Spirituality
06 Jun 05
06 Jun 05
From what I've seen of Catholic beliefs, sins are divided into mortal ones and venial ones. If you die without having repented for mortal sin, you go to Hell; otherwise you go to Purgatory, where you'll eventually be able to atone for the venial sins. In other words, venial sins merit a finite amount of punishment, whereas mortal ones merit an infinite amount of punishment.
Why the distinction? What makes mortal sin so much worse than the most egregious venial sin? If these sins are so terrible that they can't ever be atoned for in the afterlife, unlike venial sins, how can they be atoned for during life?
Also, if annihilation would be preferable to torment in Hell, why doesn't God simply destroy the damned? What good comes out of keeping them in torment?
06 Jun 05
Originally posted by AcolyteAlso, if annihilation would be preferable to torment in Hell, why doesn't God simply destroy the damned? What good comes out of keeping them in torment?
From what I've seen of Catholic beliefs, sins are divided into mortal ones and venial ones. If you die without having repented for mortal sin, you go to Hell; otherwise you go to Purgatory, where you'll eventually be able to atone for the venial sins. In other words, venial sins merit a finite amount of punishment, whereas mortal ones merit an infinite a ...[text shortened]... ll, why doesn't God simply destroy the damned? What good comes out of keeping them in torment?
A few laughs?
06 Jun 05
Originally posted by AcolyteFirst of all, you've got your Catholic dogma slightly wrong. Purgatory is not where you can atone (repent, make amends for) venial sins, but where the effects of venial sin are cleansed (or "purged"😉 from your soul - making it pure to enter Heaven (i.e. the beatific vision of God). Any sin - mortal or venial - can only be atoned for while alive.
From what I've seen of Catholic beliefs, sins are divided into mortal ones and venial ones. If you die without having repented for mortal sin, you go to Hell; otherwise you go to Purgatory, where you'll eventually be able to atone for the venial sins. In other words, venial sins merit a finite amount of punishment, whereas mortal ones merit an infinite a ...[text shortened]... ll, why doesn't God simply destroy the damned? What good comes out of keeping them in torment?
What makes mortal sin different is that it completely cuts you off from communion with God.
06 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by AcolyteThis is one of the problems I had being a Catholic. The idea that there are types of sin is contrary to what the Bible teaches. That is to say; in as far as an indicator of the need for salvation. Of course some sins are worse than others in indicating the depths of one's depravity, but even commiting one of what we would call the most trivial sin is enough to demonstrate the sinful condition, and the need to be 'saved' from that condition. (In fact, the idea of only ONE sin standing alone on someone's record is purely hypothetical and does not exist in the reality.)
From what I've seen of Catholic beliefs, sins are divided into mortal ones and venial ones. If you die without having repented for mortal sin, you go to Hell; otherwise you go to Purgatory, where you'll eventually be able to atone for th ...[text shortened]... stroy the damned? What good comes out of keeping them in torment?
Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
Isaiah 64:6
All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.
1 Kings 8:46
"When they sin against you—for there is no one who does not sin—and you become angry with them and give them over to the enemy, who takes them captive to his own land, far away or near;
Jesus came to receive the punishment that we deserved for our sins. He came 'to atone'. If we do not accept that gift (through acknowledging the need, repenting of our sinful state, and giving Him His place as Lord over our lives) then we go to the only other place available: If we don't gladly go to be WITH God, then we go to be AWAY FROM God; which is the very definition of Hell.
If we could go to some 'purgatory' to atone for our own sins, then Christ would not have needed to come. Growing up in the Catholic church, I was glad to hear of purgatory. It sounded like an uncomfortable waiting room at the worst. I could handle that if it meant I could get away with a little this and a little that! But, God cares too much about us to allow us to settle into that kind of state. With Him, it's all or nothing. Rather than complain about that deal, let's just take the ALL and be glad for it!
Annihilation is another one of those ideas that sounds pretty good to some people. Especially to those who want to get away with a LOT of this and a LOT of that! But, no, it is not an option. Once born, we live eternally. I believe that that is simply our nature. Our decision is about where, or with whom, we shall spend that infinite time.
No special 'good' comes from 'keeping them in torment', but that simply is the way it is. There is no filing for bankruptcy in the spiritual world. There is the chance to get in way over our heads in debt of course, but after that we can only either receive the offer of Jesus Christ to pay off the debt, or spend eternity in the poor house.
06 Jun 05
Originally posted by chinking58(LH: No point in me paraphrasing the following article, so might as well post the link here)
This is one of the problems I had being a Catholic. The idea that there are types of sin is contrary to what the Bible teaches. That is to say; in as far as an indicator of the need for salvation. Of course some sins are worse than others in indicating the depths of one's depravity, but even commiting one of what we would call the most trivial sin is ...[text shortened]... receive the offer of Jesus Christ to pay off the debt, or spend eternity in the poor house.
WHEN I was an Evangelical, one of the arguments I read against Catholic moral theology was that the concepts of mortal and venial sin are unbiblical. Sin is sin, say Evangelicals, and there's no good in trying to make out some sins as "minor." To us Evangelicals such nice distinctions smelled a great deal like rationalization and looked like an escape clause from the commandment "Be holy, for I, the Lord, am Holy."
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9505fea4.asp
06 Jun 05
2 edits
Originally posted by chinking58When you wrote the sentence above, could you keep a straight face?
God cares too much about us to allow us to settle into that kind of state. With Him, it's all or nothing.
So, God cares too much about us to allow our little sins to be cleansed from us in Purgatory? So, he cares so much about us that He will ensure that for those little sins we will suffer for eternity?
Wow, that's crazy!
🙄
06 Jun 05
Originally posted by bbarrYup! 🙂 (this is the straightest (happy) face offered here).
When you wrote the sentence above, could you keep a straight face?
So, God cares too much about us to allow our little sins to be cleansed from us in Purgatory? So, he cares so much about us that He will ensure that for those little sins we will suffer for eternity?
Wow, that's crazy!
🙄
Are you still missing the whole point buddy?
There is no being cleansed from little sin without being cleansed from it all! This is a good thing! The big cleansing is as available as the (supposed) little one.
The real question is asked of you and me: Do you care so little about yourself, or so much about your independence, that you will suffer eternally with your pride intact rather than rejoice in God's presence forever?
The gift is free, and you are free to reject it, but remaining in your sin is costly.
06 Jun 05
Originally posted by chinking58The real question is asked of you and me: Do you care so little about yourself, or so much about your independence, that you will suffer eternally with your pride intact rather than rejoice in God's presence forever?
No, you have it all wrong. The real question is this:
Do you care so much about your own ego that you would gladly worship a monster, if it meant you could exist for eternity?
06 Jun 05
Originally posted by bbarr
[b]The real question is asked of you and me: Do you care so little about yourself, or so much about your independence, that you will suffer eternally with your pride intact rather than rejoice in God's presence forever?
No, you have it all wrong. The real question is this:
Do you care so much about your own ego that you would gladly worship a monster, if it meant you could exist for eternity?
[/b]
This is not the real question. It is a strawman in the form of a question, Mr. Spock.
06 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeSure it is. Chinking's version of Christianity of just a form of self-worship in religious guise. That is why the question above is germane. Just how committed is he to his idolatry? That's what I'm interested in figuring out.
This is not the real question. It is a strawman in the form of a question, Mr. Spock.
Would he, for instance, swallow the contradiction involved in supposing that a loving God would condemn for eternity those guilty of the most minor sins, without providing even the possibility of atonement or purification after death; without even allowing these damned souls the option of annihilation?
06 Jun 05
Originally posted by bbarrWhat is the contradiction?
....Would he, for instance, swallow the contradiction involved in supposing that a loving God would condemn for eternity those guilty of the most minor sins, without providing even the possibility of atonement or purification after death; without even allowing these damned souls the option of annihilation?
06 Jun 05
2 edits
Originally posted by ColettiPriceless.
What is the contradiction?
The contradiction follows from what it means to be loving. Simply put, such condemnation is not loving, nor is it just, nor is it merciful. Of course, you could simply redefine all these moral predicates accordingly...
06 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrIf I invite you into my home bb, but then inform you that you must leave your shoes at the door, but you don't wanna take your shoes off because they are so near and dear to your heart, then you can't come in.
Sure it is. Chinking's version of Christianity of just a form of self-worship in religious guise. That is why the question above is germane. Just how committed is he to his idolatry? That's what I'm interested in figuring out.
Wou ...[text shortened]... out even allowing these damned souls the option of annihilation?
Simple rule, simple choice, simple effect.
I guess the bad news that you can't comply with is that there are conditions. You can't make all the rules, especially in someone else's house (or Kingdom).
So.....where is the 'self-worship'?
06 Jun 05
Originally posted by chinking58That's fine. The problem comes in when you throw people into a torture chamber if they don't want to take their shoes off.
If I invite you into my home bb, but then inform you that you must leave your shoes at the door, but you don't wanna take your shoes off because they are so near and dear to your heart, then you can't come in.
Simple rule, simple choice, simple effect.