Is eternal suffering pointless?

[PumpkinCookie]

You say that our human justice system is a sound frame of reference. What do you base this on? If we are just then answer me this. Why do we permit poverty, injustice, abortion, euthanasia? Why do the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? Why do the innocent get punished while the guilty go free? What is true justice? It seems to me that our human justice is quite flawed.

Yes, God can and does do better. You blame religious dogma on the existence of hell. Yet, it is Jesus who is the source of this revelation. If the doctrine on hell seems harsh it is only because our Lord has taught it. After all who in their right mind wants there to be an eternal hell? I doubt that even God desires such a thing. For it says in Scripture that God desires all to be saved. So he doesn’t want anyone to be in hell.

Yet, if hell does exist it must be out of necessity. For if God does not desire it, but it still exists, then it’s existence must be out of necessity and not out of desire. Thus, hell doesn’t satisfy God’s desire for everyone to be saved.

What is this necessity then? Although God is omnipotent that doesn’t mean he is free to act in a way that is contrary to his own nature. Nor is free to break his own rules of morality for instance. These rules which comes from his own nature, which is perfect goodness.

I submit to you the following hypothesis, that God has chosen to honor our free will. And this means he doesn’t always get what he wants. For he desires our salvation. And has given us the means to that salvation through Christ. But, because not all of us choose the way of salvation and accept the means of our salvation but reject it then not all of us can be saved. The choice is really between good and evil, light and darkness, God’s Kingdom or the devil’s.

There is a spiritual law known as reaping what you sow. The Scripture clearly says we will reap what we sow.

Ironically, many people absolve themselves from moral guilt for the poverty of their neighbors by appealing to “free will” or “natural consequences” which are precisely the justifications many people put forward for endless hell. Our callousness and selfishness are very much apparent in this world, and if we are to believe traditional Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, and Graeco-Roman paganism, it extends into infinity!

If the almighty God truly desired everyone to avoid hell, then they would be, bottom line.

Secondarily, most people recognize that the evils you name are evils. No one thinks it is a good thing when the guilty go free, or when people starve, or when the innocent are murdered. We have disagreements about the facts of a situation (abortion supporters don’t consider it murder) but most of humanity wants a good and just civilization. The fact that we haven’t been able to achieve a just world doesn’t mean that we can’t figure out what it is, or that we don’t desire it. I mean, maybe it does mean that we can’t figure out what it is. But, don’t tell me Catholicism presents just such a perfect universe. Christendom was miserable for many, and caused much needless misery and suffering for millions, as well as provided justification for the genocide of the indigenous peoples of the Americas (look up the “doctrine of discovery”). Further, Catholic eschatology has the greater part of humanity suffering in an endless burning hell! The evil and suffering of the universe outweighs the good, and never come to an end. Endless misery is the destiny of most of humanity. What a message of doom and despair! Anyone with one tiny fragment of love, compassion, or fairness in their soul recognizes that this universal outcome is outrageous and can’t be the work of a good and just God, this is what some may mean when they say human justice is a good metric for judging our universe (including notions of the afterlife).

 

[PumpkinCookie]

One Catholic distinction that can help us here is the difference between an animal’s soul and a man’s soul. The soul of a man is called a rational soul. Whereas an animal is instinctive only. As well a human soul is immortal while an animal is not. This comes from Genesis where it says man was created in God’s image. Thus man’s soul is created immortal in the image of his creator who is eternal.

"for God created man for incorruption,
and made him in the image of his own eternity,but through the devil’s envy death entered the world,
and those who belong to his party experience it. "
-Wisdom 2:23-24

Everyone experiences death. So what could the author be talking about, but a spiritual death. Since divine life comes from God.

I submit to you the death Adam and Eve experienced from sinning was a spiritual death, the withdrawal of God’s divine life in them, his grace, symbolized by being kicked out of the garden. For they lived bodily for hundreds of years after. Scripture talks about the second death as the lake of fire. This is a spiritual death, being cut off from God. Not a cessation of existence.

The catechism describes this divine life we experience in Christ as partaking in God’s divine nature. Eternal life is not merely existence without cessation, but it is existence infused with God’s divine life.

I do not consider the book of “Wisdom” to be canonical. Neither to most Jewish scholars, rabbis, and believers. Even so, notice the author doesn’t say “eternal torment entered the world” but rather death. I could say this passages means that we are meant to live forever, but due to sin, we can ultimately die and cease to exist. In fact, that is precisely what I believe.

To be “made in the image of God” could also mean that we have the ability to reason, which is an image of God’s direct knowledge of everything. It isn’t necessarily the case that the “image” is that our souls exist indefinitely no matter what.

Genesis does not tell us that Adam and Eve experienced a “spiritual death.” In fact, God maintains a personal relationship with them. He makes clothes for them and communicates with them. They made a mistake, and in his ever merciful and good nature, he tried to help them “live with” their mistake (as he does all of us). He couldn’t allow them to remain in the garden, and he had to allow them to physically die, because if they were to eat from the tree of life, they would have been permanently “frozen” as imperfect creatures. By allowing them to learn and eventually die, they will someday be prepared to live in perfect happiness in the new Eden. All of us are “learning the hard way” in this life. We must learn to be true and good humans. It is difficult, but worthwhile. To fail to learn to live is, by definition, to die (not to be sustained in endless torment)! To be “cut off” from God is to die. We exist only in our relationship to God, the source and continuous cause of all being.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Among the many wonderful attributes of the Catholic Church is the allowance of debate concerning the Catholic faith among its members. We are open to constructive criticism from anyone whether inside or outside our faith. Islam has not allowed any constructive criticism from its members and that is one of the main reasons why the religion and its members are in such a mess. There is a broad cross section of personal belief in the Church members and this makes Catholicism such a vibrant Christian denomination. What I have found over the years is that in spite of this broad cross section of personal belief, our fellow Catholics are wonderful Christians. Some of the Protestant denominations are very severe and whilst not as bad as Islam, they are not as open as Catholicism to constructive criticism. I am a returned Catholic after about 35 years away. I returned to the Church in 2004. The Church has changed for the better since I left. Holy Communion is a wonderful sacrament and we are so fortunate to receive it.

You are not excommunicating yourself and are not doing Satan’s work. I have gone through similar feelings myself. You are merely aligning God with His attributes of love and mercy to the punishment that He decides in the afterlife. A criminal puts himself in prison but his punishment is decided by a judge. God is the judge and eternal damnation is not a fitting punishment for anyone. I have only seen sacramental items in older Catholic’s’ homes. When you pray before a statue, you are not praying to the statue; you are praying to what the statue represents. I do not believe that we should fear God. If a God wants us to fear Him then it is not God. God is love; it’s that simple.

I most certainly have incurred a latae sententiae excommunication due to my apostasy. It is OK, I never had a strong desire to receive communion in 25 years. I did it out of fear and habit. It never made sense to me and I never desired it.

The sinister thing about the belief in an evil, hyper-intelligent demon is that we can never know with absolute certainty if we are in league with that tricky being. Jesus’ answer to the pharisee’s accusation is probably the best answer though: if the actions and thoughts lead to good, why would the devil encourage them? I submit that I am utterly happier and more joyful now that I am not under the oppression of believing most of the people I run into are “spiritually dead” and destined for an eternal hell filled with endless, relentless torment. I also have a new appreciation and gratitude for everything, and embrace life in all its difficulties and blessings. I give more cheerfully, help others more, pray more, and have better health. I was absolutely miserable as a Catholic, and now I’m not.

Still though, the devil could be tricking me and making my life happy just so I can be surprised when I get dragged down to hell for my endless punishment that I deserve for doing nothing other than following my conscience and trying (often failing) to live a good life. Because I can’t believe, I’m doomed to eternal hell for my various sins.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

The analogy that makes the most sense to me is this one:

The bridge is out. We don’t know why the bridge is out. It’s not fair that the bridge is out; everyone agrees about that - but, it just is.

Pretending that the bridge isn’t really out won’t help.

Going on about how unfair it is also won’t help.

Demanding that the bridge builder fix the bridge on your timeline isn’t going to work in this particular instance - He’s got all of Eternity, and apparently, He’s using all of it.

Imagining that those who ignore the warnings, and who then fall off the edge where the bridge has gone out - imagining that they have miraculously made it safely to the other side, also won’t help.

What helps is, heeding the warning that the bridge is out, passing the warning on to others (especially to your children), and making sure you take the correct detour, so that you can arrive safely where you intend to go.

The bridge is out. Take the detour.

Sin has entered the world. Get right with Jesus.

Don’t forget that the water is full of vicious sharks who violently gnaw on the flesh of those who fall off the bridge. The river miraculously gives them new flesh continuously, forever, in order to enable the sharks to continue their feast without allowing the people to die.

Oh, and the people who put up the detour signs have always known who would fall off the bridge, but pretend to warn them anyway. They know they’re going to fall off, but to save face, they tells everyone they doesn’t want anyone to fall off and wish that everyone would take the detour. Yeah, and they’re the ones who made the faulty bridge in the first place, all the while knowing it would fail. Do they sound like just and good bridge builders to you?

 

[Michael19682]

Socrates argues that it is precisely because we have not been created that we cannot be destroyed. The CCC (and the Torah) teach us that we are created. What can be created can be destroyed, bottom line.

I agree with Socrates as you phrase him to the extent that he refers to our spirits as souls – which are God’s gift and for the follower of the universal way of Christ is given a new body of light in heaven – as ourselves. I don’t think Socrates said that our physical bodies of carbon and other elements do not disintegrate at death: such a statement as negating this disintegration would have frightened him to contemplate. He accepted the hemlock as matter of ethics…not because he wanted to test his own disintegration.

Clearly, our bodies have been created by growth from the combining and nourishing of genetic material? Similarly, our souls are continually created by combining that which God held in his heart since before creation with the Holy Spirit of God passed on to us in the Church throughout the ages? At each reception of grace a new creation is made. Eventually, when the body dies, God gives us a new one in Heaven.

 

[jmcrae]

Don’t forget that the water is full of vicious sharks who violently gnaw on the flesh of those who fall off the bridge. The river miraculously gives them new flesh continuously, forever, in order to enable the sharks to continue their feast without allowing the people to die.

Oh, and the people who put up the detour signs have always known who would fall off the bridge, but pretend to warn them anyway. They know they’re going to fall off, but to save face, they tells everyone they doesn’t want anyone to fall off and wish that everyone would take the detour. Yeah, and they’re the ones who made the faulty bridge in the first place, all the while knowing it would fail. Do they sound like just and good bridge builders to you?

We don’t know why God either can’t or won’t bring mortal sinners to Heaven. Is He a big meanie? Or is it that mortal sinners are missing something that makes it possible to go to Heaven? Is it that God isn’t a magical being who can fix everything, but that we are also responsible for some aspect of our eternal life?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

We don’t know why God either can’t or won’t bring mortal sinners to Heaven. Is He a big meanie? Or is it that mortal sinners are missing something that makes it possible to go to Heaven? Is it that God isn’t a magical being who can fix everything, but that we are also responsible for some aspect of our eternal life?

I am willing to accept that God chooses not to save all people for whatever reason. I view life as a gratuitous gift. God gives it, and it is totally his prerogative to take it away. What wouldn’t be right, however, is to endlessly torment those whom he has brought into existence with the full knowledge that they would ultimately reject him. The reason this is wrong is because the people who are lost didn’t choose to exist in the first place and were not given notice of the risk of eternal doom. Let them die, yes. Endless torment, no.

 

[jmcrae]

I am willing to accept that God chooses not to save all people for whatever reason. I view life as a gratuitous gift. God gives it, and it is totally his prerogative to take it away. What wouldn’t be right, however, is to endlessly torment those whom he has brought into existence with the full knowledge that they would ultimately reject him. The reason this is wrong is because the people who are lost didn’t choose to exist in the first place and were not given notice of the risk of eternal doom. Let them die, yes. Endless torment, no.

God can’t know that someone is going to reject Him until they actually do -even if He sees them doing it in Eternity, there’s nothing He can do to change the outcome that doesn’t involve interfering with their free will. Also, God can’t see things that don’t happen, so you would end up in a time loop if God were to somehow make it not happen - and then not see it and don’t do anything and then see it and change it and then not see it and don’t do anything … Do you see the problem, here?

Also, there’s no one in Hell who didn’t understand what they were choosing. “Full knowledge, freedom of choice, and grave matter.”

 

[fisherman_carl]

Don’t forget that the water is full of vicious sharks who violently gnaw on the flesh of those who fall off the bridge. The river miraculously gives them new flesh continuously, forever, in order to enable the sharks to continue their feast without allowing the people to die.

Oh, and the people who put up the detour signs have always known who would fall off the bridge, but pretend to warn them anyway. They know they’re going to fall off, but to save face, they tells everyone they doesn’t want anyone to fall off and wish that everyone would take the detour. Yeah, and they’re the ones who made the faulty bridge in the first place, all the while knowing it would fail. Do they sound like just and good bridge builders to you?

That is kind of amusing. But I don’t think it accurately reflects hell. Since the people falling off the bridge do so because they did not heed the sign. However, in the case of hell it is not a question of merely not paying attention to a warning or a sign. But, hell is rather the end result of a moral path taken. For instance, you should be familiar with the 2 Ways since that is very Jewish. One way leads to salvation and the other way leads to death. One way is light and the other is darkness. Thus, it is the way a person chooses to live their life over the course of their life that matters. And, how they reap what they sow. In other words if they live an evil life and committed many injustices they will themselves receive the due penalty for those injustices.

In the example of the bridge out scenario we don’t know how these people lived their lives, whether they were good or bad. We don’t know what they deserved. They just failed to heed the sign. So the analogy is amusing but it doesn’t really speak of the whole human condition and the purpose of this life, to reject evil and live in virtue and godliness. As well as the rewards there involved.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I am willing to accept that God chooses not to save all people for whatever reason. I view life as a gratuitous gift. God gives it, and it is totally his prerogative to take it away. What wouldn’t be right, however, is to endlessly torment those whom he has brought into existence with the full knowledge that they would ultimately reject him. The reason this is wrong is because the people who are lost didn’t choose to exist in the first place and were not given notice of the risk of eternal doom. Let them die, yes. Endless torment, no.

It could be that the people in hell are the cause of their own suffering. Their guilt for their sins being the fuel of that suffering. Having no ability to experience redemption for their sins nor true repentance. Yet, they feel the weight of their own sins causing them to self mutilate. Thus, it may not be as you said God inflicting an eternal punishment on them externally. But, that they are locked in themselves, trapped in self abasement.

There was a private revelation of hell by John Bosco that I read once and it described this person in hell as continually ripping the flesh off himself in self disgust. Now such visions of hell may be symbolic and not literal (how can a soul rip off its own flesh so to speak?), but this is a scary image that does seem to reflect that this person is the cause of his own suffering. And it speaks of his flesh since his sins were sins of the flesh, and how he is now disgusted with them.

Admittingly, just knowing about such a place causes us to suffer. Just thinking about it causes torment.

In the realm of possibility you could be right about an eternal hell. It is a logical possibility it does not exist. Perhaps it doesn’t exist. But, if you could disprove an eternal suffering kind of hell you would just have disproven that kind of hell. But, there may be other kinds of hell. Since how could you deny true justice for those who have committed injustices against others. Where is their punishment? It seems to me there must be a hell, whether it is an eternal hell or not.

And, if hell is eternal, what makes the most sense to me, what makes it eternal, is not because God desires to see them suffer eternally, but because one they are not capable of repentance and two because the soul is immortal. The soul can not die and thus has to exist somewhere. So it is a metaphysical reality. Our souls created in the image of eternity.

The idea that God creates someone who he knows is going to suffer in hell has been dealt with before. God doesn’t create people in isolation. We all have an effect on one another. Thus, even if a person ends up in hell, they may have still served a purpose. It may be that for instance that more people are saved because of this person. Even though the person himself was not.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I do not consider the book of “Wisdom” to be canonical. Neither to most Jewish scholars, rabbis, and believers. Even so, notice the author doesn’t say “eternal torment entered the world” but rather death. I could say this passages means that we are meant to live forever, but due to sin, we can ultimately die and cease to exist. In fact, that is precisely what I believe.

To be “made in the image of God” could also mean that we have the ability to reason, which is an image of God’s direct knowledge of everything. It isn’t necessarily the case that the “image” is that our souls exist indefinitely no matter what.

Genesis does not tell us that Adam and Eve experienced a “spiritual death.” In fact, God maintains a personal relationship with them. He makes clothes for them and communicates with them. They made a mistake, and in his ever merciful and good nature, he tried to help them “live with” their mistake (as he does all of us). He couldn’t allow them to remain in the garden, and he had to allow them to physically die, because if they were to eat from the tree of life, they would have been permanently “frozen” as imperfect creatures. By allowing them to learn and eventually die, they will someday be prepared to live in perfect happiness in the new Eden. All of us are “learning the hard way” in this life. We must learn to be true and good humans. It is difficult, but worthwhile. To fail to learn to live is, by definition, to die (not to be sustained in endless torment)! To be “cut off” from God is to die. We exist only in our relationship to God, the source and continuous cause of all being.

The spiritual ‘death’ that Adam and Eve received was really a loss of God’s grace. Yes, God did not abandon them. But, it is the same kind of ‘death’ we all experience when we gravely sin against God. There is a wounding of the relationship between us and God when we sin against him. Just like there would be if we sinned against our neighbor. And, that true healing and reconciliation does not occur with our neighbor until we confess our sin to them and make reparations for the damage we have done. So too it is the same with God.

Little children when they have done something wrong will eventually have to confess it to their parents because they can not live with the guilt of it. It separates them to a degree from their parents and wound their relationship until they reconcile with them. They can not live with the guilt for long. So they must reconcile soon. It is adults on the other hand who choose to live with the guilt for much longer.

Adam and Eve when confronted with their guilt did not take proper responsibility for their actions . The man tried to blame it on the woman and on God because he said it was the fault of the woman that God had given him. The woman tried to blame it on the serpent. There wasn’t a proper reconciliation there, but only a sentence or punishment given to all the parties involved, including their offspring. And among this punishment was the eviction from the garden of Eden. Where now man was to work with great difficulty the land and the woman was to give birth with much pain. Man was left to the consequences of his actions. Sin begets more sin. Eventually man became so sinful that God had to send the flood. So you can see that things between man and God were not honkydory after the sin of Adam and Eve. Yes, God did not completely abandon him. Yet, there was a degree of separation between them because mankind had become sinful. Man needed a savior because he certainly couldn’t save himself. And God is the only one who could save man from himself.

 

[tonyrey]

The catechism likewise fails to explain how the mind (soul) and body interact.

No one can explain how the mind (soul) and body interact but neither can anyone explain how the mind works or controls the body. The principle of economy states that entities must not be multiplied unnecessarily. Therefore it is logical and reasonable to regard a person as indivisible. Without a body we wouldn’t be human and without a soul we would be animals.

I just don’t understand why souls, of necessity, must exist everlastingly. Socrates made a compelling case for the eternal nature of the human soul, but it stands in contradiction to Catholic dogma. Catholics believe that God creates our souls directly and sustains them at every infinitesimally small moment, continuously. This process begins at conception (or somewhat later, it isn’t a settled issue). This is distinct from the Platonic notion that our souls have always existed, are not created, and therefore cannot be destroyed. Socrates argues that it is precisely because we have not been created that we cannot be destroyed. The CCC (and the Torah) teach us that we are created. What can be created can be destroyed, bottom line.

The Platonic notion also infringes the principle of economy. It is obviously unnecessary to postulate countless eternal beings when one suffices. One Creator is a more reasonable explanation than an eternal Creator plus countless eternal souls! Socrates was very wise but he didn’t have the benefit of Revelation which tells us that we have a loving Father in heaven who would never destroy His own children. Only Satan would do that! It would defeat the purpose of creating us in the first place. It would be far better not to create us at all rather than backtrack as if He had made a mistake. God knows perfectly well what we are going to do and He respects our freedom even though we rebel against Him. Might is not right and God is not the Destroyer but the Creator. Even in Hell we would have the advantage of being independent, choosing how to live and not not having to obey anyone. Freedom is His greatest gift to us and to belittle it is to be ungrateful. We are made in His image and likeness, immortal and indestructible, like Him in our capacity for love. The problem arises when that love is inverted towards ourselves and we suffer accordingly but it is not the end of our world. We still have something to live for even though it brings us misery and frustration. In fact we are expected to love ourselves - in moderation. God still loves those who are in Hell and that must be a source of consolation. They are to be pitied not hated and certainly not annihilated: no human crime could ever deserve such a diabolical punishment. Life is infinitely precious in spite of all its drawbacks and whatever our destiny it never under any circumstances ceases to be God’s gift to us. Destruction was a neat and tidy solution for Hitler, Stalin and other genocidal dictators but our Father could not descend to such a level for one very simple reason: He is Love - and positive in every aspect unlike the Evil One…

Thanks be to God.

 

[arte]

Relying on the position that hell serves no purpose since we don’t know of any redemption from its darkness, the pain there would be useless. that argument/reality/position is one of the most prevalent criticisms of our religion, and why the “religion” gets rejected, and Christ along with it. a tragedy of false assumption.

It is an argument/reality/position that I find deeply troubling about Christianity. Jesus arrives in the New Testament as a man of love and peace. He doesn’t believe in retribution for insults and even physical attacks on us as in “turn the other cheek” yet speaks about hell possibly more than anyone else in the Bible. There is a disconnect there somewhere and it is alarming if it is preventing people from becoming Christians.

I found an interesting article today on Jesus’ teaching on hell here: huffingtonpost.com/mick-mooney/dont-quote-jesus-words-ab_b_5919604.html

The author maintains that Jesus directed His teachings about hell only to the Pharisees because they thought that they were the only people going to heaven.

 

[tonyrey]

It is an argument/reality/position that I find deeply troubling about Christianity. Jesus arrives in the New Testament as a man of love and peace. He doesn’t believe in retribution for insults and even physical attacks on us as in “turn the other cheek” yet speaks about hell possibly more than anyone else in the Bible. There is a disconnect there somewhere and it is alarming if it is preventing people from becoming Christians.

I found an interesting article today on Jesus’ teaching on hell here: huffingtonpost.com/mick-mooney/dont-quote-jesus-words-ab_b_5919604.html

The author maintains that Jesus directed His teachings about hell only to the Pharisees because they thought that they were the only people going to heaven.

It is absurd to believe Jesus directed His teachings about hell only to the Pharisees when we remember the colossal amount of needless suffering, death and destruction deliberately caused by men and women all over the world throughout the blood-stained history of the human race. It reduces the horrific reality of evil to a feature of life in Judea instead of recognising its diabolical, universal character.

 

[jmcrae]

Perhaps we can understand Hell better from the point of view of those who have been victims of systematic evil. The old spiritual songs sing joyfully that “dey is a Judgement a’ comin’”. And why so joyfully? To see justice done that will never take place in this lifetime.

And why should there be justice in the afterlife? To give hope to the hopeless.

 

[arte]

It is absurd to believe Jesus directed His teachings about hell only to the Pharisees when we remember the colossal amount of needless suffering, death and destruction deliberately caused by men and women all over the world throughout the blood-stained history of the human race. It reduces the horrific reality of evil to a feature of life in Judea instead of recognising its diabolical, universal character.

I said: “The author maintains”……… I haven’t personally checked if the author (Mick Mooney) is correct. I was purely offering the link for Michael19682 to see the author’s claim. I thought the article was interesting but with the exception of a small amount of time, I haven’t researched it further.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

God can’t know that someone is going to reject Him until they actually do -even if He sees them doing it in Eternity, there’s nothing He can do to change the outcome that doesn’t involve interfering with their free will. Also, God can’t see things that don’t happen, so you would end up in a time loop if God were to somehow make it not happen - and then not see it and don’t do anything and then see it and change it and then not see it and don’t do anything … Do you see the problem, here?

Also, there’s no one in Hell who didn’t understand what they were choosing. “Full knowledge, freedom of choice, and grave matter.”

I have thought about this problem extensively, and I believe the best solution is to accept God’s total sovereignty and absolute omniscience. I believe God’s knowledge extends to hypothetical conditionals. He knows, infallibly, what would have happened as well as what does happen. He is not an incompetent blind creator, but the all-knowing and all-powerful true God.

The notion that we “choose hell” is, frankly, both outrageous and disgusting. The historical Catholic church never maintained such a laughably false theological opinion. Hell is a punishment imposed by God as the retribution for anything from original sin alone to a lifetime of wanton cruelty and sadism. Unbaptized babies , your average sinner, and Stalin all end up in the same endlessly burning trash heap of ruined humanity, which God’s supposed “love” maintains and supports, forever.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

It could be that the people in hell are the cause of their own suffering. Their guilt for their sins being the fuel of that suffering. Having no ability to experience redemption for their sins nor true repentance. Yet, they feel the weight of their own sins causing them to self mutilate. Thus, it may not be as you said God inflicting an eternal punishment on them externally. But, that they are locked in themselves, trapped in self abasement.

There was a private revelation of hell by John Bosco that I read once and it described this person in hell as continually ripping the flesh off himself in self disgust. Now such visions of hell may be symbolic and not literal (how can a soul rip off its own flesh so to speak?), but this is a scary image that does seem to reflect that this person is the cause of his own suffering. And it speaks of his flesh since his sins were sins of the flesh, and how he is now disgusted with them.

Admittingly, just knowing about such a place causes us to suffer. Just thinking about it causes torment.

In the realm of possibility you could be right about an eternal hell. It is a logical possibility it does not exist. Perhaps it doesn’t exist. But, if you could disprove an eternal suffering kind of hell you would just have disproven that kind of hell. But, there may be other kinds of hell. Since how could you deny true justice for those who have committed injustices against others. Where is their punishment? It seems to me there must be a hell, whether it is an eternal hell or not.

And, if hell is eternal, what makes the most sense to me, what makes it eternal, is not because God desires to see them suffer eternally, but because one they are not capable of repentance and two because the soul is immortal. The soul can not die and thus has to exist somewhere. So it is a metaphysical reality. Our souls created in the image of eternity.

The idea that God creates someone who he knows is going to suffer in hell has been dealt with before. God doesn’t create people in isolation. We all have an effect on one another. Thus, even if a person ends up in hell, they may have still served a purpose. It may be that for instance that more people are saved because of this person. Even though the person himself was not.

To endlessly support another’s self-torment is sadistic.

I’m fine with a temporary hell that ends with either heaven or total annihilation. Justice must be done. Endless hell is not true justice, however.

It is not necessarily true that our souls are intrinsically indestructible. What can be created can be destroyed.

It is not right to use some people to save others. It is morally repugnant to create the many for endless torment so that the few may be saved. The ends don’t justify the means.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

The spiritual ‘death’ that Adam and Eve received was really a loss of God’s grace. Yes, God did not abandon them. But, it is the same kind of ‘death’ we all experience when we gravely sin against God. There is a wounding of the relationship between us and God when we sin against him. Just like there would be if we sinned against our neighbor. And, that true healing and reconciliation does not occur with our neighbor until we confess our sin to them and make reparations for the damage we have done. So too it is the same with God.

Little children when they have done something wrong will eventually have to confess it to their parents because they can not live with the guilt of it. It separates them to a degree from their parents and wound their relationship until they reconcile with them. They can not live with the guilt for long. So they must reconcile soon. It is adults on the other hand who choose to live with the guilt for much longer.

Adam and Eve when confronted with their guilt did not take proper responsibility for their actions . The man tried to blame it on the woman and on God because he said it was the fault of the woman that God had given him. The woman tried to blame it on the serpent. There wasn’t a proper reconciliation there, but only a sentence or punishment given to all the parties involved, including their offspring. And among this punishment was the eviction from the garden of Eden. Where now man was to work with great difficulty the land and the woman was to give birth with much pain. Man was left to the consequences of his actions. Sin begets more sin. Eventually man became so sinful that God had to send the flood. So you can see that things between man and God were not honkydory after the sin of Adam and Eve. Yes, God did not completely abandon him. Yet, there was a degree of separation between them because mankind had become sinful. Man needed a savior because he certainly couldn’t save himself. And God is the only one who could save man from himself.

I agree with most of what you have written here. I also believe God is our savior and is willing to forgive us if we repent and make amends. I do not believe an intermediary is necessary, however. Also, the flood tells me that God is willing to tolerate evil for only so long before he utterly obliterates it. This is the lesson of Sodom and Gomorrah also. He is forgiving and merciful, butt will not allow evil to continue indefinitely.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

No one can explain how the mind (soul) and body interact but neither can anyone explain how the mind works or controls the body. The principle of economy states that entities must not be multiplied unnecessarily. Therefore it is logical and reasonable to regard a person as indivisible. Without a body we wouldn’t be human and without a soul we would be animals.
The Platonic notion also infringes the principle of economy. It is obviously unnecessary to postulate countless eternal beings when one suffices. One Creator is a more reasonable explanation than an eternal Creator plus countless eternal souls! Socrates was very wise but he didn’t have the benefit of Revelation which tells us that we have a loving Father in heaven who would never destroy His own children. Only Satan would do that! It would defeat the purpose of creating us in the first place. It would be far better not to create us at all rather than backtrack as if He had made a mistake. God knows perfectly well what we are going to do and He respects our freedom even though we rebel against Him. Might is not right and God is not the Destroyer but the Creator. Even in Hell we would have the advantage of being independent, choosing how to live and not not having to obey anyone. Freedom is His greatest gift to us and to belittle it is to be ungrateful. We are made in His image and likeness, immortal and indestructible, like Him in our capacity for love. The problem arises when that love is inverted towards ourselves and we suffer accordingly but it is not the end of our world. We still have something to live for even though it brings us misery and frustration. In fact we are expected to love ourselves - in moderation. God still loves those who are in Hell and that must be a source of consolation. They are to be pitied not hated and certainly not annihilated: no human crime could ever deserve such a diabolical punishment. Life is infinitely precious in spite of all its drawbacks and whatever our destiny it never under any circumstances ceases to be God’s gift to us. Destruction was a neat and tidy solution for Hitler, Stalin and other genocidal dictators but our Father could not descend to such a level for one very simple reason: He is Love - and positive in every aspect unlike the Evil One…

Thanks be to God.

The principle of economy also suggests that monism is the ultimate truth of existence. Surely you don’t accept it on those grounds?

Unfortunately, we are divisible. This is precisely what happens at the moment of death: our being is divided.

A loving father does not allow his rebellious children to torment themselves and each other for eternity, but he would allow them to go their own way if they truly hate him, though that way leads to death.

Life is a gift that is not owed to us. Endless torment turns that gift into a nightmare. It really would be better if the damned had never been born. If stubborn sinners are eventually annihilated though, at least they had a chance to live well and love God. Though they die, their existence is a mitigated loss. Hell would make their loss infinite.

God’s might is right.

Annihilation is not a diabolical punishment, but the logical result of permanently severing the relationship between us and God, the source of all life.