Uh, if you are misrepresented on this message board a lot, there is one factor in common.

Want to take a guess as to what that factor is?

I am saying, that once you die you immediately go to Purgatory, Heaven or Hell. I am rigidly saying that you go immediately go to Purgatory, Heaven or Hell.

This is dogmatic.

If I failed to notice the subtlety between "bound" and "going" my apologies.

That’s what’s known as blaming the victim!

I don’t know what you mean.

I believe, as much as you do, that grace is necessary to be saved from confusion, ignorance and suffering, to be saved from purgatory or hell.

You seem to be equating confusion, ignorance, and suffering with Hell (even in the most recent post you made). Hell is eternal exclusion from the Beatific Vision.

This^

I’ve been a member here for a very long time. I mostly lurk and read posts and don’t respond that often. In all of those years nobody has ever accused me or anyone else on this board of misrepresenting them. On occasion everyone has been accused of not answering the question, but that’s almost always the result of talking past each other not malice.

I will say this - if a “victim” is a “victim” because of something they are doing, then that’s their problem. If you jumped off a cliff and died you are the victim of gravity. It’s still you're fault you are dead, not gravity’s.

Everyone on this board wants to help everyone get to Heaven; folks here have no other agenda. They will tell you the truth - bluntly sometimes. But, the truth is the truth. They aren’t bending it to avoid hurting feelings or because of social niceties.

I would humbly suggest you assume the best intent of everyone first. So when they say you are wrong, practice a bit of humility and ask “why?” - seek to understand first rather than push back and tell us how we’re misrepresenting something you said or that we are wrong.

Flies and honey, that sort of thing.....

I made it clear that I wasn’t equating confusion, ignorance and suffering with the traditional teaching of eternal Hell from which there is no escape (which I don’t believe is a reality) when I said:

When you say “Hell is eternal exclusion from the Beatific Vision”, is there no fire involved in your belief about Hell, is there no physical pain, is there no physical punishment? If not, where in the Bible do you find your belief in eternal Hell?

I asked for the clearest or one of the clearest instances in the Bible where Jesus taught that there is an eternal hell from which there is no escape, and you and Gandalf have settled on this:

Matthew 25:41&46
"Then he will say to those at his left hand, "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels....And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Let’s see how clear Jesus is, or Matthew is, that there is an eternal hell from which there is no escape.

The words “eternal punishment” are an English translation of Matthew’s Greek phrase “kolasin aionion”.

The word “kolasin” in the Bible Gandalf has quoted, has been translated as “punishment”.

The word “aionion” in the Bible Gandalf has quoted, has been translated as “eternal”.

But have those two words been translated correctly?

Young’s Literal Transliteration of the Bible translates Matthew 25:41&46 as follows:

41 Then shall he say also to those on the left hand, Go ye from me, the cursed, to the fire, the age-during, that hath been prepared for the Devil and his messengers;
...46 And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during.'

So the word “aionion”, in the Bible Gandalf quoted, has been translated as “eternal” even though the literal translation is “age-during” which definitely does not mean “eternal”.

Some people argue that “aionion” can also mean “eternal” as well as meaning “age-during”. Even if that were the case, how would we know which meaning Matthew meant, and which Jesus meant? At the very least there is ambiguity and uncertainty about what Matthew meant. So why choose the meaning that turns God into an unforgiving unmerciful being who creates human beings only for many to be punished for ever?

But Matthew 25:41&46 is not even ambiguous. He uses the word “aionion” elsewhere, and consequently we know that Matthew does not use the word “aionion” to mean “eternal” because Matthew 13:39-40 has the same word, “aionion”, twice, and it wouldn’t make sense to translate it as “eternal”: Young’s Literal Translation of Matthew 13:39-40 is:

39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is a full end of the age, and the reapers are messengers.
40 `As, then, the darnel is gathered up, and is burned with fire, so shall it be in the full end of this age,

So Young’s Literal Translation of Matthew 13:39-40 translates the word “aionion” as “age”. If Matthew used the word “aionion” to mean “eternal”, it would be translated as:

39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is a full end of the eternity, and the reapers are messengers.
40 `As, then, the darnel is gathered up, and is burned with fire, so shall it be in the full end of this eternity,

But eternity has no end, so it makes no sense to translate “aionion” as “eternal” or “eternity”.

So there is no reason to imagine that “aionion” in Matthew 25:41&46 should be translated as “eternal” when it literally means “age-during” and Matthew uses the word elsewhere to mean “age”.

(The word “kolasin” in the Bible Gandalf has quoted, which has been translated as “punishment”, also has different meanings, such as chastening, correction, to cut-off as in pruning a tree to bear more fruit.)

So if Matthew 25:41&46 is the clearest or one of the clearest instances in the Bible where Jesus warns us that we are in danger of eternal punishment from which there is no escape, it really isn’t clear anywhere in the Bible, is it?

If Jesus really wanted to warn us about the danger of eternal punishment from which there is no escape, why wouldn’t Matthew state the warning very clearly?

There are many instances in which aionion is used to refer to eternal life itself. If aionion can't mean everlasting, then even eternal life gets limited.

So you think aionian must mean eternal because you want it to mean eternal! It means what it means, jack3, and not necessarily what you want it to mean.

But it’s logically incorrect to conclude that if aionian life means age-during life, not eternal life, then there can be no such thing as eternal life. If I say I love my friend and I’ll love her till the day she dies, that’s a limited length of time, but it doesn’t mean I won’t love her after she dies. Or if I say I will love my daughter until the day I die, it doesn’t necessarily mean I won’t love her after I die, or that I won’t love her eternally, does it?

Gandalf, knowing and believing what you now know and believe by the grace of God, could you possibly choose eternal conscious suffering from which there is no escape rather than choose to spend eternity with God blissfully in heaven?

Unless you are insane, the answer is that you could NOT, in any practical sense, choose eternal conscious suffering from which there is no escape rather than choose to spend eternity with God blissfully in Heaven. So does that mean that God’s grace is irresistible to you, and therefore it’s not grace, it’s mind control and as far as you are concerned God is a tyrant and not a lover? No! So why would you think it’s different for anyone else?

Then we're back to the problem that Jesus doesn't actually have anything to do with our redemption because there's nothing even potentially eternal to redeem us from.

Jesus has everything to do with our redemption because he saves us from sinfulness, evil, darkness, hatred, ignorance, anger, unkindness, greed, selfishness, suffering, everything that doesn't come from God.

No, but that's besides the point. You seem to think that it's obvious that everyone should think or see things like you and I do.

I'm not so foolish as to project my own way of seeing things and behaving onto others.




Insanity and willful blindness are two distinct things. The former might not be your fault, the latter definitely is your fault.

I was an atheist for a long time. I have many atheist friends and acquaintances still. They see the doctrine of hell, not as a practical reason to follow Christ and adopt universalism, but as a reason to conclude that the whole thing is nonsense.

If I had remained an atheist to my death, I would be in hell, and I would have absolutely merited it.




God's grace isn't irresistible to me because I chose to accept it. And there's still many times where I openly reject grace and go my own way(usually which ends up with me going to the confessional).

That's the significant point you seem to be omitting.

Either way your attempt at turning my own statement back onto me seems like nothing but a way for you to dodge that significant point.

Is it your belief that grace overrides free choice?

And if so(as Fr. Obi has pointed out), then what's the point of the Redemption? If God's love(whatever that means) is of itself sufficient that everyone just gets heaven(whether they want it or not), then God what reason if any did Christ come?

We already had the Law to tell us not to be sinful, evil, malevolent, ignorant, angry, unkind, not to be greedy, selfish or to cause suffering. Yet we still do all of those things.

Sorry, but I'm having serious difficulty in trying avoid the fact that you're trying to have it both ways.

I agree with Father.

Denise, in your view, what did Jesus' work of Redemption accomplish? What would have been of us had he not offered himself up for us?

By the grace of God, you are at a point, Gandalf, where you couldn't possibly choose to suffer eternally in Hell rather than enjoy eternal bliss in Heaven, and yet you don't think that God's grace overrides your free choice, you don't think you are being compelled against your will to make that choice. That applies to everyone, not just you.

And yet it is clearly much more of a free choice for people who DON'T believe that if they don't choose God they'll be eternally punished in Hell with no escape. The threat of eternal punishment if you don't make the right choice doesn't allow as to make as free a choice as there is when there is no dreadful threat of eternal punishment.

You seem to suggest that God could not bring everyone to the point where they will choose God without being forced to , but if he can bring you to that point, He can bring anyone to that point, in His own time, in His own way, without compulsion, and without giving up on anyone.

I don't understand the point that you and Obi and jack3 are trying to make about what was the point of Jesus coming to save sinners if there is no eternal Hell to save us from. You seem to be be saying that there is no point in saving anyone from suffering unless it's eternal suffering, which is nonsensical.

Yeah, no. Not only is that an extraordinarily naìve assumption that you're making on your part, it's certainly not a belief that, knowing my own serious flaws, that I'm at all willing to admit.

If this is your belief, then you are in fact wandering the very dangerous waters of the sin of presumption.(And given the indications that you've provided in the other thread, given what you seem to vehemently approve, I don't think that you're in any way competent a judge to anyone else's moral or ethical status before God to even make such a judgement.)






Since your opening premise is patently erroneous, your conclusion here just doesn't follow.

Bottom line is that grace cooperates and perfects nature. If you put obstacles in front of it, or if your don't predispose yourself to it, you don't get the full effect of it. Those obstacles include habitual sins or attitudes which approve of sinful behavior.








I'm only going to say this one more time: Hell is the default condition of human existence.. You're going to die. That's the consequence of Original Sin: death. That's the fact of our existence. If you go to your death without accepting the cure that God offers, you get Hell.

And here's the ironic part that you apparently don't get: just as you (rightly) conclude that those who are full of God's grace, who are going to be in heaven, wouldn't choose ever to sin against God.... conversely those who are in hell, who hate God and heaven and Being itself, won't ever choose anything but sin. They can't do anything but sin against God, because they chose to enslave themselves to that state. They would rather have the torments of hell than have the worse torment of spending an eternity in heaven with God.



You really need to read up just what the Church means by freedom. There is no such thing as a "free choice" which chooses evil. Because the second you choose it, you've lost that freedom and enslaved yourself to some passion or falsehood.



God Himself already knows who will accept Him and who will reject Him. There's already the multitude of fallen angels who have already been eternally condemned. And He assures us that "many" humans will join them.



Another very naìve assumption. For starters, it's not on God, God has done enough. God's done everything short of getting on His knees and begging humanity to repent.

Secondly, we're all given sufficient grace to recognize God's existence on our own, which of itself requires our moral submission absent any special graces.

Thirdly, in eternity there is no such thing as "time" after our physical death. There is no such thing change in eternity, therefore there is no such thing as time in eternity. Everything is immutable, including our wills. So there is no such thing as a "changing our minds" in eternity regarding God. The only time we have to make up our minds regarding God is this time, because there will be no time after.




No, you're totally missing the point.

You're statement(if I'm to dare to speak for Jack or Fr. Obi) as we see it is that all people are essentially already heaven-bound. That God simply manages to overcome all objections and wills through "God's grace"(whatever that means You have yet to clarify) and just by the sheer fact of His "absolute love" & "absolute mercy"(whatever those even mean you have yet to clarify) everyone in some manner hitherto unspecified, will just (magically?) wind up in heaven.

All of which, even at face value, flies in the face of not only Divine Revelation but is contradicted by 2000 years of Church teaching.

It also makes Christ's sacrifice superfluous because Christ explicitly said that He came as a ransom, to ransom humanity back from the dominion of death and to free them from their futile conduct.

If everyone was already heaven-bound, then that's as good as saying that there's no such thing as death, which would mean that there's no such thing as sin. Which would mean that there is no such thing as grace, and that these heaven-bound people are going to heaven not as a purely gratuitous gift from God, but purely based on their own good merits.

Therefore Christ's death was essentially meaningless. He didn't really save anyone. It was a lie, a con. And if this is a lie, what else could he have lied about?

It would also necessarily bring as a consequence up all sorts of questions in regards to Christ's own teachings regarding his self-revelation.

Such as if Christ was either deceived, or was a diabolical liar about what he was doing and why he said he came. If he was deceived, he was a fool, and if he was a liar, he was malevolent. Both of which instantly call to question his own goodness and the validity of all of his other teachings.

This is why the doctrine of universalism is patently absurd, for all it's well-meaning good intentions, it's essential uncritical empathy disintegrates and destroys the essential dogmas of the Christian Faith. It even destroys the idea of God's "absolute love" and "absolute mercy" because the very thing that those concepts are based upon, the Sacrifice of Calvary and the Resurrection, are made irrelevant.

Instead of God's love and mercy being a totally other-centered love and mercy, it's a totally self-centered 'love" and "mercy." In your version God has to save everyone in order to save face or to justify Himself to His creatures. His universal altruistic act is more for his beneficence rather than our own actual good.

To me that's a "God" that, and I'm sorry for this, that is just too small and too human compared to the God that I've read revealed in the Bible.

DD: in your view,
Would there have been a temporary period of punishment after death without the Redemption?

Is there a such a period in the current economy of salvation?

Gandalf, believeing and knowing what you believe and know, are you seriously suggesting that given the choice between choosing eternal suffering or eternal bliss, you might knowingly choose eternal suffering? Are you insane? Surely if a person is so insane that they would choose eternal suffering rather than eternal bliss, they are not making a free choice?

Can you suggest any circumstances, other than insanity, when you think you might yet possibly choose eternal suffering rather than eternal bliss?

If I thought there was a real possibility that I might choose eternal suffering rather than eternal bliss, I'd be terrified. I'd be so terrified I couldn't function. Are you not terrified, Gandalf? If not, why not?

It's not presumptuous to believe that God loves me. It's only presumptuous to believe that God loves me therefore I can do whatever I want without any consequences.