R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Are you implying that Satan no longer has any power (rule) over us? If so, can you please cite your source?
LOVE!
Is it possible that God can relent on the eternal punishment in Hell?
- Status
LOVE!
R
rcwitness
Guest
Actually, I think yes, in a certain way. Everyone in Hell is in chains to their vices. Those “spirits” who push these devices, and seduce us into devices, find pleasure in accusing us, and tormenting us for our weaknesses. They think they are something because they have deceived others. They think they are something because others have fallen for something they feel is inferior to them.Will those in hell be doing some type of work, in accordance with God’s will, throughout eternity; such as ruling over another physical world such as ours?
LOVE!
But Hell is the realization that things are turned upside down. The greater will serve the lesser. The Christ was made lower than all, while the most wicked has taken as much pleasure as possible. The most evil has used others for gain. But Our Lord has emptied Himself of gain and accepted rejection in order to bring glory to the least.
This is the only thing Hell can do in accordance with God’s Will… Suffer. To each will suffer according to His work while in the land of the living. In Hell their is only the despair of nothing good accomplished, despite the complete love of God offered them.
G
glendab
Guest
Hello Robert.
Glenda
P.S. Any chance you renewed your Baptismal Promises this past Easter with the rest of us? Or perhaps you’re trying to sell an empty promise or two of the fallen one?
You may give him power over you, but I sure don’t. Have you not heard: the Kingdom of God is at hand! Repent, therefore and believe the Good News! Citation is the Bible. Read one.Are you implying that Satan no longer has any power (rule) over us? If so, can you please cite your source?
LOVE!
Glenda
P.S. Any chance you renewed your Baptismal Promises this past Easter with the rest of us? Or perhaps you’re trying to sell an empty promise or two of the fallen one?
S
Starrsmother
Guest
God CAN do anything. The question is really WHAT WILL HE DO? This is what Jesus said about the existence of heaven and hell–and what each was like:
The Rich Man and Lazarus
Today’s Reading: Luke 16:19-31
19 "There was a rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, full of sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table; moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried; 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he called out, Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’ 27 And he said, Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house, 28 for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham said, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 He said to him, If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.’ "
Today’s Commentary:
The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus depicts the lot of the wealthy and the poor, first in this life and then in the next. For all his worldly comforts, the rich man’s callousness toward the poor plunged him into ruin (16:23). Lazarus, despite his earthly hardships, is escorted to Abraham’s side (16:22). A similar reversal of fortunes underlies the Beatitudes & Woes in 6:20-26 (Mt 25:31-46)
The Rich Man and Lazarus
Today’s Reading: Luke 16:19-31
19 "There was a rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, full of sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table; moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried; 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he called out, Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’ 27 And he said, Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house, 28 for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham said, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 He said to him, If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.’ "
Today’s Commentary:
The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus depicts the lot of the wealthy and the poor, first in this life and then in the next. For all his worldly comforts, the rich man’s callousness toward the poor plunged him into ruin (16:23). Lazarus, despite his earthly hardships, is escorted to Abraham’s side (16:22). A similar reversal of fortunes underlies the Beatitudes & Woes in 6:20-26 (Mt 25:31-46)
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
So you are not a wretched sinner here on earth? Do you claim to already have been judged and saved?
LOVE!
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
I confess to almighty God
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have greatly sinned
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done,
and in what I have failed to do;
through my fault, through my fault,
through my most grievous fault;
therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin,
all the Angels and Saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord our God.
LOVE!
A
arte
Guest
Robin Parry was mentioned in one post. Robin Parry is a Christian Universalist. It is from reading about Christian Universalism that I first became aware of God’s complete overarching mercy and love that cannot allow a soul to be sent to hell and punished for eternity. Also, one post mentioned the Jewish faith which does not believe that children and those from other religions will go to Hell. From what I have read on Judaism, their stance on the afterlife is very similar, if not identical to Christian Universalism. All souls will eventually end up in heaven. Some posts mention the liberal attitudes of modern society today where anything goes and all is OK. I completely agree that society has become too liberal. I certainly do not believe that anything goes and all is OK. We are responsible for our actions and there are repercussions in this life and the afterlife for our actions. But, these repercussions cannot include torture and cannot go on for ever. We do not live in an Iron/ Bronze Age which is the setting for the Biblical scriptures. The Old Testament states that gays and adulterers should be put to death. I don’t see Christians out there putting gays and adulterers to death. Instead, a religion that is still in the Iron/ Bronze Age is doing just that and far worse in the name of God. That religion is called Islam. I have read posts mentioning the fear of God and the fear of Hell. We are preaching a religion based on fear and not love. If a God wants you to fear him, which comes up throughout the Bible, then it is not the real God but some evil entity. It works the same for fear of the afterlife. We try to evangelize the Good News but all people see is a God who perpetrates Bad News with harsh punishment in this life and unbelievably harsher punishment in the after life. I believe as Christians living in the 21st Century, we need to concentrate on love. The kind of love that Jesus and His real Father gives freely to everyone. If people refuse this incredible free gift, then their lives will never be fully satisfied and there will always be a void in their lives. Earthy goods only give temporary satisfaction as has already been eloquently put in this debate. The post from Seraphim 73 is an eye opener. I was not aware that many of the saints believed in universal salvation. I have never heard of the “River of Fire”. I have just read some of it after already typing this post including my sentence in bold at the end. Obviously, a lot of other Christians have arrived at the same conclusions as me and everything that I have put in this post and my other posts. I have only briefly read a part of the “River of Fire” so cannot comment extensively on its content but it does look worthy of a read. There is no Hell – God would never allow such a place
V
Vico
Guest
If it were true that if God “cannot allow a soul to be sent to hell and punished for eternity” then we would not have free will.
On First Principles establishes Origen’s main doctrines, including the eventual restoration of all souls to a state of perfection in proximity to God. At the** fifth ecumenical council **condemned this belief of Origen in “the fabulous pre-existence of souls … the monstrous restoration which follows from it”.
Emperor Justinian issued his *Anathemas Against Origen (553 A.D.):
- I. Whoever says or thinks that human souls pre-existed, i.e., that they had previously been spirits and holy powers, but that, satiated with the vision of God, they had turned to evil, and in this way the divine love in them had died out (ἀπψυγείσας) and they had therefore become souls (ψυχάς) and had been condemned to punishment in bodies, shall be anathema.
…
IX. If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (ἀποκατάστασις) will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.x.html
I
inocente
Guest
I just happened to read an article in Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy the other day which gives the rationale.
The author (a universalist himself) gives the following propositions:
(1) God loves us all unconditionally and wants to reconcile everyone of us to himself.
(2) God will successfully reconcile us to himself.
(3) God will not reconcile all of us, some will be separated from him forever.
The propositions cannot all be true. Those who reject (1) say that God’s reconciliation is limited to a restricted elect. The author calls them Augustinians. Those who reject (2), the Arminians, say God’s will is not omnipotent. Those who reject (3), the universalists, say God will always prevail, and so there can be no eternal damnation.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/heaven-hell/
G
glendab
Guest
Hello Inocente
But alas, these are just my opinions and I’m no expert on anything except PB&J cause I’m short for time and gotta run to the doctor’s office soon. Yuk… Pray for me.
Glenda
His first premise is untrue, not because of the distortion of the theology behind the persons called the elect, but because God doesn’t love unconditionally. I’ve brought this premise up before here at CAF and found that there are many Catholics who believe this false premise. By it’s absorption into their personal spirituality, they loose something we hold dear among other things, but it can lead those who swallow all that it implies hook, line and sinker to the exact outcome here on this thread: the false notion that Hell isn’t an eternity long and that somehow a loving god cannot dispense a punishment so severe so they shouldn’t fear getting sent to Hell. Those who subscribe to the false belief that Jesus, our God, does indeed love us unconditionally, will sometimes very quickly loose other portions of our beliefs rapidly. One is the thought that if God loves them* unconditionally*, why bother to Confess anything? They find themselves very “saved” in a short time. It is a subtle and dangerous notion which allows the sin of presumption to do it’s worst works.
But alas, these are just my opinions and I’m no expert on anything except PB&J cause I’m short for time and gotta run to the doctor’s office soon. Yuk… Pray for me.
Glenda
O
OneSheep
Guest
If I may cut in here:
For anyone who recognizes the Christ in Jesus, and only in him, and who recognizes Jesus as the Christ, anyone who grasps the total oneness of person and work as the decisive factor, has abandoned the exclusiveness of faith and its antitheses to love; he has combined both in one and made their mutual separation unthinkable…
…The essence of the faith demanded by a Christology so understood is consequently entry into the universal openness of unconditional love. For to believe in a Christ so understood means simply to make love the content of faith, so that from this angle one can perfectly well say, love is faith.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity 2004 edition, pg 208.
Please, Glenda, join the table with people who see that God loves unconditionally. If you are so inspired, open your mind a bit. The passage from the Cardinal’s book certainly does not rule out people who see God as loving conditionally, this is a matter of relationship. The Cardinal’s book, and Pope Francis, too, put a lot of emphasis on relationship. There is plenty of room in the Church for differing relationships. Can we all just accept this, and focus on Love, and service to all? I am not saying discussion is fruitless; are you open to the idea that faith is not exclusive?
Yes, I understand your aversion to those who think they are “saved” and then go off and sin again. Those people, Glenda, are rationalizing their behaviors. Perhaps they have very weak prayer lives, who knows? People who sin are lacking in knowledge or are blind. All are subject to this.
Nothing about Love is a slippery slope. Love, in the presence of full knowledge, excludes all sin.
O
OneSheep
Guest
I commend you for your tolerance of those who find your views anti-Catholic. I am going to have to put the Linns’ book on my list of next-reads! As far as the contradictions go, a scripture scholar priest who I know says “We can take the Bible literally, unless it appears to contradict.” Yes, there are contradictions. I think the contradictions have their place, but that is definitely another discussion.
The priest I mentioned above also stated that “eternal” does not mean the same as “forever” in the context of scripture.
I agree with those who say that hell is a possibility necessitated by free will. I do not understand it as separation from God, for without God we are nothing. People do choose the hell of addiction and slavery to the appetites on a regular basis.
How about hell as a spiritual bootcamp? Okay, then that’s purgatory. It works for me.
O
OneSheep
Guest
The mortal sin aspect has been part of the “knowingly and willingly rejecting God” discussion on this forum. I agree with you, I have come to see that the three conditions are never met, and I have yet to come across a scenario where they could be met.This is along the lines that I was thinking when I came up with this thread. It seems to me that engaging in immoral behavior is largely due to the environment we grew up in. But then again, these immoral behaviors may not meet the three conditions necessary for a behavior being a mortal sin. I often wonder how often the three conditions for a behavior to be a mortal sin are actually met.
LOVE!
A priest I love said “In my opinion, if anyone chooses hell, they do so screaming and kicking against God the whole way.”
Would such a God refrain from allowing someone out? With God, everything is possible, a loving possible.
G
glendab
Guest
Hello Onesheep.
Nice to have reason to respond to you again.
Glenda
I’ve missed our little dialog about this particular notion. Nice to see you haven’t forgotten. Thanks for the reply. Nope. Still don’t buy it, the notion of “unconditional” love of God that is. As for the quote, ya know once I heard a Pope use the name Yahweh in referring to God instead of Jesus. Does that make it a legitimate name to use for God? Not to me. Never was, never will be.
Nice to have reason to respond to you again.
Glenda
G
glendab
Guest
P.S. OneSheep. I just got back form the doctor’s and it wasn’t good news. Did you pray for like I asked in the above post? I hope so. Please do.
O
OneSheep
Guest
You are a fellow defiant, Glenda. You have my respect and admiration!
I thought maybe you simply overlooked Fr. Serpa’s comments about God’s unconditional love, but now it is clear that you are not one whose default mode is to take the hierarchy’s word for it. Now, for me, I don’t use words like “legitimate” because as you may remember I have a lot of regard for all the nuances and experiences behind definitions and vocabulary. If I may paraphrase Cardinal R., objectivity is practically impossible.So, we can disagree about “Yahweh” and “unconditional love”, but you are sister in my mind, in a special way. It seems to me,though, that you may be destined (subject) to a little more righteousness-triggering than I am, but hey, we all have our buttons to be pushed, right?
Yahweh be with you.
Sorry, couldn’t resist. I am the wrong person to whom to reveal triggers. Ask my kids. Of course, they love finding out my triggers, and push them whenever the opportunity arises!(P.S., all the fuss about use of “Yahweh” I have put into the category of No Big Deal, but I politely apologize to our Jewish brethren. I don’t ever use the term, because “God” works for me just fine.)
You have my prayers, Glenda. God be with you.
G
glendab
Guest
Hello again OneSheep.
As for triggers, push my buttons any time you feel like it. I really don’t get mad anymore. I’ve come to expect it here at CAF. Guess I’m getting used to it.
Glenda
Thanks for the reply. I don’t consider myself defiant. A little background: My Dad was Jewish in practice and spoke several languages one of which was Hebrew. One night sitting at our dinner table he brought up the stuff about the use of the term Yahweh that was becoming popular at that time. He knew Hebrew very well and said that that name would never be a name used in the Temple to invoke God, never. It was a foreign language and to do so would be a disgrace. A good man would never do such a thing, ever. His words for the use of the name to describe or invoke God was baloney. I have no idea why he brought this up, probably in the news somehow but I was still in elementary school when the discussion was made. His introduction to the subject was that the Christians have a new name of God. I guess he was trying to teach my brother something. So, Dad said it was baloney, baloney it was. Now is know he was right. Having said that, it would have been defiant against my Father to use it. And actually it would be insulting on more than one level if you did when speaking to him or his Uncle the Rabbi, to say Yahweh and expect them to respond as if that was the Name. You’d be calling them some sort of half-breed foreigner.Yahweh be with you.
(P.S., all the fuss about use of “Yahweh” I have put into the category of No Big Deal, but I politely apologize to our Jewish brethren. I don’t ever use the term, because “God” works for me just fine.)
You have my prayers, Glenda. God be with you.
As for triggers, push my buttons any time you feel like it. I really don’t get mad anymore. I’ve come to expect it here at CAF. Guess I’m getting used to it.
Glenda
A
arte
Guest
I checked “Rivers of Fire”. It is a text of a presentation by Alexandre Kalomiros an Eastern Orthodox Christian on the Orthodox Christianity Website. Without infringing on copyright, I will try to précis the presentation. I may miss out some salient points but I am trying to keep this précis as short as possible so my apologies to Seraphim 73 if my précis is misleading. Alexandre Kalomiros’ presentation says that Western people hate God because Western theology has been overtaken by the Devil including the adoption of a pagan Greek god mentality. Western theology therefore portrays God as angry, full of wrath, doesn’t love us, is cruel and is so offended by our sins that we must pay for them with eternal torture in Hell. We cannot love a torturer so the above “image of God” has caused atheism. God is a fearsome Creator and those Western Christians who try to escape his eternal punishment are doing so out of fear of God. God is so vengeful and evil that after Adam and Eve’s sin, He took His vengeance out on all of mankind thereafter. He is an evil judge. Sound familiar? Please see my earlier posts and you will see many similarities between Alexandre Kalomiros’ presentation and my posts. This is why I was drawn to Alexandre Kalomiros’ presentation in my last post dated 1 July 2014 but said I would reply once I had read it. I was also drawn by the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Churches have more books in their biblical cannon than we do so perhaps their extra books contained scripture that aligned with my thoughts on Hell. Alexandre Kalomiros’ presentation does not align itself with my thoughts on Hell. The presentation is confusing and a bit of a difficult read but it is very thought provoking and well worth reading. After a lot of “mental gymnastics, Alexandre Kalomiros arrives at the same conclusion that most have stated in this forum, that there is a Hell and we put ourselves in this Hell. There is a major difference though in Alexandre Kalomiros’ version of Hell. God’s love still flows into Hell because the occupants of Hell are still His children. Perhaps, this affords the occupants a reprieve from Hell by accepting God’s love? Even with the “mental gymnastics”, we are still left with the same horrific image of God that is portrayed in the Bible. Please don’t be offended Seraphim 73 but I thought the whole presentation was the work of a “spin doctor” trying to change this image of God. Several readers have written into the Orthodox Christianity Website because they are confused over whether Hell exists or not and I can understand their confusion. I believe, as stated in my earlier posts, that through our sins we do place ourselves in the position to be punished by God but that punishment cannot include torture or last for eternity.
G
glendab
Guest
No Saints believed that there was* no Hell *or that there was a universal salvation. If they did, they wouldn’t be Saints.
Glenda
Glenda
O
OneSheep
Guest
Hello, arte, the article you mentioned piqued my interest, so I read it.
Don’t you find it a little bit amusing when one guy points and says that the other guy’s view comes from the devil? Kalomiros is pointing with a post in his eye, IMO. His view is just as dualistic as “Western Thelogy”, methinks.
A priest once told us that in his opinion when someone chooses hell, they go screaming and kicking against God the whole way. I like that image. And if such a God sees that someone in hell has changed their mind, why would God deny their exit? Such a God who denies would either be conditionally loving or not be omnipotent.
I think we can all admit that for any sinner to go to heaven, it makes sense that some type of “cleansing” has to take place. A person can be shown the seriousness of their sins, and experience all of the guilt and grief that they would have during their life if they had had healthy consciences. Their eyes would have to be opened in some way.
hehe…
Don’t you find it a little bit amusing when one guy points and says that the other guy’s view comes from the devil? Kalomiros is pointing with a post in his eye, IMO. His view is just as dualistic as “Western Thelogy”, methinks.This is going to all hinge on individual perceptions/relationships with God, arte. A person who equates God with conscience is going to see God as angry and judgmental. God loves us unconditionally. On the contrary, our consciences “love” us when we “behave”, and are very wrathful when we do not. God, in my knowing, accepts our disobedience as part of the “human package”, He gave us free will, so we are going to disobey once in awhile. He loves us anyway. Our healthy consciences “give us the dickens” about disobedience.
This is a bit of a stretch. I think that if a person believes in an afterlife, and therefore believes in a creator, they will come to know God from within. If the wrathful God makes sense in terms of justice, then they will stay with that idea. If the notion of a wrathful God does not make sense, they will reject the notion, but not necessarily reject faith altogether. In my experience, most atheists simply don’t believe in God because they have no proof, they think that some kind of material “proof” is necessary. In addition, Christians pointing here and there saying that this or that comes from the devil, etc., does not help the cause. St. Augustine says, “It is through the Spirit that we see that whatsoever exists is good.”
God gave us our normal, healthy consciences to punish us with feelings of guilt, self-condemnation. Our consciences can be quite wrathful and vengeful against ourselves and others. The conscience functions in behavior modification.
A priest once told us that in his opinion when someone chooses hell, they go screaming and kicking against God the whole way. I like that image. And if such a God sees that someone in hell has changed their mind, why would God deny their exit? Such a God who denies would either be conditionally loving or not be omnipotent.
I think we can all admit that for any sinner to go to heaven, it makes sense that some type of “cleansing” has to take place. A person can be shown the seriousness of their sins, and experience all of the guilt and grief that they would have during their life if they had had healthy consciences. Their eyes would have to be opened in some way.
- Status