|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Can you be a Christian and a Calvinist?
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
I sent him a PM when I replied to his last post, as the thread had been dormant for a while. He's read it but not replied. So he's either busy, or thinks everything worth saying has been said, or is considering a response.
A tangent - why did you disgree with the point that:
quote:
all of mankind deserve[s] eternal damnation in hell for original sin
Is it the "all" of mankind, "eternal" punishment, the nature of "damnation in hell", the fact that it is "original" (and not committed) sin, or some other point that you object to?
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I object to infinite punishment for finite sin; I object to me (and you) being punished for something somebody else did. I object to a model of the relationship between God and Man that is framed in terms of punishment and reward and is basically adversarial.
I think that about covers the basics.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I object to infinite punishment for finite sin; I object to me (and you) being punished for something somebody else did. I object to a model of the relationship between God and Man that is framed in terms of punishment and reward and is basically adversarial.
I think that about covers the basics.
So, you only have 9 commandments, ignoring this one:
quote:
Exodus 20
The Ten Commandments
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scholar Gypsy
Shipmate
# 7210
|
Posted
Sharkshooter, is the God who spoke to Ezekiel different from the God who gave the 10 commandments?
quote:
Every living oul belongs to me...It is the person who sins that will die.
It is the person who sins who shall die; a son shall not bear responsibility for his father's guilt, nor a father for his son's.
Therefore I shall judge every one of you Israelites on his record, says the Lord God.
Ezekiel 18, selected verses from the REB.
Posts: 822 | From: Oxford | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Sharkshooter: how is it possible to take that passage literally?
If my grandfather hated God, and my father loved Him and kept His commandments, would I be simultaneously blessed and cursed?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
I understood children being punished for the sin of the fathers to be children being punished when and because they continued in the sin of the fathers. Kind of like child abuse victims being abusers themselves when they grow up - still culpable.
Also, who says it's finite sin? How do you think that people respond to God's judgement in hell? Because Biblically (as far as I can see), they're not going to be repenting; they're going to be cursing God and continuing to sin.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Custard,
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
I'm officially agnostic on free will.
But how do people who believe in it explain how it works? What part of the brain doesn't follow the (deterministic / probablistic) laws of physics? Is there a pineal gland?
I take this means ‘free will’ in a broader sense - all our decisions, not just the acceptance of God's grace?
I’m not sure that science can conceive any model that is not at base either deterministic or probabilistic (how could physics of sub-atomic events, which is what I assume you are talking about, provide a test for free will?), but of the two only determinism is a problem for free-willers. A probabilistic model presents no difficulty at all – if sub-atomic events do not follow fixed, mechanical laws, then there is scope for an independent will which is not deterministic influencing them.
I honestly don't think there is.
QM leads us to the conclusion that in a given situation, there might be a 50% chance of A happening and a 50% chance of B happening. The probabilities genuinely do not seem to be affected by any external variable, and I find it difficult even to conceive of a mechanism by which that might operate with regards to free will.
Chaos theory is still deterministic, though it could lead to a probablistic quantum effect having macroscopic consequences.
I accept what you say about God's intervention - yes, that's why I'm only agnostic on free will in general, though not on the efficacy of free will for taking hold of salvation.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
(Warning: this post was written by an arts student and probably contains a high percentage of stercus tauri.)
Surely, though, the only systems that have been shown to be materially deterministic (as far as this can be demonstrated) are systems where no-one has ever claimed there was any prospect of an external free will anyway?
Whereas we know so little about how the brain works that, for things more complex than kneejerk reactions, we can't draw up a step-by-step series of causal links between stimulus and response - so is there still a possibility that some step somewhere along the line was initiated not by the inevitable product of neurochemistry, but by some kind of transcendental will?
I accept that Occam's Razor suggests that, other things being equal, we should assume the brain to be as materially deterministic as anything else, but, following Descartes' argument about the mind being logically independent from the body, can we not make a special case for the brain?
Disclaimer: I do not claim that this post is either logical, scientific or well-informed. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
[ 05. June 2005, 13:43: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas*
Shipmate
# 7147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
I’m not sure that science can conceive any model that is not at base either deterministic or probabilistic (how could physics of sub-atomic events, which is what I assume you are talking about, provide a test for free will?)
Up until middle of last century science could not conceive a probabilistic model either, and had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the new, statistical, dice playing world.
There are models which allow wriggle room for free will in a deterministic model - Leibniz's monads, for example. Or the types of unpredictability arising from deterministic systems explored by Douglas Hofstadter's Godel, Escher Bach book. These may or may not be plausible, but at least exist.
Either way, it is obvious that our choices and thoughts are at least constrained by the physical world we live in. I have personal proof of this everytime I go down to the pub.
--------------------
Hamburger (note beetroot, pineapple, bacon and egg)
Posts: 543 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Only if people don't repent, then the sin is infinite.
If Calvinism is right, then people who are not "elect" cannot repent, through no fault of their own.
quote:
Do you have a corresponding problem with infinite grace for finite sin? Logic requires that you do.
Does it? How?
[ 06. June 2005, 06:45: Message edited by: Mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I object to infinite punishment for finite sin
I must say, while the logic of this is appealing at first, on closer inspection I don't think it's up to much. Since when was the punishment for a crime linked to the length of time it takes to commit the crime?
The most serious of crimes can only take a second commit. Murder (which only takes a gunshot) carries a longer sentence than mail fraud committed over several years. Rightly IMO.
The question is whether rejecting God can be said to be so serious that it is "infinitely serious", even if committed in a finite timeframe. If one accepts that the very purpose of our existence is to glorify God, then I think the case can be made that it is.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I must say, while the logic of this is appealing at first, on closer inspection I don't think it's up to much. Since when was the punishment for a crime linked to the length of time it takes to commit the crime?
The most serious of crimes can only take a second commit. Murder (which only takes a gunshot) carries a longer sentence than mail fraud committed over several years. Rightly IMO.
The question is whether rejecting God can be said to be so serious that it is "infinitely serious", even if committed in a finite timeframe. If one accepts that the very purpose of our existence is to glorify God, then I think the case can be made that it is.
Ah but you miss the point Lep. Nobody is suggesting that the time taken to commit the crime is a useful guide.
The point is that punishment should fit the crime. And then the question is whether there is anything hideous enough to warrant an eternity (ie a never ending period of time) of damnation. And there isn't.
An eternal punishment is a pointless punishment. You never pay off the debt, you never get the opportunity to learn from your mistake, no reform, nothing. Nobody could describe that as a justice, however serious the crime. Retribution yes, justice no.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
The point is that punishment should fit the crime. And then the question is whether there is anything hideous enough to warrant an eternity (ie a never ending period of time) of damnation. And there isn't.
That, I would submit, is a matter of opinion. ISTM that the Bible teaches that sin is that serious. I think, to be honest that is the real root of the difference between the views.
Anyway, if it is not to do with lengths of time, then finite v infinite, has, I would respectfully suggest, nothing to do with it.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Do you have a corresponding problem with infinite grace for finite sin? Logic requires that you do.
Does it? How?
I will admit that I was assuming you were calling upon God to be just. If you weren't, my mistake. If you were, then it is obviously unjust (on your terms) for God to offer infinite grace in response to finite sin.
[ 06. June 2005, 09:59: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
The point is that punishment should fit the crime. And then the question is whether there is anything hideous enough to warrant an eternity (ie a never ending period of time) of damnation. And there isn't.
That, I would submit, is a matter of opinion. ISTM that the Bible teaches that sin is that serious. I think, to be honest that is the real root of the difference between the views.
Anyway, if it is not to do with lengths of time, then finite v infinite, has, I would respectfully suggest, nothing to do with it.
No, with respect it is not. I am not suggesting that sin is not serious, but I am saying that there can be no crime that deserves a never-ending punishment.
A God who throws people into endless torment is not compatible with the bible, even with the Old Testament - where he repeatedly reaches down to man in his sinfulness.
I do not have words for a philosophy that condemns individuals to hell before they have even done anything. Certainly it has nothing to do with the words of Christ.
The point I was making about crime was that we do not make punishments on the basis of how long the crime took to do. We make responsible choices to make the punishment fit the crime.
Which in my view is what the eye for an eye is about.
The point about the endless punishment is a seperate one. I reiterate, no crime is serious enough to justify an eternity of torture.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
No, with respect it is not. I am not suggesting that sin is not serious, but I am saying that there can be no crime that deserves a never-ending punishment.
Indeed. I'm not being facetious, but I am suggesting sin is serious enough to warrant that, you sre saying it is not. That is the difference.
quote:
A God who throws people into endless torment is not compatible with the bible, even with the Old Testament - where he repeatedly reaches down to man in his sinfulness.
An interesting point of view, discussed at length on this thread. But nothing to do with finite and infinite punishment.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
No, with respect it is not. I am not suggesting that sin is not serious, but I am saying that there can be no crime that deserves a never-ending punishment.
Indeed. I'm not being facetious, but I am suggesting sin is serious enough to warrant that, you sre saying it is not. That is the difference.
Yes, I see that. But you have yet to answer how an infinite conscious physical punishment is proportionate to a crime committed in a lifetime. That is like saying that a small boy who is caught swearing in class should walk to the other side of the universe and back. My point is that however serious the crime, an infinite punishment cannot help but be disproportionate and therefore unjust.
quote:
A God who throws people into endless torment is not compatible with the bible, even with the Old Testament - where he repeatedly reaches down to man in his sinfulness.
quote:
An interesting point of view, discussed at length on this thread. But nothing to do with finite and infinite punishment.
Ah but it has everything to do with it. If you believe in a God who cannot stand sin, and by extension the sinner - and will send them away to a literal place of torture, then the traditional notion of hell is no problem for you.
Furthermore, if you are so confident of your position as a member of the elect, preordained from the beginning of time, then it is no problem for you to throw people into the fires of hell for not being a member of the elect.
If however, you see the God of the bible as one of justice then you cannot comprehend how he could possibly do such a thing, which is plainly not justice by any normal definition of the word.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
QM leads us to the conclusion that in a given situation, there might be a 50% chance of A happening and a 50% chance of B happening. The probabilities genuinely do not seem to be affected by any external variable
I am trying to avoid saying anything about quantum theory at all – it isn’t my field. I accept that indeterminacy is a large part of the theory, and indeterminacy means just that – not affected by external variables (of a sort known to science). Does that exclude free will? On a scientific model, I think you have to have an idea of what basic reality would look like in a free and an unfree universe, and then see which one reality is closest to. Taking into account (as Ricardus says above) that the systems that are studied by science at this level are not volitional, if reality does contain free will then how ought the laws of physics to work for events when that control is off? If the answer is not the “indeterminate, but following statistical norms” of quantum theory, then what would the answer be?
I don’t think the probabilistic view comes close to proving free will, but I don’t see that it excludes it.
quote:
I find it difficult even to conceive of a mechanism by which that might operate with regards to free will.
I think the choice of word – mechanism – is telling. Whatever else it may be, a volitional entity is not going to be a mechanism. The conceptual problem in understanding free will is that ‘understanding’ usual means working out how something works and what it does. Free will by definition cannot be analysed like that – if it were comprehensible in the way that, say, photosynthesis is comprehensible, it would not be free.
A similar conceptual problem exists for the phenomenon of consciousness. I find it impossible to conceive how the atoms in my brain following deterministic laws or probabilistic tendencies could ever become self-aware, but somehow they have. You can ascribe consciousness either to an act of God, or to some form of emergent property of the system as a whole that cannot ever be understood on an atomic (or even cellular) level. I think you’d struggle to explain from quantum mechanics how your consciousness works, but that difficulty is no proof at all that it doesn’t exist. Free-will seems to me to be in just the same class.
quote:
Chaos theory is still deterministic, though it could lead to a probablistic quantum effect having macroscopic consequences.
Agreed. I don’t rely on chaos theory to support free will. It helps a little to make free will feel more credible (I need just one quantum event to be influenced by choice for my decision to repent of my sin, or not, to be free), but in principle it makes no difference (provided no physicists are allowed to get too close, as many quantum events in my head as necessary can be decreed by choice, whatever that number is).
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
