Making Hell make sense

[thistle]

There is no such thing as “complete absence of good.” Our word for sin is derived from the concept of “missing the mark.” That is, the archer took a shot, but she didn’t hit the bullseye. But she may have gotten close. She may have hit the target though not so close to the center (on the edges). But then she may have missed the target altogether. However, she was aimed at it. She “missed” the good she was aiming for. But she did aim, and she did shoot.

Surely, you are familiar with St Augustine’s teaching on evil as a “privation” of some good?

CCC 1749 Freedom makes man a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the father of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil.

The Church teaches you choose between good and evil and not between good and evil as lesser good.
Good and evil are complete opposites.

 

[Magnanimity]

The Church teaches you choose between good and evil

Unless/until you bother trying to understand what evil is, this sentence above carries very little meaning.

Good and evil are complete opposites.

So what is evil? Define it. State what it’s nature is (hint, you’re going to need to go beyond the CCC and do some real thinking). I advise you begin with Sts Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.

 

[thistle]

So what is evil? Define it. State what it’s nature is (hint, you’re going to need to go beyond the CCC and do some real thinking). I advise you begin with Sts Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.

Sarcasm is forbidden in these forums. Do it again and I will report you to the moderators.

 

[Magnanimity]

The nature of a catechism is to summarize. It often does not treat particular topics (like the nature of evil) with a lot of depth. For such depth, you would have to go to the greatest minds of the church. I suggested two of them. Best wishes to you in whatever you decide.

 

[STT]

No. Making Hell does not make any sense. God is good so His creation should be good. Hell is bad therefore God cannot make Hell.

 

[Latin]

No. Making Hell does not make any sense. God is good so His creation should be good. Hell is bad therefore God cannot make Hell.

God is good and all His creations will be good and perfect, God does not make junks.

God bless

 

[Gorgias]

Making Hell does not make any sense. God is good so His creation should be good. Hell is bad therefore God cannot make Hell.

Did God “make” hell? I think you’re a bit confused here:

• God’s creation is good – we see that asserted in the creation epic in Genesis. However, part of that ‘goodness’ includes the freedom to choose not to participate in God’s goodness. That doesn’t mean that God or creation isn’t good – it just means that you have the ability to say ‘no’ to the goodness that is available to you.
• Hell is the absence of God, not something that God explicitly made.

Sarcasm is forbidden in these forums. Do it again and I will report you to the moderators.

Unless/until you bother trying to understand what evil is

It’s the absence of good. Easy-peasy!

Our word for sin is derived from the concept of “missing the mark.” That is, the archer took a shot, but she didn’t hit the bullseye.

Etymology =/= definition.

Ana_v:

Do the damned retain their human nature? If so, then by nature, their wills are oriented toward the good.
What is that “good” toward which they tend in Hell?

Exactly this!!! I don’t know how many times I’ve raised this very point over the last several months, but it has to be about two dozen! What are humans doing and being in hell without some good toward which to orient themselves?! It’s really the crux of the matter once one understands human nature/will.

This isn’t the smoking gun that ya’ll are making it out to be.

To be “oriented” toward something does not imply that one attains (or even attempts) to reach the goal. The good toward which the damned are oriented is eternal bliss in heaven. In fact, it is this dynamic that makes hell make sense. The Church teaches that “[t]he chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs” (CCC, 1035). If it weren’t the case that the damned still have the orientation toward God, then this teaching would make no sense.

But, the fact that the orientation exists doesn’t imply that the attempt to fulfill it does. Rather, the experience of hell is the realization that one has definitively chosen to reject the goal for which one has been created.

Thanks for pointing out the “orientation toward the good” argument. It helps bolster the case for hell.

 

[OneSheep]

The Church teaches you choose between good and evil and not between good and evil as lesser good.
Good and evil are complete opposites.

What is your definition of evil, thistle?

 

[OneSheep]

But, the fact that the orientation exists doesn’t imply that the attempt to fulfill it does. Rather, the experience of hell is the realization that one has definitively chosen to reject the goal for which one has been created.

Good morning Gorgias,

Could you put into words what that “definitive” choice would look like in the mind of the individual? What, specifically, is the person thinking? What is their reasoning? There might be an infinite number of examples, but pick one.

 

[STT]

Hell is the absence of God, not something that God explicitly made.

What do you mean with absence of God? God cannot be absent in any place since He sustains any thing which exists. Is Hell a place or condition? No matter if Hell is a place or a condition, God has to sustain it otherwise individuals seize to exist.

 

[OneSheep]

Thanks for jumping in @OneSheep! As always, very insightful comments. I recently watched a TED talk by social scientist Jonathan Haidt and it was about the human moral sense. One utterly fascinating part of his presentation was when he noted that many psychological experiments suggest that for humans, there is often the need for a threat to get people to solve cooperative problems (to be socially moral). Relying on natural good will only works for a short time in cooperative situations and without a threat, a type of social entropy inevitably ensues and people merely want to “free ride” on the good will of others.

I watched the video, and it was both humorous and insightful. It is in my observation that the “social entropy” would not happen if and when a society’s “empathy level” rises to a certain point. What is most exciting about that is that empathy increases as we age, and the “world” of humanity is aging. Something big is eventually going to happen, when enough old folks have their say. There is a presentation of the face of acceptance from the aware elderly, it is an acceptance born in integration of the “shadow self”.

And part of this whole discussion on Hell and universalism gets at what many of the staunchest proponents of universalism stated—they claimed that such discussions are not for all Christians. For the less spiritually mature among us, those folks need to hear the threatening and judgey God. They don’t need to hear that we’re all saved in the end anyway. In my reading, Origen, St Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor all said this.

This is quite fascinating! Can you point me in the direction of something written by them along these lines? An understandable aversion to their points would come from a projection of elitism (coupled with an accusation of gnosticism!), but it would be very interesting to see if that is also addressed.

 

[Magnanimity]

I watched the video, and it was both humorous and insightful. It is in my observation that the “social entropy” would not happen if and when a society’s “empathy level” rises to a certain point.

This is a very positive outlook. I’m afraid that I don’t quite share it. I see far too much sectarianism, tribalism (us v. them thinking) all throughout human history, to include (maybe especially) the present moment. We have no war before our eyes presently, but all it would really take is such a war to reset any empathy-progress that had been made. I can only imagine just how very hopeful the West was in the wake of the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution, only to be sucked into a century of war (20th), perhaps the bloodiest of all centuries. Don’t get me wrong, my innate tendency is to think the best of people and to always be hopeful. It’s just human history itself that holds me back. That social scientist (J. Haidt) does believe that we in the West are on an irreversibly positive path forward, in terms of social progress (equality of races, of women, etc). I hope he and you are right!

What is most exciting about that is that empathy increases as we age, and the “world” of humanity is aging. Something big is eventually going to happen, when enough old folks have their say.

I would say that this is possible, so long as war, disease and famine can be held at bay. As historian Walter Scheidel has shown, those things tend to “reset” humanity back to a base-level and erode social progress. Again, you have a very hopeful forecast! I don’t know if you’re aware of St Gregory of Nyssa, but he thought along the lines of what you’re advocating here. Orthodox scholar DB Hart gives an excellent exposition of Gregory’s eschatology here.

 

[Magnanimity]

Can you point me in the direction of something written by them along these lines? An understandable aversion to their points would come from a projection of elitism (coupled with an accusation of gnosticism!), but it would be very interesting to see if that is also addressed.

I first encountered this in Von Balthasar’s book Dare We Hope. Let me quote a bit of it here to give you an idea of what they were getting at. He writes that in the light of St John’s great passage on love (1 John 4:17-18)

"Clement of Alexandria’s distinction between the gnostikos, the one perfected in love of God, and the ones who are as yet imperfect is situated. Origen calls the latter haplousteroi, those who are not yet morally and spiritually mature. The gnostikos, according to Clement, knows that ‘the Lord has disposed all things, as a whole and in every part, toward the salvation of all’, while those ‘who have hardened their hearts will be compelled to repent by the necessary chastisements…About others, however, I shall remain silent.’

In later years [Origen] referred to the doctrine of the complete apokatastasis only by way of intimation because he felt that this matter was not suitable in public sermons for the uninitiated. His decision does not seem prompted by the desire to hide higher truths in ‘mystical silence,’ the way Greek philosophers did. Rather, it points to a statement by Saint Paul, who was ‘caught up to the third heaven’ and heard ‘things that cannot be told,’ or that must not be put into human language. Both translations of ouk and exon are possible… The Fathers of Alexandria and Cappadocia, however, certainly meant primarily ‘must not be uttered.’ (Corresponding to cf. 1 Cor 6:12, ‘all things are lawful for me but not all things are helpful.’) Von Balthasar, Hans Urs, Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved? Ignatius Press, San Francisco, CA, pp. 191-93.

 

[TMC]

Origen’s reticence to discuss universal salvation (which is how I take your quoted passage) is interesting. The ancient, but apocryphal, Apocalypse of Peter exists only in fragments, but the available material records all sorts of gory details about Hell, but then goes on to have Jesus telling Peter that all will be saved in the end, with the admonishment that Peter should keep that fact secret to avoid encouraging more sin.

 

[Gorgias]

The ancient, but apocryphal, Apocalypse of Peter exists only in fragments, but the available material records all sorts of gory details about Hell, but then goes on to have Jesus telling Peter that all will be saved in the end, with the admonishment that Peter should keep that fact secret to avoid encouraging more sin.

In other words, it asserts the Gnostics’ doctrine that there is hidden knowledge, which is only accessible to the few, which cannot be revealed to the hoi polloi.

 

[Magnanimity]

Yes, it seems that all the Alexandrian and Cappadocian fathers shared this reticence. I have never heard of that apocryphal writing. Interesting, thanks for sharing!

 

[OneSheep]

In later years [Origen] referred to the doctrine of the complete apokatastasis only by way of intimation because he felt that this matter was not suitable in public sermons for the uninitiated.

There is a fear, I think, that people have about wrongdoers “getting away with” unjust behavior. Our desire to punish wrongdoing is so strong that we cannot live with the thought that God (God equated with justice itself, and justice itself being its own highest purpose) would not send at least some people to hell to burn forever. I find this fear very natural, it is part of a human instinct that “pushes us” to cooperate, as we have our strength in tribes.

Here is a core question that addresses this thread:

Would you behave, avoid sin, if there was no threat of hell?

If the answer is a sincere yes, then the person has an empathy and compassion developed to the point of not needing to believe in hell. This person is free to appreciate relationship with a Father whose love, mercy, forgiveness, and compassion have no limit. (edit: okay, of course there are other answers, such as fear of prison, social exclusion, etc.)

If the answer is a sincere no, and the person is motivated by the possibility of hell to keep their behaviors in check, then even though this belief limits His mercy, it is an image that gives life.

it points to a statement by Saint Paul, who was ‘caught up to the third heaven’ and heard ‘things that cannot be told,’ or that must not be put into human language.

Whew! In context, that application seems like a bit of a stretch.

Von Balthasar, Hans Urs, Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved?

I have purchased the book, I look forward to reading his views.

 

[OneSheep]

with the admonishment that Peter should keep that fact secret to avoid encouraging more sin.

In other words, it asserts the Gnostics’ doctrine that there is hidden knowledge, which is only accessible to the few, which cannot be revealed to the hoi polloi.

I agree that the idea of “hidden knowledge” can soundquite elitist. However, in a sense, all wisdom is “hidden” until it is revealed by experience.

So what is the believer to do, then, when he encounters, in his prayer life, a Father who loves/forgives/is merciful with no limits whatsoever, no “conditions” as we have oft revisited? Well, the image of such a Father is not natural, it goes against the image presented by the workings of our conscience, so it is going to meet some resistance based on fear, the fear that some people who “find out” that there is no eternal hell will take it as a ticket to do great evil. At the same time, when one discovers this loving Father, one wants to tell the world!

Frankly, gorgias, I struggle with this a bit also. I find both images presented in the Gospel, and I see wisdom in presenting both images as valid ways of looking at God. What I know is that through relationship within, I have encountered Him in a way that I cannot go back to seeing His love and forgiveness as limited, because that is not in line with my own intent, commitment and action in loving and forgiving others without any limit but self-preservation (a limit God doesn’t have to be concerned about).

 

[Gorgias]

So what is the believer to do, then, when he encounters, in his prayer life, a Father who loves/forgives/is merciful with no limits whatsoever, no “conditions” as we have oft revisited?

He should correct his misunderstanding by going back to the teachings of Jesus and the Church, in which he’ll learn that there is a condition: contrition and penitence.

I have encountered Him in a way that I cannot go back to seeing His love and forgiveness as limited, because that is not in line with my own intent , commitment and action in loving and forgiving others without any limit

In other words, you have already acceded to contrition. Therefore, the mercy of the Father is open to you. However, turning a blind eye to your own contrition as the means which opens those doors, does a disservice to your understanding of God.

 

[Magnanimity]

would not send at least some people to hell to burn forever. I find this fear very natural,

I’ll go with you this far anyway, in the “naturalness” line of reasoning—desiring that evildoers (especially the more grave among that group) be punished is natural. Iow, we are all aware that justice is not always served here on Earth. And it is completely natural to desire God to “make things right” in the hereafter. But the “burn forever” aspect is rather unnatural. I know, I know, if we were talking about someone who had sexually abused my child and murdered the child afterwards, then perhaps my opinion would be for the evildoer to pass along the “burn forever” route. But these are not the standards by which we judge something as just or unjust—whether it would woefully impact my opinion as the victim (that’s why we have juries of impartial peers in criminal trials, not to include the victims). Rather, we use a reasonableness standard. What would a reasonable person judge as just or unjust—that’s the question we always ask ourselves as a civil society. And I maintain that no reasonable person would regard an unending sentence of torment and suffering as befitting any crime(s). So, the concept of folks being sent to a neverending Hell is, if not irrational in its abuse of a proper sense of justice, so close to being irrational as to be practically indistinguishable from it. I realize that that is more strongly stated than most here would be comfortable with—even those who tend to align with me on this issue. Nevertheless, I maintain the position.

I have purchased the book, I look forward to reading his views

Excellent, I think you’ll enjoy it very much.