On Hell and Forgiveness

[Aroura]

Aurora, I really don't know. My best guess would be that perhaps since someone like that likely isn't actually an evil person (just a hurt person), that they would come around eventually.

---

.

Some people are born without the ability to feel remorse. How does one account for that? We would call them sociopathic monsters, but it isn't a choice.

Do the mentally ill get a pass? 500 years ago we did not understand mental illness at all. Those people would have assumed the person schizophrenic person was simply chosing that, or maybe infested with demons. How do we know that all people who qualify for hell aren't damaged or suffering from mental illness?

This is one thing that makes no sense to me. It's very unequal. Some people are literally tortured in life, others are relatively safe and healthy, yet in the end must all pass the same emotional test of accepting love?

Also an interesting question and I've thought about this before too. Again, I don't know. If you put a gun to my head and told me to take a guess, I'd say since sociopathy is a disorder and since only our souls are left after we die (not our bodies), any disorder or illness we have is no longer present. Perhaps the sociopath would then have the ability to experience remorse and empathy like a normal human. From there it would be up to them how they react.

I do appreciate your candidness. : Do you ever wonder if there is no such thing as evil, only various states of damage?  

I remember when I was a teen (or maybe a tween?), and there was this story on TV my mom and I watched.  It really shook up my mom.  It was about a guy who was this great family man, and he'd been in some sort of accident with a head injury, and had become violent.  Like, murderously violent. Doctors doing a brain scan saw what part of his brain had suffered injury, and were able to give him medication (or was it surgery?  It was along time ago, I cannot remember all the details), but the point is there was some treatment that actually cured his violence and allowed him to go back to his normal, family life.

We were talking about it afterwards and she started to wonder, if we are our brains this way, then who is to say why anyone is violent?  I know it bothers her to this day, though she's never changed her views (she's still fully Catholic and embraces...90% or so of the teachings.  But she did stop going to church when I was about 15.  I want to ask her why but now that she's had a stroke, I'm afraid to broach this subject, because it seems really inappropriate), but I started thinking about it young enough that it really changed my view of the world.  In time.  I'm just wondering if it bothers you at all that when we look at....well...anyone, it turns out there is a physical thing going on.  What we eat, how we are treated, and everything that happens to us literally changes our brain structure.  Our DNA sets things to begin with, things completely outside our control, and then parts grow, other parts shrivel from disuse, chemical compositions are altered, etc.  At what point is it evil, and at what point is it just a result of how a persons brain literally is?

It is one of the questions I found the most intriguing and difficult to come to terms with in my life.  It's interesting to see how others deal with it.

---

So, let's say there is a child that is raped and tortured. That child develops the inability to trust. Even if they are lucky enough to get treatment and they recover enough to work and not be labeled "mentally ill", they still suffer through their entire life the effects of being heavily abused as a child.

Let's say that person grows up unable to accept love, because their idea of love was twisted so badly at a young age that they never recover.

Do they go to hell when they reject God? Do they get to suffer eternal separation?  Can you not see how this is the worst kind of punishing a victim?

This is a real question(s), and I want answers from one of the theists in this thread.

Your question is predicated on a person being unable to respond to God's love. First, it is far from clear whether God's love could not reach such as person. I have to imagine that if there was any healing that can happen, it is in relationship with God--who can satisfy the emotional and spiritual needs of a person better than any other. Second, I have always held that God judges based on your response to the information he has revealed to you. If a person is indeed broken, it is entirely the case God will judge them on what responses were possible--with no one knowing what responses were possible except God.

Thank you also for you very honest and candid response.  I find the issue I have is what I have highlighted.

If everything can change as soon as we die, what does your belief and my disbelief matter at all, right now, today?  If it all gets reset to 0 and we get the same exact chance after death, then I'm exactly as close to God as you are.

Also, if God takes your experiences away from you or alters you (or them) after death, are you you anymore?

[Angrboda]

3. False analogy. God does not make decisions based on emotions. They are based on essential characteristics of love, justice, holiness, and mercy. As essential characteristics, one cannot be set aside when convenient. They all govern all the time. This is also the answer to whether God loves people in Hell. Yes, he loves all of his creation but it does not matter because there are other constraints in place. 

6 And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.”

[Neo-Scholastic]

Plenty can be done without god.  The problem lies in thinking god is the be all to end all.   Anything can be done without god.  Theists just prefer to think otherwise for the sake of supporting the delusion.

Why does every difference of opinion need to be characterized as a delusion? How is it possible for someone to have a sincere conversation with another whom he considers to be mentally ill? Why should that other person reach out to the first knowing the first will dismiss him as irrational? Anyways...

From a Christian perspective you are seeing things completely backwards. God is indeed, contrary to what you say, the be all to end all. He is the alpha and the omega (Rev 1:8, Rev 22:13). He is the All in all (Col 3:11, Eph 4:6, 1 Cor 15:28). In Classical philosophy, creation would collapse into non-being without the sustained activity of a Necessary Being. The root of Hell is clinging to the belief that anything can exist apart from God when in reality your very being depends on God.

It should be obvious to you, based on just this last post of yours, that you desire to be apart from God. That attitude is consistent with our position that Hell is a turning away that results in a kind of self-imposed exile.

[RoadRunner79]

Plenty can be done without god.  The problem lies in thinking god is the be all to end all.   Anything can be done without god.  Theists just prefer to think otherwise for the sake of supporting the delusion.

Why does every difference of opinion need to be characterized as a delusion? How is it possible for someone to have a sincere conversation with another whom he considers to be mentally ill? Why should that other person reach out to the first knowing the first will dismiss him as irrational? Anyways...

From a Christian perspective you are seeing things completely backwards. God is indeed, contrary to what you say, the be all to end all. He is the alpha and the omega (Rev 1:8, Rev 22:13). He is the All in all (Col 3:11, Eph 4:6, 1 Cor 15:28). In Classical philosophy, creation would collapse into non-being without the sustained activity of a Necessary Being. The root of Hell is clinging to the belief that anything can exist apart from God when in reality your very being depends on God.

It should be obvious to you, based on just this last post of yours, that you desire to be apart from God. That attitude is consistent with our position that Hell is a turning away that results in a kind of self-imposed exile.

You mean it’s not myself, that is the be all; end all, and arbitrator of everyone else? Rats!

[Neo-Scholastic]

Don't you think there are ways of following Christ without consciously knowing you are following Christ?

Isn't that called 'perfect contrition', the loop-hole the Latin church provides for non-Catholics.

For example, Ghandi. He wasn't Christian. But he still lived by the same principles that Jesus advocated. He strived to love others. He valued humility and charity. He strived to live a life of virtue and dignity. I'm sure he probably felt remorse for his wrong doings.

C/L please correct me if I am wrong, being as you are a practicing Catholic, and not an interested outsider such as myself...

The question revolves around whether or not someone believes their actions, in and of themselves, are meritorious. If someone believes he deserves to be in Heaven, apart from Grace, then no, that person will not attain the full blessing of being in the presence of the Lord. That does not mean in the afterlife that such people cannot be happy. Catholic doctrine includes the state of "limbus infantium" for those not redeemed from original sin but who have nevertheless not engaged in a mortal sin.

[Catholic_Lady]

Aurora, that is why we are told that we must not negatively judge the state of another person's soul. In Catholicism, we have saints - ie people whom we have officially declared as being in Heaven. But we don't have the opposite. We can't even say Hitler is in Hell. Why? Because of exactly what you wrote. Since we cannot see into a person's mind, we cannot judge their level of culpability. Not when it comes to the state of their soul. So there is some credit to what you wrote, imho.

With that being said, as you know, I am still a believer in free will. I think in probably most cases, or at least some cases, a person's mental illness/experiences/DNA makes them more susceptible to act out in certain ways, but it doesn't completely control them. Even though people with certain inclinations may have a harder time than others in controlling certain wrongful behaviors, at the end of the day, I believe they still have a choice.

There are plenty of people with mental illness who don't harm others, and there are plenty of people who are not mentally ill at all - just selfish. Just selfish and they choose not to better themselves because they don't want to. There are plenty of abuse victims who choose not to lash out and abuse others in return, and instead become advocates.

---

Don't you think there are ways of following Christ without consciously knowing you are following Christ?

Isn't that called 'perfect contrition', the loop-hole the Latin church provides for non-Catholics.

For example, Ghandi. He wasn't Christian. But he still lived by the same principles that Jesus advocated. He strived to love others. He valued humility and charity. He strived to live a life of virtue and dignity. I'm sure he probably felt remorse for his wrong doings.

C/L please correct me if I am wrong, being as you are a practicing Catholic, and not an interested outsider such as myself...

The question revolves around whether or not someone believes their actions, in and of themselves, are meritorious. If someone believes he deserves to be in Heaven, apart from Grace, then no, that person will not attain the full blessing of being in the presence of the Lord. That does not mean in the afterlife that such people cannot be happy. Catholic doctrine includes the state of "limbus infantium" for those not redeemed from original sin but who have nevertheless not engaged in a mortal sin.

Limbo was actually never a dogmatic teaching, and was removed from the catechism a while back ago. I gotta admit it was before my time, so I don't know much about it at all except that it's an old school concept that we don't adhere to anymore.

With that being said, I would agree with you that if someone thinks they are entitled to Heaven, there is still pride in their hearts. Since Heaven is the state of perfect grace, I agree that someone with those sentiments isn't there yet. I wasn't trying to imply differently.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's an interesting bit of doublethink, shared with islamic ideology - both traditions maintaining that on the one hand they cannot say who is in hell..but on the other that they know what will get a person there.  It stands to reason that the articles of their faith as regards condemnation can be known, and if those are known..then one does indeed know at least some of the people in hell.  

Atheists, for example..and other assorted critics of the RCC, lol. Meanwhile, 1992 is "oldschool" nowadays. I may as well buy a cane and start sucking prunes.

[Aroura]

Here is why this matters to me, even though I don't believe in heaven or hell:

These beliefs and ideas affect real people.  I'm not saying no free-will at all for this argument, but understanding that behaviors have causes help us to both prevent bad behaviors, and to help people who already exhibit them.

The idea that someone chooses to be evil and someone else chooses to be good leads us to stuff people in prisons and not care what happens to them.  The idea that God will sort out all inequality in the end leads us to care less about inequality right now, right in front of us.  The idea that people are sinful leads many to believe that whatever people are suffering in life they have somehow deserved, somehow earned.  And if that isn't the case, then it's still ok, because God will sort it out when we all die.

Not all Christians fall into this, naturally.  There are of course many Christians, even a couple on this very forum, who care what happens to the ones I am talking about.  But I hope those people can look around themselves and recognize that many people, so very many, use these ideas to soothe themselves and not only take no action to help, but actively shun the ones I'm talking about.

I think in order to help people here, now, in this life, we need to understand how and why people do what they do.  And that means we need to look at it without the lense of the mystical.  I don't say, or even mean, fake.  I mean whatever you wish to call the soul, free-will, and other things of the spiritual realm. Fine, let God deal with that stuff, but we need to deal with real people, and help them instead of coming up with excuses why we should discard them.

[SteveII]

Why is this doctrine constantly mischaracterized? Is it because if you phrase it the way you do it sound more incredulous/ridiculous? It makes the objection no more than a straw man. People do not go to hell because they failed to "love God back". They go to hell because their sins have not been atoned for. Period. 

1. Hell is not so much self-imposed as a consequence of your decision not to seek atonement (or do the best you can with the information God made available to you and respond to him in some way). 
2. No grudge. Just a state of existence that is now fully separated from God compared to your life where God's presence was all around you in some way.  It is quite possible (as Neo was discussing) that once a soul is really separated from God, it does not desire God nor anything resembling the Good (with a capital G). 
3. False analogy. God does not make decisions based on emotions. They are based on essential characteristics of love, justice, holiness, and mercy. As essential characteristics, one cannot be set aside when convenient. They all govern all the time. This is also the answer to whether God loves people in Hell. Yes, he loves all of his creation but it does not matter because there are other constraints in place. 

Now you might say what if the system was that when we all die, we are given another chance to respond to God and take the atonement offered? Wouldn't that be the logical equivalent of everyone getting into heaven no matter what their choices in life were--because really, who would refuse it standing before the eternal creator of the universe? Is that compatible with God's holiness and justice to have an automatic safety net (to say nothing of all the effort in the main theme/thread of the Bible that eventually leads to the cross and the NT Christian life)? I don't think that is consistent at all with what we know about God and his original purpose and desire for us.

Another thing, it seems that the mortal component of our existence is the window of opportunity to respond to God. To claim that was not enough time, not clear enough, or somehow unfair is not a logical argument--it is an emotional argument without any real justification when closely examined.

Steve, though this is a different take than mine, you could very well be right about it. I admit my views on how it will all work and who goes to Heaven/Hell are guesses based on my understanding of God. Ultimately I know that it isn't my place to make conclusions about this, as I am not some sort of gatekeeper to the afterlife. I'm not trying to challenge you, just some genuine questions and comments about what you wrote above:

- Don't you think there are ways of following Christ without consciously knowing you are following Christ? For example, Ghandi. He wasn't Christian. But he still lived by the same principles that Jesus advocated. He strived to love others. He valued humility and charity. He strived to live a life of virtue and dignity. I'm sure he probably felt remorse for his wrong doings. He wasn't christian so I'm sure he didn't specifically pray saying "Jesus, I lost my patience with my friend today. Please forgive me Lord" ... but I imagine he felt remorse nonetheless. ...And I'm not talking about just him, but any other human who, for whatever reason, isn't technically a Christian, but by the way they live their lives, they follow Christ. Does that not count for anything? Does the person have to consciously say "I believe that Jesus is God?"

It depends. If they have been exposed to the Gospel and have had time to consider it and pursue questions, then that person (like Ghandi) has actually rejected what God has offered. There is no salvation for such a person no matter how sincere they are in serving humanity or some other greater good. On the other hand, I believe that in the absence of the direct knowledge of the Gospel, one can be saved by a sincere response to God as he has revealed himself. I don't mean person so-and-so was a really good person who fed the poor. I mean a specific response to something God revealed to him/her. The Catholics call this doctrine Invincible Ignorance. 

- I would also like to comment on your second to last paragraph. You said that if people were given a chance after dying to see God before them, they would all accept God, regardless of how they were like in life. Maybe I'm wrong, but I am inclined to not underestimate people's pride. Their sense of entitlement. Their refusal to admit wrongdoings. If someone was a complete POS in this life, I find it hard to believe that he would stand before goodness and love itself and genuinely humble himself before It.

Thoughts?

Could be. I don't know how much pride a dead human can have facing an omnipotent, omniscient, holy, eternally-existing creator of the universe. Depends if we imagine a plain room with a two chairs and a table with a guy with the name tag "Peter" or standing in the presence of God and the hosts of angels. I don't think the whole concept is compatible with the thousands of years God took to promise and then orchestrate the events of the NT, the very clear message of the NT (Jesus spoke more on Hell than anyone else), the instruction on a spirit-filled life throughout the epistles, and then on that basis the 20 centuries of people feeling compelled to evangelize the world for what...the first of two chances at heaven?

[Catholic_Lady]

Aurora I don't disagree.

---

Thanks for the answer Steve.

One follow up question:

Can it truly be called "rejecting" the gospel to simply not think that it is true? Wouldn't rejection be more like "Yeah I believe Jesus is God but I don't like him and I don't care and I won't follow what He teaches." Can simply thinking that it isn't true be considered an honest mistake rather than full out rejection?