Why does God punish sin but not reward goodness?

[openmind77]

You are unaware of very many who died for love of Christ and of their neighbor at 12, and even earlier. Recently the Church initiated the beatification process of a very young Italian seminarian who in the '40s was kidnapped, tortured, and murdered simply because he refused to take off his seminarian cassock, since it represented his love for Christ.

I think it is not prudent to judge God’s Mercy and Justice, and the teachings of the Church of Christ, “pillar and foundation of the truth”, comparing them to “a Texas court”, of all things. Perhaps it would be better to consider that billions have followed them for 20 centuries, making the world a better place.

I do not judge God’s Mercy and Justice and Love at all - they are all infinite. The world is definitely a better place since the advent of Christianity 2000 years ago.

I do question the Church’s teachings on heaven and hell.

I am astonished that the Church does not see anything wrong in saying that the God would allow a juvenile to be in hell for eternity (I don’t believe any court in the US will send a juvenile to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole). What about unbaptized babies - where do they go if they die?

 

[Lochias]

1. God may not send some one to eternal hell, but if he sets up laws that send people then it is the same thing. It is not free choice, if you are forced to do something (repent) to avoid it.

In order for this to be true, God would have to force people to sin.

People don’t get “sent” to Hell at all. They choose it. You must grasp this concept if you’re going to have any meaningful discussion about it on a Catholic forum.

People aren’t FORCED to do anything. They can choose to be good, or bad. God doesn’t force either.

Your analogy is like saying, “I’m forced to eat if I want to avoid starvation.” Who’s forcing the food into your mouth? You’re not “forced to eat” at all, you CHOOSE to eat.

 

[MPat]

I don’t think it is right to send anyone to ‘eternal’ hell at ANY age (though especially so for juveniles) without a possibility of redemption. He should always have a a chance to repent even after death. I don’t believe a loving, forgiving God would condemn anyone for eternity without also an chance for redemption while they are there (of course those who do not ever repent will then have a real choice of whether to stay in hell), Since God is indeed a merciful and loving God, I don’t believe that he condemns anyone for eternal hell (especially for such things as using contraceptives).

Yes, that is your position. So, why do you talk about juveniles at all, if you do not see any significant difference? That is, in effect, making a strawman of your own position. It is bad enough to make a strawman of position of someone else…

Speaking of which, it would be nice of you to confirm that you understand the Catholic definition of “mortal sin” and Catholic position that people choose to end up in hell… As you can see, Catholics believe that hell is eternal because the ones who ended up in there do not want to repent. Do you think that it is not possible? Or do you think that God should ignore those wishes?

Also, could you, please, explain why do you think that one shouldn’t end up in hell because of use of contraceptives? You have said (many times) that you believe so, but you haven’t given arguments in favor of this belief. For if you simply feel that it should be so, what if someone else feels otherwise?

 

[R_C]

I do question the Church’s teachings on heaven and hell.

I am astonished that the Church does not see anything wrong in saying that the God would allow a juvenile to be in hell for eternity (I don’t believe any court in the US will send a juvenile to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole). What about unbaptized babies - where do they go if they die?

Again…stop comparing the Divine Judge with a US court.

Second: the Church has simply learned that Gold allows anyone to be in hell if he chooses so. Hell is not a “place” (though it is described as such), but a state of the immortal soul. In eternity, the soul that has willfully chosen to reject God and turned his back on His love and forgiveness simply retains that choice. Eternity is outside of time. There is no “time” to realize one’s mistake and repent. There is no “time” to change our mind. If someone in the age of reason rejects God’s forgiveness and dies, he will see Christ willing to forgive him and allow him into heaven, but will run away from Him. He will experience the seraphic fire of the love of Christ, but that fire - that feels sweet and blissful for the angels and the saints - will feel painful because he is trying to reject that love.

I already mentioned to you that age means very little. I know of many very young children who endured heroic sacrifices in order not to reject God.

José Sánchez del Río was 15 years old when he was arrested for being Christian and Catholic. They asked him to renounce his faith in Christ and to shout “death to Christ the King”. He refused. He was forced to watch a Catholic being hung. Then they cut the bottom of his feet and obliged him to walk around the town toward the cemetery. They also at times cut him with a machete. Before witnesses - including his terrified parents - he said: “I will never give in. Long live Christ the King.” He was shot and stabbed to death.

Maria Goretti was a young girl of 11 years old who after First Communion promised to Christ that she would never willfully sin and offend Him. Trapped by a 19-year-old in a closed room who wanted to abuse her and threatened to kill her if she did not obey, she told him that she would not do so, because it was a sin, and pointed out to the young man that he was in danger of hell. He stabbed her 14 times. On her deathbed, she said: “I forgive him, and I want him in heaven next to me.” The attacker, sentenced to 30 years in prison, repented. After his sentence was completed, he became a laybrother of the Order of Friars Minor Capuchin, living in a monastery and working as its receptionist and gardener until his death.

And these are only 2 examples. If these two “juveniles” chose God and merited heaven, then age is not an excuse for those who reject God. Rejecting God does not mean to make a mistake. Rejecting God means to know that a given action is a grave offense to God and willfully choosing to do it without coercion or psychological traumas - their free choice. It is hard to know if any young man or woman who has committed truly grave sins have done so with a sufficient knowledge and a sufficiently deliberate consent. But if they have, then they chose to reject God, and God could not grab them by the hair and force them to fall in love with him - otherwise, He would be acting like that 19-year old farmer who wanted to force the young girl to love him when she did not. Is this the God you want to believe in?

As for unbaptized babies: the Church ever since the beginning, two thousand years ago, thought that there must have been a “special place” for unbaptized infants (ex. those who die unborn, or those who die before the age of reason unbaptized) which was called “the limbo of infants”, and which was presumed to be a place of heavenly bliss but lesser than heaven itself due to the fact that the infants would bear the stain of original sin rendering access to the vision of God impossible. The Church now has embraced a higher theological hope, that unbaptized children are by God’s own will admitted to heaven, since Christ said: “let little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to these belongs the kingdom.”

 

[openmind77]

Yes, that is your position. So, why do you talk about juveniles at all, if you do not see any significant difference? That is, in effect, making a strawman of your own position. It is bad enough to make a strawman of position of someone else…

Speaking of which, it would be nice of you to confirm that you understand the Catholic definition of “mortal sin” and Catholic position that people choose to end up in hell… As you can see, Catholics believe that hell is eternal because the ones who ended up in there do not want to repent. Do you think that it is not possible? Or do you think that God should ignore those wishes?

Also, could you, please, explain why do you think that one shouldn’t end up in hell because of use of contraceptives? You have said (many times) that you believe so, but you haven’t given arguments in favor of this belief. For if you simply feel that it should be so, what if someone else feels otherwise?

I do see a vast difference between condemning adults and condemning juveniles to eternal hell. However the first one is pretty bad too. Neither is compatible with a loving, forgiving God.

One reason I mention contraceptives is because I personally do not believe it is a sin at all. But more to the point, surveys say that most Catholic women in the US have used contraceptives (some say over 90%) some time in their lives. I doubt if many of them have repented. I don’t think a majority of Catholic women in the US deserve to go to hell.

 

[openmind77]

Again…stop comparing the Divine Judge with a US court.

Second: the Church has simply learned that Gold allows anyone to be in hell if he chooses so. Hell is not a “place” (though it is described as such), but a state of the immortal soul. In eternity, the soul that has willfully chosen to reject God and turned his back on His love and forgiveness simply retains that choice. Eternity is outside of time. There is no “time” to realize one’s mistake and repent. There is no “time” to change our mind. If someone in the age of reason rejects God’s forgiveness and dies, he will see Christ willing to forgive him and allow him into heaven, but will run away from Him. He will experience the seraphic fire of the love of Christ, but that fire - that feels sweet and blissful for the angels and the saints - will feel painful because he is trying to reject that love.

I already mentioned to you that age means very little. I know of many very young children who endured heroic sacrifices in order not to reject God.

José Sánchez del Río was 15 years old when he was arrested for being Christian and Catholic. They asked him to renounce his faith in Christ and to shout “death to Christ the King”. He refused. He was forced to watch a Catholic being hung. Then they cut the bottom of his feet and obliged him to walk around the town toward the cemetery. They also at times cut him with a machete. Before witnesses - including his terrified parents - he said: “I will never give in. Long live Christ the King.” He was shot and stabbed to death.

Maria Goretti was a young girl of 11 years old who after First Communion promised to Christ that she would never willfully sin and offend Him. Trapped by a 19-year-old in a closed room who wanted to abuse her and threatened to kill her if she did not obey, she told him that she would not do so, because it was a sin, and pointed out to the young man that he was in danger of hell. He stabbed her 14 times. On her deathbed, she said: “I forgive him, and I want him in heaven next to me.” The attacker, sentenced to 30 years in prison, repented. After his sentence was completed, he became a laybrother of the Order of Friars Minor Capuchin, living in a monastery and working as its receptionist and gardener until his death.

And these are only 2 examples. If these two “juveniles” chose God and merited heaven, then age is not an excuse for those who reject God. Rejecting God does not mean to make a mistake. Rejecting God means to know that a given action is a grave offense to God and willfully choosing to do it without coercion or psychological traumas - their free choice. It is hard to know if any young man or woman who has committed truly grave sins have done so with a sufficient knowledge and a sufficiently deliberate consent. But if they have, then they chose to reject God, and God could not grab them by the hair and force them to fall in love with him - otherwise, He would be acting like that 19-year old farmer who wanted to force the young girl to love him when she did not. Is this the God you want to believe in?

As for unbaptized babies: the Church ever since the beginning, two thousand years ago, thought that there must have been a “special place” for unbaptized infants (ex. those who die unborn, or those who die before the age of reason unbaptized) which was called “the limbo of infants”, and which was presumed to be a place of heavenly bliss but lesser than heaven itself due to the fact that the infants would bear the stain of original sin rendering access to the vision of God impossible. The Church now has embraced a higher theological hope, that unbaptized children are by God’s own will admitted to heaven, since Christ said: “let little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to these belongs the kingdom.”

Glad to know unbaptized infants do go to heaven - I had not realized that.

 

[sw85]

Now, heaven is the ultimate reward for the good. I know this.

But let’s imagine a devout Catholic who lived his whole life devoted to God and did a lot of good.

Before he died, he fell away (which is possible) and committed a mortal sin as well.

Now, why does this one mortal sin bear infinite punishment, but all the good he has done in his life bear no reward?

Doesn’t God punish wickedness but also reward goodness? Why isn’t the good that this person has done rewarded? Why can’t good deeds have infinite consequences too?

Doing good is your duty. Do you deserve a reward for not murdering someone right now?

Since doing good is your duty, it’s not especially meritorious to do it. Since it’s not meritorious to do it, there’s nothing you can do to make amends for your mortal sins. They can only be forgiven.

Imagine having a debt the minimum payment of which consumes 100% of your surplus monthly income. You’re fine (living on a tight wire, but fine) as long as you don’t miss a payment. If you miss a payment and are charged a late fee, you’re screwed, because you have no extra money with which to pay the fee. “But I made all payments on time?!” So what? You were just abiding by the terms of the contract.

 

[Lochias]

One reason I mention contraceptives is because I personally do not believe it is a sin at all. But more to the point, surveys say that most Catholic women in the US have used contraceptives (some say over 90%) some time in their lives. I doubt if many of them have repented. I don’t think a majority of Catholic women in the US deserve to go to hell.

It is not a matter of what they deserve. It’s a matter of what they choose. You must understand this difference, or you’ll never get anywhere in these talks.

 

[R_C]

Glad to know unbaptized infants do go to heaven - I had not realized that.

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 ).

 

[davidv]

I do see a vast difference between condemning adults and condemning juveniles to eternal hell. However the first one is pretty bad too. Neither is compatible with a loving, forgiving God.

One reason I mention contraceptives is because I personally do not believe it is a sin at all. But more to the point, surveys say that most Catholic women in the US have used contraceptives (some say over 90%) some time in their lives. I doubt if many of them have repented. I don’t think a majority of Catholic women in the US deserve to go to hell.

Unfortunate to this line thinking, morality is not determined by the majority. Morality is living and growing in unity with God.

 

[MPat]

I do see a vast difference between condemning adults and condemning juveniles to eternal hell. However the first one is pretty bad too. Neither is compatible with a loving, forgiving God.

In other words, you see no difference that would be significant for your argument. It’s not like you are going to get a “stronger” contradiction.

One reason I mention contraceptives is because I personally do not believe it is a sin at all. But more to the point, surveys say that most Catholic women in the US have used contraceptives (some say over 90%) some time in their lives. I doubt if many of them have repented. I don’t think a majority of Catholic women in the US deserve to go to hell.

Well, of course you do not think so. Remember - you think that no one deserves to go to hell.

Now I understand that it might be more pleasant to argue with such examples. But if you want to justify such position, you will have to explain why you think that unrepentant mass murderers deserve to go to heaven as well.

Also, the Catholic position is that, had God refused to redeem us, none of us would “deserve” to go to heaven. It could get a bit more complicated in the real world (for starters, Jesus is obviously an exception), but claims about many deserving the hell are not as impressive, as you seem to think…

 

[openmind77]

In other words, you see no difference that would be significant for your argument. It’s not like you are going to get a “stronger” contradiction.

Well, of course you do not think so. Remember - you think that no one deserves to go to hell.

Now I understand that it might be more pleasant to argue with such examples. But if you want to justify such position, you will have to explain why you think that unrepentant mass murderers deserve to go to heaven as well.

Also, the Catholic position is that, had God refused to redeem us, none of us would “deserve” to go to heaven. It could get a bit more complicated in the real world (for starters, Jesus is obviously an exception), but claims about many deserving the hell are not as impressive, as you seem to think…

I did not say no one deserves to go to hell. I said no one deserves to go to hell for eternity. The suffering in hell should be proportional to the sin. So a murderer would suffer considerably in hell. He can be let into heaven after he becomes pure enough to enter it (so he should have a chance for redemption).

 

[davidv]

I did not say no one deserves to go to hell. I said no one deserves to go to hell for eternity. The suffering in hell should be proportional to the sin. So a murderer would suffer considerably in hell. He can be let into heaven after he becomes pure enough to enter it (so he should have a chance for redemption).

It seems you are making some pretty bold assumptions about what hell is like. And without evidence.
Why would eternity make the suffering of hell disproportionate to the sin? The intensity of the suffering does not need to be dependent on the length of time. Jesus’ parable of the workmen indicates that the reward of heaven is not proportional to the amount of sin prior to repentence. Why should the the opposite be true for hell?
If one dies unrepentent, what mechanism exists the would allow repentence?

 

[openmind77]

It seems you are making some pretty bold assumptions about what hell is like. And without evidence.
Why would eternity make the suffering of hell disproportionate to the sin? The intensity of the suffering does not need to be dependent on the length of time. Jesus’ parable of the workmen indicates that the reward of heaven is not proportional to the amount of sin prior to repentence. Why should the the opposite be true for hell?
If one dies unrepentent, what mechanism exists the would allow repentence?

Eternal hell would be the same for an unrepentant murderer as for a unrepentant user of contraceptives (some may say they will use a hotter flame for the former, but eternity is the still the same). This does not seem proportional or just.

The other mechanism is of course as described in Hinduism. You suffer in hell proportionate to your sins between lives (with some time in heaven for your good deeds) and then you are reborn to try again. As you improve from life to life (become a purer, nicer, better person), you eventually become pure enough to enter heaven permanently.

 

[Aloysium]

I did not say no one deserves to go to hell. I said no one deserves to go to hell for eternity. The suffering in hell should be proportional to the sin. So a murderer would suffer considerably in hell. He can be let into heaven after he becomes pure enough to enter it (so he should have a chance for redemption).

You believe in reincarnation. You may think you can waste this one life devoting yourself to things other than God, because you have the next. You may repeatedly do the same thing each life-time for all eternity. Clearly, you have done so for thousands of previous lives. You are choosing, but I guess you would not consider this hell. I would.

 

[openmind77]

You believe in reincarnation. You may think you can waste this one life devoting yourself to things other than God, because you have the next. You may repeatedly do the same thing each life-time for all eternity. Clearly, you have done so for thousands of previous lives. You are choosing, but I guess you would not consider this hell. I would.

Everyone’s soul is a pretty savvy being (especially compared to the temporal human person). In most cases the soul makes sure each life improves on the previous one (in a very small number of cases it goes the other way). So eventually a majority of humans make it to heaven permanently for eternity.

I can assure you that people who do not spend a majority of their time in the service of humanity in their current life will not be going permanently to heaven for eternity at the end of this life (though they may spend some time in heaven in between lives for their good deeds in this life).

 

[Aloysium]

Everyone’s soul is a pretty savvy being (especially compared to the temporal human person). In most cases the soul makes sure each life improves on the previous one (in a very small number of cases it goes the other way). So eventually a majority of humans make it to heaven permanently for eternity.

I can assure you that people who do not spend a majority of their time in the service of humanity in their current life will not be going permanently to heaven for eternity at the end of this life (though they may spend some time in heaven in between lives for their good deeds in this life).

:twocents:

Everything i know about myself tells me this is my one and only life on earth. I am an expression of eternal human nature, but that transcends me.

Heaven and hell are not a reward or punishment for deeds done - they are who one has become in relation to the Ground of being who is Love.

It seems to me that hell is a real place and that it is eternal. It is beyond the physical and psychological suffering that we encounter in life, it is deprived of love. People are not just passing through, that is who they are.

 

[openmind77]

:twocents:

Everything i know about myself tells me this is my one and only life on earth. I am an expression of eternal human nature, but that transcends me.

Heaven and hell are not a reward or punishment for deeds done - they are who one has become in relation to the Ground of being who is Love.

It seems to me that hell is a real place and that it is eternal. It is beyond the physical and psychological suffering that we encounter in life, it is deprived of love. People are not just passing through, that is who they are.

I agree that heaven and hell are not reward or punishment but the result of the purity/spirituality of the person at the time of death. If you think you have the same spiritual attainment as Pope John Paul and Mother Teresa and so should after death also be in eternal heaven with them, then good luck to you.

I am quite sure that I will be reborn again after this life since I have not yet attained anywhere near that status. I only mention service to humanity because at that level of purity and spirituality, the urge to serve humanity is automatic - such individuals usually don’t have the time or inclination to read and/or post to forums.

 

[MPat]

I did not say no one deserves to go to hell. I said no one deserves to go to hell for eternity. The suffering in hell should be proportional to the sin. So a murderer would suffer considerably in hell. He can be let into heaven after he becomes pure enough to enter it (so he should have a chance for redemption).

Ah, yes… Sorry about that mistake… Still, the “temporary hell” you are speaking about starts to look like purgatory and not hell…

And thus my point still stands: speaking about “90% of women” or anything similar is not that useful when you defend a position that no one should end up in the “real” hell. As do the points about “deserving” and the like…

Eternal hell would be the same for an unrepentant murderer as for a unrepentant user of contraceptives (some may say they will use a hotter flame for the former, but eternity is the still the same). This does not seem proportional or just.

Er, you do know that it is not that certain how similar that “fire” is to the fire we know…?

Also, later you write:

I agree that heaven and hell are not reward or punishment but the result of the purity/spirituality of the person at the time of death. If you think you have the same spiritual attainment as Pope John Paul and Mother Teresa and so should after death also be in eternal heaven with them, then good luck to you.

Good, you have acknowledged that hell is not merely punishment. Now, for the next step, do you think that the ones in hell actually want to go to heaven…?

 

[Aloysium]

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.