Is eternal suffering pointless?

[davidv]

Because your question makes no sense. Self-inflicted how and what does who inflicts something effect the goodness or evilness of an action(unless you are saying something about intentionality which isn’t implied by your simplistic question)?

Have you heard of sin?

Does this whole self-inflicted thing apply to anything else or just eternal suffering? When you say “how can be” do you mean “how can”? Also you aren’t addressing my assertion that eternal suffering is evil you are disputing who is it evil for.

I think that you mean is irrelevant.

 

[fred_conty]

PumpkinCookie said about me …

Originally Posted by fred conty View Post
Hell of fire
Hell where the worm does not die and the fire is not extinguished
Everlasting fire
Unquenchable fire
Furnace of fire
Everlasting pain
Darkness there
Wailing and Ghashing of teeth
Eternal punishment
In the pool burning with fire and brimstone
Tormented day and night for ever and ever

No, I did not originally post this … the bible did about 2000 years ago.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . “Sin’s place in eternity is at the receiving end of justice”. I keep reading these “heartless” posts. Can’t you and others like you see the heartlessness in eternal punishment? You say: “God loves us all”. Well, He has a funny way of showing it. Love and eternal punishment are a dichotomy in terms.
What is important to God and our Church is to criticise what is obviously wrong because only then can you see the real truth.

Justice, which is love’s attitude toward sin, cannot be heartless.
I’m not sure why you would pity any human being who has transformed himself into a demon any more than you would pity Satan.
At a certain point there is nothing left to love; there is simply mourning for what might have been.

 

[OneSheep]

The following is NOT serious, but I can’t resist. We need some humor is this dark place do we not? Please don’t ban me!! I’m just trying to lighten the mood around here.

https://manboobz.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/snake.png?w=600&h=351

Hey folks! Step right up, got some “good news” for ya! Come on, gather round now! That’s right folks, listen up, you have a one time opportunity right here to solve a very terrible problem you have. That’s right folks, you all have a tremendously serious problem and you don’t even know it.

audience gasps, exchanges looks of shock and surprise

That’s right, now listen carefully: God created you sick, commands you to be healthy, but it’s impossible for you to get healthy on your own, and he will torture you forever if you stay sick!

woman in audience faints, audience murmurs

Now wait folks, don’t worry! I’ve got good news. I’ve got just the solution for ya, that’s right. For the low low price of your dignity, integrity, and your children’s freedom I will give you the cure for this horrible problem. All you have to do is outsource your conscience to me, give me money for your whole life, and do whatever I say and you’ll be right as rain.

*Boy in audience: “But sir, I don’t feel sick!”

Oh son, you don’t know how ill you are. Why, you’re so ill, you can’t even tell that you’re ill. :nope: Oh my good boy, how very afraid you should be. Endless torment is waiting for you son! :bigyikes: But, the good news is: all’s ya have ta do is just hand over your dignity and your reason, and I’ll give you the cure. Come on now, step up, step up!

*Boy in audience goes to stage, receives cure: "Gee mister, I don’t really feel much different now. Why’s that?

Oh silly boy, the cure only diminishes the risk of endless punishment, that’s all. You can’t expect it to solve all your problems now can you? You’ll still have all the symptoms of the illness, and if you don’t do exactly what I say, believe every word that comes out of my mouth, or give me money for the rest of your life, the cure will stop working! But don’t worry: you can always come back and get some more cure anytime you want so long as you pay up!

Boy, bewildered, slouches away from the stage back to the audience

Alright, who’s next now?? Step up, step up! Get ya good news here, fresh good news!

Thanks, P.C., you made my great day even better. Please, please, keep your voice on the CAF.

The boy is obviously very, very, sick. He is so sick that he doesn’t even know that he is sick. Perhaps some due punishment would convince him that he is sick? We need to work on that boy.:tsktsk:

Now, on a more objective note. - not to spoil the mood. Nope, I’ll save it for next post.

 

[OneSheep]

Pumpkin Cookie,

On a more objective note, the Church mirrors what our own normal consciences tell us. Our consciences divide the Self, the psyche, into “good” and “bad” parts, and these images help guide our moral behavior until empathy can be the guide.

While the human sees the “parts” I described as a reality (perceives), the human has a sense, to varying degrees, of some type of depravity (sickness). We condemn our own desires to dominate, have adulterous sex, want lots of wealth (even at the expense of others), and so forth. We condemn our compulsion to rationalize bad behavior. We condemn our capacity for anger and hate. It is very normal, natural, and certainly cross-cultural to have this sort of love/hate relationship with our nature, and it is the conscience itself at the center of the dynamic.

So, the “need” does not have to be established by the Church, even though some Catholics insist that it should be emphasized, all for very understandable reasons. Those that support the establishment of need are saying that it is such need that drove their own turn toward Christ.

Yes, I am saying that the Church distracts (to put it mildly) from the Good News when we start out by insisting that we are all depraved, sick, evil, or of somewhat negative value. The world, humanity, and our very nature already say enough about that. The Good News is about seeing everything in a different light, indeed “repentance” means, for Christians, “changing your mind”.

Can we change our minds about God and man, seeing the infinite value and Love within? Such is a call for repentance.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . That’s right, now listen carefully: God created you sick, commands you to be healthy, but it’s impossible for you to get healthy on your own, and he will torture you forever if you stay sick!. . .

God did not create us sick. The death we suffer, all the misery here on earth is a consequence of our own doing.

Our Lord Jesus Christ is the cure to our spiritual ailment. Snake oil? Really, Pumpkin? You are the one feeding illusions to people.
Wherever did you get the idea there is anything but these few years on this earth but what is revealed in scripture; and what else does it say?

 

[fred_conty]

The following is NOT serious, but I can’t resist. We need some humor is this dark place do we not? Please don’t ban me!! I’m just trying to lighten the mood around here.

https://manboobz.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/snake.png?w=600&h=351

Hey folks! Step right up, got some “good news” for ya! Come on, gather round now! That’s right folks, listen up, you have a one time opportunity right here to solve a very terrible problem you have. That’s right folks, you all have a tremendously serious problem and you don’t even know it.

audience gasps, exchanges looks of shock and surprise

That’s right, now listen carefully: God created you sick, commands you to be healthy, but it’s impossible for you to get healthy on your own, and he will torture you forever if you stay sick!

woman in audience faints, audience murmurs

Now wait folks, don’t worry! I’ve got good news. I’ve got just the solution for ya, that’s right. For the low low price of your dignity, integrity, and your children’s freedom I will give you the cure for this horrible problem. All you have to do is outsource your conscience to me, give me money for your whole life, and do whatever I say and you’ll be right as rain.

*Boy in audience: “But sir, I don’t feel sick!”

Oh son, you don’t know how ill you are. Why, you’re so ill, you can’t even tell that you’re ill. :nope: Oh my good boy, how very afraid you should be. Endless torment is waiting for you son! :bigyikes: But, the good news is: all’s ya have ta do is just hand over your dignity and your reason, and I’ll give you the cure. Come on now, step up, step up!

*Boy in audience goes to stage, receives cure: "Gee mister, I don’t really feel much different now. Why’s that?

Oh silly boy, the cure only diminishes the risk of endless punishment, that’s all. You can’t expect it to solve all your problems now can you? You’ll still have all the symptoms of the illness, and if you don’t do exactly what I say, believe every word that comes out of my mouth, or give me money for the rest of your life, the cure will stop working! But don’t worry: you can always come back and get some more cure anytime you want so long as you pay up!

Boy, bewildered, slouches away from the stage back to the audience

Alright, who’s next now?? Step up, step up! Get ya good news here, fresh good news!

What kind of humor is it that laughs at the Bible? Especially when they are words recorded that Jesus said.

 

[fisherman_carl]

The following is NOT serious, but I can’t resist. We need some humor is this dark place do we not? Please *

That’s right, now… *

Alright, who’s next now?? Step up, step up! Get ya good news here, fresh good news!

I don’t see the humor here. I’m not sure what that is a comparison of because it has no resemblance to Catholicism or Christian thought in general. It sounds more like superficial caricature, lacking any depth.

I notice that you seem to deny the stain of original sin in your posts. How is it that you explain the sin and wickedness we all experience? Do you deny that any of it has to do with the original sin of Adam? How do you explain the psalmist David when he says in Psalm 51

“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”?

Was David putting down his parents or was he saying sin was somehow a part of him from his beginning? Why would he say that if infants can not sin?

Also, if original sin does not affect us then why is it that we all sin? Surely God could have made at least one person who never sinned? Yet in Ecles 7:20 it says

“Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.”

Your caricature sounds more like something that the devil would do like when he sold a bill of goods to Adam and Eve to get them to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Knowing good and evil means also being responsible for the consequences of our moral choices.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Pumpkin Cookie,

On a more objective note, the Church mirrors what our own normal consciences tell us. Our consciences divide the Self, the psyche, into “good” and “bad” parts, and these images help guide our moral behavior until empathy can be the guide.

OK.

While the human sees the “parts” I described as a reality (perceives), the human has a sense, to varying degrees, of some type of depravity (sickness). We condemn our own desires to dominate, have adulterous sex, want lots of wealth (even at the expense of others), and so forth. We condemn our compulsion to rationalize bad behavior. We condemn our capacity for anger and hate. It is very normal, natural, and certainly cross-cultural to have this sort of love/hate relationship with our nature, and it is the conscience itself at the center of the dynamic.

Yes. We choose to do wrong things. We deserve some punishment for doing wrong things. Everyone knows this.

This does not mean that we are born evil, unable to good things without magical sacraments, and deserving of endless punishment.

So, the “need” does not have to be established by the Church, even though some Catholics insist that it should be emphasized, all for very understandable reasons. Those that support the establishment of need are saying that it is such need that drove their own turn toward Christ.

Yes, I am saying that the Church distracts (to put it mildly) from the Good News when we start out by insisting that we are all depraved, sick, evil, or of somewhat negative value. The world, humanity, and our very nature already say enough about that. The Good News is about seeing everything in a different light, indeed “repentance” means, for Christians, “changing your mind”.

Can we change our minds about God and man, seeing the infinite value and Love within? Such is a call for repentance.

If we need anything other than our own volition to “repent” or change our minds, then we are not free in the first place. The “snake oil” is submission to an organization of men who claim to speak for God, are never wrong, and are absolutely necessary for salvation.

Repentance is not snake oil. Virtue is not snake oil. God is not snake oil. The law is not snake oil.

The Catholic Church in their self-proclaimed position as the arbiters of truth and salvation is the snake oil, in my opinion.

The Catholic version of the Christian message is so full of darkness, doom, and despair it makes me want to inject a little levity into the conversation. Goodness, it is just too horrible to be believed isn’t it? People often talk about how things are “too good to be true,” well I think this might be a case of “too bad to be true” hence the image of a 19th snake oil salesman comes to mind when people try to convince me that we’re born guilty and deserving of eternal punishment!! Think about that! It would be hilarious if the messengers weren’t so morbidly and humorlessly serious.

 

[pocaracas]

The Catholic version of the Christian message is so full of darkness, doom, and despair it makes me want to inject a little levity into the conversation. Goodness, it is just too horrible to be believed isn’t it? People often talk about how things are “too good to be true,” well I think this might be a case of “too bad to be true” hence the image of a 19th snake oil salesman comes to mind when people try to convince me that we’re born guilty and deserving of eternal punishment!! Think about that! It would be hilarious if the messengers weren’t so morbidly and humorlessly serious.

You know?.. the sad part is that many people still impart that view of christianity (catholic or otherwise) upon their children.
And it sort of works.

• Some people become so averse to the possibility of hell, that they can’t bring themselves to completely put the belief aside. Many people realize that religion may be wrong, but have a really hard time coming to grips with that, exactly because of the fear of hell. This can then lead to depression (which can be promptly cured with some snake-oil )

 

[PumpkinCookie]

God did not create us sick. The death we suffer, all the misery here on earth is a consequence of our own doing.

Our Lord Jesus Christ is the cure to our spiritual ailment. Snake oil? Really, Pumpkin? You are the one feeding illusions to people.
Wherever did you get the idea there is anything but these few years on this earth but what is revealed in scripture; and what else does it say?

If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:–whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. [Council of Trent Session V; Canon II]

The Catholic Church says we’re born with dead souls. That is so dark and twisted.
This couldn’t possibly be our “own doing.” We do not decide to be born. God creates us with dead souls, deprived of holiness and justice, defiled by sin…

Theologians distinguish a twofold necessity, which they call a necessity of means (medii) and a necessity of precept (præcepti). The first (medii) indicates a thing to be so necessary that, if lacking (though inculpably), salvation can not be attained. The second (præcepti) is had when a thing is indeed so necessary that it may not be omitted voluntarily without sin; yet, ignorance of the precept or inability to fulfill it, excuses one from its observance.

Baptism is held to be necessary both necessitate medii and præcepti. This doctrine is grounded on the words of Christ. In John 3, He declares: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God.” Christ makes no exception to this law and it is therefore general in its application, embracing both adults and infants. It is consequently not merely a necessity of precept but also a necessity of means.

This is the sense in which it has always been understood by the Church, and the Council of Trent (Sess, IV, cap, vi) teaches that justification can not be obtained, since the promulgation of the Gospel, without the washing of regeneration or the desire thereof (in voto). In the seventh session, it declares (can. v) anathema upon anyone who says that baptism is not necessary for salvation. We have rendered votum by “desire” for want of a better word. The council does not mean by votum a simple desire of receiving baptism or even a resolution to do so. It means by votum an act of perfect charity or contrition, including, at least implicitly, the will to do all things necessary for salvation and thus especially to receive baptism.

The absolute necessity of this sacrament is often insisted on by the Fathers of the Church, especially when they speak of infant baptism. Thus St. Irenæus (Against Heresies 2.22): “Christ came to save all who are reborn through Him to God — infants, children, and youths” (infantes et parvulos et pueros). St. Augustine (On the Soul, Book III) says “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin.” A still stronger passage from the same doctor (Epistle 28) reads:“Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without the participation of His Sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they can not possibly be vivified in Christ,” St. Ambrose (II De Abraham., c. xi) speaking of the necessity of baptism, says:" No one is excepted, not the infant, not the one hindered by any necessity."

• Catholic Encyclopedia

And here we have the snake oil cure. Everyone without exception is born sick and deserving of endless punishment due to that sickness, and only the Catholic Church can fix the situation. Hand over your mind, your family, and your future and they’ll give you the cure.

To answer the second part of your question, I got the idea by reflecting on the Torah, Kant, Hume, and Plato. It’s OK if you think that is silly; I’m not requiring you to believe it. Go ahead and believe whatever you like, or whatever you think is true.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

What kind of humor is it that laughs at the Bible? Especially when they are words recorded that Jesus said.

I’m laughing at what some people think Jesus or the Bible says. We only suppose that those words are “recorded.” There were no tape recorders and the standard of what constitutes a direct quote was much different than today. I believe the New Testament reflects the beliefs of the Christian community at the time which was mostly composed of Greeks/Romans who believed in an eternal Hades.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I don’t see the humor here. I’m not sure what that is a comparison of because it has no resemblance to Catholicism or Christian thought in general. It sounds more like superficial caricature, lacking any depth.

Yes. In general, superficial caricatures are humorous… Sorry if I failed this time.

What do you want though? Do you want a devastating refutation? Do you want mean-spirited ridicule?

I notice that you seem to deny the stain of original sin in your posts. How is it that you explain the sin and wickedness we all experience? Do you deny that any of it has to do with the original sin of Adam?

We do wrong things because we’re foolish and imperfect. We also have an “evil” inclination because we have hungry, selfish bodies that absorb more of our attention than our souls. I believe this is the case because Adam&Eve chose for themselves and their posterity to “learn the hard way” by eating from the tree of judgment before the tree of life. Now we all must “learn the hard way” but this doesn’t mean we’re condemned from birth!

How do you explain the psalmist David when he says in Psalm 51

“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”?

Was David putting down his parents or was he saying sin was somehow a part of him from his beginning? Why would he say that if infants can not sin?

jewishanswers.org/ask-the-rabbi-1571/correcting-the-torah-reader/?p=1459

Also, if original sin does not affect us then why is it that we all sin? Surely God could have made at least one person who never sinned? Yet in Ecles 7:20 it says

“Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.”

1. Solomon is acknowledging that righteous people do not always avoid sin. We are imperfect and fallible. We must be humble, acknowledge our sinfulness, and repent continuously. None of this means our children are born guilty and deserving of endless punishment!
2. The book of Proverbs is full of the descriptions of righteous people…is it merely discussing a theoretical possibility or fantasy?
3. The list of people the Bible specifically acknowledges to be righteous is short but revealing:

Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Lot (really??), Isaac, Jacob (really??), David (wow!), Job, Daniel, King Asa, King Hezekiah, King Josiah, and of course Moses (wow!). These are only the most famous of the most famous.

Your caricature sounds more like something that the devil would do like when he sold a bill of goods to Adam and Eve to get them to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Knowing good and evil means also being responsible for the consequences of our moral choices.

Devils don’t tell jokes, they take themselves far too seriously. They are totally humorless.

Yes knowing good and evil is a necessary condition for moral responsibility, but the other necessary condition is freedom. If we’re born incapable of doing good works, then we lack freedom and can’t be responsible. But, the Church insists that we are nonetheless guilty. I don’t think this makes sense. It sounds like the fractured reasoning of a snake oil salesman. Hence my illustration.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

You know?.. the sad part is that many people still impart that view of christianity (catholic or otherwise) upon their children.
And it sort of works.

• Some people become so averse to the possibility of hell, that they can’t bring themselves to completely put the belief aside. Many people realize that religion may be wrong, but have a really hard time coming to grips with that, exactly because of the fear of hell. This can then lead to depression (which can be promptly cured with some snake-oil )

To be fair they don’t have a choice, I think. What else are Christian parents supposed to do? They have to educate their kids, so they teach them what they think is true. I don’t blame my parents at all for teaching me Catholicism, even though I literally had to go to a psychiatrist as a child because I had terrifying dreams of satan and demons dragging me, my family, and my friends to hell.

 

[OneSheep]

This does not mean that we are born evil, unable to good things without magical sacraments, and deserving of endless punishment.

Good Morning, P.C.

To begin with, you did not answer this, which I think is sort of pertinent up-front:

Perhaps a bit of definition of terms is in order. When one says a person is “evil”, one is expressing some resentment, correct? So, since resentment is ordinarily such a big part of the word, for our purposes we must either define the word in a way that leaves resentment out, or accept responsibility that we may be instilling resentment in others by the use of the word. So, if the word expresses no resentment, what definition shall we use? Or, if the word “evil” towards people expresses resentment, then we will be using the word in the ordinary sense, and we can take it from there.

What is an “evil” person? Does a person ever “become” evil?

If we need anything other than our own volition to “repent” or change our minds, then we are not free in the first place. The “snake oil” is submission to an organization of men who claim to speak for God, are never wrong, and are absolutely necessary for salvation.

Hmmm. I don’t think of it as “submission”, its more like a membership. The Church acknowledges that it is wrong sometimes. “Salvation” has a broad meaning, it includes being free from slavery to our nature. What a priest told us once is “Yes, everyone who enters the Kingdom comes through Christ, even if they are not Christian.”

P.C., you are seeing, I think, Catholic faith as a rather negative thing. You would be better off not accepting or following something that you see as a negative.

Repentance is not snake oil. Virtue is not snake oil. God is not snake oil. The law is not snake oil.

The Catholic Church in their self-proclaimed position as the arbiters of truth and salvation is the snake oil, in my opinion.

The Church acknowledges that Christ is the arbiter of truth and salvation.

The Catholic version of the Christian message is so full of darkness, doom, and despair it makes me want to inject a little levity into the conversation. Goodness, it is just too horrible to be believed isn’t it? People often talk about how things are “too good to be true,” well I think this might be a case of “too bad to be true” hence the image of a 19th snake oil salesman comes to mind when people try to convince me that we’re born guilty and deserving of eternal punishment!! Think about that! It would be hilarious if the messengers weren’t so morbidly and humorlessly serious.

There is a theology held by some in the Church that says we are born guilty and deserve eternal punishment. This is not held by most Catholics I know. However, there is a place for such theology because it represents an “organic” approach to perception of human nature, which stems from the functioning of the conscience, as I explained in my last post.

Revelation unfolds very slowly in the Church:

Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatific Vision. We emphasise that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12). We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy (cf. 1 Thess 5:18).

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

I can explain why the Church, early on, went in the direction of human depravity, but that would take up a lot of space here. There is an organic approach to theology (in all of humanity) that is dualistic, (and, I must add, your own words may reflect this same dualism. It is normal and natural.) A theological approach that moves beyond dualism (the “Star Wars” or Zoroastrian approaches are dualistic) is one that involves transcending the conscience itself. A mature theology is one that transcends the conscience by loving and forgiving everyone, including the parts of oneself.

For example, yes, the Church generally believes that it holds the truth. Do you believe that you hold the truth, as opposed to the Church? If so, be honest about it, and accept that we all have a tendency to think we individually hold the truth. The Church says some things that communicate some resentment of humanity. Do you have a bit of resentment toward some people? If so, be honest about it, and accept that our nature is such that we are all capable of resentment and hatred. The way beyond this resentment is to forgive. If you hold some resentment toward the Church hierarchy, can you forgive them?

From the same article I cited:

In fact, the universal salvific will of God and the correspondingly universal mediation of Christ mean that all theological notions that ultimately call into question the very omnipotence of God, and his mercy in particular, are inadequate.

Peace to you, P.C.

 

[rinnie]

So the point of hell is that it is an effective “scare tactic?” Faustina refute this, most ironically, by stating that most of the souls in hell didn’t know it existed! I guess it wasn’t such an effective scare tactic then, was it? Unless, God doesn’t really desire all to be saved, and is OK with torturing some in order to scare others enough to save them. This is reminiscent of a mafioso.

“Nice soul ya got there, it’d be a shame if something happened to it.”
“What do you mean?”
“Well, who knows, it could end up being tortured for eternity in fire, that’s what happened to Johnson just down the street. You’d do anything to avoid that, right? All ya gotta do is pay, pray, and obey buddy and you’re good to go.”


A mafioso is OK with killing Johnson in order to scare others into submission. Do you think God is this way too?

I have never heard of anything like that. But the bottom line is this, Hell is eternal suffering. It never states what the tortures of hell are, only suffering.

From what I have been taught the reason hell is eternal suffering is someone chose to ignore Christ and love him, and choose to live without him. The suffering is there is no happiness outside of Christ.

Hell is a state of being where you don’t want Christ or anything to do with him. Although you want the rewards of heaven, kind of like, you want a pay check but do not choose to word.

Its the way of wanting what you want, and that’s it. LIke the pay check, you want money, but would rather starve then work.

 

[OneSheep]

To be fair they don’t have a choice, I think. What else are Christian parents supposed to do? They have to educate their kids, so they teach them what they think is true. I don’t blame my parents at all for teaching me Catholicism, even though I literally had to go to a psychiatrist as a child because I had terrifying dreams of satan and demons dragging me, my family, and my friends to hell.

Hi P.C.

This is one of the drawbacks of the “organic approach” I described. What a horrible experience, P.C. Your aversion is completely understandable.

It sounds like you forgave them for such presentation of Catholicism. A much greater challenge for you would be to forgive the Church, if you are holding a grudge. Are you up to it? If not, that is okay too, unless it is a grudge that particularly troubles your spirit.

I start with the grudges that trouble me the most.

Again, Peace.

 

[pocaracas]

To be fair they don’t have a choice, I think. What else are Christian parents supposed to do? They have to educate their kids, so they teach them what they think is true. I don’t blame my parents at all for teaching me Catholicism, even though I literally had to go to a psychiatrist as a child because I had terrifying dreams of satan and demons dragging me, my family, and my friends to hell.

Man! Dude! Wow!
I watched Nightmare on Elm Street when I was 8 and sort of had similar dreams, but I knew they came from a work of fiction… I managed to sort them out myself and came out with a full appreciation of what is a work of fiction… but with you, damn! You thought it was real!

Some people focus the teachings way too much on the punishment part. They may think they’re doing good, but it can backfire in terrible ways.

To all christians: exhibit A that it’s not just atheism that leads to mental problems.
My advice to you guys: take notes from OneSheep. I think he’s on to something.

 

[Protestor]

Have you heard of sin?

Nope, what is that?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Good Morning, P.C.

To begin with, you did not answer this, which I think is sort of pertinent up-front:

Perhaps a bit of definition of terms is in order. When one says a person is “evil”, one is expressing some resentment, correct? So, since resentment is ordinarily such a big part of the word, for our purposes we must either define the word in a way that leaves resentment out, or accept responsibility that we may be instilling resentment in others by the use of the word. So, if the word expresses no resentment, what definition shall we use? Or, if the word “evil” towards people expresses resentment, then we will be using the word in the ordinary sense, and we can take it from there.

What is an “evil” person? Does a person ever “become” evil?

Hey good morning to you too. Maybe we share a time-zone?

I mean no resentment when describing a person as evil. An evil or wicked person is he or she who does things that are wrong. We are evil in proportion to the seriousness of the wrong things we do, and the good things we could have done but failed to do. We become evil or good by our own choices, thoughts, and actions.

Hmmm. I don’t think of it as “submission”, its more like a membership. The Church acknowledges that it is wrong sometimes. “Salvation” has a broad meaning, it includes being free from slavery to our nature. What a priest told us once is “Yes, everyone who enters the Kingdom comes through Christ, even if they are not Christian.”

P.C., you are seeing, I think, Catholic faith as a rather negative thing. You would be better off not accepting or following something that you see as a negative.

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

• Pope Boniface VIII Unam Sanctam 1302

The Church acknowledges that Christ is the arbiter of truth and salvation.

Sure, and he says God is the arbiter of truth and salvation. In order to believe in God we must submit to Jesus (so says the Church). In order to believe in Jesus we must submit to the Church (so says the Church). In order to believe in the Church, I must do violence to my reason and conscience, this I should not do.

Is there salvation outside of the Church? They say: no way. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

There is a theology held by some in the Church that says we are born guilty and deserve eternal punishment. This is not held by most Catholics I know. However, there is a place for such theology because it represents an “organic” approach to perception of human nature, which stems from the functioning of the conscience, as I explained in my last post.

That is the universal teaching of the magisterium defined infallibly by several dogmatic councils. It isn’t organic in my opinion, but highly artificial. No other civilization thinks everyone’s children deserve to be punished by god(s) just for being born!

Revelation unfolds very slowly in the Church:

Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatific Vision. We emphasise that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12). We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy (cf. 1 Thess 5:18).

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

Who are we to believe: the ITC, or Trent? Hans Urs Von Balthasar, or Aquinas? Does she who has the “fullness of truth” contradict herself?

Cont…