tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post842530806309337137..comments2024-03-28T21:43:44.433-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: How to go to hellEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger221125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22122861868448826792021-06-27T10:34:05.196-07:002021-06-27T10:34:05.196-07:00This is PRECISELY the conception of Hell and Heave...This is PRECISELY the conception of Hell and Heaven in Orthodox Christianity.Brutushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10894094473238071230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57632455176526221212021-05-10T10:38:43.981-07:002021-05-10T10:38:43.981-07:00Hi Edward, just seeing this now (may 2021) - thank...Hi Edward, just seeing this now (may 2021) - thank you for your explanation above which makes sense. I am a Catholic. 2 questions I would value your opinion on. Q1 I heard that immediately after death Jesus gives every soul 3 final opportunities to accept Him or reject him for eternity similar to when He asked Peter 3 times do you love me after His resurrection because Peter had denied Him 3 times during His passion. Do you believe this? Q2 given all you said above I have always struggled with the concept that any soul no matter how evil would reject God if they were capable of knowing the full eternal consequences of that decision. Do you believe that when a soul rejects God at the last opportunity that they have the full faculties to fully appreciate what/Who they are rejecting and what they are choosing? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12141588799402548488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32755336504493314482020-07-24T20:09:35.561-07:002020-07-24T20:09:35.561-07:00What physical passion or appetite did Lucifer have...What physical passion or appetite did Lucifer have when he turned from being light-bearer at the throne of God to the accuser of the brethren?IrishEddieOHarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13239323643595343708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83846196818761188872020-04-09T17:37:28.981-07:002020-04-09T17:37:28.981-07:00An actual conversation I had:
"Joe, what do y...An actual conversation I had:<br />"Joe, what do yo have to do in order to be damned?"<br />"Nothing."Fr PJMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12597780307057121375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-70967423073231200232019-07-06T13:02:31.179-07:002019-07-06T13:02:31.179-07:00Reitan would hand Feser his ass in a debate.Reitan would hand Feser his ass in a debate.IrishEddieOHarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13239323643595343708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61846487973568728892019-07-06T13:01:06.384-07:002019-07-06T13:01:06.384-07:00What you are saying is that a soul can be stripped...What you are saying is that a soul can be stripped of all the falsity which clouds our lives here, can see Christ in all His love and beauty, can come to know that its entire being and existence only makes sense in light of being in union with Christ ---<br /><br />and STILL not wish to repent?<br /><br />I find that hard to believe. Perhaps 1% of all souls - MAAAAAAYBE - but even then, how compelling will the sight of Christ be? I think compelling enough to change our total orientation regarding existence and GodIrishEddieOHarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13239323643595343708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29236284637606628112019-04-03T09:58:28.339-07:002019-04-03T09:58:28.339-07:00Do we really have free-will? Is you will really f...Do we really have free-will? Is you will really free when your nature is corrupt, your mind darkened to truth, the devil is allowed to deceive you, your friends encourage you in sin instead of holiness, and generally you are like the dwarves in Lewis's story THE LAST BATTLE - BLIND!<br /><br />THAT is no definition of free will AT ALL!!! The only human of whom it could be said had free will was Adam, since he was unfettered by a corrupt and broken nature.<br /><br />But, as regarding free will, I find it horrifying that the same people that would insist that God is too good to override our free will and keep us from torment, has no problem overriding our free will have no problem overriding the exercise of freewill in the next life to send men to hell, even if they are begging to repent. I'm not saying this is what our Father does. In fact, I think He is much more gracious than the Romish courtroom example of salvation which is so popular in the West. I am saying this is the thoughtless way that people present God in their limited understanding of the next life.<br /><br />I find it most disturbing.IrishEddieOHarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13239323643595343708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31422503215768981532019-03-09T20:50:49.029-08:002019-03-09T20:50:49.029-08:00Iwope, I'm imagining Ed's point to be, in ...Iwope, I'm imagining Ed's point to be, in the case of the jogger for example, that he (the jogger) still wishes to jog even after having his legs severed, thus he suffers from not being able to stop pursuing a foolish end.René Lópezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14290430414320082411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29335909587973335032017-09-22T03:03:08.720-07:002017-09-22T03:03:08.720-07:00And let's not forget what Augustine said eithe...And let's not forget what Augustine said either, or others. Christians have a long pedigree of saying the damndest things about hell: https://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com/2015/11/christians-say-damnedest-things-about.htmlEdwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16032596724595004152017-09-18T04:46:39.266-07:002017-09-18T04:46:39.266-07:001. αἰώνιος is listed as translating as 'eterna...1. αἰώνιος is listed as translating as 'eternal' in common dictionaries and clearly means eternal in other contexts.<br />2. 'perpetual' is synonymous with 'eternal'.<br />3. You may be trying (I can't tell) to derive the meaning of the term illegitimately from its root - αἰών: eon, epoch, age. But:<br />A. αἰών also means 'eternity' and<br />B. If Matthew 18:8's (and other verse's) "πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον" is meant to be translated not as 'eternal fire' but 'age-long fire' should Matthew 19:16's "ζωὴν αἰώνιον" be translated not as 'eternal life' but as 'age-long life'?<br />4. No biblical translation suggests what you do. Only the Weymouth New Testament and the Young's Literal Translation take the 'age' rout, which no one recognized even in ancient times, hence the choice of the Vulgate to translate it as 'ignem aeternum'. The Latins were perfectly capable of discerning the use of the Greek.iwpoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17751879308012191778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86599118450660237512017-08-01T18:21:38.330-07:002017-08-01T18:21:38.330-07:00I think it is a confusion to speak of a choice bet...I think it is a confusion to speak of a choice between God, the ultimate end, or hell when the subject no longer has a body. The word "choice" is no longer being used in the ordinary sense of deliberating, choosing, and so on. It is more intelligible to understand the ultimate "option" that the soul makes instantly after death as the result of the choices it made during its earthly life. Metaphorically, it is the result of the sum total of your free choices (opening to Him or against Him). In this way, it is no longer literally an option, but a determination and can not be changed. After death, the soul is no longer in the limitations of the body (biological, genetic, cultural, spiritual, etc.). It is possible to verify the result of the definitive option with the subtraction of all the rest that was conditioning and limitation (addictions, ignorance, etc.). And this can only be done after death, because in life you can always change, because we are in the body and in time. At the moment of death closes the possibility of conversion, opening or closing to God etc. Everything is computed and complete. Thus, as the result of a sum, it can not be further modified.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47951659552309497752017-01-11T04:50:42.156-08:002017-01-11T04:50:42.156-08:00Don't know if I am too late for further discus...Don't know if I am too late for further discussion on this article, which I find fairly convincing overall.<br /><br />My only question has to do with people who were resurrected from the dead without being "locked in", such as Lazarus, etc. If the "locking in" occurs with the death of the body, how come it wouldn't do so for them?<br /><br />Now, I find it interesting that Christ on at least two occasions speaks about people being only asleep. So one could make a case for these people to be "mostly dead" - to quote Miracle Max - rather than really dead. <br /><br />But considering the testimony of numerous miraculous resurrections throughout Church history, it seems a bit forced to say: "Well, they just weren't real dead, yet."<br /><br />If anyone is still reading this and has some thoughts, I'd be interested to hear them. If the topic was already covered in the 200+ posts above, apologies, I skimmed through but didn't see anything that looked like it.<br /><br />MJSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53659245527588656652016-12-28T12:04:54.517-08:002016-12-28T12:04:54.517-08:00The will is an active deliberate force which actua...The will is an active deliberate force which actualizes the faculties from a position of being informed by the present state of the soul. That is to say one pursues a woman both because the will has at its disposal a capacity for doing that and requisite knowledge and habits of the object.<br /><br />Upon death, I argue, the relivant capacities and living state of the soul become immediately unavailable to the will. Thus it simply lacks any cause to go on as it did. It might still have the power to move, but it's with a new set of objects and a truncated set of faculties.<br /><br />Ed's picture makes more sense if there's some kind of bodily resurrection of some sort. But it doesn't make sense to me if the souls condition is fundamentally altered immediately upon death.iwpoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17751879308012191778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62070850908702397732016-12-06T08:22:40.540-08:002016-12-06T08:22:40.540-08:00So we have St. Thomas stating unequivocally that t...So we have St. Thomas stating unequivocally that there is absolutely no chance for change after death, and yet we have St. Faustina stating that Jesus told her that he comes to the soul after death and gives it three last chances to repent and turn to Him.<br /><br />I'll go with God, Faustina, and mercy, thank you!IrishEddieOHarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13239323643595343708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-81503400094329656372016-12-01T14:35:41.437-08:002016-12-01T14:35:41.437-08:00The answer to this is twofold:
1. It would be, at...The answer to this is twofold:<br /><br />1. It would be, at the very least, extremely difficult for a person to avoid mortal sin during their life without the influence of grace.<br /><br />2. Even if a person chooses God as their end, this only secures them natural beatitude of itself. Actual entrance into the Beatific Vision requires God's positive intervention.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6164771249639585252016-12-01T14:31:15.257-08:002016-12-01T14:31:15.257-08:00Punishing a person for something they didn't d...Punishing a person for something they didn't do is by definition unjust.<br /><br />Molinist theories of "middle knowledge"* tend to be, as far as I can tell, ways of trying to shoehorn soft pelagianism into the equation. If two people both choose to engage in acts that <i>warrant</i> damnation, then the one has no right to complain if they are damned but the other is given the oppritunity to be saved.<br /><br />*Of course God does know what any given person would have done in any given hypothetical scenario. But the point is that in Thomism, this has no necessary connection to who is saved and who isn't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3000893787212300602016-11-13T10:43:31.638-08:002016-11-13T10:43:31.638-08:00Glenn,
"He ascended to heaven, and He will ...Glenn, <br /><br /><i>"He ascended to heaven, and He will come again, this time in glory, to judge the living and the dead: each according to his merits -- those who have responded to the love and piety of God going to eternal life, those who have refused them to the end going to the fire that is not extinguished."</i><br /><br />So hell is after all mentioned the Creed of the People of God. You gracefully say it is only mentioned implicitly, but it seems to me that this is a quite explicit mention, certainly a clear mention of hell. (But not a clear explanation of what hell is). So my whole argument is nonsense. I didn't read the document and was quick to criticize. <br /><br /><i>”Christ also said that His yoke is easy, and His burden light.”</i><br /><br />Right. Which kind of contradicts Christ's prayer in the garden. The only way I can make sense of this saying is to suppose that this is meant from the point of view of God and the knowledge of the bliss of heaven that creatures will enjoy. Or perhaps about how one normally feels when one has given up oneself for the sake of Christ, and in short has become a saint. For, clearly, to everybody else the yoke is not easy and the burden is not light. Impossibly beautiful, yes, perhaps a joy to carry, yes, but neither easy nor light. Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-8188220214185142732016-11-12T00:12:11.992-08:002016-11-12T00:12:11.992-08:00I believe Hell is God's love experienced as to...I believe Hell is God's love experienced as torment. God by definition being everywhere, He is also in Hell, bot his loving presence is torture for those who have irrevocably rejected it. The same divine flames of love that delight the blessed hurt the self damned. A healthy eye rejoices in the light, a diseased one can't bear it.Carmel caruanahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04283140953462936656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62024610757104837232016-11-11T05:24:32.215-08:002016-11-11T05:24:32.215-08:00FWIW: Related to this topic in only a secondary s...<br />FWIW: Related to this topic in only a secondary sense, three comments in the thread at http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/11/can-schadenfreude-be-virtuous.html (part 1, part 1, part 3 etc....) regarding "divine justice <i>in totum</i>". scbrownlhrmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59985205621435021632016-11-11T04:50:01.707-08:002016-11-11T04:50:01.707-08:00Anonymous,
So one evening a couple is watching th...Anonymous,<br /><br />So one evening a couple is watching the romantic comedy You've Got Mail, and when it gets to the scene where Kathleen and George say in unison, "Got to Hell", The man blurts out, "I'm already there!"<br /><br />Setting aside your analogy, and my joking response to it...<br /><br /><i>I came across some tine ago an Orthodox thinker that proposed that Hell and Heaven are actually the same place. What makes the difference is the attitude of the soul in the presence of the almighty, and his "burning love." For those properly attuned, the "fire" of his love is pleasant. For those not, the "fire" is painful.</i><br /><br />I am reminded (once again) of the axiom, "The received is in the receiver according to the mode of the receiver."<br /><br />(This will take one somewhat afield from the OP and your comment, but for an interesting paper involving the axiom, and its various formulations, see John Tomarchio's <a href="https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Meth/MethToma.htm" rel="nofollow">Computer Linguistics and Philosophical Interpretation</a>.)<br /><br />- - - - -<br /><br />o "The door of heaven, considered in itself, is ever open, but it is said to be closed to someone, on account of some obstacle against entering therein, which is in himself." <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5017.htm#article1" rel="nofollow"><i>ST</i> Supplement Q 17 A 1 ad 1</a>Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79414396461881574172016-11-10T09:19:27.795-08:002016-11-10T09:19:27.795-08:00I have seen the Orthodox (Eastern Christian) viewp...I have seen the Orthodox (Eastern Christian) viewpoint being mentioned several times, and I was wondering if one aspect of which has been contemplated regarding Hell.<br /><br />That being, I came across some tine ago an Orthodox thinker that proposed that Hell and Heaven are actually the same place. What makes the difference is the attitude of the soul in the presence of the almighty, and his "burning love." For those properly attuned, the "fire" of his love is pleasant. For those not, the "fire" is painful. <br /><br />Consider, as an analogy, a couple watching romantic comedy. For the woman, it is wonderful, for the man it is torture. So Universalism could be true to that extent, while at the same time Hellism would not be disqualified.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73858761095822919242016-11-10T04:07:45.604-08:002016-11-10T04:07:45.604-08:00Tony,
"judgment at death"
Perhaps one ne...<i>Tony,<br />"judgment at death"<br />Perhaps one needs to be a little imaginative as to what it means. For example, as CS Lewis pictured it in the Great Divorce, the judgment may not immediately follow death. We need not assume that post-death time follows for the soul as the time flows for the living people on the earth.</i> <br /><br />@ Gyan: <br /><br />This is a fair enough point. We don't know - and probably cannot fully imagine - the parameters of the judgment at death. Time, or "time" being one of them. <br /><br />Indeed, we should EXPECT there to be some sort of wiggle room about the affair: there are numerous instances of persons who have been brought back from death to life. (Even if we were to discount the cases of people brought back after their heart stopped as "not really dead yet", we still have the cases in the Bible, such as Lazarus dead for days.) If the judgment at death and the sentence was instantaneous as we perceive "instantaneous", we would have a lot of trouble dealing with these people. <br /><br />Nevertheless, I would suggest that whatever conditions obtain for the "moment" or "time" or "period" of the judgment, we still have to accept (a) that it is a real event and not a metaphorical one, and (b) that the judgment of condemnation is not in any ordinary sense reversible. The condition of those condemned is that of permanent isolation from God, whereas those who have been sentenced to purgatory are NOT sentenced to permanent isolation from God, and this is a very fundamental difference. Despair and hope are not different by mere degrees. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5199970636496950952016-11-10T03:56:48.335-08:002016-11-10T03:56:48.335-08:00Dianelos,
“If you're capable of doing better ...Dianelos,<br /><br /><i>“If you're capable of doing better than the best you can do, then go right ahead.”<br /><br />I didn't say that. I said that Christ calls us to *endeavor* to live our life better than we can.</i><br /><br />Before you said that, I had said "If a man endeavors to lives his life as best he can and such that when he dies he'll likely be dying in the grace of Christ, then he really hasn't much to worry about (respecting his final 'destination'), does he?" <br /><br />While you expressed no disagreement with the whole of this, you did say had a problem with the particular expression "endeavor to live one's life as best one can". <br /><br />The 'best' in "as best one can", however, is akin to "that than which nothing better is possible" (now's a good time to recall the rhetorical question already asked: "But if [one is] capable of doing better than 'the best [he] do', then 'the best [he] can do' really isn't the best [he] can do, is it now?"), so I don't see how you can have a legitimate problem with the expression "endeavoring to live one's life as best one can".<br /><br /><i>Christ's call for us is to endeavor the impossible.</i><br /><br />Christ also said that His yoke is easy, and His burden light.<br /><br />Still, it is true that,<br /><br />o [I]t behooves a man to do his utmost to strive onward even to Divine things, as even the Philosopher declares in Ethic. x, 7, and as Scripture often admonishes us---for instance: "Be ye . . . perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Mat. 5:48)[.] <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2061.htm#article5" rel="nofollow"><i>ST</i> I-II Q 61 A 5</a><br /><br /><i>(I trust you meant “ticket” metaphorically, but even so it's a misleading way to put things. There are no tickets one has, but paths one follows.)</i><br /><br />Something which is a means or method may be said to be a "ticket to". <br /><br />Thus, e.g., a college degree may be said to be a ticket to a higher paying job, excessive drinking and immoderate smoking may be said to be tickets to poor health, and truth may be said to be the ticket to freedom ("The truth will set you free"). <br /><br />A path is a means (to the destination to which the path leads), so even a path may be said to be a 'ticket to'.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80421521497352952592016-11-09T21:01:13.980-08:002016-11-09T21:01:13.980-08:00“The People of God in the eternity beyond death ar...“The People of God in the eternity beyond death are given as those who die in the grace of Christ.”<br /><br />Except the Emperor Trajan?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17550555999448260662016-11-09T12:22:43.507-08:002016-11-09T12:22:43.507-08:00Dianelos,
1. The purpose of the document is given...Dianelos,<br /><br />1. The purpose of the document is given in its third paragraph:<br /><br />"[W]e shall accordingly make a profession of faith, pronounce a creed which, without being strictly speaking a dogmatic definition, repeats in substance, with some developments called for by the spiritual condition of our time, the creed of Nicea, the creed of the immortal tradition of the holy Church of God."<br /><br />You will notice that it is expressly <i>not</i> the purpose of the document to constitute, strictly speaking, "a dogmatic definition."<br /><br />You will also notice that it <i>is</i> expressly the purpose of the document to repeat in substance the creed of Nicea.<br /><br />I suggest you now review the <a href="http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/creed_of_nicaea_325.htm" rel="nofollow">Nicene Creed</a>.<br /><br />2. You give your explanation for why you think the term hell is not explicitly mentioned in the document as follows: "Pope Paul VI who concluded the Second Vatican Council felt deep doubts about the truth of hellism and was not prepared to sign an important document that affirms it."<br /><br />As is the case with the Nicene Creed, the document also does not explicitly mention repentance. <br /><br />Shall we conclude from your explanation above, and the confidence with which you give it, that your explanation for the lack of any explicit mention of repentance is similar, i.e., something along the lines of, "Pope Paul VI who concluded the Second Vatican Council felt deep doubts about the value of repentance and was not prepared to sign an important document that affirms it"?<br /><br />If not, then please provide a rational explanation for why you think there is something to made of the fact that hell is only implicitly mentioned in the document, but nothing to be of the fact that repentance is <i>neither</i> explicitly mentioned <i>nor</i> implicitly mentioned in the same document.<br /><br />3. We read in the document:<br /><br />a) "God alone can give us right and full knowledge of this reality by revealing Himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in whose eternal life we are by grace called to share, here below in the obscurity of faith and after death in eternal light."; and,<br /><br />b) "He ascended to heaven, and He will come again, this time in glory, to judge the living and the dead: each according to his merits -- those who have responded to the love and piety of God going to eternal life, those who have refused them to the end going to the fire that is not extinguished."<br /><br />Can you provide a rational explanation for how –- indeed, for <i>why</i> -- those rejecting the eternal life of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to which they have been called by grace to share, might share in the very eternal life which they themselves have rejected? <br /><br />Can you square that rational explanation with the declaration that those who, to the end, refuse the love and piety of God go to the fire that is not extinguished?<br /><br />Can you make an educated guess as to what the referent of the phrase "the fire that is not extinguished" might be?Glennnoreply@blogger.com