This is one of those instances where He is very clear in what He is saying.
Thank you! You’ve illustrated a main contention of mine beautifully. So, I only have one question for all of you interacting with me here on this issue: what did you do with your hand, your foot and your eye when you removed them from your body? Did you preserve them in brine? Did you bury them in a religious ritual? Place them in your freezer for preservation?
I might dare to hope that they are correct, but they are not the magisterium, not the scriptures, not Christ, so I don’t presume to stake my eternal destiny on their word.
I suggest you really take a hard look at this link which quotes extensively from the fathers and some current scholars on this subject. You are overstating your claims with regards to how widespread universalism was.mrsdizzyd:
Sure. You can start here. But even for the more careful and reserved Catholic universalists (e.g., Hans Urs Von Balthasar), he states the same as my claims here in Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved? The central claim? Outside of the western church in the Middle Ages, there is not widespread support for Hell as defined as neverending, inescapable torment and suffering.
If you disputed that we have truly free will you are even farther from the teachings of the church than I thought…
You do realize the the CCC is a summary of the churches teachings and the citations are provided, right? You also realize that the magisterium has repeated affirmed the existence of an eternal hell, right?
Oh, so Christ does sometimes speak figuratively to prove a spiritual point! Fascinating. I wonder when to tell he is doing this and not doing this?
It’s clear that what I disputed (or rather, mocked) is the triumphal superiority over all things of your particular, limited human freedom. You taut it as if it’s the be-all-end-all, when in reality whatever freedom you enjoy is limited, conditioned, hemmed in. You are subject to the Fall, as we all are. You are a beloved of the Creator, as we all are. And you think you’re right on this issue, again, as we all do.
We may have been through this before, but can you look at any sin by anyone and find that lack of awareness was not a relevant part of the decision to sin?“Lack of awareness” would mean that it’s not mortal sin, then, right? And therefore, not worthy of losing eternal bliss.
Yes, they not only saw Him as a threat, but they thought he was blaspheming, which was punishable by death. The crowd, too, wanted justice. It is part of our nature to seek to punish wrongdoing, correct?
Of course! Your assertion was that there wasn’t awareness that it was a sin, right? Are you really saying that people don’t know what sin is, in general, or what specific sins are in particular? I agree, there are specific cases in which you can say “yes”, but not in general.
I think you’re taking the expression too far. A sin committed unknowingly is one that doesn’t rise to the level of mortal sin, and therefore, doesn’t incur loss of salvation. That’s all I’m asserting here…
Okay, I was there as a young person. It starts with having an image of a God who condemns people, who loves/forgives conditionally. It is believing in a God who forgives if there is remorse, repentance, etc. which is exactly the way the human conscience works. We naturally do not forgive an unrepentant person, because the purpose of the rejection of people (and compulsion to punish) in the first place is behavior modification that leads to group cooperation. Note: none of this is by use of rational thought, it is all gut-level activity. The aversion to forgiving an unrepentant person is not a willed aversion, it is an automatic (triggered) aversion that seems very reasonable.
Both the death penalty and life imprisonment, when desired for the evildoer, reflect the resentment that happens in the minds of victims and their sympathizers. Have you never wished that someone would roast forever? It is as simple as holding a grudge. It’s not a rational sense of justice, it is a gut reaction.
Yes, but you are coming from a position of a person who has an image of God who loves and forgives without condition. While the natural position (God loves/forgives conditionally) can be totally understood, Jesus invites us to forgive as He did from the cross, not conditioned on repentance.
That sounds like such a non-Thomistic rationale. How did he support eternal hell with rational argument?
Nope.
It’s more rare, but it happens.
Okay, please elaborate. What do you mean by the words “incur loss”?
Thank you for the thoughtful replies. I very much appreciate them. Yes, it is within us to desire and enact justice. And, our consciences add a qualifier that all punishments must be proportionate to the crimes/offenses committed.
And yet, we often enough go beyond this simplistic reading of our fellow men, don’t we? Our consciences work to move us beyond the simplistic read of “he is a bad man” to “oh, he must just be having a bad day” or “he got up on the wrong side of the bed” or “what must his life have been like to lead this guy to routinely behave the way he does. He must have suffered immensely. He deserves pity, even though he is a jerk.” Again, all of this goes beyond the “survival” motif, and we pretty naturally do this. At least, I see it often (say, in the workplace).
Just for the sake of my own transparency, i should say that it was precisely when I was younger that I accepted a belief in a neverending, inescapable realm of torment and suffering. It was only as I got older, had children, lived more “life” among my friends, co-workers, family, and even strangers that my aversion to (what I’m calling) the “Augustinian Hell” increased.
There are numerous relationships within our lives that do not fit this picture, as you know. The most ready and obvious example is one’s own family. Empathy, forgiveness (even of the unsorry), and seeking the good of (say) the child or sibling is our most natural impulse. It simply is not true at all that the child must repent of having mistreated me before I can get my mind/heart to a place of willing and working for their good. Even my desire for the child to recognize what made a certain act “wrong” is for her own good. That is to say, moral instruction is for the other, so that they can live and move within a world governed by various moral norms. It is not for the sake of my own wronged ego or so that I may feel better about myself. This desire for someone to say “I’m sorry” to us and others is natural, true enough. But the “thriving” aspect of the human life lived well goes beyond this, and likely doesn’t even require it. If we love another, we simply seek their good, and, in the case of our own children, we will allow some good owing to ourselves to fall by the wayside if we can advance their own good.
Yes, these are my own opinions on St Augustine. I have read them from various scholars and accepted them as likely true and definitely affecting his ability to opine his own version of “original sin” and the human race as massa damnata.
Yes, but they are fundamentally disanalogous with the Augustinian Hell with regard to duration and inescapability. If nothing else, physical death brings an end to any criminal sentence. And whatever are the gut impulses that we deal with, a human criminal court strives to go beyond this. It seeks to *be rational.
OK, then… what did you mean when you wrote:Gorgias:
Nope.
Sure sounds like you’re talking about awareness that something is a sin…
Perhaps, but it’s substantial enough to make it mortal sin (if, knowing that it is a sin, he nevertheless freely chooses to do it anyway.)
Not really. At least, not in the context of the discussion of the subjective determination of whether it’s a mortal or venial sin.
Immaterial.
I know… you’re presenting this as a reason for immunity from mortal sin, IIRC. That dog just don’t hunt…
Our sins – if grave, and understood as grave, and freely chosen, can cause us to lose our salvation.