[Pope Francis] told the story of a Catholic who asked a priest if even atheists had been redeemed by Jesus.
"Even them, everyone," the pope answered, according to Vatican Radio. "We all have the duty to do good," he said.
"Just do good, and we'll find a meeting point," the pope said in a hypothetical reply to the hypothetical comment...
Of course, if Jesus has "redeemed" "everyone" including atheists, then why is doing good a "duty"? Why bother to do good?
Or are we all redeemed, but some are more redeemed than others?
If so, then I suppose one can do good to merit a bigger mansion in heaven. Or a place closer to the throne of God.
Okay, but still, what's wrong with the atheist who says, "Well, if it's all the same to you, I'd rather enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin in this world, and have a lower place in heaven, thankyouverymuch"?
I think the Catholic idea is that everyone is punished for their sins in the afterlife just as much as they deserve to be punished, perhaps in Purgatory. Once they have been punished for their sins they go to heaven. Everyone goes to heaven in the end, since no one deserves eternal punishment. But everyone is punished for their sins, so that is a motive for not sinning while on earth. However, a loving God would not inflict eternal punishment on anyone since no one deserves to suffer eternally – only an utter barbarian or savage would inflict eternal punishment on anyone, so God would not do that. God is love and God’s love is infinite, as is God’s mercy. I think that is the general idea.
ReplyDeleteExcept that Roman Catholics do indeed believe in Hell, e.g. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2O.HTM
ReplyDeleteYeah, I was just speaking of the inceasing number of Catholics who believe in Universal Salvation, including apparently now the Pope. Of course, one can believe that hell is real, but that there are no humans there.
ReplyDeleteBrian Barrington said:
ReplyDeleteBut everyone is punished for their sins, so that is a motive for not sinning while on earth.
Of course, some might reply they'd rather enjoy the known pleasures of sin and suffer "more" temporary punishment in purgatory over and against foregoing these selfsame pleasures and suffering "less" temporary punishment in purgatory. (I use the terms "more" and "less" since Catholics often say even the holiest of individuals may still require some measure of purgatory.)
Plus, indulgences.
But for people who think that inflicting eternal punishment, eternal suffering or eternal pain on anyone would be the biggest sin of all, then it follows that no human being deserves that, and that any being who would inflict eternal punishment, eternal suffering or eternal pain on someone would be the most evil and cruel being of all. For example, if someone spends 20 trillion years suffering in hell and then repents, is a forgiving God really going to insist that they go on to spend all eternity there even though they have repented? What kind of a monster would do that?
ReplyDeleteBrian Barrington said:
ReplyDeleteBut for people who think that inflicting eternal punishment, eternal suffering or eternal pain on anyone would be the biggest sin of all,
The pope didn't say that here.
any being who would inflict eternal punishment, eternal suffering or eternal pain on someone would be the most evil and cruel being of all. For example, if someone spends 20 trillion years suffering in hell and then repents, is a forgiving God really going to insist that they go on to spend all eternity there even though they have repented? What kind of a monster would do that?
1. You're changing the subject.
2. Search our past posts for the topic of hell and eternal punishment.
Brian,
ReplyDeleteCatholics aren't choosing to embrace universalism, they just don't know anything about their church's established teachings. Looks like the Pope is gearing up to abuse that fact. But Patrick is right. Karl Barth once told Jürgen Moltmann that he thought his god was "rather a Pauper" because Moltmann so detested the idea of God's authority. This is the god of the universalist. Completely beside himself, uncontrollably fawning and blubbering every time he thinks about his creation. Not a ruler, not a king, not God at all. Just a pauper.
Brian said: Yeah, I was just speaking of the inceasing number of Catholics who believe in Universal Salvation, including apparently now the Pope.
ReplyDeletesw: First off, this pope dies not believe in Universalism. Just because he stated the fact that Atheists are redeemed does not mean Athiests are or will be saved. To be redeemed simply means that the price for someone's redemption has been paid - and that price HAS been paid by Jesus Christ - for everyone, including Atheists. The difference between an Atheist and a true Christian is that the true Christian ACCEPTS this FREE GIFT or GRACE, the Atheist rejects it.
sw: Secondly, the context of the statement - which Patrick actually kind of includes here - does not say Atheists can be saved by doing good - only that we are ALL, Atheists included, commanded to do good. If the Atheist does good, Pope Francis is saying, then he and they can meet in that place, of doing good. A starting point, or common ground upon which to plant seeds and grow fruit.
sw: Thirdly, this pope has actually taught a form of "EENS" (Latin acronym of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla salus - or Outside the Church there is No Salvation). Pope Francis said that people cannot be fully united to Jesus outside of the Church during a Mass to commemorate Saint George, the saint he is named after. “You cannot find Jesus outside the Church,” he said April 23 in the Apostolic Palace’s Pauline Chapel.
I think the main reason some people embrace Universal Salvation is because they cannot see how a benevolent, loving, forgiving God would inflict eternal damnation, eternal suffering, and eternal pain on any human being. To repeat the earlier example: if someone has been suffering in hell for 20 trillion years and then repents, is God really such a merciless savage that he would insist that the person go on suffering for all eternity? Any suffering inflicted by humans in this world, no matter how great and terrible, is at least finite and comes to an end - but we are supposed to believe that God, in his infinite mercy, would inflict infinite suffering and pain? That would make God a cruel, sadistic, psychopath and a far worse sinner than any human being. So, I think people who embrace Universal Salvation believe that those who preach the doctrine of eternal damnation are in danger of libelling God and blaspheming against God by promoting such a wicked doctrine and spreading such malicious rumours about him.
ReplyDeleteBrian,
ReplyDeleteYou can stop repeating yourself. Everyone knows that such people don't like God as the Bible describes him, but that's tough. If they wish for the god you've repeatedly contrasted the Biblical God with, fine. I just won't allow them get away with equating that god with the real God. They've abandoned Christianity.
We do not have the authority, wisdom, or holiness to judge perfectly. God does. What rumors? Christians are the ones accepting the testimony of the Scriptures. Universalists are the ones ignoring/eviscerating the Scriptures.
In addition to Derek's solid remarks, I'd say:
ReplyDeleteI think the main reason some people embrace Universal Salvation is because they cannot see how a benevolent, loving, forgiving God would inflict eternal damnation, eternal suffering, and eternal pain on any human being.
Of course, lots of people embrace lots of things simply because they "cannot see how" the alternative could be, even if what they embrace happens to be illogical or unreasonable. In fact, many people can't accept something simply because it grates against their sensibilities. I know people who reject Christian and other forms of theism not for any logical reason(s) or thought out process or the like, but simply because they "cannot see how" God could exist. If this is what some people do, then so much the worse for them.
To repeat the earlier example: if someone has been suffering in hell for 20 trillion years and then repents
This assumes someone in hell will repent.
Any suffering inflicted by humans in this world, no matter how great and terrible, is at least finite and comes to an end
Say a rapist and murderer rapes and murders someone's wife and children. Her husband can't ever get them back "in this world." Moreoever, any future he could've had with his wife and kids is now gone - gone forever. He has lost all future moments and experiences with them forever. As such, there's nothing "finite" about his loss "in this world."
but we are supposed to believe that God, in his infinite mercy, would inflict infinite suffering and pain?
This isn't an argument. This is just your incredulous astonishment.
That would make God a cruel, sadistic, psychopath and a far worse sinner than any human being.
In contrast to your gobsmacked disbelief, here's what surprised a couple of those who authored the Bible:
"He does not deal with us according to our sins, nor repay us according to our iniquities." (Psa 103:10).
"[A]ll that has come upon us for our evil deeds and for our great guilt, seeing that you, our God, have punished us less than our iniquities deserved and have given us such a remnant as this" (Ezra 9:13).
So, I think people who embrace Universal Salvation believe that those who preach the doctrine of eternal damnation are in danger of libelling God and blaspheming against God by promoting such a wicked doctrine and spreading such malicious rumours about him.
1. Since (among other things) you're attempting an internal critique of the traditional Christian doctrine of hell (from the vantage point of a Christian universalist), you'd have to start by wrestling with the Biblical textual evidence and build a case from there. You can't start from a mile up and try to work yourself down. The issue is ultimately (though not solely) grounded in sound and reasonable Biblical exegesis. But you don't even attempt any exegesis whatsoever.
2. Given your beliefs (e.g. atheism), you'd have difficulty grounding objective morality. Let alone parlaying it into a criticism of other moralities like Biblical morality.
3. Of course, you're not arguing as an atheist here, but as a hypothetical Christian universalist. However, it's not as if you actually subscribe to Christian universalism. Or Catholicism. Since you don't, there's no strong and compelling reason for us to continue to argue against a position you yourself don't even hold.
4. Besides, as I've already said to you, we've responded to much of this in the past. You should search our past posts. For example, see here, here, and here.
The point is that it is illogical and unreasonable that a benevolent, merciful, omnipotent being would inflict eternal suffering on any human being. Universalists reject the doctrine of eternal damnation because it is, in their view, illogical and unreasonable - not simply because it grates against their sensibilities. And these people do believe in a loving God.
ReplyDeleteWhy would some people in hell not repent? An eternity is a long time – I don’t see why some people would not repent after a few gazillion years of being in hell.
The sufferings victims endure in this world are finite because they come to an end (even if they are terrible). In contrast, the suffering people would endure in hell would be infinite and eternal because they have no end – hence, they would be much worse than any sufferings and pain endured in this life and this world.
In order to understand the traditional Christian doctrine of hell one needs to think very clearly about what eternal suffering would be and what it would entail. Joyce does this very well in the Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man (I’ll put the relevant quote in a separate post)
“Last and crowning torture of all the tortures of that awful place is
ReplyDeletethe eternity of hell. Eternity! O, dread and dire word. Eternity! What
mind of man can understand it? And remember, it is an eternity of pain.
Even though the pains of hell were not so terrible as they are, yet
they would become infinite, as they are destined to last for ever. But
while they are everlasting they are at the same time, as you know,
intolerably intense, unbearably extensive. To bear even the sting of an
insect for all eternity would be a dreadful torment. What must it be,
then, to bear the manifold tortures of hell for ever? For ever! For all
eternity! Not for a year or for an age but for ever. Try to imagine the
awful meaning of this. You have often seen the sand on the seashore.
How fine are its tiny grains! And how many of those tiny little grains
go to make up the small handful which a child grasps in its play. Now
imagine a mountain of that sand, a million miles high, reaching from
the earth to the farthest heavens, and a million miles broad,
extending to remotest space, and a million miles in thickness;
and imagine such an enormous mass of countless particles of sand
multiplied as often as there are leaves in the forest, drops of water
in the mighty ocean, feathers on birds, scales on fish, hairs on
animals, atoms in the vast expanse of the air: and imagine that at the
end of every million years a little bird came to that mountain and
carried away in its beak a tiny grain of that sand. How many millions
upon millions of centuries would pass before that bird had carried away
even a square foot of that mountain, how many eons upon eons of ages
before it had carried away all? Yet at the end of that immense stretch
of time not even one instant of eternity could be said to have ended.
At the end of all those billions and trillions of years eternity would
have scarcely begun. And if that mountain rose again after it had been
all carried away, and if the bird came again and carried it all away
again grain by grain, and if it so rose and sank as many times as there
are stars in the sky, atoms in the air, drops of water in the sea,
leaves on the trees, feathers upon birds, scales upon fish, hairs upon
animals, at the end of all those innumerable risings and sinkings of
that immeasurably vast mountain not one single instant of eternity
could be said to have ended; even then, at the end of such a period,
after that eon of time the mere thought of which makes our very brain
reel dizzily, eternity would scarcely have begun."
Cont: A holy saint (one of our own fathers I believe it was) was once
ReplyDeletevouchsafed a vision of hell. It seemed to him that he stood in the
midst of a great hall, dark and silent save for the ticking of a great
clock. The ticking went on unceasingly; and it seemed to this saint
that the sound of the ticking was the ceaseless repetition of the
words--ever, never; ever, never. Ever to be in hell, never to be in heaven;
ever to be shut off from the presence of God, never to enjoy the
beatific vision; ever to be eaten with flames, gnawed by vermin, goaded
with burning spikes, never to be free from those pains; ever to have
the conscience upbraid one, the memory enrage, the mind filled with
darkness and despair, never to escape; ever to curse and revile the
foul demons who gloat fiendishly over the misery of their dupes, never
to behold the shining raiment of the blessed spirits; ever to cry out
of the abyss of fire to God for an instant, a single instant, of
respite from such awful agony, never to receive, even for an instant,
God's pardon; ever to suffer, never to enjoy; ever to be damned, never
to be saved; ever, never; ever, never. O, what a dreadful punishment!
An eternity of endless agony, of endless bodily and spiritual torment,
without one ray of hope, without one moment of cessation, of agony
limitless in intensity, of torment infinitely varied, of torture that
sustains eternally that which it eternally devours, of anguish that
everlastingly preys upon the spirit while it racks the flesh, an
eternity, every instant of which is itself an eternity of woe. Such is
the terrible punishment decreed for those who die in mortal sin by an
almighty and a just God.
Boundless extension of torment, incredible intensity of suffering,
unceasing variety of torture--this is what the divine majesty, so
outraged by sinners, demands; this is what the holiness of heaven,
slighted and set aside for the lustful and low pleasures of the corrupt
flesh, requires; this is what the blood of the innocent Lamb of God,
shed for the redemption of sinners, trampled upon by the vilest of the
vile, insists upon.”
Brian Barrington said:
ReplyDeleteThe point is that it is illogical and unreasonable that a benevolent, merciful, omnipotent being would inflict eternal suffering on any human being.
Are you arguing this as an atheist or as a hypothetical Christian universalist?
If the latter, there's no compelling reason for me to spend time on you since it's not as if you actually subscribe to Christian universalism.
If the former, given atheism, it ultimately doesn't matter what you believe or disbelieve. If you want to believe in the God of the Bible, then go for it. If you want to believe in celestial teapots or flying spaghetti monsters, then go for it. Given atheism, it's not as if your ultimate destiny is related to your beliefs and behaviors in the here and now. Everyone ends up buried six feet under. The universe goes on - until it doesn't. And then that's that. So who cares whether something is illogical or unreasonable? Given atheism, we're free to make our own meaning and values in life. So perhaps a person places more meaning and value on believing illogical or unreasonable ideas. Given atheism, there's no ultimately convincing reason to mandate belief in what's logical or reasonable over what's illogical or unreasonable. Given atheism, a person can believe whatever he or she likes.
Universalists reject the doctrine of eternal damnation because it is, in their view, illogical and unreasonable - not simply because it grates against their sensibilities. And these people do believe in a loving God.
I've already responded to this. See above.
Why would some people in hell not repent? An eternity is a long time – I don’t see why some people would not repent after a few gazillion years of being in hell.
You assume length of suffering will bring people to repentance. Why do you make this assumption? They may want relief from their suffering, but wanting relief from suffering isn't the same as wanting to turn to God on God's terms.
The sufferings victims endure in this world are finite because they come to an end (even if they are terrible).
You're just repeating yourself. You don't interact with what I said above. I take it this means you have no good response.
In contrast, the suffering people would endure in hell would be infinite and eternal because they have no end – hence, they would be much worse than any sufferings and pain endured in this life and this world.
The one doesn't necessarily follow from the other. Why do you assume that which is interminable is ipso facto "worse than any sufferings and pain endured in this life and this world"? Where's your argument? Someone could be sitting in a room forever and therefore bored to death, as it were, but how is this "worse" than being raped, beheaded, burned in flames, etc.? Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. But it's not as if you've offered an argument.
I see you've blown right past and ignored the justice owed to the infinite loss of a future (and all a future entails) in the rape and murder of a man's wife and children.
Besides, it's not as if you've grounded objective morality in your atheism. As such, you don't have any good reason to say "suffering" or "punishment" is morally or ethically wrong. Given your atheism, for all I know and shudder at, you might actually justify causing suffering to others.
Brian Barrington said:
ReplyDeleteIn order to understand the traditional Christian doctrine of hell one needs to think very clearly about what eternal suffering would be and what it would entail. Joyce does this very well in the Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man
Since you're attempting to criticize Christianity, it'd be much better to "think very clearly about what eternal suffering would be and what it would entail" by understanding what the Bible says on the topic. Not what James Joyce says. Joyce doesn't speak for God. So you should interact with the Biblical text. But, once again, I've already told you this above. Rather than interacting with what's been said or what I've pointed you to, you just repeat what's on your cue cards. Ho hum.
BTW, here is a good post on hell to start with.
The traditional Christian understanding is that hell is a place of eternal suffering. Joyce just vividly describes what that means. There is a logical problem that a benevolent God would inflict this on people and still expect people think he is good and love him. Love cannot be commanded – but someone who says, “If you don’t love me I will inflict eternal punishment on you” is attempting to command love – that is the behaviour of a tyrant. A person could worship a “God” like that out of pure fear, but a person could not truly love such a being, because a being such as that would be infinitely malicious and infinitely unforgiving, and therefore not lovable. Worshipping a “God” like that would be more akin to Satan worship, since the being in question is attempting to coerce people to “love” him via terrorism and threats.
ReplyDeleteBrian Barrington said:
ReplyDeleteThe traditional Christian understanding is that hell is a place of eternal suffering. Joyce just vividly describes what that means.
My, you're thick! No, Joyce doesn't speak for Christianity.
However, even if he did, you'd have to show how he does. Which you don't.
There is a logical problem that a benevolent God would inflict this on people and still expect people think he is good and love him.
Say a man ends up in hell for raping and murdering a woman and her children. How is it "a logical problem" for a good and loving God to "inflict" punishment on this man? The man was the one who did wrong. If God didn't punish this man, then he'd be unloving toward the man's victims i.e. the woman and children. In other words, what would be unloving is if God didn't carry out justice for the victims.
“If you don’t love me I will inflict eternal punishment on you” is attempting to command love – that is the behaviour of a tyrant.
Since that's not what God says (in fact you don't even bother to exegete the Bible and show us how this arises from the Biblical text), then I take it you'd say God is off the hook. Phew!
People don't go to hell for failing to believe in God (simpliciter). People go to hell for their own immoralities. People go to hell for their own wrong doing.
Are you saying that hell is NOT traditionally understood by Christians to be a place of eternal suffering?
ReplyDeleteI am not saying that people who commit crimes do not deserve punishment - I am saying they do not deserve eternal punishment and eternal suffering. According to many Christians, if a person who commits terrible crimes repents then they get into heaven and thus avoid the eternal punishment of hell - what are the victims supposed to make of that?!?!
If people who do not love God avoid hell and get into heaven then who is in hell? People who love God?
"People don't go to hell for failing to believe in God (simpliciter). People go to hell for their own immoralities. People go to hell for their own wrong doing."
ReplyDeleteDoes that mean there are atheists in heaven if they have not caused other people suffering and pain? Well, that makes sense, since punishing someone eternally just for not believing in God makes no sense whatsoever - that would be a monumentally trivial criterion (not to say a narcissistic criterion) for deciding who goes to heaven and who goes to hell.
But surely even people who have caused suffering to others do not deserve to suffer eternally themselves?
Brian Barrington said:
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that hell is NOT traditionally understood by Christians to be a place of eternal suffering?
Where did I say that?
I am not saying that people who commit crimes do not deserve punishment - I am saying they do not deserve eternal punishment and eternal suffering.
Well, since you've failed to interact with my previous points, this amounts to nothing more than your piqued sensibilities. You don't offer reasoned argumentation for why you're so miffed.
However, the more pertinent question is how you ground objective morality given your atheism.
According to many Christians, if a person who commits terrible crimes repents then they get into heaven and thus avoid the eternal punishment of hell - what are the victims supposed to make of that?!?!
If the penitent person is a genuine Christian, then I trust he would attempt to recompense and restore to the victims what was lost. Of course, this may or may not be sufficient (depending on what the victims lost).
In terms of ultimate justice, God would've carried out ultimate and total justice in Christ's cruficixion and death. That's why the Bible says God is at the same time the just as well as justifier (Rom 3:26).
If people who do not love God avoid hell and get into heaven
I never said anything from which this could be logically inferred.
then who is in hell? People who love God?
If you're in hell, then the immediate and proximate cause of your hellbound status is your own wrong doing(s). Don't blame God for what you did wrong.
Brian Barrington said:
ReplyDeleteDoes that mean there are atheists in heaven if they have not caused other people suffering and pain?
I've never met a person who hasn't ever done anything wrong. Does this mean there are atheists who have never done wrong?
But surely even people who have caused suffering to others do not deserve to suffer eternally themselves?
You're attempting to critique Christianity. Given Christianity, given what the Bible says, where's your argument?
Brian Barrington said:
ReplyDeleteBut surely even people who have caused suffering to others do not deserve to suffer eternally themselves?
If a person is culpable of wrongdoing, then how does the passage of time in and of itself attenuate the person's culpability?