How easy is it to go to Hell?

[Inquiry]

I appreciate the commiseration, but while a part of my point was that I had seen others choose not to love, the whole point was that I was faced with the same choice myself. And certainly we can’t tell other people’s hearts, but as you point out love is more than a feeling it is also the choice to work for the good of the other. We have a somewhat higher ability to tell when people are working for or against us. God will be the judge, obviously, but we can gather enough information about the world to tell that loving someone is something we can choose to do or not do.

Also, the call to love never stops, I would never contest that point. Yet each of us always has the option of heeding or rejecting that call.

As for how God values us, indeed He does value us as a part of a greater whole and for our inherent worth. If you were the only human who ever lived He would value you no less. There is no need to think God only cares about our individual or communal values.

That’s what I meant by diminishment. If the salvation of all requires removing the individual value and will of some, that is a diminishment.

 

[oliver109]

I think it has to be preached more clearly about how easy, just how easy it is to go to Hell. Priests should talk about Hell being not so much a choice as a consequence, a consequence about not being bothered about things. By saying one chooses Hell one implies that one chooses to live in sin when in reality it is not so much choosing to live in sin as it is to choose to not be bothered to change one’s life and stop sinning, I am so guilty of it myself, I have had so many occasions when I have thought "it is much less effort to just masturbate say than it is to not masturbate and live with the …ahem… uncomfortable feeling that one gets when they do not masturbate. I never felt i was rejecting God though I was, perhaps the biggest sin I committed was not trusting God to help me give up rotten habits like masturbation and watching porn.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

This doesn’t seem right. It should be a greater offence to harm a more vulnerable person than one who has power to harm you for the offence.

Sadly, that’s not generally how the world works. If you’d prefer, I think my comparison between hitting my wife vs hitting a stranger is more apt, I was just looking for another grouping I could use to get my point across.

 

[ForeverLearn]

Their rejection of God now is the knife on the table. They see an existence without God, but they do not feel it. When they die, if that no is made final, then they will feel it.

And free will ends. 80 years of free will…and eternity without it. No way to spin it and say they still have free will, because then they eventually could come good. Everyone loves a good retribution story (well apparently accept “LOVE” itself)

 

[ForeverLearn]

I think it has to be preached more clearly about how easy, just how easy it is to go to Hell. Priests should talk about Hell being not so much a choice as a consequence, a consequence about not being bothered about things. By saying one chooses Hell one implies that one chooses to live in sin when in reality it is not so much choosing to live in sin as it is to choose to not be bothered to change one’s life and stop sinning, I am so guilty of it myself, I have had so many occasions when I have thought "it is much less effort to just masturbate say than it is to not masturbate and live with the …ahem… uncomfortable feeling that one gets when they do not masturbate. I never felt i was rejecting God though I was, perhaps the biggest sin I committed was not trusting God to help me give up rotten habits like masturbation and watching porn.

Personally, I think if churches started preaching Hell like they did in the past, the pews would be largely empty, sans the die-hards and old school parishioners. Bishops know this, and adjust accordingly.

I also think secretly, many of the priests don’t even believe it as it was/is taught. (Obviously just my personal opinion)

 

[Leek]

I see your point, I just think that the vulnerability of the person is the greater consideration. If a stranger is a poor old woman on the street they would be more vulnerable than a wife who is young and independent.

 

[Inquiry]

Actually, I’ve been thinking about it a lot and I do think they have free will, they just lack the motivation to use it to change their choice. I mean, the bare minimum for reconciliation is imperfect contrition, right? But what could help them develop imperfect contrition in Hell?

Certainly not fear of Hell since they are already there. What is left?

On Earth we can desire the things of this life. At the point of our death God offers the single greatest gift He could ever give. They didn’t take it, why would they take it in 100 years.

On Earth we can worry about temporal consequences. There are no temporal consequences they can face worse than Hell, so why try to escape them.

Without God’s help, can you think of a single source of regret they would ever develop in Hell?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

And free will ends. 80 years of free will…and eternity without it

I’m going to guess that you didn’t read one of my subsequent posts discussing this subject.

Free will does not end at death. What ends with that definitive “yes” or “no” is access to anything that can cause that free will to be shifted. There is no evil in Heaven and no good in Hell. As such, there is no presence of the other which could cause the free will of a person to begin to desire the contrary state.

It is not God’s fault that a soul has chosen to reject Him, and in so doing reject the very graces that could save it from itself. God spends a person’s entire life opening doors to them and calling them to repentance. He would welcome a story of retribution of the soul were capable of it, but the damned aren’t because they’ve definitively chosen to reject the source of repentance. That’s why He spends our lives calling us all to repentance and conversion. It’s why He sent his son in the first place. If Goes doesn’t like a redemption story He sure has an odd way of showing it.

If a stranger is a poor old woman on the street they would be more vulnerable than a wife who is young and independent.

I agree they are more vulnerable, but the gravity of the offense isn’t determined only on their vulnerability. The greater portion of gravity comes from my relationship to that person, because the closer the relationship the more I owe that person. I have a greater obligation to my wife in all things than I have to the random person on the street. That is not to diminish my obligation to the poor lady, I still owe her something as a child of God, but my obligation to my wife far exceeds my obligation to her. Hence, when I do something against my wife, it is far graver than doing it against a stranger.

 

[ForeverLearn]

I’m going to guess that you didn’t read one of my subsequent posts discussing this subject.

Free will does not end at death. What ends with that definitive “yes” or “no” is access to anything that can cause that free will to be shifted. There is no evil in Heaven and no good in Hell. As such, there is no presence of the other which could cause the free will of a person to begin to desire the contrary state.

It is not God’s fault that a soul has chosen to reject Him, and in so doing reject the very graces that could save it from itself. God spends a person’s entire life opening doors to them and calling them to repentance. He would welcome a story of retribution of the soul were capable of it, but the damned aren’t because they’ve definitively chosen to reject the source of repentance. That’s why He spends our lives calling us all to repentance and conversion. It’s why He sent his son in the first place. If Goes doesn’t like a redemption story He sure has an odd way of showing it.

I hadn’t, but now read both the above one and this one. Although both are well articulated and thoughtful, I don’t find either reasonable. I see them as an honorable attempt to resolve the unresolvable. An improper doctrine, makes a reasonable response impossible.

Being locked into a place or state, or however you want to define Hell is the absolute, deadset opposite of free will. You can’t just call it “shifted” free will or change the verbiage because you need to keep the free will aspect to aid in the other theological concepts. Free will must be defined the same way. If it is going to be used in order to explain the problem of evil, it must retain its definition when discussing the afterlife. If not, there is a gap in the understanding.

 

[Leek]

There are obligations towards the people close to us, but is that really absolute in determining a hierarchy? If I eat my husbands sandwich when he’s not looking it’s not a greater offence than eating the sandwich of a starving man.

 

[oliver109]

I still find it hard to believe that there are many people who definitively reject God to make themselves unredeemable, I think when one encounters sinners it is very rare that someone finds someone who is completely unrepentant and wedded to sin, like I said earlier most sin is the result of laziness/not trusting God enough rather than malice. I work in a restaurant and serving 100s of people a day you get a good idea about the general state of human nature, very abusive, horrible customers with a total lack of respect for anyone are very rare, we may get about 4 a year who are so obnoxious that we have to refuse service. On the other hand we get a lot of customers(maybe 20 or so a day) who are lacking in manners, can be impolite and just cannot seem to be bothered to make the effort to be decent, now I am not saying that these people are that bad, just that they need to learn and probably will hopefully learn to be a bit kinder.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Being locked into a place or state, or however you want to define Hell is the absolute, deadset opposite of free will. You can’t just call it “shifted” free will or change the verbiage because you need to keep the free will aspect to aid in the other theological concepts. Free will must be defined the same way. If it is going to be used in order to explain the problem of evil, it must retain its definition when discussing the afterlife. If not, there is a gap in the understanding.

Nothing about the definition of free will has changed in our examples. Let me ask you this. What do you think allows a person to change aspects of their will? Take, for example, the smoker who quits smoking, or the over-spender who buckles down and stops spending.

Is their shift in direction the result of mechanisms contained purely within the operation of the will, or is it the result of influences outside the person which direct the will towards a new end?

There are obligations towards the people close to us, but is that really absolute in determining a hierarchy? If I eat my husbands sandwich when he’s not looking it’s not a greater offence than eating the sandwich of a starving man.

I can’t argue with that one.

It’s not absolute, but it is a guiding principle. The point is that if the gravity of an offense is due at least in part to the relationship with the other and the extent to which we owe the offended party, then any offense against God takes on an immeasurable degree of severity due to our relationship with Him as our creator, and as a result of the fact that we owe Him literally everything.

 

[Inquiry]

Okay, so don’t call it shifted. But Hell is only achieved through the definite self exclusion from God. Once someone has done that how do they then develop the desire to ask for Him help. That desire is a grace He gives us, how do those who reject him completely get it?

 

[ForeverLearn]

Nothing about the definition of free will has changed in our examples

That is intellectually dishonest.

Let me ask you this. What do you think allows a person to change aspects of their will? Take, for example, the smoker who quits smoking, or the over-spender who buckles down and stops spending.

Is their shift in direction the result of mechanisms contained purely within the operation of the will, or is it the result of influences outside the person which direct the will towards a new end?

Allows? That is simple. The gray matter inbetween the ears and the associated nervous system.

 

[ForeverLearn]

Okay, so don’t call it shifted. But Hell is only achieved through the definite self exclusion from God. Once someone has done that how do they then develop the desire to ask for Him help. That desire is a grace He gives us, how do those who reject him completely get it?

Well, the person had the “desire” the millisecond before they died. What changed in the time their mind went blank to lose the desire.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

That is intellectually dishonest.

No, it isn’t, and if you’d answer my question I could show you that.

Allows? That is simple. The gray matter inbetween the ears and the associated nervous system.

You’re avoiding the question.

Is a shift in the will only the result of internal factors, or does it require an external factor to bring about change?

 

[Inquiry]

They didn’t have the desire the millisecond before death, or they wouldn’t be in Hell. What they had was a whole host of invitations to find some small kernel of that desire.Because in this world there are things that it is possible to achieve or avoid that aren’t available outside of it. Temporal things and attachments that don’t mean much when the prospect of Hell or Salvation is looking you right in the eye.

If someone is already experiencing Hell and they think that continuing to experience it for all eternity is preferable to accepting God’s hand, can you think of anything at all that they could find in Hell that would change their mind?

 

[ForeverLearn]

You’re avoiding the question.

Is a shift in the will only the result of internal factors, or does it require an external factor to bring about change?

Actually not really. My Dad’s “will” changed when he had a brain injury. He no longer reacted to external factors the same as he previously did.

There is ever-increasing scientific findings that show the physical composition of the brain and its workings combined with external factors determines their actions and feelings. (Psychopaths, sociopaths, etc)

So the thought is that if you could replicate someone’s brain exactly into other person’s (with AI, this may become a reality, and could expose them to the exact same conditions (virtual reality could someday accomplish this) then their reactions would be exactly the same.

The question then would be, what makes their actions actually their actions?

To play along with your thought experiment, I don’t know how showing that external factors influence will helps your argument. If God allows the external factors to change in a way that makes it impossible to improve or rehabilitate yourself, I don’t see how that could be described as all loving.

 

[ForeverLearn]

They didn’t have the desire the millisecond before death, or they wouldn’t be in Hell. What they had was a whole host of invitations to find some small kernel of that desire.Because in this world there are things that it is possible to achieve or avoid that aren’t available outside of it. Temporal things and attachments that don’t mean much when the prospect of Hell or Salvation is looking you right in the eye.

If someone is already experiencing Hell and they think that continuing to experience it for all eternity is preferable to accepting God’s hand, can you think of anything at all that they could find in Hell that would change their mind?

I see it to be impossible that such a person could exist.

 

[Inquiry]

So now you are rejecting free will?