Hell, Hope, and Julian of Norwich

Patrick Speckamp @Ankit: I just wrote a long message for you but clicked on the wrong button by mistake and it got deleted. To give you the gist of it: Thanks for you comment but I think it is more geared towards a believer with doubts rather than towards an atheist. I’ve been a believer at certain points in my life and always experienced it as some sort of psychological torture. One absurd example: I once bit and swallowed my fingernails during mass and received communion afterwards (In case you don’t know: A Catholic mustn’t eat anything one hour prior to receiving communion). I didn’t confess this incident, which I thought constituted a sacrilege. I was miserable and thought I’d go to hell for being a bad person. These kind of things happened a lot and the practice of confession always left me more miserable than I was before.

All I’m saying is, I’m happy to have cast off these practices since they constituted a real psychological problem to my life. I’m much more happy not to follow unreasoned and arbitrary rules.

You are right, the original question was concerned with the question whether one can experience joy in heaven whilst knowing there are people suffering in hell. I think I’ve already given my answer to that. Apart from the fact that I think there’s neither hell nor heaven, I think if the concept of heaven is real then it must be a place of perfect justice and hell must be a place of perfect injustice. They wouldn’t trespass on each other, hence no sympathy for each other. It’s a question nobody in heaven would ask.

April 24, 2013 at 7:17pm · Like

Ankit Dhawan @Patrick: thank you for sharing your personal struggle with matters of faith. For Catholic rules and regulations, New Apologetics should jump in. Unless proven otherwise, I believe in the oneness of the divine person that different religious practices follow. This view is quite contrary to most, who are quick to reject the object of other faiths as *false gods*. My belief in this oneness is the reason why I quote Vedic scriptures on a Catholic website. There seems to be a 80% match between my belief and New Apologetics (my assessment, not theirs), the differences being in the views re: which belief system presents God comprehensively. So, my response to you will be from Vedic point of view. How about you start a new thread so as to we don’t loose Jay’s original question. We will humbly request NA to cut-paste this thread into the new post where we can follow up on this discussion. I do have some thoughts to offer to you.

April 25, 2013 at 4:51am · Like

New Apologetics Here is the foundation from which we will offer our response to Jay’s original question. From the Catholic mystic, Julian of Norwich:

CHAPTER XXXII
“There be deeds evil done in our sight, and so great harms taken, that it
seemeth to us that it were impossible that ever it should come to good end.”
“That Great Deed ordained . . . by which our Lord God shall make all things
well”

ONE time our good Lord said: All thing shall be well; and another time
he said: Thou shalt see thyself that all MANNER [of] thing shall be
well; and in these two [sayings] the soul took sundry understandings.

One was that He willeth we know that not only He taketh heed to noble
things and to great, but also to little and to small, to low and to
simple, to one and to other. And so meaneth He in that He saith: ALL
MANNER OF THINGS shall be well. For He willeth we know that the least
thing shall not be forgotten.

Another understanding is this, that there be deeds evil done in our
sight, and so great harms taken, that it seemeth to us that it were
impossible that ever it should come to good end. And upon this we look,
sorrowing and mourning therefor, so that we cannot resign us unto the
blissful beholding of God as we should do. And the cause of this is
that the use of our reason is now so blind, so low, and so simple, that
we cannot know that high marvellous Wisdom, the Might and the Goodness
of the blissful Trinity. And thus signifieth He when He saith: THOU
SHALT SEE THYSELF if all manner of things shall be well. As if He
said: Take now heed faithfully and trustingly, and at the last end thou
shalt verily see it in fulness of joy.

And thus in these same five words aforesaid: I may make all things
well, etc., I understand a mighty comfort of all the works of our Lord
God that are yet to come. There is a Deed the which the blessed Trinity
shall do in the last Day, as to my sight, and when the Deed shall be,
and how it shall be done, is unknown of all creatures that are beneath
Christ, and shall be till when it is done.

["The Goodness and the Love of our Lord God" will that we wit
[know] that it shall be; And the “Might and the Wisdom of him by the
same Love will” hill [conceal] it, and hide it from us what it shall
be, “and how it shall be done.”]

And the cause why He willeth that we know [this Deed shall be], is for
that He would have us the more eased in our soul and [the more] set at
peace in love –leaving the beholding of all troublous things
that might keep us back from true enjoying of Him. This is that Great
Deed ordained of our Lord God from without beginning, treasured and hid
in His blessed breast, only known to Himself: by which He shall make
all things well.

For like as the blissful Trinity made all things of nought, right so
the same blessed Trinity shall make well all that is not well.

And in this sight I marvelled greatly and beheld our Faith, marvelling
thus: Our Faith is grounded in God’s word, and it belongeth to our
Faith that we believe that God’s word shall be saved in all things; and
one point of our Faith is that many creatures shall be condemned: as
angels that fell out of Heaven for pride, which be now fiends; and man
in earth that dieth out of the Faith of Holy Church: that is to
say, they that be heathen men; and also man that hath received
christendom and liveth unchristian life and so dieth out of charity:
all these shall be condemned to hell without end, as Holy Church
teacheth me to believe. And all this [so] standing, methought it
was impossible that all manner of things should be well, as our Lord
shewed in the same time.

And as to this I had no other answer in Shewing of our Lord God but
this: That which is impossible to thee is not impossible to me: I shall
save my word in all things and I shall make all things well. Thus I was
taught, by the grace of God, that I should steadfastly hold me in the
Faith as I had aforehand understood, [and] therewith that I should
firmly believe that all things shall be well, as our Lord shewed in the
same time.

For this is the Great Deed that our Lord shall do, in which Deed He
shall save His word and He shall make all well that is not well. How it
shall be done there is no creature beneath Christ that knoweth it, nor
shall know it till it is done; according to the understanding that I
took of our Lord’s meaning in this time.

April 26, 2013 at 1:21pm · Like · 4

New Apologetics The following is relevant to a consideration of epistemology which is important to Jay’s question. We will soon clarify and summarize why this and the previous quote are explanatory. Julian writes:

CHAPTER XXX
“Two parts of Truth: the part that is open: our Saviour and our
salvation;–and the part that is hid and shut up from us: all beside our
salvation”

HE gave me understanding of two parts [of truth]. The one part is our
Saviour and our salvation. This blessed part is open and clear and fair
and light, and plenteous,–for all mankind that is of good will, and
shall be, is comprehended in this part. Hereto are we bounden of God,
and drawn and counselled and taught inwardly by the Holy Ghost and
outwardly by Holy Church in the same grace. In this willeth our Lord
that we be occupied, joying in Him; for He enjoyeth in us. The more
plenteously that we take of this, with reverence and meekness, the more
thanks we earn of Him and the more speed to ourselves, thus–may
we say–enjoying our part of our Lord. The other [part] is hid and shut
up from us: that is to say, all that is beside our salvation. For it is
our Lord’s privy counsel, and it belongeth to the royal lordship of God
to have His privy counsel in peace, and it belongeth to His servant,
for obedience and reverence, not to learn wholly His counsel. Our
Lord hath pity and compassion on us for that some creatures make
themselves so busy therein; and I am sure if we knew how much we should
please Him and ease ourselves by leaving it, we would. The saints that
be in Heaven, they will to know nothing but that which our Lord willeth
to shew them: and also their charity and their desire is ruled after
the will of our Lord: and thus ought we to will, like to them. Then
shall we nothing will nor desire but the will of our Lord, as they do:
for we are all one in God’s seeing.

And here was I learned that we shall trust and rejoice only in our
Saviour, blessed Jesus, for all thing.

April 26, 2013 at 1:29pm · Like · 4

Morgan Dendler Very appropriate as I am at this moment pondering this subject

May 8, 2013 at 1:46pm · Like · 1

You are a child of The One True King I am confident that we will be absolutely astounded by the extents of God’s graces.

May 8, 2013 at 4:47pm · Like · 1

Jose Alvares shut up atheist!

May 9, 2013 at 9:24pm · Like

Jay Kruzuski Wow that was rude. Can you answer their objection?

May 9, 2013 at 9:27pm · Like · 3

Ankit Dhawan I think the missing link of reincarnation resolves many issues related to misgivings about eternal hell. If soul is given multiple opportunities to open himself up to receive the supernatural love, then ultimately all will end up in heaven… Some sooner than others. With that guarantee, one may let grace do the job for others and accept God’s glorification without any reservations, in perfect bliss! When one reaches this exalted state, he may choose to come back to material world to deliver other fallen souls. Such a person may look like one of us, but make no mistake, he is constantly in heaven as he is always situated in God. 
I do realize that New Apologetics and Catholic Church do not embrace the concept of reincarnation……. just yet!

May 9, 2013 at 10:30pm · Like

Ankit Dhawan AE (I will use your initials for brevity): I think if you take out *eternal hell* from the picture, and insert *eternal life* in heaven for all- then I do think it resolves the apathy issue. If my train to heaven arrives 10 minutes early than my brothe…See More

May 10, 2013 at 12:12pm · Like

Linda Briggs Leonard Souls choose to go to hell; it was created by the all loving God for those souls who can’t be near Him.

May 10, 2013 at 1:01pm · Like

Jay Kruzuski Ankit Dhawan“*all* trains will ultimately lead to heaven” …..I don’t think that this is guaranteed.

May 10, 2013 at 7:16pm · Like

Ankit Dhawan @ Jay: In Vedic philosophy everyone will ultimately end up in the spiritual kingdom. For some, it may take millions of births and change of trains, but in the end we all will reach kingdom. Offcourse, Catholic philosophy has not had this revelation yet, so I can appreciate your comment.

May 10, 2013 at 8:23pm · Like

John Pension You have the heart of God “who wills that all be saved and come to a knowledge of him.” God’s will be done.

May 11, 2013 at 10:38pm · Unlike · 2

Jopales Darkstar @ Ankit: well i like the Vedic position better than the prospect of being in heaven or in hell, that sounds like a reasonable concept for a God of love. this gives hope (albeit misplaced perhaps in the Catholic position?) to people that there is a “purification” process for all of us to be able to enter the kingdom as opposed to the notion of eternal suffering in hell. However, while this is much more appealing, how do we know that we are not being deceived?

May 12, 2013 at 10:58am · Like · 1

Jay Kruzuski Happy Mother’s Day!

May 12, 2013 at 11:57am · Like · 1

Ankit Dhawan @ Jopales: you write: “However, while this is much more appealing, how do we know that we are not being deceived?” 

The reason for my presenting Vedic philosophy on this board is *not* to present a competing theology, although in light humor I may make comments that would suggest that. I truly believe that Catholic position is the same as Vedic, once you begin to understand the core message of these great faiths. The only difference is that in some cases Catholics don’t have the complete revelation, while Vedas do. New Apologetics will make similar assertion about Catechism (I conjecture). 

Having said that, you have asked how do we know that we are not being deceived? Well, if you agree on God’s definition that He is *infinite* reservoir of pure love, then He will frustrate *any* and *all* plans of evil to impart suffering upon us. In Catholic view, we self select hell despite God’s universal invitation to everyone to eternal life through the death & resurrection of Jesus. So, in this design all who accept the invitation will be saved and glorified, and all those who don’t will suffer eternal separation from God. The problem with this design is that embodied soul has roughly 80-90 years to make up their mind on RSVPing this invitation, which may not be sufficient for many of us. Heck, most of us don’t even know about this invitation as we are busy watching Seinfeld reruns most of our life (absorbed in material life). So, I feel the revelation in Vedas about transmigration of soul, from one body to another, up until to a point that soul wakes up to the invitation makes sense. This invitation is something that cannot be accepted without the supernatural help from God, and for soul who is *eternal*, a bodily life of eighty years does not sound enough time for the process to work for majority. When you take away the artificial *time limit* imposed on the embodied soul, combined with persistence of divine grace, one can replace *hope* with *assurance* that *all* will be saved. That completes the definition of God as *infinite* reservoir of love.

May 12, 2013 at 12:29pm · Like

Curt Niebrugge You can do that by knowing they got their wish of where they want to be. It is a free choice of where they want to spend eternity. You can spend eternity in heaven joyfully knowing this is the deepest desires of each others hearts. To be eternally with God or not. It is THEIR wish.

May 16, 2013 at 6:57am · Like

Ankit Dhawan @ Curt: I hear you, but disagree. If my son makes a choice that is going to hurt him, I may accept that to respect his individuality but I will suffer watching my son going through the pain. Similarly, there *cannot* be unblemished happiness in heaven if anyone of us gets the *self selected* suffering in eternal hell.

May 16, 2013 at 3:31pm · Unlike · 1

Glenn Montgomery You are also operating under the tenuous assumption that beliefs can be *chosen*. There is no other way to make claims such as “they got their wish of where they want to be” without treating beliefs and wants as if they are “choices”. I strongly disa…See More

May 17, 2013 at 1:17pm · Like

New Apologetics Glenn Montgomery You assume that the choice in question is one of ideological belief. It is not. We do not assert that those who do not profess Christianity are thereby doomed to hell.

May 17, 2013 at 1:29pm · Like

Glenn Montgomery I am stating that there is no “choice” at all, ideological or not, regarding wants or beliefs of any kind, under any circumstances. I do have to acknowledge that I do not believe in “Free Will” however, which influences my position.

I was responding to Curt who stated:

“You can do that by knowing they got their wish of where they want to be. It is a free choice of where they want to spend eternity. “

I do not think “I am fine with them being in hell because that is where they want to be” is a viable argument… It hinges on placing the burden on the person for making a “choice”, as if they could have done otherwise at some point but didn’t.

You have to believe in “Free Will” of some sort, immediate and complete personal authorship for actions and thoughts, and treat beliefs and wants at intentional “choices” for that to work…

Fine, you do not assert that those who do not profess Christianity are doomed to hell – but what about those who *are* doomed to hell, if you believe anyone is? If you believe *anyone* goes to hell, the question is, why maintain that they “chose” to be there? I can certainly see how it would make things easier regarding cognitive dissonance, but it doesn’t seem sound.

What is a “free choice”?

May 17, 2013 at 1:32pm · Unlike · 1

New Apologetics Glenn Montgomery Why do you conclude that there is no free will? We have the direct experience of freedom. Do you not have this experience or is there (in your estimation) a rational defeater for it?

May 17, 2013 at 1:51pm · Like · 1

Glenn Montgomery I didn’t intend to derail this entirely into a free will discussion… That discussion is complex on its own terms. Many a philosophy message board has maxed out post limits on threads discussing this. If you are OK proceeding on here I will do so…

It is an interesting area to discuss.

I will say that I do have the subjective experience of making choices like everyone else, but I don’t see that as evidence that the choice is really happening. I have the subjective experience of “green” as well but you won’t find “green” anywhere out there in the world if you looked for it, because it really isn’t “out there” at all. It is all just “appearances” and “seemings”.

You can always choose do to whatever you want, but you can’t *choose what you want in the first place*. The “wants” are what make the choices for you, and you didn’t choose the “wants”. Your life experiences did.

Could you instantly decide, on the spot, to completely reverse your beliefs about something based on nothing at all but a “choice” you made intentionally? For instance, to prove it is possible, can you “choose”, right now on the spot, to start believing Harry Potter is non-fiction, and really believe it as *true*, down to your core?

My statement about Superman stands. I could never just “choose” to believe he was real, because I really believe he is fictional and in order to change that, other beliefs I have would need to be changed first in order to predispose me to that belief-switching act. I could never just intentionally force myself to believe to be true today something I thought was false yesterday, without something else, evidence or facts or arguments or sensory experience first coming into my mind and changing the way I think…

My beliefs are cross-linked. I know about comic books, and fictional characters. I know about Jerry Siegel at DC comics. I know that humans have never found alien life, or inhabited exoplanets. His super powers conflict with my beliefs about physics and causality. The town he lives in doesn’t exist on any maps. None of the things he did ever happened.

How can I start believing Superman is real as long as I have these other beliefs as well? Because of the cross-linked belief structure, many things would have to change across the board for me to invert my beliefs, and I could never simply “choose” to start believing he was real as long as I also believed he was created by Jerry Siegal in 1933, because you cannot believe something is true and false at the same time.

How can I *stop* believing that Superman was created by Jerry Siegal in 1933, in order to start believing he is real? I can’t “choose” that belief either… Something would have to enter my mind that convinced me Jerry Siegal didn’t create Superman at all, and what would *that* be, and would I be able to choose *that*? Where in the process do I start “choosing” what I believe? We just continue to dive further and further back in a causal chain that seems subjectively like “choice making” but never actually is, anywhere along the process.

Also, if people really do make “free choices” that are not influenced by environmental and genetic factors, how is it that predictions in sociology work so well? Why are a vast majority of people the same religion as their parents? Why do people share cultural values and wants and priorities in geographic groupings? Why are there fleeting and ever-changing social and fashion trends?

A teenage girl “choses” to be infatuated with Justin Beiber… Strange that it happened at the same exact time that 100,000 girls “chose” the same thing. They must have all made a “free choice” at coincidentally simultaneous timing?

May 17, 2013 at 2:06pm · Unlike · 1

New Apologetics Glenn Montgomery It would be better to post this discussion of freewill to our timeline.

May 17, 2013 at 4:21pm · Like · 2

Ankit Dhawan I am not sure if NA answered Jay’s original question unless they are taking refuge in the *mystery* argument that God has some sort of hidden plan for those who end up in hell. I do like the points being brought up in Glenn’s postings about *wants* v. *free will*. I hope he starts a separate thread on the issue.

May 18, 2013 at 8:42am · Like

New Apologetics Ankit Dhawan We have not answered yet.

May 18, 2013 at 10:53am · Like · 2

Ankit Dhawan This beautiful and important question from Jay is looking for some attention. Its been a while!

June 1, 2013 at 4:16pm · Like

Jay Kruzuski Relax, it hasn’t been that long.

June 1, 2013 at 4:21pm · Unlike · 2

New Apologetics Glenn Montgomery 
You wrote:
I will say that I do have the subjective experience of making choices like everyone else, but I don’t see that as evidence that the choice is really happening. 

We reply:
Unless there is a good reason to think this experience is illusory, we should take it as evidence that there is free will. Direct experience always trumps lesser modes of evidence unless there is some “defeater” for the belief that the experience is veridical. The mere possibility of doubting its veridicality is not, in itself, a reason to doubt it.

You wrote:
I have the subjective experience of “green” as well but you won’t find “green” anywhere out there in the world if you looked for it, because it really isn’t “out there” at all. It is all just “appearances” and “seemings”.

We reply:
But the sense data really does say something about the “external” world. Namely, it says that this thing which appears green is different in its nature from something that appears red. The green and red appearances are caused by real differences in the things experienced. Similarly, the experience of making free decisions is an indicator of a qualitative difference from non-free actions. We can directly experience what it is to be *compelled* to act. We can directly experience a free action (albeit ours is a diminished freedom). This freedom is not the same as simply doing what we want, as the experience directly presents the possibility of acting against even very strong desires. This data is evidence that there is a qualitative difference between actions that are compelled by physical law and those which originate from a free act of will. It is possible that this experience is illusory, but there is no reason to think so. It is also possible that our experience of there being a physical world is illusory, but there is no reason to think so.

You wrote:
You can always choose do to whatever you want, but you can’t *choose what you want in the first place*. The “wants” are what make the choices for you, and you didn’t choose the “wants”. Your life experiences did.

We reply:
We largely agree on that. We would only disagree that we can always choose to do whatever we want. Our freedom is injured for a few reasons, and we can’t do the good we want to do. It is not destroyed, but it is not quite what it should be. This, too, is something accessible to direct experience.

You wrote:
Could you instantly decide, on the spot, to completely reverse your beliefs about something based on nothing at all but a “choice” you made intentionally? For instance, to prove it is possible, can you “choose”, right now on the spot, to start believing Harry Potter is non-fiction, and really believe it as *true*, down to your core?

We reply:
No. 

You wrote:
My statement about Superman stands. I could never just “choose” to believe he was real, because I really believe he is fictional and in order to change that, other beliefs I have would need to be changed first in order to predispose me to that belief-switching act. I could never just intentionally force myself to believe to be true today something I thought was false yesterday, without something else, evidence or facts or arguments or sensory experience first coming into my mind and changing the way I think…

We reply:
We agree.

You wrote:
My beliefs are cross-linked. I know about comic books, and fictional characters. I know about Jerry Siegel at DC comics. I know that humans have never found alien life, or inhabited exoplanets. His super powers conflict with my beliefs about physics and causality. The town he lives in doesn’t exist on any maps. None of the things he did ever happened.

How can I start believing Superman is real as long as I have these other beliefs as well? Because of the cross-linked belief structure, many things would have to change across the board for me to invert my beliefs, and I could never simply “choose” to start believing he was real as long as I also believed he was created by Jerry Siegal in 1933, because you cannot believe something is true and false at the same time.

We reply:
You can’t just choose to believe something you think is probably false.

You wrote:
How can I *stop* believing that Superman was created by Jerry Siegal in 1933, in order to start believing he is real? I can’t “choose” that belief either… Something would have to enter my mind that convinced me Jerry Siegal didn’t create Superman at all, and what would *that* be, and would I be able to choose *that*? Where in the process do I start “choosing” what I believe? We just continue to dive further and further back in a causal chain that seems subjectively like “choice making” but never actually is, anywhere along the process.

We reply:
You can’t choose what you believe. Some people can lie to themselves quite adeptly for a long time. We all do it to some degree. However, this ultimately is not the same thing as “belief”. You’re right. When reality becomes the focus, our beliefs are not readily choosable. 

You wrote:
Also, if people really do make “free choices” that are not influenced by environmental and genetic factors, how is it that predictions in sociology work so well? 

We reply:
Our choices are influenced by environmental and genetic factors.

You wrote:
Why are a vast majority of people the same religion as their parents? 

We reply:
It is because our choices are influenced by environmental and genetic factors.

You wrote:
Why do people share cultural values and wants and priorities in geographic groupings? Why are there fleeting and ever-changing social and fashion trends?

We reply:
Same as above.

You wrote:
A teenage girl “choses” to be infatuated with Justin Beiber… Strange that it happened at the same exact time that 100,000 girls “chose” the same thing. They must have all made a “free choice” at coincidentally simultaneous timing?

We reply:
We would say that this is likely not an example of the use of freedom, but is almost 100% social influence.

June 2, 2013 at 12:32am · Like

New Apologetics Glenn Montgomery 

You wrote:…See More

June 2, 2013 at 2:16am · Like · 1

Ankit Dhawan Consider this verse from Bhagavad Gita (3.27) on us claiming to be the “deciders”. Glenn is on to something when he says that our choices are influenced by life experiences.

prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni
guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ
ahaṅkāra-vimūḍhātmā
kartāham iti manyate
“The spirit soul bewildered by the influence of false ego thinks himself the doer of activities that are in actuality carried out by the three modes of material nature.”

June 2, 2013 at 7:43am · Like

Ankit Dhawan New Apologetics: Your statement should bring chills in the spine of many who declare themselves as Christian. Are you sure that you want to use this extreme language? 

“Of all the people in the world, among those facing the greatest danger of hell are those Christians who, because of the cross of Christ, think themselves “in” and are content with others being “out” because they have not accepted Christ. There is a lot that goes into justifying such a statement, but we thought it important to simply assert it for now.

If we think of ourselves as in any way “better” than any other person because of our “acceptance” of Jesus and his “suffering for our sin”, then we are in very serious danger that cannot be overstated. Everything is upside-down for us, and we will find ourselves horrified to be in his presence because we will see in a very clear way that our “Christianity” wounded him. We generally have no idea what we are talking about when we cavalierly say “Jesus died for our sins”. He will ask us to accept his suffering so that we may be saved, and we will not be inclined to consent.”

June 2, 2013 at 8:19am · Like

New Apologetics Ankit Dhawan We mean it.

June 2, 2013 at 10:29am · Like · 4

New Apologetics Jay Kruzuski

Okay, so here’s the answer… What Julian says in the quotes above is really important, very subtle, *orthodox* and almost totally unknown. Here are the necessary aspects for our purposes here:…See More

July 9, 2013 at 11:45am · Like · 1

Jay Kruzuski So basically as long I can admit it is logically possible for God to resolve the dilemma, then it follows that he will resolve the dilemma. I will assert though that this does indeed seem like a logical contradiction.

July 9, 2013 at 3:09pm · Like

New Apologetics Jay Kruzuski If he can fix it, he will. He can, and so he will. It does seem like a contradiction.

July 9, 2013 at 3:19pm · Like

New Apologetics Jay Kruzuski It also seems like a contradiction to say that God is omniscient, omnipotent, infinitely opposed to every instance of innocent suffering, and yet the world is the way it is. The reconciliation of these ideas has always seemed imposible. However, once the solution is seen, it is very clear and explanatory.

July 9, 2013 at 3:22pm · Like

Jay Kruzuski People being in Hell seems to strictly entail all not being well. It just seems like more of a clear-cut contradiction than the problem of evil… The only logically possible option seems to be universal salvation.

July 9, 2013 at 3:27pm · Like

Jay Kruzuski Once an angel falls, is it permanent?

July 9, 2013 at 3:28pm · Like

New Apologetics Jay Kruzuski We agree about the “seems” that you are describing. Note that the typical discussions about the problem of evil do not say that God is “infinitely opposed” to innocent suffering. The reason for that is because it *seems* like a contradiction. We know that it is not a contradiction, because we have the correct theodicy, but this “infinite opposition” model is something that has not been considered before. Consequently, every foregoing theodicy has been construed in terms of God *not* being perfectly opposed to the suffering of the innocent. Almost always a “means to an end” view is adopted. All of this is because of the apparent contradiction that is implied by the “infinite opposition” view.

July 9, 2013 at 3:34pm · Like

New Apologetics Jay Kruzuski Once an angel falls it is permanent. Similarly, once we have been wounded, the diminishment is “permanent.” And the one condition of our redemption is that we become undiminished without God changing his absolute standard of being opposed to all that diminishes us. It is another “irrevocable”, but look at what he did to solve it…

July 9, 2013 at 3:38pm · Like

Jay Kruzuski Does God offer Redemption to fallen angels?

July 9, 2013 at 3:40pm · Like

Jay Kruzuski Just yes or no and then no more follow-ups.

July 9, 2013 at 3:44pm · Like

New Apologetics Jay Kruzuski Not in the way that you or we would have in mind.

July 9, 2013 at 4:08pm · Like

Jay Kruzuski Thanks.

July 9, 2013 at 4:09pm · Like

New Apologetics Jay Kruzuski We were going to keep this private to avoid misinterpretation, but on further reflection it seems that a demonstration of how a solution is logically possible will be helpful to a lot of people.

Let’s say, hypothetically, the situation is that there are many fallen angels and human souls who have eternally chosen against God. They have, for whatever reason, declared (forever) “We will not serve”. They’ll never change their minds. 

What if, on the last day, we and God said in full agreement “Let us now serve them.” They have not changed their minds, but the separation disappears. 

[We are not saying that it is what will happen. We are saying that this is a logically possible way to believe everything officially taught by the Church and still believe that all will be well. We state it only to show that it is not a contradiction to hold the ideas in *tension* without having the explanation for what will actually be the solution.]

July 9, 2013 at 4:41pm · Like · 2