Why is our last decision the only one that matters?

[multipurpose]

I believe we can still make decisions when we’re in a coma but no one else - except God - is aware of them!

A friend of mine was in a coma before she died but she groaned when she heard a piano being played…

A warm welcome to the forum! :tiphat:

OH, Tonyrey, I am so sorry for your loss.

We had a family member in a coma for a long time. We would watch him smile when his mom played Disney’s Aladdin CD and he groaned when he needed his diaper changed. The nurses pointed that out to us. The doctors said both were ‘involuntary.’ That word makes my blood run cold- we doubled up on our visits to the hospital after we heard the doctors take on things.

Thank you for the welcome. I’m learning a lot.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

Quote: John Russell

… there is repentance for those destined for heaven after death , as with purgatory , but those in hell cannot repent – impossible , but my own theory is god has a plan to return all to reality , and hell and all evil are non - reality or delusion , and in eternity they will disappear when all are retured to reality , and it has to be when understood fully or god ceases to be , and neither angelic or human beings really have free will as understood , they are only free to do gods will , the current free will is a delusion and curse for that matter , a punishment , so none can complain if eventually god forces all to do his will no matter what , this is my own theory and once again it is a very brief snippet of the whole picture dear friend …

I’m perplexed. Perhaps you can explain, first of all, what you mean by “reality,” since you said that God has a plan to “return all to reality.” Also, why do you define Hell and all evil as “non-reality or delusion.” Then please explain how they will “disappear when all are returned to reality.” I’m even more perplexed by your next statement that “it (?) has to be when understood fully or god ceases to be.” Also, you might want to mention your idea of free will. Even though we should choose to do God’s will, we are still free to choose otherwise. I’m assuming it’s just that your interpretation is different but your belief is the same. However, saying that “eventually god forces all to do his will no matter what” sounds like predeterminism and, likely, heretical.

… my dear friend ,

… it is too many big q’s right now to pen them , but i’ve said much of it in prior posts and will go into these and many related q’s on my thread here for atheists , a new way to know if god exists or not etc …

… you are free to read what i say there when i’m doing it , no heresy though whichever way you look at it , don’t fear that , i’m talking about many new things and not the delusion the church teaches about , my theories do not conflict church teaching they just expand it by delving into reality which is outside the delusion , no comflicts or contradictions or heresy when understood fully , may seem so but no dear friend …

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

 

[4Horsemen]

… my dear friend ,

… it is too many big q’s right now to pen them , but i’ve said much of it in prior posts and will go into these and many related q’s on my thread here for atheists , a new way to know if god exists or not etc …

… you are free to read what i say there when i’m doing it , no heresy though whichever way you look at it , don’t fear that , i’m talking about many new things and not the delusion the church teaches about , my theories do not conflict church teaching they just expand it by delving into reality which is outside the delusion , no comflicts or contradictions or heresy when understood fully , may seem so but no dear friend …

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

Dear John,

I’m sorry to throw so many questions at you all at once, but I just wondered if your philosophy “about new things and not the delusion the church teaches about” is really in line with Catholic apologetics. As I don’t have a lot of time to read these threads, I probably missed a lot of what you wrote. However, I hope to read your new thread for atheists. Thanks for your response.

May God bless you too,
4H

 

[tonyrey]

OH, Tonyrey, I am so sorry for your loss.

We had a family member in a coma for a long time. We would watch him smile when his mom played Disney’s Aladdin CD and he groaned when he needed his diaper changed. The nurses pointed that out to us. The doctors said both were ‘involuntary.’ That word makes my blood run cold- we doubled up on our visits to the hospital after we heard the doctors take on things.

Thank you for the welcome. I’m learning a lot.

My friend died more than ten years ago but it was the speed of her death that was astonishing- and in retrospect merciful. She had given up smoking several years previously yet she was dead within a month of feeling a sharp pain in her chest. R.I.P.

 

[Miriam1947]

Isn’t it a teaching, not dogma nor doctrine, that we receive a final chance of repentance after death when we stand before God? Certainly fits the doctrines of “choosing to go to Hell” and God’s ever mercy and justice. Could be wrong though.

I think not after death but perhaps at death. In that nanosecond before we actually pass we may have the opportunity to choose.

I have no idea if this is true but this thought comforts me, especially regarding those who have gone before me.

 

[tonyrey]

I think not after death but perhaps at death. In that nanosecond before we actually pass we may have the opportunity to choose.

I have no idea if this is true but this thought comforts me, especially regarding those who have gone before me.

Hell is not a trap into which we fall unwittingly! God doesn’t condemn anyone to be damned because He loves us far more than we love ourselves. We condemn ourselves if we reject His love…

 

[Slowlearner]

In retrospect, I didn’t phrase my concern very well. I think I got my brain a bit turned around when I was thinking about existing in time vs. not existing in time. And it seems to me that one of our choices is given infinite weight vis a vis salvation, and all of the others are given zero weight. So I started asking myself questions like “why is one decision infinitely more significant than the other simply because it occurred at a later date?”

Your hypothetical seems a bit contrived. An believing Catholic, following the Church’s teachings, praying daily, and living a sacramental life, doesn’t just flip out and make a decision to reject God. A good Catholic over time grows closer to God (though with ups and downs along the way – but always with upward trajectory).

 

[randirhoades]

Dear Friend,

I think on dying and it’s our last chance, last time, last decision, more than likely, we would be running to God, not rejecting Him.

Love ya’ll,
sheila

 

[tonyrey]

We never make a last decision because in heaven we are constantly renewing our love for God. Otherwise our love would not be love but a relic of the past!

 

[Spirithound]

But the flipside of that is eternal suffering for (for example) a lifelong devout Catholic who rejects God minutes before his/her death. Though it may be unlikely, I think it’s definitely possible.

So how does that make any kind of sense?

If I may rephrase your question, you are asking why someone who rejects God ends up in hell… My answer is below…

I completely agree. I’m saying that there is a very unlikely but possible scenario that seems to indicate that in terms of judgment, the only thing that matters is our spiritual state at the time of our death.

Thinking more on the topic of the thread now, it seems to me that God will in some way ensure that our final decision is an informed one perhaps, “through ways known to him alone, [He] may offer the opportunity for salutary repentance,” to quote the Catechism. But this is just speculative on my part, so please correct me if I’m heading in the wrong direction.

As others have contributed, your last choice is basically the culmination of all your previous choices. However, I would like to go further and say that your last choice is the ratification of all your previous choices. By this I mean that in every choice you make, you are saying that you wish every previous choice had been made in this direction. I say this because as we all know, choices are habit-forming, and so each choice is not only probably a reflection of your past, it is a consideration of your past, and the desire to form your habits either in conformity with your past, or in contrast with it. This is how the chronological order of choices in this life matters, and it is why we can go to the sacrament of confession, that is, because we are able to go against our past.

 

[Binary]

Your hypothetical seems a bit contrived. An believing Catholic, following the Church’s teachings, praying daily, and living a sacramental life, doesn’t just flip out and make a decision to reject God. A good Catholic over time grows closer to God (though with ups and downs along the way – but always with upward trajectory).

I knew going into it that it was contrived, but you’re right; it’s contrived beyond any reasonable point.

 

[Slowlearner]

I knew going into it that it was contrived, but you’re right; it’s contrived beyond any reasonable point.

But I am so glad you asked the question. I now see the question (one posed sometimes by non-believers) as a trick question.

It is a trick because it comes in the form of a philosophical question, to which, as we saw above, the short answer is, “if we are to have free will, man must be able to reject God with his last decision.” Then, the trick (which you stepped into above) comes with the follow-up is “that doesn’t seem fair or right when a man’s life has been virtuous previously.” This part is a trick because it allows someone to create the impression that God is unfair and unmerciful. But as was fleshed out above, in fact the hypothetical is contrived.

So another way of responding to this issue (forgive me if I a repeating a response above), is to say: Man has free will, but do not think that the freedom to reject heaven at the end of life indicates that God is unfair or unmerciful. We have a loving and merciful God. (Quote Jn. 3:16). He sent his only son, who is the life, the truth, and the way, to be our guide. He taught us to take up our cross and follow him. He told us to take the yoke with him, for it is light. His son established the Church to help guide us. Those of us who have accepted the invitation to follow Christ, believe his Father to be infinitely merciful and loving.

I wonder if there is one additional point to make. If someone should say, “well I understand that you believe your god is merciful, but I believe otherwise,” it seems to me that we could respond as follows: “It is not for you to have an opinion regarding my God’s mercy because you have rejected him.”

Thanks again, and Peace.

 

[Nimeniton]

But I am so glad you asked the question. I now see the question (one posed sometimes by non-believers) as a trick question.

It is a trick because it comes in the form of a philosophical question, to which, as we saw above, the short answer is, “if we are to have free will, man must be able to reject God with his last decision.” Then, the trick (which you stepped into above) comes with the follow-up is “that doesn’t seem fair or right when a man’s life has been virtuous previously.” This part is a trick because it allows someone to create the impression that God is unfair and unmerciful. But as was fleshed out above, in fact the hypothetical is contrived.

So another way of responding to this issue (forgive me if I a repeating a response above), is to say: Man has free will, but do not think that the freedom to reject heaven at the end of life indicates that God is unfair or unmerciful. We have a loving and merciful God. (Quote Jn. 3:16). He sent his only son, who is the life, the truth, and the way, to be our guide. He taught us to take up our cross and follow him. He told us to take the yoke with him, for it is light. His son established the Church to help guide us. Those of us who have accepted the invitation to follow Christ, believe his Father to be infinitely merciful and loving.

I wonder if there is one additional point to make. If someone should say, “well I understand that you believe your god is merciful, but I believe otherwise,” it seems to me that we could respond as follows: “It is not for you to have an opinion regarding my God’s mercy because you have rejected him.”

Thanks again, and Peace.

I would agree that it is highly unlikely that a lifelong Catholic would suddenly ‘reject’ God at the moment of death. However, I would like to question the logic of the last paragraph. One cannot ‘reject’ a God that one does not believe in. One can reject other people’s belief in a God though. Whilst rarely a deliberate ‘trick’ - it is a quite a common one not just between believer and unbeliever but between believers who disagree with each other. i.e if you disgree with me then you disagree with my God. Of course one is fully entitled to one’s opinion even and especially if one disagrees with someone else. It does not follow that they have evil intentions towards that person nor the God they believe in.

Philosophically it is not impossible for a creator God to be evil or indifferent. If one knows the difference between good and evil then one can judge the actions (according to what the faithful claim) of a Zeus or Brahma or Jahweh and come to an opinion on their morality

 

[multipurpose]

But I am so glad you asked the question. I now see the question (one posed sometimes by non-believers) as a trick question.

It is a trick because it comes in the form of a philosophical question, to which, as we saw above, the short answer is, “if we are to have free will, man must be able to reject God with his last decision.” Then, the trick (which you stepped into above) comes with the follow-up is “that doesn’t seem fair or right when a man’s life has been virtuous previously.” This part is a trick because it allows someone to create the impression that God is unfair and unmerciful. But as was fleshed out above, in fact the hypothetical is contrived.

So another way of responding to this issue (forgive me if I a repeating a response above), is to say: Man has free will, but do not think that the freedom to reject heaven at the end of life indicates that God is unfair or unmerciful. We have a loving and merciful God. (Quote Jn. 3:16). He sent his only son, who is the life, the truth, and the way, to be our guide. He taught us to take up our cross and follow him. He told us to take the yoke with him, for it is light. His son established the Church to help guide us. Those of us who have accepted the invitation to follow Christ, believe his Father to be infinitely merciful and loving.

I wonder if there is one additional point to make. If someone should say, “well I understand that you believe your god is merciful, but I believe otherwise,” it seems to me that we could respond as follows: “It is not for you to have an opinion regarding my God’s mercy because you have rejected him.”

Thanks again, and Peace.

Dear Slowlearner,
You know, it’s funny - when I read: “It is not for you to have an opinion regarding my God’s mercy because you have rejected him,” I heard: I’m sorry you feel that way."

Sometimes that is only thing one can reply.

PS. Pithy post and aren’t you proud of all of us!? I know I am…

 

[Slowlearner]

I would agree that it is highly unlikely that a lifelong Catholic would suddenly ‘reject’ God at the moment of death. However, I would like to question the logic of the last paragraph. One cannot ‘reject’ a God that one does not believe in. One can reject other people’s belief in a God though. Whilst rarely a deliberate ‘trick’ - it is a quite a common one not just between believer and unbeliever but between believers who disagree with each other. i.e if you disgree with me then you disagree with my God. Of course one is fully entitled to one’s opinion even and especially if one disagrees with someone else. It does not follow that they have evil intentions towards that person nor the God they believe in.

Philosophically it is not impossible for a creator God to be evil or indifferent. If one knows the difference between good and evil then one can judge the actions (according to what the faithful claim) of a Zeus or Brahma or Jahweh and come to an opinion on their morality

Terve, thanks for your reply. As I said, my thoughts regarding my last paragraph are incomplete “wondering.”

Perhaps “rejected” is not correct word as you point out. However, I would not have any problem with someone saying to me, “you can have no opinion regarding Zeus or Brahma, as you have rejected Zeus or Brahma.” I don’t believe that Zeus or Brahma exist, so logically it is not correct to say I have rejected them. But it’s pretty close because I do reject belief in Zeus or Brahma. So perhaps, as you suggest, I should have said, “it is not for you to have an opinion regarding my God’s mercy, as you have rejected belief in him.”

I’m not sure about your second paragraph. Having rejected the concept of Zeus or Brahma, I cannot logically have an opinion of the morality of either. I can have an opinion only regarding the actions, and the moral positions advocated, by followers of Zeus or Brahma. But as to Zeus himself, I don’t think I can say something like “if Zeus did X, and if he did exist (which I don’t believe), then he is immoral.” How can I form an opinion about something in which I don’t believe? If I don’t believe in Zeus, I cannot really understand what the faithful claim, as what they claim includes a conceptualization that I do not share.

For instance, if I say, the ice in Helsinki Harbor is thick enough to walk upon, and you say there is no ice in Helsinki Harbor, then you won’t engage in any debate about the thickness of the ice.

 

[Slowlearner]

Dear Slowlearner,
You know, it’s funny - when I read: “It is not for you to have an opinion regarding my God’s mercy because you have rejected him,” I heard: I’m sorry you feel that way."

Sometimes that is only thing one can reply.

PS. Pithy post and aren’t you proud of all of us!? I know I am…

Good point. If someone seemed downcast and said to me, “God has cruel and unmerciful.” The charitable response would be along the lines you suggest. My statement was made in the context of philosophical discussion.

I do not follow your post-script.

 

[multipurpose]

Dear Slowlearner,

I misinterpreted your post and I apologize. “I’m sorry you feel that way,” is a conversation stopper. I thought that was what you were doing.

The PS had to do with your description of the ‘trap’ and in re-reading the responses to the questions posed, no one fell into it - of that I am proud.

Again, I apologize for my misinterpretation of your post.

 

[Nimeniton]

Terve, thanks for your reply. …
I’m not sure about your second paragraph. Having rejected the concept of Zeus or Brahma, I cannot logically have an opinion of the morality of either. I can have an opinion only regarding the actions, and the moral positions advocated, by followers of Zeus or Brahma. But as to Zeus himself, I don’t think I can say something like “if Zeus did X, and if he did exist (which I don’t believe), then he is immoral.” How can I form an opinion about something in which I don’t believe? If I don’t believe in Zeus, I cannot really understand what the faithful claim, as what they claim includes a conceptualization that I do not share.

For instance, if I say, the ice in Helsinki Harbor is thick enough to walk upon, and you say there is no ice in Helsinki Harbor, then you won’t engage in any debate about the thickness of the ice.

Moi! Well I agree and I did emphasise in bold that it would be according to the faithful’s opinion of their deity. Where I disagree with you is your suggestion that one cannot understand a belief (conceptualisation) with which you disagree. Often a person may have shared your conceptualisation but no longer holds it as true. This does not mean they no longer really understand it. If you went to another country does one really forget what it is like to be English. Of course there is a little catching up to do on one’s return to the mother country.

It seems you know a little about Finland. Have you been here? I am not a Finn myself but a Brit who has lived here four plus years now. There is no ice in Helsinki harbour at the moment but there will soon be! We have had a longer summer than usual this year. One of my favourite times is when the ice is thick enough to walk across to the little islets with their brightly painted summer cottages. Now, the geese are gathering in the fields building up their energy to fly to warmer climes. Hei Hei.

 

[Slowlearner]

Moi! Well I agree and I did emphasise in bold that it would be according to the faithful’s opinion of their deity. Where I disagree with you is your suggestion that one cannot understand a belief (conceptualisation) with which you disagree. Often a person may have shared your conceptualisation but no longer holds it as true. This does not mean they no longer really understand it. If you went to another country does one really forget what it is like to be English. Of course there is a little catching up to do on one’s return to the mother country.

It seems you know a little about Finland. Have you been here? I am not a Finn myself but a Brit who has lived here four plus years now. There is no ice in Helsinki harbour at the moment but there will soon be! We have had a longer summer than usual this year. One of my favourite times is when the ice is thick enough to walk across to the little islets with their brightly painted summer cottages. Now, the geese are gathering in the fields building up their energy to fly to warmer climes. Hei Hei.

Moi, I am first generation American citizen, born of Finnish parents. Many trips to Finland, though it has been years since last one.

I have come to believe that it is not possible to have much understanding of a religion except though living it. This belief is based on at least three points. First, in my own experience of last three years, I continue to be amazed how my understanding of God grows almost daily. Concepts and teachings that I had heard over twenty years suddenly start to make sense. These understandings of God cannot be reduced to simple points and even today, 2000 years after Christ, basic tenants of the faith are referred to as mysteries. Second, my personal experience is in fact a basic premise of Christians, that is that a Christian life is a journey (Jesus, said, “follow me”). A journey is not something that can be reduced to a concept or understanding, but is rather a continuing process and extended experience over time. Third, if God is real and we can have some relationship with him, then it is necessary that, like every other real experience, to know it we must live it ourselves. It is a fact that to know about life’s experiences we must live them ourselves. Observing others experiencing something does not allow us to really know the experience. We can watch others laugh, get drunk, make love, mourn a dead family member, suffer pain, play a sport, etc. but we can never claim to have real understanding those things without living them ourselves.

The theology of this is quite fascinating as our God, knowing that we humans could not understand him, became himself human, so we could at least try to follow him in his human incarnation. Only in following him do we get to know him.

Anyway, back to my point somewhere in a post above. On the subject of the infinite love and mercy of God (the Christian god), which is a basic premise of Christianity, a non-believer can rightly say “I don’t understand how that can be true.” But the non-believer cannot say, “that is not true” or ‘that is impossible.”

Hei, hei.

 

[tonyrey]

We are made in the image of God and we **never **make a last decision!