Instead of a metaphor that will not be perfect why don’t you just ask about a specific instance of God punishing people for sins they did not know were sins? The title makes it sound as if you are accusing God of being unjust?
I am not accusing God of being unjust.
We’ve already said that he doesn’t punish anyone for sins they couldn’t know were sins. I don’t see how we could state it any plainer for you.
So are you saying that God is incapable of “cleaning” someone up?
Ok so you state a negative sentence. Of something you are not doing. Can you state a positive sentence of something you are doing?
Non sequitur. St. Thomas teaches that while God’s existence can be known by human reason, not all can attain to this. It’s not necessarily someone’s fault if they don’t believe in God. There are all kinds of obstacles that may impair their ability to come to this knowledge by natural means–that’s why St. Thomas says that revelation is necessary even for those things that in principle can be known by reason.
I don’t think that’s true, as a matter of fact. We do not generally consider pardons to be unjust, unless they have some corrupt motive (like bribery or fear). If they are motivated by mercy, we generally applaud them–at least I do.
No. Everyone has agreed on this. Why repeat the question? What makes you think that God does this?
So there is no hell…whoopie!! :bounce:
I was struggling with your same question for some time.
True. But I think many people seek God without even knowing so themselves - be it the Buddhist who seeks enlightenment, the member of an indigenous people who seeks to calm the spirits, or even an atheist who seeks goodness. Still, I think culpable ignorance is more common among the latter group, since most atheists are located in traditionally Christian countries. But then again, some of those countries are secularized to an extent that in my view makes inculpable ignorance completely possible. I guess the main point is that it’s impossible for us to decide whether anyone really seeks God, and hence whether they will be saved.
Which could just be me being secularized and soft, because I don’t like thinking that otherwise good people will perish. Of course the Church has an obligation to warn about the possibility of hell, towards the faithful as well as everyone else, because Feeney could be right (but I doubt it), and Origen is probably wrong (but I wish he’s not). But then I never saw one single conversion out of fear of hell; certain Protestant groups are for some reason more successful with that strategy. So there are a lot of perspectives that need to be balanced, theologically as well as pastorally.Also true. And I’m sadly convinced we reject Him more often than we follow Him. Which then means it all boils down to whether or not people can receive the graces of the Sacrament of Reconciliation without having access to it. To which there’s no obvious answer, and there has always been a vast array of theological opinions on this - the Church doesn’t seem to be able agree with Herself. And perhaps it’s better that way. I would say Mystici Corporis Christi kind of tips the scales in favor of an “inclusive” view, though.
The only justification for eternal punishment would be eternal sin. Even though you quite clearly mention unrepentant mortal sin, I don’t know that you’re fully thinking through the ramifications of what it means to be eternally unrepentant. It’s not coveting another man’s wife, in and of itself, that damns someone to hell. It’s coveting another man’s wife and never being sorry for it.
All sin is not punished equally. Only unrepentant mortal sin carries with it the worst punishment. Venial sins do not carry the worst punishment. Mortal sins for which we repent do not carry the worst punishment.
Shoplifting food is not necessarily mortal sin. There are three requirements for a sin to be mortal. First, it must be a sin of grave matter. While stealing is always a sin, if the quantity of food that is stolen is small then it may not be grave matter. In addition to always being a sin of grave matter, mortal sin is always committed with the knowledge that it is wrong. God does not punish those who are ignorant. And finally, the sin must be committed freely without coercion. If coercion is involved, such as threats on the part of another, or the person is impaired due to mental illness or addiction or something else that impedes free will, then they are not fully culpable for what they do. Depending on the extent of the impediment, they may not even be culpable at all.
Not if they believe they cannot in good conscience worship a particular God. And let’s face it, there are many versions being developed by people who are of the same faith.
A mortal sin is an act incompatible with charity–with love of God and neighbor.
You seem to be saying some things that are not at all Catholic beliefs.
One cannot be “eternally unrepentant” You only have this life to “repent” for sins. You cannot repent at some distant point in eternity after you have died. This is illusrated biblically by the parable of the rich man and lazaris. Not only that but the Church is crystal clear that after death there is no opportunity to “repent”
?? Can you cite the dollar about or “food quality scale” that the Church uses to determine mortal sin in the case of theft?
Again, you are misunderstanding the Church in regards to forgiveness. Beyond this life, there is no mechanism for reconciliation with God. You are mistaken in your idea of eternal punishment for eternal refusal.
You cannot commit a mortal sin by accident. They are ALWAYS deliberate.
I have not said that there is no hell, what I have said is that if one were to wake up in hell, so to speak, they will come to the realization that they not only built the hell that they are in but that they put themself in their custom built hell.
But you implied that God would call everyone “home” so are you saying that Hell will not be populated?
My apologies, I thought I was being clear. When I said eternally unrepentant, my intent was to express the idea that the souls in hell will never repent, using similar language to what the OP was using in the hope that it would help him understand better. I did not mean the souls in hell could change their minds or be forgiven at some point. They don’t want to be forgiven, so God will not forgive them.
Of course not, because God and his Church are not legalistic. He gives us the natural law in our heart, articulates the natural law via moral principles through his Church to help us understand them better, and then asks us to apply those principles to real situations using our reason. As tempting as it is to want a pat answer that covers all situations, moral questions entail the application of principles to specific situations.