Yes, in hell, but why forever

[OneSheep]

A “taste of hell” would not be hell.

Again, with God, all things are possible.

Unmerited punishment “for the purpose of awareness” is cruel, immoral, and unconscionable.

For a moment, try to take the whole idea of “meriting” out of the picture. I know, this will be extremely difficult for you.
God loves and forgives unconditionally; hell, if it exists, is not a place people are sent, it is a place chosen. Now with this new mindset of “merit” having nothing to do with hell, it is quite conscionable for a loving Father, as a measure of last resort, to give a person a taste of everlasting hell when the person insists on choosing it.

Think back to the story, A Christmas Carol. Would you say that what the Ghosts did was unconsionable? If it is what it takes to change a stubborn mind, would God refrain from exposing the human to such suffering? Is God so restricted by human rubrics?

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.

Yes, that is true. The prodigal son’s father does not banish the son at all, the son, in his lack of awareness, chooses to depart. What is chosen leads to suffering, but the father longs for his son’s return, waiting with open arms.

Indeed, this is what I am talking about. God allowing a person, by their choice, to have an experience of real hell before they choose it forever. What I am saying is that no person will make such a choice after that experience.

There is no “changing your mind” in hell, according to the teachings of the Church.

Hmm. So you must be seeing the same contradiction? My original statement:

So, to uphold that view, if a person chooses hell, then that will be an evil that takes place. For God to make good of it, He opens His arms to those who would rather not be there after experiencing it. That works, yes.

(ST I.23.3)
So, ask yourself: if God “wishes all [people] some good” (ST 1.23.3 ad 1), then what is the good He’s wishing for those “who turn aside from that end”? It follows that the good is that of honoring a freely made choice to turn aside.

Let’s bring it back to the adult child scenario. Your own adult child has chosen everlasting hell. Is your passive “honoring” of that choice good in terms of mercy? Or instead, would you do all you can to convince your child to choose differently?

If your own child resisted such convincing, would it not be contrary to mercy itself to disallow your adult child from changing his mind and returning to you after experiencing hell? Indeed, the prodigal son’s father allowed his son to choose departure, but welcomed his son’s return

 

[Gorgias]

Again, with God, all things are possible.

Next thing you know, you’ll tell us that God can create a rock so heavy that He can’t lift it.

God does not do the logically impossible. “A taste of hell” – where ‘hell’ implies eternal damnation – is logically impossible. Therefore… no: God will not give “a taste of hell”.

For a moment, try to take the whole idea of “meriting” out of the picture. I know, this will be extremely difficult for you.

LOL!

God loves and forgives unconditionally

You’ve got to nuance that, or else it’s untrue: God loves all. (Full stop). God forgives those who are contrite unconditionally.

Two distinct statements. The second really requires the added context. (Without it, you have ‘universalism’, which the Church condemns as false.)

it is quite conscionable for a loving Father, as a measure of last resort, to give a person a taste of everlasting hell when the person insists on choosing it .

We disagree. (Merit has nothing to do with it.)
God neither imposes unjustified punishment nor does the logically impossible.

Think back to the story, A Christmas Carol . Would you say that what the Ghosts did was unconsionable?

I would say that first of all, it’s a work of fiction, not magisterial teaching, and not even a work of Christian fiction! I would also point out that the whole idea of the story is that the ghosts are attempting to coerce Scrooge into virtue by scaring the daylights out of him! They are doing what is clearly immoral: doing something evil so that good may come of it! (Re-read your catechism… )

OneSheep:

What is chosen leads to suffering, but the father longs for his son’s return, waiting with open arms.

And if the son had died in his sin, the father would not have stopped him from doing so. This parable illustrates my point, not yours!

OneSheep:

Your own adult child has chosen everlasting hell. Is your passive “honoring” of that choice good in terms of mercy? Or instead, would you do all you can to convince your child to choose differently?

When you mix contexts like that – human parent and eternal reward – you’re bound to get inaccurate results. Stick to one or the other. So: “if your own adult child has chosen to reject his inheritance, is your passive ‘honoring’ of that choice good in terms of mercy?” Or, would it be unjust if you chained him to a chair, forced him to accept the inheritance and forced him to work in the family business (which he wants no part of)?

OneSheep:

disallow your adult child from changing his mind and returning to you after experiencing hell?

The son didn’t return because it was a bad experience – he returned because he was contrite for having “sinned against heaven and against [his father].” It’s that contrition that warrants forgiveness – not simply the unhappy experience of the fruits of sin!

 

[Elf01]

The son didn’t return because it was a bad experience – he returned because he was contrite for having “sinned against heaven and against [his father].” It’s that contrition that warrants forgiveness – not simply the unhappy experience of the fruits of sin!

Actually I don’t see that in the parable.

 

[oliver109]

You say that the prodigal father could not stop his son from dying in his sin, of course he could not, he was only a father he was not God, though theoretically God could have given the prodigal father the abilities to stop death but he did not! Now God could stop a person from dying in their sins without removing their free will, just because a person looks dead does not mean they are dead, death is the separation of soul and body, only God has control over that.

 

[Fauken]

Actually I don’t see that in the parable.

From Luke:

“15:21 And the son said to him: Father: I have sinned against heaven and before thee I am not now worthy to be called thy son.”

of course he could not, he was only a father he was not God

You realize that the father in the parable is supposed to represent God, yes? The rich man could have hired servants/soldiers to find his son if God wanted to imply what you seem to be implying.

 

[oliver109]

Agreed, that brings hope to us as it is quite clear that the mercy of God/Prodigal father is limitless and both are patient in waiting for the repentance of sinners.

 

[Elf01]

Elf01:

Actually I don’t see that in the parable.

From Luke:

“15:21 And the son said to him: Father: I have sinned against heaven and before thee I am not now worthy to be called thy son.”

I was looking at where he decides to return. His decision seems motivated by the fact that his father treats his servants better than he is being treated rather than sorrow for how he treated his father.

I suppose it may be an analogy for imperfect contrition.

 

[Gorgias]

Actually I don’t see that in the parable.

Really? Let’s take a look:

Luke 15:17-18…

Coming to his senses he thought, ‘How many of my father’s hired workers have more than enough food to eat, but here am I, dying from hunger. I shall get up and go to my father and I shall say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you."’

See it now? Not only ‘regret’, but also, significantly, ‘contrition’.

 

[Elf01]

Elf01:

Actually I don’t see that in the parable.

Really? Let’s take a look:

Luke 15:17-18…

Coming to his senses he thought, ‘How many of my father’s hired workers have more than enough food to eat, but here am I, dying from hunger. I shall get up and go to my father and I shall say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you."’

See it now? Not only ‘regret’, but also, significantly, ‘contrition’.

See above. To me he just seems to want food.

 

[Gorgias]

His decision seems motivated by the fact that his father treats his servants better than he is being treated rather than sorrow for how he treated his father.

Except that, what he rehearses – and actually does! – isn’t “gee Dad, life over in Vegas wasn’t as fun as I expected; can I come back?”…! Rather, it’s “I’ve sinned against God and against you”. He’s asking for forgiveness.

(And, although the appeal to ‘imperfect contrition’ is kinda anachronistic, since that has to do with the Catholic Church, nevertheless, it doesn’t fit here… since he’s already experiencing the punishment, not trying to avoid falling into it. )

 

[Elf01]

Except that, what he rehearses – and actually does! – isn’t “gee Dad, life over in Vegas wasn’t as fun as I expected; can I come back?”…! Rather, it’s “I’ve sinned against God and against you”. He’s asking for forgiveness .

I would question the sincerity of the statement. I think he is meant to be contrite but, certainly from my perspective it does not come across.

And, although the appeal to ‘imperfect contrition’ is kinda anachronistic, since that has to do with the Catholic Church, nevertheless, it doesn’t fit here… since he’s already experiencing the punishment, not trying to avoid falling into it.

I agree it’s a stretch.

 

[Gorgias]

I would question the sincerity of the statement.

Interesting.

So… in a parable told by Jesus, in a series of parables specifically about repentance (see Lk 15:7, 15:10), you’re saying that the third and most fleshed out of the parables shows a lack of repentance?!? Hmm… that doesn’t seem to hold up to scrutiny…

 

[Fauken]

Agreed, that brings hope to us as it is quite clear that the mercy of God/Prodigal father is limitless and both are patient in waiting for the repentance of sinners.

But they’re waiting. Not doing an extraordinary intervention to solicit such repentance.

 

[Elf01]

Interesting.

So… in a parable told by Jesus , in a series of parables specifically about repentance (see Lk 15:7, 15:10), you’re saying that the third and most fleshed out of the parables shows a lack of repentance?!? Hmm… that doesn’t seem to hold up to scrutiny…

As I said I think we are meant to see him as repentant. I just don’t think that comes across in the text. It may be a translation issue (me missing language or cultural context) or Luke missing a part of the parable. Also I think Jesus’ main point was the Fathers forgiveness. He may not have seen why the Son decided to return as important.

 

[sudy]

If I may… I believe the son’s choosing to return is very important, he returned to him of his own volition… even if there is imperfect contrition. God accepts those who cling to him with even the smallest faith, those who worship in fear and therefore imperfect love. The parable is speaking of God’s love mainly.

 

[STT]

Yes. They continue to deliberately set their wills against God.

I think any rational person wish to be in God’s side after being in Hell for a while. I don see the concept of eternal Hell relevant.

 

[oliver109]

I agree with this, the church however teaches that those who die in mortal sin with imperfect contrition still go to Hell, how is that and how is that not unfair?

 

[sudy]

Actually the church teaches that if you use the sacrament of confession you will be forgiven.

Edit: the son in this instance does actually love his father. He returned to him. He recognises his fault and has no expectation to be granted sonship… but that of a servant, yet the father is greater than that, loves the son and welcomes him.

 

[oliver109]

You have to use it if you can only muster imperfect contrition, otherwise imagine someone who committed a mortal sin was driving to Confession and had imperfect contrition, then drunk driver killed them instantly, there would not be any hope for that sinner.

 

[sudy]

Who says, though? Who says there is no hope for that sinner? The Catholic Church teaches that mortal sin leads to hell but repentance saves. Confession is the normative route but God isn’t bound by what we are bound by. We are to confess but God searches the heart and mind. He’s not trying to catch us out. We trust in his mercy. He knows whether you have renounced your sins or not, whether you have returned to him.