Why do the damned receive resurrected bodies?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I think the body adds an additional aspect to it. It implies everlasting physical torment, and so therefore unnecessary and external.
 
This is your post I replied to:
catholic1seeks said:
How does that one small circle of choices result in the FOREVER of punishment?
Click to expand...
I’m having trouble understanding the distinction, in this case, between Hell with a body and Hell at all. If it’s unjust for God to punish a sentient body with painful stimuli for eternity because the length of time is disproportionate to the time spent committing the deserving offense, then it would seem to me that it’s just as unjust to punish a spirit for eternity, or to punish anything forever, for that matter.

Edit: In other words, your post here sounds a lot like the justification for Annihilationism.
 
Last edited:
Well, I read something about Aquinas’ understanding of soul that makes me make the distinction. Like the angels, one’s soul locks onto our ultimate preferred good at death, precisely because it is spirit. And so the state of the soul in eternity makes a little more sense to me, as if it’s impossible to change one’s preferred state.

But once there is a resurrected body, there is a whole new level of change and time relating to the physical (which the body is). It’s more difficult to conceive of the entire human, body and soul, suffering for eternity, for that is akin to our state now on Earth. Now imagine the worst sufferings in body on Earth but extended FOREVER. That makes the idea of hell (with the resurrected body) unintelligible to me — at least when people describe it with all the physical “fire” and “worms” and external punishments inflicted by the wrath of God.

In other words, bottom line, a body forever suffering in hell seems arbitrary and unnecessary. Yes Aquinas had some things to say about just punishment and so on, but he had to, since he was basing his philosophy on already-established Christian doctrines. It’s hard to deny that the Bible teaches an eternity in hell, for example.

This little life of ours makes all the difference. If the Christian teaching is true (which I accept, but am playing devil’s advocate and having a hard time understanding), then it’s really the next life that is “most real.” The real life begins in the Resurrection of the body. Earth now is a screw-up. Humans were meant to live in harmony with God. We often live as if this life is the most important, and heaven is a fluffy “resting place,” after the real life has been accomplished on Earth. That’s not Christian at all.

So if it’s really the next like that is our real destiny, then it seems odd that this small spec of our existence should forever determine the pain we receive. As if God creates knowing creatures will choose their own eternal misery.
 
Last edited:
It is what it is. We don’t have to like it. The ways to avoid Hell are simple, however. And they are plainly spelled out in Scripture and in the teachings of Catholic Moral Theology.
As a Kempis has noted, death often comes unexpected. Best to live accordingly.
 
Last edited:
Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification.

I notice an assumption in there though: that the resurrected (i.e. glorified) body is subject to change much like its mortal predecessor. Why do you make this assumption?
 
Aquinas and traditional theologians say the resurrected body of the damned is incorruptible but NOT impassible. So they will be able to experience a series of physical (among other) sufferings. Forever. Everlasting.
 
Last edited:
As I understand it, impassibility is a quality of the nature of divinity, not humanity. All humans (both our bodies and our souls) are not impassible, so I’m still not following the distinction.
 
That’s because suffering itself doesn’t exist in Heaven, not because members of the Church Triumphant are not impassible. Impassibility means that a being is incapable of any emotional change whatsoever due to the actions of another. If souls (and eventually resurrected bodies) in Heaven were impassible they wouldn’t be able to experience the Beatific Vision.
 
But now we’re just getting into the technical definitions of “impassible.”

Be that as it may, the reality is the same: Those in hell will suffer eternal physical torments because of their sins. Not merely because of human nature.
 
But the human soul is just as passible as the human body, just in different ways. So we’re right back to where we started: why is it just for God to allow for the tormenting of a soul for eternity but not a body?
 
The soul in itself as spirit cannot change its ultimate end.
 
Man’s last end is a consequence of the concerted action of his body and his soul. They do not act independently of one another, indeed our very nature is that of a composite body/soul. I’m sorry, but I’m still not following the distinction you’re trying to make.

Edit: I really enjoy your threads, @catholic1seeks. I’ll be back later tonight, but for now I’m off to the Eucharistic Procession.

Happy Corpus Christi, everyone!
 
Last edited:
Aquinas said that the reason one’s ultimate choice is final at death is because the separated body from soul makes our soul similar to the case with the angels: We are immediately attracted and stuck on our preferred good at death. This is because the soul is not “using” the body for sensory (name removed by moderator)ut and the like.

So I understand that.

What I don’t understand is why, when the body returns to the soul in the resurrection, that the eternal nature of the punishment would remain.
 
catholic1seeks said:
So if it’s really the next like that is our real destiny, then it seems odd that this small spec of our existence should forever determine the pain we receive. As if God creates knowing creatures will choose their own eternal misery.
Click to expand...
Yes, the physical world is like an echo of the spiritual world; the whole point of our current world is to produce souls for heaven; thus our life on earth is like a womb that is giving birth to souls for the heavenly kingdom of God. In our life on earth in the world, we are either sanctifying ourselves through sanctifying grace, or we are demonizing ourselves by rejecting God’s grace through sin. Remember, the fallen angels fell from grace and became wicked spirits.

As for hell. do realize that Christ warned about both the everlasting fires of the hell of the damned, as well as the tortures of the prison of purgatory; Christ calls us to aim for heaven, not purgatory. it’s one thing to be saved, it’s another thing to finally enter heaven.

And yes, God knows that those who reject His grace will be lost. Jesus Christ suffered a horrendous death to purchase our salvation, thus through the crucifixion, God shows us the horror of sin, as well as the love that God has for us, calling us to salvation.
 
catholic1seeks said:
How can one act of virtue equate to never-ending bliss and joy?
And yet it does. One decision, one act, can bring someone to Heaven.
Click to expand...
Suppose I see a stranger being bullied, and I run up with my smartphone and start recording. This intimidates the bully who then retreats. The victim then rewards me with a gift or a favor.

Suppose instead that I get angry with someone and backhand them. A cop sees this and arrests me. I get fined for it.

Is the gift/reward analogous to the punishment?

Does the fact that I didn’t have a legal claim to be rewarded for helping one man, mean I ought not to be punished for hitting the other man?

Hell is not an “extra” punishment. Hell is what we deserve if we defy God and refuse to repent and turn back to Him.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top