A
Aquinas11
Guest
He’s not condemning us for sinning so easily
He’s condemning us for
(A) choosing to sin
(B) choosing not to repent
Two voluntary decisions
Last edited:
- Status
He’s condemning us for
(A) choosing to sin
(B) choosing not to repent
Two voluntary decisions
O
oliver109
Guest
So in reality it is only those who despair of salvation or who love their sin, those are the only classes of people who choose not to repent. Like this murderer who was on the news recently, she loved killing and would do it again and again, she had no remorse and no regret for her actions.
A
Aquinas11
Guest
Nope. Many are neither and are just lazy
Last edited:
You are incorrect.
Death in the very act of a mortal sin leaves no time for amendment.
Your priest will have a difficult time at judgement.
O
OneSheep
Guest
It does not say that it is not the case that when they choose to avoid God, they do not know what they are doing.
It does not say that it is not the case that when they “let” their anger, resentment, or desires outweigh their consciences, it is because they do not know what they are doing.
You won’t find it, Gorgias. It’s not there.
The Church leaves plenty of room for variations. I think it was Bishop Barron, for example, who said that we are not to be closed-minded to the idea that no one is in hell. I’m paraphrasing.
So, if a person is choosing hell, it would be evil for God to try to convince someone out of it, and as a last resort giving them a short experience of it to help convince them to avoid it?
Why is that evil? Or, are you thinking that it is much more loving for God to block the entrance to hell altogether? Yes, that works too, but then we have a problem with the free will issue.
O
OneSheep
Guest
So, since God loves/forgives unconditionally, then it is a given that the “If it is not redeemed” by God’s forgiveness will simply not happen. This passage of the CCC does not intend to defy what Jesus did from the cross, which was to unconditionally forgive the unrepentant.
In addition, it is a matter of seeing human dignity that all people want what is best, and at the deepest level seek God, and are deeply cared for by God. Humans are by nature dignified in this way, and since the CCC does not in this passage intend to defy this aspect of human dignity, the passage serves to motivate those who do not see this aspect of human dignity to keep their behaviors in check.
In seeing the infinite intrinsic value of fellow humanity, and in maintaining this view (not blinded) the human seeks not to harm, but instead to do only that which is merciful.
Absolutely. We must entrust this because this is who God is, infinitely loving and merciful. So the whole concept of us doing something and God not forgiving is not trusting in this way. This may seem like the CCC is sending a bit of a mixed message, but it is a purposeful mixing.
Hardness of heart is also a matter of blindness/lack of awareness. Long ago, Vico, you tried to describe a case of hardness of heart, but instead you described a person who thought/believed one way but did the opposite. He was completely irrational, blinded by his want.
Feel free to try to present another attempt at a case of “hardness of heart”.
Yes, this is in reference to a very beautiful story, revealing God’s unending, unconditional love. The father did not know the son was repentant, he only knew that the son was returning, and the father was joyful!
Going back to the OP, Vico, can you see the poster’s “why forever?”. It comes from knowing God as the father of the prodigal son!
Look, Vico:
Can you see the conflict Max is dealing with?
Why would God behave any differently than the prodigal son’s father? And if we come back with “God made it that way”, then with the image of an omnipotent God, where all things are possible, it simply doesn’t help!
I say “Max, stay with that image of God you have, where eternal hell is unfathomable. Instead, be open to the possibility that no one goes there in the first place.” In this way, Vico, human dignity is upheld, free will is upheld, God’s omnibenevolence is upheld.
Last edited:
O
oliver109
Guest
God can always leave time for amendment, I think you are limiting God to be honest.
I think you are trying to reason out some kind of second chance.
I did not declare a judgement, just that he would have a hard time there.
By assuming, you have placed your own limits on God.
G
Gorgias
Guest
It kinda does. When the Church posits that there is such a thing as mortal sin, and it requires “full knowledge”, she’s pointing out that those who choose grave sin do so with sufficient knowledge and therefore are culpable. It’s you who are positing something different… and then not demonstrating that the Church teaches your take on things…
Wow. You need to work on your extrapolation skills a bit, I’m afraid. I say “it would be evil for God to briefly ‘condemn’ someone to hell”, and you respond “it’s evil for God to try to help a person avoid hell!!!”…? No… it would be evil to give a taste of hell. It wouldn’t be evil for God to… oh, I dunno, maybe… give a person the grace that they need in order to make the choice to avoid hell…!
Exactly. And I’m saying that your “personal theophany as last resort” also creates a free will problem.
O
oliver109
Guest
I don’t think there is anything wrong with extra chances, it does not interfere with free will and it makes the idea of dying less scary, give the sinner chances, give him endless chances if need be, just don’t put him in the pit of endless hopelessness that is Hell.
That is a denial of free will and makes God a liar.
O
OneSheep
Guest
This would be a judgment against someone, which is in conflict with CCC1861, which was posted by Vico:
So, indeed, she is not “pointing this out”.
We experience plenty of it right here on Earth. It’s not evil, it’s just painful sometimes.
Exactly! And a taste of hell (what we can experience by going wrong) can be exactly the vehicle for the grace we need. It looks like our thoughts are starting to come together! Yes, God’s grace, which He gives freely!!It wouldn’t be evil for God to… oh, I dunno, maybe… give a person the grace that they need in order to make the choice to avoid hell…!
Well, do we choose to be born? No, that is God’s choice. Do we choose the pain that we encounter in life? Well, most of it not, probably. God puts us into this life, and we suffer a bit. God exposing us to a bit of suffering for the purpose of revealing grace is not unmerciful.
We as humans hope the same for the incarcerated, right?
So, let’s clarify: A taste of hell, for the purpose of awareness, is far better than an eternal hell, correct? The prodigal son’s father does not stop his son from leaving, but He rejoices that the leaving was only temporary.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
No. You’re confusing “a particular instance of judgment” with “the definition of what a judgment is”. C’mon, man… you’re really grasping at straws, now…
No, you do not experience hell “right here on Earth”. Yes, you experience evil, and pain, and injustice. That’s not what hell is. Again, you’re using figurative language and treating it as if it were literal.
OK: so, let me get this straight – you’re saying that it’s unjust of God to allow a person to receive the outcome of the option they’ve chosen through their freely-willed actions, but that it’s just of God to punish a person before they’ve made the choice that warrants that outcome? Seriously? So… do you punish your kids for the bad things they haven’t yet done, as well?
BTW: grace =/= punishment. In fact, what you’ve just stated – that God might give “a taste of hell” as “the vehicle for grace” – is precisely the definition of immoral action! You can look it up in the CCC – doing what is evil in order to make good come of it is an immoral act; conversely, God does not do evil, but rather, makes good come of the evil that takes place.
So… you’re pretty far away from Catholic theological thought right now. Don’t know what to say, other than, "turn around… come back, man! "
Actually, our parents’ choice.
Wow. No. You totally misunderstand civil justice! We incarcerate either to justly punish crimes that were actually committed, or to attempt to rehabilitate the criminal through activities that aim to make them productive members of society. We do not “expose [criminals] to a bit of suffering for the purpose of revealing grace” – nor do we expose potential criminals to suffering, either! Both really would be unjust acts!
No! For two reasons:
- A “taste of hell” would not be hell.
- Unmerited punishment “for the purpose of awareness” is cruel, immoral, and unconscionable.
The prodigal son’s father also doesn’t banish him to the animal pens without food, as a “taste” of what he’ll get if he doesn’t amend his ways.
M
Magnanimity
Guest
According to whom exactly? That’s just a bald assertion. St Thomas Aquinas plainly taught that there is nothing outside of the governance and providence of God, to include human salvation. “While it is true that God wills some good to all men, he does not will the particular good of eternal life to all.” Summa Theologiae
Idk who you’re arguing against with these thoughts on Calvinist TD, but it isn’t me. The Catholic Church in no way downplays the significant role of the fall in affecting our judgment. I have nowhere advocated TD.
The CC also teaches that whatever good there is in the world has God (who is Goodness itself) as its source and grounding, similarly to how we think of existence (as only “proper” to God). So for God to be “absent” in hell is for the Good to be absent.
So in what way do you think you’ve at all answered the question of how we say that God loves Sarah in Hell. You saying “No… this means that God holds Sarah in existence to perpetually experience what she chose” is a distinction that makes no difference. The question is still reduced to the divinity you believe in holds people in existence to suffer and experience unending torment. The rational person likely holds that to be a monstrous god.
And, once again, we have this bizarre thendency here to make choice itself as the highest good—it has godlike status, trumping everything, trumping even what we were made for (beatitude) and what is in our own best interest (to be with God forever).
M
Magnanimity
Guest
Yes, very true! The pithy was of saying this is “grace builds on nature,” it doesn’t deny it or try to eradicate it.
For sure, that was the reason I first raised St Paul’s Romans 7 comments to Gorgias and others here. But the point seems to have been lost. Choice itself, for the defender of Hell, seems to occupy this unfettered, unconditioned, unlimited place in the minds of those arguing for hell in this thread. I was trying to note the innumerable influences on us that constantly play with our freedom (to include the war within).
But nature abhors a duality, and we feel how bizarre even our own internal turmoil is.
G
Gorgias
Guest
C’mon, now. You’re claiming that the Catholic Church teaches that humans are unable to make a decision, based on free will and sufficiently reasonable, such that the consequence of ‘hell’ is unjust. That’s patently counter to Church teachings!
On the contrary, that’s precisely the basis of Reformation doctrine! Calvin is a great example of it: our depravity is so fundamental to who we are, that we are categorically unable to choose the good. Not just in general or on balance, but never ever ever. Therefore, Luther and Calvin reasoned, God does it for us. Completely and totally. And, in fact, they concluded that God doesn’t even manage to ‘fix’ us – instead, He merely imputes Christ’s righteousness to us; we’re still bums.
So… yeah. What you’re saying is completely different than what the Church teaches.
Please identify what you think you’re citing. I’m not finding this in my ST. At best, I think you’re paraphrasing ST I.23.4, but if so, you’re doing so in a way that skews the meaning of the text. That’s what I think you’re trying to cite – if I’m wrong, please let me know.
Ahh, but you are arguing for what it claims: that, although we’re created for heaven, we’re so disordered that all we can attain to is hell, unless God unilaterally intervenes, without even our consent:
You may not think you’re mimicking Calvin… but you are.
Did I say “absent”? Or… did I say “separated”?
Not at all. She chose. He accepted. That’s an expression of love – love in justice, mind you, but still love.
Again, the ‘suffering’ and ‘torment’ is the separation from God… which is precisely what those in hell chose! That’s not “monstrous”.
G
Gorgias
Guest
The choice isn’t the highest good. Then again, maybe you’re trying to say that “free will” is being held up as something more important than it actually is? I’ll give you a chance to think about whether that’s what you’re really trying to say. It’d be an interesting point to discuss…
S
sudy
Guest
You don’t seem to see the bigger picture, Oliver. This sex with Laura thing is a multi layered issue.
This priest has let being with Laura, or his own pleasures, be first place in his life… in the place where only God should be.
He has the sin of pride… doing whatever he likes regardless of it being mortal sin…
He is presumptuous, deciding he’ll just confess it later and he’ll be good to go.
He is sinning against his neighbour… the husband of Laura… and against Laura herself, by objectifying her… and he’s involved with breaking their marriage vow to God. He is uniting himself with her in a way that belongs only to her husband as the two become one flesh. Laura being willing doesn’t lessen his own responsibility.
He’s breaking his own vows of chastity and obedience.
He doesn’t seem to be making any attempt at self mastery… like fasting and abstinence, prayer, avoiding the near occasion of sin, looking for the escape route etc. God gives us the grace to resist and we’re meant to use it.
If this is an habitual thing, he’s been usurping God without even making a real attempt to overcome this as he’s still not using the tools we are given to fight sin. If he had really attempted to overcome this, he would have been succeeding or be making progress. In confession we don’t say ‘I wish, or I think I would like, to not sin again’ but rather ‘with the help of your grace I will NOT sin again’… it’s a firm resolution. Ultimately it’s a decision.
And basically he’s being a hypocrite, too… preaching one thing to others while doing whatever he likes himself. As a priest he knows the gravity of the situation, and he has frequent reminders while listening to other people’s confessions. And he is still consenting.
Mortal sin is a choice, an act of the will… we don’t simply fall into it. If we use the tools God gives us, we can fight against sin and would be able to abstain, and sin’s hold on us would be decreased. In this case, though, there appears to be no change of heart… this is where we would open ourselves to cooperate with God’s grace and let him work within us. At the end of the day it is God who probes the heart and mind and gives just judgement. We aren’t in a position to determine where this person would end up, we can only say where mortal sin leads.
V
Vico
Guest
Q. So, since God loves/forgives unconditionally, then it is a given that the “If it is not redeemed” by God’s forgiveness will simply not happen.
A. God does forgive the repentant one. If it is not redeemed by repentance is what was said.
Q. Hardness of heart is also a matter of blindness/lack of awareness.
A. Yes, through which a person can be finally unrepentant and self-condemn, never to experience the Beatific Vision.
Q. can you see the poster’s “why forever?”. It comes from knowing God as the father of the prodigal son!
A. No, not based upon his very general statement. In the parable, the son actually was repentent, and of course in actuality, the Father in Heaven knows those that are finally repentent and those that are not.
Matt. 6:14–15 (Conditions)
Matthew 23
John 16
2 Peter 2
Catechism
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
I looks like this is your only post, and It looks like only 2 posters out of 397 mentioned immortal
to add a few thoughts
From conception, we have a soul given us by God. It lives forever. It is immortal. It never dies. The body OTOH lives and dies (for awhile). When the resurrection occurs, (judgement Day) the body resurrects and becomes alive again, and body & soul reunite…FOREVER.
If the soul was in heaven, it is now body and soul in heaven forever.
If the soul was in hell, it is now body and soul in hell forever.
Because we are designed by God to live forever, the afterlife is forever.
Heaven is forever as is Hell. Purgatory ceases to exist. Those in Purgatory at the end, go to heaven
For some short reading if you are inclined
A Brief History of the Afterlife Part 1 & 2
From Hell? Yes! (Part I) | Catholic Answers
From Hell? Yes! (Part II) | Catholic Answers
- Status