Making Hell make sense

[IsaiahSpirit]

I personally think that the Six Day Creation inspired poetic living story has in a real sense all six days happening concurrently. Science can see way back in time with radio & other astronomy a kind of gray cloud that suddenly starts having lights. And they can also see a point where quasars disappear. I think they see the beginning and end of time, space, matter as God helps us choose Light from Darkness or not.
Since the Guardian Angels are intimately linked with us for the purpose of Light, Guard, Guide, and rule us - that the Dark Angels made so by freewill only have the purpose of misleading those who choose to be misled.
~
Personally, the best imperfect description I can give is that we live in a type of ‘halo-deck’ as portrayed on StarTrek; that an All Powerful God certainly can Create to Sculpt a family of humankind to be God’s Adopted Children. That since to God a thousand years pass as a day; but God also, empathizes completely with each of God’s family member’s unearned suffering at all times; and sent One In Divine Being in The Form of a Man - full Divine Nature, full Human Nature to fulfill we are God’s crowning achievement into this Creation Epic of myriads of Epic Play of Living Plays; and to be hemmed in on all sides with no escape; showing that Supreme Power is Humble, willing to Be The Divine Suffering Servant for all who choose Grace. Since God is benevolent; we had to see the result of the slippery slope of evil. Be purified like fine gold so our freewill align with God’s Self Giving Objective Goodness Completely Joyously Harmonious Will.

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

By the way, in Jeremiah The Bible speaks of those who cannot be ashamed, nor can they even blush. Jesus Christ speaks of presumption & despair choosing desires of the flesh temporary pleasures over being filled with true inner peace; but also, someone going through being self-righteously pious, worshiping God, praying and fasting, giving offerings to the Temple, and alms to the poor — teaching goodness & caring for the poor but for vanity & self aggrandizement & prestige to one’s self and others. Some intellectual elite fall into the latter. Rather than help consciences choose by Grace; healing of desires to sin, growing in virtue by seeking objective harmonious truth beauty & goodness they teach a kind of false mercy.
Beside that, rather than help suffering consciences, often anesthetized by caring for families needs - who have the mitigating circumstance of not being informed by to whom much is given much is required; the fail to recognize the importance of asserting the Sovereignty of Jesus Christ in every facet and venue of society; by asserting at least self-evident truths of our Creator/Laws of Nature/Nature’s God in favor of limiting that witness with ‘playing at heart strings’ in a difficult world ‘material’ based philosophy/ideology/agendas. A kind of ‘social justice’ false Jesus. There is nothing new under the sun; but this error crypt in almost imperceptibly over the course of the twentieth century and beyond - with many either opposing those who assert that inalienable truths or being complacent by pandering to social justice. And this gives power to those in education/medical fields/media/politics - placing adjudicators for decades/arts&entertainment intellectual elitists who flip & distort every single issue whereby they can form an emotionally charge mentality for gaining public support.
This has always been the historical case whether by totalitarian or by a mass seduced & complacent society whereby the least among us fall pray as victims. There is nothing new under the sun; exalting (freedom, equality, brotherhood & sisterhood) with intellectual human reason & autonomy over Creator and self-evident truths.
George Orwell’s Animal Farm, France’s Reign of Terror, and George Orwell’s harsh peer pressure state 1984 happening over and over because of the complacent who seem to care for the poor and social justice; fooling many.
Bishop Fulton J. Sheen spoke in a radio address before 1950, saying the days are coming when a mimic Church within The Church to most appearing like the genuine article; would craftily be lukewarm on asserting letting Grace grow virtue and healing delivering from sin - a false mercy and form along side the world a so-called new humanitarianism and be complacent to massive bloodshed. And what do we see?

 

[TMC]

Matthew 5:22
But I say to you, that anyone who becomes angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment. But whoever will have called his brother, ‘Idiot,’ shall be liable to the council. Then, whoever will have called him, ‘Worthless,’ shall be liable to the fires of Hell.

If no one goes to hell then no one is liable to hell. Jesus talked alot about hell, it’s all through the Gospels, if no one was there it could go there then why mention it. It’s heresy to believe that there is no people in hell.

I don’t find this convincing. “Liable to” and “goes to” have different meanings. And Jesus does not say that anyone is in hell. I don’t find anything in the Gospels that convinces me that Christians must believe that anyone is in hell.

 

[Latin]

God created us, we are the way God created us.

God has the Duty of Care to care to predestine all of us by an absolute decree from all eternity to the glory of heaven, and then in consequence of this decree, to give all of us all the graces necessary for its accomplishment.

God bless

 

[thistle]

But we are free to hope in the salvation of all. Cardinal Hans Urs von Balthasar in his book Dare We Hope “That All Men Be Saved”? defines the truth of Christs final judgement of souls but also allows for the possibilities that we are yet to know about that judgement and His mercy.

Some people need to have that hope that all will be saved for their faith to grow.

Yes but that is far different from a Catholic believing everyone WILL be saved. That is heresy.

 

[Qoheleth1]

Recently, I’ve begun to think of it like this: it is not that people who reject God are unaware He is the only source of true happiness, rather they become preoccupied with the idea that their ultimate happiness can be found in something else. The problem is, all love is superficial and disordered without the Lord.

If an individual stakes his entire identify on his career to the point of holding it above God, this is sin. He will lose his false sense of happiness of he loses his career, and will blame God when his happiness has been lost.

Which is why I firmly believe hell starts right now and it is our choices which determine if we end up there. The Lord desires everyone to be saved and has placed eternity in our hearts, which forms the basis to my conviction there is no excuse and never was one.

 

[LittleFlower378]

If no one is in hell, then certainly we are not going either, right? Wow, this is a trick of the devil.

 

[Ana_v]

how can a person who goes to hell be “getting what he wants”?

I think you’re equivocating between choice and consequence. They simply aren’t the same.

Furthermore, according to Aristotle,
we will the end (e.g. a nursing degree, fame, etc.) and choose the means (a particular university, the film industry, etc.)

And Aquinas believed that our wills are ordered to the good, and that evil is a privation of good. In practice this means that even in sin, what we are willing and seeking is that aspect of the sin we have perceived as good (e.g. pleasure).

“The will can tend to nothing except under the aspect of good.”

ST I, Q.82, A.2, ad.1

Nobody wills “eternal torment” as their personal end. They will happiness as their end. That was Aristotle’s point. Happiness is willed, though the means of attaining it are chosen. He considered virtue to be integral to the attainment of happiness, eudaimonia.

But the point is, no human beings will Hell.

 

[goout]

Do you also ask the same question about eternal beatitude?
If not, why not?
Given your own question, how does heaven make any sense?

Yes, it makes much more sense, because we’re made for the good. God made us to want the good. And eternal beatitude is man’s natural fulfillment.

And at the same time, we do not choose the highest good. Sometimes we choose evil. And there are consequences for evil choices.

How does Christ live? Christ embraces the whole of the human condition. He does not try to explain evil away as a philosopher, he acknowledges the whole human condition and takes it upon himself. He puts his “skin in the game”.
If we are to live like Christ we must affirm what is and live through it, not denying the radical possibilities that exist, one of which is hell.

For us to live a redeemed life, we must acknowledge that we need redemption.

 

[goout]

Nobody wills “eternal torment” as their personal end. They will happiness as their end. That was Aristotle’s point. Happiness is willed, though the means of attaining it are chosen. He considered virtue to be integral to the attainment of happiness, eudaimonia.

But the point is, no human beings will Hell.

We can confuse self gratification with happiness or beatitude.
The Church in her wisdom appreciates the world we live in, being a good and wise observer of human freedom and the radical possibilities that exist. And observing the fallen condition we have always lived in. “And the rich man went away sad” at the call to follow Christ. How many constant wars and injustices are perpetrated by those who prefer their own ways rather than goodness, even to the point of self destruction.

The vice of envy comes to mind. Envy is precisely a sadness in the face of goodness, and a sadness and torpor to the call to practice goodness. And a choice to wallow in that sadness rather than thank/praise God for goodness.
And sloth, which is a sadness at the effort required to practice virtue and attain true happiness. A “dulling of the will” to choose and act well.

In these vices, we turn inward pridefully and choose to wallow in things we know will not satisfy us or make us happy in any way, yet we choose them. God asks for us to unify our wills to his, and we reject God out of pride. Many times, we would rather live unhappily than conform to God’s love.
Take a look around you.

 

[CRV]

I think you’re equivocating between choice and consequence.

I don’t believe I was being intentionally writing in a way that was not clear, in order to confuse either the issue or others, nor did I have the intention to deceive others. So please don’t infer I was.

When we live a live of sin whether that be as a lapsed Catholic etc, we are in effect whether we realize it at the time or not, choosing a lesser good than God.

In fornication the end is carnal pleasure/satisfaction of the flesh, the means is the sexual act.

And Aquinas believed that our wills are ordered to the good, and that evil is a privation of good. In practice this means that even in sin, what we are willing and seeking is that aspect of the sin we have perceived as good (e.g. pleasure).

Agreed.

Nobody wills “eternal torment” as their personal end.

I don’t believe I implied that. I think I was trying to express the thought that it is by our choices that we merit eternal torment, as it is written on every heart/conscience what is right and what is wrong and for a Catholic who knows their Faith this is even more clear. Whilst they might be pursuing the temporal pleasure of the sex act, for example, they still know they have chosen a lesser good rather than choosing their ultimate good ie God by obeying His Commandments.

no human beings will Hell.

Agreed. I don’t think anyone has the clear and exact thought I will do all in my power to ensure I end up in hell.

I was trying to explain that as all actions come from the will, in that way we do “will” our end ie hell, when we deliberately and with full knowledge commit a mortal sin.

As I’m just an average person with an average education, I do my best to explain a point in words/ways that I am able to. Apologies if I don’t meet others expectations.

 

[Mark121359]

Loading…

www.lifesitenews.com

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Recently Trent Horn on his podcast had someone on who defended annihilation. But I don’t think that’s as sensible as an eternal hell, or universalism. Something seems fishy about a God who would let someone choose hell, get punished for a bit, and then just be annihilated. Almost seems worst than an eternal hell, as if that person was just meant to receive his punishment before he no longer exists.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

But anyway, the main problem for me is still this idea of any person making a definitive choice for an eternity of separation from God. Not only is it hard to accept that someone could choose to eternally reject God in this finite time on Earth, but that, even worse, such a person is experiencing an eternity of suffering.

I still maintain as I said in the OP, that for the traditional idea of an eternal hell to make sense, it has to be a natural result of someone choosing and getting what they want.

And it’s difficult to see how anyone in this brief time on Earth could make a full-knowing and fully-free decision to reject God, since every single human has been wired for Good.

It seems for anyone to choose a lesser good over the higher Good, God, would be a mistake. Due to faulty decision making. Aquinas grants that ignorance and passion excuses at least some sins. In my estimation, it seems hard to get past the idea that every sin is due to some kind of faulty decision making ---- and, therefore, no one could truly be choosing hell.

@magnanimity summed up, you think?

 

[Pug]

And it’s difficult to see how anyone in this brief time on Earth could make a full-knowing and fully-free decision to reject God

I don’t think that is the type of choice made by the average sinner. Usually they sin in reference to some good that they perceive and somewhat vaguely accept some consequence or another, such as acting against those “arbitrary rules” or being temporarily not on the ideal path.

It seems for anyone to choose a lesser good over the higher Good, God, would be a mistake. Due to faulty decision making.

Are you asking if sin is possible? That could be a good thread. EDIT (I was not being sarcastic, there is no hidden popcorn emoji there, just to be clear)

 

[skelly]

I don’t like the idea of anybody going to hell. I sure won’t tell anybody just don’t worry about Hell because God is merciful and no one deserves to go there and if they do then God is not just. I am not the judge of God he is the judge of me. The person in the Bible that spoke the most about Hell is …Jesus.

 

[Magnanimity]

But anyway, the main problem for me is still this idea of any person making a definitive choice for an eternity of separation from God

Yes, you have summed it up well! St Augustine himself has that famous and beloved line, “You have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in You.” The heart/the soul in Hell could only ever be restless. It was made for beatitude. It was made to return to the Good (whence it came).

Although Aristotle didn’t necessarily link the idea to God (St Thomas made the explicit connection), he nevertheless had human wills/action fundamentally rightly understood when he begins the NE by saying “Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim.” This is what it is to be human. This is what we do and how we are.

But room must be made for malice, for weakness of will and for pride—all these things are real. They obtain in the world. Yet, happiness is ever the goal, as Aristotle and St Thomas both affirm.

it seems hard to get past the idea that every sin is due to some kind of faulty decision making ---- and, therefore, no one could truly be choosing hell.

Agreed, and I would also throw in the idea that the highest good for any human ever is her beatitude—the achievement of her destiny, and even her redemption (when that is called for). The highest ideal could never be…the making of choices… The act of making a choice, without direction and without orientation, is not a supreme good. Without a proper orientation or a direction or a goal, choosing alone is no good at all. It is merely a function to achieve some end beyond itself.

And His mercy endures forever. There is no end to the mercy and love of God. There’s no end to the being of God. There is no end to God. The East has long known this well. We just need to get the West fully on board!

What say you, @OneSheep ? Don’t confine your mind to those neverending threads with Vico and Gorgias.

 

[thistle]

But anyway, the main problem for me is still this idea of any person making a definitive choice for an eternity of separation from God.

By definition committing a mortal sin is deliberately separating yourself from God but while alive you can remedy that. If you die in that state by your own free will you have chosen to be separated eternally.
I don’t know why that is so hard to understand.
God gave us free will. We can choose salvation or damnation.

 

[yammerGee]

I think my biggest gripe with the idea of an eternal, inescapable hell isn’t what it means about us, but what it would mean about God. Because it would seem to paint God as someone who, after the finite amount of time which a person has spent on earth, decides that He no longer wishes to be reconciled with some people. Either by somehow “altering” the nature of their free will, or removing ability to change so that their choice is “locked”. It is a God who despite being the definition of mercy and love, knows of a lost sheep and not only not desires to not seek it, but actively prevent its return. A human cannot by their own abilities, “lock” their wills in this manner so that they are permanently oriented away from God. Only God can. An explicit action by God is required. This is on God.

The typical answer I see to this is what God values our free will so much that he allows us to do this if that’s what we want. But that explanation only seems to raise further problems. One, humans WERE MADE for God. And if God is love, then He wills the good of others and the fulfillment of the purpose for which they were created. For humans, this means being reconciled to Him- even if it is a delayed one as allowed by God’s permissive will. For God to permanently prevent this reconciliation seems to contradict love as it is defined by Catholics. It would mean God is at war with Himself. By all accounts He should immutably desire to be reconciled with his creation, except he doesn’t.

And two, it is nonsensical. It isn’t “love” to just abandon your will and give into your children’s wills. Especially if it’s God regarding His will. Obviously, you do allow your children space to learn and make mistakes, BUT it is always with the intent that some lesson or greater good would come out of it. An eternal inescapable hell is the exact opposite of that. There is no lesson. That’s the end. The child is forever worse off. It’s like letting your 6-year old play on the highway because you “respect their will.” That is not love.

 

[OneSheep]

I believe God is goodness and love. I believe we aren’t able to comprehend this to its fullest. It is why I don’t worry about going to (or “choosing”) hell. I have faith in His infinite mercy. I know if I am doing my best, he has my back. I also believe when I am not doing my best, He still has my back. I don’t think he waivers. I think it is the same for us after we pass on.

I have spent some time reading this thread, and there are many I would like to comment on, but your words here describing your image of God are absolutely beautiful.

There is something you know that I also know, and I want to know how this came to you. If you prefer, feel free to message me.

One, humans WERE MADE for God. And if God is love, then He wills the good of others and the fulfillment of the purpose for which they were created. For humans, this means being reconciled to Him- even if it is a delayed one as allowed by God’s permissive will. For God to permanently prevent this reconciliation seems to contradict love as it is defined by Catholics. It would mean God is at war with Himself.

Yours is an amazing post that gets right to the core of what happens when one’s image of God is, or becomes, one of unconditional love/forgiveness.

And two, it is nonsensical.

Well, it does make sense for those who have a different image of God. I start with the observation that we humans (as well as chimpanzees) do have a very natural (God-given) desire to punish wrongdoing. It is my observation that this desire is very difficult to separate from the conscience/superego, it is fully integrated. And since the c/s is for the most part the “first” voice we hear within, it is perceived as the voice of God, and in some sense it is exactly the voice that God wants us to hear before our own empathy, our seeing of infinite value in others, and our own conscience are developed more fully.

The way I see it, it is no wonder at all that God warned man about the danger of the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” (the conscience), because the conscience, with its attached innate desire to punish wrongdoing, in itself presents a compromised image of the love of God, it shows us a God who loves upon condition of obedience and good behavior. Indeed, after the couple eats the fruit of the tree, we are presented with a new image of God, one who is wrathful.

It is an illusion, but the illusion makes sense to those who hold it, and it can be seen as an illusion that God wants us to see, up to the very point that we finally come to know something deeper. It is this depth to which Jesus invites us.