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

[LilyM]

The difference is huge. If you cannot see that, I cannot help you. Of course the situation is not that simple. When people get into a car, they take a known risk. They are aware of the dangers, and they are aware of the probabilities. Based upon those values they can choose to take the risk or decline it. That is not true in relation to hell. There is no proof that hell exists, or even if it does, what are the conditions there. To say that people “risk” hell is just about as sensible as to say that the children take a risk by going into bed, because they believe that some monsters exist under the bed.

Known risk? Are you telling me that everyone who steps into a car has calculated with precision and accuracy the statistical chances of how likely they are to be involved in an accident on that particular drive? I would doubt such a thing could be ‘known’ with any level of certitude that would approach anywhere near knowledge - not when you factor in things like the behaviour of fellow drivers and the condition of the car itself, which would be difficult for the punter to know before they set out.

If you polled drivers in a parking lot, all 99.99% of them could ever say is that they simply are aware that they could possibly be in an accident, without being able to be any more precise than that as to their knowledge of the risk. In other words your average driver has more ‘knowledge’ of the risk than we are supposing about the risk of hell.

 

[Serious]

So are you saying that criminals are unaware of the risks involved in breaking the law?

Most of them probably are. Why is that important?

A person commits a crime, they are not caught or apprehended immediately, but they are in fact guilty of a crime. So until they are caught they are under the assumption that they are free, when in fact they owe a debt to society for their injustice.

On that same token that persons crime also offended God, they haven’t died yet so they are under the assumption that they are free when in fact they owe restitution to God for their offense.

On both examples something has to be done to make right what the criminal wronged. A price has to be paid. And if you can’t pay the price, don’t commit the crime.

This is not the point I am disputing. In this world the criminal can count on the imperfect working of justice, so there is a non-zero chance that he will escape justice altogether.

With God that is not possible. But he can count on either God’s justice or God’s mercy, so his “damnation” is not a certainty either. And if “hell” would be a deserved punishment, then a punishment it is, meted out by God. There is no “Ratification Day”, there is a “Judgment Day”.

 

[Serious]

Known risk? Are you telling me that everyone who steps into a car has calculated with precision and accuracy the statistical chances of how likely they are to be involved in an accident on that particular drive?

Who talks about “precision”? We all know that the risk of the accident is generally quite small, but on an icy road it is much larger. If one needs to drive across a minefield (poor soldiers sometimes have to do it), then the risk becomes very large. Hoever, even in such a high-risk situation no sane person wold say that the driver “chooses” to have an accident.

If you polled drivers in a parking lot, all 99.99% of them could ever say is that they simply are aware that they could possibly be in an accident, without being able to be any more precise than that as to their knowledge of the risk. In other words your average driver has more ‘knowledge’ of the risk than we are supposing about the risk of hell.

That is exactly what I was talking about.

 

[danserr]

OK, thanks. I’m still confused about the moral commands and general revelation, perhaps you would help me with an example. Suppose a Catholic R and Baptist S believe condoms are a sin, while Catholic T and Baptist U believe condoms are not a sin. All act accordingly within their respective marriages, all are well educated, and all are unrepentant in their beliefs. Which, if any, have cut themselves off from God, or otherwise displeased God?

Paul’s letter to the Romans 2:15 is generally considered an important text for demonstrating the Christian basis for believing in general revelation, that God reveals his moral commands to everyone, besides the specific revelations of the prophets and Jesus.

Both of those who used condoms in the example have cut themselves off from God, at least to some extent. I don’t profess to know how much because I don’t know all the other factors that went into it. I also don’t know if contraception is a matter of general revelation or else specific revelation of the gospel, so that those who never heard the gospel would not be guilty of using it. I suspect that it is a matter of general revelation, so all are responsible for it, but don’t claim this with certainty.

 

[danserr]

But I guess, the desire to whitewash God is so strong that no matter how ridiculous a defense might be, some people will try it. And the idea that people choose to go to hell is truly a non-plus-ultra in stupidity.

People choose hell in the same sense that a diver chooses death when he cuts his own breathing tube and separates himself from his source of oxygen. Those who choose to sin and not repent separate themselves from the source of all goodness, God. The natural consequence is hell. People are responsible because they are sinning against the moral law that God has made known to all on the basis of general revelation (though of course, God, being just, accepts that there are mitigating factors). In violating these moral commands based on general revelation, people know that they are separating themselves from goodness, hence there is no complaint that their choice to separate themselves from goodness, the source of which is God, is unjust.

 

[Serious]

People choose hell in the same sense that a diver chooses death when he cuts his own breathing tube and separates himself from his source of oxygen. Those who choose to sin and not repent separate themselves from the source of all goodness, God. The natural consequence is hell. People are responsible because they are sinning against the moral law that God has made known to all on the basis of general revelation (though of course, God, being just, accepts that there are mitigating factors). In violating these moral commands based on general revelation, people know that they are separating themselves from goodness, hence there is no complaint that their choice to separate themselves from goodness, the source of which is God, is unjust.

How many times will you reiterate this nonsense?

Your other analogy of the “cheating spouse” was actually pertinent (and it showed how ridiculous the “natural consequence” assertion is), while this diver analogy is incorrect. I am not going to refute it the “n”-th time. If someone is interested, they can review the thread.

Your whole line of argument is “un-catholic”. You deny that God judges us, and declares our punishment.

 

[danserr]

How many times will you reiterate this nonsense?

As long as you reiterate yours, especially considering that you have failed to show any inconsistency or incoherence in my approach, as you conceded earlier.

Your whole line of argument is “un-catholic”. You deny that God judges us, and declares our punishment.

There is nothing un-Catholic about my suggestion. I have shown that it is perfectly reasonable to understand God’s judgement as ratifying the choice of a soul to reject him.

If you actually want to do something interesting, start another thread devoted to discussing whether the punishment view of hell is coherent. You’ve spent this thread ranting about how hell has to be understood as punishment. I think you would like to think that because you think that it is not possible to understand hell that way in a reasonable fashion. Now, in this thread you’ve been shown that one actually can take a natural consequences view of hell, where hell is simply the natural consequence of separating oneself from God.

But since you are so eager to discuss hell as punishment, why not start a thread asking if it is possible to reasonably understand hell as punishment?

 

[John_Q_Sinner]

Let’s see another analogy. A person is bitten by a poisonous snake, and a doctor’s intervention is needed to save his life. The doctor has two options: either give an antidote, or perform an amputation. Both procedures would save the person’s life, so in either case the “greater good” would be achieved. But only one of the procedures can be justified, the giving of the antidote. It is not enough that the “greater good” should be achieved, it is also necessary that the procedure must be minimally intrusive, that the minimum amount of pain should be inflicted.

There is a huge point you’re missing in your example and that is the doctor, patient, relationship. Both methods are justified since it is the patient not the doctor that selects the method for healing.

That is why to state that the “greater good” has been achieved is insufficient. You (or God) must prove that the good was achieved as painlessly as possible. If you cannot do that, you substantiated nothing. Get it now?

This is where you lose me, because you’re setting this requirement that in order for something to be considered a better option it must be “painless” or “less painful”. Yet you haven’t really explained why the “painful” option shouldn’t be preferred, or why it is considered substandard to the painless option

Maybe the problem with you is you do not understand the value of pain. In many lives of the saints, there are times when God gives the person two options; 1. The painless way, or 2. The painful way! All of the saints choose option two. This leads me to believe that there is a spiritual mystery contained in pain and suffering, that you and well many others -including myself at times- are completely blind to.

Yet this is how I like to look at it. You see humans are dependent on God for everything and we really do not have anything we can truly call ours; except four will and suffering. In fact our suffering and our will are the only two things we can actually give to God; making suffering one out of only two gifts we can give back to God who gives us everything. Since suffering is one of the only things humans can give to God, it therefore becomes one of the best things that can possibly exist for us; provided we use it correctly and view it correctly.

 

[Serious]

There is a huge point you’re missing in your example and that is the doctor, patient, relationship. Both methods are justified since it is the patient not the doctor that selects the method for healing.

You gotta be kidding. I wonder if your reaction would be the same if you were the patient and if you saw the doctor grabbing a chainsaw and would forego the anesthetics, too. (After showing you the antidote, contemplating it for a second, and saying: “naaah… I am the doctor and I choose the chainsaw” and putting the antidote back into his pocket.) There is a phrase: “bite the bullet”. In the middle ages, before an amputation was performed (with an axe or a saw), the patient was given a bullet to bite down, and afterward he could keep that bullet as a souvenir. The bullet had some nice teethmark to show the patient’s “displeasure”.

This is where you lose me, because you’re setting this requirement that in order for something to be considered a better option it must be “painless” or “less painful”. Yet you haven’t really explained why the “painful” option shouldn’t be preferred, or why it is considered substandard to the painless option

Are you really in the dark about this? Even the dumbest, mindless animal will flee from pain. But, if you wish to suffer, go ahead. I will not stand in your way. Only a human can rationalize that pain is good. But they talk about other peoples’ pain. When it comes to their own, they run to the doctor for a pain-killer.

Maybe the problem with you is you do not understand the value of pain. In many lives of the saints, there are times when God gives the person two options; 1. The painless way, or 2. The painful way! All of the saints choose option two. This leads me to believe that there is a spiritual mystery contained in pain and suffering, that you and well many others -including myself at times- are completely blind to.

I rather doubt it. I don’t think that they chose the painful way, it was something that happened to them. But, if that is what you believe, why don’t you emulate those people from the Philippines, who have themselves crucified just so they could participate in Jesus’ passion. I will even help you to get on the cross, and will NOT let you down. You can have the most exquisite pain, which you can offer up to God. Of course most of us consider those people insane.

Yet this is how I like to look at it. You see humans are dependent on God for everything and we really do not have anything we can truly call ours; except four will and suffering. In fact our suffering and our will are the only two things we can actually give to God; making suffering one out of only two gifts we can give back to God who gives us everything. Since suffering is one of the only things humans can give to God, it therefore becomes one of the best things that can possibly exist for us; provided we use it correctly and view it correctly.

I will use the mildest phrase I can come up with: “I disagree”. If I would use the words that come into my mind, I would surely be banned, and with very good reason.

 

[mwok]

Most of them probably are. Why is that important?

I don’t know, just that you seem to put a lot of emphasis on the difference between someone committing a crime and driving a car on “known risks”

With God that is not possible. But he can count on [either] God’s justice or God’s mercy, so his “damnation” is not a certainty either. And if “hell” would be a deserved punishment, then a punishment it is, meted out by God. There is no “Ratification Day”, there is a “Judgment Day”.

Switch “or” with “and” and I think you’ve got it!

 

[Serious]

I don’t know, just that you seem to put a lot of emphasis on the difference between someone committing a crime and driving a car on “known risks”

The difference is huge. In the case of driving a car if there is an accident it is a natural consequence, in the case of committing a crime the punishment is an artificial consequence.

Switch “or” with “and” and I think you’ve got it!

Can’t. Those two ideas are mutually exclusive (like circular or square). God can be either just or merciful in any given instance, but cannot be both.

 

[John_Q_Sinner]

Are you really in the dark about this? Even the dumbest, mindless animal will flee from pain. But, if you wish to suffer, go ahead. I will not stand in your way. Only a human can rationalize that pain is good. But they talk about other peoples’ pain. When it comes to their own, they run to the doctor for a pain-killer.

No, I’m not in the dark at all, but thanks for your concern. Yes this is the common attitude of most people to say one thing and do another, yet I’m sure you have heard the saying: easier said than done. Virtue is another thing that is contrary to mans sinful nature, so when someone is asked to do something contrary to their own sinful nature, it is going to involve pain. It is also going to involve supernatural grace to acquire virtue and to endure and accept all pain and suffering with love.

I guess my view on pain changed, when I saw my grandfather refuse morphine on his death bed and offer all of his pain and suffering as a gift of love, to God. [BIBLEDRB]John 15:13[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[mwok]

Can’t. Those two ideas are mutually exclusive (like circular or square). God can be either just or merciful in any given instance, but cannot be both.

Exclusive in the here and now, but for an Eternal Being that is outside of time and space, being infinitely merciful and infinitely just is no big deal.

Are you able to explain everything? To me that sounds like an exhausting burdon to carry.

 

[Serious]

No, I’m not in the dark at all, but thanks for your concern. Yes this is the common attitude of most people to say one thing and do another, yet I’m sure you have heard the saying: easier said than done. Virtue is another thing that is contrary to mans sinful nature, so when someone is asked to do something contrary to their own sinful nature, it is going to involve pain. It is also going to involve supernatural grace to acquire virtue and to endure and accept all pain and suffering with love.

I reject the concept of “sinful nature” and the “supernatural virtue”.

I guess my view on pain changed, when I saw my grandfather refuse morphine on his death bed and offer all of his pain and suffering as a gift of love, to God.

Some call this virtue, others call it something else (not quite as endearing). Of course his choice is to be respected. I told you about those (adjective omitted) people, who have themselves crucified, and I respect their choice as well.

You quoted: “Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” That is only applicable to atheists. For believers it is a selfish act, an attempt to get to heaven ASAP, while preventing the other one to get to heaven at the time. For believers the comparable act would be to kill others when they leave the confessional booth, and as such they are “sinless” for a split of a second. That would be true love, since they would “offer up” their eternal salvation, not just this miserable existence in this vale of tears.

 

[Serious]

Exclusive in the here and now, but for an Eternal Being that is outside of time and space, being infinitely merciful and infinitely just is no big deal.

Logical contradictions are the same, here and in heaven.

 

[LilyM]

I reject the concept of “sinful nature” and the “supernatural virtue”.

Some call this virtue, others call it something else (not quite as endearing). Of course his choice is to be respected. I told you about those (adjective omitted) people, who have themselves crucified, and I respect their choice as well.

You quoted: “Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” That is only applicable to atheists. For believers it is a selfish act, an attempt to get to heaven ASAP, while preventing the other one to get to heaven at the time. For believers the comparable act would be to kill others when they leave the confessional booth, and as such they are “sinless” for a split of a second. That would be true love, since they would “offer up” their eternal salvation, not just this miserable existence in this vale of tears.

No, it really wouldn’t be compassionate, because not being mind and soul readers we can’t know that they made a sincere confession and were forgiven. Maybe the priest refused absolution and they cursed and left in a huff? Maybe they weren’t Catholic and sought advice rather than confessing their sins?

Then there’s the little issue of presuming to know better than God when someone should die. And of usurping His prerogative over life and death. All the factors that make murder an evil make it equally so with someone who has just left the confessional as when we open up with a gun on randoms at Virginia Tech.

 

[Serious]

No, it really wouldn’t be compassionate, because not being mind and soul readers we can’t know that they made a sincere confession and were forgiven. Maybe the priest refused absolution and they cursed and left in a huff?

First of all, this was a tongue-in-cheek post. However, it is reasonable that the priest can make a judgment of their confession and decide if it was sincere and offered an absolution. “Ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti.” - is a blanket absolution of all the “sins”, confessed or not. At that instance the priest can draw a gun and make sure that the person will get into heaven. Of course the priest will “offer up” his salvation, but that is what “love is all about”… according to the quoted verse.

 

[LilyM]

First of all, this was a tongue-in-cheek post. However, it is reasonable that the priest can make a judgment of their confession and decide if it was sincere and offered an absolution. “Ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti.” - is a blanket absolution of all the “sins”, confessed or not. At that instance the priest can draw a gun and make sure that the person will get into heaven. Of course the priest will “offer up” his salvation, but that is what “love is all about”… according to the quoted verse.

No, even a priest can’t be sure that the person has confessed all their sins (eg not deliberately held something back out of embarrassment) and has the requisite sorrow and intent not to sin again. All are required for valid absolution, not just his words.

Besides which, Jesus did not risk His soul (not that there was even a chance of God the Son ever sinning) nor does He ask us to do so. In fact the opposite - ‘what does it profit a man to gain the whole world if he lose His soul’.

The only ‘life’ any of us is expected to give up is our physical life.

 

[Serious]

No, even a priest can’t be sure that the person has confessed all their sins (eg not deliberately held something back out of embarrassment) and has the requisite sorrow and intent not to sin again. All are required for valid absolution, not just his words.

So you say that the “ego te absolvo…” is just an empty phrase? It means nothing if the confessor did not enumerate all the “sins”? I rather doubt it.

The only ‘life’ any of us is expected to give up is our physical life.

Which is only valuable to the atheists. For them it is a true sacrifice. For the believers it is just a precursor. It has no intrinsic value of its own. To give it up is no big deal. Of course I am speaking of the logical believers (if there are any).

 

[LilyM]

So you say that the “ego te absolvo…” is just an empty phrase? It means nothing if the confessor did not enumerate all the “sins”? I rather doubt it.

Yes, it IS just an empty form of words if the penitent (the confessor is the priest who hears the confession btw) is not truly sincere or deliberately withholds a serious sin. I’m sure I can find you the passage in Canon Law that stipulates this.

See it is Christ, through the agency of the priest, to whom we confess and who absolves us. And it is He who knows whether we are mocking Him by not being sincere and honest in our admission of all our sins and our genuine sorrow for them.

Just as ‘I pronounce you husband and wife’ is just an empty form of words if the couple omit to tell the priest that they are brother and sister, or that one of them has a prior existing marriage that has not been annulled. Again, priests can be fooled, but God who works through the priest will not be mocked or deceived.

which is only valuable to the atheists. For them it is a true sacrifice. For the believers it is just a precursor. It has no intrinsic value of its own. To give it up is no big deal. Of course I am speaking of the logical believers (if there are any).

Rot. It is so sacred and important to us, being a gift of God, that devout Catholics wish to protect it even from contraception before it is conceived, as well as abortion in the womb, murder during life and euthanasia as it nears its end. We believe at least as firmly as atheists in its inherent worth.