If Hell exists, Having Children Is Evil

[PumpkinCookie]

Aquinas certainly didn’t teach that anyone is predestined for hell. What is better: to maximise or minimise the danger of becoming evil? The saints may well have exaggerated the consequences of being proud, selfish, lazy, greedy, envious, lustful, impatient, callous, intolerant, cynical, hypocritical and self-righteous but it is better to err on the side of caution rather than carelessness. It is very easy to slide slowly by degrees down the slippery slope to a hell of one’s own making. The dictum “Corruptio optima pessima” is borne out by the facts. Power, wealth or success makes a person more liable to the temptation to feel superior to others and treat them accordingly.

The saints were not hypocrites because they chose to suffer, perhaps too much but at least they wanted to share the suffering of others and their Master. They were extremists but not at the cost of other people’s suffering. Most of them shared the lives of the poor and they understood far better than most of us the real meaning of evil. St Vincent took the place of a galley slave because he couldn’t bear to see the man being tortured unjustly. They knew the only solution to unnecessary suffering is to explain why it exists, how it can be prevented and put their words into action. They witnessed how hell exists in this world and realised we are all responsible if we do nothing to change society and the best way to do that is by inculcating fear as well as hope in our minds and hearts. Not to be afraid of hell is not to be afraid of being evil and to think we can get away with whatever we like provided we are careful. We have to be made to appreciate the extent to which we can ruin people’s lives even by ignoring them and making them feel unwanted.

It is probably impossible to strike the correct balance between inspiring people with the hope of heaven and discouraging them with the fear of hell. I believe it is better to err on the side of caution knowing how easily I have been tempted and afterwards regret my weakness and selfishness. It is obviously wrong to strike fear into children’s hearts but it is also wrong to give them the impression they don’t need to think about whether something is right or wrong. The millions of abortions performed in recent years is an unmistakable sign of decadence in our society. When heaven and hell disappear from the scene we can easily believe it doesn’t really matter how we behave as long as we can get away with it. If the saints hadn’t existed the world would be in a far worse state than it is - and that is a terrifying prospect…

Why is there is little red fist pointing downward next to your post? That isn’t nice! Who did that, and how does one even do that? How ridiculous, this is a good post and the poster is trying to make a point!

Aquinas on reprobation: newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm#article3

I have been both powerful, wealthy, and successful as well as powerless, poor, and a failure. I agree with you that there is much more spiritual danger for certain kinds of sins while one’s life seems to be “going well” (pride, scorn, hate, arrogance, etc). When one is weak and poor, sins like anger, fear, envy, despair, etc are more of a temptation, in my opinion. But, in either case, the thought of an eternal hell beneath my feet does nothing but tempt me to despair and hatred of God. Further, the point of this thread is to discuss whether or not it is morally right to have children while believing that they might end up there. Whether or not hell is just an exaggeration for the purpose of deterrent is being discussed in the other thread called “An Eternal Hell Doesn’t Make Sense.” There are good points being made there.

I don’t believe there is any “unnecessary suffering” in this world. I believe God is totally sovereign and rules the universe with absolute power, knowledge, and love. I do not believe the saints were hypocrites for choosing to suffer, especially if their suffering brought relief to others. That makes them heroes.

We don’t need a false belief in an eternal hell to be motivated to do what is right, correct? God is always watching, and will punish or reward us in this life. To say he would punish us forever is to cast aspersions on his goodness and justice, in my opinion. Teaching children this is wrong, in my opinion. Hell makes the “gospel” into “horrible, evil news.”

I agree with you that abortion is a heinous and evil crime. I believe God will punish us collectively as a civilization for approving of it, and individually if we are guilty of it or complicit in it. I just don’t believe the punishment will be eternal hell. I don’t believe in hell and I think it is very important, in fact the most important thing, to do what is right and avoid evil. Just because I won’t be tortured endlessly in a demon-filled hell doesn’t mean I don’t take God’s punishments and lack of rewards seriously. Further, sin is its own punishment, I think you would say the same.

 

[meltzerboy]

St Augustine is far from being the ultimate authority on heaven and hell. His teaching was modified by St Thomas Aquinas whose reasoning was more logical and systematic with the advantage of almost a thousand years of progress in insight and knowledge of the implications of Christ’s teaching:

There is no disagreement between the Pope and the Catechism:

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.

No one considers the saints to be infallible nor is the truth determined the majority. The development of Catholic doctrine is evidence that it is not static and fossilised but takes into account discoveries in theology, philosophy, psychology and sociology. The teaching of Jesus and the social teaching of the Church are the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the principles of liberty, equality and particularly fraternity.

Then Catholic doctrine must have the seeds of flexibility and applicability embedded in it to enable the (re)interpretation of its meaning by informed individuals, whether Catholic philosophers, Fathers of the Church, saints, cardinals, or even popes. This is similar to Judaism except that in the latter instance, the individual, no matter how authoritative, inspired, inerrant, or “infallible” in matters of religious and moral teaching, is not regarded as the final word in the interpretation of doctrine.

 

[DCNBILL]

Then Catholic doctrine must have the seeds of flexibility and applicability embedded in it to enable the (re)interpretation of its meaning by informed individuals, whether Catholic philosophers, Fathers of the Church, saints, cardinals, or even popes. This is similar to Judaism except that in the latter instance, the individual, no matter how authoritative, inspired, inerrant, or “infallible” in matters of religious and moral teaching, is not regarded as the final word in the interpretation of doctrine.

I would agree with this statement with the addition that there are certain “truths” Dogmas that are held as certain.

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius;12967437:

The problem is what you arguing against is not what Catholics actually believe. You clearly have grave misunderstandings of what Catholics believe and how it happens. I think it would help clear up your misunderstandings if you would just read through The Catechism.
Then you will be able to effectively argue against what Catholics actually believe.

How can you be certain of "what Catholics believe?

The official explanation of Catholic teachings is in The Catechism. You have such severe misunderstandings of what is meant by Catholic teachings that you are not arguing against any actual Catholic teachings. In short, you are arguing against things that we don’t actually teach. Now there is a very simple path to correct understanding. To understand what is being said with by Augustine or in any other Church writing, read The Catechism which will give the proper understanding. You will continue to have these misunderstandings of Catholic teaching if you do not avail yourself of this simple explanation of what is meant.

I hope you will do this, then you will be able to effectively dispute authentic Catholic teaching and we can have a more productive discussion.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

The official explanation of Catholic teachings is in The Catechism. You have such severe misunderstandings of what is meant by Catholic teachings that you are not arguing against any actual Catholic teachings. In short, you are arguing against things that we don’t actually teach. Now there is a very simple path to correct understanding. To understand what is being said with by Augustine or in any other Church writing, read The Catechism which will give the proper understanding. You will continue to have these misunderstandings of Catholic teaching if you do not avail yourself of this simple explanation of what is meant.

I hope you will do this, then you will be able to effectively dispute authentic Catholic teaching and we can have a more productive discussion.

OK I went back and looked into The Catechism. Here is what I found:

Q. 1376. Why does Christ judge men immediately after death?

A. Christ judges men immediately after death to reward or punish them according to their deeds.

Q. 1378. What are the rewards or punishments appointed for men’s souls after the Particular Judgment?

A. The rewards or punishments appointed for men’s souls after the Particular Judgment are Heaven, Purgatory, and Hell.

Q. 1379. What is Hell?

A. Hell is a state to which the wicked are condemned, and in which they are deprived of the sight of God for all eternity, and are in dreadful torments.

Q. 1380. Will the damned suffer in both mind and body?

A. The damned will suffer in both mind and body, because both mind and body had a share in their sins. The mind suffers the “pain of loss” in which it is tortured by the thought of having lost God forever, and the body suffers the “pain of sense” by which it is tortured in all its members and senses.

So, from this I gather that:

1. Hell is eternal punishment
2. We are “condemned” to go there
3. Hell is relentless, endless suffering (dreadful torments)
4. The torment will be both spiritual and physical

Regarding whether the RCC teaches predestination: on the surface, they disavow the pre-destination of souls to hell. However, Aquinas taught reprobation very clearly. Read the link above. Further, to say that some people are pre-destined to heaven and others not, while also maintaining an omniscient God, inescapably implies pre-destination to hell. This is a matter of unsettled controversy within the RCC, I will grant that. But, you would think that an organization that claims the “fullness of truth” would know whether or not God arbitrarily withholds efficacious grace from some either arbitrarily or based upon the knowledge of conditional merit. I personally think the dogma of the Immaculate Conception implies the latter, but still though it is a controversy.

 

[PRmerger]

The official explanation of Catholic teachings is in The Catechism. You have such severe misunderstandings of what is meant by Catholic teachings that you are not arguing against any actual Catholic teachings.

Indeed.

And I think it is quite telling that Pumpkin uses the term “RCC” when he actually means “CC”.

Poor catechesis and knowledge of the Catholic faith = straw men arguments.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Indeed.

And I think it is quite telling that Pumpkin uses the term “RCC” when he actually means “CC”.

Poor catechesis and knowledge of the Catholic faith = straw men arguments.

Maybe this hypothesis makes you feel better for some reason? How could someone knowingly reject the RCC’s teachings after having examined them closely? If they’re true, wouldn’t any rational person believe them? Next you’ll be arguing that I’m not rational. Still though, I am doing nothing but quoting RC fathers, doctors, councils, popes, saints, catechisms, and mystical visions (just like everyone else does on this board).

I humbly submit for your consideration the possibility that the vast majority of RC “believers” actually have no knowledge or incorrect knowledge about what must be believed according to their own religion. I humbly suggest that many of the people on this board are included in this group. Indeed, how many of you complain about the “poor catechesis” of most of the people in the RCC?

In my experience as a Roman Catholic, I encountered the vast majority to be well-meaning people who believe in a very friendly, very loving God-ish idol. This particular idol is only based upon the historical teachings of the RCC though, and I don’t think it makes sense to say this more modernized friendly Catholicism is the same thing as the historical traditional faith. I am far from the only person to think this, and are all of us completely ignorant?

Like I said before, I use the term “Roman Catholic” to draw attention to the fact that the origin of this religion is Graeco-Roman paganism inspired by 1st century Jewish beliefs. I understand that Catholics just call themselves “Catholic” because they want the church to be “universal” and “prior to culture” or something like that. Both of these ideas are pretense though, and nothing more! Catholicism is the descendant of the Graeco-Roman religion. It is no more universal than Roman lettering. If this belief isn’t distinctly “Roman” then why are the headquarters in Rome?? Why must everyone “submit to the Roman Ponitff” or be anathema?

This is all beside the point though. Please tell me how you think I misunderstand RC doctrine, specifically. It would be great if you responded to the quotes from Aquinas, Augustine, the 1993 Catechism, and the Baltimore Catechism.

 

[PRmerger]

Maybe this hypothesis makes you feel better for some reason?

Well, that’s a little like this:

Teacher: you are misinformed, Pumpkin. The capital of Mongolia is Ulan Bator. Not Tibet, which is what you keep asserting.

PC: Well, if this hypothesis makes you feel better that I am misinformed, go for it.

Still though, I am doing nothing but quoting RC fathers, doctors, councils, popes, saints, catechisms, and mystical visions (just like everyone else does on this board).

Sure, when you quote them in context, understood correctly, we say

But you seem to be working under some egregious misunderstandings of Catholicism.

You are aware that it is the Catechism which is the sure norm for the faith, NOT “mystical visions”, or Aquinas, Augustine, Anselm…

Although these great thinkers were indeed Catholic, and had trenchant and (typically) orthodox theology, their writings are not to be confused with, “The CC teaches this because I read it online that Aquinas said this.”

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Well, that’s a little like this:

Teacher: you are misinformed, Pumpkin. The capital of Mongolia is Ulan Bator. Not Tibet, which is what you keep asserting.

PC: Well, if this hypothesis makes you feel better that I am misinformed, go for it.

Sure, when you quote them in context, understood correctly, we say

But you seem to be working under some egregious misunderstandings of Catholicism.

You are aware that it is the Catechism which is the sure norm for the faith, NOT “mystical visions”, or Aquinas, Augustine, Anselm…

Although these great thinkers were indeed Catholic, and had trenchant and (typically) orthodox theology, their writings are not to be confused with, “The CC teaches this because I read it online that Aquinas said this.”

I see it more like this:

Teacher: you are misinformed, Pumpkin. The capital of Mongolia is Ulan Bator. Not Tibet, which is what you keep asserting.

PC: Brings book to teacher written by guy who lived in Mongolia and is one of the founders of Mongolia according to the “Official Mongolian Authority on All-Things Mongloian” The author says: “Tibet is undoubtedly the capital of Mongolia.” Brings a different book called “Summary of Mongolian Geography For Beginners” by a guy with the title “wonderful expert on all things Mongolian” given by the “Official Mongolian Authority on All-Things Mongolian.” The author says: “Tibet is not not the capital of Mongolia.”

Teacher: But you understand that only the latest version of the “1993 Official Book of All Things Mongolian” published by the Official Mongolian Authority on All-Things Mongolian can be trusted right? All that other old stuff isn’t reliable.

PC: So you mean to tell me that those other guys were wrong about the capital of their own country? And, further, that I am wrong to trust their opinions? They actually know nothing about the capital of Mongolia, and to rely on their opinions is to mis-understand Mongolian geography?

Teacher: Yes. Your argument fails because it is based on those other guys, where the 1993 Official Book of All Things Mongolian leaves out the part about the capital being Tibet. You are sadly misinformed.

PC: OK if that makes you feel better.

 

[Jawiley]

Like all the other posters have stated, there are so many flaws with the Lottery scenario. But let’s say it was this way. The person is still left with a choice. You mentioned that the amount of cost was the same for any amount of tickets.
There are really only 2 choices:

Buy all combinations of numbers.

               OR

Not buy enough to ensure you have the right combination.

The choice is ours, just like it is ours to choose to be in good standing with Jesus and his commandments.

I hope this makes sense. Of course I don’t agree with you and your scenario, but I think when dealing with theoretical questions, it is sometimes important to play along with them and debate because the person asking the question needs that scenario knocked out before they can move on. God Bless

 

[PRmerger]

I see it more like this:

Teacher: you are misinformed, Pumpkin. The capital of Mongolia is Ulan Bator. Not Tibet, which is what you keep asserting.

PC: Brings book to teacher written by guy who lived in Mongolia and is one of the founders of Mongolia according to the “Official Mongolian Authority on All-Things Mongloian” The author says: “Tibet is undoubtedly the capital of Mongolia.” Brings a different book called “Summary of Mongolian Geography For Beginners” by a guy with the title “wonderful expert on all things Mongolian” given by the “Official Mongolian Authority on All-Things Mongolian.” The author says: “Tibet is not not the capital of Mongolia.”

Teacher: But you understand that only the latest version of the “1993 Official Book of All Things Mongolian” published by the Official Mongolian Authority on All-Things Mongolian can be trusted right? All that other old stuff isn’t reliable.

PC: So you mean to tell me that those other guys were wrong about the capital of their own country? And, further, that I am wrong to trust their opinions? They actually know nothing about the capital of Mongolia, and to rely on their opinions is to mis-understand Mongolian geography?

Teacher: Yes. Your argument fails because it is based on those other guys, where the 1993 Official Book of All Things Mongolian leaves out the part about the capital being Tibet. You are sadly misinformed.

PC: OK if that makes you feel better.

LOL! Really?

So you want to insist that the capital of Mongolia is Tibet.

Go for it.

I demur.
google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=capital%20of%20mongolia

Quite telling, indeed, that your argument is that you want to insist on your story, despite the facts.

As for me and my fellow informed Catholics:

 

[Ignatius]

Indeed.
And I think it is quite telling that Pumpkin uses the term “RCC” when he actually means “CC”.
Poor catechesis and knowledge of the Catholic faith = straw men arguments.

Yup, there is absolutely no evidence of a sincere desire for understanding authentic Catholic teaching.

For that reason, I’m out.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

LOL! Really?

So you want to insist that the capital of Mongolia is Tibet.

Go for it.

I demur.
google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=capital%20of%20mongolia

Quite telling, indeed, that your argument is that you want to insist on your story, despite the facts.

As for me and my fellow informed Catholics:

http://media.tumblr.com/f406ba98bcb73dcc62fdc1da6bc35c57/tumblr_mx7y36972G1rt5f2yo1_500.gif

I’m not trying to say the capital of Mongolia is Tibet LOL!

The point of the illustration is to show that your methodology of what you believe constitutes “RCC” beliefs is incomplete is is unable to account for the vast history of your own tradition.

If I’m wrong, so are Aquinas, Trent, Augustine, St. Faustina, St. Theresa de Avila, St. Anselm, St. Francis de Sales, you get the idea…

I do agree that they are all wrong, just like I recognize that Tibet is not the capital of Mongolia. I’m playing “devil’s advocate” with this entire thread to illustrate my point, which no one has successfully refuted, except by either affirming that eternal hell is “good” or that the 1993 Catechism is the only true source of RC teachings (the “no-true-Scotsman” fallacy if there ever was one)!

Further, I have demonstrated by quoting the 1993 Catechism that the church teaches:

1. Eternal Hell
2. Hell is Punishment

That’s all I need from the RCC for my thesis to stand. That they also teach that the suffering of hell is physical torment, that God reprobates some to it, etc, serves only to demonstrate that the teaching itself is more insane and cruel than many would consider, having read only the 1993 Catechism.

If you don’t want to think about this, that is OK. I certainly don’t believe that God will punish you forever and ever for refusing to think about this problem.

Like I said before, I have abandoned the lottery analogy.

Also, Ignatius, please by all means have a good day, and thanks for participating. I wish you would stay and explain to me what the RCC really teaches. I have quoted the 1993 Catechism, the Baltimore Catechism, Trent, Aquinas, Augustine, and Catholic Answer’s very own tracts in support of my understanding of the RCC’s teaching about hell. Maybe I totally misunderstand. I would benefit if you would please explain, specifically, exactly what I am misunderstanding. If you could show that the RCC actually says any one of the following, my argument would begin to wobble and shake:

1. Hell is not eternal
2. Hell is not punishment
3. Hell does not involve torment
4. Human souls must exist, by necessity, forever
5. God does not know who goes to hell
6. No one goes to hell
7. It is rational to suppose no one goes to hell
8. The souls in hell like it there and keep liking it forever
9. The doors of hell are “locked from the inside” voluntarily
10. Souls can leave hell if they want to
11. Anything like this…

I’m trying to help you argue against me. Go ahead, find me a RC source you accept to support one of those 1-10 or any other thing that would deny either the eternity or punishment nature of hell.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not trying to say the capital of Mongolia is Tibet LOL!

That’s EXACTLY what you’re saying.

You are stating: Hey! Even though every resource that’s been shown to me states that Ulan Bator is the capital, I read somewhere on the internet that someone said it’s Tibet…so that’s what I’m sticking with.

Okey dokey then.

You have shown how adamantine you are to your story, despite the facts.

 

[davidv]

{snip}1) Eternal Hell
2) Hell is Punishment{snip}

Both of these are true statements. Neither of them, singly, or in combination lead logically to your OP.

God desires each person conceived be with him in heaven. Each one is offered sufficient grace to do so. To not have children would be the denial of someone’s entry into heaven.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

That’s EXACTLY what you’re saying.

You are stating: Hey! Even though every resource that’s been shown to me states that Ulan Bator is the capital, I read somewhere on the internet that someone said it’s Tibet…so that’s what I’m sticking with.

Okey dokey then.

You have shown how adamantine you are to your story, despite the facts.

I didn’t just read this on the internet LOL! I link to things because I can’t just mail you my highlighted copies of the various sources. Plus, it is much easier for those following this thread to read the evidence for themselves. The people that have been quoted in this thread and the others about hell aren’t just internet troll loons, they’re the architects and builders of the Catholic Faith. Further, nothing in the 1993 Catechism contradicts or fundamentally undermines my argument anyway. Hell just seems a little bit less bad, but it is still the absolute worst thing that can happen to anyone, and as such, it is morally incumbent upon us to avoid this for our children. The only sure way they can avoid hell is to never be born.

My mind is open and ready to be changed. I have suggested 10 different ways my opinion could be changed. Simply asserting that my argument is against a straw man and not the “real” version of hell isn’t sufficient, because I have shown that the concept of hell I’m working with is indeed the Roman Catholic one. Again, read Aquinas, it is perfectly clear. He even says his teaching about original sin is “required” for Catholic faith. If you have a source of equal gravity that refutes this, please do share, for the benefit of all.

I thought of a new tack to help illustrate the problem with your defense. Imagine that next week, Pope Francis decides to infallibly proclaim that Mary is included within the Godhead, and that the doctrine of the trinity has “developed” into a doctrine of the “quadrinity” or something like that. It isn’t that far fetched ok? If he can declare that Palestine is a country, he might be able to do something like this.

I can hear the shouts now: “but that’s impossible! he would never do that! development of doctrine doesn’t work that way! arggh!” Yes, yes, I know. I have read Newman. Just bear with me.

OK so just for the sake of illustration, the Pope solemnly and infallibly proclaims this “development” in doctrine. How would you deal with this, intellectually speaking? You would declare that he has automatically excommunicated himself by teaching heresy right? And therefore, he has ceased to be the pope. However, how would you know that the prior 2000 years of RCC teaching couldn’t be simply “misinterpreted” about whether Mary is divine? Just as those who argue that hell really isn’t so bad, or is empty, or is totally voluntary, etc have to argue that the prior teachings don’t really contradict the newer teachings, you could do the same for…well just about anything, even something as outrageous as saying Mary is divine.

Do you see the problem here? It seems that your concept of what constitutes “Roman Catholic Beliefs” is non-rigorous and based upon whatever “seems right” or something like that. You may think my concept is based on cursory readings of unimportant or out-of-date catechisms and doctors of the church, but again I ask: if the RCC has the “fullness of truth,” does that truth change? Can the truth contradict itself or become “out-of-date?” Honestly, you might think so. I am prepared to change my mind depending on your evidence.

That said, I will let you have the last word. If all you want to do is say that I’m not willing to listen or that I’m arguing against a straw man (but fail to provide opposing evidence) then I’m afraid this discussion has become unproductive. I have said my piece, and the opposing silence is deafening (except for the guy who said that hell is “good”). Hopefully this discussion will come up on Google when people search these questions, and I hope it will be useful to them.

Let the reader decide. There is a lot of good stuff in this thread, so please nobody do anything to cause it to get censored. Thank you and have a great day.

 

[tonyrey]

Why is there is little red fist pointing downward next to your post? That isn’t nice! Who did that, and how does one even do that? How ridiculous, this is a good post and the poster is trying to make a point!

I have no idea. Perhaps the devil is at work!

I have been both powerful, wealthy, and successful as well as powerless, poor, and a failure. I agree with you that there is much more spiritual danger for certain kinds of sins while one’s life seems to be “going well” (pride, scorn, hate, arrogance, etc). When one is weak and poor, sins like anger, fear, envy, despair, etc are more of a temptation, in my opinion. But, in either case, the thought of an eternal hell beneath my feet does nothing but tempt me to despair and hatred of God.

It would be more logical not to believe in God if we all receive the same treatment after we die.

Further, the point of this thread is to discuss whether or not it is morally right to have children while believing that they might end up there. Whether or not hell is just an exaggeration for the purpose of deterrent is being discussed in the other thread called “An Eternal Hell Doesn’t Make Sense.” There are good points being made there.

It would be evil to make people afraid of hell if it doesn’t exist. The thought of Purgatory should be quite enough but then when we consider the hideous atrocities in the world it doesn’t seem an adequate deterrent.

I don’t believe there is any “unnecessary suffering” in this world. I believe God is totally sovereign and rules the universe with absolute power, knowledge, and love

.
Then why do people suffer so much when they have done nothing to deserve it? Are those guilty of atrocities compelled to commit them?

I do not believe the saints were hypocrites for choosing to suffer, especially if their suffering brought relief to others. That makes them heroes.

We don’t need a false belief in an eternal hell to be motivated to do what is right, correct? God is always watching, and will punish or reward us in this life.

The problem is that no one remembers or believes God is always watching us. That is when the trouble starts.

To say he would punish us forever is to cast aspersions on his goodness and justice, in my opinion.

To say that we punish ourselves is more reasonable and consistent with belief in His goodness and justice

Teaching children this is wrong, in my opinion. Hell makes the “gospel” into “horrible, evil news.”

Not if we make it clear that Jesus died for us because He loves us so much and** if we love him we cannot possibly go to hell**.

I agree with you that abortion is a heinous and evil crime. I believe God will punish us collectively as a civilization for approving of it, and individually if we are guilty of it or complicit in it. I just don’t believe the punishment will be eternal hell. I don’t believe in hell and I think it is very important, in fact the most important thing, to do what is right and avoid evil. Just because I won’t be tortured endlessly in a demon-filled hell doesn’t mean I don’t take God’s punishments and lack of rewards seriously. Further, sin is its own punishment, I think you would say the same.

Sin is certainly its own punishment and the only form of punishment. There is no need for arbitrary infliction of pain by anyone else. Just to be publicly confronted with all the unnecessary misery and suffering we have inflicted on others is enough to make us feel ashamed, isolated and unwanted. And this is not fleeting but dependent on our refusal to admit we are not justified in putting ourselves first. There seems no reason why this state of mind shouldn’t persist indefinitely if we are more deeply concerned about our own pleasure and satisfaction than anything else. We can quite easily live in our own little world and forget about others but our isolation and frustrated ambition will be a constant source of irritation and even anger. The lust for power can overcome every other consideration - as we can see from what happens in this world. It is a drug that destroys a person without being fatal but total extinction is not the solution because no one wants to be annihilated as long as life offers some form of fulfilment - even if it is only partial and painful. **It is better to be someone rather than no one!
**
Nor are the damned complete failures because they are successful in at least one respect: they have achieved their ambition of having complete control of their own kingdom without having to obey anyone else or be subservient like slaves who cannot live as they choose. They have absolute freedom as far as they are concerned and that of course has advantages as well as disadvantages. No form of life is sheer bliss or sheer misery. Even in heaven joy must be tinged with regret because love is not confined to the virtuous. It is universal; otherwise it would be imperfect. God has compassion and shares the suffering even of those who are in hell because He knows how they feel but He accepts it because He respects their decision to be independent. Ultimately freedom is more important than anything else in life…

 

[tonyrey]

Then Catholic doctrine must have the seeds of flexibility and applicability embedded in it to enable the (re)interpretation of its meaning by informed individuals, whether Catholic philosophers, Fathers of the Church, saints, cardinals, or even popes. This is similar to Judaism except that in the latter instance, the individual, no matter how authoritative, inspired, inerrant, or “infallible” in matters of religious and moral teaching, is not regarded as the final word in the interpretation of doctrine.

Then Catholic doctrine must have the seeds of flexibility and applicability embedded in it to enable the (re)interpretation of its meaning by informed individuals, whether Catholic philosophers, Fathers of the Church, saints, cardinals, or even popes. This is similar to Judaism except that in the latter instance, the individual, no matter how authoritative, inspired, inerrant, or “infallible” in matters of religious and moral teaching, is not regarded as the final word in the interpretation of doctrine.

The Church’s teaching is that our conscience is our ultimate authority. Catholics accept that doctrine but we also believe there are fundamental truths given to us by Jesus that we cannot dispute. These have been handed down by the community He founded to spread His teaching throughout the world. He choose Peter as its foundation because He knew there would be dissension. The fact that it has survived for two thousand years is a sign that “the gates of hell have not prevailed against it” and that it has remained faithful to His teaching.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . There is a lot of good stuff in this thread, so please nobody do anything to cause it to get censored. . .

If it gets censored, was it a waste of time, an evil, to have begun the thread?

 

[PRmerger]

If it gets censored, was it a waste of time, an evil, to have begun the thread?