The Fear of Hell

[inocente]

This is what Aquinas says in Article 3.

*I answer that, A thing may be a matter of rejoicing in two ways. First directly, when one rejoices in a thing as such: and thus the saints will not rejoice in the punishment of the wicked. Secondly, indirectly, by reason namely of something annexed to it: and in this way the saints will rejoice in the punishment of the wicked, by considering therein the order of Divine justice and their own deliverance, which will fill them with joy. And thus the Divine justice and their own deliverance will be the direct cause of the joy of the blessed: while the punishment of the damned will cause it indirectly. *

Not exactly a prescription for sadistic joy as you predictably seem to imply.

I didn’t try to imply anything, I quoted his conclusions. You may disagree with them, but they are still there in Summa Theologica for all who have eyes to see, and they will always still be there in every copy of ST ever printed, and cannot be erased even by the wondrous superpower of Selectavision[sup]®[/sup]. Here they are again:

In art. 1 he concludes that “Wherefore in order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned.”

In art. 2 he concludes that those in heaven will have no basis for pitying those in hell: “But in the future state it will be impossible for them to be taken away from their unhappiness: and consequently it will not be possible to pity their sufferings according to right reason. Therefore the blessed in glory will have no pity on the damned.”

And in art. 3 that those in heaven will rejoice at the suffering: “And thus the Divine justice and their own deliverance will be the direct cause of the joy of the blessed: while the punishment of the damned will cause it indirectly.”

If you disagree with Thomas’ conclusions, fine, no point taking it out on me.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I didn’t try to imply anything, I quoted his conclusions. You may disagree with them, but they are still there in Summa Theologica for all who have eyes to see, and they will always still be there in every copy of ST ever printed, and cannot be erased even by the wondrous superpower of Selectavision[sup]®[/sup]. Here they are again.

Unfortunately for you, this also from Article 3 can never be erased: Can you live with it?

"I answer that, A thing may be a matter of rejoicing in two ways. First directly, when one rejoices in a thing as such: and thus the saints will not rejoice in the punishment of the wicked."

 

[oldcelt]

Unfortunately for you, this also from Article 3 can never be erased: Can you live with it?

"I answer that, A thing may be a matter of rejoicing in two ways. First directly, when one rejoices in a thing as such: and thus the saints will not rejoice in the punishment of the wicked."

Still trying to prove the unknowable based on writings that we cannot attribute to any particular person?

 

[Tom_Baum]

No. Nor was it implied by the post this was in response to.

I responded, “So, do you think that the Catholic Church should stop praying for Mercy for ALL?”

To the post, “While we live, yes. Not so for those in hell. They will receive justice, but not mercy.”

So I absolutely, totally disagree with you since “those in hell” are part of the ALL, aren’t they?

Many seem to think that “Justice” is “punishment without end”, “punishment without a reason except for punishment”, so those that “pray for Mercy for ALL”, and believe that “Justice” is “punishment without end, punishment without a reason except for punishment” are NOT praying for MERCY FOR ALL, are they?

 

[Tom_Baum]

The distortion lies in the bald statement that “Aquinas argues that seeing hell increases the joys of those in heaven” which gives the impression they take sadistic pleasure in the suffering of others whereas he clearly explains that to do so is evil:.

Doesn’t, “Wherefore in order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned.”, seem to say what it says?

To disagree implies we are not only sadistic but also masochistic! Only hedonists deny that afflictions have any value.

Are you saying that afflictions that are not only beyond anyone’s comprehension but also are for ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever have value?

And if so, are you saying that this value is “in order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned.”?

I didn’t write what is written in the above sentence in quotes, I merely copied it.

I thought that I heard it said that the “Beatific Vision of God” would be more than enough, do you think that Thomas Aquinas thinks differently?

Do you think differently also?

Like it or not, page one is still in the bible, "Let us make man (humanity) in Our Image and… ", so All of humanity, no matter where they are, are made in This Image.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I responded, “So, do you think that the Catholic Church should stop praying for Mercy for ALL?”

To the post, “While we live, yes. Not so for those in hell. They will receive justice, but not mercy.”

So I absolutely, totally disagree with you since “those in hell” are part of the ALL, aren’t they?

Many seem to think that “Justice” is “punishment without end”, “punishment without a reason except for punishment”, so those that “pray for Mercy for ALL”, and believe that “Justice” is “punishment without end, punishment without a reason except for punishment” are NOT praying for MERCY FOR ALL, are they?

What it seem to come down to is that you like God’s mercy but you can barely stand the idea of his justice. Do you pray for those in hell? Do you pray that God in his mercy will let them out of hell? If so, what authority in Scripture or the teachings of the Church tells us we should do any such thing? In other words, are you creating a new theology to suit your own person, rather than to be consistent with the traditional teachings of the Church?

 

[tonyrey]

The distortion lies in the bald statement that “Aquinas argues that seeing hell increases the joys of those in heaven” which gives the impression they take sadistic pleasure in the suffering of others whereas he clearly explains that to do so is evil:.

It still doesn’t mean they take delight in the suffering of those who are in hell. Like God they feel compassion for them yet they also realise the damned have chosen to be in hell. Due to their pride and lust for power it is impossible for them to co-exist with anyone in heaven.

To disagree implies we are not only sadistic but also masochistic! Only hedonists deny that afflictions have any value.

Are you saying that afflictions that are not only beyond anyone’s comprehension but also are for ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever have value?

And if so, are you saying that this value is “in order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned.”?

I didn’t write what is written in the above sentence in quotes, I merely copied it.

I thought that I heard it said that the “Beatific Vision of God” would be more than enough, do you think that Thomas Aquinas thinks differently?

Do you think differently also?

Like it or not, page one is still in the bible, "Let us make man (humanity) in Our Image and… ", so All of humanity, no matter where they are, are made in This Image. Doesn’t, “Wherefore in order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned.”, seem to say what it says?

The blessed thank God that everyone is getting what they deserve and they rejoice that the victims of injustice and exploitation are consoled as Jesus promised. It is absurd to think they should allow their joy to be destroyed by the fact that not everyone is in heaven. It would amount to failing to recognise the full implications of free will and the harsh reality of evil. Anyone who deliberately and cold-bloodedly rejects the love of Our Lord who died for all of us on the Cross doesn’t deserve our pity. We too should rejoice and be grateful that the damned cannot commit any further atrocities. Even in this world we can see there is hardly any limit to diabolical cruelty and wanton destruction. St Thomas wasn’t infallible but neither was he misguided in his views about evil and hell…

 

[inocente]

Unfortunately for you, this also from Article 3 can never be erased: Can you live with it?

"I answer that, A thing may be a matter of rejoicing in two ways. First directly, when one rejoices in a thing as such: and thus the saints will not rejoice in the punishment of the wicked."

Charles, your ability to only see what you want to see is truly amazing. Right after that he says “Secondly, indirectly, by reason namely of something annexed to it: and in this way the saints will rejoice in the punishment of the wicked, by considering therein the order of Divine justice and their own deliverance, which will fill them with joy.”

He is arguing that the joy of deliverance depends on others not being delivered - there couldn’t be any joy in not being in hell if hell did not exist.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

tonrey,

I believe that your thinking on this subject is influenced by a false dichotomy. I know this due to our discussion on my thread which was censored. You seem to believe that it is just for sinners to be tormented in an eternal hell, since the only other option is to “get off scot-free.” Couldn’t there be a middle way? Couldn’t God satisfy his justice by tormenting sinners for a period of time? Isn’t a million years of torture enough? A billion? Why does it have to be endless to be just?

If the punishment must be endless, because God is eternal and gets eternally offended or something, isn’t annihilation a more fitting punishment for those who exclude themselves from relationship with God? If hell is truly a choice made by those who “cold-bloodedly reject” the sacrifice of the cross, wouldn’t an entirely commensurate punishment be annihilation? It lasts forever, and separates the saints from the sinners most effectively. Does this really not make more sense and seem more fair? To be sure, it is still an horrific punishment, but maybe some people “deserve” it, I’m not sure.

To me, it is very clear that Aquinas (joined by Augustine, Tertullian, and others) insist that one of the joys of heaven is knowing that God’s wrath is eternally satisfied in hell. This is a clear and obvious reading of the text. Nietzsche makes an extensive and powerful argument that Christianity is little other than resentment and desire for cosmic revenge based on reading the texts alluded to here. To dispute this reading would require Olympic-level mental gymnastics.

 

[GEddie]

tonrey,

I believe that your thinking on this subject is influenced by a false dichotomy. I know this due to our discussion on my thread which was censored. You seem to believe that it is just for sinners to be tormented in an eternal hell, since the only other option is to “get off scot-free.” Couldn’t there be a middle way? Couldn’t God satisfy his justice by tormenting sinners for a period of time? Isn’t a million years of torture enough? A billion? Why does it have to be endless to be just?

If the punishment must be endless, because God is eternal and gets eternally offended or something, isn’t annihilation a more fitting punishment for those who exclude themselves from relationship with God? If hell is truly a choice made by those who “cold-bloodedly reject” the sacrifice of the cross, wouldn’t an entirely commensurate punishment be annihilation? It lasts forever, and separates the saints from the sinners most effectively. Does this really not make more sense and seem more fair? To be sure, it is still an horrific punishment, but maybe some people “deserve” it, I’m not sure.

To me, it is very clear that Aquinas (joined by Augustine, Tertullian, and others) insist that one of the joys of heaven is knowing that God’s wrath is eternally satisfied in hell. This is a clear and obvious reading of the text. Nietzsche makes an extensive and powerful argument that Christianity is little other than resentment and desire for cosmic revenge based on reading the texts alluded to here. To dispute this reading would require Olympic-level mental gymnastics.

Punishment for a period of time doesn’t work, because time, as we know it, belongs to the physical world and our biological bodies.

Life everlasting, and the spiritual body, do not accommodate collinear time. Any state stumbled into there is an enduring one.

It’s like asking why our civil states don’t execute people temporarily rather than forever; the nature of human life doesn’t allow it.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Charlemagne_III]

tonrey,

I believe that your thinking on this subject is influenced by a false dichotomy. I know this due to our discussion on my thread which was censored. You seem to believe that it is just for sinners to be tormented in an eternal hell, since the only other option is to “get off scot-free.” Couldn’t there be a middle way? Couldn’t God satisfy his justice by tormenting sinners for a period of time? Isn’t a million years of torture enough? A billion? Why does it have to be endless to be just?

If the punishment must be endless, because God is eternal and gets eternally offended or something, isn’t annihilation a more fitting punishment for those who exclude themselves from relationship with God? If hell is truly a choice made by those who “cold-bloodedly reject” the sacrifice of the cross, wouldn’t an entirely commensurate punishment be annihilation? It lasts forever, and separates the saints from the sinners most effectively. Does this really not make more sense and seem more fair? To be sure, it is still an horrific punishment, but maybe some people “deserve” it, I’m not sure.

To me, it is very clear that Aquinas (joined by Augustine, Tertullian, and others) insist that one of the joys of heaven is knowing that God’s wrath is eternally satisfied in hell. This is a clear and obvious reading of the text. Nietzsche makes an extensive and powerful argument that Christianity is little other than resentment and desire for cosmic revenge based on reading the texts alluded to here. To dispute this reading would require Olympic-level mental gymnastics.

So you base your argument on the ravings of a seminal lunatic?

We choose our own eternal hell. Don’t be laying that stupidity on God.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

He is arguing that the joy of deliverance depends on others not being delivered - there couldn’t be any joy in not being in hell if hell did not exist.

This is certainly true.

There but for the grace of God go I. Deo gratias!

The rejoicing is not sadistic, but for the deliverance from hell.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

geddie,

Punishment for a period of time doesn’t work, because time, as we know it, belongs to the physical world and our biological bodies.

And yet, the Roman Catholic Church insists that human beings will have bodies both in heaven and hell.

Read for yourself here: catholic.com/tracts/the-hell-there-is

If bodies exist in time, and bodies exist in hell, it follows that time exists in hell as well. If it doesn’t follow, why not?

charlemagne,

I do not base my argument off of a “seminal lunatic,” I merely suggested that a straightforward reading of the text is employed by a famous philosopher/poet to raise a serious argument against Christianity that has been widely acknowledged as powerful and interesting. That’s all. Further, ad hominem is possibly the least convincing logical fallacy, no?

I agree with you that Aquinas is not saying the rejoicing is sadistic or based upon schadenfreude, but rather that he is saying that the torments of those in hell indirectly cause pleasure in the saints because it is the satisfaction of God’s justice or wrath. This doesn’t seem to absolve the cruelty here though does it?

 

[davidv]

geddie,

And yet, the Roman Catholic Church insists that human beings will have bodies both in heaven and hell.

Read for yourself here: catholic.com/tracts/the-hell-there-is

If bodies exist in time, and bodies exist in hell, it follows that time exists in hell as well. If it doesn’t follow, why not?

This logic seems to beg the question. It assumes that time exists (“if bodies exist in time”) in the afterlife to conclude that time exists in the afterlife.

charlemagne,

I do not base my argument off of a “seminal lunatic,” I merely suggested that a straightforward reading of the text is employed by a famous philosopher/poet to raise a serious argument against Christianity that has been widely acknowledged as powerful and interesting. That’s all. Further, ad hominem is possibly the least convincing logical fallacy, no?

I agree with you that Aquinas is not saying the rejoicing is sadistic or based upon schadenfreude, but rather that he is saying that the torments of those in hell indirectly cause pleasure in the saints because it is the satisfaction of God’s justice or wrath. This doesn’t seem to absolve the cruelty here though does it?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

geddie,

And yet, the Roman Catholic Church insists that human beings will have bodies both in heaven and hell.

Read for yourself here: catholic.com/tracts/the-hell-there-is

If bodies exist in time, and bodies exist in hell, it follows that time exists in hell as well. If it doesn’t follow, why not?

charlemagne,

I do not base my argument off of a “seminal lunatic,” I merely suggested that a straightforward reading of the text is employed by a famous philosopher/poet to raise a serious argument against Christianity that has been widely acknowledged as powerful and interesting. That’s all. Further, ad hominem is possibly the least convincing logical fallacy, no?

I agree with you that Aquinas is not saying the rejoicing is sadistic or based upon schadenfreude, but rather that he is saying that the torments of those in hell indirectly cause pleasure in the saints because it is the satisfaction of God’s justice or wrath. This doesn’t seem to absolve the cruelty here though does it?

Yes, Hitler, another lunatic, also acknowledged Nietzsche’s thoughts to be “powerful and interesting.”

Catholics rejoice both in God’s mercy and in his justice. As Aquinas said, it is not a sadistic joy.

Hell exists for a reason that is eminently rational. If people prefer hell to the presence of God, they (nor you) have any complaint for them to be there.

 

[Tom_Baum]

What it seem to come down to is that you like God’s mercy but you can barely stand the idea of his justice. Do you pray for those in hell? Do you pray that God in his mercy will let them out of hell? If so, what authority in Scripture or the teachings of the Church tells us we should do any such thing? In other words, are you creating a new theology to suit your own person, rather than to be consistent with the traditional teachings of the Church?

I don’t think that it is that I “can barely stand the idea of his justice”, referring to God, it is that I can barely stand the idea of people’s “conception” of God’s Justice.

As I have said before, I consider God’s Mercy and God’s Justice so intertwined as to be ONE.

In answer to your question, “Do you pray for those in hell?”, I pray for ALL.

At Mass, when the priest prays for Mercy for ALL in the Eucharistic prayer, is it for ALL or does it mean something different than what it says.

Wouldn’t you say that if anyone is in hell that they would have at one time been a breather here on earth?

So at one time ALL of those in hell were part of the ALL of those on earth.

I pray that God has a “reason” other than “everlasting punishment” for God allowing us to “build our own hell”.

As far as, “what authority in Scripture or the teachings of the Church tells us we should do any such thing?”

I am NOT “telling” anyone to do anything, people can think as small as they like, but I do pray that God’s Mercy is, to say the least, infinite as some say but apparently do not believe and that God’s Plan of Salvation is truly catholic.

I find it absolutely amazing that people can say that God’s Mercy is Infinite and than have such a puny “idea” of God’s Mercy.

I refuse to hope for something that I consider despicable, I hope that God truly is better than the “conceptions” of many.

It is said that Jesus said, “When I am lifted up, I will draw EVERYONE to Myself”, I happen to believe that He said it and I happen to believe that He meant it.

I refuse to believe that God set Himself up as a loser, since a “tie” with satan rather than a Total Victory for God and a total and unconditional defeat for satan, would be a loss.

So many people say that they know the “end of the story”, do they, do you?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . If bodies exist in time, and bodies exist in hell, it follows that time exists in hell as well. If it doesn’t follow, why not? . . .

Not knowing what I am talking about, I would say that it would depend on what we mean by “time”. If we consider it to mean change, in this world time is going somewhere. Bodily we are in a process of dissolution, while spiritually we are growing in or away from Christ. Time in the after-life might be like listening to an endless symphony. It may involve some sort of transformation in the sense that, If we were meant to take care of God’s garden, it will take some time to participate in the flowering of the entire universe.

 

[Tom_Baum]

It still doesn’t mean they take delight in the suffering of those who are in hell. Like God they feel compassion for them yet they also realise the damned have chosen to be in hell. Due to their pride and lust for power it is impossible for them to co-exist with anyone in heaven.
The blessed thank God that everyone is getting what they deserve and they rejoice that the victims of injustice and exploitation are consoled as Jesus promised. It is absurd to think they should allow their joy to be destroyed by the fact that not everyone is in heaven. It would amount to failing to recognise the full implications of free will and the harsh reality of evil. Anyone who deliberately and cold-bloodedly rejects the love of Our Lord who died for all of us on the Cross doesn’t deserve our pity. We too should rejoice and be grateful that the damned cannot commit any further atrocities. Even in this world we can see there is hardly any limit to diabolical cruelty and wanton destruction. St Thomas wasn’t infallible but neither was he misguided in his views about evil and hell…

You wrote, “Anyone who deliberately and cold-bloodedly rejects the love of Our Lord who died for all of us on the Cross doesn’t deserve our pity.”

Maybe, just maybe, since “Our Lord who died for all of us on the Cross” came up with a “Plan”, even before creation itself, that addresses this in a way that many find impossible.

Jesus did say about Salvation, “With man it is impossible but with God ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE”.

People have been trying to “fill in the blanks” for quite some time, maybe it is not for us to “know all of the details”, just yet.

Then you wrote, “Even in this world we can see there is hardly any limit to diabolical cruelty and wanton destruction.”

You could have went on to say, “In the next world there IS NO LIMIT to the horrors of those in hell”, actually you already have, haven’t you?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I
I refuse to hope for something that I consider despicable, I hope that God truly is better than the “conceptions” of many.

It is said that Jesus said, “When I am lifted up, I will draw EVERYONE to Myself”, I happen to believe that He said it and I happen to believe that He meant it.

I refuse to believe that God set Himself up as a loser, since a “tie” with satan rather than a Total Victory for God and a total and unconditional defeat for satan, would be a loss.

So many people say that they know the “end of the story”, do they, do you?

I know what Jesus tells us at the end of Matthew 25.

Do you think that Jesus lied?

Do you think that Jesus’s promise is despicable?

Matthew 25:41

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

Do you know what the word “eternal” means?

As for drawing ALL to him, stop looking for an escape clause.

Try not to think like a lawyer. Do you know what Shakespeare said about lawyers?

 

[tonyrey]

It still doesn’t mean they take delight in the suffering of those who are in hell. Like God they feel compassion for them yet they also realise the damned have chosen

Those who reject Our Lord’s love don’t deserve our pity but that doesn’t mean they are necessarily in hell. We don’t know whether they will have a change of heart. We should hope and pray they will realise how proud and ungrateful they are. It is not for us to judge anyone - and that includes ourselves…

People have been trying to “fill in the blanks” for quite some time, maybe it is not for us to “know all of the details”, just yet.

Then you wrote, “Even in this world we can see there is hardly any limit to diabolical cruelty and wanton destruction.”

You could have went on to say, “In the next world there IS NO LIMIT to the horrors of those in hell”, actually you already have, haven’t you?

There is no valid reason to believe I have stated or even implied that after death there is no limit to evil. In fact the reverse is true because God’s infinite love encompasses everyone regardless of their decisions. It is never possible to separate ourselves entirely from our Creator because without His love we would cease to exist. The very fact that He created us in His own image means we are indestructible.

No one is evil in every respect and the element of goodness in everyone implies that it is impossible to be totally isolated from God. That is why it is simplistic to believe we shall be in either heaven or hell. There is another possibility which must apply to most of us: an opportunity to make amends for the unnecessary suffering we have caused in this world either deliberately or through negligence. Instead of believing “In the next world there IS NO LIMIT to the horrors of those in hell” I believe there is NO LIMIT in this world or the next to our opportunities to reach heaven because there is NO LIMIT to God’s love for us. That is all we need to know…