Is eternal suffering pointless?

[Michael19682]

Wow, you’ve made something that is easy to understand into something which is difficult. There are other meanings for wrath but they include: extreme anger, rage, fury, or outrage. I cannot understand how an omnipotent could express these feelings. He could feel disappointed by our actions which rightfully may lead to some form of punishment. However, this punishment must be humane and finite otherwise God’s justice is very poor justice and certainly well below the standard of human justice in an advanced nation.

If you check into the origins of this thread, you will see that member tonyrey began a question asking if suffering was ever pointless. The answer that converged from those responses was that only eternal suffering is pointless. Finally, eternal suffering only comes about if the person wants to.
Hence, I agree with you on some points, even the possible non existence of eternal suffering. But my reasons are different than yours.
Wrath, is so totally contingent on perception that it is scarcely worth discussing so obvious a point. The worst form, death, is a segue to new life. This is awesome beyond measure. Yet if we refuse the gift and choose rather to sink into a miasma of stinking gasses, that is wrath in awesome proportions.
I don’t see what more can be said.
As some would have it, perhaps also those with your notion of justice, a person loses his free will to choose the cesspool. In that case, God becomes no longer like a father, but like a puppeteer who never really needed to put on the show of life. Considering all life’s pains, it would seem cruel to end the show for us mortals without at least a doctrine that preserves our choice. If I knew by divine decree that I had no choice to make at my final hour, I might well ask what choice I ever had in life, and therefore why I was ever punished for what was essentially no choice of mine.

 

[tonyrey]

Every person who has lived into their adult years, and who has sufficient use of reason and free will, is able to obtain at least a baptism of desire by the love of neighbor. Many people also have the opportunity to be baptized by water, since they know about Christianity and the Church. If anyone is so selfish as to never choose to love their neighbor with a true selfless spiritual love (by which they would obtain an implicit baptism of desire), they are guilty of a sin of omission. If this sin of omission has the full culpability of an actual mortal sin, then the person can be condemned to Hell for that sin. They die in a state of original sin, since they did not obtain any form of baptism, which wipes away original sin.

Thanks, Ron. At the outset it seems unlikely anyone would be so evil but when we remember the diabolical atrocities that have been committed methodically for years on end it becomes more credible. Being a helpless victim of systematic torture would help us to understand the real meaning of Hell. Fiendish delight in the suffering of others cannot always be attributed to insanity or ignorance…

 

[PumpkinCookie]

…PumkinCookie, I hope this helps.

Peace…

Muchas gracias por la traduccion!

 

[PumpkinCookie]

On the point about babies dying in original sin:

The Magisterium infallibly teaches (Florence, Lyons II) that those who die in original sin alone go to Hell. But the Magisterium has not decided the question as to whether unbaptized infants die in original sin.

My interpretation is that the souls who die in original sin alone are those adults who died unrepentant from the actual mortal sin of omission of never having found sanctifying grace in this life, despite ample opportunity. So only those guilty of some type of actual mortal sin go to Hell. Infants are not guilty, so I believe they are given the state of grace before death.

“Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.” Pope Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, n. 7.

“For God forbid that all children, of whom daily so great a multitude die, would perish, but that also for these, the merciful God, who wishes no one to perish, has procured some remedy unto salvation…” Pope Innocent III, Denzinger, n. 410.

“Since Christ died for everyone, and since the ultimate calling of each of us comes from God and is therefore a universal one, we are obliged to hold that the Holy Spirit offers everyone the possibility of sharing in this Paschal Mystery in a manner known to God.” Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes, n. 22.

“Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all.” Pope John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio, n. 10

1. All infants who are not baptized are guilty of original sin.
2. All those who die in original sin alone go immediately and permanently to hell.
3. Therefore, all infants who die before baptism go immediately and permanently to hell.

It seems that you could dispute premise 1 by saying that God could provide some means of removing the guilt of original sin other than baptism, though we have no knowledge of this. You can’t dispute premise 2 without denying infallible teachings of the Church. The conclusion seems valid based on the premises.

Your proposed explanation of the category “those who die in original sin alone” as actually referring to those who are guilty of a mortal sin of omission (failure to seek baptism) seems to be unwarranted. The council could easily have explained that “those who die in original sin alone” actually means “those who fail to seek baptism.” Further, it is a teaching of the Church (I think, could be wrong) that those in original sin are incapable of avoiding actual sin once they reach the age of reason. So, there are no people who are guilty only of a “mortal sin of omission” and original sin alone, except infants. Except, infants can’t possibly be guilty of a mortal sin at all, whether of commission or omission, since their wills are merely possible instead of active. Only the gestational stages of human beings through the age of reason fit the description “in original sin alone.”

This is a very old debate, but the problem is, the modern church sides with Pelagius. If they were to come right out and infallibly proclaim that infants who die without benefit of baptism do not immediately descend to hell, then they would have to seriously revise much of the theology growing out of the “original sin” doctrine. Also, it would be odd (to say the least) if the Church were to flatly contradict her own doctors and greatest theologians. Consider also, the suffering and heartbreak caused by the belief that precious children are tormented forever. There isn’t an apology sufficient enough for the generations of bereaved parents if the Church has been wrong about this for 1500 years.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

When you’re dealing with hardened atheists, cynics and sceptics what else do you suggest?

Let them be. When the desire for life, love, and happiness becomes stronger than selfish pleasure, they’ll come around. No need to “hard-sell” God to anybody. God is certainly sufficient and wonderful without our meddling, in my opinion.

 

[tonyrey]

Let them be. When the desire for life, love, and happiness becomes stronger than selfish pleasure, they’ll come around. No need to “hard-sell” God to anybody. God is certainly sufficient and wonderful without our meddling, in my opinion.

There is no absolute guarantee the hardhearted will ever come round. Fairy tales always have happy endings but we have to face the horrific reality of evil - which is not something we can sweep under the carpet. It has a habit of coming back, assuming it ever goes away. Perhaps it goes into hiding to give us a false sense of security. We know from experience there seems to be no limit to the extent people can lie and deceive to get what they want. I don’t believe every man/woman has his/her price but corruption is so widespread it has to be taken into account. God doesn’t have to be sold but we have to be vigilant against being bought!

 

[Jelrak_TB]

When you’re dealing with hardened atheists, cynics and sceptics what else do you suggest?

One method that may appear to work with such as these is a patient and positive example…

 

[tonyrey]

When you’re dealing with hardened atheists, cynics and sceptics what else do you suggest?

I entirely agree. Compassion for all - including ourselves! We’re all in the same boat…

 

[arte]

If you check into the origins of this thread, you will see that member tonyrey began a question asking if suffering was ever pointless. The answer that converged from those responses was that only eternal suffering is pointless. Finally, eternal suffering only comes about if the person wants to.
Hence, I agree with you on some points, even the possible non existence of eternal suffering. But my reasons are different than yours.
Wrath, is so totally contingent on perception that it is scarcely worth discussing so obvious a point. The worst form, death, is a segue to new life. This is awesome beyond measure. Yet if we refuse the gift and choose rather to sink into a miasma of stinking gasses, that is wrath in awesome proportions.
I don’t see what more can be said.
As some would have it, perhaps also those with your notion of justice, a person loses his free will to choose the cesspool. In that case, God becomes no longer like a father, but like a puppeteer who never really needed to put on the show of life. Considering all life’s pains, it would seem cruel to end the show for us mortals without at least a doctrine that preserves our choice. If I knew by divine decree that I had no choice to make at my final hour, I might well ask what choice I ever had in life, and therefore why I was ever punished for what was essentially no choice of mine.

It was a good idea by tonyrey to gauge the responses to “if suffering was ever pointless”. It also brings us back to the main point in this debate: “Is eternal suffering pointless?” The response demonstrates that eternal suffering serves no purpose because there is no redemption from it. The only purpose that I can see is its use as a deterrent to frighten people. It was your opening post that caught my interest in this important debate specifically **“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”. ** This has been mentioned to me along with other religious doctrines by atheists to reject God. I can certainly understand the rationale behind their reasoning for rejecting Christianity and any other religion that has the same or similar system of eternal punishment. Can you please expand on **“a tragedy of false assumption”. **

“Finally, eternal suffering only comes about if the person wants to”.
I don’t believe anyone wants eternal suffering unless they’re mega masochists. People reject Christianity or other religions because they see no evidence for God and with that they do not believe in hell. They also quote negative and to them unbelievable points about religion in general and with it Christianity; e.g. Islamic wars/terrorism, Adam and Eve, Noah’s Ark, violence in the Old Testament condoned/committed by God, being dictated to by people who lived in the desert thousands of years ago, the list goes on and on. Their belief in science over religion also has an impact on many people.

“Wrath, is so totally contingent on perception that it is scarcely worth discussing so obvious a point”.

On the contrary, the wrath of God has nothing to do with perception but all to do with objective evidence. The objective evidence for God’s wrath is for all to see by reading the Old Testament. If you believe in the flood and Noah’s Ark, then wiping out the whole World’s population with the exception of a few people requires a heck of a lot of wrath. And, wanting to wipe out the Israelites in Exodus 32:10: “Now leave me alone so that **my anger ** may burn against them and that I may destroy them”. God certainly has some anger (wrath) issues and there are loads more examples in the Old Testament.

Returning to hell and eternal punishment, it is obvious that it is well out of sync with any kind of just punishment. It is also well out of sync with the attributes given to God such as divine love, mercy and justice; all of which are “supposed” to be much stronger than ours. There is simply no justification for hell whatsoever. Strangely, weddings and funerals “Christians” say to me: “If there’s a heaven, there must be a hell”. “What happens to Hitler, child killers, terrorists etc?” They look perplexed though when told that they may end up there!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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.

Redemption from darkness is certainly not the point of hell, but rather the point of heaven.

Hell’s purpose seems to be justice rather than redemption.

The purpose of justice is certainly not pointless.

If hell is what people are willing to settle for, that is the final point of their existence pure and simple.

 

[Michael19682]

Redemption from darkness is certainly not the point of hell, but rather the point of heaven.

Hell’s purpose seems to be justice rather than redemption.

The purpose of justice is certainly not pointless.

If hell is what people are willing to settle for, that is the final point of their existence pure and simple.

Yes. If a person truly wants that, then that is the final point. But they deserve better, and it remains an unsatisfactory choice probably conditioned by poor life circumstances or whatever that were the result of sin and persecution against them.
Under those circumstances, justice would serve no purpose. You’d have the equivalent of driven insane witness convicted of a crime that others said he committed, but that he didn’t.
Sometimes the weight of public opinion can radically confuse a person as to their desires and wants. I don’t believe God would allow that – no, he would snatch from the fire.

 

[Ron_Conte]

1. All infants who are not baptized are guilty of original sin.
2. All those who die in original sin alone go immediately and permanently to hell.
3. Therefore, all infants who die before baptism go immediately and permanently to hell.

It seems that you could dispute premise 1 by saying that God could provide some means of removing the guilt of original sin other than baptism, though we have no knowledge of this. You can’t dispute premise 2 without denying infallible teachings of the Church. The conclusion seems valid based on the premises.

The Church infallibly teaches that there are three types of baptism: water, desire, blood. Yes, if any person of any age, conceived with original sin, has not received some form of baptism, they remain without salvific grace (they are still under original sin).

However, you are wrong to assume that only a baptism of water is available to infants. And what would then be available to prenatals? Prenatals and infants may well be given a baptism of blood (or some say desire), prior to death, so that they are freed from original sin.

I don’t dispute premise 2, I dispute the tacit assumption in premises 1 and 3 that only a baptism of water is available to infants. I disagree with those who narrow the baptisms of desire and blood so that these will not be available to infants, nor even to most adults.

The Church infallibly teaches the universal salvific will of God. And baptism of water is unavailable to prenatals who die in the womb. So we can faithfully and reasonably draw the theological conclusion that prenatals who die in the womb receive either a baptism of desire or of blood.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Sometimes the weight of public opinion can radically confuse a person as to their desires and wants. I don’t believe God would allow that – no, he would snatch from the fire.

We know that Christ preached a state of eternal damnation for those who would not be snatched from the fire.

 

[Michael19682]

We know that Christ preached a state of eternal damnation for those who would not be snatched from the fire.

Instead of locking horns with you on this Charlemagne, I will ask you a question that you can hopefully point to Christ’s preaching in regard’s to.
Why is the will frozen at death?

Christ, though he was the good Lord himself, arose on the 3rd day? If we examine his final breath of life, it appeared his body and mind died in quite a state of despair. Yet on rising, he brings nothing but good news and the joy he has been given for his saving work. From the human standpoint, why the change of heart?

 

[Michael19682]

it was a good idea by tonyrey to gauge the responses to “if suffering was ever pointless”. It also brings us back to the main point in this debate: “is eternal suffering pointless?” the response demonstrates that eternal suffering serves no purpose because there is no redemption from it. The only purpose that i can see is its use as a deterrent to frighten people. It was your opening post that caught my interest in this important debate specifically **“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”. ** this has been mentioned to me along with other religious doctrines by atheists to reject god. I can certainly understand the rationale behind their reasoning for rejecting christianity and any other religion that has the same or similar system of eternal punishment. Can you please expand on **“a tragedy of false assumption”. **

it is tragedy of false “assumption” because people think they are assumed (taken into)hell with no choice of their own at death. They do not recognize the church’s belief as i was taught it: Only if you want hell do you go there. As an aside, i’ll tell you that i was actually approached by a college student researcher who said she was doing an experiment where she needed “volunteers” to go to hell. Supposedly it was re-incarnation research, and they wanted to know if hell was permanent. The metric would have been that her subjects (mostly protestants as she chose them in her group) would return to life as human if hell was temporary; and thus re incarnation would be proven. I can’t tell you how disgusting i thought her hypothesis to be. She was testing faith, and wanted to know if catholics had stronger faith, would be saved more likely than not etc. Her belief is part of the tragedy. Only god can save us from hell, and that is because he searches the heart. He knows things about us that we can scarcely articulate, much less know. Is this a more rounded answer? Can you understand my interest in the subject?

“finally, eternal suffering only comes about if the person wants to”.
i don’t believe anyone wants eternal suffering unless they’re mega masochists.

she supposedly had lots of “heroic” volunteers for hell.

people reject christianity or other religions because they see no evidence for god and with that they do not believe in hell. They also quote negative and to them unbelievable points about religion in general and with it christianity; e.g. Islamic wars/terrorism, adam and eve, noah’s ark, violence in the old testament condoned/committed by god, being dictated to by people who lived in the desert thousands of years ago, the list goes on and on. Their belief in science over religion also has an impact on many people.

true enough as far as it goes.

on the contrary, the wrath of god has nothing to do with perception but all to do with objective evidence. The objective evidence for god’s wrath is for all to see by reading the old testament. If you believe in the flood and noah’s ark, then wiping out the whole world’s population with the exception of a few people requires a heck of a lot of wrath. And, wanting to wipe out the israelites in exodus 32:10: “now leave me alone so that **my anger ** may burn against them and that i may destroy them”. God certainly has some anger (wrath) issues and there are loads more examples in the old testament.

my only response is that he was dealing with a group of people who were learning about him over time. He made the law clear. It is really their subjective anger that made god’s justice seem like anger. He knew they needed to hear it phrased in their own experiential language. God is true. Their anger does not make him untrue. It was as jesus said, i think, that they were given such terms because of hardness of heart.

returning to hell and eternal punishment, it is obvious that it is well out of sync with any kind of just punishment. It is also well out of sync with the attributes given to god such as divine love, mercy and justice; all of which are “supposed” to be much stronger than ours. There is simply no justification for hell whatsoever. Strangely, weddings and funerals “christians” say to me: “if there’s a heaven, there must be a hell”. “what happens to hitler, child killers, terrorists etc?” they look perplexed though when told that they may end up there!

Therefore there must be a provisional, (non absolute) relativistic, flexible language that brings/adjusts people’s thinking and discourse to a transcendent understanding where words are not necessary any longer. some people mistake this to be a single absolute; whereas a systematic encounter over the span of life works equally as well at dispelling perplexity as you call it.
…no one dared ask him any more questions…as the gospel says. (Lk 20:v40)

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Christ, though he was the good Lord himself, arose on the 3rd day? If we examine his final breath of life, it appeared his body and mind died in quite a state of despair. Yet on rising, he brings nothing but good news and the joy he has been given for his saving work. From the human standpoint, why the change of heart?

Not exactly clear on what you mean by change of heart.

The despair you speak of comes from the pain and profound humiliation Jesus has taken upon himself for our sins. When Jesus speaks to the good thief on the cross beside him, he still has enough heart to encourage that man for his faith with the assurance that they would meet in Paradise. So I’m not sure what you mean by change of heart. And why shouldn’t the resurrection bring joy rather than suffering considering not only that Jesus is saved but the entire floodgates of salvation are now open to all?

 

[Michael19682]

Not exactly clear on what you mean by change of heart.

The despair you speak of comes from the pain and profound humiliation Jesus has taken upon himself for our sins. When Jesus speaks to the good thief on the cross beside him, he still has enough heart to encourage that man for his faith with the assurance that they would meet in Paradise. So I’m not sure what you mean by change of heart. And why shouldn’t the resurrection bring joy rather than suffering considering not only that Jesus is saved but the entire floodgates of salvation are now open to all?

Just that he commends his spirit to his father, does not know why he has been abandoned, and says its all over. He does not really seem to say he took on anything for our sins at the final hour. Yet his contemporaries all have to wait until the third day to see him again. I wonder if not his will, for that is always the same we believe, but something mysterious happened akin to something like will in the interim between death and resurrection. The Apostles Creed says descended to … to preach the good news. With all the discussions regarding time etc., in the eternal realm, maybe he revisited all the main ideas of his preaching before rising? Sufficient is it that he didn’t come back as we know with sayings like in the garden where he sweat blood. Something happened.
Perhaps this bears on the discussion of both a will supposedly frozen at death and the time it takes for a human soul, body, etc., to actually grow cold…the time it takes before it is too late to reflect on the events of our lives on our personal road to Emmaus as a soul in-waiting of resurrection Heaven?

 

[drac16]

It’s important to not think of God as a bigger version of oneself. Independent philosophical considerations are irrelevant when compared to revelation. Basically, the argument goes: “If I can’t understand it [Hell], God must not be saying it”. That is backwards, though. In Islam, we don’t believe that carnal reasoning trumps revelation; revelation trumps it in every case.

It comes down to pride, in my view. Sin has been gutted and man no longer thinks his sin is a big deal. It makes us uncomfortable, so we try to explain it away with our own points and counter-points; and on and on it goes. None of that is how meaningful theology is done. Theology is only as good as its obediance to Allah’s revelation (which, I believe, is the Qur’an).

 

[Michael19682]

It’s important to not think of God as a bigger version of oneself. Independent philosophical considerations are irrelevant when compared to revelation. Basically, the argument goes: “If I can’t understand it [Hell], God must not be saying it”. That is backwards, though. In Islam, we don’t believe that carnal reasoning trumps revelation; revelation trumps it in every case.

It comes down to pride, in my view. Sin has been gutted and man no longer thinks his sin is a big deal. It makes us uncomfortable, so we try to explain it away with our own points and counter-points; and on and on it goes. None of that is how meaningful theology is done. Theology is only as good as its obediance to Allah’s revelation (which, I believe, is the Qur’an).

Thank you for your insights into the difficulties of this discussion and I’m sure what is more profound than I currently understand. I agree about revelation and the point you make regarding it. I await heaven, and not hell, because I try to be good as much as I can. Nothing will substitute for actually being in paradise!

My only question to you – and if the Qu’ran answers this philosophical dilemma Aristotle called “discovery” then do relate. There is the sense that we sometimes “do understand”, but struggle to articulate with language for the sake of others. Reasons abound: we make friends, we learn from our own struggle with finding the right words, we enter Life In Christ by drawing parallels between what he described in his parables and our own experiences, we are moved to silence by our realization that God has already revealed the answer we need, and said it far more eloquently in words and signs, etc.

Thank you again in advance, and retroactively for your contribution to the topic.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

The Church infallibly teaches that there are three types of baptism: water, desire, blood. Yes, if any person of any age, conceived with original sin, has not received some form of baptism, they remain without salvific grace (they are still under original sin).

However, you are wrong to assume that only a baptism of water is available to infants. And what would then be available to prenatals? Prenatals and infants may well be given a baptism of blood (or some say desire), prior to death, so that they are freed from original sin.

I don’t dispute premise 2, I dispute the tacit assumption in premises 1 and 3 that only a baptism of water is available to infants. I disagree with those who narrow the baptisms of desire and blood so that these will not be available to infants, nor even to most adults.

The Church infallibly teaches the universal salvific will of God. And baptism of water is unavailable to prenatals who die in the womb. So we can faithfully and reasonably draw the theological conclusion that prenatals who die in the womb receive either a baptism of desire or of blood.

Both “baptism of blood” and “baptism of desire” seem to me to be contingent upon volition. But, infants and “prenatals” are not capable of volition, therefore they cannot possible have access to either, per se

Now, you could say that some infants who are directly murdered in the name of Jesus are martyrs by proxy (due to the actions of their parents). For instance, if someone were going to execute a Christian’s child if the Christian refused to deny Christ, then I could see a good argument in support of that child’s salvation, since the parent chose martyrdom for the child. However, this situation does not seem similar to the millions of aborted babies, children who die from childhood diseases or malnutrition, etc.

“Baptism of desire” seems to be possible, again, if the parent desires baptism for the child but it just so happens to die before that time. This would seem to be a relatively rare occurrence as well, in comparison to the majority of the world’s parents who are not Christian and sadly lose their children for whatever reason.

Are you saying that the children who die without benefit of water baptism are saved via baptism of blood or desire because God knows they would desire baptism or martyrdom if given the chance? If so, you imply Molinism and open up a big can of fascinating worms.