Is eternal suffering pointless?

[PRmerger]

Analogies suck… but you know how I love them!

IMHO, people who don’t like analogies don’t like them either because:

-they understand them and know that the argument made through the analogy is a cogent one

or

-they don’t have the ability to think in the abstract

 

[PumpkinCookie]

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].”

Jesus is not “the truth” in my view. A charismatic and influential Rabbi for sure. He had a lot of valuable advice to which I still listen. Every and any one can offer us some good advice and “truth.” Only God himself, however, is pure truth, in my view.

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

Now, now, put your wrench down! I do not see human religions as “part of the problem” but rather, “vanity.” We cannot avoid vanity, unfortunately. It is deeply intertwined in our lives. We should seek wisdom, but we cannot blame others for practicing the religion of their parents/culture.

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.

I do not believe in proselytism. God is in control of all things and does not require our help. We cannot force others to be wise or to desire truth. I will loudly and forcefully contradict those who preach foolishness and vanity, but I don’t believe God desires me to proselytize others. In other words, if you come to my door handing me pamphlets and “selling” your religion to me, you will be dealing with one tough customer. But, I see no reason to come to your store and tell you what you should be selling instead!

Selfishness and arrogance are the true enemies of humanity and God, in my opinion. To the extent that a religion either encourages or fails to discourage selfishness and arrogance, it can be said to be “part of the problem.” Most religions, though vain and untrue, do not encourage selfishness and vanity. Think of the two world religions most in conflict right now: western consumerism and Islamic fundamentalism. Both encourage selfishness and arrogance, in my opinion. May God deliver us from both!

 

[PumpkinCookie]

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.

PR, I agree with Aquinas. He is saying that souls are not intrinsically corruptible the way material substances were thought to be at the time. I agree that souls are immaterial, but that doesn’t mean they don’t actually exist as things. I do not agree that ideas are just like souls, angels, or God. Harry Potter is an idea, but he doesn’t actually exist. God is not an idea like Harry Potter. Neither are souls, they are real.

Aquinas wants to show that souls do not decay and cease to exist like material objects. I agree with him. But, in his response to objection 2, he implicitly acknowledges that souls could be “corrupted” (ie destroyed) by God ceasing to sustain their existence. God can destroy souls “per se.” They do not go out of existence automatically/naturally/accidentally like objection 2 seems to suggest. My objection isn’t identical to objection 2, but related in the sense that I suppose that souls are extrinsically able to be destroyed by the direct inaction of God, my justification being that anything (directly) created can be (directly) destroyed.

I am not arguing that human souls naturally cease to exist (like Aquinas supposes animal souls do, and objection 2 hints at). I’m arguing that God has the power to destroy a soul, to blot it out of existence, by simply ceasing to sustain its existence by his direct act. I think Aquinas would agree with me on this particular point.

Regarding the metaphysics of ideas: let’s not get into this on this thread. It is a fascinating question actually. Want to read a Catholic author in this field? Peter van Inwagen. Just google him, he has written extensively on the ontology of fictional characters or ideas.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

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?

To anathematize someone is to curse them to hell. Trent seems to be one long, arduous exercise in precisely defining exactly which beliefs damn one to hell and why. Vatican I formally defines infallibility and “who counts as a Catholic” in many ways. Just research it for 20 minutes, if you care. Basically, if you disagree with the Church in any substantive way as clearly defined by Trent (and all other councils), then they wish doom upon you.

Yes, I know that the “Contemporary American Internet Catholic Apologetics Cover-Up Crew®” will now come out in force to argue that “anathema” merely means that a person is excommunicated, and that the Church will be very sad until the person repents and submits to the Roman Pontiff once more, because, you know, the point of excommunication is to encourage people to repent.

Maybe the new apologists are right. Or maybe they’re not. Read for yourself, from the Catholic Encyclopedia, the bane of all revisionists.

Anathema remains a major excommunication which is to be promulgated with great solemnity. A formula for this ceremony was drawn up by Pope Zachary (741-52) in the chapter Debent duodecim sacerdotes, Cause xi, quest. iii. The Roman Pontifical reproduces it in the chapter Ordo excommunicandi et absolvendi, distinguishing three sorts of excommunication: minor excommunication, formerly incurred by a person holding communication with anyone under the ban of excommunication; major excommunication, pronounced by the Pope in reading a sentence; and anathema, or the penalty incurred by crimes of the gravest order, and solemnly promulgated by the Pope. In passing this sentence, the pontiff is vested in amice, stole, and a violet cope, wearing his mitre, and assisted by twelve priests clad in their surplices and holding lighted candles. He takes his seat in front of the altar or in some other suitable place, amid pronounces the formula of anathema which ends with these words: “Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive N-- himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.” Whereupon all the assistants respond: “Fiat, fiat, fiat.” The pontiff and the twelve priests then cast to the ground the lighted candles they have been carrying, and notice is sent in writing to the priests and neighbouring bishops of the name of the one who has been excommunicated and the cause of his excommunication, in order that they may have no communication with him. Although he is delivered to Satan and his angels, he can still, and is even bound to repent. The Pontifical gives the form for absolving him and reconciling him with the Church. The promulgation of the anathema with such solemnity is well calculated to strike terror to the criminal and bring him to a state of repentance, especially if the Church adds to it the ceremony of the Maranatha.

newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm

Obviously, the vast majority of people who are self-excommunicated by their beliefs will never be the subject of such formal cursing. Can you imagine Pope Francis doing this?

 

[PRmerger]

To anathematize someone is to curse them to hell.

You do realize that no one can curse someone to hell except for God, right?

That’s way above the Church’s paygrade.

(And even then, saying that God is the one who condemns, we understand that within the context of this discussion to mean: God does this based on our choice to reject his love.)

From Jimmy Akin:

The word anathema is one of the most misunderstood terms in anti-Catholic apologetics. Almost all anti-Catholics, from the lowbrow end of the spectrum to those who give themselves airs of scholarship, misunderstand it.
semperaltius.com/anathema.htm

 

[PRmerger]

Jesus is not “the truth” in my view. A charismatic and influential Rabbi for sure. He had a lot of valuable advice to which I still listen. Every and any one can offer us some good advice and “truth.” Only God himself, however, is pure truth, in my view.

Where do you get the idea that God forgives your sins? That God is merciful?

 

[PRmerger]

Think of the two world religions most in conflict right now: western consumerism and Islamic fundamentalism. Both encourage selfishness and arrogance, in my opinion. May God deliver us from both!

Amen!

Very Catholic, this!

 

[PRmerger]

PR, I agree with Aquinas.

Correction: you agree with what you think Aquinas said.

He is saying that souls are not intrinsically corruptible the way material substances were thought to be at the time.

You are correct here.

I agree that souls are immaterial, but that doesn’t mean they don’t actually exist as things.

Can you prove that a soul is a thing?

I do not agree that ideas are just like souls, angels, or God. Harry Potter is an idea, but he doesn’t actually exist. God is not an idea like Harry Potter. Neither are souls, they are real.

You are correct here, too.

Aquinas wants to show that souls do not decay and cease to exist like material objects. I agree with him.

You are correctly articulating Aquinas here.

But, in his response to objection 2, he implicitly acknowledges that souls could be “corrupted” (ie destroyed) by God ceasing to sustain their existence. God can destroy souls “per se.” They do not go out of existence automatically/naturally/accidentally like objection 2 seems to suggest. My objection isn’t identical to objection 2, but related in the sense that I suppose that souls are extrinsically able to be destroyed by the direct inaction of God, my justification being that anything (directly) created can be (directly) destroyed.

I am not arguing that human souls naturally cease to exist (like Aquinas supposes animal souls do, and objection 2 hints at). I’m arguing that God has the power to destroy a soul, to blot it out of existence, by simply ceasing to sustain its existence by his direct act. I think Aquinas would agree with me on this particular point.

I agree here.

God could, I suppose, destroy a soul. But then again, it wouldn’t be a human soul, for by its own definition, a human being carries a soul that is immortal.

And if can be destroyed, then it is not immortal.

Regarding the metaphysics of ideas: let’s not get into this on this thread. It is a fascinating question actually. Want to read a Catholic author in this field? Peter van Inwagen. Just google him, he has written extensively on the ontology of fictional characters or ideas.

I probably won’t get to that.

 

[PRmerger]

Trent seems to be one long, arduous exercise in precisely defining exactly which beliefs **damn one to hell **and why.

You mean which beliefs anathematized someone.

Vatican I formally defines infallibility and “who counts as a Catholic” in many ways.

Yes.

Basically, if you disagree with the Church in any substantive way as clearly defined by Trent (and all other councils), then they wish doom upon you.

No.

They anathematize you. That is, you were cut off from Christendom.

But they have no power to condemn anyone.

Again, from Jimmy Akin (ibid):

With this as background, the absurdity of the things said by anti-Catholics about the anathemas pronounced by Trent and other councils is plain. A number of errors are nearly ubiquitous in anti-Catholic writings:

1. An anathema sentenced a person to hell. This is not the case. Sentencing someone to hell is a power that is God’s alone, and the Church cannot exercise it.
2. An anathema was a sure sign that a person would go to hell. Again, not true. Anathemas were only warranted by very grave sins, but there was no reason why the offender could not repent, and those who repent aren’t damned.
3. An anathema was a sure sign that a person was not in a state of grace. This is not true for two reasons: (a) The person may have repented since the time the anathema was issued, and (b) the person may not have been in a state of mortal sin at the time the anathema was issued.

Anathemas—like penalties imposed under civil law—rest on the judgment of the court, which must make its decision based on the evidence presented. It cannot directly examine the conscience of the individual in question. Thus, while anathemas were imposed on account of gravely sinful behavior, this was not a guarantee that it was mortally sinful. For a grave sin to become mortal, it must be performed with the requisite knowledge and consent, and while an offender might have given every appearance of these conditions, they might not be there in reality—e.g., through a hidden cognitive or volitional impediment.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, I know that the “Contemporary American Internet Catholic Apologetics Cover-Up Crew®” will now come out in force to argue that “anathema” merely means that a person is excommunicated, and that the Church will be very sad until the person repents and submits to the Roman Pontiff once more, because, you know, the point of excommunication is to encourage people to repent.

Careful, PC. It is good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics, but you need to tamp down your contempt for Catholicism here.

You are in our home. Jimmy Akin is one of your hosts.

You cannot come to our home and insult your hosts, calling him part of a “Cover Up Crew.”

So I suggest you refrain from making such inelegant dismissals of what your hosts assert.

Maybe the new apologists are right. Or maybe they’re not. Read for yourself, from the Catholic Encyclopedia, the bane of all revisionists.

There is nothing in the Catholic Encyclopedia which contradicts what has been asserted by Contemporary American Internet Apologists.

More explanation is simply provided by these Apologists, (who, I remind you, are your hosts here.)

Obviously, the vast majority of people who are self-excommunicated by their beliefs will never be the subject of such formal cursing.

Egg-zactly.

Can you imagine Pope Francis doing this?

No. Because it’s not part of the canon law anymore, PC.

If you did just 5 minutes of research on this you would have known that this penalty was abolished when the new code of canon law was published in 1983.

And Pope Francis is nothing, if not a son of the Church, and thus, of course, we should never imagine him enacting a penalty which has been abrogated.

 

[pocaracas]

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

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

Perhaps you’d do well to read the whole thing before going off on a tangent to insult, huh?

First, I said “IF a soul … is] just as immaterial as ideas or concepts… then… …]PERHAPS…”

Now, since you seem to know, perhaps you can please prove that a soul is not a mere concept (or idea).
If you give a definition, you should know that you’ll only be giving a concept.
My advice is to start with where the first proto-human (ie, one without concepts for souls, like we guess animals are (?) ) would have started… that should be adequate.

Well, we’ve already established that souls are immaterial, like ideas.
So… how are they unlike ideas?

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps you’d do well to read the whole thing before going off on a tangent to insult, huh?

First, I said “IF a soul … is] just as immaterial as ideas or concepts… then… …]PERHAPS…”

Well, then if you are emphasizing the IF, it’s a rather inutile comment to make.

It’s a straw man.

As such, no one needs to address it since* even you* are not positing that a soul is just as immaterial as ideas or concepts.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Careful, PC. It is good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics, but you need to tamp down your contempt for Catholicism here.

You are in our home. Jimmy Akin is one of your hosts.

You cannot come to our home and insult your hosts, calling him part of a “Cover Up Crew.”

So I suggest you refrain from making such inelegant dismissals of what your hosts assert.

Whoa, whoa, whoa just a minute ma’am!

I have not accused any specific individuals or organizations of revisionism or “cover-up.” Please don’t point the finger at individual people or organizations and bring their good names into this! Although…the fact that a certain individual popped into your mind when I mentioned the “Contemporary American Internet Catholic Apologetics Cover-Up Crew®” speaks volumes about your estimation of such person. I think it is best not to make this personal or talk about individuals in this way. Let’s stay away from that!

Further, I am very grateful for the chance to air my grievances on this website. If this organization were engaged in a “cover-up” then there is no way they would allow me to post anything here. Now, I did have a very good thread pulled down by the moderators once, but I would never accuse them of persecution or unjust censorship. No need for histrionic internet outrage.

As far as contempt goes, yes I absolutely have some residual contempt for Catholicism. But, I also have donated to Catholic Answers for years. So, if they can take my money, I’m sure they can handle my challenges. Don’t worry, I’m just about done with these forums. I’m really feeling much better and am ready to move on I think.

There is nothing in the Catholic Encyclopedia which contradicts what has been asserted by Contemporary American Internet Apologists.

More explanation is simply provided by these Apologists, (who, I remind you, are your hosts here.)

Egg-zactly.

No. Because it’s not part of the canon law anymore, PC.

If you did just 5 minutes of research on this you would have known that this penalty was abolished when the new code of canon law was published in 1983.

And Pope Francis is nothing, if not a son of the Church, and thus, of course, we should never imagine him enacting a penalty which has been abrogated.

If a decree of anathema merely means that one is “cut off” from the Church, but doesn’t necessarily mean a person is doomed to hell, then it must mean those who are “cut off” from the Church are able to find salvation outside of it. But wait! Isn’t that an explicit contradiction of an infallible Church teaching?

Don’t bother. I am very familiar with the revisionist theology surrounding this issue. I am not advocating “feenyism” here. Just use your common sense. If the decree of anathema was meant only to encourage repentance in a heretic, precisely by what mechanism was this achieved? If the decree of anathema doesn’t necessarily entail the threat of eternal damnation, then what is the impetus for repentance? What could make someone abandon what they believe is true, what could make them betray their own minds, other than the threat of eternal doom?

And this brings us right back to the topic. So, we’ve now established that God has the ability to directly destroy souls. Whether they are things is immaterial (ha! pun intended). If he is able to destroy souls directly, but does not, this means he must will to continuously and endlessly sustain them in torment, he could cease at any time. Your argument that hell is necessarily endless because souls are necessarily indestructible (as though God’s “hands are tied”) has therefore been undermined, I believe. Try again, or don’t, as you wish.

Have you studied philosophy formally? I think it would interest you.

 

[PRmerger]

Whoa, whoa, whoa just a minute ma’am!

I have not accused any specific individuals or organizations of revisionism or “cover-up.” Please don’t point the finger at individual people or organizations and bring their good names into this! Although…the fact that a certain individual popped into your mind when I mentioned the “Contemporary American Internet Catholic Apologetics Cover-Up Crew®” speaks volumes about your estimation of such person. I think it is best not to make this personal or talk about individuals in this way. Let’s stay away from that!

Fair enough.

So you can see that Jimmy Akin has already addressed your error in assuming that anathema means “condemn to hell”.

You agree that he is not attempting to “cover up” anything vis a vis our conversation here regarding anathema?

 

[PRmerger]

As far as contempt goes, yes I absolutely have some residual contempt for Catholicism. But, I also have donated to Catholic Answers for years. So, if they can take my money, I’m sure they can handle my challenges.

Uh, no, sir.

Donating to Catholic Answers does not give you permission to utter a single contemptuous comment here.

That you may offer challenges to the faith is a different matter.

Don’t worry, I’m just about done with these forums. I’m really feeling much better and am ready to move on I think

That’s too bad.

There is so much more to discuss.

Clearly, you haven’t yet been able to formulate a cohesive argument which refutes 2000 years of constant teaching.

 

[tonyrey]

Uh, no, sir.

Donating to Catholic Answers does not give you permission to utter a single contemptuous comment here.

That you may offer challenges to the faith is a different matter.

That’s too bad.

There is so much more to discuss.

Clearly, you haven’t yet been able to formulate a cohesive argument which refutes 2000 years of constant teaching.

Many have tried but all have fallen by the wayside while the Church has gone from strength to strength, especially in nations like China where it is persecuted…

 

[arte]

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

Could you please do me the decency of replying to ALL of my post and not just a part of it especially as I requested you to do this in my previous reply to you? ** As in: “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?”

If you read my reply again, you will see that the sample list I used was taken from a list of examples of mortal sins published **by the Catholic Parents on Line and not the CAF. ** I provided relevant background information to the list published by the Catholic Parents on Line but you have completely ignored it. This is an extract from their “about us”: “We are in full union with the Magisterium in the teachings of the Catholic faith”. The list may not be official teaching of the Church but surely there must have been some editing by Church authority before publication. **Notwithstanding all of the above, for the purposes of this debate, the list is sufficient for us to comment on. **As I stated in my previous reply to you a member of CAF on this thread has already commented on this list.

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.

I believe it would be impossible for anyone to produce a COMPREHENSIVE list of mortal sins. However, Catholic Parents on Line obviously felt there was a need to publish an excellent attempt at an IN-EXHAUSTIVE list of mortal and venial sins as a guide for Catholic parents. Again, from their “about us”: “Catholic Parents Online began in 1998 because of the many challenging issues, which oftentimes create frustration for today’s parents”.

I therefore disagree that: “there is no need to do this”. I actually found their list very helpful and more importantly, very pertinent to this debate even if the list is not an official document released by the Church. The question I ask of you is very simple: **Assuming there is knowledge or firm belief that the act is seriously wrong prior to committing the act and full consent of the will, which sins in my sample list are mortal sins? ** To assist you, I have rewritten my sample list below:

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. Wilful divorce or desertion

PS: Please reply to the rest of my earlier post to you.

 

[PRmerger]

Could you please do me the decency of replying to ALL of my post and not just a part of it especially as I requested you to do this in my previous reply to you? ** As in: “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?”

My apologies.

If you read my reply again, you will see that the sample list I used was taken from a list of examples of mortal sins published **by the Catholic Parents on Line and not the CAF. **

The thread was on CAFs from 2007.

I provided relevant background information to the list published by the Catholic Parents on Line but you have completely ignored it. This is an extract from their “about us”: “We are in full union with the Magisterium in the teachings of the Catholic faith”.

I think you are operating under some weird misapprehension that something from an online site is representative of Catholic teaching.

There is nothing in the magisterium of the Church that gives a list of mortal sins, esp. one that includes “excessive tattoos” and “hypnotism.”

That’s just gaga, lala nonsense.

The list may not be official teaching of the Church but surely there must have been some editing by Church authority before publication.

I am quite certain that this is also nonsense.

**Notwithstanding all of the above, for the purposes of this debate, the list is sufficient for us to comment on. **As I stated in my previous reply to you a member of CAF on this thread has already commented on this list.

This is irrelevant.

I believe it would be impossible for anyone to produce a COMPREHENSIVE list of mortal sins.

You are correct.

However, Catholic Parents on Line obviously felt there was a need to publish an excellent attempt at an IN-EXHAUSTIVE list of mortal and venial sins as a guide for Catholic parents.

That’s fine.

But I want to make it clear to the Lurkers that the list is NOT from the Catholic Church.

Again, from their “about us”: “Catholic Parents Online began in 1998 because of the many challenging issues, which oftentimes create frustration for today’s parents”.

Great.

I therefore disagree that: “there is no need to do this”. I actually found their list very helpful and more importantly, very pertinent to this debate even if the list is not an official document released by the Church.

The last point is what needs to be addressed.

It is NOT representative of anything released by the CC.

 

[PRmerger]

The question I ask of you is very simple: **Assuming there is knowledge or firm belief that the act is seriously wrong prior to committing the act and full consent of the will, which sins in my sample list are mortal sins? **

Sorry, arte.

But I do not wish to occupy myself with this tributary.

Rather, I prefer to proclaim that we approach God in the confessional with a firm amendment of heart, with a desire to sin no more and to avoid the near occasions of sin, with sorrow and repentance and utter and profound joy at the knowledge of God’s great love and mercy.

 

[opusAquinas]

Indeed, give thanks for the endless sufferings of the souls in hell, for without them, you would not have the free will to have been one of the few on the path to heaven. Your free will and happiness have been purchased at a fearsome cost: the endless weeping, mourning, and suffering of those who are miraculously sustained in existence only to experience never-ending torment, regret, and pain. Your freely-willed happiness rests upon a massive edifice of endless suffering. It’s all for you. The screams, the crushing despair, the pain and torment of both body and soul, all out of love for your free will. A gift to you from above. Eternal collateral damage. The chaff. Created to burn forever for your free will.

I do not believe this Seems implied by the standard defense against the “pointlessness” of suffering in hell

It’s called PUNISHMENT. JUSTICE IS GIVING WHAT OTHERS DESERVE. THEY ARE IN HELL BECAUSE THEY DESERVE IT. IT IS JUST. YOU HAVE REJECTED CHRIST AS A NOITALL NOAHIDE … WILL YOU BE THERE AS WELL? :bigyikes::doh2::hypno::