Yes, in hell, but why forever

[OneSheep]

just a longer way of saying that he was Augustinian on this issue, as were the great majority of scholastics.

Can we agree that a young Church would logically have a theology that reflects that of a young person, a person yet to grow more in awareness? One only needs to read Acts 5:1-10 to see that the Church has come a long, long way.

I am trying my best to get the church in the West to this place, even folks here at CAF!

Well, me too. The more I learn, the more I realize that the Spirit has been helping the Church all along. For example, Anselm was big on the notion of “debt owed to God”, and that may seem backward, but it is an improvement over Augustine’s “debt owed to satan”, as if humanity has an innate negative affect. Pope Benedict, among others, turns upside down Anselm’s concept of debt and attonement.

Augustine’s approach, regardless of how much it ignores human dignity, was sure to have been an improvement of some kind. For example, as today, the early Church seemed to be all over the board, right? So the approach of human depravity, an unconscious view, is at least something we can all relate to at some time in our life. Having a stable theology, at the time, was better than chaos. When society is in chaos, when behavior and civility is out of control, an Augustinian approach is far better than an unresolved, insecure alternative.

 

[goout]

Well God would then say to the adulterer “sin will never satisfy you the way that my love and my presence will, what you are doing is fruitless and destructive, it may feel good for now but it is not the way to do things to be happy in the long term, would you like to stop now and confess to me or if you want you do not have to say anything to me and make your own home in Hell?” the priest would then either say “yes father, you are right, what I was doing was foolish, it was unfruitful and it was not in your will” or “no father, I was loving every minute of it, I do not care about eternity or where I go after, I can have endless tears and boredom in Hell for 20 mins of sex, I just want the sex now and would rather forget about Heaven forever”

The person is not already rebelling and making bad choices? Especially since he is hypothetically a priest? Why would he suddenly make a good choice on the spur of the moment?
Good decisions are not accidents.

Look I am all for the power of God’s mercy, but presumption is the road to death.

Marriage is the best image of God’s love. I don’t expect to treat my wife with indifference, then show up at the last minute for heavenly bliss. Ok? Is it possible? Sure anything is possible.
We live in the real, not the possible.

 

[oliver109]

He could suddenly make a good choice on the spur of the moment because it is in his nature, remember this priest went to Confession every week, he probably committed the sin because he liked the feeling of it but at the same time he hoped that God would forgive him and he could work his way to becoming a better priest. There are different types of sinners, those who love their sin so much that they can not bear to give it up, those who love sinning but also do want to give it up and those who love sinning but have given it up and those who have do not love sinning and have given it up.

 

[goout]

He could suddenly make a good choice on the spur of the moment
…

Could he? The virtues and good works you are describing were not very well ingrained evidently, or your hypothetical indiscretion would not be happening.

Again, grace is not magic, and grace asks for a decisive response with the knowledge we have, not based on presumptive hypotheticals.

 

[oliver109]

Why not, I cant really see this priest rejecting God forever, he did some bad things but then so many of us have done some bad things, i think it is completely possible for that priest to tell God that he wants to turn his back on sin and enter Heaven. There seems to be an attitude here where those who sin just before they die are somehow worse than those who sin say a year before they die.

 

[Fauken]

celebrate a society being moral whether it believes in God or not.

Not if it’s through immoral means.

There is nothing wrong about having high taxes, the social services a great as are the benefits so theoretically you could be a car factory technician making $1000 a week, you get taxed for $600 of it but then you receive a $200 a week child welfare payment from the government as well as having free childcare and healthcare as well as subsidised housing.

Let’s add on a few zeros. Say I make ten million dollars a year. The Swedish government takes seven million away from me in taxes. I get a $200 credit for my kids, health care, and subsidized housing in exchange for seven million dollars. How is that fair? Why should I remain in Sweden?

Why can’t God have mercy on the unprepared?

God did have mercy on them. They chose to squander it.

 

[oliver109]

So you still have 3 million dollars a year, that is enough for 8 cars, 5 exotic holidays and a seven bedroom house by a beautiful lake, what more could you want in an 80 year existence? the attitudes of some of the super rich is astonishing. Will you feel less worthy of Heaven because you only have a speedboat instead of a cruise liner? They squandered Gods mercy but they still desired Gods mercy after they sqaundered it.

 

[OneSheep]

Sure sounds like you’re talking about awareness that something is a sin…

Lacking awareness that some act “is a sin” is certainly part, however small, about lacking awareness concerning what one is doing, but is far from the whole picture.

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.)

The CCC does not support your statement. Based on the CCC definition of “mortal sin”, mortal sin is observably impossible. It involves knowing the seriousness of a sin.

To know the seriousness of a sin, one has to be cognizant of the infinite value of the person being harmed. However, when people sin they are either blind or lacking awareness, so they are not in the moment aware of the seriousness. After the sin, when the sinner feels remorse, is when the sinner is in actuality aware of the seriousness.

that a deep, complete, all-encompassing knowledge of each and every effect of sin is necessary for it to be a mortal sin.

Regardless of how the Church teaches, when a person is not cognizant of something relevant to the choice to sin, then that person does not know what they are doing. Jesus observed that the crowd did not know what they were doing when they called for his torture and execution.

People who choose hell do not know what they are doing.

In fact, what the Church teaches is that sin primarily offends God.

Yes, since God is in everyone, then an offense against any person is an offense against God. However, does God hold a grudge, or does he understand and forgive, as Jesus did from the cross? Since we believe in a God who is omniscient, God understood and forgave even before He hit the “create” button. He forgave us before we were born.

Are you thinking that God being offended means that He’s angry or resentful?

Immaterial.

Not so. When our empathy is blinded, we are no different than the psychopath in terms of what harm we are capable of inflicting. Most crimes are done by people who are not psychopaths. When a person’s empathy is blocked, they do not know what they are doing.

Our sins – if grave, and understood as grave, and freely chosen, can cause us to lose our salvation.

So first of all, in order for a person to truly understand the gravity of their sin, they must be cognizant of the infinite value of the victim. It is to be observed that such simply doesn’t happen.

Secondly, what do you mean by “cause us to lose our salvation”? Do you mean that God is not allowing a choice for heaven, that the choice is taken away?

If so, the words “worthy of losing heaven” mean that the choice is made on the part of someone (God) determining worthiness, this is not “taking the expression too far.”

 

[goout]

Why not, I cant really see this priest rejecting God forever, he did some bad things but then so many of us have done some bad things, i think it is completely possible for that priest to tell God that he wants to turn his back on sin and enter Heaven. There seems to be an attitude here where those who sin just before they die are somehow worse than those who sin say a year before they die.

No not at all.
The attitude is that holiness is a free choice. And holiness requires that free response, and free response doesn’t happen magically in a moment.

Here’s the key concept: God’s potency doesn’t violate God’s nature. The fact that God has the ability to do something doesn’t mean it’s in his nature.

So it is for love: God can force us to make decisions, but it’s not in his nature to do so. And so the priest must live his life responsibly, and that responsibility has consequences, and to hinge your relationship with God on hypothetical and magical speculations is dangerous.

 

[Fauken]

So you still have 3 million dollars a year, that is enough for 8 cars, 5 exotic holidays and a seven bedroom house by a beautiful lake, what more could you want in an 80 year existence? the attitudes of some of the super rich is astonishing.

That’s not the point. That seven million dollars I was taxed for was the majority of the money that I earned. The laborer is due his wages. I did labor that was worth ten million dollars. I’ll use myself as an example. I have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering. I spent over five years in school learning advanced mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc., to get that degree. I went to a great school to get my degree. It was extremely difficult. The skills I learned earn me enough money to be in the top 20% of earners in the country (and I don’t make a six figure salary). Compare that to someone who did not go to university like I did and does not have the skills I have. If 70% of my money is basically taken from me, why did I bother to go to school to begin with? Why should my wages be forcibly taken from me when I put in the effort and time to earn what my company thinks I’m worth? It’s one thing if I decide to give 70% it away to charity. That’s fine and admirable. But it’s my decision. I earned my wages with my skills and labor. I should have those fruits.

They squandered Gods mercy but they still desired Gods mercy after they sqaundered it.

In your situation the priest was killed in the act. No he didn’t want it, otherwise he’d have said no in the first place. Being sorry while still doing it is not being sorry. Being sorry only because you now have to face the music is not being sorry.

 

[oliver109]

And Scandinavia still manages to have top engineers, lawyers, journalists, factory owners, chefs etc despite the high taxes, you can not really feel robbed by paying tax when that money goes to help the weak and the vulnerable, to help build better infrastructure, good roads and railway lines and airports. You still get the fruits of the labour if you are rich as a person on a million a year will live very comfortably on 300k a year and with enough money for all kinds of exciting experiences. The priest may have been killed while he was sinning or rather he lost consciousness while he was sinning but it was still in his character to confess after he sinned, remember there are two different kinds of sinners, those who sin and want forgiveness and those who sin and do not want forgiveness, basically the repentant and the unrepentant.

 

[goout]

…l
The priest may have been killed while he was sinning or rather he lost consciousness while he was sinning but it was still in his character to confess after he sinned,
…

In the scenario you created it was the priest’s character to have God’s grace on constant offer, to have knowledge of it, and the experience of it, and with all of that, it is in his character to reject it. And in his character to will something contrary to God’s grace and act on it.

That’s what his character is. By your definition of the person.

 

[Gorgias]

Based on the CCC definition of “mortal sin”, mortal sin is observably impossible.

Annnnnd… this is where we ended up, the last go-around.

So, on one hand, I have the Catholic Church – founded by Christ and given authority to teach by Him – telling us what a mortal sin is. On the other hand, we have you telling us that the teaching is false.

Guess who I’m gonna go with on this one…?

To know the seriousness of a sin, one has to be cognizant of the infinite value of the person being harmed.

No. One merely has to know that it rises to the level of gravity necessary to be potentially ‘mortal.’

Think of it this way: I don’t need to know the precise temperature of water that’s boiling in a vat in order to know that it’s bad for me. I’m not gonna sit there and say “unless I know the precise thermometer reading, I’m unable to make the choice that staying in this state is harmful to me.”

All I have to know is that it’s hot, and that I need to avoid it.

a person is not cognizant of something relevant to the choice to sin, then that person does not know what they are doing.

As Fr Z likes to say, “B as in B. S as in S.”

By the very definition of what it means to be a finite being, it’s necessarily true that we do not know everything. That does not imply, however, that we are incapable of knowing sufficiently.

So first of all, in order for a person to truly understand the gravity of their sin, they must be cognizant of the infinite value of the victim. It is to be observed that such simply doesn’t happen.

It is to be observed that what you’re asserting is not what the Church teaches on the matter. Put simply: you’re wrong. Sorry.

Secondly, what do you mean by “cause us to lose our salvation”? Do you mean that God is not allowing a choice for heaven, that the choice is taken away?

No. That means that the person makes the choice, and the choice isn’t “love God and choose to be with Him in heaven.”

If so, the words “worthy of losing heaven” mean that the choice is made on the part of someone (God) determining worthiness, this is not “taking the expression too far.”

God sets up the rules. We decide whether we want to follow them. It’s not about how the determination for “worthiness” is reached… it’s about our choices once the options are laid before us.

 

[oliver109]

This priest had committed the sin on previous occasions with the same woman, he confessed it afterwards and vowed not to do it again, on this occasion he allowed temptation to get the better of him again and had sex, the only difference was that he was not able to get to Confession after the plane crashed on him or was he? There would be nothing to stop God allowing the priest to Confess his sins to a saint like Padre Pio just before he separates the soul from the body and i am sure that the priest would admit that Heaven is more preferable to 20 mins of sex.

 

[goout]

This priest had committed the sin on previous occasions with the same woman, he confessed it afterwards and vowed not to do it again, on this occasion he allowed temptation to get the better of him again and had sex, the only difference was that he was not able to get to Confession after the plane crashed on him or was he? There would be nothing to stop God allowing the priest to Confess his sins to a saint like Padre Pio just before he separates the soul from the body and i am sure that the priest would admit that Heaven is more preferable to 20 mins of sex.

I dunno, I only know what I know.
What do I know? Christ came in human flesh, and asks us to be fully responsible humans. And part of being human is to respond as we are able, and not rely on hypotheticals and presumptions.

Christ is not a hypothetical, Christ is God-made-flesh. And our getting to heaven is a conformity to Christ as he is.

 

[Gorgias]

i am sure that the priest would admit that Heaven is more preferable to 20 mins of sex.

Then why is he choosing sex over heaven?

 

[OneSheep]

I have the Catholic Church – founded by Christ and given authority to teach by Him – telling us what a mortal sin is. On the other hand, we have you telling us that the teaching is false.

I didn’t say the teaching is false. I said that mortal sin can be observed to be impossible.

Question: What do you like better, that:
A. some people end up choosing hell in ignorance, or that
B. everyone chooses heaven, because the only person who chooses hell does not know what they are doing, and God makes sure that they do know what they are doing?

No. One merely has to know that it rises to the level of gravity necessary to be potentially ‘mortal.’

CCC doesn’t say it that way.

All I have to know is that it’s hot, and that I need to avoid it.

Yes, we can certainly know that it is good to avoid sin. We’re not talking about avoiding sin in this thread, though, we are talking about mercy, in the context of whether God would allow a person to choose hell without knowing what the he is doing, and whether a merciful God would let a person choose heaven after suffering in hell.

That does not imply , however, that we are incapable of knowing sufficiently.

If one does not know the infinite value of the person being harmed by an act, then there is not sufficient knowledge of the gravity of the sin to avoid it.

Do you know what it means to be blind to the value of the other? Do you ever have negative feelings toward someone? If so, you did not know what you were thinking, you were blind.

It is to be observed that what you’re asserting is not what the Church teaches on the matter. Put simply: you’re wrong. Sorry.

Well, provide the proof, then. Where in the CCC does it say that I am wrong?

it’s about our choices once the options are laid before us.

Let’s go back to that choice people made. They could have said, “Free Him” or they could have said “Crucify Him”. They, for the most part, chose “Crucify Him”. Did God hold it against them, or did He understand and forgive? Well, the latter is the truth. Now, would this same God see that a person choosing hell does not know what he is doing (which is the truth), or would He understand and forgive? And then since He understands and forgives, would He allow a person that He loves and forgives to choose hell, or does He do all He possibly can to make the person aware of what they are choosing?

And then, could any person, given a clear choice, possibly prefer hell? If so, please describe that person. I’m not saying it is impossible, because I am not omniscient, but I cannot think of how it could happen that an aware person would make such a choice.

Awareness with anything short of knowing the experience of hell itself, would not be sufficient, right? Would a loving God not do everything possible to get the lost sheep to change his mind?

 

[Gorgias]

I didn’t say the teaching is false. I said that mortal sin can be observed to be impossible.

And if the Church posits the existence of mortal sin, then you’re saying she’s teaching untruth.

some people end up choosing hell in ignorance

This is what is an impossibility.

CCC doesn’t say it that way.

OK. Cite where you think it’s saying it differently, please.

We’re not talking about avoiding sin in this thread, though, we are talking about mercy, in the context of whether God would allow a person to choose hell without knowing what the he is doing

But, that’s precisely where you’re centering the discussion. You’re claiming something that the Church doesn’t teach – that the person must be omniscient in order to his sin to possibly be mortal. It’s exactly the example I stated.

What you consider “knowing” is so high a bar that it can never be reached. That’s the problem with your argument, here…

If one does not know the infinite value of the person being harmed by an act, then there is not sufficient knowledge of the gravity of the sin to avoid it.

The Church disagrees with you.

Well, provide the proof, then. Where in the CCC does it say that I am wrong?

It defines it differently than you do. If you want to make a positive claim – that is, that you’re stating what the CCC states – then let’s see the evidence.

Awareness with anything short of knowing the experience of hell itself, would not be sufficient, right?

No, that’s not true.

 

[oliver109]

Every mortal sin is a stupid choice, an irrational choice, does that mean that the priest would say in Confession to the sinner that they have made such an idiotic choice that they do not deserve forgiveness? No so there you go. It is about being willing to admit wrongs and move on from them.

 

[Gorgias]

Every mortal sin is a stupid choice, an irrational choice, does that mean that the priest would say in Confession to the sinner that they have made such an idiotic choice that they do not deserve forgiveness?

The difference between the example at hand and what you’re trying to use as a counterpoint is that, in this new example, the penitent is contrite and wishes to be forgiven. In your ‘sex’ example, the priest is neither contrite nor seeking forgiveness. That doesn’t strike you as a significant difference?