Why can't we change our decision to accept or reject God after we die?

[tonyrey]

I agree with you. But I think there’s a very fine line between hope in God’s mercy and assuming it. We shouldn’t become complacent

I entirely agree with you. That is why Jesus constantly insisted on the reality and danger of evil which is fast disappearing in our present society. Many young girls think abortion is no different from having an appendix removed!

 

[shoe]

Surely after experiencing hell for even a brief moment,no one would choose to stay there if they still had the choice. So why is our disposition towards God finalized at death?

On the one hand, perhaps the people who successfully have voted themselves into hell, and consequently out of the presence of God, will come to understand their need for God. And because the Bible says that God is a God of second chances and that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved, maybe some of the lost souls in hell who realize their need for God and call out to the Lord will be saved as well. But on the other hand, hell is probably the right place to be for those people who in the final analysis are not really in love with the idea of being in the same place as God forever. That would be hell to them.

 

[Binary]

That’s a strange criticism: he answered your questions with an assertion. What were you expecting/wanting? Generally that’s just how one does answer questions: with assertions. Moreover I think his assertions were informative and responsive to your question, whereas your counter-assertion - essentially, “I think that’s bad theology” - was not.

I’m afraid I can’t quite parse your last sentence here. Could you try to state more clearly what you’re trying to say?

Wife: Where were you last night?
Husband: Out of the house.

There’s an example of when an assertion begs a question or, while it is a response to a question, does not answer it. What is the purpose of an intellect (especially a perfected one), if not to think? If you respond by saying that thinking isn’t needed because everything is already known, you haven’t really answered the question. To be fair, we could interpret such a response to mean that the intellect has no purpose in the afterlife. That is such lunacy that I would dismiss it without further comment, but to spell out my objection for you, it is this: without the ability to reason and to choose, you are not a person. Ergo, this statement implies that there are no people in heaven. *Reducto ad absurdum. *

 

[Brendan_McCabe]

This talk of eternity makes me think of Han Solo encased in carbonite (from Star Wars). In heaven we’ll all be frozen, static statues gazing at God, with no ability to interact, think, or will.

Han Solo did not experience the beatific vision. In heaven we will not even have bodies, movement will not even be necessary we will be pure spirit, there will be no matter to require moving. We will interact with God and all the blessed in heaven, it will be nothing like how we interact here on earth however.

We will continue to have a will but it will be in perfect harmony with the will of God just as we are supposed to seek to do in this life but fail due to our imperfections.

 

[vz71]

On the one hand, perhaps the people who successfully have voted themselves into hell, and consequently out of the presence of God, will come to understand their need for God. And because the Bible says that God is a God of second chances and that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved, maybe some of the lost souls in hell who realize their need for God and call out to the Lord will be saved as well. But on the other hand, hell is probably the right place to be for those people who in the final analysis are not really in love with the idea of being in the same place as God forever. That would be hell to them.

I doubt anyone in hell will be calling out to God for help.
People end up in hell because they choose to be seperated from him.

Without God, there is no good to be found, just sin and evil compounding upon itself.

They may well remember God and regret the decision to go to hell, but they would not change the decision.

 

[Brendan_McCabe]

The death of the intellect! This sounds more like Buddhism than Christianity.

It is not the death of the intellect it is the perfect fulfillment of the intellect. All is known in heaven while Buddhism teaches nothing even exists to be known in the first place.

 

[Luke_K]

Han Solo did not experience the beatific vision. In heaven we will not even have bodies, movement will not even be necessary we will be pure spirit, there will be no matter to require moving. We will interact with God and all the blessed in heaven, it will be nothing like how we interact here on earth however.

We will continue to have a will but it will be in perfect harmony with the will of God just as we are supposed to seek to do in this life but fail due to our imperfections.

But we will have bodies, physical ones. That is Catholic teaching. Look at Jesus after the resurrection. He talked and thought and interacted with people, he even ate a fish, just like we do. To me that indicates that we won’t be static, unchanging statues.

 

[Brendan_McCabe]

What is the purpose of an intellect (especially a perfected one), if not to think?

**The purpose of the intellect is not to think but to know. **

Thinking is merely the function of the intellect by which we come to know.

Given that the purpose of the intellect is to know what purpose do you think the intellect would serve once we are in heaven and have direct access to all the knowledge of God who is omniscient?

without the ability to reason and to choose, you are not a person. Ergo, this statement implies that there are no people in heaven. *Reducto ad absurdum. *

The ability to reason still exists, there is just no need to exercise the reason because once again all things are already known with absolute certainty. The purpose of the ability to reason been the same as the intellect, to know, primarily to know God.

 

[Brendan_McCabe]

But we will have bodies, physical ones. That is Catholic teaching. Look at Jesus after the resurrection. He talked and thought and interacted with people, he even ate a fish, just like we do. To me that indicates that we won’t be static, unchanging statues.

We will not have bodies in heaven. That is Catholic teaching. The only souls with bodies in heaven are Christ and Mary. We will be reunited with a perfected body at the physical resurrection before the final judgement.

 

[Luke_K]

People end up in hell because they choose to be seperated from him.

Yes, that is the standard assertion by Christians, but does it really make sense? I mean, I’m guessing that probably no one goes to hell because they actively thought, “I hate God and his goodness! I want to go to hell and suffer forever!” I can’t imagine that any sane person, regardless of their attachment to the pleasures of sin, would choose eternal hell over eternal bliss if they were fully aware of the reality of both.

The fact of the matter is, probably no one on this side of the grave can really appreciate the gravity of their actions and their consequences. It’s only after people have died that we hear testimonials like “I realized how incredibly sinful and guilty I was! Oh, if I only had been a better person, but my damnation is the obvious consequence now!” Yes, once we actually stand before God our disposition becomes obvious, but why not make us more aware of that now? Why does the terrible torment of hell only become obvious once it’s too late to choose otherwise?

Maybe God could drop the “damned” person into hell for a day, and then ask him if that’s what he really wants?

 

[Brendan_McCabe]

Yes, that is the standard assertion by Christians, but does it really make sense? I mean, I’m guessing that probably no one goes to hell because they actively thought, “I hate God and his goodness! I want to go to hell and suffer forever!” I can’t imagine that any sane person, regardless of their attachment to the pleasures of sin, would choose eternal hell over eternal bliss if they were fully aware of the reality of both.

The fact of the matter is, probably no one on this side of the grave can really appreciate the gravity of their actions and their consequences. It’s only after people have died that we hear testimonials like “I realized how incredibly sinful and guilty I was! Oh, if I only had been a better person, but my damnation is the obvious consequence now!” Yes, once we actually stand before God our disposition becomes obvious, but why not make us more aware of that now? Why does the terrible torment of hell only become obvious once it’s too late to choose otherwise?

Maybe God could drop the “damned” person into hell for a day, and then ask him if that’s what he really wants?

It is not enough to fear hell to get to heaven one must love God so dropping someone into hell for one day would serve no purpose.

 

[Luke_K]

We will be reunited with a perfected body at the physical resurrection before the final judgement.

Exactly. Therefore, we will have bodies in heaven. However, between our deaths and the resurrection, we will not have bodies.

 

[Binary]

The purpose of the intellect is not to think but to know.

Thinking is merely the function of the intellect by which we come to know.

Given that the purpose of the intellect is to know what purpose do you think the intellect would serve once we are in heaven and have direct access to all the knowledge of God who is omniscient?

The ability to reason still exists, there is just no need to exercise the reason because once again all things are already known with absolute certainty. The purpose of the ability to reason been the same as the intellect, to know, primarily to know God.

It is good for us to know things insofar as we are able to apply that knowledge to some ordered purpose. There are vast amounts of information that you can know that will bring you no meaning or goodness: the billionth digit of pi, the number of seconds since a cat last sneezed in Egypt, the current arrangement of atoms in a grocery list you threw out last year.

If the purpose of the intellect is to know, then the greatest glory we can give to God is to memorize things. The architect who designs cathedrals should lay down his tools until he can recite the catechism by rote. Or Moby Dick. Or the phone book.

I have to think that the proper application of a perfect intellect would give glory to God much more than a complete card catalog of the universe. Which brings me to my next concern: You seem to be saying that by virtue of being united with God, saints are omniscient. Are you sure you’re on solid theological footing there?

 

[Brendan_McCabe]

ou seem to be saying that by virtue of being united with God, saints are omniscient. Are you sure you’re on solid theological footing there?

I am not saying that saints are omniscient, it is not possible for anyone but God to be omniscient. God reveals to them everything they need to know, and saints desire nothing but God.

 

[vz71]

Yes, that is the standard assertion by Christians, but does it really make sense? I mean, I’m guessing that probably no one goes to hell because they actively thought, “I hate God and his goodness! I want to go to hell and suffer forever!” I can’t imagine that any sane person, regardless of their attachment to the pleasures of sin, would choose eternal hell over eternal bliss if they were fully aware of the reality of both.

The fact of the matter is, probably no one on this side of the grave can really appreciate the gravity of their actions and their consequences. It’s only after people have died that we hear testimonials like “I realized how incredibly sinful and guilty I was! Oh, if I only had been a better person, but my damnation is the obvious consequence now!” Yes, once we actually stand before God our disposition becomes obvious, but why not make us more aware of that now? Why does the terrible torment of hell only become obvious once it’s too late to choose otherwise?

Maybe God could drop the “damned” person into hell for a day, and then ask him if that’s what he really wants?

I perceive a tightrope being walked between providing enough information for Faith, but not so much that free will is compromised.

 

[Brendan]

There is a really good book on this subject by Dr. Peter Kreeft

Between Heaven and Hell

On November 22, 1963, three great men died within a few hours of each other: C.S. Lewis, John F. Kennedy and Aldous Huxley. All three believed, in different ways, that death is not the end of human life. Suppose they were right, and suppose they met after death. How might the conversation go?Peter Kreeft imagines their discourse as a modern Socratic dialog–a part of The Great Conversation that has been going on for centuries. Does human life have meaning? Is it possible to know about life after death? What if one could prove that Jesus was God?Combining logical argument and literary imagination, Kreeft portrays Lewis as a Christian theist, Kennedy as a modern humanist and Huxley as an Eastern pantheist. Their interaction involves not only good thinking but good drama

.

amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0877843899/theofficiapet-20

It’s very entertaining

 

[Binary]

I am not saying that saints are omniscient, it is not possible for anyone but God to be omniscient. God reveals to them everything they need to know, and saints desire nothing but God.

Forgive my bluntness, but I think you are contradicting yourself. Earlier you said that saints have access to all of God’s knowledge. In what sense is that different from omniscience? Here you claim that they are only given what they need to know. So which is it? Should I just stop asking questions and make a proper use of my intellect by counting the blades of grass in my lawn? That would be something for me to know, certainly.

 

[Brendan_McCabe]

There is a difference between having access to an infinite source of knowledge and personally possessing infinite knowledge.

 

[Binary]

There is a difference between having access to an infinite source of knowledge and personally possessing infinite knowledge.

Let’s review, eh?
-We will have no reason to use our minds, we will because have access to everything God knows, and what would we have to think about?
-Being able to access all information is somehow different from being able to know all information.
-God only provides the knowledge that each saint “needs.”

Are you just making this up as you go along?

 

[vz71]

Forgive my bluntness, but I think you are contradicting yourself. Earlier you said that saints have access to all of God’s knowledge. In what sense is that different from omniscience?

I have full access to online materials.
I can access multiple dictionaries, multiple encyclopedias, the CCC, multiple encyclicals, etc.
I also am well versed in google-fu.

Does this mean I have all of this knowledge…or that I simply can get it when I want it?

Having access to God’s knowledge is not the same as having the knowledge for oneself.