Making Hell make sense

[goout]

TMC:

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).

God is unconditioned, human beings are not.
If nothing else, Christianity is a relationship between freely acting persons. God-man. God is eternally faithful beyond conditions. And human beings are free to choose God in return.

A quality of relationship is what we are talking about here, not the fulfilling of a contract. In a covenant, persons exchange themselves. The quality of that relationship rests in the response of the two to one another.
God does God’s part.

 

[OneSheep]

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.

Well, I can’t go to God in prayer and ask Him to undo His forgiveness of the unrepentant, nor can I go back to waiting for other people to be contrite and repentant to forgive them.

Try it some time. If you can go back, let me know.

I’m talking about God’s love, not about the real conditions of relationship. Relationship takes two, of course, and even though His love and forgiveness are always there, gratuitous, it does take contrition to experience that relationship when one has experienced guilt. Guilt, self-punishment, is not a state of experiencing communion with God.

 

[OneSheep]

And I maintain that no reasonable person would regard an unending sentence of torment and suffering as befitting any crime(s).

Yeah, I’m using the word “natural” instead of “reasonable”, but this is in awareness that all of my own “reason” is subject to a number of biases and emotions, and when I think I’m being reasonable, I may have a lot of baggage behind it. Therefore, a person can want an evildoer to roast forever, and find it perfectly “reasonable” to want this, do you see what I mean?

The strongest source of the bias, concerning this topic, are anger and resentment. I think we can agree that understanding and forgiveness eliminate these influences, giving us what appears to be “objectivity”, but technically speaking, is “acceptance” an objective approach?

Objectivity, perhaps, is over-rated. We can look with eyes of complete love, we can look with eyes of complete condemnation, or we can look with eyes from many places in-between. Truth, in my view, is seen with eyes of love, with eyes of forgiveness. Without love, we are looking with the eyes of a calculator.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

I think perhaps an eternal hell would make more sense if it was a diminishment of what was a human. But in fact, the Church teaches even the damned receive their bodies back. So this suggests everlasting conscious pain and torment.

 

[goout]

I think perhaps an eternal hell would make more sense if it was a diminishment of what was a human. But in fact, the Church teaches even the damned receive their bodies back. So this suggests everlasting conscious pain and torment.

So hell is a possibility of human freedom.
At the same time the Church points us to everlasting beatitude.

What is this hope then? How are we going to live our lives? The Church offers us hope, and exhorts us to hope. Are we going to dwell in hope and evangelize hope? Dwelling in fear of the consequences of sin does not lead to hope in my opinion.

 

[Cruciferi]

So this suggests everlasting conscious pain and torment.

Have you ever considered that, to the damned, this torment is preferable to being in God’s presence?

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Could be. But isn’t every person designed to be happy only by God?

 

[Cruciferi]

Ideally, yes. However, Free Will trumps that.

 

[Gorgias]

Well, I can’t go to God in prayer and ask Him to undo His forgiveness of the unrepentant

I have no idea what you mean. Is this supposed to make sense?

nor can I go back to waiting for other people to be contrite and repentant to forgive them.

You can say “I forgive you” all you want – till you’re blue in the face, as it were! – but still, reconciliation does not occur until the offender repents, is contrite, and seeks forgiveness. You yourself admit that this is true, later in your post.

So, sure: “one-sided forgiveness”? Yeah. “Reconciliation”, of the type that would save someone from hell? Not until the sinner himself repents. (Going back to the original topic: that’s what makes hell make sense – the damned don’t repent. Eternally.)

 

[OneSheep]

I have no idea what you mean.

From the cross, God forgave the unrepentant. I cannot undo this.

You can say “I forgive you” all you want – till you’re blue in the face, as it were!

I’m wondering why a person might say "I forgive you " until they’re blue in the face…

but still, reconciliation does not occur until the offender repents, is contrite, and seeks forgiveness

Yes, this is true. Relationship takes two.

So, sure: “one-sided forgiveness”? Yeah. “Reconciliation”, of the type that would save someone from hell? Not until the sinner himself repents.

I think you see the distinction. We are in total agreement here. On the other thread I elaborate a bit more on the human response to truly understanding what comes from God, who He is, and what He is about. When we know what is at stake, when we know His love, we do not turn away.

the damned don’t repent. Eternally.

I think it was on this thread that Meltzerboy brought up a very important point on this. People want the good, and cannot tolerate suffering.

If there is enough suffering, people repent. When a person has suffered enough addiction, he repents. When a person has suffered enough enslavement to sexual desire, he repents.

One could say that a person has so much hatred for God, that hatred itself keeps repentance from happening. However, even on earth people eventually realize that “holding a grudge is like taking poison and waiting for the other person to die”. Some of us have a lot of hatred, so it can take a lot of suffering to finally see the light.

If the person dies before having time to experience enough suffering, God as I know Him doesn’t say, “Tough luck, here’s the hell-ticket”. God does all possible to show the sinner his error.

With God, all things are possible. When man sees, he chooses well.

 

[thistle]

If the person dies before having time to experience enough suffering, God as I know Him doesn’t say, “Tough luck, here’s the hell-ticket”. God does all possible to show the sinner his error.

However, if that person dies in a state of mortal sin they immediately go to Hell and are there forever.
We only have until our dying breath to repent. After we die it is too late.

 

[OneSheep]

However, if that person dies in a state of mortal sin they immediately go to Hell and are there forever.
We only have until our dying breath to repent. After we die it is too late.

So… what do your opinion, thistle: If it wasn’t for the threat of sin being judged “mortal”, would people behave charitably?

 

[thistle]

So… what do your opinion, thistle: If it wasn’t for the threat of sin being judged “mortal”, would people behave charitably?

???

 

[OneSheep]

???

Would people avoid sin if there was no threat of hell?

 

[thistle]

Would people avoid sin if there was no threat of hell?

Many sin even though there is Hell.

 

[OneSheep]

Many sin even though there is Hell.

True, but I am talking about the threat of hell concerning certain sins. If the threat of hell was not upheld (believed by people), what would happen?

 

[Gorgias]

From the cross, God forgave the unrepentant. I cannot undo this.

Hmm… perhaps you can understand it more fully, however. It wasn’t “divine forgiveness”, but rather, the request of God to not hold the knowing sin of deicide against the culprits.

I’m wondering why a person might say "I forgive you " until they’re blue in the face…

Me too. After all, that’s what you suggest that God does, with respect to the unrepentant in hell.

When we know what is at stake, when we know His love, we do not turn away.

When we’re beyond the point of saying “yes” to that forgiveness, there is no longer the possibility of “not turning away”. We’ve already done so, incontrovertibly.

If the person dies before having time to experience enough suffering, God as I know Him doesn’t say, “Tough luck, here’s the hell-ticket”. God does all possible to show the sinner his error.

Great. You’ve just turned God into a suffering-dispenser.

 

[snarflemike]

Another way to look at “choosing” hell is that the real choice is “anything but God!” It is not a choosing of hell, but a complete and willful rejection of God (and all that being in union with God implies).

 

[thistle]

True, but I am talking about the threat of hell concerning certain sins. If the threat of hell was not upheld (believed by people), what would happen?

Should I interview all Catholics to get an answer??

 

[OneSheep]

Should I interview all Catholics to get an answer??

That might take too long.

What do you think might happen, what would society be like, what would people do if there was no threat of hell?

It wasn’t “divine forgiveness”, but rather, the request of God to not hold the knowing sin of deicide against the culprits.

The point, again, is that the culprits were unrepentant at the time. The fact that with investigation it can be found that no one knows what they are doing when they sin is what one can discover through self-reflective prayer, by taking out the “beams”, so to speak.

After all, that’s what you suggest that God does, with respect to the unrepentant in hell

I’m not sure that God has the respiratory system, nor the impatience, to get blue in the face!

When we’re beyond the point of saying “yes” to that forgiveness, there is no longer the possibility of “not turning away”

Again, with God, all things are possible!

Great. You’ve just turned God into a suffering-dispenser.

non capisco