Is eternal suffering pointless?

[PumpkinCookie]

The words of the Catechism are a measured response to the sadistic excesses of those who delight in describing the unceasing agony of the damned in all its gory detail

Many of the greatest saints, popes, mystics, and miracle-workers are “those” such persons! Do we now know better than they?

The alternative is to admit we know nothing for certain about the nature of hell except that it is the alternative to heaven - if the distinction between good and evil is to make sense.

Yes, I agree that we have very little certain knowledge of the last things, but the Church insists that sinners are tormented bodily as well as spiritually. How can bodies exist without “place?”

God doesn’t owe it to us but He owes it to Himself because He has created us as His children in His image and likeness - and creation incurs obligations. He is a loving Father who is responsible for our well-being, not an autocrat who can do whatever He likes, no matter how inconsistently. Divine might is not divine right!

“allowed to lapse from existence” is an euphemism for destruction. It implies irrational inconsistency on the part of God. Why create us in the first place? It would either be a mistake or a diabolical act.

And the L–d saw that the evil of man was great in the earth, and every imagination of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 And the L–d regretted that He had made man upon the earth, and He became grieved in His heart. 7 And the L–d said, “I will blot out man, whom I created, from upon the face of the earth, from man to cattle to creeping thing, to the fowl of the heavens, for I regret that I made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the L–d.

-Genesis 6

God does not make mistakes: we do. He gives us the great gift and opportunity to live, and if we reject it by being totally evil, he will “blot us out.”

For a start there is no screaming in hell. Emotive language has nothing to do with spiritual reality. Parables are not intended to be taken literally but to make us aware of the harsh reality of evil. “Don’t be naughty” is all right for children but adults need stronger language to make them aware of the danger of living for oneself at the expense of others. “I have never harmed anyone” is an excuse that doesn’t exonerate us from having permitted unnecessary suffering as the result of our indifference. Hell is nothing more than the continuation of indifference after death because it leads to a state of solitary confinement in which we have everything we want - except love.

Well, if they have bodies, and if they’re suffering, is it so far-fetched to imagine screaming? Isn’t that what people who have bodies and suffer sometimes do? Do you know anyone who is totally indifferent to the sufferings of others? Seriously? Find some new friends! But anyway, will endless hell cure them of this selfish indifference or merely harden it? If hell isn’t punitive, and it isn’t restorative, and it isn’t educational, and it doesn’t inspire hope…can you see why I would consider it pointless? Is the point to give some people “what they want?” God is in the business of giving people what they ultimately desire the most? If so, then hell can’t be so bad can it? The people must undoubtedly think they’re in heaven. But, why would the catechism insist that hell is a punishment? This seems to be in tension.

Joking aside, you are right. There really do seem to be some people who are totally selfish and unloving. This spiritual illness is fatal if left untreated, but it is precisely that: fatal. On your account, it is the sickness itself, underwritten and approved by God, which sustains the soul into infinity.

 

[fisherman_carl]

It seems to me some are saying a lot more about hell than we really know. Unless these people have been there to verify what they are saying about it.

The original question : Is eternal suffering pointless? Consider this question apart from any dogma or conception of a place called hell.

Let us consider the possibilities.

1. Suffering eternally for a greater good. Can we envision willingly suffering for another person or cause? Even without end? How many parents would suffer for their children out of love?

This kind of suffering does not seem to be pointless, even if eternally. As long as the benefit or greater good really does outweigh the suffering. In order for an eternal suffering to truly be worth it there must be a much greater eternal good.

Let us consider an analogy. When older people die the younger generation live on. The consequences of death are eternal. There is no coming back from the grave. Yet, the benefit of death to those who remain is there is enough resources. If no one ever died then there would be either no reproduction or there would be no space left on the earth.

1. Eternity happens. After death comes this thing we call the afterlife. The question of eternity in heaven or hell. If eternity is a reality then the question is really where do we want to spend it? If God divides everything by darkness and light then there are really only 2 choices. Do we want the light or the darkness? Light to reward and darkness to punishment.

Really the only complaints a person could have about that is about God’s management. And, really since none of us have God’s eternal perspective it is pretty hard to criticize his management with any honesty.

1. Can the critic of hell prove that God does not have morally justifiable reasons for allowing hell?
2. My own personal opinion is that if repentance was possible in the afterlife, that God, because he is love, would try to love people out of hell even if it took all of eternity. But, if repentance were not possible then it is just a matter of dividing the light from the dark. (And leaving the ‘grey’ areas to God’s judgment).

Keep in mind we have not defined what hell is even here. Is it a place, a state of being? Or both? Is it separation from God? Or different reactions to God’s presence (as the Orthodox believe)?

I conclude with the image of God as the Father in the parable of the prodigal son, always willing to receive his wayward son. I like the image of God never giving up on a person. Neither should we.

 

[tonyrey]

It seems to me some are saying a lot more about hell than we really know. Unless these people have been there to verify what they are saying about it.

The original question : Is eternal suffering pointless? Consider this question apart from any dogma or conception of a place called hell.

Let us consider the possibilities.

1. Suffering eternally for a greater good. Can we envision willingly suffering for another person or cause? Even without end? How many parents would suffer for their children out of love?

This kind of suffering does not seem to be pointless, even if eternally. As long as the benefit or greater good really does outweigh the suffering. In order for an eternal suffering to truly be worth it there must be a much greater eternal good.

The greater eternal good is freedom.

1. Eternity happens. After death comes this thing we call the afterlife. The question of eternity in heaven or hell. If eternity is a reality then the question is really where do we want to spend it? If God divides everything by darkness and light then there are really only 2 choices. Do we want the light or the darkness? Light to reward and darkness to punishment.

Really the only complaints a person could have about that is about God’s management. And, really since none of us have God’s eternal perspective it is pretty hard to criticize his management with any honesty.

Irrefutable!

1. Can the critic of hell prove that God does not have morally justifiable reasons for allowing hell?

No!

1. My own personal opinion is that if repentance was possible in the afterlife, that God, because he is love, would try to love people out of hell even if it took all of eternity. But, if repentance were not possible then it is just a matter of dividing the light from the dark. (And leaving the ‘grey’ areas to God’s judgment).

Keep in mind we have not defined what hell is even here. Is it a place, a state of being? Or both? Is it separation from God? Or different reactions to God’s presence (as the Orthodox believe)?

I conclude with the image of God as the Father in the parable of the prodigal son, always willing to receive his wayward son. I like the image of God never giving up on a person. Neither should we.

God never gives up on a person but that doesn’t stop a person giving up on God…

 

[tonyrey]

Many of the greatest saints, popes, mystics, and miracle-workers are “those” such persons! Do we now know better than they?

Sanctity is not identical with infallibility - especially when it concerns something of which no one has direct experience…

The alternative is to admit we know nothing for certain about the nature of hell except that it is the alternative to heaven - if the distinction between good and evil is to make sense.

Yes, I agree that we have very little certain knowledge of the last things, but the Church insists that sinners are tormented bodily as well as spiritually. How can bodies exist without “place?”

Where is the doctrine to that effect? The Catechism defines hell as separation from God.

God doesn’t owe it to us but He owes it to Himself because He has created us as His children in His image and likeness - and creation incurs obligations. He is a loving Father who is responsible for our well-being, not an autocrat who can do whatever He likes, no matter how inconsistently. Divine might is not divine right!

“allowed to lapse from existence” is an euphemism for destruction. It implies irrational inconsistency on the part of God. Why create us in the first place? It would either be a mistake or a diabolical act.

And the L–d saw that the evil of man was great in the earth, and every imagination of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 And the L–d regretted that He had made man upon the earth, and He became grieved in His heart. 7 And the L–d said, “I will blot out man, whom I created, from upon the face of the earth, from man to cattle to creeping thing, to the fowl of the heavens, for I regret that I made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the L–d.
-Genesis 6

Only Fundamentalists interpret Genesis literally.

God does not make mistakes: we do. He gives us the great gift and opportunity to live, and if we reject it by being totally evil, he will “blot us out.”

By whose authority do you assert that dogma?

For a start there is no screaming in hell. Emotive language has nothing to do with spiritual reality. Parables are not intended to be taken literally but to make us aware of the harsh reality of evil. “Don’t be naughty” is all right for children but adults need stronger language to make them aware of the danger of living for oneself at the expense of others. “I have never harmed anyone” is an excuse that doesn’t exonerate us from having permitted unnecessary suffering as the result of our indifference. Hell is nothing more than the continuation of indifference after death because it leads to a state of solitary confinement in which we have everything we want - except love.

Well, if they have bodies, and if they’re suffering, is it so far-fetched to imagine screaming? Isn’t that what people who have bodies and suffer sometimes do? Do you know anyone who is totally indifferent to the sufferings of others? Seriously? Find some new friends! But anyway, will endless hell cure them of this selfish indifference or merely harden it? If hell isn’t punitive, and it isn’t restorative, and it isn’t educational, and it doesn’t inspire hope…can you see why I would consider it pointless? Is the point to give some people “what they want?” God is in the business of giving people what they ultimately desire the most? If so, then hell can’t be so bad can it? The people must undoubtedly think they’re in heaven. But, why would the catechism insist that hell is a punishment? This seems to be in tension.

Joking aside, you are right. There really do seem to be some people who are totally selfish and unloving. This spiritual illness is fatal if left untreated, but it is precisely that: fatal. On your account, it is the sickness itself, underwritten and approved by God, which sustains the soul into infinity.

God’s doesn’t destroy but creates. A spiritual illness doesn’t dispose of the will to live nor does God does underwrite and approve evil. He underwrites and approves of unconditional freedom, the value of which you and many others grossly underestimate…

 

[PumpkinCookie]

So much multiplication of words for such simple concepts!

1. “Free Will” and “Justice” are not necessarily dependent upon “endless hell” since both can be supported and balanced by annihilation and/or temporal punishment.
2. The Roman Catholic Church insists that the damned will have bodies, and will be tormented bodily and spiritually. Read Catholic Answer’s own tract right here, complete with Nihil Obstat: catholic.com/tracts/the-hell-there-is

The prophets of doom agree: endless physical and spiritual torment await many. Are they wrong? Do you know better? I say: yes, absolutely, they are either mentally ill or utterly callous and cruel, perhaps both. What do you say? If you disagree, you must own your dissent!

1. The story of the flood doesn’t need to be interpreted literally to show that God will not tolerate evil people and will totally destroy them. There are hundreds of passages in the Torah where God is described as totally destroying his enemies and those who harm his people.

I’m bored of this conversation, to be honest. No one has presented any amount of argument that has made me doubt my position. My mind and heart are open, but no convincing evidence has been presented here, to my understanding.

Hell doesn’t educate.
Hell doesn’t cure.
Hell doesn’t heal.
Hell doesn’t restore.
Hell is not proportional, and unjust.
Hell extinguishes hope.
Hell isn’t necessary for freedom.
Hell outweighs any other possible goods.
Hell can’t be the fulfillment of some people’s deepest longings, or else it isn’t distinct from heaven.
Hell can’t be the work of love.

It is pointless. Deeply, endlessly, without necessity. If, despite all this, it exists, people go there, and God has perfect foreknowledge…then that god is evil and indistinguishable from a devil. He creates those who harm others and themselves, and lets it continue indefinitely. That is staggeringly evil. Like some are fond of saying “an evil god is a childish fable.” Yes, yes, precisely.

 

[Michael19682]

I’m noticing a motif (as opposed to theme) developing in these discussions.
Mental illness and insanity are equated with plain stupidity and ignorance.
Perhaps a review of this trend will invigorate anew the discussion –
for me this means,

perhaps the fact of eternal suffering is that it exists to add robustness
to the full choice of freedom of God’s children. We are not (unthinking/mentally ill/insane/stupid/ignorant) beings with no concept of why we strive to ** choose **good instead of evil. If evil was not a choice among a full array of choices, our freewill would be farcical. Yet still, evil remains an illegitimate choice.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m noticing a motif (as opposed to theme) developing in these discussions.
Mental illness and insanity are equated with plain stupidity and ignorance.
Perhaps a review of this trend will invigorate anew the discussion –
for me this means,

perhaps the fact of eternal suffering is that it exists to add robustness
to the full choice of freedom of God’s children. We are not (unthinking/mentally ill/insane/stupid/ignorant) beings with no concept of why we strive to ** choose **good instead of evil. If evil was not a choice among a full array of choices, our freewill would be farcical. Yet still, evil remains an illegitimate choice.

Indeed. All evil is ultimately a form of ignorance because it is not in our interest to love ourselves at the expense of others and make ourselves unlovable.

 

[paziego]

I don’t think anyone really wants hell for themselves.

It may be that they want heaven, but not with enough intensity to make them live a life that leads them there. That is, they weren’t vigorous enough in the practice of their faith to gain heaven.

It would be hard to say in those circumstances that they actively chose hell.

It is not about choice, but about worthiness. Our worthiness is decided by individual choices. But this seems to complicate the matter If we die in a state of mortal sin despite being exemplarily pious for most our lives. It doesn’t mean we have chosen hell. It means we were absorbed by circumstances at a particular time and relating to the impermanent world.

Mortal sin doesn’t seem like an appropriate metric to judge worthiness on matters of eternal fate.

 

[Michael19682]

I don’t think anyone really wants hell for themselves.

It may be that they want heaven, but not with enough intensity to make them live a life that leads them there. That is, they weren’t vigorous enough in the practice of their faith to gain heaven.

It would be hard to say in those circumstances that they actively chose hell.

It is not about choice, but about worthiness. Our worthiness is decided by individual choices. But this seems to complicate the matter If we die in a state of mortal sin despite being exemplarily pious for most our lives. It doesn’t mean we have chosen hell. It means we were absorbed by circumstances at a particular time and relating to the impermanent world.

Mortal sin doesn’t seem like an appropriate metric to judge worthiness on matters of eternal fate.

It is difficult to think of any mind that is only like a heavy coin with, in turn, only two sharply distinct faces. There must exists gradations of choice and tendency to choose. Perhaps the reality is that one cannot reliably balance a coin on its edge, holding all eternity in abeyance until one comes to his senses.
Can any human book that instructs through questions describe such a delicate balance, with all the complexities of its physics, metaphysics, and psychology of choice, will, etc.?

Mortal sin doesn’t seem like an appropriate metric to judge worthiness on matters of eternal fate

We need God’s penetration into our heart and a double dose of his divine mercy.

 

[paziego]

It is difficult to think of any mind that is only like a heavy coin with, in turn, only two sharply distinct faces. There must exists gradations of choice and tendency to choose. Perhaps the reality is that one cannot reliably balance a coin on its edge, holding all eternity in abeyance until one comes to his senses.
Can any human book that instructs through questions describe such a delicate balance, with all the complexities of its physics, metaphysics, and psychology of choice, will, etc.?

We need God’s penetration into our heart and a double dose of his divine mercy.

Do you mean to say we should think of it as being some sort of “salvation threshold”, a point in the spectrum of gradations where we can be judged to have chosen heaven?

 

[paziego]

Are we identical with our choices? Or can we speak of the person behind the choices?

A sinner can become a pious man, and vice versa. The decisions we make do not seem to be a permanent part of ourselves. Our tendencies do not seem to be a permanent part of ourselves.

 

[Michael19682]

Do you mean to say we should think of it as being some sort of “salvation threshold”, a point in the spectrum of gradations where we can be judged to have chosen heaven?

That threshold is the balanced coin. Very difficult to describe how to effect that way. That is why we need God’s grace. For him it is effortless.

 

[Michael19682]

Are we identical with our choices? Or can we speak of the person behind the choices?

A sinner can become a pious man, and vice versa. The decisions we make do not seem to be a permanent part of ourselves. Our tendencies do not seem to be a permanent part of ourselves.

I thought of this metaphysical appraisal:

I think that the choice to choose the Good is always the most obvious. Good appeals to us innately; we were born and are bound for Good. Evil seems to be defined in this discussion and many others as being rejection of the Good. Evil is the opposite choice.

At such moments of choosing Good, in grace, we are absorbed in the Holy Spirit; hidden in the wounds of Christ, our choice is good enough and God does the rest through love, grace, peacefulness. Yet the reality of life removes us in time from total, perfect grace. We can’t manage death and heaven before our time has come, so the cycle of temptation, sin, reconciliation, absorption in spirit, continues. The gaps in the cycle get narrower, we learn. At death the choice should be clear – because the true Good we have loved actually APPEARS and as the prayer says, “bids me come to Him.” I think that this moment (in such a metaphysical appraisal) must be a transcendent point, above and outside our very real human spectrum of choices. No power can separate us from God.

 

[Michael19682]

Are we identical with our choices? Or can we speak of the person behind the choices?

A sinner can become a pious man, and vice versa. The decisions we make do not seem to be a permanent part of ourselves. Our tendencies do not seem to be a permanent part of ourselves.

Sorry I quoted your response and didn’t answer it fully.

I need to ask, What is a choice? Possible answer: Nothing other than a momentary manifestation of an evolving being. That is why as you note a sinner can become pious, I think.

 

[arte]

Time and space don’t exist in the spiritual realm. If we reject God’s love we alone are responsible for being isolated from Him and all those who love Him. If we make ourselves unlovable how can anyone possibly love us? Our suffering is self-inflicted and we are getting what we deserve for putting ourselves before everyone else. That is not unjust because if we repent we have the opportunity to make amends in Purgatory. Heaven and Hell are not the only options…

It never fails to amaze me how the Abrahamic religions (and I guess many other religions) bring an omnipotent being who creates a universe and “God knows” how many other universes down to the level of a super human maniac.

 

[arte]

Hell is self-punishment. God is not a giver of suffering. God punishes not like a king in a castle who taketh away the good, for God is good itself and cannot remove himself. But rather physical descriptions of divine punishment serve only as imperfect analogies of what we are in fact doing to ourselves. We are doing hell to ourselves by removing ourselves from the sacraments. We cut ourselves off from the good when we sin. It is not God who cuts us off, it is not God who really does the punishing. God is forever-giving of Heaven, there are no strings attached, and the only commandment is that we love. God only asks us to be as that which we were created to be.

There is no sin that can make God reject us. God is eternal love and thus the call to salvation is eternal and cannot change. It’s impossible for God to send us to hell. But we can reject God by sinning and we can remain in sin by not repairing that which unifies us to God and that is our capacity to love God.

As I said to tonyrey, it never fails to amaze me how the Abrahamic religions (and I guess many other religions) bring an omnipotent being who creates a universe and “God knows” how many other universes down to the level of a super human maniac.

God cannot be eternal loving or good if he allows humans to go to hell. “There is no sin that can make God reject us”. If that is the case, then God would not reject us when we die.

 

[arte]

It seems to be the only way to make my point more obvious! Though Kant was a superior genius, Dostoevsky’s influence is far greater because he communicated through stories. Though Schopenhauer was a superior genius, Nietzsche’s influence is far deeper because he used stories. Though Socrates was a superior genius, Jesus’ influence is far greater because he communicated with stories. Some people don’t like or don’t understand abstract discussion.

The wizard is clearly evil and/or insane, which is precisely what I believe about the teaching of eternal hell: it makes God appear to be evil and/or insane. It is (unintentional) blasphemy, and I want to expose it. Many people are tormented by thoughts of hell: read the spirituality forum, or talk to many believers! I wish that fear and torment would be put to an end, and I will fight it, until someone can prove to me that God can be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent but still preside over the smoldering ruin of so many of his children! And, find me one single reference in the Torah that says sinners will be punished, bodily and spiritually, in an everlasting hell. Something so important should be there!

I completely agree with everything you have said. I include “omnipotent” in addition to omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. I’ve mentioned this in other replies but you may have missed it: It never fails to amaze me how the Abrahamic religions (and I guess many other religions) bring an omnipotent being who creates a universe and “God knows” how many other universes down to the level of a super human maniac.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I completely agree with everything you have said. I include “omnipotent” in addition to omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. I’ve mentioned this in other replies but you may have missed it: It never fails to amaze me how the Abrahamic religions (and I guess many other religions) bring an omnipotent being who creates a universe and “God knows” how many other universes down to the level of a super human maniac.

arte,

I am sorry for neglecting to reply. I do not have good internet forum etiquette, and I don’t always understand when I’m supposed to reply. I usually only reply to something when I feel that someone has stated something seriously erroneous or unfounded or outrageous. I agree with you that many people seem to believe God is akin to a “super human maniac.” I think this is bound to happen though, because God’s nature is so totally “other” we can’t fathom it, so we project our mania, obsession, selfishness, or other negative characteristic onto our concept of God. These “gods” we make are not worthy of belief, upon examination. I truly believe we are able to make only negative statements about the real God (i.e) " omnipotent" means “his power has no limitations” or “omniscient” means “there is nothing he doesn’t know.”

I would like to modify my stance somewhat, and this is not a reply to you specifically, but to this and other related threads on this forum:

First, if one is a professing Roman Catholic believer, then one has good reasons to suppose hell exists and that people go there. It is undeniable that the architects and heroes of the faith built this doctrine and proclaimed it unceasingly, without soft-pedaling it or minimizing it. I think, even with all of the argumentation against hell, it could still exist, if the Roman Catholic church truly “speaks with the voice of God.” Though it seems pointless, one could always argue that “only God knows the purpose” or some thing like that. I am not here to proselytize anyone away from the Roman Catholic faith, that is not the point of Catholic Answers. Sometimes I can’t believe they allow me to post the things that I do. It is a testament to their charity and fair-mindedness. 700 years ago, I probably would have been tried and executed, and the things I have written would have been burned or otherwise destroyed! This is a sobering thought. Actually, I would have been too cowardly to voice my dissent, so I would have toed the line for fear of violent punishment. Even more likely I would have been illiterate and would never have written anything. I digress…

I just want to back off a little bit here; I’ve laid out my arguments but they are not meant to proselytize or encourage anyone to become a heretic or apostate.

Readers should know that I have excommunicated myself over and over again due to my beliefs and public statements (though anonymous). I have been “cursed to damnation” (anathema) many times by the Church (as a mystical body) based on my beliefs and public statements. I live a life of utter rank apostasy. I haven’t received any sacraments for quite a long time, and have no sacramental items in my home. I refuse to bow or kneel before any statues, tabernacles, etc. So, it is entirely possible that I am doing Satan’s work. All my arguments could be the product of satanic or demonic influence. I could be aiding him in dragging more souls down to endless hell. I mention this in order to give good Catholics a solid reason to doubt my argumentation. It could all be a trick of the devil, so it is best to be skeptical.

 

[tonyrey]

I completely agree with everything you have said. I include “omnipotent” in addition to omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. I’ve mentioned this in other replies but you may have missed it: It never fails to amaze me how the Abrahamic religions (and I guess many other religions) bring an omnipotent being who creates a universe and “God knows” how many other universes down to the level of a super human maniac.

Unsubstantiated assertions are worthless…

 

[tonyrey]

arte,

I am sorry for neglecting to reply. I do not have good internet forum etiquette, and I don’t always understand when I’m supposed to reply. I usually only reply to something when I feel that someone has stated something seriously erroneous or unfounded or outrageous. I agree with you that many people seem to believe God is akin to a “super human maniac.” I think this is bound to happen though, because God’s nature is so totally “other” we can’t fathom it, so we project our mania, obsession, selfishness, or other negative characteristic onto our concept of God. These “gods” we make are not worthy of belief, upon examination. I truly believe we are able to make only negative statements about the real God (i.e) " omnipotent" means “his power has no limitations” or “omniscient” means “there is nothing he doesn’t know.”

I would like to modify my stance somewhat, and this is not a reply to you specifically, but to this and other related threads on this forum:

First, if one is a professing Roman Catholic believer, then one has good reasons to suppose hell exists and that people go there. It is undeniable that the architects and heroes of the faith built this doctrine and proclaimed it unceasingly, without soft-pedaling it or minimizing it. I think, even with all of the argumentation against hell, it could still exist, if the Roman Catholic church truly “speaks with the voice of God.” Though it seems pointless, one could always argue that “only God knows the purpose” or some thing like that. I am not here to proselytize anyone away from the Roman Catholic faith, that is not the point of Catholic Answers. Sometimes I can’t believe they allow me to post the things that I do. It is a testament to their charity and fair-mindedness. 700 years ago, I probably would have been tried and executed, and the things I have written would have been burned or otherwise destroyed! This is a sobering thought. Actually, I would have been too cowardly to voice my dissent, so I would have toed the line for fear of violent punishment. Even more likely I would have been illiterate and would never have written anything. I digress…

I just want to back off a little bit here; I’ve laid out my arguments but they are not meant to proselytize or encourage anyone to become a heretic or apostate.

Readers should know that I have excommunicated myself over and over again due to my beliefs and public statements (though anonymous). I have been “cursed to damnation” (anathema) many times by the Church (as a mystical body) based on my beliefs and public statements. I live a life of utter rank apostasy. I haven’t received any sacraments for quite a long time, and have no sacramental items in my home. I refuse to bow or kneel before any statues, tabernacles, etc. So, it is entirely possible that I am doing Satan’s work. All my arguments could be the product of satanic or demonic influence. I could be aiding him in dragging more souls down to endless hell. I mention this in order to give good Catholics a solid reason to doubt my argumentation. It could all be a trick of the devil, so it is best to be skeptical.

Nonsense! If your (non-)beliefs are sincere you are innocent…