Yes, in hell, but why forever

[oliver109]

We are to repent immediately but don’t you like the comforting idea that even if we are slow in repentance and shedding all sin we can still be forgiven so long as we ask for it?

 

[Aquinas11]

We are to repent immediately

No, clearly we don’t need to, we can chill out, relax, sin all we want. Heck, we’d be dummies to repent now. Remember, we get to repent after we die, so why not get as much sinning and fun in while we still can? That way we can have more and more sex, have more and more fun and best part? It won’t matter since St Faustina said we can repent for it all after we die. Only suckers would repent while they’re alive. True, God told us we need to repent now in this life but we might as well roll the dice and risk it. We’ll get to have lots of fun plus still get into heaven! Ok there is big risk we’ll end up in hell forever but at least we’ll get to have a few extra weeks of fun (see how silly this sounds now?)

 

[oliver109]

Or rather the better teaching would be "you may sin but you will never gain satisfaction from it, the world will be a miserable place so long as sin continues, try a life without sin and you will find that it brings you real happiness and that people become genuinely happier as a whole. Don’t worry if you sin however because God will forgive you if you ask him to and help you to avoid sin in the future.

 

[Fauken]

which is why I advocate for an intermediate state between losing consciousness and death. It is comforting.

It doesn’t matter how nice or comforting something is if it isn’t true. And that’s not up for us to decide. There were multiple times in the Bible where Jesus’ Disciples and the crowds said what Jesus was teaching was hard. It may have been hard, but a hard truth is better than the sweetest lie, because God is Truth.

 

[Aquinas11]

the better teaching would be "you may sin but you will never gain satisfaction from it

its no secret that people get a lot of satisfaction from sin, that’s why they do it

and your argument is encouraging people to commit more sin, since they essentially have a “get out of sin free” card post-death

 

[oliver109]

There is still no real satisfaction, the only real satisfaction is knowing you are growing Gods kingdom and you are not doing that by committing sin. I was reading an article by an ex “pick up artist” yesterday who had slept with dozens of women and he said that he now feels empty because he was not able to build a permanent relationship with any of them.

 

[Aquinas11]

It doesn’t matter how nice or comforting something is if it isn’t true. And that’s not up for us to decide. There were multiple times in the Bible where Jesus’ Disciples and the crowds said what Jesus was teaching was hard. It may have been hard, but a hard truth is better than the sweetest lie, because God is Truth.

Yes, that verse in John (?) comes to mind where Jesus was telling the crowd unless they eat his flesh and drink his blood, they won’t have eternal life. Crowd starts to leave. Disciples are looking at Jesus “this is a very hard teaching”. But Jesus wasn’t playing a numbers game. He wasn’t like “uh oh, I better not say this, or I’ll lose most of the crowd!”

 

[Aquinas11]

you said sinners “never gain satisfaction” from sinning, which is clearly false. the Pick up artist gained satisfaction for a while.

 

[oliver109]

But not full satisfaction which is why he got tired of it.

 

[Aquinas11]

and until he’s tired of it, he’ll continue to sin and gain satisfaction from it, in part due to people telling him he can just get forgiveness from all sins post-death.

 

[oliver109]

And why do you feel there is a problem so long as he repents and wants to repent? some people need more chances for forgiveness than others.

 

[Fauken]

And why do you feel there is a problem so long as he repents and wants to repent? some people need more chances for forgiveness than others.

Because the type of hope you are promoting does not exist.

 

[oliver109]

Why? is that a church teaching? why limit Gods mercy? God will always forgive so long as the person is alive to ask for forgiveness, the priest in my scenario may well be alive even after the plane crashed on the house. You know about the teaching of bilocation where a body can be somewhere else, the priests body may have been wrecked by the plane but God could have moved it to another planet.

 

[Fauken]

Why? is that a church teaching?

It’s Church teaching that if someone is guilty of mortal sin, the punishment is Hell. It is Church teaching that this death may come at any time, that we are to live a life in a state of grace, and avoid mortal sin. It is Church teaching that we are thus to not presume in God’s mercy. Your only support for this theory is that it’s nice and that God is capable of doing it so He should do it. You have no Biblical evidence to support this, as the Bible has described salvation as a race and something we are to watch for at all times. You have no support from Sacred Tradition. You have no support from the Magisterium. There is no limit to God’s mercy. God has given us every chance. When we die, that’s it. If we die, then God has allowed it. Before then we have every chance to do so, as God has given us every chance to do so. We must be ready.

You know about the teaching of bilocation where a body can be somewhere else, the priests body may have been wrecked by the plane but God could have moved it to another planet.

Throughout this conversation, you keep resorting to more and more extreme hypotheticals to try and support your claim. Do you not find this concerning? God allows a plane to fall on that priest and then relocates his body to a planet (ignoring that the priest would likely die in space due to any number of causes) so the priest can confess while he’s dying/dead? What?

 

[oliver109]

I think it would be completely possible and not outside of church doctrine for God to relocate a body to a different region or area, it could be a forest in Siberia for all I know. It sounds amusing but in reality it is very sane and no different to the doctrine of the Eucharist where the host really is Christs living body.

 

[Fauken]

It sounds amusing

I’m personally not amused. I don’t see how this would be funny.

but in reality it is very sane and no different to the doctrine of the Eucharist where the host really is Christs living body.

No it’s not. The Eucharist is due to transubstantiation, not bilocation. The bread does not teleport out of the host, the bread becomes Christ’s body while retaining the accidents of bread. What would be transubstantiated in your example?

 

[oliver109]

The body of the priest would just move from the bone remains at the destroyed house to somewhere else, perhaps another planet or a cave in the Himalayas, it would be the same body, the same soul remaining with it. God could do this without the crucial separation of soul and body much in the same way that God could have Padre Pio appear in two places at once.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Continuing the discussion from Yes, in hell, but why forever:

I have still not received a satisfactory answer from anyone on this topic, the fault is on us but it would be nice if God could refuse to separate the sinful soul from a body should it “die” in the state of mortal sin. I don’t get the parable of the foolish and wise virgins, it is like God is penalising them for not being ready, why should they be condemned for not being ready? give them a million more chances, give them infinite chances, just don’t let them lose hope that they can repent.

You are not unreasonable to ask yourself the very question which God considers - and which God alone knows. I can see you have a strong sense of fairness. Not just fairness but also justice.

But you must surely agree that there can be no justice for the victims of rape, murder, assault, theft, cruelty, etc. if, each time the police arrest a criminal, the criminal is automatically re-released over and over and over again. And all that criminal has to do to avoid punishment is use their get-out-of-jail free card, saying the ‘magic words’ I’m sorry.

And I know you’re thinking…oh but it’s only life in prisonment I have a problem with.

But what then shall be the punishment?

Your argument from ‘unfairness’ applies to ANY sinner/criminal. Why can’t every criminal argue that their punishment is excessive?

Can you tell your fellow posters whether there is ANY sort of unrepentant, rejection of God’s law which deserves a final and permanent verdict? Can the most evil and cunning sinner imaginable avoid punishment by gaming the system and perpetually asking for just one more chance to avoid punishment?

 

[oliver109]

That is what Purgatory is for, Purgatory is about justice and preparing the soul to live a selfless life. We are told in Catholicism that the only unforgiveable sin is refusing to accept Gods mercy, refusing to believe that God can forgive us, that is why Judas was impossible for Christ to forgive because he did not just commit heinous sins he believed that Christ would not forgive them, I have a strong belief that most sinners do not fall into the Judas camp.

 

[Fauken]

That is what Purgatory is for, Purgatory is about justice and preparing the soul to live a selfless life.

No. Purgatory is supposed to cleanse souls from the venial sins that, as Scripture says, can not enter into the presence of God. There is no selfless life to live, that person is already dead and has already been judged, unless you’re referring to eternal life, which is an odd way to word it.

We are told in Catholicism that the only unforgiveable sin is refusing to accept Gods mercy,

The unforgivable sin is that which we do not ask forgiveness for.

refusing to believe that God can forgive us

That’s not the same thing. That’s despair.