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

[Amandil]

God gave all beings to Christ THAT HE MIGHT SAVE THEM. “Thou hast given him power over all flesh, THAT HE SHOULD GIVE ETERNAL LIFE TO AS MANY AS THOU HAST GIVEN HIM.” (John 17:2) This plainly evinces, that it was God’s design, in giving Christ dominion over all flesh, that they should all enjoy eternal life.

1. It is CERTAIN that Christ will save all that the Father hath given him. “All that the Father giveth me, SHALL COME TO ME, and him that cometh to me I WILL IN NOWISE CAST OUT.” (John 6:37) These three propositions are irrefragable evidence of the final happiness of all men. 1st, God hath given all things to Christ. 2nd, all that God hath given him shall come to him. 3rd, him that cometh he will in nowise cast out. All are given; all shall come; and none shall be cast out. What is the unavoidable conclusion?

Do you care to provide a source for where you got this from?

 

[tdgesq]

I’m not sure why Catholics here are debating whether the punishment of the damned is eternal or not. The Church has spoken de fide on this issue, and there is no room for contrary philosophical speculation on the matter:

He will come at the end of the world to judge the living and the dead and will render to the reprobate and to the elect according to their works. Who all shall rise with their own bodies which they now have that they may receive according to their merits, whether good or bad, the latter eternal punishment with the devil, the former eternal glory with Christ. Lateran IV Council, Canon 1.

Whether any human being ultimately chooses eternal separation from God is another issue, but the question of whether the punishments of hell are eternal is not up for debate.

 

[Amandil]

How do you know what you have an obligation to know?

Now you’re jus being absurd.

The “law written in our hearts” is the guidance of Love itself. It is when charity and good deeds come from loving one another and not from a list of rules.

False dichotomy. The Church says that law and love are synonymous.

Here is a key question: If there were no rules, would I still do good for those around me and not hurt people? If my answer is yes, then the law is written in my heart, I have taken ownership of the rules at the deepest level. If my answer is no, then that has not taken place, the rule appeals to “fear” or “being good” but not to empathic response.

Again, you contradict Scripture:
1 Timothy 1: 8] Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully,
[9] understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane

What I am saying is that the law is in there, but we have to experience life in order to have access to it.

Again, where you stand runs contrary to Scripture. There is nothing there which says that we have to “experience” sin, or “life” as you put it, in order to know to avoid sinful acts.

Okay, let us discuss politicians in general who support abortion. We are seeing what type of blindness or ignorance is involved: “willful” or “automatic”. To do this, let us try to determine why politician “X” believes in funding abortions.

Why does X believe in funding abortions?

Now you’re shifting again. You wanted a “specific example”. I gave you one. Now you’re backpedaling.

Nancy Pelosi is on the record for specifically denying the Church’s teaching on abortion. Please explain how this is due to “ignorance” or “blindness”? Or cede the point.

How do you know that you have an obligation to know? We can say, “because the authority says so.” Does the person know that the authority is The Authority? How?

I can sympathize with someone who is an habitual sinner and knows that what he is doing is sinful. Who is truly and utterly weak in regards to his sin yet is really trying his hardest not to fall to his own weakness. and is doing His best to depend upon the grace of God and increase in virtue. This is an honest person.

I have a seriously hard time sympathizing with someone who is a habitual sinner and no matter how ridiculous and absurdly he acts, no matter how self-destructive the myriad of consequences, yet claims that he’s done nothing wrong. That he’s “following” his “conscience”, yet refuses to do anything to advance beyond his pathetically miserable state. Who doesn’t know that he ought to do more than bury his head in the sand or repeatedly beat his head over and over again against the same brick wall. Who doesn’t know not to stick a piece of metal into a light socket; who doesn’t know not to slam his own hand in a car door; who doesn’t know not to point a loaded gun at his head and pull the trigger.

In the same vein I have a seriously hard time sympathizing with someone who knows that there is only One God, that we are not to take His name in vain, that we are not to murder, to dishonor our parents, to commit adultery or to fornicate, to lie, to cheat, to steal, to covet other people’s things; does them, and claims that he didn’t know, or that he was “blinded”.

This is a dishonest person.

And you can’t argue your way around it.

 

[Amandil]

I’m not sure why Catholics here are debating whether the punishment of the damned is eternal or not. The Church has spoken de fide on this issue, and there is no room for contrary philosophical speculation on the matter:

He will come at the end of the world to judge the living and the dead and will render to the reprobate and to the elect according to their works. Who all shall rise with their own bodies which they now have that they may receive according to their merits, whether good or bad, the latter eternal punishment with the devil, the former eternal glory with Christ. Lateran IV Council, Canon 1.

Whether any human being ultimately chooses eternal separation from God is another issue, but the question of whether the punishments of hell are eternal is not up for debate.

I don’t know either. This false appeal sentimentality comes from the like of Fr. Barron and Hans Urs vanBalthasar. Tragically it’s gaining popularity because of its sentimentality.

Someone I read once wrote: “Soft heads are just as much as a deadly spiritual danger as hard hearts.”

Soft heads seem to be running rather rampant around here.

 

[tdgesq]

So far as I know, Balthasar and Fr. Barron both believe(d) that the punishment of hell lasts for eternity. I know Balthasar rejected the Apocatastasis doctrine of Origen in that regard.

 

[Amandil]

Okay, so we are talking about “eternal punishment” so the “and when they come back” part goes away, at least in the standard interpretation.

So, would you allow one of your children to make this very bad choice, the choice to live in heaven or hell, without knowing why it is a bad choice? Would you say, “Don’t do it because I said so.” and leave it at that, or would you do all you can to make your child aware of the consequences? And I mean really aware, deeply aware, profoundly aware.

I already answered this. Why are you asking the same thing again?

What if it were the choice for your child deciding to join an aggressor in fighting an unjust war, in which many, many innocent lives are to be lost by his hand? There is so much loss to occur, and these losses cannot simply be undone. Wouldn’t you go further than “You do “X” and “Y” will happen to you. If that’s what you want, have at it.”?

That’s called respecting his freedom, OneSheep. If he cannot be convinced by reason that what he’s doing is wrong and that he’s set on doing it there’s nothing that’s going to stop him.

What are you suggesting be done?

Kill him before he kills others?

Would you not do all you can to show the value of the innocents involved? Would you not plead, beg, bribe, do everything you can, to stop the choice?

So IOW you’d violate his nature and his person, possibly committing sins yourself against him and whoever else, just to get your own way?

My child would only be able to go kicking and screaming against me to such a war.

And you would do nothing but drive him more to the desire of wanting to go to war. The only thing you’d accomplish is to harden him against you, causing him to do the very thing you want him to avoid.

See the irony of just how absurd such sentimentality is? And how wise God is in His ways in respecting our freedom.

Knowing is more than just listening to reason, knowing involves incorporation of the reason, seeing why the commandment is important. We can agree to disagree on this.

Knowing is both listening AND the incorporation of reason.

Yes, some people give up on trying to change their ways. This is hopelessness. What is God’s response to hopelessness? More demands? More imperatives? Won’t help. People have to suffer, then comes the light. Then they will listen.

This is unrealistically optimistic. They suffer and either they see the light and listen, or they will ignore the lesson and will suffer more later. That’s the natural law: sin is its own punishment.

When people do not care what happens to them, how do we influence them to care? Through love. And through love, people listen. Of this, I am convinced.

Sometimes love is a 2x4 across your forehead, or a car accident for someone who drives drunk. Or an near-lethal overdose for a drug addict.

I follow C.S. Lewis on this in that this is why God created such a dangerous world and permits such calamities upon us. When we are in danger the whole moral world is forced upon us in such a way that it is never experienced before. The sheer recognition of our mortality in such an event, followed by shame and self-loathing at our own sinfulness and weakness, thus consequently possibly leading to true repentance and humility, is the way God truly shows forth His love. Not through mere sentiment.

 

[Amandil]

So far as I know, Balthasar and Fr. Barron both believe(d) that the punishment of hell lasts for eternity. I know Balthasar rejected the Apocatastasis doctrine of Origen in that regard.

Then they are drastically misunderstanding or over-emphasizing the sentimentality of their works to an extent that neither of them intended.

Not the first time its happened.

 

[Mark121359]

Hello Mark.

Beautiful post but can you please provide the links to the various quotations you use. it would be most helpful both for those of us who support them as well as those who oppose. Those who oppose could go there and perhaps have their poor hearts opened.

Glenda

Here you go glendab. By the way, there’s many, many more Saints’ quotes here including many Doctors of the Church. What I posted is literally a drop in the bucket. God Bless You!
saintsquotes.net/selection%20-%20fewness.html
romancatholicism.org/jansenism/fathers-fewness.html
olrl.org/snt_docs/fewness.shtml

Peace, Mark

 

[OneSheep]

Whew, Amandil, its getting a bit lengthy. I’m going to pick-and-choose a bit.

My quote:

How do you know what you have an obligation to know?

Now you’re jus being absurd.

Hmmm. Okay, you think I’m being absurd. Now, try answering the question. How do you know what items you have an obligation to know? We can say, “because the authority says so.” Does the person know that the authority is The Authority? How? How do you know whether entire categories of knowledge exist? How can you know?

False dichotomy. The Church says that law and love are synonymous.

Let’s see that in context, and we can discuss it.

Again, you contradict Scripture:
1 Timothy 1: 8] Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully,
[9] understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane

Again, where you stand runs contrary to Scripture. There is nothing there which says that we have to “experience” sin, or “life” as you put it, in order to know to avoid sinful acts.

We are born ignorant, Amandil. What I am saying does not contradict this scripture. It takes awareness to be in touch with the law within, and that awareness develops through experience and teachings.

There is nothing in scripture that says we do not learn from our mistakes, nor that mistakes do not help inform our conscience.

Now you’re shifting again. You wanted a “specific example”. I gave you one. Now you’re backpedaling.

Nancy Pelosi is on the record for specifically denying the Church’s teaching on abortion. Please explain how this is due to “ignorance” or “blindness”? Or cede the point.

I find it a bit uncharitable to talk about a specific person, is all.

I’ll tell you what, I will look up her position.

Hmmm. It appears that her position is not on her website! Small wonder…
So, now her position is open to complete speculation. We know that she adamantly supports funding abortions. She obviously knows that the Church says she is wrong, and she is. However, she is very righteous about allowing abortions, she even described the “right” to have a late-term abortion as “sacred”. oof.

All condemnation aside, (we are called to forgive if we hold anything against her) let us go to the question, again, whether the blindness or ignorance is willed or automatic. Let us start with the question at the root of the issue. “Why does N.P. support abortion?”

I can sympathize with someone who is an habitual sinner and knows that what he is doing is sinful. Who is truly and utterly weak in regards to his sin yet is really trying his hardest not to fall to his own weakness. and is doing His best to depend upon the grace of God and increase in virtue. This is an honest person.

I have a seriously hard time sympathizing with someone who is a habitual sinner and no matter how ridiculous and absurdly he acts, no matter how self-destructive the myriad of consequences, yet claims that he’s done nothing wrong…

In the same vein I have a seriously hard time sympathizing with someone who knows that there is only One God, that we are not to take His name in vain, that we are not to murder, to dishonor our parents, to commit adultery or to fornicate, to lie, to cheat, to steal, to covet other people’s things; does them, and claims that he didn’t know, or that he was “blinded”…
.

Regardless the claim, the topic at hand is whether God would relent. Sympathy is a bit different than empathy. It sounds like you have an easier time empathizing with the first person, but not the next two. What we expect of Abba’s response is going to be a matter of projection. God is going to be as lenient, or as condemning, as we are. We only have one frame of reference, when it comes down to it.

 

[RaphaelJ]

Eternal punishment, as in for ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and …, for temporal wrongdoing, sounds to me to go way beyond the “eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”.

Understandably, it is wrong if seen in this way. If hell is simply punishment for temporal wrongdoing then it is unjust. However, because of this, I believe hell is better seen as self-exclusion from God which is what the Catechism states. By mortal sin, we willingly cut ourselves off from God. By repentance, we willingly restore ourselves to God. By God’s grace, we may be moved but He never forces us to willingly go back to Him. He respects free will too much. Which is why I see that hell is the logical conclusion.
On the other hand, can someone give a Bible verse that states that hell is temporary? It seems to me that a “second death” as mentioned in Scriptures cannot be temporary.

 

[arte]

I completely understand the faith, logic, and reasoning you are subscribing to here. But then I have to think of times in my life when I was a miserable sinner, and the feeling of having that sin lifted and opening my heart to the light of God, turning my back and resisting evil and evil temptations, the freedom from bondage.

I also think to the dark evil out there in the hearts of people who, like one of the interrogators written about in the news who works for the Assad regime. A 13 year old boy was picked up by the Syrian secret police and tortured in ways over a period that rival or goes beyond what the Nazis did in Europe. People like John Wayne Gacey. Souls so devoid of any sense of compassion that it defies any sense of humanity or reason.

I cannot see into the hearts of men the way our Lord or God does, but I have to ask: Was there a time that Hitler picked a flower from a garden and marveled at the beauty of it? How did he go from that one act of kindness or maybe even others, to one of the most notorious butchers in recorded history? The answer most likely is, one sin at a time.

There are those who fall victim to sin, and are corrupted by their victimization. Other victims resist and channel their pain into preventing others from becoming victims. Perhaps those who sin as a result of bitterness from the injuries done to them by others receive some sort of dispensation… I have no idea. But for those who become totally devoid of love or the light, can Heaven possibly exist for such people? I don’t think they would even like it there.

Hi Esieffe,
Many thanks for understanding the faith, logic, and reasoning behind my post. It’s amazing how Hitler’s name always comes up in a discussion on the proposed non existence of Hell. His name is also normally followed by some of the lowest of the low in mankind. Your story is similar in a way to mine in that I am a returned Catholic. I felt like you did after I went to confession and had my sins removed. I am not ashamed to say that I actually cried in the car afterwards; such was the feeling of joy from turning away from sin and returning to God. My only regret was not doing it earlier. I could have made a much happier life for my wife, family, friends, other people and myself. The cases of that poor Syrian boy being tortured and John Gacey are horrendous. And, there are possibly several thousand if not millions of other souls so devoid of any sense of compassion that it defies any sense of humanity or reason. The problem with the belief in Hell is that the above degenerates of the human race will be a small minority of the many billions that will find themselves in Hell. I have explained in an earlier post that amongst these many billions will be billions of children. The vast majority of mankind from the past, the present, and the future will go to Hell. And, God knew this was going to happen well before He created the human race. Hell is described as TORTURE 24/7 for ETERNITY and BILLIONS of CHILDREN are in Hell. Therefore, I ask myself, you and anyone else reading this post who is the more evil: Hitler, the Syrian torturer, John Gacey, etc or God? We can all wax lyrical about free will but our free will should never lead to torture and whatever punishment (torture in the case of Hell) should never be for an eternity. I know that I have said no torture but the likes of Hitler etc could be deemed to be special cases. In the blink of an eye, God could make them feel the physical and mental torment of all the people that their evil has affected. He could then change their hearts or if He wants them to do it themselves wait for them to change. As human beings, we think of punishment and reward. Even after making them feel the physical and mental torment of their sins, God could put Hitler etc into a maximum security prison for a million years with a lesser sentence for other degenerates. Those who sin as a result of bitterness from the injuries done to them by others could also have a lesser sentence. After their prison time and if they have not had a change of heart, God could either put them back in prison or simply destroy their souls completely. I cannot envision souls being stained after feeling the torment of their sins and serving their punishment so that God would have to destroy them. Souls with any form of sin on them cannot enter Heaven. All souls in Heaven, even those that have had major sins removed, will like it there. For the majority of mankind who are not like Hitler etc, surely God has another way of dealing with their sins without having to resort to torture 24/7 for an eternity. There is no way that society will break down as some people have said in this forum if religions were to remove the fear of God and the fear of Hell. In fact, the opposite would happen. Society would see a lining up of God’s love with His treatment of us in the after life and more people would want God in their lives.

 

[Amandil]

Hmmm. Okay, you think I’m being absurd. Now, try answering the question. How do you know what items you have an obligation to know? We can say, “because the authority says so.” Does the person know that the authority is The Authority? How? How do you know whether entire categories of knowledge exist? How can you know?

Let’s see that in context, and we can discuss it.

We are born ignorant, Amandil. What I am saying does not contradict this scripture. It takes awareness to be in touch with the law within, and that awareness develops through experience and teachings.

We are not born “ignorant” to the moral law, OneSheep. You are in fact violating Scripture and Church teaching on this.

Romans 2:[11] For God shows no partiality.
[12] All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.
[13] For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

There is nothing in scripture that says we do not learn from our mistakes, nor that mistakes do not help inform our conscience.

That’s not what I said and its besides the point.

Hmmm. It appears that her position is not on her website! Small wonder…
So, now her position is open to complete speculation. We know that she adamantly supports funding abortions. She obviously knows that the Church says she is wrong, and she is. However, she is very righteous about allowing abortions, she even described the “right” to have a late-term abortion as “sacred”. oof.

All condemnation aside, (we are called to forgive if we hold anything against her) let us go to the question, again, whether the blindness or ignorance is willed or automatic. Let us start with the question at the root of the issue. “Why does N.P. support abortion?”

You’re already giving her an escape hatch. The better question is “Why does Nancy Pelosi support abortion in spite of Church teaching?” That she does is sufficient to make her sin mortal. That she does it publically adds the sin of scandal on top of it.

As to “why”, that question is simply irrelevant.

CCC 1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

Abortion, since it is murder, is always directly illicit because of its object absent the intent or circumstances.

Regardless the claim, the topic at hand is whether God would relent. Sympathy is a bit different than empathy. It sounds like you have an easier time empathizing with the first person, but not the next two. What we expect of Abba’s response is going to be a matter of projection. God is going to be as lenient, or as condemning, as we are. We only have one frame of reference, when it comes down to it.

Again, this violates Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Clearly the goats in Matthew 25 did not condemn themselves at all, they were so hardened and indifferent they didn’t even bother to see Jesus in the people they ignored and alienated. Jesus condemned them for their indifference all the same. Clearly the goats thought that they did nothing wrong and neither needed to repent nor seek forgiveness.

“Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick;
[32] I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

The “righteous” who believe in their own “righteousness”(that they are “good”), and who justify themselves before God will be condemned. Sinners who confess their sin and bow and beg for God’s mercy will be healed and saved.

 

[Amandil]

The problem with the belief in Hell is that the above degenerates of the human race will be a small minority of the many billions that will find themselves in Hell.

Who precisely are you referring to as “degenerates”?

I have explained in an earlier post that amongst these many billions will be billions of children. The vast majority of mankind from the past, the present, and the future will go to Hell. And, God knew this was going to happen well before He created the human race. Hell is described as TORTURE 24/7 for ETERNITY and BILLIONS of CHILDREN are in Hell.

Aside from the dreadful appeal to emotion, human souls, which either possibly end up in heaven or hell, do not exist in eternity as children.

So “children” are not in hell, arte. Such appeals make you look rather foolish.

Therefore, I ask myself, you and anyone else reading this post who is the more evil: Hitler, the Syrian torturer, John Gacey, etc or God?

All except the last.

We can all wax lyrical about free will but our free will should never lead to torture and whatever punishment (torture in the case of Hell) should never be for an eternity.

And excessive drinking of alcohol and drug should never lead to mental and physical dependence. Nobody should be poor and hungry and homeless and we should all live in giant castles in the sky with all of our wants tended to.

In the real world, arte, temporal choices do in fact have eternal consequences.

Nor do you understand the nature of the torture of the reprobate.

What’s worse is that you assume that the torture in hell is suppose to have some purpose. You are sorely mistaken.

I know that I have said no torture but the likes of Hitler etc could be deemed to be special cases. In the blink of an eye, God could make them feel the physical and mental torment of all the people that their evil has affected. He could then change their hearts or if He wants them to do it themselves wait for them to change.

IOW, God must act the Tyrant and override someone’s will so that you can feel more comfortable?

Or He must keep them physically alive past the point of the natural world-weariness which eventually falls upon people just so they “eventually” come to the state which you prefer for them and which may never come? Which may in fact only exacerbate the problem and prolong their hardness of heart the more God keeps them alive in their advanced age and infirmity?

After their prison time and if they have not had a change of heart, God could either put them back in prison or simply destroy their souls completely.

Divine euthanasia. How pragmatically "kind and “compassionate”. You would have God treat human souls like you would a dying horse. How noble.

I cannot envision souls being stained after feeling the torment of their sins and serving their punishment so that God would have to destroy them.

You absurdly think that the punishment of hell “serves a purpose” when it doesn’t. God didn’t create hell, we did. Purposes are necessarily directed towards some good, there is no good in hell, no purpose.

The souls of the reprobate are tortured with the very fires of God’s love. The very fires of God’s love which the saints embrace in heaven are the same fires which torment the reprobate in hell. They cannot love anything but themselves and/or their sins. They have no more will or individuality left; it begs the question if they are even persons.

For the majority of mankind who are not like Hitler etc, surely God has another way of dealing with their sins without having to resort to torture 24/7 for an eternity.

Not without in some way violating human nature, which is precisely what you are advocating.

There is no way that society will break down as some people have said in this forum if religions were to remove the fear of God and the fear of Hell. In fact, the opposite would happen. Society would see a lining up of God’s love with His treatment of us in the after life and more people would want God in their lives.

You apparently haven’t been paying attention to the news because Society is already breaking down because of modernist-secular-progressive ideas which you are espousing.

Jesus is a “bleeding heart liberal” to those who seek Him for mercy and forgiveness and is “hard-headed” and unyielding as a Rock to those who refuse. Jesus is both, at once, soft-hearted and hard-headed because He is both Truth and Love.

 

[simpleas]

Hi Esieffe,
Many thanks for understanding the faith, logic, and reasoning behind my post. It’s amazing how Hitler’s name always comes up in a discussion on the proposed non existence of Hell. His name is also normally followed by some of the lowest of the low in mankind. Your story is similar in a way to mine in that I am a returned Catholic. I felt like you did after I went to confession and had my sins removed. I am not ashamed to say that I actually cried in the car afterwards; such was the feeling of joy from turning away from sin and returning to God. My only regret was not doing it earlier. I could have made a much happier life for my wife, family, friends, other people and myself. The cases of that poor Syrian boy being tortured and John Gacey are horrendous. And, there are possibly several thousand if not millions of other souls so devoid of any sense of compassion that it defies any sense of humanity or reason. The problem with the belief in Hell is that the above degenerates of the human race will be a small minority of the many billions that will find themselves in Hell. I have explained in an earlier post that amongst these many billions will be billions of children. The vast majority of mankind from the past, the present, and the future will go to Hell. And, God knew this was going to happen well before He created the human race. Hell is described as TORTURE 24/7 for ETERNITY and BILLIONS of CHILDREN are in Hell. Therefore, I ask myself, you and anyone else reading this post who is the more evil: Hitler, the Syrian torturer, John Gacey, etc or God? We can all wax lyrical about free will but our free will should never lead to torture and whatever punishment (torture in the case of Hell) should never be for an eternity. I know that I have said no torture but the likes of Hitler etc could be deemed to be special cases. In the blink of an eye, God could make them feel the physical and mental torment of all the people that their evil has affected. He could then change their hearts or if He wants them to do it themselves wait for them to change. As human beings, we think of punishment and reward. Even after making them feel the physical and mental torment of their sins, God could put Hitler etc into a maximum security prison for a million years with a lesser sentence for other degenerates. Those who sin as a result of bitterness from the injuries done to them by others could also have a lesser sentence. After their prison time and if they have not had a change of heart, God could either put them back in prison or simply destroy their souls completely. I cannot envision souls being stained after feeling the torment of their sins and serving their punishment so that God would have to destroy them. Souls with any form of sin on them cannot enter Heaven. All souls in Heaven, even those that have had major sins removed, will like it there. For the majority of mankind who are not like Hitler etc, surely God has another way of dealing with their sins without having to resort to torture 24/7 for an eternity. There is no way that society will break down as some people have said in this forum if religions were to remove the fear of God and the fear of Hell. In fact, the opposite would happen. Society would see a lining up of God’s love with His treatment of us in the after life and more people would want God in their lives.

Billions of children are in hell? Are you serious?

 

[glendab]

Hello OneSheep.

I’m sorry, feel free to ask the direct question.

Uh, saints can alter God’s will?

Absolutely. Ever read about the Wedding Feast at Cana? when at the request of a certain Saint God changed water into wine although His hour had not yet come? Oh you of little faith.

Glenda

 

[Amandil]

Hello OneSheep.

Absolutely. Ever read about the Wedding Feast at Cana? when at the request of a certain Saint God changed water into wine although His hour had not yet come? Oh you of little faith.

Glenda

That’s not exactly what He meant by that idiom.

What He was saying was essentially this: "Mom, if I do this thing, it will require Me revealing Myself to the world, and from there it’s a straight road to Calvary. " She didn’t change His mind, He was reminding her what it would mean if He did this thing.

That’s why she says, “Do whatever He tells you.”

He knew what He was going to do the whole time, she didn’t change it.

 

[glendab]

Hello tdgesq.

I’m not sure why Catholics here are debating whether the punishment of the damned is eternal or not. The Church has spoken de fide on this issue, and there is no room for contrary philosophical speculation on the matter:

He will come at the end of the world to judge the living and the dead and will render to the reprobate and to the elect according to their works. Who all shall rise with their own bodies which they now have that they may receive according to their merits, whether good or bad, the latter eternal punishment with the devil, the former eternal glory with Christ. Lateran IV Council, Canon 1.

Whether any human being ultimately chooses eternal separation from God is another issue, but the question of whether the punishments of hell are eternal is not up for debate.

You don’t understand? I’ll clear it up for you - some of the Catholics who express themselves here and elsewhere at CAF are actually heretics. The “de fide” part is part of the definition of heresy and they’ve incurred an automatic excommunication according to CC 1364, 1. Oh well. Surprise! And it really is funky when you consider the topic being discussed.

Glenda

 

[glendab]

Hello OneSheep.

Whew, Amandil, its getting a bit lengthy. How do you know what items you have an obligation to know? We can say, “because the authority says so.” Does the person know that the authority is The Authority? How? How do you know whether entire categories of knowledge exist? How can you know?..Let’s see that in context, and we can discuss it…God is going to be as lenient, or as condemning, as we are. We only have one frame of reference, when it comes down to it.

I’m jumping in between you and Amandil for a moment here, OneSheep.

Ever since Moses was handed the Tablets containing the Law and came down the mountain to deliver them to the people, that’s exactly how we know and for how long. That is the place where the context you wish to discuss is. Your other questions in the above thread would be appropriate coming from an Atheist who requires proofs of God’s existence. The knowledge all Christians have of the 10 Commandments is sufficient knowledge. The rest of your questions could only come from a person who has completely renounced the teaching Authority of the Church. Is that the impression you’d like to give?

As for the last comment you make, I’m afraid you are creating God in your own image. By saying that God will be as lenient or condemning as a person himself is says that God is going to act according to that person’s image of God and according to that person’s will. That is absurd and since such absurdities are coming from a Christian, I have only one conclusion to assume.

Glenda

 

[OneSheep]

We are not born “ignorant” to the moral law, OneSheep. You are in fact violating Scripture and Church teaching on this.

Romans 2:[11] For God shows no partiality.
[12] All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.
[13] For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

That’s not what I said and its besides the point.

The verse from Romans does not contest what I stated. Humans are born almost completely ignorant. If you ask a 2-year-old about moral law, you are only going to get a partial list, if very much at all. With experience, teachings, and so forth the law within becomes revealed to him, his conscience is informed. To me, our conscience is informed over a lifetime. It is not an on/off switch. Can you give an example of a person who is completely perfect in conscience? Name that person, and we can ask him how he got to be perfect.

Learning from our mistakes is not beside the point, it supports the point. Conscience is developed.

You’re already giving her an escape hatch. The better question is “Why does Nancy Pelosi support abortion in spite of Church teaching?” That she does is sufficient to make her sin mortal. That she does it publically adds the sin of scandal on top of it.

As to “why”, that question is simply irrelevant.

CCC 1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

Abortion, since it is murder, is always directly illicit because of its object absent the intent or circumstances.

Yes, it is an error to judge by considering only the intention. It is also an error to avoid seeking the intention, if we are trying to understand the roots of sin. The point of this aspect of our discussion is “what kind of blindness or ignorance does N.P. have, is it automatic or willed?”

Why does Nancy Pelosi support abortion in spite of Church teaching? Why is she supporting abortion? Feel free to answer the questions together.

Clearly the goats in Matthew 25 did not condemn themselves at all, they were so hardened and indifferent they didn’t even bother to see Jesus in the people they ignored and alienated. Jesus condemned them for their indifference all the same. Clearly the goats thought that they did nothing wrong and neither needed to repent nor seek forgiveness.

“Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick;
[32] I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

The “righteous” who believe in their own “righteousness”(that they are “good”), and who justify themselves before God will be condemned. Sinners who confess their sin and bow and beg for God’s mercy will be healed and saved.

So, if I am uncharitable to someone else, am I so hardened and indifferent? If I always assume the worst about the comments of the other, am I hardened and indifferent? The key point at the end of Matthew 25 is that God is in all of us, and how do we treat one another? Do we treat one another as we would God Himself? In my “righteousness” do I berate, belittle, and point fingers? When I do, I do so in ignorance. Do I treat everyone else as I would my own child, my own mother?

Yes, there is going to be some eye-opening going on after we die. Plenty of eye-opening goes on during life, right? We realize when we have hurt someone in some way. And when we do realize what we have done, our normal - but developing - conscience catches on and does give us hell to pay. Our conscience does, indeed, torture us in an “everlasting” way, that is, until forgiveness takes place. If I never forgive myself, I am tortured forever. If a person refuses to forgive himself, he is tortured forever. By his own conscience.

Can you imagine what it would be like to be neglecting while driving a car, and killing a young child? How does one forgive oneself? I know a guy for years tortured by such an occurrence. This occurrence would obviously trigger the guilt of almost any adult. This same trigger, in a perfect conscience, would occur with any hurt upon another. It takes experience, though, to realize the pain that we cause others.

No one says, “I am going to make myself feel guilty for awhile”. It doesn’t work that way. The guilt we feel is a triggered response. It does not go away except through prayer, understanding, and reconciliation within.

A key question in this discussion is perhaps not “Does God relent?”, because it is clear that it our choice, not Gods’, that lands us there. A key question is “does my conscience relent?”. Am I ever going to forgive myself for doing such wrong in my life? Am I ever going to escape the torture of remembering the hurt and awful things I have done to others? Answer: Yes, through understanding, prayer, forgiveness and reconciliation. Then, our conscience does relent.

Did you give up on the question, “how do you know what you do not know?”? You see, it is not circular. It ends. Every individual, in humility, must admit that there may be huge categories of knowledge that are beyond our knowing, and we may not encounter them for some time. How do we even know that those categories are out there? We do not.

 

[OneSheep]

Hello OneSheep.

I’m jumping in between you and Amandil for a moment here, OneSheep.

Ever since Moses was handed the Tablets containing the Law and came down the mountain to deliver them to the people, that’s exactly how we know and for how long. That is the place where the context you wish to discuss is. Your other questions in the above thread would be appropriate coming from an Atheist who requires proofs of God’s existence. The knowledge all Christians have of the 10 Commandments is sufficient knowledge. The rest of your questions could only come from a person who has completely renounced the teaching Authority of the Church. Is that the impression you’d like to give?

These are all questions that anyone must deal with, Glenda, in choosing faith. The questions are not meant to challenge Amandil’s faith or anyone else’. The question, “how does one know what one does not know?” is a path to humility. That is, unless I stubbornly stand by the thinking that I know everything.

As for the last comment you make, I’m afraid you are creating God in your own image. By saying that God will be as lenient or condemning as a person himself is says that God is going to act according to that person’s image of God and according to that person’s will. That is absurd and since such absurdities are coming from a Christian, I have only one conclusion to assume.
Glenda

Let me clarify a bit. God is not who I think He is. However, I will think that God will be as lenient or condemning as I am. This is a matter of projection. If to me it does not make sense to forgive Hitler, then I will project that God does not forgive him. If you ask someone, “what is God going to do about that sinner?” some will say “God will smite him!”; others will say “God will forgive!”, it is going to be a matter of projection. Projection is inescapable. We only have one frame of reference.

So, is your “assumption” about this Christian that I am terribly lacking in wisdom? Bingo. I have much to learn, Glenda. I truly mean that. It may seem like I have an answer for everything, but I most certainly do not. And I am very open to gentle persuasion.

Please, Glenda, try to be more charitable. Before calling something I say “absurd” or making assumptions about me, just ask a question to clarify. How do you know what you do not know, Glenda? Ask, Glenda. Please, treat me as you would your own son or daughter.