Is eternal suffering pointless?

[Della]

You say the church teaching is clear. I agree. But there is a sense in Scriptural Authority that angelic forces are involved at the time of death. Archangel Michael, for example, is mentioned in Jude. And the angels in the Genesis account of Sodom and Gomorrah. This means to me that hell is not fully resolved by the soul by the mere loss of consciousness at death, but by a choice to “assent” to its depravity. Just as it may take years to assent to the baptismal vow, or even to become aware of it, so at death time might very well be indeterminate. In that case, though the body may well be in hell, and the mind too, if the will has not consented to the depravity of hell, a soul is raped in the fire once said to be lost in the fire.

Time has ended at death. There are no more opportunities for the mind or soul to grow in understanding. The person has made his choice. He has entered the eternal “now”–for him he will be as he was at death forever. One cannot be raped when one has decided to enter into hell. There is no injustice being done to anyone in hell. They are lost through their own decisions, made with full knowledge and full will. And that is the determing factor.

Purgatory, on the other hand, is more what you are describing, although no “rape” is taking place there any more than in hell. The person in purgatory is on the doorstep of full union with God–this is the place God shows his mercy most for many who were not culpable of mortal sin will probably go there, rather than to hell. Simply having committed a mortal sin doesn’t automatically condemn anyone to hell. It must be a mortal sin, the person must know it’s a mortal sin, and then commit it of his own free will.

The sufferings of hell are self-inflicted. The devils share this same self-inflicted suffering when they made their choice to rebel against God. As sentient beings both humans and angels have free will. God will not take their free will from them even if they don’t want his mercy–for humans that is up until the moment of death, for angels–they made their decision when they were created.

 

[Michael19682]

@Della,

I need more relevant scriptural exegesis on your terms and statements.
Right now I am praying for resolve in the following,

Rm 6:7 For a dead person has been absolved from sin.
Rm 6:18 Freed from sin, you have become slaves of righteousness.
Eccl For the living know that they are to die, but the dead no longer know anything. There is no further recompense for them, because all memory of them is lost.

If Ecclesiastes is under the direction of the spirit, but has a human (name removed by moderator)ut not perfect as when Jesus calls himself the Son of Man, then it appears Ecclesiastes might be making a statement about memory independent as well as besides his preoccupation with recompense (presumably a preoccupation shared by those of his time period and later, since we know now that Heaven is an incomparable recompense). But I’m praying that because the dead no longer know anything, they cannot know either how to make a choice. Being like Abraham here, I should advocate and not condemn, asking God also if their memory is lost, should not they also be acquitted on the basis not only of Paul, but on their inability to know or remember their own “hell bent” self? Thus, the “will” we both spoke of is everything here. The will knows not and has no memory. It is pure response. It can only consent or dissent based on what is presented “viscerally”, however that term may apply in the context of death. If the whole person is freed from sin, why then should the will alone be frozen in it? Should we not let the Saints alone, to dispatch their angels to snatch from the fire?

 

[Della]

Sorry Michael, I’m not bound to give you anything further from Scripture or any other source. I won’t play “interpret this passage compared with that one” with anyone on any topic because it is pointless and a waste of our valuable time. We know what we are to believe because the Church has been given Christ’s own authority to decide matters of faith and morals. That is enough for any Catholic. If you want to debate biblical exegesis, I suggest you take your topic to the Scripture forum.

 

[Michael19682]

Sorry Michael, I’m not bound to give you anything further from Scripture or any other source. I won’t play “interpret this passage compared with that one” with anyone on any topic because it is pointless and a waste of our valuable time. We know what we are to believe because the Church has been given Christ’s own authority to decide matters of faith and morals. That is enough for any Catholic. If you want to debate biblical exegesis, I suggest you take your topic to the Scripture forum.

If you imply my membership in the Church is not real, you are wrong.
I was not playing games, how dare

 

[Michael19682]

Rm 6:7 For a dead person has been absolved from sin.
Rm 6:18 Freed from sin, you have become slaves of righteousness.
Eccl For the living know that they are to die, but the dead no longer know anything. There is no further recompense for them, because all memory of them is lost.

If Ecclesiastes is under the direction of the spirit, but has a human (name removed by moderator)ut not perfect as when Jesus calls himself the Son of Man, then it appears Ecclesiastes might be making a statement about memory independent as well as besides his preoccupation with recompense (presumably a preoccupation shared by those of his time period and later, since we know now that Heaven is an incomparable recompense). But I’m praying that because the dead no longer know anything, they cannot know either how to make a choice. Being like Abraham here, I should advocate and not condemn, asking God also if their memory is lost, should not they also be acquitted on the basis not only of Paul, but on their inability to know or remember their own “hell bent” self? Thus, the “will” we both spoke of is everything here. The will knows not and has no memory. It is pure response. It can only consent or dissent based on what is presented “viscerally”, however that term may apply in the context of death. If the whole person is freed from sin, why then should the will alone be frozen in it? Should we not let the Saints alone, to dispatch their angels to snatch from the fire?

If any of this is true, at what point can a person so “unknowing” and without rational faculties make a choice to assent to eternal suffering; especially if they have been set free from sin in the death of their bodies? do they get one, two, three chances before the Angels give up, before the prayers of the righteous no longer can work in the favor, before they become damned?

 

[tonyrey]

Rm 6:7 For a dead person has been absolved from sin.
Rm 6:18 Freed from sin, you have become slaves of righteousness.
Eccl For the living know that they are to die, but the dead no longer know anything. There is no further recompense for them, because all memory of them is lost.

If Ecclesiastes is under the direction of the spirit, but has a human (name removed by moderator)ut not perfect as when Jesus calls himself the Son of Man, then it appears Ecclesiastes might be making a statement about memory independent as well as besides his preoccupation with recompense (presumably a preoccupation shared by those of his time period and later, since we know now that Heaven is an incomparable recompense). But I’m praying that because the dead no longer know anything, they cannot know either how to make a choice. Being like Abraham here, I should advocate and not condemn, asking God also if their memory is lost, should not they also be acquitted on the basis not only of Paul, but on their inability to know or remember their own “hell bent” self? Thus, the “will” we both spoke of is everything here. The will knows not and has no memory. It is pure response. It can only consent or dissent based on what is presented “viscerally”, however that term may apply in the context of death. If the whole person is freed from sin, why then should the will alone be frozen in it? Should we not let the Saints alone, to dispatch their angels to snatch from the fire?If any of this is true, at what point can a person so “unknowing” and without rational faculties make a choice to assent to eternal suffering; especially if they have been set free from sin in the death of their bodies? do they get one, two, three chances before the Angels give up, before the prayers of the righteous no longer can work in the favor, before they become damned?

It is a mistake to interpret every statement in the OT literally because although the writers, particularly the prophets, were often inspired they were not infallible. That “the dead no longer know anything” certainly doesn’t tally with the teaching of Jesus nor are orthodox Catholics Fundamentalists…

 

[Michael19682]

It is a mistake to interpret every statement in the OT literally because although the writers, particularly the prophets, were often inspired they were not infallible. That “the dead no longer know anything” certainly doesn’t tally with the teaching of Jesus nor are orthodox Catholics Fundamentalists…

A most charitably stated response:thumbsup:

(I wonder if other possible threads are implied:
Do angels truly know choice, given their one dimensional will?
Do we presuppose knowledge when we advocate for the doctrine of Freewill?)

Any other direction for this thread?

 

[tonyrey]

A most charitably stated response:thumbsup:

(I wonder if other possible threads are implied:
Do angels truly know choice, given their one dimensional will?
Do we presuppose knowledge when we advocate for the doctrine of Freewill?)

Any other direction for this thread?

That depends on us, Michael! I think we agree that eternal suffering is not necessarily pointless but some people succeed in making it pointless because of their pride and lack of love for others. “All is vanity” is true for those who have a negative outlook on everything and everyone except themselves.

 

[Bahman]

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.

Eternal suffering is as pointless as eternal joy the former is not fair and later is meaningless. Constant state of mind is a prison.

 

[tonyrey]

Eternal suffering is as pointless as eternal joy the former is not fair and later is meaningless. Constant state of mind is a prison.

To think there is no life after death makes this life unfair and meaningless! This world becomes a prison from which we can’t escape until we die and then there is nothing to look forward to:
deury signifying nothing." - Macbeth

Abandon hope and you might as well be dead!

 

[Michael19682]

To think there is no life after death makes this life unfair and meaningless! This world becomes a prison from which we can’t escape until we die and then there is nothing to look forward to:
deury signifying nothing." - Macbeth

Abandon hope and you might as well be dead!

Or worse than dead. At least in that view death ends it, as you point out.
The response I have encountered to this view is what I call "the radical “transcendency of life itself”. In such a view, once the infinite is reached, or once one becomes fully alive, theirs is no longer a death to be experienced; since their body that dies is viewed no longer as part of the full life that has been “realized”. I personally don’t know what happens to the mind or consciousness that holds the person together, that realizes the infinitude as we can also in our lesser stature of being, but they have their mystics that offer various explanations – some quite mathematical and cogent from a logical, space oriented standpoint. What they cannot explain satisfactorily to us is that reality “perceived and felt and taken for life” before we perish.
I really would like there to be a balancing point to put into practice, especially for Christian meditation, where “the legitimate options” seem sparse and only reminders of the outlandishness of what meditation has become in the common understanding.

 

[Bahman]

To think there is no life after death makes this life unfair and meaningless! This world becomes a prison from which we can’t escape until we die and then there is nothing to look forward to:
deury signifying nothing." - Macbeth

Abandon hope and you might as well be dead!

In fact you are mistaken. We are in the prison until we can perceive and act.

 

[Bahman]

To think there is no life after death makes this life unfair and meaningless! This world becomes a prison from which we can’t escape until we die and then there is nothing to look forward to:
deury signifying nothing." - Macbeth

Abandon hope and you might as well be dead!

In fact you are mistaken. We are in the prison until we can perceive and act. Could you please explain how a life after death could grant meaning to our current life? That is another form of life!

 

[Wyrd]

I don’t think so. I think a holy being would find hell to be no problem. What I mean is that suffering is an opportunity to demonstrate virtues like patience, equanimity, compassion. This reminds me of the Buddhist boddhisatva Ksitigharba who descended into hell to help bring enlightenment to the demons and other hell beings because he took a vow not to achieve buddhahood until all the hells were emptied.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ksitigarbha

 

[ANewWorld]

Excellent question. If the reply is “to those in heaven” this demonstration would certainly torment anyone with even the slightest inkling of charity or compassion. If the reply is “to those in hell” then this demonstration would be quite pointless since no practical effect could result from this severe education. No interior or exterior change (conversion), just eternal doom.

To me, eternal hell demonstrates that the traditional Christian conception of Satan has the eternal “last laugh.” Satan’s triumph is endless, and it is underwritten and sustained by God. The traditional Christian God knowingly makes his own enemies, allows them to torment his children, and then sustains those enemies forever while they torment themselves. Does this sound like a good father to you? What could possibly be the point of this?

There is no point and to call something paradise while you knowingly watch people you know suffer eternally is sadistic at best. This whole forum is an exercise in mental masturbation to uphold preconceived notions for which there is no evidence. Hell, look at the bickering that goes on over citations from the Catechism. The whole thing is one steaming pile of ********, pure fantasy yet some billion people on the planet take it seriously. Give it up and admit we don’t know what we don’t know already. No shame in that.

 

[Michael19682]

There is no point and to call something paradise while you knowingly watch people you know suffer eternally is sadistic at best. This whole forum is an exercise in mental masturbation to uphold preconceived notions for which there is no evidence. Hell, look at the bickering that goes on over citations from the Catechism. The whole thing is one steaming pile of ********, pure fantasy yet some billion people on the planet take it seriously. Give it up and admit we don’t know what we don’t know already. No shame in that.

You sound very certain of what you know and don’t seem to care for anyone’s else’s response, a stance that you yourself would classify as what you call mental whatever. Why don’t you want to know what other’s believe? Why reject the belief of other’s as phony, simply because you don’t agree?

 

[GodMadeMe]

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.

It is only pointless if you think that God artificially manifests suffering on the wikid. Obviously it would be pointless and impossible since God’s nature always and eternally acts for the salvation of souls. God is not trying to make a moral point by presenting the existence of hell. That would be irrational since heaven is not something earned by being morally perfect, but rather it is a gift that all are free to participate in or reject. Heaven is God or rather the eternal experience of God. Unity with God is the end to which all souls are naturally in act. Eternal suffering is a “natural” consequence of eternally denying unity with God. It is man that causes his own eternal suffering by denying God. God does not intend that any man suffers, no-matter what sin he or she has committed. Hell is not artificial, it is a natural condition of eternal unrepentance. God never stops trying to save humanity from hell.

The door to hell is locked from the inside. Hell is like a man eternally running from the love of God.

 

[Michael19682]

It is only pointless if you think that God artificially manifests suffering on the wikid. Obviously it would be pointless and impossible since God’s nature always and eternally acts for the salvation of souls. God is not trying to make a moral point by presenting the existence of hell. That would be irrational since heaven is not something earned by being morally perfect, but rather it is a gift that all are free to participate in or reject. Heaven is God or rather the eternal experience of God. Unity with God is the end to which all souls are naturally in act. Eternal suffering is a “natural” consequence of eternally denying unity with God. It is man that causes his own eternal suffering by denying God. God does not intend that any man suffers, no-matter what sin he or she has committed. Hell is not artificial, it is a natural condition of eternal unrepentance. God never stops trying to save humanity from hell.

The door to hell is locked from the inside. Hell is like a man eternally running from the love of God.

I agree. Just can’t fathom anyone making that decision with the correct information in mind – hell is painful. We say the moment of eternal “choice”'s end is death of the physical body and brain. I’m inquiring into that assumption; not disagreeing with the definition of hell so much as that of “death”.

 

[Bradski]

Indeed, give thanks for the endless sufferings of the souls in hell, for without them, you would not have the free will to have been one of the few on the path to heaven. Your free will and happiness have been purchased at a fearsome cost: the endless weeping, mourning, and suffering of those who are miraculously sustained in existence only to experience never-ending torment, regret, and pain. Your freely-willed happiness rests upon a massive edifice of endless suffering. It’s all for you. The screams, the crushing despair, the pain and torment of both body and soul, all out of love for your free will. A gift to you from above. Eternal collateral damage. The chaff. Created to burn forever for your free will.

I do not believe this Seems implied by the standard defense against the “pointlessness” of suffering in hell

Well written. I especially like the ‘collatoral damge’ comment. I might use that, with permission.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Well written. I especially like the ‘collatoral damge’ comment. I might use that, with permission.

Sure, I’m certainly not the first and won’t be the last to think this way. As Solomon says: “there is nothing new under the sun.”

Just want to be clear that I do not think hell proves God doesn’t exist or is evil, rather I think God proves hell is evil and doesn’t exist. If one takes hell as axiomatic, then God can’t be omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent simultaneously, in my opinion. But, I take God as axiomatic, so hell can’t exist, at least as it’s understood by traditional Christians, Zoroastrians, Muslims, and long-dead Greek pagans. I don’t think we should lose God while tossing out hell, they aren’t a “packaged deal” in my opinion.