Posted on 03/27/2007 10:53:30 AM PDT by Mount Athos
Hell is a place where sinners really do burn in an everlasting fire, and not just a religious symbol designed to galvanise the faithful, the Pope has said.
Addressing a parish gathering in a northern suburb of Rome, Benedict XVI said that in the modern world many people, including some believers, had forgotten that if they failed to “admit blame and promise to sin no more”, they risked “eternal damnation — the Inferno”.
Hell “really exists and is eternal, even if nobody talks about it much any more”, he said.
The Pope, who as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was head of Catholic doctrine, noted that “forgiveness of sins” for those who repent was a cornerstone of Christian belief. He recalled that Jesus had forgiven the “woman taken in adultery” and prevented her from being stoned to death, observing: “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”
God had given men and women free will to choose whether “spontaneously to accept salvation . . . the Christian faith is not imposed on anyone, it is a gift, an offer to mankind”.
Vatican officials said that the Pope — who is also the Bishop of Rome — had been speaking in “straightfoward” language “like a parish priest”. He had wanted to reinforce the new Catholic catechism, which holds that Hell is a “state of eternal separation from God”, to be understood “symbolically rather than physically”.
Agostino Paravicini Bagliani, a Church historian, said that the Pope was “right to remind us that Hell is not something to be put on one side” as an inconvenient or embarrassing aspect of belief.
It had been misused in the Middle Ages to scare the impressionable with “horrific visions” of damnation, as described in Dante’s Inferno.
It had a pedigree, however, that went back to Ancient Egypt and the Greek idea of Hades, and was described by St Matthew as a place of “everlasting fire” (Matthew xxv, 41).
“The problem is not only that our sense of sin has declined, but also that the world wars and totalitarianisms of the 20th century created a Hell on Earth as bad as anything we can imagine in the afterlife,” Professor Bagliani said.
In 1999 Pope John Paul II declared that Heaven was “neither an abstraction nor a physical place in the clouds, but that fullness of communion with God which is the goal of human life.” Hell, by contrast, was “the ultimate consequence of sin itself . . . Rather than a place, Hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy”.
In October the Pope indicated that limbo, supposed since medieval times to be a “halfway house” between Heaven and Hell, inhabited by unbaptised infants and holy men and women who lived before Christ, was “only a theological hypothesis” and not a “definitive truth of the faith”.
Timely visions
— “Outer darkness . . . there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” St Matthew
Any FR?
A lot of FR.
You too?
"Free will" and an omniscient God are a contradiction.
We do have free will, although we also are influenced by our genetic programming (instincts) and environmental influences (peer pressure, advertising, etc.).
God cannot be omniscient. God cannot exist.
Bob J said it correctly in his post: "Only a child believes in hell."
Salvation is gratuitous for both infants and adults. (Nevertheless, it is a gift that can also be rejected at any time).
Personally, he probably does. But the Church has never revealed the names of the damned, only the blessed, since the object of the Church is the salvation of mankind (Matt:28:16-20).
Seems to only have come up after Jesus died.
Actually, the Old Testament is fuzzy in its view of life after death, with all persons going to a place of concious existence called "Sheol." There is some degree of awareness that both the righteous and the wicked were there, and that there was justice meted out, but that is the extent of it.
Jesus referred to hell as "Gehenna" using a physical place of a garbage dump outside Jerusalem where things continually decomposed, stank, and burned. Kind of a pictorial way of saying that "hell" is the garbage dump of the universe. It is an apt picture, if one considers that death is an eternal dying, in that it is a continual and progressive affirmation of an individual rejecting both God and the image of God within him. A rejection of rationality, life, peace, love, hope, goodness, purity, happiness, security etc, means a progressive and increasing embrace of madness, hatred, rage, lust, fury, spite, evil and murder. It would be a place of ultimate despair and a progressive, ongoing degrading of all that it means to be men and women (in that the core of what it means to be human is tied up with being made in His Image.... and we regject that image). God "gives us over" to our choices, so that as awful and horrible as the punishment is, we return an eternal F*CK YOU to our creator and continually choose misery, pride and spite. All the talk about "flames" is kids' play compared to the true state of being separated from God for eternity and given over to our sin.
bla, bla, bla.
Homosexual priests are hell in the church. For starters clean house before spooking more people away.
No. Purgatory is a state of purgation prior to heaven, where those who die with some attachment to venial sin are cleansed before entering Heaven.
Those who die unrepentent of mortal sins are condemned to hell.
[Mortal vs. venial sin: John 1:5-16. "If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death."]
The doctrine of limbo has never been held as an infallible teaching of the Church. It has been a theological speculation, and a reasonable one at that. The teaching is fairly complex. See this.
I'll bet Kennedy, Kerry and Frank would be on the list of damned.
Great question. I found this helpful.
St. Thomas also provides explanations of what are now generally considered to be the two main difficulties of the subject, viz., the Divine permission of foreseen moral evil, and the question finally arriving thence, why God choose to create anything at all. First, it is asked why God, foreseeing that his creatures would use the gift of free will for their own injury, did not either abstain from creating them, or in some way safeguard their free will from misuse, or else deny them the gift altogether? St. Thomas replies (C. G., II, xxviii) that God cannot change His mind, since the Divine will is free from the defect of weakness or mutability. Such mutability would, it should be remarked, be a defect in the Divine nature (and therefore impossible), because if God's purpose were made dependent on the foreseen free act of any creature, God would thereby sacrifice His own freedom, and would submit Himself to His creatures, thus abdicating His essential supremacy--a thing which is, of course, utterly inconceivable. Secondly, to the question why God should have chosen to create, when creation was in no way needful for His own perfection, St. Thomas answers that God's object in creating is Himself; He creates in order to manifest his own goodness, power, and wisdom, and is pleased with that reflection or similitude of Himself in which the goodness of creation consists. God's pleasure is the one supremely perfect motive for action, alike in God Himself and in His creatures; not because of any need, or inherent necessity, in the Divine nature (C. G., I, xxviii; II, xxiii), but because God is the source, centre, and object, of all existence. (I, Q. 65:a. 2; cf. Proverbs 26 and Conc. Vat., can. 1:v; Const. Dogm., 1.) This is accordingly the sufficient reason for the existence of the universe, and even for the suffering which moral evil has introduced into it. God has not made the world primarily for man's good, but for His own pleasure; good for man lies in conforming himself to the supreme purpose of creation, and evil in departing from it (C.G., III, xvii, cxliv). It may further be understood from St. Thomas, that in the diversity of metaphysical evil, in which the perfection of the universe as a whole is embodied, God may see a certain similitude of His own threefold unity (cf. I, Q. xii); and again, that by permitting moral evil to exist He has provided a sphere for the manifestation of one aspect of His essential justice (cf. I, Q. lxv, a. 2; and I, Q. xxi, a. 1, 3).It is obviously impossible to suggest a reason why this universe in particular should have been created rather than another; since we are necessarily incapable of forming an idea of any other universe than this. Similarly, we are unable to imagine why God chose to manifest Himself by the way of creation, instead of, or in addition to, the other ways, whatever they may be, by which He has, or may have, attained the same end. We reach here the utmost limit of speculation; and our inability to conceive the ultimate reason for creation (as distinct from its direct motive) is paralleled, at a much earlier stage of the enquire, by the inability of the non-creationist schools of thought to assign any ultimate cause for the existence of the order of nature. It will be observed that St. Thomas's account of evil is a true Theodicy, taking into consideration as it does every factor of the problem, and leaving unsolved only the mystery of creation, before which all schools of thought are equally helpless. It is as impossible to know, in the fullest sense, why this world was made as to know how it was made; but St. Thomas has at least shown that the acts of the Creator admit of complete logical justification, notwithstanding the mystery in which, for human intelligence, they can never wholly cease to be involved. On Catholic principles, the amelioration of moral evil and its consequent suffering can only take place by means of individual reformation, and not so much through increase of knowledge as through stimulation or re-direction of the will. But since all methods of social improvement that have any value must necessarily represent a nearer approach to conformity with Divine laws they are welcomed and furthered by the Church, as tending, at least indirectly, to accomplish the purpose for which she exists.
As are light waves and photons, yet you hold both of them as true (if you have ever taken introductory physics). You simply acknowledge your mind and the state of human knowledge is not comprehensive enough to grasp it. That is the proper and humble state of mind to approach a being who says clearly that meaningful human choice and Divine sovereignty coexist in a non-contradictory manner. It is amazing how many "contradictory" elements men cheerfully affirm when it comes to the world of science (Newtonian physics and quantum mechanics is another example), yet become intolerable asses when presented with the first logical problem in an area where BY DEFINITION, there would be elements of an Infinite Creator that would be past human comprehension.
We do have free will, although we also are influenced by our genetic programming (instincts) and environmental influences (peer pressure, advertising, etc.).
Horse puckey. Determinism and meaningful choice are a logical problem whether you are a materialist or a theist. If you are a materialist, though, it is logically inescapable that there is, in fact, no "you" to even make a choice in the first place. "You" are a chance collection of chemicals which has no more control over the neurochemical stimuli which you call "choice" or "will" than whether a rock falls to the earth when dropped. Chemicals respond as they will and there is no"soul" or "being" or "mind" to make the choice in the first place. Materialism means there is ABSOLUTE chemical determinism and bullshit like "influence" by our environment is the deliberate, pathetic. and hopeful embrace of foolishness by someone who is afraid to face the implications of his own worldview. There is no "choice" for a materialist, and no concept of "meaning" to those "choices" even if they existed.
At least with the concept of an infinite God there is the possibility of a meaningful personality, in that it has an eternal and infinite analog. I am not denying that there are logical difficulties with the concept of sovereignty and meaningful choice (the true seat of the problem, not in omniscience). I am saying, though, that a retreat into materialism only "fixes" the problem by moving the problem of personality and choice into a total and complete illusion.
Man! People sneer at the religious for being afraid to face the truth!!!! I find that the secularist is the one terrified to face the implications of his own worldview, and continually clings to idiocy like "choice" "meaning" and fights like a maniac to avoid the clear implication that if there is no God, then absolutely nothing in his life makes any difference to anything anywhere at any time. They continually puke up some subterfuge like "survival of humanity" (like that has some intrinsic value!) or the collective "desires" of men (ignoring the plain fact that meaningless chemical interactions of cosmic accidents don't magically create meaning when you multiply them by 4 billion).
Sorry if that sounds a bit harsh, but you really should think through the silly assertions you make.
Dunno. Actually my question was if there's no e-mail in Heaven, is there a Free Republic? and if there isn't a Free Republic, how can it be Heaven?
This deserves more time and brain cells than I have available right now, got a plane to catch. BBL.
Assuming, of course, that you don't have to qualify your premise with the word "poorly."
regards DoP
It's in the Bible.
Matt. 12:32Jesus thus clearly provides that there is forgiveness after death.Jesus says, “And anyone who says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but no one who speaks against the Holy Spirit will be forgiven either in this world or in the next.”
Luke 12:47-48When the Master comes (at the end of time), some will receive light or heavy beatings but will live. This state is not heaven or hell, because in heaven there are no beatings, and in hell we will no longer live with the Master.That servant who knew his master's will but did not make preparations nor act in accord with his will shall be beaten severely; and the servant who was ignorant of his master's will but acted in a way deserving of a severe beating shall be beaten only lightly. Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more.
2 Macabbees 12:43-46He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin.
1 Corinthians 3:10-15According to the grace of God given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building upon it. But each one must be careful how he builds upon it,for no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it.
It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one's work.
If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage.
But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.
“if any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.” The phrase for "suffer loss" in the Greek is "zemiothesetai." The root word is "zemioo" which also refers to punishment. The construction “zemiothesetai” is used in Ex. 21:22 and Prov. 19:19 which refers to punishment (from the Hebrew “anash” meaning “punish” or “penalty”). Hence, this verse proves that there is an expiation of temporal punishment after our death, but the person is still saved. This cannot mean heaven (there is no punishment in heaven) and this cannot mean hell (the possibility of expiation no longer exists and the person is not saved).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.