to allow that person into Heaven? Why would God’s patience have a limit, regarding the very creatures He created out of nothing in the first place. If I knew I were going to eternal damnation, I would have rather wished that God had not made me in the first place. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!

After studying the Catholic Church for the past year or so (thanks to the influence of a former girlfriend who was Catholic), I’ve realized that – for me – this Hell question still remains, and I find the orthodox Christian definition of Hell lacking. So I could never become Catholic, though I have deep love for the Catholic Church with its rich history, tradition, and discipline.

In any event, I do think that – for those who find it a reasonable thing to believe in – that the idea of eternal hell is a natural consequence of the idea of an eternal heaven. If you have one, then why assume the other does not exist? (Hinduism and Buddhism – as well as Sufism, and even perhaps Kabbalah – have ways of getting around that, but that topic is for another forum.)

I’ve also considered some of the benefits of believing in an eternal hell (which are not necessarily not also benefits that arise from belief in an non-eternal hell): (1) It enlivens one’s sense of moral awareness; (2) It produces in oneself a deep consideration of the possibility that some other person – say, your mother, or brother – may be damned and that you may not see them again – ever, in this life or the next; such a consideration allows one to recognize the preciousness of each moment that you spend with him or her; (3) It is a fairly direct interpretation of the sayings of Jesus in the New Testament; (4) It’s a non-complex, direct teaching – no subtlety invovled; your’re either IN or your OUT.

My own reply to the question of “Why did Jesus die on the cross if hell were not eternal” revolves around the question of eternality. Maybe hell isn’t literally eternal; maybe hell lasts a long, long, time, such that it may as well be “eternal” from the perspective of earthlings like us. Besides, how long has the universe been in existence? 14 billion years or so? I sure wouldn’t want to suffer 14 billion years in hell, and I would surely thank anyone if she saved me from such a potential fate!

Thanks, and good day!:yup:

 

[Sheen]

BLB_Oregon:

But if anyone has even a shred of the attitude it takes to choose Heaven, why would they want to continue to follow their own awful wills instead of the will of God?

First, I want to make it clear that I am arguing for the existence of Hell as being the logical conclusion from Scripture and reason. I am arguing that our actions do have eternal consequences, and one who dies unrepentant of mortal sin will spend eternity separted from God; i.e., they will suffer eternal damnation/punishment/condemnation/death/fire – choose the word you like best.

Second, I’m not 100% certain what your point is; could you possibly explain it in another way? I’m not quite sure “attitude” is the right word to describe one choosing Heaven over the alternative, but it seems you are saying one who has chosen to follow Jesus (one who chooses Heaven) will never want to sin, and that simply is not true. We are, unfortunately, all burdened with concupiscence. Matthew 26:41 “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”

BLB_Oregon:

Jesus bothered to teach us about avoiding sin and striving to be holy because that is the only way we are ever going to realize the joy intended for us from the beginning of time.

Not according to FelixBlue who says all will ultimately be saved. So my question to him was: If I can enjoy the sins of the flesh and do whatever I want to and know that I’ll eventually end up in heaven anyway and experience that joy Jesus speaks about, what’s my motivation to forgo all earthly pleasures? I’m going to end up in heaven no matter what (according to FelixBlue).

If I am to believe FelixBlue, I have to disbelieve Christ who taught that our actions do have eternal consquences. He taught very clearly that there will be the separation of the sheep and the goats, the righteous from the unrighteous. And according to Jesus, one of those groups is going to be eternally unhappy (punished). He uses the word “eternal,” meaning there will be no end to their punishment. So who am I to believe? FelixBlue or Jesus Christ?

Now, if I’ve completely misunderstood your point, I apologize. As I said, I wasn’t 100% sure of your point.

 

[Theodora]

Everlasting punishment:
A prepared place Mt 25 41
Abode of wicked angels 2 Pt 2 4
Christ has keys of hell Rv 1 18
Body and soul suffer in Mt 5 29-30
Mt 10 28
**Avoided by the wise **Prv 15 24
Has enlarged itself Is 5 14
A covenant with Is 28 15, 18
Degree of punishment Lk 12 47-48

Described as:
Place of torment Lk 16 23
Everlasting punishment Mt 25 46
**Everlasting fire **Mt 25 41
**Everlasting destruction **2 Thes 1 7, 9
Furnace of fire Mt 13 42, 50
Pool of fire Rv 20 15
Fire and brimstone Rv 14 10

Can you dispute, especially, Jesus’ words?

No hell? The hell there is!

Theodora