Catholicism Is False

I explained how no act of sin would be so grave that infinite mercy wouldn't allow for forgivenessAll sins can be forgiven. That is what the Catholic Church teaches. Even mortal sins allow for forgiveness. So your argument fails. There is no sin that can exhaust God's mercy. However, if one refuses to accept God's mercy, then the limit is not on God's mercy but on man's willingness to recieve that mercy. You don't have to agree with Catholicism to see the difference here, and even if you think the answer to the problem of hell doesn't work, it does show that there is no internal contradiction between infinite mercy and eternal suffering. The solution to the logical inconsistency is that the mercy can forgive any sin but mercy means forgiveness for those who are willing. God wants to forgive all, yet if you willingly chose not to accept God's forgiveness, you willingly reject God and your sin is not forgiven. but you didn't mention any of these arguments. I linked to them for your own reference. I also provided one of my own. I also provided a quote from a mystic of the Church who claims to have seen hell. She explains how people in hell are there by their own free choice to "not make a single act of love. " so if Venial Sins are forgiven by this infinite mercy, why not mortal ones too? In order to get to heaven, it is necessary that we have what is called sanctifying grace on our soul. This is a quality that makes our soul capable of entering into heaven. You see, Catholic theology teaches that heaven is a SUPERnatural end. A natural end is a thing's inherent purpose based on what that thing is. For instance, the eye has the natural end of sight simply because of what it is, that is, its the type of thing that is ordered towards detecting light and transmitting this information to the brain. There are philosophical arguments, like the ones given by St. Thomas Aquinas (see the links I gave above and look around, you can find them) that show man must have a natural end in the service of God. One simple argument, not given by St. Thomas as far as I know, but still comprehensible is the idea that anything God creates must be created to manifest His glory as His glory is the only thing in itself that is infinitely perfect. Therefore, man is created to manifest God's glory. Irrational things do this simply by existing and acting as God has made them, however, since man is free, He must glorify God by his free acts. It is from here that moral theologians have deduced the virtues and precepts of the natural law. Now, Catholic theology states that this natural end (purpose) was raised by God to a supernatural end. This doesn't mean we have a different inherent purpose. It means that when we reach our purpose, it takes on a new supernatural dimension. It is a more perfect closeness with God. An analogy with other natural ends is this: It would be like if whenever the eye saw things of the natural world it could also see the future things that would happen there. So this power would not be in the eye but nor would it contradict the eye's powers. Another analogy more directly related with theology is our natural end is like becoming friends with God whereas our supernatural end involves being adpoted and sharing in His very own life. However, a supernatural end requires supernatural means, that is, we cannot reach this end on our own. We need an extra quality and this is what Catholics call grace. Grace comes into our soul with the virtue of charity. We can freely chose to live according to this virtue (that is, accept grace as a gift from God and live accordingly) or freely chose to reject it (and not love God). However the rejecting of grace by definition kicks grace out of our soul. We direct ourselves against our natural and supernatural end when we freely choose to do what we know to be seriously wrong (by seriously wrong I mean completely opposed to the love of God that exists within our soul). If we choose to remain in this state opposed to God, God allows us to freely live apart from Him after we die. However, the consequence of this is suffering forever. Since we are by nature immortal, as this is part of what human dignity entails, we must suffer forever. There are other reasons as well for the everlasting nature of this punishment. However, it is not as though God lights us on fire forever because He can't get enough punishment. Rather, man freely chooses to reject God and by His own free choice punishes Himself. Of course there are many saints, theologians, Catholics and non-Catholics alike who have written on this topic and explored it. I suggest taking a look at St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, Cajetan, Pope John Paul II, Bl. Cardinal Newman, Pope Benedict, or the Catholic encyclopedia for starters. In any case, hell does not contradict the mercy of God because it is not as though there is a sin so great God can't forgive it. It is that when one chooses not to accept God's forgiveness, He is by definition rejecting grace, and making it metaphysically impossible to enjoy God in heaven. Further, to answer your question about venial sin: Venial sin is a type of turn from God that does not prevent us from reaching our end. By the type of act that it is, it can coexist with the virtue of charity on our souls. This means one can commit venial sin without destroying grace. Although it hurts our relationship with God, it does not destroy it. Much like how a husband could yell at a wife without destroying the marriage but if he had an affair this would not be the case. The difference fundamentally lies in whether or not the sin (both objectively and subjectively considered) is compatible with grace on a fundamental metaphysical level. Surely not. I suggest looking into the "Divine Mercy" devotion by St. Faustina and approved by Pope John Paul II. Very inspiring, interesting, and informative. The Gospels also teach how God's mercy is infinite in stories like the Prodigal Son. The point is that although man cannot suck dry the resources of infinite mercy (and it is for this reason that we ought to place complete trust in God's mercy) man CAN refuse to accept these resources. My central claims In the beginning of this debate you made an argument about the Catechism. I showed that to be completely false on two levels: Your interpretation of the Catechism and your understanding of the authority of the Catechism. Hence your argument to show Catholicism false failed. Then, you tried to make an argument based on the inconsistency of dogmas taken from the source "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma," referenced on a website. I corrected your errors regarding those inconsistencies by discussing Catholic theology and actually quoting from the original book which I happen to own. You persisted in the next round with your arguments until I further explained how you were dealing with not only different graces but different types of good works. Catholic theology is much more nuanced. In order to support my argument I also explained how Ott was actually referencing Catholic Councils and provided a link to the original council which discusses the issue you were concerned with. Hence I showed that argument false. Finally, you brought up the argument about damnation. At first, I showed that your quote left out the fundamental point of Divine reprobation, namely, that it is on account of forseen sins and thus there is no such thing as unconditional predestination to hell (which is considered heresy as my quote from Ott demonstrated). In order to maintain your argument you asked a very specific theological question about how eternity in hell is reconciable with God's mercy. Although this is admittadly a tough theological question, it is not exactly the topic of the debate. Further, I showed that there are plausible theological answers. However, even if you do not like these theological answers, there is no inherent contradiction. Thus you have not demonstrated an inherent failure of Catholicism and have not lived up to your burden of proof to show Catholicism to be false. I also explained how as hell is an article of faith it is a mystery with lots we don't know and lots of speculation. I provided references to mystics who spoke of God's mercy and the importance of trust in God's mercy. I also recommend taking a look at the Sacred Heart Devotion to Jesus . http://en.wikipedia.org...;So it seems as though you bring up an interesting argument, it is not enough to show Catholicism is false. On a side note, I gave a brief series of steps showing Catholicism is at least probably true. Although I did not have the BOP to show that it was true, as I am arguing against the notion "Catholicism is false" I did take the time to make those arguments just on the side. I didn't want to make the debate about those, but it would've been nice that you at least recognize they were there in order to show a possible problem or difficulty fundamental to one of the steps. All in all, it appears as though your arguments fail and mine just remains.