Is eternal suffering pointless?

[You]

I do not understand the relationship of your post with my quote. Please explain what you are tying to show me.

**Jesus is saying that everybody will be drawn to Him so no one will be lost; no one goes to hell. **

New American Standard Bible
"While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.

We all perish, as in we all die. But from all that were given to him only one perished. The son of perdition. His perishing was, I must assume not the same as their perishing.

 

[You]

Not exactly the golden rule…

Whosoever shall receive one such child as this in my name, receiveth me. And whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me. John answered him, saying: Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, who followeth not us, and we forbade him. But Jesus said: Do not forbid him. For there is no man that doth a miracle in my name, and can soon speak ill of me. For he that is not against you, is for you. For whosoever shall give you to drink a cup of water in my name, because you belong to Christ: amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.

so you don’t feel left out…

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I haven’t kept up with this discussion lately, but a question came to me for those who do not believe in an eternal hell. The question is what do you do with evil? If there is no eternal hell then do you just let evil out to live with everyone after awhile? For example, what do you do with the demons? They won’t repent. So what do you do with them? And, then finally, what do we do with humans who have chosen evil like the demons and won’t repent?

Truly “evil to the core” people will be allowed to die and never come back. I do not believe there are any such things as demons according to a Christian or Muslim idea of them (Jinn). If there were, then they too would be allowed to go into oblivion, cease to exist. Humans who cannot be rehabilitated will be allowed to finally, totally, and permanently die and never come back.

This achieves the two “goods” of eternal hell: 1) totally evil people are kept out of heaven and 2) we really do have moral freedom. But, there are no “negatives” to this solution like: 1) God is an evil torturer who desires endless suffering for its own sake and 2) the people in heaven are callous and cruel to be eternally indifferent to the endless sufferings of others.

Sorry, I felt like this deserved an answer.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

In the above scenario I would just claim the “law of finders keepers, losers weepers”.

Actually, in this scenario you didn’t really commit a crime. So no honest judge could convict you of one. You found a coin in the street. That is no crime. Thus, any punishment, never mind the one you outlined is justified. Not only that but even if you could think of it is a crime it would only deserve the lightest of punishments.

In this kingdom, all currency belongs to the king by default unless he explicitly gives you permission to borrow it. By picking up the coin, you have “stolen” it from him, and due to his exceeding dignity, it is most just for you to be tortured and your whole family to be executed. :whacky:

Kind of like missing one mass, or failing to believe that Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus, and then being sentenced to unrelenting, endless, self-inflicted (maybe) spiritual and physical torment for all eternity.

I think that punishment can be determined by both, not just one or the other. That is it is the severity of the crime, but it can also be the importance of the person who was offended that matters. Yes, it is the severity of the crime that should be considered. But, also there are times when the importance of the person involved is also a consideration. For example, lets say you get in a fight with someone at a bar and you punch them in the face. So, in this case you get arrested and are in jail for a day. But, what if you punched the president of the U.S. in the face? In this case you might have to go to jail for a year. Same crime, but there is a difference in the gravity of the crime because of the importance of the office of the President that was involved. It wasn’t that the President had more dignity as he is just a human also. But, his office is of higher importance. The same goes for a King in a Kingdom. And, the persons who hold these offices have greater protection because of the importance of their position. A greater punishment is merited to deter others and protect the president because of the importance of his office.

It isn’t just to punish someone more severely because the victim is “more dignified.” Besides, God can never be our victim.

Since God is infinite, almighty, the greatest conceivable being, can you honestly tell me that it means the same to insult him as it does to insult your buddy? If you would take special consideration for the treatment of the president of the U.S., how much more for God? Now fortunately for us God is also infinitely merciful, much more than any president. Thus, we can receive his forgiveness if we ask for it.

Actually, I think it means less (to God) to insult God than your buddy. In fact, it means nothing at all. God can’t be insulted. God can’t be harmed. He can’t be our victim. He is totally above us, so far that he can’t even laugh at our attempts to rage against him. I do not give special consideration to the president of the USA. I have respect for the office because I’m a citizen of the USA, but I do not respect Mr. Obama any more or less than any other stranger. If I do, that is my moral failing.

When we attempt to insult God, we are actually harming ourselves, not God. We damage our idea of God when we insult him, and we need to be healed. Punishment is part of this healing, I suppose. When we insult other people, we damage both them and ourselves. Both need healing and punishment.

I agree that God can not be harmed. And, the bible does say we will be judged by how we treat others. In fact Jesus says how you treat others is how you treat him. However, as you allude to below offenses against God actually harm us and therefore cause harm to our brothers and sisters. The book of Revelations 21:27 says that “Nothing impure will ever enter it [the heavenly Jerusalem], nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.” Thus, eternal separation from God is not just about punishment, but about keeping out the liars, murderers, thieves, etc, from the kingdom of God. Should the good reward of the kingdom of God also be for those who have chosen evil over good, or darkness over light?

I don’t believe the New Testament tells us about God. Annihilation achieves the same end without making God into a vicious torturer.

I think that the choices we make in this life shape who we become. Jews are familiar with the “Two Ways”. One path leads to destruction and the other leads to life. If you follow God and his commandments you will have life. If not then you will die. This is throughout the OT. And Jesus talks about it also like when he mentions the straight and narrow path to life versus the highway to destruction. If we choose the road to destruction it shapes who we become to the point that we can no longer change. It’s not just about punishment, but about a separation of darkness from light. Hell was created for the devil and his demons. St. Augustine thought this happened when in Genesis 1 when God separated the light (angels) from the dark (demons). Since the stars and the sun were created later.

Yes, one road leads to life and the other to death. Permanent, final, death. Not endless life in torment!

I find this comment on blasphemy to be particularly insightful - “Blasphemy harms us because it makes us unable to love God”

Thanks. Here’s the kicker: I believe that the teaching of eternal hell is blasphemy. Now, I don’t suppose most people who teach it intend to blaspheme, but nonetheless it desecrates God’s goodness and wisdom.

 

[fisherman_carl]

In this kingdom, all currency belongs to the king by default unless he explicitly gives you permission to borrow it. By picking up the coin, you have “stolen” it from him, and due to his exceeding dignity, it is most just for you to be tortured and your whole family to be executed. :whacky:

Kind of like missing one mass, or failing to believe that Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus, and then being sentenced to unrelenting, endless, self-inflicted (maybe) spiritual and physical torment for all eternity.

In Catholicism, there is the idea of mortal and venial sins. So it is not just the importance of God that determines punishment. For example, someone who missed Mass or did not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary may find themselves in Purgatory, rather than hell, if their sin was venial. Basically, in order for a sin to be mortal, ie, merit hell, it has to boil down to an unrepentant willful rejection of God. As soon as one repents of any sin they will be forgiven. There are lots of scenarios where missing Mass or not believing in the perpetual virginity of Mary does not merit any punishment. For instance, if you missed mass out of illness, or even ignorance. Or if you did not believe in Mary’s virginity out of ignorance, rather than willful disobedience to Christ and his Church.

It isn’t just to punish someone more severely because the victim is “more dignified.” Besides, God can never be our victim.

Actually, I think it means less (to God) to insult God than your buddy. In fact, it means nothing at all. God can’t be insulted. God can’t be harmed. He can’t be our victim. He is totally above us, so far that he can’t even laugh at our attempts to rage against him. I do not give special consideration to the president of the USA. I have respect for the office because I’m a citizen of the USA, but I do not respect Mr. Obama any more or less than any other stranger. If I do, that is my moral failing.

I wasn’t talking necessarily about respect for Obama, but about importance of his office. And, how that importance deserves greater honor. And, when you think about God, he deserves much greater honor. Remember, how in the days of Moses on the mountain the people could not set foot on the mountain lest they die, and when they carried the ark they could not touch it directly lest they die? One guy was even consumed by fire for a relatively minor mistake. Another guy touched the ark to keep it from falling and was killed. Does that sound like a huge offense? Because of God’s awesome majesty and glory great reverence was instilled in the treatment of the ark. Was God harmed by someone touching the ark? No. Yet, it was still because of God’s importance that the ark was treated with great reverence. The people had to learn to greatly respect the things of God.

When we attempt to insult God, we are actually harming ourselves, not God. We damage our idea of God when we insult him, and we need to be healed. Punishment is part of this healing, I suppose. When we insult other people, we damage both them and ourselves. Both need healing and punishment.

I agree.

I don’t believe the New Testament tells us about God. Annihilation achieves the same end without making God into a vicious torturer.

Do you mean it doesn’t tell us anything new about God? Because it does tell us a lot about God, especially if you understand the words of Jesus when he said, “when you have seen me you have seen the Father”.

Yes, one road leads to life and the other to death. Permanent, final, death. Not endless life in torment!

That all depends on whether we are immortal or not. Also, what about universalism? If you believe hell to be unfair then how come you don’t support the idea that eventually everyone will repent and be saved? Wouldn’t that be better than annihilation? And, if everyone could repent then couldn’t someone be kept alive for that possibility, rather than be annihilated? And, wouldn’t it be possible that they would continue to reject repentance even for all eternity?

Thanks. Here’s the kicker: I believe that the teaching of eternal hell is blasphemy. Now, I don’t suppose most people who teach it intend to blaspheme, but nonetheless it desecrates God’s goodness and wisdom.

It can’t be blasphemy if the doctrine on hell comes from God himself. Since the Church received this teaching from Jesus himself.

 

[pocaracas]

Hi Tarkan.
Great post, thanks!

That assumes many, many, many things that are wrong.

Perhaps not…

For instance, that you don’t take people’s words for it on other issues.

Have you ever seen a black hole? How about the moon of Europa? Even an atom? Have you even seen a necessary causal connection between your feet and the pavement?

Have you ever been to China? Were you ever there during the Tang Dynasty? How about when the Mongols ruled? Were you ever in pre-American America, or pre-Christian Europe?

Do you know the intimate details of how your phone works? How your dryer works? How your car works? Do you doubt those things will work simply because you do not understand them? Do you reject not only that dryer, but all clothes dryers in general, when one part of a dryer mysteriously seems to stop working?

Careful… I actually work in Nuclear Fusion,and have a degree in Physics Engineering, full with lots of labs in things ranging from classical mechanics, through particle physics, and micro-technologies…
Many of the things you mentioned… I actually studied them… and had some hands-on experience in somethings of the sort.
I can understand how those things work and how people arrived at the results they did and how they managed to show some of them.
You forgot to mention Einstein’s relativity - definitely not intuitive, but the positioning satellites around our planet require it, so they remain synchronous.

Actually, any one can understand those things… if they try and have enough funding to perform the experiments.

The historical aspects… well, it’s not like anyone is claiming those historical personalities did magic to win their battles…
It’s easy to accept that some battle happened near some place - we know that people do war with each other.
Nothing much stands on the acceptance of such events, or such personalities… even if some of them are brushed up a bit - similar to Photoshopping models, but in writing

Faith, at least when it comes to the normal circumstances of life, is normal. It is normal to believe my foot will push me along the pavement, rather than shatter into a million pieces, even though there is no logical law necessitating it. It is normal to believe in the existence of China, even Mongolian China, even if one has never been there or then. It is normal to believe in miracles, and the supernatural, even if one doesn’t agree to the details of the where (God, or gods? Angels? Demons? Spirits?) they came from, because people do experience these all the time, if they begin seriously agnostic about such things. Maybe a man might not believe in God. But it is sheer dogmatism, a cult of state to rival Stalin, to say any man cannot believe in anomalies.
…]
The idea that twelve peasants in a village in rural Judea saw their leader call himself God, go to his death for that, and then rise out of the tomb and live again is relatively tame. “Greater things than these you will do.”

Oh… I would disagree. That tiny bit about rising from the tomb, unless it’s a case of misdiagnosis of death, is not exactly a tame idea.

I understand your argument that many things we use daily, many things we are told about by experts in the different fields, many many things in the world require some level of acceptance of what other people tell us.
We have to believe in them, for we don’t have the time, the money, the brain capacity, etc, to repeat the discovery of the collective human knowledge.

Even the experts may be wrong, or simply not accurate enough.

Now, about historical claims, if any claim requires some form of magic, it is not considered historical, but rather mythological.
Many such claims exist, but we only have records since writing was invented, some 5000 years ago in Mesopotamia… In these, a religion appears as pre-established. Magic was already believed in, at this time. Magic was claimed for a few individuals… but no one, nowadays, believes they actually did any magical feats… .no one believes those gods described were even real.

However, it is noteworthy that the claims themselves are historical. Someone actually wrote those stories. That is true.
It is possible that the writers (or whoever ordered the writings from the scribes) actually believed that those stories were representative of reality… a reality that was not available to normal man… but a few select people were made privy to it… or so they thought.

Sometimes, it’s tricky to differentiate, in old writings, what the writer believes in and what is actual reality… and if the person is writing fiction, then, we’re completely lost!
And if the writer is writing about something that someone else also believes in and that someone else is also writing about it… then all we have is consistency of belief, not of reality.

I have enough faith to believe in quantum mechanics alongside Newtonian mechanics, the 14 billion year old universe, and that Barack Obama was somehow elected to a second term. I would be an idiot, given the evidence I have seen, to not put my faith in the Resurrection, and its witnesses.

Hmmm… do I sense some anti-Obama feelings?
I’m in Europe, so I don’t “mostly” care.

I don’t have enough faith to accept magic claims from such old stories as representative of reality… and a resurrection is a kind of magic.
I certainly accept a desire within me (within anyone?) to find magic in reality… but my skeptical side refuses to allow it, based on what we have… It’s too little… too similar to other magical claims (no, I don’t mean those crazy Zeitgeist claims of other christ-like figures - just the god itself).

 

[pocaracas]

so you don’t feel left out…

thanks!
I’m not sure what the connection is to my question
“why is the refusal to take other people’s word for it interpreted as a rejection of God?”

Unless you’re saying that it’s ok to be an atheist, as long as I don’t go against God…? Is this what the pope said a few months ago?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

In Catholicism, there is the idea of mortal and venial sins. So it is not just the importance of God that determines punishment…[SNIP]…Or if you did not believe in Mary’s virginity out of ignorance, rather than willful disobedience to Christ and his Church.

I am very familiar with this line of thinking and know all about the different degrees of sin. Casuistry will allow us to excuse ourselves from mortal sin no matter what (it seems). Do check out the thread about “knowingly and willingly rejecting God.” The OP employs the same kind of reasoning to try to say that, essentially, no one ever has or ever will actually commit a mortal sin. This should be considered nonsense, since the vast majority of popes, saints, mystics, miracle-workers, theologians, fathers, doctors, and architects of the Catholic faith insist that most human beings are damned. Anyway, to knowingly reject the idea that Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus is to disavow the Catholic faith. To knowingly disavow the Catholic faith is a damnable offense

I wasn’t talking necessarily about respect for Obama, but about importance of his office…[SNIP]…The people had to learn to greatly respect the things of God.

God has no “office.” God is God. Yes, he deserves honor because he is God, but if we refuse it we harm ourselves not him. Therefore, the punishment is to cure us.

God has the right to kill anyone he wants to, for whatever reason. He is the author of life, and it is given to us as a temporary gift (maybe permanent). We have no “right” to it, and we cannot take it away from others. Only God may give and take life, for whatever reason he sees fit. In the example you gave, those people died because no one can see God and live. It wasn’t a punishment, just the natural consequences of coming too close to God without supernatural aid. We cannot “grab” God. If we try to, we will die. The same thing almost happened to Elijah but God preserved him.

Do you mean it doesn’t tell us anything new about God? Because it does tell us a lot about God, especially if you understand the words of Jesus when he said, “when you have seen me you have seen the Father”.

I do not believe that Jesus is God. I do not trust the new testament, and I do not trust the Catholic church or any other churches or religions to tell the truth. Partial truths, yes. I do not believe anyone has the fullness of truth. Only God. Reason can tell us some truth, and the Torah tells us some truth, but we still have only incomplete knowledge. When the messiah comes, this will hopefully be resolved.

That said, I have some respect for the teachings of Jesus as he is portrayed in the gospels. I think some of his parables and sayings are useful and truthful and I think of them often. The parable of the pharisee and the sinner comes to mind often. Also I believe the “Our Father” is a wonderful prayer.

That all depends on whether we are immortal or not. Also, what about universalism? If you believe hell to be unfair then how come you don’t support the idea that eventually everyone will repent and be saved? Wouldn’t that be better than annihilation? And, if everyone could repent then couldn’t someone be kept alive for that possibility, rather than be annihilated? And, wouldn’t it be possible that they would continue to reject repentance even for all eternity?

Universalism is “too good to be true” in my opinion. I also have no idea whether everyone will repent or not. I suppose it is a possibility, in fact I hope that is the case. To me it seems like it would be better than annihilation, but only God knows the best outcome for the universe. It would seem necessary that we exist in order to repent, so it would seem like there could be time in the afterlife to repent. I think it is counter-intuitive and seems deeply unlikely that people will continuously choose not to repent for eternity, especially if that eternity is quite unpleasant! Is our pride and obstinacy bottomless? Is our hate stronger than God’s love?

I suppose you could say that I hope all will be saved, but I recognize that annihilation is the logical possible alternative for those who absolutely refuse to repent. I do not recognize endless hell as a logical possible alternative because I believe it contradicts the nature of God’s omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnipotence. It makes him appear to be a vicious fool!

If I had to throw out a statistical guess, I would say that a huge percentage, maybe 99.999995% of human beings will live in the “World to Come” and the remainder will be extinguished.

It can’t be blasphemy if the doctrine on hell comes from God himself. Since the Church received this teaching from Jesus himself.

Right, I don’t believe it comes from God. It comes to us fourth hand from uncorroborated testimony by anonymous witnesses. You believe it because the then-contemporary church believed the translator who believed the author(s) who believed the anonymous witnesses who thought they remembered it from 30 or so years prior.

 

[arte]

I go off of Fr. Barron’s take on it.

youtube.com/watch?v=x8zhnooySk4

But I can see how it could apply to many attributes of the human person. If God sees it meet and right for a man to give up chocolate (to be somewhat flippant) to enter the Kingdom, and the man refuses, despite God’s protestations - for he wills to have no Heaven without chocolate - what can God do with such a will?

I liked Fr. Barron’s analogy with being at a party; everyone enjoying themselves except for one person sat on their own and not enjoying it. The trouble with all these analogies is that they do not address being there for an eternity.

It may well be largely - just as I largely believe in God’s mercy.
At the same time, I do also believe in His justice. I don’t believe the wrath or anger of God is confined to the Old Testament, you follow. He’s the same God, throughout.

Largely means predominately so in my quote it is the vast majority. God does not get angry or wrathful. These are human traits. All too often the God of the Old Testament is described as a megalomaniac and a murderer of innocents. You have to read the Old Testament with a critical eye. In fact, you should read the New Testament and any other religious document with a critical eye as well. I do not believe in God’s justice (including Jesus) if it involves torturing someone 24/7 for an eternity. It’s called using your God given commonsense.

Part of this shows in Jesus’s talk of an “unforgivable sin”. Do you remember that passage, in Matthew?
What, I wonder, might that sin be?
Jimmy Akin gives an interesting reply, by putting that snippet in the context of what He is doing - namely, an exorcism. Here’s Mr. Akin’s take on it, if you have the time: ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/UNFORGIV.htm

And while most sins, as Our Lord seems to imply, might be forgiven, why that one? If He meant to warn us about it - besides warning us not to do this or that, or to do this or that, else we should “have no life in us” - why?

Jesus was talking specifically to Pharisees who had personally witnessed his miracle of completely and instantly healing a blind and mute demon-possessed man. Rather than acknowledging the obvious fact that Jesus was exercising divine powers, the Pharisees were so spiritually depraved that they attributed his power to Satan. OK- one for you now. What does the above paragraph have to do with proving Jesus existed in secular history?

God’s mercy is vast. Jesus has indeed show us that. But He and the Fathers, and God the Father Himself, have shown He is also just, and He will condemn men as He sees fit. Maybe the Fathers largely believe in God’s mercy - as do I. But it is undeniable they believe in His justice as well. I leave you with this:
scripturecatholic.com/hell.html

This is purely the tactic of fear being used by the Church or indeed any other Christian denomination that uses such tactics. Fear is the lowest of all human emotions and is disgraceful to use in order to spread the love of God. I suggest you read “Good Goats Healing our Image of God” by Catholic authors Dennis, Sheila and Matthew Linn for a better understanding of Matthew 25:41. By the way, what Jesus was teaching in Matthew 25: 35-36 is far more important than threatening people with hell.

A catalogue of the few but certain statements of the Fathers and of Scripture that there are some sins even a man can do that cannot be forgiven - by man or God. You will notice some early names such as Irenaus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus, that had an intimacy with Scripture that you claim modern people do not. And it is true. But it seems to still be no excuse for a radical Universalism, I’m afraid.

The vast majority of the early church fathers must have read something in the original scriptures that convinced them that there was universal salvation. Whatever, be objective in your reasoning and apply commonsense instead of following dogma without critiquing it.

No. We are told the ordinary means of salvation are through the sacraments. We do not know what God Himself is capable of, though we can imagine - as you seem to have.

If I have imagined what God Himself is capable of then you have as well. You have just explained using references that people go to hell’s lake of fire and brimstone etc for eternity. Please explain what the Church’s position is on dying with one unconfessed sin on our souls.

But while God is infinitely good and just, and the rest, what are we? Can we not resist Him, even unto death?

If God brings a wholly hateful soul into Heaven, will that soul not still be in Hell, because that soul hates God and all that is good? Don’t tell me you’ve never met someone who resists goodness, or kindness, or charity, with all fervour and vigour. I believe such people exist, for I have met them. Some people - few they may be - will to never learn. God forbid them from learning, they say.

And so it is. And that is Hell.

I do not doubt that there are people like you describe because I have met similar (the same?) people as well. Yes, they are likely to be a very small minority of the human race as a whole. However, do you believe these people should be tortured 24/7 for an eternity?

 

[fisherman_carl]

I suggest you read “Good Goats Healing our Image of God” by Catholic authors Dennis, Sheila and Matthew Linn for a better understanding of Matthew 25:41. By the way, what Jesus was teaching in Matthew 25: 35-36 is far more important than threatening people with hell.

I have read “Good Goats” a few years ago. Definitely and interesting read. However, I found that some of their scripture interpretations are basically their opinions. And, really have no authority behind them other than it is a nice idea. Their idea of hell is that it exists, but that people who are there continue to get a chance to repent and God who is all loving tries to love them into repentance, even if it takes all eternity. This is not a bad idea. (Although we already have such a place called Purgatory). The only thing is that they assume that repentance is possible in the after life for people in hell. However, they do not establish that it is. It is just assumed. So what is someone supposed to believe? Their personal opinion that it is or the Church? So, for my own opinion is that yes it would be nice if repentance were possible after death, but I am not going to hang my hat on it as if it were true that it is. Because it could possibly not be true. And, the prevailing view in the Church is that repentance is not possible after death. I can not be logically honest if I just accepted what the Linn’s have to say because it makes me feel better. It may be a possibility somehow, but I wouldn’t bank on opinion over what the Church has to say.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I am very familiar with this line of thinking and know all about the different degrees of sin. Casuistry will allow us to excuse ourselves from mortal sin no matter what (it seems). Do check out the thread about “knowingly and willingly rejecting God.” The OP employs the same kind of reasoning to try to say that, essentially, no one ever has or ever will actually commit a mortal sin. This should be considered nonsense, since the vast majority of popes, saints, mystics, miracle-workers, theologians, fathers, doctors, and architects of the Catholic faith insist that most human beings are damned. Anyway, to knowingly reject the idea that Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus is to disavow the Catholic faith. To knowingly disavow the Catholic faith is a damnable offense

God has no “office.” God is God. Yes, he deserves honor because he is God, but if we refuse it we harm ourselves not him. Therefore, the punishment is to cure us.

God has the right to kill anyone he wants to, for whatever reason. He is the author of life, and it is given to us as a temporary gift (maybe permanent). We have no “right” to it, and we cannot take it away from others. Only God may give and take life, for whatever reason he sees fit. In the example you gave, those people died because no one can see God and live. It wasn’t a punishment, just the natural consequences of coming too close to God without supernatural aid. We cannot “grab” God. If we try to, we will die. The same thing almost happened to Elijah but God preserved him.

I do not believe that Jesus is God. I do not trust the new testament, and I do not trust the Catholic church or any other churches or religions to tell the truth. Partial truths, yes. I do not believe anyone has the fullness of truth. Only God. Reason can tell us some truth, and the Torah tells us some truth, but we still have only incomplete knowledge. When the messiah comes, this will hopefully be resolved.

That said, I have some respect for the teachings of Jesus as he is portrayed in the gospels. I think some of his parables and sayings are useful and truthful and I think of them often. The parable of the pharisee and the sinner comes to mind often. Also I believe the “Our Father” is a wonderful prayer.

Universalism is “too good to be true” in my opinion. I also have no idea whether everyone will repent or not. I suppose it is a possibility, in fact I hope that is the case. To me it seems like it would be better than annihilation, but only God knows the best outcome for the universe. It would seem necessary that we exist in order to repent, so it would seem like there could be time in the afterlife to repent. I think it is counter-intuitive and seems deeply unlikely that people will continuously choose not to repent for eternity, especially if that eternity is quite unpleasant! Is our pride and obstinacy bottomless? Is our hate stronger than God’s love?

I suppose you could say that I hope all will be saved, but I recognize that annihilation is the logical possible alternative for those who absolutely refuse to repent. I do not recognize endless hell as a logical possible alternative because I believe it contradicts the nature of God’s omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnipotence. It makes him appear to be a vicious fool!

If I had to throw out a statistical guess, I would say that a huge percentage, maybe 99.999995% of human beings will live in the “World to Come” and the remainder will be extinguished.

Right, I don’t believe it comes from God. It comes to us fourth hand from uncorroborated testimony by anonymous witnesses. You believe it because the then-contemporary church believed the translator who believed the author(s) who believed the anonymous witnesses who thought they remembered it from 30 or so years prior.

I’m more of the view that one should seek the truth rather than trying to shove it down someone’s throat by force. So I do not see any good in the view that some Catholics take when they go around saying that you must believe xyz or you are going to hell, just to scare someone into believing something. I’m sure that is not the approach that RCIA takes when they take on new people. That is not how people learn. It should be about seeking truth, not merely trying to stay out of hell. Jesus did say after all that everyone who is on the side of truth listens to him. So he could hardly fault someone for seeking truth then.

Personally, I trust in the justice of God to be fair, whatever it will be. And, have uttermost confidence in him, whatever he should judge in my case. My life is in his hands and I will praise him regardless because I know that he is all good and no evil dwells in him. I just hope that I can live my life in a way that pleases him. I know that I am not worthy but I trust in his infinite mercy. No one knows anything for sure. But, I believe that God is just and if he sends people to hell then it must be because there is no better option.

 

[OneSheep]

I go off of Fr. Barron’s take on it.

youtube.com/watch?v=x8zhnooySk4

If I may cut in…
I want to thank you for this excellent video of the topic by Fr. Barron!

But I can see how it could apply to many attributes of the human person. If God sees it meet and right for a man to give up chocolate (to be somewhat flippant) to enter the Kingdom, and the man refuses, despite God’s protestations - for he wills to have no Heaven without chocolate - what can God do with such a will?

The man does not know what he is doing. His mind is soaked in chocolate. Hey, its a tough call.

It may well be largely - just as I largely believe in God’s mercy.
At the same time, I do also believe in His justice. I don’t believe the wrath or anger of God is confined to the Old Testament, you follow. He’s the same God, throughout.

So, would it be just for God to condemn a man whose mind is completely compromised by chocolate?

Part of this shows in Jesus’s talk of an “unforgivable sin”. Do you remember that passage, in Matthew?

What, I wonder, might that sin be?

Jimmy Akin gives an interesting reply, by putting that snippet in the context of what He is doing - namely, an exorcism. Here’s Mr. Akin’s take on it, if you have the time: ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/UNFORGIV.htm

And while most sins, as Our Lord seems to imply, might be forgiven, why that one? If He meant to warn us about it - besides warning us not to do this or that, or to do this or that, else we should “have no life in us” - why?

God’s mercy is vast. Jesus has indeed show us that. But He and the Fathers, and God the Father Himself, have shown He is also just, and He will condemn men as He sees fit. Maybe the Fathers largely believe in God’s mercy - as do I. But it is undeniable they believe in His justice as well. I leave you with this:
scripturecatholic.com/hell.html

A catalogue of the few but certain statements of the Fathers and of Scripture that there are some sins even a man can do that cannot be forgiven - by man or God. You will notice some early names such as Irenaus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus, that had an intimacy with Scripture that you claim modern people do not. And it is true. But it seems to still be no excuse for a radical Universalism, I’m afraid.

So, what is a sin that you personally cannot forgive?

No. We are told the ordinary means of salvation are through the sacraments. We do not know what God Himself is capable of, though we can imagine - as you seem to have.

But while God is infinitely good and just, and the rest, what are we? Can we not resist Him, even unto death?

If God brings a wholly hateful soul into Heaven, will that soul not still be in Hell, because that soul hates God and all that is good? Don’t tell me you’ve never met someone who resists goodness, or kindness, or charity, with all fervour and vigour. I believe such people exist, for I have met them. Some people - few they may be - will to never learn. God forbid them from learning, they say.

And so it is. And that is Hell.

Do you know someone who resists such, and does so with all of his wits about him, and knows what he is doing? I am interested in the example. Please describe!

Thanks.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Hi Tarkan.
Great post, thanks.

Many of the things you mentioned… I actually studied them… and had some hands-on experience in somethings of the sort.
I can understand how those things work and how people arrived at the results they did and how they managed to show some of them.

And so should I take your word for it when you explain to me how this or that things in nuclear physics works?

Careful…

Actually, any one can understand those things… if they try and have enough funding to perform the experiments.

Should I? Should anyone? Indeed, can anyone?

I mean, can anyone know all of science - even with faith, never mind in experience, the way privileged elites such as yourself do?

Even scientists rely on the data of other scientists so that scientific progress can be made. We do not have to reinvent the wheel every time the town wheelwright dies.

The historical aspects… well, it’s not like anyone is claiming those historical personalities did magic to win their battles…

How tragic that you fail to see anything miraculous - even if it is a nightmarish miracle - in the global conquests of the Mongol horsemen.

Did it involve an incantation to some weird pagan deity? Maybe, maybe not. However, it happened, the miracle is that it really should not have. That, really, is the definition of a miracle - an anomaly. An exception, that tests the rule. And proves it, also.

Another friend of mine, who is also learned in the natural sciences, noted that theories and laws are interpretations of a collection of facts. Science is not, itself, factual, so he said. One proof of this might be anomalies. Do you ever run into those? What does a scientist do about an anomaly that doesn’t fit a theory, or a hypothesis?

I’m asking seriously

I understand your argument that many things we use daily, many things we are told about by experts in the different fields…etc…Even the experts may be wrong, or simply not accurate enough.

True.

Now, about historical claims, if any claim requires some form of magic, it is not considered historical, but rather mythological.

On what basis, may I ask?
Because I disagree. As does almost every civilisation since the Sumerians - even the Christian civilisations.

Many such claims exist… In these, a religion appears as pre-established.

So? Why do you expect anything different?

I mean, if I captured you and your (hypothetical) husband (or wife?), stole you into a laboratory and told you to prove you love each other, would I be right to poo-poo you if you said “no”?

If I knew you had a helicopter, but you and I were strangers, what chance would there be that you would give me the keys to your copter?

This is another false presumption - that God is an impersonal force like gravity that can be isolated against its own will - namely because it has none. But if God is, as the Christians say, if the spirits are as the pagans say, personal, and not impersonal, why do you expect them to act like dead matter, or the dead “laws” of the universe?

Sometimes, it’s tricky to differentiate, in old writings, what the writer believes in and what is actual reality… and if the person is writing fiction, then, we’re completely lost!
And if the writer is writing about something that someone else also believes in and that someone else is also writing about it… then all we have is consistency of belief, not of reality.

I suppose you mean to tell me the Gospels are not history?

Hmmm… do I sense some anti-Obama feelings?
I’m in Europe, so I don’t “mostly” care.

Someone once said that “the right wing and the left wing are two wings of the same bird”.
I mainly did it for humor’s sake. (But, seriously, no one wanted him 4 years ago…)

I certainly accept a desire within me (within anyone?) to find magic in reality… but my skeptical side refuses to allow it, based on what we have… It’s too little… too similar to other magical claims (no, I don’t mean those crazy Zeitgeist claims of other christ-like figures - just the god itself).

You’re a scientist, right?

Here’s a thought for you. I got it from a friend of mine who, as he says, has a master’s:
Science doesn’t actually tell us anything true.

What are, after all, hypotheses and theories? Are they true? Or are they interpretations of a collection of truths?

Here’s another thought. It’s from Chesterton:

It is supposed that if a thing goes on repeating itself it is probably dead; a piece of clockwork. People feel that if the universe was personal it would vary; if the sun were alive it would dance. [But] the sun rises every morning. I do not rise every morning; but the variation is due not to my activity, but to my inaction. It may not be automatic necessity that makes all daisies alike; it may be that God makes every daisy separately, but has never got tired of making them. It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we.** The repetition in Nature may not be a mere recurrence; it may be a theatrical ENCORE.**

There’s “magic”, for you. Magic is not a power, or a therapy. Magical thinking is a state of mind about the world. Like the state of mind you might have about a man, or a woman, or a boy or girl. Either they’re just “cogs in the gearwork”. Or you know them, talk to them, and even influence them to some degree. They’re alive. Really alive. The latter is magic.

 

[fred_conty]

Eternal suffering is not about making a point. God does not make points … it isn’t about that at all.

What God’s will is that all men should be saved. Jesus said it and said it and said it. That is the point he is making. He came to help. He came because he loved. He came to save us from suffering eternally. He does not get kicks from anyone’s suffering. The implication is as tho he is up there gleafully smiling as the devils turn people over in the fire.

St Paul said that murderers, adulterers, fornicators, liars, thiefs, and so on will not get into God’s kingdom. He didn’t say anything about hell being pointless. But he did say they wouldn’t get in. Because, they have soiled themselves without cleaning themselves up in the love detergent God furnishes. They are not fit because they made themselves unfit and did nothing about it. There are no points to be made … it is the way it is because God is pure, and all holy, and foul, nasty people do not fit.

Some how our modern day thinking is that God is some buddy of ours that doesn’t know as much as we know. We have totally lost all sense of majesty and greatness of God. Whatever we think is the way it will be. Whatever I want and like is the way I will live and God will just have to go along to get along.

Yah…right. And it is all God’s fault too … which I forgot to mention.

If there is a point to be made, it is this one … we are totally stupid Lord, forgive us.

 

[pocaracas]

And so should I take your word for it when you explain to me how this or that things in nuclear physics works?

Careful…

No.
You should think about the things I say and reason if they make sense in lieu of your whole experiments in life.
I may lie.
I may be grossly mistaken as to how to interpret some scientific notions.
I may be wrong and blind to my error.
I may be right.
You are a welcome third party who may critique my words, my work, my opinions.

Should I? Should anyone? Indeed, can anyone?

I mean, can anyone know all of science - even with faith, never mind in experience, the way privileged elites such as yourself do?

Even scientists rely on the data of other scientists so that scientific progress can be made. We do not have to reinvent the wheel every time the town wheelwright dies.

It’s easier to “stand on the shoulders of giants” than to climb the whole ladder over and over.

If it is humanly possible to acquire all the knowledge produced in science? Perhaps a hundred years ago… nowadays, it’s too large a body of work from way too many people…

But, theoretically, in absence of time constraints, it is possible. The wonderful thing about science is that, if you annihilate all the scientific information that mankind has, it can be rebuilt from scratch.
If everyone woke up tomorrow with no knowledge of any divine realms, no holy books to guide them… what do you reckon would happen? Would we get christianity back?

How tragic that you fail to see anything miraculous - even if it is a nightmarish miracle - in the global conquests of the Mongol horsemen.

I don’t know enough about those conquests to produce an informed opinion.
But I do know that similar claims were made of the conquest of the Arabian Peninsula by Mohamed’s tribe…

Did it involve an incantation to some weird pagan deity? Maybe, maybe not. However, it happened, the miracle is that it really should not have. That, really, is the definition of a miracle - an anomaly. An exception, that tests the rule. And proves it, also.

Another friend of mine, who is also learned in the natural sciences, noted that theories and laws are interpretations of a collection of facts. Science is not, itself, factual, so he said. One proof of this might be anomalies. Do you ever run into those? What does a scientist do about an anomaly that doesn’t fit a theory, or a hypothesis?

I’m asking seriously

Recheck instruments for abnormal response. Search for some other reason that leads to that apparent contradiction.
If the contradiction remains unperturbed, update the theory to accommodate it.

On what basis, may I ask?
Because I disagree. As does almost every civilisation since the Sumerians - even the Christian civilisations.

History is devised as the tale of mankind on this planet.
Nowadays, there is a remarkable absence of “magic”. The sort of magic claimed to exist in the stories of old. The kind that turns sticks to serpents, that floods entire continents, that submerges other continents, that produces plagues on command, that creates planets in a day…

Those ancient civilizations you mentioned could not distinguish the claims of magic from real life events… many events were interpreted in light of some oracle-like figure… Not what I’d call unbiased, impartial parties.

So? Why do you expect anything different?

I wouldn’t… shamanism appears to be way old: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamanism#Hypotheses_on_origins.

I mean, if I captured you and your (hypothetical) husband (or wife?), stole you into a laboratory and told you to prove you love each other, would I be right to poo-poo you if you said “no”?

You should know that, under such a scenario, I’d ask you to first define “love”.
I’d then work from that.

But this sort of experiment can be applied to other feelings - prove that you feel friendship for your best friend; prove that you feel hatred towards that neighbor from hell that keeps you awake with his gay sex at 4am

This is another false presumption - that God is an impersonal force like gravity that can be isolated against its own will - namely because it has none. But if God is, as the Christians say, if the spirits are as the pagans say, personal, and not impersonal, why do you expect them to act like dead matter, or the dead “laws” of the universe?

Did I say something like that? hmmmm…odd, doesn’t sound like me.

I suppose you mean to tell me the Gospels are not history?

I suppose you mean to tell me that they are?

History is the fact that someone did write those texts roughly in the late first century AD.
The trouble is… it has recently (1950’s?) surfaced that someone else wrote something very similar in the early first century BC… Either the dating techniques are wrong, or one was copying from the other… or… there are many possibilities… I mean to start a thread on that subject… but not right now.

Someone once said that “the right wing and the left wing are two wings of the same bird”.
I mainly did it for humor’s sake. (But, seriously, no one wanted him 4 years ago…)

Someone did want him, or else he wouldn’t be there… It’s a big country, try not to judge it all by your local sampling.

[to be continued… I write too much and quote too much]

 

[pocaracas]

[continuation]

You’re a scientist, right?

Here’s a thought for you. I got it from a friend of mine who, as he says, has a master’s:
Science doesn’t actually tell us anything true.

Here, I have to stop you to ask you to define what you mean by “true”.
Science endeavors to be as truthful as possible. To provide an ever more accurate and truthful description of the world.

What are, after all, hypotheses and theories? Are they true? Or are they interpretations of a collection of truths?

Maybe I should consult with an encyclopedia…
Theories are essentially explanations of measurable events/quantities.
Again, what is “truth” that it should be collected?
A theory is considered true as long people agree that it accurately explains those events or quantities it proposes to explain.

Here’s another thought. It’s from Chesterton:

It is supposed that if a thing goes on repeating itself it is probably dead; a piece of clockwork. People feel that if the universe was personal it would vary; if the sun were alive it would dance. [But] the sun rises every morning. I do not rise every morning; but the variation is due not to my activity, but to my inaction. It may not be automatic necessity that makes all daisies alike; it may be that God makes every daisy separately, but has never got tired of making them. It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we. The repetition in Nature may not be a mere recurrence; it may be a theatrical ENCORE.

Now you seem to be redefining magic…
Why should a societal behavior be considered magic?
Society (and humans are not the only social animals) seems to me to be a logical next step in the evolution of organisms, in an attempt to improve their collective survival probability. It seems to work, huh? And it works better as the organisms manage to interact more effectively… and the big winners in that efficiency race turn out to be us.
We did good… our ancestors did good. Why bring magic into the mix?

 

[fisherman_carl]

I have read “Good Goats” a few years ago. Definitely and interesting read. However, I found that some of their scripture interpretations are basically their opinions. And, really have no authority behind them other than it is a nice idea. Their idea of hell is that it exists, but that people who are there continue to get a chance to repent and God who is all loving tries to love them into repentance, even if it takes all eternity. This is not a bad idea. (Although we already have such a place called Purgatory). The only thing is that they assume that repentance is possible in the after life for people in hell. However, they do not establish that it is. It is just assumed. So what is someone supposed to believe? Their personal opinion that it is or the Church? So, for my own opinion is that yes it would be nice if repentance were possible after death, but I am not going to hang my hat on it as if it were true that it is. Because it could possibly not be true. And, the prevailing view in the Church is that repentance is not possible after death. I can not be logically honest if I just accepted what the Linn’s have to say because it makes me feel better. It may be a possibility somehow, but I wouldn’t bank on opinion over what the Church has to say.

Don’t get me wrong. They make a lot of good points in the book. And their goal is admirable, trying to heal our image of God to being more like a loving Father than a scary tyrant. Im just saying some of their scripure interpretations like saying that Jesus was exaggerating about hell like a parent exaggerates punishment to their kids to keep them in line is just their opinion. For example they compare the saying where Jesus talks about the fires of hell as being the same as a parent who yells at their kids in the back seat that they better be good or I’ll come back there and tie you to the roof of the car. Ths point being the parent really wouldn’t do that to their own child. They are saying that to keep them in line. However, this would still mean then that Jesus is making idle threats to scare us into be good. And I am not sure how you could prove that the Creator of the universe makes idle threats.

Does God want us to be scared? I think the point of such passages is not to keep us scared but keep us from sin. Not all of us need to be scared to keep us in line. Yeah sure, the kids in the back seat may need a good scare every once in awhile if they get too rowdy. But, I don’t think God wants us to live our lives in fear. I know for myself fear is crippling rather than empowering. It doesn’t empower me to do good. Rather it turns me inside myself. As I seek to protect myself from the threat. The mature person does not need to be scared to do the right thing. Presumably they have matured to the point where they want to do it. We don’t usually need to use idle threats with adults in the back seat for instance.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Eternal suffering is not about making a point. God does not make points … it isn’t about that at all.

What God’s will is that all men should be saved. Jesus said it and said it and said it. That is the point he is making. He came to help. He came because he loved. He came to save us from suffering eternally. He does not get kicks from anyone’s suffering. The implication is as tho he is up there gleafully smiling as the devils turn people over in the fire.

St Paul said that murderers, adulterers, fornicators, liars, thiefs, and so on will not get into God’s kingdom. He didn’t say anything about hell being pointless. But he did say they wouldn’t get in. Because, they have soiled themselves without cleaning themselves up in the love detergent God furnishes. They are not fit because they made themselves unfit and did nothing about it. There are no points to be made … it is the way it is because God is pure, and all holy, and foul, nasty people do not fit.

Some how our modern day thinking is that God is some buddy of ours that doesn’t know as much as we know. We have totally lost all sense of majesty and greatness of God. Whatever we think is the way it will be. Whatever I want and like is the way I will live and God will just have to go along to get along.

Yah…right. And it is all God’s fault too … which I forgot to mention.

If there is a point to be made, it is this one … we are totally stupid Lord, forgive us.

:thumbsup:I agree with you. But, the problem that some have is a moral problem with the idea of eternal torment without hope. Is that a just punishment some would ask? Some for instance would prefer annihilation and would consider it to be more merciful then endless torment. Or some would like it if God was able to somehow save everyone even if it took all eternity. That way there would always be hope, even for those in hell. Like you said things are the way that they are. And, If there is no possibility of repentance after death then that is just how it is. The key then is to repent now and not wait. You don’t want to bank on having more chances. We don’t know exactly what hell would be like but all agree that we don’t want to go to such a place.

I look at it as a darkness versus light issue. The separation of good vs evil. Like how God divided the light from the darkness. However, are those in the darkness completely without any light or merit? Are they completely corrupted without hope? Ultimately, without God’s light in us we are a like a ship without a rudder, tossed to and fro with every wave. Is this life the only chance we have to be able to change from darkness to light? Since due to sin we are all born in the darkness until we are baptized in the light.

One of the points the Lynns make in the book “Good Goats” is that the idea of repentance being possible after death combined with God’s love means that God would never give up on a person. He would continue to try to love them from darkness into the light. Which means that we shouldn’t give up on others either. That is great in theory. However, we don’t know that repentance is possible after some point. Perhaps, it is metaphysically impossible after death. Like the angels who once they make a decision can never change their minds. Yet, this idea that one could not change their mind seems foreign to us. But, I guess it goes both ways. If those in hell could change their mind and attain heaven then perhaps those in heaven could change their mind and fall into hell. Thus, finality could not be reached. I think the Church tends to think that we become set in our ways so to speak and that is why we can not repent. Not that God gives up on anyone but that they can no longer be reached in their present state.

Thank God that we don’t have to be perfect to get into purgatory.

 

[TarkanAttila]

So, what is a sin that you personally cannot forgive?

There is only one: final unrepentance. I’ll explain.

Do you know someone who resists such, and does so with all of his wits about him, and knows what he is doing? I am interested in the example. Please describe!

Thanks.

Satan. Satan was an angel. He had perfect intellect and will. And not only he but a third of the angels went with him.

I know a young man who believes he is a lesbian trapped in a man’s body. Seriously. He thinks he’s transgender. He knows I am Catholic. I have tried reaching out and being friendly with him. I’ve given him notes. I’ve asked him questions. I’ve been extinguished like a torch drowned in a bucket every time.

I have met customers who will not be satisfied. I tell them the truth. They don’t want it. They want the information they want, or you’re the worst rep they’ve ever talked to.

There is even a part of me that, if it were not kept in check by my reason, would want to screw God and the truth and just do whatever I want. Thank God I have a mind, or I would be much worse off.

However, do you believe these people should be tortured 24/7 for an eternity?

Some people cannot be pleased.

Some people will only have it their way, or else kick and scream and be miserable.

Who has not heard of the man who holds a grudge, or a feud, with another person, or a family member, and who will not talk to them or treat them like anything more than air, until the other person apologises?

Or the fussy person who wants everything “just so”, and if they don’t get it that way they spoil the day for everyone else?

Or the person with an eternal chip on his shoulders, who, like the last person, will never forgive another person, no matter how much they apologise?

I am not saying all such people are unforgivable, or that all such people are incapable of repentance. There is hope for them. But at the same time these sorts of sins can suck a soul into itself with a morbid, twisted, self-satisfying pride that sucks in like quicksand, or a self-destructive vacuum.

That really is the unforgivable sin. Pride. Pride that refuses to allow God to be God, and demands that I, not God, decide what is good for me. And God forbid that it should be any other way - literally.

What can God do with such an attitude? What else can He do but cause such a soul pain - pain that is entirely inflicted by themselves?

 

[OneSheep]

There is only one: final unrepentance. I’ll explain.

Hi TarkanAttila,

You cannot personally forgive “final unrepentance”?
Is it because you do not think it is right to forgive?

I know a young man who believes he is a lesbian trapped in a man’s body. Seriously. He thinks he’s transgender. He knows I am Catholic. I have tried reaching out and being friendly with him. I’ve given him notes. I’ve asked him questions. I’ve been extinguished like a torch drowned in a bucket every time.

hmmm. Why does he do that?

I have met customers who will not be satisfied. I tell them the truth. They don’t want it. They want the information they want, or you’re the worst rep they’ve ever talked to.

Yes, there is that matter of really wanting to believe something that blocks out facts. I can relate to that. There are ways to reach people though. I am not very good at it.

There is even a part of me that, if it were not kept in check by my reason, would want to screw God and the truth and just do whatever I want. Thank God I have a mind, or I would be much worse off.

Well, thank God you have a conscience too! If you were “wanting” to do great harm to people, it would only be because of the necessary factor of seeing no value in them. So, if we see no value in people, it is great to have a reward/punishment mechanism in our minds (the conscience) to keep us in line until empathy has fully transformed our awareness, right?

Is that “part of you” the part that wants to have autonomy, to be free of all the rules?