How could Hell be worse than the desert of faith or the dark night of the soul?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Neoplatonist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tonyrey said:
The point is that Hell must be self-inflicted with full knowledge of the consequences. God would be unjust if it is the result of ignorance.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it just don’t click: in the Thomistic tradition, the Transcendentals of Good, Truth, Beauty, Being, etc. are all found in their fullest expression/measure in God. If one chooses something else, then they are either ignorant of the fuller truth, or they would be intentionally choosing the alternative that they believed to be less true and less beautiful.

That seems like absurdity.
 
Neopsplatonist said:
Yeah, it just don’t click: in the Thomistic tradition, the Transcendentals of Good, Truth, Beauty, Being, etc. are all found in their fullest expression/measure in God. If one chooses something else, then they are either ignorant of the fuller truth, or they would be intentionally choosing the alternative that they believed to be less true and less beautiful.

That seems like absurdity.
Click to expand...
Sin is an absurdity. Sin is spiritual insanity. Yet we all do it. Despite our intellects and our knowledge of the contrary certain appetites of our wills are directed towards things which are directly contrary to our good, and this by our own choosing.

We are all spiritual lunatics.

Those who go to hell are those who would rather prefer their lunacy rather than reality.
 
Amandil said:
Sin is an absurdity. Sin is spiritual insanity. Yet we all do it. Despite our intellects and our knowledge of the contrary certain appetites of our wills are directed towards things which are directly contrary to our good, and this by our own choosing.

We are all spiritual lunatics.

Those who go to hell are those who would rather prefer their lunacy rather than reality.
Click to expand...
But our world is likewise insane.

Death is a mind shattering, hideous reality, in the face of which, things make sense that should not, and vice versa.

ICXC NIKA.
 
I guess to answer the OP, hell leaves no hope for the future. At least with the dark night of the soul there is hope for the beatific vision. 🤷
 
Amandil said:
Sin is an absurdity. Sin is spiritual insanity. Yet we all do it. Despite our intellects and our knowledge of the contrary certain appetites of our wills are directed towards things which are directly contrary to our good, and this by our own choosing.

We are all spiritual lunatics.

Those who go to hell are those who would rather prefer their lunacy rather than reality.
Click to expand...
Your theory that we can somehow choose something contrary to our good, except insofar as we believe that alternative better serves our good in some manner (freedom versus safety, etc) introduces a strangely inescapable mental dysfunction that we cannot be expected to overcome - like a hopeless heroine addict. If it was our fault that we became an addict, we did so out of an ignorance of the full consequences and a mis-weighing of our available alternatives. But what is more, we are -even if it is by our own fault - no longer sane.

Even skipping my heroine example, on your own terminology of sin as insanity: How in the world are we to reconcile the eternal sentencing of the insane with the idea of a just God??
 
Neoplatonist said:
Your theory that we can somehow choose something contrary to our good, except insofar as we believe that alternative better serves our good in some manner (freedom versus safety, etc) introduces a strangely inescapable mental dysfunction that we cannot be expected to overcome - like a hopeless heroine addict. If it was our fault that we became an addict, we did so out of an ignorance of the full consequences and a mis-weighing of our available alternatives. But what is more, we are -even if it is by our own fault - no longer sane.

Even skipping my heroine example, on your own terminology of sin as insanity: How in the world are we to reconcile the eternal sentencing of the insane with the idea of a just God??
Click to expand...
How does any Catholic commit a mortal sin?

They might know and be aware that God is the greatest good, but they choose sin anyway.
 
CrossofChrist said:
How does any Catholic commit a mortal sin?

They might know and be aware that God is the greatest good, but they choose sin anyway.
Click to expand...
That’s an awesome question. In what way is the virtuous person better than the sinful person? Is it that they have a fuller grasp of the truth? Is it that they have a similar grasp of truth, but one has a stronger will than the other? Is it that one has stronger faith in the things they have been told (like “x is a mortal sin, even if you don’t understand that or see it for yourself”)?

Let us consider that it is not intelligence, as you seem inclined to rule out. We cannot say that one has a fuller grasp of the truth than the other. Let us also rule out that it is a matter of stronger faith, because since faith is a gift of grace, it is not the person’s choice to have stronger faith or not. This leaves a weaker versus a stronger will.

How, then, did it come to be that the sinner has a weaker will than the saint? The choice of strengthening or weakening the will falls into an infinite regress that is of the same shape as the initial question about the choice of the good. Either they were ignorant of the full consequences of some choice(s) along the way, with regard to forming a strong versus a weak will, or they applied the weights incorrectly to the alternatives.

If we want to disagree about the extent to which faith is purely a gift or if it is, in part, an act of will (a problematic stance), fine. We can, nevertheless bracket that point for now, because it then, still, falls onto the final issue of how a person comes to possess a stronger or a weaker will.
 
GEddie said:
But our world is likewise insane.

Death is a mind shattering, hideous reality, in the face of which, things make sense that should not, and vice versa.

ICXC NIKA.
Click to expand...
There was no death in Eden, yet sin was committed.
 
Neoplatonist said:
Your theory that we can somehow choose something contrary to our good, except insofar as we believe that alternative better serves our good in some manner (freedom versus safety, etc) introduces a strangely inescapable mental dysfunction that we cannot be expected to overcome - like a hopeless heroine addict.
Click to expand...
Wrong. All addictions are escapable.
If it was our fault that we became an addict, we did so out of an ignorance of the full consequences and a mis-weighing of our available alternatives. But what is more, we are -even if it is by our own fault - no longer sane.
Click to expand...
Wrong again. We all have sufficient knowledge that what we are doing was not only contrary to our good but also addictive. The law is written on all our hearts: to do the good that we ought and to avoid the evil we ought not. To have the intellect order the will to the good and the subduing of the passions.

Instead you have wills that are susceptible to disordered appetites being lead by our passions while the intellect is ignored and suppressed. Even when the good is known by the intellect, it can’t be performed by the will because it is trapped in it’s own sinful and egocentric appetites. Fallen that far there is no help save God’s grace or some catastrophe.

Hence what is evil is good(because the passions are sated) and what is good is considered evil(because the passions are not sated but “starved” out by virtue).

The choice of hell is completely our doing.
Even skipping my heroine example, on your own terminology of sin as insanity: How in the world are we to reconcile the eternal sentencing of the insane with the idea of a just God??
Click to expand...
Because it’s an insanity that they chose while at the same time rejecting God’s offer to heal them. The first step to recovery of any addiction is to admit that you have a problem. Sinners insist that they have no problem at all, that they are in fact “good”, that they are Saints.

Saints, OTOH, always insist that they are sinners.
 
Neoplatonist said:
That’s an awesome question. In what way is the virtuous person better than the sinful person?
Click to expand...
What is meant by “better”?
Is it that they have a fuller grasp of the truth? Is it that they have a similar grasp of truth, but one has a stronger will than the other? Is it that one has stronger faith in the things they have been told (like “x is a mortal sin, even if you don’t understand that or see it for yourself”)?
Click to expand...
Prudence dictates that no choice is made until you have done all that you have or can do to understand the object chosen and the possible consequences, that all good council has been sought. Intellectual laziness and cowardess is no substitute for sin, no matter how sincere.
Let us consider that it is not intelligence, as you seem inclined to rule out. We cannot say that one has a fuller grasp of the truth than the other. Let us also rule out that it is a matter of stronger faith, because since faith is a gift of grace, it is not the person’s choice to have stronger faith or not. This leaves a weaker versus a stronger will.
Click to expand...
Wrong. The grace of faith can always be increased when it is asked through prayer.
How, then, did it come to be that the sinner has a weaker will than the saint? The choice of strengthening or weakening the will falls into an infinite regress that is of the same shape as the initial question about the choice of the good. Either they were ignorant of the full consequences of some choice(s) along the way, with regard to forming a strong versus a weak will, or they applied the weights incorrectly to the alternatives.
Click to expand...
Neither of those follow from reality. Sanctifying grace and the gifts of the Holy Spirit can and are increased in anyone. Grace perfects nature, as St. Augustine taught.
 
Amandil said:
Wrong. All addictions are escapable.

Wrong again. We all have sufficient knowledge that what we are doing was not only contrary to our good but also addictive. The law is written on all our hearts: to do the good that we ought and to avoid the evil we ought not. To have the intellect order the will to the good and the subduing of the passions.

Instead you have wills that are susceptible to disordered appetites being lead by our passions while the intellect is ignored and suppressed. Even when the good is known by the intellect, it can’t be performed by the will because it is trapped in it’s own sinful and egocentric appetites. Fallen that far there is no help save God’s grace or some catastrophe.

Hence what is evil is good(because the passions are sated) and what is good is considered evil(because the passions are not sated but “starved” out by vir
The choice of hell is completely our doing.

Because it’s an insanity that they chose while at the same time rejecting God’s offer to heal them. The first step to recovery of any addiction is to admit that you have a problem. Sinners insist that they have no problem at all, that they are in fact “good”, that they are Saints.

Saints, OTOH, always insist that they are sinners.
Click to expand...
I have never realized more than this moment how glad I am that our modern physical and mental health systems work on a model of compassion and care that is more understandable than the one apparently being proposed by the Catholic tradition. :-/

I wonder if it is even possible to count how many lives have been recovered/restored because we recognize that in fact not everyone can escape their addictions without intervention and that some interventions must be offered in spite of patient refusals.

On your model, how did it come about that the will is constrained by the rampant passions and appetites? When that person first gave in to their appetites, are you saying they had full knowledge that they were not only giving in to their appetites, but that they were consciously choosing to enslave themselves and give away their free will?

Similarly, on your model, why does on person make that choice and another not? What is the difference between the two? One has a stronger will than the other? Why is that? How did A’s will get to be stronger than B’s? One is already more evil than the other? How did B get to be more evil or inclined to corruption than A? There must be some initial step in this series - what was different at that 1st step in the two cases?
 
You clearly didn’t read anything that I wrote but just decided to set up your own strawman.
 
Neoplatonist said:
Yeah, it just don’t click: in the Thomistic tradition, the Transcendentals of Good, Truth, Beauty, Being, etc. are all found in their fullest expression/measure in God. If one chooses something else, then they are either ignorant of the fuller truth, or they would be intentionally choosing the alternative that they believed to be less true and less beautiful.

That seems like absurdity.
Click to expand...
We are all ignorant to differing extents but we are all culpable to the extent that we can distinguish good from evil. When we choose that which is less true and less beautiful it is because we are proud, selfish or careless.
 
Amandil said:
What is meant by “better”?

Prudence dictates that no choice is made until you have done all that you have or can do to understand the object chosen and the possible consequences, that all good council has been sought. Intellectual laziness and cowardess is no substitute for sin, no matter how sincere.

Wrong. The grace of faith can always be increased when it is asked through prayer.

Neither of those follow from reality. Sanctifying grace and the gifts of the Holy Spirit can and are increased in anyone. Grace perfects nature, as St. Augustine taught.
Click to expand...
The paralysis of incomplete information - yeah, that just doesn’t work. We’d spend hours a day deciding even the smallest choices. Yet we are liable for wrapping our finite minds around infinite concepts and eternal consequences. Good luck.

No, you’re just plain wrong about faith and prayer. I have known great people who prayed incessantly for stronger faith and yet it was a struggle to hold on to what little they had. Not interested in claims that it WAS strengthened even if they didn’t realize. Would it not follow from you theory that any of the saints who felt periods when their faith was weak had merely not prayed enough? If that’s not enough praying, then what chance do we normal people have?
 
Neoplatonist said:
The paralysis of incomplete information - yeah, that just doesn’t work. We’d spend hours a day deciding even the smallest choices. Yet we are liable for wrapping our finite minds around infinite concepts and eternal consequences. Good luck.
Click to expand...
Do the good that you ought and do not do the evil that you ought not…“infinite concepts”?

You’ve left the realm of rationality at this point.
No, you’re just plain wrong about faith and prayer. I have known great people who prayed incessantly for stronger faith and yet it was a struggle to hold on to what little they had.
Click to expand...
Given your inability to judge spiritual matters I don’t see how you can speak to the state of their spiritual life at all. And given that I don’t know these “great people” I can’t speak of there experience.

Let’s stick to what you do know instead of what you don’t, shall we?
Not interested in claims that it WAS strengthened even if they didn’t realize.
Click to expand...
Of course, because in your fleshy way of judging things such matters must be felt in order to be real.
Would it not follow from you theory that any of the saints who felt periods when their faith was weak had merely not prayed enough? If that’s not enough praying, then what chance do we normal people have?
Click to expand...
Saints are not saints because they had more than you or I, more often than not they had less. They did not seek to be filled but rather sought to be empty and who emptied themselves in love and for love of God and neighbor. Prayer is one of those things which increases faith, but not the only thing that increases faith.
 
Neoplatonist said:
The paralysis of incomplete information - yeah, that just doesn’t work. We’d spend hours a day deciding even the smallest choices. Yet we are liable for wrapping our finite minds around infinite concepts and eternal consequences. Good luck.

No, you’re just plain wrong about faith and prayer. I have known great people who prayed incessantly for stronger faith and yet it was a struggle to hold on to what little they had. Not interested in claims that it WAS strengthened even if they didn’t realize. Would it not follow from you theory that any of the saints who felt periods when their faith was weak had merely not prayed enough? If that’s not enough praying, then what chance do we normal people have?
Click to expand...
Have you considered that perhaps when faith is being tested the most it is at one of its stronger points, or at least is getting ready to become stronger?
 
Neoplatonist said:
That’s an awesome question. In what way is the virtuous person better than the sinful person? Is it that they have a fuller grasp of the truth? Is it that they have a similar grasp of truth, but one has a stronger will than the other? Is it that one has stronger faith in the things they have been told (like “x is a mortal sin, even if you don’t understand that or see it for yourself”)?

Let us consider that it is not intelligence, as you seem inclined to rule out. We cannot say that one has a fuller grasp of the truth than the other. Let us also rule out that it is a matter of stronger faith, because since faith is a gift of grace, it is not the person’s choice to have stronger faith or not. This leaves a weaker versus a stronger will.

How, then, did it come to be that the sinner has a weaker will than the saint? The choice of strengthening or weakening the will falls into an infinite regress that is of the same shape as the initial question about the choice of the good. Either they were ignorant of the full consequences of some choice(s) along the way, with regard to forming a strong versus a weak will, or they applied the weights incorrectly to the alternatives.

If we want to disagree about the extent to which faith is purely a gift or if it is, in part, an act of will (a problematic stance), fine. We can, nevertheless bracket that point for now, because it then, still, falls onto the final issue of how a person comes to possess a stronger or a weaker will.
Click to expand...
God’s grace is why we don’t sin. we have to stick with St. Augustine’s answer that a corrupt will causes sin and God’s grace causes sanctity.

How can we reason with the irrational (sin) anyway? The only way to get closer and closer to the answer is going closer and closer to Christ and delving into the mystery of the Cross.
 
Amandil said:
You clearly didn’t read anything that I wrote but just decided to set up your own strawman.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry you feel like I have missed your position. You said we know the good but we do not choose it because of disordered appetites and passions. I am curious to hear your theory of how those appetites and passions first gain the upper hand over the intellect. If the good is written on our hearts and we know it, what goes wrong?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top