M
mwok
Guest
So the Unmovable should move for us mortals because it is terribly inconvenient of Him to enforce rules.
He already gave everything He has for us to be united with Him. What more could you ask for?
- Status
He already gave everything He has for us to be united with Him. What more could you ask for?
L
LJH_80
Guest
Maybe I can help you, rephrase it then.
Mystic Banana
Whose side are you on? The Sith or the Jedi? Sauron or Gandalf? Vishnu or Shiva?
Serious’ argument (correct me if I am misinterpreting it) is that the atheist says “well, if God were real, I would obviously be on His side, just like I would be on the Jedi’s and Gandalf’s side, if they were real. I just don’t happen to believe these fictional stories to be true.”
Do you see the difference between that and actively opposing God? Believing He’s there and then fighting against Him? Again I point to Vishnu and Shiva; which god are you on the side of? You’re not on the side of either, because you don’t believe they exist. That is distinctly different than actively worshiping one or the other.
It may not make a difference in terms of damnation, but there is a distinction.
S
Serious
Guest
Very well said.
If there is no difference in “damnation”, then we are all in deep trouble.
But I don’t think that this is the case.
U
Ubenedictus
Guest
thank God for this discussion, LJH it easy to disagree with the church on this subject but i will ask what do you think the bible says on this subject? The holiness of God make the wage of sin death, how does death glorify God especially when as punishment please note that the first mention of death is genesis adam and eve when God command about the fruit he punishes with spiritual death, in other passages he says he will turn away his face he says i will not hear your prayer, he didnt say i cannot hear he say i will not hear. What about the sacrifice of old or is it the new covenant where a victim dies for sins. Over and over again God inflicts punishment not just for repentance but to satisfy justice. The atonement of the son satisfy the divine justify for my sins and my sin cannot be forgiven unless im asking God to forgive, the unforgiven sin still has a punishment a punishment that satisfy justice and befit divine holiness thus the scripture say nothing unclean can enter. Ok just throw away my agruement and give me an alternative that you believe satisfy justice and mercy and holiness, maybe i can see it from your angle.
Ubenedictus
L
LJH_80
Guest
Because I know people will say it, I will preface this thread with the following things.
1.) I know what I am about to say is not Catholic, and may not even be Christian.
2.) I was specifically asked how I saw it, so saying “don’t say non-Catholic things on a Catholic board” is silly.
The idea that pain must beget more pain is a terrible idea. Applied terrestrially, It is the most certain way to ensure that the world turns into a horrible place. Applied divinely, it becomes horrific. That is Wrath incarnate.
Love is exactly the opposite. Think about the people you love. Do they ever do things that would bother you? Some even do things that hurt you. But you don’t feel obliged to hurt them back, or even wish to see them hurt, do you?
Just recently, my wife didn’t check my pockets and washed a sharpie in the laundry, ruining some of my clothes. This was a thing that hurt me, and it was because she didn’t do what she knew she was supposed to (we both know we’re both supposed to check pockets when either of us do laundry… this isn’t a “women’s role” thing). I didn’t even want to let her know, because she’d feel bad about it, and I don’t want the people I love to feel bad, unless it’s absolutely necessary for some greater good (in the above example, if it happened with increasing frequency, I would discuss it with her to get the behavior to change, but still not to make her feel bad).
Anything else is not love.
JDaniel posted this. And I’m sure we’ve all felt it at times. But have you ever felt it about someone you loved? When they’ve done something wrong, have you ever wanted them to suffer (not just to change their behavior, but just for them to suffer)? It’s easy to feel this way about people you don’t know, and especially people you hate. But it’s impossible to feel this way about people you love.
There is no law of “conservation of pain” whereby a certain amount of pain must exist. Obviously not, because pain can keep being added to the system; people can keep doing bad things, without necessarily needing to have bad things be done to them.
Forgiveness can end pain. It can simply make it go away. And I don’t need someone else to accept my forgiveness to forgive them. I don’t know if any of you have teenage children, but they will do things that will hurt you, and they won’t be the slightest bit repentant about it at the time, but you will forgive them. Hopefully, they will later on, and apologize, but what if they died before their hormones calmed down enough for them to see reason? Would your abiding thoughts be “Man, I never did get to see her suffer for taking that money out of my wallet!” ?
You say there is nothing unclean in Heaven, and that we become perfect in Heaven, etc.
That means that the part of me that cares if loved ones are suffering is an unclean imperfection. I refuse to believe that love is unclean, or that it is an imperfection to be stripped away. That is exactly what is implied by the statement from Aquinas that “Those who burn do not burn in vain, but rather can be observed by those in Heaven, so that the saved will feel better about the end that they’d received.” JDaniel argues that they don’t “see” the suffering, they are just “generally aware” of it. That doesn’t make it any better. I am “generally aware” of people suffering in Africa, and it doesn’t make me feel better, it makes me feel bad. I’ve heard that we won’t remember the people we loved, but again, nobody I know has been abducted into human trafficking and forced into prostitution, but that doesn’t mean I don’t care that it’s happening to people I don’t know.
I’m not saying everyone needs to get into Heaven. I understand that not everyone can be allowed in. But I am saying that there are other options than eternal torment. I have nowhere near the intellect of God, and even I can think of a few.
1.) I know what I am about to say is not Catholic, and may not even be Christian.
2.) I was specifically asked how I saw it, so saying “don’t say non-Catholic things on a Catholic board” is silly.
The idea that pain must beget more pain is a terrible idea. Applied terrestrially, It is the most certain way to ensure that the world turns into a horrible place. Applied divinely, it becomes horrific. That is Wrath incarnate.
Love is exactly the opposite. Think about the people you love. Do they ever do things that would bother you? Some even do things that hurt you. But you don’t feel obliged to hurt them back, or even wish to see them hurt, do you?
Just recently, my wife didn’t check my pockets and washed a sharpie in the laundry, ruining some of my clothes. This was a thing that hurt me, and it was because she didn’t do what she knew she was supposed to (we both know we’re both supposed to check pockets when either of us do laundry… this isn’t a “women’s role” thing). I didn’t even want to let her know, because she’d feel bad about it, and I don’t want the people I love to feel bad, unless it’s absolutely necessary for some greater good (in the above example, if it happened with increasing frequency, I would discuss it with her to get the behavior to change, but still not to make her feel bad).
Anything else is not love.
The Teaching of the Catholic Church said:
JDaniel posted this. And I’m sure we’ve all felt it at times. But have you ever felt it about someone you loved? When they’ve done something wrong, have you ever wanted them to suffer (not just to change their behavior, but just for them to suffer)? It’s easy to feel this way about people you don’t know, and especially people you hate. But it’s impossible to feel this way about people you love.
There is no law of “conservation of pain” whereby a certain amount of pain must exist. Obviously not, because pain can keep being added to the system; people can keep doing bad things, without necessarily needing to have bad things be done to them.
Forgiveness can end pain. It can simply make it go away. And I don’t need someone else to accept my forgiveness to forgive them. I don’t know if any of you have teenage children, but they will do things that will hurt you, and they won’t be the slightest bit repentant about it at the time, but you will forgive them. Hopefully, they will later on, and apologize, but what if they died before their hormones calmed down enough for them to see reason? Would your abiding thoughts be “Man, I never did get to see her suffer for taking that money out of my wallet!” ?
My problem with Heaven is that, were someone I love in hell and suffering greatly, it would make me unhappy. People say “It’s okay that people you love are suffering, you won’t know/care about it anymore. Or maybe you just won’t remember that you loved them, so you won’t care about their plight.”
You say there is nothing unclean in Heaven, and that we become perfect in Heaven, etc.
That means that the part of me that cares if loved ones are suffering is an unclean imperfection. I refuse to believe that love is unclean, or that it is an imperfection to be stripped away. That is exactly what is implied by the statement from Aquinas that “Those who burn do not burn in vain, but rather can be observed by those in Heaven, so that the saved will feel better about the end that they’d received.” JDaniel argues that they don’t “see” the suffering, they are just “generally aware” of it. That doesn’t make it any better. I am “generally aware” of people suffering in Africa, and it doesn’t make me feel better, it makes me feel bad. I’ve heard that we won’t remember the people we loved, but again, nobody I know has been abducted into human trafficking and forced into prostitution, but that doesn’t mean I don’t care that it’s happening to people I don’t know.
I’m not saying everyone needs to get into Heaven. I understand that not everyone can be allowed in. But I am saying that there are other options than eternal torment. I have nowhere near the intellect of God, and even I can think of a few.
M
Mystic_Banana
Guest
In rejecting the concept, you *are * rejecting the entity it refers to. I can see what you’re trying to do, and linguistic pedanticism can be an endless resource for self-satisfying dissemblance, but really, theologically speaking, rejecting the existence of God is rejecting God, I think. If you cannot see how you are doing that, I can only try and help you further
.
L
LJH_80
Guest
As far as an alternative that satisfies justice and mercy, here are 3:
- *]Annihilation. If my dog is suffering, I will take him to the vet to either be cured or put out of his misery. If a soul cannot get into Heaven, and being out of Heaven is eternal agony, then simply let them cease to be.
*] Eternal sleep. If a soul is immortal and indestructible so that God cannot simply annihilate it, simply put them to sleep so they needn’t feel the agony.
*] Second Chance. Do we all agree with the idea that there are some people alive today who were not Christians at the age of 20, but were at the age of 30? Since Paul himself claims to be in that boat, it’s safe to say that the idea has Biblical precedent. Therefore, if someone dies in an unrepentant state of sin, is it possible that, given more time, they might have realized the truth? Absolutely. Therefore locking them in to the state of their death is a bit arbitrary.
Now we know that God can make a realm that isn’t Heaven, but also isn’t Hell. We know that because we are currently in such a realm. So send them back until they get it right and learn the lessons. He needn’t even send them to this Earth; God could create an entire universe for second (third, etc.)-chancers to go to (kind of like the spiritual special ed classroom).
*] The Sandbox. If the afterlife is infinite, give everyone a world they can do with as they please; let them be gods of it. Let them pursue anything that guided them as far as they care to take it. If they sought physical pleasure, or mountains of gold, or people to look on and admire them, let them create such things until they realize the emptiness of it. Eventually, they will come around and learn the true way to happiness is through love and serving a greater good. And since God is the greatest good, they will have learned to serve Him, and only then are they allowed into Heaven to play with others.
-It’s worth noting that this idea of self-made afterlives would be hell for those who pursued empty paths, and it would be tormenting to them as long as they stayed on that path. But the beauty of it is that it’s not eternal. They are suffering only exactly as much as they need to to learn their lessons, and there is hope for them, once they’ve learned. I could look at my drug-addicted, criminal brother-in-law in such a state and be content that he was exactly where he needed to be.
There’s 4 ideas that, while not necessarily perfect, are at least ideas that are more morally sound than the hell concept discussed previously.
M
Mystic_Banana
Guest
I’m more or less on Vishnu’s side. Vishnu is part of an understanding of God, trinitarian to boot, and, although I hold it to be significantly less accurate than the Christian understanding, I hold it to be an understanding of the same God, so I do not disbelieve in the existance of Vishnu, essentially speaking… experience of God is ubiquitous - it’s just not neccesarily consistent. But what would you expect? We’re mortal, and flawed. Why, some of us deny God exists at all…
I can see what you’re saying, but you are failing to understand the same thing Serious is failing to understand…
Incidentally, I don’t think these things are strictly linear. You can accept God in good deeds, but reject him in disbelief
And obviously, by aggressively pursuing disbelief as a get out clause if he *does * exist, you are both looking for excuses to oppose/ignore His guidance without consequence… doesn’t sound so neutral to me!
L
Layp3rs0n
Guest
Let’s try a breakdown of WHY hell is what it is. God has made man, designed him, to be happy in finding the only True Good. That is, of course God. Man is so wonderful that no perfect state of natural happiness will suffice to complete him. Only God can. Since God wills man’s happiness, He wills that man come to Him to be made happy. If a person does nit chhose God, Who is Goodness Itself and what it Is to Exist, he thus chooses nothing! He chooses the antithesis of happiness, the opposite of Grace and Love, the absence of Mercy and lack of light. A person in this state has surrendered all means of repentence. Thus the natural and logical consequence of their choice is eternal. In thus light, God does not place people in hell, it is merely walking with full knowlege into pain and darkness and staying there. “A drop of repentence would empty hell.” But in hell there is no repentence.
L
LJH_80
Guest
No offense, but about every page or two in any hell argument, somebody comes in and says “God doesn’t send people to hell, they choose to go there.” This is said as if it were relevant, or as if they expected it to be an original thought that hadn’t been mentioned before. This has been discussed and rendered irrelevant at least twice in this thread.
If I have a friend who puts gasoline on his barbecue, lights it, and sets himself on fire, I feel bad for him, even though it was entirely his choices that put him in pain.
I don’t care what sent someone I love to hell, whether it be because he was Muslim (as the best man at my wedding is), or because she is a lesbian (as another good friend is), or simply because they use contraception in marriage (as almost everyone I know does). How they ended up in hell is irrelevant. What is relevant is that, if I were in Heaven, and knew they were suffering in hell, it would make me incredibly unhappy.
Think of someone you love. Now imagine that, through some reason, they end up in hell, and you knew it, hypothetically, while still alive. Let’s say you got an image of your mother suffering in hell, would that make you unhappy?
And then, when you’re unhappy, the angel who showed you the vision tells you, "Oh, don’t worry, when you get to Heaven, it won’t bother you anymore. In fact, you’ll feel good that she’s suffering in hell,with no relief ever, because thinking about her there will just make Heaven seem that much more awesome by comparison.
Maybe you are okay with that. I am not.
I
irishOntarian
Guest
The fact about hell is that its inevitable for someone who refuses to be in communion with God. God is the source of all happiness, and if we cut ourselves off from Him it’s not His fault that we’re unhappy. And when we’re in heaven, we will operate with clear reason and perception, not irrational gut reactions, so we won’t be ignorant of the people suffering in Hell, but we will see it truthfully as an example of God’s justice and mercy, so we will have no reason to be upset by it.
L
LJH_80
Guest
And that is exactly what the Church teaches.
And that is exactly what I view to be evil for reasons already discussed.
I can’t continue this argument without being insulting in ways I don’t want to be.
I have not come to this decision lightly. If you feel you have a point you think is truly a novel argument that you doubt anyone has brought up before, please go through the thread, and see if they have been addressed. If not, then feel free to attempt to introduce a new thought to me.
J
John_Q_Sinner
Guest
I read this and found it to be interesting; mostly because it is a point of view from a lost soul.
catholicwarfare.com/Warfare/Lost_Soul.html
catholicwarfare.com/Warfare/Lost_Soul.html
S
Serious
Guest
I am not speaking theologically - I am speaking logically. And the difference is literally heaven and earth. I do not accept the validity of THEOlogical reasoning - because it is ILlogical. So, again, since I do not believe God’s existence, or Satan’s existence, or the existence of angels, demons, fairies, leprechauns, iron-nosed witches etc… I do not either reject nor embrace any one of these entities. If the theological reasoning does not accept that, it is no problem of mine.In rejecting the concept, you *are * rejecting the entity it refers to. I can see what you’re trying to do, and linguistic pedanticism can be an endless resource for self-satisfying dissemblance, but really, theologically speaking, rejecting the existence of God is rejecting God, I think. If you cannot see how you are doing that, I can only try and help you further
S
Serious
Guest
Every word you say is pure gold. I went through the same process many decades ago, and it played a not insignificant role in realizing that the teaching of hell simply cannot be reconciled with love.
M
Mystic_Banana
Guest
It is not ILlogical - it’s a form of logic you reject. If you don’t understand it, don’t blame me! No surprise, really, when you just end up chanting the same old scientistic mantras. :yawn:
Why would theology limit itself according to the dogmas of scientism? Your average theologian is not superstitious enough for that, I hope.
Why would it be a problem at all? I wonder if you can even justify that…
J
Justinian_III
Guest
There is a fourth option.
4). No one is tortured for all eternity.
Maybe there is a place of purification for all people. We all sin, don’t we?
4). No one is tortured for all eternity.
Maybe there is a place of purification for all people. We all sin, don’t we?
D
davidv
Guest
Yes all sin. The key question however, is, will all repent?
Those who don’t, have made themselves their god, rejecting the true God.
J
Justinian_III
Guest
Well, repenting doesnt take away the fact that our very nature is sinful. At least, protestants think our nature is sinful. What do you guys think?
D
davidv
Guest
Repenting links use with God’s mercy and forgiveness and reconnects us to His life (grace). Catholic teaching is clear in stating that humans do not have a sinful nature. Original sin only wounded the goodness of our God created nature, it did not deprive human nature of its goodness.
- Status