So why isn't Faustina considered crazy?

[bona_fides_1]

lol, the opposite is actually happening to be honest. Instead of you making me think that these people aren’t crazy after all, you have honestly made me a lot less certain about the things that I believe.

Who’s reality is real? My heart is telling me one thing and faustina’s visions (among others) tell me a completely different thing. Should I trust myself, or should I trust faustina, or should I trust neither and believe we are both a little crazy. To be honest I just don’t know at this point. Hopefully God will show me the way.

Well the good news here is that you have balanced the decision tree. Instead of rejecting one position as insane you have elected the more reasonable thing - you are processing credible differences and admitting fallibility and accepting that you can learn something. Now you just need to trust that God gave you the means to learn and discern the truth to the degree sufficient to benefit yourself and others too. The benefit of the doubt opens up the small epsilon where God can come in and illumine with faith. This is what Catholics here have been trying to tell you - that reason alone can get us to general acceptance of God (there are plenty of clues of God’s fingerprints all over Creation and History). But faith withour reason is as crippled as reason is without faith. They are two inseparable faces of the same coin of truth for us of human estate. Expect good things to happen now and for lights of insight to start flashing - and don’t think you are crazy if you dream new dreams and start to see things in a different light and it starts to make sense…

Consider too that a loving God (if He exists) who wants us to love Him could never bully us or intimidate us into loving Him through a bold presentation of His majesty. That would be petty and insincere and make a mockery of love. No, a loving God wooing His creatures would veil Himself in modesty behind Creation so we would not be intimidated or awed by His magnificence. But how vast is Creation and how intimidating the veil? So much more so the Creator. What better way for a Divine Spiritual Being to get our attention than to speak through a few saintly individuals and in the metaphors of material Creation? Concepts are more important than the physical things that are used to manifest them - yet there is a recursion principle too I think. See at night those large vast dark regions of space contrasted by clusters of bright twinkling stars? There’s a divine principal here - ratios of light to dark and the power of contrast. That’s just the sort of thing that should get us all looking “up” and pondering “what’s that all about”? There are hints all around us. Personally I feel like we are all blatantly being invited to “come hither” and come to something grand. Everything around us seems to support our existence and give us things to “do” and wonder over. I say it’s time to look around a bit and consider where we fit into all this and meet what’s behind it all…

BF

 

[EricFilmer]

The problem really is that I don’t believe in hell and a lot of these visions involve hell. The concept of hell just doesn’t make sense to me so these visions seem especially suspect. I almost feel as though my belief in God is more Eastern than Western. Reincarnation makes a lot more sense than an eternal hell.

Keep in mind that the concept of hell is not limited to Christianity, and some of the Eastern religions have doctrines concerning it as well. But the concept of reincarnation is problematic also. I do not profess to be an expert on Eastern religions, but my understanding is that the suffering in this life is explained as the payment of a kind of karmatic debt. In other words, if I do bad in a past life, I suffer for it in the present life (i.e., “bad karma”). And I will continue to be reincarnated until I have achieved some form of enlightenment.

But assuming that I suffered in my first life, what would be the reason for this? If I had no previous life prior to the first one, then there are no past evil acts to cause me to suffer in my first life. Hence, no bad karma. So in theory, no one should experience any suffering in their first life, but it is hard to imagine life in this world where someone does not suffer at all. After all, we are pretty much born into this world kicking and screaming.

Plus, I understand that there is a notion of the universe being eternal according to some of these Eastern beliefs. Therefore, one could argue that if I have existed throughout eternity then I would have had no first life. Hence, the problem I voiced above would not truly be an issue. But could I exist as a chain of reincarnated lives stretching endlessly back in time? That presents what is known as the Problem of Infinite Regression. Simply put, in a chain of cause & effect (which is what karma is all about) things have a beginning and end. To say that a temporal chain of cause and effect events can exist upon an eternal timeline is like saying that it is possible to start with the number “negative infinity” and count until I reach the number seven.

Or think about it this way: According to cause & effect, my wooden desk came from a store, who got it from a factory, who got the wood from a lumber mill, who got the wood from a tree, which came from the seed of another tree, and that seed from another tree, and so one and so on. This stretches backward over a vast expanse of time. But can this stretch backwards in time infinitely? Can there truly not be a starting point, a first tree? If the universe is eternal then neither the desk, nor I, have a starting point. From a Christian perspective, only God is eternal, needing no “cause.”

So, to reiterate, although karma is used to explain suffering in this life, it does not explain the suffer I experienced in my first life. And if I am eternal, and therefore had no “first” life then how can the cause and effect notion of karma exist upon an eternal timeline (i.e., how can it be explained in the context of the Problem of Infinite Regression)?

But if I am a finite, mortal being created as an act of love by an eternal God, then there has to be some ramifications to that, and one of these ramifications would be hell. Salvation is a gift of love offered by God, and any gift of love cannot be forced upon someone. That’s a major “rule” concerning what we commonly accept as true love. The lover offers a gift and the beloved must be free to accept or reject the gift. And if we are truly free, then we must have the freedom not only to reject the gift, but to do so absolutely and definitively. In other words, we have the freedom to reject God in little ways and big ways, including the biggest way possible: an eternal, unchanging rejection.

So what would such a state of eternal rejection be? This would be hell. How accurate are the depictions of hell by visionaries? Is it really a “lake of fire” as described in Revelation? Or does a visionary see spiritual realities in symbolic images to aid in understanding? We don’t really know (I tend to go with the latter explanation). But it seems to me, whatever hell is, it can’t be good. After all, everything that is good has its source in God, who is the embodiment of goodness. Simply put, good = God. So can hell be peaceful? No, because God is peace, and so if hell is peaceful then God must be there, and therefore he did not really give us the freedom to completely reject him. It would be like God saying, “You are free to leave me” and yet he is waiting for us behind every door we choose to open.

Can there be true joy or love in hell? No, for the same reason I just outlined. So the experience of hell must be the eternal absence of all that is good, and therefore I can understand why biblical writers resorted to terrifying imagery to warn people about it.

Let me close with a quotation from a monk I know, “If hell does not exist, then human freedom is a lie.”

 

[GraceSofia]

Bingbang,

The Eastern religions can lead to deep pessimism and despair (been there, done that ) because the goal is to join with nothing rather than to share in eternal joy. (They are esssentially amoral; I believe GK Chesterton may have said immoral).
I hope you find the articles linked below helpful in your faith journey.

I would urge you to explore the concept of redemptive suffering since you seem interested in this topic. It is true that the question of evil and suffering is a stumbling block for many to come to faith in a good God.
Christ has the answer. The Church has the answer. Archbishop Sheen was famous for saying there is nothing worse than wasted suffering.

Catholicism and Buddhism: Compatible Beliefs?
*“In his comments, our late pontiff really didn’t pull any punches, calling Buddhism “in large measure an ‘atheistic’ system’.” He pulled the carpet out from under comparisons to Catholicism by pointing out that the ultimate end of man for Christians is union with God, while for Buddhists it is Nirvana (complete detachment, or a state of nothingness).” *

A Catholic Reflection on the Meaning of Suffering

APOSTOLIC LETTER SALVIFICI DOLORIS JOHN PAUL II ON THE CHRISTIAN MEANING OF HUMAN SUFFERING

Fr. Hardon: The Value of Suffering in the Life of Christian Perfection “Suffering by itself is not sanctifying. Many people who are suffering are not necessarily profiting from their suffering. Evidently, then, we should do something with and about the suffering to profit from the experience. Hence the importance of knowing what suffering is and how we can alchemize it from mere pain to sanctity.”

 

[bingbang]

Bingbang,

The Eastern religions can lead to deep pessimism and despair (been there, done that ) because the goal is to join with nothing rather than to share in eternal joy. (They are esssentially amoral; I believe GK Chesterton may have said immoral).
I hope you find the articles linked below helpful in your faith journey.

I would urge you to explore the concept of redemptive suffering since you seem interested in this topic. It is true that the question of evil and suffering is a stumbling block for many to come to faith in a good God.
Christ has the answer. The Church has the answer. Archbishop Sheen was famous for saying there is nothing worse than wasted suffering.

Catholicism and Buddhism: Compatible Beliefs?
*“In his comments, our late pontiff really didn’t pull any punches, calling Buddhism “in large measure an ‘atheistic’ system’.” He pulled the carpet out from under comparisons to Catholicism by pointing out that the ultimate end of man for Christians is union with God, while for Buddhists it is Nirvana (complete detachment, or a state of nothingness).” *

A Catholic Reflection on the Meaning of Suffering

APOSTOLIC LETTER SALVIFICI DOLORIS JOHN PAUL II ON THE CHRISTIAN MEANING OF HUMAN SUFFERING

Fr. Hardon: The Value of Suffering in the Life of Christian Perfection “Suffering by itself is not sanctifying. Many people who are suffering are not necessarily profiting from their suffering. Evidently, then, we should do something with and about the suffering to profit from the experience. Hence the importance of knowing what suffering is and how we can alchemize it from mere pain to sanctity.”

I really like the Buddhist moral system, as I believe it focuses on the right things, but I also really like the Hindu concept of Brahman. In Hinduism Brahman is God and Atman is the soul, and it is said that they are both one in the same. Buddhism can be an atheist religion, but it doesn’t have to be. And it seems that Therevada Buddhism has a goal of complete detachment (being an Arhat) but Mahayana Buddhism’s main goal is to be a Boddhisatva, or someone who is so compassionate that they do not reach Nirvana so they can help others.

I actually think that if Buddhism leads to despair, you aren’t doing it right. I have found it to be completely opposite. Buddhism has led me to happiness, though I haven’t implemented it as much as I have wanted to.

 

[bingbang]

Well the good news here is that you have balanced the decision tree. Instead of rejecting one position as insane you have elected the more reasonable thing - you are processing credible differences and admitting fallibility and accepting that you can learn something. Now you just need to trust that God gave you the means to learn and discern the truth to the degree sufficient to benefit yourself and others too. The benefit of the doubt opens up the small epsilon where God can come in and illumine with faith. This is what Catholics here have been trying to tell you - that reason alone can get us to general acceptance of God (there are plenty of clues of God’s fingerprints all over Creation and History). But faith withour reason is as crippled as reason is without faith. They are two inseparable faces of the same coin of truth for us of human estate. Expect good things to happen now and for lights of insight to start flashing - and don’t think you are crazy if you dream new dreams and start to see things in a different light and it starts to make sense…

Consider too that a loving God (if He exists) who wants us to love Him could never bully us or intimidate us into loving Him through a bold presentation of His majesty. That would be petty and insincere and make a mockery of love. No, a loving God wooing His creatures would veil Himself in modesty behind Creation so we would not be intimidated or awed by His magnificence. But how vast is Creation and how intimidating the veil? So much more so the Creator. What better way for a Divine Spiritual Being to get our attention than to speak through a few saintly individuals and in the metaphors of material Creation? Concepts are more important than the physical things that are used to manifest them - yet there is a recursion principle too I think. See at night those large vast dark regions of space contrasted by clusters of bright twinkling stars? There’s a divine principal here - ratios of light to dark and the power of contrast. That’s just the sort of thing that should get us all looking “up” and pondering “what’s that all about”? There are hints all around us. Personally I feel like we are all blatantly being invited to “come hither” and come to something grand. Everything around us seems to support our existence and give us things to “do” and wonder over. I say it’s time to look around a bit and consider where we fit into all this and meet what’s behind it all…

BF

I see what you are saying, but I just feel like the punishment for not believing or praising a God that is largely out of the picture shouldn’t be eternal damnation. Now if God was taught to be a being that wasn’t compassionate, then hell would make complete sense. But to say that God is more compassionate than I, or anyone else for that matter, can imagine, but still sends people to eternal damnation for masturbating (or any other mortal sin) before they die doesn’t seem to add up for me. If I had the chance to send Hitler to eternal damnation, I wouldn’t, because that punishment is too harsh even for one of the most evil men in history. If someone killed my whole family and tortured them before they died, I don’t think that I could even sentence them to eternal suffering (obviously this has never happened, and I don’t know how I would react if given the chance, but you understand what I am saying). So if myself, as a human being, cannot fathom sending anyone to eternal suffering, even for the most heinous crimes, then why should a supernatural being with infinite compassion do it to MOST people. Not even some people according to Faustina’s visions (and the gospels as well) but MOST people.

In my mind a compassionate God and hell does not link up at all. Either hell does not exist or God is not as compassionate as I believe. IMO there is no middle ground. If I am more compassionate than God, in the fact that if up to me, even the most heinous people wouldn’t suffer eternal torture and damnation, then where does that leave God.

Anyway, I have read excerpts of Faustina’s visions and one thing REALLY bothers me.

“Today, I was led by an Angel to the chasms of hell. It is a place of great torture; how awesomely large and extensive it is! The kinds of tortures I saw: the first torture that constitutes hell is the loss of God; the second is perpetual remorse of conscience; the third is that one’s condition will never change; the fourth is the fire that will penetrate the soul without destroying it, a terrible suffering,** since it is a purely spiritual fire, lit by God’s anger**”

God’s anger??? God doesn’t get angry. He is a perfect being. He is all knowing and understands why people do things. People do evil because they don’t understand the nature of how things truly are…no one is truly evil, they just lack proper understanding to do good. But God would get angry? No, anger is a human emotion, as is happiness, sadness, etc. Jesus might have felt these emotions, but not God.

 

[bingbang]

Keep in mind that the concept of hell is not limited to Christianity, and some of the Eastern religions have doctrines concerning it as well. But the concept of reincarnation is problematic also. I do not profess to be an expert on Eastern religions, but my understanding is that the suffering in this life is explained as the payment of a kind of karmatic debt. In other words, if I do bad in a past life, I suffer for it in the present life (i.e., “bad karma”). And I will continue to be reincarnated until I have achieved some form of enlightenment.

But assuming that I suffered in my first life, what would be the reason for this? If I had no previous life prior to the first one, then there are no past evil acts to cause me to suffer in my first life. Hence, no bad karma. So in theory, no one should experience any suffering in their first life, but it is hard to imagine life in this world where someone does not suffer at all. After all, we are pretty much born into this world kicking and screaming.

Plus, I understand that there is a notion of the universe being eternal according to some of these Eastern beliefs. Therefore, one could argue that if I have existed throughout eternity then I would have had no first life. Hence, the problem I voiced above would not truly be an issue. But could I exist as a chain of reincarnated lives stretching endlessly back in time? That presents what is known as the Problem of Infinite Regression. Simply put, in a chain of cause & effect (which is what karma is all about) things have a beginning and end. To say that a temporal chain of cause and effect events can exist upon an eternal timeline is like saying that it is possible to start with the number “negative infinity” and count until I reach the number seven.

Or think about it this way: According to cause & effect, my wooden desk came from a store, who got it from a factory, who got the wood from a lumber mill, who got the wood from a tree, which came from the seed of another tree, and that seed from another tree, and so one and so on. This stretches backward over a vast expanse of time. But can this stretch backwards in time infinitely? Can there truly not be a starting point, a first tree? If the universe is eternal then neither the desk, nor I, have a starting point. From a Christian perspective, only God is eternal, needing no “cause.”

So, to reiterate, although karma is used to explain suffering in this life, it does not explain the suffer I experienced in my first life. And if I am eternal, and therefore had no “first” life then how can the cause and effect notion of karma exist upon an eternal timeline (i.e., how can it be explained in the context of the Problem of Infinite Regression)?

But if I am a finite, mortal being created as an act of love by an eternal God, then there has to be some ramifications to that, and one of these ramifications would be hell. Salvation is a gift of love offered by God, and any gift of love cannot be forced upon someone. That’s a major “rule” concerning what we commonly accept as true love. The lover offers a gift and the beloved must be free to accept or reject the gift. And if we are truly free, then we must have the freedom not only to reject the gift, but to do so absolutely and definitively. In other words, we have the freedom to reject God in little ways and big ways, including the biggest way possible: an eternal, unchanging rejection.

So what would such a state of eternal rejection be? This would be hell. How accurate are the depictions of hell by visionaries? Is it really a “lake of fire” as described in Revelation? Or does a visionary see spiritual realities in symbolic images to aid in understanding? We don’t really know (I tend to go with the latter explanation). But it seems to me, whatever hell is, it can’t be good. After all, everything that is good has its source in God, who is the embodiment of goodness. Simply put, good = God. So can hell be peaceful? No, because God is peace, and so if hell is peaceful then God must be there, and therefore he did not really give us the freedom to completely reject him. It would be like God saying, “You are free to leave me” and yet he is waiting for us behind every door we choose to open.

Can there be true joy or love in hell? No, for the same reason I just outlined. So the experience of hell must be the eternal absence of all that is good, and therefore I can understand why biblical writers resorted to terrifying imagery to warn people about it.

Let me close with a quotation from a monk I know, “If hell does not exist, then human freedom is a lie.”

I understand how hell is the absence of God, but I don’t see how it should be eternal. There has to be room for improvement. No amount of heinous crimes on earth should amount to eternal hellfire. It just isn’t a proper punishment for the crime.

 

[TommyWommy]

I understand how hell is the absence of God, but I don’t see how it should be eternal. There has to be room for improvement. No amount of heinous crimes on earth should amount to eternal hellfire. It just isn’t a proper punishment for the crime.

Haven’t read the whole thread, so, sorry if this is redundant:

One way it was explained to me is that if anyone is in Hell it is because they made the choice and they want to be there. Strange as it seems, they would not like Heaven. I think CS Lewis(?) wrote about this phenomenon in his work as well (i.e. people from Hell visited Heaven and hated the experience).

 

[edward_george]

Haven’t read the whole thread, so, sorry if this is redundant:

One way it was explained to me is that if anyone is in Hell it is because they made the choice and they want to be there. Strange as it seems, they would not like Heaven. I think CS Lewis(?) wrote about this phenomenon in his work as well (i.e. people from Hell visited Heaven and hated the experience).

His book The Great Divorce is about this topic. In one of his works (I don’t remember if it was this one or another), he depicts two separate scenes. One is a group of people sitting around a huge pot, dipping into the stew in it with very long spoons–spoons so long they cannot reach their mouths with them. They sit around this pot emaciated, starving to death, because they cannot feed themselves. The next scene shows the same scenario–but this time the people are well-fed. The explanation? The first is hell, the second heaven–in heaven, those who are there because they feed one another.

Peter Kreeft also speaks in his book Fundamentals of the Faith of the idea that heaven and hell could be the same place. Since God is fully actualized, there is no place nor state that is without him. Thus, what is heaven to one who has turned completely toward God is hell to one who has completely turned against him. It is somewhat akin to taking a heavy metal fan to an opera. Thus, either state would have to be eternal–since in death we pass into the eternal presence of God, whether for better or for worse.

-ACEGC

 

[bona_fides_1]

I see what you are saying, but I just feel like the punishment for not believing or praising a God that is largely out of the picture shouldn’t be eternal damnation.
In my mind a compassionate God and hell does not link up at all. Either hell does not exist or God is not as compassionate as I believe. Anyway, I have read excerpts of Faustina's visions and one thing REALLY bothers me.
“Today, I was led by an Angel to the chasms of hell. It is a place of great torture; how awesomely large and extensive it is! The kinds of tortures I saw: the first torture that constitutes hell is the loss of God; the second is perpetual remorse of conscience; the third is that one’s condition will never change; the fourth is the fire that will penetrate the soul without destroying it, a terrible suffering,** since it is a purely spiritual fire, lit by God’s anger**”

God’s anger??? God doesn’t get angry. He is a perfect being. He is all knowing and understands why people do things. People do evil because they don’t understand the nature of how things truly are…no one is truly evil, they just lack proper understanding to do good. But God would get angry? No, anger is a human emotion, as is happiness, sadness, etc. Jesus might have felt these emotions, but not God.

Examine what assumptions you make here. You are assuming that it is God who sends a person to hell. Have you considered that a soul that becomes wicked might rather have spent its entire life in becoming the anti-thesis of God to reject Him and to live in an alternative place where God does not interfere or impose His love on a soul that spurns it? Hell is a justice (and ironically a mercy too). If there was no hell then lacking an alternative all souls good and bad would have to suffer to stand before God for all eternity in love and in scorn/spite/jealousy/hate. Love could not exist without hell becuase love has infinite potential and true love must be willing to suffer with and because of the object of its desire. Balance, justice, necessitates its opposite in degree - utter rejection and infinite contempt (self loathing and stippling of all virtuous gifts - justice requires the return of betrothal gifts upon rejection).

Heaven is the pinnacle of attainment of love - a place/state where there is endless capacity to love and be loved without suffering. It is the desired destination for all rational beings. We can assume that perfect love is never static in its perfection - it likely “twinkles” like the stars in an ever changing re-expressions of perfect love reflected to and from God (human nature is elevated but not entirely removed). Purgatory is the final spiritual-leg of the pathway between earth and heaven where there is love and suffering (which leads to heaven). But this suffering is given to elevate the nature and perfect the capacity to love and be loved without shame or impediment (most of us probably need to do this route). Hell is the other terminus of that pathway where there is no love and only suffering (it’s a rather irrational choice to take - but that’s how pride operates).

GOD SENDS NO ONE TO HELL EXCEPT BY THEIR OWN CHOICE. HE GIVES THE SOUL WHAT IT WANTS (AND WHAT IT DESERVES). NO SOUL IN HELL WOULD LEAVE IF GIVEN ANOTHER CHOICE - IT LOATHES ITSELF AND GOD TOO AND WOULD FLEE RIGHT BACK TO HELL IF DELIVERED TO HEAVEN IN ITS ELECTED STATE AND NOT BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE BEATITUDE OF THE SAINTS WITHOUT THE SUPERNATURAL GRACE NECESSARY TO LOVE AND EXIST THERE. IT WOULD BE TOO PAINFUL AND MAKE THAT SOUL IS OWN LIVING HELL. THIS IS WHY HELL IS A MERCY TOO - THE SUFFERING IN HELL IS INCOMPREHENSIBLY INTENSE BUT OF FINITE DEGREE RATHER THAN OF INFINITE DEGREE IMPLIED BY GOD’s INFINITE MAJESTY.

The one single gift that God gives man is freewill. This is an act of love - it is also a risk of love too since choice truly is free and God permits and empowers it either way. Yet God creates no soul for the purpose of damnation but rather for the potential to express love and elevate itself to the supernatural (or to reject love according to its own desire).

As for St. Faustina’s expression of hell as a fire lit by God’s anger - understand that she expresses herself within the best proximate human insights that she has available to her. Her lingua franca stems from her culture and experiences. We are human afterall and love is perceived as an emotion to us, Even if God is complete without necessity of our love He still by nature takes supernatural delight in sharing that experience with His Creatures. It is His nature to Create and share through His creatures an endless re expression of His own perfection. Would would you do if you were God to occupy yourself for all eternity? It is right to assume that there is something like a human anger for those who would be so self serving as to hurt the object of God’s love. Yet God limits his wrath and does not completely “undo” a soul since even the wicked served Him in becoming the instruments by which others were advanced in degree and proven in love. Those that choose hell choose to attempt to prove God does not exist or to provoke Him to reveal Himself or to knowingly try to hurt God. How foolish are those who find God through contempt for Him rather than by love.

BF

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Anyway, I have read excerpts of Faustina’s visions and one thing REALLY bothers me.

“Today, I was led by an Angel to the chasms of hell. It is a place of great torture; how awesomely large and extensive it is! The kinds of tortures I saw: the first torture that constitutes hell is the loss of God; the second is perpetual remorse of conscience; the third is that one’s condition will never change; the fourth is the fire that will penetrate the soul without destroying it, a terrible suffering,** since it is a purely spiritual fire, lit by God’s anger**”

God’s anger??? God doesn’t get angry. He is a perfect being. He is all knowing and understands why people do things. People do evil because they don’t understand the nature of how things truly are…no one is truly evil, they just lack proper understanding to do good. But God would get angry? No, anger is a human emotion, as is happiness, sadness, etc. Jesus might have felt these emotions, but not God.

Plato thought like you. You’re in good company. He said that evil behavior is a problem of knowledge, and that virtuous behavior could be achieved through instruction.

St Paul saw it differently. “The good that I would, I do not. But the evil that I would not – that, I do.” He didn’t do the good things he wanted to. From Paul’s perspective, evil behavior is primarily a problem of the will. (He obviously believed in moral instruction; his epistles are full of them.)

Now, since we’re talking about Christian doctrine (hell), let’s assume for argument’s sake that the apostle has it right. Who then goes to hell? Not people who lack proper understanding. The Catechism is clear: Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. (paragraph 1857)

So who are we talking about? People who did something very seriously evil, which they knew to be very seriously evil, and which they completely consented to, knowing the punishment that the act called for. And then, having done such a thing, they willfully refused to do something as simple as telling God, “I’m sorry.”

You’re right about God’s anger. Anger is a human emotion, which doesn’t really apply to God. St Faustina must have been at a loss for how to explain the phenomenon in any other terms. God is unchanging, and so he can’t feel anger in the same way we do (someone slaps me, I get mad, then later I calm down and feel better). So the anger that St Faustina speaks of must be understood euphemistically.

As for eternal damnation not fitting the crime – I would suggest that a better understanding of damnation is not punishment but rather a consequence. If I tell you, “If you jump off that bridge you will die,” it doesn’t mean that I’m going to kill you for doing it. I’m just telling you what’s going to happen. Similarly, if God tells you “If you die in a state of mortal sin, you will go to hell,” don’t look at it as God being so ticked off that he flings you out of his sight. Rather, your own choices have made it impossible for you to enter heaven, and there’s only one other place. That place is Very Unpleasant Indeed, and filled with many Very Bad People, so you’re well advised to steer clear of it.

My last thought – if you read St Faustina’s diary and walked away from it saying “Wow, God’s really unmerciful on sinners,” then you need to read it again. The whole point is the exact opposite. His mercy is right there for everybody at all times. All you have to do is want it.

 

[Prophesy]

Plato thought like you. You’re in good company. He said that evil behavior is a problem of knowledge, and that virtuous behavior could be achieved through instruction.

St Paul saw it differently. “The good that I would, I do not. But the evil that I would not – that, I do.” He didn’t do the good things he wanted to. From Paul’s perspective, evil behavior is primarily a problem of the will. (He obviously believed in moral instruction; his epistles are full of them.)

Now, since we’re talking about Christian doctrine (hell), let’s assume for argument’s sake that the apostle has it right. Who then goes to hell? Not people who lack proper understanding. The Catechism is clear: Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. (paragraph 1857)

So who are we talking about? People who did something very seriously evil, which they knew to be very seriously evil, and which they completely consented to, knowing the punishment that the act called for. And then, having done such a thing, they willfully refused to do something as simple as telling God, “I’m sorry.”

You’re right about God’s anger. Anger is a human emotion, which doesn’t really apply to God. St Faustina must have been at a loss for how to explain the phenomenon in any other terms. God is unchanging, and so he can’t feel anger in the same way we do (someone slaps me, I get mad, then later I calm down and feel better). So the anger that St Faustina speaks of must be understood euphemistically.

As for eternal damnation not fitting the crime – I would suggest that a better understanding of damnation is not punishment but rather a consequence. If I tell you, “If you jump off that bridge you will die,” it doesn’t mean that I’m going to kill you for doing it. I’m just telling you what’s going to happen. Similarly, if God tells you “If you die in a state of mortal sin, you will go to hell,” don’t look at it as God being so ticked off that he flings you out of his sight. Rather, your own choices have made it impossible for you to enter heaven, and there’s only one other place. That place is Very Unpleasant Indeed, and filled with many Very Bad People, so you’re well advised to steer clear of it.

My last thought – if you read St Faustina’s diary and walked away from it saying “Wow, God’s really unmerciful on sinners,” then you need to read it again. The whole point is the exact opposite. His mercy is right there for everybody at all times. All you have to do is want it.

Good post. I enjoyed it.
Thanks
-Prophecy

 

[system]

sister faustina vision of hell was one of three possiblities…first she totally made it up.trying to scare the population for things that she was angry at…a good example of this possibility is her starting out by saying…how extensive hell is with a explanation point…showing excitment which is very weird…second is she dreamed or hallsinated it…excuse my spelling…in which in her mind she believes it to be real and true…third its was a real vision shown by God…now noone knows for sure,until we die…my only question would be and this has been asked alot…why would God allow torture for eternity,now some people in our minds do deserve it,but remember even on earth no civilized nations allow it…so why would God just destroy the soul…so theres nothing for them…no afterlife for them…but thats out of our hands i guess…so the mystery for the living goes on