Is it good to hate this life?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mikeledes said:
So is Jesus telling us to hate our parents, particularly the ones who have been good parents? Christ teaches us to love our enemies. If we are to love our enemies, then how can we hate our parents?

God Bless,
Michael
Click to expand...
Just put God always before them (also always before yourself and others).
 
thevickinator16 said:
Hello there!

I have finished reading Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter–Salvific Doloris. The Christian meaning of Human Suffering.

It explains how we are here to suffer and to why. St Paul said: “In my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of His Body, that is, the Church.”

Pope John Paul II says’ “It can be said that man in a special fashion becomes the way for the Church when suffering enters his life. This happens, as we know, at different moments in life, it takes place in different ways, it assumes different dimensions; nevertheless, in whatever form, suffering seems to be, and is, almost inseparable from man’s earthly existence.”

Further, said is: “Man “perishs” when he loses “eternal life”. " The opposite of salvation is not, therfore, only temporal suffering, any kind of suffering, but definitive suffering: the loss of eternal life, rejected by God–damnation.”

Jesus conquered not only death but evil when he suffered for us. This is why we still have suffering. We are to complement Our Savior’s Cross.

I tie this in with the original verse through what I have said in earlier posts. This world was created by God. Man has not chosen to be good stewards of this planet. Evil is not just a far off concept, it is alive and in every aspect of our existence. If we choose to live this life celbrating the evils that exist we are damned. If we take on our sufferings and give them back to God and use them to do His Will, we are going the path of righteousness and salvation. We cannot serve two maters. There is no gray area here. If you love this life more than you love God, then you are damned. Simple and concise. If you do God’s Will in this life above all others things, then salvation is yours.

You cannot love this life to the point of interfernce with God. If you chose to worship materials things and break the commandments and virtues, do you think you will go to heaven?

If you spend your times worshipping God and fighting the injustices of this world I believe you have a much better chance at salvation. Jesus told us what we have to do to be a disiciple. He did not mince words nor should we. It is up to each of us to determine our relationship with God. No one but God knows us well enough to make that call. He gave us the guidelines and He knows the truths of each of our hearts.

God Bless!
Click to expand...
I’m with you, thevickinator16!
 
ready said:
I’m with you, thevickinator16!
Click to expand...
To really answer the question you need to consider suffering, evil, in other words, theodicy and the reason for its insufficiency (salvation, our redemption).

The connection between theodicy and redemption. Aidan Nichols has written: “A Conclusive Argument For Theodicy Makes It Hard To Find Room For The Theological Concept Of Redemption – needless to say, not all of these arguments (arguments by Augustine and Iraneuas have preceded) have met with an equally glowing reception. Before considering the main criticisms that may be launched against them, we should note that were they in themselves an adequate and total vindication of the “justice of God,” it would be exceedingly hard to find room for the theological concept of redemption, a concept which, however, lies at the heart of Christian faith. Thus Christian theodicists, aiming for total victory, swing their sabers and cut off their own heads.”

…Enough has been said to convince one that evil phenomena are not an insuperable obstacles to believing in a God of the kind that philosophy and faith (as found in fundamental theology) require. On the other hand, not everything has been cleared up. But as I have remarked, if in theodicy we could clear up the problem of evil to our complete satisfaction, then there would be no need for salvation as presented in Christian revelation. God comes in his incarnate Son as the world’s Redeemer, and by his Spirit as its Renewer, so as to repair the world’s defects. But there would be no point in redemption if these defects could be shown to be either not defects at all or things built into the very idea of having a world in the first place.

So taking these statements from above Nichols comes up with this comparison of theodicy and salvation:

The Inexplicable Elements In Theodicy
We can list some of the inexplicable elements in theodicy, which must be taken over, then, into a pre-understanding of what might be involved in the story of salvation.
  1. First, there is the strange potency of evil, given that evil should be regarded metaphysically as privation.
  2. Second, there is the fall of finite spirits, who came forth from an all-holy divine ground even if, in the case of Homo sapiens, they were culturally and psychologically immature.
  3. Third, there is the apparent escape of nature from the rational control of Providence as evidenced in say, the suffering of the innocent in natural disasters. To these three factors we may add
  4. fourth, namely, the fact that we have not been able to solve the problem of theodicy. We can call this factor the absence of sufficient meaning, our inability to make anything like complete sense of the world,
Features Of Salvation
Here, then, we have some features of the idea of salvation. If the Creator entered our world as the Redeemer, he must, it seems, do four things.
  1. He must conquer and neutralize the potency of evil in its fundamental ground.
  2. He must give finite spirits a new supernatural principle of action to replace that given them by original sin.
  3. He must provide for the harmonization of nature with human happiness.
  4. He must overcome the ambiguity, or absence of sufficient meaning, in human life as we know it. But if there is to be such a redemptive action by God, then there must be some way in which we can apprehend his involvement with the world.
    Divine revelation must be possible. This is the next aspect of the preamble of faith in the elucidation of which philosophy has a role to play.
TO BE CONTINUED
 
PART THE SECOND

Now it strikes me that Hart’s essay (Theodicy and Tsunami, link provided earlier) is expressing these very things, especially when he says at the end “Ours is, after all, a religion of salvation; our faith is in a God who has come to rescue His creation from the absurdity of sin and the emptiness of death…” He is in agreement with Nichols that salvation IS needed because of the incompleteness (insufficiency? mystery? inexplicable quality) of theodicy. The redeemer is glorified through all of this. Hence the need of “the incarnate God enters “this cosmos” not simply to disclose its immanent rationality, but to break the boundaries of fallen nature asunder, and to refashion creation after its ancient beauty — wherein neither sin nor death had any place.”

When he calls Christians to task for referring to elements of the Christian understanding of evil (evil is not a positive reality; it’s source is in our free will, etc, etc) and using those thoughts to “explain away” the disaster of a tsunami to atheist skeptics, we are, in fact, performing a disservice to our beliefs.

There’s a phrase in the EF (EF - Extraordinary form (the new name for the old Latin Mass)
at the mixture of the water and wine that says God’s act of restoration after the Fall was more wondrous than the act of creation itself. I am sure that or a similar though occurs in one of the collects or prefaces in the OF (Ordinary form (also known as Novus Ordo - the Mass you most often encounter in your Latin rite parish) as well.

The point on the liturgy above also dovetails in nicely with Hart’s writing: "We can rejoice that we are saved not through the immanent mechanisms of history and nature, but by grace; that God will not unite all of history’s many strands in one great synthesis, but will judge much of history false and damnable; that He will not simply reveal the sublime logic of fallen nature, but will strike off the fetters in which creation languishes; and that, rather than showing us how the tears of a small girl suffering in the dark were necessary for the building of the Kingdom, He will instead raise her up and wipe away all tears from her eyes — and there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying, nor any more pain, for the former things will have passed away, and He that sits upon the throne will say, ‘Behold, I make all things new.’” It seems to echo that point in the liturgy where “God’s act of restoration after the Fall was more wondrous than the act of creation itself.”

I loved that thought when I read it and was crushed when my friend said that it denies it by placing personal salvation over the final end times. This is what he said to me in an email:

“We must be careful how we interpret this. Refashioning the world after its ancient beauty - wherein neither sin nor death had any place. Remember, Christ kept His wounds after His death. At the right hand of the Father, He still has all His wounds. So, we must keep this in mind when we translate what the resurrected life of each individual and all creation is like. This is very, very important, and its implications are not little. We must not think that the resurrected life is as if no sin or death ever existed. All of resurrected creation will bear the marks of the wounds of sin and death - it will not be like its “ancient beauty” as we can conceive it. It will be better. By this (the wounds and lack of “ancient beauty”), all resurrected creation will point to the Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier. By this, the true ancient beauty will be revealed. We must not think the resurrected life will be a canceling out of the effects of evils - rather we will see that the effects of evils have become the greatest sources of the Divine’s entry into creation. In fact, again, these implications are the whole of the difference in understanding between Mr. Hart and me. Mr. Hart’s understanding of salvation and mine are different. God does not save by stopping sin, suffering, and death. He saves by entering into it Himself.”

I think what he says applies fine to the resurrection of the body or personal salvation but the topic that Hart is addressing (AFTER all that)is the redemption of God’s creation, the one that had fallen though man’s disobedience, the one that our role in (presently) is through Charity.

This is what I wrestle with these days – related to the topic here. Mine is more fully fleshed out in Failing Fellowship, a piece I have on my blog. If you have the time, would be appreciative of your ideas and guidance.
 
Hello There!

I found something I believe is relevant to this verse. It is from St Fasutina’s diary:

When I started to look deep within myself, I did not find any attachment to anything, but as in all things that concern me, so also in this matter, I was afraid and distrustful of myself. Tired out by this detailed selfexamination, I went before the Blessed Sacrament and asked Jesus with all my heart, “Jesus, my Spouse, Treasure of my heart, You know that I know You alone and that I have no other love but You; but, Jesus, if I were about to become attached to anything that is not You, I beg and entreat You, Jesus, by the power of Your mercy, let instant death descend upon me, for I prefer to die a thousand times than to be unfaithful to You once in even the smallest thing.”

Does this not explain in a nutshell how we are to live our lives? To love this world can be instant death for our soul? To have any attachment other than to God can prevent us from truly giving our life for Him?

djeter, I will check out your blog and let you know what I think. I just have to go now. Our parish festival starts todfay and I am Kitchen for the next 3 days. Will try and get back with you as soon as possible!

God Bless!
 
djeter said:
PART THE SECOND

Now it strikes me that Hart’s essay (Theodicy and Tsunami, link provided earlier) is expressing these very things, especially when he says at the end “Ours is, after all, a religion of salvation; our faith is in a God who has come to rescue His creation from the absurdity of sin and the emptiness of death…” He is in agreement with Nichols that salvation IS needed because of the incompleteness (insufficiency? mystery? inexplicable quality) of theodicy. The redeemer is glorified through all of this. Hence the need of “the incarnate God enters “this cosmos” not simply to disclose its immanent rationality, but to break the boundaries of fallen nature asunder, and to refashion creation after its ancient beauty — wherein neither sin nor death had any place.”

When he calls Christians to task for referring to elements of the Christian understanding of evil (evil is not a positive reality; it’s source is in our free will, etc, etc) and using those thoughts to “explain away” the disaster of a tsunami to atheist skeptics, we are, in fact, performing a disservice to our beliefs.

There’s a phrase in the EF (EF - Extraordinary form (the new name for the old Latin Mass)
at the mixture of the water and wine that says God’s act of restoration after the Fall was more wondrous than the act of creation itself. I am sure that or a similar though occurs in one of the collects or prefaces in the OF (Ordinary form (also known as Novus Ordo - the Mass you most often encounter in your Latin rite parish) as well.

The point on the liturgy above also dovetails in nicely with Hart’s writing: "We can rejoice that we are saved not through the immanent mechanisms of history and nature, but by grace; that God will not unite all of history’s many strands in one great synthesis, but will judge much of history false and damnable; that He will not simply reveal the sublime logic of fallen nature, but will strike off the fetters in which creation languishes; and that, rather than showing us how the tears of a small girl suffering in the dark were necessary for the building of the Kingdom, He will instead raise her up and wipe away all tears from her eyes — and there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying, nor any more pain, for the former things will have passed away, and He that sits upon the throne will say, ‘Behold, I make all things new.’” It seems to echo that point in the liturgy where “God’s act of restoration after the Fall was more wondrous than the act of creation itself.”

I loved that thought when I read it and was crushed when my friend said that it denies it by placing personal salvation over the final end times. This is what he said to me in an email:

“We must be careful how we interpret this. Refashioning the world after its ancient beauty - wherein neither sin nor death had any place. Remember, Christ kept His wounds after His death. At the right hand of the Father, He still has all His wounds. So, we must keep this in mind when we translate what the resurrected life of each individual and all creation is like. This is very, very important, and its implications are not little. We must not think that the resurrected life is as if no sin or death ever existed. All of resurrected creation will bear the marks of the wounds of sin and death - it will not be like its “ancient beauty” as we can conceive it. It will be better. By this (the wounds and lack of “ancient beauty”), all resurrected creation will point to the Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier. By this, the true ancient beauty will be revealed. We must not think the resurrected life will be a canceling out of the effects of evils - rather we will see that the effects of evils have become the greatest sources of the Divine’s entry into creation. In fact, again, these implications are the whole of the difference in understanding between Mr. Hart and me. Mr. Hart’s understanding of salvation and mine are different. God does not save by stopping sin, suffering, and death. He saves by entering into it Himself.”

I think what he says applies fine to the resurrection of the body or personal salvation but the topic that Hart is addressing (AFTER all that)is the redemption of God’s creation, the one that had fallen though man’s disobedience, the one that our role in (presently) is through Charity.

This is what I wrestle with these days – related to the topic here. Mine is more fully fleshed out in Failing Fellowship, a piece I have on my blog. If you have the time, would be appreciative of your ideas and guidance.
Click to expand...
I agree with you 100% - we are saved by grace. You are right in saying this.

Also, as I understand things, Christ entering into sin, suffering and death (though as one sinless) is part of our redemption and was a requisite for our redemption to occur. But *salvation *comes from grace, as you have said.

I’ll definitely look into your blog and offer you any helpful words I can. Peace!
 
ready said:
I agree with you 100% - we are saved by grace. You are right in saying this.

Also, as I understand things, Christ entering into sin, suffering and death (though as one sinless) is part of our redemption and was a requisite for our redemption to occur. But *salvation *comes from grace, as you have said.

I’ll definitely look into your blog and offer you any helpful words I can. Peace!
Click to expand...
Thank you so much. It is unfortunately a very complex issue, particularly from a theological/Church teaching perspective. Spend time with the Hart essay and see if it offends you at all. Then go to the Failing Fellowship. I don’t cover myself with honor in any of this. At the time I was suffering from Diabetes and unaware of the effect it was having on me, depressed and angry, it all comes out in the wash here. I’m not proud of anything I have done it this but I still want to go back and try and understand the issues so I’ll be better informed next time around.

thanks again

DJ
 
Excerpt from Diary of Saint Faustina:

November 22, 1934. +On one occasion, my spiritual director [Father Sopocko] told me to look carefully into myself and to examine whether I had any attachment to some particular object or creature, or even to myself, or whether I engaged in useless chatter, “for all these things,” [he said,] "get in the way of the Lord Jesus, who wants complete freedom in directing your soul. God is jealous of our hearts and wants us to love Him alone

Just some thoughts, not mine evidently.

God Bless!
 
thevickinator16 said:
Excerpt from Diary of Saint Faustina:

November 22, 1934. +On one occasion, my spiritual director [Father Sopocko] told me to look carefully into myself and to examine whether I had any attachment to some particular object or creature, or even to myself, or whether I engaged in useless chatter, “for all these things,” [he said,] "get in the way of the Lord Jesus, who wants complete freedom in directing your soul. God is jealous of our hearts and wants us to love Him alone

Just some thoughts, not mine evidently.

God Bless!
Click to expand...
Nice quote! This is what I consider “hating” this life to entail.To “hate” this world is to disengage oneself from all things, and open one’s heart to God alone.
 
And then do what when family, friends, or the innocent need help?
 
Sailor_Kenshin said:
And then do what when family, friends, or the innocent need help?
Click to expand...
I don’t know- I was always taught to love God and your fellow man and laying down your life for your friends was a an act of love but, oh well -what do I know?🤷
 
Robert,

I am quite familiar with the works of St. Alphonsus Liguori and he despised the world, like you do. Know you share his views and share in good company.🙂
 
ready said:
Robert,

I am quite familiar with the works of St. Alphonsus Liguori and he despised the world, like you do. Know you share his views and share in good company.🙂
Click to expand...
Thanks. I feel I’m in good company with the contemplative saints and the Imitation of Christ.
 
Sailor_Kenshin said:
And then do what when family, friends, or the innocent need help?
Click to expand...
Help them in union with Christ.

I am disengaged with the things of this world in the sense that I place Christ above everything. (Is this what you mean Robert?)
 
Robert_Sock said:
John 12:25 (New International Version)

“The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.”
Click to expand...
Theres nothing in this world for a Christian. Everyday were surrounded by people who blaspheme Jesus Christ and who want nothing to do with him. They could care less about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and what he did on the cross. They whipped him raw. He said the the plowers plowed upon my back: they made long their furrows (Psalm 129) and I hid not my face from shame and spitting (Isaiah 50:6). Thats what he went through for us. You would think that people would be interested in this, but they’re not. They would rather serve the serpent than our Lord and Savior. So yes. Hate the world and devote your life to Christ and hope that when you die that God will take you into the promised land of Heaven.
 
Robert_Sock said:
John 12:25 (New International Version)

“The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.”
Click to expand...
I don’t think God wants us to “hate” anything but sin. By doing so we desire Him. By failing to do so we can fall into choosing idolatry of the world.

I suppose this would mean that it would be healthy to distrust ones own concupiscence as well as the other ways sin comes at us here in this realm.

Essentially, loving God will all our hearts minds and souls above all else.
 
Joab_Anias said:
I don’t think God wants us to “hate” anything but sin. By doing so we desire Him. By failing to do so we can fall into choosing idolatry of the world.

I suppose this would mean that it would be healthy to distrust ones own concupiscence as well as the other ways sin comes at us here in this realm.

Essentially, loving God will all our hearts minds and souls above all else.
Click to expand...
I agree. From what I’ve heard in homilies it appears that hating the world means putting it second to God and second to loving God. The world is not God, but people in it are his very precious children and we are called to love them as we love our very selves. Hating the world and its vanities is not the same thing as hating the goodness in the world, like our suffering brothers and sisters in Christ who dwell in it.
 
MarysGirls said:
Help them in union with Christ.

I am disengaged with the things of this world in the sense that I place Christ above everything. (Is this what you mean Robert?)
Click to expand...
To the degree that Satan prowls this world seeking the ruin of souls, that is how much I hate it!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top