Why are we judged on such a brief flicker of time?

[ericc]

I guess it sounds weird to you, but no, I don’t see how Judas “deserved” to be punished. I think he was like an exceptional learner who failed to grasp the point(s) Jesus tried to get across.

You sound like a defense lawyer trying to find a loophole for someone who admits to the crime but you are trying to get him off the hook. Which actually makes you guilty of encouraging sinful behaviour.

Why would we beat a child for being a difficult learner? Anyone who saw the beautiful would desire it, so if he failed to see the beautiful, was that somehow his fault? Why is that different than someone who fails to “see” the errors in their writing? Love urges help, correction, teaching - sometimes through the experience of undesirable natural consequences of the failure, but never by beating the student with a ruler.

God doesn’t beat you for being slow after all he made you slow. He beats you for doing evil that he forbade.

What kind of weird teacher or parent never lets anyone see actual consequences, but just threatens you with them until one day, boom, you’re gone from the school and never heard from again?

Who is this teacher teaching this sinner to do evil deeds? Definitely not God. You mean the murderer didn’t see the consequences of his action? He didn’t see the dead body? He didn’t see the suffering caused by his action when he knifed/shot/strangled/gassed the victim? He didn’t feel the resistance of the victim when the rapist forced himself on the victim? Still learning what consequences? He couldn’t feel what the families of the victims felt? How about a repeat sinner? Still learning? I am sorry I just couldn’t get your drift when you say these sort of people are still learning. Learning what? Why is this 30,40,50,60 year old repeat offender still a child in your eyes?

Your view of human wrongdoing sounds a little harsh.

If my view of human wrongdoing is correctly portrayed, then there is nothing harsh about it, just reality. Obviously if you surround yourself with beautiful things, you won’t see reality till you head towards the poor/wicked part of town.

Do you honestly think someone believes x is beautiful and chooses not-x unless there is some other desirable thing they think is more beautiful than x? Now they can be wrong, admittedly. How is that different than the student who incorrectly grasps the relationship of > and < when dealing with negative numbers or with mixed numbers? Their valuation is incorrect, and should be corrected. How can you claim to love them and not think that would be preferable?

Although there is nothing patently wrong in the pursuit of beauty, it is the process of obtaining it that is being questioned. The objective of pursuing it is being questioned. Did you use a sinful way to achieve it? What did you use it for? Is it for good or does it lead to a deterioration of your morals. We are told to seek treasures in heaven and not store earthly treasures.

Do you honestly think there is a possible act that could be committed that could not be redeemed by some conceivable experience in purgatory? If you had to feel what the victims of your actions had felt, would that not change their hearts? What if they then experienced the way a saints heart would feel, so they could experience the contrast for themselves?

In their exercise of their freewill, sinners chose to follow evil. You are making the assumption that all sinners at some point will see the errors of their way and seek repentance. Some just don’t even at their death bed. What you are advocating is that repentance should be available after death. Unfortunately this is wishful thinking because judgement is immediate. Purgatory is delayed heaven by the way. Come on, the rules are very clear and more than fair. Follow God for a brief moment of time and eternal bliss awaits you. The ROI here is fantastic!

God is asking you to listen to him during this brief flicker of time. If you won’t, I think the choice is clear. If you do, you will feel what the saints feel.

Would this not be like helping the child to see with blocks how one number really is taller than the other number? Making the child do some remedial work or breaking down and rebuilding is far different in goals and motives than ‘punishment.’

You kept on painting the sinner as childlike. There is a difference. A child is still learning due to the young age. They are not capable of differentiating morally right behaviour. The typical adult sinner is no longer a child. They can differentiate and they deliberately sin knowing fully the gravity of their actions. You really can’t plead ignorance here.

 

[tonyrey]

You sound like a defense lawyer trying to find a loophole for someone who admits to the crime but you are trying to get him off the hook. Which actually makes you guilty of encouraging sinful behaviour.

God doesn’t beat you for being slow after all he made you slow. He beats you for doing evil that he forbade.

Who is this teacher teaching this sinner to do evil deeds? Definitely not God. You mean the murderer didn’t see the consequences of his action? He didn’t see the dead body? He didn’t see the suffering caused by his action when he knifed/shot/strangled/gassed the victim? He didn’t feel the resistance of the victim when the rapist forced himself on the victim? Still learning what consequences? He couldn’t feel what the families of the victims felt? How about a repeat sinner? Still learning? I am sorry I just couldn’t get your drift when you say these sort of people are still learning. Learning what? Why is this 30,40,50,60 year old repeat offender still a child in your eyes?

If my view of human wrongdoing is correctly portrayed, then there is nothing harsh about it, just reality. Obviously if you surround yourself with beautiful things, you won’t see reality till you head towards the poor/wicked part of town.

Although there is nothing patently wrong in the pursuit of beauty, it is the process of obtaining it that is being questioned. The objective of pursuing it is being questioned. Did you use a sinful way to achieve it? What did you use it for? Is it for good or does it lead to a deterioration of your morals. We are told to seek treasures in heaven and not store earthly treasures.

In their exercise of their freewill, sinners chose to follow evil. You are making the assumption that all sinners at some point will see the errors of their way and seek repentance. Some just don’t even at their death bed. What you are advocating is that repentance should be available after death. Unfortunately this is wishful thinking because judgement is immediate. Purgatory is delayed heaven by the way. Come on, the rules are very clear and more than fair. Follow God for a brief moment of time and eternal bliss awaits you. The ROI here is fantastic!

God is asking you to listen to him during this brief flicker of time. If you won’t, I think the choice is clear. If you do, you will feel what the saints feel.

You kept on painting the sinner as childlike. There is a difference. A child is still learning due to the young age. They are not capable of differentiating morally right behaviour. The typical adult sinner is no longer a child. They can differentiate and they deliberately sin knowing fully the gravity of their actions. You really can’t plead ignorance here.

We are all ignorant to some extent but not sufficiently ignorant to be innocent!
There is such a thing as culpable ignorance…

 

[Contarini]

You may be right. A great point. However, in that case, any discussion of it becomes moot and most of the theological tradition pretending we can make any sense of any of the metaphysics should be tossed in the fireplace with another brick of peat.

I don’t know what you mean by this. Perhaps you could give me some examples of “much of the theological tradition” that would be “tossed in the fireplace” if this view is correct? Because i think I’m getting my view from the tradition. I don’t find this confusion in the key texts of the theological tradition (the Fathers, the Summa Theologiae, the Eastern Philokalia, etc.), but on discussion forums

Edwin

 

[Neoplatonist]

I don’t know what you mean by this. Perhaps you could give me some examples of “much of the theological tradition” that would be “tossed in the fireplace” if this view is correct? Because i think I’m getting my view from the tradition. I don’t find this confusion in the key texts of the theological tradition (the Fathers, the Summa Theologiae, the Eastern Philokalia, etc.), but on discussion forums

Edwin

A quick grab from prayers and the Catechism offers:
“. . .and ever shall be world without end.”
“. . .and his kingdom will have no end.”
CCC988 “Resurrection of the dead and life everlasting”
CCC1020 “…entrance into everlasting life.”
CCC1023 “Those who die in God’s grace and friendship and are perfectly purified live forever and ever with Christ.”

If we are not to think of it as passing time, we need to reframe/re-translate the terms that call it “life” or talk about it being forever and ever. The second part of the point is that even if you are right, and we manage to sort out all the language and instances of its use, the issue would remain that if we do not think of it as at least analogous to linear progression, then our ability to actually make claims or derive conclusions about it become linguistically possible but experientially meaningless. That is, we can construct sentences about the terms which follow grammatical rules, but we can make no assured sense of what the referent of those sentence could actually be coherent in experience. An fair consideration here need only look at the intellectual confusions and paradoxes that result with only the slightest disruption of temporal cognition in a state of dreaming to appreciate the idea I’m trying to capture.

 

[Neoplatonist]

I don’t know what you mean by this. Perhaps you could give me some examples of “much of the theological tradition” that would be “tossed in the fireplace” if this view is correct? Because i think I’m getting my view from the tradition. I don’t find this confusion in the key texts of the theological tradition (the Fathers, the Summa Theologiae, the Eastern Philokalia, etc.), but on discussion forums

Edwin

Besides, if we would not be experiencing a kind of temporality that is at least analogous to that experienced here, why all that business about re-uniting us with a perfected body? If we are just suspended in some infinite instant of goodness (or however you would try to describe eternal bliss without the passage of time), what would we need bodies for?

 

[Contarini]

A quick grab from prayers and the Catechism offers:
“. . .and ever shall be world without end.”
“. . .and his kingdom will have no end.”
CCC988 “Resurrection of the dead and life everlasting”
CCC1020 “…entrance into everlasting life.”
CCC1023 “Those who die in God’s grace and friendship and are perfectly purified live forever and ever with Christ.”

If we are not to think of it as passing time, we need to reframe/re-translate the terms that call it “life” or talk about it being forever and ever.

No, we don’t. We have to speak in time-bound language, because language as we know it is intrinsically temporal.

The second part of the point is that even if you are right, and we manage to sort out all the language and instances of its use, the issue would remain that if we do not think of it as at least analogous to linear progression, then our ability to actually make claims or derive conclusions about it become linguistically possible but experientially meaningless.

It is analogous. That’s why we can talk about it. The mistake is to think that “analogous” means “the same.” So when you say “why are we judged on a brief flicker of time,” you’re clearly going beyond analogy to the assumption that this life really is a tiny segment of an infinitely long line.

A better analogy for eternal life would be a parabola that touches a straight line at one point. That point would be “time” or “this life.” An analogy for damnation would be a parabola that approaches zero.

But of course these are just analogies to help us get outside our normal ways of thinking.

That is, we can construct sentences about the terms which follow grammatical rules, but we can make no assured sense of what the referent of those sentence could actually be coherent in experience.

No assured sense, true, except perhaps through mystical experience–at least some people seem to have had such experiences. I myself have not.

An fair consideration here need only look at the intellectual confusions and paradoxes that result with only the slightest disruption of temporal cognition in a state of dreaming to appreciate the idea I’m trying to capture.

Right. But the Christian tradition has always recognized that our language is inadequate. I still don’t think you have stated your problem clearly. I get that the underlying issue is about the reconcilability of God’s goodness and eternal punishment. But I think you’re taking analogous language too literally and then saying that the only alternative is that nothing we say about eternal life/death is meaningful.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Besides, if we would not be experiencing a kind of temporality that is at least analogous to that experienced here, why all that business about re-uniting us with a perfected body? If we are just suspended in some infinite instant of goodness (or however you would try to describe eternal bliss without the passage of time), what would we need bodies for?

Agreed. That’s why thinking of eternity as an “eternal now” is inadequate too. Paradox and poetry work best.

Edwin

 

[jmcrae]

1.This idea that time goes off the rails is probably a whole different thread, but certainly different than the language I’ve ever heard used in Church or in the Catechism (maybe I haven’t seen the right part lately). Can anyone point me to a source that says “eternity” and “forever and ever” and “from the beginning of time” are supposed to be understood differently? I don’t get how we could pretend to talk about any of this in such a case, and the source might address that.

I have always been given to understand that eternity is not “time” in the sense that we understand it, but rather, a vantage point from which we can observe time from the outside, and then enter into it at any point. This is how the Eucharist can exist in millions of Catholic Churches all at the same time, despite being only one thing.

Where we enter eternity at depends on from where we exit time at - if we are in Hell (separated from God) at the moment of time that we exit the timeline and enter into eternity, then we will remain there, because, being spiritually dead, we will be unable to function.

 

[Hortenzie]

How strange it would be for us to judge a child, choose their future career, their happiness, their everything, based on how they behaved or felt or what they said during one random period of 5 minutes back when they were in 3rd grade.

Now, if our souls live for eternity, as is indicated in the tradition o faith, can we make sense out of how it would seem “just” when God is doing, as far as we can tell, the same thing? What are 70 years compared to eternity but a blink? What are we to God but naive, feeble-minded children? Why then give us the power in such a situation to determine our eternal fatmercifult me be clear: I’m not saying he shouldn’t. I’m not saying I’d do it differently. I’m just asking how we can modify or interpret the situation so that it fits with what we think of as fair or merciful.

70 years (if we’re lucky) is all we have as humans and this is the time we have the opportunity to show our faith in God and our Love for Him. We are naive and feeble-minded children only for the first quarter or so. Most of us eventually grow up and mature. Furthermore God gave us the rules and principles to live by and he will judge us on our willingness and effort in applying them (our faithfulness to Him) and our motives (our love for Him). He knew we won’t be able to succeed perfectly that’s why He sent His own Son to cover over our sins. His Son paid for our lives with His own. God did cover all the angles because He is merciful and just, beside being also righteous. The question is not if God is fair (how presumptuous of us) but if we avail ourselves of His wonderful provisions for our salvation or reject them…

 

[aragonjohn1]

How strange it would be for us to judge a child, choose their future career, their happiness, their everything, based on how they behaved or felt or what they said during one random period of 5 minutes back when they were in 3rd grade.

Now, if our souls live for eternity, as is indicated in the tradition of faith, can we make sense out of how it would seem “just” when God is doing, as far as we can tell, the same thing? What are 70 years compared to eternity but a blink? What are we to God but naive, feeble-minded children? Why then give us the power in such a situation to determine our eternal fate?

Let me be clear: I’m not saying he shouldn’t. I’m not saying I’d do it differently. I’m just asking how we can modify or interpret the situation so that it fits with what we think of as fair or merciful.

each life at the least effects millions of other lives either positively or negatively. God in His love creates all in existence with a purpose; from matter bigger than stars to smaller than quarks and living microscope creatures with less than 500 characters of DNA structure.

God bless

 

[tonyrey]

each life at the least effects millions of other lives either positively or negatively. God in His love creates all in existence with a purpose; from matter bigger than stars to smaller than quarks and living microscope creatures with less than 500 characters of DNA structure.

God bless

Some one seems unaware of the butterfly effect!

 

[tonyrey]

Besides, if we would not be experiencing a kind of temporality that is at least analogous to that experienced here, why all that business about re-uniting us with a perfected body? If we are just suspended in some infinite instant of goodness (or however you would try to describe eternal bliss without the passage of time), what would we need bodies for?

“just suspended” is a distortion of the Christian belief that life is what we make it - both in this world and the next. Love is never static and sterile but always dynamic and creative. The arbitrary gulf between physical and spiritual reality is based on an atomistic view of persons that has been discarded by modern medicine.

 

[tonyrey]

Irredeemable, eternal damnation and a compassionate, omnipotent God. That’s the apparent contradiction I’m after in this thread. Maybe you will have some additional thoughts at the thread about free will. I spun that one to tackle an angle of reflection that emerged in the course of this one.

Compassion implies respect for the right to shape our own destiny not enforce servile obedience.

 

[aragonjohn1]

Some one seems unaware of the butterfly effect!

God bless

 

[Neoplatonist]

Compassion implies respect for the right to shape our own destiny not enforce servile obedience.

But if we neglect to visit our mother, or call her, how does the fact that she continues to leave the guest room made up for us or the back door open for us if we should decide to drop in for a visit translate to “enforced servile obedience”?

In contrast, if she acted in the way it seems God is modeled in our understanding, then she would decide at some point to change her locks so we could not stop by for a visit. How would that somehow reflect a greater respect for our freedom?

 

[davidv]

But if we neglect to visit our mother, or call her, how does the fact that she continues to leave the guest room made up for us or the back door open for us if we should decide to drop in for a visit translate to “enforced servile obedience”?

In contrast, if she acted in the way it seems God is modeled in our understanding, then she would decide at some point to change her locks so we could not stop by for a visit. How would that somehow reflect a greater respect for our freedom?

Wrong analogy. God never changes the locks.

If you die before returning to visit and use the guest room, you would never be able to visit. This is a more apt analogy.

 

[Neoplatonist]

Wrong analogy. God never changes the locks.

If you die before returning to visit and use the guest room, you would never be able to visit. This is a more apt analogy.

Is it not by his will that we are able to do or not-do this or that once the body dies?

Is it not by his will alone that we are granted only one span of 70 years? (The mother in the analogy would not have put a time limit on when we have to visit before our chances run out.)

 

[tonyrey]

But if we neglect to visit our mother, or call her, how does the fact that she continues to leave the guest room made up for us or the back door open for us if we should decide to drop in for a visit translate to “enforced servile obedience”?

In contrast, if she acted in the way it seems God is modeled in our understanding, then she would decide at some point to change her locks so we could not stop by for a visit. How would that somehow reflect a greater respect for our freedom?

God never ceases to love His children no matter how much they reject Him because His love is infinite. If they choose to be independent forever that is their problem not His. If there is any possibility they will repent they cannot be in hell. That is the wisdom of the belief in Purgatory which tends to be neglected.

It is unreasonable to assume that no one ever makes a final decision against life with God. If we are genuinely free there is no limit to our freedom because we derive our power from God. Even in this world there is so much evil it is likely to be unlimited in the next!

 

[davidv]

Is it not by his will that we are able to do or not-do this or that once the body dies?

Is it not by his will alone that we are granted only one span of 70 years? (The mother in the analogy would not have put a time limit on when we have to visit before our chances run out.)

It is not clear what the point of the above is in relation to my post. It is God’s will that you join Him in heaven. He has also given you the power to frustrate that will.

 

[Neoplatonist]

It is not clear what the point of the above is in relation to my post. It is God’s will that you join Him in heaven. He has also given you the power to frustrate that will.

The point is that he has, in fact, put a time limit on us. To say we must come around by the time our body dies is parallel to our aged mother saying (effectively willing a world where it is the case that) once x amount of time has passed, we will no longer have the choice of changing our minds to come visit her.

How can we make sense of the model such that any of the goals or virtues that God wills are furthered by (and only by) allowing us to screw up permanently? What goal or good is ONLY achieved if there is the possibility of us falling away completely forever? Granted our attempt to compare to our earthly mother becomes strained, since she did not choose which goals in life we would be motivated to achieve or capable of.