Yes, in hell, but why forever

[Gorgias]

Well, people have various levels of cognitive empathy, so it cannot be expected that everyone is able to imagine the thoughts of another person.

No one is able to accurately deign the interior thoughts of another person. When we do, then to a greater or lesser extent, we really are “projecting” our own notions onto them.

While visible actions can be indicative of a person’s thoughts, it is completely illogical to conclude that actions are attributable to specific thoughts.

I’m not claiming “specific thoughts”. I am, however, attempting to characterize logical consequences.

It is very good to examine one’s thoughts, gorgias. Self-awareness is prayer, it is part of relationship, even if it is difficult or painful.

That’s a completely different notion than attempting to divine another person’s thoughts.

When the person knows and has in mind (not blind) to the point of sufficiency, they choose not to sin. This can be examined.

Not true. If even one person is justly condemned of first-degree murder, then it means that “with malice aforethought”, they decided to commit murder. That kinda wrecks your whole case.

We are responsible for every single decision we make, regardless of the circumstances.

Then we’ve reached the end of our discussion. You’ve just conceded that we’re responsible for our sins. Thanks for the conversation!

 

[OneSheep]

However since you do not state precisely what you mean here, I am not going to guess at what you are getting at.

Thank you, Vico. I will be more precise.

It is sufficient that the dogma of the Catholic Church is that Adam and Even committed a personal sin which resulted in the loss of justice (Council of Trent). The teaching of the Church is that loss of justice is loss of the state of sanctifying grace and there is only one way for that to occur for those that have a state of sanctifying grace (Adam and Eve were constituted with sanctifying grace before their choice to reject it, just as those that receive baptism and later loose their state of justice through sin.)

I’m not sure where doctrine says “there is only one way for that to occur”. The creation story is a very special case.

Dogma does not state that Adam and Eve committed mortal sin. Yes, Adam and Eve were punished in the story. It is a story about God blaming man, which presents the default image of God, and the default image of man as “worthy of blame”.

(note the words “human perceptions” and “put him in a gracious mood” in the link below.)

We are not to read the story necessarily maintaining that God blames man, condemns man. This is not the only image of “Abba” presented by Jesus. When we say that man sins with sufficient knowledge not to do so, this is a direct contradiction to the truth of human dignity.

When people know everything relevant, they choose not to sin. To say anything less is to uphold human depravity, not human dignity.

The Gospel presents a different image, Vico. God always forgives us.

Did I ever send you this?

The Truth Will Make You Free: Joseph Ratzinger Re-Thinks Anselm's Theology of Redemption

Do you see the image of God presented there?

 

[OneSheep]

No one is able to accurately deign the interior thoughts of another person. When we do, then to a greater or lesser extent, we really are “projecting” our own notions onto them.

Exactly. It is an exercise in self-examination. Sounds like you would rather not “go there”. I can respect that, but your point remains unsupported for lack of example. I can support my point with many, many examples.

We can come up with a broad range of possibilities of what a person is thinking, to the degree of accuracy that we know the possibilities. Each possibility is a starting-point for discussion, for illustration, for proof of one conclusion or another.

That’s a completely different notion than attempting to divine another person’s thoughts.

Attempting to determine another person’s thoughts is an effort is what is called “cognitive empathy”. It is part of “putting yourself in someone else’s shoes”, which is an important part of conscience development and an important part of understanding people. We are accurate to the degree that we know ourselves and know people.

Yes, it is all projection, but it is for good purpose.

Not true. If even one person is justly condemned of first-degree murder, then it means that “with malice aforethought”, they decided to commit murder. That kinda wrecks your whole case.

Society-based consequences are not about understanding and forgiveness, they are about punishment. The purpose is to stop bad behavior of people, to dis-incentivize the acts. Courts don’t make the determination, for example, that a person did or did not see the infinite value of the victim. If this was part of the criteria of conviction, then no one would be convicted, and society would seemingly be chaotic.

On the other hand, if “court” was really about understanding why a person did a bad act, then everyone could forgive. Instead of punishing, the person could be separated from society (to protect society) while he is undergoing actual steps of rehabilitation. Hmm, that sounds like a really great model for Christian justice.

You’ve just conceded that we’re responsible for our sins.

I’ve said it all along, check my posts. Responsibility does not have to involve blaming. It means responding for one’s acts, ability to respond.

Thanks for the conversation!

Thanks, Gorgias.

 

[Gorgias]

I can respect that, but your point remains unsupported for lack of example. I can support my point with many, many examples.

I would disagree. I’ve supported my point with Church teaching. You seem to have attempted to support yours with anecdote and bald assertion.

 

[OneSheep]

I would disagree. I’ve supported my point with Church teaching. You seem to have attempted to support yours with anecdote and bald assertion.

Of course, it is easy to forget that I have also supported my points with Church teaching and real-life examples the whole way. If you can’t support your points with real-life examples, just let it go, Gorgias. It remains a view that guides your life, and that guide is very good.
If you can’t accept a different image of God, so be it. Let it go.

 

[Michael_Anthony]

While others are correct about things like the unchangeability of the state of our souls post-death, and such, two simple analogies/explanations can help.

1. This analogy has 3 premises. 1: Eternity = infinite years. 2. Infinity - x = infinity (where x is a finite number), so 3) If I spend my whole life struggling to be a good, morally upright and loving human being, and recieve an eternal reward for doing so, then it is unfair for someone who did whatever sinful stuff they want to ever go to heaven (as heaven is an “eternal” reward, and so if premises 1 & 2 are correct, then any time in hell still leaves eternity in heaven) .
2. What happens if I slap you? You will be upset and probably slap me back (or if a good Christian, you will pray for me). What happens if I try to slap a police officer? I will get arrested. Now, what happens if the president is coming by in his motorcade and I try to slap him? I will get shot (and presumably killed). So taking this to the ultimate level, what happens if I try to slap God (aka sin)? Now I have sinned against an infinite being, and so I owe an infinite debt, and as such, there is nothing I can do to repay that debt. As such only God (Jesus) is able to do so, and only through him can our relationship be put back aright.

 

[OneSheep]

So taking this to the ultimate level, what happens if I try to slap God (aka sin)? Now I have sinned against an infinite being, and so I owe an infinite debt, and as such, there is nothing I can do to repay that debt. As such only God (Jesus) is able to do so, and only through him can our relationship be put back aright.

I highly recommend the article I linked in post 782. You are expressing the Anselmian image, which Pope Benedict clearly refuted.

Note: Obviously, the opinion you stated is well within the scope of Catholic theology, that is, it is not condemned. The logic you present is very natural, but Jesus invites us to a deeper level of forgiveness and reconciliation.

 

[Michael_Anthony]

My point was simply that anything less than infinity is lacking, is the explanation lacking? Sure, but in dealing with God, what isn’t?

 

[Vico]

…
I’m not sure where doctrine says “there is only one way for that to occur”. The creation story is a very special case. …
Dogma does not state that Adam and Eve committed mortal sin. ……

I posted the dogma and the Catechism summary of it before. What Adam and Eve did was loose their state of sanctifying grace. When they had sanctifying grace they were justified. The state of justification is lost through sin, but not venial sin, but mortal sin alone.

Catechism

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. …
1863 … "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."134
134 John Paul II, RP 17 § 9.

Council of Trent

1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.
2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:–whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch5.htm

Father John Hardon also has a good teaching article on sin. It includes this:

Sin in general is a “deordination from the moral law," and here means a grave sincommitted by the first man as head of the human race. Five qualities are generally attributed to Adam’s transgression. It was seriously culpable, personal with Adam, technically original originating ( originale originans ), implied total aversion from God, and conversion or turning to creatures. We do not directly enter into examining the precise nature of Adam’s sin apart from its being an act of disobedience of the divine will.

http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/God/God_014.htm

 

[sudy]

Yes, it is not always easy. Does it seem impossible?

I thought I’d made my position clear already. It’s certainly not impossible for those who do love God… I know and love God so I wasn’t speaking about myself and I wasn’t speaking about you. I was speaking about those who are injured by others and don’t yet know God or love God. I was referring to having compassion and patience and understanding for the victim. We ought to pray for both the victim and the offender.

The person who is not sorry for his sins is lacking in awareness, his conscience is undeveloped. In addition, contrition and humility are essential parts of relationship; they must be present to be in relationship.

I really don’t want to get drawn into this thread again as it’s clear you either can’t or won’t change your position, so I’ll just refer you to canon law 750 and the catechism 1033, 1034, 1056, Matthew 18:3, John 3:5, John 8:34-35, James 1:12-15, as well as:

386 […]the evil of sin unmasked in its true identity as humanity’s rejection of God and opposition to him, even as it continues to weigh heavy on human life and history.

387 […]Without the knowledge Revelation gives of God we cannot recognize sin clearly and are tempted to explain it as merely a developmental flaw, a psychological weakness, a mistake, or the necessary consequence of an inadequate social structure, etc. Only in the knowledge of God’s plan for man can we grasp that sin is an abuse of the freedom that God gives to created persons so that they are capable of loving him and loving one another.

388 […]We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin. The Spirit-Paraclete, sent by the risen Christ, came to "convict the world concerning sin",262 by revealing him who is its Redeemer.
262 John 16:8.

 

[Gorgias]

Of course, it is easy to forget that I have also supported my points with Church teaching and real-life examples the whole way.

Yeah, but for each of those examples of “teaching”, many on this thread have pointed out that you’ve mischaracterized what you’ve cited. So, it seems, you’re down to pure anecdote and personal opinion.

 

[OneSheep]

The state of justification is lost through sin, but not venial sin, but mortal sin alone.

Sorry, Vico, that was a lot of words, but none of it says that Adam and Eve committed mortal sin, none of it says that there is only one way for what happened to Adam and Eve to happen, and none of it says that “loss of sanctifying grace” onlyhappens through mortal sin. Nowhere are other possibilities explicitly ruled out. 1861 says “If A, then B” not “If and only if A, then B”.

Adam and Eve are a very special case. For example, dogma insists that God was angry and wrathful toward Adam and Eve, but there is nothing about God’s wrath or anger in the CCC’s sections on sin. I googled the word “wrath” and “CCC” and nothing came up. I googled “anger” and “angry” with “CCC” and nothing that came up referred to God. There is no one that has ever been singled out by the Church as having committed mortal sin, at least not in official doctrine, and not for ordinary human beings, which Adam and Eve were not.

In those sections of the Council of Trent, God’s image is presented in a way that more reflects the human compulsion to punish wrongdoing projected upon God, not the image we can know by being connected with the “true self”, or what Paul calls the “new self”, which is more in tune with God’s understanding and forgiveness.

Did you read the blog post with Cardinal Ratzinger’s examination?

Do you see that over time, as a group, Christians are becoming more in relationship with a Father who always forgives instead of getting wrathful and angry?

 

[OneSheep]

Well it sure it sure looks like you are getting sucked in again!

I thought I’d made my position clear already. It’s certainly not impossible for those who do love God… I know and love God so I wasn’t speaking about myself and I wasn’t speaking about you. I was speaking about those who are injured by others and don’t yet know God or love God. I was referring to having compassion and patience and understanding for the victim. We ought to pray for both the victim and the offender.

Thank you for clarifying!

386 […]the evil of sin unmasked in its true identity as humanity’s rejection of God and opposition to himeven as it continues to weigh heavy on human life and history

Yes, people sin. When they reject God, they do not know what they are doing, but sin does weigh heavily on human history.

387 […]Without the knowledge Revelation gives of God we cannot recognize sin clearly and are tempted to explain it as merely a developmental flaw, a psychological weakness, a mistake…Only in the knowledge of God’s plan for man can we grasp that sin is an abuse of the freedom that God gives to created persons so that they are capable of loving him and loving one another.

Note: CCC 387 does not contest the real possibility that people sin when they are lacking in awareness or are blind, which is what Jesus observed from the cross. Yes, sin is an abuse of freedom, (it’s an abuse of life itself!) but when we sin we do not know what we are doing. Remember that I am using “know” in the all-encompassing sense, referring to everything relevant to making the best choice.

388 […]We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin. The Spirit-Paraclete, sent by the risen Christ, came to "convict the world concerning sin ",262 by revealing him who is its Redeemer.
262 John 16:8.

Somehow, 388 is not meant to contradict this:

John 3:17 New International Version (NIV)

17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

Perhaps 388 in its use of “convict” simply means “people, you have sinned”, which we indeed have.

 

[oliver109]

I think that generally we do know what we are doing when we sin but it is usually because we are weak that we sin, life is a struggle, life can be boring, frustrating and we often sin i would say because we think it will bring us tempoary peace, because we dont trust God enough, there are many reasons why we sin but i can not think that there are many sinners in the world who have no intention to stop sinning, at least i am sure few of us on this forum want to hold on to our sins.

 

[OneSheep]

many on this thread have pointed out that you’ve mischaracterized…

Your use of “mischaracterized” is your opinion about other people’s opinions.

If a person interprets doctrine with their own image of God and man in mind, it is seen as the truth, in line with that image. If that same person reads the interpretation of someone who has a different image of God and man, they may opine that the other’s view is a mischaracterization. That makes sense, right?

So, are you sure that your own “characterization” of God and man is the only correct one, or are you open to the possibility that God’s and human image might be a bit different in the eyes of other people?

Feel free to present more “Catholic teachings” with your own image of God, and I will show how God as I know Him remains unconditionally loving and forgiving!

My point was simply that anything less than infinity is lacking, is the explanation lacking? Sure, but in dealing with God, what isn’t?

Did you read the article quoting Cardinal Ratzinger?

A snippet:

with its rigid logic can make the image of God appear in a sinister light

 

[OneSheep]

we often sin i would say because we think it will bring us tempoary peace

There is a wonderful Catholic musician I know who in his testimony talks about people trying to fill a “God-shaped hole” with other things. I think it is a very good analogy.

there are many reasons why we sin but i can not think that there are many sinners in the world who have no intention to stop sinning

As a matter of human dignity, it can be observed that when people realize that their sin causes suffering, a suffering that is not worth it, then they stop sinning (unless they are self-destructive, which is also a matter of blindness).

at least i am sure few of us on this forum want to hold on to our sins.

When we want to hold onto our sins, we have not suffered enough, correct? Do you see that we do not know what we are doing when we hold onto sin?

 

[oliver109]

I think people hold onto their sins because they are selfish and perhaps have no great feeling towards God, perhaps they have suffered a lot but still love to live a life of sin. It is a bit like a criminal who endures months or years of boredom in jail as long as they can get a chance to offend again, it is a selfish existence.

 

[OneSheep]

I think people hold onto their sins because they are selfish

The interesting thing about the word “selfish” is that it almost always an expression of our feelings about something we repress. It is very commonly part of what Jung called the “shadow”. The truth is that we are all concerned about ourselves, doing what we think is best for ourselves. When the “self” comes to include more and more of people we love, even extended to all of humanity, then doing anything for anyone is “selfish”.

and perhaps have no great feeling towards God

But if they truly knew God, they would have great feelings for God, right?

perhaps they have suffered a lot but still love to live a life of sin

Alcoholics can suffer a lot and still continue to abuse, yes. When they have suffered enough, they stop.

It is a bit like a criminal who endures months or years of boredom in jail as long as they can get a chance to offend again

You are describing a person who has no clue what comprises a good life. He is quite unaware.

 

[sudy]

Well it sure it sure looks like you are getting sucked in again!

Maybe but I don’t have much time right now.

Perhaps 388 in its use of “convict” simply means “people, you have sinned”, which we indeed have

I don’t know… it references John 16:8 and here’s a write-up that I haven’t actually read. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701095.htm

Cardinal Ratzinger?

I see you refer to Popes Benedict and Francis… I wonder whether you’re understanding them fully. Here are extracts that I have to hand that may shed some light on their views:

Pope Benedict 15 Feb 2009

It is possible to see leprosy as a symbol of sin, which is the true impurity of heart that can distance us from God. It is not in fact the physical disease of leprosy that separates us from God as the ancient norms supposed but sin, spiritual and moral evil. This is why the Psalmist exclaims: “Blessed is he whose fault is taken away, / whose sin is covered”, and then says, addressing God: "I acknowledged my sin to you, / my guilt I covered not. / I said, “I confess my faults to the Lord’ / and you took away the guilt of my sin” (32[31]: 1, 5). The sins that we commit distance us from God and, if we do not humbly confess them, trusting in divine mercy, they will finally bring about the death of the soul.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/angelus/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_ang_20090215.html

Pope Francis 3 Jan 2018

Sin severs: sin severs the relationship with God and it severs the relationship with brothers and sisters, relationships within the family, in society and in the community: sin always severs; it separates; it divides.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/france...papa-francesco_20180103_udienza-generale.html

Pope Francis 1 July 2018

They have faith in that man. From this we understand that all are permitted on the Lord’s path: no one should feel as an intruder, an interloper or one who has no right. To have access to His heart, to Jesus’ heart, there is only one requirement: to feel in need of healing and to entrust yourself to Him.

Jesus is Lord, and before him physical death is like a dream: there is no reason to despair. Another death is the one to fear: that of the heart hardened by evil! Yes, we should be afraid of that one! When we feel we have a hardened heart, a heart that is hardened, allow me to say, a mummified heart, we should be afraid of this. This is the death of the heart. But sin too, the mummified heart too, is never the last word with Jesus, because he has brought us the infinite mercy of the Father. And even if we have hit rock bottom, his tender and strong voice reaches us: “I say to you, arise!”. It is beautiful to hear that word of Jesus addressed to each one of us: “I say to you, arise! Go. Stand up. Take courage, arise!”. Jesus restores life to the little girl and restores life to the healed woman: life and faith to both.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/france...ocuments/papa-francesco_angelus_20180701.html

 

[oliver109]

What I still cannot understand is why a soul would go straight to Hell should it die after committing a mortal sin, that soul might not be hardened as such, it might just be an ordinary person who basically just committed a mortal sin, the thought makes me sick and makes me not want to live in this world much longer where I often find even the greatest moments of life quite boring.