Is eternal suffering pointless?

[PumpkinCookie]

The comparison is not valid. The “tyranny of history” and the “weight of tradition” are serving as stumbling blocks for you. Abraham had a one track mind - to serve and love God. Given what we know of Abraham and the fact that he was willing and ready to sacrifice his own son to God - I think it is a fine thing to say that Abraham would not let the ‘tyranny of history’ and the ‘weight of tradition’ stop him from finding and serving God.

In other words, put those concerns in the back burner for now, as they do not make sense to you where you are at now. Continue to advance in the areas of understanding which you can and make progress in this way. Then, in a more advanced stage you can get the stuff in your back burner and discard them as they will then make sense and will no longer be a concern or stumbling block.

Yes, Abraham is a hero! It isn’t so easy to do what he did though, is it? It took a lot of faith and courage. I don’t think God requires this of all of us. He can expect only that which we are able to do, in my opinion.

There is a tinge of relativism here and God is not relative. The truth is the truth and that’s it. There are no half truths with God - whether we like or not, whether it inconveniences us or not. You also consider the Bible a lot of mumbo jumbo. Yet, Sacred Scripture is the word of God to us humans. Perhaps, you consider that if you were God you would have inspired humans to write a spectacular book not all that 'superstition etc… But, PumpkinCookie, perhaps, it would be good to put your extraordinary intellect aside (in the back burner for a bit) and humble yourself to God and open the bible and ask God - God if this is truly your word, please, I humbly pray - help me to come to recognize it as such and help me to understand. In other words, put your luggage on the side lines. Let God be God for a little while.

Yes, I believe the truth is one. I think all human religions are wrong, but have some “right” in them. I hope that God will not punish us for being wrong about some thing, since we are imperfect, fallible, and born into an unavoidable context.

We cannot. God really does exists. We do not make him up as we go along nor what he has created etc…

This isn’t about whether God exists, but about whether particular beliefs cooked up by Gnostic-influenced Greeks are true or not. If endless hell is pointless, and makes God seem evil, it is reasonable to suppose we should “try something else” in my opinion.

+++

I took a look at your previous posts to understand a little better where you are coming from. I don’t often take the time and it is a good thing to do. This is the second time this year that have done so as on both occasions I wanted to get a little background. Well, if you ended up at Yale and took some theology courses there and allowed yourself to be influenced by the rubbish they are teaching - that is pitiful. Talk about hallucinating with the Bible-pick what you like and rationalize the rest.

Btw, in your first post you said you are a female and on your second you say you are a male about to get marry. Can you clarify?

If you want to discuss me, feel free to send me a PM. My wife and I share this account, but she has better things to do! I hope you do too!

Since you have brought it up: I have lots of fancy degrees, and studied philosophy. I have never taken a formal course in theology. I was a very committed, somber, and serious Traditionalist Catholic® all the way through my formal schooling and work in academia. I was one of those people Pope Francis called “con cara de vinagre.”

“Pick what you like and rationalize the rest” is a good, though somewhat negative, description of exactly what has transpired for the last 2,000 years of Christian history. How about: “believe what makes sense and reason about the rest.” Why is that so bad? If truth is unified, won’t reason lead us to it? Sure we’ll make mistakes along the way, but shouldn’t we try?

 

[Abba]

This isn’t about whether God exists, but about whether particular beliefs cooked up by Gnostic-influenced Greeks are true or not. If endless hell is pointless, and makes God seem evil, it is reasonable to suppose we should “try something else” in my opinion.

Christianity was not cooked up by Gnostic-influenced Greeks. God the Father is the creator of heaven and earth. God is a Trinitarian being, by which we mean God is three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and one being. The Second person of the Trinity, the Word was incarnated through Mary - and He is Our Lord Jesus Christ. He suffered and died in atonement for our sins. The Greeks did not make this up nor the Gnostic. This knowledge of God was revealed to us by God Himself. The Bible is Sacred Scripture and through it God communicates with us and guides us to eternal salvation and to know Him.

If you want to discuss me, feel free to send me a PM. My wife and I share this account, but she has better things to do! I hope you do too!

I have no interest. I guess it can get a little confusing for the readers when two people use the same account.

Traditionalist Catholic® all the way through my formal schooling and work in academia. I was one of those people Pope Francis called “con cara de vinagre.”

This was in reference to priests. But, I take it what you are trying to say is that you were a devote Catholic or a strict punishment fearing Catholic.

“Pick what you like and rationalize the rest” is a good, though somewhat negative, description of exactly what has transpired for the last 2,000 years of Christian history. How about: “believe what makes sense and reason about the rest.” Why is that so bad? If truth is unified, won’t reason lead us to it? Sure we’ll make mistakes along the way, but shouldn’t we try?

I was not referring to what has transpired in the last 2,000 years of Christian history but, the approach at Yale University.

Well, Good luck with your search. May God bless you and may our Blessed Mother Mary guide you to her son.

Peace.

 

[arte]

What would you call them? Angels? Do you even know what mortal sin is?

Mortal Sin is something that you have, and know that you have, and would rather be separated from God then forego the sin.

For a start, I do not believe that anyone deserves to go to hell to be punished for an eternity regardless of their sins. I believe in punishment but not eternal punishment. Mortal sin is:

1. An act of grave matter that is…
2. Committed with full knowledge and…
3. Deliberate consent.

I had difficulty finding examples of mortal sins but fortunately there was a thread in 2007 on CAF concerning mortal sin. One poster gave a link to “Catholic Parents on Line” which has a list of examples of mortal sins. I have taken some from the list and would like to know your opinion as to whether these examples are mortal sins thereby deserving of eternal punishment in hell.

1. Hypnotism
2. Apostasy (leaving the Church)
3. Atheism
4. Agnosticism
5. Joining the Masons
6. Being married by a Justice of the Peace, or by a minister of another denomination (without dispensation)
7. Missing Mass on Sunday or a Holy Day of Obligation without a serious reason
8. Attempting or intending suicide
9. Committing suicide
10. Excessive tattoos
11. Promotion of euthanasia
12. Masturbation
13. Using a contraceptive (including birth control pills)
14. In-vitro fertilization or artificial insemination
15. Wilful divorce or desertion

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=198609

web.archive.org/web/20020305105633/www.catholicparents.org/oxcart/examination.html

 

[OneSheep]

This isn’t about whether God exists, but about whether particular beliefs cooked up by Gnostic-influenced Greeks are true or not. If endless hell is pointless, and makes God seem evil, it is reasonable to suppose we should “try something else” in my opinion.

Remember this, PumpkinCookie?

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.

vatican.va/roman_curia/co…nfants_en.html

So, you are in agreement with this. However, what you are up against is the argument that mercy is limited by justice. Indeed, some people write Justice, with a capital J, like justice itself is God. This, too, is equating God with the conscience. Our conscience sees a violation of a rule, and we are compelled to punish or want punishment.

In contrast, Jesus calls us to forgive from the heart. A mature forgiveness, one based on understanding of others, drives out all desire to punish. And when this is applied universally by the human, that is, we forgive every single person we hold anything against, then it will not make sense that God would do anything less. The God we know will be the one who forgives as we forgive. In other words, to truly know God’s forgiveness, we must forgive everyone, like I said, even forgiving the parts of ourselves that we resent.

For example, let’s take “arrogance”. “Arrogance” is the word used to describe “thinking I am better than others” when one resents such thinking. However, all of us at times have such thinking, right? It is a thinking that comes from ignorance, and those who think of themselves in such elevated ways are bound to be humbled soon! Indeed, even the thought itself indicates “not better” when one looks at it objectively. It is ignorance, and we can forgive our ignorance, right?

There is no end to the arguing on things like eternal hell. Perhaps the arguing itself is eternal hell! Who is “right” about it? The person who sees that certain people should by punished forever, or the one who does not? In my thinking, there is a both/and approach to be taken. There is a time in our spiritual journey where the idea of an eternal suffering is both motivating and makes sense. Later on there is a time where it does not make sense, that the idea of eternal hell contradicts unconditional love and forgiveness.

Can you see that there may be a place for both views in our Church, that it is a developmental issue? Indeed, when I am very angry at someone who has escaped justice, I may want the person to roast in hell for eternity. In those cases, I “know”, from experience, that I am seeing with an illusion of negativity, but there is no use denying it! I find it of no use to dismiss my perceptions. In time, I will forgive. I always do. Then, the desire to punish goes away.

So, what do you think? Might there be a place for both?

God Bless

 

[Protestor]

Abba is not a Greek word -" Ἀββᾶ! ὁ Πατήρ!"

I was making a joke at the top and at the bottom, but as with all good jokes there is a hint of truth in it. I don’t know if you noticed though that I used quotes “abba isn’t daddy” because it was said by James Barr who among other scholars maintain that translating abba as papa is wrong. Do you have an answer to any of my actual questions?

 

[Abba]

Do you have an answer to any of my actual questions?

Tomorrow. I am going to sleep now. :yawn:

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Remember this, PumpkinCookie?..[CUT]…
There is no end to the arguing on things like eternal hell. Perhaps the arguing itself is eternal hell! Who is “right” about it? The person who sees that certain people should by punished forever, or the one who does not? In my thinking, there is a both/and approach to be taken. There is a time in our spiritual journey where the idea of an eternal suffering is both motivating and makes sense. Later on there is a time where it does not make sense, that the idea of eternal hell contradicts unconditional love and forgiveness.

Can you see that there may be a place for both views in our Church, that it is a developmental issue? Indeed, when I am very angry at someone who has escaped justice, I may want the person to roast in hell for eternity. In those cases, I “know”, from experience, that I am seeing with an illusion of negativity, but there is no use denying it! I find it of no use to dismiss my perceptions. In time, I will forgive. I always do. Then, the desire to punish goes away.

So, what do you think? Might there be a place for both?

God Bless

There is a place for both if you concede that you don’t need to have official Catholic beliefs to be a Catholic. There is a place for both if you concede that the Church sometimes teaches untruth. There is a place for both if you concede that the Church has no such privilege as “the fullness of truth.” There is a place for both if you reject the Church’s official story about itself.

But, it would seem pointless to call oneself a Catholic in that case, unless you like the music, your particular parish, or have cultural reasons to remain in the Church. I didn’t want to be a Catholic with a million qualifications and exceptions, so I left. When I was a traditionalist, I was bewildered by “liberals” who called themselves Catholic but fought for women priests, gay marriage, eucharist for all, etc. I thought, “if they think the Church is so misguided, why believe it at all?” Indeed.

 

[Abba]

Is this true for all people who are not christian, save for people who have not ever heard the Truth? I guess what I’m trying to get at is would you say that an atheist knows God exists and truths as revealed by the CC? If so I would love to know how you are defining know. I have heard atheists say that even if the CC is correct that they still wouldn’t serve God.

The concept of mitigated suffering is interesting.

“Abba isn’t daddy”

I am referring here to those who had the Catholic faith but walked away from it for the world. Many know what the Church teaches is true but they prefer to take their chances - rationalize, get angry at God, they do not want to give up their lifestyle or loving themselves.

Some get into a love-hate relationship in their mind and being with the Catholic Church. Living in the periphery of the Church, they once in a while will through rocks at it because in the silence they consider it attacks them. Their conscience bothers them and robs them of peace of mind and spirit. So, they attack and attack and rationalize (because people must think they are good and what they do is good) and many win the battle and some stay in that state of conflict and others return. I once saw someone who was in this situation and had been raised a practicing Catholic but had become so consumed by self love that when I tried to help the person recall ‘Jesus’ the person said: What Jesus and Jesus! Don’t you see who I am?!? (an important rich, powerful person…). I was shocked at how self love/narcissism can consume a person to the point that I just saw someone who appeared insane to me.

People get to this state little by little. They walk away from the heart of the Church, and they take their own steps away and get farther and farther and some become consumed by the results of their own choices, actions, thoughts etc…

So, I am referring to people who had a good exposition of the Catholic faith yet walked away for the things of the world, and this, many, inspite of knowing/faith what the Church teaches is true.

 

[OneSheep]

There is a place for both if you concede that you don’t need to have official Catholic beliefs to be a Catholic. There is a place for both if you concede that the Church sometimes teaches untruth. There is a place for both if you concede that the Church has no such privilege as “the fullness of truth.” There is a place for both if you reject the Church’s official story about itself.

But, it would seem pointless to call oneself a Catholic in that case, unless you like the music, your particular parish, or have cultural reasons to remain in the Church. I didn’t want to be a Catholic with a million qualifications and exceptions, so I left. When I was a traditionalist, I was bewildered by “liberals” who called themselves Catholic but fought for women priests, gay marriage, eucharist for all, etc. I thought, “if they think the Church is so misguided, why believe it at all?” Indeed.

Good Morning,

In my view, no concessions are necessary. The CCC and the Gospel itself contain elements of two different cosmic stories in relation to redemption. In the first story, God is equated with the conscience itself, the first “voice within” encountered by the developing human (note: it is probably technically the second voice, the first being one of wanting this or that). The creation story depicts God-as-our-conscience; we violate our conscience and God punishes. Humans continue to misbehave and do not deserve eternal life, so God Himself sends His Son as a sacrificial lamb, paying the debt owed by our sins to God, who before that time deemed that we deserve something less than eternal life.

In the second story, God forgave us “before always”. What happened in Genesis is depicted this way:

CCC 399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness. They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.

The “Fall” is man’s conception of a distorted image, an image of God that is jealous, among other distortions. Jesus comes to clear up the distortions, the “worst” of which is the concept that God forgives conditionally. From the cross, Jesus forgives all who crucify Him (all of us) without any sign of repentance from the crowd, forgiving unconditionally (note: for evolutionary reasons, repentance is the most basic, the most universal condition of forgiveness). In this second story, God forgives “before always”, as some say. In the second story, God is not equated with the conscience, but God is seen as transcending the conscience itself, He forgives us even when our conscience does not. This God-who-transcends is accessible once one has forgiven every person and part of the self that one resents, as I mentioned earlier. It is a “second half of life” theology.

In the first story, Jesus comes to change God’s mind about man. In the second story, Jesus comes to change man’s mind about God.

From this standpoint, then, no doctrine needs deletion. It all makes sense, falling under either the first story or the second story. I do see reason for some doctrinal clarification.

I am not a “Traditionalist” (as you can tell), but I see a place for “Traditionalism”. What turned you from traditionalism? Was it all at once, or a little at a time?

And yes, the Church has made some errors, some of which were pointed out by Martin Luther. We are all human. Revelation unfolds, and sometimes, IMO, it unfolds by taking (and suffering) the wrong road for awhile. Been there, done that.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Good Morning,

In my view, no concessions are necessary. The CCC and the Gospel itself contain elements of two different cosmic stories in relation to redemption. In the first story, God is equated with the conscience itself, the first “voice within” encountered by the developing human (note: it is probably technically the second voice, the first being one of wanting this or that). The creation story depicts God-as-our-conscience; we violate our conscience and God punishes. Humans continue to misbehave and do not deserve eternal life, so God Himself sends His Son as a sacrificial lamb, paying the debt owed by our sins to God, who before that time deemed that we deserve something less than eternal life.

In the second story, God forgave us “before always”. What happened in Genesis is depicted this way:

CCC 399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness. They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.

The “Fall” is man’s conception of a distorted image, an image of God that is jealous, among other distortions. Jesus comes to clear up the distortions, the “worst” of which is the concept that God forgives conditionally. From the cross, Jesus forgives all who crucify Him (all of us) without any sign of repentance from the crowd, forgiving unconditionally (note: for evolutionary reasons, repentance is the most basic, the most universal condition of forgiveness). In this second story, God forgives “before always”, as some say. In the second story, God is not equated with the conscience, but God is seen as transcending the conscience itself, He forgives us even when our conscience does not. This God-who-transcends is accessible once one has forgiven every person and part of the self that one resents, as I mentioned earlier. It is a “second half of life” theology.

In the first story, Jesus comes to change God’s mind about man. In the second story, Jesus comes to change man’s mind about God.

From this standpoint, then, no doctrine needs deletion. It all makes sense, falling under either the first story or the second story. I do see reason for some doctrinal clarification.

I am not a “Traditionalist” (as you can tell), but I see a place for “Traditionalism”. What turned you from traditionalism? Was it all at once, or a little at a time?

And yes, the Church has made some errors, some of which were pointed out by Martin Luther. We are all human. Revelation unfolds, and sometimes, IMO, it unfolds by taking (and suffering) the wrong road for awhile. Been there, done that.

Granted, I think I understand where you are coming from, but my mind is not sophisticated enough to adopt your opinions. I see it like this:

Is eternal hell a truth of reality or not?

If so, life is not worth living and it would have been better if none of us had ever been born. There is no reason to do anything, think anything, be anything. We are undone. Life is chaos, absurdity, and endless torment. If true, we’re in a nightmare far more absurd and abominable than anything imagined by Kafka, Dostoevsky, Freud, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, or Sartre.

If not, the Church is mistaken. On top of it, they arrogantly claim the “fullness of truth.” This is hubris. There is no reason to believe they have any such knowledge of the “fullness of truth,” in my opinion. So, for me, this calls into question all their teachings. If the teachings seem unreasonable, unsupported by evidence, or contradict the everyday lived experience of so many us, then I see no reason to accept them as true.

 

[Abba]

Is eternal hell a truth of reality or not?

If so, life is not worth living and it would have been better if none of us had ever been born. There is no reason to do anything, think anything, be anything. We are undone. Life is chaos, absurdity, and endless torment. If true, we’re in a nightmare far more absurd and abominable than anything imagined by Kafka, Dostoevsky, Freud, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, or Sartre.

How do you get to the chaos, absurdity etc… because hell exists? Why is Dostoevsky on your list? Can you give a little information/quote for the reason each of these writers support your view? I would appreciate it if you take the time. Perhaps, you can make a list of their names and write a couple of sentences/quotes next to them.

Well, the existentialist killed themselves off - most committed suicide. The problem with them was not that hell exists - to the contrary - the problem was that they believed that God did not exist. A french man once told me that existentialism was no longer a la mode/in style. It had died off many decades ago. That was true in the hallways of the philosophy departments but, it subtly continued under another guise in Belgium and Sweden and caused the death of many youngsters by suicide - ethics without God.

Why would the fact that hell exist make life not worth living?

 

[OneSheep]

Granted, I think I understand where you are coming from, but my mind is not sophisticated enough to adopt your opinions. I see it like this:

Is eternal hell a truth of reality or not?

If so, life is not worth living and it would have been better if none of us had ever been born. There is no reason to do anything, think anything, be anything. We are undone. Life is chaos, absurdity, and endless torment. If true, we’re in a nightmare far more absurd and abominable than anything imagined by Kafka, Dostoevsky, Freud, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, or Sartre.

If not, the Church is mistaken. On top of it, they arrogantly claim the “fullness of truth.” This is hubris. There is no reason to believe they have any such knowledge of the “fullness of truth,” in my opinion. So, for me, this calls into question all their teachings. If the teachings seem unreasonable, unsupported by evidence, or contradict the everyday lived experience of so many us, then I see no reason to accept them as true.

Hello again.

The Church also says that revelation unfolds. There is a lot left up to “mystery”, so “fullness” has to be humbled, yes.

Yes, our lived experience of Love is one such that love is unconditional, so many see a contradiction in some Church teachings. However, try to put on the Traditionalist hat again. If someone said that you were wrong, what would you say? You would lash out at that person, right? Traditionalism made sense in your mind. It is going to be very hard to admit that, though, in my experience. I call it “convert syndrome”. When we turn from one thinking to another, we have nothing but bad to say about our past thinking.

Can you forgive that “Pumpkin Cookie” from the past? He did not know what he was doing, but to him it all made sense. Your rejection of a God who would punish a person for eternity is a step in the right direction, IMO.

You do seem to have very high expectations for what the Church should be able to do and discern. Is that a peaceful way to be? Revelation unfolds… very slowly.

I must share with you the “wrench theory of learning”. I pick up a large wrench, and thinking I know how to use it, I beat myself over the head with it for awhile. After a long while, I have suffered enough, and then I can see that I have been using the wrench incorrectly, and I put it down. Yes, I am that stupid. Yes, people are that slow.

 

[Protestor]

I am referring here to those who had the Catholic faith but walked away from it for the world. Many know what the Church teaches is true but they prefer to take their chances - rationalize, get angry at God, they do not want to give up their lifestyle or loving themselves.

I love it when I can agree with someone on this site. How does the CC generally interpret hebrews6:4-8. Can people who leave the church come back?I know leaving can be interpreted many ways, but i mean in relation to that passage.

 

[Michael19682]

I love it when I can agree with someone on this site. How does the CC generally interpret hebrews6:4-8. Can people who leave the church come back?I know leaving can be interpreted many ways, but i mean in relation to that passage.

Similar language is used in exhortations against re-baptizing.
Not having official catholic beliefs does not preclude one from respecting the official beliefs of others. So really, to respect implies a history-with, some basis, for belief.
We can say “First the truth, then the belief in it.” But really, in order to recognize, you need prior familiarity, Luke Chapter 24, e.g.
Where does familiarity with God come from? It all derives from Jesus, the only man to have come down from Heaven. His word is passed down through generations. But so do the intangibles, e.g, the indelible impression left on the human heart through his love; and as well as through witnessing the Holy Spirit’s power to reconcile us to the human community. He lives despite our death and separation from him!
Anyone who has designs on reconciliation beyond his familiar community (e.g. a parish) is possibly not to be trusted or ever convinced in the first place. That persons sin(s) may be dead but he may well never know that until he is too.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

How do you get to the chaos, absurdity etc… because hell exists? Why is Dostoevsky on your list? Can you give a little information/quote for the reason each of these writers support your view? I would appreciate it if you take the time. Perhaps, you can make a list of their names and write a couple of sentences/quotes next to them.

Well, the existentialist killed themselves off - most committed suicide. The problem with them was not that hell exists - to the contrary - the problem was that they believed that God did not exist. A french man once told me that existentialism was no longer a la mode/in style. It had died off many decades ago. That was true in the hallways of the philosophy departments but, it subtly continued under another guise in Belgium and Sweden and caused the death of many youngsters by suicide - ethics without God.

Why would the fact that hell exist make life not worth living?

Hell is the endless extension of a life of nothing but misery and hopelessness made worse by the fact of relentless external physical torment as well as relentless spiritual torment. Many of the authors mentioned in my previous posts detailed the serious reasons to doubt the value of life itself, and that is without considering the possibility of endless hell!

If Schopenhauer thought this life ultimately wasn’t worth it, imagine his opinion if this life were extended infinitely and made ever so much worse. If Ivan Karamazov wanted to reject god(s) because he allows the innocent to suffer (temporarily) on behalf of the guilty, imagine his rejection if he allows most of humanity to suffer endlessly for no discernible reason. If Kafka thought this life was absurd and meaningless, how much more meaningless if we are born guilty and doomed to eternal punishment? Our situation is worse and more absurd than The Trial! Sartre thought nothing could take away our freedom, not even being chained and paralyzed. He may well have thought that even endless hell couldn’t break our freedom: but it would seem so! Hell is much worse than the Nazi concentration camps in which Sarte suffered. Hell is an endless concentration/torture camp run by god(s). Not even Sartre could claim freedom in this place, I think! Even the most courageous and noble Nietzschean ubermensch would be crushed by the sheer terror and hopelessness of endless physical and spiritual torment.

Consider what an abomination hell must be! Before it, our lives collapse into something to be detested. The souls in hell surely beg and scream for annihilation as the physical tortures created for them from the beginning of the universe by god(s) consumes their flesh only to be miraculously restored in relentless, unbearable pain and suffering. Talk about a Freudian Todestrieb! Think of all the people suffering, hopeless, crying out for death only to receive more pain and violent suffering.

Imagine the worst disasters in humanity history. Imagine the Soviet gulags, genocides, plagues, crucifixions, North Korea, etc. Imagine the tremendous suffering of all of those people, then make it relentless, then make it miraculous, then make it endless, then make it designed and sustained directly by god(s).

Now, imagine the architects and directors of those disasters. Hitler, Stalin, Pol-Pot, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong-Il, Saddam Hussein, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Osama Bin Laden, etc.

Are your three gods like them? Are those their compatriots? Are they just an infinitely greater version of them? Do you call them “good?”

Endless hell cannot be the work of one who is “good.” Believe what you want of course, but consider:

Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.

-Thomas Paine

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Hello again.

The Church also says that revelation unfolds. There is a lot left up to “mystery”, so “fullness” has to be humbled, yes.

Yes, our lived experience of Love is one such that love is unconditional, so many see a contradiction in some Church teachings. However, try to put on the Traditionalist hat again. If someone said that you were wrong, what would you say? You would lash out at that person, right? Traditionalism made sense in your mind. It is going to be very hard to admit that, though, in my experience. I call it “convert syndrome”. When we turn from one thinking to another, we have nothing but bad to say about our past thinking.

That’s an interesting observation! Yes, I want to “whitewash” my memory and claim that I have never believed, but I think I really did at one time. I was a real “Traditionalist” at one time, always moaning about the “liberals.” Haha!! :blushing: Can you believe that? Traditionalism must have made sense to me for at least some time, but I do also remember a long period of increasingly intense cognitive dissonance.

Can you forgive that “Pumpkin Cookie” from the past? He did not know what he was doing, but to him it all made sense. Your rejection of a God who would punish a person for eternity is a step in the right direction, IMO.

For years I used to pray, on my way up to receive communion “God, if this is idolatry and blasphemy, please forgive me!” This prayer became a ritual for me. I used to imagine my particular judgement where God would condemn me for practicing a false religion and I would argue that I had been tricked by a powerful and convincing organization that applied pressure to me from birth! I figured he would forgive me if I made a good argument. I now understand that my conscience had been telling me to leave the Church for years and years, and I ignored it based on the advice of priests. Once it really hit home that priests are not God and they are not going come out to defend me while I stand before God, I had the courage to leave.

You do seem to have very high expectations for what the Church should be able to do and discern. Is that a peaceful way to be? Revelation unfolds… very slowly.

My expectations are based on the story they tell about themselves. They say the most hubristic thing imaginable: “We speak for God, and we are always right.” If they said “We are here to give you potentially helpful guidance or advice,” I would have lower expectations.

I must share with you the “wrench theory of learning”. I pick up a large wrench, and thinking I know how to use it, I beat myself over the head with it for awhile. After a long while, I have suffered enough, and then I can see that I have been using the wrench incorrectly, and I put it down. Yes, I am that stupid. Yes, people are that slow.

LOL! I understand what you mean. What if the wrench shouted “No, hit harder, no you aren’t doing it right, if it hurts that means you are doing it right, try again, try harder!” That is exactly what it felt like. I knew these beliefs caused me so much pain and angst, but everyone kept telling me to keep beating myself or else God would really punish me thoroughly and effectively when I died!

Fear? If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear.

• Jean-Paul Sartre

 

[Abba]

I love it when I can agree with someone on this site. How does the CC generally interpret hebrews6:4-8. Can people who leave the church come back?I know leaving can be interpreted many ways, but i mean in relation to that passage.

Good question Protestor.

I understand here that Paul is referring to re-baptizing. In the CC there is no second baptism and the Church recognizes valid baptism (in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit) done in other churches and does not re-baptize a convert.

The fallen can return and confess. Here is what Chrysostom wrote about this passage:

He here shows that the gifts are many: and to explain it, You were counted worthy (he says) of so great forgiveness; for he that was sitting in darkness, he that was at enmity, he that was at open war, that was alienated, that was hated of God, that was lost, he having been suddenly enlightened, counted worthy of the Spirit, of the heavenly gift, of adoption as a son, of the kingdom of heaven, of those other good things, the unspeakable mysteries; and who does not even thus become better, but while indeed worthy of perdition, obtained salvation and honor, as if he had successfully accomplished great things; how could he be again baptized?

On two grounds then he said that the thing was impossible, and he put the stronger last: first, because he who has been deemed worthy of such [blessings], and who has betrayed all that was granted to him, is not worthy to be again renewed; neither is it possible that [Christ] should again be crucified afresh: for this is to put Him to an open shame.

There is not then any second laver: there is not [indeed]. And if there is, there is also a third, and a fourth; for the former one is continually disannulled by the later, and this continually by another, and so on without end.

And tasted, he says, the good word of God; and he does not unfold it; and the powers of the world to come, for to live as Angels and to have no need of earthly things, to know that this is the means of our introduction to the enjoyment of the worlds to come; this may we learn through the Spirit, and enter into those sacred recesses.

What are the powers of the world to come? Life eternal, angelic conversation. Of these we have already received the earnest through our Faith from the Spirit. Tell me then, if after having been introduced into a palace, and entrusted with all things therein, you had then betrayed all, would you have been entrusted with them again?
8. What then (you say)? Is there no repentance? There is repentance, but there is no second baptism: but repentance there is, and it has great force, and is able to set free from the burden of his sins, if he will, even him that has been baptized much in sins, and to establish in safety him who is in danger, even though he should have come unto the very depth of wickedness. And this is evident from many places. For, says one, does not he that falls rise again? Or he that turns away, does not he turn back to [God]? Jeremiah 8:4 It is possible, if we will, that Christ should be formed in us again: for hear Paul saying, My little children of whom I travail in birth again, until Christ be formed in you. Galatians 4:19 Only let us lay hold on repentance.

For behold the love of God to man! We ought on every ground to have been punished at the first; in that having received the natural law, and enjoyed innumerable blessings, we have not acknowledged our Master, and have lived an unclean life. Yet He not only has not punished us, but has even made us partakers of countless blessings, just as if we had accomplished great things. Again we fell away, and not even so does He punish us, but has given medicine of repentance, which is sufficient to put away and blot out all our sins; only if we knew the nature of the medicine, and how we ought to apply it.

What then is the medicine of Repentance and how is it made up? First, of the condemnation of our own sins; For (it is said) mine iniquity have I not hid Psalm 32:5; and again, I will confess against myself my lawlessness unto the Lord, and Thou forgavest the iniquity of my heart. And Declare thou at the first your sins, that you may be justified. Isaiah 43:26 And, The righteous man is an accuser of himself at the first speaking. Proverbs 18:17

 

[Abba]

Secondly, of great humbleness of mind: For it is like a golden chain; if one have hold of the beginning, all will follow. Because if you confess your sin as one ought to confess, the soul is humbled. For conscience turning it on itself causes it to be subdued.

Other things too must be added to humbleness of mind if it be such as the blessed David knew, when he said, A broken and a contrite heart God will not despise. Psalm 51:17 For that which is broken does not rise up, does not strike, but is ready to be ill-treated and itself rises not up. Such is contrition of heart: though it be insulted, though it be evil entreated, it is quiet, and is not eager for vengeance.

And after humbleness of mind, there is need of intense prayers, of many tears, tears by day, and tears by night: for, he says, every night, will I wash my bed, I will water my couch with my tears. I am weary with my groaning. Psalm 6:6 And again, For I have eaten ashes as it were bread, and mingled my drink with weeping. Psalm 102:9

And after prayer thus intense, there is need of much almsgiving: for this it is which especially gives strength to the medicine of repentance. And as there is a medicine among the physicians’ helps which receives many herbs, but one is the essential, so also in case of repentance this is the essential herb, yea, it may be everything. For hear what the Divine Scripture says, Give alms, and all things shall be clean. Luke 11:41 And again, By almsgiving and acts of faithfulness sins are purged away. Proverbs 16:6 And, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms will do away with great sins. Sirach 3:30

Next not being angry with any one, not bearing malice; the forgiving all their trespasses. For, it is said, Man retains wrath against man, and yet seeks healing from the Lord. Sirach 28:3 Forgive that you may be forgiven. Mark 11:25

Also, the converting our brethren from their wandering. For, it is said, Go, and convert your brethren, that your sins may be forgiven you. And from one’s being in close relations with the priests, and if, it is said, a man has committed sins it shall be forgiven him. James 5:15 To stand forward in defense of those who are wronged. Not to retain anger: to bear all things meekly.

More here: newadvent.org/fathers/240209.htm

Keep the Prodigal Son in mind when you are going through this whole hell thing, it will help you to understand. God always awaits us with open arms - we just need to turn back . We freely walked away and we can turn back while we still can. God is not evil, the creator of heaven and earth wished for His only begotten Son to incarnate and be offered up in atonement for our sins. He loves each and everyone of us more than we could ever love. His love is so magnified that in our human bodies we can not endure it. He does not want any of His beloved children to go to hell and tries while respecting their freedom and dignity to give them at least that last grace perhaps in the instant before death. We could not have a better God.

The angels were not created holy, they had to come to that development. God did not create the angels and humans as robots - He created us free. It’s like we start with a tabula rasa and with our actions and experiences we write on the tablet. He allows us to suffer for our own good and development. He also corrects us. Think of it as exercising - it can be painful but then you are healthier and stronger.

We are molding ourselves. Does it hurt when a caterpillar turn into a butterfly? I don’t know. But, I know it hurt when a human being defines itself as a sheep or a goat. God will separate the sheep from the goats. Not the good sheep from the bad sheep but the sheep from the goats. If we become goats - we do not want to spend eternity with Him and we choose hell.

There are things that we can come to understand to a certain extent after which they remain a mystery, e.g. the Trinity, hell… But, just because they remain mysteries does nto mean that we cannot come to understand them sufficiently so that they are not obstacle in our spiritual development.

I am trying not to become a goat, and yeah, it can be a little painful but it’s okay.

God only gives us what we can endure and He knows the crosses He gives to each. We just need to pick it up and follow Him. The cross we carry will help us to built the muscles we need to be sheep and not goats.

Hope this helps.

Enjoy your day.

 

[Abba]

Luke 15:7
I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

Since I am talking about goats and sheep, I just want to share this image:

 

[Abba]

More here: newadvent.org/fathers/240209.htm

Keep the Prodigal Son in mind when you are going through this whole hell thing, it will help you to understand. God always awaits us with open arms - we just need to turn back . We freely walked away and we can turn back while we still can. God is not evil, the creator of heaven and earth wished for His only begotten Son to incarnate and be offered up in atonement for our sins. He loves each and everyone of us more than we could ever love. His love is so magnified that in our human bodies we can not endure it. He does not want any of His beloved children to go to hell and tries while respecting their freedom and dignity to give them at least that last grace perhaps in the instant before death. We could not have a better God.

The angels were not created holy, they had to come to that development. God did not create the angels and humans as robots - He created us free. It’s like we start with a tabula rasa and with our actions and experiences we write on the tablet. He allows us to suffer for our own good and development. He also corrects us. Think of it as exercising - it can be painful but then you are healthier and stronger.

We are molding ourselves. Does it hurt when a caterpillar turn into a butterfly? I don’t know. But, I know it hurt when a human being defines itself as a sheep or a goat. God will separate the sheep from the goats. Not the good sheep from the bad sheep but the sheep from the goats. If we become goats - we do not want to spend eternity with Him and we choose hell.

There are things that we can come to understand to a certain extent after which they remain a mystery, e.g. the Trinity, hell… But, just because they remain mysteries does nto mean that we cannot come to understand them sufficiently so that they are not obstacle in our spiritual development.

I am trying not to become a goat, and yeah, it can be a little painful but it’s okay.

http://www.postost.net/images/ravenna.jpeg

God only gives us what we can endure and He knows the crosses He gives to each. We just need to pick it up and follow Him. The cross we carry will help us to built the muscles we need to be sheep and not goats.

Hope this helps.

Enjoy your day.