T
thinkandmull
Guest
He loves everything in creation as it originally is, not reprobates, otherwise he would be sad that those He loves are in hell forever. He can get over love He once had, not a constant love of them
Is it possible that God can relent on the eternal punishment in Hell?
- Status
K
KindredSoul
Guest
Read what I wrote in post 130: “This doesn’t mean that God will be miserable for eternity because there are souls He loves in Hell, because in its purest sense love is not an emotion. It is, in fact, willing the good of the other…”
Please see the entirety of the post, including the quote from the Book of Wisdom, to see why God’s continual willing of the damned’s existence is indeed an act of “willing the good of the other” and therefore evidence of love.
You’re thinking of love from an angle of human emotion, which does not see the big picture. God’s love is not like human emotion. He can indeed love a soul in hell yet without being sad for all eternity.
Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul
A
Amandil
Guest
You may “categorize” it however you like, I don’t think that the majority of theologians or ethicists would agree with you though.
You have to understand the sense for which the context of the verse in Wisdom exists. God hates (understood as that God “loves less”) those persons who by their own free will abandon their own dignity by committing sin. Their sinfulness is a slap in the face of God and His love in creating them. God hated Pharaoh because Pharaoh was a murderer of innocents and a Tyrant, but God still made use of Pharaoh because of the good that was accomplished through Pharaoh, i.e. the Exodus.
God hated Esau because he sold his birthright for the sin of gluttony.
Jesus Himself said of Judas that it would have been better if Judas had never been born, but Judas was born because Judas’ sin was integral for the good of the salvation of the world.
God’s hatred and wrath is manifested by our sinfulness and the deprivation of divine grace. God knows that sin, whether it be idolatry, theft, murder, adultery, etc., is it’s own punishment. The pleasure sought through sin is what disgraces and destroys us. God’s “hatred” and “wrath” is effected in us in that all grace, even the grace of repentance, is utterly removed and God literally leaves us to our own devices(Romans 1:18 and following).
God tolerates with patience those things which He has created but hates because He brings good even out of the sin and evil they commit(Romans 9:22-23).
IOW, God’s hatred and wrath is the same as God’s love. In God love and wrath and justice are all one. God’s love and wrath for the sinner or the reprobate is to let them have it their own way, and that way leads to hell, which according to divine law is the fulfillment of God’s justice.
When a sinner refuses to separate him/herself from the sin that they love more than God, they become the sin that they love. They have no identity apart from the sin that they love.
God practices what He preaches, He loves the sinner and hates the sin. People who confess their sinfulness are loved by God and granted mercy. Saints are ever acutely aware of their sinfulness before God. Whereas sinners insist that (they) “are d**n good”(as I saw once on a bumper sticker).
If God hates sin, then God also hates those sinners who refuse to repent and accept His mercy, who refuse to be detached from their favorite sins. God doesn’t “know” them because they do not possess the dignity and identity He gave them in creating them. They are no longer persons, but the putrid remains of a soul devoid of grace and dignity. They are “sin”, and thus along with sin receive His hatred and divine judgment against sin, death and hell.
But God’s hatred is not a human hatred which is obsessive and broods on slights and injury. It’s a detached hatred, and a just hatred.
K
KindredSoul
Guest
Hmm… Now that is the most–and only–reasonable argument I’ve heard for God hating anyone. A friend of mine has made a statement the implications of which would be quite similar. If, and only if, “they are no longer persons, but the putrid remains of a soul devoid of grace and dignity,” then I could see God hating the damned, for then He is not hating any “person” at all…but rather the spiritual equivalent of zombies from some horror film.
I will contemplate this. If there is compelling–and not merely suggestive–reason to believe that the Church teaches the damned to be “not persons”, then I could believe God hates them.
It’s hard for me to imagine such a thing being possible–becoming a “non-person” while still existing enough to experience the torments of Hell (how does a non-person even comprehend anything so profound as that?).
It’s also hard because, as someone who believes the Church when She says dying with even ONE unrepented mortal sin will send one to Hell, yet who has also committed mortal sins, I certainly have not ever become a two dimensional “non person” during those times, before I made it to confession, and I hardly think I’m so Holy as to have never committed a real mortal sin or to have ALWAYS had Perfect Contrition the instant of sinning…so my own personal experiences conflict with the idea that a person in mortal sin has literally become nothing but a “non-person putrid remains of a soul.” Perhaps there are people like that out there, but I would think they would have developed this state over many years and many mortal sins, left unrepented, not merely one. Or perhaps you would argue that all their previous sins were not mortal until the one that finally “tipped the scale” when they finally become “non-persons?” I’m not being facetious…I’m really curious as to how one would think this works…
So that’s why I have difficulty. But I would definitely be interested in finding compelling evidence that this is all the damned are.
I still believe that, even if this is true, in some small sense He loves them–though perhaps only as instruments to stand eternally for His justice–because I DO still hold that whatever God does not love in any way, in any form, WILL cease to exist in eternity. But this would indeed be only a pale shadow of the sort of love He would hold for the rest of Creation…
Definitely agreed on that. God’s hatred would not be like ours, in any event…
Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul
B
bisco
Guest
wow, i can’t believe how many ‘catholics’ reinterpret the church’s definition of hell, for their own peace of mind. must be an awful lot of unrepented sin.
G
glendab
Guest
Hello Kindred.
Glenda
It might make a strong case* except *there are Scriptures which speak of God’s hatred. God called all of Creation very good in the beginning, when Adam and Even were still in the garden, but sin entered in. Later on God is heard to say that He despised what He had made and wiped all of mankind and even the birds, bees and animals from the face of the earth. Had He not found Noah a man of integrity who would carry out His will, we never would have happened. That is pretty clear. I persist in my assertion that God can and does hate even persons. It is man’s sin that causes that. Consider it a mystery and let it go. “I have loved Jacob but I have hated Esau.” That is God talking. He is saying He hated someone. It is Scripture. Do not do as the Protestants do and misuse one Scripture passage to nullify another. They tend to pick and choose which Scriptures they believe are true and which to reject. It is part of the Mystery of God.
Glenda
G
glendab
Guest
Hello Kindred.
Oh and about this: God’s willing the good of the other by keeping them in existence in Hell is pure poppycock. It is a philosophical statement that God’s love wills folks into being, not an actual theological statement. If God’s willing of the damned’s existence in Hell is evidence of His love, I’d sure like to know how you drew that conclusion. I’d say a kindergartener would think the opposite - that it is evidence God didn’t love that person at all.
Glenda
You are misunderstanding Hell. I’ll try some simple logic. One description of Hell is the absence of God. If God is Love and Hell has no God in it, then there is no love in Hell. God cannot love someone in Hell because that would place some of what He is there and that cannot be. There is no God in Hell therefore there is no love there either.
Oh and about this: God’s willing the good of the other by keeping them in existence in Hell is pure poppycock. It is a philosophical statement that God’s love wills folks into being, not an actual theological statement. If God’s willing of the damned’s existence in Hell is evidence of His love, I’d sure like to know how you drew that conclusion. I’d say a kindergartener would think the opposite - that it is evidence God didn’t love that person at all.
Glenda
O
OneSheep
Guest
Yes, salvation is our choice. If we choose to reject salvation, God respects that. Would God “respect” an uninformed decision? A “yes” would not make sense to me in that case. Somehow, our eyes are opened, we are given an opportunity to see. Only the most stubborn would resist, but even so, they would not be able to resist Love when it becomes clear.
I would need to see the quote in context, but yes, we are all to be held accountable. That means, we are to answer for our sins. I think that is a great exercise in the here-and-now, to answer for our sins, as it leads to understanding. Everyone is to be held responsible for their own behaviors.
They do so in ignorance and/or blindness, though, in my observation. I have yet to find a counterexample.
In my observation, if they are perceiving that a false image is inconsequential, then this, in addition, would be a matter of ignorance or blindness.
In my observation of human nature, a person will take it upon themselves to correct an image when the falsehood is exposed.
We can rely on the parable of the workers in the vineyard and other parts of the gospel to see Jesus’ view on “reward”. The last shall be first, and the first shall be last. That means that the lazy and the cowards shall be first if we think of them as last. Jesus turns our compulsion for fairness upside down.
I respect your view on this, though. My own views are a manifestation of my own relationship. We all have different relationships.
K
KindredSoul
Guest
Simple logic? As though the only reason I disagree must be because your logic isn’t “simple” enough for me? Thanks for your condescension.
As for your “simple logic,” God’s being Love doesn’t mean that He literally IS every ACT of love. It means that all love flows FROM Him, and that His nature is to love. When I give someone food, that flows from God, but the act of me giving the food is not in ITSELF God, that would be idolatry. So too with an act of love–sustaining their existence–God would be giving to the souls in Hell.
Philosophical and not theological? Even the Scripture speaks of how something could not exist if God does not will it to be! As if something could exist in defiance of God, without His everlasting sustenance! As if God just “winds us up” like clocks and then we are independent of His will!
And as for a “kindergartener would think the opposite,” some would and some wouldn’t. I myself, from my earliest childhood memories, felt that nonexistence was the worst possible fate imaginable, and that scared me more than Hell ever could. That hasn’t changed after all these years. Perhaps some people are ungrateful enough for their existence that they would gladly throw such a beautiful gift away if that’s what it took to avoid the suffering of Hell. But as for me, I cherish that gift…it was God’s very first gift to me, and I wouldn’t want to throw it away for anything…not even to avoid Hell. That was just as true when I was a child–speaking from the ‘mouth of babes’ as you seem to imply–as it is now.
I am sorry, but to annihilate someone, or at least to annihilate ME (since God knows how I feel about nonexistence): THAT would be the ultimate act of hatred, FAR worse than any horrors or torments one could dream up in Hell. So yes, as long as God allows me to exist, I will consider this an act of love, whatever else could possibly happen to me–even hell. If I’m wrong, so be it. I would rather risk being wrong than risk not fully appreciating the beautiful, indescribable gift of existence God has given me. Period.
Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul
O
opusAquinas
Guest
Let’s equate God with love and metaphorically with light. Let’s equate hatred with darkness. There is no darkness in God, just as there is no hatred. OK? So, God hardened Pharaoh’s heart? What could that mean? He let Pharaoh go off into the darkness. God said without Him we can do nothing. So God gives all enough graces or lets call it sufficient warning to stay in the light. But only some receive the efficient warning that helps them remain. Now why God helps some more than others is from His mercy or love.
O
OneSheep
Guest
I can’t think of why a person who heard and understood all the arguments would find a conscientious decision cruel. For example, a pro-abortion person may “know” all the arguments against his stance, but understanding of the other point of view would mean that he would have to see the infinite value of the unborn, God’s presence in the unborn and all that such means. There is a difference between knowing and understanding. The crowd at the foot at the cross “knew” that they were supporting capital punishment, but they did not understand that they were destroying someone of infinite value. Jesus saw their lack of understanding.Why thanks!
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.
In addition, there is a problem when we want for ourselves or loved ones at the expense of another. This, in my observation, is a matter of ignorance or blindness. Only for ourselves? Such a person has a lot of growing to do, right? A growth in empathy.
Yes, the Church does assert some finality in death. However, with God, all things are possible, a loving possible. Does God somehow not have the power to allow a person to change the “disposition of their soul?” There is something non-omniscient-sounding about that, it doesn’t make sense.
That said, it may bring about a bit of fear for one to “let go” of the idea of a “God-who-gives-a-person-a-chance-after-death”. Such a God may seem a bit unfair, and also if this is the case one may fear that people would be less motivated to avoid sin, right?
I see what you are saying. We are both speaking in terms of projection, though. I know that my own dispositions change, and it is my observation that anyone’s disposition can change given the right conditions. I must admit that we do not have the know-how and skill to reach most sociopaths, but that doesn’t mean God does not have the power to do so. Your observations and personal experiences are probably different, and I can respect that.
Sorry, to me stories of fallen angels are metaphorical. We can agree to disagree on that one. It doesn’t compute as to why any aware creature would reject God. Anyway, in this thread I think we are talking about people. I don’t have any empirical knowledge of angels. (Not that the empirical is a limiting factor.)
O
OneSheep
Guest
Blessings to you also!
Yes, we cannot presume choices, but in my observation people always make good choices in the absence of ignorance and blindness. People who sin left and right know very little of God. In my observation, ignorance or blindness are essential ingredients in all sin. We can investigate this, if you like.Hmmm. “God is not mocked.” Well, a person who appears to be mocking God simply does not know God. Jesus was mocked, and they did not know Him. He forgave. This is the image that I stay with.
God does not have a chip on His shoulder. For this example, I really like the image of Foghorn Leghorn picking up the boisterous little chicken hawk. God is the God of humor. I like Cardinal Ratzinger’s saying God’s love is “foolish”. It’s an image of “Abba” that works for me
.
O
OneSheep
Guest
In theory, yes, such rejection can happen because man has free will. I just cannot think of a scenario of such rejection happening. We have been investigating this on the “knowing and willing” thread on this forum.
These are all matters of rejection due to ignorance and/or blindness.
They would not be following the dictates of their well formed consciences, if they had such. Conscience formation is a life-long process.
“Explicit rejection” is, in my experience, still a matter of ignorance or blindness. People have a lot to learn about the Love of God. People who think they know God, too, still have a lot to learn about the Love of God.
“Free of blame” is interesting language, especially in light of the Spanish word “desculpar”, (disblame) which is often equated with forgiveness. To forgive is to no longer blame, in a condemning sense. Is Guadium discouraging forgiveness here?
I am good friends with a kid who was raised by devout Catholics, went through confirmation, and is now an atheist. I don’t think he ever developed much of a relationship with Abba. Main thing: he is turned off by the politics of “religious people”. This doesn’t say much for his personal relationship. So, he rejects what he doesn’t know. His connection to God was hardly “intimate” and certainly not recognized as “vital”.
Bottom line: I cannot fathom a God who would reject anyone, and I cannot create a scenario by which any fully knowledgeable person would reject God. Therefore, I don’t see much likelihood of an “eternal punishment” occurring. A priest once told us, though, that “eternal” meant something different to Jesus’ contemporaries. It did not mean “forever”, but I do not fully remember the definition he gave.
A
Amandil
Guest
If I was unclear I apologize. Make no mistake, the souls of the reprobate are still human souls. God out of His love cannot nor will not destroy them because He is love and that love sustains their existence.
God’s hatred is no more blind than His love or justice. There is no deception or ignorance in God.
But we do it all the time. We speak of people “losing” themselves. Habitual sinners we refer to as “lost”. When I was an atheist I even spoke of myself as not knowing who I was anymore.
That is because mortal sin destroys divine life in us(sanctifying grace), it does not utterly remove all grace. By virtue of our baptism and the indelible mark left by it we retain the grace of repentance and conversion, “for the gift and the call of God is irrevocable”(Rom 11:29).
It would take a serious amount of mortal sin to quench the Spirit in such a way to silence that grace, and even then I don’t think it could be silenced completely.
The reprobate OTOH frankly do not possess such a grace.
One mortal sin unrepented is still enough to cost one eternally. And mortal sins added on top of that only further serve to destroy the soul in its natural state.
Even what we think are “small sins”, as St. Augustine once wrote, we must quake if we weigh them in their totality.
C.S. Lewis wrote in “The Screwtape Letters” of the seriousness of sins here.
Most especially disturbing is this final statement here: “You will say that these are very small sins; and doubtless, like all young tempters, you are anxious to be able to report spectacular wickedness. But do remember, the only thing that matters is the extent to which you separate the man from the Enemy.(God) It does not matter how small the sins are provided that their cumulative effect is to edge the man away from the Light and out into the Nothing. Murder is no better than cards if cards can do the trick. Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts…”
You may not find any real “evidence” on this side of existence. It seems as though its not really an “either-or” but a “both-and”. Its not that they are either persons or not persons, but rather that they are both persons and at the same time not persons.
In this “personhood” relative to our souls is specifically relative and dependent to our proximity to God. The closer we cling to God, the more we are ourselves. The more we move away from God, the less we are ourselves.
A
Amandil
Guest
Your assertion presupposes that God did not write His law onto all of our hearts(Romans 2:15).
Such a presupposition simply doesn’t exist. In regards to God, sin and the moral law, there is no such thing as an “uninformed decision”.
And if you think that there are people who would not refuse or resist Love, then you possess a rather myopic view of human nature, one that our Lord was not so naïve about.
Have you even read the Scriptures?
Romans 1:
[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.
[19] **For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. **
[20] Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;
[21] for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.
[22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
[23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
[24] Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
[25] because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
[26] For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
[27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
[28] And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.
[29] They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips,
[30] slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
[31] foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
[32] Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.
Jesus said in Matthew 12, “1.[36] I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter.”
If on the day of judgment we must render an account for every “careless” word we utter, I guarantee you we must render an account for everything else as well.
We are called NOT to be ignorant in regards to sin. So ignorance, carelessness, intellectual laziness or cowardice I guarantee you will be no excuse either. That’s not innocent ignorance, but dishonest ignorance. It’s like avoiding going to the doctor when you know that you’re ill or avoiding the assignment board at work because you are afraid that you’ll get some unpleasant duty.
No. Those are rationalizations, not reasons. Dishonest ignorance, not innocent ignorance.
Sure, “sin obscures sight”. But the fact of human nature and natural law remains. They KNOW that they ought not to sin. They know that what they are doing is sinful. That knowledge is sufficient to cost them their eternal souls. Period.
A
Amandil
Guest
cont’d
You think other sin is any less addictive than cocaine or alcohol or any drug? Hardly.
Your observation simply just isn’t realistic.
This presumes that people are rational when it comes to the addiction of sin. So clearly your beginning observation is incorrect. Coke addicts know that their addiction, even before they were caught up in the addiction, is deadly and self-destructive, yet they still snorted the cocaine, and continue to snort it, despite this knowledge. They continue to abuse cocaine even when it saps their bank accounts, deteriorates their health, destroys their family bonds. Even after repeated attempts at “interventions” cocaine addicts can and do continue to abuse the drug. They know the falsehood of cocaine, but they do it anyway.
You think other sin is any less addictive than cocaine or alcohol or any drug? Hardly.
Your observation simply just isn’t realistic.
That’s not at all what Jesus is conveying in the parable. He’s conveying the difference between the Jews(who were the first), and then the Gentiles and the rest of the saved(who will be the last), and that both Jews and Gentiles called to the Vineyard(the Church) will receive the same reward.We can rely on the parable of the workers in the vineyard and other parts of the gospel to see Jesus’ view on “reward”. The last shall be first, and the first shall be last. That means that the lazy and the cowards shall be first if we think of them as last. Jesus turns our compulsion for fairness upside down.
K
KindredSoul
Guest
I understood that the souls are still human souls, so no worries that you were being unclear.
I think, after some reflection, I could understand better what you meant by “putrid remains of a human soul”–a soul that still exists and has experience, but has no other thoughts, motives, nor depth than sin, perhaps coupled with hatred and vitriol for God’s Holiness.I’m really glad to hear that we agree on the highlighted part. To me it is so important to recognize just what a lovely gift existence is, so that it must be God’s love that sustains it.
Oh yes, I do believe it’s possible. I’ve just never seen it (nor personally experienced it) outside of scenarios where the sin is both habitual and habitually unrepented. If even one unrepented Mortal Sin can send one to hell, though, which means some people (probably) go to Hell who have not yet reached that point, then it would seem that surely some people go to Hell despite not being in that state where they are empty echoes of themselves, so to speak. Which would make it seem that at least some of the damned are still more than mere putrid remains of souls.
Wise and true words! My concern was more so the fact that even one mortal sin, if one died even two minutes after committing it and hadn’t repented, would send one to Hell even though one hadn’t yet followed that “gentle slope” to its conclusion.
Alas, you’re right. That doesn’t mean I’m unwilling to believe it, provided it makes the most sense to me, because something can be true of course even IF there is no real “evidence.” I just want to understand the concept better.
I completely agree with this.
Thanks for your responses to me so far, and for this chance at respectful dialogue on this matter.
Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul
A
Amandil
Guest
So am I. Sometimes in such matters people can get so hung up in needing to have things understood in “their way” that two people saying the same thing just in different ways or with different emphasises winds up being an opportunity for the devil to step in.I understood that the souls are still human souls, so no worries that you were being unclear.
I’m really glad to hear that we agree on the highlighted part. To me it is so important to recognize just what a lovely gift existence is, so that it must be God’s love that sustains it.
Oh yes, I do believe it’s possible. I’ve just never seen it (nor personally experienced it) outside of scenarios where the sin is both habitual and habitually unrepented. If even one unrepented Mortal Sin can send one to hell, though, which means some people (probably) go to Hell who have not yet reached that point, then it would seem that surely some people go to Hell despite not being in that state where they are empty echoes of themselves, so to speak. Which would make it seem that at least some of the damned are still more than mere putrid remains of souls.
Wise and true words! My concern was more so the fact that even one mortal sin, if one died even two minutes after committing it and hadn’t repented, would send one to Hell even though one hadn’t yet followed that “gentle slope” to its conclusion.
Alas, you’re right. That doesn’t mean I’m unwilling to believe it, provided it makes the most sense to me, because something can be true of course even IF there is no real “evidence.” I just want to understand the concept better.
I completely agree with this.
Thanks for your responses to me so far, and for this chance at respectful dialogue on this matter.
Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul
I praise God that we have in us the same Spirit working.
O
onenow1
Guest
You are thinking in human standards, His justice is true love, you get what you want, not what He wants for you. He does not interfere with our will unless we want Him to. As Jesus said not my will but yours Father.
God Bless
onenow1
T
tonyrey
Guest
Another question that begs the question!
- Status