Michael Pakaluk’s article Why Do Christians Believe in Hell? in The Catholic Thing of Tuesday, January 21,2020 commences:

Why Do Christians Believe in Hell? Because Christendom has affirmed it, Jesus clearly teaches the reality of Hell in the Bible, and Hell’s reality resonates with an honest account of our own experience.

He then goes on to introduce the one who needs to get a grip, namely, “theologian" David Bentley Hart and his nice, warm fuzzy personal feelings about Hell, as compared to those of the heartless rednecks who stick to the traditional teachings of the Church:

That’s not the answer theologian David Bentley Hart gave earlier this month, when the New York Times offered him a perch to discuss the misguided beliefs of his fellow Christians. The Bible is so unclear about Hell, he wrote, while it is clear about universal salvation, that the doctrine of Hell must be purely an expression of the ill will of Christians. They hate their fellow human beings so much that they want them to spend eternity in torment.

I know he is not on his own, as many nominal Catholics these days, even priests, don’t believe in Hell.

What am I saying – “even priests”? As it turns out, many of them are the worst, in that they believe that either Hell doesn’t exist at all, or that it exists, but no one goes there. That is the convenient way of getting past that troublesome part of the Apostles Creed, (which has almost universally replaced the Nicene Creed at Mass), when it speaks of Christ descending into Hell. The way they get around that, for the sake of the simple-minded parishioners, is to say they believe Hell exists, but no one goes there. Poor old God – so much eternity on his hands that he has to invent places that will never be used just for something to do!

Anyway, if you want to read what a heartless hater of nice people you believers in Hell are, plough through the rest of the article. You might die laughing, but what the Hell!

John Henry Newman summarises the relationship between Revelation and Dogma:

"Theological dogmas are propositions expressive of the judgments, which the mind forms, or the impressions which it receives, of Revealed Truth.

Revelation sets before it certain supernatural facts and actions, beings and principles; these make a certain impression or image upon it; and this impression spontaneously, or even necessarily, becomes the subject of reflection on the part of the mind itself, which proceeds to investigate it, and to draw it forth in successive and distinct sentences."

Interpretation is a reminder that the reader of scripture sees all that they believe is contained in the words appearing on the page before them confirming their understanding. Another reading the same words may understand differently.

Jesus of Nazareth set nothing down on paper. We are obliged to those who shared his close company and friendship for a few years. The Apostles were confident that their memories guided by the Holy Spirit faithfully recorded the words of Jesus. Notwithstanding that the early Nazarenes were divided between those supporting James, and those following Paul of Tarsus. It would take some years before Simon Peter, and Paul of Tarsus would reconcile resulting from their differences.

It is my understanding that Our Father loves us without condition, despite the flawed behaviour of every human person.

Hell is the creation, and outcome of our choices, when we choose to decline The Saviour's invitation to follow Him.

end

His position sounds like the opposite reach of the pendulum to Augustine's: We're nearly all going down.

Von Balthasar's beautiful piece on the subject is like a luxurious oasis by comparison to both. At least worth reading bishop Barron's foreword to a recent edition (if one can ignore him being a modernist heretic according to the Vortex crew) here:

https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/blog/remembering-hans-urs-von-balthasars-important-book/19985/

BTW, touche down below - a one line, ad hominem response from Faz is clear code for: 'I surrender, my position is indefensible', and that's something.

http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_28071999.html

I quote:

3. The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy. This is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the truths of faith on this subject: “To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called ‘hell’” (n. 1033).

“Eternal damnation”, therefore, is not attributed to God's initiative because in his merciful love he can only desire the salvation of the beings he created. In reality, it is the creature who closes himself to his love. Damnation consists precisely in definitive separation from God, freely chosen by the human person and confirmed with death that seals his choice for ever. God’s judgement ratifies this state.

unquote

end

And then, there was that earlier commentator on end-of-life issues:

[31] And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. [32] And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: [33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:
[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.
[41] Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. [43] I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. [44] Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? [45] Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.
[46] And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting. Matt 41:31-46

Did you note the "Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" bit?

But then, what would He know about it?

No, Tony, I haven't read it. Though normally not a hardened pessimist, I take the most conservative position in regard to eschatological issues.

Re the Faz-fade, yes, it surprised me, too, but figured that perhaps his egg and sausage burger had just been delivered, and claimed his attention.

On the general question of optimism and pessimism, I believe that pessimists can receive only pleasant surprises - when something goes wrong, it's no surprise, as you had expected it would go wrong.

Re the Faz-fade, yes, it surprised me, too, but figured that perhaps his egg and sausage burger had just been delivered, and claimed his attention.

Touché indeed! To condemn ad hominem by serving up your own!

BTW, touche down below - a one line, ad hominem response from Faz is clear code for: 'I surrender, my position is indefensible', and that's something.

Fair call, Tony M.

At best ad hominem contributes nothing to a discussion. At worst it is an indication of running out of argument or, as you say, an admittance of an indefensible position.

These are harsh judgments.

I suspect that ad hominem has a close companion though.

To recognize, and point out, ad hominem in those you generally disagree with and ignore it in those you generally agree with and particularly yourself, is hypocrisy.

“Eternal damnation”, therefore, is not attributed to God's initiative because in his merciful love he can only desire the salvation of the beings he created. In reality, it is the creature who closes himself to his love . Damnation consists precisely in definitive separation from God, freely chosen by the human person and confirmed with death that seals his choice for ever. God’s judgement ratifies this state.

We can only get a glimpse of Divine love by experiencing human love. We may be lucky enough to experience the love for and of a parent, the love for and of a child, the love for and of a close freind. With that as our baseline -- the dreaded 'lived experience' -- we are told that Diving love is way beyond the very best of our experience.

Similarly Divine mercy and justice are beyond our understanding.

Contemporary audiences would have been horrified by story of the Prodigal Son because what the son did to the father (essentially wished he was dead) and what the father did to the son (forgived his son to the point of social scandal) were outside the bounds of what was expected of 'mercy' and 'judgement'.

In short we can't limit the love and mercy of God with our own experience and understanding ... it's beyond us.

So, I simply can't reconcile that with a God who allows 'eternal' punishment for even a life-time of misdeeds. The punishment doesn't even fit the crime in human terms.

Faith tells me that God is just, but that justice is underpinned by 'beyond' love.

The idea that God would cut that choice we have been freely given -- to turn toward God in love -- at the arbitrary time of our death seems to be more human than divine.

A liar and a hypocrite all within a week - am learning heaps about myself here anyway!

My point was to hand it to John, your having zero comeback, while normally finding/inventing some angle to spin. Still you couldn't resist attempting the last word, from a hopeless position, and only then by way of ad-hominem.

I've posted only a handful of times on this board in a number of years, so you're a bit presumptuous judging my equity around the place. I remember many arguments with those on either side of the divide back in the day when I and the board were more active.

I don't, however, remember you ever deviating one inch from your drab, dreary, crushingly restrictive liberal agenda.

At least your man Michael Sean Winters is a big fan of that going-nowhere-specialist
D L Schindler, and so is immediately more interesting to me than the vanilla liberalism that you espouse.

I don't, however, remember you ever deviating one inch from your drab, dreary, crushingly restrictive liberal agenda.

LOL. Sauce with that sausage?

My point was to hand it to John, your having zero comeback, while normally finding/inventing some angle to spin. Still you couldn't resist attempting the last word, from a hopeless position, and only then by way of ad-hominem.

Of course and I was under the impression you were expressing a principled opinion about ad hominem. But it would seem that ad hominem is only bad when others, particularly those you don't like, do it.

Which means these expressions fall under some other category:

'consigned to lived experience'
'post-enlightenment autonomous man liberalism gone mad'
'contingent, historical artefact'
'imitating ostriches'
'Fazian shutdown'
'prefer servitude to the accidents of our historical context'
'rigid, prideful, contingent self-assertion'

I've posted only a handful of times on this board in a number of years, so you're a bit presumptuous judging my equity around the place.

I don't judge your 'equity', like you, I can only judge your words however many or few they might be.

At least your man Michael Sean Winters is a big fan of that going-nowhere-specialist
D L Schindler, and so is immediately more interesting to me than the vanilla liberalism that you espouse.

Another one for the list.

You call me out on ad hominem and then you over react with your own brand of florid ad hominem in return.

You call me out on ad hominem and then you over react with your own brand of florid ad hominem in return.


As previously stated, Faz, it was the context of your recourse to ad-hominem that made it noteworthy, ie your need to have the last word, despite not having a leg to stand on, using whatever means.

Ad-hominem is not universally inadmissible. See: 'You brood of vipers...' for its ultimate sanction.

As previously stated, Faz, it was the context of your recourse to ad-hominem that made it noteworthy, ie your need to have the last word ...

And as you type these admonitions, can you not see an irony? Isn't it just as reasonable that you suffer from the same malady of a 'need to have the last word'?


... despite not having a leg to stand on, using whatever means.

You keep repeating this without reference to the actual ad hominem you allege I use. Beyond acknowleging your point about ad hominem -- that it can be (it's by no means a certainty!) a sign that you haven't 'a leg to stand on' -- I can't really defend myself because of your lack of specificity.


Ad-hominem is not universally inadmissible. See: 'You brood of vipers...' for its ultimate sanction.

Besides not ever making that claim, are you suggesting that my use of ad hominem is 'inadmissible' and John's use, and your use, fall in the same category as Christ's condemnation?