The Problem of Hell

[tonyrey]

Someone who is in hell has no chance of being saved.

The only reason a person has no chance of being saved is that he or she chooses not to. Do you deny the value of being free to make up your own mind?

How is ‘no chance’ loving? Where then is this freedom you speak of if they can not change their mind after realizing their mistake?

They can change their mind but they choose not to!

Why not just put everyone in purgatory so that possibility of change would exist?

The possibility of change does not depend on the destiny you have chosen but on your decision. If you are absolutely determined to be independent even God cannot compel you to change your mind.

 

[Aleii]

Whoever ends up in hell had a whole lifetime of chances.

No one is born with the same lot as another. Its pretty easy for someone who already is Catholic to say this about the 83% of the world that isn’t. [on another tangent, Its also pretty disgusting when I see people who post smiley faces about people who are going to hell (not talking about you davidv)] Don’t forget about forgiving 70x7 times. Being loving means always offering another chance to come ‘home’. Or do you disagree with that?

In another thread the OP asked why Lucifer rebelled against God and was cast into hell despite having intimate angelic knowledge of Him. A bunch of us tried valiantly to answer this but he didn’t buy any of it and declared that he was abandoning Catholicism. This question when applied to humans is difficult but at least we know a few things about human nature. First of all our knowledge is always incomplete. Secondly we enjoy the rush of rebelling against authority, regardless of whether that authority is just. And thirdly, we often choose to do things that we know ahead of time could injure or even destroy us. I could go on, but I think these factors alone can explain why someone might jump into a bottomless pit.

Yes I agree that this topic is difficult. I agree knowledge is incomplete, and I can agree with the reasons why someone may impulsively decide to to go hell, but that is a superficial reason, and I can’t see how a superficial rationale will allow for an eternal consequence. I don’t see why someone would rationally, deep down, want hell over heaven. You shouldn’t have eternal suffering for a petty mistake like rebelling. Eternal suffering is absolutely sickening that it would exist in the first place.

How does one define insanity? Is it based upon observably odd behaviour? I don’t think so, since the guy who shoots down 10 of his fellow employees is often described as polite, normal, a good neighbour and so on. Does it depend on a psychiatrist’s certification? I doubt it. If you have ever visited a psychiatric ward you will find many patients who are surprisingly clear headed. I think insanity is directly related to delusional thinking. This is why a quite functional individual may be convinced that he is the reincarnation of King Arthur, and this delusion makes him somewhat insane. The greatest delusion, in my estimation, is to deny the hypostatic union. You will never be put into an asylum for this, but it is a form of insanity. Will the insanity defense work when we stand before Christ? Who knows, but I can think of a much safer strategy.

I don’t really know how to accurately define insanity for this purpose, its just a question that popped into my head that I never thought of before and wanted to postulate it for the first time. Yes, I have done work in a psych ward (I’m in health care) and one thing that really stuck out to me was that a lot of the people there were good, regular people who went through terrible situations and just lost it – in some of the truly awful situations people faced, I don’t know if I would have fared better, to be honest.

The only reason a person has no chance of being saved is that he or she chooses not to. Do you deny the value of being free to make up your own mind?

I don’t understand how it is possible to a.)fully agree to suffering for eternity rationally, and not just impulsively, and b.)that of all people there, none will ever change their mind after trillions upon trillions of years of pain.

It just doesn’t make sense to me. I also would rather be annihlated than to suffer eternally. I would far prefer to be annihlated than to have freedom with immense neverending suffering. In that case freedom is worthless.

They can change their mind but they choose not to!

I have always heard it is impossible to leave hell, that there was no hope left for them, and nothing could change that. It is quite a different story to say that it is possible to leave hell but no one does.

The possibility of change does not depend on the destiny you have chosen but on your decision. If you are absolutely determined to be independent even God cannot compel you to change your mind.

I don’t understand why a possibility of change in the future would depend on one decision.

Hmm, I thought I remember that there was one saint who asked God if they could take the place of a man going to hell, and God saved them both because of the saint’s faith. Anyone know what saint that is and if I’m messing up the premise?

 

[Seeker2010]

Whoever ends up in hell had a whole lifetime of chances.

Really? Define lifetime.

A soldier from WW2, who steps out on his wife with a Hawaiian prostitute, and was killed in battle a week later. Then you have a soldier from WW2, who stepped out on his wife with a Hawaiian prostitute, but survived the war. He returns home, realizes the error of his ways, confesses his sin, and is forgiven.

The second example is granted the pleasure of eternal bliss. The first, who did the same thing, but suffered the bad luck of dying before he could realize the error of his ways, suffers all of eternity being tortured.

Think about that.

ETERNITY being TORTURED. For committing the same actions that someone else was granted absolution for.

Thats nutty. And if it’s the way things actually work, then your God is a sadist.

 

[tonyrey]

The only reason a person has no chance of being saved is that he or she chooses not to. Do you deny the value of being free to make up your own mind?

That is because you are looking at only one side of the picture. No one would choose hell if it didn’t have its compensations! To have absolute power over oneself is a source of great pleasure and satisfaction.

It just doesn’t make sense to me. I also would rather be annihilated than to suffer eternally. I would far prefer to be annihilated than to have freedom with immense never-ending suffering. In that case freedom is worthless.

You say that now but when it comes to the prospect of total extinction forever you could well change your mind - especially if you are sharing your existence with others who are on your side and you are in total control of your existence…

They can change their mind but they choose not to!

I have always heard it is impossible to leave hell, that there was no hope left for them, and nothing could change that. It is quite a different story to say that it is possible to leave hell but no one does.

Who are we to decide who is in hell? All we know is that the reality of evil necessitates the possibility of eternal revolt against God. It happens in this life so why should it be impossible in the next? There is enough evidence in this world of the lust for power and the diabolical cruelty to justify belief in an **unceasing **demand for independence whatever the cost. Pride alone makes many people unnecessarily isolated and miserable…

The possibility of change does not depend on the destiny you have chosen but on your decision. If you are absolutely determined to be independent even God cannot compel you to change your mind.

I don’t understand why a possibility of change in the future would depend on one decision.

It doesn’t depend on one decision but on a mindset resulting from many decisions. We are the ones who shape our destiny and determine what we become. The buck stops with us.

Hmm, I thought I remember that there was one saint who asked God if they could take the place of a man going to hell, and God saved them both because of the saint’s faith. Anyone know what saint that is and if I’m messing up the premise?

I can’t remember off-hand but it reminds us that the business of going to hell is not as clearcut as people make out. It is significant that the subject of heaven is largely neglected and forgotten even though goodness and kindness are far more common than evil in human society.

Why should the thought of hell outweigh everything else? To rule out the possibility of a separate existence from God is to deny the reality of both free will and evil.

 

[Aleii]

That is because you are looking at only one side of the picture. No one would choose hell if it didn’t have its compensations! To have absolute power over oneself is a source of great pleasure and satisfaction.

All I ever really read about is the agony in hell, such as Our Lady of Fatima “amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fear” or Matt 13:42 “And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” Can you provide some sources which show ‘great pleasure and satisfaction’ in hell?

You say that now but when it comes to the prospect of total extinction forever you could well change your mind - especially if you are sharing your existence with others who are on your side and you are in total control of your existence…

I never asked to be born. One would think that, facing hell, one could have a choice to end it all. I would absolutely want nothingness over continuous pain with no reprieve.

Who are we to decide who is in hell? All we know is that the reality of evil necessitates the possibility of eternal revolt against God. It happens in this life so why should it be impossible in the next? There is enough evidence in this world of the lust for power and the diabolical cruelty to justify belief in an **unceasing **demand for independence whatever the cost. Pride alone makes many people unnecessarily isolated and miserable…

Is the first line a statement or in response to something? As for the other lines, life is a 100 year test where the rules are extremely vague. That’s a lot different than eternity with no going back. 100 years does not even account for a speck of sand in the ocean of time.

You say a possibility of eternal revolt against God is necessary. Why not then allow for the possibility that one would change their mind? Isn’t someone changing their mind far more likely than keeping that option for all of time?

It doesn’t depend on one decision but on a mindset resulting from many decisions. We are the ones who shape our destiny and determine what we become. The buck stops with us.

In order to make a real choice we need to know the rules. We are, as a whole, really just bumbling around here on earth. 100 years of decisions based upon a vague understanding of how things work should not lay an unchanging way for trillions upon trillions of years in the future. I don’t see how that makes sense that nothing can change because of a mere 100 years.

I can’t remember off-hand but it reminds us that the business of going to hell is not as clearcut as people make out. It is significant that the subject of heaven is largely neglected and forgotten even though goodness and kindness are far more common than evil in human society.

Why should the thought of hell outweigh everything else? To rule out the possibility of a separate existence from God is to deny the reality of both free will and evil.

Yes, the topic of hell is a vague one, however there are hints about how to get where you want to go. The reason why heaven is ignored is because it is compatible with a good God. It is not clear that hell is compatible with an omniscient omnipotent omnibenevolent(tri-omni) God or the teachings of Jesus. Jesus intervened without issue to free will before, but today does not directly intervene to educate one before they go down the path that will lead them to hell? It seems strange to lose one to the devil without attempting massive intervention. Many people here on earth work to reduce suffering. It is anguishing to think about one having eternal suffering with no hope, and when you have a God with the knowledge that one will be going down the path leading them to hell, all-powerful which gives and incredible amount of options, and the goodness that one would think would compel God to try everything possible… it seems like pretty much everyone could be saved without compromising their free will. It seems like God gives up on those going to hell, and I don’t see how that can be true when God is supposed to be tri-omni

To rule out the possibility of a separate existence from God is to deny the reality of both free will and evil.

What we are saying is that we don’t see how an infinite separate existence from God with no chance of redemption is compatible with God’s omnimax nature. The idea of “no chance of redemption/changing their mind” is the issue at hand. If they can’t change their mind in hell they no longer have free will. Were you to hear of people in hell being redeemed/rescued, things would be far different.

 

[davidv]

Really? Define lifetime.

Lifetime = Birth to death
Is there any other meaning?

A soldier from WW2, who steps out on his wife with a Hawaiian prostitute, and was killed in battle a week later. Then you have a soldier from WW2, who stepped out on his wife with a Hawaiian prostitute, but survived the war. He returns home, realizes the error of his ways, confesses his sin, and is forgiven.

And?

The second example is granted the pleasure of eternal bliss. The first, who did the same thing, but suffered the bad luck of dying before he could realize the error of his ways, suffers all of eternity being tortured.

No bad luck involved, every choice made is for good or evil.

Think about that.

What makes you think I haven’t?

ETERNITY being TORTURED. For committing the same actions that someone else was granted absolution for.

Thats nutty. And if it’s the way things actually work, then your God is a sadist.

Any torture is self inflicted.

The God you image isn’t the true God.

 

[tonyrey]

All I ever really read about is the agony in hell, such as Our Lady of Fatima “amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fear” or Matt 13:42 “And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” Can you provide some sources which show ‘great pleasure and satisfaction’ in hell?

There are many truths that are not written in the Scriptures. The horrific reality of evil and the immense amount of unnecessary suffering means harsh warnings are essential. “Thou shalt not kill” is not enough to deter criminals. It is better to exaggerate the punishment rather than just say “You will go to hell”! If a danger is real it is reasonable to make people afraid of it.

I never asked to be born.

How could you ask before you were conceived?

One would think that, facing hell, one could have a choice to end it all. I would absolutely want nothingness over continuous pain with no reprieve.

How do you know the misery is continuous? All we do know is that selfishness leads to** isolation **from others and dissatisfaction with oneself.

100 years does not even account for a speck of sand in the ocean of time.

Life is not a test but an opportunity to develop and decide what you really want - to live for yourself or for others. There is nothing vague about that. Good and evil are not insignificant in the context of eternity. Even if we lived only one day we would indicate in which direction we are heading. Hell is not a trap into which we fall accidentally. We are not condemned against our will. If we go to hell we condemn ourselves because that is what we have chosen.

You say a possibility of eternal revolt against God is necessary. Why not then allow for the possibility that one would change their mind? Isn’t someone changing their mind far more likely than keeping that option for all of time?

The lust for power is so deep-rooted the longer one has absolute freedom the more likely it becomes impossible to give it up. We cannot tell because we cannot understand ourselves completely even in this life. The remote possibility may exist but genuine freedom implies the possibility of **never **changing one’s mind.

In order to make a real choice we need to know the rules… 100 years of decisions based upon a vague understanding of how things work should not lay an unchanging way for trillions upon trillions of years in the future. I don’t see how that makes sense that nothing can change because of a mere 100 years.

It is not a question of knowing rules. What counts is whether we love others. Love is not based on rules but on concern for the welfare and happiness of others. As Pascal remarked, the heart has its reasons that reason does not know…

The reason why heaven is ignored is because it is compatible with a good God. It is not clear that hell is compatible with an omniscient omnipotent omnibenevolent(tri-omni) God or the teachings of Jesus. Jesus intervened without issue to free will before, but today does not directly intervene to educate one before they go down the path that will lead them to hell? It seems strange to lose one to the devil without attempting massive intervention. Many people here on earth work to reduce suffering. It is anguishing to think about one having eternal suffering with no hope, and when you have a God with the knowledge that one will be going down the path leading them to hell, all-powerful which gives and incredible amount of options, and the goodness that one would think would compel God to try everything possible… it seems like pretty much everyone could be saved without compromising their free will. It seems like God gives up on those going to hell, and I don’t see how that can be true when God is supposed to be tri-omni

I think you are exaggerating the risk of going to hell! This may seem inconsistent with the need for severe warnings about the danger of evil but the vast majority of people are not evil and have nothing to fear - although all of us could do much more to reduce the suffering in the world. We sin by neglect rather than malice. That is why we have to make amends for what we have failed to do as well as what we have done wrong. Very few of us could claim to deserve to go to heaven! But you are right to be anguished by the prospect of many people going to hell! The prayer Jesus gave us is a good antidote to despair because it reconciles God’s mercy with His justice and should fill us with hope:

“Forgive us our trespasses **as **we forgive those who trespass against us.”

We have no idea of the extent to which God does intervene in people’s lives. There is plenty of evidence of miracles which occur regardless of a person’s beliefs.

What we are saying is that we don’t see how an infinite separate existence from God with no chance of redemption is compatible with God’s omnimax nature. The idea of “no chance of redemption/changing their mind” is the issue at hand. If they can’t change their mind in hell they no longer have free will. Were you to hear of people in hell being redeemed/rescued, things would be far different.

We have all been redeemed but we cannot be saved unless we wish to be saved. That is our privilege because free will is our most important gift. Without it we are incapable of love. That is why paradoxically hell is a necessary consequence of God’s love for us. If hell did not exist we would know we are not genuinely free to decide for ourselves how to live. And if hell didn’t exist neither would heaven! We cannot have one without the other. We are either biological machines or persons made in God’s image. We either survive after death or we don’t. Good and evil are either human inventions or objective facts. Take your pick!

 

[Aleii]

Tonyrey, it sounds like we have two different ideas of what hell is. I’d be very interested to read your sources which say that there can be pleasure in hell, and pain may not be continual. I’ve heard that it was the Catholic view that pain is neverending, and that they can not even say that unbaptized babies always go to heaven(but hope they do). For example, newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm says
New Advent:

Just as the blessed in heaven are free from all pain, so, on the other hand, the damned never experience even the least real pleasure. In hell separation from the blissful influence of Divine love has reached its consummation…(2) The pains of hell are essentially immutable; there are no temporary intermissions or passing alleviations. …(3) Hell is a state of the greatest and most complete misfortune, as is evident from all that has been said. The damned have no joy whatever, and it were better for them if they had not been born (Matthew 26:24).

New Advent:

The Holy Bible is quite explicit in teaching the eternity of the pains of hell. The torments of the damned shall last forever and ever (Revelation 14:11; 19:3; 20:10). They are everlasting just as are the joys of heaven (Matthew 25:46). Of Judas Christ says: “it were better for him, if that man had not been born” (Matthew 26:24). But this would not have been true if Judas was ever to be released from hell and admitted to eternal happiness. Again, God says of the damned: “Their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched” (Isaiah 66:24; Mark 9:43, 45, 47). The fire of hell is repeatedly called eternal and unquenchable. The wrath of God abideth on the damned (John 3:36); they are vessels of Divine wrath (Romans 9:22); they shall not possess the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:10; Galatians 5:21), etc. The objections adduced from Scripture against this doctrine are so meaningless that they are not worth while discussing in detail. The teaching of the fathers is not less clear and decisive (cf. Patavius, “De Angelis”, III, viii). We merely call to mind the testimony of the martyrs who often declared that they were glad to suffer pain of brief duration in order to escape eternal torments; e.g. “Martyrium Polycarpi”, c. ii (cf. Atzberger, “Geschichte”, II, 612 sqq.). It is true that Origen fell into error on this point; but precisely for this error he was condemned by the Church (Canones adv. Origenem ex Justiniani libro adv. Origen., can. ix; Hardouin, III, 279 E; Denz., n. 211). In vain attempts were made to undermine the authority of these canons (cf. Dickamp, “Die origenistischen Streitigkeiten”, Münster, 1899, 137). Besides even in Origen we find the orthodox teaching on the eternity of the pains of hell; for in his words the faithful Christian was again and again victorious over the doubting philosopher. Gregory of Nyssa seems to have favoured the errors of Origen; many, however, believe that his statements can be shown to be in harmony with Catholic doctrine. But the suspicions that have been cast on some passages of Gregory of Nazianzus and Jerome are decidedly without justification (cf. Pesch, “Theologische Zeitfragen”, 2nd series, 190 sqq.). The Church professes her faith in the eternity of the pains of hell in clear terms in the Athanasian Creed (Denz., nn. 40), in authentic doctrinal decisions (Denz, nn. 211, 410, 429, 807, 835, 915), and in countless passages of her liturgy; she never prays for the damned. Hence, beyond the possibility of doubt, the Church expressly teaches the eternity of the pains of hell as a truth of faith which no one can deny or call in question without manifest heresy.

 

[tonyrey]

Tonyrey, it sounds like we have two different ideas of what hell is. I’d be very interested to read your sources which say that there can be pleasure in hell, and pain may not be continual. I’ve heard that it was the Catholic view that pain is neverending, and that they can not even say that unbaptized babies always go to heaven(but hope they do). For example, newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm says

There is a difference between “never-ending” and “continual”. Not all the statements in your source are to be regarded as infallible. I have already pointed out that not all truths are contained in the Scriptures or the teaching of the Church. If they were there could never be a development of doctrine. Not only that. We are not expected to have blind faith but to use our God-given power of reason. Our ultimate authority is our conscience. If you cannot refute any of the points I have made I am content!

 

[Aleii]

There is a difference between “never-ending” and “continual”. Not all the statements in your source are to be regarded as infallible. I have already pointed out that not all truths are contained in the Scriptures or the teaching of the Church. If they were there could never be a development of doctrine. Not only that. We are not expected to have blind faith but to use our God-given power of reason. Our ultimate authority is our conscience. If you cannot refute any of the points I have made I am content!

Yes there is a difference between never ending and continual and my source says the pain is both continual and neverending.

So you are therefore saying that your information is not based on sources, but your opinions only, even though I have given respected Catholic sources which state to the contrary giving Biblical backing? I thank you for your time, and while I understand the issue is a vague one, I’m looking for more information on how the specifically Catholic view of hell fits with the idea of a tri-omni God. Catholicism teaches that for their followers, their conscience can be in error, and that is why they need to submit to the church as their highest authority, even on matters that don’t make sense to them or they may not agree with.

 

[tonyrey]

There is a difference between “never-ending” and “continual”. Not all the statements in your source are to be regarded as infallible. I have already pointed out that not all truths are contained in the Scriptures or the teaching of the Church. If they were there could never be a development of doctrine. Not only that. We are not expected to have blind faith but to use our God-given power of reason. Our ultimate authority is our conscience. If you cannot refute any of the points I have made I am content!

Is there evidence that it is an infallible doctrine?

So you are therefore saying that your information is not based on sources, but your opinions only, even though I have given respected Catholic sources which state to the contrary giving Biblical backing?

There are disagreements between “respected Catholic sources” on topics like hell and women priests…

I thank you for your time, and while I understand the issue is a vague one, I’m looking for more information on how the specifically Catholic view of hell fits with the idea of a tri-omni God. Catholicism teaches that for their followers, their conscience can be in error, and that is why they need to submit to the church as their highest authority, even on matters that don’t make sense to them or they may not agree with.

The Church distinctly teaches that our conscience is our highest authority, provided that is informed, and we have a moral obligation to obey it even if it entails being excommunicated! “Credo quia absurdum” is the antithesis of Catholic teaching which holds that our faith in God is based on reason. There are obviously incomprehensible mysteries like the Blessed Trinity but hell does not come into that category because it is the logical outcome of having free will. It would be far more of a problem if hell didn’t exist or those who reject God are annihilated. Not only would it be an admission of defeat but it would transform the Creator into a Destroyer! How could a Loving Father eliminate a person made in His image and likeness? Again there are only two alternatives: justice is a reality or it is an illusion - in which case the topic of hell is of no significance whatsoever. If justice is real, as the Greek concept of nemesis and the Indian doctrine of karma maintain, we inevitably and ineluctably get precisely what we deserve. Heaven and hell are simply continuations of our life on earth because we have foretastes of both: the ecstasy of love and the agony of loss…

 

[tonyrey]

Is there evidence that it is an infallible doctrine?

There are disagreements between “respected Catholic sources” on topics like hell and women priests…

The Church distinctly teaches that our conscience is our highest authority, provided that is informed, and we have a moral obligation to obey it even if it entails being excommunicated! “Credo quia absurdum” is the antithesis of Catholic teaching which holds that our faith in God is based on reason. There are obviously incomprehensible mysteries like the Blessed Trinity but hell does not come into that category because it is the logical outcome of having free will. It would be far more of a problem if hell didn’t exist or those who reject God are annihilated. Not only would it be an admission of defeat but it would transform the Creator into a Destroyer! How could a Loving Father eliminate a person made in His image and likeness? Again there are only two alternatives: justice is a reality or it is an illusion - in which case the topic of hell is of no significance whatsoever. If justice is real, as the Greek concept of nemesis and the Indian doctrine of karma maintain, we inevitably and ineluctably get precisely what we deserve. Heaven and hell are simply continuations of our life on earth because we have foretastes of both: the ecstasy of love and the agony of loss…

I should add that our conscience is not infallible but if it is informed that is not a good reason for rejecting its authority. We still have an obligation to obey its dictates even if it is in error while always bearing in mind the primacy of the commandment to love others. The mistake of some members of the Inquisition was to regard concern for salvation in heaven and happiness on earth as mutually exclusive. They may have ensured that saints like Joan of Arc were canonised and speeded on their way to God but in the meantime they jeopardised their own prospects of salvation by their cruelty and distorted sense of values - even if we assume their motives were entirely pure! Ecclesiastics are not immune to the temptation to relish and abuse their power…

 

[joeantony]

Hi, I’m a seventeen y/o from arborfield, england. I have thought about the same thing. I was raised a catholic, although now I am not so sure I am one, I am considering several other religions incuding atheism, satanism, and even Judaism. I think that if God is real, he was very cruel for kicking Satan into the worst place imaginable, nobody would enjoy tat because it isn’t supposed to be enjoyed. I kind of feel sorry for him getting punished like that just for not following God, that isn’t democracy, he should have gotten a say in who was his leader. Hell is a problematic concept for all of us, and it was one of the reasons I will probably leave Christianity soon:

Hello BrixtonishBoy,

I am quite scared to know that you are even considering Satanism as a religion. Well I must leave you to choose according to your free will but I must also tell you to choose God any time for your own sake. I may be nobody to tell you that but I do this as a fellow Christian.

About the question of God not being democratic or being cruel, the democracy applies when all are equal. I believe we have no say in God’s plans or demands because He created us he Has the absolute authority over as. Yet His love for us is manifested to us through the Free will, or the ability to make that choice , either to select Him or not.

You are considering Satan over God ( for example, hope not), If God had not given you the ability and right to make that choice you would not have desired it. This is probably beyond our comprehension, to completely understand that He never intended to treat us like slaves but to treat us like special creation with his likeness. Thus we have greater responsibility to make choices in his likeness. Our choice when made against His likeness , with full knowledge, put ourselves against Him.

He kicked fallen angles to eternal punishment and never tried to save them because that was not His plan. But He loved us more and He tries everything to save us without violating the “Free will” condition that he created us with. But If we willingly choose Sin and not repent we have to understand that our choice is forever,as long as our soul exist and God exists. I believe God exists forever and our stand against him will be forever too then.

And If you want to understand or read more about the position those angles fell into, read the book called “The Mystical City of God”.

Friend, I am not a theologian, nor an expert in bible studies. I can only tell that If you want to understand the mysteries of God and to direct your thoughts in the right way,pray to the Holy Spirit. He will guide you . Try that for sometime. Ask him to teach you the truth and He WILL.

Joe

 

[dcastlen50]

Hi, I’m a seventeen y/o from arborfield, england. I have thought about the same thing. I was raised a catholic, although now I am not so sure I am one, I am considering several other religions incuding atheism, satanism, and even Judaism. I think that if God is real, he was very cruel for kicking Satan into the worst place imaginable, nobody would enjoy tat because it isn’t supposed to be enjoyed. I kind of feel sorry for him getting punished like that just for not following God, that isn’t democracy, he should have gotten a say in who was his leader. Hell is a problematic concept for all of us, and it was one of the reasons I will probably leave Christianity soon:

**
Have you considered becoming an American and joining the Democratic Party, it is not quit satanistic but it gives you good feelings?
…my attempt at levity…
First you need to address this issue: Is there a God,
Then you must ask: what is His nature.
The evidences for a God are overwhelming and are within you; albeit, maybe you need to have something to resurrect this. I can think of nothing better than reading Peter Kreeft’s “apologetics.” It is a very easy read; better yet, C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity.”
After you’ve discovered there is a God, the next step is to ask, “What is His nature?” I have concluded it is that of Jesus Christ, The Trinity - Love. You will find more than enough CDs, books, priest, etc to help you, BUT to know Jesus is a gift of grace. You can have this grace only if you are humble, “God resist the proud and gives grace to the humble.”
God bless you, I came back to Mother Church a while ago and I have never know joy until now - NOT happiness, but joy.
Give it a try, you’ll like it.**

My favorite book: “All Things Great And Simple”
You English have the best writers: Chesterton, Lewis,…

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

While up at the cottage last night we watched “Road To Perdition”. I had seen this movie before but there was one scene in particular that made me think of this discussion. Paul Newman plays an old Irish crime boss, and Tom Hanks one of his trusted soldiers. The son of Newman kills Hanks wife and son, so Hanks meets Newman in the basement of a Catholic church just after they attend mass.

HANKS: This ends with [your son] dead regardless.
NEWMAN: That may be…but you are asking me to give you the key to his room
so you can walk in, put a gun to his head and pull the trigger. I can’t do that.
HANKS: He murdered Annie and Peter.
NEWMAN: There are only murderers in this room. Michael, open your eyes.
This is the life we chose, the life we lead. And there is only one guarantee:
None of us will see heaven.

This is of course fiction, but it is thought provoking nonetheless. Here is a character who, having just attended mass, admits that his choice of lifestyle will bar him permanently from heaven. Would we consider such a man insane or terrifyingly single minded?

 

[dcastlen50]

While up at the cottage last night we watched “Road To Perdition”. I had seen this movie before but there was one scene in particular that made me think of this discussion. Paul Newman plays an old Irish crime boss, and Tom Hanks one of his trusted soldiers. The son of Newman kills Hanks wife and son, so Hanks meets Newman in the basement of a Catholic church just after they attend mass.

HANKS: This ends with [your son] dead regardless.
NEWMAN: That may be…but you are asking me to give you the key to his room
so you can walk in, put a gun to his head and pull the trigger. I can’t do that.
HANKS: He murdered Annie and Peter.
NEWMAN: There are only murderers in this room. Michael, open your eyes.
This is the life we chose, the life we lead. And there is only one guarantee:
None of us will see heaven.

This is of course fiction, but it is thought provoking nonetheless. Here is a character who, having just attended mass, admits that his choice of lifestyle will bar him permanently from heaven. Would we consider such a man insane or terrifyingly single minded?

Thought provoking. I would expect something like this from someone with a name like Moontown Rabbit.

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

Thought provoking. I would expect something like this from someone with a name like Moontown Rabbit.

I apologize for the name. The question being discussed here has looked at how or why a person might be sentenced to hell. The author of the above movie suggests how this might happen. If you disagree with his portrayal you could explain why, or we can start up a new thread about who has the most stupid alias.

 

[Betterave]

Yes there is a difference between never ending and continual and my source says the pain is both continual and neverending.

So you are therefore saying that your information is not based on sources, but your opinions only, even though I have given respected Catholic sources which state to the contrary giving Biblical backing? I thank you for your time, and while I understand the issue is a vague one, I’m looking for more information on how the specifically Catholic view of hell fits with the idea of a tri-omni God. Catholicism teaches that for their followers, their conscience can be in error, and that is why they need to submit to the church as their highest authority, even on matters that don’t make sense to them or they may not agree with.

Well put.

Now what exactly is your objection to the Catholic position? Do you still have one? Or is it just that you don’t like it, since if you were God you figure you’d have planned things differently - to which we Catholics would have to reply that you are mistaken about this, and that if you were God, which you’re not, you would never have been tempted to make such a mistake?

 

[Aleii]

Well put.

Now what exactly is your objection to the Catholic position? Do you still have one? Or is it just that you don’t like it, since if you were God you figure you’d have planned things differently - to which we Catholics would have to reply that you are mistaken about this, and that if you were God, which you’re not, you would never have been tempted to make such a mistake?

I don’t understand how the idea of a tri-omni God fits with the idea of hell. To elaborate, I don’t understand how 1.) anyone would “choose” hell when having knowledge of what it entails. 2.) I can’t wrap my mind around the idea of a ‘final choice’ with ‘no going back’. It just seems like free will would end if there ceases to be a chance to make things right. 3.) I don’t understand why annihilation wouldn’t be more loving than permanent suffering in hell, or at least an option to be annihilated.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by your last sentence - what mistake are you referring to at the end of the sentence? Are you saying I think God made a mistake? If so, I am not saying that. I am saying that God doesn’t make mistakes, therefore there must be an issue with either my understanding or the religion. And really it doesn’t matter what I personally like or dislike about religion or anything else - what matters is what makes sense to me. For example I won’t like if I get a speeding ticket but it makes sense to me so I accept it. I’m simply looking for the missing link so that hell will make sense to me.

 

[Betterave]

I don’t understand how the idea of a tri-omni God fits with the idea of hell. To elaborate, I don’t understand how 1.) anyone would “choose” hell when having knowledge of what it entails. 2.) I can’t wrap my mind around the idea of a ‘final choice’ with ‘no going back’. It just seems like free will would end if there ceases to be a chance to make things right. 3.) I don’t understand why annihilation wouldn’t be more loving than permanent suffering in hell, or at least an option to be annihilated.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by your last sentence - what mistake are you referring to at the end of the sentence? Are you saying I think God made a mistake? If so, I am not saying that. I am saying that God doesn’t make mistakes, therefore there must be an issue with either my understanding or the religion. And really it doesn’t matter what I personally like or dislike about religion or anything else - what matters is what makes sense to me. For example I won’t like if I get a speeding ticket but it makes sense to me so I accept it. I’m simply looking for the missing link so that hell will make sense to me.

The mistake I meant to refer to would be thinking that if you were God you would do things differently. It sounds like you’re trying to avoid that mistake.

To (1), no one chooses hell as such, right? If you keep that in mind that should help. For example, say a murderer is executed and goes to hell. He chose to murder and he is executed and goes to hell as a result of his choice. He may wish to escape punishment, but too bad for him.

To (2), I don’t see the difficulty. I should think that it would be harder to understand choices which we *can *‘go back’ on. Is there any reason to assume that all choices we make should be revocable? …or that there shouldn’t be limits to our free will?

To (3), it seems that annihilation would be convenient - but hardly necessarily more loving. To me annihilation seems to be a nihilist kind of desire - do whatever you want, the worst that justice will have to offer you is your own acquired state of nothingness - which, as the Epicureans noted, is nothing to fear. A promise of annihilation for evil-doers is a promise of no punishment (punishment requires an existing punishee).