Is eternal suffering pointless?

[PumpkinCookie]

Hogwash. Others have addressed that page in the links I provided. The page from the Vatican is much more informative and scholarly. If your statement is true then no one is interested in the truth. Since no one has the time to seek out and refute all errors throughout history. Besides what they were saying didn’t even make philosophical sense. They were saying that limbo was pelagian. Yet limbo isn’t even in heaven. Not only that the Church accepted limbo during the middle ages. So it can’t be pelagian. Right there that is enough to refute them as they started off on the wrong foot. I don’t need to read the rest of it when their course already starts off wrong.

First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied. Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.

J.S. Mill, On Liberty pg. 72

 

[Michael19682]

As to Augustine, in his Confessions he seems to have been influenced by his own mother’s Saintliness. He confesses that as an infant he was guilty of demanding his mother’s breast milk without thanks and in a demanding manner. He deems this a sin worthy of confession and he appears at least to have some memory of it firsthand.
Perhaps this influenced his slightly imbalanced philosophical treatment of infants?
And don’t forget, Augustine was not born Christian, received initiation late in life, and was constantly influenced and rebuking many early Christian heresies. Maybe he became confused in the awesome task of his calling to Sainthood. Imagine trying to get 2 masters degrees in disparate subjects and then a third part of your life fighting off the demons of heresy. There was bound to be conflation and confusion at least in part.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Hogwash. Others have addressed that page in the links I provided. The page from the Vatican is much more informative and scholarly. If your statement is true then no one is interested in the truth. Since no one has the time to seek out and refute all errors throughout history. Besides what they were saying didn’t even make philosophical sense. They were saying that limbo was pelagian. Yet limbo isn’t even in heaven. Not only that the Church accepted limbo during the middle ages. So it can’t be pelagian. Right there that is enough to refute them as they started off on the wrong foot. I don’t need to read the rest of it when their course already starts off wrong.

As to infant baptism he [Pelagius] granted that it ought to be administered in the same form as in the case of adults, not in order to cleanse the children from a real original guilt, but to secure to them entrance into the “kingdom of God”. Unbaptized children, he thought, would after their death be excluded from the “kingdom of God”, but not from “eternal life”.

-Catholic Encyclopedia. newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm

Is this not obviously similar to later speculation about Limbo?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

As to Augustine, in his Confessions he seems to have been influenced by his own mother’s Saintliness. He confesses that as an infant he was guilty of demanding his mother’s breast milk without thanks and in a demanding manner. He deems this a sin worthy of confession and he appears at least to have some memory of it firsthand.
Perhaps this influenced his slightly imbalanced philosophical treatment of infants?

I am not a psychological or medical professional, but I think Augustine’s mental illness should obvious to a casual reader. His recounting of the lustful pleasure of stealing a pear as a youth beggars belief, but it is not so unusual for this genre. Many saints exhibited all kinds of truly heart-breaking mental suffering, in my opinion. Obsessive-compulsive disorder, paranoia, hallucination, depression, sadism, and masochism abound.

I will say that Thomas Aquinas is a sterling exception. One rarely encounters such clarity and balance of thought. I would love to have met him and spoken with him. I sometimes wonder what he would have written about had he been born in the 20th century, or the 18th century.

 

[Michael19682]

@PumpkinCookie,
It is ironic to me that one can champion infants and what you call simpletons as being incapable of eternal damnation by judgement because of their simplicity and innocence yet at the same time you propose that these other possible errors in the most subtle points of argument that require advanced study and degrees to distinguish, is the downfall of the Church?

How do you want it, simple or complex? You seem satisfied with neither?
When a person is condemned for complex incorrectness, we have rebellion on the grounds of sanctifying simplicity.
When a person is condemned on the grounds of utter simplicity, we have your counterargument that complexity is where it is at.

PumpkinCookie, what is your rendering of this passage below: Please respond!
Mt 11:16-19
16 To what shall I compare this generation?* It is like children who sit in marketplaces and call to one another,
17 ‘We played the flute for you, but you did not dance, we sang a dirge but you did not mourn.’
18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they said, ‘He is possessed by a demon.
19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking and they said, ‘Look, he is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is vindicated by her works.”

 

[Aloysium]

I am not a psychological or medical professional, but I think Augustine’s mental illness should obvious to a casual reader. His recounting of the lustful pleasure of stealing a pear as a youth beggars belief, but it is not so unusual for this genre. Many saints exhibited all kinds of truly heart-breaking mental suffering, in my opinion. Obsessive-compulsive disorder, paranoia, hallucination, depression, sadism, and masochism abound. . .

So, what lustful pleasure do you derive coming here?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

@PumpkinCookie,
It is ironic to me that one can champion infants and what you call simpletons as being incapable of eternal damnation by judgement because of their simplicity and innocence yet at the same time you propose that these other possible errors in the most subtle points of argument that require advanced study and degrees to distinguish, is the downfall of the Church?

I’m not sure what you mean. I reject the idea that we are born guilty or born deprived of sanctifying grace and thus deserving of endless punishment just for existing. Please help me understand my hypocrisy. It is very difficult to discern one’s own hypocrisy and I don’t get it yet. Simple peasants wouldn’t have had the opportunity to understand any of this stuff. They would have lost a child, been denied a funeral and burial for that child, and drawn the obvious conclusions. Terribly sad.

How do you want it, simple or complex? You seem satisfied with neither?
When a person is condemned for complex incorrectness, we have rebellion on the grounds of sanctifying simplicity.
When a person is condemned on the grounds of utter simplicity, we have your counterargument that complexity is where it is at.

I don’t understand your 4th sentence. What do you mean? I think I prefer simplicity if it is adequate. Please explain how I think “complexity is where it is at.” I think the simplest solution is to totally jettison original sin, vicarious atonement, sacraments, etc altogether. I think this entire discussion grows out of a rotten root that should be dug up and thrown out, completely.

PumpkinCookie, what is your rendering of this passage below: Please respond!
Mt 11:16-19
16 To what shall I compare this generation?* It is like children who sit in marketplaces and call to one another,
17 ‘We played the flute for you, but you did not dance, we sang a dirge but you did not mourn.’
18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they said, ‘He is possessed by a demon.
19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking and they said, ‘Look, he is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is vindicated by her works.”

Jesus is alleging that the Jews wouldn’t believe he was the Messiah even if he and his followers were fully obedient to the Torah (because they didn’t believe John either). He is basically saying that they are jealous haters who want to retain their power, and are just using his and his follower’s moral laxity as an excuse to disregard his authority. But, their power is as silly as children’s dances, and he is above the law and very special, which he will prove by his works.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

So, what lustful pleasure do you derive coming here?

Gosh, I feel this intense temptation to say something sarcastic or mocking. Isn’t that terrible? I’m sorry.

It seems like our interactions are not always so positive, and you’ve often told me in not-so-subtle ways to “go away.” Eventually, probably soon, I will go away; don’t worry!

I come here because no one in my life really cares about any of these things. No one wants to have serious discussions about the things of faith. This forum is a place where no one is obligated to participate or engage with my ideas, so I don’t feel like I am burdening anyone against their will. Everyone is free to ignore me, but I hope that someone will be interested enough to dialogue. Also, when I was an academic, I wrote constantly. Now that I have a less intellectually stimulating job, I like to think, write, and share anonymously.

If you feel burdened by my thoughts, then just ignore me. Just figure I’m some kook with an axe to grind. :whacky: For all you know, I look just like that silly cartoon emoticon in real life. Maybe I’m a rabid anti-Catholic crusader with an enormous chip on my shoulder. Maybe I foam at the mouth and rock back and forth, huddled in a corner, muttering about supralapsarianism all day. Whatever image will allow you to totally dismiss me is fine.

I don’t dismiss you though, and I welcome your musings.

 

[fisherman_carl]

J.S. Mill, On Liberty pg. 72

Blah, blah

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, if we cannot recognize that we might be wrong, then we have lost touch with both our humanity and our sanity.

And yet, the various council fathers assure that they are always right and that it is impossible for them to have made an error.

You need to justify that accusation particularly since St Gregory admitted his fallibility.

 

[fisherman_carl]

-Catholic Encyclopedia. newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm

Is this not obviously similar to later speculation about Limbo?

No. Pelagius in the quote is denying the need for Baptism to cleanse Original sin. However, Limbo does not deny the need for Baptism to cleanse Original sin. In fact that is why Limbo theory existed in the first place to account for original sin and the fact that infants have no personal sin.

There is limitations to our theology. We shouldn’t think that we know everything. Augustine and some others expressed the need for Baptism of infants. That was their focus. But they took their theology to the extreme. Were they thinking about millions of aborted babies? No, they were arguing theology with Pelagius.

 

[Good_Fella]

OK, so read it with the recognition of that bias. It is mostly direct quotes of saints, popes, councils, doctors, bishops, and famous theologians. Surely you don’t mean they are anti-Catholic? Just ignore the website creator’s commentary, or account for the bias, and go ahead and refute the direct quotes or explain how they don’t represent Catholic teaching or beliefs.

Is the logic flawed? Are the quotes mistranslated? Are the quotes made-up? Are they incorrectly attributed? You have accused this website of misrepresentation. Please specify the nature of the misrepresentation and we can examine it.

The Council of Carthage is one example which you drew my attention to.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Michael19682]

I’m not sure what you mean. I reject the idea that we are born guilty or born deprived of sanctifying grace and thus deserving of endless punishment just for existing. Please help me understand my hypocrisy. It is very difficult to discern one’s own hypocrisy and I don’t get it yet. Simple peasants wouldn’t have had the opportunity to understand any of this stuff. They would have lost a child, been denied a funeral and burial for that child, and drawn the obvious conclusions. Terribly sad.

Not hypocrisy! Some of your logic is extensive and elaborate and takes issue with very contentious points of Church teaching: consider these teachings to be embedded in controversy because of their complexity. That is, of course, what philosophers do sometimes. However, as now, you seem to see your rejection of ideas as a plea to simplicity again. MY assessment was of a complex person who was seeing complexity in someone else. It reminded me of my own earlier days/posts/ventures into philosophy [as] here. The mere fact that you draw hypocrisy from this, is itself complexity. Your rejection looks like it is based on strict logic and sophisticated reasoning.

I don’t understand your 4th sentence. What do you mean? I think I prefer simplicity if it is adequate. Please explain how I think “complexity is where it is at.” I think the simplest solution is to totally jettison original sin, vicarious atonement, sacraments, etc altogether. I think this entire discussion grows out of a rotten root that should be dug up and thrown out, completely.

The ideas you present are all well developed and cognitive. Again you see simplicity in jettisoning these things which people have become accustomed to. Why does one flaw in Church teaching offend? It is because we don’t want to practice what we can. We want to rebel and do it our way. I get the sense that this controversy represents vacillation between thinking with a well developed mind and logic, and going with [your] heart which latter can obviously overlook and forgive faults in both people and what they say and write: and can certainly accept and make the best of what will likely never change – not points of doctrine, but disagreements in teaching methods, psychology, and differences of opinion on the subjective.

Jesus is alleging that the Jews wouldn’t believe he was the Messiah even if he and his followers were fully obedient to the Torah (because they didn’t believe John either). He is basically saying that they are jealous haters who want to retain their power, and are just using his and his follower’s moral laxity as an excuse to disregard his authority. But, their power is as silly as children’s dances, and he is above the law and very special, which he will prove by his works.

He also points out that some people are never satisfied. You give them a flute song, they will not dance. You give them a dirge, they will not mourn. Joyful dance and dirge are opposites. If neither appeals to these children, then what will? John gave them asceticism, they rejected him. Jesus gave them a corporeal God, he was rejected. Again, opposites. You would think at least something would have stuck to their ribs.
They represent a never ending dialog of dissatisfaction. Jesus came to give us full life satisfaction. He didn’t promise a one size fits all bake cutter for everyone in terms of the psychology necessary for that fulfillment. Anxiety, worldly lures, etc., make us unique in what we can accept. But if we give up – throw out the baby with the bath water, then we lose everything?
Remember his words to John’s disciples:
Mt 11:4-6
4 Jesus said to them in reply, “Go and tell John what you hear and see:
5 the blind regain their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have the good news proclaimed to them.
6 And blessed is the one who takes no offense at me.”

 

[Good_Fella]

So, children are born with an inborn tendency to sin and under the dominion of Satan because God wants to see if they can overcome all odds and prove their love for him.

The serpent’s tempting of Adam and Eve wasn’t determined by God. But God knew this would happen when He created them, while also knowing of the greater good that would arise out of this event. We read in Genesis 1:28 that originally God gave Adam dominion over the earth. And in 1 John 5:19 we see that the whole world is now under the control or influence of the devil. Thus we may conclude that Satan was able to usurp this dominion from Adam as a consequence of his sin. Adam would still have dominion over the earth as God intended he should if he hadn’t succumbed to the lies of the serpent. As a result of Satan’s usurpation, all of Adam’s descendants are in the position to regain this dominion over the earth by being reconciled with God. This requires that they love God more than themselves by observing His word and obeying His commandments.

Satan maintains his dominion over the world as long as we tend to give in to his temptations because of our pride and inordinate self-love. So as long as Christ dwells in our souls, we have no cause to fear Satan’s rule in our lives. “Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you" (James 4:7). Satan’s authority and power are limited and subordinate to the authority that is vested in Christ. By his death and resurrection, “he has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption and the forgiveness of sins” (Colossians 1:13-14). Hence, Satan holds dominion over us as long as we are alienated from God by our evil thoughts and behaviour. But he can no longer accuse us before God provided that we conduct our lives in faith by leading holy and unblemished lives in the grace of God which Christ has merited for us when he personally made satisfaction for Adam’s sin and reconciled the world with God ( cf. Col. 1:15-21). Satan does not rule over us with omnipotence; nor is his rule over the world permanent and unshakable. Christ shall finally put an end to it when he returns in glory. God knows all this from eternity in the immediate present. He desires that we love Him as He loves us. Unless we show our love for Him, we cannot stand justified in His presence.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Vico]

Are you saying the set “those who are in heaven” is a subset of “those who have attained salvation?” Can you point me to a magisterial, infallible statement showing that? The ITC is theological speculation.

No, I am asking you the question: “What is the implication of not being in heaven?” because you stated that “*What is certain, according to the magisterium, is that *they aren’t in heaven.**”

ITC is speculation, and they made that clear.

Originally Posted by PumpkinCookie forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
So, eternal truths are decided by vote and suddenly become clear and certain at that point? That’s a little odd. I never said limbo was a magisterial teaching, it has only ever been theological speculation. What is certain, according to the magisterium, is that they aren’t in heaven. Those who pretend otherwise make the Church look like it is contradicting itself.

 

[arte]

The Mexican legal system has nothing to do with it. The mother’s child isn’t ordered by the court to be penalized with his mother for her crime. He is implicated circumstantially because of it. I simply illustrated in practical terms what we mean by our being guilty of sin by association. You don’t seem to grasp the meaning of the term or prefer just to dismiss it.

I fully understood what you meant. The dysfunctional aspects of the Mexican legal system and original sin shows that the reasoning behind original sin with its follow on affects is of a level equal to a corrupt third World country’s legal system. We repeatedly see the dysfunctional aspects of the reasoning behind original sin with its follow on affects on this thread. Do unbaptised babies/infants go to hell or limbo? Are they being punished for original sin on their souls? Are they happy and content? Can they go to heaven? Do they receive a baptism of desire/blood which allows them to go to heaven? Do Jesus’ words on children save the babies/infants from hell? I could be wrong but the magisterium, CCC and Catholic teaching state that unbaptised babies/infants go to hell to be punished on a different level to other sinners in hell. The above Church doctrines also state they cannot possess the beatific vision.

Back to being guilty of sin by association. I understand what you mean in that because Christianity teaches we are descended from Adam and Eve, we share in their guilt; we are guilty of sin by association. Even if we are all descended from Adam and Eve, which science has proved could not have happened, do you think a loving just God would saddle all of us with the sin Adam and Eve committed hundreds of thousands of years ago? Being guilty of a crime by association would not be considered justice in today’s developed World. We do not treat Germans today as being guilty by association for the war crimes committed by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Again, we see that mere human beings can be more just than an omnipotent being. It is the same argument of human justice that sees hell and torturous punishment 24/7 for eternity as completely wrong.

The truth is Adam and Eve never existed so there is no original sin to worry about. Adam and Eve is a myth.

 

[tonyrey]

I fully understood what you meant. The dysfunctional aspects of the Mexican legal system and original sin shows that the reasoning behind original sin with its follow on affects is of a level equal to a corrupt third World country’s legal system. We repeatedly see the dysfunctional aspects of the reasoning behind original sin with its follow on affects on this thread. Do unbaptised babies/infants go to hell or limbo? Are they being punished for original sin on their souls? Are they happy and content? Can they go to heaven? Do they receive a baptism of desire/blood which allows them to go to heaven? Do Jesus’ words on children save the babies/infants from hell? I could be wrong but the magisterium, CCC and Catholic teaching state that unbaptised babies/infants go to hell to be punished on a different level to other sinners in hell. The above Church doctrines also state they cannot possess the beatific vision.

Back to being guilty of sin by association. I understand what you mean in that because Christianity teaches we are descended from Adam and Eve, we share in their guilt; we are guilty of sin by association. Even if we are all descended from Adam and Eve, which science has proved could not have happened, do you think a loving just God would saddle all of us with the sin Adam and Eve committed hundreds of thousands of years ago? Being guilty of a crime by association would not be considered justice in today’s developed World. We do not treat Germans today as being guilty by association for the war crimes committed by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Again, we see that mere human beings can be more just than an omnipotent being. It is the same argument of human justice that sees hell and torturous punishment 24/7 for eternity as completely wrong.

Your concept of guilt by association is false. We are the** victims** of our ancestors’ sins.

The truth is Adam and Eve never existed so there is no original sin to worry about. Adam and Eve is a myth.

1. Do you deny that one of our ancestors was the first to commit a serious crime and then realised it was wrong?
2. Were the cavemen aware of the difference between good and evil?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . The truth is Adam and Eve never existed so there is no original sin to worry about. Adam and Eve is a myth.

The truth is that you are not expressing Catholic beliefs.
What has been revealed is that Adam and Eve did exist as the first individual persons, and do exist as the essential features of our human nature.
You have no idea what the truth is. What you voice are beliefs, beliefs which are extremely limited in their capacity to give light to what is the truth.
That truth includes what you read of in the news and the history books, day in and day out.
The context of the endless list of inhumanity and sin is the reality of our eternal nature rooted in our relationship with God, who became one of us and through whose grace we are granted entry into the loving Communion that is the Triune Godhead.
Original sin is nothing to worry about; it is explanatory.
As to the fate of unborn children and others deprived of their lives and the opportunity to grow in Christ before the commission of any sinful act, I have faith that they, as did those whom Jesus freed from hell unbaptized, upon His death, do know Him as the one true Vine.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

The serpent’s tempting of Adam and Eve wasn’t determined by God. But God knew this would happen when He created them, while also knowing of the greater good that would arise out of this event. We read in Genesis 1:28 that originally God gave Adam dominion over the earth. And in 1 John 5:19 we see that the whole world is now under the control or influence of the devil. Thus we may conclude that Satan was able to usurp this dominion from Adam as a consequence of his sin. Adam would still have dominion over the earth as God intended he should if he hadn’t succumbed to the lies of the serpent. As a result of Satan’s usurpation, all of Adam’s descendants are in the position to regain this dominion over the earth by being reconciled with God. This requires that they love God more than themselves by observing His word and obeying His commandments.

Satan maintains his dominion over the world as long as we tend to give in to his temptations because of our pride and inordinate self-love. So as long as Christ dwells in our souls, we have no cause to fear Satan’s rule in our lives. “Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you" (James 4:7). Satan’s authority and power are limited and subordinate to the authority that is vested in Christ. By his death and resurrection, “he has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption and the forgiveness of sins” (Colossians 1:13-14). Hence, Satan holds dominion over us as long as we are alienated from God by our evil thoughts and behaviour. But he can no longer accuse us before God provided that we conduct our lives in faith by leading holy and unblemished lives in the grace of God which Christ has merited for us when he personally made satisfaction for Adam’s sin and reconciled the world with God ( cf. Col. 1:15-21). Satan does not rule over us with omnipotence; nor is his rule over the world permanent and unshakable. Christ shall finally put an end to it when he returns in glory. God knows all this from eternity in the immediate present. He desires that we love Him as He loves us. Unless we show our love for Him, we cannot stand justified in His presence.

PAX
:heaven:

And the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you annoyed, and why has your countenance fallen? Is it not so that if you improve, it will be forgiven you? If you do not improve, however, at the entrance, sin is lying, and to you is its longing, but you can rule over it.

-Genesis 4: 6-7

 

[PumpkinCookie]

No, I am asking you the question: “What is the implication of not being in heaven?” because you stated that “*What is certain, according to the magisterium, is that *they aren’t in heaven.**”

ITC is speculation, and they made that clear.

According to the RCC’s infallible magisterium, eternal hell is the only known alternative to heaven. Therefore: the implied final fate of unbaptized infants (or anyone else) is endless hell. This was obvious to the people who made up these doctrines in the first place.