Hell

[martino]

FelixBlue, one thing that I think you should try to remember is that we are not responsible for every soul on earth. It’s true that we have been entrusted with the care of specific individuals that God has placed in our lives, and we have a certain responsibility towards their eternal salvation. We are first and foremost responsible for ourselves because there will be no casting blame on Judgement Day. We also have a certain responsiblity to our spouses and children, our job is to get them to heaven as well as ourselves. The parent that allows their children to to play fast and loose with their salvation (because its easier), instead of firm discipline (because its more difficult) is going to be held accountable. If a child is not concerned with heaven or hell then that is the fault of the parent (in most cases). Even beyond our families, I believe that God places certain people in our lives for a reason and we should take advantage of every opportunity to spread the Gospel message of salvation. But we are not to hold ourselves accountable for every soul that may go to hell, that is simply not reasonable, and it also accuses the all-just God of injustice.

If we watch inappropriate movies then we are cooperating, even if remotely, with the sin of the actors, which is one reason it is sinful to watch certain movies. Were you afraid for Jim Caviesel’s(sic) salvation watching ‘The Passion of the Christ’?- If you saw it!

It is very possible for everyone to avoid hell. The Gospel is not complicated. It may be difficult to live out at times but the message is clear and simple. Some people are going to reject the message and live according to their desires no matter how sinful and others may be lead astray by false teachers perverting the Gospel, but we cannot control them any more than God can. That is why a sincere Christian following the teachings of the Catholic Church should have every confidence in attaining the Glory of Heaven.

Your point seems to be that since this can be very difficult at times it must be false. My question is, who ever said it was going to be easy? Jesus is constantly preparing the disciples for the difficulty ahead of them but at the same time commanding them to pick up their crosses and follow Him (up Calvary to crucifixion)!

 

[FelixBlue]

Martino,

Thanks for the reply.

But it seems the basic law of love (do unto others what you would have them to do you) runs contrary to your minimalist position. You whittle one’s responsibility to love down to an extremely small portion of mankind (myself, my family, and a few special others). While you are right in saying we are not responsible for all (a point I never made), it seems that love (if hell indeed exists and most are going there) calls us to do ALL WE CAN to save others (prayer, evangelization and the like, respecting, of course our duties to earn a living, etc.).

Again, to fall back on my analogy: if I see a house on fire and know someone is in there, love calls me to attempt to make a save be either calling on the proffessionals (911) or going in myself. To extend the analogy (because the Church seems to teach that many, many will go to hell), if I find myself in a neighborhood where 75% of the houses are on fire with folks inside, it seems that I will be very busy calling on the professionals or saving folks myself.

I don’t buy your answer…although it is the common one.

 

[Joanna]

Friend FelixBlue,

Is it possible for you to just take Jesus at His Word and leave the rest to His mercy? Perhaps you can do your friends and yourself more good by becoming a saint. Simply leaving conjecture behind and allowing the Holy Spirit both time and a door by which to enter with answers as you pray and progress. A leap of this kind might be too much to ask and so you will be in my prayers as you ask.

Leaving the Church is a road well travelled by many for many, many noble reasons, no doubt. When you find someone you can believe, with what authority will they speak? “Master to whom shall we go?” Your eyes appear glazed.

Have you read The Great Divorce?

 

[martino]

FelixBlue:

Martino,

Thanks for the reply.

But it seems the basic law of love (do unto others what you would have them to do you) runs contrary to your minimalist position. You whittle one’s responsibility to love down to an extremely small portion of mankind (myself, my family, and a few special others). While you are right in saying we are not responsible for all (a point I never made), it seems that love (if hell indeed exists and most are going there) calls us to do ALL WE CAN to save others (prayer, evangelization and the like, respecting, of course our duties to earn a living, etc.).

Again, to fall back on my analogy: if I see a house on fire and know someone is in there, love calls me to attempt to make a save be either calling on the proffessionals (911) or going in myself. To extend the analogy (because the Church seems to teach that many, many will go to hell), if I find myself in a neighborhood where 75% of the houses are on fire with folks inside, it seems that I will be very busy calling on the professionals or saving folks myself.

I don’t buy your answer…although it is the common one.

My idea is not a minimalist idea, it is the truth of the matter. But you are right also; some of us will be called to do more, that is a given. God gives us all a vocation in life so that we can fullfil his plan for us. If we are called to marriage that usually means raising children as well, and for those that marry their primary responsibility is to get themself and their family to heaven. Some one else may be called to a different vocation, like Mother Theresa for example. We all must discern God’s plan for us and try our best to fullfil that plan. Remember that every soul that is lost came into this world with a mother and a father that was responsible for their salvation, if the majority of parents fail in their vocation as parents then that leaves many people at risk, which is your observation as well as mine. Almost everyone you see in the burning house had parents that failed them to some degree. That failure is usually manifest in a lack of spiritual direction, which leaves the children wide open to serious danger.

Ok you dont buy my argument but listen to the one you’re proposing: “I do not believe hell exists and the reason why I reject the teaching of hell is because so many other people reject hell and live accordingly. So the majority must be right and the Church must be wrong. If the Church happens to be right then lots of folks will go to hell and that would require too much of me so I think its easier to not believe in it at all!” Of course I am paraphrasing but that is essentially what you seem to be saying.

 

[FelixBlue]

martino:

Ok you dont buy my argument but listen to the one you’re proposing: “I do not believe hell exists and the reason why I reject the teaching of hell is because so many other people reject hell and live accordingly. So the majority must be right and the Church must be wrong. If the Church happens to be right then lots of folks will go to hell and that would require too much of me so I think its easier to not believe in it at all!” Of course I am paraphrasing but that is essentially what you seem to be saying.

No! That is precisely what I am not arguing. You accuse me of arguing against hell (in your “paraphrase” above) for two reasons:

1. A sort of majoritarian argument which goes the majority don’t believe in hell thus hell does not exist.
2. It’s easier not to believe because it would require much work and sacrifice on my part.

This is not what I am arguing.

Leaving aside my anology (because it seems to be more confusing than helpful, as you and others have not grasped my intended meaning), let me be straightforward with what I am attempting to argue. I’ll try to be as succinct and clear as possible:

1. The Church clearly teaches that eternal hell is not only real, but that many will more than likely end up there (by the way, I know the latter can be disputed, but it seems this is the fairly clear implication of the requirements for salvation).
2. This doctrine logically implies that much should be done to actively spread the gospel–faith in Jesus Christ, sanctification through the sacraments, direction from the Church, etc.
3. In fact, Jesus commanded in the Great Commission (to the Apostles) that a great effort be made (Go into all the world…) and looking “with compassion” on the multitude said “the harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest.”
4. The Church, however, seems slow to get to work. Yes, there are official documents (at least two in the last 40 years) calling the Church to a greater effort in evangelization. But reading these documents, I don’t perceive the sense of urgency that the doctrine of hell would seem to demand. (Again, if folks are in danger of being burned to death in their houses, doesn’t charity call us to act?)
5. Further, looking at the ordinary leadership of the Church (bishops, priests, lay leaders) I have rarely (personally) heard the call to evangelism or even the call to pray on a regular basis for lost souls.
6. Further, I see the way that good, solid Catholics behave: they seem more concerned with watching sports, watching the stock market, planning for their retirement, going on vacations, etc. (all perfectly moral activities in themselves) than with the fact (according to the Church) that many, many face the possibility of eternal damnation.
7. The above three observations cause me to ask this question: When the Church clearly teaches that hell exists and many will go there, why is it that the Church (officially, the ordinary leadership, and good Catholics) seems to be rather tepid about evangelization?

Continued in next post…

 

[FelixBlue]

Continued from above…

1. In my mind, there are only a few answers:
   A. I have totally misread the situation and the Church, at least officially, is on fire to evangelize and save souls.
   B. While the Church is the infallible deposit of faith, the Church is nevertheless made up of sinful men who, therefore, necessarily fail in her infallible mission.
   C. The Church…or at least the people in the Church…do not really believe in the doctrine, as is evidenced by their behavior.
2. My position, then, is answer C. Is it strictly logical? No. It is merely an empirical/inductive argument. But it seems to me that while teaching the doctrine of hell, the official magisterium doesn’t do what is required (by the logic of charity) to evangelize and send workers to the harvest. If they fail in sending the number of laborers required, then it seems in some implicit way that even the official magisterium does not actually believe in the doctrine of hell, while formally teaching it. Further, as I have said, the ordinary leadership of the Church and most good Catholics neither behave as though “most” are going to hell. Instead, we are preoccupied with many other activities.

While I totally agree that one must fulfill his vocation, providing for his family, his children’s education and the like (I like the saying of St. Josemaria, “The woman who prays all day but burns the stew is half an angel…but half a demon too.”), it seems we also have a tremendous and serious vocation to pray and evangelize. This is what the doctrine of hell (not to mention the even more important fact of God’s love and mercy in Jesus Christ) logically call for.

So, in very summary fashion, my argument is this: the doctrine of hell calls for a corresponding behavior of prayer and evangelization; that behavior, for the most part, is lacking; therefore, either we are grossly failing in our responsibilities (and thus probably deserve hell ourselves for not loving our neighbor), or we, in fact, do not really believe in the doctrine of hell (despite accepting it in the abstract). If we do not really believe, then let’s at least be bold enough to say, “I do not believe in the doctrine of hell.”

Does one’s beliefs against something make the corresponding object disappear? No. Clearly not. I am not desiring to be a subjectivist here. However, the contrary is true as well: one’s belief that something exists does not make it exist…even based upon the best of authorities.

My last question: What does it mean that so many (here, you really have to say in the Western world) do not believe in hell? Does it have any existential meaning? Does it point to any truth? Or, does it only point to a “perverse and corrupt generation”?

Perhaps the latter. And perhaps this is a reason, then, to trust all the more in the love and mercy of God, who creates ex nihilo.

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Mijoy2]

FelixBlue:

1. The Church clearly teaches that eternal hell is not only real, but that many will more than likely end up there (by the way, I know the latter can be disputed, but it seems this is the fairly clear implication of the requirements for salvation).
   .

FelixBlue, as I read through these posts I have found that you state this a number of times. (By the way I too have much difficulty with this docrine). However I do not see this being true at all. Where do you find thata the Church teaches many will more then likely end up there? I see this as a strawman. Of this I can’t agree. Maybe it is simply a matter of interpretation. The following is how I understand the Churches teaching:

1. invincible ignorance reduces culpability (thankfully)
2. The Church teaches that when we repent of our sins we are in a state of sanctifying grace. Once we commit a mortal sin we lose this state of sanctified grace (for me that is often 5 minutes after leaving the confessional unfortuantley). However, nowhere have I seen it written that when one dies in a state of mortal sin do they go to hell. Thier soul is in jeopardy (but even the person in the state of santified grace still has no guarantee of Heaven or Purgatory). I think the Churches teaching on this matter is deliberately ambiguous. The Church freely teaches that it knows not of any soul in Hell as a certainty. And only a relative few in Heaven.

The individual who dies without sanctifying grace is in need of Gods’ mercy (possibly more so then the soul who dies in a state of sanctified grace). Nowhere are we obligated to believe there exists a sure path to Hell. It’s open-ended. The Church does not teach that I cannot believe that there will be a grace period where I have an oppurtunity to repent before I find my eternal home.

As I said I too have a problem with just the concept of a Hell. However I must believe it exists since it was taught that it exists by Jesus in all four gospels and throughout the Bible.

I chose to believe that there is not a single soul in Hell that doesn’t belong there (which I chose to believe and hope is a very small number). Otherwise Gods perfection would come into doubt, once that happens all is lost. I know this may sound too simple an answer for you FelixBlue and I’d be less then truthful if I said I hold onto this belief without apprehension and some doubt. But, I must trust there is no injustice. Simply put, if there is injustice, then everything I believe about my faith no longer makes any sense.

Hold on to the ambiguity, maybe they are there for a reason. There is no definitive teaching in this matter. There may be a strong case when one reads the CCC for serious doubt about salvation given certain circumstances but (as far as I know) there is not a single passage that says “if you do “_____” you will surely go to Hell”. (if there is I am sure someone will post it). It is always left, at least somewhat, open-ended.

I saw somewhere in this very long thread that someone suggested you read the Popes 1999 encyclical that included text concerning Heavn, Hell and Purgatory. Find it, it shoouldn’t take too much google searching. I recall the Pope stressing that we are not to suffer anxiety over the doctrine. I recall it being reassuring (although still left ambiguities). If I find a link, I will forward it to you.

 

[Savagedds]

Hi FelixBlue,

I have read with interest your sincere arguments. I empathize with you in your struggle for truth and pray that the Holy Spirit will guide you into all Truth.

Your arguments in these last two posts are well-reasoned and shed light on some serious shortcomings of the Church, however they cannot “disprove” the existence of hell, however accurately they describe those shortcomings.

Nor can any argument “prove” there is no hell, because the Church teaches infallibly that there is a hell. My brother, it is not in my power to use reason to convince you of this. If I thought I could do so, I would try, but I will leave that to others here who can do a better job of it. Approaching it that way misses the bigger point, however.

The point is this: If one believes that Jesus is the Messiah and that He left His authority in the hands of Peter and the other apostles, and that that authority now rests in the hands of the Catholic Church, then that person is a Catholic Christian. I believe this is the point you are coming from, correct?

It then becomes incumbent on the believer to submit to Christ’s authority through His Church on earth. It is preferable, though not mandatory, for us to understand Her teachings. If it were mandatory for us to understand, Heaven would be all scholars and no aggies.

Nor is it the responsibility of the Church to convince us of each truth; rather it is our responsiblity to submit in humble obedience. Had it been otherwise, Christ would have chosen scholars rather than fishermen to spread His Gospel.

Scholars were often crosswise with our Lord in those days, just as they are crosswise with His word today, and for the same reason: they lacked humility.

So it’s not a matter of understanding, FelixBlue. It’s a matter of submission to authority. To be Catholic is to give assent of one’s will to Christ through His Church; until you do that you will not have the peace I pray that you find.

Pax Christi,

Jim

 

[Joanna]

FelixBlue:

But another dilemma (and although this may seem odd to you, it is a question that has bothered me for years and years): faced with the possibility or perhaps the plausibility of many, perhaps most, going to hell, how is one supposed to live? What does it mean for leisure time? For watching movies? Going to see art? For having a few pints with friends talking about nothing more than whether the Rangers will ever get their pitching game together? How can one engage in such trivialities knowing that others–the one in the movie, the artist who painted the painting, the pitcher of the Rangers–are likely candidates for everlasting damnation? Really. This is the import of my original analogy in my first submission in this strand (that many of you took to be so lame): if the house is burning and someone is in there, how can I go on doing other relatively trivial things if I could save the person inside by calling 911 (prayer) or going in myself and pulling him out (evangelization).

Pray for me that I will make the right decision.

From “the Great Divorce” for a way to see things:

“And yet . . . and yet. . . ", said I to my Teacher, "even now I am not quite sure. Is it really tolerable that she should be untouched by his misery, even his self-made misery?”

“Would ye rather he still had the power of tormenting her? He did it many a day and many a year in their earthly life.”

“Well, no I suppose I don’t want that.”

“What then?”

“I hardly know, Sir. What some people say on Earth is that the final loss of one soul gives the lie to all the joy of those who are saved.”

“Ye see it does not.”

“I feel in a way that it ought to.”

“That sounds very merciful: but see what lurks behind it.”

“What?”

“The demand of the loveless and the self-imprisoned that they should be allowed to blackmail the universe: that till they consent to be happy (on their own terms) no one else shall taste joy: that theirs should be the final power; that Hell should be able to *veto *Heaven.”

“I don’t know what I want, Sir.”

“Son, son, it must be one way or the other. Either the day must come when joy prevails and all the makers of misery are no longer able to infect it: or else for ever and ever the makers of misery can destroy in others the happiness they reject for themselves. I know it has a grand sound to say ye’ll accept no salvation which leaves even one creature in the dark outside. But watch that sophistry or ye’ll make a Dog in a Manger the tyrant of the universe.”

 

[Joanna]

continued
“But dare one say-it is horrible to say-that Pity must ever die?”
“Ye must distinguish. The action of Pity will live for ever: but the passion of Pity will not. The passion of Pity, the Pity we merely suffer, the ache that draws men to concede what should not be conceded and to flatter when they should speak truth, the pity that has cheated many a woman out of her virginity and many a statesman out of his honesty-that will die. It was used as a weapon by bad men against good ones: their weapon will be broken.”
“And what is the other kind-the- action?”
“It’s a weapon on the other side. It leaps quicker than light from the highest place to the lowest to bring healing and *joy, *whatever the cost to itself. It changes darkness into light and evil into good. But it will not, at the cunning tears of Hell, impose on good the tyranny of evil. Every disease that submits to a cure shall be cured: but we will *not *call blue yellow to please those who insist on still having jaundice, nor make a midden of the world’s garden for the sake of some who cannot abide the smell of roses."

 

[Joanna]

final bit:

“Then no one can ever reach them?”

“Only the Greatest of all can make Himself small enough to enter Hell. For the higher a thing is, the lower it can descend: a man can sympathize with a horse but a horse cannot sympathize with a rat. Only One has descended into Hell.”

“And will He ever do so again?”

“It was not once long ago that He did it. Time does not work that way when once ye have left the Earth. All moments that have been, or shall be, were, and are, present in the moment of His descending. There is no spirit in prison to Whom He did not preach.”
“And some hear him?”
“Aye.”
“In your own books, Sir,” said I, “you were a Universalist. You talked as if all men would be saved. And St. Paul too"
“Ye can know nothing of the end of all things, or nothing expressible in those terms. It may be, as the Lord said to the Lady Julian, that all will be well, and all will be well, and all manner of things will be well. But it’s ill talking of such questions.”
“Because they are too terrible, Sir?”
“No. Because all answers deceive. If ye put the question from within Time and are asking about possibilities, the answer is certain. The choice of ways is before you. Neither is closed. Any man may choose eternal death. Those who choose it will have it. But if ye are trying to leap on into eternity, if ye are trying to see the final state of all things as it *will *be (for so ye must speak) when there are no more possibilities left but only the Real, then ye ask what cannot be answered to mortal ears. Time is the very lens through which ye see-small and clear, as men see through the wrong end of a telescope—something that would otherwise be too big for ye to see at all. That thing is Freedom the gift whereby ye most resemble your Maker and are yourselves parts of eternal reality. But ye can see it only through the lens of Time, in a little clear picture, through the inverted telescope. It is a picture of moments following one another and yourself in each moment making some choice that might have been otherwise. Neither the temporal succession nor the phantom of what ye might have chosen and didn’t is itself Freedom. They are a lens. The picture is a symbol: but it’s truer than any philosophical theorem (or, perhaps, than any mystic’s vision) that claims to go behind it. For every attempt to see the shape of eternity except through the lens of Time destroys your knowledge of Freedom. Witness the doctrine of Predestination which shows (truly enough) that eternal reality is not waiting for a future in which to be real; but at the price of removing Freedom which is the deeper truth of the two. And wouldn’t Universalism do the same? Ye *cannot *know eternal reality by a definition. Time itself, and all acts and events that fill Time, are the definition, and it must be lived. The Lord said we were gods. How long could ye bear to look (without Time’s lens) on the greatness of your own soul and the eternal reality of her choice?”

 

[tuopaolo]

Mijoy2:

However, nowhere have I seen it written that when one dies in a state of mortal sin do they go to hell.

The Church teaches that those who die in a state of mortal sin go to hell. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.”
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1035.htm

 

[Mijoy2]

tuopaolo:

The Church teaches that those who die in a state of mortal sin go to hell. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.”

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1035.htm

Well this is certainly distressing indeed. If this is true, and It seems pretty clear, I not only know anyone who has died and gone to Heaven, absolutley nobody I know, including all my friens and loved ones are going.

I pray for annihilation. Even if I were to go to heaven it would be ahell without my little girls. . Might be time to reconsider. Terrible discovery here.

 

[Mijoy2]

Where is the love, the mercy, the hope? Back to the drawing board.

 

[FelixBlue]

Mijoy2:

FelixBlue, as I read through these posts I have found that you state this a number of times. (By the way I too have much difficulty with this docrine). However I do not see this being true at all. Where do you find thata the Church teaches many will more then likely end up there? I see this as a strawman.

Risking the appearance of a John Kerry flip-flop, I have to agree with you that no where does the Church officially (that is, in any kind of dogmatic statement made by the extraordinary universal magisterium) make any statement regarding the number of people, if any, that will end up in hell. When I reverted back to agreeing with this “many in hell” position, I was thinking about the evidence that Avery Dulles had brought to light in the First Things article referenced above. He cites many significan Theologians throughout the history of the Church who believed that many would end up in hell. But of course, this begs the question: what weight do these theologians have in answering the question? And of course this question is difficult to answer. Still, you are very correct to point out the above, and as I’ve been thinking about it today, I too have taken comfort in re-realizing this truth, that the Church has not officially spoken on this matter of how many, if any will be in hell.

However, nowhere have I seen it written that when one dies in a state of mortal sin do they go to hell.

As the responder pointed out below, above, you are wrong here. But the question becomes, how often can one actually fall into a true state of mortal sin. It is very easy for the “material” requirement to be satisfied; but when it comes to the “knowledge” and “full consent of the will” the issue becomes a bit stickier (and I don’t mean to start a new argument here…

Hold on to the ambiguity, maybe they are there for a reason.

I like this point of yours, and it is one that many have made over the course of this thread. The implicit point you make is trust in God, trust in Christ, trust in the Church he founded. This point, again made by many out there in cyber Christendom, is causing me to retake a look at that trust…

I saw somewhere in this very long thread that someone suggested you read the Popes 1999 encyclical that included text concerning Heavn, Hell and Purgatory. Find it, it shoouldn’t take too much google searching. I recall the Pope stressing that we are not to suffer anxiety over the doctrine. I recall it being reassuring (although still left ambiguities). If I find a link, I will forward it to you.

Thanks. I read it when it first came out…but will have to read it again.

Tim

 

[FelixBlue]

Savagedds:

Hi FelixBlue,

It then becomes incumbent on the believer to submit to Christ’s authority through His Church on earth. It is preferable, though not mandatory, for us to understand Her teachings. If it were mandatory for us to understand, Heaven would be all scholars and no aggies.

Nor is it the responsibility of the Church to convince us of each truth; rather it is our responsiblity to submit in humble obedience. Had it been otherwise, Christ would have chosen scholars rather than fishermen to spread His Gospel.

Scholars were often crosswise with our Lord in those days, just as they are crosswise with His word today, and for the same reason: they lacked humility.

So it’s not a matter of understanding, FelixBlue. It’s a matter of submission to authority. To be Catholic is to give assent of one’s will to Christ through His Church; until you do that you will not have the peace I pray that you find.

Pax Christi,

Jim

Thanks for your “argument” Jim. The more I read, and the more I think, and the more I pray (in however doubtful a way), I am realizing more and more that I need some kind of re-conversion. While I used to submit entirely to all the Church teaches, I think that somewhere along the way, perhaps during my studies for a Masters in Theology, I left off fully trusting the Church, and began to more trust in my own way of thinking. To this end, that is, the end of conversion, pray for me. I’m closer, but not fully there yet.

Thanks,

Tim

 

[FelixBlue]

Joanna:

final bit:

“Then no one can ever reach them?”

“Only the Greatest of all can make Himself small enough to enter Hell. For the higher a thing is, the lower it can descend: a man can sympathize with a horse but a horse cannot sympathize with a rat. Only One has descended into Hell.”

“And will He ever do so again?”

“It was not once long ago that He did it. Time does not work that way when once ye have left the Earth. All moments that have been, or shall be, were, and are, present in the moment of His descending. There is no spirit in prison to Whom He did not preach.”
“And some hear him?”
“Aye.”
“In your own books, Sir,” said I, “you were a Universalist. You talked as if all men would be saved. And St. Paul too"
“Ye can know nothing of the end of all things, or nothing expressible in those terms. It may be, as the Lord said to the Lady Julian, that all will be well, and all will be well, and all manner of things will be well. But it’s ill talking of such questions.”
“Because they are too terrible, Sir?”
“No. Because all answers deceive. If ye put the question from within Time and are asking about possibilities, the answer is certain. The choice of ways is before you. Neither is closed. Any man may choose eternal death. Those who choose it will have it. But if ye are trying to leap on into eternity, if ye are trying to see the final state of all things as it *will *be (for so ye must speak) when there are no more possibilities left but only the Real, then ye ask what cannot be answered to mortal ears. Time is the very lens through which ye see-small and clear, as men see through the wrong end of a telescope—something that would otherwise be too big for ye to see at all. That thing is Freedom the gift whereby ye most resemble your Maker and are yourselves parts of eternal reality. But ye can see it only through the lens of Time, in a little clear picture, through the inverted telescope. It is a picture of moments following one another and yourself in each moment making some choice that might have been otherwise. Neither the temporal succession nor the phantom of what ye might have chosen and didn’t is itself Freedom. They are a lens. The picture is a symbol: but it’s truer than any philosophical theorem (or, perhaps, than any mystic’s vision) that claims to go behind it. For every attempt to see the shape of eternity except through the lens of Time destroys your knowledge of Freedom. Witness the doctrine of Predestination which shows (truly enough) that eternal reality is not waiting for a future in which to be real; but at the price of removing Freedom which is the deeper truth of the two. And wouldn’t Universalism do the same? Ye *cannot *know eternal reality by a definition. Time itself, and all acts and events that fill Time, are the definition, and it must be lived. The Lord said we were gods. How long could ye bear to look (without Time’s lens) on the greatness of your own soul and the eternal reality of her choice?”

Thanks so much for that quote. The latter part, for me, is especially useful. It has been years since I’ve read the Great Divorce; I’ll have to get it out and read it again.

 

[bob]

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.

But with hell, the punishment far exceeds the nature of the crime. Hell is an eternal/infinite punishment for a temporal/finite crime.

And yet some (Anselm and others) will argue that the crime is actually infinite in dimension because it is against God.

This brings me to my second reason.

Man’s concept is not God’s concept.
Our image of hell is eternal fire.
But simply put it is eternal separation from God.
Conversely, the rewards far exceeds the good deeds!
It sort of balances out doesn’t it?

FelixBlue:

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. Following the idea of Cardinal Newman, our knowledge of the infinitude of God is notional…abstract. At anyrate, I could quote any number of Church Fathers on the fact that our knowledge of God is incomplete (Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, Thomas, etc.).

Thus a simple sylogism:

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

Ergo, no hell.

Do we really need full knowlegde for full rewards or punishments?
Does a criminal know the full legal code against the particular crime before he commits one?
Can he say that since he did not know the criminal code, he should not be punished?

FelixBlue:

1. Culpability also requires a full participation of the will (which is already impossible given our incomplet knowledge). We happened to be born, however, with a proclivity to sin. We are weak. Concupiscence and the whole story. Can we be blamed? Yes…but only to a degree. And degrees are finite. Hell is not. Thus no hell.

Adam and Eve only knew that they should not eat from the tree in the middle of the garden. Did they really know why?
Yet they and we were punished with eternal banishment from God’s presence. That punishment for mankind would have been eternal had it not been for Christ’s Salvific act on the cross.

contd next post…

 

[bob]

contd from previous post.

FelixBlue:

1. 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.

Imagine you are standing next to a burning house with people inside and you know you have the capacity or at least the possibilty of getting into the house and pulling them out to safety. Do you stand outside and do nothing? Do you strike up a conversation about politics or make a sandwich or engage in necessary recreation?

But that is what we do regarding others and 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.

True, if we truly believe in salvation, then we should go all out to bring everyone into the fold and warn of the dangers of Hell.
BUT
The behavior of the people cannot reflect the existence of hell or heaven.
Using the same argument, then we can say that there is no heaven as we are not persuading everyone to go there!
Pursuing the argument even further, if we are not going all out to pursuade people to love God does it mean He does not exists?
However, good or evil, is basically intrinsic in human conscience whether they know of God or not.

FelixBlue:

So, those are my main arguments. I’d like light and prayers from anyone. My desire is to be faithful to the Church and the Magisterium, but I find it increasingly difficult to do so. I can only do mental gymnastics for so long. If the doctrine of hell is wrong, then so must be the doctrine of the teaching authority of the Church.

Thanks from a convert (of 12 years) who wishes to remain “solid”.

Assume that the Doctrine of hell is wrong, and therefore the Church is wrong, then I presume that you, as a good Christian will revert to scriptures.

This is what scripture has to say about hell:

Luke 12:5
But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.

2 Peter 2:4
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;

See also:
Matthew 5:22; Matthew 5:29; Matthew 5:30; Matthew 10:28; Matthew 16:18; Matthew 18:9; Matthew 23:15; Matthew 23:33
Mark 9:43; Mark 9:45; Mark 9:47;
Luke 16:23;
James 3:6

 

[FelixBlue]

I want to thank everyone who has posted to this thread. You have helped me tremendously. Please keep me in your prayers…

See you in other threads…

Tim