Yes, in hell, but why forever

[sudy]

Part of repentance is actually being (not just saying, and not necessarily about ‘feeling’) sorry for our sins… with a firm intention not to sin again. Your priest examples throughout a few different threads seem to indicate a verbal confession only. Maybe I’m misunderstanding though. Only God can know the state of a person’s soul, in any case, and he’s certainly not trying to catch us out when we least expect death. We are still called to be ready, however.

 

[Magnanimity]

You’ve said this several times. You are twisting and mischaracterizing what people are saying.

No, we don’t think it is conditional. Not in the least. The difference between you and I is that I see eternal damnation as an act of perfect charity.

@OneSheep is a subtle poster. He was merely describing that for the person who believes in a Creator who would send one of his creations to a place of neverending torment and suffering, that god loves conditionally.

And I think he is very obviously correct. You yourself would hold this view. Anyone who offers a free-will defense of Hell (as you do) believes there are certain conditions that must be met for human to have her name written in the book of life. It doesn’t really matter what you think those conditions are (faith, taking care of the less fortunate, not dying in a state of “mortal sin…”), you make being with god in eternal bliss conditional. Those who don’t meet whatever are the minimal conditions, are separated from God forever. This is the very essence of loving conditionally.

The greatest minds of the church have defined “love” as willing and working for the good of the other, as other. Just out of curiosity, what good would this god be willing and working for in the continued existence of those he banishes from the presence of Goodness itself? He holds them in existence so that they may continuously suffer unending torment? That is love? “Perfect charity,” you say?

 

[oliver109]

While I agree with you about free will being an essential part of human existence and that we have to choose God and not be forced by him to enjoy his company you still have not mentioned that God can ensure that someone can get to Heaven while using their free will, take for instance the priest I mentioned earlier, he had sex with a woman and then died suddenly, there was not time for confession, no time for perfect contrition and no time to promise God that he would not do that again, the plane hit the house the moment the two were having sex and committing the sin. In the 0.0001 seconds between the plane destroying the priests body and the bodies soul being separated from his soul God could offer the priest a chance to ask him for forgiveness and confess his sins, if he did not offer that and instead just let him wander to Hell why did he?

 

[oliver109]

While it would be completely just for God to allow the priest to walk into Hell without so much as a plead that he repent I still am a big hoper in Gods mercy, maybe I am being too presumptuous? But I do like to have the reassurance that things will be alright even if I commit a mortal sin but at the same time to never desire to commit a mortal sin. You say that what I am putting forward is nonsense despite the fact that millions of people put forward the same arguments so I have a lot of people on my side and who agree with me. It is just for God to put forward an eternal punishment for mortal sinners but I am a hoper in his mercy and that God will do everything possible to prevent a soul from walking into Hell.

 

[oliver109]

I think it makes logical sense, lets look at it this way, the plane crashes on the priests house, his body is destroyed by the impact, his soul is still attached to the bones that make up the remnants of his body, it has not been separated yet. The priest meets God who condemns him for his sinful choices but God asks the priest if he would like to make a confession to him, if he refuses his soul is separated from the body and goes straight to Hell, if he agrees he can confess his sins honestly and make it to Heaven. There is really nothing illogical about that and it is more comforting than the idea of the priest going to Hell because it was impossible for him to make it to confession, nothing is impossible with God.

 

[oliver109]

Wishful thinking? I think it is completely possible and do not see how God could not order things in such a way, Catholics in the 18th century were probably told that it was wishful thinking to hope for the salvation of a suicide victim, we are now told that God offers salutary repentance and salvation for a large proportion of suicides.

 

[Magnanimity]

If humans are made for beatitude, and they certainly are. And if human wills are ever oriented toward goods, and they certainly are. And if salvation entails that the human will be in the presence of the good forever, then to save me is to bring me to my natural end. To save me is to thoroughly love me, and yes even to save me from myself. It is not as if there is no precedence for saving a person from herself. That is what interventions are, for example when someone is strung out on some type of substance. Or when an elderly parent cannot or will not get her spending under control so as to avoid going into monstrous debt. Her children will often intervene, to save her from herself.

Whatever you think free will is, it seems to me that you are operating within an existentialist framework, something along the lines of John Paul Sartre Who spoke of “absolute freedom. “ Tabula Rasa kind of freedom, the type of freedom where in any and all situations you are entirely free to choose x or not x. The thing is, there simply is no such thing as absolute freedom. Whatever limited freedom you possess is conditioned in about 1000 different ways. And this is true for all of us.

You make a big stink out of someone forcing something on to another. But our entire human existence is a series of various forces encountering us in such a way that they force themselves onto us, often against our wills.

Oliver here has a repeated refrain, but it usually gets discounted by those who interact with them. He makes the point that no one chose to exist. Your coming into existence quite literally in no way factored in your will/desire at all. He usually stops at this point, we could go much farther than this. It’s not just that you were brought into existence. You were brought into existence in a particular gender, which you did not choose. You were born into a certain country that you did not choose. You were born with a certain IQ that you did not choose. You were born into a certain Socioeconomic situation that you did not choose. You were born with certain inclinations that you will carry over the course of a lifetime, again, which you did not choose. You will accidentally form various habits, some of them bad ones, that you do not consciously choose to form. Etc, etc

But we can go much further still. All sorts of people who are your peers or who are over you in some way will repeatedly force their wills on to you throughout the course of your life. Your bosses will do so. Your university professors. Your coworkers. Your parents. State, local and federal governments Will do this. So will Police officers. Random strangers who find you to be in their way and who are more powerful than you Will attempt to force you to deal with their wills . You will not ask for any of these things, but they will happen to you nonetheless.

 

[Magnanimity]

And let’s not forget the influence of demons and good angels, the principalities and powers that Saint Paul refers to, all of them interacting with us and imposing themselves on us on a continuous basis. And then there is you yourself. As Saint Paul eloquently points out in the book of Romans, we war even against ourselves. We have this Bizzarre lack of freedom within our own persons. The things we want to do, we don’t do. And the things we do not want to do, we do. And how does Saint Paul end that contemplation? He says “oh wretched man that I am. Who will save me from this body of death?” And then he goes on to thank Jesus Christ his Lord for being the salvation.

It is as if you make human freedom out to have godlike status. That your freedom signifies that you can do whatever you want, whenever you want. But this is plainly not the case-you do not now nor will you ever possess any such freedom. It is a myth. Atotal fiction. And the thousands of forces that constantly impose them selves upon you day in and day out should be enough for you to realize that Whatever freedom you do possess is by its very nature limited, conditioned, influenced, imposed upon, and hemmed-in from every direction.

 

[JimG]

An essential condition for entering heaven is being willing to enter. If God forced someone to enter who did not want to be there, it would not be heaven. It would be like a son who ran away from home and hated his parents and refused to return, even though he was always welcome to come back. If the father forcibly seized him and forced him to return home, he would hate it.

 

[Fauken]

Catholics in the 18th century were probably told that it was wishful thinking to hope for the salvation of a suicide victim, we are now told that God offers salutary repentance and salvation for a large proportion of suicides.

“Were probably told”? Where’s your evidence? True, suicide victims were not allowed Catholic funerals, but the Church has never pronounced certain people to be damned. Suicide is a mortal sin, but mental health was not as well understood back then as it is now. There’s a difference between saying someone might not actually be in Hell because of their mental illness, and someone not being in Hell despite their desire to through willingly sinning mortally.

You don’t know the hour. If you did, then there’s literally no point in living a moral life. We may as all live however we want until God “separates our souls from our bodies”.

 

[Gorgias]

Not at all, some people may have such a negative of God and the good that they would rather sit in a dark room forever

Ok, but all you’ve done here is move the scale a little bit. Now, you’ve got a God who still allows humans to lose salvation, but you’ve defined it in a way that you identify the “truly vicious” person. So… why does your definition count? Why doesn’t someone else’s definition of what warrants hell allowed to be the definition?

He was merely describing that for the person who believes in a Creator who would send one of his creations to a place of neverending torment and suffering, that god loves conditionally.

And I think he is very obviously correct. You yourself would hold this view. Anyone who offers a free-will defense of Hell (as you do) believes there are certain conditions that must be met for human to have her name written in the book of life.

You’re conflating “conditions for salvation” with “conditional love”. God loves all, and never ceases doing so. When He gives people what they’ve demonstrated by their actions what they want, it’s not an exercise in “conditional love”. It’s an exercise in honoring a person and their free will.

Just out of curiosity, what good would this god be willing and working for in the continued existence of those he banishes from the presence of Goodness itself?

Giving them what they chose, rather than forcing them to accept what they did not choose.

He holds them in existence so that they may continuously suffer unending torment? That is love?

Yes. You might be unaware of it, but the Church teaches that the primary ‘torment’ of hell isn’t fire or torture – it’s the knowledge that one is eternally separated from God. In other words, it’s the knowledge that you got what you demonstrated you wanted. And yes… that is love, since the opposite would be tyrannical.

While I agree with you about free will being an essential part of human existence and that we have to choose God and not be forced by him to enjoy his company you still have not mentioned that God can ensure that someone can get to Heaven while using their free will

And I still maintain that you are saying the same thing: “ensuring that someone goes to Heaven” is “being forced by God to enjoy His company.”

 

[Gorgias]

oliver109:

, take for instance the priest I mentioned earlier, he had sex with a woman and then died suddenly, there was not time for confession, no time for perfect contrition and no time to promise God that he would not do that again, the plane hit the house the moment the two were having sex and committing the sin.

Committing a mortal sin at the time of death? You know what that’s called?

God could offer the priest a chance to ask him for forgiveness and confess his sins

God does offer that. However, your theoretical priest (why does it always have to be a priest?!? ) is ignoring that offer of forgiveness and is choosing instead to sin.

his body is destroyed by the impact, his soul is still attached to the bones that make up the remnants of his body, it has not been separated yet.

We don’t know how long that takes, but I get what you’re trying to do here.

The priest meets God who condemns him for his sinful choices but God asks the priest if he would like to make a confession to him

Again – if it requires the literal presence of God to get contrition, it’s not contrition… it’s coersion.

There is really nothing illogical

There really is: it goes against everything the Church teaches about salvation. There is no teaching – Scriptural, Apostolic, or even magisterial – that suggests what you’re suggesting. Therefore, yes… it is nonsensical.

You make a big stink out of someone forcing something on to another. But our entire human existence is a series of various forces encountering us in such a way that they force themselves onto us, often against our wills.

So, what you’re saying here is that it seems that God is just fine with us living like that here on earth, but He wouldn’t be God if that’s how He operated vis-a-vis salvation? Self-contradict much?

Anyway, all you’ve described is the conflation of “free will” and “freedom of action”. We’re not guaranteed freedom of action (if you think you are, go jump off a cliff, hoping to fly away!); but we do have the freedom to choose our actions. (When you drop to your demise, your free will will have been in perfect, undisturbed operation.)

Your coming into existence quite literally in no way factored in your will/desire at all.

And here we go. Blame God for your very existence. (Are you that guy who’s suing his parents for giving birth to him without his permission? )

 

[Magnanimity]

An essential condition for entering heaven is being willing to enter. If God forced someone to enter who did not want to be there,

This way of thinking makes choice itself as the final end of man. As if choice is your ultimate purpose. As in, what man was created to do, his final end, that towards which he constantly orients himself is…the making of choices… I recall that refrain from The Matrix trilogy, but I don’t recall it from scripture nor from the Tradition of the church.

In fact, my intellectual hero St Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle, argues that man was created for beatitudo. That is his final end—the thing he was made for and toward which he constantly orients himself. And once the good is identified with God himself as its source, we get the line from St Augustine: “You have made us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they rest in You.”

My mother-in-law did not at all appreciate when her two children intervened and took away the keys to her car so she couldn’t drive anymore. That act very much impinged on her freedom. She hated it. She also hated it when they took over her finances bc she couldn’t control her spending. And I’m sure that most folks who have abused substances absolutely hated entering the rehab center. At least in the beginning…

In the beginning, people really do hate when their “freedom” to ruine themselves and threaten others is impeded. But most at the end of their stint in rehab see the good of it and are grateful that someone else was looking out for their own good when they themselves couldn’t do it. They even see what they couldn’t see before—that other people, by forcing them in there—were seeking their good. And it’s the same with children taking over various aspects of the lives of their elderly parents when those parents cannot see what is in their own best interests.

So again, this view of human anthropology that wants to make choice itself as preeminent in the life of a human is deeply flawed. Humans made for beatitude is Christian anthropology. None of what I’m saying here denies human freedom, but it does put that freedom in its proper place and appreciates its vast restrictions.

 

[Ridgerunner]

At some point, we’re no longer in time. Perhaps it’s binary like a light switch. Perhaps there is a transition. The Church does allow that “final penitence” does exist. It does not define the mechanics of it.

 

[Gorgias]

This way of thinking makes choice itself as the final end of man. As if choice is your ultimate purpose. As in, what man was created to do, his final end

No – God is. However, free will choice is instrumental in the attainment of that goal.

In the beginning, people really do hate when their “freedom” to ruine themselves and threaten others is impeded.

The difference between your examples and the question at hand is that, in your examples, the people were incapable of making the choice themselves. Nice dodge, there. Subtle, but almost effective.

 

[oliver109]

I think many people live moral lives without being fearful of God, lets go back to the Scandinavian argument, I am sure that you will find people in Norway as pleasant and helpful as people in Brazil or South Carolina this despite having no fear of Hell. Why do you need the constant fear that you could be damned at any minute to be moral?

 

[oliver109]

God can ensure something without violating free will as you know, think of Mary, God ensured that she made the right choices but there was no forcing at all. St Thomas Aquinas mentioned God giving some people the grace of final perseverance where he ensures that the person dies in a state of grace, not when they have just committed a mortal sin, there is no forcing on Gods part, just God doing everything he can to get someone saved. A lot of Catholics seem to take a very passive, semi Pelagian view of God where his help is minimal and damnation is too easy to enter into.

 

[Fauken]

lets go back to the Scandinavian argument, I am sure that you will find people in Norway as pleasant and helpful as people in Brazil or South Carolina this despite having no fear of Hell.

They have no fear of Hell because they don’t believe in God. What is the point in being nice to your neighbor when you reject God?

Why do you need the constant fear that you could be damned at any minute to be moral?

I never said I did, and I don’t. But that’s not my point. As @Gorgias pointed out, your claim that only the “vicious” go to Hell is subjective. A serial killer is apparently vicious, but a priest who breaks his vows and causes another woman to ruin her relationship with God would not be vicious. Why should we live virtuous lives when we can live however we please until the very end? So long as I don’t kill people, God will give me a final chance according to you, right? I can just do whatever I want so long as I don’t “hurt” anyone, because God will give me every chance in the world.

Does that sound ridiculous? It should, because it is. We are to earn our salvation as runners run to win a race, as St. Paul says. You don’t win first prize by just thinking that you’ll win in the end because that would otherwise be unfair, or that everything will somehow work out in the end.

 

[Gorgias]

God can ensure something without violating free will as you know, think of Mary, God ensured that she made the right choices but there was no forcing at all.

We don’t teach that God “ensured that Mary made the right choices”. We teach that Mary freely gave her fiat.

St Thomas Aquinas mentioned God giving some people the grace of final perseverance where he ensures that the person dies in a state of grace

Actually, “final perseverance” doesn’t mean what you’re asserting it does. Rather, it means that, through the combination of God’s grace (which He gives to all) and human will, a person dies in a state of grace (or, to put it differently, a person dies while not in a state of mortal sin). It’s less an indication of God forcing the issue, than it is a statement that a person cooperates with God’s grace.

just God doing everything he can to get someone saved.

God provides grace to all people. Some accept it and cooperate with it; some do not.

 

[oliver109]

There is a point in being nicer to your neighbour in that it makes things nicer for everyone, lets go back to Scandinavia again and compare it to society in Britain, there is less of a tradition of being selfless in Britain which means that people don’t want to pay as much tax and therefore social problems like homelessness and lower life expectancy are more common. This is despite Britain being slightly more Catholic, slightly more religious than the Scandinavian countries. Why do you think people will become monsters just because they know God will offer them forgiveness and renewal every time? Salvation is not earnt it is a gift and there have as you know been a lot of sinners in history who were saved at the last minute after a life of wickedness.