Is it possible that God can relent on the eternal punishment in Hell?

[arte]

Hello, arte, the article you mentioned piqued my interest, so I read it.
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.

Well done for reading “The River of Fire”. I totally agree with everything that you have written “one sheep”. You have posted something that I have spent a very long time being concerned about and prayed to God for discernment. God has answered my prayers in what you have written here. Thank God for this forum. I find the following paragraph spot on with my beliefs especially the sentence in italics: “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”.
This works for me. Hitler is always mentioned in a debate questioning the belief in Hell. In the blink of an eye, God could make Hitler feel all of the guilt for the seriousness of his sins and the grief of the many millions of lives that his evil caused. In one of your earlier posts, you replied that purgatory was the place for purification. I agree with you and discuss that further in reply to your post. My reply to the purgatory post is actually the 2nd part of this post.**One question: In addition to the sentence in italics, do you believe that the sinner should also undergo purgatory? ** I believe that both may be required but I am open to your take on this matter as the sentence in italics could also be the cleansing process. The sinner experiences the grief that their sins have caused. Just imagine the amount of grief (suffering) that someone like Hitler would feel. If this is not enough, then purgatory would the cleansing action or as some would prefer it – the punishment.

I was only quoting from the “Rivers of Fire” when mentioning atheism. I meant to qualify the quote on atheism but forgot. From my experience as well, most (if not all) atheists I have met do not believe in God due to the lack of evidence. They want material evidence. Christopher Hitchens was a prominent atheist. He was questioned in one debate: “What will you say if you meet God face to face when you die?” Christopher Hitchens was undergoing cancer treatment (he died in 2011) at the time and replied: “Why didn’t you make yourself more evident?” A common statement made by atheists is: “Why would this omnipresent being want me to fear him if he supposedly loves me so much? It is a complete contradiction in terms”. I totally agree with them. I read the following today in the Word for the Day publication: “God’s love is the most powerful force the World has ever seen”. The Bible passage to read in order to reinforce this statement was: Colossians 3:12-14 (NLT). As a father, I love my children more than anything else in the World. I could never ever torture them. And, we are told that God’s love for us is greater than an earthly father. Therefore, God could never ever allow us to go to Hell even with the gift of free will in which we supposedly put ourselves in Hell. Unfortunately, the fearful image of God as portrayed in the Bible is quoted by atheists along with the spectre of Hell to the audience in order to sway the debate.

No-one chooses Hell because the priest’s comment about a person “kicking and screaming against God all the way” bears this out. The priest was intimating our free will as a choice. I also like your paragraph especially the sentence in italics: “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”. The sentence in italics is exactly what I have done which is a contrary notion to that portrayed in the Bible and several posts in this forum.

 

[arte]

How about hell as a spiritual bootcamp? Okay, then that’s purgatory. It works for me.

Hell as a spiritual boot camp or as you correctly say purgatory definitely works for me as well. I completely agree that through free will, we place ourselves in a position to be punished for our sins. But that punishment cannot include torture and cannot last forever. Souls in purgatory are purified and all end up in heaven. Most theologians interpret the scriptural term “fire” metaphorically for purifying souls in purgatory. The length of stay in purgatory is defined by the severity and number of sins committed. In the case of Hitler et al, a million years in a maximum security prison would be a fitting punishment. For a good Christian with only a few venial sins, a 2 week orientation course for Heaven held in an open prison would be a fitting punishment. In the OECD countries only the USA and Japan have capital punishment. In the European Union, capital punishment is banned by the European Union Charter. Murderers are imprisoned in the majority of the developed World and in 18 of the 50 states in the US. The length of a prison term is decided by the severity of the crime committed and the number of offenses. These punishments for murder and any other lesser crimes against a country’s laws have all been drawn up by human beings. People in prison in the developed World are not subjected to torture. If a prison officer was to torture a prisoner, the prison officer would soon find out what it is like to be on the other side of the bars! This shows that us mere humans living in a developed country in the 21st Century can produce laws that show a better balanced punishment regime than our God of the Bible. I keep saying that we live in the 21st century and not the iron/bronze age. Eternal damnation in lakes of fire with brimstone and sulphur belong in the iron/bronze age. Fear worked for them but it does not work for us now. In fact, it has the opposite effect and turns people away from Christianity. We have to concentrate on the unconditional love that our omnipresent God has for His creation. Through this unconditional love and omnipresence, God can purify even the worst of souls so that they can enter heaven. There is no free lunch. This purification comes at a price reflecting the seriousness and number of our sins.

 

[OneSheep]

Hell as a spiritual boot camp or as you correctly say purgatory definitely works for me as well. I completely agree that through free will, we place ourselves in a position to be punished for our sins. But that punishment cannot include torture and cannot last forever. Souls in purgatory are purified and all end up in heaven. Most theologians interpret the scriptural term “fire” metaphorically for purifying souls in purgatory. The length of stay in purgatory is defined by the severity and number of sins committed. In the case of Hitler et al, a million years in a maximum security prison would be a fitting punishment. For a good Christian with only a few venial sins, a 2 week orientation course for Heaven held in an open prison would be a fitting punishment. In the OECD countries only the USA and Japan have capital punishment. In the European Union, capital punishment is banned by the European Union Charter. Murderers are imprisoned in the majority of the developed World and in 18 of the 50 states in the US. The length of a prison term is decided by the severity of the crime committed and the number of offenses. These punishments for murder and any other lesser crimes against a country’s laws have all been drawn up by human beings. People in prison in the developed World are not subjected to torture. If a prison officer was to torture a prisoner, the prison officer would soon find out what it is like to be on the other side of the bars! This shows that us mere humans living in a developed country in the 21st Century can produce laws that show a better balanced punishment regime than our God of the Bible. I keep saying that we live in the 21st century and not the iron/bronze age. Eternal damnation in lakes of fire with brimstone and sulphur belong in the iron/bronze age. Fear worked for them but it does not work for us now. In fact, it has the opposite effect and turns people away from Christianity. We have to concentrate on the unconditional love that our omnipresent God has for His creation. Through this unconditional love and omnipresence, God can purify even the worst of souls so that they can enter heaven. There is no free lunch. This purification comes at a price reflecting the seriousness and number of our sins.

Remember the parable of the unforgiving servant? In the end, the master only forgives one time (contrary to 70x7!), and then throws the unforgiving servant to the torturers.

This has been explained to me (by a priest) as a matter of projection. When we forgive everyone, we will know that God forgives us. In contrast, when we hang onto resentment, we not only suffer the torture of holding a grudge, but we cannot project a God who loves unconditionally, we instead project a god who does not forgive sometimes.

And if such god ever withholds forgiveness, our minds will find the way to showing us that we fall into the “unforgiven” category. We continue to be tortured by guilt… Projection of a god who loves conditionally subjects us to the “torture” of scrupulosity and other anxieties.

We can admit that our consciences do torture us, do they not? And when I equated God and conscience, that torture came from what I saw as God. I was not “wrong” in this thinking, I was equating God with The Voice Within, and at that time the Voice was my conscience. I look at as a developmental phenomenon. When we are young, it is imperative that we form a conscience. Possibly, over-emphasizing to youngsters that God loves unconditionally may confuse them, for our consciences do not “love us” unconditionally. In my experience, the knowing of the unconditionally loving God beneath the conscience required the experience of actually forgiving all those I resented, in a mature, understanding way. Is this your experience?

As far as the “free lunch” part, it could also be said that every sinner who enters heaven gets a free lunch! The parable of the workers in the vineyard is one that violates the natural conscience. It is our consciences that say “everything must be fair”, and Jesus turns this on its head! To me, our consciences, like all of the aspects of our humanity, benefit us in some way, but our consciences, like all the other aspects of our nature, can be enslaving. Holding a grudge is an activity of a normal, healthy conscience. Holding a grudge, though, is slavery. Thinking that “everything must be fair” can effectively close our minds to a deeper reality.

Thanks for your comments, it looks like we are seeing things very similarly.

Oh, and saying that “if someone chooses hell, they do so screaming and kicking against God the whole way” still allows for the possibility of someone doing just that. I really do think God respects our free will, but God is making very sure that everyone knows what they are choosing. It is my observation that people only choose sin when they do not know what they are doing, when they are blind or ignorant. Would anyone in the absence ignorance or blindness choose hell? I cannot see it happening, but I am open to the possibility. Salvation is only as universal as the choice for salvation is universal.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Is it possible for God to eventually relent? Is there some type of stain on these souls that God cannot cleanse or change? Sure, the damned are in Hell due to their own free-will, but that does not mean that they would not repent under the right conditions.

LOVE!

Its always been my theory that hell was simply a will-full extension of purgatory.

My reasoning for this is the following.

1. I don’t believe that God tortures the souls of the dammed in some kind of lake of fire as some kind of punishment proceeding the fact that he felt offended by our refusal to repent. I believe that God eternally wills the salvation of all, and this never ceases for there can be no potency or change in God’s attitude towards his creation.
2. I believe hell is a state of being that one wilfully brings upon himself by eternally rejecting a relationship with God, and because God’s love never ceases this becomes a source of torment for that person. God becomes a tormentor. it is not something that God himself artificially inflicts upon the person. Heaven for one person may in fact be hell for another.
3. If purgatory is a state of purification, then maybe the words purgatory and hell merely distinguishes between those who accept God’s purification and those who eternally fight against it.

This might be heretical. I hold these views because they sound like a more rational view of how a loving God relates to his creatures rather than this “rubbish bin” idea of hell where God throws away his failed experiments.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This might be heretical. I hold these views because they sound like a more rational view of how a loving God relates to his creatures rather than this “rubbish bin” idea of hell where God throws away his failed experiments.

I’m not familiar with that God throwing us into the “rubbish-bin” idea.

As you have already indicated in #2, we throw ourselves into the “rubbish-bin.”

We are not a failed experiment. God knows the outcome before we do.

 

[KindredSoul]

Is it possible for God to eventually relent? Is there some type of stain on these souls that God cannot cleanse or change? Sure, the damned are in Hell due to their own free-will, but that does not mean that they would not repent under the right conditions.

LOVE!

Hi Robert!

I haven’t read the entirety of the thread, but I wanted to say that it seems to me that the damned indeed will NOT repent. Nor do I think this is because they “prefer” Hell (which, as one poster said, would then mean Hell wasn’t a punishment) but rather because they will never have true Contrition. This is fitting with the scripture, too, which says “As the tree falls, so shall it lie.” As we die, so we will be for all eternity. A soul that dies cut off from love of God will never love God.

Let’s remember that the ONLY thing that can save a person from Hell without Sacramental Confession–which will not exist in Hell–is True Contrition, repentance that comes primarily from love for God and not only from a desire to avoid Hell. And without True Contrition, if a person is sorry only because they want to avoid Hell, Sacramental Confession is an extraordinarily merciful means by which God will allow them to avoid Hell despite that they don’t even love Him enough to have THAT as their primary reason for repenting, a fault which I must logically conclude will still have to be fiercely cleansed from them in Purgatory if they die clean of Mortal Sin but still with such a self-serving attitude toward their repentance. But again, sacramental confession only exists in this life, not the next.

Now I’m sure that MANY souls in Hell will “repent” for the sake of wanting to escape Hell. They would be stupid not to try. But I think it’s a pretty safe bet that not one will ever repent primarily for love of God. Why? Because the very thing that will have gotten them into Hell is being in a state of Mortal Sin, which by necessity means they have broken with love for God. In such a state, let’s ask ourselves: Do we think that a soul, who does not love God already, is going to be more likely to love Him, once cast into Hell? Such a selfish soul is all but guaranteed to hate God even more for “daring” to allow it to fall into Hell, I think, quite the opposite of cause to think it would ever attain True Contrition.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[OneSheep]

Hello KindredSoul. Your post was so interesting, I had to respond. Robert has not been on this thread much lately, I think.

Hi Robert!

I haven’t read the entirety of the thread, but I wanted to say that it seems to me that the damned indeed will NOT repent. Nor do I think this is because they “prefer” Hell (which, as one poster said, would then mean Hell wasn’t a punishment) but rather because they will never have true Contrition. This is fitting with the scripture, too, which says “As the tree falls, so shall it lie.” As we die, so we will be for all eternity. A soul that dies cut off from love of God will never love God.

The questions: are they “damned” in the first place? I think you are saying that people “damn” themselves? In addition, does every soul on Earth even get the opportunity to know God? IMO many, many, do not. A priest once told us (paraphrased) , “If a person sees Jesus as a cruel, vengeful, unforgiving figure, then that person would be better off not following Jesus.” Perception of God is extremely important. The god depicted through “fire and brimstone” is perhaps best rejected. If the love comes through, great, if not, the follower is simply a creature of vengeful nature, and what redemption is there in that?

Does a soul that exists ever cut himself off from the love of God? We are nothing without God, IMO. A person may possibly (though I cannot see how or why) choose to reject God, but God never, ever, rejects.

Let’s remember that the ONLY thing that can save a person from Hell without Sacramental Confession–which will not exist in Hell–is True Contrition, repentance that comes primarily from love for God and not only from a desire to avoid Hell. And without True Contrition, if a person is sorry only because they want to avoid Hell, Sacramental Confession is an extraordinarily merciful means by which God will allow them to avoid Hell despite that they don’t even love Him enough to have THAT as their primary reason for repenting, a fault which I must logically conclude will still have to be fiercely cleansed from them in Purgatory if they die clean of Mortal Sin but still with such a self-serving attitude toward their repentance. But again, sacramental confession only exists in this life, not the next.

In my observation, a person will love God to the degree that they know God. So, if the person I described above decides to “love” a vengeful, unforgiving god, then he still does not love God. He loves a false image, right? The “cleansing” would somehow have to clear away the false images.

As far as the self-serving attitude? All of us have self-serving attitudes. Those of us who dedicate our lives to serving others find personal joy in serving others. Serving the “other” becomes more important, more joyful than serving ourselves; serving others is, in effect, serving ourselves. The other, in our love, becomes an extension of our own self. Perhaps you have experienced this with your child?

Many, many, people “selfishly” turn to God to avoid hell. As long as Love eventually works into awareness and practice, I see no problem with it. Empathy develops.

Now I’m sure that MANY souls in Hell will “repent” for the sake of wanting to escape Hell. They would be stupid not to try. But I think it’s a pretty safe bet that not one will ever repent primarily for love of God. Why? Because the very thing that will have gotten them into Hell is being in a state of Mortal Sin, which by necessity means they have broken with love for God. In such a state, let’s ask ourselves: Do we think that a soul, who does not love God already, is going to be more likely to love Him, once cast into Hell? Such a selfish soul is all but guaranteed to hate God even more for “daring” to allow it to fall into Hell, I think, quite the opposite of cause to think it would ever attain True Contrition.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

It seems to me if the person casts himself into hell, he does so fully knowing who he is rejecting and what he is choosing. In doing so, why would he “hate” God even more? It was his decision.

I don’t think anyone ever rejects God or chooses hell once they know who God is. How do you feel about the possibility that every soul who ever walked this Earth ends up (by choice) in heaven? Does that possibility lead to fear that people will sin left and right without facing an eternal consequence? This is a very understandable fear. Does that possibility seem very, very unfair? Seeing such a scenario as unfair is also very understandable.

 

[Starrsmother]

Fear of hell is not a unique situation–even if we’ve confessed our sins. As it says in the OT, our sins walk before us always. A prayer I learned a long time ago that kind of goes with the Fatima prayers of the Rosary is: “Oh God, please spare me the punishments of hell, not because I deserve sparing but rather because wherever you assign me, I shall love you always. Should you send me to hell, there will be a soul in hell who will still love you always, knowing full well that this punishment is my just reward”,

 

[Amandil]

God loves us all unconditionally, if not we wouldn’t exist.

But it does not follow from that we are all saved unconditionally.

God has in fact established the conditions for us to be saved.

And, unless you are willing to argue against the authority of St. Paul in Romans, everyone has sufficient knowledge of both their sinfulness and God to be held accountable before Him and His judgment.

Those who choose hell know God objectively, they know that they owe Him all but instead choose to worship and adore something other than Him.

They know that their subjective “impression” of God, what you call their “false image”, is deficient, but that is inconsequential to them, they have more important matters, such as the sinful pleasures which they seek, to concern themselves with.

God’s unconditional love neither cannot, nor will He will it, force them to correct the “false image”. Neither will His justice reward their intellectual laziness and cowardess.

 

[KindredSoul]

Hello KindredSoul. Your post was so interesting, I had to respond.

Why thanks!

A priest once told us (paraphrased) , “If a person sees Jesus as a cruel, vengeful, unforgiving figure, then that person would be better off not following Jesus.” Perception of God is extremely important. The god depicted through “fire and brimstone” is perhaps best rejected.

I would hesitate to say that all/most people who reject Jesus only do so out of misunderstanding. Sometimes people simply have wrong opinions, despite knowing all the arguments. For example, let’s say that someone rejects Jesus because they believe “A God who would say X is a sin is cruel!” Let’s say this person has heard all the arguments for why X is a sin, and therefore why God is not cruel for saying X is a sin, but they simply disagree. In that case, they DON’T misunderstand God, Who DOES in fact say “X is a sin.” They simply hold the opinion that God must be cruel for saying so. And let’s not underestimate the ability of people to hold such opinions not because they actually have a rational basis for holding such opinions, but because they prefer their passions and sinful desires, and willfully tell themselves that such a God as Who would forbid them to act on these must be cruel, so that they can sleep at night rejecting Him.

Does a soul that exists ever cut himself off from the love of God? We are nothing without God, IMO. A person may possibly (though I cannot see how or why) choose to reject God, but God never, ever, rejects.

It is true, but God does not allow obstinate sin to enter Heaven, either. So a sinner who clings to his sin will not be allowed to enter in. And I believe it’s fully possible for a sinner to do so. More on that below.

As far as the self-serving attitude? All of us have self-serving attitudes. Those of us who dedicate our lives to serving others find personal joy in serving others. Serving the “other” becomes more important, more joyful than serving ourselves; serving others is, in effect, serving ourselves. The other, in our love, becomes an extension of our own self. Perhaps you have experienced this with your child?

Yes, although there is a difference between selfishness and self-concern. God designed us to be concerned for ourselves. That’s natural and good. It’s okay that we want something out of our good behavior, even if only the reward of feeling good about it, as long as we don’t make that a binding requirement for doing it. But what is wrong is when we have no substantial concern for the “other,” when our concern becomes only (or quite close to “only”) for ourselves.

Many, many, people “selfishly” turn to God to avoid hell. As long as Love eventually works into awareness and practice, I see no problem with it. Empathy develops.

Yes, this is true: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” That’s true. But we can only grow in wisdom as long as we are in “time.” Upon death, a soul not in a state of Grace goes straight to Hell, which is in “eternity” and in which the soul’s dispositions are frozen. In other words, the person will NOT have “love eventually work into awareness and practice.”

It seems to me if the person casts himself into hell, he does so fully knowing who he is rejecting and what he is choosing. In doing so, why would he “hate” God even more? It was his decision.

It is safe to say that a hardened sinner, although he would rather go to Hell than be with God, would probably prefer a “third” option where he could reject God yet also avoid eternal torment. But to be separated from God IS eternal torment (even physically), so this “third option” they wish for cannot exist. Either way, my main point is that even if dispositions could change in Hell (they can’t) it would make more sense to think a soul who went there would only be more hardened rather than that it would repent out of any true contrition.

I don’t think anyone ever rejects God or chooses hell once they know who God is.

Satan and demons are already proof to the contrary. They are infinitely more intelligent than us, infinitely more aware of Who God is, yet we know for a fact that they–even IF no human ever did–have rejected God. And if it’s possible for them, it’s possible for us too. It may be incomprehensible to someone who does love God, but there really is the possibility of knowing Who God really is and rejecting Him anyway. If not, then there would BE no fallen angels. Sadly, there are.

How do you feel about the possibility that every soul who ever walked this Earth ends up (by choice) in heaven? Does that possibility lead to fear that people will sin left and right without facing an eternal consequence? This is a very understandable fear. Does that possibility seem very, very unfair? Seeing such a scenario as unfair is also very understandable.

I actually couldn’t care less about the “fairness.” If every single soul went to Heaven, I would be overjoyed. I wouldn’t care “who was able to ‘get away’ with what sins” (although the fact that they’d have to be cleansed, painfully, in Purgatory anyway means that even then they’re not really ‘getting away’ with anything), because I’d just be so happy that everyone had avoided hell.

So the possibility is delightful, but I just don’t believe that it’s at all a safe possibility to presume upon. Hell is a very real threat, and I think we have to treat it as such. The danger of the alternative is that people would end up going to hell because they didn’t take it seriously. As scripture says, “God is not mocked,” so someone who sinned left and right because they were “banking” on going to Heaven anyway is in particular danger of hell.

Blessings In Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[opusAquinas]

God is merciful. God is just.
God loved Jacob and hated Esau.
So when we say God is merciful is what we mean by God is love: So Aquinas says and I agree. God is love but God is also justice. God’s justice must be satisfied as is His mercy.

Hell is eternal. God created some vessels to shows His justice. Understand?

 

[Starrsmother]

God is merciful. God is just.
God loved Jacob and hated Esau.
So when we say God is merciful is what we mean by God is love: So Aquinas says and I agree. God is love but God is also justice. God’s justice must be satisfied as is His mercy.

Hell is eternal. God created some vessels to shows His justice. Understand?

God did NOT hate Esau. God is love and hates nobody that He created. He was unhappy that Esau discarded His rules.

 

[ChainBreaker]

God is merciful. God is just.
God loved Jacob and hated Esau.
So when we say God is merciful is what we mean by God is love: So Aquinas says and I agree. God is love but God is also justice. God’s justice must be satisfied as is His mercy.

Hell is eternal. God created some vessels to shows His justice. Understand?

God is not that which is to be satisfied as this would imply potency in God.

Love, mercy and justice are identical with each-other in their expression. Justice is an expression of love just as much as mercy is an expression of love. Love is not just mercy, love is also creative. Justice without love for the person who is being judged is imperfect and is not God. Justice is only meaningful in so far as it is an expression of love for all his creatures. God did not hate Esau as that would imply that God can be moved emotionally by our actions, as if to say we can change Gods emotional state. God loves Esau and that is precisely why God allows him the freedom to die in sin; this is justice. At most the word hate serves only to symbolise an incompatibility with Gods nature. It is not an emotional state in God. Hate is a weakness, an imperfection that God does not have. God does not take revenge, he is not vengeful; he did not change his mind about the value of his creation. These are human expressions of our emotional states which we have unfortunately been used to describe God in the bible.

God’s justice should not be thought of as literally being like a king slaying his enemies or preparing torture for men who have committed treason. These are human symbols of God’s justice that while theologically entertaining are wholly inadequate in explaining the metaphysical reality of what it means for God to be just and how that relates to human creatures.

 

[onenow1]

God is merciful. God is just.
God loved Jacob and hated Esau.
So when we say God is merciful is what we mean by God is love: So Aquinas says and I agree. God is love but God is also justice. God’s justice must be satisfied as is His mercy.

Hell is eternal. God created some vessels to shows His justice. Understand?

If we could really understand that God is pursuing us and not visa versa we might even understand that He became man, to give us a birds eye view of the crucifix[suffering], we must all bear to lead us to the perfection needed in love to be with Jesus Christ, the Great I AM. The agape love where Jesus says love your neighbor as I have loved you. This is the law of God. This is where justice becomes love our choice.

God Bless
onenow1

 

[glendab]

Hello Opus.

God is merciful. God is just.
God loved Jacob and hated Esau.
So when we say God is merciful is what we mean by God is love: So Aquinas says and I agree. God is love but God is also justice. God’s justice must be satisfied as is His mercy.

Hell is eternal. God created some vessels to shows His justice. Understand?

I’ve used that Scripture you’ve quoted once or twice here to show that God actually can hate a person and that they, being hated by God, lost what was supposedly an “unconditional love of God” that was supposed to save them from the fires of Hell! It is a sticky issue with some Catholics who think God loves them unconditionally and rely upon this supposed “unconditional love” to preserve them from the fires of Hell because God would never let that happen because He loves unconditionally. The Scripture you’ve quoted flies in the face of this and must be ignored. I expect that is what they will do here too. To me, this is one of the issues behind the issue of Hell and it’s Eternity and finality that some have trouble believing in anymore.

Glenda

 

[glendab]

Hello Starr(name removed by moderator).

God did NOT hate Esau. God is love and hates nobody that He created. He was unhappy that Esau discarded His rules.

Read this Scripture:** Romans 9, 13 to 16**:
13 As it is written: “I loved Jacob but hated Esau.” 14 What then are we to say? Is there injustice on the part of God? Of course not! 15 For he says to Moses: “I will show mercy to whom I will, I will take pity on whom I will.” 16 So it depends not upon a person’s will or exertion, but upon God, who shows mercy. (emphasis mine)

usccb.org/bible/romans/9

Clearly this Scripture shows you that God can and does hate persons. it is an unjust equivocation to water down the language used by St. Paul to a strong dislike or as the word you used, unhappiness with. Yes, God does hate some people. He wiped mankind from the face of the earth at the Flood all of them except a few. He said He despised what He had made and that it was their sins that caused Him to despise what He had made and so, He sent the Flood and spared only a few persons. Read your Bible.

Glenda

 

[ChainBreaker]

Hello Starr(name removed by moderator).

Read this Scripture:** Romans 9, 13 to 16**:
13 As it is written: “I loved Jacob but hated Esau.” 14 What then are we to say? Is there injustice on the part of God? Of course not! 15 For he says to Moses: “I will show mercy to whom I will, I will take pity on whom I will.” 16 So it depends not upon a person’s will or exertion, but upon God, who shows mercy. (emphasis mine)

usccb.org/bible/romans/9

Clearly this Scripture shows you that God can and does hate persons. it is an unjust equivocation to water down the language used by St. Paul to a strong dislike or as the word you used, unhappiness with. Yes, God does hate some people. He wiped mankind from the face of the earth at the Flood all of them except a few. He said He despised what He had made and that it was their sins that caused Him to despise what He had made and so, He sent the Flood and spared only a few persons. Read your Bible.

Glenda

I take it that you have literalistic of the bible, however God’s nature is love. God is ontologically identical with love, and thus it is logically impossible for God to potentially hate as much as it is impossible for God to potentially cease to exist; neither can God be both identical to love and hate at the same time.

Your interpretation of scripture is necessarily false.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Hello Starr(name removed by moderator).

Read this Scripture:** Romans 9, 13 to 16**:
13 As it is written: “I loved Jacob but hated Esau.” 14 What then are we to say? Is there injustice on the part of God? Of course not! 15 For he says to Moses: “I will show mercy to whom I will, I will take pity on whom I will.” 16 So it depends not upon a person’s will or exertion, but upon God, who shows mercy. (emphasis mine)

usccb.org/bible/romans/9

Clearly this Scripture shows you that God can and does hate persons. it is an unjust equivocation to water down the language used by St. Paul to a strong dislike or as the word you used, unhappiness with. Yes, God does hate some people. He wiped mankind from the face of the earth at the Flood all of them except a few. He said He despised what He had made and that it was their sins that caused Him to despise what He had made and so, He sent the Flood and spared only a few persons. Read your Bible.

Glenda

I take it that you have a literalistic view of the bible, however God’s nature is love. God is ontologically identical with love, and thus it is logically impossible for God to potentially hate as much as it is impossible for God to potentially cease to exist; neither can God be both identical to love and hate at the same time.

Your interpretation of scripture is necessarily false and it is not the view of the Catholic church.

 

[Starrsmother]

Nowhere there does it say that God hates Esau. That if YOUR translation. God is all love.

 

[ChainBreaker]

God did NOT hate Esau. God is love and hates nobody that He created. He was unhappy that Esau discarded His rules.

You are correct that God does not hate. However God is never unhappy. The bible uses human emotions to symbolise God’s activities in a way that we can understand. They are not to be taken literally. They are more like poetic metaphors describing something that we cannot truly understand. They are not an accurate representation of God’s motives or nature.