Why does God punish sin but not reward goodness?

[openmind77]

You can’t seriously believe you will be reborn. If you have had other lives, wouldn’t they have been left behind.
If you did very bad things, according to your view, you would have passed through hell. Passing through, what actually, would have emerged? You? I don’t think so.
There could have been a life dedicated to doing everything but God’s will; let us say that life ended in hell. If Vishnu is the highest being, would He not be omniscient? If He is omniscient, wouldn’t He for all time see that life end in hell. A new life emerged into existence subsequently, but the previous one ended up contributing to what is hell; for all eternity, that is where it would be.
If you tell me that according to your understanding the Highest Being, the Creator lives only in the very present and the past does not exist for him, then I can understand better where you are coming from.

It is the soul which reincarnates each time. The person will change from birth to birth (including gender, nationality etc). The soul remembers all past births including lessons learnt from past deeds (good and bad). The previous person does not exist any more, but soul’s state of development is retained and passed on to the new person. I don’t believe in eternal hell for anybody - the time spent in hell is proportional to sins committed in the previous life - perfect justice. Some time is also spent in heaven as reward for good deeds - again perfect justice (Of course I talking in terms of deeds, but really your purity/spiritual state corresponds to your thoughts/words/deeds, so it is same thing). We are not talking about God here at all, just stick to heaven and hell.

 

[MPat]

It is the soul which reincarnates each time. The person will change from birth to birth (including gender, nationality etc). The soul remembers all past births including lessons learnt from past deeds (good and bad). The previous person does not exist any more, but soul’s state of development is retained and passed on to the new person. I don’t believe in eternal hell for anybody - the time spent in hell is proportional to sins committed in the previous life - perfect justice. Some time is also spent in heaven as reward for good deeds - again perfect justice (Of course I talking in terms of deeds, but really your purity/spiritual state corresponds to your thoughts/words/deeds, so it is same thing). We are not talking about God here at all, just stick to heaven and hell.

OK, so, you believe that someone, who killed millions of men and was kind to his dog, would spend, let’s say, a million years in “hell” and a couple of minutes in “heaven”…? Do I understand it correctly…?

 

[openmind77]

OK, so, you believe that someone, who killed millions of men and was kind to his dog, would spend, let’s say, a million years in “hell” and a couple of minutes in “heaven”…? Do I understand it correctly…?

Actually the entrance into heaven would be only for people who have been purified by their time spent in hell. I doubt if this person (if indeed he has killed a million people) would be pure enough so he would be reborn directly. But most ordinary people would be eligible for some time in heaven before rebirth (most ordinary people probably spend little or no time in hell).

 

[MPat]

Actually the entrance into heaven would be only for people who have been purified by their time spent in hell. I doubt if this person (if indeed he has killed a million people) would be pure enough so he would be reborn directly. But most ordinary people would be eligible for some time in heaven before rebirth (most ordinary people probably spend little or no time in hell).

Well, your beliefs sure look strange… So, if I understand you correctly:

1. You believe that the ones who have done some evil must spend some time in “hell” in proportion to severity of that evil.
2. You believe that they also get purified in “hell”.
3. You believe that the one who have done something good spend some time in “heaven” in proportion of the “amount” of that good; although that happens after purification, if it is necessary.
4. You believe that sometimes the time in “hell”, while proportional to the severity (proposition 1), is not sufficient and the good deeds are not rewarded by time in “heaven” - yet that is still “proportional” and “perfectly just”.
5. You believe that some can get to the point when they deserve the eternity in “heaven” - still in proportion of the good deeds (proposition 3).
6. However, you believe that no one can get to the point when they deserve the eternity in “hell”, since it is impossible to do infinite amount of evil deeds and thus eternity in “hell” would be disproportional (proposition 1).
7. You believe that “most ordinary people” deserve no or next to no time in “hell”.
8. Taking propositions 1 and 7 into account, it would seem that you believe that “most ordinary people” do no or next to no evil - are never rude to each other, are never lazy, never take or give bribes, never get drunk etc.

Did I misunderstand your beliefs, or do you have some way out of apparent contradictions between these propositions…?

 

[openmind77]

Well, your beliefs sure look strange… So, if I understand you correctly:

1. You believe that the ones who have done some evil must spend some time in “hell” in proportion to severity of that evil.
2. You believe that they also get purified in “hell”.
3. You believe that the one who have done something good spend some time in “heaven” in proportion of the “amount” of that good; although that happens after purification, if it is necessary.
4. You believe that sometimes the time in “hell”, while proportional to the severity (proposition 1), is not sufficient and the good deeds are not rewarded by time in “heaven” - yet that is still “proportional” and “perfectly just”.
5. You believe that some can get to the point when they deserve the eternity in “heaven” - still in proportion of the good deeds (proposition 3).
6. However, you believe that no one can get to the point when they deserve the eternity in “hell”, since it is impossible to do infinite amount of evil deeds and thus eternity in “hell” would be disproportional (proposition 1).
7. You believe that “most ordinary people” deserve no or next to no time in “hell”.
8. Taking propositions 1 and 7 into account, it would seem that you believe that “most ordinary people” do no or next to no evil - are never rude to each other, are never lazy, never take or give bribes, never get drunk etc.

Did I misunderstand your beliefs, or do you have some way out of apparent contradictions between these propositions…?

You do seem to have done a lot of thinking. Like I said before the proportionality is not really the strict criteria. It is the spiritual status of the person at the time of death that determines how much time in hell is required for ‘purification’, that is why many may spend very little or no time in hell (especially if they die long after their rude behavior for instance) - this actually works a lot like purgatory, except you get reborn after some time in heaven. Actually everyone requires some purification before entering heaven (but I would not call it time spent in hell). This is far more just and fair than sending every unrepentant ones to eternal hell (for sins like using contraceptives) and all the rest to eternal heaven (after purgatory) whether they have done a lot of good (ie Mother Teresa) or not much (like me).

 

[MPat]

You do seem to have done a lot of thinking. Like I said before the proportionality is not really the strict criteria. It is the spiritual status of the person at the time of death that determines how much time in hell is required for ‘purification’, that is why many may spend very little or no time in hell (especially if they die long after their rude behavior for instance) - this actually works a lot like purgatory, except you get reborn after some time in heaven. Actually everyone requires some purification before entering heaven (but I would not call it time spent in hell). This is far more just and fair than sending every unrepentant ones to eternal hell (for sins like using contraceptives) and all the rest to eternal heaven (after purgatory) whether they have done a lot of good (ie Mother Teresa) or not much (like me).

Sorry, but if you assert that “proportionality is not really the strict criteria” when we talk about your view, then you cannot use that same proportionality against the Catholic teaching. If you think that some sort of “non-linear proportionality” can be just, you cannot object to Catholic teaching because of the same “non-linearity”.

Also, you claim that one can deserve eternity in “heaven” (“infinite reward”), but not eternity in “hell” (“infinite punishment”). That looks arbitrary. Definitely more arbitrary than possibility to get both eternity in hell and eternity in heaven (like Catholicism teaches).

So, your claim that “[your belief] is far more just and fair than [Catholic belief]” looks unintuitive at best. You need an actual argument for that, simply asserting the same proposition again and again is not good enough.

Finally, about contraception - I suppose that we could argue how bad it is, but in this case it would be “offtopic”. Could you make the same point with something that we would both consider evil (for example, murder)? I understand that the appeals to popularity would look worse in that case, but they are not very good arguments anyway…

 

[openmind77]

Sorry, but if you assert that “proportionality is not really the strict criteria” when we talk about your view, then you cannot use that same proportionality against the Catholic teaching. If you think that some sort of “non-linear proportionality” can be just, you cannot object to Catholic teaching because of the same “non-linearity”.

Also, you claim that one can deserve eternity in “heaven” (“infinite reward”), but not eternity in “hell” (“infinite punishment”). That looks arbitrary. Definitely more arbitrary than possibility to get both eternity in hell and eternity in heaven (like Catholicism teaches).

So, your claim that “[your belief] is far more just and fair than [Catholic belief]” looks unintuitive at best. You need an actual argument for that, simply asserting the same proposition again and again is not good enough.

Finally, about contraception - I suppose that we could argue how bad it is, but in this case it would be “offtopic”. Could you make the same point with something that we would both consider evil (for example, murder)? I understand that the appeals to popularity would look worse in that case, but they are not very good arguments anyway…

I am sorry this thread has become a comparison. That was not my intent. However, just to complete the discussion:

There are very, very, very few people who do keep sinking lower at each birth and their time in hell is so long that for all practical purposes it is infinite/eternal (even a single murder in one life would not qualify for this condition).

As for eternal heaven - that is only possible after many, many rebirths until you reach close to a level like that of Mother Teresa.

I don’t see this as arbitrary - it is quite just and far, far more merciful than sending someone to eternal hell without a chance for redemption (if he dies suddenly before repentance).

I always hesitate to give examples because it seems standard practice on this forum to call **ALL **examples a **strawman **or a red herring or something equally clever, but let me take the risk of that and give examples:

Example 1: Suppose a twelve year old kills someone for no good reason and then gets hit by a bus before he can repent. According to the Church he would go to eternal hell (and supposedly that was his choice - change his age to 22 years and it still seems cruel to me). According to Hinduism, he would spend some time in hell to purify him of his aggression/violent tendencies. Then he may actually spend some time in heaven (this is lower-heaven not the eternal one but still a place of rest/repose) and then he would be back to try again in another life - his soul would be wiser from the previous experience and hopefully his next life would work out better.

Example 2: Suppose a 60 year old is nasty man who has not done anything for anyone ever. He dies of old age and before dying seeks absolution, repents all his nastiness and then dies. According to the Church he spends some time in purgatory (is there time here?) and then is rewarded with eternal heaven along with all the saints. In Hinduism he will be reborn after something similar to purgatory and a limited time in lower-heaven. He will keep being reborn until he becomes like one of those saints (the soul getting wiser at each birth will make sure he improves every time) and only then can he enter heaven for eternity

My intention was just to point out the injustice and unfairness (and also harshness) of the Church teachings on heaven and hell - not to compare it with any other belief (and please can we now stop talking about Hindu beliefs? I apologize to anyone who was offended by it).

 

[MPat]

I am sorry this thread has become a comparison.

Well, if you think that Catholic teaching about heaven and hell is unjust, it is only fair to see if the alternatives are more just. Also, it gives us an excuse to learn more about other faiths, right…?

There are very, very, very few people who do keep sinking lower at each birth and their time in hell is so long that for all practical purposes it is infinite/eternal (even a single murder in one life would not qualify for this condition).

Interesting. Why do you think so? Is that your guess, or are there some Hindu scriptures that teach so…?

As for eternal heaven - that is only possible after many, many rebirths until you reach close to a level like that of Mother Teresa.

But you do not believe that it is not simply eternal “for all practical purposes”, as was the case with “hell”…?

I don’t see this as arbitrary - it is quite just and far, far more merciful than sending someone to eternal hell without a chance for redemption (if he dies suddenly before repentance).

So, you think that the Catholic teaching is not merciful enough…? Yet perhaps it would be worth to ask what would be the result without any mercy…?

I always hesitate to give examples because it seems standard practice on this forum to call **ALL **examples a **strawman **or a red herring or something equally clever, but let me take the risk of that and give examples:

Actually, I am rather content with your examples…

Example 1: Suppose a twelve year old kills someone for no good reason and then gets hit by a bus before he can repent. According to the Church he would go to eternal hell (and supposedly that was his choice - change his age to 22 years and it still seems cruel to me). According to Hinduism, he would spend some time in hell to purify him of his aggression/violent tendencies. Then he may actually spend some time in heaven (this is lower-heaven not the eternal one but still a place of rest/repose) and then he would be back to try again in another life - his soul would be wiser from the previous experience and hopefully his next life would work out better.

Example 2: Suppose a 60 year old is nasty man who has not done anything for anyone ever. He dies of old age and before dying seeks absolution, repents all his nastiness and then dies. According to the Church he spends some time in purgatory (is there time here?) and then is rewarded with eternal heaven along with all the saints. In Hinduism he will be reborn after something similar to purgatory and a limited time in lower-heaven. He will keep being reborn until he becomes like one of those saints (the soul getting wiser at each birth will make sure he improves every time) and only then can he enter heaven for eternity

So, let’s see. At first (and in the first example) you said that the Catholic teaching about heaven and hell is not merciful enough. But now, in the second example your problem with Catholic teaching is that it is too merciful!

I suppose that you start with assumption that men generally deserve heaven more than hell. Then you add some mercy and the distribution ends up strongly in the side of heaven.

Now in Catholic teaching, without mercy we would all deserve hell. Then we either accept mercy (by repentance - it includes trying to avoid sin and do good works) and end up in heaven, or we refuse to accept mercy and end up in hell.

In this case there is no injustice. In the second case a man accepted mercy and wanted to go to heaven. And he can’t complain - he went there. In the first example a man did not accept mercy, and got what he deserved by pure justice - hell. He also can’t complain - he got what he deserved and chose.

So, what’s so unjust about the arrangement where no one has a reason to complain?

My intention was just to point out the injustice and unfairness (and also harshness) of the Church teachings on heaven and hell - not to compare it with any other belief (and please can we now stop talking about Hindu beliefs? I apologize to anyone who was offended by it).

Er, why would anyone be offended by you talking about your beliefs…?

 

[thistle]

Yes indeed

The Church has a reasonable hope that anyone before the age of reason - meaning has not committed any sin - would benefit of God’s mercy, since the only sin they bear is the stain of original sin, and someone was supposed to have taken care of that (either the parents, if they were Christians, or the Church who was supposed to have made disciples of all the nations in these past twenty centuries ).

The Church does not say unbaptised children go to Heaven. The Church does not know what happens to them which is why it teaches that we should simply entrust them to God’s mercy. I believe God does show them mercy but neither we nor the Church can say definitively what happens to them.

 

[openmind77]

Well, if you think that Catholic teaching about heaven and hell is unjust, it is only fair to see if the alternatives are more just. Also, it gives us an excuse to learn more about other faiths, right…?

Interesting. Why do you think so? Is that your guess, or are there some Hindu scriptures that teach so…?

But you do not believe that it is not simply eternal “for all practical purposes”, as was the case with “hell”…?

So, you think that the Catholic teaching is not merciful enough…? Yet perhaps it would be worth to ask what would be the result without any mercy…?

Actually, I am rather content with your examples…

So, let’s see. At first (and in the first example) you said that the Catholic teaching about heaven and hell is not merciful enough. But now, in the second example your problem with Catholic teaching is that it is too merciful!

I suppose that you start with assumption that men generally deserve heaven more than hell. Then you add some mercy and the distribution ends up strongly in the side of heaven.

Now in Catholic teaching, without mercy we would all deserve hell. Then we either accept mercy (by repentance - it includes trying to avoid sin and do good works) and end up in heaven, or we refuse to accept mercy and end up in hell.

In this case there is no injustice. In the second case a man accepted mercy and wanted to go to heaven. And he can’t complain - he went there. In the first example a man did not accept mercy, and got what he deserved by pure justice - hell. He also can’t complain - he got what he deserved and chose.

So, what’s so unjust about the arrangement where no one has a reason to complain?

Er, why would anyone be offended by you talking about your beliefs…?

No the eternal heaven is really eternal - once you are free of the cycle of death and rebirth, you are free for ever.

Hinduism does not specifically talk about what happens in case of a murder except that it is a grave sin, but since there is no eternal hell and everyone goes through cycles of death and rebirth, I am sure a murderer gets reborn and has another chance.

As for taking offence - someone on another thread got offended because I mentioned Hindu beliefs - and the thread was about reincarnation!!!

Anyway, to get back to the topic - as to why I think the Church’s teaching are unjust, we can easily demonstrate by examples not involving murder (though eternal hell for murder is harsh too - in Europe you get life imprisonment **with **the possibility of parole). The majority of male adults in the US have masturbated many times and majority of women in the US have used contraceptives at least once (these are known statistics). Not many of them have repented (it is difficult to repent when you don’t think you have done anything wrong). Therefore Catholic Hell is mostly made up of male masturbaters and female contraceptive users and they will be there for eternity - this is totally ridiculous.

The second example (nasty, mean old man) is not that the Church is too merciful - it actually does not make any sense at all. That man is just not as deserving as Mother Teresa, even a child can see that. Is the Church saying that going through purgatory has the made the man as pure as one of the saints?

The best thing, as I said before for any Catholic, is to be born, be baptized and then someone kills you while you are a baby - you are now in heaven for eternity.

 

[choliks]

Anyway, to get back to the topic - as to why I think the Church’s teaching are unjust, we can easily demonstrate by examples not involving murder (though eternal hell for murder is harsh too - in Europe you get life imprisonment **with **the possibility of parole). The majority of male adults in the US have masturbated many times and majority of women in the US have used contraceptives at least once (these are known statistics). Not many of them have repented (it is difficult to repent when you don’t think you have done anything wrong). Therefore Catholic Hell is mostly made up of male masturbaters and female contraceptive users and they will be there for eternity - this is totally ridiculous.

Here are the key points that you’re missing, which I don’t know if you intentionally ignored:

1. Adequate Knowledge of the Gravity of the Offense. One must consider what an individual Catholic knows. If he or she is poorly catechized about the gravity of masturbation or of contraception, then MAYBE the individual may be less culpable.

The second example (nasty, mean old man) is not that the Church is too merciful - it actually does not make any sense at all. That man is just not as deserving as Mother Teresa, even a child can see that. Is the Church saying that going through purgatory has the made the man as pure as one of the saints?

The best thing as I said before for any Catholic is to be born, be baptized and then someone kills - you are now in heaven for eternity.

1. God’s Just Mercy. You have to look at Christ’s life to get a glimpse of His love (mercy).

All of His apostles were sinners: one betrayed Him for a handful of silver; His most trusted apostle denied him multiple times. He didn’t stop the former (free will). Christ remained with the latter because he repented, and built on him the Church.

One of the thieves crucified with Him repented at the very last minute. What did Christ promise? “… you will be with Me in paradise.”

Christ, the Good Shepherd, came to find the lost sheep. He calls on us sinners to be with Him, not with threats and condemnation of eternal damnation and torment, but with love.

The 2 points speaks a lot about God’s love and mercy. He so loved us that He respects our choice, even if it meant separation from Him eternally. Those who don’t want to seek God will not find Him; those who seek will find. Can’t be anymore just than that.

Who knows. At his dying breath, if the sinner repents of his sins, maybe God, in His infinite mercy, will receive him. We don’t know for certain. We just hope and pray.

1. You must not use the Hindu belief of Hell to understand the Catholic Church’s doctrine on hell. Hell for us is not merely purification.

 

[MPat]

No the eternal heaven is really eternal - once you are free of the cycle of death and rebirth, you are free for ever.

Hinduism does not specifically talk about what happens in case of a murder except that it is a grave sin, but since there is no eternal hell and everyone goes through cycles of death and rebirth, I am sure a murderer gets reborn and has another chance.

Interesting. But Hindus do have some scriptures saying that there is eternal heaven and not eternal hell…?

As for taking offence - someone on another thread got offended because I mentioned Hindu beliefs - and the thread was about reincarnation!!!

Anyway, to get back to the topic - as to why I think the Church’s teaching are unjust, we can easily demonstrate by examples not involving murder (though eternal hell for murder is harsh too - in Europe you get life imprisonment **with **the possibility of parole). The majority of male adults in the US have masturbated many times and majority of women in the US have used contraceptives at least once (these are known statistics). Not many of them have repented (it is difficult to repent when you don’t think you have done anything wrong). Therefore Catholic Hell is mostly made up of male masturbaters and female contraceptive users and they will be there for eternity - this is totally ridiculous.

Well, I do not object to you talking about Hinduism. However, I do not really like when you ignore the actual Catholic position, even when it has been told you several times.

So, could you, please, answer if you understand:

1. The requirements for a sin to be mortal (“Not many of them have repented (it is difficult to repent when you don’t think you have done anything wrong).” would indicate that you do not understand, since one of the requirements is “full knowledge”).
2. That in Catholic teaching none of us “deserves” heaven; all of us are sinners needing mercy (thus saying that a lot of people would have to go to hell does not indicate injustice).

If those things haven’t been explained clearly enough, we can try to explain them better. After all, we’re all here to learn, aren’t we?

Also, please, keep some mathematical rigor. None of us knows how many people understand that masturbation and contraception are wrong. And we do not know how many have repented (or are going to repent). Thus your estimates about composition of hell are unsupported.

Anyway, to get back to the topic - as to why I think the Church’s teaching are unjust, we can easily demonstrate by examples not involving murder (though eternal hell for murder is harsh too - in Europe you get life imprisonment **with **the possibility of parole).

I have specifically asked you to use murder as example, since we both accept that murder is evil. The questions of sinfulness of contraception would be “offtopic”, so, please, let’s avoid them. They are just as useless here as questions about sinfulness of eating beef would be (it is considered to be a sin in Hinduism, right?).

The second example (nasty, mean old man) is not that the Church is too merciful - it actually does not make any sense at all. That man is just not as deserving as Mother Teresa, even a child can see that. Is the Church saying that going through purgatory has the made the man as pure as one of the saints?

The best thing, as I said before for any Catholic, is to be born, be baptized and then someone kills you while you are a baby - you are now in heaven for eternity.

Well, if the soul gets purified, it should become pure. Isn’t it natural to expect that? Actually, I found the Hindu teaching about, er, “partial purification” strange - why wouldn’t purification last until it is finished…?

 

[openmind77]

Interesting. But Hindus do have some scriptures saying that there is eternal heaven and not eternal hell…?

Well, I do not object to you talking about Hinduism. However, I do not really like when you ignore the actual Catholic position, even when it has been told you several times.

So, could you, please, answer if you understand:

1. The requirements for a sin to be mortal (“Not many of them have repented (it is difficult to repent when you don’t think you have done anything wrong).” would indicate that you do not understand, since one of the requirements is “full knowledge”).
2. That in Catholic teaching none of us “deserves” heaven; all of us are sinners needing mercy (thus saying that a lot of people would have to go to hell does not indicate injustice).

If those things haven’t been explained clearly enough, we can try to explain them better. After all, we’re all here to learn, aren’t we?

Also, please, keep some mathematical rigor. None of us knows how many people understand that masturbation and contraception are wrong. And we do not know how many have repented (or are going to repent). Thus your estimates about composition of hell are unsupported.

I have specifically asked you to use murder as example, since we both accept that murder is evil. The questions of sinfulness of contraception would be “offtopic”, so, please, let’s avoid them. They are just as useless here as questions about sinfulness of eating beef would be (it is considered to be a sin in Hinduism, right?).

Well, if the soul gets purified, it should become pure. Isn’t it natural to expect that? Actually, I found the Hindu teaching about, er, “partial purification” strange - why wouldn’t purification last until it is finished…?

I assume all adult Catholics have full knowledge about what are mortal sins according to the church, however many of them choose to use contraception, and I really doubt if they repent it since they probably do not agree with the Church’s view. As for mathematical rigor - you can check for yourself - guttmacher.org/media/resources/Religion-FP-tables.html Would you say 50% have repented? 70% ? Pick any number and it still leaves a lot unrepented ones.

We can talk about murder, but my previous example does appear to show that there is no mercy or justice for juvenile murderers.

However it really seems right to talk about sins that affect all of us and masturbation and contraception do.

In Hinduism, eating beef would probably make you lose your caste (actually I have eaten beef myself), but it will definitely not send you to eternal hell. There is a gradation in heaven (several levels), so the purity required for eternal heaven at a higher level is different from the lower levels. But I don’t think we should compare the two at all - that is not right. We should judge each on its own merits.

So to summarize the issues that I have with Catholic teachings:

1. No mercy for someone who is a juvenile and dies after sinning (with full knowledge).
2. No second chance for someone who dies suddenly and so does not have any time or chance to repent.
3. From the statistics in the link above, it would appear, the population of hell is rapidly rising with contraceptive users
4. Dead unbaptized babies - unknown, left to God’s mercy (is there some doubt about God’s mercy? If there is no doubt, then can’t we just say they also go to heaven).
5. Dead baptized babies - they get the best deal
6. Mean, selfish people (with no unrepented sins) get to go to eternal heaven and rub shoulders with the saints. (this is not a question of mercy, it just does not sound right).

Given all these issues, I find it hard to believe that God works in this way.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Given all these issues, I find it hard to believe that God works in this way.

He doesn’t. You’ve got it all wrong. :banghead:

 

[MPat]

I assume all adult Catholics have full knowledge about what are mortal sins according to the church,

That’s quite an assumption. You assume that no Catholics were ever insane, no Catholic was ever badly catechised etc.? Also, there is a third requirement: full consent.

Anyway, thank you for the confirmation that you did notice the requirements for mortal sins.

I assume all adult Catholics have full knowledge about what are mortal sins according to the church, however many of them choose to use contraception, and I really doubt if they repent it since they probably do not agree with the Church’s view. As for mathematical rigor - you can check for yourself - guttmacher.org/media/resources/Religion-FP-tables.html Would you say 50% have repented? 70% ? Pick any number and it still leaves a lot unrepented ones.

So, I can make up any numbers I want? OK, sounds like fun. I choose 120%. See? Everyone has repented - including some who haven’t sinned.

So, please, no making numbers up.

Also, there was a second point understanding of which I have asked you to confirm: the Catholic view is that none of us “deserve” heaven; all of us “deserve” hell. We all need God’s mercy. So, even if we had an undeniable proof that, let’s say, 99% of people go to hell, it still wouldn’t indicate any injustice. You would still have to demonstrate (and not just assume) that they do not deserve to go to hell.

We can talk about murder, but my previous example does appear to show that there is no mercy or justice for juvenile murderers.

Actually, you simply asserted that…

However it really seems right to talk about sins that affect all of us and masturbation and contraception do.

In Hinduism, eating beef would probably make you lose your caste (actually I have eaten beef myself), but it will definitely not send you to eternal hell. There is a gradation in heaven (several levels), so the purity required for eternal heaven at a higher level is different from the lower levels. But I don’t think we should compare the two at all - that is not right. We should judge each on its own merits.

My point is that it would be useless for me to argue that it is unjust for someone to be denied eternity in heaven for something as minor as eating beef (for, of course, I do not think that it is a sin at all - just like you do not think contraception is). In order to answer you would have to show why you think that it is a sin, and that is “offtopic” here.

The question in this thread is, as the original poster has written, “Now, why does this one mortal sin bear infinite punishment, but all the good he has done in his life bear no reward?”. Going to hell for something that is not a sin at all could be unjust even if hell took a couple of seconds and the good deeds were unimpressive. Thus examples that are supposed to show such instances do not help to answer the original question.

In other words, if you want to argue that contraception should not be a mortal sin, start a new thread.

So to summarize the issues that I have with Catholic teachings:

1. No mercy for someone who is a juvenile and dies after sinning (with full knowledge).
2. No second chance for someone who dies suddenly and so does not have any time or chance to repent.
3. From the statistics in the link above, it would appear, the population of hell is rapidly rising with contraceptive users
4. Dead unbaptized babies - unknown, left to God’s mercy (is there some doubt about God’s mercy? If there is no doubt, then can’t we just say they also go to heaven).
5. Dead baptized babies - they get the best deal
6. Mean, selfish people (with no unrepented sins) get to go to eternal heaven and rub shoulders with the saints. (this is not a question of mercy, it just does not sound right).

Given all these issues, I find it hard to believe that God works in this way.

Well, if you would find Catholic teaching easy to believe, then you would be a Catholic and not a Hindu, wouldn’t you?

 

[devoutchristian]

1. No mercy for someone who is a juvenile and dies after sinning (with full knowledge).

If he has full culpability then why should there be mercy?

1. No second chance for someone who dies suddenly and so does not have any time or chance to repent.

They already made their choice. Why should they get a second chance?

1. From the statistics in the link above, it would appear, the population of hell is rapidly rising with contraceptive users

Catholics don’t believe that we deserve Heaven.

1. Dead unbaptized babies - unknown, left to God’s mercy (is there some doubt about God’s mercy? If there is no doubt, then can’t we just say they also go to heaven).

Catholics dont believe that anyone deserves Heaven, so this is not a problem.

1. Dead baptized babies - they get the best deal

This isn’t unmerciful. In any case it’s also incorrect. While baptized babies are in a better situation than most people, the happiest souls in Heaven are those who grew up and became extremely virtuous.

1. Mean, selfish people (with no unrepented sins) get to go to eternal heaven and rub shoulders with the saints. (this is not a question of mercy, it just does not sound right).

If they’re repentant then they’re not mean and selfish anymore, so there’s no problem here.