Philosophical opinions on Hell

[john_doran]

…then a punishment appropriate to their nature would the logical course to take.

see my post, above.

AndyF:

And an ideal punishment for an angelic being would be to curtail his angelic movement. Remember, as angels their movement is used in service to God, a* good*. Where they are sent a good will never be forthcoming. So we have 2 valid reasons for having restrictions: 1/a good will never be forthcoming in their domain 2/ it would curtail their liberty which is a primary general punishment in any justice system.

i would say that the point of a penal system is to punish by taking something away from the subject that the subject would rather have. and, as i say, i think the fallen angels have lost the thing they care most about.

AndyF:

Your saying the torture of the loss of the beatific vision surpasses any torment that anyone could receive.

yes.

AndyF:

So equally then man conceivably could be given the same sentence as Mephistophilis since he suffers the same hell everywhere he goes.?

well, after the general resurrection, when the damned will be reunited with their bodies for all eternity, i imagine they’ll be able to do whatever they feel like doing, which includes going from place to place. and they’ll be in agony every step of the way. of course, they’ll travel like humans, so that their mobility will be limited to human modes of movement, so they probably won’t be able to teleport to proxima centauri for an afternoon stroll, or anything…

AndyF:

Ah! here we enter into a judicial issue of another sort. I would correct you in one small way. If someone chose to exist and knew the potential consequences of existing,THEN if he had chosen hell he deserved it. Hell’s existance is justified only in context of an environment where beings have chosen to reside in it, just as a man pressed into the gladiator life may not be appreciative of that life if he knew that if he didn’t abide by rules he would be destined for the lions. Some would want it all the same, and some wouldn’t.

…and this is perhaps the point of the greatest divergence between mine and the traditional understandings of hell.

i’m not sure that hell is a place of “punishment” in the sense of a jail where lawbreakers are made to suffer in various ways in an attempt to make them pay for their wrongdoing; “going to hell” strikes me as more of a natural process - the straightforward result of certain behaviours - like various forms of unhealth are the result of poor living. for example, if you smoke too much, you’ll likely get lung cancer, or you’ll probably suffer heart problems (among other things) if you eat too much fatty food. and so on.

in much the same way, if you sin mortally, you kill your soul, and if your earthly life comes to an end while your soul is dead, then you naturally end up hating god and wanting to spend an eternity away from him. it’s just the way the world works.

so it’s not a matter of needing fully to understand the consequences of your bad acts in order legitimately to find oneself in hell any more than one needs fully to understand what it’s like to have lung cancer or a stroke in order legitimately to find oneself with either condition as a result of one’s lifestyle choices. (which is NOT to say that one can lose sanctifying grace without understanding that as the conseequence of an action - it’s only to say that one can lose sanctifying grace without needing to understand just how bad it’ll be if one dies in a state of serious sin).

i realize, of course, that much of the biblical literature describes the torments of hell more as the penal consequences of sin, but i think that the details of those descriptions are consistently capable of being understood as illustrative more than theologically substantive; given the nature of sanctifying grace and god’s omnibenevolence, the view of hell as a kind of natural “punishment” seems much, much more reasonable.

 

[AndyF]

john:

they did lose a good, the good: the beatific vision.

but if you mean that they should suffer the loss or restriction in the use of an ability, then why …?

Much of the aspects of hell that is revealed by God was meant for our senses. We learn to appreciate through familiarity. There are many examples of the effort to teach through the route of our limited intellect and earth bound senses. The Blessed Mother brought the children to the abys, and it was a physical experience.

I think the problem lies in that much of what we know about hell and it’s punitive system(if there is one) must be trusted. In the justice system where it is only an instrument, beings enter an access point and exit in one or two places. Hell becomes another instrument of an overall hidden judicial process. I think this is a miscarriage of justice and every aware being has an inalienable right to see the mechanism of justice functioning while he lives. Every aspect or process of their justice system must be presented to him in the form that could be comprehended using the faculties they are bestowed through their nature. If this proves difficult it must be facilitated.

Simply revealing to us by celestial courrier that “angels are really getting their cumupance” is not good enough.

“only” an restriction from the beatific vision? there’s nothing worse that could be suffered by an angel, i would think -… so much worse for an angel than any torment we could suffer.

Why is it you only have your mind to conceptualize it? We are talking about a working system functioning in your midst aren’t we?.

Logically, the punishment doesn’t fit the crime. If we use as our rule that total loss of grace equates to extinction, then we have degrees in between. If an angel receives an intended sentence equivalent of a total loss, this doesn’t mean total loss PLUS play with a virgins breasts while she sleeps PLUS tempt Charlie to take one more drink for the road. Total loss means loss of ALL liberties.
You can’t tell me that a demon locked in hell AND suffering the loss of beatific vision suffers no less than a demon who only suffers the loss of beatific vision and is allowed freedom of movement. Even if the comparison is being made with man’s limited faculties, all the same it should be a valid method in a single standard system that sends a general message.

[As an aside,there is a reason not told to us why total extinction is not a punitive measure, and that is because in this state of “*better not having been born” it IS better than being in hell.]

Secondly, if a justice system was meant to deal with several types of beings as this one is, and there is a sincere desire by the overseer that a single standard be applied to all, then it follows the sentence of one species of being must be seen to have an effect that could be appreciated by the other. One would not need to “Imagine” it would be torturous, or, “think” it would be. The example it sets should cross species, and sentences could be shared. As it is now appreciation is one way. Demons know and appreciate the sufferings of every human as well as every human his brother, which is why they enjoy(liberty?) tormenting them. We have only word of mouth and document to tell of their suffering. Again, a fully disclosed open justice system would reveal many unknowns.

and what difference does it make if the angels can travel from place to place if they are wracked by excruciating agony everywhere they go, and whatever they do?

Would you allow me the same indifference in my day to day life? Can I look aside while hords of beings torment my bretheren.? If I go to their assistance, would I have needed to do so if they weren’t around to extend their crime.? I think without even researching that, this breaks some pretty basic precepts, setting aside the fact these beings are really, in the absense of a true justice, escaped fugitives or on willful parol. Paradoxes abound don’t they.?

In closing here, it is apparent some of these questions would be more easily answered if the system were more revealing.

A king could have an entire family put to sleep and brought to his kingdom where they are told they must swear allegiance to him and they must conform to his wishes. They are told they will be rewarded for eternity or punished for eternity according to their contribution. Worst still in their predicament, they discover people are told a justice exists, but they only see the result of the king’s justice. See if they don’t go to the UN with their case. I’m willing to bet they do, because, hidden justice aside, all this doesn’t compensate for the intrinsic wrong initially committed.

Thanks for the post.

AndyF

 

[FCEGM]

and what is this so called ‘love of god’?

Yes, it is. God is Love, but God isn’t “nice”. We didn’t bring ourselves into existence, so we remain in relationship to the One Who IS and gave/gives us life. We are free, however, to choose whether we will accept His invitation of grace to live with Him forever or to live apart from Him forever.

So, those in Hell have freely chosen to separate themselves from God, but He is present to them for His love for all He has created never changes. The separation the damned have chosen is from their side and thus His love them can only be experienced as eternal fire and torment - this is so especially because they were created to live with Him and have a desire for Him without the good will that corresponds to His grace that would allow them to do so. There is nothing in them that corresponds to His love. Consider Scripture’s words that “our God is a consuming fire” - in order to survive in and find joy and salvation in that “fire” one must himself (by correspondence to God’s grace) become one with the fire of Divine Love - this the damned cannot do.

 

[AndyF]

john:

i’m not sure that hell is a place of “punishment” in the sense of a jail where lawbreakers are made to suffer in various ways in an attempt to make them pay for their wrongdoing; “going to hell” strikes me as more of a natural process - the straightforward result of certain behaviours - like various forms of unhealth are the result of poor living. for example, if you smoke too much, you’ll likely get lung cancer, or you’ll probably suffer heart problems (among other things) if you eat too much fatty food. and so on…

Yes. I can see that. But personally, I can’t see what the fixation is on individuals when there are much larger sharks in the sea that can be netted than these minisicule rockfish. We have been forced to focus on ourselves for so long, we tend to forget God has other entities that he governs as well, and what goes on in this relationship is also in our interest. Dogma hasn’t been too helpful in this area. Man as also a right to know and see the relations of Him and collectives as well.

However, I can’t help thinking that some of the wails that come out of hell are conveniently muffled so as not to disturb the joy of the celestial palace.

We haven’t touched on the trial, the last aspect of the justice system.

Either the last judgement must be a split second dispatch, to the relief of all concerned in heaven or, a fair drawn out trial. The latter is not too far fetched if the principles are to be counted on.

The Holy Spirit in covenant with the Church at Pentecost agreed that what it bound here was bound in heaven, and that means, as well as it applies to the Sacrament of Confession, also to society’s works by inspirationally discerning and sanctioning what constitutes common good that society implements. As far as I know to date, the Church sanctions democratic systems of judgement, so it makes it a viable option for any trial. With His backing and on the strength of this rule, an individual could have a trial just has the Church sanctions on earth.

In this case an individual would be allowed all the facilities of the celestial realm for his case. The prosecutor would need to step to the sidelines as being a judge and prosecutor as this would be a conflict of interest. Man would be present has juror, as that would be of his “peers”. All those presiding would have experienced the struggle of man and maturing of Faith and all that entails, and those with blights of mortal sin are not selected. He would be assigned a defense who themselves would not see a conflict of interest(difficult), and would pledge to provide the best counter case possible.

As well as ongoing on earth in every trial, proof that the justice system is a fair working system would have to be provided and no double standards exist. Evidence would need to be provided that those societys, an entity recognized by God in the collective form, that have passed away and have sinned in the collective form they have chosen to sin, and the same form they were recognized by God as having sinned, have been judged en masse in the same form. This is in recognition in single standard precepts that man is unable to disperse his culpability to his constituent parts, and because he presents one form that has sinned in that form. So, an individual destined for hades should expect to see nations there who have committed mass genocide and the like and were not absolved through remorse, that is, if the system is truly fair. (As far as I am aware the children at Lourdes did not report any nations in hell.)

Some would expect to go out fighting with briefcase in hand containing case files of God.vs.X. If the case turns out positive, all the better. There should be absolutely no ill feeling toward the individual exercising this right all the same.

Thanks for the post.

AndyF

 

[Southsider433]

To john and Andy F

Somthing about the mobiity of demons you guys mentioned, Could it only be allowed because God allows it? The warden of a prison allows prisoners rec time but it is totally at the wardens discretion. God allows demons to move about us, but it it is totally at His discretion. God allowed the Devil to tempt Jesus, Jesus allowed the demons to be driven into the swine. God allows us to be tempted by Satan, to test us of course…but still I think whatever liberties the fallen have they are only allowed by God, and for God’s plans only.

But then again I have a heck of a lot more reading to do before I jaw with you two

 

[AndyF]

Southsider433:

Good point.

Somthing about the mobiity of demons you guys mentioned, Could it only be allowed because God allows it?

There state makes it different so discretion is reserved to those who are still within the test. It makes no sense to me. If they have already gone through testing, why dig up the “corpses” for reuse, and the metaphore is not too far wrong, as they are in a true state of death, and nothing useful could become of them, as useful things are a* good*, see what I mean.?

The thing to remember is rejection by God is total finality. In other words there is no “after” or recovery of any form. Even on earth bad men are held in mobility and liberty by grace. After one has chosen his destination is where finality applies. Either you are finally in eternal happiness or the opposite, so the theory goes. So it doesn’t explain the mobility. It’s almost an after thought. “Hey wait a minute, maybe I can use them to test men.” And as I was saying to John, allowing liberties, that is the continued benefits of their own nature just doesn’t make sense, and even less sense to give beings in this penal state permission to bug other beings.

So then we have now a penal system supplying the resources for other purposes don’t we?. If he wants to test us why not use other unrelated resources to do it, and leave the dregs of the universe to suffer in their own domain? By consenting to their release on society, it’s no different than for a warden to go on murder’s row and asking them if they want to go on the outside for a job.

This even conflicts with dogma. If the use of evil probagates evil and because of this we are to shun it’s use, why is it’s use as an instrument to test us considered a good.? How are we to determine what is good in any instant if it’s definition is arbitrarily changed to suit the occasion.?

There is a lot I don’t understand as you can see.

AndyF

 

[john_doran]

I think the problem lies in that much of what we know about hell and it’s punitive system(if there is one) must be trusted. In the justice system where it is only an instrument, beings enter an access point and exit in one or two places. Hell becomes another instrument of an overall hidden judicial process. I think this is a miscarriage of justice and every aware being has an inalienable right to see the mechanism of justice functioning while he lives. Every aspect or process of their justice system must be presented to him in the form that could be comprehended using the faculties they are bestowed through their nature. If this proves difficult it must be facilitated.

why should anyone believe that it is an inalienable right of sentient beings to observe the actual workings of the system of justice to which they shall be subjected? why isn’t it sufficient simply to have that system described? isn’t description a form of presentation “that can be comprehended using the faculties with which we are bestowed through our nature”?

i mean, you seem to be predicating your position on something like the assumption that in order to have been given a fair chance of avoiding some punishment, one must have an adequate conception of what that punishment is like. but even if, arguendo, this is correct, there’s nothing about such a principle that militates in favor of seeing the punishment enacted on some subject, rather than simply being told that the punishment will be inflicted as the result of certain bad acts.

we know that there will be endless misery if we perish in a state of mortal sin because we have been ***told ***that’s what will happen; why do we need actually to observe souls being cast into the abyss in order for that legislation to be (divinely) justiciable? based on that more or less positivistic assumption, the only way one could be sure that the penalty was actually being imposed correctly would be at any rate to see the punishment inflicted for the duration of its stipulated term - i.e. forever. and that, clearly, is absurd.

AndyF:

Simply revealing to us by celestial courrier that “angels are really getting their cumupance” is not good enough.

is it good enough when we’re told “That eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him”?

is it good enough when we’re told that god is triune? or that a consecrated host is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of christ? or that jesus is fully god and fully human?

if so, why? if not, why not?

AndyF:

Why is it you only have your mind to conceptualize it? We are talking about a working system functioning in your midst aren’t we?.

i don’t think i understand what you’re getting at here…are you just re-stating your original point that people ought to be able to witness the actual carriage of justice and actually see souls being cut-off from the beatific vision?

AndyF:

Logically, the punishment doesn’t fit the crime. If we use as our rule that total loss of grace equates to extinction, then we have degrees in between. If an angel receives an intended sentence equivalent of a total loss, this doesn’t mean total loss PLUS play with a virgins breasts while she sleeps PLUS tempt Charlie to take one more drink for the road. Total loss means loss of ALL liberties.

what has logic got to do with it? what is the “logic” of punishment that entails that god needs not only to exclude angels from the beatific vision, but also to restrict their mobility and other behaviours?

AndyF:

You can’t tell me that a demon locked in hell AND suffering the loss of beatific vision suffers no less than a demon who only suffers the loss of beatific vision and is allowed freedom of movement. Even if the comparison is being made with man’s limited faculties, all the same it should be a valid method in a single standard system that sends a general message.

maybe the reprobate angels (and the human denizens of pandaemonium, for that matter) could suffer worse punishment. so what? why does god need to inflict a greater degree of suffering? can’t he, in his mercy, choose to apply less of a sentence than is warranted by the bad acts of those being judged?

and the system is standard and single - i’m not sure why you think it isn’t.

 

[john_doran]

[As an aside,there is a reason not told to us why total extinction is not a punitive measure, and that is because in this state of "*better

not having been born" it IS better than being in hell.]
intentional killing is wrong, always and everywhere; a fortiori, intentional annihilation is also wrong. thus go, in his omnibenevolence, would not - indeed, cannot - do it.

as for whether extinction is “better” than being hellbound, i think you mean “preferable”; not the same thing.

AndyF:

Secondly, if a justice system was meant to deal with several types of beings as this one is, and there is a sincere desire by the overseer that a single standard be applied to all, then it follows the sentence of one species of being must be seen to have an effect that could be appreciated by the other. One would not need to “Imagine” it would be torturous, or, “think” it would be.

but the suffering of each resident of hell is appreciated by every other resident: for each individual being suffering in eternal exile from the presence of god, she can make the reasonable inference that every other individual together with her in hell is also suffering.

as a technical matter, though, it is logically impossible to have someone else’s experience, so the only evidence one could have of the suffering of someone in hell would be to have it described; since nothing else is possible, why isn’t this enough?

AndyF:

The example it sets should cross species, and sentences could be shared. As it is now appreciation is one way. Demons know and appreciate the sufferings of every human as well as every human his brother, which is why they enjoy(liberty?) tormenting them. We have only word of mouth and document to tell of their suffering. Again, a fully disclosed open justice system would reveal many unknowns.

i am not sure why you continue to apply a political standard of fairness here; the principle of transparency (that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done) is a feature of political systems that are implemented by unreliable human beings that cannot be trusted always to do what they should be doing if they’re not actually seen to be doing it; surely you’re not suggesting that god needs to prove the uniformity and consistency of his justice…are you?

AndyF:

Would you allow me the same indifference in my day to day life? Can I look aside while hords of beings torment my bretheren.? If I go to their assistance, would I have needed to do so if they weren’t around to extend their crime.? I think without even researching that, this breaks some pretty basic precepts, setting aside the fact these beings are really, in the absense of a true justice, escaped fugitives or on willful parol. Paradoxes abound don’t they.?

i’m not sure i understand what you’re getting at here…are you suggesting that god is obliged to prevent the beings in hell from hurting one another?

AndyF:

A king could have an entire family put to sleep and brought to his kingdom where they are told they must swear allegiance to him and they must conform to his wishes. They are told they will be rewarded for eternity or punished for eternity according to their contribution. Worst still in their predicament, they discover people are told a justice exists, but they only see the result of the king’s justice. See if they don’t go to the UN with their case. I’m willing to bet they do, because, hidden justice aside, all this doesn’t compensate for the intrinsic wrong initially committed.

see above: god is not an untrustworthy human king. he’s god - he says what he means, and he does what he says.

but look, why think of hell as a penal system at all? if, as i originally suggested, hell is seen simply as the natural result of choosing to be away from god, then all of your alleged difficulties evaporate…if it is in the nature of rationality that has chosen to extinguish sanctifying grace from within itself, both to be wracked with (intellectual/emotional) pain when finally separated from god, and to be hardened in hatred for god, then hell is simply a natural consequence of dying in a state of serious sin, and*** not*** a sentence passed down on wayward children by a judicial deity.

i mean, if i get burned when i put my hand on a hot stove element, am i being punished? or if i get cancer from smoking too much? so why should the spiritual pain that follows from telling god to go %$@# himself be any more of a “punishment”?

 

[john_doran]

Yes. I can see that. But personally, I can’t see what the fixation is on individuals when there are much larger sharks in the sea that can be netted than these minisicule rockfish.

…i don’t understand. what has this got to do with a concept of hell that is closer to getting cancer from smoking than it is to being put in jail for stealing?

AndyF:

We have been forced to focus on ourselves for so long, we tend to forget God has other entities that he governs as well, and what goes on in this relationship is also in our interest. Dogma hasn’t been too helpful in this area. Man as also a right to know and see the relations of Him and collectives as well.

man has a right to know facts about the divine life? why should anyone believe that? where would such a right come from?

since rights ground duties, what you’re also saying is that god has a duty to tell us certain facts about the universe he has created. why does he have this duty? and which facts need to be disclosed? all of them? some of them? which ones, and why those?

AndyF:

We haven’t touched on the trial, the last aspect of the justice system.

Either the last judgement must be a split second dispatch, to the relief of all concerned in heaven or, a fair drawn out trial. The latter is not too far fetched if the principles are to be counted on.

The Holy Spirit in covenant with the Church at Pentecost agreed that what it bound here was bound in heaven, and that means, as well as it applies to the Sacrament of Confession, also to society’s works by inspirationally discerning and sanctioning what constitutes common good that society implements. As far as I know to date, the Church sanctions democratic systems of judgement, so it makes it a viable option for any trial. With His backing and on the strength of this rule, an individual could have a trial just has the Church sanctions on earth.

In this case an individual would be allowed all the facilities of the celestial realm for his case. The prosecutor would need to step to the sidelines as being a judge and prosecutor as this would be a conflict of interest. Man would be present has juror, as that would be of his “peers”. All those presiding would have experienced the struggle of man and maturing of Faith and all that entails, and those with blights of mortal sin are not selected. He would be assigned a defense who themselves would not see a conflict of interest(difficult), and would pledge to provide the best counter case possible.

As well as ongoing on earth in every trial, proof that the justice system is a fair working system would have to be provided and no double standards exist. Evidence would need to be provided that those societys, an entity recognized by God in the collective form, that have passed away and have sinned in the collective form they have chosen to sin, and the same form they were recognized by God as having sinned, have been judged en masse in the same form. This is in recognition in single standard precepts that man is unable to disperse his culpability to his constituent parts, and because he presents one form that has sinned in that form. So, an individual destined for hades should expect to see nations there who have committed mass genocide and the like and were not absolved through remorse, that is, if the system is truly fair. (As far as I am aware the children at Lourdes did not report any nations in hell.)

Some would expect to go out fighting with briefcase in hand containing case files of God.vs.X. If the case turns out positive, all the better. There should be absolutely no ill feeling toward the individual exercising this right all the same.

1. the church does not say that only democratic political institutions and processes are just. which is good, because there are others.
2. we have an adversarial legal system because we think it’s a good way to get at the truth of the case at trial; but god - unlike human judges and juries - is in no need of mitigating any gaps in his knowledge of the defendant’s actions. which makes the kind of trial you’re envisioning, otiose.
3. i’ll say it again: abandon the penal model of hell. instead imagine it occurs like this: ten souls stand before god. 7 are shining and healthy, while 3 are disfigured and ugly. god says, “so. what now?”. the 7 healthy, living souls advance toward god in joy, while the 3 disfigured souls begin screaming obscenties at god, and flee his presence…

isn’t it also an inalienable right of rational beings to choose not to be with god?

 

[AndyF]

john doran:

why should anyone believe that it is an inalienable right of sentient beings to observe the actual workings of the system of justice to which they shall be subjected? why isn’t it …

In one case in latin America, notice was placed on posters that the “infedels” were executed for crimes they committed. These were in the thousands. The justice system was a closed one. The “criminals” were peasants whos greatest ambition they ever had was to satisfy their family needs. John, c’mon. really?

i mean, you seem to be predicating your position on something like the assumption that in order to have been given a ….

The revealed process serves in some way has a deterhent, but mostly we can see it as an object of pride in all it’s exposed form.

It must be a terrible weight on conscience, to have just applied a just sentence on an offender for a crime, but to have had the whole process hidden from his own kind. There is what constitutes a form of shame in every sentence, whether it be positive or the negative. I think those who have been judged for heaven should voice a suggestion in behalf of those judged later, and they should request that all trials be open.

but even if, arguendo, this is correct, there’s nothing about such a principle that militates in favor of seeing the …

Justice is the exception. It calls for openness all the steps of the way. We should visually be able to pop in unannounced to see the process working just as we do in our courts. It expresses the value we place on human life, regardless of guilt or innocence.

Predicated on a real model. Nor do I imply seeing the whole process is required, although those of the collective now in charge of our ideal conceptual model may offer that option. Sure, I would like the option of seeing people being judged and sentenced, why not. They are innocent until proven guilty. Here again paradoxically a deliberate imposed limitation is applied to man preventing us from exercising another precept, and that is in fraternal caring we are to watch over our bretheren. If judging isn’t complete, he is still a part of us.

We are told the offender is shown the effect of his sin on society as well as individuals. This revelation, and those tidbits like it, are token gestures to satisfy the requirement I am suggesting, which I believe lends credibility to the argument that there is something wanting in the celestial system. These reactions are evidence of a conscience at work that recognizes some shortcomings in the system, but is incapable of meeting us full way.

But I’m surprised. How do you reconcile your view that it is OK to have the workings of justice systems hidden, and still benefit from a nation’s open system you have now.? Do you disapprove of your nation’s system? What of your loved ones?. Would you mind they entered one door only to see them again when being strapped to the chair? Why would you then remove such rights for those in celestial trial.?

we know that there will be endless misery if we perish in a state of mortal sin because we have been ***told ***that’s what will happen;

No argument. I am greatful to know what is a wrong.

is it good enough when we’re told “That eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him”?

No, not for justice. It would benefit from being a tabula rasa system outside the Deposit of the Faith and properly monitored by an impartial authority that neither represents the victim or the offender. To whom is this system a risk.?

Nothing here conveys the opposite. I also think heaven should have a lounge and coffee shop(addict, come to think of it I’ll be right back….) , and angels should have aerfoils attached to their wings, and I still fear God wholey and working on bettering the love I have.

is it good enough when we’re told that god is triune? or that a consecrated host is the body, blood, soul…?

… and an earthly Father in every sense of the word, and we go head to head often.

But I fail to see the relevance or message.

are you just re-stating your original point that people ought to be able to witness the actual carriage of justice and actually see souls being cut-off from the beatific vision?

I’d settle for the sentencing and trial, sure. But a requirement of a justice system is to ensure the offenders are receiving no greater a measure than it is to compensate, so seeing what goes on there would be mandatory, but albeit unpleasant.

in his mercy, choose to apply less of a sentence than is warranted by

So you would leave the door open for redemption of demons.?

Thanks John. Interesting points.

AndyF

 

[john_doran]

In one case in latin America, notice was placed on posters that the “infedels” were executed for crimes they committed. These were in the thousands. The justice system was a closed one. The “criminals” were peasants whos greatest ambition they ever had was to satisfy their family needs. John, c’mon. really?

and i assume the lesson here is that opaque systems of justice can be abused…

i’ll reiterate: this is a characteristic of imperfect systems of justice (or perfectly designed processes executed by imperfect individuals); but god is perfect, and cannot commit acts of injustice, so i continue not to understand the relevance of the principle of transparency to the case of divine judgment.

look, we believe god is all-good, which not only means that god in fact never does wrong, but also that it is impossible for him to do wrong. and if that’s true, then god’s word that his judgment works in such-and-such a way is a sufficient condition for our being certain that it does, in fact, work that way.

AndyF:

It must be a terrible weight on conscience, to have just applied a just sentence on an offender for a crime, but to have had the whole process hidden from his own kind. There is what constitutes a form of shame in every sentence, whether it be positive or the negative. I think those who have been judged for heaven should voice a suggestion in behalf of those judged later, and they should request that all trials be open.

again, god’s justice is not hidden from us: he has told us how it works. why is anything else necessary?

AndyF:

But I’m surprised. How do you reconcile your view that it is OK to have the workings of justice systems hidden, and still benefit from a nation’s open system you have now.? Do you disapprove of your nation’s system? What of your loved ones?. Would you mind they entered one door only to see them again when being strapped to the chair?

i don’t think that the mechanisms of justice can legitimately be hidden, at least not tout court(there may, of course, be certain aspects of state action that require secrecy in order to be effective); i just think that god has fully discharged any duty he has to us with regard to the transparency of his system of moral judgments and sentencing - he has explained it to us clearly and unequivocally. there is simply nothing else he needs to do, nor to which we have a right.

AndyF:

Why would you then remove such rights for those in celestial trial.?

because god cannot lie: if he says that those who die in a state of serious sin will suffer eternal punishment, then that’s exactly what will happen. seeing any of the process is epistemically superfluous.

AndyF:

… and an earthly Father in every sense of the word, and we go head to head often.

But I fail to see the relevance or message.

the relevance is this: if you trust that god is triune; that jesus is wholly human and wholly divine; that the mary was assumed bodily into heaven; that the consecrated host is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of christ; that christ is one person with two natures and two wills; if you believe all of these things - if you trust that god is not leading you astray with regard to them, then why doubt that the system of divine justice he has implemented is the way he says it is?

if, on the other hand, you believe that god may be leading us on when it comes to the nature of heaven and hell and what gets us there, then you have no good reason not to doubt everything he says…

see what i’m saying? if god might be convicting souls in a manner other than that he has described to us, then actually seeing the execution of some part of the process will never be enough to warrant complete belief, since a deceiving god could simply act one way while you’re watching, and another way when you’re not…

seeing god mete out his justice is either unnecessary or unhelpful. either way, it’s useless.

AndyF:

So you would leave the door open for redemption of demons.

only if the church leaves it open…

my original point is simply that god is not compelled to punish anyone at all, let alone punish them to some specific degree; god punishes as he sees fit.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

AndyF:

So you would leave the door open for redemption of demons.

If that particular door were left open, would the demons come in from the cold? Would they come home?

 

[john_doran]

If that particular door were left open, would the demons come in from the cold? Would they come home?

personally, i believe it is open - it’s just that the occupants of hell freely choose never to walk through it.

 

[cpayne]

Hi Ani. Hi John. Hi everyone else.

In order for demons to be redeemed, wouldn’t some aspect of their knowledge have to change? In other words, since angels had unmediated access to God and fell anyway, what kind of knowledge of God would they gain NOW that would make them repent? It would seem that repentance would be impossible. (Assuming that demons and fallen angels are the same thing.)

 

[john_doran]

Hi Ani. Hi John. Hi everyone else.

In order for demons to be redeemed, wouldn’t some aspect of their knowledge have to change? In other words, since angels had unmediated access to God and fell anyway, what kind of knowledge of God would they gain NOW that would make them repent? It would seem that repentance would be impossible. (Assuming that demons and fallen angels are the same thing.)

hey, man - hope you’re keeping well…

i don’t think they’d need any new knowledge - they’d just need to choose freely to stop being jerks.

probably, though, that would also require a helping of garce to overcome the trillions of years of ingrained obstinacy…

 

[ERose]

In my opinion the demons do have access to redemption for they were originally exposed to the beatific vision of God and rejected it. So I agree with CPayne on this point.

Concerning the final judgement, there is no better justice system, for you have an unbias judge who knows all including one’s motivations for the actions they carried out so there is no need for presentation of evidence and no need for the judgement of peers to justify sentencing.

Not only that he gives us an infinite amount of “outs” or “get out of jail free” cards through the sacraments of Penence and Anointing of the Sick; all the grace we pray for to combat sin; and a church helps us develop those “10 commandments written on our heart”.

So we have a God that is a just God, but more importantly He is a loving God. No matter how far we go South in our lifetime, all we have to do to get to heaven is ask for forgiveness with a humble and contrite heart and we are back on the righteous path.

I also agree that you cannot compare our earthly justice systems as being on par or greater than God’s justice system. Our judges and our peers in the jury are flawed and imperfect creatures who cannot possibly know the whole situation, can easily be deceived by bad evidence or lieing witnesses. How many times have we heard of an individual go to jail innocent of all crimes and how many times have individuals who are guilty go free from all charges. That will not happen on judgement day. Those who deserve hell go to hell and those who most probably deserve hell but found salvation in Christ go to heaven.

Concerning the demons running around influencing people on a few posts back, I would like to point out that the only definite definition of the church concerning hell discribes it as a “state of being”. The demons are not shackled in a place they are free to roam. They are in a state of hell for their loss of the beatific vision. That is the reason for them being so angry with us and want to pull as many of us as possible down with them on judgement day because we have a door open they do not and that is salvation.

Just my thoughts.

Emite

 

[AndyF]

Hi John:

It just occured to me how far along we came on this original thread. My apologies to the original poster as now we have moved from the cell blocks of hell back into the corridors and into the court system. No telling where it will lead now. Just kidding.

and i assume the lesson here is that opaque systems of justice can be abused.

I think that is the concensus, yes.

i’ll reiterate: this is a characteristic of imperfect systems of justice (or perfectly designed processes executed by imperfect individuals); but god is perfect, and cannot commit acts of injustice, so i continue not to understand the relevance of the principle of transparency to the case of divine judgment.

Argument from authority. All the same since discussion is value based, the reverse is also true and more revealing, therefore more of a benefit. This I outlined already. So it wouldn’t matter to have it an open system either. All through the OT exists examples where God relented to allow requests he probably found trivial. All the more reason to allow for something as primary importance as this.

Why do I feel this is important? From a personal standpoint, probably due to a life time’s accumulation of observations of inconsistancies and poor cross verification that are not classed as devine mysteries. FWIW: But I would advance the same solutions to the same earth bound puzzle.

look, we believe god is all-good, never does wrong…

So do I, which explains my countless hours trying to reconcile what I learn to his reality. Sometimes I wonder if even atheists have it better, I could be partying my last minutes before the final extinction right now. :dancing:

And yes, I do believe in the Credo.

then why doubt that the system of divine justice he has implemented is the way he says it is?

I find it suspect, not in complete doubt. It probably functions in most capacities. But I guess my argument failed to explain this. There may be something that I am looking for that will take me over. I don’t know what that may be, but in the mean time my suggestion is reasonable based on what I know of human justice systems, and that is what could be expected.

if, on the other hand, you believe that god may be leading us on when it comes to the nature of heaven and hell and what gets us there, then you have no good reason not to doubt everything he says…

If “I believe one has deceived me once, then I must believe he will decieve me in everything” is false dichotomy. Also, you seem to attribute to God rigid consistancy in all things. I have only earth case examples mixed with human weakness to show me that in most cases this is what results, this makes it a valid inferance. The benefit of the doubt was never retracted, otherwise I’d be on a different platform.

see what i’m saying? if god might be convicting souls in a manner other than that he has described to us, then actually

Yes. So how would YOU handle this since you presented the hypothetical. If you discovered a deceiving God, would the consequence of hell cause you to agree to anything he insisted you agree to.?

Thanks.

AndyF

 

[john_doran]

Argument from authority. All the same since discussion is value based, the reverse is also true and more revealing, therefore more of a benefit. This I outlined already. So it wouldn’t matter to have it an open system either. All through the OT exists examples where God relented to allow requests he probably found trivial. All the more reason to allow for something as primary importance as this.

not sure what you’re getting at here…

AndyF:

I find it suspect, not in complete doubt. It probably functions in most capacities. But I guess my argument failed to explain this. There may be something that I am looking for that will take me over. I don’t know what that may be, but in the mean time my suggestion is reasonable based on what I know of human justice systems, and that is what could be expected.

if it’s suspect, then you have a doubt that god is being completely truthful…

why do you find god’s word “suspect” in (at least) this one regard?

AndyF:

If “I believe one has deceived me once, then I must believe he will decieve me in everything” is false dichotomy.

not quite right: it’s not that you must believe that god will deceive you in everything, it’s that you can never be certain that a deceitful god is not deceiving you.

which, of course, means that even if you were witness to the expulsion of souls from heaven according to the norms of divine justice, you’d have no reason to believe that god wasn’t just arranging the display for your benefit, and then, when you were no longer looking, was transgressing the norms of justice…

AndyF:

Yes. So how would YOU handle this since you presented the hypothetical. If you discovered a deceiving God, would the consequence of hell cause you to agree to anything he insisted you agree to.?

if i believed god was capable of deceit, i would probably abandon the practice of christianity; for all i know, the whole thing could be made up at the whim of a capricious deity; even if it wasn’t, i could do everything the right way, only to have god cast me from heaven or annihilate me because, hey, why not?

if you actually doubt that god is incapable of deceit, then the doctrine of hell is the least of your concerns, i think…

 

[DanteAlighieri]

If most people will fall into disastrous and irrevocable consequences (which I say based on my possibly flawed interpretation of Matthew 7:14), then free will is a rather terrible offer that we’re clearly ill-equipped to properly handle with such consequences on the line. It’s like distributing machine guns to first graders… There’s bound to be lots of unnecessary carnage.

If there really is a decision to make of such monumental consequence - and let’s face it: What could be more important? - wouldn’t it be benevolent to clearly and unambiguously communicate the options and consequences without allowing conflicting information? Either God respects free will, in which case he is obligated out of that respect to provide detailed and reliable information of his existence and the existence of the choice to all people in order to allow them to make the informed decision of whether or not to obey him and his commands, or he cares nothing at all for free will and just wants people to accept his existence on faith and personal conviction alone, in which the choice is just a mockery and facade of genuine free will, IMO.

That assessment of free will holds for me only if there’s a permanent, tortuous hell. Otherwise, free will is a pretty good deal.

We are, by our nature, unable to attain eternal life. This is precisely why God came among us – to demonstrate His great love and mercy by taking our sin upon Himself. The Church he created is the avenue through which His grace enters our lives, and it is only by cooperating with grace that we can hope to be saved.

In other words, He not only gave us free will – he also gave us a way to let Him help us to conform our will to His: cooperation with His grace.

It is not enough to believe He exists, nor is it enough to be a “good person”. If we refuse His grace, we are unable to be sanctified.

And, the great news is that there is also Purgatory for those who do not achieve sanctification in this life.

So, to sum up, Hell is there not just for unbelievers, but for those who refuse to conform their free will to God’s will.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Ani_Ibi]

john doran:

i don’t think they’d need any new knowledge - they’d just need to choose freely to stop being jerks.

Yeeyeayah, man! You got their number right!
john doran:

probably, though, that would also require a helping of grace to overcome the trillions of years of ingrained obstinacy…

Know what Dr Phil says? He says we teach people how to treat us. Probably talking about trillions of years of people letting them get away with being jerks!

In English Lit we have a concept called the Dark Loner. You know, Richard III, Hannibal Lector and so on. Some folks have this weird image of themselves as some sort of wickedly attractive rebels, destroyers who don’t play by the rules. I think they think it is some sort of joke.