J
Justinian_III
Guest
Then dont we all get to heaven eventually?
- Status
D
davidv
Guest
Why? Will all repent?
J
Justinian_III
Guest
Well, Every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
Also: All flesh shall see the salvation of God
I am sure you recognize these verses?
D
davidv
Guest
How do these verses square with the story of the sheep and goats. Our Lord Jesus suggests strongly in this parable that there will be some who do not repent.
J
Justinian_III
Guest
Does this mean that some verses contradict each other?
S
sw85
Guest
It is not always clear how literally a verse ought to be interpreted.
This is why Protestant sola scriptura is wrong – without exegetical authority, you wind up with chaos and falsehood.
J
Justinian_III
Guest
I am a Protestant (although I am leaning towards Catholisism) but I believe the Bible can be inturpreted in multiple ways. I am asking how should the verses that I gave be inturpreted?
D
davidv
Guest
This is how these verses should be interpreted:
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
D
davidv
Guest
What do these verses have to say about all repenting?
S
Serious
Guest
There is only one logic.
Gotta love that you use the word “dogma” in a derogatory fashion, and connect “dogma” to “superstition”.Why would theology limit itself according to the dogmas of scientism? Your average theologian is not superstitious enough for that, I hope.
At least we can agree on something. If you don’t understand that science is anything but dogmatic then I really feel sorry for you.
D
danserr
Guest
I only a have a brief thought, because I understand what you are saying, but I think it is at least understandable that those in heaven should be happy even if they know that some are suffering in hell.
Now, I am not going to try to explain how this is the case, I am only going to suggest that it is just and moral that it should be the case.
I think that you indicated earlier that you read C.S. Lewis’s The Great Divorce, so I am here thinking of his chapters 12 and 13 (the woman and her dwarf husband, who tries to make her miserable and fails to do so).
My suggestion is that even if it is unclear how the saved would be happy in heaven while they knew others to suffer in hell, it is still right and moral that they should be able to enjoy heaven while others choose hell.
Otherwise, this would entail that hell should have a veto on heaven. To demand that those in heaven not be able to be happy while other people choose hell is to demand that hell have a veto on heaven. It is like a petulant child, who rather than say sorry and be friends goes to pout in the attic because he knows sooner or later that one of his sisters will say “o, I can’t bear to think of him being alone and unhappy.” That child uses pity as a weapon to try to hinder the joy of his sister. How is that just or right that he should be able to do that? How is it just that a damned soul should still be able to affect the joy of the saved.
This is why I think your statement
is misguided. If hell really is simply a matter of the damned suffering the natural consequences of their choice to separate themselves from God, then why should their choice to do that interfere with the joy of the saved?
As C.S. Lewis says, “I know it has a grand sound to say that you’ll accept no salvation that leaves a single creature outside, but watch the sophistry or you’ll make a dog in a manger the tyrant of the universe.”
How this happens, I don’t know. I agree that it is hard to understand how we could be happy in heaven while the damned are in hell, but, I do think that regardless of how it happens, it is both right and just that it should happen. (I should mention that I have heard one writer suggest that maybe the pain of knowing that some are damned will be born by God alone- an interesting thought).
L
LJH_80
Guest
First, I want to thank you for a well-reasoned, articulate and novel argument. I say that un-sarcastically. 
I find your analogy of the petulent child interesting. I have a daughter who has friends that are occasionally petulent (our daughter is rarely petulent for precisely the reasons described here).
danserr:
Changing your example to eternal damnation, we have the parent whose child who goes into her room to sulk, and the parent boards the child up inside the room forever, never allowing the child to leave no matter what.
I know C.S. Lewis says that the door to Hell is locked from the inside, but there are really two possibilities:
1.) Souls could leave, in which case hell is not eternal
2.) hell is eternal, which means souls don’t leave. Given an infinite timeline, anything that can happen will happen. Ergo, if no souls ever leave, this would mean that they don’t have the ability to leave.
Thus, either the Bible or Lewis is wrong.
C.S. Lewis:
I agree with you that, if Heaven and hell are as described in the Bible, that something must happen to make people in Heaven okay with hell. But I cannot start from the perspective that you seem to start from. You seem to be coming from (correct me if this is wrong), “This is the way the Bible says it is, therefore this is the way it is, and since the Bible is absolutely moral, this must be the moral thing, all I have to do is find the reason why it’s moral.”
I likely have less time invested believing in the Church than you do, so I don’t think I have the same solid footing you do in that stance. It’s significantly easier for me to say “I don’t believe that things are the way the Church says they are.” I am not quite ready to accept things my morality says are evil because I am told that they are must be good.
I don’t expect the Catholic Church to change to fit my views; Aquinas’ text shows that this objection has been coming up for over 1,000 years, and the Church has maintained its stance. But I think this definitely means that the Catholic Church is not for me.
I find your analogy of the petulent child interesting. I have a daughter who has friends that are occasionally petulent (our daughter is rarely petulent for precisely the reasons described here).
I agree that this is bad behavior. And if my daughter chose to use this technique, she would be summarily ignored. If she wants to choose to make herself miserable, then she is providing her own incentive to stop. So she is allowed to wallow in her self-imposed suffering until she decides to learn from her mistake. She is ignored until she realizes that the best way to get what she wants is to ask for it logically and respectfully, she then learns that this behavior is self destructive and unacceptable, then she changes her behavior and behaves better. This is fine, if you take the “eternal” out of it.
Changing your example to eternal damnation, we have the parent whose child who goes into her room to sulk, and the parent boards the child up inside the room forever, never allowing the child to leave no matter what.
I know C.S. Lewis says that the door to Hell is locked from the inside, but there are really two possibilities:
1.) Souls could leave, in which case hell is not eternal
2.) hell is eternal, which means souls don’t leave. Given an infinite timeline, anything that can happen will happen. Ergo, if no souls ever leave, this would mean that they don’t have the ability to leave.
Thus, either the Bible or Lewis is wrong.
C.S. Lewis:
I have frequently said, not everyone needs to be saved or allowed into heaven. I am not saying there’s anything wrong with having Heaven be exclusive. My issue is that the alternative (as described Biblically) is at best a vindictive, wrathful, and petty appeal to humankind’s base desire for vengeance, and at worst it is a bully tactic of intimidation to persuade those who are easily terrified by the supernatural. It is completely incompatible with the idea of a moral and loving God.
I agree with you that, if Heaven and hell are as described in the Bible, that something must happen to make people in Heaven okay with hell. But I cannot start from the perspective that you seem to start from. You seem to be coming from (correct me if this is wrong), “This is the way the Bible says it is, therefore this is the way it is, and since the Bible is absolutely moral, this must be the moral thing, all I have to do is find the reason why it’s moral.”
I likely have less time invested believing in the Church than you do, so I don’t think I have the same solid footing you do in that stance. It’s significantly easier for me to say “I don’t believe that things are the way the Church says they are.” I am not quite ready to accept things my morality says are evil because I am told that they are must be good.
I don’t expect the Catholic Church to change to fit my views; Aquinas’ text shows that this objection has been coming up for over 1,000 years, and the Church has maintained its stance. But I think this definitely means that the Catholic Church is not for me.
S
Serious
Guest
I am a tad more optimistic. Never in history there have been as many people as today, who look at some teaching with a freash, unjaundiced eye, and they raise objections to those teachings. Those people are now the majority, according to the lamentations of the “die-hard” orthodox ones. They are called “heretics”, “apostates”, “cafteria catholics” and other not-so-charitable names. (Look at this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=661305)
What does it mean for the future? There can be several outcomes.
One would be a reverse of this current trend and a decrease of those “liberals”. Very, very unlikely, since most people follow the stance of their parents.
Another one would be that Rome digs in its collective heels, and starts a wave of mass-excommunications. Even less likely. That would be the end of the church.
And finally, that there will be a real change within the church itself. After all the bishops are elected (or selected, I am not sure of the exact procedure) from among the general clergy, and if the clergy will be more “liberal”, the bishops will be more liberal, too. And there might be a time when the pope will be more “permissive”. The church does not even have to admit that there was a change. It can just say that the former teachings were never issued officially, ex cathedra, so there was no real contradiction. Or just simply stay quiet about the change.
E
englishredrose
Guest
Please don’t jump on me for being Anglican because this may or may not be an Anglican view. Just simply what I believe over the years and I am not trying decry any formal teaching of any faith. Just simply my own thoughts.
I believe that God gives everyone a chance to go to Heaven when we die. He is loving and fair and gives the same chance to everyone. So whether you confess to him all your life or whether you confess to him at that last chance it does not matter to God. All God wants, I think is for ‘you’ to be in Heaven, whoever ‘you’ are and I believe personally that all the people who are dead are in Heaven. The Devil is pretty lonely in Hell. Hell for me is a concept of what we are feeling when times are bad and things are beating us.
I believe that God gives everyone a chance to go to Heaven when we die. He is loving and fair and gives the same chance to everyone. So whether you confess to him all your life or whether you confess to him at that last chance it does not matter to God. All God wants, I think is for ‘you’ to be in Heaven, whoever ‘you’ are and I believe personally that all the people who are dead are in Heaven. The Devil is pretty lonely in Hell. Hell for me is a concept of what we are feeling when times are bad and things are beating us.
S
Serious
Guest
These thoughts are very nice and make MUCH more sense than the fire-and-brimstone variety. The original idea of “heaven-and-hell” is just another version of “carrot-and-stick”. Obey and you will be rewarded; disobey, and you will be punished. Does not sound like a “loving” God at all.
But the holier-than-thou, ultra-orthodox crowd will not be convinced.
J
John_Q_Sinner
Guest
This is not a reply to anyone above me, but more of a “what if” question. What if the souls in Hell are tormented by the very sight and expression of love? What if love to them is worse than Hell? 
Demons are said to hate sacred things and prayers. Things like: holy water, the rosary -even the very sight of one-, holy cards, crucifixes, and etc. just drive them crazy with rage.
When I was a really hardened sinner, I could see a similarity between demons and my own way of behaving. I used to hate Church with such a passion, not to mention I could not stand it when people would talk about God or anything that had to do with religion. I was always cynical and repulsed by people who loved me and wanted to help, and the company of a loved one -especially a practicing Catholic loved one- used to torment me the most because they always made visible my condition and my selfishness.
Maybe before you’re in Heaven you receive the understanding that your love creates a level of torment to the damned souls which is so great that it surpasses all of the torments they feel in Hell?
:twocents:
Demons are said to hate sacred things and prayers. Things like: holy water, the rosary -even the very sight of one-, holy cards, crucifixes, and etc. just drive them crazy with rage.When I was a really hardened sinner, I could see a similarity between demons and my own way of behaving. I used to hate Church with such a passion, not to mention I could not stand it when people would talk about God or anything that had to do with religion. I was always cynical and repulsed by people who loved me and wanted to help, and the company of a loved one -especially a practicing Catholic loved one- used to torment me the most because they always made visible my condition and my selfishness.
Maybe before you’re in Heaven you receive the understanding that your love creates a level of torment to the damned souls which is so great that it surpasses all of the torments they feel in Hell?
:twocents:
S
Serious
Guest
Hehe, not “demons” again.
When was the last time you saw a “demon” go crazy with rage at the sight of holy water? I never heard of demons going to church…You were one strange fellow. Where did you see a demon “behaving” in any special way?
J
John_Q_Sinner
Guest
The last time I personally saw a demon was when I was 9 years old. What that has to do with anything is irrelevant since the behavior of demons including their hatred for sacred things and sacramentals which I described has been noted in demonology. Maybe I should have said when I read about demons I noticed a similarity between how they are said to act and how I was acting.Hehe, not “demons” again.
You were one strange fellow. Where did you see a demon “behaving” in any special way?
Also I didn’t appreciate the way in which you responded to my earlier post. Maybe you could be a little bit more polite.
Thanks
D
danserr
Guest
I am a little more optimistic about possibility of squaring your own views with those of the Catholic Church.
So, it seems like you agree that my analogy of the petulant child makes some sense, but you are concerned about whether or not we can extend this to the supposed eternity of hell. I actually think we can. Your main concern seems to be
Now, your argument that given infinite time, anything that can happen will doesn’t seem to me to work. If you are talking about say, drawing a lottery number, then obviously given an infinite number of draws every possible number will be drawn. So far we agree.
I don’t think you can apply this to the choices of human souls, though because human souls have free will. Perhaps they could repent, and God would forgive them if they did (which I am sure he would and is perfectly compatible with Catholic theology), but perhaps they simply will not repent. Here is what one writer says:
In short, I don’t agree with you then when we extend the petulant child analogy to eternity, that it is really a case of God slamming their door shut and barring it. On the contrary, it works perfectly well to say that the child goes into his room, slams the door and locks it. I think we can extend this to hell perfectly well, as the writer above says.
I do firmly believe that God would forgive anyone if they asked for it. It is simply plausible to me that some people will not.
Try an example. I don’t profess to know the state of anyone’s soul, so don’t take this too literally. But suppose Hiter dies and goes to the gates of heaven. He has a chance to admit that was wrong. But he refuses too. Like the petulant child, he would rather be miserable than have to be sorry, and so he withdraws from heaven, refusing to enter until he can have his way and all his victims have to be thrown out of heaven too.
So, we agree that his self- chosen misery should not affect the joy of the saved. But maybe we can also agree that it is possible that Hitler will never repent. That he continues to grow more and more hard-hearted, bitter, and resentful. Even though God would still forgive him if he repented. He simply refuses to do so, and so he remains in hell, with the doors locked, from the inside.
In this way, we have a doctrine of hell that is entirely compatible with Catholic belief. Hell is eternal, but it is also understandable why it should be so, and why the saved should still be happy even though they know the damned to be in hell.
So, I don’t think that you need to be so concerned about Catholic beliefs not working for you on this issue. I will mention one more thing, though, when you say
Sort of, but not entirely. I used to be (in my high school days) something of a universalist. I knew it wasn’t official Catholic belief, (but I think the Church is more flexible than you think it is), but I had a hard time thinking that God would not give people more chances to repent (and of course, I assumed that eventually they would). I am not now a universalist, not because my views on God changed. I still think he would forgive even the devil if he would repent, but my views on human nature changed. It became too plausible too me that some people at least would not repent, no matter how many chances God gave them.
L
LJH_80
Guest
And for any other church, this might be an option. But the Catholic Church’s entire basis is that it does not answer to its congregation, it has a direct line to God, and the will of its followers are irrelevant.
If that is given up and concessions start being made, it will lose the authority that distinguishes it, and it will just become one of the crowd of religions where every parish teaches things a little different.
You say “There might be a time…” and I, again, am more pessimistic. The Catholic Church is a whale of an organization; it’s huge, and it’s mighty, but it cannot change direction easily or quickly.
By the time it would be able to muster enough liberalism to change, and convince people it was worth going against 2,000 years of teachings, decades will have passed. Individuals change course much faster, and the ones who are going to leave will have left long before the Church can even start shifting. The ones who remain in the Church will be the ones who don’t want it to change.
One more thing that popped into my head. How many people do you see around wearing football/baseball/etc. jerseys of professional teams? How many people are actually on those pro teams? People like to align themselves with the biggest guy around, and the Catholic Church fits that. Even the people who have no intention of living like Catholics want to claim to be a part of the big group.
I am by no means saying that all (or even most) Catholics are like this. I am just saying that the trend of people claiming to be Catholic without actually believing anything the Church says is not going to end.
- Status