Posted on 06/09/2016 5:17:47 PM PDT by SGNA
replied to so I can read this later...thanks...
I don’t know about hell, but one should contemplate
death every day. That way when it happens, it won’t be
such a surprise.
The way of the samurai is found in death.
That's all Ann does anyway. Whatever message she has is drowned in rage. It makes this whole article pathetically ironic.
Worst post of the year, so far.
I think the first and biggest surprise most people have after they die is that they're not dead.
After that, there are two completely different second reactions, depending on the person. The first is joy, followed by gratitude.
The second is terror, followed by the reflection and thought of, "oh no...".
“Got a question for you: is there a difference between rage and righteous anger?”
You and I seem to know that Difference but just as Ann is trying to say, Help those that are blind before they find themselves past the time for choice. She is “Righteous in here Remarks for she know to some extent whats waiting for the Damned and she know we should do what we can to help them see, but in the end it is Their Own Free Will that the decision will come from.
P.S. and how many so called Christians believe in Heaven yet have a hard time say let alone believing in Hell???
God Bless
Many people say they are saved. But from what are they saved?
The answer is God’s wrath, which is worthy of some thinking............
I would say rage is the expression of unlimited anger alone, while righteous anger is anger tempered by its claimed reason. At times they can be equal. Mostly, they're not, because mostly, rage is the loss of control over anger.
Why?
Somebody's got to do it; especially since Francis has already dissed Hell.
I have to disagree with the OP article.
We are flatly told that Christ came to destroy the works of the Devil and sin is that work.
For that reason alone any form of sin, even those of the heart as unrighteous hate is, must be denied the damned.
And if you will follow the logic I’m about to present you may see that this is actually worse for the finally damned in terms of what they would want.
At issue is the underlaying nature or anyone in the resurrection and in this a contrast between saint and damned is useful.
The saints in the resurrection of the redeemed have the Holy Spirit defining their very nature and the sin nature, the old body of death, is gone. That doesn’t mean memory of this life is gone though, just that memory of sin will be in relation to realized holiness and seen as the horror it actually is.
But the damned only possess a sin nature, that doesn’t mean that they only remember that but it does mean that they will want to still exercise that nature even in Hell. There is no redemption possible for them because they have no recourse to the Holy Spirit. Yes, they will then “believe” yet only as the demons do.
In the past I’ve found the metaphor of an “itch” to be useful if only because most everyone can relate to the sensation, especially the maddening ones that just cannot be reached.
Even now while still in this life a saint, because of the presence of the Holy Spirit, has an “itch” for godliness.
Just as all men who still endure this body of death have a sin “itch”.
Which itch you scratch at, obey, determines which is growing stronger, for one of the things about some itches is that the more you scratch at them the more intense they become.
So the mortal saint has these two masters vying for his attention, but in being faithful and proverbially scratching at the promptings of the Holy Spirit the saints, and only the saints, have the option of not sinning ... it’s just a matter of Whom or what your obey.
In the resurrection the saint will no longer have that second would-be master, the body of death, demanding his attention but only the Holy Spirit. As a consequence the godly “itch” can be scratched at and thereby inflamed endlessly, and the saints will evermore be able to enjoy relationship with Him who saved them. Heaven is then easily seen as an expansive state without boundaries. God: a source of endless ever increasing fascination and joy we will never tire of and the saints have His promise that He will not let go of us, and He is faithful.
BUT the damned in the resurrection only have the sin nature. They have scratched at their sin itch their whole lives in various ways and it is true that some will have not done so either as frequently nor as intensely as others ... so it is logical that some of the lost will start of in Hell with a weaker “itch” than others.
This is not necessarily as people would think of it because men have a high estimation of morality; yet, morality, or the knowledge or good and evil, has been the problem from the beginning. Our parents were created as holy beings and in their fall they became merely moral. So I think it reasonable that the lack of holiness, and not just morality, defines the sin nature. A heathen who never knew much about the Father but who lived morally would have less of a sin itch than one who scratched at it vigorously BUT both probably pale in comparison to some life long pew warmer who was steeped in the knowledge that could have saved them but never turned to Christ.
I bring this up only to point out that, if sinning anew is to be forever prevented among the damned so that nothing remains of the works of the Devil, that what needs to be restrained will be different from individual to individual.
And her we get to why an “itch” is a wonderful metaphor.
I’ve already stated that the saints will be able to endlessly scratch at their itch for all things God forever ... but I’ve also indicated that the damned are NEVER to be able to scratch at their sin itch again.
Think of the sheer frustration in those times when you’ve had a raging itch you just cannot reach, or must not reach as with chicken pox, when scratching your back on a door post like some old bear on a tree is the only thing you can think to do.
Frustration is the idea I’m introducing here.
I identify the eternally frustrated desire to scratch at the sin itch, as an internal toment, with the worm. Like a mortal itch the damned would be squirming about in body and mind to desperately have what they are restrained from having.
This is true horror everlasting.
The restraint, the nominally external pressure to them body and mind that keeps them from ever again sinning I’ve likewise associated with the fire, or God’s wrath.
Because of the external wrath and the internal frustration the damned are held in a static state, not physically but developmentally. They cannot scratch at their sin itch so it cannot grow worse. As eternity rolls on they remain as they were when judged, eternally frustrated and bound.
And in this, I reckon, sin would be done away with just as the scripture indicates.
One of the things this line of thinking has led me to believe is that Hell is not necessarily punitive, a reprisal to what was done, so much as it is a response to what the damned are. This also helps to define why Hell can never get better for the lost, for if the pressure (wrath) were let up for even an instant the damned would jump on the opportunity to sin anew with gusto and in that become far worse and fitted for worse wrath than they had been, in a way not unlike the article supposes.
Heaven: rich, diverse, growing, never denying anything the saint may want.
Hell: frustrated, monotonous, static, the damned eternally denied in anything they may want ... even a sip of water.
Or, of course, you can prefer to imagine Hell only as punishment and the damned as still able to sin ... if you want.
Do you deny Satan and his demons still sin? Or do you deny their existence at all?
“Which brings us to Jorge Bergoglio... Can you imagine?”
Ann rocks. The first problem with hell is the loss of God. And everything after that is nothing compared to the loss of God. He is everything and the source of all goodness.
Mass and confession every month, every year. Nothing else works so simply and certainly.
One damned priest in hell said that if he could live on earth again, then he would live on his knees 12 hours a day humbling begging the Lord for mass and confession.
They sin now.
Hell, the law of fire, was created for them ... and not “for them” in the sense that it’s something they would want.
I’m not denying their existence at all.
Just pointing out that they will not be reigning in Hell ... God will be.
And if sinning is to be entirely done away with, so that none of the works of the Devil persist (Hell being God’s work), that means that those monsters, who knowingly rebelled from a holy state in His presence, will face the most sever wrath of all. And justly so.
There is, after all, a difference between wanting and having.
Derp ... “lake” not “law” ... I hate typos!
Thanks for the essay. I have learned: don’t mess with Texas.
The itch is a weak analogy and sin nature is a fuzzy phrase.
The intellectual soul in the next life will be aware with all his faculties to detect his environment whether there are sweet smells and harmonies or foul odors and grinding of teeth. Thus, human nature will be placed in grace or damnation in the next life. Purgatory is for those who are going to mass and confession but still unclear about the intellectual soul.
I don’t know what type of stand-up “philosopher” you consider yourself to be; but Heaven and Hell will exist for eternity and never the twain shall meet.
Satanists do want to go to Hell.
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.