Is this analogy accurate?

[JDaniel]

And some of whom loved someone of the same sex, or who was still married in the eyes of the Church, or missed Mass. And I think I am right that the God in which Catholics believe is thought to be able, justly, to condemn children as young as seven in this way. I am not sure either Bob if you have Catholic belief quite right. You don’t have to keep doing it. You can go to hell for doing it once. Or even for wishing you could. Once.

Hokomai:

You are being merely argumentative. None of your analogs are realistic. They are extremisms - which is not the case with God. And, you know it.

God bless,
jd

 

[Hokomai]

Hokomai:

You are being merely argumentative. None of your analogs are realistic. They are extremisms - which is not the case with God. And, you know it.

God bless,
jd

I don’t think I am being ‘merely argumentative’. I have stated examples. If my examples are unrealistic, that is, not actual examples of formal Church teaching, you should say which are wrong. And I do not understand the concept of ‘extremisms’ in relation to the moral teaching of the Church. Is there a spectrum ranging from ‘extreme to non-extreme’?

 

[Della]

Yes I know Catholics think that human beings, from the moment of conception deserve to spend eternity in utter torment, that it is possible, but not certain, that unborn children, people who die unbaptised will not go to hell, and that the God who is perfectly entitled to treat people in this way considers these innocents worthy of eternal physical and mental torment because of something a pair of ancestors did. It is why and how you come to believe this that interests, and worries me.

The Church does not teach this. Original sin was the loss of saving grace. Parents cannot give to their children what they do not have. For instance, let us say, for the sake of example, that humans had been created with wings to fly. Let us say that the result of the sin of Adam and Eve was to have their wings removed and no longer be able to pass this trait onto their children. The children did nothing wrong, but they no longer have what their parents had. Does that make sense, knowing that analogies are quite limited and that’s the best I could come up with off the top of my head.

The Church teaches that unbaptized children who die are in God’s merciful hands. No one believes that God sends people to hell if they have not committed actual mortal sins. God can and does operate outside the sacraments. He established them for our good, not as something to hold over our heads to punish us if we can’t avail ourselves of them. Even non-Christians may be saved who were never baptized in water. The Catechism explains why.

Frankly, you are ignorant of what the Church teaches. I say that in all kindness as a simple fact not to be derogatory. You need to read the Catechism to get the straight story about who God is, what he does and why and what he expects of humanity. The CCC is fully indexed and there are online version with search engines if you want research these issues.

 

[JDaniel]

I don’t think I am being ‘merely argumentative’. I have stated examples. If my examples are unrealistic, that is, not actual examples of formal Church teaching, you should say which are wrong. And I do not understand the concept of ‘extremisms’ in relation to the moral teaching of the Church. Is there a spectrum ranging from ‘extreme to non-extreme’?

Hokomai:

It is the examples that are taken to extreme and then passed off as though they have any affinity with reality.

Above you said:

“Isn’t it more like the child disobeys the father, and because the child does not express sorrow in the right way soon enough, the father puts the child on the hot stove and leaves them there for all eternity, with no hope of ever getting off?”

While there may be those so-called Catholics that might say such a thing, there is no doctrine or dogma that says it is so. In fact, the Church has never said that anyone was ever sent to Hell. It has said that it is possible to go to Hell for such and so. But, it has never said anyone - even Hitler - is actually in Hell. The Church does not know. An extremely sinful person can embrace remorse and apologize in the final seconds of life, and that is enough to lift him out of automatically being sent to Hell. (This has been repeated in these threads over and over again.)

But, it sounds as though your intent is to ridicule. Even that, in a mere instant, can be forgiven.

“And some of whom loved someone of the same sex, or who was still married in the eyes of the Church, or missed Mass.”

Same sex love is not a sin. Carnal acts outside of true marriage are. Marriage was instituted by Christ and is inviolate, except in the case of the death of a partner, or a valid annulment. And, we are commanded to keep Holy the Sabbath. Violations of these are sins, and can place one in grave danger of not receiving God’s graces, depending upon the intensity with which the sinner commits the act. In other words, one has to know that one is committing mortal sin without any hint of remorse whatsoever. By exaggeration, you make them sound “automatic.”

“And I think I am right that the God in which Catholics believe is thought to be able, justly, to condemn children as young as seven in this way”

“Children are not condemned to Hell.” This entails a rather complicated explanation that has to do with a thing called, “invincible ignorance,” and “baptism by intention.” These topics would usurp this thread. If you wish to discuss them, please start another thread.

God bless,
jd

 

[Hokomai]

I said:

%between%
*

Yes I know Catholics think that human beings, from the moment of conception deserve to spend eternity in utter torment, that it is possible, but not certain, that unborn children, people who die unbaptised will not go to hell, and that the God who is perfectly entitled to treat people in this way considers these innocents worthy of eternal physical and mental torment because of something a pair of ancestors did.

Della, you said:
The Church does not teach this. Original sin was the loss of saving grace. Parents cannot give to their children what they do not have. For instance, let us say, for the sake of example, that humans had been created with wings to fly. Let us say that the result of the sin of Adam and Eve was to have their wings removed and no longer be able to pass this trait onto their children. The children did nothing wrong, but they no longer have what their parents had. Does that make sense, knowing that analogies are quite limited and that’s the best I could come up with off the top of my head.

I think the Church does teach that original sin is transmitted as sin. See the Catechism 211 " despite the faithlessness of men’s sin and the punishment it deserves" and 403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

Della you said:

The Church teaches that unbaptized children who die are in God’s merciful hands. No one believes that God sends people to hell if they have not committed actual mortal sins. God can and does operate outside the sacraments. He established them for our good, not as something to hold over our heads to punish us if we can’t avail ourselves of them. Even non-Christians may be saved who were never baptized in water. The Catechism explains why.

I do not think you are right about ‘no one’, but clearly you do not believe this. But I did not say that the Church teaches that “people to hell if they have not committed actual mortal sins”. I said: " Catholics think that human beings, from the moment of conception deserve to spend eternity in utter torment". And I think this is the whole point. It is what Catholics people Jesus saved people from: the punishment they all, unborn children and babies included deserved. If this is not so, what did Jesus save us from, exactly?

Della you said:

Frankly, you are ignorant of what the Church teaches. I say that in all kindness as a simple fact not to be derogatory. You need to read the Catechism to get the straight story about who God is, what he does and why and what he expects of humanity. The CCC is fully indexed and there are online version with search engines if you want research these issues

.

My ability to make mistakes and misunderstand is beyond all measure and I need all the kindness I can get. But unfamiliarity with the CCC is not one of my failings. We would probably have a better debate if you accepted for the sake of the argument that I may simply disagree with you, rather than not be aware of what the Church teaches.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Bob I am not trying to dissuade you from your belief, and you can no doubt work out the sort of thing I would say. This is a highly personal experience of importance to you and I wouldn’t be comfortable giving my views in detail as I do not fully understand what happened. As I said, I accept entirely that this was your experience. Incidentally, we don’t (or I don’t) ‘write off’ spiritual experiences as biochemical. I just think they are like all other thoughts. None of our thoughts exactly corresponds with reality, and all are coloured to some extent by our beliefs and experiences. If I could ask one question from your point of view: as your father’s visit has deepened your faith, and as his visit was clearly out of some concern for you, was he not acting in some way ‘for God’,** and could you therefore be mistaken about his present place?/**QUOTE]

You didn’t see the scream.

 

[Della]

Della, you said:

The Church does not teach this. Original sin was the loss of saving grace. Parents cannot give to their children what they do not have. For instance, let us say, for the sake of example, that humans had been created with wings to fly. Let us say that the result of the sin of Adam and Eve was to have their wings removed and no longer be able to pass this trait onto their children. The children did nothing wrong, but they no longer have what their parents had. Does that make sense, knowing that analogies are quite limited and that’s the best I could come up with off the top of my head.

I think the Church does teach that original sin is transmitted as sin. See the Catechism 211 " despite the faithlessness of men’s sin and the punishment it deserves" and 403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

What you do not understand is what the Church means by inherited sin. It’s not actual sin, but the bald meaning of sin, which is separation not, in this case, bad deeds. This passage refers to the loss of saving grace, which is what I stated. So, yes you are misunderstanding Church teaching. For the Church does teach that we do not know the fate of children who die unbaptized but consign them to the mercy of God.

I do not think you are right about ‘no one’, but clearly you do not believe this. But I did not say that the Church teaches that “people to hell if they have not committed actual mortal sins”. I said: " Catholics think that human beings, from the moment of conception deserve to spend eternity in utter torment". And I think this is the whole point. It is what Catholics people Jesus saved people from: the punishment they all, unborn children and babies included deserved. If this is not so, what did Jesus save us from, exactly?

Jesus’ death on the cross redeemed all mankind. It safisfied the eternal justice of God on our behalf. Salvation was made possible through Christ’s redemption. We deserved nothing but hell because we were separated from God, but Christ’s death restored the connection, as it were, making salvation possible. We don’t deserve hell as babies because of actual sin, which is what I wrote.

My ability to make mistakes and misunderstand is beyond all measure and I need all the kindness I can get. But unfamiliarity with the CCC is not one of my failings. We would probably have a better debate if you accepted for the sake of the argument that I may simply disagree with you, rather than not be aware of what the Church teaches.

You are not aware of Church teaching if you are misinterpreting it. You need to understand what the Church means by certain words/terms, which you apparently don’t. It’s why we have a Magisterium to instruct us instead of us floundering around trying to know what Christ taught the Apostles which they handed on to their successors. It’s why Christ established his Church. You need proper instruction in these matters so you will “get” what the Church is teaching. :tiphat:

 

[Hokomai]

[/You are not aware of Church teaching if you are misinterpreting it. You need to understand what the Church means by certain words/terms, which you apparently don’t. It’s why we have a Magisterium to instruct us instead of us floundering around trying to know what Christ taught the Apostles which they handed on to their successors. It’s why Christ established his Church. You need proper instruction in these matters so you will “get” what the Church is teaching.

I think you believe my problem is understanding, not awareness. On the ‘hard issues’ like children deserving hell, in my view the magisterium fails to teach effectively because it resorts to vague expressions of hope and use of the word ‘mystery’ as if it had meaning. To use your expression, those of us who want to understand, as distinct from those of you who have chosen to believe, are left ‘floundering around’…
[/quote]

 

[Della]

I think you believe my problem is understanding, not awareness. On the ‘hard issues’ like children deserving hell, in my view the magisterium fails to teach effectively because it resorts to vague expressions of hope and use of the word ‘mystery’ as if it had meaning. To use your expression, those of us who want to understand, as distinct from those of you who have chosen to believe, are left ‘floundering around’…

The Church does teach what happens to children–that children are not capable of actual sin and so cannot be held accountable for their actions. It further states that unbaptized children who die are in God’s merciful arms. I don’t see how that’s so difficult to accept.

Mystery does not mean a thing is so unknowable we have to just guess. It means that it is something God has not revealed to us, probably because it’s too difficult for us to grasp–we are finite beings trying to understand an infinite being, after all.

If you don’t believe, that’s up to you, of course, but please don’t exaggerate or misrepresent Church teachings for that reason. That’s all we ask.

 

[Hokomai]

The Church does teach what happens to children–that children are not capable of actual sin and so cannot be held accountable for their actions.

If you don’t believe, that’s up to you, of course, but please don’t exaggerate or misrepresent Church teachings for that reason. That’s all we ask.

OK let,s be highly specific. Does the Church teach that because of inherited original sin, children deserved hell, that it would be the act of a just God to allow them to burn there forever, but that God, through the incarnation and the death of Christ, his son, has saved all people from this inevitable just fate, provided they follow his teachings, or in the case of those not able to understand, are baptized. Does the Church teach that we do not know the fate of unbaptised children, who deserve hell because of inherited original sin, but may be saved by God, but also may not, depending on what God decides in either specific or all cases?

 

[MartinThinking]

It appears that you are assuming, Hokomai, a couple of things.

1. That these things that you consider “not serious” really are “not serious” in the scheme of eternity.
2. That we do not deserve Hell already.

You are assuming, it seems, that we start from a default of “deserving” Heaven.

We don’t.

We deserve Hell.

Heaven is offered us, by grace and at great cost to Love Himself, but we do not deserve it. We cannot earn it.

hmmm…(…

I have a Pontifical Directive for this thread and thought an element of translation in the fine directive may assist in this very important research.

I remember a few years ago Pope John Paul was in Montreal Canada I guess for a day or two and hearing about it.

In the jam packed huge outdoor auditorium many many youth could be found. It was a youth day initiative of some kind.

Does anyone here want to guess what the first thing Pope John Paul said to the massive collection of youth…?

Well…

Well… he came out on stage and with good participation in thought said…

To an absolute explosion of applause,

…

…

.

be happy

What I’d like to know is…how can people follow the Popes recommendation supporting and exemplifying the directive allowing for a positive exchange and true joy, in love thy neighbor, if we believe our neighbor

deserves

hell

?

I await eagerly the reply from anyone as all appear to be in allegiance with the theme in quote above… Also have some opinion for OP…The problem however is that I cannot furnish the opinion before a few things get settled in necessary premise of my view.I"m trying to understand how the heck I could be so far away from the reality of my environment…or maybe I’m only missing something out of some self confusion…not sure all together.Thank-you
.

 

[Needtostop]

Oddly, I get what you mean. You are saying that if I had the fullness of faith, what appears to me to be nonsense and cruelty would seem sensible and loving. But at that point, I feel I would have surrendered rationality. Catholic thinking is very rational on some points - but when confronted with uncomfortable conclusions, inescapable in Catholic thought, such as ‘unborn children deserve hell, and we don’t know for sure that God does not send the ones who die there’ the logic is rejected in favour of ‘mysteries’ and ‘pious hope’. I apologise to the OP for taking advantage of this well-meaning thread to challenge these beliefs, but it seems to me the original post illustrated much of the cognitive dissonance required to uphold faith.

We know that God does not send innocent babies to hell. We simply do not know for certain if unbaptized babies go to heaven or limbo. And no apology is necessary. I can see that you are simply trying to understand these concepts. They are very difficult to understand, and I’m not sure that any creature can fully understand them while on earth. I can see why you might think accepting them would be irrational but really it wouldn’t be. It just requires faith. Pray to God for faith, even if you don’t believe in Him. After all, you have nothing to lose and plenty to gain by doing so. I will pray for you.

 

[Della]

hmmm…(…

I have a Pontifical Directive for this thread and thought an element of translation in the fine directive may assist in this very important research.

I remember a few years ago Pope John Paul was in Montreal Canada I guess for a day or two and hearing about it.

In the jam packed huge outdoor auditorium many many youth could be found. It was a youth day initiative of some kind.

Does anyone here want to guess what the first thing Pope John Paul said to the massive collection of youth…?

Well…

Well… he came out on stage and with good participation in thought said…

To an absolute explosion of applause,

…

…

.

be happy

What I’d like to know is…how can people follow the Popes recommendation supporting and exemplifying the directive allowing for a positive exchange and true joy, in love thy neighbor, if we believe our neighbor

deserves

hell

?

I await eagerly the reply from anyone as all appear to be in allegiance with the theme in quote above… Also have some opinion for OP…The problem however is that I cannot furnish the opinion before a few things get settled in necessary premise of my view.I"m trying to understand how the heck I could be so far away from the reality of my environment…or maybe I’m only missing something out of some self confusion…not sure all together.Thank-you
.

These are deep theological waters, but I’ll give it a shot. Before the redemption Christ brought about through his death on the cross the only means to safisfy the justice of God was in the sacrafice of lambs and bullocks, etc. God’s justice was violated when our ancestors, Adam and Eve, broke God’s command and did what was expressly forbidden. They lost saviing grace and fell into sin. This sin, called original sin–this deprivation of saving grace affects us all because are all the descendants of Adam and Eve.

So, all of us, not just your neighbor would be deserving of God’s eternal justice, eternity in hell, except for the redemption that Christ brought about. The word deserve in this context doesn’t mean through any action on our part, which would be actual sins, but because we were deprived of God’s grace in Adam and Eve. The good news is we have redemption in Christ and therefore possible salvation. Even those born before he came or those who never heard of Christ, if they had sought God and done what they knew to be true might have been/could be saved, because the redemption of Christ reaches through all time, since it is eternal. I hope that helps.

 

[MartinThinking]

These are deep theological waters, but I’ll give it a shot. Before the redemption Christ brought about through his death on the cross the only means to safisfy the justice of God was in the sacrafice of lambs and bullocks, etc. God’s justice was violated when our ancestors, Adam and Eve, broke God’s command and did what was expressly forbidden. They lost saviing grace and fell into sin. This sin, called original sin–this deprivation of saving grace affects us all because are all the descendants of Adam and Eve.

So, all of us, not just your neighbor would be deserving of God’s eternal justice, eternity in hell, except for the redemption that Christ brought about. The word deserve in this context doesn’t mean through any action on our part, which would be actual sins, but because we were deprived of God’s grace in Adam and Eve. The good news is we have redemption in Christ and therefore possible salvation. Even those born before he came or those who never heard of Christ, if they had sought God and done what they knew to be true might have been/could be saved, because the redemption of Christ reaches through all time, since it is eternal. I hope that helps.

I like how you think and appreciate the good translation. I think we can toss the word deserve out since the context requires explanation. The word is insufficient and leading psychologically.

To deserve something suggests that what is deserved is to be in motion, as the term implies and fully remarks an irreducible finding…( I think you would be good with this statement.

Therefore I propose in light of all the solid evidence that our research shows that hope for our neighbor is what he deserves, and makes possible, love thy neighbor as it is without the finite finding in the full meaning of the word deserve.

Also…without hope for our neighbor the gift of charity is given with one hand behind the back in accommodation of the damnation implied he deserves…if the contradictory disposition is in mind throughout the charitable gesture…it will be perceived by the neighbor.

IOW…a person knows when charity is given and one hand is behind the back…we are designed for both self survival and collective flourish…this outline in progress for survival is equipped with many many detecting mechanisms including body language. Reason being if someone want to give you something and suggest it is charity, it is possible that it is not charity at all…but a two sided trick with roots in self gain…Another’s communication which is deceiving is against the well being of self as it is fundamentally absent of unity…mans chief quest and goal.

Charity cannot be divided. Therefore I propose the only word suitable in keeping with the so described deep waters is the word hope.

So we can only have hope for ourselves and hope for our neighbor…otherwise the whole idea in the becoming experience is tossed out the window.
Plus emotional initiatives can be reduced…it seems irrational to reduce an initiative to deserving hell and at the same time hope…it just will not result in a coherent reduction on any plane.

So we deserve hope for ourselves and hope for our neighbor in unwavering fundamental…this is my question…is this ok…can I feel Ive got my butt covered so to say ( great post btw

 

[MartinThinking]

I like how you think and appreciate the good translation. I think we can toss the word deserve out since the context requires explanation. The word is insufficient and leading psychologically.

To deserve something suggests that what is deserved is to be in motion, as the term implies and fully remarks an irreducible finding…( I think you would be good with this statement.

Therefore I propose in light of all the solid evidence that our research shows that hope for our neighbor is what he deserves, and makes possible, love thy neighbor as it is without the finite finding in the full meaning of the word deserve.

Also…without hope for our neighbor the gift of charity is given with one hand behind the back in accommodation of the damnation implied he deserves…if the contradictory disposition is in mind throughout the charitable gesture…it will be perceived by the neighbor.

IOW…a person knows when charity is given and one hand is behind the back…we are designed for both self survival and collective flourish…this outline in progress for survival is equipped with many many detecting mechanisms including body language. Reason being if someone want to give you something and suggest it is charity, it is possible that it is not charity at all…but a two sided trick with roots in self gain…Another’s communication which is deceiving is against the well being of self as it is fundamentally absent of unity…mans chief quest and goal.

Charity cannot be divided. Therefore I propose the only word suitable in keeping with the so described deep waters is the word hope.

So we can only have hope for ourselves and hope for our neighbor…otherwise the whole idea in the becoming experience is tossed out the window.
Plus emotional initiatives can be reduced…it seems irrational to reduce an initiative to deserving hell and at the same time hope…it just will not result in a coherent reduction on any plane.

So we deserve hope for ourselves and hope for our neighbor in unwavering fundamental…this is my question…is this ok…can I feel Ive got my butt covered so to say…so hope in well being for myself and hope in well being for my neighbor…simple common sense the irreducible in the nature of unity within all spirituality

 

[packermann]

Isn’t it more like the child disobeys the father, and because the child does not express sorrow in the right way soon enough, the father puts the child on the hot stove and leaves them there for all eternity, with no hope of ever getting off?

It is more like this:

God created us to have a relationship with Him. A mortal sin is our deliberate decision to reject this relationship with God. If we die in mortal sin, we made the ultimate decision to be without God. Hell is basically a world without God. C.S. Lewis said that God is a Gentleman. He does not force Himself on us. Hell is what the inhabitants of hell wanted - a world without God.

But be careful what you wish for! Since God is Love, He is the source of all love. Even those who do not seek Him in this world are only able to give and receive love because of God’s common grace. But hell would be completely devoid of love. No one can give or receive love. But this is what the inhabitants of hell wanted - even if they are miserable because of this.

 

[Hokomai]

It is more like this:

God created us to have a relationship with Him. A mortal sin is our deliberate decision to reject this relationship with God. If we die in mortal sin, we made the ultimate decision to be without God. Hell is basically a world without God. C.S. Lewis said that God is a Gentleman. He does not force Himself on us. Hell is what the inhabitants of hell wanted - a world without God.

But be careful what you wish for! Since God is Love, He is the source of all love. Even those who do not seek Him in this world are only able to give and receive love because of God’s common grace. But hell would be completely devoid of love. No one can give or receive love. But this is what the inhabitants of hell wanted - even if they are miserable because of this.

The CS Lewis version seems to me to be an intellectual attempt to get around the issue of why a loving God would create people knowing their ultimate fate would be to suffer endless physical and mental torment. Lewis’ views, which once impressed me, now seem to be a classic ‘blame the victim’ approach. It does not explain the underlying concept of the passing on of original sin to blameless unborn children. It does not explain the Catholic teaching of hell as ‘deserved punishment’. It does not explain the Catholic teaching that hell is a place of physical torment. And it does not explain (although it attempts to avoid) the issue of why a loving God would set things up in this way.

 

[grannymh]

Say that a father tells a young child not to touch a hot stove so that he won’t get hurt, but the child disobeys him and does so anyway. When the father finds out, his first concern probably will be to take care of the child’s injury, then after taking care of the injury, will probably want to talk to the child and discourage him from doing that again. I think this is how God responds when we sin.

The only way this analogy can be accurate is when you consider God to be a human being with the same nature as ours.