F
fisherman_carl
Guest
I would like to make a few other points as a continuation to my last post. Though I may be a poor philosopher I’m taking a philosophical view to this question since we are in the philosophy section!
.
Let’s list a few objections.
). You have to admit that the thought of hell can be a great motivator to refrain from doing what is evil. A man for instance may refrain from a great many sins for fear of it. Sins which may appear small but lead to even greater sins, and ultimately to barbarism.
Objection 2: The punishment doesn’t fit the crime.
First we have to ask ourselves just what is the crime. For when we say that the punishment does not fit the crime could we not be judging too lightly the severity of the crime? Perhaps our vision is not clear enough to see sin for what it really is. If it merits such punishment perhaps it is much worse than we thought.
Another point is that we are basing our judgment only on the abstract. For, we do not for instance have any examples that we can draw on of anyone who has actually been sent to hell, and more importantly here, just what his crimes were. So we can not look at examples and say this is an example of some crime that merited hell. The only thing we can do is talk in an abstract way about crimes that if done without repentance merit hell.
Thus, the matter can only be settled in actuality by God as to whether their crimes actually did merit hell. And, if God is just he won’t send anyone to hell who does not deserve it. Actually, it says in Wisdom 12, if we want to bring Scripture into it, that God does not punish the innocent. So the idea of someone innocently suffering in hell would be a contradiction.
Objection 3: The eternality of it all.
That says it all. This is the tough one. Almost any punishment can be justified for a time, but eternally means forever. No possibility of parole.
If a thing lasts forever there may be good practical reasons for it. Reasons that we may not even be aware of. And, therefore should not be too hasty in our judgement. For as I said in my last post can anyone prove that God does not have morally sufficient reasons for allowing hell? And, without God’s eternal perspective it would be impossible for us to do so.
I think for many of us, myself included, this is the hardest objection to overcome. At one point I read a book that seemed to side with the conclusion that hell was real but it was a kind of a prison that we put ourselves into because of sin and that God does not ever give up on us and continually tries to love us to repentance. And, that the length of time a person was in hell depended on how long it took them to come to repentance. It was almost a kind of psychologist God who would have one and one sessions with the person to try to bring them into a place of healing and repentance, even if it took all of eternity to do it. The author, who was a Catholic priest, seemed to hold out hope that eventually everyone would come to repentance.
Now, at first this seemed to be quite wonderful to me. The idea that eventually everyone would be saved lifted a burden off my shoulders and gave me great joy. This lasted about a day until reality set it. The idea that everyone would be saved is a nice thought but the author of that book doesn’t have any authority behind his opinion other than it is a nice idea. And, meanwhile, the Catholic Church with 2000 years of experience in the matter seems to be saying something else.
After, some thought I came to the conclusion that yes IF repentance were possible in the afterlife it would be consistent with a loving God to continue to try to love this person into heaven. To get them the help and healing that they need to be able to repent. However, notice I said IF. Since we are dealing in the abstract here none of us have any actual experience that tells us repentance is or is not possible in the afterlife. Although I do remember hearing of some near death experiences of people being offered a choice to come back or not.
Now, what I’ve heard from various Catholic apologists is for the most part that hell is final. Therefore, if this is true, then it is in my view that this would be because repentance is not possible at some point after death. This goes back to the burnt toast bit. At some point we are done and set in our ways. And, nothing is ever gonna change that apart from God going against our free will and forcing us to change.
I was listening to Fr. Mitch Pacwa one time and he seemed to be saying something similar. He said in this life we are like wet cement in a mixing truck, but that after this life is over we are poured out and cemented in place. In other words we can no longer change fundamentally who we are. He also added that in this life we have bodies that can change and can change our minds, but in the next we are like the angels in that once a decision has been made it becomes final.
.- Hell as punishment. I would think not many would deny the need for punishment. What kind of punishments are acceptable is really the question. No one would object to time in prison for robbing a bank. And, some may not even object to the death penalty for certain crimes like murder. While some might think the death penalty is too hash.
Let’s list a few objections.
- Objection 1: Hell doesn’t teach us anything.
). You have to admit that the thought of hell can be a great motivator to refrain from doing what is evil. A man for instance may refrain from a great many sins for fear of it. Sins which may appear small but lead to even greater sins, and ultimately to barbarism.Objection 2: The punishment doesn’t fit the crime.
First we have to ask ourselves just what is the crime. For when we say that the punishment does not fit the crime could we not be judging too lightly the severity of the crime? Perhaps our vision is not clear enough to see sin for what it really is. If it merits such punishment perhaps it is much worse than we thought.
Another point is that we are basing our judgment only on the abstract. For, we do not for instance have any examples that we can draw on of anyone who has actually been sent to hell, and more importantly here, just what his crimes were. So we can not look at examples and say this is an example of some crime that merited hell. The only thing we can do is talk in an abstract way about crimes that if done without repentance merit hell.
Thus, the matter can only be settled in actuality by God as to whether their crimes actually did merit hell. And, if God is just he won’t send anyone to hell who does not deserve it. Actually, it says in Wisdom 12, if we want to bring Scripture into it, that God does not punish the innocent. So the idea of someone innocently suffering in hell would be a contradiction.
Objection 3: The eternality of it all.
That says it all. This is the tough one. Almost any punishment can be justified for a time, but eternally means forever. No possibility of parole.
If a thing lasts forever there may be good practical reasons for it. Reasons that we may not even be aware of. And, therefore should not be too hasty in our judgement. For as I said in my last post can anyone prove that God does not have morally sufficient reasons for allowing hell? And, without God’s eternal perspective it would be impossible for us to do so.
I think for many of us, myself included, this is the hardest objection to overcome. At one point I read a book that seemed to side with the conclusion that hell was real but it was a kind of a prison that we put ourselves into because of sin and that God does not ever give up on us and continually tries to love us to repentance. And, that the length of time a person was in hell depended on how long it took them to come to repentance. It was almost a kind of psychologist God who would have one and one sessions with the person to try to bring them into a place of healing and repentance, even if it took all of eternity to do it. The author, who was a Catholic priest, seemed to hold out hope that eventually everyone would come to repentance.
Now, at first this seemed to be quite wonderful to me. The idea that eventually everyone would be saved lifted a burden off my shoulders and gave me great joy. This lasted about a day until reality set it. The idea that everyone would be saved is a nice thought but the author of that book doesn’t have any authority behind his opinion other than it is a nice idea. And, meanwhile, the Catholic Church with 2000 years of experience in the matter seems to be saying something else.
After, some thought I came to the conclusion that yes IF repentance were possible in the afterlife it would be consistent with a loving God to continue to try to love this person into heaven. To get them the help and healing that they need to be able to repent. However, notice I said IF. Since we are dealing in the abstract here none of us have any actual experience that tells us repentance is or is not possible in the afterlife. Although I do remember hearing of some near death experiences of people being offered a choice to come back or not.
Now, what I’ve heard from various Catholic apologists is for the most part that hell is final. Therefore, if this is true, then it is in my view that this would be because repentance is not possible at some point after death. This goes back to the burnt toast bit. At some point we are done and set in our ways. And, nothing is ever gonna change that apart from God going against our free will and forcing us to change.
I was listening to Fr. Mitch Pacwa one time and he seemed to be saying something similar. He said in this life we are like wet cement in a mixing truck, but that after this life is over we are poured out and cemented in place. In other words we can no longer change fundamentally who we are. He also added that in this life we have bodies that can change and can change our minds, but in the next we are like the angels in that once a decision has been made it becomes final.
Still there is always possibility of us changing no matter how stuck we are. It seems strange to us that death would all of a sudden change this. Yet, who of us really knows death? None of us can say anything with certainty. Even our doctrines we take on faith.
To think God causes His children to disappear is absurd because it implies that He ceases to love them: