Is eternal suffering pointless?

[jmcrae]

If God isn’t in hell then neither are we. We cannot exist “separate” from him. Apart from God there is, nothingness.

Love does not punish forever. In fact, think of how absurd this would be:

Which of these things is not like the other?

It is not God who gives the punishments in Hell; it is the Devil who does this. The Devil is a treacherous liar who teaches people to reject God and the Church, and then when they do what it wants them to do, it punishes them forever. God allows the choice, because unless you have the choice, your love is not genuine.

 

[arte]

How could they want to know God in the afterlife? The souls in Hell prefer themselves to God. They want nothing to do with Him. They chose death over life by knowingly and wilfully disobeying God while still on earth, despising His love and goodness.

There are a lot of atheists out there who do not hate or despise God. For them, they see no evidence for God. I completely agree that there are a lot of people who are totally selfish and also some really evil people in the World. I am certain that the above people would want to know God if they met Him in person! Think about it yourself. They die and meet God. I cannot imagine anyone saying: “I want to go to hell and want nothing to do with you”.

Justice is an immutable attribute of the Divine essence. So not even His mercy can negate it.

Sorry, that is not God you are describing. Love can negate anything.

There is no just reason for us to step on an ant. The souls in Hell are there because of their own lusts, not because of God’s lust for power.

What is the point of being an omnipotent being if you cannot use your power to confer some kind of change in the way mere humans think and act when they are standing in front of you?

God doesn’t torture the souls in Hell. I suspect your conception of Hell is wrong.

Please explain the concept of hell because at the moment you only suspect that my concept of hell is wrong.

Eternity is timeless. So there are no months in the afterlife.

Regardless of our scientific knowledge on eternity, God can alter eternity anyway He wants to make a million years be a million years for an offender.

Death row is a reprieve for inmates who are afraid to be executed. While waiting they can still cling to the hope that a change in state legislation might deliver them from such a death. Meanwhile, the annihilation of the soul in Hell would be unjust to God, for the punishment it deserves would be cancelled on account that God continues to exist. The transgression against God is eternal, though the transgressor’s act is temporal in real time and space. As long as God is offended against by an act of transgression, the transgressor must be punished for his act of transgression against God. And there is nothing the soul can do to compensate God for his act of transgression against Him, since the scope of its gravity is infinite. Repentance in this life where the act of transgression takes place is the only solution.

Justice must be seen to be done and must be done as quickly as possible. “Although concerns about the human impact of excessive time spent on death row have received little attention in this country, the ‘death row phenomenon’ — including lengthy time on death row — has been recognized as inhuman punishment and illegal throughout Europe since the 1980s.” Sarah H. Cleveland, a law professor at Columbia and a former State Department official. The long delay before capital punishment is inhumane. I think everyone would be afraid of being executed.

You come across as someone who is heartless and portraying God in like manner. I am certain God could “take it” if a soul wasn’t punished for eternity and instead was obliterated. You state: “the annihilation of the soul in Hell would be unjust to God, for the punishment it deserves would be cancelled on account that God continues to exist”. You also state: “there is nothing the soul can do to compensate God for his act of transgression against Him, since the scope of its gravity is infinite”. If there is nothing the soul can do to compensate its offence even in hell for eternity; eternal punishment has no point whatsoever. You have just proved that eternal suffering is pointless. Furthermore, your second statement cancels out your first statement.

I have seen the argument that God lives for eternity so the punishment of the soul should be for eternity used a few times in this debate. It may make sense to the people that use it but I assure you it does not make sense to anyone with an ounce of mercy in their heart.

TBC

 

[arte]

CONT’D

God gave man a free will so he can choose between life and death. The souls in Hell chose to be there. There is no commandment of God that is impossible for us to obey, since we all have received sufficient grace to be able to pursue righteousness.

The souls in hell did not choose to be there. Someone has put them there. The more I debate this subject, the more I cannot understand why good sane normal rational human beings cannot see the injustice of eternal punishment.

The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ. The Protestant churches were founded by mortal men. Jesus was talking to his apostles when he commissioned them to preach the gospel and baptise all nations knowing that he would be with them until the end of time (Mt 28:20). Jesus was alluding to their valid successors in the episcopate. The Holy Spirit was sent to preserve and safeguard the divine truth in matters of faith and morals until Christ returns (1 Tim 3:15).

scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html
scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html#scripture_III
scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html#scripture_IV

I completely agree with the rich history of the Catholic Church dating back to Jesus and I have often used this link in debates against Protestants. The only point that I agree with Martin Luther on was the “sale of indulgences”. It was incorrect of the Church to do this. Martin Luther was a Catholic Monk at the time of his disagreement with the Church so in a way Protestants can claim a link to the Catholic Church and with it guidance of the Holy Spirit. I have criticised the Church for ant Semitism and must criticise Martin Luther because he was fervently anti-Semitic. However, I repeat what I said earlier, humans can make mistakes even though they believe they are guided by the Holy Spirit.

Hell isn’t a torture chamber in the worldly sense. Ignore those You tube videos posted by evangelical Christians. I believe it is the condition of the soul which causes the suffering, or else we couldn’t say that the souls in Hell chose to be there.

I keep hearing different “takes” on hell from lakes of fire and demons to “the door is locked on the inside” on CAF. Which one is correct?

Murder is one mortal sin among many. Adulterers are stoned to death in some Muslim countries.

Islam, a religion that retards people. Muslims are still clinging to a justice system from the 7th century which they incredibly call God’s law! A bunch of atheists could produce a system of law which would be far closer to God than Sharia Law. Killing adulterers is in the Bible as well but we don’t see Christians doing it. It doesn’t add to your side of the debate quoting what Muslims do; it subtracts from it.

 

[OneSheep]

I think you have missed several points. The real challenge is to become repentant.

Yes, I missed addressing several points. The “real” challenge, yes, is to become repentant, and repentance means transcending our own human desires for wealth, status, sex, etc. as well as changing our minds about hanging onto wealth at the expense of those who suffer. Repentance means many things, and it also means to forgive everyone we hold anything against.

Are you saying that unconditional forgiveness misses the point?

Perhaps you are. For if God always forgives, how are we going to be able to coerce people to repent? But have no worries on this, David. The human develops a conscience, and the conscience is equated with God until love becomes the guide. And since the conscience itself is coercive (it rewards and punishes), the human will be subject to coercion (if he has a normal conscience) until his spirituality transcends the conscience itself. In order to transcend the conscience itself, a person must love and forgive everyone unconditionally, and once a person is able to love this way, the conscience is still there, but it becomes obsolete. As Jesus says, love is the basis for all the law.

Complete love goes beyond all law. Law is “don’t do that”. Love is “you don’t want to do that, of course” and “you want to do all of this!”.

 

[OneSheep]

It is a good answer except that it assumes human perception. We can still “know” God forgives someone, but not perceive it. How can you see forgiveness? Through various signs.

Hi Michael,

I’m a little confused by your response because it looks like you are repeating what I said. Yes, a person can “know”, that is they have been told that God always forgives, as Pope Francis says. However, the person will remain doubtful about God’s forgiveness until he himself forgives everyone he holds something against. Until the person does this, he will remain tortured by scruples or grudges.

We can see forgiveness when we forgive. We learn of God’s love by loving. These are “signs” too.

I think we say that God’s forgiveness is unconditional because it is for the person who repents in his heart. Once repentance takes a permanent root, the remainder is only a matter of time till repentance is acted on, felt, etc.

God’s love is unconditional toward everyone, right? Is that what you are saying? I think so. And yes, once repentance takes root, especially in the form of loving and forgiving everyone, the “remainder” is truly knowing and feeling God’s unlimited love. Is my rewording changing the meaning?

No one can speak with the same authority of Jesus about his Father in that we have all sinned and should be concerned with our own repentance.
What benefit would a sinner enjoy, what blessing is there in reprimanding a sinner while oneself is still a sinner in the same vein, “God will not forgive you unless you forgive me?” a form of spiritual extortion, I’d say, if it isn’t designed to circumvent repentance and/or frustrate the intentions of Jesus for one’s own pecuniary gain.

Good point, and an interesting example. “God will not forgive you unless you forgive me.” to motivate the other’s forgiveness! But yes, the words reflect ignorance. God has already forgiven both.

Excellent, Michael!

 

[ALoveDivine]

Lets be clear that there are different views on the nature of Hell within the Catholic faith. Not all believe it is some literal firery torture chamber, in fact those who view it this way are probably a minority these days. Some view it as a "separation from God’, which I imagine would be like a solitary confinement in darkness away from everything good.

Then there is the prominent Eastern view of Hell, which says that heaven and hell are both different spiritual states in the same “place”, namely the presence of God. The unapproachable unfathomable light of God is, for those who are redeemed, joy and bliss, but for those who are damned that same light is torment. So basically all come into the direct presence of God and for those who are spiritually dead this light is painful, but for those who are saved it is joyful. “Fire” is a metaphor used in scripture both to imply this condition of torment in some cases, and in other cases to imply purifying (purgatory). All three of these views are acceptable within Catholicism.

I personally hold to this third view. If you accept this view, it is very hard to argue how Hell is unjust. If all go into the direct presence of God, who is love, and a person has rejected love and grace and is spiritually dead and in darkness, and experiences God’s infinite love as infinite torment because of their blackened soul, how is their torment in any way God’s fault? It is rather just a natural result of their own spiritual depravity.

Atheists and other non-believers seem to imagine that we all think of Hell as some kind of literal torture by fire. This was a common view in earlier days, but it is not at all widely held today, and has not generally been widely held in Eastern Christendom. God is love, and Hell is the spiritual condition resulting from a rejection of that love. Simple as that.

 

[Michael19682]

Hi Michael,

I’m a little confused by your response because it looks like you are repeating what I said. Yes, a person can “know”, that is they have been told that God always forgives, as Pope Francis says. However, the person will remain doubtful about God’s forgiveness until he himself forgives everyone he holds something against. Until the person does this, he will remain tortured by scruples or grudges.

We can see forgiveness when we forgive. We learn of God’s love by loving. These are “signs” too.

God’s love is unconditional toward everyone, right? Is that what you are saying? I think so. And yes, once repentance takes root, especially in the form of loving and forgiving everyone, the “remainder” is truly knowing and feeling God’s unlimited love. Is my rewording changing the meaning?

Good point, and an interesting example. “God will not forgive you unless you forgive me.” to motivate the other’s forgiveness! But yes, the words reflect ignorance. God has already forgiven both.

Excellent, Michael!

Thank you for the encouragement OneSheep. I appreciate it especially during difficult times. I guess what I was getting at also in a roundabout way was simply,
“The measure which we measure out is measured back to us.”
Comes round 360 degrees to the thread,
we are free to reject or accept.
As in the case of kind words like yours and others,
acceptance of the unconditional, which is a
psychological matter, is made all the more easy. But as I said,
difficult life items can make acceptance even of heaven,
which is necessarily postponed, difficult to believe in.

 

[arte]

According to the Orthodox not everyone experiences God’s presence or his love the same. Those who have rejected God will feel horrible in his presence. His love will feel like fire because they will feel their sin and their rejection of that love.

Do you include atheists in “Those who have rejected God”? In the main, atheists do not believe in God because they see no evidence for God. In some ways I sympathise with their position because we do not see tangible evidence for God. God does not appear to us in a physical sense. I feel God’s presence especially when I receive Holy Communion, during mass, when I sit in a church on my own and when I pray. Christopher Hitchens (an atheist) was asked what he would say if he meets God in the afterlife? He replied: “why didn’t you make yourself more evident?” I believe it was a fair reply. For the above reason, I do not think atheists will feel horrible in God’s presence.

Other people who reject God because they are evil will feel horrible in God’s presence as you said. I believe we will all feel our sin in God’s presence.

 

[pocaracas]

Do you include atheists in “Those who have rejected God”? In the main, atheists do not believe in God because they see no evidence for God. In some ways I sympathise with their position because we do not see tangible evidence for God. God does not appear to us in a physical sense. I feel God’s presence especially when I receive Holy Communion, during mass, when I sit in a church on my own and when I pray. Christopher Hitchens (an atheist) was asked what he would say if he meets God in the afterlife? He replied: “why didn’t you make yourself more evident?” I believe it was a fair reply. For the above reason, I do not think atheists will feel horrible in God’s presence.

Other people who reject God because they are evil will feel horrible in God’s presence as you said. I believe we will all feel our sin in God’s presence.

I applaud you, sir!
:clapping: :tiphat:

 

[littlestsouls2]

Eternal suffering is not pointless. God is good. Evil cannot have the last say.

“It would be great audacity to ask why God made His people suffer so much or why there can be eternal punishment, given that a life in sin cannot last forever. It would be as great audacity as to try to reason out and comprehend the eternity of God. God is eternal and incomprehensible. His justice and recompensation is eternal; his mercy is beyond understanding.”

• Our Lady to St. Bridget of Sweden (Book 3, Ch 30)

 

[pocaracas]

Eternal suffering is not pointless. God is good. Evil cannot have the last say.

It would sound so much better if people claimed that hell-like suffering was only temporary and, ultimately, everyone comes over to God’s side… Like you say, “evil cannot have the last say”… everyone ends up in the good side.

 

[OneSheep]

Lets be clear that there are different views on the nature of Hell within the Catholic faith. Not all believe it is some literal firery torture chamber, in fact those who view it this way are probably a minority these days. Some view it as a "separation from God’, which I imagine would be like a solitary confinement in darkness away from everything good.

Then there is the prominent Eastern view of Hell, which says that heaven and hell are both different spiritual states in the same “place”, namely the presence of God. The unapproachable unfathomable light of God is, for those who are redeemed, joy and bliss, but for those who are damned that same light is torment. So basically all come into the direct presence of God and for those who are spiritually dead this light is painful, but for those who are saved it is joyful. “Fire” is a metaphor used in scripture both to imply this condition of torment in some cases, and in other cases to imply purifying (purgatory). All three of these views are acceptable within Catholicism.

I personally hold to this third view. If you accept this view, it is very hard to argue how Hell is unjust. If all go into the direct presence of God, who is love, and a person has rejected love and grace and is spiritually dead and in darkness, and experiences God’s infinite love as infinite torment because of their blackened soul, how is their torment in any way God’s fault? It is rather just a natural result of their own spiritual depravity.

Atheists and other non-believers seem to imagine that we all think of Hell as some kind of literal torture by fire. This was a common view in earlier days, but it is not at all widely held today, and has not generally been widely held in Eastern Christendom. God is love, and Hell is the spiritual condition resulting from a rejection of that love. Simple as that.

Good Morning to you.

This is a great summary, and I particularly like “hell is the spiritual condition resulting from a rejection of that love” because then “eternal life” is seen as one which begins here on Earth.

I think we can all agree that forced eternal suffering by God is pointless, right? Except for the minority you are talking about who really want people who do the worst sin to roast forever because it seems just.

What underlies the discussion is 1. Does God allow a suffering person to repent in the afterlife? and/or 2. Does the human repent once he realizes he is suffering?

If the answer to #1 is affirmative, then we are talking about a Father whose love and mercy is infinite. If #2 is affirmative, then we are talking about every human, by nature, with an inclination to love and capable of perfection.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Eternal suffering is not pointless. God is good. Evil cannot have the last say.

“It would be great audacity to ask why God made His people suffer so much or why there can be eternal punishment, given that a life in sin cannot last forever. It would be as great audacity as to try to reason out and comprehend the eternity of God. God is eternal and incomprehensible. His justice and recompensation is eternal; his mercy is beyond understanding.”

• Our Lady to St. Bridget of Sweden (Book 3, Ch 30)

If hell is eternal, evil does have the “last say,” forever. Satan’s triumph is endless, and he is far more successful than God if hell is eternal. In fact, heaven looks a lot like a refugee camp with a few scrappy survivors while the massively populous city of hell grows larger by the minute. If most of God’s children wind up in hell, forever, who who really is the “lord of life?” If most people live their lives for eternity in hell, in fellowship with satan, then who is the god?

This, to me, is the central blasphemy of Christianity. Christianity has turned satan into a “god” to be feared more than the true and only God. Indeed, Christians call satan “the prince of the world.” This is obvious blasphemy and idolatry, in my opinion, although most Christians do not intend it this way, and I realize this.

Only God rules this world. He is the only God, and the only one worthy of fear (respect). I believe it is fundamentally wrong-headed to call satan “the prince of this world” as if God foolishly abdicated his thrown to the enemy of his own creation, and then gives most of his children to him for eternity.

RE: what St. Bridget of Sweden thought Mary said to her. It is one thing to say that some certain aspect of God is not knowable, and quite another to assert that one does in fact know and command others to believe it without sufficient reason. Consider the difference between these two conversations:

Conversation 1:

Bob: God is unlimited.
Tom: What does that even mean?
Bob: I don’t know, but I know he can’t be limited or he isn’t God!
Tom: OK.

Conversation 2:

Bob: Up is down.
Tom: What does that even mean?
Bob: I don’t know, but you have to believe it.
Tom: But it is a self-contradiction.
Bob: How audacious of you. Too bad, you have to believe it.
Tom: But the sentence itself doesn’t refer to anything because it is internally contradictory! There is literally nothing there to believe. You don’t even believe it!
Bob: Too bad, you must believe it.
Tom:

Conversation 1 is OK. I accept that not everything is knowable because we are not omniscient. However, one cannot assert a specific positive belief that is contradictory and then demand that others believe it without sufficient reason. We can have negative beliefs without sufficient reason, in my opinion, but not positive ones. See: Maimonides.

 

[littlestsouls2]

If hell is eternal, evil does have the “last say,” forever. Satan’s triumph is endless, and he is far more successful than God if hell is eternal. In fact, heaven looks a lot like a refugee camp with a few scrappy survivors while the massively populous city of hell grows larger by the minute. If most of God’s children wind up in hell, forever, who who really is the “lord of life?” If most people live their lives for eternity in hell, in fellowship with satan, then who is the god?

This, to me, is the central blasphemy of Christianity. Christianity has turned satan into a “god” to be feared more than the true and only God. Indeed, Christians call satan “the prince of the world.” This is obvious blasphemy and idolatry, in my opinion, although most Christians do not intend it this way, and I realize this.

Only God rules this world. He is the only God, and the only one worthy of fear (respect). I believe it is fundamentally wrong-headed to call satan “the prince of this world” as if God foolishly abdicated his thrown to the enemy of his own creation, and then gives most of his children to him for eternity.

RE: what St. Bridget of Sweden thought Mary said to her. It is one thing to say that some certain aspect of God is not knowable, and quite another to assert that one does in fact know and command others to believe it without sufficient reason. Consider the difference between these two conversations:

Conversation 1:

Bob: God is unlimited.
Tom: What does that even mean?
Bob: I don’t know, but I know he can’t be limited or he isn’t God!
Tom: OK.

Conversation 2:

Bob: Up is down.
Tom: What does that even mean?
Bob: I don’t know, but you have to believe it.
Tom: But it is a self-contradiction.
Bob: How audacious of you. Too bad, you have to believe it.
Tom: But the sentence itself doesn’t refer to anything because it is internally contradictory! There is literally nothing there to believe. You don’t even believe it!
Bob: Too bad, you must believe it.
Tom:

Conversation 1 is OK. I accept that not everything is knowable because we are not omniscient. However, one cannot assert a specific positive belief that is contradictory and then demand that others believe it without sufficient reason. We can have negative beliefs without sufficient reason, in my opinion, but not positive ones. See: Maimonides.

If a criminal is sent to prison by a judge, I would say that justice has the final say. It is the same with God; His justice has the final say. And His justice is as lovable is His mercy**. “God is what He has.” (Frank Sheed).

The alleged revelation to St. Bridget says nothing contrary to reason, or to the Church’s teaching. We cannot grasp the eternity of God, or Hell. The latter follows from the former. If God were not eternal and infinitely perfect, sin would not be so great a crime. If it is worse to offend two kings than one, then surely there can be nothing worse than defying the King of Kings, Who is infinitely perfect.

Have you read the lives of any Catholic “victim souls”? For me, their lives and revelations are the best answer to your objections. Their thirst for souls was intense; they suffered much, but rarely - if ever - in vain; they saved many souls; they spoke eloquently of God’s mercy; they abhorred sin, and knew well its horror; they had great mystical gifts, including infused contemplation, which allows one to know God’s attributes more clearly than through pure reasoning…

You can read about some of them here: mysticsofthechurch.com/

God bless.

**i.e. As true and good. I am not saying that it is better to sin and receive justice than to receive mercy.

 

[davidv]

Yes, I missed addressing several points. The “real” challenge, yes, is to become repentant, and repentance means transcending our own human desires for wealth, status, sex, etc. as well as changing our minds about hanging onto wealth at the expense of those who suffer. Repentance means many things, and it also means to forgive everyone we hold anything against.

That is not the repentance that I was writing about. It was this one:

CCC:

IV. INTERIOR PENANCE

1430 Jesus’ call to conversion and penance, like that of the prophets before him, does not aim first at outward works, “sackcloth and ashes,” fasting and mortification, but at the conversion of the heart, interior conversion. Without this, such penances remain sterile and false; however, interior conversion urges expression in visible signs, gestures and works of penance.23

1431 Interior repentance is a radical reorientation of our whole life, a return, a conversion to God with all our heart, an end of sin, a turning away from evil, with repugnance toward the evil actions we have committed. At the same time it entails the desire and resolution to change one’s life, with hope in God’s mercy and trust in the help of his grace. This conversion of heart is accompanied by a salutary pain and sadness which the Fathers called animi cruciatus (affliction of spirit) and compunctio cordis (repentance of heart).24

1432 The human heart is heavy and hardened. God must give man a new heart.25 Conversion is first of all a work of the grace of God who makes our hearts return to him: "Restore us to thyself, O LORD, that we may be restored!"26 God gives us the strength to begin anew. It is in discovering the greatness of God’s love that our heart is shaken by the horror and weight of sin and begins to fear offending God by sin and being separated from him. The human heart is converted by looking upon him whom our sins have pierced:27

Hearts hardened in this way are not softened with proclamation of unconditional forgiveness.

Are you saying that unconditional forgiveness misses the point?

No. At best it is misleading. At worst it is a false teaching.

Perhaps you are. For if God always forgives, how are we going to be able to coerce people to repent? But have no worries on this, David. The human develops a conscience, and the conscience is equated with God until love becomes the guide. And since the conscience itself is coercive (it rewards and punishes), the human will be subject to coercion (if he has a normal conscience) until his spirituality transcends the conscience itself. In order to transcend the conscience itself, a person must love and forgive everyone unconditionally, and once a person is able to love this way, the conscience is still there, but it becomes obsolete. As Jesus says, love is the basis for all the law.

Complete love goes beyond all law. Law is “don’t do that”. Love is “you don’t want to do that, of course” and “you want to do all of this!”.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

If a criminal is sent to prison by a judge, I would say that justice has the final say. It is the same with God; His justice has the final say. And His justice is as lovable is His mercy**. “God is what He has.” (Frank Sheed).

Eternal hell isn’t just. A moral system that is predicated upon “dignity” rather than “harm” is precisely what the perpetrators of the worst atrocities in human history have used to excuse themselves. Indeed, hell would be far and away the worst atrocity ever committed, and here you are using the moral reasoning of slave-owners, Nazis, and the perpetrators of all genocides to justify it!

Besides that, supposedly the sinners in eternal hell continue sinning forever, heaping up offenses against God’s dignity, but with the same punishment? Certainly this is unjust. Unless you suppose that God’s punishments in hell increase in intensity into infinity as the sinners continue to sin. So, in this case, God is enabling and encouraging the infinite proliferation of outrageous sin against himself.

I submit to you that God is far wiser than this!

We cannot harm God at all. He punishes us because we harm others and ourselves. We can do only finite harm to others but I do think we can do permanent (but finite) harm to ourselves. We cannot therefore deserve infinite punishment.

The alleged revelation to St. Bridget says nothing contrary to reason, or to the Church’s teaching. We cannot grasp the eternity of God, or Hell. The latter follows from the former. If God were not eternal and infinitely perfect, sin would not be so great a crime. If it is worse to offend two kings than one, then surely there can be nothing worse than defying the King of Kings, Who is infinitely perfect.

Again, any notion of just punishment must be predicated upon harm rather than dignity or we’re in the company of and agree with the most morally repugnant human beings.

God’s eternal nature is in no way a sufficient explanation for eternal hell, especially when there are many good reasons to suppose eternal hell is in tension with God’s other attributes like goodness, justice, wisdom, and power. In fact, God’s eternal nature doesn’t explain anything at all, since we know nothing about it.

Have you read the lives of any Catholic “victim souls”? For me, their lives and revelations are the best answer to your objections. Their thirst for souls was intense; they suffered much, but rarely - if ever - in vain; they saved many souls; they spoke eloquently of God’s mercy; they abhorred sin, and knew well its horror; they had great mystical gifts, including infused contemplation, which allows one to know God’s attributes more clearly than through pure reasoning…

You can read about some of them here: mysticsofthechurch.com/

God bless.

**i.e. As true and good. I am not saying that it is better to sin and receive justice than to receive mercy.

OK I’ll take a look. No, I have not read any writings of “victim souls.” I have read Teresa of Avila, Therese of Lisieux, Faustina, and many others. I’m not sure if they count as “victim souls.”

 

[fred_conty]

posted by Arte #681…
The souls in hell did not choose to be there. Someone has put them there. The more I debate this subject, the more I cannot understand why good sane normal rational human beings cannot see the injustice of eternal punishment.

If that was all I was … a sane normal rational human being … I would agree.
But that is not all I am. I’m a supernatural human being who believes in Jesus Christ and I am also a child of my Father in heaven whom I trust. And so I see things as they tell me to see them. And Jesus said in several places that hell is eternal. And since Jesus said it, and his church on earth has said it, I am more sure about that than I am about my own name.

And you are right again when you said that noone chooses to be in hell. But they did choose something that put them there. All our actions have consequences. we chose to act, and the consequence sticks with it like glue on our fingers.

Cain gave up his birthright for a mess of pottage, whatever that was. What sane normal rational human being would do such a thing? But there it is. And there is the consequence.

How many people choose to go to prison? What sane normal rational human being would choose such a thing? But doing the crime means doing the time…ask any sane normal rational human being.

Why do I believe that anyone can go to hell? My “sane normal rational human being” side of me would throw it out. But I have chosen to be an “insame unnormal irrational supernatural being”, and so I believe it.

Jesus came not just to die for us, but to teach us…not just about the wonderful things, but about what we need to know to survive. He has told us things we would never have figured out by being “sane normal rational human beings”. We have to be above that now and trust him. And after that trust comes knowledge of him and then love of him. And once we really love him, then we know that if anyone ignores what he said, that Jesus will offer them his mercy first, and then if rejected, his justice.

He did not come down on earth and die in a horrible way because he had nothing better to do one afternoon. He will always be there for anyone who takes their hands away from their ears.

Who cares about being “sane normal rational human beings” when we know better.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

New Thought Experiment For This Thread

Imagine God created a universe where every single human person was created in eternal hell.

God, knowing all, knew that each person would freely choose to sin mortally if given the chance, so he “cut to the chase” and created all human beings in hell in the first place. He did this purely to satisfy his justice. Even though all those people never actually sinned, God’s foreknowledge is infallible, so it is most just for him to punish them forever for sins he has eternally known infallibly they would have done.

Do you think God would still be “good” in this case? Why or why not? I will use arguments from this thread (verbatim if possible) to counter you if you say “no.”

If you say “yes” then we’re done here, because it has become obvious we’re talking about nonsense. :whacky:

 

[OneSheep]

That is not the repentance that I was writing about. It was this one:

IV. INTERIOR PENANCE

1430 Jesus’ call to conversion and penance, like that of the prophets before him, does not aim first at outward works, “sackcloth and ashes,” fasting and mortification, but at the conversion of the heart, interior conversion. Without this, such penances remain sterile and false; however, interior conversion urges expression in visible signs, gestures and works of penance.23

Such conversion, David, yes, involves conversion of the heart. We are to forgive everyone we resent. If our forgiveness is conditional, then we could hang onto resentment for the rest of our lives, for the condition may never be met. This would not be “interior conversion”, friend.

Jesus forgave, from the cross, unconditionally. The situation, and His words, are very clear, as were those of St. Stephen. As are those of Pope Francis.

1431 Interior repentance is a radical reorientation of our whole life, a return, a conversion to God with all our heart, an end of sin, a turning away from evil, with repugnance toward the evil actions we have committed. At the same time it entails the desire and resolution to change one’s life, with hope in God’s mercy and trust in the help of his grace. This conversion of heart is accompanied by a salutary pain and sadness which the Fathers called animi cruciatus (affliction of spirit) and compunctio cordis (repentance of heart).24

This section also supports what I am saying.

1432 The human heart is heavy and hardened. God must give man a new heart.25 Conversion is first of all a work of the grace of God who makes our hearts return to him: "Restore us to thyself, O LORD, that we may be restored!"26 God gives us the strength to begin anew. It is in discovering the greatness of God’s love that our heart is shaken by the horror and weight of sin and begins to fear offending God by sin and being separated from him. The human heart is converted by looking upon him whom our sins have pierced:27

This continues to support what I am saying. We can fear offending God, but God has already forgiven us. We do offend our conscience, and our conscience delivers punishment. If God is equated to our conscience, then we will fear that God is separating Himself from us.

Hearts hardened in this way are not softened with proclamation of unconditional forgiveness.

No. At best it is misleading. At worst it is a false teaching.

David, I agree that there is a place for presenting the idea that God only forgives conditionally. Our conscience only loves and forgives us conditionally, and if God is equated with the conscience, which He is for young people, then the threats and instilling fear of a wrathful God may appeal to enough of their will to live beyond death (if they believe in it) that they may turn away from something terrible. However, the condition of such perception of God as wrathful is yet another conversion, another repentance to happen - later, but the sooner the better.

If unconditional forgiveness is a false teaching, then what do you have to say about this, David? Can you make these words change in some way, as you had Jesus only forgiving repentant people from the cross?

Pope Francis Verified account
‏@Pontifex

God is always waiting for us, he always understands us, he always forgives us.

You are perhaps going to say that Pope Francis did not clarify “If you are repentant” and/or he was referring only to “us confirmed Catholics”. No, David, always is always. Us is all of us. That is what my heart says.

David, why not just try it? Try forgiving someone who you hold something against who is not repentant. What do you have to lose?

 

[pocaracas]

Even though all those people never actually sinned, God’s foreknowledge is infallible, so it is most just for him to punish them forever for sins he has eternally known infallibly they would have done.

Foreknowledge is a dangerous slippery slope, as you can see…
If you posit that God knows the future, then that future is set in stone, regardless of any perceived free will. What is know to come to happen, will happen for sure.

Unless you posit that God knows all possible (infinite?) futures as well and sees a few disappearing as soon as the relevant events unfold.