No Hell = no Justice

Xeno.of.athens said:

I think that the way scripture is interpreted is where problems arise. An eternity of unbearable suffering is problematic.

Click to expand...

Somewhat problematic for those who find themselves in hell!

bbbbbbb said:

One of the curious aspects of the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory is The Treasury of Merit. You can read about it here - Treasury of merit - Wikipedia

What is curious to me is that it is said to be infinite and an infinitely loving God only doles out a tiny amount from the Treasury to those the Catholic Church deems to be worthy.

Click to expand...

I heard an interesting teaching that sinning people who are rebelling against God do not stop sinning when they find themselves in hell. In fact, in this life people do not sin as much as they would want because of the restraints put on them by the influence of Christianity and the moral norms and laws of society. But once they go to hell, those restraints are no longer there and they continually sin to such a degree that the wrath of God that is there to punish the sin cannot catch up with the continuous sinning.

It is interesting to think that if people in hell stopped sinning, there could be a time when the debt for sin by the wrath of God could be paid for, and it might be possible for the soul to get out of hell because there is no more sin to have the wrath of God exacted on it. It would be like someone having to pay back a massive debt and put in prison until the debt is paid. Once the debt is paid in full, the person comes out of prison. But what if the person continues to incur more and more debt so the payments can't keep up with the level of debt? This would mean that the person could remain in prison indefinitely.

So, if people continue to sin without restraint in hell, then their debt to God will never be paid off no matter how much they have to suffer the wrath of God for their sins.

returntosender said:

Where are you getting your info? Hitler was known to be involved in Christianity.

Click to expand...

Yeah, he was ken on imprisoning and killing Christians who crossed him. He had he German State Church changed to preach a Bible with all the "Jewish" parts removed (which left very little) and the exaltation of the Folksgeist was preached. Christianity in Name Only.

Watchman1 said:

are you saying that Jesus is lying

Click to expand...

Is there anything more despicable that one Christian can say to another? Yet it seems to be a standard line amongst posters here. "If you disagree with me you're calling Jesus a liar." Really?

Hawkins said:

Man is designed with an immortal soul as a permanent identity to live an eternity.

Click to expand...

Citation, please. I don't think Scripture says any such thing

Xeno.of.athens said:

I saw both posts earlier.

Click to expand...

You said I was wrong. Show me.

Der Alte said:

You said I was wrong. Show me.

Click to expand...

Show me where is said "YOU are wrong", please.

Xeno.of.athens said:

Show me where is said "YOU are wrong", please.

Click to expand...

You implied in your post #65

Xeno.of.athens said:

I think that the way scripture is interpreted is where problems arise. An eternity of unbearable suffering is problematic.

Click to expand...

Watchman1 said:

So Martin Luther was mistaken when he objected to the practice of indulgences as payment for getting deceased family members out of Purgatory? From what I read in the Council of Trent, to oppose the payment of indulgences causes a person to be damned to hell. And Vatican II ratified all of the canons of Trent to be still on the doctrinal books of the Church. Perhaps some Catholics don't want to admit that some doctrines that cause embarrassment.

Click to expand...

First, if by "damned to hell" you are referring to one of the many cases of it saying "let them be anathema", those do not seem to be the same thing despite popular opinion, or so this Catholic site argues.

Second, having searched through the various declarations of the Council, I don't see any anathema towards those who oppose the sale of indulgences. Certainly, those who deny the effectiveness of indulgences are anathematized, but I do not see such a statement about those who opposed sales. Indeed, four years after Trent ended, "In 1567 St. Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions." (source: Catholic Encylopedia's article on Indulgences) It seems implausible that, had there been an declaration that those opposed to sales of indulgences were anathema, you would have seen them forbidden a few years later. Can you clarify exactly what declaration of the Council you are referring to?

JSRG said:

First, if by "damned to hell" you are referring to one of the many cases of it saying "let them be anathema", those do not seem to be the same thing despite popular opinion, or so this Catholic site argues.

Second, having searched through the various declarations of the Council, I don't see any anathema towards those who oppose the sale of indulgences. Certainly, those who deny the effectiveness of indulgences are anathematized, but I do not see such a statement about those who opposed sales. Indeed, four years after Trent ended, "In 1567 St. Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions." (source: Catholic Encylopedia's article on Indulgences) It seems implausible that, had there been an declaration that those opposed to sales of indulgences were anathema, you would have seen them forbidden a few years later. Can you clarify exactly what declaration of the Council you are referring to?

Click to expand...

In the 16th Century "anathema" meant excommunication from the Church. Because the Catholic church was the "true" Church of Christ, excommunication meant separated from hope of salvation and the only alternative would be hell.

The possible reason for Pope Pius cancelling sales of indulgences four years after Trent, may have been damage control to stop Catholic believers going over to the Reformation.

Here is the reference from the Council of Trent:

CONCERNING INDULGENCES

THIRD DECREE

On the fourth day of December.

Whereas the power of conferring Indulgences was granted by Christ to the Church; and she has, even in the most ancient times, used the said power, delivered unto her of God; the sacred holy Synod teaches, and enjoins, that the use of Indulgences, for the Christian people most salutary, and approved of by the authority of sacred Councils, is to be retained in the Church; and It condemns with anathema those who either assert, that they are useless ; or who deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them. In granting them, however, It desires that, in accordance with the ancient and approved custom in the Church, moderation be observed; lest, by excessive facility, ecclesastical discipline be enervated. And being desirous that the abuses which have crept therein, and by occasion of which this honourable name of Indulgences is blasphemed by heretics, be amended and corrected, It ordains generally by this decree, that all evil gains for the obtaining thereof,-whence a most prolific cause of abuses amongst the Christian people has been derived,-be wholly abolished.

Watchman1 said:

I was forgetting that your church teaches about Purgatory, where souls are purged and refined to make them fit for heaven.

Click to expand...

I liken it to wiping the mud off one's boots before going in the house. Radical concept, innit?

Family members can pay a sum of money in the form of an Indulgence to shorten the time spent there.

Click to expand...

I think you'll find that was put a stop to a few centuries ago.

Der Alte said:

But it must happen in this life. There is no second chance after death as some groups claim.

Click to expand...

Because God is bound in time as we are? Then how does He know what's going to happen in the future? And if He wants to answer a prayer long before it's prayed, who's to forbid Him? If He knows our needs before we ask, how long before? If He wants to answer a prayer for Bob's salvation a few decades before Bob is born, then He certainly can, and nothing can stop Him.

I'm seeing this as another of those "God can't..." ideas, which I find ludicrous. God can speak a universe into existence, but we imagine that He's bound by very human limitations when it suits our doctrine.

Der Alte said:

You implied in your post #65

Click to expand...

You inferred it, I did not imply it.

Jipsah said:

Citation, please. I don't think Scripture says any such thing

Click to expand...

Immortal soul is a Pharisaic concept adopted by Jews in majority of Jesus' days. That's why Jesus mentioned hell more than anyone else as a result of sticking to such a Pharisaic concept.

Jesus mentioned hell because He spoke to the Jews who already had such a concept firmly. NT on the other hand is crafted for the gospel to be preached to all nations. Under the circumstance, no hell is emphasized, not even by Paul/Saul the Pharisee.

Watchman1 said:

Here is the reference from the Council of Trent:

CONCERNING INDULGENCES

THIRD DECREE

On the fourth day of December.

Whereas the power of conferring Indulgences was granted by Christ to the Church; and she has, even in the most ancient times, used the said power, delivered unto her of God; the sacred holy Synod teaches, and enjoins, that the use of Indulgences, for the Christian people most salutary, and approved of by the authority of sacred Councils, is to be retained in the Church; and It condemns with anathema those who either assert, that they are useless ; or who deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them. In granting them, however, It desires that, in accordance with the ancient and approved custom in the Church, moderation be observed; lest, by excessive facility, ecclesastical discipline be enervated. And being desirous that the abuses which have crept therein, and by occasion of which this honourable name of Indulgences is blasphemed by heretics, be amended and corrected, It ordains generally by this decree, that all evil gains for the obtaining thereof,-whence a most prolific cause of abuses amongst the Christian people has been derived,-be wholly abolished.

Click to expand...

I saw that one, yes. But you said that "From what I read in the Council of Trent, to oppose the payment of indulgences causes a person to be damned to hell."

Now, the part you bolded did mention an anathema. Even if "anathema" does mean "causes a person to be damned to hell", it isn't an anathema directed towards those who oppose the sale of indulgences. It refers to those who say that indulgences are useless or that the church cannot grant them. Nothing at all is stated about people who say there shouldn't be payment for them. So the Council of Trent didn't anathematize people who opposed payment of indulgences--or if it did somewhere, it isn't in that quote.

In fact, the quote actually straight-up refers to "abuses which have crept therein" and "ordains generally by this decree, that all evil gains for the obtaining thereof,-whence a most prolific cause of abuses amongst the Christian people has been derived,-be wholly abolished." Clearly this was stating that while indulgences were fine, there was a problem in how they were being granted.