Prison is not a punishment... it is a choice!?

[Jaypeeto4]

CONTINUED FROM JUST ABOVE. THANKS.
To read even a few chapters of someone like John Paul II, and then compare them to the “erudite” anti-Christian public speeches of Richard Dawkins and other attackers, is truly a remarkable, almost laughable, experience. These unbelievers, who ridicule our Faith, actually believe that they are making “truly profound” remarks that none of us Idiots has ever heard before and that none of our Great Thinkers has ever heard of or considered or provided a rejoinder to. It is, truly, silly and, for such a self-promoter as him, truly worthy of scorn and deep ridicule. He is saying nothing original, nothing deep, nothing profound, nothing that hasn’t been answered, quite well, over and over and over again.
Our popes and theologians are not “Josh McDowell” bible-verse-slinging apologists. They are not the silly Ken Ham style fundamentalists who make ridiculous arguments in favor of a literal 6,000 year old earth. These are profoundly gifted men who are beyond superbly educated in their fields of study, IN THESE PARTICULAR matters, and, frankly, make their most “erudite” atheist and other antiCatholic critics look like true dilletantes by comparison.
I once watched a program where Christopher Hitchens spewed his “Brilliant” reasons for rejecting the Christian Faith (and all other faiths, too, while he was at it). Not an original thought in the whole program. Nothing at all impressive, nothing that would make a well-read, studious Catholic seriously say,
HEY, WOW, maybe I’ve been believing a lie all my life.
But the studio audience, a better-dressed version of the noisy Jerry Springer audiences, was eating it up. Like they were listening to one of the most brilliant minds who ever lived.
As I watched the studio audience, all his fans, cheering every remark he made, I couldn’t help but think, “Are they kidding me?? THIS is his apologetic for being anti-Christianity??
THIS is the best he can do? Or even a “pretty good” sampling of the arguments he has in his “arsenal?” These arguments are petty and pedantic and are not substantive at all. THESE are some of his brilliant proofs against our Faith? These things are not at all substantive.”
In fact, MOST of what he had to say was Ad Hominem attacks anyway. Others were broad based insulting generalizations, nothing was presented that showed any serious evidence that our Faith was founded by liars, based on a lie, spread by liars, nothing.
Pope So and So was a fornicator. Pope So and So stole money.
But Hitchie-poo, you as a liberal CONDONE fornication, so what is your objection here?
And who said Pope So and So stole money. Where is the proof? I don’t say that it doesn’t exist, but he sure didn’t offer any. I’ve heard this garbage over and over again from him and other “erudite” unbelievers. I read the “brilliant” articles at the American Atheists website, that had me for a while convinced that maybe the whole thing WAS a hoax. But I said, let me look at the counter arguments. They more than knocked the living daylights out of the claims made in the A.A. website articles, revealing such “scholarship” to be largely vapid and based on undocumented hearsay and undocumented or very poorly documented claims (Nazareth had never existed in the First Century, Israel has “made up” the existence of 1st Century synagogues to get Christian tourists to come to Israel and spend money. These are serious allegations, that a nation is FAKING all it’s archaelogical discoveries in order to make money off Christian tourists. **What a grand conspiracy **would have to be at work here!! These **unbelieving-in-Jesus **, JEWISH archaeologists would all be **conniving together **to falsely claim that this building was a 1st century Christian house of worship, that THIS building was the famous Synagogue at Capernaum, that this location here IS first-century Nazareth, bah, they’re all, all of them, just lying, even though it’s in their INTEREST, theoretically, as Jews, to add TO the “dis-proofs” of the life of Jesus. That is silly, Serious. We Christians already KNOW that our Jewish Friends do not accept Jesus as the Messiah. And we still go to Israel in droves as tourists. And would continue to, even if the archaelogists all conspired together against our Faith to say that all the towns and buildings show NO evidence of any early Christians, which would be in THEIR THEOLOGICAL INTEREST to do,if they WANTED to be liars. But they are not liars and not conspiring to “fake” evidence. They’re professional researchers who HAPPEN to be Jewish. Period.
This kind of stuff, is typical of the scholarship of those, not merely bona-fide atheists, but believers in antiChristian religions too, like militant Islamic “apologists” who attack Christianity from every angle but with the silliest and most easily and repeatedly answered claims.
It is shoddy and silly “research,” pure and simple. Truly beneath contempt.
A third grader could come up with better stuff than most of this by making it up right off the top of his head.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

And by the way, Serious, just so you know,
I am in my 50s and from age 8 was raised to believe, in great detail,
that the Catholic Faith was the most ridiculous thing ever invented by the mind of man,
and THE MOST EVIL as well, thoroughly stolen from pagan cults (yes, I was taught all of that, with many then-impressive “proofs” which are now being put forward in many antiCatholic books, which, I assure you, are ALL pure bull****. (I blocked out the bad word myself, not a moderator).

As for the Church itself, I was also raised to believe and did for decades, that this was the most false, vile, evil, manipulative, malicious and out and out demonic institution on the face of the Earth. I was presented with many, many, many “proofs” of these horrible accusations.

I have heard all of them. I researched them all and, other than common human sins, some very bad, which can be said of all groups that have been around a long time,
NOTHING I was taught about the Faith, it’s origins, etc, nor about the church as an institution, was true and factual at all.

I am not some Penny-Catechism catholic convert who has never heard the alleged
“REAL TRUTH” about “EVIL ROMANISM” and have been duped by a wicked, stupid organization. I’ve heard, and believed, all of the antiCatholic propaganda.
And I DEEPLY and PROFOUNDLY REGRET having helped, for years and years,
to actively SPREAD IT. I was spreading pure, unadulterated, bull manure.
And that is calling it by a name more dignified than it (antiCatholicism) deserves.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

I’d like to add just one example of a ridiculous antiCatholic (and antiChristian in general too), this time put forth NOT by Atheists, but commonly put forth on websites that
militantly promote Islam and ATTACK Catholicism from many angles.

The claim put forth is this.
Catholics and other Christians believe in the Trinity doctrine (this part is true).
The Trinity doctrine is ridiculous. (this is their opinion, nothing more).
The Trinity that Christians worship
consists of God, Jesus, and the Virgin Mary.

Read that last one again.
It is a WHOPPER of a lie.
And over 1.5 BILLION Muslims
believe this BRAZEN lie, and hate us, as Idolators, for it.
And KILL US AS BLASPHEMERS in their countries, such as Iran, for it.
This is NOT a lie told innocently, in other words, not a real “lie” but a
mere “error of fact” which though false, is made in good faith.
Everybody tells those kinds of “lies.” In this multifaceted world, this very complicated world, it is impossible not to repeat errors innocently.
NO WAY is this so in the case of THIS very popular lie told by Muslim apologists in their books and on their websites.
Because the Trinity Doctrine, and what our Trinity IS,
is described in ANY basic Catholic or other Christian intro to theology book.
Which any apologist for another religion, posessing even a MODICUM of common decency, should CHECK before he makes his claim. And I’m certain, according to just the “law of averages,” that many of them HAVE, in fact, CHECKED, and DO KNOW that they are lying.
Thorough, accurate descriptions of the Trinity Doctrine are also available at THIS Catholic Answers website and on MULTITUDES of Catholic and other Christian websites ALL OVER the Internet. There is NO EXCUSE for a lie as HUGE and LIBELLOUS and BRAZEN as this one.

Let me state categorically, in case there ARE any reading here who do NOT KNOW that the Muslim apologists’ claim about the Trinity is a Lie, for YOUR benefit,
THE VIRGIN MARY IS NOT PART OF THE TRINITY,
and the Church, NO Trinitarian Christian Church, whether Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant, HAS EVER CLAIMED THAT SHE IS.
We would not dare do so.
In fact, we firmly believe that if we ever dared to claim that MARY, a CREATURE, is part of the GODHEAD, that she, loving sweet Mary now reigning in heaven, as kind as she is, might darned well, to defend God’s honor, strike us dead, herself, for blaspheming God – and her too — by making such a horrific false claim about her.
Mother Mary is the kindest and sweetest woman who ever lived, but she is THE HANDMAIDEN OF THE LORD, and his most faithful creaturely servant EVER, and she will defend His Honor, God’s Honor and Unicity, at any and ALL cost, no matter WHAT she has to do. She is THE Daughter of Zion, THE “WOMAN” prophesied in Genesis 3:15 who cooperates with God in helping crush the head of the evil serpent by bringing forth the Child, her Son, who does, and did, just that, on the Cross.
She is NOT a Goddess, nor a member of the Trinity, or any such thing,
and we Catholics and other Trinitarian Christians have never, never, never, not once, said that she is, and again, we WOULD NOT DARE.

But these are the kinds of WHOPPERS, easily disproven, even by a FOUR YEAR OLD, which are commonly told by unbelivers of all stripes, about Catholicism and Christianity in general. When I say “kinds” of lying whoppers, I mean very serious and VERY easily shown, with almost no effort, to be UTTERLY FALSE.
And again, because of this ONE WHOPPER OF AN EASILY DISPROVEN LIE,
over 1 and 1/2 BILLION Muslims believe that Christians worship Mary as God, believe Mary is part of the Triune Godhead, and call her the Third Person of the Trinity,
and thus we are, in their eyes, Idolators deserving of death. That is WHY they KILL other Muslims who convert to Christianity. THAT LIE is a big part of the reason. Because they believe that they have apostasized into Outright Idolatry.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Serious

**What a “terrible deed” is to make love to one’s spouse in a way that is not open to conception! One must shiver at the “intrinsically evil”-ness of such an act… Imagine, selflessly concentrating on your spouse to give them maximum pleasure. How “evil” they be? **

It’s difficult to take you seriously.

Naturally, spouses give each other maximum sexual pleasure all the time. But the the greatest pleasure in life is to have children. Mates who just want to have birth control sex are hedonists, and not much else in life matters to them. That’s really all we need to know about such people.

They need to grow up … if they can.

 

[Serious]

Give me a break, what a ridiculous comparison. Aristotle was a PHILOSOPHER and not an “authority” on the physical organism.
Bah humbug? Authoritarian argument? Please.

Ah, so you mean that I should defer to religious authorities? Sorry, there are no such people. I certainly would accept someone as an authority, IF and ONLY IF that person could substantiate what they say. There are no “religious authorities”, no “philosophical authorities”, nor authorities on palm reading, on dowsing, astrology, etc… It is all speculation.

They have heard, for centuries, EVERY argument that nonBelievers (not merely modern Atheists) have offered against every aspect of the Christian faith. They have heard them from every angle, too. Up, down, sideways, and backwards. They have researched them from every angle. And they have written and answered them from every angle, too: up, down, sideways and backwards.

Wrong. They could not answer even the simplest questions. I read the catechism, I read book by apologists, and I did not find even one answer. No doubt you will now come up with another ad hominem, and say that I am too dumb to understand the “brilliance” of those “VASTLY superior” people. If it makes you feel warm and fuzzy, go ahead, by all means and say it.

 

[Serious]

Naturally, spouses give each other maximum sexual pleasure all the time. But the the greatest pleasure in life is to have children.

Nonsense. Some people want children, some do not. There is no such thing as one size fits all. Of course you do not understand the point. Even if some people want children, it does not mean that they want to have as many as possible - so they use contraception SOMETIMES.

But that does not matter according to the teaching of the church. They are “evil” people and if they do not run and confess, they will burn in hell forever - according to the teaching of the church. Guess, what? I do not believe it. The God you speak of is a meddling, small-time Peeping Tom, whose primary interest is what happens in the privacy of the bedrooms. The creator of the Universe would be way above these insignificant matters.

The truth is that I could never come up with more derogatory remarks about God, than you do when you come to “defend” him.

Mates who just want to have birth control sex are hedonists, and not much else in life matters to them. That’s really all we need to know about such people.

Another absurdity. Those people can be very diligent professionals, who simply do not wish to engage in procreation. They find other things more interesting in life. That does not mean that they are in bed 24 hour a day. It is boring to see such simplistic little strawmen arguments.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Another absurdity. Those people can be very diligent professionals, who simply do not wish to engage in procreation. They find other things more interesting in life. That does not mean that they are in bed 24 hour a day. It is boring to see such simplistic little strawmen arguments. **

Your pompous superior reasoning ability makes you a colossal bore yourself. Grow up.

 

[andrewstx]

I think this is a complicated question, with complicated answers.
Many do indeed may make an active choice to go to prison. But others try to avoid detection of their crimes.

Others have such problems that they cannot make it on the “outside” and indeed chose prison. For such individuals prison is a lifestyle. When they are released they often deliberately chose to go back. As they say it’s three hots and a cot.

A very large number are under the influence of drink and drugs. Can it be said they deliberatly chose prison?
Such individuals often end up in prison, since their is no other place for them.

Many sexual predators end up in prisons, their victims are safe and they are safe from their own temptations, but not from the other prisoners. They are frequently targeted for death.

 

[sw85]

Sorry, I read it. It is not acceptable as an authoritative writ. You keep denying the simple fact: I am aware of what the Church says, and I am denying its validity. Furthermore I have very good reasons to do so. Those reasons might not be valid in your eyes, but they are valid for me.

This has nothing to do with anything I’m saying.

“I choose not to believe that about which I know virtually nothing because I refuse to do my homework on the topic” is not the same thing as “I am invincibly ignorant.” The latter precludes the mortality of the sin of faithlessness. The former does not.

You can believe what you want. But you cannot claim, if you are proven wrong when you die, that you genuinely thought you’d get away with it because you didn’t think God existed (i.e., because you didn’t do your homework, even though people warned you of the potential consequences). That’s all.

I act in accordance with my conscience, and I read in the catechism that one must follow one’s own conscience. Of course, true to form, it immediately refutes (and contradicts) its own word, and says that one is only allowed to follow one’s conscience if it is “well-formed”, in other words, if it follows what the church teaches.

Duh. Because conscience is not “whatever I emotively determine to be true out of ignorance and pride.”

A typical Henry Ford-like statement: “you can have a car of any color, provided that it is black”. Do you understand now why your word (or the catechism) is of no value at all? It would be nice if you understood, but I will not hold my breath.

I understand perfectly well. What I don’t understand is why you keep harping on the issue as if it’s relevant.

If in fact God exists, then when you stand before him for judgment you will not be able to claim ignorance of Him. You will not be able to claim it because I am telling you this truth right now. I am telling you it is a truth revealed both by reason and revelation. If you are wrong about that, then you would also (clearly) be wrong in claiming that you had no reason to believe it.

You are wrong. I only know that you say it. And since your word is not acceptable, I do NOT know what you claim I know. I wish it would be allowed under the forum rules to express just “how” unacceptable your word is. Since it is not, I will leave it to your imagination.

How do you know my word is not “acceptable”? Because you’ve decided a priori that it isn’t, because it conflicts with what you’ve decided a priori must be true?

I’m not wasting any further time with you, ignoramus troll.

I read quite a few books written by noted apologists. In my opinion, none were worth the price of paper they were printed upon.

 

[danserr]

I said:

Originally Posted by danserr View Post
If I am a diver and I cut my own breathing tube, thereby choosing to separate my self from oxygen, have I been punished, or am I merely suffering the natural consequences of my actions?

You responded:

In this case it is the natural consequence, obviously. Now if someone committed an “intriniscally evil” act of masturbation, and never repented, what kind of “natural consequence” is there between the act and the eternal torture?

Excellent. Now, let’s change the example slightly.

Let’s suppose the same diver. Instead of cutting his breathing tube, he merely disconnects it. In doing so, he cuts himself off from his air supply. Now the diver has a period of time in which to repent and reconnect his breathing tube before he dies. Let us suppose he is not sorry and does not. The diver in question then suffers the natural consequences of his action and dies. Again, has he been punished, or suffered the natural consequences of his action?

When a diver disconnects his breathing tube, he separates himself from his source of oxygen. When a person sins, he separates himself from the source of eternal goodness and happiness. Like the diver, the person may choose to repent and reconnect himself to God, but if he refuses to reconnect himself to God (by repentance), then he will suffer the natural consequences of that separation. And the natural consequence of separating oneself from the source of all goodness, joy, peace, and happiness is hell. How could it not be?!

Surely, this is understandable? If I cheat on my wife and refuse to repent, then I injure my relation with her. By doing so, I lose all the goods that might have come from my being in a relationship with her. It doesn’t even have to be as serious as cheating, I could simply call her a nasty name one morning. Yet still, if I refuse to repent that, I injure my relationship with her, separate myself from her, and thereby lose the goods that would otherwise come from that relationship. Am I being punished? Well, in one sense maybe, but it still seems understandable as a case where the natural consequence of sinning against my wife is that I lose the goods that would have come from not separating myself from her in this way.

 

[Serious]

“I choose not to believe that about which I know virtually nothing because I refuse to do my homework on the topic” is not the same thing as “I am invincibly ignorant.” The latter precludes the mortality of the sin of faithlessness. The former does not.

As usual, an absurd remark. Beliefs are not under volitional control. Don’t you know even that?

You can believe what you want.

No, I cannot believe what I want. That is the crux of the matter. No matter how hard I would try, I could not force myself to believe in the tooth-fairy.

But you cannot claim, if you are proven wrong when you die, that you genuinely thought you’d get away with it because you didn’t think God existed (i.e., because you didn’t do your homework, even though people warned you of the potential consequences). That’s all.

Guess what? If it happens, I do exactly that. People warned me of the potential consequences, you say. Well, those people have absolutely no credibility. Once it happened to me that some guy came and warned me (with utmost sincerity) that an alien invasion is due in a few weeks, and the aliens will kill everyone, who does not start to worship them immediately. You credibility is on par with that guy. Do you understand that?

Duh. Because conscience is not “whatever I emotively determine to be true out of ignorance and pride.”

Looks like you don’t know conscience is formed. It is also an involuntary process. You sure have a lot to learn.

If in fact God exists, then when you stand before him for judgment you will not be able to claim ignorance of Him. You will not be able to claim it because I am telling you this truth right now. I am telling you it is a truth revealed both by reason and revelation. If you are wrong about that, then you would also (clearly) be wrong in claiming that you had no reason to believe it.

Oh, I will, make no mistakes about it. Of course your scare-tactics does not work on me. You say what you believe is the “truth”, I grant you that. But your belief is based on faulty reason, and the credibility of “revelation” is also nil.

How do you know my word is not “acceptable”?

What a weird question. I do not accept it, on the grounds that what you say is sheer nonsense.

I’m not wasting any further time with you, ignoramus troll.

Oh, please, do not raise false hope! Let your word be believable - just this time.

 

[Serious]

Excellent. Now, let’s change the example slightly.

Let’s suppose the same diver. Instead of cutting his breathing tube, he merely disconnects it. In doing so, he cuts himself off from his air supply. Now the diver has a period of time in which to repent and reconnect his breathing tube before he dies. Let us suppose he is not sorry and does not. The diver in question then suffers the natural consequences of his action and dies. Again, has he been punished, or suffered the natural consequences of his action?

No change in my reply. Obviously the result is still a natural consequence. So far we have agreement.

When a person sins, he separates himself from the source of eternal goodness and happiness.

This is the point where you lose me. The suffering coming from the disconnection of the breathing tube is fully natural, it can be tested and investigated. And there is no judgment involved. This is completely different from the assertion that at the time of your death you will be judged, and you will be either alloed in heaven, or thrown (observe the verb here) into hell, or put into some “purgatory”. There is no “natural” action here.

Furthermore, what you say in this paragraph cannot be tested. It must be accepted on “faith”. God is not visible, is not testable. Your claim that God is the source of goodness and happiness cannot be substantiated. Right now I am separated from God. I cannot see his face (does he have a face?) I do not experience his touch (does he have a hand?) I cannot hear his voice (does he have vocal chords?) - so my separation is complete. (Please do not say that God can be seen and heard, and experienced, but I volitionally close my eyes and ears. I heard that nonsense far too many times) And guess what? I am perfectly happy.

Like the diver, the person may choose to repent and reconnect himself to God, but if he refuses to reconnect himself to God (by repentance), then he will suffer the natural consequences of that separation. And the natural consequence of separating oneself from the source of all goodness, joy, peace, and happiness is hell. How could it not be?!

Your analogy was faulty. Separation from God is not torture, pain and misery. Nowadays some people started to downplay the fire-and-brimstone type of hell. Looks like the “good old” picture is far too revolting to people with a sense of decency.

Surely, this is understandable? If I cheat on my wife and refuse to repent, then I injure my relation with her. By doing so, I lose all the goods that might have come from my being in a relationship with her. It doesn’t even have to be as serious as cheating, I could simply call her a nasty name one morning. Yet still, if I refuse to repent that, I injure my relationship with her, separate myself from her, and thereby lose the goods that would otherwise come from that relationship. Am I being punished? Well, in one sense maybe, but it still seems understandable as a case where the natural consequence of sinning against my wife is that I lose the goods that would have come from not separating myself from her in this way.

It depends on your wife. If she would be a Lorena Bobbit, you might lose more than a few night’s sleep. I asked in my previous post to explain, just what kind of natural consequence comes from a so-called “intrinsically evil and mortal sin” of masturbation. If God does not wish to have anything with you, that is NOT a natural consequence. (Though, of course I don’t think so. God cannot be a Peeping Tom.)

 

[danserr]

I posted that hell is simply the natural consequence of separating oneself from God by sinning and refusing to repent. In sin, we hurt our relationship with God, and by failing to repent, we eventually separate ourselves from Him forever. Thus, the natural consequence of hurting our relationship with God, entails that we lose the goods that would have come from that relationship (eternal happiness and goodness).

I said:

Surely, this is understandable? If I cheat on my wife and refuse to repent, then I injure my relation with her. By doing so, I lose all the goods that might have come from my being in a relationship with her. It doesn’t even have to be as serious as cheating, I could simply call her a nasty name one morning. Yet still, if I refuse to repent that, I injure my relationship with her, separate myself from her, and thereby lose the goods that would otherwise come from that relationship. Am I being punished? Well, in one sense maybe, but it still seems understandable as a case where the natural consequence of sinning against my wife is that I lose the goods that would have come from not separating myself from her in this way.

You replied.

It depends on your wife. If she would be a Lorena Bobbit, you might lose more than a few night’s sleep. I asked in my previous post to explain, just what kind of natural consequence comes from a so-called “intrinsically evil and mortal sin” of masturbation. If God does not wish to have anything with you, that is NOT a natural consequence. (Though, of course I don’t think so. God cannot be a Peeping Tom.)

Now here, you did not really answer my question, but instead brought up masturbation again. I will reply more directly this time, but I bring up the first part of what I said, because it will again be relevant.

This being said, I have to point out that you risk conflating two separate questions. The first, “is masturbation a sin”? The second, “does sin separate one from God?” You want to use your skepticism about the first as a rhetorical cover to let you ignore the second. But you can’t do that, at least not rationally. The real question before us is whether or not it is reasonable to think that sin harms our relationship with God, and, if unrepented, results in us cutting ourselves off from God, and hence results in us losing the benefits of that relationship with God.

Now the fact that you don’t think masturbation is a sin is irrelevant, since what we are discussing is not whether a specific act is a sin, but the natural consequences model of hell and if it offers a coherent way to explain hell. The point is not a specific sin, but unrepentant sin in general, and this model will stand or fall regardless of whether or not a specific act is a sin.

Originally Posted by danserr View Post
Like the diver, the person may choose to repent and reconnect himself to God, but if he refuses to reconnect himself to God (by repentance), then he will suffer the natural consequences of that separation. And the natural consequence of separating oneself from the source of all goodness, joy, peace, and happiness is hell. How could it not be?!

Your analogy was faulty. Separation from God is not torture, pain and misery. Nowadays some people started to downplay the fire-and-brimstone type of hell. Looks like the “good old” picture is far too revolting to people with a sense of decency.

I disagree, if God is the source of all eternal joy, goodness, and happiness, then separation from God naturally entails separation from these things. If you separate yourself from your breathing tube, you lose oxygen. If you separate yourself from the sun, you lose light. If you separate yourself from God, you lose those goods that he is the source of (eternal happiness, goodness, and joy).

Furthermore, by separating yourself from joy and happiness, the result is that you gain unhappiness and misery. By separating yourself from goodness, you gain the opposite. And so of course separating yourself from these goods is misery and torture. Like I said, how could it not be?!!

You might protest that in this way I make hell too tame. But that is not my intent at all. In fact I think that is the value of the hellfire and brimstone imagery, it helps to bring out the seriousness of hell more directly to people who might think that based on what I’ve said “gee, hell can’t be that bad.”

To anticipate your next question, “then why isn’t here horrible suffering when I reject God here?” Well, first of all, here you still enjoy the goods provided by God because you have yet to make your final choice (death or immediately thereafter). Second, here, you still have a body that allows you the bodily pleasures provided by God. After death you will not have this body. Hence after death if you reject God, you will not be able to enjoy the pleasures you do now.

In short, the natural consequences of separating oneself one God is just as “natural” as a diver separating himself from his oxygen; one separates himself from the source of eternal goodness and joy and the natural consequence follows directly. In separating oneself from the source of eternal joy, one suffers the consequence of eternal misery, which is hell.

 

[danserr]

The suffering coming from the disconnection of the breathing tube is fully natural, it can be tested and investigated. And there is no judgment involved. This is completely different from the assertion that at the time of your death you will be judged, and you will be either allowed in heaven, or thrown (observe the verb here) into hell, or put into some “purgatory”.

So I said above, why this is natural. Now remember, we are not discussing the penal model of hell, but the natural consequences one. You conflate the two a little here, but that makes your argument something of a straw man. Yes, I note your use of the word “thrown”, but you said that not, me. That is not the understanding I am defending here, so your choice to attribute an idea to me that I have not said and then attack it is a straw man.

A defender of the natural consequences view might reply that much of what you said here is consistent with this view. He could hold that judgement is simply God looking at a person’s choice and simply saying “very well, thy will be done.” Hence, there is no “throwing a person into hell”, rather in separating himself willfully from God and not repenting, the natural consequence is hell and God simply ratifies that choice.

 

[Robertanthony]

I like the analogy of the diver cutting himself off his air supply, but if you poll 100 divers and ask them the consequence of being underwater for a couple of minutes without oxygen, 100% will know what the direct consequence will be. Out of 100 people dying right this second, how many could connect their actions/omissions/words with their eternal destiny? Matthew 7:22-23 certainly indicates that many do not expect to go to Hell, and one poster previously talked about mortal sin, and I would posit that many people aren’t good judges of the state of their own souls, one way or the other. Whereas a man who commits a serious crime knows for a fact that he will go to jail if he gets caught. I, like others, have an extremely difficult time wrapping my mind around the idea that a man could end up in Hell who has lived a life striving to be morally excellent, being as selfless as his nature/personality/environment allow him to be, yet ONE unrepented sin committed 60 years earlier will be the stumbling block to him being with God eternally?
Also, one last question to consider, we're all different, we all have different backgrounds, talents, opportunities, temperaments, personalities etc., is the level of difficulty in attaining salvation the same for everyone? I'll say upfront I don't believe this is the case; for people who have grown up with parents who didn't love them, said they were mistakes, were abusive etc.,many of these people will grow up fearing love and intimacy (What God wants from us) and will harden their hearts considerably.

 

[Serious]

I disagree, if God is the source of all eternal joy, goodness, and happiness, then separation from God naturally entails separation from these things.

Very well. This is a huge “IF” statement. I understand that this is your belief, but it is not what I believe. I do not believe that there is “eternal” joy and happiness. But I know that I am filled with a lot of joy and happiness here and now. So my “sins” do not lead to torture, misery and pain - in a natural manner. And they have nothing to do with God. If you say that God provided me with my body, then this is yet another unsubstantiated assertion, just like that God is the source of “eternal joy and happiness”.

If you separate yourself from your breathing tube, you lose oxygen. If you separate yourself from the sun, you lose light. If you separate yourself from God, you lose those goods that he is the source of (eternal happiness, goodness, and joy).

But I do not separate myself form God. I have no intention to separate myself from God. I would wish to be united with God. God (allegedly) will separate himself from me, by JUDGING me to be unworthy to be in his presence. This is why the problem: “what is (mortal) sin, and how does it separate oneself from God?” becomes pertinent. And the secondary question: “how do I know that?”.

You might protest that in this way I make hell too tame. But that is not my intent at all. In fact I think that is the value of the hellfire and brimstone imagery, it helps to bring out the seriousness of hell more directly to people who might think that based on what I’ve said “gee, hell can’t be that bad.”

I do not wish to question that God is the final arbiter of our fate. If God says that action “X” renders one to be unfit to be in his presence, than that is IT. The consequnce of action “X” is then hell, let it be fire and brimstone. However, there is something very wrong with this picture. We do not have the information about that. Now there are some people (even in this thread) who assert (sometimes very rudely and impolitely) that I have been told the consequences, and therefore I explicitly choose those consequences. Apart from the fact that their word is unconvincing, it still does not constitute a “natural” consequence. It is still a question of judgment. (There will be a “Judgment Day”, won’t be? It is not called “Ratification Day” for some reason?)

Now remember, we are not discussing the penal model of hell, but the natural consequences one.

To be more precise we discuss if the “natrual consequence model” is correct or not, logical or not? And so far you did not show me how the natural consequence model works? The analogy of the diver is nice, but it is not applicable - since we are aware of the natural consequences. The analogy of the wife is also incorrect. It is the wife’s decision (I am not disputing the correctness of this decision) which will be the separating factor. To be unfaithful toward the spouse is a very good reason for the spouse to say: “I do not want to do anything with you any more”. But that is not a “natural” consequence, it is a judgment call. Unfortunately there are many battered wives, who keep on enduring abusive relationships. This is to show that the rejection on the spouse’s part is not a natural event.

Yes, I note your use of the word “thrown”, but you said that not, me.

Actually it comes from the Bible, in several verse, all in context with eact other. It explicitly tells about the “force” applied.

A defender of the natural consequences view might reply that much of what you said here is consistent with this view. He could hold that judgement is simply God looking at a person’s choice and simply saying “very well, thy will be done.” Hence, there is no “throwing a person into hell”, rather in separating himself willfully from God and not repenting, the natural consequence is hell and God simply ratifies that choice.

Except it is not the person’s “will” to be separated from God. The catechism says in no uncertain terms that lack of belief (atheism) is a mortal sin. Now it softens this a little by stating that if someone has been “invincibly ignorant”, then that person MIGHT get a break. But if one has been told about the “Truth ™” then there is no more “Mr. Nice Guy”. And this brings us back to the fundamental question: “how do I know what actions will be considered by God to render me unfit for his presence, and how do I know that?”. After all, no just judge will demand full responsibility if there is no full disclosure.

 

[Robertanthony]

Serious, get your sorry *** into a confessional ASAP, that way you won’t have to worry saying, “What if there is a God…”, like this fellow youtube.com/watch?v=X54dYbfCSR4 And BTW I should just heed my own advice. I already said this on another thread but I will repeat it because it’s so brilliant (!): the crucifixion should make it crystal clear that God doesn’t take sin lightly. Peace to you, bro.

 

[danserr]

I like the analogy of the diver cutting himself off his air supply, but if you poll 100 divers and ask them the consequence of being underwater for a couple of minutes without oxygen, …
Whereas a man who commits a serious crime knows for a fact that he will go to jail if he gets caught. I, like others, have an extremely difficult time wrapping my mind around the idea that a man could end up in Hell who has lived a life striving to be morally excellent, being as selfless as his nature/personality/environment allow him to be, yet ONE unrepented sin committed 60 years earlier will be the stumbling block to him being with God eternally?

Also, one last question to consider, we're all different, we all have different backgrounds, talents, opportunities, temperaments, personalities etc., is the level of difficulty in attaining salvation the same for everyone? I'll say upfront I don't believe this is the case; for people who have grown up with parents who didn't love them, said they were mistakes, were abusive etc.,many of  these people will grow up fearing love and intimacy (What God wants from us) and will harden their hearts considerably.

The answers to both of your questions actually go together. Sorry if I am a bit repetitive at first, I just do it to help remind myself and others where we are.

There are two generally held possible views of hell, the penal view, which stresses the punishment aspect of it, and the natural consequences view, which sees hell as the natural consequence of separating oneself from God. Contrary to what another poster has suggested, I am not trying to prove that the nat. conseq. view is true, only that it is a rational way of understanding hell.

To this end I offered two illustrations.

1. A diver removes his breathing tube, he refuses to repent this, and, having separated himself from his source of oxygen, he suffers the natural consequences.
2. A husband calls his wife a bad word, and never repents. By doing so, he hurts his relationship with his wife, and loses the goods that would have come from that relationship. Even if she stays with him and still does things for him (as another poster protests), the relationship will not be as strong as it otherwise would have been and the husband loses out on those goods.

Likewise with God. When a person sins and refuses to repent, he separates himself from the source of eternal goodness, joy, and happiness. The natural consequence of separating oneself from eternal goodness, happiness, and joy is eternal misery, or hell. As I keep saying, how could it not be?!

Furthermore, the sin, need not be a large one, consider the husband who calls his wife a bad word. Unrepented, even that is enough to hurt his relationship with her. The point is not so much, the size of the sin, but the failure to regret it.

Now your objections seem to me not so much to question the reasonableness of this view, but the justice of it, which, I think, is a slightly different thing.

You make the point that alot of people don’t believe that they are doing wrong. Well, that is true. Hitler did not believe that he was doing wrong when he killed 6 million Jews. Nonetheless, by doing what he did, he still separated himself from God. Could he protest, “well, I though I was doing right, and didn’t think it was wrong?” Surely, we both doubt that. By doing such evil and refusing to repent, he separated himself from eternal goodness. The sin need not be that large, even small sins, unrepented can separate one from that eternal goodness.

Now you ask, “what about people who don’t know better?” Well, the Bible does point out that some people will be judged more lightly, “to whom much is given much is expected.” Think of the parable of the talents (Luke 19:12-27). A landlord goes on a journey and gives three servants 5, 3, and 1 talent respectively. On his return the first two have doubled their investment, while the last did nothing with his. The first two did well, the third did not. You see, each servant was not given the exact same position, one was given the advantage, and another the disadvantage, but it would have been enough if the third servant had merely made some return, rather than burying his talent in his mattress. And in other points in the gospel, Jesus points out that things will be worse for the one who has been given more advantages and still rejects him. This implies that things will be easier for one who knows less or has a tougher situation.

This makes alot of sense on both the penal view and the natural consequences view. Suppose the same husband who calls his wife a bad word. Well, maybe he was very stressed and sick, or maybe he had some reason for not thinking it was such a bad word. Well, in that case it will still hurt his relationship with his wife, but not as much. She will understand the circumstances, and he won’t have intended to do something as bad.

So, to answer your second question, of course, I and the Church hold that there can be mitigating factors. The point is that God gives every person, no matter their situation, enough grace to be saved if they respond to it. Some people might even be more likely to respond because of tough circumstances. They might more recognize their need for God.

No one is totally without excuse, though, because God has made man so that man will know right and wrong. St. Paul says this in the Bible, and it makes alot of sense that God would make a general revelation available to everyone.

For more on how the choice to separate oneself from God is made, I like C.S. Lewis’s The Great Divorce.

 

[danserr]

Very well. This is a huge “IF” statement. I understand that this is your belief, but it is not what I believe. I do not believe that there is “eternal” joy and happiness…

Alot of your post, I can be brief on partly because I address some of it in my above post, and partly because if you look over what you wrote, you will realize that you are no longer objecting to the coherence of the natural consequences view, but whether it is true. For instance, you say:

If you say that God provided me with my body, then this is yet another unsubstantiated assertion, just like that God is the source of “eternal joy and happiness”.

To be more precise we discuss if the “natrual consequence model” is correct or not, logical or not?

See, your objections now rest on whether or not the natural consequences model is true or not. And you keep saying that you don’t believe that certain facts associated with the model are true. (you deny that God is the source of goodness and present that as an objection to the natural consequences model).

Well, to prove that God is the source of goodness and the natural consequences model true, I would have to give good evidence that 1. God exists, 2. Christianity is true (Jesus rose from the dead. I can do both things, but that would derail the thread. On the contrary, I am only trying to show that the natural consequences model if if is true, is a reasonable model to understand hell with. So, on to your other points.

1. This means that the fact you don’t believe that God gave you a body is irrelevant. My point is that because a defender of the natural consequences model would hold that separation of God will be misery after death but is not now, is that now you have a body through which you are able to enjoy the pleasures of the world. After death you will not. Hence it is coherent for me to hold that separation from God will entail misery after death, but not now.

But I do not separate myself form God. I have no intention to separate myself from God. I would wish to be united with God. God (allegedly) will separate himself from me, by JUDGING me to be unworthy to be in his presence.

You separate yourself from God by sin, whether you believe you do or not. Put it this way, let us support a Pharisee who believes in God and believes that God wants him to kill homosexuals. Well, surely we both agree that this is a person who is separating himself from God whether he believes he is or not?! It is not this person’s will to be separated from God, but he still is. And surely it makes sense that he is.

Next, you try to protest that the Bible implies judgment. Well, it is perfectly reasonable that on the natural consequences view, this judgment is simply God looking at a person’s choice to reject him and saying, “very, well, thy will be done.” Citing Bible text’s that literally talk about force is like citing a Bible text that talks about fire and brimstone (there are few). I could just interpret that as imagery meant to help people understand the seriousness of hell.

Finally, your main point of protest,

But I just don’t know any better!

(slightly paraphrased).

1. There are mitigating factors and obviously God takes them into account. (As I say above).
2. God makes known his moral laws to everyone on the basis of general revelation, so no one is totally without excuse.
3. It is not enough to say “but I really didn’t think it was wrong” (as I point out above).
4. The fact that you claim to sincerely believe atheism may not be a sufficient excuse. People are responsible for their beliefs not matter how sincere they are. A neo-nazi might sincerely believe that Jews should be killed. Well, he is still morally responsible for that, no matter how sincere he is.

 

[Serious]

See, your objections now rest on whether or not the natural consequences model is true or not.

To be more precise, can the “natural consequences model” be rationally accepted or not.

And you keep saying that you don’t believe that certain facts associated with the model are true. (you deny that God is the source of goodness and present that as an objection to the natural consequences model).

Again, you speak of “facts”, instead of unfounded assertions.

Well, to prove that God is the source of goodness and the natural consequences model true, I would have to give good evidence that 1. God exists, 2. Christianity is true (Jesus rose from the dead. I can do both things, but that would derail the thread.

No one can do that. I have seen all the attempts from A to Z, and none of them was successful. Obviously not, since if it could be done, then “faith” would become unnecessary. And “faith” (to accept something that cannot be rationally substantiated) is considered superior to reason in “virtue”.

My point is that because a defender of the natural consequences model would hold that separation of God will be misery after death but is not now, is that now you have a body through which you are able to enjoy the pleasures of the world. After death you will not.

In other words, there is no natural causation between the acts an suffering. At best you could say that there is an “unnatural” (or supernatural) causation.

You separate yourself from God by sin, whether you believe you do or not. Put it this way, let us support a Pharisee who believes in God and believes that God wants him to kill homosexuals. Well, surely we both agree that this is a person who is separating himself from God whether he believes he is or not?! It is not this person’s will to be separated from God, but he still is. And surely it makes sense that he is.

Actually, if he honestly believes that he is following God’s wishes, and God does not warn him in no uncertain terms that he is mistaken, then he wishes to get closer to God. If he is mistaken, then it is just a mistake, and not a volitional act to separate oneself from God. Don’t forget that there are three prongs of “mortal” sin. One must be aware that the sin is “grave” matter. The second one is that one must volitionally engage in the act - KNOWING that it is a mortal sin. If these is not present, then the person did not commit a mortal sin, so there is no separation from God. You cannot say: “but he should have known it”. If the information was missing in his opinion than the information was missing for him. You cannot make a judgment call and say “this is the information, and it must be sufficient for you”. You cannot speak for someone else. Not even God could speak for someone else.

As I said before, I am unable to commit a mortal sin, because I am not aware what constitutes a mortal sin, and therefore I am unable to engage in an act KNOWING that it is a mortal sin. Therefore I do not intend to separate myself from God.

Next, you try to protest that the Bible implies judgment. Well, it is perfectly reasonable that on the natural consequences view, this judgment is simply God looking at a person’s choice to reject him and saying, “very, well, thy will be done.”

Back to the “Ratification Day” model? Still does not work. I would simply say what Bertrand Russell was saying: “Ok, so you are real, after all. Why didn’t you give unmistakable signs of your existence and your requirements?”. (I am sure some nincompoops would be itching to utter a nonsense remark about free will here. Let’s hope they will not.)

Citing Bible text’s that literally talk about force is like citing a Bible text that talks about fire and brimstone (there are few). I could just interpret that as imagery meant to help people understand the seriousness of hell.

Yes, a usual course of action. If the quotation is unpleasant, claim that it is just an allegory.

1. There are mitigating factors and obviously God takes them into account. (As I say above).
2. God makes known his moral laws to everyone on the basis of general revelation, so no one is totally without excuse.
3. It is not enough to say “but I really didn’t think it was wrong” (as I point out above).
4. The fact that you claim to sincerely believe atheism may not be a sufficient excuse. People are responsible for their beliefs not matter how sincere they are. A neo-nazi might sincerely believe that Jews should be killed. Well, he is still morally responsible for that, no matter how sincere he is.

1. That would be reasonably expected.
2. Not true. There is no “revelation”.
3. It would be enough if God is just.
4. No, that is really wrong. Beliefs are not under volitional control. I cannot choose to believe assertion “A” if I find that assertion “unbelievable”. To hold someone responsible for something that is not under volitional control would be unjust to the extreme. You might as well be held responsible for blinking if an insect is getting into your eye.