How does a sex-crazed son of a Pagan

[Beryllos]

become the most influential theologian in the history of the Catholic church. Augustine is almost single-handedly responsible for the idea of an eternal hell. I’m trying to see what is so special about this guy. Yeah, he was smart. But he grew up in a well to do family, his father being a Pagan and mother a Christian. He loved sex and even had a son out of wedlock with his mistress. I don’t see anywhere that he suffered in any extreme way. He converted to Christianity and proceeded to be the biggest influence in the most important doctrine of the church.

He learned about Christianity at an early age. He was smart, thoughtful, and became well-educated in philosophy. He also became well acquainted with, to the point of immersion in, sin and heresy. By the grace of God, his intelligence and education were brought to bear on his life experience with error and evil.

His many years of sin were like much fuel gathered, so that when the time came that his faith was ignited, it burned all the more fiercely.

Then, too, he wrote a great deal (like St. Paul), and many of his writings have survived to this day so that we may learn from them.

None of that fully explains why he has been so influential in the Church. The writings of many intelligent, passionate, and prolific philosophers have been considered and rejected by the Church. The last element needed to confirm Augustine’s influence, I believe, is that his writings have been thoughtfully and prayerfully weighed by the Church, in light of Sacred Scripture and Tradition, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the truth has been recognized — not so much accepted or adopted as simply recognized.

 

[Contarini]

Early church taught Univeralism before Tertullian, who had questionable translation of the Bible.

Inaccurate. I know that these claims are going around the Internet, but they are based on tendentious interpretations of the texts. The secondary source I’ve seen cited completely ignores Justin Martyr, a second-century author who said that annihilation was wrong because it let the wicked off too easily–only eternal torment would be a fitting punishment. Also, the text in question reads Origen back into Irenaeus, claiming that when Irenaeus speaks of “aionian fire” he doesn’t mean “eternal fire” but means what Origen meant by it. That’s a clever but shoddy way to argue. We know Origen was odd in all kinds of ways. We can’t start with Origen and assume that earlier figures believed as he did.

 

[laylow]

My main point was if so few are saved, as he famously wrote about, then why would a previously heinous sinner such as himself, be one of the few? Surely there were plenty of innocent children and righteous adults who suffered many more tribulations than him and lived much more purely? Was he being presumptuous or did he consider himself one of the damned?

 

[Beryllos]

My main point was if so few are saved, as he famously wrote about, then why would a previously heinous sinner such as himself, be one of the few? Surely there were plenty of innocent children and righteous adults who suffered many more tribulations than him and lived much more purely? Was he being presumptuous or did he consider himself one of the damned?

I think you just changed the question.

 

[Wesrock]

My main point was if so few are saved, as he famously wrote about, then why would a previously heinous sinner such as himself, be one of the few? Surely there were plenty of innocent children and righteous adults who suffered many more tribulations than him and lived much more purely? Was he being presumptuous or did he consider himself one of the damned?

Why aee you speaking of earning a way into heaven? Why do you ignore that children for the most oart are incapable of mortal sin? What are you contrasting with?

 

[Gorgias]

In many ways, it’s the only idea in the Church that defies any kind of logic.

If you mischaracterize it, perhaps, but not if you understand what the teaching is.

To live a life that you never even chose

This defies logic. How can an entity that has no existence make a choice? And, once in existence, annihilation would be unjust. So, this claim can’t really stand up to reason.

predestined with sin

No. Maybe “predestined with concupiscence”, but not “sin”. You seem to be going with a Calvinist take on theology. Catholic theology precedes the Calvinist TULIP, and rejects it.

and imperfection that lasts at most 100 years

This follows from the very definition of physical existence: ‘change’ is what is characteristic of physical matter. Therefore, it must move between “more” or “less” perfection. Eventually, it gives out.

If not, you get eternal punishment, billions and trillions and quadrillions…(you get the idea) worse than the Holocaust, worst illnesses, etc that could even be imagined.

Huh? Where do you get that as the definition of hell? Those who choose God get eternity with God; those who reject God get eternity without God. Period.

Well, I highly doubt that anyone when posed the question, do you want eternal bliss, or eternal torture, that anyone actually chooses the torture.

That’s because you’re posing the wrong question.

The question is “eternity with God or without God?”

Free will means knowing the result of your action which in this case does not exist.

Certainly it does not. Free will merely means the ability to will a choice; it does not entail knowing all the outcomes of the choice.

 

[billy15]

In many ways, it’s the only idea in the Church that defies any kind of logic. To live a life that you never even chose, predestined with sin and imperfection that lasts at most 100 years, to prove whether you " chose" God. If not, you get eternal punishment, billions and trillions and quadrillions…(you get the idea) worse than the Holocaust, worst illnesses, etc that could even be imagined. That is not justice by any logic, it is sadistic insanity. The God I see in the bible is one of corrective punishment. This idea is completely contrary to that. And I know you’re going to say that the person chooses their destination, not God. Well, I highly doubt that anyone when posed the question, do you want eternal bliss, or eternal torture, that anyone actually chooses the torture. Free will means knowing the result of your action which in this case does not exist.

Your post was already rebutted above, but I have one more thing to add. People reject what the Church says is true. They know the consequences (some, at least) yet since they believe the teachings of the Church on salvation to be false, they ignore it. They have no faith in the Church, and that lack of faith is a free will decision.

I suggest reading this very short essay:

…if it is true that God saves all people in the end, no matter what they choose throughout their lives, then life is meaningless. None of it matters. All the decisions you’ve made throughout your life that went into making you as a person? Irrelevant. If this most important of choices is overruled by God in the end, what happens to the less important ones? Your entire life is obliterated. And in the process, so are you.

You were here for no good reason. Ultimately, none of your choices make the least little difference. And that leads us to the second awful idea. If, in the end, God (out of “love” of course) picks us up by the scruff of our necks, and gently says to us: “Oh no, you don’t want to be over there away from me. I am God, and I know what is best for you. You can’t be left to decide for yourself. I’ll make you obey me by showing you my beauty,”*** we are not free to choose ***something or someone other than God.

 

[laylow]

Certainly it does not. Free will merely means the ability to will a choice; it does not entail knowing all the outcomes of the choice.

So if you lived your life in a just way, took all of your trials with grace and met your judgement and all of the sudden God said, “Oh you did it all wrong, you were supposed to be selfish and take advantage of people, down you go to Eternal fire”
Would you think of that as justice? You’re not allowed to know the outcome.

 

[Gorgias]

So if you lived your life in a just way, took all of your trials with grace and met your judgement and all of the sudden God said, “Oh you did it all wrong, you were supposed to be selfish and take advantage of people, down you go to Eternal fire”
Would you think of that as justice? You’re not allowed to know the outcome.

That would be a different case altogether. That’s not an example of a failure of free will; it’s an attempt to cast God as a liar. It just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

However, you really have moved the goalposts. I didn’t claim that “you’re not allowed to know the outcome” in order to have free will, but rather, simply rejected your claim that free will entails full knowledge of outcomes. Big difference…

 

[laylow]

That would be a different case altogether. That’s not an example of a failure of free will; it’s an attempt to cast God as a liar. It just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

However, you really have moved the goalposts. I didn’t claim that “you’re not allowed to know the outcome” in order to have free will, but rather, simply rejected your claim that free will entails full knowledge of outcomes. Big difference…

God has never lied to me because I’ve never spoken with him.

 

[JPUSC]

In many ways, it’s the only idea in the Church that defies any kind of logic. To live a life that you never even chose, predestined with sin and imperfection that lasts at most 100 years, to prove whether you " chose" God. If not, you get eternal punishment, billions and trillions and quadrillions…(you get the idea) worse than the Holocaust, worst illnesses, etc that could even be imagined. That is not justice by any logic, it is sadistic insanity. The God I see in the bible is one of corrective punishment. This idea is completely contrary to that. And I know you’re going to say that the person chooses their destination, not God. Well, I highly doubt that anyone when posed the question, do you want eternal bliss, or eternal torture, that anyone actually chooses the torture. Free will means knowing the result of your action which in this case does not exist.

AMEN

 

[Wesrock]

Well, I highly doubt that anyone when posed the question, do you want eternal bliss, or eternal torture, that anyone actually chooses the torture.

That’s not the question posed, though. The question that’s posed, often and frequently, is what are your values? What are your priorities? Do you put the good first? Or do you frustrate the good to pursue your own selfish ends?

We’re equipped (in general) to know good from evil, and those individuals who don’t have that ability are incapable of mortal sin.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

God has never lied to me because I’ve never spoken with him.

Well, there’s your problem in a nutshell! Try speaking to him, praying to him and see what happens!

 

[Gorgias]

God has never lied to me because I’ve never spoken with him.

Well, then, I guess that you can’t claim that He’s unjust and thwarting your free will, then, eh?

 

[Darryl_B]

Farewell, Augustine, from the content of this thread, I guess you survived unscathed, and the title has turned in on itself.

 

[laylow]

Most priests don’t even preach Hell anymore, I haven’t heard a sermon about it in years. So although the Church hasn’t officially changed their stance, they have basically changed it through their actions. Like in the old days teaching in that manner created fear that helped bring more followers, present times avoiding talking about it is more advantageous in keeping membership.

 

[Gorgias]

Most priests don’t even preach Hell anymore, I haven’t heard a sermon about it in years. So although the Church hasn’t officially changed their stance, they have basically changed it through their actions.

Like in the old days teaching in that manner created fear that helped bring more followers, present times avoiding talking about it is more advantageous in keeping membership.

I think that the turn away from a harsh “command and control” mentality – the “breed fear” approach – is more indicative of a greater cultural trend, rather than a Church-initiated tack, don’t you? After all, it was the western experience that began with the 60’s that gave rise to the abandonment of certain modes of speech and act (and adoption of ‘kindler, gentler’ modes).

Does that mean that the Church has changed her doctrines? Of course not. However, as has been the experience of the Church throughout her history, she updates her language – but without changing the content – to be able to speak in the ways that the contemporary culture is itself using!

 

[laylow]

I think that the turn away from a harsh “command and control” mentality – the “breed fear” approach – is more indicative of a greater cultural trend, rather than a Church-initiated tack, don’t you? After all, it was the western experience that began with the 60’s that gave rise to the abandonment of certain modes of speech and act (and adoption of ‘kindler, gentler’ modes).

Does that mean that the Church has changed her doctrines? Of course not. However, as has been the experience of the Church throughout her history, she updates her language – but without changing the content – to be able to speak in the ways that the contemporary culture is itself using!

With the information age, more people are able to better education themselves to consider different lines of thought, instead of simply accepting the first teachings of their lives.

Yes, being in an age where challenging the teaching doesn’t get you killed definitely makes a big difference as well. I think the Hell Doctrine is probably the most influential reasons why I hear people leave the faith, even become agnostic or atheist.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

With the information age, more people are able to better education themselves to consider different lines of thought, instead of simply accepting the first teachings of their lives.

Yes, being in an age where challenging the teaching doesn’t get you killed definitely makes a big difference as well. I think the Hell Doctrine is probably the most influential reasons why I hear people leave the faith, even become agnostic or atheist.

It’s probably a big one, I agree. They definitely don’t want to acknowledge their own sinfulness and consequences of sin. That, and confession!

 

[laylow]

It’s probably a big one, I agree. They definitely don’t want to acknowledge their own sinfulness and consequences of sin. That, and confession!

No, I just hear much more about the comprehension of it, lack of logic, etc. Most people that fall away because of it think that the teaching was the sign of the times to scare people. We know in those days, the was a lot of fear with all of the tortures, etc. The Catholic church even fell in the trap and burned heretics at the stake. They think the teaching should change with the times. We don’t kill and torture people (for the most part, unless radical groups like ISIS) in today’s society, so why are we still teaching torture?

Most I hear think that the language is more like symbolic like Adam and Eve and the fruit. They either believe they will rest in peace and be saved, or cease to exist.