Is eternal suffering pointless?

[OneSheep]

Hi P.C.

Your thread is interesting. I don’t understand sin principally as a rejection of God, but rather as harm to oneself and others. Sin, and the death and destruction it causes, is its own punishment. God can rescue us from it if we repent, I believe. The moral law exists to help us navigate this imperfect existence. We get lost when we transgress that law.

I agree.

“An eye for an eye” is proportional justice, which is a great improvement over the escalating vengeance theories of justice at the time. Neither machines nor animals have any such concept as justice. Proportional justice is strictly fair, but mercy and forgiveness are holy. I agree with Jesus that we should always forgive, especially if we desire forgiveness from others and from God.

In my view, God cannot be offended at all. He cannot be surprised, nor disturbed, nor disappointed, nor any other emotion. God is beyond magnanimous. God is beyond nobility. We have no power over him and he can neither change nor be changed.

No, not end of the world stuff. Every day stuff. People die every day.

Justice is a compulsion, it is part of our nature in my view. Chimpanzees and Capuchin monkeys have a rudimentary compulsion for justice. It’s part of the conscience. Concerning “dying” I was referring to this (if I remember right):

If we do not desire forgiveness, if we do not desire to make amends or repent, then we die.

Yes, God will let us die. It happens every day. It is the 100% assured outcome of all human lives. I hope and pray for a miraculous resurrection and life in the World to Come someday, but I do not see it as guaranteed for anyone in particular.

So, repentance or no repentance, forgiveness or no forgiveness, we gonna die a bodily death. Just not right away. I think that is what you are saying.

Our evil behavior does change us, both physically and spiritually. A father who neglects his children is a bad father. He “loses” his chance to be a good father. Maybe he can regain it, but not without much repentance and amends. A drug addict destroys his or her body. A sexually promiscuous person destroys his/her body and the bodies of his/her partners. Maybe not immediately, but over time. A thief destroys his or her nobility, honor, and honesty. A liar destroys reputations. These things can be regained with repentance. There is always hope. God can restore us.

Hmmm. The father, the drug addict, the promiscuous person, the thef , the liar, are all well-intended, but ignorant and/or blind. The behavior in itself does not modify the key factor of the behavior, which is the ignorance or blindness. Saying that there is a physical and spiritual change does not make it so, right?

Yes, making bad choices does affect us, but those effects can come from other acts and reasons. They don’t make us bad.

Let’s look at the thief you described. Nobility and honor have to do with status, that is the way others see him, not a change in the person himself. The thief destroys his honesty? Honesty is a choice, it is not an aspect of a person’s existence. “Dishonest” might be a label I put on someone I cannot trust, but in fact even the “dishonest” person is probably honest most of the time. Again, what is destroyed is my perception of his goodness, not the person himself.

Indeed, if I resent the thief, I perceive some negative about him. If I understand and forgive the thief, the negative feelings and labels fall away and disappear. I may not trust him, but I come to realize that I could do all the things that he did, and I understand and relate to his humanity. At a comparison level, too, all of the labels fall away when I truly understand the person’s actions. I come to see their ignorance or blindness. The ignorance and blindness precede the behaviors.

Does that sound incoherent?

Right, that’s what I meant. We don’t have enough information to know whether there are any gratuitous evils, except for the “endless hell” postulate. Though torturing a baby to death for casual amusement seems to me to be a gratuitous evil, I don’t think I have enough information to make that judgment. But, I think we do have enough information to determine that “endless hell” would be a gratuitous evil.

Well, if we start with the question, “why did the person torture the baby to death?”, and the answer is truly “for his amusement”, then we have indeed found a purpose for his behavior. He is probably a “psychopath” or a person we label with such condition where there is an empathy disability. He is blind and ignorant, but the torture is not gratuitous in the sense that it altogether lacks reason or purpose.

No, just that arguing on the internet and being “right” is morally inferior to helping others and being good. Lots of nuns I knew held many wacky and contradictory theologies, but they also fed the hungry and mentally ill homeless every day. They are better than me.

We all have our calling. I’m sure that you are doing great things somewhere also.

 

[pocaracas]

Because God really does exist. And, he is out of this world!

Really, really? Pinkie swear?

The way our imagination and hallucinations work is not by creating something absolutely new but by mixing that which is already known and has been seen. Even if the mind combines certain features and creates a new face - it is not out of this world and existence.

Looking at how religions seem to have evolved with the civilizations… I lean to think that the gods we have today are products of slight changes over time of some initial predisposition to awe in humans…
Awe at fire
Awe at lightning
Awe at life
Awe at death
Awe at the stars
…

Job was not shocked by the voice and presence of God. Did you notice? That’s the reason I wrote ‘supposedly.’ Spiritually, I would think that He was familiar with God and knew Him. But, what made Job so certain that it was God and not Satan or his imagination? He knew it was God and it was God. He is a being with a presence.

Yes… Obi Wan also allowed himself to become one with the Force. He knew the Force was real.

• sarcastic way of saying that characters in old stories are no guarantee that those characters from those stories really existed, or that those stories really happened.
  I know about the human capacity to invent stories and characters. I don’t know about any God who is present among people with a voice and a presence.

Saint Faustina was not hallucinating neither were the children of Fatima nor Bernadette etc… But, why would so many people believe them? Because, in their soul the perceive and sense the presence of God. The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, guides us but once confirmed by the Church we can participate and learn from these events. But, they are not left on their own out there. The pilgrims have spiritual experiences etc…

Yes, people have spiritual experiences… how to discern an experience caused by an actual exterior spiritual entity, from one caused by some psychological factors in which pre-existing belief leads you to the conclusion that it was caused by an exterior spiritual experience?

Also, here we have more people… people, people, people.

 

[pocaracas]

For sure. I totally respect your position. It’s sad when people are brain washed, lied to and misled (the Mormon conversion system) - and most sad when these very people did not bother much to question the veracity of what they were accepting as truth. God gave us a brain, and I think He expects us to use it. Go for it!

Oh… Mormons… JWs… now there’s this new Scientology. How can people let themselves fall for these?

But, don’t get lost and remember this is your journey. You don’t know why others may be in a similar state of mind but, you keep truthful to yourself and don’t let yourself be misled. There are a lot of people who pretend to be atheists for various reason and they even end up believing that they are… don’t let yourself get confused by them. Stand on your own grounds and continue your own search.

I have discussed with a distinguished scientist who is a real atheist. He appreciates religion etc…and wishes that if God really does exist that he could also have faith. But, he simply doesn’t - he is a real atheist. He thinks the trend in England is a joke and the atheist religion that is currently a la mode.

I am just recommending that you don’t join an atheist religion group. Keep truthful to yourself. I have been in your shoes, and did the walk and talked the talk. I was raised Catholic but fell in love with Plato when I was sixteen and I just took off from there. I studied Greek and Roman antiquity and the Egyptians etc… and thought of how well engineered their religions were and now they are gone. I wondered it thousands of years from now someone would think the same about Catholicism. So, like the Prodigal Son I walked away so I could find the truth for myself not because I was raised by pious Catholics.

Peace.

“An atheist religion group”? What on Earth is that?
I’ve heard it said that atheists are like a herd of cats… the only common ground is the lack of belief in any god… everything else is up for grabs.
You have atheists who believe in ghosts.
You have atheists who believe in reincarnation.
You have atheists who follow what others say.
You have smart atheists.
You have dumb atheists.
But most of the ones you find online will be of the skeptical kind. I like to think that I fit into this category. As skeptical, each will trust some things that some particular communities tell them and will mistrust other things from other communities. To each his own…
The scientific community is generally seen as trustworthy, but we still like to have confirmation for some more outlandish things (as in non-intuitive), like relativistic time contraction, quantum tunneling effect, and stuff like that.
Other communities are more frowned upon… people are always in the way.

 

[PRmerger]

This is going to get far off topic.

Are “ideas” things that exist? Now we’re doing philosophy!

Ideas, like souls, are immaterial.

And a soul, like an idea, is not a* thing.*

 

[PRmerger]

OK back on track…you still have not shown that souls exist indefinitely by necessity. You can’t just say “souls are immortal by definition.” It would be just as legitimate to say: “your opinions are wrong by definition.” LOL! That’s not right!

I say: souls are not immortal by necessity because they are created things just like cats and potatoes and not like ideas. Any thing created can be destroyed.

Can you prove that a soul is a thing?

 

[pocaracas]

Can you prove that a soul is a thing?

LOL!
Must.Resist… … …
Made it!

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Can you prove that a soul is a thing?

 

[Abba]

Okay, here is my idea, you guys can tear it apart as it has not been seriously developed etc… so here is the baby with the diaper and all.

The soul exists and is immortal. For other reasons God may have aside from; there are eternal attributes e.g. Love, Virtues etc… That are not innate to the human person, but are experienced by the human person, because these attributes/elements are immortal the soul needs to be immortal to process them to experience and capture or reflect them. The soul exist because we can see that it is able to capture these immortal attributes which are foreign to the body and individual person. These elements are often time relational and so when a person who is considered virtuous travels they may not be respected, loved, etc… in the new place as in the old because it’s like people transmit and participate in the experience etc… of these eternal elements.

 

[Abba]

Aaannnnnd, to swing back on topic…

In accordance to how and how much etc… the soul experiences these eternal elements it affects its very substance and it becomes either a sheep or a goat. But, it is not all on the soul, God gives grace. A sheep or goat can get stuck in the slippery mud and God sometimes gives it a little push. How, when and why God decides to give grace - well, I don’t think we really know. God is all knowing so based on His wisdom and Love He decides and it is Just.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Can you prove that a soul is a thing?

To be serious though, let’s look at article 75 in the Summa where Aquinas discusses this issue. Article 2 answers your question directly.

I agree with much of what Aquinas asserts, and article 6 here is very relevant. Article 6 Question 75

My objection to the idea that souls are necessarily immortal or indestrucible is roughly similar to objection 2, quoted here:

Further, whatever is out of nothing can return to nothingness; because the end should correspond to the beginning. But as it is written (Wisdom 2:2), “We are born of nothing”; which is true, not only of the body, but also of the soul. Therefore, as is concluded in the same passage, “After this we shall be as if we had not been,” even as to our soul.

Aquinas, however, maintains that souls are incorruptible because they are created “per se” rather than by accident. In other words, God creates them directly and not as the result of other created things. Here is his response to objection 2:

As a thing can be created by reason, not of a passive potentiality, but only of the active potentiality of the Creator, Who can produce something out of nothing, so when we say that a thing can be reduced to nothing, we do not imply in the creature a potentiality to non-existence, but in the Creator the power of ceasing to sustain existence. But a thing is said to be corruptible because there is in it a potentiality to non-existence.

As I understand it, Aquinas is here saying that we can say that souls are incorruptible by nature because they do not accidentally or naturally cease to exist (anymore than anything else does). He specifically acknowledges, however, that God could cease to sustain their existence, but claims that this is not normally what we mean by “corruptible.”

The potential for a soul to lapse from existence does not exist in itself, but rather by the power of the Creator to cease sustaining its existence.

I agree with this, and it is roughly similar to what I’ve been arguing. Anything created can be destroyed, in the sense that God ceases to sustain the existence of that thing. I agree that we don’t use the word “destroyed” in that sense commonly, but neither do we use the word “created” in this sense. We are neither able to create nor destroy as God does (out of nothing) but merely re-arrange matter. We are capable of and have direct experience with only what Aquinas calls “accidental” creation or destruction. God, however, creates directly, so it follows that he would be able to cease creating as well, unless he is not omnipotent or not free.

EDIT: In order to better understand my position, consider that not everything exists. There are a finite number of objects in the universe, and there is no logical reason why there couldn’t be “one more” whatever. So, it would seem that God is not required to create every possible thing. If he is not required to create everything, then he is not required to sustain everything either, including human souls. EDIT over.

And, Aquinas argues that souls are most certainly “things.”

 

[Abba]

Alright, I’ll let you guys get back to your serious philosophical analysis and stop interrupting. I have to get back to work. It’s been fun. I will read the thread with my morning coffee

 

[davidv]

Sinners created hell, is this a serious statement? I think you mean that “sinners are the reason that God created hell”.

I meant what I wrote. Why do you think hell is a created thing?

I disapprove of the verb “send” here. It is not a normative usage of the verb send. I think you mean that “they(sinners) are the reason or the sins are the reason why God sends them to hell” or “they choose to go to hell” or “they choose to be sent to hell”.

 

[987mk]

The soul exists and is immortal.

Who creates souls? A - God

Who made the choice to make souls immortal? A- God

Can God choose not to create souls? A - Yes

Can God choose to create souls that are not immortal? A - Yes.

 

[PRmerger]

Who creates souls? A - God

Who made the choice to make souls immortal? A- God

Can God choose not to create souls? A - Yes

Can God choose to create souls that are not immortal? A - Yes.

He could, but then it wouldn’t be a soul.

(And here, of course, the universe of discourse is for humanity).

Just like he could choose to make a circle with 4 corners…but, then again, it wouldn’t be a circle, would it?

 

[PRmerger]

Even if it is secondary, so what, I don’t care who or what caused an idea to not exist or wether it is a primary or secondary effect. For this discussion it only matters that it can be done caused not to exist.

Not at all. It doesn’t cease to exist because I died.

My idea can be present in the knowledge of the immortal angels.

 

[tonyrey]

Never said the righteous couldn’t live forever, quite the contrary!

I believe God will sustain the righteous forever because he is merciful, good, and wonderful, not because they exist by necessity.

I believe God will utterly crush and destroy the wicked because he is just, good, and powerful, and because they do not exist by necessity.

I am not advocating “Saducee-ism.” In fact, it was the Pharisees who taught that people would experience endless torment in hell. Research it. The truth is in the middle.

If the truth were in the middle no one would be in heaven or hell!

 

[PumpkinCookie]

OK so is anyone ready to refute Aquinas? If not, then we can agree that souls are able to be destroyed by God ceasing to sustain their existence. If that is the case, then it cannot be said that hell must be endless because souls are necessarily endless. God is the direct reason souls continue to exist; he could “let them go.”

According to the preachers of endless hell, therefore he chooses not to. He chooses to support the rebellion of his enemies forever. His hands are not tied. He stretches them out to hold sinners in the fires of hell, forever. Normally, fire would destroy a human body very quickly. Instead, the sinners must have some kind of miraculous bodies that are restored continuously to allow them to suffer endlessly. According to “endless hell” preachers, this is right, just, and good. We should feel joy and happiness at the knowledge of God’s glorious justice. Who’s ready to break out the champagne? Anyone?

Oh yeah, we mustn’t forget that Catholics believe there are bodies in hell. Yes, look it up.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I have offered several thought experiments designed to display the pointlessness of hell in this thread to which no one has responded. That’s OK. But, I’d like to submit another observation. Consider:

You are probably afraid of hell. You are probably afraid that people you care about are either there already or are going to end up there. This possibility fills you with sadness, fear, and maybe even dread. Why? I think because most of us (who are not sociopaths) intuit that endless hell isn’t good, isn’t just, isn’t fair, and cannot possibly be the work of a loving father. I believe our intuitions are supported by reason and scripture.

Think about it. If the “pro-hell” apologists are right, then why be afraid? Hell is a good thing. It’s the best outcome for most of us. It’s God’s will for you, your family, and your friends. It’s a place of freedom, a place where we get what we want forever, our own kingdom. It’ll be great, most of our friends will be there, and we’ll be able to do whatever we want in this life and get away with it forever. Why the fear? Why the dread? So what if God isn’t “present.” He isn’t “present” in a special way on this earth either, and most of humanity does just fine most of the time. Apparently, we don’t need God to be happy. He is a sucker who will keep us in existence forever as we do whatever we want. We even get to be resurrected and have special glorified bodies. Why worry?

I’ll tell you why: because you know that this late 20th century/early 21st century apologetic version of hell is totally bogus. Hell is a fiery torture chamber filled with shrieking demons and endless suffering. Look at any artistic depiction of hell prior to Vatican II. Read any work of a saint or mystic concerning hell prior to saints canonized by JPII. The artistic and literary record clearly and unanimously shows that hell is a fearsome, horrific, abominable Disneyland of endless torture. Everyone in Christendom understood it to be this way. Also check out Islamic depictions of endless hell. Even more graphic!

The sanitized version of hell that modern apologists use to try to “cover up” this indefensible belief can be summarily dismissed with even 15 minutes of research on the internet.

 

[OneSheep]

I have offered several thought experiments designed to display the pointlessness of hell in this thread to which no one has responded. That’s OK. But, I’d like to submit another observation. Consider:

You are probably afraid of hell. You are probably afraid that people you care about are either there already or are going to end up there. This possibility fills you with sadness, fear, and maybe even dread. Why? I think because most of us (who are not sociopaths) intuit that endless hell isn’t good, isn’t just, isn’t fair, and cannot possibly be the work of a loving father. I believe our intuitions are supported by reason and scripture.

Think about it. If the “pro-hell” apologists are right, then why be afraid? Hell is a good thing. It’s the best outcome for most of us. It’s God’s will for you, your family, and your friends. It’s a place of freedom, a place where we get what we want forever, our own kingdom. It’ll be great, most of our friends will be there, and we’ll be able to do whatever we want in this life and get away with it forever. Why the fear? Why the dread? So what if God isn’t “present.” He isn’t “present” in a special way on this earth either, and most of humanity does just fine most of the time. Apparently, we don’t need God to be happy. He is a sucker who will keep us in existence forever as we do whatever we want. We even get to be resurrected and have special glorified bodies. Why worry?

I’ll tell you why: because you know that this late 20th century/early 21st century apologetic version of hell is totally bogus. Hell is a fiery torture chamber filled with shrieking demons and endless suffering. Look at any artistic depiction of hell prior to Vatican II. Read any work of a saint or mystic concerning hell prior to saints canonized by JPII. The artistic and literary record clearly and unanimously shows that hell is a fearsome, horrific, abominable Disneyland of endless torture. Everyone in Christendom understood it to be this way. Also check out Islamic depictions of endless hell. Even more graphic!

The sanitized version of hell that modern apologists use to try to “cover up” this indefensible belief can be summarily dismissed with even 15 minutes of research on the internet.

Hi Pumpkin Cookie,

I’m a little puzzled. It is pretty obvious that you and I both reject the idea of gratuitous punishment, an eternal hell. So, I have offered that hell is a not a place people are sent, but a choice that people are free to make (assuming that God has done all in his power to convince the individual otherwise). If you are labeling this version as “sanitized”, then you seem to be saying that the “true” version is something from the past.

I have offered also that revelation unfolds, that the truth takes time to know, but you seem to be rejecting this also. Isn’t this a classic “straw man” case, to some degree? You are saying that the modern Church says hell is an eternal punishment, and then you slay the modern Church for this established stance. I understand the establishment you are making, as it has solid history and modern adherants, but many of us trying to bring forth a better way of looking at things don’t see the modern Church as having this eternal punishment doctrine.

So, brother, what is it that you want? I am trying to figure that out, and I am confused.

Thanks.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Hi Pumpkin Cookie,

I’m a little puzzled. It is pretty obvious that you and I both reject the idea of gratuitous punishment, an eternal hell. So, I have offered that hell is a not a place people are sent, but a choice that people are free to make (assuming that God has done all in his power to convince the individual otherwise). If you are labeling this version as “sanitized”, then you seem to be saying that the “true” version is something from the past.

I have offered also that revelation unfolds, that the truth takes time to know, but you seem to be rejecting this also. Isn’t this a classic “straw man” case, to some degree? You are saying that the modern Church says hell is an eternal punishment, and then you slay the modern Church for this established stance. I understand the establishment you are making, as it has solid history and modern adherants, but many of us trying to bring forth a better way of looking at things don’t see the modern Church as having this eternal punishment doctrine.

So, brother, what is it that you want? I am trying to figure that out, and I am confused.

Thanks.

Is the Catholic Church always right about matter of faith and morals? If “yes” proceed to 1) below. If “no” proceed to 2) below.

1. Then the “sanitized” version of hell must be false since the Church prior to the late 20th century taught something exclusively contradictory. Or, the Church has contradicted itself and has proven that it is not always right about matters of faith and morals…proceed to number 2 below.
2. There is no good reason to suppose what they say is so reliable that I have the epistemic right to believe it if it contradicts reason. They say God is a man. That is unreasonable, and I have no reason to believe them if they are not always right. They say bread is God. Again, I have no right to believe this because it is unreasonable and not sensible, literally. Everything they teach that is unsupported by the historical record and reason can be thrown out, if they’re not always right.

My point here was to see if anyone could bring something to the table to make me doubt my conclusions. I wish I could be a Catholic Onesheep, but too many things don’t make sense and seem manifestly false. I can’t accept central teachings because they aren’t reasonable and aren’t supported by sufficient evidence, so I can’t be a Catholic. This makes my family life difficult.

This entire exercise, participating in this forum, has been my imitation of the Israelites in the desert, yearning for the “fleshpots, bread, and garlic” they had while slaves of the Egyptians. I am like Lot’s wife, turning back toward Sodom, sad to leave my home. Hopefully I will not be turned into a pillar of salt!