1) We ALL have sufficient knowledge that any sinful acts merit a punishment. And sin, first and foremost, is an offense against and a breaking of our connection to the Eternal and Transcendent, then it is a breaking of our relationship with the world around us, and it is also a breaking of the relationship with our true selves.

2) Willful blindness is a choice. To not choose, to avoid the choice that you know that you ought to make, is a choice. God doesn't punish honest ignorance, but dishonest ignorance is another matter entirely (Matt 12:32).

That’s not true, Gandalf. We are all sinners, so if what you say is true, we all cut off our connection to the Eternal. I think what you mean is mortal sin. But you say:

“We ALL have sufficient knowledge that any sinful acts merit a punishment.”

Even if it were true that we ALL have sufficient knowledge that any sinful acts merit a punishment, how could you expect atheists, agnostics, Hindus, Buddhists, or any non-Catholics or even non-practicing Catholics to have sufficient knowledge of which sinful acts merit ETERNAL punishment when even practicing Catholics don’t know. If you think you know, then list the sins that merit ETERNAL punishment, or tell me where I can find such a list.

If someone chooses to commit a venial sin, then even according to those who believe in eternal punishment, a venial sin does not merit eternal punishment. But, according to you, everyone who goes to Hell chooses to go to Hell even if they don’t believe Hell exists, because, according to you, they choose sinful behaviour which they somehow know merits eternal punishment, even though they don’t believe there is such a thing as eternal punishment!

So those who don’t believe in eternal Hell cannot directly choose to go there, because you cannot choose something you don’t believe exists. And they cannot indirectly choose to go to eternal Hell by choosing to commit sins which they somehow know merit eternal punishment because even if they believe sins merit punishment, they don’t know which sins merit ETERNAL punishment.

So it’s nonsense to say they CHOOSE eternal punishment.

Denise Dee
I'm going to cut you short right here because I've seen you repeatedly use this rhetorical tactic where you argue backwards from particulars or "facts" to universals.

That "inductive" approach may work for scientific fields such as biology or physics where the theories and principles are also subject to falsification because science always admits the possibility of incomplete data.

But it doesn't work in the realms of metaphysics, philosophy, and ethics where it is necessary to begin with universals or first principles and then apply those realities to the more particular.

Hume said that you cannot derive ethical guidelines from observable "facts" because the facts themselves don't tell you how they should be rank-ordered in a hierarchy. And that the second that you attempt to rank-order them you are necessarily applying an ethic derived not from the facts themselves, but rather derived from your a-priori beliefs. That's what he coined as the naturalistic (is-ought) fallacy.

Kant is quoted as succinctly stating that, when it comes to the moral life, "... experience is the mother of illusion."

There are any almost infinite amount of 'facts" that I know that you can derive in order to derail all sorts of things that can be put forth. The problem is that you're not actually proving the principles myself or anyone else here puts forth are incorrect, all you're doing is engaging in confirmation bias and making it impossible to have a conversation with you based on what ought to be put common ground based on the principles put forth by the Catholic Faith.

Now, if you want to argue that you don't believe that there is such thing as such universal moral principles, or that we must rather conform ethical guidelines to match up with "real" modern world experience. Then we can just end this conversation here and now, because we really don't have anything more to discuss.

I understand barely any of that. But you can end the conversation anytime you want, Gandalf. That doesn’t mean I won’t have anything more to say. It just means that you don’t want to say anything more.

When I pointed out that nobody can CHOOSE to go to a place if they don’t believe the place exists, you said:

“We ALL have sufficient knowledge that any sinful acts merit a punishment”.

You are suggesting that even though people don’t believe in the existence of an eternal hell, they still CHOOSE to go there because they CHOOSE sinful acts which they somehow know merit ETERNAL punishment.

But how on earth would people who don’t believe in the existence of an eternal hell possibly know what sins merit ETERNAL punishment? Even if they read the Bible they won’t know, and the Bible will actually lead them to believe that there is no ETERNAL punishment for some of the sins which traditional Catholics suggest merit ETERNAL punishment.

For example, I’m fairly sure that traditional Catholics believe that a homosexual relationship, merits ETERNAL punishment (correct me if I am wrong), but nowhere in the Bible does it say that any homosexual act merits ETERNAL punishment. Leviticus 20:13 says:

“‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

So the punishment for a man having sexual relations with a man, ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, is to be put to death. That’s not ETERNAL punishment.

If a man having sexual relations with a man merits ETERNAL punishment, why does the Bible not say so, and how could anyone, especially anyone who doesn’t even believe in the existence of an ETERNAL hell, be expected to know that the punishment is ETERNAL hell?

So the idea that people who don’t even believe in the existence of eternal hell somehow CHOOSE eternal hell is clearly nonsense.

You can’t CHOOSE something which you don’t even believe exists. Many people don’t believe an eternal hell exists and don’t believe that their ‘sins’ merit ETERNAL punishment, so they cannot CHOOSE something which they don’t believe exists.

If someone commits a crime, they choose to commit the crime, they do not choose the punishment for the crime. If they are sent to prison, they have not chosen to go to prison, the punishment is imposed on them. They may have had no idea what the punishment might be when they committed the crime. You can argue that a person deserves the punishment, but they do not choose the punishment.

You can argue that some people deserve eternal punishment (an infinitely harsher punishment than any punishment in the Old Testament) but you cannot sensibly argue that they CHOOSE eternal punishment.

So if you believe that some people are eternally punished, you cannot claim that they somehow CHOOSE eternal punishment. You’d have to be insane to CHOOSE eternal punishment, and therefore not morally responsible for your actions, and therefore not deserving of eternal punishment.

That's a bizarre thing to claim because your following post illustrates exactly what I'm talking about.

And it matters because how we interpret the world isn't a matter of mere opinions, it's a matter of ethics. There is a right and a wrong way to interpret the world.

And the way you're doing it is not only wrong, it's dishonest because you're cherry picking your "facts" and trying to put forth your ideological perspective as if it's the only reasonable and rational way, and that any other way is "nonsense."

And I think that you're smart enough to know and understand that it's exactly what you're doing.



Right, because I have little patience for nonsense trying to pass itself off as profundity.



Lung cancer exists, it doesn't depend on your beliefs for it's existence. And that you possess a disbelief doesn't stop people from engaging in a lifetime of smoking, which naturally merits the disease which they've been constantly told by others will happen to them. And your disbelief that you'll not get cancer from smoking is, as I already have said, nothing but willful blindness.

And yes, you still chose to get lung cancer despite your willful blindness.

This line of rationale you're engaging in is remarkably shallow and absurd.



Romans 1:18 and following is quite explicit.

"...Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;.."



Yes, it was. That's exactly what is meant by "their blood be on their own heads."....it's a Jewish idiom for "they have condemned themselves."



It does say so, several times.
1 Cor 6
9] Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts,
[10] nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Again, Gal 5
19] Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness,
[20] idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit,
[21] envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Again Eph 5
5] Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

To not inherit the Kingdom of God meant to inherit the Kingdom of the world, which is hell.

Jude 1
7] just as Sodom and Gomor'rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.




The more I see you try to employ these supposedly triumphal statements the more you demonstrate just how weak you know that such statements really are.






You clearly don't know a lot of criminals.

Ask any real, hardened criminal, and they'll tell you that they knew exactly what they were doing.

And it's absurd to even make the comparison between prison and hell because they're based on two completely distinct philosophical principles.

So you're not even making an appropriately valid point.



Of course I can. You just don't like the argument because you clearly don't understand the nature of the principles involved.

That, and you refuse to alter your perspective on the matter.



This ridiculous appeal again.

I've already demonstrated that there's nothing irrational about the psychopathic tendency towards naked self-interest.

Since you're now repeating the same arguments that have already been refuted it seems more and more like there's nothing really to be had from the discussion.

When you choose an action, you choose the consequences of that action.

i'm curious and do not know, thus i'm asking... is the position that hell (and heaven) is eternal a shared commonality among all groups that actually are Christian? with the exception of the orthodox i guess , since it kinda seems to me from what ed has said that they do not share this belief

I would not say that all Orthodox believe what Ed believes. I would be rather surprised if that's the case.

Origen didn't have an answer for this.

I have studied long and hard to put my beliefs in line with Orthodoxy. I think my representation is accurate and spot on, but I am open for you to point out particulars in which you feel that I differ from the Orthodox position.

I am confident that not all Orthodox are universalists.

Both of my bosses, my direct manager, and his manager, are both orthodox priests. Neither are universalists. My boss, who was a professor himself at one point in Orthodox theology, told me that not only are not all Orthodox not universalists, but that universalism has been formally condemned. So

* If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.
* If anyone shall say that all reasonable beings will one day be united in one, when the hypostases as well as the numbers and the bodies shall have disappeared, and that the knowledge of the world to come will carry with it the ruin of the worlds, and the rejection of bodies as also the abolition of [all] names, and that there shall be finally an identity of the γνῶσις and of the hypostasis; moreover, that in this pretended apocatastasis, spirits only will continue to exist, as it was in the feigned pre-existence: let him be anathema.
(Source, cf first and fourteenth, respectively

In general, these condemnations are found in Constantinople (453) and reaffirmed at Constantinople (553). And here's another source that discusses further condemnations at Nicea II. Of particular interest is this one

If any one confess not the resurrection of the dead, the judgment to come, the retribution of each one according to his merits, in the righteous balance of the Lord that neither will there be any end of punishment nor indeed of the kingdom of heaven, that is the full enjoyment of God, for the kingdom of heaven is not meat and drink but righteousness joy and peace in the Holy Ghost, as the divine Apostle teaches, let him be anathema. (Actual source - see definition 18, emphasis added).

So, no, Orthodox theologians are not typically universalist. Some are, of course, but there are universalists in every group, Catholics included. They're the minority and tend to get more attention than they deserve. The particular error here, at least according to my manager, is that the preferred Orthodox language and metaphors around sin and salvation (that language being therapeutic and medicinal) lends itself to being abused in the form of universalism. But as the Church has formally condemned, multiple times, that as heresy, there's no need or use or justification for taking it that far.

I know you know these things, Obi. I'm sharing this for those who might not know that Ed is misrepresenting "the East" or "the Orthodox" viewpoint.

Actually, as I understand it, I believe that the East has never defined formally any eschatological position. I don't believe there is a catechetical teaching on this. I shall need to research this statement more fully to see if what I am saying is correct.

It is possible that they haven't. My only point here is that when you say that universalism is Orthodox, what you mean is that it is compatible with Orthodoxy.

It doesn’t take much thought to see that that’s only true if you are aware of the consequences. It’s not true if you don’t realise what the consequences may be.

A few examples will make it clear:

Bruce Lee took a common headache pill to relieve the pain of a headache, and consequently died, due to an allergic reaction to an ingredient in the headache pill. He chose the action of taking the headache pill but he clearly did not choose the unforeseen consequences.

In medieval times in England, poaching rabbits in some forests, under some circumstances, was punishable by death by hanging. If an uneducated peasant chose to poach a rabbit, not knowing that if he got caught he would be hanged, it’s clear that he chose the action, he chose to poach, but he did not choose to be hanged as a consequence of his action.

It was reported recently that a woman refused to lose her virginity to her boyfriend, so he spiked her drink and raped her. The woman chose to refuse to lose her virginity, she chose to be with her boyfriend, she chose to drink with her boyfriend, but she did not choose the consequences of those actions, she did not choose to be raped.

I often notice how some Christians who are unwilling to give up the traditional teachings about eternal punishment, but see how appalling and contradictory it is to believe that a loving God would create people only to eternally punish very many of them, so these Christians try to soften the traditional teaching a bit, by suggesting that it’s not really God who sends people to eternal hell, they somehow send themselves there, they CHOOSE eternal punishment (as if anyone would!) while God just stands aside, like Pontius Pilate, He washes His hands of the person’s eternal fate, and lets them CHOOSE.

And furthermore, these eternal Hell believers suggest, when these unfortunate souls choose to send themselves to eternal hell, it’s not really as cruel as we were traditionally led to believe, the damned don’t actually suffer physical pain, they don’t literally physically burn in Hell for ever, they just suffer the emotional pain of being separated from God for ever, and since that’s what they wanted, since that’s what they CHOSE, well, hey, it’s not really that bad for them!

But there is no biblical basis for that relatively rosy picture of eternal suffering in Hell. It just comes from people’s imagination.

Nobody would choose eternal punishment. In this world, wrongdoers do not choose to be punished. They try to avoid the punishment by whatever means they can. It’s true that some people choose to die, some people want to die, some people commit suicide, but if the person is not insane, they want to die to END the pain they are suffering. No sane person would choose to suffer pain endlessly.

So if people don’t choose eternal suffering, and you believe that some people are condemned to eternal suffering in Hell, you shouldn’t kid yourself, you cannot get around the obvious conclusion of your belief, that it is God who condemns people to suffer eternally, it is God who sends people to Hell, nobody else has the power to, it is God who has chosen to abandon them for ever in Hell, God has chosen to not offer them any hope or any possibility of escaping from their eternal suffering.

But a God who would condemn people to suffer endlessly without any hope or possibility of escape while also being a God who is infinitely merciful, loving, and compassionate, is undoubtedly a total contradiction. Anyone who has ever loved knows this. An infinitely merciful and loving God cannot possibly have less love and compassion than an average mother has for her child.

The whole doctrine of eternal punishment in Hell is built around a few words which Jesus reportedly said, merely mentioned, words which can be translated in very different ways.

I went and did some Googling and reading after our last conversation. A number of priests in Orthodoxy appear to say that it is acceptable to have the hope that all shall be saved, but it is not acceptable to teach it in a dogmatic fashion.

I had an interesting discussion with one Orthodox priest online who told me "we do believe in Apokatastasis." but who denies that all will be redeemed. When I questioned him on this, it appears that what Orthodoxy teaches is that Christ has given salvation to all and all will be in the presence of God, however, the evil will find that experience to be sheer torment while those who have sought and loved Christ here on earth will find it bliss - and that condition is irreversible forever. This was also taught in a paper by Dr. Alexander Kalomiros called THE RIVER OF FIRE and I have seen similar descriptions on Orthodox blog posts and forums.

I think it is perfectly in line with God's immense love save and bring all back to Him. I also can see that the wicked, i.e., those consumed by and subservient to their passions, would experience the love of God as torment, being that they do not want anything to do with Him but only their disordered and sinful passions.

The question then is still this after all is said and done.....can the soul repent after death? Is change possible. Those in the Universalist camp say yes. I honestly don't know. Sometimes I look at the way that the wicked absolutely run after evil with no desire to change, to listen to rebuke, to abhor their sins, and I am inclined to agree with you, Father...they can't change, they won't change, they are not interested in change....now or ever.

But then I wonder if there is something that God has up His sleeve, so to speak, that I know nothing about. I think the reason that I defend Apokatastasis so ardently is that I sincerely wish it to be true. I want the wicked punished for what they did - but not forever. That is a horrible thing to think about.

Whose fault is it that the wicked are wicked? Were they created wicked? If not, whose fault is it that they were exposed to whatever made them wicked?

Denise, the thing I struggle with is not that any of us find ourselves in a world which is wicked. It is that even after been pleaded with, rebuked, taught, etc., we still choose wickedness and run to it. This is the one thing that I see that keeps me from being really all sold out on Apokatastasis. I don't have any proof that souls can repent after death and those who believe in eternal torment don't have any proof that souls can't

We grope in darkness.

How did St. Matthew know that Christ is the Messiah?

Let's say that a wicked person isn't really wicked because someone exposed him to what 'made him wicked.' What, then, of the person who exposed him to what 'made him wicked'? Or is he 'innocent,' too?