Yes, in hell, but why forever

[OneSheep]

If so, then you have to ask yourself what, exactly, He was talking about. Keep in mind that the sin of deicide is, quite literally, the worst of all possible sins. Jesus is pointing out that it’s not mortal in their case, because, “they know not what they do.” In other words, since they do not know they’re killing God Himself, there’s no mortal sin that attaches. That’s the whole point.

That is your interpretation of the “whole point”. There are other interpretations.

The people who hung the other two crucified at the time did not know what they were doing either. They decision-makers did not see the infinite value of their humanity. When I thought that killing doctors who do abortions was okay, I also did not see the infinite value of their humanity. Abortion doctors also possibly do not see the infinite value of the human person.

Of course there is! All grave sin is worthy of blame! However, blame only attaches when the sin is imputable to the person – that is, when they are deemed culpable of the sin.

Hmm. Does “worthy of blame” imply that we are to blame? That God blames?

not all grave sin is imputable

All sin is attributable to the person who chose to do it, right? We have these words, some of them endorse blame, others only attribute the action to the person. The former is forbidden, the latter is objective.

 

[OneSheep]

Q:

Actually no. The Catholic Church has defined that Adam and Eve mortally sinned at the Fall.

A: The origin of this judgment is unknown. I could not find it in Catholic doctrine or dogma.

Q. To “A person is accountable to God only for his or her deliberate actions” you responed: We all choose our actions, we are all responsible for our actions.
A. Per the teaching of the Catholic church – Catechism:

1745 Freedom characterizes properly human acts. It makes the human being responsible for acts of which he is the voluntary agent. His deliberate acts properly belong to him

Humans are always the “voluntary agent” for their actions, except for sneezing, breathing, slipping, and other actions not chosen. This is in agreement with 1745.

Q. For the definition, is there a difference between “imputable” and “blameworthy”?
A. I gave the definition of imputability, the noun for the character of being imputable. Imputability is the moral responsibility for one’s human actions. Blameworthy means responsible, which is different, because impute may be something ascribed. For example reatus poena and reatus culpae are different forms of liability, one without guilt and the other with.

“Responsible” means “ability to respond”, which is basically what a person has to say about their actions, giving their account. When they feel guilt about their account, they want to hide their motives, therefore the ability-to-respond is lacking. As you can see, the word has to do with observing the phenomenon of how people have trouble responding for their actions when feeling guilty, facing the blame of others.

Guilt is self-blame, or when it is someone accusing or condemning, it is blame from someone else.

Jesus clearly calls us not to blame, but to instead forgive. Are you able to accept that some Catholics have an image of God who does not blame, ever? Catholics who are able to understand that people do not know what they are doing when they sin?

 

[OneSheep]

…

I’ve been thinking more about the “case of the irrational adulterer”.

Consider this, Vico: Which person is in a fuller state of knowledge, the person who is so convinced that the sin is not worth the suffering, or the person who has not suffered enough to know this?

All sin leads to suffering. The alcoholic who has suffered enough eventually sees the bottle as liquid suffering, and chooses against it. The alcoholic who has made this choice is in a fuller state of knowledge. Therefore, the adulterer who has suffered enough from the consequences of adultery will see the pain as more of a priority, more important than the pleasure gained. This “enough” is not “full knowledge” until the person is absolutely convinced. Until that point of being convinced, the person’s knowledge is only partial.

Do you see all the different levels and modes of knowledge? And yet, our gut is triggered, we see sin and we are compelled to blame/condemn. God forgives when we blame, He understands, He sees that we do not see/know what we are doing when we blame. We blame what we see as hurtful and do not understand the good intent and God-given appetites underneath the choices.

This is not to say that the doctrine about mortal sin is in error. The doctrine serves as a motivator for people to avoid sin, people who have not experienced the suffering of sin, and/or do not fully grasp the harm that sin does to oneself and others.

This discussion continues on the theme “How can a person ever knowingly choose hell, and how could our loving Father ever let a person remain in hell once the person has grasped his error and wants to leave?”

 

[Vico]

…

Council of Trent, Session V, Decree Concerning Original Sin, shows the mortal sin (loss of holiness and justice).

1. If anyone does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he transgressed the commandment of God in paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice in which he had been constituted, and through the offense of that prevarication incurred the wrath and indignation of god, and thus death with which God had previously threatened him,[4] and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil,[5] and that the entire Adam through that offense of prevarication was changed in body and soul for the worse,[6] let him be anathema.

1. Gen. 2:17.
2. Heb. 2:14.
3. Cf. II Synod of Orange (529), c. I. Denzinger, no. 174.

Catechism

391 Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy.266 Scripture and the Church’s Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called “Satan” or the “devil”.267 The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: "The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing."268

392 Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels.269 This “fall” consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign. We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter’s words to our first parents: "You will be like God."270 The devil “has sinned from the beginning”; he is “a liar and the father of lies”.271

268 Lateran Council IV (1215): DS 800.
269 Cf. 2 Pet 2:4.
270 Gen 3:5.
271 1 Jn 3:8; Jn 8:44.

Q. Humans are always the “voluntary agent” for their actions, except for sneezing, breathing, slipping, and other actions not chosen.
A. Yes, so that is why sometimes one is responsible and sometimes one is not.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

…

I’ve been thinking more about the “case of the irrational adulterer”.

Consider this, Vico: Which person is in a fuller state of knowledge, the person who is so convinced that the sin is not worth the suffering, or the person who has not suffered enough to know this?

All sin leads to suffering. The alcoholic who has suffered enough eventually sees the bottle as liquid suffering, and chooses against it. The alcoholic who has made this choice is in a fuller state of knowledge. Therefore, the adulterer who has suffered enough from the consequences of adultery will see the pain as more of a priority, more important than the pleasure gained. This “enough” is not “full knowledge” until the person is absolutely convinced. Until that point of being convinced, the person’s knowledge is only partial.

Do you see all the different levels and modes of knowledge? And yet, our gut is triggered, we see sin and we are compelled to blame/condemn. God forgives when we blame, He understands, He sees that we do not see/know what we are doing when we blame. We blame what we see as hurtful and do not understand the good intent and God-given appetites underneath the choices.

This is not to say that the doctrine about mortal sin is in error. The doctrine serves as a motivator for people to avoid sin, people who have not experienced the suffering of sin, and/or do not fully grasp the harm that sin does to oneself and others.

This discussion continues on the theme “How can a person ever knowingly choose hell, and how could our loving Father ever let a person remain in hell once the person has grasped his error and wants to leave?”

As posted before, the knowledge needed is that it is of the grave sinful character. There must be deliberation that it is a personal choice. The mortal sin can be through voluntary ignorance, voluntary indulgence in passion, or certain malice. Prime examples are the fall of the angel and of Adam and Eve.

A lesser good is chosen over a greater good.

Catechism

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent . It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

 

[sudy]

Thanks for taking the time to respond and thanks for the book recommendation.

I do recognise your argument but you are teaching against the Church. This ‘unconditional mercy extended to all for salvation’ idea seems to work against known truths taught by the Church. It makes a mockery of preaching the Gospel, overcoming sin, and the spiritual works of mercy: counseling the doubtful, instructing the ignorant, admonishing sinners, and it’s against hope.

Catechism:

2091 The first commandment is also concerned with sins against hope, namely, despair and presumption: […]

2092 There are two kinds of presumption . Either man presumes upon his own capacities, (hoping to be able to save himself without help from on high), or he presumes upon God’s almighty power or his mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit).

John 15:22

Christ is God incarnate. He didn’t teach something false and then later grow into the truth.

John 3:17-17

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

If you believe it’s a contradiction you should challenge your own understanding first rather than challenging God’s truth.

Mark 16:16

This isn’t speaking of self condemnation… it’s Christ telling us what to proclaim to the world. See verse 15 just before it.

 

[sudy]

John 14:21-24

John 14:15 "If you love me, you will keep my commandments.
1 John 3:6-9 No one who remains in him sins; no one who sins has seen him or known him. Children, let no one deceive you. The person who acts in righteousness is righteous, just as he is righteous. Whoever sins belongs to the devil, because the devil has sinned from the beginning. Indeed, the Son of God was revealed to destroy the works of the devil. No one who is begotten by God commits sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot sin because he is begotten by God.

This is a conditional forgiveness. Even ordinary non-believers can love and forgive upon conditions being met, because this is what is comes naturally. To forgive like Jesus did from the cross is a calling to forgive beyond the conditions, beyond the confines of our natural resistance to forgiving those who themselves are unforgiving or unmerciful. The means to this end, for me, is through understanding why people sin. Upon careful reflection and investigation, but mainly through self-examination, we can see that people do not know what they are doing when they sin.

Scripture is written with conditions of salvation… baptism, faith, love, repentance, forgiveness. I disagree that ordinary non believers love and forgive irrespective of God… it’s God who guides those who do love and forgive, and there are many who can’t love and forgive.

Matthew 6:14-15

If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions.

I don’t presume to know who will and won’t be saved which is why we are to pray for the salvation of others. God bless.

 

[Gorgias]

That is your interpretation of the “whole point”. There are other interpretations.

Fair enough. Mine seems to follow the text reasonably well.

The people who hung the other two crucified at the time did not know what they were doing either. They decision-makers did not see the infinite value of their humanity.

Wow. So, you’re putting on a par the value of God and the value of humanity? Really?

When I thought that killing doctors who do abortions was okay, I also did not see the infinite value of their humanity.

And you’re saying that this was not sinful on your part?

Hmm. Does “worthy of blame” imply that we are to blame? That God blames?

No, it implies only what it says: blame is possible.

God doesn’t “blame”, although He does administer His justice.

All sin is attributable to the person who chose to do it, right?

If he chose to do it. Also, grave sin may be either mortal or venial, depending.

 

[OneSheep]

Does the interpretation I present jibe with your image of God?

 

[OneSheep]

A lesser good is chosen over a greater good.

Exactly. The lesser good is chosen because it appears to be the greater good. It is an aspect of human dignity that people choose to do what they think is best. Like I said, through suffering we come to know the greater good from the lesser good.

You might want to consider addressing what I am saying here, otherwise you are simply repeating the CCC, which I address, and then you do not provide a counterpoint to my address, but simply repeat the CCC. This is not discussion, Vico, it is not conversation.

Pontificating is not conversation, correct?

 

[OneSheep]

This ‘unconditional mercy extended to all for salvation’ idea…

God’s mercy and forgiveness is unlimited, but salvation, in part, depends on the choice of the sinner. These do not “work against” known truths. I am using “salvation” in the all-encompassing sense, a salvation that begins on Earth.

John 3:17-17

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Yes, God did not send His Son to condemn the world. And he who sees the Son, sees the Father. So it is not God who does the condemning.

So who does the condemning? It is humanity that condemns (blames) one another and oneself.

In another use of the word, though, condemnation is a destiny. When we do not follow Jesus, (avoiding sin), then we are destined (even on Earth!) to suffer the natural consequences of sin.

Do you see how the concept of a blaming God can be extracted? And then, we can find solace in knowing that God loves us at least as much as the person who loves us most. I don’t know about you, but several people I know love and forgive me no matter what I do.

This isn’t speaking of self condemnation… it’s Christ telling us what to proclaim to the world. See verse 15 just before it.

Yes, we are to proclaim to the world that when we go the wrong path, we suffer the natural consequences. But there is far more to proclaim, for example, the unconditional love and forgiveness of our merciful Abba (Daddy!).

 

[sudy]

These do not “work against” known truths. I am using “salvation” in the all-encompassing sense, a salvation that begins on Earth.

I don’t really know how to respond to this as I don’t quite understand what you mean.

Yes, God did not send His Son to condemn the world. And he who sees the Son, sees the Father. So it is not God who does the condemning.

So who does the condemning? It is humanity that condemns (blames) one another and oneself.

We are told that the words of Christ can condemn us…

John 12:47-50

And if anyone hears my words and does not observe them, I do not condemn him, for I did not come to condemn the world but to save the world. Whoever rejects me and does not accept my words has something to judge him: the word that I spoke, it will condemn him on the last day because I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. So what I say, I say as the Father told me."

In another use of the word, though, condemnation is a destiny. When we do not follow Jesus, (avoiding sin), then we are destined (even on Earth!) to suffer the natural consequences of sin.

Do you see how the concept of a blaming God can be extracted? And then, we can find solace in knowing that God loves us at least as much as the person who loves us most. I don’t know about you, but several people I know love and forgive me no matter what I do.

God loves us very much. He offers us his salvation, even when we have committed terrible sins if we repent and have a conversion of heart… we understand that this salvation is offered until death. I do have people who love me very much… how unconditional that love is is hard to say as I haven’t tested it. Some people have a hard time forgiving.
http://ns.umich.edu/Releases/2001/Dec01/r121101a.html

 

[sudy]

Yes, we are to proclaim to the world that when we go the wrong path, we suffer the natural consequences. But there is far more to proclaim, for example, the unconditional love and forgiveness of our merciful Abba (Daddy!).

While we live. The Church teaches it differently after death.

1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.

1451 Among the penitent’s acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is “sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again.”

1452 When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called “perfect” (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible.

1453 The contrition called “imperfect” (or “attrition”) is also a gift of God, a prompting of the Holy Spirit. It is born of the consideration of sin’s ugliness or the fear of eternal damnation and the other penalties threatening the sinner (contrition of fear). Such a stirring of conscience can initiate an interior process which, under the prompting of grace, will be brought to completion by sacramental absolution. By itself however, imperfect contrition cannot obtain the forgiveness of grave sins, but it disposes one to obtain forgiveness in the sacrament of Penance.

1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification or immediately, – or immediate and everlasting damnation.

…I’m out of time again.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

A lesser good is chosen over a greater good.

Exactly. The lesser good is chosen because it appears to be the greater good. It is an aspect of human dignity that people choose to do what they think is best. Like I said, through suffering we come to know the greater good from the lesser good.

You might want to consider addressing what I am saying here, otherwise you are simply repeating the CCC, which I address, and then you do not provide a counterpoint to my address, but simply repeat the CCC. This is not discussion, Vico, it is not conversation.

Pontificating is not conversation, correct?

I did provide some of my own material.

Really, posting from CCC is not my opinion so it cannot be pontificating, by definition. When a person deliberately chooses the lesser good over a greater good, there is sin.

 

[goout]

Vico:

A lesser good is chosen over a greater good.

Exactly. The lesser good is chosen because it appears to be the greater good. It is an aspect of human dignity that people choose to do what they think is best.

I knowingly choose lesser goods all the time, literally. Human dignity and freedom are are not enhanced by choosing any good, they are enhanced to the degree we practice virtue, and in fact choose what we know as the highest good, instead of lesser goods.

St Paul struggled with this very honestly in Romans 7. An incisive and honest appraisal of our selves reveals that we frequently and knowingly abuse our freedom, and choose something other than the best actions.

 

[Lavenderson]

I don’t understand what’s happened with someone who is going to hell, why this destination must be forever and eternal for all of the ages come? Is hard to understand this for me

I think the common response to this, and one I adhere to, is that sin, being an infraction against the one eternal God, is deserving of eternal consequence. Such a consequence can only be dealt with (and has been dealt with already) by God Himself. Its a tough topic, but the reality of our situation.

A good point to keep in mind is that souls in hell have freely chosen hell. Perhaps how we decided to relate with God dictates how we experience His full presence in the life to come; total bliss to some, a consuming fire to others? Who knows. But the eternity of the consequence our choices in this life bring should shake us to the core.

God love you.

 

[OneSheep]

I don’t really know how to respond to this as I don’t quite understand what you mean.

Jesus’ ministry was about creating the Kingdom. His ministry was about social justice, how to live an “eternal life” beginning today. He was much more focused on showing people how to live a good life, that we may find joy and live life to its fullest, unencumbered by our appetites and social trappings.

We are told that the words of Christ can condemn us…

John 12:47-50

And if anyone hears my words and does not observe them, I do not condemn him, for I did not come to condemn the world but to save the world. Whoever rejects me and does not accept my words has something to judge him: the word that I spoke, it will condemn him on the last day…

There it repeats, Jesus does not condemn. And “45 The one who looks at me is seeing the one who sent me.” So the Father does not condemn either. The scripture scholar I studied under said, “We can take scripture literally unless it appears to contradict itself”. So what can make it all work is that Jesus is directly addressing in this passage the choices people make, that our choices are key to eternal life.

God loves us very much. He offers us his salvation, even when we have committed terrible sins if we repent and have a conversion of heart

See, there are two things going on in your words there. First of all, God always forgives us, He does not condemn us. There is no “if we repent” part concerning His forgiveness, that is a condition. However, since salvation is an eternal life that begins today, the choice to refrain from forgiving one another is to remain enslaved to our resentment, anger, negative feelings toward others. Salvation, beginning today, is to be set free from our the trappings of our own desire for justice, which takes the form of wanting someone to pay for their transgressions. The choice to refrain from forgiving “condemns us” to remaining enslaved to our own grudge-holding.

That was an interesting study. It would be interesting to see if those people who had “high levels of proactive forgiveness” but were psychologically distressed believed that God would not forgive them if they did not forgive others. Belief in a conditionally loving/forgiving God is, in the long run, in itself distressful. In my own prayer life, I am connected to a Father who forgives without conditions. He always forgives; through His omniscience He always understands.

 

[OneSheep]

I do have people who love me very much… how unconditional that love is is hard to say as I haven’t tested it.

One key factor is what we project on other people, what we project on God. If one can find in his heart and mind to understand and forgive everyone, even those who have not harmed one directly but one “holds something against” in a vague way, even those in history who have done the greatest harm (Hitler, Stalin, etc.) then one can come closer to knowing how God forgives. It is a “being the truth we want to proclaim”. Once we own and reconcile with all the parts of ourselves we have come to resent, all the parts of our nature we repress, we project nothing but goodness on God and one another.

With this level of forgivess toward self and others, one do not need a test in order to know. We know because this is who we are, who we have found within. The “true self” understands, loves, and forgives unconditionally.

Grave sin deprives us of communion with God… The contrition called “ imperfect ” (or “attrition”) is also a gift of God, a prompting of the Holy Spirit. It is born of the consideration of sin’s ugliness or the fear of eternal damnation and the other penalties… Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death , in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification or immediately, – or immediate and everlasting damnation .

I’m not taking a blind eye to the very real influence of human nature in the writing of the CCC. We naturally develop projecting a God who punishes, because our own conscience (superego) develops exactly in this way. This natural projection of a God who condemns and punishes motivates us to behave while our own empathy, (both emotional and cognitive) is underdeveloped. People naturally equate God with the conscience/superego.

So while we are naturally projecting a God who condemns, and this natural projection serves a purpose, Jesus invites us to a deeper relationship.

 

[OneSheep]

When a person deliberately chooses the lesser good over a greater good, there is sin.

Yes this is what you said before. I responded to it, but rather than addressing my counterpoint, you simply repeated this assertion.

This is not conversation, Vico. This is you trying to teach. While it works with children to say “This is so because I say so”, it does not work with adults. We come with different experiences of people, life, and God.

When the student in your class raises his hand and gives a counterpoint, simply repeating your statement goes nowhere. I see that you mean well, but we are not children here on the forum.

If you wish to respond, please address my counterpoint in post 670.

 

[Vico]

I’ve been thinking more about the “case of the irrational adulterer”.

Consider this, Vico: Which person is in a fuller state of knowledge, the person who is so convinced that the sin is not worth the suffering, or the person who has not suffered enough to know this?

All sin leads to suffering. The alcoholic who has suffered enough eventually sees the bottle as liquid suffering, and chooses against it. The alcoholic who has made this choice is in a fuller state of knowledge. Therefore, the adulterer who has suffered enough from the consequences of adultery will see the pain as more of a priority, more important than the pleasure gained. This “enough” is not “full knowledge” until the person is absolutely convinced. Until that point of being convinced, the person’s knowledge is only partial.

Do you see all the different levels and modes of knowledge? And yet, our gut is triggered, we see sin and we are compelled to blame/condemn. God forgives when we blame, He understands, He sees that we do not see/know what we are doing when we blame. We blame what we see as hurtful and do not understand the good intent and God-given appetites underneath the choices.

This is not to say that the doctrine about mortal sin is in error. The doctrine serves as a motivator for people to avoid sin, people who have not experienced the suffering of sin, and/or do not fully grasp the harm that sin does to oneself and others.

This discussion continues on the theme “How can a person ever knowingly choose hell, and how could our loving Father ever let a person remain in hell once the person has grasped his error and wants to leave?”

It was post 668 not 670. You mentioned:

1. Fuller knowledge: not “full knowledge” until the person is absolutely convinced. Do you see all the different levels and modes of knowledge?
2. This is not to say that the doctrine about mortal sin is in error.

Yes there are levels of knowledge. I don’t know what you mean by modes of knowledge. Do you mean the modes of explicit, semantic, or verbal knowledge?

With regard to mortal sin, full knowledge does not mean knowing everything about an action or omission, rather it has to do with knowing the moral character. The event of mortal sin is the destroying of charity (love) in the heart.