Is eternal suffering pointless?

[Abba]

Second Council of Lyons, infallible teaching:

Council of Florence, infallible teaching:

If 1) Every embryo from the moment of conception has an eternal soul and 2) The Roman Catholic Church’s infallible teachings on this subject are true, then:

Hell is full to over-brimming with infants, children, miscarriages, aborted babies, etc. In fact, they are probably the majority population there.

This is sick, sick, sick, and incredibly warped. And yet, it is the inevitable and simple result of Catholic belief. It requires extensive mental gymnastics to get around this conclusion and retain a Catholic faith.

How do you explain the salvation of the Good Thief?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

How do you explain the salvation of the Good Thief?

If I believed that Jesus had the power to allow people to go to heaven, then I would say that the good thief repented. If I believed that baptism were necessary for salvation, then I would say the “good thief” is a straightforward example of “baptism of desire” or potentially “baptism of blood.”

I believe neither thing, and I think the situation with the two thieves is a product of legend, or the “artistic license” of the gospel writers.

However, attempts by theologians to show that unbaptized children, embryos, fetuses, or miscarriages, upon death attain baptism of either desire or blood are specious at best.

Honestly, I have spent years and years contemplating this subject. This isn’t what began my journey out of the church but it was the “straw that broke the camel’s back.”

You know, it’s funny. I didn’t leave because of “hot button” or “pelvic” issues, I left because the doctrines of the trinity, the real presence, immaculate conception, original sin, eternal hell, satan, and infallibility make no sense to me and I am literally unable to believe these things.

Actually, I think everyone is immaculately conceived, what I can’t believe is that there is only one such person and the rest of us are born doomed!

I digress, anyway, the question remains: Is eternal suffering pointless?

Fairly certainly.

However, the best response here is that we may have reason to suppose it isn’t pointless if hell has a radically different nature (i.e. it’s “what we want”) than thousands of years of Catholic tradition suppose. I take this to be tonyrey’s position. (Hell isn’t so bad after all, and it involves “compensations.”)

Once again, he has provided a plausible and reasonable answer which may give us a reason to doubt that eternal hell is pointless. However, if Catholic tradition is so wrong about something so important, can it be trusted to tell us the truth about other doubtful and important things? What else is misleading about it? What other things do we misunderstand?

 

[Abba]

If I believed that Jesus had the power to allow people to go to heaven, then I would say that the good thief repented. If I believed that baptism were necessary for salvation, then I would say the “good thief” is a straightforward example of “baptism of desire” or potentially “baptism of blood.”

I believe neither thing, and I think the situation with the two thieves is a product of legend, or the “artistic license” of the gospel writers.

However, attempts by theologians to show that unbaptized children, embryos, fetuses, or miscarriages, upon death attain baptism of either desire or blood are specious at best.

Honestly, I have spent years and years contemplating this subject. This isn’t what began my journey out of the church but it was the “straw that broke the camel’s back.”

You know, it’s funny. I didn’t leave because of “hot button” or “pelvic” issues, I left because the doctrines of the trinity, the real presence, immaculate conception, original sin, eternal hell, satan, and infallibility make no sense to me and I am literally unable to believe these things.

Actually, I think everyone is immaculately conceived, what I can’t believe is that there is only one such person and the rest of us are born doomed!

I digress, anyway, the question remains: Is eternal suffering pointless?

Fairly certainly.

However, the best response here is that we may have reason to suppose it isn’t pointless if hell has a radically different nature (i.e. it’s “what we want”) than thousands of years of Catholic tradition suppose. I take this to be tonyrey’s position. (Hell isn’t so bad after all, and it involves “compensations.”)

Once again, he has provided a plausible and reasonable answer which may give us a reason to doubt that eternal hell is pointless. However, if Catholic tradition is so wrong about something so important, can it be trusted to tell us the truth about other doubtful and important things? What else is misleading about it? What other things do we misunderstand?

Are you familiar with Most Holy Catholic Monastery?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Are you familiar with Most Holy Catholic Monastery?

OH boy, don’t talk about them or you’re going to get us both kicked off of this forum! I am familiar with them yes, but I’ve never been a sedevacantist. If you want to send me a private message that is fine, but I am not going to discuss this on this thread.

My faith is what I believe to be the original and latent faith of mankind: There is one God, and our job is to be good and do good. When we deviate from this path, we make ourselves and everyone else miserable. I believe the vast majority of humanity knows this deep within, and lives accordingly, regardless of culture or religion layered on top.

 

[paziego]

Our offences are not eternal but we are - and we are capable of choosing to live for ourselves as long as we like. Any objection?

What do you mean by choosing to live for ourselves?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Perhaps we can understand Hell better from the point of view of those who have been victims of systematic evil. The old spiritual songs sing joyfully that “dey is a Judgement a’ comin’”. And why so joyfully? To see justice done that will never take place in this lifetime.

And why should there be justice in the afterlife? To give hope to the hopeless.

Though my wife was assaulted by an inmate on day parole that left her with a lifelong and life-threatening illness I doubt entirely that she would enjoy seeing the offender punished in Hell. I doubt any of us would enjoy even observing any of our worst enemies being plunged into a lake of fire for even a single instant, let alone for an eternity…does it not seem strange that a loving faith would embrace the sadistic torment of one’s enemies as being anything at all to look forwards to…? I would find it hellish simply to be an observer…

Further, what might one expect to happen should one choose to intervene on behalf of the offender? (As Jesus might be expected to have done even for the sake of those who might have crucified him.) Would God ignore the request? If not, would He allow the offender to enter into Heaven? If so, could it be properly suggested that all of the souls in Hell might largely be considered to be there simply because no one may have forgiven them? Would such a thing then suggest that the merciless would enter into Heaven? At which point, would Heaven truly be paradise? For who might actively seek to spend an eternity among the merciless?

 

[Michael19682]

Though my wife was assaulted by an inmate on day parole that left her with a lifelong and life-threatening illness I doubt entirely that she would enjoy seeing the offender punished in Hell. I doubt any of us would enjoy even observing any of our worst enemies being plunged into a lake of fire for even a single instant, let alone for an eternity…does it not seem strange that a loving faith would embrace the sadistic torment of one’s enemies as being anything at all to look forwards to…? I would find it hellish simply to be an observer…

That the offender did such a thing seems like he is worthy of a lake of fire, but that your wife would not have it means she is extraordinary and forgiving. She must be profoundly blessed.

Further, what might one expect to happen should one choose to intervene on behalf of the offender? (As Jesus might be expected to have done even for the sake of those who might have crucified him.) Would God ignore the request? If not, would He allow the offender to enter into Heaven? If so, could it be properly suggested that all of the souls in Hell might largely be considered to be there simply because no one may have forgiven them? Would such a thing then suggest that the merciless would enter into Heaven? At which point, would Heaven truly be paradise? For who might actively seek to spend an eternity among the merciless?

Your response on this part gets to the core of what I have long called idiosyncratically the mathematics of forgiveness. Probably not an insight not known to others also. But it shows how when a person forgives, s/he sets aright the universe, saves it. We need to obtain God’s forgiveness and grace restored not because our sins can’t be forgiven by others (they can), nor because others are not “powerful enough” to forgive (they are), but because the consequences of our actions are always beyond human damage control. I can only imagine the reaction of the other loved one besides the victim herself in your true scenario. Your wife’s forgiveness of the man might cause his suspect entrance into heaven to not offend her, but what of her loved ones? If we didn’t have faith that God’s forgiveness is reason to forgive ourselves and others … also, it is mathematical because sin is diffuse in the world at large. Consequences intersect with consequences, with causes and more consequences, etc, since the time of the initial lie of Satan and its spread throughout all mankind. Hence there is a kind of distributive property at work: because your wife knows God forgives, and because she is closest to the harm, her love of God begins a chain reaction of restoration, whereby others can forgive based on her and in turn others examples specific to the incident. If the offender has received the Holy Spirit through sacrament, does not his faith in the forgiveness received at least in part depend on the manifest forgiveness of the “victim chain”; since after all, the source of the forgiveness is all the same – akin to a kind of commutative property of various math operations. Fullness of Spirit always equals Fullness of Spirit no matter how we combine the perceived sources.

 

[Abba]

OH boy, don’t talk about them or you’re going to get us both kicked off of this forum! I am familiar with them yes, but I’ve never been a sedevacantist.

I am not very familiar, but I have heard of the sedevacantist. I understand their position but I am not very acquainted if you will. So, when I was searching for the response of the Fathers of the Church to your arguments and Most Holy Family Monastery kept popping up I actually had to look up Most Holy Family Monastery. Then I understood they are the sedevacantist. I recognized the name Most Holy Family Monastery but I didn’t know why and what was up. I guess I just had to refresh my memory a bit.

As King Solomon said; ‘there is nothing new under the sun’, many arguments against the Catholic Church date back to the time of Christ. So, I like to read how some have already been addressed by the Saints. The arguments you present are presented in a book entitled: Outside The Church There Is No Salvation And Refuting Baptism Of Desire by Dimond from Most Holy Family Monastery even in their development and with the same touch of anger. I think there are different types of anger. I would say the anger Our Lord Jesus expressed at the temple is similar to that expressed by Father Pio at the confessional - it has a touch of indignation and this is different to the anger I picked up in the publication mentioned above and yours which is one that has a touch of disdain-nation )). Instead of making up words maybe I should just use - bitterness.- but there is more to it. And so I wondered on account of the similarities.

Due to this thread, I went ahead and read most of that publication. I almost read the whole thing but there were many parts I just scrolled down as I could see the line of the arguments. It was painful to read that - talk about cerebral gymnastics!!! I did not want to stretch my neurons too much and risk a stroke so - I skipped down a bit at times.

It would be fun to have a thread to minutely go over the logical development or better yet - lack thereof, and the misuse of quotations etc… of that publication. I actually was not aware that the topic sedevacantist is banned on this forum. I searched the rules and regulations and did not find any mention of it. Not that I care to discuss it, but it did come up and it would be fun to go through that publication and tear it apart someday. Actually, someone by the name of Frank M. Rega, S.F.O. had a little fun already: romancatholicism.org/pio-mhfm.html

I think when we are trying to be solely ‘intellectual’ about a topic or concern or argument - it’s good to make sure that we put our sentiments on the sideline or any predispositions. Otherwise, our emotions and/or disposition/s can blind us.

Peace.

 

[chimo]

Relying on the position that hell serves no purpose since we don’t know of any redemption from its darkness, the pain there would be useless. that argument/reality/position is one of the most prevalent criticisms of our religion, and why the “religion” gets rejected, and Christ along with it. a tragedy of false assumption.

St. Maria Faustina the Divine Mercy saint had visited hell in all its torments. This visitation had taught her about something about the souls who had entered into a state of hell. Most of these souls at the command of God had answered that they do not know about this existence of hell. The knowledge of the existence of hell does serve its purpose in that those who know about it probably will do something to avoid it.

 

[Abba]

However, attempts by theologians to show that unbaptized children, embryos, fetuses, or miscarriages, upon death attain baptism of either desire or blood are specious at best.

Honestly, I have spent years and years contemplating this subject. This isn’t what began my journey out of the church but it was the “straw that broke the camel’s back.”

You know, it’s funny. I didn’t leave because of “hot button” or “pelvic” issues, I left because the doctrines of the trinity, the real presence, immaculate conception, original sin, eternal hell, satan, and infallibility make no sense to me and I am literally unable to believe these things.

Actually, I think everyone is immaculately conceived, what I can’t believe is that there is only one such person and the rest of us are born doomed!

I digress…

Thank you for opening up and sharing the reasons for which you left the Church. I wouldn’t concern myself too much about a little digression to share and address questions that have lead you to leave the Church. The mission of this website is to defend and explain the faith and more important than a little digression on some random thread out of thousands, is to address your concerns and questions. We can always swing back on topic and certainly, I encourage you to start a thread for extensive discussions of these topics which obviously can use some explaining to you.

I wouldn’t concern myself very much either about starting a thread on topics that have been discussed tens of times in this forum. I think there is a great benefit for coming to understand a concept or answer to a ‘difficult’ question when we discuss it in the now with actually people responding to the actual person versus researching the topic or seeking the answer.

Peace.

 

[Vico]

…

Honestly, I have spent years and years contemplating this subject. This isn’t what began my journey out of the church but it was the “straw that broke the camel’s back.”

You know, it’s funny. I didn’t leave because of “hot button” or “pelvic” issues, I left because the doctrines of the trinity, the real presence, immaculate conception, original sin, eternal hell, satan, and infallibility make no sense to me and I am literally unable to believe these things. …

You do not have to understand, only assent to the dogmatic teachings of faith. The faith is revealed and may not be comprehended. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote:

**Summa Theologica II, II, 2 -

Article 1. Whether to believe is to think with assent?**

Objection 1. It would seem that to believe is not to think with assent. Because the Latin word “cogitatio” [thought] implies a research, for “cogitare” [to think] seems to be equivalent to “coagitare,” i.e. “to discuss together.” Now Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv) that faith is “an assent without research.” Therefore thinking has no place in the act of faith.

Reply to Objection 1. Faith has not that research of natural reason which demonstrates what is believed, but a research into those things whereby a man is induced to believe, for instance that such things have been uttered by God and confirmed by miracles.

Article 9. Whether to believe is meritorious?

Objection 3. Further, he who assents to a point of faith, either has a sufficient motive for believing, or he has not. If he has a sufficient motive for his belief, this does not seem to imply any merit on his part, since he is no longer free to believe or not to believe: whereas if he has not a sufficient motive for believing, this is a mark of levity, according to Sirach 19:4: “He that is hasty to give credit, is light of heart,” so that, seemingly, he gains no merit thereby. Therefore to believe is by no means meritorious.

Reply to Objection 3. The believer has sufficient motive for believing, for he is moved by the authority of Divine teaching confirmed by miracles, and, what is more, by the inward instinct of the Divine invitation: hence he does not believe lightly. He has not, however, sufficient reason for scientific knowledge, hence he does not lose the merit.

 

[arte]

I will try to respond.
When we sin, we really sin against God who is eternal and so our offense is eternal to Him. This is the reason, God became man and suffered and died in atonement for our sins. Our Lord Jesus is divine and as such His sacrifice is divine and eternal. He died for love of us, to make it possible for us to be forgiven for our sins through His eternal divine sacrifice. The offense was against a divine being, how could roasting a cow do? Animal sacrifice were insufficient for offending God.
God has done so much for us, so that we may be saved from eternal damnation to the point of sacrificing His only begotten son.
Because God sacrificed Himself (if you will) via that eternal sacrifice we can be all forgiven eternally.

Many thanks for your response.

Whilst our sins are eternal to God, it does not follow that He needs to punish us eternally. By roasting a cow, you are obviously referring to burnt offerings. Apparently, burnt offerings only satisfied God temporarily. He needed a human sacrifice to be satisfied for eternity. I find the sacrifice of Jesus to appease God to be very repugnant even if He is effectively sacrificing Himself to Himself. Whichever way we cut and dice it, a human sacrifice to appease a God is something the pagans believed in. We should avoid it like a plague

So, get this, the offense - the sin/s are committed against God Himself who is an eternal divine being.

If God is an eternal divine being then He should be able to handle us mere humans sinning against Him even if we repent of our sins in the afterlife. I don’t say that as carte blanche to go out there and sin all over the place. You do the crime, you do the time but the time should not be infinite.

David said that :

3For I know my transgressions, And my sin is ever before me. 4Against You, You only, I have sinned And done what is evil in Your sight, So that You are justified when You speak And blameless when You judge. Psalm 51:4

It is against God that we sin.

Yes, God is Love and is merciful but He is also just. The account has to be paid. But, He does a lot for us to lead us in the right direction - we all for example have a guardian angel etc… we can all repent via an inspiriation of the Holy Spirit etc… He left us the Church and the Sacraments etc…

I agree the account has to be paid. Therefore, God should use common sense along with His other attributes of love, mercy and justice and dole out justice to fit the crime.

We tend to judge others by who we ourselves are and what we would do or not do. A person who goes to hell knows why they are there - the rich man did not complain nor questioned why he was there neither did he file the complaint of the title of this thread. Instead he said to warn others…so they will not end up in hell.

The story of the rich man appeals to the lowest of emotions; fear. If a God wants us to fear him, he is not a God. On the contrary he is an evil being. We also see in this story that hell is not described as a place with the absence of God but a fiery hot place of suffering. No human being deserves to be put in a fiery hot place of suffering for eternity.

Take advantage of God’s mercy which is there to lead you to eternal salvation. After you die - you will be judged by The Just Judge.
Our fallen nature does not really allow us to understand but yes God is LOVE and He is JUST.

Peace

After I die, I will be judged by a Just Judge but the Just Judge is not the kind of Judge who oversees a disgraceful system of justice whereby people (including children?) go to eternal suffering without any chance of a reprieve.

Peace to you as well.

 

[arte]

They have a constant invitation to repent of their sins but they prefer to be absolutely free of all obligations and live exactly as they like without any restrictions. You underestimate the temptations of pride and power.

I certainly do not underestimate the temptations of pride and power. Most people are decent and have a sense of moral behavior. Yes, they could be more moral if they believed and followed Jesus. However, they do not deserve to be punished for eternity. There are people who are outside the above group but they also do not deserve to be punished for eternity.

In that case why do you call yourself a Catholic? Insulting God is not usually a sign of love and devotion…

I am a Catholic because I want to be a Catholic. The Catholic faith is the best of all the Christian denominations. One reason for this is because we encourage debate of our faith. I returned to our faith in 2004 after an absence of over 35 years. I am not insulting God. I am merely lining Him up with His attributes of divine love, mercy and justice. All religions need constructive criticism and that is what I am doing. The reason why Islam and its followers are in such a mess is because constructive criticism of their religion is not allowed.

What leads you to believe children are in hell. You seem to have a warped view of God…

The important point in my sentence was: **“The overwhelming vast majority of its (hell’s) inhabitants will be people who were nothing like Hitler and Stalin etc”. **

Doesn’t it bother you that the overwhelming vast majority of hell’s inhabitants will be people who are nothing like Hitler and Stalin etc?

What leads you to believe that children are not in hell? If you believe that hell exists and the overwhelming vast majority of the human race is going to end up there for eternity, then you seem to have a warped view of God.

 

[Abba]

You do not have to understand, only assent to the dogmatic teachings of faith. The faith is revealed and may not be comprehended. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote:

**Summa Theologica II, II, 2 -

Article 1. Whether to believe is to think with assent?**

Objection 1. It would seem that to believe is not to think with assent. Because the Latin word “cogitatio” [thought] implies a research, for “cogitare” [to think] seems to be equivalent to “coagitare,” i.e. “to discuss together.” Now Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv) that faith is “an assent without research.” Therefore thinking has no place in the act of faith.

Reply to Objection 1. Faith has not that research of natural reason which demonstrates what is believed, but a research into those things whereby a man is induced to believe, for instance that such things have been uttered by God and confirmed by miracles.

Article 9. Whether to believe is meritorious?

Objection 3. Further, he who assents to a point of faith, either has a sufficient motive for believing, or he has not. If he has a sufficient motive for his belief, this does not seem to imply any merit on his part, since he is no longer free to believe or not to believe: whereas if he has not a sufficient motive for believing, this is a mark of levity, according to Sirach 19:4: “He that is hasty to give credit, is light of heart,” so that, seemingly, he gains no merit thereby. Therefore to believe is by no means meritorious.

Reply to Objection 3. The believer has sufficient motive for believing, for he is moved by the authority of Divine teaching confirmed by miracles, and, what is more, by the inward instinct of the Divine invitation: hence he does not believe lightly. He has not, however, sufficient reason for scientific knowledge, hence he does not lose the merit.

Excellent post! Thank you.

I was thinking about it as well, but, from a biblical and spiritual direction. Immediately what came to mind were the comments of Our Lord Jesus and Mary regarding children.

P.s. I am listening to the sermons of Saint John Vianny, but, they are available in Spanish by a great reader. To listen is a pleasure because the speaker does not attract attention to himself so you can really just focus on listening to the sermons. It’s how I been falling asleep lately. Well, he gave many sermons about how death keeps us on our toes. It makes me think about those who spend decades trying to intellectually understand the teachings of the Church or of the Christian faith in order to assent. We need to keep in mind that time is valuable and death awaits us all.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I am not very familiar, but I have heard of the sedevacantist. I understand their position but I am not very acquainted if you will. So, when I was searching for the response of the Fathers of the Church to your arguments and Most Holy Family Monastery kept popping up I actually had to look up Most Holy Family Monastery. Then I understood they are the sedevacantist. I recognized the name Most Holy Family Monastery but I didn’t know why and what was up. I guess I just had to refresh my memory a bit.

As King Solomon said; ‘there is nothing new under the sun’, many arguments against the Catholic Church date back to the time of Christ. So, I like to read how some have already been addressed by the Saints. The arguments you present are presented in a book entitled: Outside The Church There Is No Salvation And Refuting Baptism Of Desire by Dimond from Most Holy Family Monastery even in their development and with the same touch of anger. I think there are different types of anger. I would say the anger Our Lord Jesus expressed at the temple is similar to that expressed by Father Pio at the confessional - it has a touch of indignation and this is different to the anger I picked up in the publication mentioned above and yours which is one that has a touch of disdain-nation )). Instead of making up words maybe I should just use - bitterness.- but there is more to it. And so I wondered on account of the similarities.

Due to this thread, I went ahead and read most of that publication. I almost read the whole thing but there were many parts I just scrolled down as I could see the line of the arguments. It was painful to read that - talk about cerebral gymnastics!!! I did not want to stretch my neurons too much and risk a stroke so - I skipped down a bit at times.

It would be fun to have a thread to minutely go over the logical development or better yet - lack thereof, and the misuse of quotations etc… of that publication. I actually was not aware that the topic sedevacantist is banned on this forum. I searched the rules and regulations and did not find any mention of it. Not that I care to discuss it, but it did come up and it would be fun to go through that publication and tear it apart someday. Actually, someone by the name of Frank M. Rega, S.F.O. had a little fun already: romancatholicism.org/pio-mhfm.html

I think when we are trying to be solely ‘intellectual’ about a topic or concern or argument - it’s good to make sure that we put our sentiments on the sideline or any predispositions. Otherwise, our emotions and/or disposition/s can blind us.

Peace.

I do not dispute that “baptism of desire” and “baptism of blood” are teachings of the legitimate Catholic Church, but I do dispute the idea that most of the children/non-Catholics who die meet the criteria for either of these, hence I believe that an informed Catholic will be required to believe that most people, including children, are punished forever in hell. That is sickness!

I am not a sedevacantist and never have been. The writings on that website strike me as the production of mental illness and superstition rather than love of God and neighbor. It is not my idea of a good time to parse through the works of the mentally ill and excessively superstitious, so I will pass, thanks. I used to read many different saints daily. Looking back, I do believe that many of them were mentally ill and excessively superstitious. There are many exceptions, of course.

You are right, I am somewhat bitter since I wasted so many years trying to force myself to believe things that are utterly unbelievable (to me) at the motivation of great fear. My bitterness and anger are fading though, and are gradually being replaced by gratitude. I might be going through the Kubler-Ross stages of grief.

I suppose God wanted me to be born as a Catholic, maybe, because he wanted me to experience the process of liberation from oppression and growth in honesty. I experienced Catholicism as spiritual, intellectual, and moral oppression. I used to pray “God, set me free!” I used to go to confession constantly, and whenever I received communion I would pray “God, if this isn’t the truth, please don’t punish me for this blasphemy and idolatry, but if it is the truth, please don’t punish me for this doubt!” God was a cruel, insincere torturer in my understanding as a Catholic.

When I finally admitted to myself that I simply didn’t believe, I felt the chains drop. Thank God! I was lying to myself, and lying to God. This self-deception is spiritual poison. However, I don’t think everyone’s spiritual path is similar to mine. And, I won’t detail my beliefs about God now, because I think it will border on proselytism and I don’t want to be kicked off of this board. However, I do believe God rescued me through doubts, and I am very grateful. I participate on this board because I see that many others are under the same torment I used to experience, and I believe I have a clear understanding of certain issues (gained with much effort and pain) that I can share.

 

[tonyrey]

They have a constant invitation to repent of their sins but they prefer to be absolutely free of all obligations and live exactly as they like without any restrictions. You underestimate the temptations of pride and power.

No one deserves to be punished for eternity but they have the right to punish themselves by choosing to be totally free of obligations to others…

In that case why do you call yourself a Catholic? Insulting God is not usually a sign of love and devotion…

I am a Catholic because I want to be a Catholic. The Catholic faith is the best of all the Christian denominations. One reason for this is because we encourage debate of our faith. I returned to our faith in 2004 after an absence of over 35 years. I am not insulting God. I am merely lining Him up with His attributes of divine love, mercy and justice. All religions need constructive criticism and that is what I am doing. The reason why Islam and its followers are in such a mess is because constructive criticism of their religion is not allowed.

“lining up” and declaring God’s attributes are incompatible…

What leads you to believe children are in hell?

The important point in my sentence was: “The overwhelming vast majority of its (hell’s) inhabitants will be people who were nothing like Hitler and Stalin etc”.

What leads you to believe children are supposed to be in hell?

Doesn’t it bother you that the overwhelming vast majority of hell’s inhabitants will be people who are nothing like Hitler and Stalin etc?

What leads you to believe people who are nothing like Hitler and Stalin are supposed to be in hell?

What leads you to believe that people who are nothing like Hitler and Stalin children are not in hell?

Children are not morally responsible.

If you believe that hell exists and the overwhelming vast majority of the human race is going to end up there for eternity, then you seem to have a warped view of God.

Thank God I don’t believe such nonsense.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

St. Maria Faustina the Divine Mercy saint had visited hell in all its torments. This visitation had taught her about something about the souls who had entered into a state of hell. Most of these souls at the command of God had answered that they do not know about this existence of hell. The knowledge of the existence of hell does serve its purpose in that those who know about it probably will do something to avoid it.

So the point of hell is that it is an effective “scare tactic?” Faustina refute this, most ironically, by stating that most of the souls in hell didn’t know it existed! I guess it wasn’t such an effective scare tactic then, was it? Unless, God doesn’t really desire all to be saved, and is OK with torturing some in order to scare others enough to save them. This is reminiscent of a mafioso.

“Nice soul ya got there, it’d be a shame if something happened to it.”
“What do you mean?”
“Well, who knows, it could end up being tortured for eternity in fire, that’s what happened to Johnson just down the street. You’d do anything to avoid that, right? All ya gotta do is pay, pray, and obey buddy and you’re good to go.”


A mafioso is OK with killing Johnson in order to scare others into submission. Do you think God is this way too?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

You do not have to understand, only assent to the dogmatic teachings of faith. The faith is revealed and may not be comprehended. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote:

**Summa Theologica II, II, 2 -

Article 1. Whether to believe is to think with assent?**

Objection 1. It would seem that to believe is not to think with assent. Because the Latin word “cogitatio” [thought] implies a research, for “cogitare” [to think] seems to be equivalent to “coagitare,” i.e. “to discuss together.” Now Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv) that faith is “an assent without research.” Therefore thinking has no place in the act of faith.

Reply to Objection 1. Faith has not that research of natural reason which demonstrates what is believed, but a research into those things whereby a man is induced to believe, for instance that such things have been uttered by God and confirmed by miracles.

Article 9. Whether to believe is meritorious?

Objection 3. Further, he who assents to a point of faith, either has a sufficient motive for believing, or he has not. If he has a sufficient motive for his belief, this does not seem to imply any merit on his part, since he is no longer free to believe or not to believe: whereas if he has not a sufficient motive for believing, this is a mark of levity, according to Sirach 19:4: “He that is hasty to give credit, is light of heart,” so that, seemingly, he gains no merit thereby. Therefore to believe is by no means meritorious.

Reply to Objection 3. The believer has sufficient motive for believing, for he is moved by the authority of Divine teaching confirmed by miracles, and, what is more, by the inward instinct of the Divine invitation: hence he does not believe lightly. He has not, however, sufficient reason for scientific knowledge, hence he does not lose the merit.

The problem is that “moved by the authority of Divine teaching confirmed by miracles” is a belief in the first place. I don’t believe that the Catholic Church has divine authority, and I’ve never seen a miracle confirming the same. I see a human religious institution like any other.

I understand Aquinas as saying: “belief is assent to a teacher with divine authority confirmed by miracles, even if the content of the proposed beliefs are unintelligible to reason.” Fine, however, to consider a human institution as having that divine authority in the first place is itself a belief that would require another, superior divine authority to meet his own criteria of meritorious belief. You may respond that this authority is Jesus. That is all well and good, but I have no reason to suppose much about Jesus, because those who have told me about him are not trustworthy by any reasonable metric. They say such fantastic things that are so incredibly unlikely (and of which I cannot confirm they have true knowledge), that the meager evidence provided is simply insufficient.

I do not know Jesus. Never met him. I’ve heard lots of contradictory things about him, but he is no more real to me than Hannibal or Socrates. I’ve read fantastic tales about Hannibal, and I similarly have little reason to suppose that they are actual fact. For the same reason I don’t have a good enough reason to think Mohammed was God’s prophet, I don’t have a good enough reason to believe Jesus was God. For the same reason I do not believe “The Watchtower” speaks with the voice of God, I do not believe the same of the Catholic Church, or any other church.

Further, the kind of “belief” Aquinas is describing here is actually a mode of “obedience” rather than belief (at best). At worst, it is a mode of spiritual self-deception and self-destruction.

For instance, my wife has a PhD in math and I am unable to understand many of the propositions she understands as “true” because I do not have the requisite training or power of reason. I trust that these propositions are true because she is an expert. However, it can’t be said that I “believe them.” I merely suppose they are true and don’t pay it any further attention.

However, are the propositions of faith similarly esoteric and obscure, like abstract high level math? Should we trust the experts? When the priest says “this piece of bread is God, kneel and worship it,” should we mouth “Amen” though our common sense and intuition rage against something prima facie false? I don’t know whether homologous lie groups can be interpolated over Hilbert space or whatever, but I have obvious reasons to suppose that bread is not God himself! My wife asks me to believe she has a true understanding of something that is not intelligible to me, and that is OK because it doesn’t ultimately matter. The church asks me to believe something obviously false about the most important things, and provides either no or seriously dubious evidence, and that is not OK!

On top of it, they make threats. “You better pretend to believe this, because you could die any second, and if you don’t believe, it is straight to eternal doom, do not pass Go, do not collect $200 for you!”

Anyway, to pretend to believe something just to escape the threat of punishment is to debase oneself and do violence to one’s own humanity. Feigned belief under threat of torture is not laudable humility, it is craven ignobility and should be scorned and shunned.

 

[paziego]

The problem is that “moved by the authority of Divine teaching confirmed by miracles” is a belief in the first place. I don’t believe that the Catholic Church has divine authority, and I’ve never seen a miracle confirming the same. I see a human religious institution like any other.

I understand Aquinas as saying: “belief is assent to a teacher with divine authority confirmed by miracles, even if the content of the proposed beliefs are unintelligible to reason.” Fine, however, to consider a human institution as having that divine authority in the first place is itself a belief that would require another, superior divine authority to meet his own criteria of meritorious belief. You may respond that this authority is Jesus. That is all well and good, but I have no reason to suppose much about Jesus, because those who have told me about him are not trustworthy by any reasonable metric. They say such fantastic things that are so incredibly unlikely (and of which I cannot confirm they have true knowledge), that the meager evidence provided is simply insufficient.

I do not know Jesus. Never met him. I’ve heard lots of contradictory things about him, but he is no more real to me than Hannibal or Socrates. I’ve read fantastic tales about Hannibal, and I similarly have little reason to suppose that they are actual fact. For the same reason I don’t have a good enough reason to think Mohammed was God’s prophet, I don’t have a good enough reason to believe Jesus was God. For the same reason I do not believe “The Watchtower” speaks with the voice of God, I do not believe the same of the Catholic Church, or any other church.

Further, the kind of “belief” Aquinas is describing here is actually a mode of “obedience” rather than belief (at best). At worst, it is a mode of spiritual self-deception and self-destruction.

For instance, my wife has a PhD in math and I am unable to understand many of the propositions she understands as “true” because I do not have the requisite training or power of reason. I trust that these propositions are true because she is an expert. However, it can’t be said that I “believe them.” I merely suppose they are true and don’t pay it any further attention.

However, are the propositions of faith similarly esoteric and obscure, like abstract high level math? Should we trust the experts? When the priest says “this piece of bread is God, kneel and worship it,” should we mouth “Amen” though our common sense and intuition rage against something prima facie false? I don’t know whether homologous lie groups can be interpolated over Hilbert space or whatever, but I have obvious reasons to suppose that bread is not God himself! My wife asks me to believe she has a true understanding of something that is not intelligible to me, and that is OK because it doesn’t ultimately matter. The church asks me to believe something obviously false about the most important things, and provides either no or seriously dubious evidence, and that is not OK!

On top of it, they make threats. “You better pretend to believe this, because you could die any second, and if you don’t believe, it is straight to eternal doom, do not pass Go, do not collect $200 for you!”

Anyway, to pretend to believe something just to escape the threat of punishment is to debase oneself and do violence to one’s own humanity. Feigned belief under threat of torture is not laudable humility, it is craven ignobility and should be scorned and shunned.

Slow clap

 

[jmcrae]

This discussion could go on forever - which makes me wonder if the pain of Hell is simply that the damned argue endlessly against God and reality, and that they simply cannot escape from arguing because in their pride they can’t stop until they convince God of whatever unreality it is that they simply must make real.

I am only speculating, but I imagine that an eternity spent with unbelievers would be an eternal argument.