Is Hell or Purgatory Just Condemnations for Sins?

One problem that faces Christianity is that there is surely an unfair punishment taught against those who sin. Does stealing a pencil really deserve purgatory or hell? Telling a little lie about eating one piece of boba to my mom? Using God’s name in vain once as a kid? It seems unfair prima facie.

But I argue that it is actually not unfair after further examination. Firstly, Christianity teaches that those who are invincibly ignorant, meaning through no fault of their own, they do not know the gospel and/or they do not know Jesus, can in fact be saved. 

So does that mean every Christian should just stop evangelizing those who are invincibly ignorant then? Well no. First, Christians do not know who is invincibly ignorant, so not evangelizing those who are potentially not invincibly ignorant is dangerous because those who are culpable (not invincibly ignorant) for sins will be sent to hell or purgatory. Maybe the potentially not invincibly ignorant is “on the fence,” so to speak, and is waiting for the last evangelist to dialogue with. So the evangelist should dialogue with the person “on the fence.” Second, Christians should be concerned with sharing the truth when a situation calls for it. Surely sharing the truth of Jesus Christ is valuable in situations that call for it. The burdens the nonbeliever could have lifted off of their life pangs could be great just through knowing the truth about Jesus.

Moreover, through sin, which God allowed as a side effect, not as a means, he brought his Son, Jesus, into the world in order to save men if they believe and are baptized. The Son coming into the world is one great good that came out of sin. So indeed, it is just for God to judge against those who don’t believe the Son as their savior because they reject the great good which God has offered. Not only that, notice that believing in the Son, through the Eucharist, is like participating in heaven, which has a liturgy, according to the CCC. If that is so, it is important to accept the Son because it is an acceptance of the heavenly liturgy also. When the rejecting nonbeliever dies and is sent to hell, they should not feel as though God should have sent them to heaven when God had given them a chance to choose heaven while living on earth, in fact.

Clearly, either a person is culpable for their wrongdoing or not. If they are culpable for sin without repenting, they are sent to hell justly because they would have known and intended the grave matter-sin fully, in rejection of God's forgiveness. If a person is not culpable for their wrongdoing, then they can be saved.
Moreover, at the most, the objector is granted to say that we don't know if God has some justified reason to send a person to hell or not. The objector is not justified in saying that God has no justified reason to send a person to hell; the objector would be conjecturing if they say this. If it is possible that God understands a person's true intention and knowledge fully throughout their life in a multiplicity of possible worlds, then he surely can know if the person is to be sent to heaven or hell according to this actual world.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dr. Alexander Pruss's Blog called, "Sexual Orientation" against same-sex sexual relationships: Minh's commentary

  Consider the following two claims that some people seem to accept [so, for example, i guess that most secular college students would accept these 2 claims] : Same-sex and opposite-sex sexual relationships are on par [so it’s not like it’s better to be in a same-sex sexual relationship than opposite sex sexual relationship, and vice versa–no…rather, they are on par or equal to each other]. Heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality are on par [so it’s not like it’s better to be heterosexual than homosexual , or it’s not like it’s better to be homosexual than heterosexual, or it’s not like it’s better to be bisexual than homosexual, or it’s not like it’s better to be bisexual than heterosexual–no! Rather these three orientations are simply on par or equal] , and persons of one orientation do not have reason to try to change to another [so, if i’m a homosexual, i do not have reason to try to change to be heterosexual or bisexual, etc. because they are all on par to each other]...
Read more

Q: "Why does Paul mention James before Peter (Galatians 2:7-9) and why is Peters' name used as "Cephas" instead sometimes?"

  Firstly, if the hidden assumption behind the question here is, “Any name mentioned first in a list of names necessarily means that the person holding that name mentioned first is superior to all others in that list” then we should recognize that the assumption is not always true. Now, of course, Peter’s name is mentioned first when it comes to the listing of apostles, and that’s a case to be made for his superiority among the apostles. But, this type of conclusion is made with (1) the additional biblical and historical data that shows Peter was in fact the leader of the apostles, and (2) the fact that Peter is consistently mentioned first not only one time, but many times over and over, making it more likely. Second, I want to recognize that this is a good question, and we can actually see the logical pattern as to how Paul lists the four people (me [Paul], James and Cephas and John), as opposed to being merely random. But before that, it is important for us readers to recognize ...
Read more

Reflections on pridefulness versus humbleness.

 I just noticed recently that I am prideful. The pride that I have is implicit in my mind. This implicitness is why I am prideful. If I realized that I am prideful, I would have tried to stop my prideful actions or thoughts or words immediately. I did not give enough thought into how my actions are prideful. Perhaps they are not prideful actually, but just seem prideful from a third person perspective. People can find me to seemingly be prideful in anything I do so it is impossible to not seem prideful, but there exists a spectrum in which pride falls into. Pride can be seemingly miniscule or it can be absolutely puffed up. I would hope that a person who views me would at least seemingly assume that I am prideful in a miniscule manner as opposed to being absolutely puffed up.  The contrast to pridefulness is humbleness.  Humbleness does not always involve being quiet. For example, when a person asks me if I won my basketball game yesterday, it would not necessarily be hum...
Read more