How easy is it to go to Hell?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic25
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fauken said:
They choose to reject Love and don’t want to be with Him for eternity. They’d prefer their sins. And so they get exactly what they want.
Click to expand...
Yet hell is not an eternity of them reliving their sins. In other words, the person commit fornication or self-gratification is not in hell committing more of the same. They are in hell burning in everlasting fire.
 
Inquiry said:
It’s not the speed that makes it a good depiction of Purgatory. Who knows how long the process lasted from the point of view of the man and the lizard? It is the consent and the explicit transformation of something base and impure into something good and holy that make it such a good representation of Purgatory for me.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I get that. Doesn’t change the fact that I’d love it if I could go from sinful to purified that quickly, or that my consent of the will to get rid of a bad habit could be so permanent here on Earth.
 
Last edited:
Mijoy2 said:
Yet hell is not an eternity of them reliving their sins. In other words, the person commit fornication or self-gratification is not in hell committing more of the same. They are in hell burning in everlasting fire.
Click to expand...
Rejecting God isn’t just committing the same sins over again. It’s also, if not most of all, refusing to repent of those sins.
 
LovelyLadybug said:
But I know the people in there hate God, I think
Click to expand...
You are correct. In Hell, a person is cut off from all that is Good (since they are cut off from God, the source of all Good.) Since Love is a Good, they cannot have any Love, and so they can only hate. They must hate God because they’ve chosen to reject even the ability to Love.
 
Are they?

It seems you are overly hung up on the fire imagery of Hell. And yes, for us on Earth it is very attention grabbing because burning is one of the most awful sensations we can imagine. But burning pales in comparison to the cold anger and silence of God. Hell could literally be a tropical island where you drink pina coladas and get massages all day long and because of the separation with God it would burn your heart worse than the hottest bonfire.
 
Jesus Beloved Savior spoke of white washed tombs full of all manner of corruption. These were outwardly pious, worshipers, prayed & fasted, gave tithes, and alms - but lacked justice and mercy. Someone does not have to
know Jesus Christ and His Church to exhibit a form of piety and godliness.
They often show concern for the poor and social justice.
These are the wolves in sheep’s clothing JESUS spoke of. Some are passive aggressive Church goers, but do so for prestige being vain; some lead others astray in a form of godliness, but justify things against the Law of God written in our hearts as enticements for a following.
A narcissistic personality often is not an open murderer, thief, kidnapper, etc.
They are good at ‘appearing’ to be loving, to ‘steal’ others love and concern.
Peace.
 
LovelyLadybug said:
I guess that makes sense. I probably shouldn’t have said they’re all hateful people. I was thinking of all the murderers, thiefs, kidnappers, etc… in hell.
Click to expand...
Does an adulterer/adulteress who cheats on his/her spouse because they find their spouse to be insufferable not hateful?

Does someone who can’t be bothered spending an hour with God just one day a week (and I’m not talking about those who can’t make it to Mass through no fault of their own) not hateful towards God? Would it be acceptable if instead of God I said a parent refuses to even spend one hour with their children to at least make sure they’ve had something to eat?

It’s easy to think of violent actions and those who commit them as hateful since they affect another innocent person. It’s very easy to see. But hate isn’t just physically hurting someone: it can be emotional and psychological.
 
Yeah, same. But I also know that I’ve also never chosen to kill the lizard either. Not fully. I’m not even sure I can yet. Still, I think I’m getting to the point where he might be sprouting the first hints of a mane.
 
What I find is that people parrot the hell discussion with popular phrases as opposed to a true intellectual discussion regarding the concept of everlasting fire.

The doctrine seems terribly flawed. One one hand we have well know and well respected Bishop (for example, I will not use his name here) who states that it is reasonable to believe all will be saved, and on the other hand we have countless saints suggesting most are damned to everlasting fire.

Poor analogy, I apologize, but I find it fitting. Imagine a CEO being interviewed on a money channel (CNBC, Bloomberg…whatever), being asked about the next years profit potential. He responds, “Not sure we may either make tons of money or we go bankrupt, I have no idea”.
 
Last edited:
They made a choice to not love God. That is, they chose not to obey, as Jesus says, if you love me you will obey me. Having chosen created things that cannot give them what they sought rather than the God who created those things they chose to love, they die in that state and forever cut themselves off from the love of God and the mirage of the thing they loved vanishes, leaving them with nothing. The love of God is what enables us to love others, ourselves, to experience mental and physical pleasure and any other good thing you can think of. They don’t have that anymore because they chose those things over God who made those things. They have nothing, for even what they had was taken away from them.
 
Socrates92 said:
Technically, it’s not a caveat. A caveat implies that there is something lacking in the teaching, which is simply false.
Click to expand...
That isn’t what my dictionary says. My dictionary defines a caveat as: “a warning or proviso of speciic stipulations, conditions, or limitations”
 
Fauken said:
Does an adulterer/adulteress who cheats on his/her spouse because they find their spouse to be insufferable not hateful?
Click to expand...
We don’t know if that person is going to hell, nor do we know if they hate their spouse.
Fauken said:
Does someone who can’t be bothered spending an hour with God just one day a week (and I’m not talking about those who can’t make it to Mass through no fault of their own) not hateful towards God?
Click to expand...
That doesn’t make them hateful towards God. There is nothing that automatically makes someone “hateful” it’s what they feel about God in their hearts and only God knows what that is. 🙂
 
Mijoy2 said:
The dilemma is that the Church teaches a loving God. Which is why I am torn. I desire to believe all the Church teaches. Yet this is contrary to reason which means there is something wrong. I readily admit it is likely me, my understanding. But I have to be adequetly corrected in this regard by a reasonable counter argument.

Perhaps I am simply too inarticulate to make my point more clear. From my perspective the Church is talking out of both sides of her mouth regarding what warrants hell.
Click to expand...
The concept of an eternal-Hell generates many dilemmas. And yes, it seems inescapably to be talking out of both sides of one’s mouth to assert the following two contraries:
  1. Lord, you have made us for yourself and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in You. You were more inward to me than my most inward part and higher than my highest. (Both statements are from St Augustine.)
  2. The entire human race is, on account of original sin, a massa damnata deserving of eternal-Hell and only escapes such a fate by the mysterious and gratuitous grace of God who is Love itself (also the position of St Augustine).
The dilemma occurs when God creates beings for the good final end of beatitude (e.g., humans). But then grants them such immense freedom such that they can, quite literally, ruin themselves, in spite of their natural end of beatitude, and likely in spite of limited understanding.

So, St Augustine (and Aquinas too) would have us believe that God has placed us in the most high-stakes game imaginable where the consequences are the mirror opposites of eternal bliss/beatitude in God on the one hand or eternal torment/suffering on the other hand.

To be sure, the church has held many opinions on this issue of Hell over the centuries. Many of the best and brightest saints and theologians have not tried to defend the Augustinian-Thomistic vision of Hell.

One could say much else besides @Mijoy2, but I’m just expressing that you are not alone in your reservations here. You are, rather, in good company.
 
Last edited:
Mijoy2 said:
The dilemma is that the Church teaches a loving God
Click to expand...
I hope this doesn’t come off as disrespectful because I genuinely don’t mean it to be.

I think the issue is that you have a faulty conception of Love. You don’t seem to be able to reconcile the notions of discipline and justice with your idea of what love is.

I love my son with every fiber of my being, I would die for him. Regardless, when he does something wrong I still must discipline him. If he takes something from another person, or hits someone, then it’s my duty as his father to correct the behavior. He’s only 2 right now, but as he gets older that duty only becomes more pronounced because he has a greater comprehension of his actions. When he turns 18, he may make the choice to cut me out of his life entirely. That is not what I want (it’s the furthest thing from what I want), and I would do pretty much anything morally possible to prevent that from happening, but in the end it is still a choice he can make.

That choice carries consequences. If he won’t let me into his life then I can’t offer him money to help for college, or be there for him when his relationships break down. I can’t help him get better when he’s sick, or do anything for him because of the choice he made.

God’s love is the same. He loves us with a ferocity we can’t even comprehend. My love for my son is a pale imitation of His love for us. Any yet, despite that love, He gives us the free will to able to tell Him no, and cut Him out of our lives. If we make that choice, that ultimate NO to the one who created us and from whom all Goodness flows then, out of love and respect for our autonomy, He will respect that decision.

Everything else about Hell is merely the consequence of that choice. Since we have rejected the Good, then we cannot have Good. Since we have chosen to embrace evil, then we will have Evil. It is painful because that is all it can be, it is hateful because that it all it can be. It is judgment because, by rejecting the Good of His mercy, that is all God has left to give us.

It is also the furthest thing from what God wants for us, just as a hard life separated from me is the furthest thing from what I want for my son. But, if that is the choice He makes then, as his father I will have to accept it and pray that He changes his mind. If he doesn’t before either of us dies, then that is the state our worldly relationship will end in. More than hoping and praying, God spends every moment of every day trying to get back into the hearts and minds of everyone who has rejected Him, He is doing everything possible to prevent that ultimate no, short of violating the free will He has given us.

I hope this helps you understand why there is no conflict here, not talking out of both sides of our mouth.
 
Last edited:
Of course we don’t know someone’s heart.
But if they behave that way with a full act of the will, they refuse Grace to turn toward GOD by the Merits of Jesus Christ in their heart.
The Church has healthy teaching on states of lack of knowledge.
Here is a good one. We are suppose to strive to help others not justify inherently evil things, which could land someone in damnation.
We are supposed to joyfully testify to how Godliness gives true journey of Peace of Jesus inside; which lack of contributes to destructive worldly sorrow hurting others. We need to foster Godly sorrow which leads to turning toward GOD by the Merits of Jesus Christ, for other’s well being, their family and society. Peace.

 
LovelyLadybug said:
We don’t know if that person is going to hell, nor do we know if they hate their spouse.
Click to expand...
I didn’t ask if that person was going to Hell. I asked if their actions were hateful.
LovelyLadybug said:
That doesn’t make them hateful towards God. There is nothing that automatically makes someone “hateful” it’s what they feel about God in their hearts and only God knows what that is. 🙂
Click to expand...
What would you like to call it then? Someone doesn’t even want to spend single hour out of the 168 available to them in a week with you. I said they couldn’t be bothered with spending a single hour with God, I already told you what was in their heart at the time. Is that or is that not hateful?
 
Magnanimity said:
One could say much else besides @Mijoy2, but I’m just expressing that you are not alone in your reservations here. You are, rather, in good company.
Click to expand...
Much appreciated. What is difficult is to not despair over such ambiguity and confusion. It puts one in the position of spending their life trying to reconcile this ambiguity. Although another reality is that one also must realize the reconciliation will likely never come in his lifetime.

Outside of a private revelation I cannot see this being resolved for me or for others who struggle with this. I guess I God has a plan, but it is sure bewildering.
 
Popular phrases like ‘everlasting fire’?

God offers salvation to everyone, so it is entirely reasonable to think that all are saved. However that requires that everyone accept it. Even people with utter trust in God can have very different levels of trust in humanity. Other than different levels of cynicism regarding our flawed and sinful nature, it doesn’t sound like the people you point to are saying different things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top