Making Hell make sense

[Ana_v]

Also true, no-one likes to suffer. Though I wouldn’t put counseling in the same category…

I agree. I prefaced my examples by saying that people resort to forms of “escape or remedy”, so as to cover both types of categories (methods which merely distract from/ “anesthetize” the pain, so to speak, and methods which are medicinal or treatment-based). However, what both of these approaches have in common is that they are responses to pain or psychological disturbances that a person wants to be delivered from.

I don’t see these examples in that way. The sleep deprived mother - benefits the baby and presumed spouse… The wounded soldiers’ suffering resulting from an injury incurred in protecting innocents is a huge act of charity…

I think the placement of my parenthetical examples caused some confusion. I wrote:

“But suffering that serves no purpose in the order of charity (the sleep deprived mother, the wounded soldier), self-discipline or edification is quite repugnant to humans, that’s why they avoid it by default…”

The examples I gave of the sleep deprived mother and the wounded soldier were meant as examples of voluntarily-endured suffering done out of charity.
However, because of where I placed these parenthetical examples, it might sound like I was using them as examples of suffering that “serves no purpose”. I think such sufferings do serve a purpose within the context of love of neighbor. But those sufferings are endured not because people want to suffer, but because of some good attained (“the ends”) by tolerating suffering that is concomitant with, or a consequence of, the action taken (“the means”), e.g. “I am sleep-deprived because I nursed my baby”, “I am wounded because I defended my country”.

But what purpose does the suffering of eternal torment serve?

I understand the point you are trying to get across, but I respectfully disagree because to me that is one and the same. If by freely and knowingly choosing to commit a mortal sin and risk hell, in that sense the person is "choosing hell’ because they know that’s what their decision/deed merits/where they’d end up with

I will use an analogy to substantiate my point. There are people who enjoy certain sports, activities, or hobbies that are dangerous, e.g. Skydiving, storm chasing. I’m not making a statistical point here (any Skydiving fans can come here and argue that Skydiving is safer than driving a vehicle in terms of chances of injury or fatality). I’m simply noting, humans engage in risky behaviors.

Why doesn’t the Skydiver just settle for fishing instead? Why doesn’t the race car driver settle for bowling?

Well, the answers are going to vary, but I’m pretty sure that subjective enjoyment and thrill are high on the list.

The point is this: Does foreseeing the risk inherent in the sport or activity mean that the person is “choosing” injury or “choosing” death, merely by participating? Or are they simply risking the possibility of injury and/or death?

 

[Ana_v]

To me, this shows a very insightful anthropology. Would you agree that when we choose a lesser good, it is because it appears to be the greater good?

Hmm, I would have to think about it. Perhaps if by “greater”, we don’t (necessarily) mean something that is “more” good in degree, but rather, a good that is more attainable, or appears “surer”. I think contraception is a good example of this. People get into arguments about “abstinence only education” vs “comprehensive sex education”. They may share some common goals, e.g. reduction in teen pregnancies. But usually those in favor of including education on contraception will argue some version of, it’s not realistic to expect abstinence in adolescents.
So this leads me to think that the “chosen good” is not necessarily the one regarded as greater in terms of intrinsic value, but the one that is easier, or deemed to be the more likely means for attaining the desired ends.

 

[Ana_v]

I’ve been told that by a priest before, and understand that to me, that we do in fact condemn ourselves by the choices we make - by choosing to commit and a mortal sin, ie full knowledge and with full deliberate consent of the will.

I was referring to a juridical type of condemnation, a sentence. I don’t think any human being would juridically condemn himself to an eternity of pain. I think the hypothesis that human beings would do such flies in the face of everything we know about human psychology.

But if by “condemn” you’re referring to the feelings of guilt experienced, the reproach and remorse of our own conscience, then I have no problem saying that we “condemn ourselves”. But we do that already in this life.

Moreover, if the sinner who “condemned himself” in this life, is a saint in the next, then that would prove that his self-condemnation was not a juridical one, otherwise he would be in Hell for eternity (assuming here the traditional view of Hell). And that precisely is my point: Human beings do not condemn themselves to eternal torment.

Remember the whole, “hate the sin, love the sinner” thing? I think we may “condemn ourselves” in the sense of hating our sin, but I think the love we have for ourselves prevents us from condemning ourselves to eternal misery.

 

[CRV]

I prefaced my examples by saying that people resort to forms of “escape or remedy”, so as to cover both types of categories (methods which merely distract from/ “anesthetize” the pain, so to speak, and methods which are medicinal or treatment-based). *

thank you for your explanation.

they are responses to pain or psychological disturbances that a person wants to be delivered from.

Understandable.

I think the placement of my parenthetical examples caused some confusion.

thank you for clarifying.

The examples I gave of the sleep deprived mother and the wounded soldier were meant as examples of voluntarily-endured suffering done out of charity.

Ana_v:

I think such sufferings do serve a purpose within the context of love of neighbor . But those sufferings are endured not because people want to suffer, but because of some good attained (“the ends”) by tolerating suffering that is concomitant with, or a consequence of, the action taken (“the means”), e.g. “I am sleep-deprived because I nursed my baby”, “I am wounded because I defended my country”.

Agreed and understood.

I’m simply noting, humans engage in risky behaviors.

Ana_v:

Why doesn’t the Skydiver just settle for fishing instead? Why doesn’t the race car driver settle for bowling?

Well, the answers are going to vary, but I’m pretty sure that subjective enjoyment and thrill are high on the list.

Also agree with you here.

Does foreseeing the risk inherent in the sport or activity mean that the person is “choosing” injury or “choosing” death, merely by participating ?

I think in this case, yes, the person judges the risk or possibility of death as an acceptable trade off with the thrill/enjoyment obtained from said activity. They accept that death may occur and are prepared to risk it for the passing temporary high/thrill they get from the activity. I agree that they are risking the possibility of injury/death as to them that is an acceptable price to pay for the passing thrill/adrenaline rush they get for the half hour or however long skydiving jump takes.

 

[CRV]

Reading for those who may care or be interested or not as the case may be. I’m posting these links without any interest in participating in further debate on what the articles contain. They explain things which I am unable to put into words in such a way that gives satisfactory answer to other posters points put up for consideration. I admit others superiority to myself in this regard as I have not studied philosophy and so am unworthy of continuing the dialogue.

So I leave it to them.

Catholic Encyclopedia: Hell

The Hell There Is!

Why We Can’t Change Our Soul After Death

Why not annihilation?

 

[Latin]

I don’t think any human being would juridically condemn himself to an eternity of pain.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Predestination of the elect explains.

“Consequently, the whole future membership of heaven, down to its minutest details, has been IRREVOCABLY FIXED FROM ALL ETERNITY. Nor could it be otherwise.
For if it were possible that a predestined individual should after all be CAST INTO HELL or that one not predestined should in the end REACH HEAVEN, then God would have been MISTAKEN in his foreknowledge of future events; He would NO LONGER be omniscient.

ante prævisa merita
Asserts that God, by an absolute decree and without regard to any future supernatural merits, predestined from all eternity certain men to the glory of heaven, and then, in consequence of this decree, decided to give them all the graces necessary for its accomplishment.”
.
BY THE ABOVE PRINCIPLE if God would will, He could save THE ENTIRE human race!!!
.
THE TEACHINGS OF THE LARGE MAJORITY OF CATHOLIC THEOLOGIANS ON THIS SUBJECT

“For the absolute predestination of the blessed is at the same time the ABSOLUTE will of God NOT TO ELECT a priori the rest of mankind (Suarez), or which comes to the same, to EXCLUDE them from heaven (Gonet), in other words, NOT to save them.

How can that will to save be called serious and sincere which has DECREED from all eternity the metaphysical impossibility of salvation?

Moreover, in order to realize infallibly his decree, God is compelled to frustrate the eternal welfare of all excluded a priori from heaven, and to TAKE CARE that they die in their sins.”

Predestination | Catholic Answers Encyclopedia

.
As follows, the way God takes care that all those who are excluded from heaven all MUST die in mortal sin.

Without the special help of God the justified cannot persevere to the end in justification. (De fide.) – It is God’s responsibility TO KEEP US SAVED by his Gift of Perseverance.

THE MYSTRY OF PREDESTINATION by John Salza
“He grants the efficacious grace of perseverance only to His elect.” – Without it, there is NO SALVATION (infallible teachings of the Trent), this fact alone proves, God is responsible for our salvation.

.
Fallen man cannot redeem himself. (De fide.) – It is God’s responsibility to save ALL OF US.

CCCS 1996-1998; This call to eternal life is supernatural, coming TOTALLY from God’s decision and surpassing ALL power of human intellect and will.”

John 15:16; You did not chose Me, but I chose you.

There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will. (De fide.)

308 God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes:
"For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure."171
Far from diminishing the creature’s dignity, this truth enhances it.

Do you agree Ana_v, in the light of Catholic Soteriology, God is responsible for our salvation?
.
God bless

 

[Latin]

I contest the assertion that anyone knowingly (in the all-inclusive sense I described earlier) chooses an eternal hell.

I agree.

The Mystery of Predestination by John Salza.

Page 84; St. Thomas properly explains the chain of causality:

"It is to be observed that where there are several agents in order, the second always acts in virtue of the first: for the agent moves the second to act.

And thus all agents act in virtue of God Himself: and therefore He is the cause of action in every agent. ST, Pt I, Q 105, Art 5.

Because God is the cause of action in every agent, even man’s free will determination to do good comes from God."

.
Page 77; “Sufficient grace remains an interior impulse, whereas an efficacious grace produces an exterior act.

With efficacious grace, man is able to resist the grace but does not, because the grace causes him to freely choose the good.

This means that when God wills a person to perform a salutary act (e.g., prayer, good works), He grants him the means (an efficacious grace ) that infallibly produces the end ( the act willed by God ).

If God wills to permit a person to resist His grace, He grants him a sufficient, and not an efficacious, grace.

The distinctions between these graces reveal that God is responsible for man’s salvation."

FOR EXAMPLE
Page 113: However, the Church teaches that God infused Adam with sufficient grace to resist temptation and to perform his duties with charity.
God, however, willed to permit Adam to reject His grace and to sin.”

.
THE TEACHINGS OF FR. MOST ON SUFFICIENT AND EFFICACIOUS GRACES

John Salza, Page 121; “Fr. Most identifies the metaphysical issue as follows:

“Sufficient grace gives man the potency to do good, but do not give the application.

For the application efficacious grace is required to move him from potency to act.

Therefore, sufficient grace is insufficient to move him to act.”
.
As we see above, Fr. Most is agree with John Salza.
The distinctions between these graces reveal that God is responsible for man’s salvation.

.
ST. AUGUSTINE ON GRACE AND PREDESTINATION

De gratia Christi 25, 26:
For not only has God given us our ability and helps it, but He even works [brings about] willing and acting in us; not that we do not will or that we do not act, but that without His help we neither will anything good nor do it.
.
De gratia et libero arbitrio 16, 32:
It is certain that we will when we will; but He brings it about that we will good . . . It is certain that we act when we act, but He brings it about that we act, PROVIDING MOST EFFECTIVE POWERS TO THE WILL.
.
As we see above, this is the correct understanding of free will.
.
God bless

 

[Magnanimity]

It’s Jesus words that suggest people who truly do choose evil.

Yes, Christ speaks using the most intense language sometimes, and the ethical standards are incredibly high. Looking at a woman with lust, calling your brother a fool, failing to reconcile with a brother—all of these things cannot be how we persist in this life from day to day, according to Jesus. He will tolerate none of those things.

Give to him who begs from you, do not resist an evil person, love your enemies, forgive everyone their trespasses, be perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect.

Not everyone who comes to me in that day and says “Lord, Lord…” Jesus will say to them, “depart from me. I never knew you.”
What has always shocked me about Matt 7:21-23 and the parable of the sheep and the goats is the genuine surprise by everyone who is judged. Those who did incredible deeds in his name are told “I never knew you.” And it’s not just the goats who are surprised, it’s the sheep too! Everyone is surprised at the judgment!

And Christ will at times throw in these little asides regarding our human condition. “If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Heavenly Father…?” What’s the implication here in this verse? It’s that even a father who gives good gifts to his children when his children ask for them are “evil.” For Christ, our evil human condition is just a matter of course, and he is ever calling us to greater and better and higher places than we could achieve if left to our own moral sensibilities. Left to ourselves, humans are inclined toward moral entropy.

“Be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect”

“If your hand causes you to sin, but it off”

“Not everyone who says to me in that day, ‘lord, lord…’”

When Christ speaks, it’s often like a slap in the face, or a grabbing of me by the shoulders and shaking me out of my entropy, out of my dogmatic slumbers.
Yes, evil is par for the course. And Christ juxtaposes that evil with the expectation of sainthood. The human struggle is truly much more heroic than mundane.

 

[GospelOfMatthew]

I like to think that God’s mercy is so great and infinite that nobody but the devil and his demons are in hell. His mercy is so overpowering that at the Final Judgement, nobody could possibly reject Him.

We do not know what the answer is but we can hope

 

[thistle]

I like to think that God’s mercy is so great and infinite that nobody but the devil and his demons are in hell. His mercy is so overpowering that at the Final Judgement, nobody could possibly reject Him.

We do not know what the answer is but we can hope

Our destination is determined by the state of our soul at death when we have the Particular Judgement. Anyone dying in a state of mortal sin goes immediately to Hell. They do not later get the chance to change their mind and repent at the Final Judgement. At the Final Judgement those who already died simply have their destinations (from the Particular Judgement) confirmed.

 

[Latin]

It’s Jesus words that suggest people who truly do choose evil.

Sometimes we all choose evil/ sins.

Catholic Encyclopedia : Evil
“But we cannot say without denying the Divine omnipotence, that another equally perfect universe could not be created in which evil would have no place.”

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm
.
310 But why did God not create a world so perfect that no evil could exist in it?
God freely willed to create a world in a state of journeying towards its ultimate perfection, 314 through the dramas of evil and sin .

For the benefit of the human race. At the point, God made the above decision: He had no other choice, He must create the dramas of evil and sin and this is what He created at His CAUSE of the “fall.”
.
How could God journeying us towards our ultimate perfection, through the dramas of evil and sin if He would not purposely create in this world the dramas of evil and sin by purposely hard-wired us for the inclinations of every kinds of sins?
.
THE MYSTERY OF PREDESTINATION by John Salza explains;
Page 113: “God, however, willed to permit Adam to reject His grace and to sin.” – God designed, predestined and ordered the events of the “fall.”

.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Divine Providence explains;

“His wisdom He so orders all events within the universe that the end for which it was created may be realized.

He directs all, even evil and sin itself, to the final end for which the universe was created.”

Evil, therefore, ministers to God’s design (St. Gregory the Great, op. cit., VI, in “P.L.”,

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12510a.htm

.
God made the “fallen” man/ us carnally minded, God also made us unable to subject to His law, (Rom.8:6-7).

God hardwired/ infused the “fallen” man/ us with the law of sin/ God enslaved us to sin, to all manner of evil desire, the inclinations for all kinds of sins, (Rom.7:8-23). etc.

The events described above, at the “fall” God created the dramas of evil and sin.
.
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott,

Fallen man cannot redeem himself. (De fide.) – It is God’s responsibility to save ALL OF US.
.
Without God’s gift of Perseverance we all would die in mortal sin, while the receivers of His gift of Perseverance NO ONE can die in mortal sin. – Infallible teachings of the Trent.

As we see above, our destination is decided by God from all eternity by His gift of Perseverance.

Without the special help of God the justified cannot persevere to the end in justification. (De fide.) – It is God’s responsibility TO KEEP US SAVED by His Gift of Perseverance.
.
311 For almighty God, . . . because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself.177

324 Faith gives us the certainty that God would not permit an evil if he did not cause a good to come from that very evil, by ways that we shall fully know only in eternal life.
.
God bless

 

[Ana_v]

The evidence that addiction is actually caused by loneliness and misery prior to contact with the substances is very strong. Suffering, misery, loneliness and torment are the particular reasons why folks anesthetize themselves…
Human wills are ever inclined toward some good(s) and they absolutely reject severe suffering/misery/torment

This observation about the human tendency away from pain, and the orientation if the will toward the good, raises yet another question for the hypothesis of eternal torment:

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?

Furthermore, if they are capable of human acts, which according to the Catholic Encyclopedia refers to acts that are “free and deliberate acts of the will”, then are the actions of damned persons morally good, morally evil, or morally neutral?

If we consider the images depicted by certain private revelations and traditional speculations, they would have us believe that the damned are engaged in hatred of neighbor and blasphemy of God and all sorts of vile things because of their doomed state.

Does this mean that with each act of e.g. blasphemy, God must “add” more punishment? So that punishments grow to infinity since the damned “never stop sinning”?

These issues are yet another reason for why the notion of neverending torment, is I think, fraught with problems.

 

[OneSheep]

Perhaps if by “greater”, we don’t (necessarily) mean something that is “more” good in degree, but rather, a good that is more attainable, or appears “surer”.

Yes, or perhaps we are simply not conscious, in the moment, of greater goods that we later 5th-quarter quarterback with an “I should have”.

So this leads me to think that the “chosen good” is not necessarily the one regarded as greater in terms of intrinsic value, but the one that is easier, or deemed to be the more likely means for attaining the desired ends.

Yes, like even the aspect of “easier” enters into the “what appears to be best”.

 

[yammerGee]

You may already know this, but St Thomas Aquinas gives a counterargument to your line of reasoning above. Or rather, he provides a rationale for why it doesn’t have to be “on God.” He states that the only way for a human mind to change is for it to be given either (1) new information or (2) the ability to consider old information in a new light. Upon death, so he reasons, neither of those would obtain. So the human mind/will cannot change.

That is an interesting alternative way of looking at it. However I feel like it leads to the same problems as the “God gives us what we want” idea. If it is true that God immutably desires reconciliation with His creations, then he would not design humans in such a way that that aspect of His will could be thwarted. Perhaps temporarily, but not permanently. If He did, then that would only be a different way that it would be “on Him.”

Surely too, the beatific vision could be considered a new experience/information, at least for those who are bound for heaven. So that seems like a counterexample to Aquinas’s claim about humans being unable to receive new information after death. The Catholic Encyclopedia literally defines the beatific vision as “knowledge.”

The immediate knowledge of God which the angelic spirits and the souls of the just enjoy in Heaven. It is called “vision” to distinguish it from the mediate knowledge of God which the human mind may attain in the present life.

 

[OneSheep]

I know this is kind of an extreme example but: is a white supremacist who enters a synagogue with a gun and opens fire truly and freely choosing evil?

I think understanding this act starts with entering the endeavor with prayer; understanding is a gift of the Spirit. If one wants to understand, then in my experience it must be done with a discipline to avoid judging during the process. I learned this from a priest who advised me “It is not to condemn or condone, but understand.”

What happens in the mind is that if we go to judgment one way or another, the inquiry simply shuts off in the mind. In cases like you bring up, it is very natural not to want to “go there”, but I stand to witness that it is very worthwhile!

So, rather than the “freely choosing evil” way of asking the question, it is fruitful to ask “why did he choose to shoot those people, what was going on in his mind?”

BTW: Have you ever seen Star Wars or one of those movies where someone is undergoing some rigorous training, and part of the training is to enter a cave where the person encounters the deepest parts of themselves? This is the entrance, right here!

But I don’t know how else to explain acts of horrific violence like that.

While society tells us “he wanted to do evil” is an explanation, it contains a bit of judgment in terms of motive, so the understanding “shut off” has occurred.

I believe God IS eternally offering those in hell a chance to reconcile, but their hatred is so strong they continually reject it.

This is a very good point. In your experience, have you known people with hatred so strong that they refuse to reconcile? I’m wondering if you have ever heard the A.A. saying, “holding a grudge is like taking poison and waiting for the other person to die”. Some people have to endure the poison a bit longer than others, but it is truly in our nature to want to survive and thrive (we “desire the good” as the CCC says). When we have suffered long enough, we eventually get it, that holding onto hatred is not worth it.

 

[OneSheep]

I admit others superiority to myself in this regard as I have not studied philosophy and so am unworthy of continuing the dialogue.

You’re not giving yourself enough credit, if I may say.

If one chooses to do evil, then one has chosen the lesser good. So choosing to do whatever is not of God is a lesser good. People know when they’ve done the wrong thing or not, either before they do it or afterwards.

Yes, the evil chosen is a lesser good, but when one scrutinizes the person’s thinking, one can find where the gap is in their sight. It doesn’t take a philosopher, it does involve trying to put oneself in another’s shoes.

OneSheep: This “meriting” is an activity of the conscience, which physiologically/emotionally rewards us when we do good, and punishes us when we do wrong.

What I am saying is that when we do something good that we know is good, our body puts out neurotransmitters, substances that really do make us feel happy. When we do evil and know it to be, our body does the opposite. We are hard-wired to do good and avoid evil; it is the activity of the conscience itself.

OneSheep: I’m at a loss as to how a person with “full knowledge” can do this. It runs contrary to an anthropology that upholds human dignity.

The CCC says that people desire the good; it is a matter of human dignity. So if the person is truly connected to truth, his desire will be in line with what actually is good. If the person has not chosen good, then there is something amiss, he is either blinded by desire or hate, or simply lacks awareness.

If one enters into the thinking of the person who has done evil, with the will to understand, and praying for the gift of understanding, one can see that people who choose evil are not operating with full knowledge (“full”, in the all-inclusive “everything relevant” sense). The more the person is connected to truth, the more experience they have with suffering evil, the more the person sees the infinite value of humanity, the greater developed the person’s empathy, the less likely they will choose to do something hurtful.

 

[thistle]

I don’t understand why some here are referring to evil as “the lesser good”. It is not the lesser good. It is the complete absence of good.

 

[Pug]

Say you steal a phone. You likely didn’t do it for no reason at all, or else you would not have been motivated to stir from your couch. The most likely reason would be to use the phone or the proceeds from its sale to secure some thing that you recognize as a good or as desirable. The good that I mean is the one pursued, whatever it was, not the sin chosen to obtain it.

Not sure you meant me though, but I’ve used that sort of vague term somewhere in the past. It vaguely reflects that I consider the sinner worse off than if they had pursued some good through good means.

 

[Magnanimity]

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. Very well said.

 

[Magnanimity]

I don’t understand why some here are referring to evil as “the lesser good”. It is not the lesser good. It is the complete absence of good.

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?