Is eternal suffering pointless?

[OneSheep]

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.

The Church has always been “right” in the time frame. It was the closest to “right” that they could be at the time. We cannot evaluate the “rightness” of ancient mindsets with modern minds. Slavery was thought “right”. It was better than the alternative thing to do with captured enemies: murder.

1. 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.

Earlier in this thread I described my own approach to Eucharist. If you see something as false, do not force yourself to believe a falsehood. Faith cannot be proven. Mature faith is not adherence to group doctrine, it is something that is observed and embraced within.

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.

So, why are you rejecting the alternatives I have presented? I’m not Catholic enough?

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!

Like I said before, if you can understand and forgive the old traditionalist you were, then you can come to be comfortable with two “ingroups” (at least). You can remain in communion with those who believe and those who do not. There is such thing as membership that is not “traditionalist”. If the trinity is a problem we can discuss it, but perhaps that would be better with a P.M.

I want to share with you an extremely powerful thing I witnessed once in Church. I was standing next to the aisle, already having received communion, when I heard a somewhat dragging step coming up the aisle. It was a young couple.

The woman had a severe leg problem, and would definitely have needed a walker if it wasn’t for the man steadying her steps; he was practically holding her up. The man, however, was relying on the woman to keep him straight. He was completely sight-impaired.

I immediately saw a metaphor. Do you?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

So, why are you rejecting the alternatives I have presented? I’m not Catholic enough?

Like I said before, if you can understand and forgive the old traditionalist you were, then you can come to be comfortable with two “ingroups” (at least). You can remain in communion with those who believe and those who do not. There is such thing as membership that is not “traditionalist”. If the trinity is a problem we can discuss it, but perhaps that would be better with a P.M.

I want to share with you an extremely powerful thing I witnessed once in Church. I was standing next to the aisle, already having received communion, when I heard a somewhat dragging step coming up the aisle. It was a young couple.

The woman had a severe leg problem, and would definitely have needed a walker if it wasn’t for the man steadying her steps; he was practically holding her up. The man, however, was relying on the woman to keep him straight. He was completely sight-impaired.

I immediately saw a metaphor. Do you?

I am running out of time today. Here is an example conversation I think we might have:

Me: I can’t be a Catholic, because I don’t believe the things they say are essential to believe to be a Catholic.

You: Why not just reject the Church’s narrative of itself and consider yourself a Catholic regardless of what you believe?

Me: It is unwarranted to suppose I have the right to reject the Church’s own narrative about itself and substitute it with my own so I can call myself a Catholic while having non-Catholic beliefs.

Why identify as Catholic if that will simply cause confusion and misunderstanding among those with whom interact?

You: [response here]

 

[PRmerger]

OK so is anyone ready to refute Aquinas?

I don’t think anyone here is going to refute Aquinas.

But what we are going to do is refute your understanding of Aquinas.

Am in the middle of something right now, so will come back to this in a bit.

 

[arte]

All of the above of grave matter. Willful intent and knowledge of their seriousness is also required for mortal sin to occur.

OK, let’s assume that they were committed with willful intent and knowledge of their seriousness.

Wrong. Sinners created hell.

Wrong, God created hell for the devil and his angels.

Wrong again. Sinners send themselves to hell.

Wrong again. After they die, sinners do not go to hell willfully. Only an unbelievably extreme masochist would want to go to hell. They are sent there by someone and that someone is God.

Could you please also answer the rest of my post. I have altered the last part to make it more readable.

Who decided the punishment would be eternal and not a finite period of time? Answer: God. Who decided that souls/people are tortured 24/7 in hell? Answer: God. Therefore, God is responsible for setting up a system of justice that is inhumane. I believe in an external evil entity although many people including some Christians believe that evil is just a part of human nature. There is a contradiction in heaven being a perfect place because an archangel and one third of the angels staged a coup there. How can something like that happen if heaven is perfect? It all smacks of mythology even paganism to me.

 

[arte]

This list is NOT to be interpreted as coming from the Catholic Church.

What a terrible “cop out”. However, I can understand your “cop out” to a certain extent because I did not include the great difficulty I had finding examples of mortal sin. 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. Therefore, my sample was taken from the only list of examples of mortal sins that I could find. Also the list in “Catholic Parents on Line” is obviously being used to advise Catholic parents what to tell their children about mortal sins and no-one in the Church has told “Catholic Parents on Line” to remove the list. Isn’t that tacit approval? Furthermore, “Catholic Parents on Line” would have passed the list to a Church authority prior to publishing it. Finally, another CAF member on this thread has accepted all of my sample of mortal sins as “grave matter” and not thrown my sample out as “not to be interpreted as coming from the Catholic Church”. I repeat my sample list to help you:

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. Intentional failure to fast or abstain on appointed days
9. Attempting or intending suicide
10. Committing suicide
11. Excessive tattoos
12. Promotion of euthanasia
13. Masturbation
14. Using a contraceptive (including birth control pills)
15. In-vitro fertilization or artificial insemination
16. Willful divorce or desertion

Could you please also answer the rest of my reply to you. I have emphasized the last paragraph because I feel that it is pivotal to the whole discussion here and the title of this thread: Is eternal suffering pointless?

How is it “the work of a loving God who provides a place for those who find His Love odious” when He sentences them to eternal torture/punishment in hell?" Surely a loving God could do much better by way of justice than torture/punishment 24/7 for eternity.

**As the soul is immortal, wouldn’t it be more productive and logical to cleanse a soul no matter how long it takes? After all the soul does have an eternity to right itself. It’s a win win for God and the souls. **

 

[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.

How can the truth be “in the middle” if “God will utterly crush and destroy the wicked”?

“… because he is just, good, and powerful”. Might is not right unless you worship and adore brute force. There is no sign of love in your religion… It is akin to the primitive notion of Yahweh.

 

[PRmerger]

What a terrible “cop out”. However, I can understand your “cop out” to a certain extent because I did not include the great difficulty I had finding examples of mortal sin. Fortunately there was a thread in 2007 on CAF concerning mortal sin.

LOL!

A thread from 2007 on CAFs as the source for your list of mortal sins?

Lurkers: please be aware that the source for what the Catholic Church teaches is NOT a thread here, but the “sure norm” for the faith, which is this:

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

There is no comprehensive list of mortal sins put out by the magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Why?

Because there is no need to do this.

Just like there is no comprehensive list of scientific laws put out by the scientific community.

 

[OneSheep]

I am running out of time today. Here is an example conversation I think we might have:

Me: I can’t be a Catholic, because I don’t believe the things they say are essential to believe to be a Catholic.

You: Why not just reject the Church’s narrative of itself and consider yourself a Catholic regardless of what you believe?

Me: It is unwarranted to suppose I have the right to reject the Church’s own narrative about itself and substitute it with my own so I can call myself a Catholic while having non-Catholic beliefs.

Why identify as Catholic if that will simply cause confusion and misunderstanding among those with whom interact?

You: [response here]

I don’t reject the Church’s narrative about itself. There is not just one narrative.

If there were yet another way of believing “the things they say are essential to believe to be a Catholic.” Would you consider them, or is your rejection a matter of affiliation, and there is nothing you are willing to consider because you don’t want the identification.

In other words, all else set aside, how would you feel about once again being identified as Catholic? I’m looking for an underlying emotion.

I do not pose the question as an accusation of any sort. Whatever feeling you have is to be respected. If there is a revulsion involved, then your position will be influenced by the revulsion, right? That is what was behind my original question. More on the other thread.

 

[Aloysium]

:twocents:

Hell is not so much a place we enter, but a state we are in when we sin.
Mortal sin, as a fundamental rejection of love, separates us from the Ground of all existence.
No foreign idea or emotion drives a separate self to sin, we do so in the unity of our being.

God’s judgement is the reality of who we are.
We are what we do.
We come into being from outside of time through the Word of God, through His love.
In the end He will judge us, as only He can, having created us, and knowing what we have done with what we have been granted.
In our existence, what we have done, within the infinite ocean of His compassion, lies the judgement.
We are who we are, but we are forgiven and He has atoned for our sins.
However, we do have free will and can choose not to partake of His forgiveness.

Earthly existence, as I understand it is of supreme individual importance.
Where the angels decided in the moment they were created, we existing in time, do so, that is create ourselves within eternity during the course of our lives.
There are plenty of opportunities to become saints and through His mercy, can always return into His loving embrace.
We have the free will not to do so.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

How can the truth be “in the middle” if “God will utterly crush and destroy the wicked”?

“… because he is just, good, and powerful”. Might is not right unless you worship and adore brute force. There is no sign of love in your religion… It is akin to the primitive notion of Yahweh.

Well, he could torture them forever (excess of retribution) or reward them forever (defect of retribution). Or, he could punish them proportionally and take away from them that to which they have no “right” in the first place and have abused (a middle way).

God’s might is right. It is a self-defeating and arbitrary definition of justice if we consider human might to be right, but it solves many problems if God’s power and justice relate to each other in a virtuous spiral.

God’s love for us is manifest in the goodness of creation and life. Life is mostly a good thing for the vast majority of mankind, despite the immensity of human suffering. His mercy is evident in that he allows sinners to continue to live, in order to give them a chance to repent. His unspeakable generosity and love will be evident and obvious to all in the World to Come.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I don’t reject the Church’s narrative about itself. There is not just one narrative.

The Church has carefully and scrupulously attempted to maintain an official narrative of itself. See: Trent, Vatican 1. They insist that you must believe certain things in a certain way, or they literally “curse you to hell.” Is this a false narrative? Which one is the true one? How would we know? If they’re mutually contradictory, at most only one can be “real.”

If there were yet another way of believing “the things they say are essential to believe to be a Catholic.” Would you consider them, or is your rejection a matter of affiliation, and there is nothing you are willing to consider because you don’t want the identification.

In other words, all else set aside, how would you feel about once again being identified as Catholic? I’m looking for an underlying emotion.

I do not pose the question as an accusation of any sort. Whatever feeling you have is to be respected. If there is a revulsion involved, then your position will be influenced by the revulsion, right? That is what was behind my original question. More on the other thread.

I don’t feel revulsion so much as a kind of deep sadness and a sense of futility. The life, truth, and goodness I sought I have found elsewhere. I see the Catholic Church as a beautiful but sad organization composed principally of frightened elderly people. In her more vigorous years she erected wonderful institutions: universities, hospitals, charities, schools, etc. Humanity owes a debt to the Catholic Church for these good things. I also agree with Nietzsche that Catholicism preserved and expanded the “will to truth” which in turn gave birth to the enlightenment and science. Humanity also owes a debt to the Catholic Church for this obsession with finding the “true” explanation for reality. Ironically, this same “will to truth” has seriously undermined belief in her dogmas and doctrines. This is part of my lived experience and my narrative of what the Church “is,” viewed from the outside.

 

[Protestor]

Not at all. It doesn’t cease to exist because I died. My idea can be present in the knowledge of the immortal angels.

:shrug:I guess we were having two different conversations. I was in the one where you at least implicitly granted that the idea was destroyed. If you have to resort to angels keeping your idea intact I think I have nothing further to say to you on this subject.

I do think that it is interesting that you maintain that ideas are not things. Unless I missed it, in which case refer me back, can you give define ideas and pls be thorough. I am fine with ideas being references to things, but I am not sure exactly.

 

[Protestor]

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

First of all hell is a place not a thing. Secondly, unless you believe that hell always existed it was either made through/by natural forces or created. I assume you do not believe the it always existed or that it was made by natural forces. I am open to you proposing another option but as of right now I cannot think of one. As to why I “believe” it is created I don’t know how it could have always existed or how I could know that it always existed and unless hell is on a star natural forces seems wrong.

I guess we could discuss the idea that Aloysium is presenting, but in that case I don’t see the difference between state of being removed from the ground all existence and just not existing. This does depend on how we are defining ground and I assume that it is an odd definition since the g was capitalized.

 

[OneSheep]

The Church has carefully and scrupulously attempted to maintain an official narrative of itself. See: Trent, Vatican 1. They insist that you must believe certain things in a certain way, or they literally “curse you to hell.” Is this a false narrative? Which one is the true one? How would we know? If they’re mutually contradictory, at most only one can be “real.”

May 8, 2013

Pope Francis: “Jesus tells us in today’s Gospel: ‘When He shall come, the Spirit of truth, shall guide you into all the truth.’ Paul does not say to the Athenians: ‘This is the encyclopedia of truth. Study this and you have the truth, the truth.’ No! The truth does not enter into an encyclopedia. The truth is an encounter - it is a meeting with Supreme Truth: Jesus, the great truth. No one owns the truth. Then we receive the truth when we meet [it].”

I don’t feel revulsion so much as a kind of deep sadness and a sense of futility. The life, truth, and goodness I sought I have found elsewhere. I see the Catholic Church as a beautiful but sad organization composed principally of frightened elderly people. In her more vigorous years she erected wonderful institutions: universities, hospitals, charities, schools, etc. Humanity owes a debt to the Catholic Church for these good things. I also agree with Nietzsche that Catholicism preserved and expanded the “will to truth” which in turn gave birth to the enlightenment and science. Humanity also owes a debt to the Catholic Church for this obsession with finding the “true” explanation for reality. Ironically, this same “will to truth” has seriously undermined belief in her dogmas and doctrines. This is part of my lived experience and my narrative of what the Church “is,” viewed from the outside.

Futility? Well, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.:tsktsk:

Frightened people?
1 John 4:18New International Version (NIV)

18 There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

Look at you, Pumpkin Cookie. Your faith and understanding has driven out all fear, you know that God would never send us to an eternal punishment, and yet you turn your back on the community? Go to the people who are frightened, and tell them of a God who loves and forgives without condition, proven from the cross. Okay, so you have a little issue with the status given to Jesus. Would you let that stand in the way of helping people or serving God?

Indeed, you seem to downplay the revulsion to identification as Catholic, but is the revulsion there, or is it not? Revulsion is going to trump willingess to serve.

Can you see? Religion is seen as the root of so many world problems, but it is only a problem when people cling to the very aspects of human nature that religion itself calls us to mitigate! We can hold hands with people of all faiths and glorify a God who loves and forgives without limit, which is exactly the way we are to love one another. This is the “perfect love” that John refers to, is it not?

Ooof. Sorry for the preachiness. Take it with a grain of salt. You’re heart is in the right place, its just a shame not to put it to best-use.

 

[PRmerger]

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

I think you are mis-stating Aquinas’ position. He is arguing that a soul is something substantive Emphasis on the “substantive”. Not emphasis on the “something”.

If we take your presentation of Aquinas’ argument, then it would also follow that ideas are things, and that would put you in the same conundrum: if ideas (which are things that are substantive, like you argue Aquinas posits souls are) cannot be destroyed, then, so, too, can souls, which are substantive things, cannot be destroyed.

And I’m not sure I understand how you refute Aquinas’ argument against the incorruptibility of souls in Article 6, his reply to Objection 2, which you say is representative of your position.

 

[PRmerger]

How is it “the work of a loving God who provides a place for those who find His Love odious” when He sentences them to eternal torture/punishment in hell?" Surely a loving God could do much better by way of justice than torture/punishment 24/7 for eternity.

Well, perhaps the turning away from Gods love only makes one more set in his hatred, and the longer he is there, the more he hates.

**As the soul is immortal, wouldn’t it be more productive and logical to cleanse a soul no matter how long it takes? After all the soul does have an eternity to right itself. It’s a win win for God and the souls. **

We can always hope that all these souls of horrible people go to purgatory, where they can be cleansed of their horrible sins.

 

[PRmerger]

The Church has carefully and scrupulously attempted to maintain an official narrative of itself. See: Trent, Vatican 1. They insist that you must believe certain things in a certain way, or they literally “curse you to hell.”

Can you cite exactly what you’re referencing re: Trent, Vatican 1 where someone who doesn’t believe certain things is literally cursed to hell?

 

[PRmerger]

:shrug:I guess we were having two different conversations. I was in the one where you at least implicitly granted that the idea was destroyed. If you have to resort to angels keeping your idea intact I think I have nothing further to say to you on this subject.

Well, yeah. Per your history, when my argument becomes irrefutable in your estimation, you bow out.

I do think that it is interesting that you maintain that ideas are not things. Unless I missed it, in which case refer me back, can you give define ideas and pls be thorough. I am fine with ideas being references to things, but I am not sure exactly.

Let’s see…

You have an idea. And then you make the idea happen. Perhaps the idea is for a book.

The thing is the book. The idea is the immaterial concept that’s NOT a thing.

You have another idea. Perhaps the idea is for a vaccine that cures AIDs.

The thing is the vaccine. The idea is the immaterial immunological concept that’s NOT a thing.

One is the concept. The other is the thing.

 

[pocaracas]

Let’s see…

You have an idea. And then you make the idea happen. Perhaps the idea is for a book.

The thing is the book. The idea is the immaterial concept that’s NOT a thing.

You have another idea. Perhaps the idea is for a vaccine that cures AIDs.

The thing is the vaccine. The idea is the immaterial immunological concept that’s NOT a thing.

One is the concept. The other is the thing.

Analogies suck… but you know how I love them!

If a soul or a god or an angel are just as immaterial as ideas or concepts… then… you know… perhaps that’s all they are - concepts borne out of ideas. Contained within people’s minds that are borne out of complex functioning brains.

 

[PRmerger]

Analogies suck… but you know how I love them!

If a soul or a god or an angel are just as immaterial as ideas or concepts… then… you know… perhaps that’s all they are - concepts borne out of ideas. Contained within people’s minds that are borne out of complex functioning brains.

No one said that they are “just” as immaterial as ideas or concepts.

Only that they are immaterial, like ideas and concepts are immaterial.

Using your logic we could say:

pocaracas believes that a roach is material. Pocaracas believes that a Hillary Clinton is material.

That is, a roach is just as material as Hilary Clinton…then…you know…perhaps that’s all Clinton is–a roach.

Of course, those of us using right logic and right reason would never conclude that based on your 2 beliefs in red.