Reaching heaven is a matter of chance

[visavismeyou]

Excellent reply Bat Teddy

 

[celluloid]

Just one question in addition, then.

You talk a lot about chance. Do you deny free will in any form then? All of us, at any given time, can only make one choice even though we have the appearance of being able to make many?

Good question.

In the strictest sense yes but, I have a utilitarian definition of free will. Free will is an act or choice based on the will, not influenced by extraordinary or obvious, external or internal influences. And external influence would be obvious coercion, and an internal influence would be a brain tumor for example. Free will isn’t an inherent quality, but other essential qualites (knowledge, competence) and certain external conditions are necessary for a freely willed choice.

As for the ability to make more than one choice. I think that conditions always change and there are probably times when choices could be different, but under identical circumstances there are only two scenarios that I can think of.

The first is an abstract, trivial choice. Choosing A or B or choosing the red box vs. the blue box, without any other information or motivation to decide.

The second instance would be a choice made under conflicting circumstances, such as the forced dilemma of having to save only one of your two dogs in a fire. Or the choice between finishing college or taking a high paying job. Here the deciding factors may be trivial, even though the conflicting motivations are not, and are sufficient to tip the balance.

OTOH, usually we tend to make the same choices because the motivations are strong and the choice is a no-brainer. I can’t decide to like goat milk, when I hate it. So I always buy cow’s milk. Under the exact same conditions, whenever I buy milk, I could never choose any other way.

I think I already stated on this forum (although the thread has been erased by the hacker attack) that I’m an atheist probably because of personal preference and not because I figured it out with pure reason. Beliefs may be defended with reason but ultimately I think we are led by our emotional preferences.

 

[celluloid]

Yes, everything would.

Luckily, Catholics dont believe in “being in active acceptance of grace”…

All that is minimally necessary is “being in passive acceptance of grace”

Though active cooperation once you get the First Grace (which allows you to merit and cooperate actively in the first place) can gain you more merit and glory…to reach heaven, all that is needed is passive acceptance of grace. A baby doesn’t need to positively will baptism, as long as he doesn’t positively NOT will it.

An explicit acceptance of grace is not necessary. Merely the lack of an explicit rejection. The sacraments work ex opere operato.

You clarify your beliefs, the process and terminology but not the justifcation for it. The bottom line is that there are different standards for what qualifies as acceptance of grace. An embryo can’t accept anything voluntarily and is incapable of rejecting anything.

 

[celluloid]

Well, not quite…

What is a normal lifespan and what need we do in order to “Merit” heaven? Here are some quick theoreticals for you (I Love theoreticals)

[snipped]

Would Hitler go to heaven? He only had 10 minutes to lament, Judas had 30 years… what is sufficient time? What is the difference? Would God give Judas and Hitler a second chance? Would he give these babies a chance to “Merit” heaven? it?

I think a significant amount of time allows for a more genuine change of heart, don’t you? Extraordinary events can too, but that’s just another chance factor that affects our choices. There are people who live short but ordinary lives. There are people who live short but extraordinary lives. There are people who live long uneventful lives and others who live long and stormy lives. There are many extremes. The reason I focus on the lifespan problem is to simplify the problem of general disparity and also to highlight the salvation dilemma of dying extremely young.

There are many other disparities. Being born into different religions, culture, personal experiences, genetics etc. All factors beyond our personal control.

Perhaps children who die too young to understand anything or the severaly mentally retarded (from birth) are given a “second chance” as a different person… Sort of a reincarnation bit. Which is

As you say children are too young to understand the options, and I think the same is true to a lesser extent for young adults.
Personal reincarnation is a buddhist concept. See my next post for more on that.

 

[celluloid]

In my opinion, your assumption (which is also that of many others) is false. We know that God gives adults the choice to be with Him or separate from Him. We know God gave that choice to the angels as well. So it only makes sense that, when they die, He gives that choice to the young and the mentally incompetent as well, in addition to giving them the information and capacity to make an informed choice.

Of course, we cannot imagine how a baby who dies in the womb can make such a choice, but we have the example of John the Baptist who was filled with the Holy Spirit and leaped in the womb in the presence of Jesus. Just because we cannot imagine a thing does not mean God cannot do it.

So this whole question only makes sense if all beings are given the opportunity to choose their destiny, including those whom we think are not capable of making that choice. The alternative is that God compels these people, alone of all His ensouled creatures, to be with Him (or perhaps, as some Protestants beleive, that He compels them to be away from Him). But Love does not compel. God does not choose for any person.

An interesting idea. I have some better ones.

Perhaps God reincarnates souls into new bodies, where they will have that opportunity to live a full life. Or God puts their souls into a miraculous virtual reality Earth simulation, where they can make the same virtual choices as in reality. Or maybe the souls are relocated to another populated earth-like planet in another galaxy. That may help to explain the purpose of the universe’s huge size. Or perhaps God instantly analyses them to infinity and extrapolates what they would choose.

I apologize for mocking your speculation, but I thought the only way I can counter an argument that invokes miracles was to do the same. Just fighting fire with fire.

The trouble is with those miraculous explanations is that they make a mockery of this real life. Why have a life at all if God can conveniently provide all that is necessary at conception?

 

[batteddy]

The bottom line is that there are different standards for what qualifies as acceptance of grace. An embryo can’t accept anything voluntarily and is incapable of rejecting anything.

But none of us can “voluntarily accept” the first grace without grace!

We are entirely passive to a free gift we can do nothing to positively will. For “acceptance” of grace…there are no different standards for person-below-age-of-reason, and person-above-age-of-reason: for both, they need merely not explicitly reject it.

The difference you see, I think, is in the fact that adults can, in fact, explicitly reject it, while it is nearly impossible for a baby to do so.

This is unimportant for a few reasons:

First, because it is not “not sinning” that gets us into heaven. It is not “non-rejection” of grace, because nothing merits heaven like that. It is a free gift. We can reject the gift by sinning, but we certainly don’t “earn it” by not sinning. They aren’t two sides of the same coin. If I were dead I would not be able to type this to you. But it certainly would be foolish to say that I am typing this to you “because I am not dead”. That is confusing causation. My death would certainly be the reason I wouldn’t be talking to you if I were dead, but that doesn’t mean my “non-death” is the reason I am talking to you while I live.

So God is under no obligation to put anyone through any sort of test to get to heaven. If he sees that letting someone live and be tempted could possibly bring greater good out of them…then he will let them live. If he sees that letting them be tested would only damn them…then he won’t put them through such a test.

Remember, each of us is NOT put through millions of possible tests each day. Like I said, I am not tested to see whether I’d steal a million dollars from my brother. Because God has arranged it so that is impossible (my brother doesnt have that much!).

No one person is put through every possible situation to test for every possible sin. God puts us through the tests that have the possibility for the greatest good. And for some people…a lot of people…this is having no tests at all (ie, dying as a baby)

 

[VociMike]

…I apologize for mocking your speculation, but I thought the only way I can counter an argument that invokes miracles was to do the same. Just fighting fire with fire.

What miracles have I invoked in my speculation? What I have suggested happens at or after death, and thus is not an action in this world. That precludes any claim of miracles, which are visible supernatural occurances which happen in this world.

The trouble is with those miraculous explanations is that they make a mockery of this real life. Why have a life at all if God can conveniently provide all that is necessary at conception?

Given that no two people ever live an identical life, what is a “full life”? What are the minimum requirements for a full life? Of course, you cannot say.

As to God conveniently providing all that is necessary, that is true for each of us. We cannot save ourselves. God alone provides what is necessary. He just does not force us to accept it. Call that convenient if you wish.

Now, I still would like you to explain why God offered the angels the opportunity to choose, and offers humans who live a “full life” the opportunity to choose, but does not offer the remaining humans the opportunity to choose. Explain why those humans alone are treated differently by God, and compelled against their will either into heaven or into hell.

It’s not enough to find fault with a theological explanation. You should offer a better alternative.

 

[VociMike]

An embryo can’t accept anything voluntarily and is incapable of rejecting anything.

How can you possibly know what an embryo can accept or reject at the moment of death and passage out of the physical world? Your assertion is nothing more than an assumption, one that requires that the world beyond this one works by the same rules as this one.

Just because you (and all of us, really) can’t imagine how a thing can be, does not mean God cannot do it.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Does the Church teach that going to heaven is always a matter of chance?

Nope. It’s a matter of God’s grace. Not chance. No one gets to heaven by sheer luck.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Why have a life at all if God can conveniently provide all that is necessary at conception?

You seem to think of heaven as a very democratic place, where everyone receives the same amount of glory. But that is not Catholic teaching. Those who suffer and sacrifice a great deal for Christ will receive a greater reward than those who do not. Your trouble with the death of infants seems to be the idea that they receive the same reward as those who had to suffer on earth. But that is not the case.

And even if an infant does receieve the same glory as someone else, why, as others pointed out, is God’s generosity seen as a bad thing? None of us really want to get what we deserve. We just want others to get what we think they deserve.

 

[Pug]

So then deceased infants are denied the opportunity. What is unfair are the different opportunities and risks. It’s like being given a 75 percent chance at winning one million dollars but with a risk of death at 25 percent, or being given a sure 100 thousand dollars. Which one would you take?

What about reality gives you the expectation that things will appear fair by your standards?

Are you sure fairness between one human and another is the crux of your issue, and not rather the acceptablity of creating something that is immortal and will experience some ongoing suffering? Would you be okay with a system that had two outcomes for those who once lived: heaven, or the abolishment from existence? They are not equal, but neither of them involves what is typically meant by suffering.

Do you assume that one who is just a soul or one who doesn’t have a body is thereby unable to posses free will or to exercise it? Could an angel or a soul as it is being joined to its body posses free will?

 

[The_Augustinian]

Peter turned and saw following them the disciple whom Jesus loved, who had lain close to his breast at the supper and said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?” Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!”

It is better to worry about your own eternal destiny, than to vainly speculate about the destinies of those whom only God knows.

 

[VociMike]

It is better to worry about your own eternal destiny, than to vainly speculate about the destinies of those whom only God knows.

Quite right. I would expand on this and say that God has told us what we who lead “full lives” need to know in ways that we can understand. How He interacts with those outside of this grouping is not really our concern, other than that we know He desires the salvation of all. For all we know, God has communicated His design to embryos and the mentally incompetent in ways they understand perfectly.

I am reminded of something my daughter said when she was three. She told us of a dream where she saw God. She said that “He looked like an angel but He was in love.” Can we say that at that moment, she did not know and understand God?

 

[Polaris]

I believe that there was actually a clarifying statement from the Church regarding this issue last year.

I was just wondering if you know or if anyone else knows where I might find this statement because I am still with the understanding that all we can to do is hope in the mercy of God. Naturally and unnaturally aborted children may be burning in hell and suffering, or in hell without suffering (Limbo) or they are in heaven through a means of salvation unknown to man (Outside of Baptism). Is the last one actually now an official doctrine that we must accept as Catholics?

Thanks
Polaris

 

[Writer]

What about reality gives you the expectation that things will appear fair by your standards?

Are you sure fairness between one human and another is the crux of your issue, and not rather the acceptablity of creating something that is immortal and will experience some ongoing suffering? Would you be okay with a system that had two outcomes for those who once lived: heaven, or the abolishment from existence? They are not equal, but neither of them involves what is typically meant by suffering.

Do you assume that one who is just a soul or one who doesn’t have a body is thereby unable to posses free will or to exercise it? Could an angel or a soul as it is being joined to its body posses free will?

Good points! We discussed the angels and free will issue at a recent discussion group of the Catechism at our parish, and the consensus is that angels must have free will. For that matter, a compelling argument can also be made that those in heaven will have free will, as well. This, of course, opens a Pandora’s Box of issues, but probably best for another thread…

 

[Writer]

I was just wondering if you know or if anyone else knows where I might find this statement because I am still with the understanding that all we can to do is hope in the mercy of God. Naturally and unnaturally aborted children may be burning in hell and suffering, or in hell without suffering (Limbo) or they are in heaven through a means of salvation unknown to man (Outside of Baptism). Is the last one actually now an official doctrine that we must accept as Catholics?

Thanks
Polaris

Here is a good starting point, but there was an announcement made about a year ago which made the evening news. I tried to do Google searches, but I wasn’t able to track the issue down very well, since it is so closely intertwined with other issues–such as purgatory. I will keep looking, was well.

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101fr.asp

 

[batteddy]

Is the last one actually now an official doctrine that we must accept as Catholics?

No, and it never can be made into a dogma (though the possibility may begin to be taken as a given) because it is not a subject of Revelation.

Public Revelation tells us the ordinary, absolutely officially necessary means for salvation: water baptism. We must treat this as necessary, treat this as the standard, and not presumeany extraordinary action on the part of God.

To us He has revealed the ordinary channels of Sanctifying Grace in the sacraments. What extraordinary means He may use, or how often He uses these…is not a subject of Revelation.

We may speculate (and I think with good reason believe he uses them often, whenever necessary to save someone) but this can never be an Article of Faith, it can never be taken as an ordinary thing we may assume…because Revelation has revealed to us that which we may assume brings salvation: baptism.

Any other channels of grace God may certainly use (and almost certainly does in his mercy), but He did not reveal them, and thus we are forbidden to presume them or act under the assumption that they’ll take place (so baptism of anyone, especially the dying, is still the most urgent of precepts and most grave of requirements). We may HOPE in extraordinary means, but certainly not PRESUME them.

They are by their nature extraordinary…if they were the subject of dogma…that would mean they were ordinary and we could presume them, but that isn’t the case.

We must treat baptism as absolutely necessary and act accordingly. Even though God probably does use extraordinary means to save those whom baptism is not available to, even though we can have a well-founded hope in such a thing, we cannot* assume* such a thing, (wisely) not revealed by God, because to do so would be Presumption.

 

[Struggling]

so you’re saying that parents who lose a baby who is not baptized cannot assume their baby is in heaven?

 

[sara888]

**We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father. Through Him all things were made.

For us men and our salvation He came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit, He was born of the Virgin Mary , and became man. For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate; He suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day He rose again in fulfillment of the scriptures:

He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son, He is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

AngelJan**

 

[VociMike]

so you’re saying that parents who lose a baby who is not baptized cannot assume their baby is in heaven?

Of course every parent will want to assume this, but really, the logical conclusion of this belief is to baptize one’s children and then kill them, to guarantee that they will go to heaven. Would not this be the ultimate act of love, to keep your children out of hell?