Thread: How can I enjoy heaven when my loved ones are in Hell? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026578
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
The idea of anybody I love being in Hell makes eternity seem like a horrible prospect. "You'll get over it, you'll be so happy in God's presence" seems pretty empty. I can't imagine being happy knowing my mother (say) was in unremitting screaming agony for all eternity. It seems downright monstrous to think I can "get over" that and just be happy. It makes God seem to have less compassion than I do.
And anybody who thinks the blessed will delight in the agony of the damned worships a demon.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Who says everyone else will be in hell? That is not the way I read the Gospel.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Who says everyone else will be in hell? That is not the way I read the Gospel.
I don't believe I said "everyone else."
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
I did not say you said everyone else will be in hell. You did say how can you enjoy heaven when you know people you love will be in hell. My response is, how do you know people you love will be in hell?
I believe in universal salvation, with the exception of some very evil persons, though I am not the final judge on who these persons may be.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
My response is, how do you know people you love will be in hell?
Again, I didn't say I knew that. I don't really know a lot about the afterlife. So few have come back to explain it to us. I tend to universalism, but there are certainly strong arguments against it.
But I know that some people think that there is a Hell or Lake of Fire or something, and that there will be no small number of people in it, in eternal torment. According to them, there will probably be people I love in Hell. I would like them to explain how they think the blessed can enjoy heaven when people they love are in Hell.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
I asked this question in a recent thread yes the elect are supposed to enjoy Heaven knowing the damned are burning in Hell. according to one poster who was kind enough to reply. It doesn't really upset me since I don't believe in an afterlife, but it certainly damps any yearning for heaven.
I've worked in companies where a certain percentage of the employees are abused and everyone is supposed to ignore that and praise the management. I didn't care for it, even when I wasn't in the abused set.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
MT,
I've begun reading this guy's book which is probably the most exhaustive study ever done on what the bible teaches about the end of the wicked. It appears this video serves to sum up what he has found thus far.
Maybe you will find it useful.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It makes God seem to have less compassion than I do.
I often hear the charge that the Old Testament God is a nasty wrathful God compared to the loving, gentle New Testament God revealed in Jesus.
Eternal torture sets that idea firmly at rest.
The idea of eternal torture in Hell is so at odds with the love, mercy and forgiveness as revealed in Christ that I haven't the faintest idea how to reconcile the two. I'm not sure its even possible.
The only way I can see it is to reject the idea of eternal torment in Hell as a human fabrication to instill fear ( and therefore presumably produce obedience)
[ 17. November 2013, 06:12: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But I know that some people think that there is a Hell or Lake of Fire or something, and that there will be no small number of people in it, in eternal torment. According to them, there will probably be people I love in Hell. I would like them to explain how they think the blessed can enjoy heaven when people they love are in Hell.
Well, as I am almost guaranteed to be there, I'll take care of them for you MT. Take them 'round, show them the choicest bits of the Lake to lounge in.
Yeah, always thought the punishment bit was a tad off, even for the Old Testament.
God: Most of you will be born into situations where it is nigh impossible for you to know the rules, those who will hear them will have a high percentage unlikely to believe the rules and those who do believe are likely to cock it up anyway.
But I did this because I love you.
Yeah, not bollocks, none of it.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
You can't, but they won't - so that's OK.
Next question?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
MT,
I've begun reading this guy's book which is probably the most exhaustive study ever done on what the bible teaches about the end of the wicked. It appears this video serves to sum up what he has found thus far.
Maybe you will find it useful.
Curious. Thanks for posting. Summary here if anyone else is interested.
What are the counter arguments and objections to his ideas?
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on
:
This dilemma shows that linear thinking (e.g., if...then)and thinking in dualisms (e.g., heaven-hell) has its limits when trying to approach the Divine order of things and no-things.
We will never have an answer this side of death, but approaching the question with dualisms might be misleading.
Another thought: What survives is love. Both God's love and the love that exists between Mousethief and members of his family -and through their love they partake in God, who is love.
But that's a matter for contemplation, not reasoning.
Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The idea of anybody I love being in Hell makes eternity seem like a horrible prospect. "You'll get over it, you'll be so happy in God's presence" seems pretty empty. I can't imagine being happy knowing my mother (say) was in unremitting screaming agony for all eternity. It seems downright monstrous to think I can "get over" that and just be happy. It makes God seem to have less compassion than I do.
And anybody who thinks the blessed will delight in the agony of the damned worships a demon.
At last! We singles spending a lifetime of solitude, eating ready meals for one and holidaying alone have a slightly better deal (no-one to worry about) than all those who spent decades surrounded by people who love them.
Kidding, sort of.
Your question makes sense if in heaven a recognisable 'you' with your memories carry on your life as now but with no worries or tax bills. And more singing.
I don't think so. Jesus covered this while answering the serial husbands/wives question. [citation needed]
[ 17. November 2013, 09:25: Message edited by: Clint Boggis ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The idea of anybody I love being in Hell makes eternity seem like a horrible prospect. "You'll get over it, you'll be so happy in God's presence" seems pretty empty. I can't imagine being happy knowing my mother (say) was in unremitting screaming agony for all eternity. It seems downright monstrous to think I can "get over" that and just be happy. It makes God seem to have less compassion than I do.
And anybody who thinks the blessed will delight in the agony of the damned worships a demon.
At last! We singles spending a lifetime of solitude, eating ready meals for one and holidaying alone have a slightly better deal (no-one to worry about) than all those who spent decades surrounded by people who love them.
Kidding, sort of.
Your question makes sense if in heaven a recognisable 'you' with your memories carry on your life as now but with no worries or tax bills. And more singing.
I don't think so. Jesus covered this while answering the serial husbands/wives question. [citation needed]
Do some people actually believe this? I mean the recognizable you business, without tax bills or that annoying rash on my back. Gordon Bennett, if I may cite an ancestral god. Singing would be OK, if Northern Soul is allowed.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Most people I know who believe in conscious eternal punishment in Hell say that it will be 'veiled' and that the saved or the Elect won't know whether their loved ones are there or not ... or else that by that time they'll have become acclimatised to God's justice and so on that they'll be able to see things from His perspective and recognise that these people - whether loved ones or not - deserved what was coming ....
Or something like that.
Most people who believe the above seem able to 'switch-off' or detach themselves to some extent.
I've mentioned it before, but my brother used to know a bloke, an extreme hyper-Calvinist, who was convinced that one of his own daughers was Reprobate and it had eternally been decreed that she would spend eternity in conscious torment in Hell-fire ...
He seemed to have a certain equanimity about the prospect. It didn't seem to faze him at all.
I'm tempted - at the risk of a Hell-call here (or in the hereafter?) - to cite this - admittedly extreme - Calvinistic reaction as evidence for how cold and heartless the Reformed stance on these things when taken to their ultimate conclusion.
But I recognise that most Reformed people step off the moving conveyor-belt before it reaches that particular destination.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Mr. Fudge lost me in his opening line, saying "We know that none of us in this room will have this problem, so we can look at the issue" or words to that effect.
He is certain that he has it right, and knows what God's judgment of him will be, that he can afford to be flippant about those who go to Hell.
Not much help there then...except to make me think unkind thoughts. 'Nuff said.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
What survives is love. Both God's love and the love between Mousethief and members of his family -and through their love they partake in God, who is love.
But that's a matter for contemplation, not reasoning.
Why can't we reason about love ?
I reason that if Mousethief loves his family then they probably care for him as well, at least a little. Loving someone totally depraved, totally hateful, is up there with the things that only Jesus and the great saints can do. (sorry MT - doubting that you qualify just yet)
If they have shown love on earth then a just God will not be torturing them for all eternity.
This isn't an issue for those who belief in a just and loving God; it's an issue for those who believe in a powerful and authoritarian God who gets to define what constitutes good behaviour for gods.
The sort of person who goes around claiming "Justice is whatever I say it is" or "Goodness is whatever I in my wisdom choose to do" is not considered just or good in the ordinary meaning of those words.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on
:
This pretty much sums up what I think about the whole thing. The idea of eternal conscious torment is reprehensible, in my not-so-humble opinion.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
As there's no such thing as a totally Christ-like human being (aside from Jesus himself) and there's no such thing as a totally depraved human being afaik, I wonder what part of each of us will be burning in hell and which will be singing in heaven.
If we can enjoy relationship with God in this life sad in the knowledge that some of our relatives don't, why would it be different after death?
The images of hell in the Bible are symbolic, they're meant to show that in the end justice will be done and evil itself will be burnt off.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Do some people actually believe this? I mean the recognizable you business, without tax bills or that annoying rash on my back.
You mean the idea that we will be raised as a spiritual body yet still recognizable as who we once were?
Absolutely.
Same as Jesus.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The idea of anybody I love being in Hell makes eternity seem like a horrible prospect. "You'll get over it, you'll be so happy in God's presence" seems pretty empty. I can't imagine being happy knowing my mother (say) was in unremitting screaming agony for all eternity. It seems downright monstrous to think I can "get over" that and just be happy. It makes God seem to have less compassion than I do.
I'm not sure that invoking your mother does any work here other than making the general horror of hell more vividly present now. One would hope that in the afterlife our capacity to love would extend past our blood relations, and that all who do not make it into heaven have a similar standing before the eyes of the communion of saints.
But we may indeed ask whether being a loving son in this life would require the sort of response that would stop his mother from being numbered among the doomed. St Monica and St Augustine in reverse, basically. And if there is no such action, then who is to blame - the son or God? And if there is such action but it bears no fruit, then who is to blame - the mother or God?
If the fate of your loved ones in the afterlife weighs heavy on your heart, let that guide thought, word and action. Has the Lord not said "Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; if you ask anything in my name, I will do it." (John 14:13-14) I think we can all agree that asking him for a new car may not be asking in His name, but surely if there is one thing in the world that we can ask properly in His name, then it is for the salvation of the ones we love. Shall we answer then to God that we are not our mother's keeper? You want to see her in heaven? Make it so. The Lord Himself said that you can.
I believe our human reckoning cannot constrain God. If one requires that God shows more compassion than we do, one must also require that he show more concern for holiness than we do. If greater mercy, then also greater justice. We do not understand how all of these can be increased at the same time, and that's precisely where we should leave that. We should follow Job in letting God be God.
But if we wish to negotiate our fate with God, and that of our loved ones, then the time is now. This world is where the unchangeable God comes down to us, to become changeable in His interactions with us changeable beings. The next world is where we changeable humans go up to Him, to become unchangeable in our interactions with His unchangeable Being. The problem we have with the eternity of heaven and hell is nothing but a reflection of our current mode of being. Surely there must be a time and way to change matters? Yes, indeed. Now there is. But then there won't be. The justice and mercy of then is nothing but the justice and mercy of now. Death is the deadline.
As for the afterlife, our tears may be dried but not by amnesia. Jesus' resurrected body bears the wounds He received in this life. The sorrows of this life will be present to our minds, and so also in the existence of the doomed. We should be careful about claiming that there is absolutely no way in which God could save us but not our loved ones. If we make this a stone too heavy for God to lift, then we may not be forcing our loved ones into heaven, but ourselves into hell.
God's love will overcome death and guarantee everlasting life and happiness. There can be no doubt about that. But love it is, not some automatic salvation dispenser. And God has made us the instruments of His love, we cannot simply point to Him in the expectation that He will take care of everything no matter what. We are called by Him to take care of things and people in His love, He has delegated responsibility to us. And where could this be more the case than where our loved ones are concerned? So maybe indeed it is impossible that you be in heaven and your mother be in hell. But there are two possible resolutions of that then, not just one, and if you wish for God to pick one over the other, then you have something to do. Ask. Pray. Knock. Before you die.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
IngoB: But we may indeed ask whether being a loving son in this life would require the sort of response that would stop his mother from being numbered among the doomed.
I can imagine a mugger in a Pulp Fiction-style film saying this while pointing his gun at your mother's head.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
To what extent are we our brothers' keepers?
We can't insist that others believe in God. Persistence may turn them off even more.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Do some people actually believe this? I mean the recognizable you business, without tax bills or that annoying rash on my back.
You mean the idea that we will be raised as a spiritual body yet still recognizable as who we once were?
Absolutely.
Same as Jesus.
But I'm not recognizable now. People who used to know me walk past me, and when I grab them, call the police. Eventually, when they calm down, they say, but why have you changed so much? I say, I haven't changed, you just muddled up an image with who I am.
Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
MT,
I've begun reading this guy's book which is probably the most exhaustive study ever done on what the bible teaches about the end of the wicked. It appears this video serves to sum up what he has found thus far.
Maybe you will find it useful.
Curious. Thanks for posting. Summary here if anyone else is interested.
What are the counter arguments and objections to his ideas?
Thanks Evensong. A quick look at the summary saved me from having to wade through the original link, which I would have found a tad infuriating.
I think ... I will leave it at that. This is, after all, Purgatory board and not Hell board, so I can't say what I really think.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Back to the OP: don't know, can't know, can't know whether this in fact will be the case, whether it is or not there's nothing really you can do about it. Stick it in the too-hard basket, and keep buggering on.
[ 17. November 2013, 13:58: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But there are two possible resolutions of that then, not just one, and if you wish for God to pick one over the other, then you have something to do. Ask. Pray. Knock. Before you die.
So all mousethief has to do to get his mother into heaven is ask?
Piece of cake. There you go mousethief.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But I'm not recognizable now. People who used to know me walk past me, and when I grab them, call the police. Eventually, when they calm down, they say, but why have you changed so much? I say, I haven't changed, you just muddled up an image with who I am.
We see now through a glass darkly, but then we shall see face to face?
Maybe we'll know each other as we truly are in the age to come.
I guess the point being that our essence will still be the same. The accidents may change.
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
Thanks Evensong. A quick look at the summary saved me from having to wade through the original link, which I would have found a tad infuriating.
I think ... I will leave it at that. This is, after all, Purgatory board and not Hell board, so I can't say what I really think.
Oh GO ON. Be brave. Just don't direct it at Mere Nick, direct it at the theology.
I actually just skimmed the video very briefly (it was an hour for flips sake!) but listened to the conclusion. The main idea seemed quite sound. I guess that's why I was wondering about counter objections to the particular theology.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
mousethief but not necessarily in that order.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Evensong wrote:
We see now through a glass darkly, but then we shall see face to face?
Maybe we'll know each other as we truly are in the age to come.
I guess the point being that our essence will still be the same. The accidents may change.
Well, now you're guessing I think. OK, guesswork is OK with me, as long as I can have my own guesses. Well, I just don't know.
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
mousethief but not necessarily in that order.
mouse theif I endorse this position .
blessings PaulBC
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, now you're guessing I think. OK, guesswork is OK with me, as long as I can have my own guesses. Well, I just don't know.
Not pure guesswork. I'm thinking 1 Cor 15:
What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.
If we are completely different and unrecognizable people in the general resurrection there's little point in a general resurrection at all. May as well just be a completely different creation or person.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
This is how I see it...
God is love. He is not half-love, or 'love' only to believers. There is no part of Him which is not love. His justice is based on His love; in fact, His justice is His love, because justice is love, and love is just.
He desires all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth and He does not change. Therefore His desire for the salvation of all people endures forever.
If someone is eternally damned, he or she is eternally loved by God. Yes! It is actually love which damns that person. That person must therefore be unrepetantly evil. He has a nature which is completely inimical to the love of God. He hates mercy. He really does. He loathes the saints, he loathes goodness, he has nothing but contempt for compassion. That is what it means to be truly evil. The fruit of a tree reveals the nature of the tree.
The idea that people could be condemned, who are not given over to evil at the depth of their being, but who have simply failed to tick the correct religious boxes, is complete nonsense. This is the great hoax of religion. It is divorced from the reality of people's hearts; from the reality of what people actually are.
So if I were to say: "I could not be happy in heaven knowing that a loved one is burning in hell" what am I actually saying? I am saying that I cannot be happy unless God concedes to evil. I am saying that I cannot be happy knowing that God loves my evil and depraved relative or 'friend' (some friend!), because it is the love of God which is tormenting him. What therefore do I want God to do? To hate him, so that he could feel the relief of self-justification? To bow down to him, so that he could have his arrogance and conceit confirmed?
The truth is that if one of my "loved ones" went to hell, he would not actually be a "loved one", because he would have nothing but hatred for me as a believer. He would be unrecognisable as the person who once was my loved one, before he turned his life over to evil. He wouldn't even really be the same person. There would be no possibility of a relationship there. The person who was my loved one actually no longer really exists. What still exists is a stranger, who has nothing but contempt for everything I am, everything I believe, everything I love. He loathes me as much as he loathes God. He has brought hell on himself. In fact, the heaven God has won for him on the cross, is hell.
If he died a true "loved one" - in other words, he was truly a person of love - then he would not be burning in hell, because "whoever lives in love, lives in God and God lives in him" (1 John 4:16). How could the reality of God be a torment to someone who has said 'yes' to His love, irrespective of his failure to tick the right religious boxes? It cannot be.
This whole issue has been confused and obscured by the curse of religious schemes of salvation. We need to look at it from the standpoint of reality: the reality of what people actually are, in terms of their allegiance to good or evil.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
This is how I see it...
God is love. He is not half-love, or 'love' only to believers. There is no part of Him which is not love. His justice is based on His love; in fact, His justice is His love, because justice is love, and love is just.
He desires all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth and He does not change. Therefore His desire for the salvation of all people endures forever.
If someone is eternally damned, he or she is eternally loved by God. Yes! It is actually love which damns that person. That person must therefore be unrepetantly evil.
An all knowing, all powerful, all loving being creates a situation in which some of those it loves will suffer.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha
An all knowing, all powerful, all loving being creates a situation in which some of those it loves will suffer.
They will suffer because they reject God's love (nothing to do with rejecting religion, by the way). The God of love cannot therefore be blamed for that.
I can't see how love can actually exist and operate within a robotic universe. Can you?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
An all knowing, all powerful, all loving being creates a situation in which some of those it loves will suffer.
Some?
I would say 'most' at one time or another.
But ordinary suffering is part of life - pain and death are necessary. Evolution was necessary - in order to give choice, not dictatorship.
The thing which is totally unnecessary is eternal suffering - I can't think that an all knowing, all powerful, all loving God would subject even the most evil of creatures to that.
So I'm a universalist too.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha
An all knowing, all powerful, all loving being creates a situation in which some of those it loves will suffer.
They will suffer because they reject God's love (nothing to do with rejecting religion, by the way). The God of love cannot therefore be blamed for that.
Sure can. One who creates the game, rules and players is responsible for the outcome.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I can't see how love can actually exist and operate within a robotic universe. Can you?
There are options other than God or nothing. But actually I could believe in a purely mechanistic universe.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
There's nothing robotic about a Godless universe. That's just (tautology alert) inadequate projection.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie
The thing which is totally unnecessary is eternal suffering - I can't think that an all knowing, all powerful, all loving God would subject even the most evil of creatures to that.
True. An all knowing, all powerful and all loving God would not subject anyone to that. But an evil creature might subject himself to it, due to his hatred and rejection of the love that God eternally extends to him. Is God to be blamed for that? Of course not.
quote:
So I'm a universalist too.
And, in one sense, I am too. God has saved all people, because Jesus Christ took the punishment for all - not subjectively, but objectively. The trouble is though, that 'salvation' operates on God's terms, not on man's terms. So what happens to the arrogant person who despises the Almighty and has nothing but contempt for His love and for those who worship and trust Him? Will this reality of salvation be a joy to that person? Or will it be a torment? The answer is obvious.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha
One who creates the game, rules and players is responsible for the outcome.
Only on the assumption that none of the players have been created as morally responsible beings.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm not sure that invoking your mother does any work here other than making the general horror of hell more vividly present now.
That is indeed my point. That there are people who are not moved thereby, or who find it a rhetorical flourish, is frightening.
quote:
One would hope that in the afterlife our capacity to love would extend past our blood relations, and that all who do not make it into heaven have a similar standing before the eyes of the communion of saints.
No question. My issue is not having my love expanded, but contracted.
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on
:
There are a couple of things this makes me think of, though neither is really an answer.
The first is that I suppose by sanctification or theosis or whatever one likes to call it, what seems right to God will seem right to us. Of course that only gets you so far, ie to the question of whether and if so why hell seems right to God.
The other is to wonder how the saints already in heaven can rejoice despite the suffering on earth. After all, that definitely exists. Probably it doesn't stop me enjoying life because I don't care enough about it, but I expect they do care enough. Maybe the fact that it is only temporary is the reason.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha
One who creates the game, rules and players is responsible for the outcome.
Only on the assumption that none of the players have been created as morally responsible beings.
No. This is not a sound conclusion.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha
No. This is not a sound conclusion.
And why would that be?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie
The thing which is totally unnecessary is eternal suffering - I can't think that an all knowing, all powerful, all loving God would subject even the most evil of creatures to that.
True. An all knowing, all powerful and all loving God would not subject anyone to that. But an evil creature might subject himself to it, due to his hatred and rejection of the love that God eternally extends to him. Is God to be blamed for that? Of course not.
No, but S/he could let them go to nothingness, non-existence rather than eternal torment.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha
No. This is not a sound conclusion.
And why would that be?
An omniscient, omnipotent being creating a situation where it knows that some will suffer.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Tangential, but related in my twisty mind, I heard of some well known US Evangelical recently, possibly said to Rob Bell, who had sat his son down at an impressionable age and told him that he would never love him as much as he loved Jesus.
What an insane lie.
That's how it's related.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So all mousethief has to do to get his mother into heaven is ask? Piece of cake. There you go mousethief.
Indeed. However, let's not forget either Christ's parable of the unjust judge or the mentioned example of St Monica and St Augustine. Properly asking God for something is not accomplished by a brief flicker of thought with no further engagement. People can spend hours furiously typing bitter complaints about the injustice of hell, and write poetically about their love for others to illustrate it. Is that same fire found in their prayers to God though, I wonder?
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That is indeed my point. That there are people who are not moved thereby, or who find it a rhetorical flourish, is frightening. … No question. My issue is not having my love expanded, but contracted.
Well, you have just agreed that it is a kind of rhetorical flourish. And if somebody's love is is already sufficiently expanded, then it is not perhaps a particularly meaningful flourish. As for me, I still love my kin more than my neighbour, so it is a flourish that works for me… Anyway, I wonder what you think of my line of argument above?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
lilBuddha - God knew ALL would suffer. But not pre-cognitively of course.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Mousethief:
The idea of anybody I love being in Hell makes eternity seem like a horrible prospect. "You'll get over it, you'll be so happy in God's presence" seems pretty empty. I can't imagine being happy knowing my mother (say) was in unremitting screaming agony for all eternity. It seems downright monstrous to think I can "get over" that and just be happy. It makes God seem to have less compassion than I do.
Until we actually experience the beatific vision we will have no idea what experiencing the beatific vision will be like and that assumes we experience the beatific vision. In other words, we have no idea how we will react to being in heaven without our loved ones if we make it to heaven and our loved ones do not. Jesus did say that being his disciple means loving Him more than and even hating our loved ones (Matt. 10:37, Lk. 14:26).
quote:
originally posted by Evensong:
The idea of eternal torture in Hell is so at odds with the love, mercy and forgiveness as revealed in Christ that I haven't the faintest idea how to reconcile the two. I'm not sure its even possible.
And yet all the evidence for eternal conscious torment (such as their is) comes primarily from Jesus. Universalism is a possibility. We should pray for the souls of all the departed. We should hope for the salvation of all souls. However, eternal damnation is easily reconcilable with the Jesus actually presented in the gospels.
Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
Thanks Evensong. A quick look at the summary saved me from having to wade through the original link, which I would have found a tad infuriating.
I think ... I will leave it at that. This is, after all, Purgatory board and not Hell board, so I can't say what I really think.
Oh GO ON. Be brave. Just don't direct it at Mere Nick, direct it at the theology.
I actually just skimmed the video very briefly (it was an hour for flips sake!)
I think even a brief skim would have been beyond my patience. Maybe I'm unduly sensitised to this topic.
Anyway. Theology. My take on theology, anyway.
Part A. We have been told that:
God is love;
God is just;
God is merciful.
Now there is no way that a human judge can combine all these attributes, nor can we understand how he might do so. At some point, depending on the nature of the case, justice might over-ride mercy (or possibly vice versa); he cannot be completely just, completely merciful and completely loving in all cases.
But that's a human judge, limited by the legal system he finds himself in, and by the power of even the most formidable human intellect.
But God is not limited either by the system or by human intellect, so He can be loving, merciful and just all at once. How He might do so we cannot understand; God is smarter than we are.
We can, and will, speculate, but it's just speculation.
Seems pretty obvious; would be nice if more theologians had the humility to recognise the limitations of their human intellect.
Part B.
Look at the Bible; you will find statements to the effect that:
a. wicked sinners go to Hell;
b. unbelievers go to Hell;
c. it may be a long and rocky road but eventually, everybody will be saved.
(Find 'em for yourself.)
Now if you regard the Bible as definitive, then this seems to be a problem, since by human intellect these statements are mutually contradictory.
Answer to the problem is in Romans 11 33-36 though we shouldn't need chapter and verse as it's already obvious. God is smarter than we are.
So much of what is written about whether certain individuals go to heaven or Hell is ... not well informed. So I am not convinced that any of our loved ones will finish up in Hell. And possibly, not anyone else. I don't know of course, but I am convinced that what happens will be just, and loving, and merciful, in a way we cannot at present fully understand. So, problem goes away (isn't it marvellous!)
If I am wrong - why?
[ 17. November 2013, 17:51: Message edited by: blackbeard ]
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie
No, but S/he could let them go to nothingness, non-existence rather than eternal torment.
But what if hell is a form of purgatory, from which it is possible to escape? If God snuffed people out of existence, then they would not have the opportunity to repent. And given that God "desires all people to be saved" and given that He does not change, then it follows that He opens the door to all people forever. I can't see how a person's free will can operate and be respected if they have been deprived, not only of consciousness, but also of existence!
So, on that basis, annihilationism makes no sense whatsoever.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha
An omniscient, omnipotent being creating a situation where it knows that some will suffer.
But the knowledge of something depends on its existence.
How could God know that some people will suffer, if the suffering of those people never happens?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha
An omniscient, omnipotent being creating a situation where it knows that some will suffer.
But the knowledge of something depends on its existence.
How could God know that some people will suffer, if the suffering of those people never happens?
You are arguing inherent omniscience in place of total omniscience. ISTM, this is just a Get out of Jail Free card.
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
Now there is no way that a human judge can combine all these attributes, nor can we understand how he might do so.
You are saying God is ineffable. Quite to the contrary, if he exists, I have several f for him.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
I tend to agree with the last sentence of Mousethief's original post.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
IngoB:
My response to your line of reasoning is that the "justice" you describe is the justice of V-Ger in the first Star Trek movie. Obey me or else. it is the justice of a tyrant.
ETA: The justice of scripture is ending the oppression of the oppressed. (Luke 4:18, quoting Isaiah 61:1). Not so much smiting those who don't belong to the right church.
[ 17. November 2013, 19:27: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by JFH (# 14794) on
:
I am afraid I have very little answers to offer but the silence of Alyosha Karamazov. I have a hard time doubting Starets Zosima's image of hell*, but I have little to say in God's defense.
---
*Which can be found here - press [ctrl+F], type 359 and press enter in order to find it.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie
No, but S/he could let them go to nothingness, non-existence rather than eternal torment.
But what if hell is a form of purgatory, from which it is possible to escape? If God snuffed people out of existence, then they would not have the opportunity to repent. And given that God "desires all people to be saved" and given that He does not change, then it follows that He opens the door to all people forever. I can't see how a person's free will can operate and be respected if they have been deprived, not only of consciousness, but also of existence!
So, on that basis, annihilationism makes no sense whatsoever.
Not if that is what they choose over being with God.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, Starets Zosima ...
Let all mortal flesh keep silent ...
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
MT,
I've begun reading this guy's book which is probably the most exhaustive study ever done on what the bible teaches about the end of the wicked. It appears this video serves to sum up what he has found thus far.
Maybe you will find it useful.
Curious. Thanks for posting. Summary here if anyone else is interested.
What are the counter arguments and objections to his ideas?
I've ordered the third edition of his book. It is my understanding that he has updated it for the parts of the Dead Sea scrolls that has been released since his early editions and also to include disagreements and his response.
They've even made an indy film about him that appears to receive good reviews.
The building where my congregation meets has the same sign out front of where his congregation meets, so I'm particularly interested.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Mr. Fudge lost me in his opening line, saying "We know that none of us in this room will have this problem, so we can look at the issue" or words to that effect.
He is certain that he has it right, and knows what God's judgment of him will be, that he can afford to be flippant about those who go to Hell.
Not much help there then...except to make me think unkind thoughts. 'Nuff said.
I caught that, too, and suspect he is being more than a bit tongue in cheek given his overall demeanor in the video and in his writings.
Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on
:
Going back to the example in the OP, doesn't the book of Acts generally refer to people being saved and baptised along with their households? It seems that conversion to Christianity was a group decision rather than an individual decision then. In the 20th century various missionaries have also found people wanting to convert as a group. As far as I remember, though I'd have to recheck the books, examples include Caroline Stickley in the Philippines ("Broken Snare") and Fr. Vincent Donovan among the Masai ("Christianity Rediscovered").
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
Going back to the example in the OP, doesn't the book of Acts generally refer to people being saved and baptised along with their households? It seems that conversion to Christianity was a group decision rather than an individual decision then. In the 20th century various missionaries have also found people wanting to convert as a group. As far as I remember, though I'd have to recheck the books, examples include Caroline Stickley in the Philippines ("Broken Snare") and Fr. Vincent Donovan among the Masai ("Christianity Rediscovered").
It appears to me to not be a general thing but on certain occasions. Sometimes an individual, sometimes the family.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
My response to your line of reasoning is that the "justice" you describe is the justice of V-Ger in the first Star Trek movie. Obey me or else. it is the justice of a tyrant.
I did not argue much about the justice of God. I talked mostly about our own role in the salvation of our loved ones, and how that relates to our fear of seeing them doomed. This, I take it then, did not mean much to you?
Tyranny is defined by equality, for if we accuse the tyrant we do so by asking "Are you not but a man, one of us?" Well, are you going to ask God that?
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
ETA: The justice of scripture is ending the oppression of the oppressed. (Luke 4:18, quoting Isaiah 61:1). Not so much smiting those who don't belong to the right church.
I'm not sure how "not belonging to the right church" has come into play now? It is not something that I have commented on here at all.
As for Isaiah, I suggest you read on a little, as that verse gets expounded in what follows. Read at least till chapter 63...
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
Tyranny is defined by equality, for if we accuse the tyrant we do so by asking "Are you not but a man, one of us?" Well, are you going to ask God that?
If I thought God was a tyrant then I would have no hesitation asking Him why He expects me to love Him with all my heart, mind, soul and strength when He operates on the basis of an understanding of justice far removed from what any normal, sane person associates with the concept.
When it states in Scripture that God is a God of justice (Isaiah 30:18), that must actually mean something to those to whom it is written. In other words, God acknowledges that the human mind has the capacity to understand the concept of justice. The morally insane ideas of justice that prevail in much of the Christian Church have no relation to how justice operates in real life in civilised societies. We don't throw people alive into incinerators because they have a few wrong thoughts in their minds, or they failed to conform to the 'correct' religious institution. We don't torture people mercilessly because they were born with moral imperfection.
If that is what God's justice is like, then I want nothing to do with such a God, because that God is not the true God, but rather Satan masquerading as God. Anyone with any intelligence can see that.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Anyone with any intelligence can see that.
I hear the foolishness of God is wiser than men.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I did not argue much about the justice of God. I talked mostly about our own role in the salvation of our loved ones, and how that relates to our fear of seeing them doomed. This, I take it then, did not mean much to you?
What should it mean? That if my loved ones are among the damned, it's because I didn't hit on them hard enough to convert? Talk about blaming the victim.
quote:
Tyranny is defined by equality, for if we accuse the tyrant we do so by asking "Are you not but a man, one of us?"
Bullshit. There are lots of situations in which one person has authority over another, but is not a tyrant.
quote:
I'm not sure how "not belonging to the right church" has come into play now? It is not something that I have commented on here at all.
Do you disavow all you have ever said about the Catholic Church, now that you're on this thread?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Well, you have just agreed that it is a kind of rhetorical flourish.
No. No, I didn't.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Jesus did say that being his disciple means loving Him more than and even hating our loved ones (Matt. 10:37, Lk. 14:26).
So would you say Christians are released from all ten Commandments, or just this one?
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
And yet all the evidence for eternal conscious torment (such as their is) comes primarily from Jesus. Universalism is a possibility. We should pray for the souls of all the departed. We should hope for the salvation of all souls. However, eternal damnation is easily reconcilable with the Jesus actually presented in the gospels.
In Matthew 10:28, destroying both body and soul?
What part of destroy doesn't mean destroy? Just askin'.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
In Matthew 10:28, destroying both body and soul?
What part of destroy doesn't mean destroy? Just askin'.
I take it you're positing this as an argument for annihilation. But on the other hand he also talks about weeping and gnashing of teeth, and their worm is not destroyed and their fire is not quenched. Which definitely sounds like eternal suffering.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
When it states in Scripture that God is a God of justice (Isaiah 30:18), that must actually mean something to those to whom it is written.
Have you read Isaiah 30? It's not like this isn't getting spelled out.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What should it mean? That if my loved ones are among the damned, it's because I didn't hit on them hard enough to convert? Talk about blaming the victim.
Where did I say anything about hitting hard on them to convert them? Not that I see evil in converting someone to Christianity, but that was simply not what I said. What I did say is that you should pray insistently to God about the salvation of your loved ones, if you want to see them saved.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There are lots of situations in which one person has authority over another, but is not a tyrant.
Indeed. However, that has nothing to do with the point I made. My point was that the accusation of tyranny against (my version of) God requires some concept of equality with God. Tyranny is wielding more power than is due to one (in modern usage: against the will of those lorded over). How much power is due to God, and are we to set our will against His?
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Do you disavow all you have ever said about the Catholic Church, now that you're on this thread?
No, and neither do I have to. I'm confident that you cannot find any post of mine where I have claimed that without membership in the RCC salvation is impossible.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
No. No, I didn't.
You explicitly agreed to my assessment "I'm not sure that invoking your mother does any work here other than making the general horror of hell more vividly present now." which describes a rhetorical flourish.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82
I hear the foolishness of God is wiser than men
Good. That means that I don't have to pay any attention to anything you say, because I can conveniently plead "the foolishness of God" to dismiss it without having to put in any effort to produce a single argument.
Isn't Christianity fun, when we can (ab)use God to get out of having to think?
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
you should pray insistently to God about the salvation of your loved ones, if you want to see them saved.
I pray regularly for those close to me, and for others, that they will be saved - I cannot do otherwise.
At the same time, I am aware that:-
1. Praying for someone's salvation does not make sense from either a Calvinist or an Arminian point of view.
2. The practice is neither exemplified nor enjoined in the NT; Romans 10:1 probably comes closest, though Paul seems to be referring to the nation rather than to individuals.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
...you should pray insistently to God about the salvation of your loved ones, if you want to see them saved.
As I was passing by, I couldn't resist a peep at another thread in which a bunch of nice intelligent theists struggle with their nonsensical human theories about the afterlife. It seems probable to me that many of you have the same gut instinct as me about it (it's all just retrofit bullshit, really) but are trying to make it work because you really want the shebang to be true. The dissonance must be awful, poor things.
This, though, warrants a reply. IngoB, how can you imagine any kind of justice comes into a scheme in which a man facing trial is acquitted purely on the basis that his brother pleads for it?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
It seems probable to me that many of you have the same gut instinct as me about it (it's all just retrofit bullshit, really) but are trying to make it work because you really want the shebang to be true. The dissonance must be awful, poor things.
Yep - you have hit the nail on the head.
All I have is hope, but I can not let go of that hope.
So I cling to what's left of my faith by my fingertips.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Which introduces the idea of tradition, of course, Kaplan ...
If we only did what we could explicitly back up by a NT text we wouldn't do an awful lot of what we do do, it seems to me ...
And that applies right across the board.
It also undermines the claims of those who claim to be more biblical than anybody else. I'm not saying you're claiming that, of course.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick
As I was passing by, I couldn't resist a peep at another thread in which a bunch of nice intelligent theists struggle with their nonsensical human theories about the afterlife. It seems probable to me that many of you have the same gut instinct as me about it (it's all just retrofit bullshit, really) but are trying to make it work because you really want the shebang to be true. The dissonance must be awful, poor things.
This, though, warrants a reply. IngoB, how can you imagine any kind of justice comes into a scheme in which a man facing trial is acquitted purely on the basis that his brother pleads for it?
Funny, but only the other day I was wondering where all the atheists had got to. Nice to see one popping up with a few amusing comments to chuckle at.
To think that you, dear Yorick, talk about dissonance, and then you proceed to assume that we all know what the concept of 'justice' means, as if such an idea has any meaning at all in a world view in which we are all nothing more than slabs of meat. It's almost as clever as Zach's 'foolishness' world view, in which intelligence is not allowed (because God made a mistake creating brains).
Keep up the good work, mate. It cheers me up no end...
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
You don't actually want to have a stab at an answer then? Oh, okay, I understand.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick
You don't actually want to have a stab at an answer then? Oh, okay, I understand.
Naughty naughty. You haven't bothered to read the thread.
My stab at an answer.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
I just skimmed through all that again, but couldn't easily discern the bit where you explain how it amounts to justice when petitional prayer from a partial supplicant changes your god's mind about sending someone to hell or not. I really should read through it and try harder, but on the other hand there's some other even more pointless stuff for me to be doing.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82
I hear the foolishness of God is wiser than men
Good. That means that I don't have to pay any attention to anything you say, because I can conveniently plead "the foolishness of God" to dismiss it without having to put in any effort to produce a single argument.
Isn't Christianity fun, when we can (ab)use God to get out of having to think?
Abuse God? All I did was quote the Bible.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Yorick asked about:
... how it amounts to justice when petitional prayer from a partial supplicant changes your god's mind about sending someone to hell or not...
It doesn't. It amounts to mercy. It's a pity that God's mercy doesn't get talked about as much as his justice. I for one am very glad that we have a God who isn't just.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
...you should pray insistently to God about the salvation of your loved ones, if you want to see them saved.
As I was passing by, I couldn't resist a peep at another thread in which a bunch of nice intelligent theists struggle with their nonsensical human theories about the afterlife. It seems probable to me that many of you have the same gut instinct as me about it (it's all just retrofit bullshit, really) but are trying to make it work because you really want the shebang to be true. The dissonance must be awful, poor things.
This, though, warrants a reply. IngoB, how can you imagine any kind of justice comes into a scheme in which a man facing trial is acquitted purely on the basis that his brother pleads for it?
Can you imagine a kind of justice in which the judge commutes the sentence just because the accused feels sorry for his offenses?
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82
Abuse God? All I did was quote the Bible.
"Then he went out and hanged himself."
"Go thou and do likewise."
See, I can (mis)quote the Bible as well.
Like I said... great fun! Saves having to bother about thinking and context, doesn't it?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
IngoB, how can you imagine any kind of justice comes into a scheme in which a man facing trial is acquitted purely on the basis that his brother pleads for it?
Considered as a rule, this obviously establishes a form of justice. It consequently would be unjust if God honoured mousethief's prayer for his mother, but not mine for my mother (all else equal). Given God's promises on the matter, this would not be giving everybody their due.
Our laws and courts are one particular form of justice, but there is no particular reason why God's justice should follow those in structure closely. In fact, the justice of the Christian God is very clearly built around "representation in and through relationship", in a manner that is quite alien to our current justice system. Or at least I see no place for Christ as Redeemer of mankind in the workings of our courts. If at all, this kind of Divine justice resembles more something that disrupts the regular workings of our courts, i.e., it is like an amnesty. Yet in the context of the Divine it is regular justice, not disruption, for of course the same logic had us doomed in Adam initially, and governed the interactions of God with other human representatives throughout history, like Abraham.
[ 18. November 2013, 12:32: Message edited by: IngoB ]
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
Okay, so it's not justice, or at least in any meaningful sense. It's more like amnesty. But wait. An amnesty that's guaranteed when somebody petitions for it on someone else's behalf? Um, no that won't do either, will it?
I can see a sort of alluring sense in the, 'seek, and ye shall be Forgiven' type idea, but that's a long way from, 'seek amnesty for some other perp and it shall be granted them, regardless'. What a fucked up mess is this religioning lark.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie
No, but S/he could let them go to nothingness, non-existence rather than eternal torment.
But what if hell is a form of purgatory, from which it is possible to escape? If God snuffed people out of existence, then they would not have the opportunity to repent. And given that God "desires all people to be saved" and given that He does not change, then it follows that He opens the door to all people forever. I can't see how a person's free will can operate and be respected if they have been deprived, not only of consciousness, but also of existence!
So, on that basis, annihilationism makes no sense whatsoever.
So what is the crime which causes a person to be in eternal torment until such time as God allows them into heaven?
Not accepting God's love?
What if the reason people can't do this is that they are so damaged that they can't?
Why couldn't God heal every one of them, on entry to eternity, to be able to accept the offered love? Voila, Hell is empty! (Or is healing removing free will?)
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
I don't believe that God makes anyone accept His love. I do believe that He can heal people to allow them to choose for themselves whether or not to accept it.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I don't believe that God makes anyone accept His love. I do believe that He can heal people to allow them to choose for themselves whether or not to accept it.
When? In this life?
So why doesn't S/he get on and do it - for everyone?
I can see it happening after death - as all veils to seeing God's love are then removed. But not in this life.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Can you imagine a kind of justice in which the judge commutes the sentence just because the accused feels sorry for his offenses?
Sounds awfully similar to the way our courts work. A guilty plea will result in a shorter sentence, and so will demonstrating remorse for ones crimes.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
Yorick, this is a typical definition of justice (from my Mac's dictionary):
justice
1 [mass noun] just behaviour or treatment: a concern for justice, peace, and genuine respect for people.
• the quality of being fair and reasonable: the justice of his case.
• the administration of the law or authority in maintaining this: a tragic miscarriage of justice.
The rule I mentioned clearly establishes a form of justice in all these aspects. It is not the justice of our criminal courts, but that simply is not the only possible system of justice. My point about the sacrifice of Christ was not that it is a form of amnesty, but that looked at from the point of view of our criminal court justice that is the closest match. Yet as stated, actually Divine justice simply follows a different pattern according to which Christ's sacrifice is not an exception (as amnesty is for criminal courts) but rather a preeminent instantiation of the rule.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie
So what is the crime which causes a person to be in eternal torment until such time as God allows them into heaven?
I have absolutely no idea about that, considering that this is not what I said. You've erected a straw man. I can't imagine what crime or sin a person could commit that would leave them in eternal torment until such time as God allows them into heaven.
This sounds like the ball is in God's court, but, as I have said many times, the ball is not in God's court, but in man's.
But in answer to the question that you should have asked in response to my previous post: the sin that causes a person to remain in hell and to refuse to enter through the open door into heaven is pride. "No flesh shall glory in my presence", which is really very logical. Conceited attention seekers and wannabe gods attempt to draw the faithful away from the only source of goodness and blessing. Therefore there is no place for such usurpers in the presence of God.
quote:
Not accepting God's love?
What if the reason people can't do this is that they are so damaged that they can't
That is a lie. Anyone in genuine need can receive God's grace. Revelation 21:6 - "I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts".
quote:
Why couldn't God heal every one of them, on entry to eternity, to be able to accept the offered love? Voila, Hell is empty! (Or is healing removing free will?)
If God does this, then why not heal everyone in this life, so that we no longer have to put up with evil? If God acts as you think he does, then he must be extremely twisted. If God could eradicate all evil by the mere click of his fingers, then the fact that he does not do so in this life proves that he is perverse. And therefore not the true God, but a figment of your imagination.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I don't believe that God makes anyone accept His love. I do believe that He can heal people to allow them to choose for themselves whether or not to accept it.
When? In this life?
So why doesn't S/he get on and do it - for everyone?
I can see it happening after death - as all veils to seeing God's love are then removed. But not in this life.
I think we've talked about this before, and I think I agreed with you then, as here. I am sure that there are people who are so damaged, that they cannot give or receive love.
In fact, it's notorious in psychotherapy, that showing care or solicitude to some clients is quite dangerous, as they just cannot tolerate it, and may act out very badly.
Similarly, some very depressed people are in great danger when they have noticed some care shown towards them - you have to be wary then of suicide.
I don't therefore see how in this life-time, these obstacles are to be overcome, except possibly by medication.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There are lots of situations in which one person has authority over another, but is not a tyrant.
Indeed. However, that has nothing to do with the point I made. My point was that the accusation of tyranny against (my version of) God requires some concept of equality with God.
No. You say what I said has nothing to do with what you said, then immediately contradict what I said. One can say someone is a tyrant without claiming equality to them. Because someone can be in a position of authority without being a tyrant. Superiority <> Tyrant.
quote:
Tyranny is wielding more power than is due to one (in modern usage: against the will of those lorded over).
Well, the "will" thing seems gratuitous.
quote:
How much power is due to God, and are we to set our will against His?
It's not about the amount of power but how it's used. He gave us intelligence and compassion and commanded us to use them. If I say your conception of God is problematic, I am not setting my will against His, but against yours.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
You explicitly agreed to my assessment "I'm not sure that invoking your mother does any work here other than making the general horror of hell more vividly present now." which describes a rhetorical flourish.
Then you don't know what "rhetorical flourish" means.
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
As I was passing by, I couldn't resist a peep at another thread in which a bunch of nice intelligent theists struggle with their nonsensical human theories about the afterlife. It seems probable to me that many of you have the same gut instinct as me about it (it's all just retrofit bullshit, really) but are trying to make it work because you really want the shebang to be true. The dissonance must be awful, poor things.
Do you never tire of abusing people thus?
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It's a pity that God's mercy doesn't get talked about as much as his justice. I for one am very glad that we have a God who isn't just.
This, definitely.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It's a pity that God's mercy doesn't get talked about as much as his justice. I for one am very glad that we have a God who isn't just.
This, definitely.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. I hardly know any Christians, outside of yahoos shouting on street corners and assorted internet nutters, that believe Hell is much of a threat.
[ 18. November 2013, 16:19: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally dumped by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
As I was passing by, I couldn't resist a peep at another thread in which a bunch of nice intelligent theists struggle with their nonsensical human theories about the afterlife. It seems probable to me that many of you have the same gut instinct as me about it (it's all just retrofit bullshit, really) but are trying to make it work because you really want the shebang to be true. The dissonance must be awful, poor things.
Do you never tire of abusing people thus?
Abusing people? Jeez, that term seems to have lost a lot of value. But let's not start derailing this thread with lots of silly chit-chat about how I like abusing people and stick to the fucking point shall we?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
One can say someone is a tyrant without claiming equality to them. Because someone can be in a position of authority without being a tyrant. Superiority <> Tyrant.
A tyrant is an absolute ruler unconstrained by law or constitution. We generally assume that a tyrant will do nasty things, but that's really more a reflection of human nature ("power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely") and is actually absent from the historically original meaning. You are clearly intending a moral negative in calling (my kind of) God a tyrant. If this is on account of being an absolute ruler as such, then you need a reason for that critique. Among people such reason is invariably based on the essential equality of people, i.e., there is no good reason why one human should have absolute rule over all other humans. Extending this kind of sentiment to God hence clearly involves some kind of assumption of equality. If however you say so not because God is an absolute ruler as such, but because the way He uses that power is oppressive or cruel in your opinion, then you invoke a different kind of equality. For then you say that what you consider as a wrong action for yourself and other humans is also a wrong action for God. I consider both "equalities" to be mistaken. Neither can one consider human and Divine power to be equal, nor is there any equality in human and Divine moral calculus. Indeed, I do not believe that God is a moral agent, for it would require something greater than God holding Him to account, and there is no greater thing than God.
It does not help you to replace "equality" by "superiority", since that still implies a measurement by human standards. If I say that my line manager has powers that I do not have, then I do not mean to say that his powers are unimaginable to my being. I could be in the position of my line manager, I cannot possibly be in the position of God.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's not about the amount of power but how it's used. He gave us intelligence and compassion and commanded us to use them. If I say your conception of God is problematic, I am not setting my will against His, but against yours.
But you are critiquing my conception of God by saying that then God would be abusive, not that I would be abusive. Hence your critique simply operates outside of the realm of human intelligence and compassion, and what God commanded about them. You are saying that God cannot be as I say, because you know what God must do. I do not believe that you have any means or rights to say what God must do. At most you can try to understand and explain what God Himself said He will do. But I am doing just the same. You may think that I am mistaken, and you can try to show so by using what God Himself said about these things. But your current line of attack simply fails.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Then you don't know what "rhetorical flourish" means.
Sure I do. What you wrote was a rhetorical ("for persuasive effect rather than content") flourish ("dramatic embellishment"). That's not a value judgement - rhetoric can be used to improve communication, and I've already said that this one worked for me.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
In Matthew 10:28, destroying both body and soul?
What part of destroy doesn't mean destroy? Just askin'.
I take it you're positing this as an argument for annihilation. But on the other hand he also talks about weeping and gnashing of teeth, and their worm is not destroyed and their fire is not quenched. Which definitely sounds like eternal suffering.
ok. I will do a little digging on these tonight and respond. In the meantime, is it the general orthodox belief that the lost are tossed into the gaping maw of hell in order to suffer the conscious, unending torments of damnation throughout all eternity?
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on
:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
quote:
Originally dumped by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
As I was passing by, I couldn't resist a peep at another thread in which a bunch of nice intelligent theists struggle with their nonsensical human theories about the afterlife. It seems probable to me that many of you have the same gut instinct as me about it (it's all just retrofit bullshit, really) but are trying to make it work because you really want the shebang to be true. The dissonance must be awful, poor things.
Do you never tire of abusing people thus?
Abusing people? Jeez, that term seems to have lost a lot of value. But let's not start derailing this thread with lots of silly chit-chat about how I like abusing people and stick to the fucking point shall we?
Yorick
As I understand the OP and the following discussion (the fucking point as you so gracefully described it!)we are struggling to come to terms with something as yet unknown yet hoped for and all its attendant questions and fears...so sincere people of faith may well have some sort of dissonance going on, especially if their theology and/ or personality is not of the particularly "sewn up" variety.
Quite frankly, a little more compassion for that struggle rather than gloating might make for a better debate between the theists and the secular humanists.
For me, I have to trust that the God who I know as love will cover all with his love. And no. I could not be happy in an afterlife where I know others are burning in hell. Thank God that Love wins. (Yes I have read the book and was surprised at how much I got from it)
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
One can say someone is a tyrant without claiming equality to them. Because someone can be in a position of authority without being a tyrant. Superiority <> Tyrant.
A tyrant is an absolute ruler unconstrained by law or constitution. We generally assume that a tyrant will do nasty things, but that's really more a reflection of human nature ("power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely") and is actually absent from the historically original meaning.
Actually the term was originally used to designate an absolute ruler who acquired power through some other means than inheritance. In other words, if you're king because your father was king you're not a "tyrant" in the original Greek sense of the term, though you can behave "tyrannically" in the modern sense of the term. As IngoB notes, it was a period of particularly vicious tyrants in the fifth and fourth centuries BCE that gave the term its modern associations with oppressive rule.
Of course, even in this sense God is a tyrant, since He holds his powers without inheriting them from a progenitor.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally dumped by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
As I was passing by, I couldn't resist a peep at another thread in which a bunch of nice intelligent theists struggle with their nonsensical human theories about the afterlife. It seems probable to me that many of you have the same gut instinct as me about it (it's all just retrofit bullshit, really) but are trying to make it work because you really want the shebang to be true. The dissonance must be awful, poor things.
Do you never tire of abusing people thus?
Abusing people? Jeez, that term seems to have lost a lot of value. But let's not start derailing this thread with lots of silly chit-chat about how I like abusing people and stick to the fucking point shall we?
There is no point, fucking or otherwise, to be found in your paragraph. Rather it is all just about (re-)establishing your contempt for us. Or did you really intend it to serve a different purpose? Little did we realise that a deeper meaning was hidden among the abuse... Like there is in my writing here, for those who have eyes to see.
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on
:
I don't know the nature of God. Perhaps he's what we would call an evil bastard if he were human. Perahps he's the embodiment of Love. I can say, though, that IF God is condemning people I love to eternal torment, then this is not a god that I wish to worship. and no, I would NOT be happy in heaven if this were the case (assuming there is a heaven, of course). I'm not saying what God must or must not do.. I'm saying that if He does X, then he is not a god I could worship.
We certainly all create a God in the image we believe worthy of worship. I can't say what God actually is, and yes, perhaps my perceptions of what is worthy of worship can change. so might my idea of what makes someone an evil bastard. I guess I won't know till I die (if then). so in the meantime, I choose to believe that a God exists who is worthy of my worship, and that this God, somehow, manages to save all, one way or another. Perhaps salvation doesn't look the same for everyone. perhaps what is salvation for one is damnation for another. I don't know.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
ok. I will do a little digging on these tonight and respond. In the meantime, is it the general orthodox belief that the lost are tossed into the gaping maw of hell in order to suffer the conscious, unending torments of damnation throughout all eternity?
It's a Christian notion of long standing. Tertullian, Augustine, and Aquinas (to pick three noted theologians from different eras) were all in agreement on this point. They were also in agreement that the saved would be fully aware of the suffering of the damned, though only Tertullian and Aquinas seem to have believed that such knowledge enhances the joy felt by the saved.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally dumped by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
As I was passing by, I couldn't resist a peep at another thread in which a bunch of nice intelligent theists struggle with their nonsensical human theories about the afterlife. It seems probable to me that many of you have the same gut instinct as me about it (it's all just retrofit bullshit, really) but are trying to make it work because you really want the shebang to be true. The dissonance must be awful, poor things.
Do you never tire of abusing people thus?
Abusing people? Jeez, that term seems to have lost a lot of value. But let's not start derailing this thread with lots of silly chit-chat about how I like abusing people and stick to the fucking point shall we?
There is no point, fucking or otherwise, to be found in your paragraph. Rather it is all just about (re-)establishing your contempt for us. Or did you really intend it to serve a different purpose? Little did we realise that a deeper meaning was hidden among the abuse... Like there is in my writing here, for those who have eyes to see.
It isn't abuse, it's derision. Derision for the way theists try and generally fail to salvage any facade of rational sense from the steaming heap of obvious contradictions and simple mambo jumboisms of their afterlife theories. Derision for their useless struggle, and derision for their contemptible belief in and propagation of such cruel and harmful human inventions as hell.
Abuse would be foisting my opinion of this shit on children to scare them into obeisance. Big difference.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
ok. I will do a little digging on these tonight and respond. In the meantime, is it the general orthodox belief that the lost are tossed into the gaping maw of hell in order to suffer the conscious, unending torments of damnation throughout all eternity?
It's a Christian notion of long standing. Tertullian, Augustine, and Aquinas (to pick three noted theologians from different eras) were all in agreement on this point. They were also in agreement that the saved would be fully aware of the suffering of the damned, though only Tertullian and Aquinas seem to have believed that such knowledge enhances the joy felt by the saved.
It appears to me right now that they got that idea of all people having immortal souls from Greek philosophy instead of the scriptures.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Driving around this block one more time, eh Yorick?
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
You make it sound so uncouth. Like it's GTA5 or something.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Your last completely identical outburst is still on the first page of hell.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
Really? I guess things have been a bit quiet round here recently then.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I imagine that's what this new outburst is about.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
Well, people seem to imagine all sorts of things, don't they? Anyway, enough of this little chit-chat.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
And just as on that hell thread, Yorick is speeding off, another drive-by I guess.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha
One who creates the game, rules and players is responsible for the outcome.
Only on the assumption that none of the players have been created as morally responsible beings.
Or on the assumption the game designer was actually a game designer rather than an incompetent amateur. Taking account of the perversity of players and still having outcomes that meet the desired goal is precisely what game design is. And that includes the fact that some people are complete fleshlights who get their kicks by ruining other peoples' fun. If you do not account for such people when designing an MMO you will be overrun. And if you don't account for such people when designing most competitive games your game will be broken by people playing nastily and so they will be games that simply aren't very good.
Why does your God have much lower standards of craftsmanship and of game design and development than the developers of World of Warcraft? Especially when your God literally created the players.
And, for the record, just because the burglar was a bad guy by breaking and entering this doesn't mean that the security guard who bunked off wasn't also responsible for the break-in happening. Responsibility is mutual not unitary and your attempts to pass off God's responsibility by saying "Other people were bad" are obviously trying to shift the blame for God's actions and plans off the most powerful being in the situation and onto the people screwed up by the lack of foresight.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally dumped by mousethief:
Do you never tire of abusing people thus?
Abusing people? Jeez, that term seems to have lost a lot of value. But let's not start derailing this thread with lots of silly chit-chat about how I like abusing people and stick to the fucking point shall we?
Oh good. You're interested in the point now? You might have said so, instead of leading with nothing but adolescent derision. So if you want "us" to stick to the fucking point, you start by backing off the condescending tone and insults. Attaboy. Ready, steady, GO.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If however you say so not because God is an absolute ruler as such, but because the way He uses that power is oppressive or cruel in your opinion, then you invoke a different kind of equality. For then you say that what you consider as a wrong action for yourself and other humans is also a wrong action for God.
Well, I'm trying to hold God to the things HE claims are good. Call that "equality" if you like. I call it "not being a fucking hypocrite."
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
You may think that I am mistaken, and you can try to show so by using what God Himself said about these things.
Which is of course exactly what I'm doing.
quote:
But your current line of attack simply fails.
For values of "fails" equating "is disagreeable to IngoB," perhaps. An interesting definition, but certainly unusual.
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
In the meantime, is it the general orthodox belief that the lost are tossed into the gaping maw of hell in order to suffer the conscious, unending torments of damnation throughout all eternity?
The Orthodox are all over the map. Belief in punishment in the afterlife is near universal; what form that takes, much less so. One popular but far from universal belief is that the suffering of the damned is their experience of God, who to them is as a burning fire. This is often expressed in a "River of Fire" metaphor.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Taking account of the perversity of players and still having outcomes that meet the desired goal is precisely what game design is.
However, creating not just the game but the perverse players themselves doesn't usually figure into it, and rather tosses the metaphor on its ear.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
When it states in Scripture that God is a God of justice (Isaiah 30:18), that must actually mean something to those to whom it is written.
When the ancient Greeks called the Furies the Kindly Ones this didn't mean that they thought that the Furies were kindly. It meant they were trying to placate them. And frankly that is the only possible explanation for calling God just if anyone is suffering eternal torment in Hell. Of course as we've discovered on previous threads you don't believe in the classical notion of Hell with eternal torment.
quote:
The morally insane ideas of justice that prevail in much of the Christian Church have no relation to how justice operates in real life in civilised societies.
We're in full agreement here In civilised societies we are not barbarians who torture people. We inflict punishment for multiple reasons:
- Deterrance
- Rehabilitation
- Societal Protection
- Retribution
- Restoration
- Education and denunciation
Of those six reasons the infinite nature of hell makes four utterly irrelevant (Rehabilitation? Nope. Retribution? Overkill, so nope. Restoration? Not unless God is a vampire getting his energy from the sufferings of those tormented. Education? Nope). And Societal Protection is also irrelevant due to the nature of hell.
Of the six justifications for punishment, the morally insane notion of hell fails utterly at five. The sixth, the deterrent, it is crap at because it can't be seen before the judgement. So yes, the morally insane views in the Christian church have little resemblance to how we do things in the civilised world.
quote:
If that is what God's justice is like, then I want nothing to do with such a God, because that God is not the true God, but rather Satan masquerading as God. Anyone with any intelligence can see that.
There's something we can agree on Unfortunately it's orthodox Christian doctrine for a lot of churches.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
IngoB, I saw. Knock it off.
/hosting
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
And for other contributors, please remember where Hell is, and what it's for. Especially if you feel provoked.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well, I'm trying to hold God to the things HE claims are good. Call that "equality" if you like. I call it "not being a fucking hypocrite."
Why would you hold God (as God) to human morals? I assume you are not holding your dog to human morals. That dog is a lot more like you than you are like God. God is no hypocrite if He tells you to behave as humans should behave. He made you, as well as the rest of the world, and He wrote the moral law of His choosing onto your heart. Who better to tell you what you should do? He does not have to qualify for that by behaving like a human Himself. I assume that you do not feel that you must bark and mark your territory with pee in order to understand what is good for your dog and command it to your heel where you find that appropriate. And God is in every conceivable sense more your Master than you are the master of your dog. In my opinion you simply have lost your sense of perspective there.
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Funny, but only the other day I was wondering where all the atheists had got to. Nice to see one popping up with a few amusing comments to chuckle at.
To think that you, dear Yorick, talk about dissonance, and then you proceed to assume that we all know what the concept of 'justice' means, as if such an idea has any meaning at all in a world view in which we are all nothing more than slabs of meat. It's almost as clever as Zach's 'foolishness' world view, in which intelligence is not allowed (because God made a mistake creating brains).
Keep up the good work, mate. It cheers me up no end...
Always happy to spread cheer – even to a fellow “slab of meat”
Actually it’s quite sad to see the tortuous mental writhings of those trapped within the bubble of belief.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The idea of eternal torture in Hell is so at odds with the love, mercy and forgiveness as revealed in Christ that I haven't the faintest idea how to reconcile the two. I'm not sure its even possible.
The only way I can see it is to reject the idea of eternal torment in Hell as a human fabrication to instill fear ( and therefore presumably produce obedience)
Such reconciliation it isn’t possible of course and, whilst I agree with the idea that hell is just a particularly vicious tool in the arsenal of those who seek to control others, I would suggest that a better way to resolve the problem is to reject a lot more than just hell.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
If we are completely different and unrecognizable people in the general resurrection there's little point in a general resurrection at all. May as well just be a completely different creation or person.
On your side here - I know I’m a little out-of-date (50 years?) but does no-one ever say the Apostles Creed these days – or has it just been reasoned and explained, apologised and surgically modified into neutral irrelevance?
I suppose you could make the idea of heaven work if you accepted one of the following
Either – those who get in are so dehumanised that they make the Stepford wives seem vibrant, joyful and passionate or
Each occupant has their own little virtual heaven, with their choice of virtual friends/loved ones - and no need for reciprocity. Mind you - Joseph Smith got there first; though in his version you have to be male and have several wives before you can reach godness and be master of your own planet.
Frankly neither option has any appeal for me – though perhaps that’s just making a virtue out of necessity?
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha
An all knowing, all powerful, all loving being creates a situation in which some of those it loves will suffer.
They will suffer because they reject God's love (nothing to do with rejecting religion, by the way). The God of love cannot therefore be blamed for that.
I can't see how love can actually exist and operate within a robotic universe. Can you?
Yes – but this god is supposed to know in advance who will reject him/his love and therefore – if love means anything at all – a loving god would have refrained from putting them in that situation in the first place. See how silly this can get?
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But ordinary suffering is part of life - pain and death are necessary. Evolution was necessary - in order to give choice, not dictatorship.
Why is pain necessary? It’s inevitable the way things are – but I thought christians believed that their god ordered things as he knew best and if his best is that pain is inevitable he’s not very good at ordering is he?
If current thinking based on experimental evidence is right, and it’s very convincing, evolution doesn’t bring choice. Free will as generally understood is a myth, our decisions are made in our subconscious and are inevitable based upon our inherited genetics and our lifetime experiences. Of course - if god knows who will meet the criteria for heaven and who will fail then the question of free will is irrelevant and the whole of life (including pain and death) is an unnecessary sham.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I hardly know any Christians, outside of yahoos shouting on street corners and assorted internet nutters, that believe Hell is much of a threat.
Just as well you didn’t know my late mum then – she once (in her mid forties?) told me that she was quite looking forward to being dead since she’d be able to spend eternity looking down from heaven and seeing all those evil people who had upset her getting fried – and she would have known that “not believing hell to be a threat" would have been enough to ensure you a permanent roasting.
Mind you - I wouldn't mind a quid for every time I've heard/read someone spouting nonsense about how they'd be a mass murderer, rapist etc. etc. if there wasn't a god to scare them in to obeying the rules. But then, I don't suppose you're daft enough to think that being an atheist means an absence of anything that prevents humanity being more than a collection of slabs of meat are you?
Christians - doncha just love 'em?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I assume that you do not feel that you must bark and mark your territory with pee...
I see you have stopped taking this seriously. It's okay, there are still others who have not.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But ordinary suffering is part of life - pain and death are necessary. Evolution was necessary - in order to give choice, not dictatorship.
Why is pain necessary?
Ask those who have conditions which means they can't feel pain - they can't live a normal life as their lack of reaction to pain constantly puts them in danger.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Pain is surely advantageous to animals, although not in the short term! 'Necessary' seems a bit over the top to me. Do bacteria feel pain?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I see you have stopped taking this seriously. It's okay, there are still others who have not.
I am quite serious, and you are apparently quite incapable of answering my point.
It is, of course, possible that you do not understand the very nature of morals, and that hence my point is more opaque to you than it should be. Morals are not some gleaming rules that float in Platonic idea space, to be applied to all things (including God). Morals are behaviour appropriate to an organism which is under its conscious and intelligent control. That's all. Animals lack morals proper, because none of their behaviour is under their conscious and intelligent control. However, it is not particularly difficult to imagine the huge variety of morals that would arise if other animals became sapient. Also you have behaviour that is not normally under your conscious and intelligent control, and hence is not reckoned to you as moral. However, a Yogi who has trained himself to control say his bowel movements thereby becomes morally responsible for its proper function. There is then nothing special about morals, it is merely sapient behaviour in tune with what is appropriate for the particular being.
From that perspective then, and I insist that it is the only rational perspective about morals (and incidentally one well defensible for a non-theist), this whole discussion just instantly falls apart. To claim that God ought to do what I ought to do is as such plain wrong, given that God is a Divine being and I am a human being. It is of course not a priori impossible that two different beings share some morals, but it is certainly impossible to claim a priori that they do so. One has to analyse what these beings are before making any claim about what they ought to do. And in the case of God we deal with a being whom we cannot analyse, much. Obviously then, we have very little to say indeed about what God ought to do.
Or in other words, read Job.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And for other contributors, please remember where Hell is, and what it's for. Especially if you feel provoked.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Good idea.
See you there, quetzlcoatl.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Why would you hold God (as God) to human morals? I assume you are not holding your dog to human morals. That dog is a lot more like you than you are like God.
I do not hold a dog or baby to adult human morals because a dog is not capable of understanding them. On the other hand the morals I try to teach a dog or a baby are ones I myself try to follow, albeit a limited version because I don't believe they can get any further.
That your God is so limited to be incapable of following merely human morals indicates that your God is not worthy of worship and is in no sense other than size and power greater than humans.
quote:
I assume that you do not feel that you must bark and mark your territory with pee in order to understand what is good for your dog and command it to your heel where you find that appropriate.
If I were trying to illustrate how much you are debasing the very nature of morals by the way you follow them and by tying them to your amoral master I couldn't find a better example. Why do dogs mark territory? To communicate. This isn't a moral issue per se.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
That your God is so limited to be incapable of following merely human morals indicates that your God is not worthy of worship and is in no sense other than size and power greater than humans.
Rather, you are not capable of understanding God's ways. It is astonishing human hubris to dictate terms to God based on human ways.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Why do dogs mark territory? To communicate. This isn't a moral issue per se.
Indeed. Read for comprehension. My point was that mousethief does not have to live like a dog himself in order to understand and take care of a dog, not that marking territory is a moral act.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
That your God is so limited to be incapable of following merely human morals indicates that your God is not worthy of worship and is in no sense other than size and power greater than humans.
Rather, you are not capable of understanding God's ways. It is astonishing human hubris to dictate terms to God based on human ways.
In short you worship Cthulu and call it God. A Great and Incomprehensible Old One with vast power who acts in ways that are inimical to humans and you can dismiss any attempts to understand as the attempt to eff the ineffable.
How can you tell the difference between worshipping God and worshipping Satan if you make no attempt to understand them morally?
quote:
Indeed. Read for comprehension. My point was that mousethief does not have to live like a dog himself in order to understand and take care of a dog, not that marking territory is a moral act.
In short your point was irrelevant. I don't say people have to act the same way - but the moral basis is near-universal.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
In short you worship Cthulu and call it God.
This always has been your claim anyhow, no matter what I say. I've never been particularly impressed by it, given that it has nothing to do with how I live my faith. Best I can tell this is basically an involuntary typing reflex on your part.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
A Great and Incomprehensible Old One with vast power who acts in ways that are inimical to humans and you can dismiss any attempts to understand as the attempt to eff the ineffable.
I do not believe that God acts inimical to human beings in general. Indeed, in general He is perfectly benevolent. I merely do not believe that God will always act in a manner pleasing to every human individual, no matter what this individual thinks, says or does. There's a difference between being benevolent and being a sucker, and God is very much not the latter. I'm also being criticised quite regularly for over-effing the ineffable, and the Thomistic tradition that I favour is hardly known for being obscurantist or pessimist about human understanding. However, we simply are limited in what we can say about God's ways, and not accepting that is delusional.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
How can you tell the difference between worshipping God and worshipping Satan if you make no attempt to understand them morally?
I can understand both of them morally as far as they propose behaviour for human beings, because I can and do have insight into the morals appropriate for human beings. I can judge Satan in his behaviour morally, as far as I understand what Satan is as a being. While I may not understand the being of such incorporeal spirits as Satan very much, I understand some. Hence I can for example judge Satan's disobedience to God as morally evil for him. I can also consider God as far as I can understand Him. However, one thing I do understand about God is that His essence is identical with His existence. So if I try to apply moral calculus to that, I would have to say something like "an action is moral for God if it allows God to exist". Since however God exists necessarily, this is true for all possible actions. We could hence say that all actions are morally allowed to God, though I think it is better to consider this as a "reductio ad absurdum": moral calculus simply cannot be applied to God, God is not a moral agent.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
In short your point was irrelevant.
It was perfectly relevant to the point I was making, namely that there is no a priori reason why God must act like a human being.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I don't say people have to act the same way - but the moral basis is near-universal.
Indeed, the basis for human morals is universal. For humans. It is not universal to anything else but humans, because beings that are not humans will have to be judged according to what is appropriate to their being. This is not rocket science. This is not even religious. This is fundamental to natural moral law, which in my opinion is the only coherent and reasonable approach to morals. (And while you may disagree with that judgement, it is of course one of the major branches of moral theory, and hence not so easily dismissed.)
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
In short you worship Cthulu and call it God. A Great and Incomprehensible Old One with vast power who acts in ways that are inimical to humans and you can dismiss any attempts to understand as the attempt to eff the ineffable.
How can you tell the difference between worshipping God and worshipping Satan if you make no attempt to understand them morally?
If you insist on a God that conforms perfectly to your understanding of good, then you are an idolater.
And the difference between Cthulu and God is, of course, Jesus Christ. Cthulu simply does not care about humankind. The good news Jesus proclaims is that God has not rejected humankind, but has become its brother and offers it eternal life.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by Evensong:
The idea of eternal torture in Hell is so at odds with the love, mercy and forgiveness as revealed in Christ that I haven't the faintest idea how to reconcile the two. I'm not sure its even possible.
And yet all the evidence for eternal conscious torment (such as their is) comes primarily from Jesus. Universalism is a possibility. We should pray for the souls of all the departed. We should hope for the salvation of all souls. However, eternal damnation is easily reconcilable with the Jesus actually presented in the gospels.
I'm hearing that you're hoping and praying that eternal torment is not true. Is that the only way you reconcile the love of God presented in Jesus and his speaking of pointless ( no redemption ) and cruel (eternal) torment?
I don't see how it is easily reconcilable at all. How do you do it?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The idea of eternal torture in Hell is so at odds with the love, mercy and forgiveness as revealed in Christ that I haven't the faintest idea how to reconcile the two. I'm not sure its even possible.
The only way I can see it is to reject the idea of eternal torment in Hell as a human fabrication to instill fear ( and therefore presumably produce obedience)
Such reconciliation it isn’t possible of course and, whilst I agree with the idea that hell is just a particularly vicious tool in the arsenal of those who seek to control others, I would suggest that a better way to resolve the problem is to reject a lot more than just hell.
But that's a simplistic and irrational solution when the burden of proof lies the other way.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
In short you worship Cthulu and call it God.
This always has been your claim anyhow, no matter what I say. I've never been particularly impressed by it, given that it has nothing to do with how I live my faith. Best I can tell this is basically an involuntary typing reflex on your part.
Believe it or not I make it to very few people. Merely the ones who claim that God moves in mysterious ways, you can't Eff the Ineffable, and who have a God who behaves in ways that are inimical to humanity.
quote:
Indeed, in general He is perfectly benevolent.
If God were perfectly benevolent hell would not exist. Hell is a place of perfect malevolence, created by and at the will of God. That your God creates, enables, and allows hell proves beyond all possible doubt that He is not perfectly benevolent and that your assertion here is utterly false.
quote:
However, we simply are limited in what we can say about God's ways, and not accepting that is delusional.
And not accepting that arbitrary and gratuitous torture in contravention of almost all the classical justifications for punishment is evil is a complete abdication of moral judgement.
quote:
I can understand both of them morally as far as they propose behaviour for human beings, because I can and do have insight into the morals appropriate for human beings. I can judge Satan in his behaviour morally, as far as I understand what Satan is as a being. While I may not understand the being of such incorporeal spirits as Satan very much, I understand some. Hence I can for example judge Satan's disobedience to God as morally evil for him.
Given the behaviour of your God as a sadistic, torturing tyrant whose kingdom shall have no end that Satan rebelled against God is not a moral strike against him.
quote:
I can also consider God as far as I can understand Him. However, one thing I do understand about God is that His essence is identical with His existence. So if I try to apply moral calculus to that, I would have to say something like "an action is moral for God if it allows God to exist". Since however God exists necessarily, this is true for all possible actions.
In short your God's morality is pure True Scotsman. Anything God can do is "moral".
Your God is therefore perfectly amoral.
quote:
We could hence say that all actions are morally allowed to God,
Even you claim that your God is perfectly amoral.
quote:
moral calculus simply cannot be applied to God, God is not a moral agent.
As you say, your God is perfectly amoral.
quote:
It was perfectly relevant to the point I was making, namely that there is no a priori reason why God must act like a human being.
Which is utterly different from following the moral principles a human being tries to follow.
quote:
Indeed, the basis for human morals is universal. For humans. It is not universal to anything else but humans, because beings that are not humans will have to be judged according to what is appropriate to their being. This is not rocket science. This is not even religious.
And yet the principles, such as those of the Golden Rule, are universal. The scope to act is different as is the knowledge of the actions. But the principles can be applied across fields.
quote:
This is fundamental to natural moral law, which in my opinion is the only coherent and reasonable approach to morals.
Of course natural moral law indicates that things such as the Golden Rule and reciprocity are common. Torturing of the inferior as your God does with hell provides no benefit and so is in violation of natural moral law.
quote:
(And while you may disagree with that judgement, it is of course one of the major branches of moral theory, and hence not so easily dismissed.)
At this point arguing about natural moral law and how not worrying about population balance almost inevitably leads to disaster, and that openness to procreation is not inherent in human sexuality, thus demonstrating that Roman Catholic doctrine's adherance to natural moral law is a matter of post-hoc justification is a complete derail into the territory of Dead Horses.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
In short you worship Cthulu and call it God. A Great and Incomprehensible Old One with vast power who acts in ways that are inimical to humans and you can dismiss any attempts to understand as the attempt to eff the ineffable.
How can you tell the difference between worshipping God and worshipping Satan if you make no attempt to understand them morally?
If you insist on a God that conforms perfectly to your understanding of good, then you are an idolater.
You assume that just because I have some understanding of the difference between good and evil I assume that some other being must match every point of my tentative assumptions. Rather than that some actions (child rape, eternal torture, genocide) scream out that they are utterly evil.
If I have any understanding of the difference between Good and Evil then eternal torture is wrong. If I don't then all the moral teachings are for naught. This doesn't mean I think that God would have to agree with me about everything (as your charge of Idolatory would indicate).
quote:
And the difference between Cthulu and God is, of course, Jesus Christ. Cthulu simply does not care about humankind. The good news Jesus proclaims is that God has not rejected humankind, but has become its brother and offers it eternal life.
That fraction that God doesn't torture unmercifully anyway. The so-called Good News is that the sufferings of the damned are compounded by being able to see that in God's arbitrary nature (unless you believe in e.g. the Sinner's Prayer being a get out of jail free card) some people are spared torture at the whim of God.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
You assume that just because I have some understanding of the difference between good and evil I assume that some other being must match every point of my tentative assumptions. Rather than that some actions (child rape, eternal torture, genocide) scream out that they are utterly evil.
If I have any understanding of the difference between Good and Evil then eternal torture is wrong. If I don't then all the moral teachings are for naught. This doesn't mean I think that God would have to agree with me about everything (as your charge of Idolatory would indicate).
Not forcing God to bow down to your understanding of good and evil actually means that God is free to do what you would consider quite evil, but still be judged good for it.
quote:
That fraction that God doesn't torture unmercifully anyway. The so-called Good News is that the sufferings of the damned are compounded by being able to see that in God's arbitrary nature (unless you believe in e.g. the Sinner's Prayer being a get out of jail free card) some people are spared torture at the whim of God.
If the God of the Bible isn't up to your standards, then you don't have to worship him. If you want a God that is truly good, all you need is a block of wood—"And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god." (Isaiah 44:17)
[ 19. November 2013, 13:12: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Not forcing God to bow down to your understanding of good and evil actually means that God is free to do what you would consider quite evil, but still be judged good for it.
Indeed. And Al Capone was free to be judged non-corrupt if he bribed the right jury. God is free to be judged good for it by people who don't see that being a torturing scumbag is wrong. And this rather than hell itself is my problem with the doctrine of Hell. It destroys the moral discernment of people. It means that the response that people have is to kowtow to the greater power even when they are doing things that are more evil than Satan could hope to do.
quote:
If the God of the Bible isn't up to your standards, then you don't have to worship him.
I don't. I also fear the people who do worship something that obviously evil.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
It seems to me that even a cursory knowledge of human history shows that humankind has no place judging God.
Or, more along your reasoning, the God that is not filled with wrath at the course of human history can only be an idol.
quote:
I don't. I also fear the people who do worship something that obviously evil.
Indeed. From the very beginning Christians have been suspected of hating humankind.
[ 19. November 2013, 13:46: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It seems to me that even a cursory knowledge of human history shows that humankind has no place judging God.
Given that torturing people for eternity is infinitely worse not just than anything that humans have done but that humans can do then this argument becomes "A cursory knowledge of human history shows that we are a fucked up species - and still a lot less fucked up than God, despite God being presented as good."
quote:
Or, more along your reasoning, the God that is not filled with wrath at the course of human history can only be an idol.
Which is why God has become worse than any human? The God you present has a good reason to be angry. And to then inflict far worse than the things God is getting angry for (a common human pattern). Eternal Hell is beyond the reach of humans - we can't ever be monsters to that degree. And this, more than anything, should underline just how bad your God is.
To use an analogy hell is the equivalent of God being upset that two kids are having a scrap so turning a flamethrower on both of them.
[ 19. November 2013, 13:56: Message edited by: Justinian ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
But, as I said, Jesus Christ.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
To use an analogy hell is the equivalent of God being upset that two kids are having a scrap so turning a flamethrower on both of them.
Or to use a rather more accurate analogy: hell is the equivalent of God trying to break up a fight between two kids, and trying to calm them down and bring peace and love into the situation, but the kids won't have it. They continue to curse each other, spewing forth venom, and the pair of them are raging with hatred, both towards each other and towards God. The 'fire' of their rage and venom is hell, an experience that exists in spite of and resistant to God's involvement.
I must admit that I do find it rather curious why God should get the blame in such a situation. Maybe some kind soul will explain it to me some day...
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
To use an analogy hell is the equivalent of God being upset that two kids are having a scrap so turning a flamethrower on both of them.
Or to use a rather more accurate analogy: hell is the equivalent of God trying to break up a fight between two kids, and trying to calm them down and bring peace and love into the situation, but the kids won't have it. They continue to curse each other, spewing forth venom, and the pair of them are raging with hatred, both towards each other and towards God. The 'fire' of their rage and venom is hell, an experience that exists in spite of and resistant to God's involvement.
Yes - but they are still just kids. As we are only human.
In this world I understand resistance to God's love.
But in the next? I can't see it. The kids will forget each others faults and simply marvel at God's love and provision.
Just the occasional person won't be able to, ever. imo. It's those people that we don't know what will happen to imo.
I keep saying 'imo' because nobody will ever know until such time as they can't come back and tell us.
I live in hope that God exists and that S/he isn't anything like IngoB's God. But if S/he is as bad as that then I'll burn in hell with the rest of them. Maybe it's like itching, and you can train your brain to ignore it eventually?
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie
Yes - but they are still just kids.
The analogy will work just as well if adults are fighting.
quote:
In this world I understand resistance to God's love.
But in the next? I can't see it. The kids will forget each others faults and simply marvel at God's love and provision.
How do you know that?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
If God were perfectly benevolent hell would not exist. Hell is a place of perfect malevolence, created by and at the will of God. That your God creates, enables, and allows hell proves beyond all possible doubt that He is not perfectly benevolent and that your assertion here is utterly false.
If I tell you "Don't walk off that cliff. You will fall and die. Here, follow that guide whom I have hired for you to avoid the fall" and you then push away the guide, walk off that cliff, fall and die - was I lacking benevolence? Of course, in analogy to our case you could complain that the cliff is only there because I blasted it into the rock myself. So the opportunity to walk off the cliff only exists because of me. But is that malevolence? Only if it is my intention to see you fall off the cliff. In which case it would be odd that I warn you about doing so and provide you with a guide. But what if instead I have some other motive? Let's say I want to deal only with people who are smart enough to not walk off cliffs (and listen to guides), because I cannot suffer fools. I would not say that that is "malevolent" as such. If you want a negative adjective, then it is perhaps "ruthless". But then you find out that I had a dozen nets installed below the cliff, which catch those that fall, and ladders so that they can climb back up. Only if they drop themselves out of those nets again, and again, and again ... then eventually they will drop out of the lowest one and indeed hit the ground too hard. So is that still "ruthless" on my part? Not really... I would say it is more "challenging". There is then a limit to how incredibly stupid you can be and still survive meeting me. That's what I think God is. Not malevolent. Not ruthless. But challenging.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And not accepting that arbitrary and gratuitous torture in contravention of almost all the classical justifications for punishment is evil is a complete abdication of moral judgement.
The torture is neither arbitrary nor gratuitous. If you want to spin all this in terms of conventional "crime - punishment" justice, then that is of course well possible. Because the gravity of evil is classically not only calculated by the crime, but also by the status of the victim. In our democratic times this has largely disappeared, but we may still remember "lèse-majesté". Thus finite human sins are in fact infinitely evil, because they are an offence to a God of infinite dignity. It is thus entirely defensible to punish them infinitely, which for finite beings means eternally.
Of course, personally I also prefer other ways of looking at this. I really think of God more like a cliff, and of His demands on us more like gravity. This world is a bit like the cartoons, where walking off a cliff flattens one into a pancake, but one can pop back into shape (and as cartoons go, likely do it all again). But death is then the end of the cartoon world, where it all becomes very real. At which point one should better stand on the right side off the cliff to avoid the inevitable. The "problem" is precisely that God has destined us to share His eternity. But God is unchanging and all holy, so once we get "eternalized" at death, His holiness becomes either our bliss or our doom. God is not benevolent toward evil, but wrathful, and if we end up "eternalizing" evil then we will encounter His unchanging wrath.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Given the behaviour of your God as a sadistic, torturing tyrant whose kingdom shall have no end that Satan rebelled against God is not a moral strike against him.
You do get to choose your company.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Your God is therefore perfectly amoral.
In the sense of non-moral, yes. God is not subject to moral calculus. Asking whether something God did was "moral" is like asking for the result of 0/0.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Which is utterly different from following the moral principles a human being tries to follow.
Rather, it is amazing just how much we can understand and appreciate of God's actions.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And yet the principles, such as those of the Golden Rule, are universal.
One can possibly argue that the Golden Rule holds among all beings of a specific nature, though even that may not be trivial. (Would there be one Golden Rule among sapient bees? Or would one have to make Golden Rules for queens, drones and worker bees separately?) However, between beings of different nature a Golden Rule would only work as far the natures overlap sufficiently to even allow the consideration of reciprocity. I can argue that it would immoral for an angel to drop a stone on my head, but I cannot do so on account of the Golden Rule, since it is impossible to drop a stone on the head of angel (as they are incorporeal spirits). Finally, considering God we are not even talking about a moral agent. Thus any such approach necessarily falls apart.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Torturing of the inferior as your God does with hell provides no benefit and so is in violation of natural moral law.
Purported calculations of benefit mostly belong into the realm of utilitarian morals, not natural morals. At any rate, moral calculus does not apply to God, so the discussion is basically pointless.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
At this point arguing about natural moral law and how not worrying about population balance almost inevitably leads to disaster, and that openness to procreation is not inherent in human sexuality, thus demonstrating that Roman Catholic doctrine's adherance to natural moral law is a matter of post-hoc justification is a complete derail into the territory of Dead Horses.
Uhh, yes. So why do you attempt to derail this thread into DH territory then by mentioning all this for the first time?
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I must admit that I do find it rather curious why God should get the blame in such a situation. Maybe some kind soul will explain it to me some day...
Because most people do not use your ideosyncratic definition of hell. They use the classical permanent one which God is a judge and hell is eternal. You've redefined the words and wonder why people treat them using the normal meanings.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If I tell you "Don't walk off that cliff. You will fall and die. Here, follow that guide whom I have hired for you to avoid the fall" and you then push away the guide, walk off that cliff, fall and die - was I lacking benevolence?
If by cliff you mean "Dungeon that makes the Tomb of Horrors or the Temple of Doom look kind" and by "guide" you mean either "Palestinian who died almost 2000 years ago" or "Church headquartered in a temple paid for by simony" then yes that there is a deathtrap dungeon there is your own fault.
Also you are, as normal, whitewashing the subject of Hell. It is not death. It is infinitely worse than that. It is living for ever in eternal torment.
quote:
But is that malevolence? Only if it is my intention to see you fall off the cliff.
"I created the torture devices and ensured they were in full working order but I didn't want to see any of them actually used." Seriously? You've set up a system that would make Jigsaw from Saw drool and it's not something you want to see used.
quote:
But what if instead I have some other motive?
After you have created the torture devices and ensured that they will be in full working order to torture people eternally literally the only motive you have that makes sense with you not wanting people tortured eternally is that you sent the guide to atone. You made the torture devices and now you realised you made a horrible mistake.
quote:
Let's say I want to deal only with people who are smart enough to not walk off cliffs (and listen to guides), because I cannot suffer fools. I would not say that that is "malevolent" as such.=
Possibly not. But you are obviously sweeping what happens to those in hell under the rug.
If you perch at the top of a mountain and let it turn back people because you don't want to suffer fools you aren't malevolent. This corresponds to hell being empty and everyone being in purgatory (or reincarnation).
If on the other hand you perch at the top of a mountain and then have gangs of thugs going round to torture people then you are malevolent. It doesn't matter that you are perched at the top of the mountain. What matters is that you are having people tortured. Which is the critical part of the situation and that part that your analogies are attempting to distract from.
quote:
Because the gravity of evil is classically not only calculated by the crime, but also by the status of the victim. In our democratic times this has largely disappeared, but we may still remember "lèse-majesté". Thus finite human sins are in fact infinitely evil, because they are an offence to a God of infinite dignity.
That is because it was set up by people with arbitrary authority who didn't want it questioned because they knew it was built on nothing much. And didn't want the curtain being looked behind.
To use an analogy, a truly dignified person would be dignified by manner and bearing if you sprayed them with a silage shredder. On the other hand if your dignity is as foundless as that of the Emperor in The Emperor's New Clothes then one snigger and your dignity is finished for good.
Your God, of course, has less inherent dignity than the Emperor. Either that or offences against your God's dignity can not actually affect it.
And in modern theories of punishment you also calculate involving the status of the victim. Stealing a loaf of cheap bread from a starving man is far, far worse than stealing three loaves of granary bread from a rich person.
quote:
It is thus entirely defensible to punish them infinitely, which for finite beings means eternally.
It is thus entirely indefensible to do so and we've discarded those theories as being deliberately set up to support the powerful.
If you want to claim that a feudal system is the highest ideal then do so. But the rest of the world has moved on for very good reasons. And in the moving on we've rejected the grounds to your claim as indefensible.
quote:
In the sense of non-moral, yes. God is not subject to moral calculus. Asking whether something God did was "moral" is like asking for the result of 0/0.
There's a reason Nietzche is classed with Christian philosophers a lot of the time.
quote:
I can argue that it would immoral for an angel to drop a stone on my head, but I cannot do so on account of the Golden Rule, since it is impossible to drop a stone on the head of angel (as they are incorporeal spirits).
I thought the SMBC parody was meant to be a critique of misunderstandings, not an ideal.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie
Yes - but they are still just kids.
The analogy will work just as well if adults are fighting.
quote:
In this world I understand resistance to God's love.
But in the next? I can't see it. The kids will forget each others faults and simply marvel at God's love and provision.
How do you know that?
I don't know that. None of us 'knows'. All any of us have is hope when it comes to eternity.
I should have said "I think the 'kids' will forget each others faults and simply marvel at God's love and provision."
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." MLK.
If one of my children were to be in Hell, I would find a way to commit suicide in Heaven.
I mean how can we interpret Love to be that way?
It's just words guys. Words. Not from some flat, linear, dip in anywhere and it's all the same cook book. The thousand year HUMAN response to Love we call the Bible has an evolutionary trajectory.
Back to, the ascent to, Love. Of which justice, perfect justice, is a facet. Perfect justice includes complete restitution. For ALL. Before any judgement and makes judgement irrelevant, meaningless. By forgiveness. Mercy. Understanding. In everyone walking for as long as it takes.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Also you are, as normal, whitewashing the subject of Hell. It is not death. It is infinitely worse than that. It is living for ever in eternal torment.
I'm not whitewashing anything here, and I never have. You will not get from me apologetic nonsense about Jesus preaching ferociously about an empty hell, or weasel words to the effect that people fry in the very love of God. I was simply making an analogy to this world, which does not contain eternal torment. If you wish, you can replace the cliff by a meat grinder, or whatever. The only problem is that you do need some way of full recovery (nets & ladders in my case, i.e., sacrament of reconciliation), which is somewhat difficult with an analogy that mutilates people.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
"I created the torture devices and ensured they were in full working order but I didn't want to see any of them actually used."
Obviously there is an underlying intention to select here. God of course intends that evildoers experience His wrath in hell, otherwise there wouldn't be one. But I can select for people that are smart enough and yet sincerely wish that everybody will be. I may know that this is not going to be the case, yet still honestly hope for absolutely every individual that they are not so stupid as to repeatedly throw themselves off the cliff until they die. Likewise for God.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
What matters is that you are having people tortured. Which is the critical part of the situation and that part that your analogies are attempting to distract from.
I have no particular problem with saying that God tortures the wicked eternally. Clearly I'm saying just that when I say that there will be eternal hell for the wicked. I have a problem with you considering that on the same terms as a court case against a human torturer in this world multiplied by infinity. Because that simply is not appropriate. This is not a human-human interaction, there is no easy reference to laws and rights available, and eternity is not an infinitely long time. You have to work out this case for what it is, you cannot simplistically extrapolate from human experience here.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
That is because it was set up by people with arbitrary authority who didn't want it questioned because they knew it was built on nothing much.
All your blather about this is quite besides the point. The question was whether conventional "crime and punishment" justice can reasonably accommodate an eternal hell sentence. The answer is that yes, it certainly can. You may not like the particular (historically very common...) way of evaluating crimes that allows this, but it is neither irrational nor was it constructed just to make hell work. Thus the charge of unjust punishment simply fails in general. If it fails in the kind of evaluation system that you prefer, then I can simply reject that system. Value preferences like that are essentially impossible to resolve by argument, hence that's the end of that discussion. All we can say here is that most moderns would agree with your evaluation, which I however do not consider as a hallmark of truth.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And in modern theories of punishment you also calculate involving the status of the victim. Stealing a loaf of cheap bread from a starving man is far, far worse than stealing three loaves of granary bread from a rich person.
That's not really the same kind of status, that's more a consideration of circumstance. If at all, you might consider our extra rage at crimes against "innocent children" to be along the right lines here.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
It is thus entirely indefensible to do so and we've discarded those theories as being deliberately set up to support the powerful.
It is a matter of fact that these theories have been largely rejected in our societies. And probably the "democratisation" of our societies played a big role in that. Beyond that not much can be said.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
If you want to claim that a feudal system is the highest ideal then do so. But the rest of the world has moved on for very good reasons. And in the moving on we've rejected the grounds to your claim as indefensible.
There is no necessary connection here to a "feudal system". As long as there is some social differentiation, such systems can be applied. For example, a High Court Judge certainly is treated differently in many ways to a plumber also in our societies. To what extent this influences the application of the law as well is hence simply a specific choice we make.
Anyway, enough of this. It is not the way in which I think about these things usually. It just is a possible way. You cannot reasonably argue that it is impossible to think this way, and that is enough.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
II thought the SMBC parody was meant to be a critique of misunderstandings, not an ideal.
It is a critique of a misunderstanding, namely precisely of your misunderstanding here, since you are attempting to apply the Golden Rule outside of its "natural" range of applicability.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by Evensong:
The idea of eternal torture in Hell is so at odds with the love, mercy and forgiveness as revealed in Christ that I haven't the faintest idea how to reconcile the two. I'm not sure its even possible.
And yet all the evidence for eternal conscious torment (such as their is) comes primarily from Jesus. Universalism is a possibility. We should pray for the souls of all the departed. We should hope for the salvation of all souls. However, eternal damnation is easily reconcilable with the Jesus actually presented in the gospels.
I'm hearing that you're hoping and praying that eternal torment is not true. Is that the only way you reconcile the love of God presented in Jesus and his speaking of pointless ( no redemption ) and cruel (eternal) torment?
I don't see how it is easily reconcilable at all. How do you do it?
All we know about Jesus comes from the Gospels. Most of the biblical support for eternal and conscience torment comes from the Gospels. Therefore, the idea of eternal conscience torment must be reconciled with the Jesus presented in the Gospel.
Personally, I believe more in purgatory, annihilation, or a combination of both than I do in eternal conscience torment. I also hope and pray not just for all souls to be saved from eternal conscience torment but saved from annihilation as well. However, God's greatest revelation of Godself is through the Incarnation. The Incarnation itself is love beyond measure. If we cannot truly accept God's love after the Incarnation, then maybe we are incapable of accepting God's love period. God being God does not have to abide by our human notions of justice, fairness, love, or anything else. So, subjecting those who reject God to eternal conscience punishment is God's prerogative simply because God is God.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
IngoB: If I tell you "Don't walk off that cliff. You will fall and die. Here, follow that guide whom I have hired for you to avoid the fall" and you then push away the guide, walk off that cliff, fall and die - was I lacking benevolence? Of course, in analogy to our case you could complain that the cliff is only there because I blasted it into the rock myself. So the opportunity to walk off the cliff only exists because of me. But is that malevolence? Only if it is my intention to see you fall off the cliff. In which case it would be odd that I warn you about doing so and provide you with a guide.
I'm thinking the scenario of a hostage-taker now.
If I tell you "Don't leave this building. If you do, the booby-trap on that door will go off and you will die. Here, follow my accomplice here whom I have hired for you to avoid going through that door" and you then push away my accomplice, walk through the door, the booby-trap goes off and you die - was I lacking benevolence? Of course, in analogy to our case you could complain that the booby-trap is only there because I put it on the door myself. So the opportunity to be blasted by it only exists because of me. But is that malevolence? Only if it is my intention to see you blasted to pieces. In which case it would be odd that I warn you about going through the door and provide you with someone to keep you away from it.
[ 19. November 2013, 23:15: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm not whitewashing anything here, and I never have. You will not get from me apologetic nonsense about Jesus preaching ferociously about an empty hell, or weasel words to the effect that people fry in the very love of God. I was simply making an analogy to this world, which does not contain eternal torment. If you wish, you can replace the cliff by a meat grinder, or whatever. The only problem is that you do need some way of full recovery (nets & ladders in my case, i.e., sacrament of reconciliation), which is somewhat difficult with an analogy that mutilates people.
It is no harder with an analogy that mutilates people than one that kills people. Your God gratuitously tortures people through a mechanism set up to torture people and whose only purpose is torturing people. And all your analogies that do not squarely face this point are distractions.
Also your analogy does not take into account the ongoing nature of the tortures inflicted by God. How the joy of the saints comes against the backdrop of the sufferings of the damned - something that Tertulian and Aquinas both claim enhances the experience of heaven and anyone with functional moral sensibilities see as ensuring that it is impossible for truly good people to abide in heaven.
quote:
Obviously there is an underlying intention to select here.
There is an underlying intention to do two things. The first is to select. But the mere fact of selection does not make necessary treatment (eternal torment) that makes the experiences in the Nazi death camps look like a childrens' picnic. Selection is selection. What God does with those God selects to not go to heaven is the issue here.
quote:
But I can select for people that are smart enough and yet sincerely wish that everybody will be.
This is true. But when you select for people who are smart enough you do not then round up the people who failed your selection criteria, lock them in cages, and poke them with cattleprods for a few days. And it is this last that God does.
quote:
I have no particular problem with saying that God tortures the wicked eternally. Clearly I'm saying just that when I say that there will be eternal hell for the wicked. I have a problem with you considering that on the same terms as a court case against a human torturer in this world multiplied by infinity. Because that simply is not appropriate.
Indeed. It is not appropriate. God can not give even the Nuremberg Defence. We aren't merely at Aleph Null of evil here.
quote:
This is not a human-human interaction, there is no easy reference to laws and rights available,
So the only reason torture is wrong is that it is against the law? Right.
quote:
and eternity is not an infinitely long time.[/qb]
Um... yes it is.
quote:
You have to work out this case for what it is, you cannot simplistically extrapolate from human experience here.
You can't simplistically extrapolate from human experience. But you can extrapolate from human experience to determine bounds. In the case of eternal torment, you can extrapolate from human experience to determine how evil it is at a minimum. You can't then do the transfinite mathematics to go beyond that.
quote:
All your blather about this is quite besides the point. The question was whether conventional "crime and punishment" justice can reasonably accommodate an eternal hell sentence.
And the answer is no. Because conventional crime and punishment can not accomodate infinites. It is also no because you are not using conventional crime and punishment. You are using outmoded and debunked notions that are in this day and age about as conventional as the idea that a slave can only give evidence under torture. Your attempts to find any justification at all for the behaviour of your God are ... interesting.
quote:
If at all, you might consider our extra rage at crimes against "innocent children" to be along the right lines here.
So God can't look after himself and is the most defenceless being imaginable. All notions of omnipotence or majesty are bunk.
Right. Now we've established that you will use the justification that is the complete opposite of your last one (there's little less majestic than a baby and that's why we object) which one can we throw out?
quote:
Anyway, enough of this. It is not the way in which I think about these things usually. It just is a possible way. You cannot reasonably argue that it is impossible to think this way, and that is enough.
If we're talking about possible ways to think, it is possible to think that the earth is flat. It is possible to think that the moon is made of green cheese. It is possible to think that you are Julius Caesar. It is possible to think just about anything.
quote:
It is a critique of a misunderstanding, namely precisely of your misunderstanding here, since you are attempting to apply the Golden Rule outside of its "natural" range of applicability.
Nope. Treating others as you would have them treat you involves working out what would help them. Because you'd want them to do the same to you.
And going back to the natural law issue, if Roman Catholic moral teaching is (as you hold) based on natural law rather than as I hold uses natural law as an ex-post-facto justification for people for whom Holy Tradition is not enough, then it should update itself when our understandings of the natural world change. Given how much of what we understand about the world has been overturned since 1054, when has it done this specifically citing a developing understanding of the natural world?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Justinian:
Your attempts to find any justification at all for the behaviour of your God are ... interesting.
Why would his God need to justify his God's behavior?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by Justinian:
Your attempts to find any justification at all for the behaviour of your God are ... interesting.
Why would his God need to justify his God's behavior?
Read it again. It doesn't say his God is trying to justify his God's behavior. It says HE is trying to justify his God's behavior.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
If God were perfectly benevolent hell would not exist. Hell is a place of perfect malevolence, created by and at the will of God. That your God creates, enables, and allows hell proves beyond all possible doubt that He is not perfectly benevolent and that your assertion here is utterly false.
If I tell you "Don't walk off that cliff. You will fall and die. Here, follow that guide whom I have hired for you to avoid the fall" and you then push away the guide, walk off that cliff, fall and die - was I lacking benevolence? Of course, in analogy to our case you could complain that the cliff is only there because I blasted it into the rock myself. So the opportunity to walk off the cliff only exists because of me. But is that malevolence? Only if it is my intention to see you fall off the cliff. In which case it would be odd that I warn you about doing so and provide you with a guide.
The analogy doesn't work.
You tell me there is a cliff, but I can't see one. Indeed, every rational experience I have tells me that there is no cliff.
I could take the detour you suggest to avoid the "cliff" you tell me is there, but I *can* see rational, tangible, reasons why walking straight ahead is expeditious and in my interests and the interests of those I love.
So yes, creating a cliff edge that I can't see or feel, and tempting me towards it with, say, the sound of my children urgently calling me, and then claiming that I was warned when I fall to my death - that all seems pretty malevolent.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Your God gratuitously tortures people through a mechanism set up to torture people and whose only purpose is torturing people. And all your analogies that do not squarely face this point are distractions.
Rather, you refuse to consider any argument that does not say "God tortures, therefore He is bad", and you think that you can hide your lack of engagement by just repeating "torture, torture, torture, …." over and over again. We are agreed that God tortures (the wicked in hell). We are not agreed that God is bad. That is what the analogies are about. And to call this torture "gratuitous" is nothing but trying to establish the outcome you want prior to the discussion.
Let us establish clearly where we are at. Your attempt to show that hell cannot be understood in terms of human justice unequivocally and definitely fails. I need to state only two things to show this: First, as mentioned, assume justice that considers the status of the victim, and of course assign infinite status to God. Therefore every human sin is an infinite crime against God, deserving infinite punishment by Him. Since human beings are finite, the only way of dishing out infinite punishment is by making it eternal. Second, consider punishment in terms of retributive justice, i.e., the aim is not to "reform" the perpetrator but to punish him in proportion to his deeds. And we are done. This just is a human understanding of the justice of hell. It is also not some construct merely created to justify hell. These are very common conceptions of justice that human beings have used among themselves. Indeed, arguably these are the most common conceptions of justice at least historically, if not still today. The one and only additional assumption I had to introduce was the infinite status of God, and that assumption is certainly entirely coherent and reasonable in terms of the Christian faith, whatever you may think of it.
What I've been doing here with my analogies is to propose a different understanding perhaps more in tune with now more common conceptions of justice (in fact, mostly remaining apart from considerations of justice). But your attempt to shout this down with a "torture" mantra can really only disrupt my discussion. It cannot establish the principle incompatibility of hell with human justice. Because that compatibility is easily established within quite regular human conceptions of justice. And you know of course that you must shut down each and all "escape routes" if you want to topple faith by argument. Well, you cannot possibly do that here, the escape route is right there. That game is over, so how about giving the disruptive rhetoric a rest?
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
How the joy of the saints comes against the backdrop of the sufferings of the damned - something that Tertulian and Aquinas both claim enhances the experience of heaven and anyone with functional moral sensibilities see as ensuring that it is impossible for truly good people to abide in heaven.
What these gentlemen may have said, or not, about that issue may be worth discussing. But it is not official doctrine of the Church (best I know), and it certainly is pointless to discuss until you admit the justice of hell, at least for the sake of argument. Because that is a key assumption they made in saying what they said. So once more this is mere rhetoric: you try to stoke up more sentiment by all means possible in order to "win" the actual discussion on emotions. But you have already won on emotions anyway (at least here in this place), and you have already lost on principle anyway (as pointed out above). This really is a pointless game.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
There is an underlying intention to do two things. The first is to select. But the mere fact of selection does not make necessary treatment (eternal torment) that makes the experiences in the Nazi death camps look like a childrens' picnic.
The necessity of this punishment can be established in terms of human justice, if that floats your boat. See above. I've been trying to discuss ways of understanding this that I find more interesting. Let me know if you are interested in talking about them. Part of those other ways is realising that you are actually making a category mistake here in comparing temporal with eternal experience. Eternal punishment is not temporal punishment infinitely prolonged, because eternity is not an infinite stretch of time. In fact, this is a key question: is hell eternal, or of infinite duration, and what are the experiential consequences of that for (resurrected) human beings?
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
But when you select for people who are smart enough you do not then round up the people who failed your selection criteria, lock them in cages, and poke them with cattleprods for a few days. And it is this last that God does.
Sure, the selection is a judgement with punishment being a possible outcome. A judgement that can be understood by human conceptions of justice, if you wish. See above.
Personally I think the difficulties that arise here come from thinking of God as a Person first, and then retrofitting Divine attributes to that Person. But since we have only experience of human beings, we thereby create a super-human in our minds, and when we then retrofit Divine features onto that super-human we soon run into trouble. I think of Divine attributes first, like changelessness, and retrofit Personhood. Obviously that has its own problems, but more in terms of connecting theology with religious practice. Basically, if you start with the Divine attributes, then talking about the justice of hell is really a lot like talking about the justice of falling to your death. Sure you can blame gravity for that, because gravity is the cause of it, but that nevertheless is a bit daft. Our reaction is more "tragic, but he really should have watched his step." Obviously Personal responsibility of God is introduced when I retrofit Personhood. But if we come from that angle we can just see, I believe, that we are mixing questions of what it means to be a person with questions of justice. There are real issues with coherence there, but they are not necessarily in the realm of justice. At least in part we may well be incoherent in how we think of the Personhood of God.
To put it simply, I think the Incarnation is of the structure A -> B. But much of modern Christianity has then inverted that to conclude A <- B. That is to say, Jesus Christ is projected back onto the Godhead in a logically illicit manner. But God is decidedly not human, indeed not even any kind of creature. There are necessarily severe limits to how much we can read God as God out of God as human. Rather, we can read human as human ought to be out of God as human. And these are very much different things.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Um... yes it is.
No, eternity is not a infinitely long time in Christian understanding (well, in traditional Christian understanding - you can find any sort of teaching if you consider all that calls itself Christian, of course). It is more the opposite of time, really, insofar as it rejects both the successive movement of "one after the other" and the limited reach of the "now". If you can imagine a now that unchangeably comprises all, then you get a taste of eternity.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And the answer is no. Because conventional crime and punishment can not accomodate infinites. It is also no because you are not using conventional crime and punishment.
It certainly can accommodate infinities, since the primary concept of retributive justice is proportionality without any reference to "size". And I have used entirely conventional concepts of justice. Perhaps you are right in saying that the concepts of justice now employed in our societies do not allow a description of hell as just. So what? The only argument I have to fear is one of principle incompatibility with human conceptions of justice, and this argument fails, as demonstrated conclusively. It simply is a different discussion whether it should worry us or not that the justice we now follow in our societies is not up to this job. I can for example just say "horses for courses" and be done with that.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Now we've established that you will use the justification that is the complete opposite of your last one (there's little less majestic than a baby and that's why we object) which one can we throw out?
We are particularly upset about an attack on young children because of their innocence, i.e., because they are necessarily free of all reasonable blame for whatever is done to them. In a similar way, the infinite status of God can be considered as deriving from His infinite holiness. God cannot be blamed for the sins against Him, all evil is imposed on Him by us not caused by Him. I was simply pointing out the similarities of such sentiments.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
It is possible to think just about anything.
Indeed. But it is possible to think the justice of hell in terms of quite conventional and common conceptions of justice. Therefore the rhetorical appeal that this is "unthinkable" fails.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Treating others as you would have them treat you involves working out what would help them. Because you'd want them to do the same to you.
I think you are overextending. I think it would really help you to run around in sackcloth and ashes, to urge you to find faith in Christ. It would really help me if you gave me all your money, so that I can buy more books to deepen my faith in Christ. Clearly then, you donning sackcloth and ashes and giving me all your money is an application of the Golden Rule. Well no, it isn't. The power of the Golden Rule resides precisely in not allowing speculations about what might be good for the other, but rather in insisting on sticking to the immediate concerns that one has oneself. It is a "cut the bullshit" rule, and has power as that. It also has limitations as that, and cannot serve as the sole principle of moral behaviour.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And going back to the natural law issue, if Roman Catholic moral teaching is (as you hold) based on natural law rather than as I hold uses natural law as an ex-post-facto justification for people for whom Holy Tradition is not enough, then it should update itself when our understandings of the natural world change. Given how much of what we understand about the world has been overturned since 1054, when has it done this specifically citing a developing understanding of the natural world?
The "nature" of "natural moral law" is not the "nature" of "modern natural science" - one is about the essence of things, the other about their physical features and relationships. We do not need quantum physics to determine that murder is illicit. It is a different kind of analysis, and progress in modern natural science offers few relevant insights to it. Mostly progress in the modern natural sciences throws up new cases that have to be dealt with, like in vitro fertilisation. It is actually cultural developments that are more significant for our ability to discover and understand natural moral law. If you were transported back to ancient Egypt, for example, then I doubt that your struggles with the morality that you encounter would have much to do with their primitive technology and science.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
Reading through this thread, I'm getting an image of someone under torture, for whom it's eventually too much, and who cries out, "I'll say anything you want. Just please make it stop."
And the voice of God whispers in their ear, "But that's not enough. You have to love me." - as he fires up the electrodes one more time.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Reading through this thread, I'm getting an image of someone under torture, for whom it's eventually too much, and who cries out, "I'll say anything you want. Just please make it stop." And the voice of God whispers in their ear, "But that's not enough. You have to love me." - as he fires up the electrodes one more time.
This is precisely the key misunderstanding I keep going on about: to turn the eternity of the next world into a time-bound scenario in this world, and to turn God into a human being. If nothing else, this completely fails to take into account that there actually is this time-bound world. If the above was anywhere near the truth, then what exactly are we doing here? Clearly we could just take care of all this torturing business in the next world directly.
As for what God actually demands of us, let's not forget that the Church provides absolution for our sins through confessions motivated by "imperfect contrition" (or "attrition"). That is, motivated by the mere selfish desire to save ourselves and not by any love of God. So the above is not only deeply mistaken about the next world and God, but also entirely unjust in the sort of attitude it projects onto God and the Church.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
First, as mentioned, assume justice that considers the status of the victim, and of course assign infinite status to God. Therefore every human sin is an infinite crime against God, deserving infinite punishment by Him. Since human beings are finite, the only way of dishing out infinite punishment is by making it eternal.
That's about as shitty as it gets. I hurt my husband and he, being merely human, is able, eventually to forgive me. God, being God, and "infinite", isn't? and those are just the rules? he's so much more "God" than us that anything we do has to be punished as if it were an infinite number of times worse than it actually is?
You'd think he could be a bit... *bigger* about it.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
That's about as shitty as it gets. I hurt my husband and he, being merely human, is able, eventually to forgive me. God, being God, and "infinite", isn't? and those are just the rules? he's so much more "God" than us that anything we do has to be punished as if it were an infinite number of times worse than it actually is?
You'd think he could be a bit... *bigger* about it.
Indeed. When God is portrayed in these terms, I sometimes think it can't be much fun being God, going around being infinitely offended all the time.
And IngoB, you don't get out of this one by dodging behind the old eternity/temporality thing. I don't care whether Hell is a lot of pain for ever and ever, or infinite pain for no time at all, like some bizarre divine Dirac delta function - it still bloody hurts.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Reading through this thread, I'm getting an image of someone under torture, for whom it's eventually too much, and who cries out, "I'll say anything you want. Just please make it stop."
And the voice of God whispers in their ear, "But that's not enough. You have to love me." - as he fires up the electrodes one more time.
I think we can turn this on its head. It's not about saying what God wants, it's about saying what we want.
It's full exposure to God's love that's torturing a soul who is conscious that he or she did not respond to it, and not only did that mean neglecting to love God and other people, it meant causing others harm. Forgiveness was on offer. Is it still on offer?
If we want it to stop, but do not want forgiveness and the opportunity of heaven, annihilation may be an option offered in love.
Irresistible love and forgiveness without repentance to all universally on death would surely remove the free will option at that point, and remove accountability.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
You tell me there is a cliff, but I can't see one. Indeed, every rational experience I have tells me that there is no cliff.
That is, of course, bullshit. The very fact that you are participating in this discussion shows your awareness of the cliff.
However, let's be clear: a mortal sin (one that potentially lands you in hell) does not merely require grave matter, but also full knowledge and deliberate consent.
Thus if you really do not know much about the cliff, or step off it accidentally, gravity is suspended and you will not fall but walk on air, hopefully meandering back to more solid ground.
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I could take the detour you suggest to avoid the "cliff" you tell me is there, but I *can* see rational, tangible, reasons why walking straight ahead is expeditious and in my interests and the interests of those I love.
I'm sorry, committing mortal sins is in the interests of you and your loved ones how?
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
So yes, creating a cliff edge that I can't see or feel, and tempting me towards it with, say, the sound of my children urgently calling me, and then claiming that I was warned when I fall to my death - that all seems pretty malevolent.
Obviously you can turn any scenario into a malevolent one by adding malevolent features to it. Since however this destroys the analogy in question, nothing follows.
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
That's about as shitty as it gets. I hurt my husband and he, being merely human, is able, eventually to forgive me. God, being God, and "infinite", isn't? and those are just the rules? he's so much more "God" than us that anything we do has to be punished as if it were an infinite number of times worse than it actually is? You'd think he could be a bit... *bigger* about it.
First, if you are not satisfied with the "infinite guilt" explanation, welcome to the club. I do not think that this is the best way of addressing the issues. However, it is a way, and since it is not obviously irrational or immoral it does provide us with the space to think about other ways. We are not under pressure to find any explanation at all, as for example Justinian tries to insinuate, we already have at least one. We are merely now trying to improve on it.
The key words in your complaint above are "as if it were." Remove them, and your complaint falls apart. But these words are simply an expression of your modern attitude that rejects considerations of status, they cannot be argued from first principles. So this complaint provides motivation to seek for other explanations, as I do, but it provides no conclusive argument against hell.
Second, God of course is willing to forgive you any sin and instantly, if you are merely willing to acknowledge it and repent of it. Unless your husband is a perfect saint, God is hence certainly "bigger" than him. But this world, in which both your husband and God forgive you, has an end - or more likely, you will have an end in it (before it ends). Death is not merely a brief pause between two otherwise basically identical lives. It is the gate to something quite different. You hence cannot simply extrapolate from this live to the next.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Rather, you refuse to consider any argument that does not say "God tortures, therefore He is bad", and you think that you can hide your lack of engagement by just repeating "torture, torture, torture, …." over and over again.
You mean that you refuse to entertain any argument that could possibly lead to God being bad.
quote:
We are agreed that God tortures (the wicked in hell). We are not agreed that God is bad.
My argument:
God Tortures in your conception. Torture is bad. Therefore God does that which is bad.
The conclusion follows directly and inexorably from the premises. Literally the only counter-argument that can be made if you accept premise 1 is the argument you are failing to make. To attack premise 2. You are twisting and turning to avoid facing that you must somehow defend the notion that torture is not bad.
quote:
That is what the analogies are about.
The analogies you are offering are all nothing but a distraction from the actual problem. None of them engage with either premise.
The syllogism is that God tortures. Torture is bad. Therefore God does that which is bad.
Unless your argument engages directly with either "God tortures" or "Torture is bad" it is irrelevant. All your safety nets are nothing but distractions saying that "God only tortures a few people." So what? God still tortures.
quote:
Let us establish clearly where we are at. Your attempt to show that hell cannot be understood in terms of human justice unequivocally and definitely fails.
If and only if you accept unjust notions of morality that exalt the mighty in their seats and cast down and afflict the humble. Notions of "justice" that are designed to fill the rich with good things and send the poor away empty.
The notion that the greater the person the greater the magnitude of the offence against them literally does reinforce the proud in the conceit of their heart and the mighty in their seat.
Now you might think that reinforcing such morality is a small price to pay for reinforcing your belief in the nature and supposed goodness of God. But such notions of "justice" are as far as I am concerned simple answers to the oldest problem in moral philosophy; the search for a superior justification for self interest, as defined by the powerful.
And that you are ready, willing, and able to use such perverted notions of "justice" as evidence that humans bending over backwards can find a justification for evil.
quote:
I need to state only two things to show this: First, as mentioned, assume justice that considers the status of the victim, and of course assign infinite status to God.
Which, as I mentioned, is a notion of "justice" that is one beloved by the powerful looking to remain in their seats and the rich looking to send the poor away empty.
Unless you do it properly when you do take account of the status - and point out that those with high status are less affected.
quote:
Therefore every human sin is an infinite crime against God, deserving infinite punishment by Him.
Funny way of writing "infinitessimal".
quote:
Second, consider punishment in terms of retributive justice, i.e., the aim is not to "reform" the perpetrator but to punish him in proportion to his deeds.
Ah, the notion of justice that involves an eye for an eye. And that makes turning the other cheek and going the extra mile into unjust acts. The notion of justice that begets cycles of revenge and returns evil for evil - or to quote Ghandi "An eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind".
quote:
This just is a human understanding of the justice of hell.
So. Your argument is that because some people have had warped notions of justice hell must be just. Right.
quote:
It is also not some construct merely created to justify hell.
No. It's a construct merely created to exalt the mighty and humble the weak. And using it turns God into the biggest tyrant in existance.
quote:
What I've been doing here with my analogies is to propose a different understanding perhaps more in tune with now more common conceptions of justice (in fact, mostly remaining apart from considerations of justice). But your attempt to shout this down with a "torture" mantra can really only disrupt my discussion.
That is because your so-called discussion in which you pull out perverse notions of justice that are entirely against the teachings of the Gospels is itself a distraction from the very simple syllogism. Even if it were accurate it would have no bearing on the fact that torture is wrong. As it is, the very best your digression can do is show God to be Lawful Neutral. A God whose nature is seldom to have mercy.
quote:
It cannot establish the principle incompatibility of hell with human justice.
The problem here is that once more you are attempting to digress from the central point. There are notions of justice in which you return evil for evil - retributive justice. But these notions of justice involve doing evil. So that you say you can do evil in the name of justice doesn't change the point that God is doing evil.
quote:
And you know of course that you must shut down each and all "escape routes" if you want to topple faith by argument. Well, you cannot possibly do that here, the escape route is right there. That game is over, so how about giving the disruptive rhetoric a rest?
Indeed. How about giving the disruptive rhetoric a rest? All your analogies, all your claims abhout notions of justice have been nothing more than disruptive rhetoric in an attempt to avoid dealing with the very simple syllogism that God tortures and torture is evil therefore God does evil. That you can spend thousands of words waffling about human notions of justice doesn't change this syllogism one iota. It just means that your entire case is disruptive rhetoric and that I'm trying to bring it back to the point that you resolutely refuse to engage with. Not all human systems of justice are good.
That your disruptive rhetoric is also in opposition to the supposed Good News of the Gospels is a whole different kettle of fish.
quote:
and it certainly is pointless to discuss until you admit the justice of hell, at least for the sake of argument.
For the sake of argument I will accept that up is down, black is white, "justice" that exalts tyrants and grinds down the poor is acceptable, and that Lawful Evil is still Lawful and therefore Just even if untempered by mercy.
quote:
Because that is a key assumption they made in saying what they said.
Even if hell is just, this does not turn taking active delight in the sufferings of others into anything other than a bad thing.
quote:
So once more this is mere rhetoric: you try to stoke up more sentiment by all means possible in order to "win" the actual discussion on emotions. But you have already won on emotions anyway (at least here in this place), and you have already lost on principle anyway (as pointed out above). This really is a pointless game.
Bollocks! I've won on principle as well. All the chaff that you are throwing in your vain attempt to get away from the fact that God tortures and that torture is evil gets you precisely nowhere. Your claim that some systems of "justice" allow torture doesn't make torture just - it merely means that some systems of human justice are flawed. For that matter all are flawed - just some are more obviously flawed than others.
quote:
Part of those other ways is realising that you are actually making a category mistake here in comparing temporal with eternal experience. Eternal punishment is not temporal punishment infinitely prolonged, because eternity is not an infinite stretch of time. In fact, this is a key question: is hell eternal, or of infinite duration, and what are the experiential consequences of that for (resurrected) human beings?
Both are forever with no hope of reprieve. I doubt that it matters which is which to those in hell.
quote:
Personally I think the difficulties that arise here come from thinking of God as a Person first, and then retrofitting Divine attributes to that Person.
... says the person trying to justify God's vile behaviour using the most self-serving legal systems humans have come up with.
quote:
It is more the opposite of time, really, insofar as it rejects both the successive movement of "one after the other" and the limited reach of the "now". If you can imagine a now that unchangeably comprises all, then you get a taste of eternity.
And to those suffering for eternity, this difference is meaningless.
quote:
Perhaps you are right in saying that the concepts of justice now employed in our societies do not allow a description of hell as just. So what? The only argument I have to fear is one of principle incompatibility with human conceptions of justice, and this argument fails, as demonstrated conclusively.
You mean that simply because you can find a corrupt notion of justice among the dozens of ones humans have come up with there is no argument? As I say, this is pure disruptive argument from you.
quote:
We are particularly upset about an attack on young children because of their innocence, i.e., because they are necessarily free of all reasonable blame for whatever is done to them.
You mean because they are weak and need protection.
quote:
In a similar way, the infinite status of God can be considered as deriving from His infinite holiness. God cannot be blamed for the sins against Him, all evil is imposed on Him by us not caused by Him. I was simply pointing out the similarities of such sentiments.
And this is pure nonsense - both the comparison and the idea that God bears no responsibility for that which God created. That which God created in God's image is flawed but God bears no responsibility. Riiiight.
Your definition of holiness is (as normal) special pleading to absolve the Most High of all blame for anything that the Most High might be responsible for.
quote:
I think you are overextending. I think it would really help you to run around in sackcloth and ashes, to urge you to find faith in Christ. It would really help me if you gave me all your money, so that I can buy more books to deepen my faith in Christ. Clearly then, you donning sackcloth and ashes and giving me all your money is an application of the Golden Rule. Well no, it isn't. The power of the Golden Rule resides precisely in not allowing speculations about what might be good for the other, but rather in insisting on sticking to the immediate concerns that one has oneself.
This, of course, is a hypersimplification. See the porpoise example. Think yourself into the head of the other and work out what they want and need from their perspective. Because that's what you'd want them to do. Unless you don't want to be treated as an individual.
quote:
The "nature" of "natural moral law" is not the "nature" of "modern natural science" - one is about the essence of things, the other about their physical features and relationships.
And with that I consider my case proven. Your dualistic arguments about the nature of things being different from their features and relationships is creating a distinction without a difference in order that you can claim that your preconceptions still hold.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I could take the detour you suggest to avoid the "cliff" you tell me is there, but I *can* see rational, tangible, reasons why walking straight ahead is expeditious and in my interests and the interests of those I love.
I'm sorry, committing mortal sins is in the interests of you and your loved ones how?
Sin wouldn't be tempting if it didn't seem like a good idea at the time, would it? e.g. using artificial means to limit the size of one's family, masturbating privately instead of pressurising and upsetting an impotent spouse, limiting one's giving to an amount that still allows you to build up a capital sum to give your children a more comfortable life than other people's, stealing a couple of hours from your employer because you're so tired you're worried you're going to break?
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Reading through this thread, I'm getting an image of someone under torture, for whom it's eventually too much, and who cries out, "I'll say anything you want. Just please make it stop."
And the voice of God whispers in their ear, "But that's not enough. You have to love me." - as he fires up the electrodes one more time.
I think we can turn this on its head. It's not about saying what God wants, it's about saying what we want.
It's full exposure to God's love that's torturing a soul who is conscious that he or she did not respond to it, and not only did that mean neglecting to love God and other people, it meant causing others harm. Forgiveness was on offer. Is it still on offer?
If we want it to stop, but do not want forgiveness and the opportunity of heaven, annihilation may be an option offered in love.
Irresistible love and forgiveness without repentance to all universally on death would surely remove the free will option at that point, and remove accountability.
And literally none of that makes any sense when dealing with an eternal hell. Given that both hell and heaven are eternal there is nothing that justifies either way. Accountability would work with non-eternal notions like reincarnation or purgatory. But any pretense of accountability disappeared when it was made pass/fail.
And love does not torture eternally. It may cause tears - but that's a whole different story. If God's love hurts eternally then it's the "love" of an abuser.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
You tell me there is a cliff, but I can't see one. Indeed, every rational experience I have tells me that there is no cliff.
That is, of course, bullshit. The very fact that you are participating in this discussion shows your awareness of the cliff.
No. It merely shows that Erroneous Monk and I are aware that there are people jumping up and down and screaming that there is a cliff. Whether the cliff is actually real or a collective delusion they hold is another matter entirely.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
One of the major problems I have with the idea of eternal hell is the fact that, from my observation and experience, no one actually really genuinely and sincerely believes it, such that they will act accordingly.
If a hell-believing Christian really believed that most people are going to an eternity of the most unspeakable horror, from which there is no hope of escape, then he would treat that possibility as any member of the emergency services would when responding to a grave emergency. He would pull out all the stops to prevent people suffering this disaster. Normal life would go on hold. All leave would be cancelled. His whole life would be lived in "crisis mode". He would probably hardly be able to eat or sleep properly, such would be his anxiety and distress. His body would be high on adrenaline the whole time, as he toiled and fought to save people from this vile fate.
But what do we see in reality? Christians lounging at home writing long posts on the internet defending the doctrine of hell, instead of walking up and down the street every waking hour shouting at the top of their voices warning people of the impending disaster. Fiddling while Rome burns. If the government knew of an approaching hurricane or could predict a major earthquake, they would be severely censured for not doing all they could to warn people. But the Church hardly does anything much to warn people of the approach of a disaster infinitely worse than all the natural disasters one can imagine combined! And what relatively little it does do speaks against the seriousness of the problem.
In fact, even Jesus himself, during his ministry on earth did not act as though most people were going to hell. There is no sense that he operated in "emergency service" mode. And what did he do in those years before his baptism and ministry? He was merely the carpenter's son in Nazareth. Think of all those poor souls who went to hell during that period of his life. Think of all the souls dying in China at the time!
I am not suggesting, of course, that Jesus did not believe in hell, or God's judgment, but rather that hell must be very different from that portrayed by much of Christian tradition.
If the human race is going to eternal hell, and the only escape is belief in Jesus, then why doesn't God just put normal life on hold, rip open the sky and just shout out the truth to every human being, so no one is left in any doubt? All the niceties concerning free will and seeking the truth and so on are pretty much irrelevant in the face of the horror of hell. As I say, in any proper emergency, normal life and practices go on hold. That is how a normal, civilised society works. Even our less than perfect society doesn't pussyfoot around calamity. But the Church carries on as if there is hardly any crisis and calamity - and that goes for all churches, including the RCC and fundamentalist / evangelical churches. I have never yet met a Christian who believes in the traditional view of hell such that he acts appropriately.
There is a practical culture of denial of this idea. Lip service is paid to it, out of fear of being cast as a heretic. But nobody - and I mean nobody - treats it with the seriousness such a concept deserves. Furthermore, Christians who say that they are not sure of their salvation are completely unconvincing. If I really believed that there was a possibility of going to hell when I die, then I would be utterly unable to function in my daily life. It would be infinitely worse than living on death row. But such Christians carry on with a blase attitude and apparent lack of concern, and it's frankly just not credible. Despite all their protestations they just do not really believe it, otherwise they would be mental wrecks.
This, in my view, is the strongest argument against the traditional interpretation of hell.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
Is there an opposite to evangelisation ? 'Cos Justinian's principled atheism is sounding rather more attractive than IngoB's authority-fetishing theism...
I can see the logic that if God is totally mysterious to us then we can have little basis for discussing what it is moral for Him to do or not do.
But the Christian tradition talks of God as a king and as a father. And to the extent that there is merit in such comparisons, it makes sense to ask whether He is like a bad king (tyrannical, vengeful, absolute, arbitrary) or a good king (dutiful, serving with justice, respectful of the traditional rights and expectations of his people even as he judges and makes laws for the common good). Like a good father (who builds up and supports his children as they grow) or a bad father (who for his own gratification keeps them permanently infantile and dependent).
Hiding behind the mystery of God whenever your own propositions about Him throw up questions or implications that sit uneasily with your tradition is just weaselly.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And literally none of that makes any sense when dealing with an eternal hell. Given that both hell and heaven are eternal there is nothing that justifies either way. Accountability would work with non-eternal notions like reincarnation or purgatory. But any pretense of accountability disappeared when it was made pass/fail.
And love does not torture eternally. It may cause tears - but that's a whole different story. If God's love hurts eternally then it's the "love" of an abuser.
In the absence of time, eternally can mean in the twinkling of an eye. Accountability before a judge does produce a pass/fail, innocent or guilty verdict. The sentence might equate to reincarnation or purgatory in our human way of seeing things, within a time context, which is perhaps why we might latch on to these ideas. We know we have whatever time we have left in this life to turn to Christ, and start afresh, but we can't know for sure what happens after death. We know that we can only try to get it right, and that none of us is perfect, therefore none of us is guaranteed an easy time before the judge. It could be that we'll all get off, we can hope so. I'm thankful for the hope of a future life with God after death, and I'd like to think that my close loved ones will be there too.
The scriptures seem to indicate that there is a cut-off point, when all will change forever and there will be no more opportunity to accept God's love. This is the second coming of Christ which we focus on in Advent. We look forward to its joy, the time when there will be no more pain, as every tear will be wiped away. Love and abuse can't co-operate.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
All we know about Jesus comes from the Gospels. Most of the biblical support for eternal and conscience torment comes from the Gospels. Therefore, the idea of eternal conscience torment must be reconciled with the Jesus presented in the Gospel.
Well yes. But how we reconcile the discrepancy is the issue at hand isn't it?
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Personally, I believe more in purgatory, annihilation, or a combination of both than I do in eternal conscience torment.
Why? Because you too see the cognitive dissonance in the gospels?
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
God being God does not have to abide by our human notions of justice, fairness, love, or anything else. So, subjecting those who reject God to eternal conscience punishment is God's prerogative simply because God is God.
But it contradicts his teaching of love.
If that's his prerogative, then why should we bother believing in the love God teaches? Is God really that capricious? Is a God that does whatever God wants without sticking with the love expressed in the incarnation really worthy of worship?
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
EE - that's one of the best posts you've ever made.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Is there an opposite to evangelisation ? 'Cos Justinian's principled atheism is sounding rather more attractive than IngoB's authority-fetishing theism...
I know what you mean. I don't think anything about this thread is going to endear the gospel to the Ship's atheists and sceptics.
I don't disbelieve in Hell, precisely because Jesus referred to it. It's described in various ways: a fiery lake, a place of darkness and deep despair, etc. All these are metaphors. Obviously. But I don't believe that Jesus peddles in empty rhetoric. He more than implied that Hell is separation from God. Having said that, I do not believe it is a place where human souls are tortured by God acting as chief torturer. That is a medieval, not biblical, picture. Neither do I believe that the saints in eternity rejoice at the sufferings of the damned. I can’t go with the Church Fathers on this – they are not as authoritative as Scripture, and this notion isn't anywhere in Scripture: sure, those martyred for their faith in Christ cry out to God for justice against the cruel powers that killed them, in Revelation 6:10, and rejoice at the overthrow of those dark powers, but that's not even remotely the same thing as the saints in glory gloating over their loved ones roasting. ('Powers' are also spiritual powers in the Bible, not just human agents.)
I will say this: we are quick to complain at God when evil people seem to get away with it. (Why, for example, does Robert Mugabe just seem to live on and on and ON, when so many others, far more deserving of life, die tragically?) But then we complain at Him when He says He will actually do something about the evil ... according to Revelation, He will obliterate evil from the universe forever.
(I find CS Lewis's The Great Divorce quite a helpful book.)
[ 20. November 2013, 13:03: Message edited by: Laurelin ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, I'd agree that EE is making a terrific amount of sense there too.
I don't know whether EE has ever heard it, but there used to be a very old-fashioned story doing the rounds in certain evangelical churches of my acquaintance which cited the example of Charlie Peace the notorious Victorian burglar and murderer.
The story was recounted in Leonard Ravenhill's book 'Why Revival Tarries' and in this version Peace, being led to the scaffold in Armley Gaol, is surprised at the professional and unconcerned tone with which the accompanying chaplain read the passages about death and eternal judgement from 'The Consolations of Religion.'
According to the story, the criminal was shocked that the chaplain could read these passages in such an objective way. Surely if he really believed them he would live and act accordingly?
'Sir'' the convicted criminal is supposed to have said, 'If I believed what you and the church of God say that you believe, even if England were covered with broken glass from coast to coast, I would walk over it, if need be, on hands and knees and think it worth while living, just to save one soul from an eternal hell like that!'
The story was used, of course, to provoke and encourage congregations to more fervent evangelism. Listen, if this convicted criminal could see the truth of these words, how much more should we spend ourselves and be spent in bringing the Gospel to every teaching under heaven ...
I heard it used that way more than once. Guilt-manipulation has always been the stock-in-trade of a particular kind of evangelical preacher.
It always made me uncomfortable though. Still can, still does ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Which of the Church Fathers would that be, Laurelin?
I think it's been decided upthread that only Tertullian among the original, pre-Schism Fathers held the view that the sight of the wicked being punished enhanced the joy and rapture of the saved ...
That view is more a feature of late-medieval Scholasticism, I think ... Aquinas on the RC side of things and Calvin and his followers among the Reformed.
That's why, it seems to me and I'll be shot down in flames I know, that certain RCs and certain Calvinists appear to meet around the back somewhere ... because both systems - at the extreme end - are characterised by sophistry and a rather wooden insistence on some form of authority or other - be it Papal or in the case of the more full-on Reformed, the 'Paper-Pope' of the Bible - or rather, their own particular interpretation of it.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Which of the Church Fathers would that be, Laurelin?
The sexist ones, of course. Don't have much time for them either. Yeah, OK, I'll get on point ...
quote:
I think it's been decided upthread that only Tertullian among the original, pre-Schism Fathers held the view that the sight of the wicked being punished enhanced the joy and rapture of the saved ...
Gotcha.
quote:
That's why, it seems to me and I'll be shot down in flames I know, that certain RCs and certain Calvinists appear to meet around the back somewhere ... because both systems - at the extreme end - are characterised by sophistry and a rather wooden insistence on some form of authority or other - be it Papal or in the case of the more full-on Reformed, the 'Paper-Pope' of the Bible - or rather, their own particular interpretation of it.
Exactly the same thought had occurred to me. There is something extremely Calvinistic about Ingo's Catholicism. That is not meant as an insult. (I just agreed with a very good post of his in the Messianic Jews thread.) But. Yes.
More seriously, I can perfectly well understand why atheists/secularists find a Christian defence of the indefensible so outrageous. I do too.
I do not believe I can make God fit into a box. He is far greater, more beautiful and holy than I can possibly conceive. I do not believe that He is immoral, and as a Christian I will not defend that which is immoral. I do not believe that God is a torturer. If I did, I would not be a Christian.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
There is nothing particularly Calvinist about IngoB's arguments, at least not in terms of what makes Calvinism distinct from Catholicism. A Calvinist would not argue that human moral goodness is inherent to the human condition.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Indeed. When God is portrayed in these terms, I sometimes think it can't be much fun being God, going around being infinitely offended all the time.
About as much fun as being crucified, presumably.
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
And IngoB, you don't get out of this one by dodging behind the old eternity/temporality thing. I don't care whether Hell is a lot of pain for ever and ever, or infinite pain for no time at all, like some bizarre divine Dirac delta function - it still bloody hurts.
I have not made the slightest claim that eternity somehow lessens the pain, anywhere. However, it is plain idiocy to address the afterlife without considering the impact of "eternity vs. temporality". In particular, sinners cannot repent and reform in eternity, because that would require a temporal "before and after" change at odds with eternity. One cannot simply tell this-worldly stories about the afterlife and then add "like that but forever" to somehow make them coherent. One has to consider the afterlife on its own terms, and these terms simply include eternity.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
You mean that you refuse to entertain any argument that could possibly lead to God being bad.
Perhaps. But unlike you, I'm not simply trying to raise emotions by endlessly repeating a mantra of horror.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
God Tortures in your conception. Torture is bad. Therefore God does that which is bad.
The minor premise fails. Of course torture is bad for the tortured. It is a type of punishment, and all punishment is bad for the punished. That is the very point of punishment. However, it is not morally evil to punish the wicked in due proportion to their deeds, rather that is morally good. Thus if we can show that due proportion is maintained, then torture as punishment for evil deeds is in fact good. Whereupon the opposite results from your syllogism: God does that which is good. And we can show such due proportion in at least one of the common conceptions of human justice.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
All your safety nets are nothing but distractions saying that "God only tortures a few people."
No, they are actually an attempt to reframe the whole debate in terms that I consider more helpful. Not because I cannot defend all this on "crime and punishment" logic, I sure can and have, but because I think this is not the best way of describing what is happening. Regrettably, you have no intention to listen to anything but your own "torture" mantra.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The notion that the greater the person the greater the magnitude of the offence against them literally does reinforce the proud in the conceit of their heart and the mighty in their seat.
It may. But it also justifies the harsher judgement against those who fail in upholding the dignity of their office through personal example. Perhaps Rob Ford smoking crack is not just one drug addict among many after all. I also seem to remember somebody hammering away at the Pharisees in charge even though from a modern perspective their sect wasn't extraordinarily bad at all. It's basically upping the ante for people in power. You may wish to argue that practically speaking, the powerful will avoid being called to account at this higher level while nevertheless imposing that higher level on those who would attack them. That is perhaps true in this life. But then of course there is the next life. Again, I seem to remember somebody talking about millstones. It is probably true that currently popular systems of justice rely less heavily on compensation in the next life. Hence considered in this life only, they may deliver "more justice". Whether that is still true when considering this and the next life together is a different question.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Ah, the notion of justice that involves an eye for an eye. And that makes turning the other cheek and going the extra mile into unjust acts. The notion of justice that begets cycles of revenge and returns evil for evil - or to quote Ghandi "An eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind".
Selectively quoting Jesus does nothing to advance this discussion. After all, that we talk about eternal hell at all is largely due to Christ's insistent teaching about it. Anyway, charity is indeed something that goes above and beyond justice. But where does it have to be acted out? In this life! And is God charitable in this life? Most charitable! All offences that you may have committed, no matter what and how many, are forgotten as soon as you admit them and repent of them. Does this not go way beyond all worldly justice? Does this not challenge even the most saintly of saints? Your complaint, once more, relies on pretending that the next life is simply a continuation of this life. It is not.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
As it is, the very best your digression can do is show God to be Lawful Neutral.
Indeed, I think that the afterlife might not really be a moral issue at all. The morals of this play out in this life. In the next life, we run into a number of necessities that simply determine how things must go.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
But these notions of justice involve doing evil.
Punishing someone justly is not generally considered evil, but rather good, even though obviously the punished suffers the evil that the punishment entails. It seems to me that it is you who is attempting to establish non-standard justice here.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
That you can spend thousands of words waffling about human notions of justice doesn't change this syllogism one iota.
You have raised your syllogism only in the previous post. I have immediately answered it now. My thousands of well considered words were trying to address more interesting concerns, but you continue to be only interested in talking about torture. This time with a faulty syllogism.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Even if hell is just, this does not turn taking active delight in the sufferings of others into anything other than a bad thing.
It is a side issue, and nothing what I have said so far depends on it. I also do not know where Tertullian speaks of this (and he is a heretic, so whatever he says always has to be taken with a grain of salt). As far as Aquinas goes, you are … unsurprisingly … misrepresenting him (emphasis mine):
quote:
A thing may be a matter of rejoicing in two ways. First directly, when one rejoices in a thing as such: and thus the saints will not rejoice in the punishment of the wicked. Secondly, indirectly, by reason namely of something annexed to it: and in this way the saints will rejoice in the punishment of the wicked, by considering therein the order of Divine justice and their own deliverance, which will fill them with joy. And thus the Divine justice and their own deliverance will be the direct cause of the joy of the blessed: while the punishment of the damned will cause it indirectly.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Both are forever with no hope of reprieve. I doubt that it matters which is which to those in hell.
I agree that the lot of the doomed doesn't get any better, experientially, if the punishment is eternal rather than of infinite duration. (Or at least I do not know how it would, though it might - it is very hard to imagine what eternity is like.) However, that was not the point. The point was procedural and fundamental: if the afterlife just is eternal, then punishment just is eternal there as well. It is not imposed "on top of" a planned punishment, it is not an infinite increase in the severity of the sentence.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
That which God created in God's image is flawed but God bears no responsibility. Riiiight.
Only God is flawless. Any creation necessarily contains flaws. However, as far as moral responsibility goes, God created man flawless but with the possibility of failure resulting in flaw. Man promptly realised that possibility. We can certainly attribute the "design choice" to God, but not straightforwardly the flaw.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
This, of course, is a hyper simplification.
No, it isn't. Rather you are now trying to import the whole of moral calculus by virtue of "thinking about what is good for the other". That's complete bunk. The power of the Golden Rule resides precisely in its simplicity, and hence your cartoon is funny by breaking that down. The idea of the Golden Rule is "I don't want to be hit, so I probably should not hit that guy." Simple. "I'm a masochist." Complicated. Exit Golden Rule.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Your dualistic arguments about the nature of things being different from their features and relationships is creating a distinction without a difference in order that you can claim that your preconceptions still hold.
I'm looking forward to your explanation of how quantum physics and general relativity have shaped your morals.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Of course torture is bad for the tortured. It is a type of punishment, and all punishment is bad for the punished. That is the very point of punishment. However, it is not morally evil to punish the wicked in due proportion to their deeds, rather that is morally good. Thus if we can show that due proportion is maintained, then torture as punishment for evil deeds is in fact good. Whereupon the opposite results from your syllogism: God does that which is good. And we can show such due proportion in at least one of the common conceptions of human justice.
So do you think eternal punishment is 'in due proportion' to the wicked deeds done by an unrepentant person? Could you explain how, please?
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
However, it is not morally evil to punish the wicked in due proportion to their deeds, rather that is morally good.
I think this just isn't true. If I think of a really awful offence against love - let's say, a mother torturing her child to death (and sadly, we get a few of those cases here ) - yes, there is a part of me that would like to see that mother receive the treatment she meted out. But to call my anger a desire for justice, and therefore morally good, seems warped.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Also, some people who torture children to death are themselves mentally unhinged. Well, maybe a lot of them are. I suppose therefore you could separate them off from the sane ones, who get tortured? Shudder.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Sin wouldn't be tempting if it didn't seem like a good idea at the time, would it? e.g. using artificial means to limit the size of one's family, masturbating privately instead of pressurising and upsetting an impotent spouse, limiting one's giving to an amount that still allows you to build up a capital sum to give your children a more comfortable life than other people's, stealing a couple of hours from your employer because you're so tired you're worried you're going to break?
Sure, but which of these really is a mortal sin in practice? In an attempt to make all these more palatable, you have already supplied extenuating circumstances that might very well mean that all of these are venial sins or perhaps not even reckoned as sins at all. And if you think that some of these still are mortal sins, even given the circumstances, then does not that very same logic tell you why they are not good for you and your loved ones? The mere fact that you may still be tempted does not mean that you are incapable of realising what is truly good and bad. And even if you do commit one of these, and it is a mortal sin, how is that not still taken care of by God's mercy in confession? Yes, this remains challenging. But let's not make the challenge larger than it is.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
One of the major problems I have with the idea of eternal hell is the fact that, from my observation and experience, no one actually really genuinely and sincerely believes it, such that they will act accordingly.
I hear that there are people who know full well that smoking is really unhealthy, even deadly, and yet they continue to smoke. Doctors even. Remarkable. I hear that there are people who know that an exam is coming up that will decide the very course of their lives, yet they still procrastinate and do not study day and night. Remarkable. I hear that people know with perfect certainty that fighting with their partner will do nothing but destroy their relationship, hurt their children and make everybody terribly unhappy. Yet still they shout at each other. Remarkable.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If a hell-believing Christian really believed that most people are going to an eternity of the most unspeakable horror, from which there is no hope of escape, then he would treat that possibility as any member of the emergency services would when responding to a grave emergency.
But for the not-hell-believing Christian there is no particular urgency in carrying out God's will? This world is for them not in any kind of emergency state? Christianity is more a kind of hobby making the world a bit prettier, not unlike say gardening? How interesting.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But what do we see in reality? Christians lounging at home writing long posts on the internet defending the doctrine of hell, instead of walking up and down the street every waking hour shouting at the top of their voices warning people of the impending disaster.
Sorry? So when people spend hours defending the doctrine of hell against denials among people that are at least somewhat inclined to listen, then that counts for nothing as far as their faith is concerned. Whereas it would count massively if the same people went around shouting loudly on the streets? Does faith then require inefficient and untargeted modes of delivery that will most likely get one locked up?
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But the Church hardly does anything much to warn people of the approach of a disaster infinitely worse than all the natural disasters one can imagine combined!
So that some parts of some of the major churches have gone rather quiet on hell since roughly the 1960s, after millennia of unrelentingly preaching on the horrors of hell, is what then? A sign of progress in engaging with the world, or a sign of false accommodation of the world?
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
In fact, even Jesus himself, during his ministry on earth did not act as though most people were going to hell. There is no sense that he operated in "emergency service" mode.
Yes, we all know that Jesus mostly preached about the weather. Not a hint of any concern about repentance, the afterlife, eternal fires or anything like that. Instead we have the fabulous parable about it getting a bit chilly already so early in the year.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
He was merely the carpenter's son in Nazareth. Think of all those poor souls who went to hell during that period of his life. Think of all the souls dying in China at the time!
You are worried that the Limbo of Patriarchs was getting overrun by Chinese? That's a bit racist, isn't it?
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I am not suggesting, of course, that Jesus did not believe in hell, or God's judgment, but rather that hell must be very different from that portrayed by much of Christian tradition.
And hence we must now rewrite scripture and reject tradition in accordance with the better teachings of EE.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If the human race is going to eternal hell, and the only escape is belief in Jesus, then why doesn't God just put normal life on hold, rip open the sky and just shout out the truth to every human being, so no one is left in any doubt?
Why doesn't the teacher give us the answers to these exam questions? We might fail! How terribly unfair, how can he believe that simply having taught us is sufficient? Does he expect us to learn? Are we supposed to do some work? Unbelievable. It clearly is the duty of a teacher to make every student pass their exam no matter what the student brings to the table.
Here's a different suggestion. If God is going to shout at all of us until we make it into heaven, we can save each other a lot of unnecessary noise if He just put us into heaven straight. There's really no need for this world at all.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I have never yet met a Christian who believes in the traditional view of hell such that he acts appropriately.
Well, I guess three hours of my life dedicated today to correcting errors about hell on the internet is just about enough frivolity. I will briefly read up on Mark 9:23-29 and then there is some shouting on the streets to do.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If I really believed that there was a possibility of going to hell when I die, then I would be utterly unable to function in my daily life.
Did I mention that I ride a car to work? Often people come up to me, wanting my autograph, and ask me how I can possibly be so daring given the high chances of getting maimed and killed in a car accident. They just cannot imagine facing such incredible and devastating risks on a daily basis. Such power of concentrating on the task of driving just seems superhuman to them. I then tell them about my daily practice of meditation holding a razor blade before my face while drinking a special brown brew made by the mystical monks of Kenya. That unrelenting practice allows me to push aside all those threats of doom and focus my mind on steering the car. I can see though how this ability must be near magical to common people, whose minds always dwell on a complete risk assessment of their lives.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
This, in my view, is the strongest argument against the traditional interpretation of hell.
I'm delighted to hear that. Sincerely.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Of course torture is bad for the tortured. It is a type of punishment, and all punishment is bad for the punished. That is the very point of punishment.
No it's not. It's meant as a deterrent. If it's not good for the punished, it's just cupidity. God getting his rocks off by making people suffer. Parents don't punish their children because they have breached their parently authority. They punish them in order to teach them to lead better lives, which in the long haul is good for the little tykes, even though not fun in the short term. Eternal punishment does not teach the punished anything. It is thus evil.
The problem with your "god" is that its morals are so completely different from human morals as to be inscrutable. And you defend this like it's some kind of wonderful thing. If our morals and its morals are so utterly different, then "moral" loses any meaning.
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The problem with your "god" is that its morals are so completely different from human morals as to be inscrutable. And you defend this like it's some kind of wonderful thing. If our morals and its morals are so utterly different, then "moral" loses any meaning.
well said.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
By gum, that's good (mousethief, I mean).
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
Neither do I believe that the saints in eternity rejoice at the sufferings of the damned.
See my post above, at least as far as Aquinas is concerned: The saints do not rejoice in the suffering of the damned as such, but in what it represents, namely the justice of God and their own salvation.
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
I can’t go with the Church Fathers on this – they are not as authoritative as Scripture, and this notion isn't anywhere in Scripture
If anybody has any idea where the Church Fathers discuss this topic, I would be interested. Anyway, if you want scripture, consider "For as the new heavens and the new earth which I will make shall remain before me, says the LORD; so shall your descendants and your name remain. From new moon to new moon, and from sabbath to sabbath, all flesh shall come to worship before me, says the LORD. "And they shall go forth and look on the dead bodies of the men that have rebelled against me; for their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh." (Isaiah 66:22-24) This states that the doomed in hell are known to the saints in heaven in all their punishments; and while it says nothing about "rejoicing", the saints clearly do not abandon worship of the Lord over this and there is no indication of pity for the doomed from the saints. And make of this "The righteous will rejoice when he sees the vengeance; he will bathe his feet in the blood of the wicked. Men will say, "Surely there is a reward for the righteous; surely there is a God who judges on earth."" (Psalm 58:10-11) what you will… (And I mean that, St Augustine for example does not think that this has to do with hell as such. Still, I think it speaks against easy optimism for the wicked.)
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
There is something extremely Calvinistic about Ingo's Catholicism.
Perhaps I should read some Calvin at some point in time, if he is such a reasonable fellow.
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
So do you think eternal punishment is 'in due proportion' to the wicked deeds done by an unrepentant person? Could you explain how, please?
I've explained that several times already. It has to do with evaluating the severity of a crime in accordance with the status of the victim, if you want to stay with the usual "crime and punishment" logic. The same idea is expressed here in perhaps slightly less contentious terms by Aquinas: "Punishment is proportionate to sin. Now sin comprises two things. First, there is the turning away from the immutable good, which is infinite, wherefore, in this respect, sin is infinite. Secondly, there is the inordinate turning to mutable good. In this respect sin is finite, both because the mutable good itself is finite, and because the movement of turning towards it is finite, since the acts of a creature cannot be infinite. Accordingly, in so far as sin consists in turning away from something, its corresponding punishment is the "pain of loss," which also is infinite, because it is the loss of the infinite good, i.e. God. But in so far as sin turns inordinately to something, its corresponding punishment is the "pain of sense," which is also finite."
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
If I think of a really awful offence against love - let's say, a mother torturing her child to death (and sadly, we get a few of those cases here ) - yes, there is a part of me that would like to see that mother receive the treatment she meted out. But to call my anger a desire for justice, and therefore morally good, seems warped.
Wrath against evil is not "warped". However, we do have good reason for not torturing the mother to death in response, no matter whether that would be justified as such. Namely precisely that while the mother is alive, there is hope that she will repent of her sins and reform her life. It's pretty damn difficult to repent while you are being tortured, and impossible when you are dead. At least in part then, our entire modern justice system has arisen exactly out of the desire to give people as much opportunity as possible to repent, realising that their death would end this opportunity.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's meant as a deterrent.
Punishment as deterrent is only one of several reasons typically given for justification. Retribution is another. Also typical are rehabilitation and incapacitation.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Eternal punishment does not teach the punished anything. It is thus evil.
Actually, deterrence from sin in this life is a typical reason given for eternal punishment. Obviously it is too late for the doomed in hell to be deterred, but it is not too late for you to be deterred by the prospect of joining them. And if God is trying to get you to reform your life by threatening you with eternal hell fire, as He clearly does in the person of Jesus Christ, then He must also carry out this threat if He is being ignored. Otherwise He would be scaremongering, lying.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The problem with your "god" is that its morals are so completely different from human morals as to be inscrutable. And you defend this like it's some kind of wonderful thing. If our morals and its morals are so utterly different, then "moral" loses any meaning.
Nothing could be further from the truth. You have no difficulty whatsoever to understand what I'm saying, and there is no doubt possible that plenty of humans have used such moral arguments among themselves. You just don't like the arguments and their consequences, hence you are desperately trying to reject them as unthinkable. Their threat to you, however, lies precisely in how thinkable they are. If I was just talking gibberish, you would just shrug and get on with your life.
Meanwhile, I would be somewhat interested in your own thinking about hell, in the context of scripture and (Orthodox) tradition.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
One of these years we'll get like/don't like buttons.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Eternal punishment does not teach the punished anything. It is thus evil.
Actually, deterrence from sin in this life is a typical reason given for eternal punishment. Obviously it is too late for the doomed in hell to be deterred, but it is not too late for you to be deterred by the prospect of joining them. And if God is trying to get you to reform your life by threatening you with eternal hell fire, as He clearly does in the person of Jesus Christ, then He must also carry out this threat if He is being ignored. Otherwise He would be scaremongering, lying.
Well that's a rather incoherent answer, because hell can only be a deterrent to those who actually believe in it. If its role as deterrent is the justification for its sufferings being regarded as 'punishment', then it follows logically that only people who believe in hell could ever go there. So all that anyone needs to do in order to avoid it is not believe in it, so that it is not a deterrent for them.
Unless of course you want to believe that God has revealed this reality to everyone. But you don't really believe that, do you? To quote you from the linked post:
quote:
As someone who grew up in an agnostic / atheist household, I can honestly tell you that talk about hell was something I considered mildly ridiculous, and mostly an embarrassment to the person talking in that way (and probably telling us something nasty about their character). There was zero impact of that sort of thing, or if there was impact, then only the usual social evasion one performs when meeting unpleasant characters. Of course I had a conscience back then, but I did not see it in any way as connected to God, much less to some conception of heaven and hell.
So hell is not a deterrent, right?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Evensong:
Well yes. But how we reconcile the discrepancy is the issue at hand isn't it?
I don't really see a discrepancy. God in God's loving mercy provides a means of reconciliation. The sacrifice that Jesus made on the cross went far beyond just the suffering associated with a crucifixion. Throughout Jesus earthly ministry, he warned there would be consequences for not following Him. How can we be surprised that there are in fact consequences to not following Him?
quote:
originally posted by Evensong:
Why? Because you too see the cognitive dissonance in the gospels?
No, I believe the Bible taken as a whole supports annihilation more than eternal conscience torment. We believe in the resurrection of the dead and life everlasting. If the faithful are resurrected into eternal life, then it stands to reason that eternal death awaits those who don't die.
quote:
originally posted by Evensong:
If that's his prerogative, then why should we bother believing in the love God teaches? Is God really that capricious? Is a God that does whatever God wants without sticking with the love expressed in the incarnation really worthy of worship?
Wouldn't capricious be preaching consequences for those who don't repent and then rewarding them with eternal life?
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No, I believe the Bible taken as a whole supports annihilation more than eternal conscience torment. We believe in the resurrection of the dead and life everlasting. If the faithful are resurrected into eternal life, then it stands to reason that eternal death awaits those who don't die.
Indeed. As I recall, the word "destruction" gets thrown around quite a bit in the New Testament. And then there are other ideas, such as non-eternal punishment, for instance when Matthew has Jesus say that our punishment won't end "until [we] have paid the last penny".
However, I'm not too surprised that the early Church opted for the eternal punishment model. There were some really angry people in the early Church.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Well that's a rather incoherent answer, because hell can only be a deterrent to those who actually believe in it.
Well, yes, but how's that "incoherent"? It's not like I have said that deterrence is the only reason for hell. Indeed, up to this point I did not talk about that at all, but about retribution. And even if it was the only reason (which is not the case), deterrence is never a justification on a universal basis anyway. Nobody expects that punishment for tax fraud, for example, will scare all people into paying taxes properly. It will do that for some people though, and that's all justification by deterrence relies on.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If its role as deterrent is the justification for its sufferings being regarded as 'punishment', then it follows logically that only people who believe in hell could ever go there.
This simply does not follow at all. Plenty of people who do not believe that the taxman will catch up with them end up being punished for tax fraud. You can perhaps claim that if I'm ignorant of tax law, and not culpable for this ignorance (i.e., not studiously avoiding all information about it), then I should be dealt with more leniently. I do think that something like that in fact holds as far as salvation is concerned. But I also think that it does not make the salvation chances of a non-Christian better than that of a Christian. (Basically, any such "ignorance discount" improves salvation chances less than the extra graces on offer to a Christian.)
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So all that anyone needs to do in order to avoid it is not believe in it, so that it is not a deterrent for them.
I do not believe that this is the case, and I'm not aware that anybody has ever claimed that deterrence works like that either for hell or for secular punishment. If you get thrown in jail for tax evasion, even though you didn't believe that you would get caught, or didn't believe that the tax law was just, or weren't even aware of the tax law you were violating, then I still find that rather deterring.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Unless of course you want to believe that God has revealed this reality to everyone.
I'm not sure what precisely you mean by "revealed" there. In the sense of John's Revelation, hell has not been revealed to me even now. In the sense of "being informed about", hell was revealed to me long before I became Christian. In either sense, there are of course still many people to whom hell has not been revealed.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So hell is not a deterrent, right?
I find it very deterring.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
You just don't like the arguments and their consequences, hence you are desperately trying to reject them as unthinkable.
Don't tell me what I think.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
It seems especially appropriate to this thread to remind all posters that their contributions should not contain content reserved for Hell.
/hosting
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Laurelin, you've got it the wrong way round.
There isn't anything particularly 'Calvinistic' about IngoB's Roman Catholicism so much as there's something very medievally-Catholic about Zach82's Calvinism ... only he fails to see the connection.
Sure, Calvinism differs from Roman Catholicism in various ways, not least because it's view of human nature can be even bleaker.
That's what I mean when I say that at its core Calvinism is simply a form of late-medieval Scholasticism taken too far and taken to its logical neo-Platonic and - dare I say - almost Gnostic conclusion.
Calvinists will wriggle and write and shout until they are blue in the face that this isn't the case but it darn well is.
What Scholastic, Thomas Aquinas style uber-traditional and ultramontane Roman Catholicism and Calvinism have in common is a cold, relentless logic that makes sense to a certain extent (and is certainly internally consistent) but then it goes flying off beyond anything that can be reasonably deduced from scripture and/or tradition into a speculative, Scholastic fantasy-island of its own making.
Sure, it'll ring true in some respects - God is sovereign, there are consequences for sin etc - and I have no desire here to elide the implications of that - but in terms of how it all works out in practice it's a bit like putting 2 and 2 together and making 48.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That's what I mean when I say that at its core Calvinism is simply a form of late-medieval Scholasticism taken too far and taken to its logical neo-Platonic and - dare I say - almost Gnostic conclusion.
It's anticipated in Ockhamist Nominalism.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
It seems to me that the key question that should be asked of those who try to defend the idea of eternal torment with reference to retribution and punishment is this: Do you want certain people to go to hell?
I think of Stephen when he was martyred:
quote:
When they heard these things they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him with their teeth. But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and said, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!”
Then they cried out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and ran at him with one accord; and they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Then he knelt down and cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not charge them with this sin.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep.
I think that this incident gives us a little glimpse into heaven. Stephen was filled with the Holy Spirit and gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God. And what was the result? He was filled with overwhelming forgiveness towards his murderers.
The idea that someone filled with the Holy Spirit and living in the presence of the glory of God could spend eternity drooling and gloating over the torments of the damned, is completely contradicted by this witness of Scripture. God's desire is that all should be saved, and He does not change. That should also be the eternal desire of all those who are redeemed.
Interestingly, Revelation 21:4 says, concerning the New Jerusalem (heaven):
quote:
And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.
There will be no more pain. But presumably, given that heaven is a place of forgiveness and everlasting mercy, and given that God's will is that all should be saved and that is therefore also the will of the redeemed, then it follows that heaven would be full of sorrow at the fate of the lost. But there is no sorrow (and certainly no Schadenfreude) in heaven.
The only way I can explain it is that the redeemed must have an overwhelming sense that the damned are utterly and eternally and actively loved by God, but that they (the damned) stubbornly hate that love, and through all eternity only have themselves to blame for their self-imposed exclusion from the joys of heaven. It's got nothing to do with retribution or God refusing to save them or withholding mercy from them (quite the opposite!) or God feeling personally obliged to torture them lest he be accused of having issued an empty thread or tormenting them for having failed to tick all the right boxes before they died. The damned are eternally loved. That is their problem. They hate love (excepting self-love, of course).
[ 21. November 2013, 09:35: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
What you've articulated there, EE, is very close to the Orthodox position on these things as far as I understand - or at least, to a particularly strong position within Orthodoxy which, if I understand it correctly, allows for a range of views/opinions on this issue.
Whatever the case, it's certainly a position I feel more comfortable with these days - and I don't think one has to be particularly squeamish to take such a view. The scriptures you cite are pertinent on this point.
@Kaplan - on the Oakhamist Nominalism thing, quite possibly - although I know little about William of Ockham apart from his famous razor.
Whatever the shortcomings of his theology/approach, I suspect all of us could do with having a good shave with that particular implement every now and again.
It ain't for me to say, but I certainly wish that both the RCs and the Calvinists would apply it to their own chins at times ... whilst fully accepting that I ought also to apply it to my own.
Posted by christianbuddhist (# 17579) on
:
"For the living know that they will die; but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, their hatred, and their envy have now perished; nevermore will they have a share in anything done under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 9:5-6
Life everlasting is something experienced during this life on earth, the only life we have. I'm much more interested in what Jesus said about life than about death.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
You mean that you refuse to entertain any argument that could possibly lead to God being bad.
Perhaps. But unlike you, I'm not simply trying to raise emotions by endlessly repeating a mantra of horror.
No. You are doing your best to avoid looking at the mantra of horror you are preaching as good. That it is a mantra of horror is the entire point.
quote:
The minor premise fails. Of course torture is bad for the tortured. It is a type of punishment, and all punishment is bad for the punished. That is the very point of punishment.
I've cited the classical theories of punishment already in this thread. How is rehabilitation intended to be bad for the punished? How is social protection intended to be bad for the punished? Even restoration isn't meant to be bad for the punished per se.
And as a deterrance, hell utterly fails. The point of a deterrant is that it is meant to be extremely public - rather than to happen after the person has left this world and is no longer able to communicate.
You are only able to make that statement because your moral philosophy is an ex-post-facto justification that attempts to make the monstrous reasonable. You need to discard everything except retribution in order to make your claims get anywhere because retribution is the only possible justification for hell.
quote:
However, it is not morally evil to punish the wicked in due proportion to their deeds, rather that is morally good.
Um... no. It is not morally evil to prevent the evil committing further acts of evil. Punishment is a whole different can of worms.
quote:
Thus if we can show that due proportion is maintained, then torture as punishment for evil deeds is in fact good.
So all Jesus said about turning the other cheek was meaningless. Right. Proportion does one thing. Establishes the maximum you can inflict in the name of justice. Assuming retributive justice. An eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind.
quote:
Whereupon the opposite results from your syllogism: God does that which is good.
Indeed. It is well known that if you add a falsehood to a logical statement you can prove anything - see Bertrand Russel proving that 1+1=1 made him the Pope.
quote:
No, they are actually an attempt to reframe the whole debate in terms that I consider more helpful.
Of course you do! Pointing out that God is a sadistic torturer who set things up such that humans were going to get tortured as the perfect result of God's perfect will is not something you want to hear. It is, of course, the point.
quote:
It may. But it also justifies the harsher judgement against those who fail in upholding the dignity of their office through personal example.
That is one way to justify it. It is not the only way to justify it. Rob Ford smoking crack while clamping down on crack is hypocricy. Jesus hammered away at the pharisees because they were the ones who provided leadership and as such had a disproportionate influence in corrupting others. Social protection and rehabilitation rolled into one package.
You do not need to treat those in power as having their own private law in order to hold their feet to the fire when they abuse that power. All you need is the mantra that "With great power comes great responsibility".
quote:
Selectively quoting Jesus does nothing to advance this discussion. After all, that we talk about eternal hell at all is largely due to Christ's insistent teaching about it.
Pointing out that even by a morality based on the teachings of Jesus hell is evil demonstrates just how shaky and amoral your position is.
quote:
Anyway, charity is indeed something that goes above and beyond justice. But where does it have to be acted out? In this life! And is God charitable in this life? Most charitable! All offences that you may have committed, no matter what and how many, are forgotten as soon as you admit them and repent of them. Does this not go way beyond all worldly justice?
Ah, yes. That famous child rearing method. Until they are 18 the kids can do whatever they like if they say sorry. Once they turn 18 they get tortured as soon as they put a foot out of line.
This isn't justice either. Justice requires consistency. If this is God's normal behaviour then hell is changing the rules in the course of play - the opposite of justice.
quote:
Indeed, I think that the afterlife might not really be a moral issue at all. The morals of this play out in this life. In the next life, we run into a number of necessities that simply determine how things must go.
*Another* attempt to absolve the architect for setting up the system and creating the torture chamber, paying for the torturers, and making sure that there would be a supply of victims?
quote:
Punishing someone justly is not generally considered evil, but rather good, even though obviously the punished suffers the evil that the punishment entails. It seems to me that it is you who is attempting to establish non-standard justice here.
Because of course we have never had prison reformers due to the barbaric way we treated the condemned. Once more your apparent lack of anything other than Catholic philosophy and morality is showing.
Under the justice system of the time the auto da fe was just. This does not make it other than monstrous and the people who first tortured (in order that the Church could wash its hands of the torture) and then burned the victims alive do not get a free pass because that's what the law said.
quote:
As far as Aquinas goes, you are … unsurprisingly … misrepresenting him (emphasis mine):
quote:
A thing may be a matter of rejoicing in two ways. First directly, when one rejoices in a thing as such: and thus the saints will not rejoice in the punishment of the wicked. Secondly, indirectly, by reason namely of something annexed to it: and in this way the saints will rejoice in the punishment of the wicked, by considering therein the order of Divine justice and their own deliverance, which will fill them with joy. And thus the Divine justice and their own deliverance will be the direct cause of the joy of the blessed: while the punishment of the damned will cause it indirectly.
Aquinas is creating a distinction without a difference. He is also creating a group of unfeeling robots in heaven, less than humans because they lack other than reasoned passions.
quote:
However, that was not the point. The point was procedural and fundamental: if the afterlife just is eternal, then punishment just is eternal there as well. It is not imposed "on top of" a planned punishment, it is not an infinite increase in the severity of the sentence.
It is however infinitely disproportionate to the magnitude of any offence unless God is infinitely petty, mean, and weak.
quote:
Only God is flawless. Any creation necessarily contains flaws.
Then as a creator God is not flawless.
quote:
However, as far as moral responsibility goes, God created man flawless but with the possibility of failure resulting in flaw. Man promptly realised that possibility. We can certainly attribute the "design choice" to God, but not straightforwardly the flaw.
And God is responsible for the consequences. Just as if I create a robot and it goes on a murder spree because I fucked up that's my responsibility.
quote:
No, it isn't. Rather you are now trying to import the whole of moral calculus by virtue of "thinking about what is good for the other". That's complete bunk. The power of the Golden Rule resides precisely in its simplicity, and hence your cartoon is funny by breaking that down.
Repitition doesn't make truth. The virtue of the golden rule resides in symmetry, simplicity, and depth - I want others to think what would be good for me so I do the same for them. The cartoon demonstrates the problems with naive, short sighted, and hyper-simplistic interpretations.
quote:
I'm looking forward to your explanation of how quantum physics and general relativity have shaped your morals.
I could bring in the observer effect and the uncertainty principle - but that would be ex-post-facto justification.
Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, with the need for diverstity in order to have the tools available to adapt to new situations, and the way things get more diverse when there are no stresses on the other hand has shaped my morals. As has game theory.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And as a deterrance, hell utterly fails. The point of a deterrant is that it is meant to be extremely public - rather than to happen after the person has left this world and is no longer able to communicate.
And the Gospel as written is unpleasantly smug about this. Dives, burning in Hell, pleads for mercy - and gets none - and then, compassionate despite his torment, pleads for a credible warning to be sent to those he loves. And he gets told: "No, it's up to them to believe the incredible warning that you didn't believe. Yes, I could make it easy for them to believe in the threat of Hell and the bliss of Heaven and therefore to change their ways, but I'm not going to do that."
Why?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
There's the rub, Erroneous Monk. The Bible, and even the Gospels, portrays God as both a loving and forgiving Father, and as a sadistic bastard. The IngoBs of the world square this circle by saying that being a sadistic bastard is a fine thing if you're God (but not if you're man) because God's morals include being a sadistic bastard, and man's do not. Or to put it the nice way, what counts as sadistic bastardy in man does not count as sadistic bastardy in God because, well, because God.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
As for sins against the infinite God being infinitely bad and worthy of infinite punishment, this is bass-ackwards.
God, as infinite, is impervious. Of all the sins you can commit, sins against God are the ones that do not harm their victim. Or if they do, the victim is able to absorb them and in the end come to no permanent harm. Sins I commit against another man can have devastating results. One tiny .22 caliber bullet can take a life. Fire that bullet at an elephant, you might be lucky if it penetrates the hide. Fire it at the infinite God, ... nothing.
So are our sins. (And don't give me the "it was the intent of firing the bullet not the bullet that does harm" -- that's just bending the metaphor to suit one's own purpose. If you're going to argue using someone else's metaphor, you have to meet it where it is, not twist it into something else.) Like that tiny bullet, our sins can cause great and horrendous harm to our fellow human beings. If they can cause infinite harm to God, then he is a weak and puny God, not an infinite and almighty one.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
That it is a mantra of horror is the entire point.
It is your entire point, certainly.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
How is rehabilitation intended to be bad for the punished?
It may be the aim of the punisher to set the punished on a path to a better life through the punishment. That does not change the fact that the punishment itself is an evil suffered by the punished. For example, prison severely restricts the prisoner's freedom of motion and control over their life. That's an evil suffered. If you have any doubts on this matter, I'm happy to have you incarcerated until you learn to post more meaningfully on SoF.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And as a deterrance, hell utterly fails. The point of a deterrant is that it is meant to be extremely public - rather than to happen after the person has left this world and is no longer able to communicate.
The English used to deport prisoners to Australia. At the time, very little if any news came back from Australia. Are you seriously claiming that "being deported to Australia" would not have acted as a deterrent for you if you had lived at the time? For that matter, I do not actually know any former or current prisoners (I think). Nevertheless, a prison sentence is certainly deterring to me. Information about the punishment must reach us to achieve deterrence, not necessarily information from the punished.
It really is patently absurd to claim that hell cannot act as a deterrent. The typical complaint is rather that it has been over-used in this way in the past.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
You need to discard everything except retribution in order to make your claims get anywhere because retribution is the only possible justification for hell.
Both retribution and deterrence. As well as possibly incapacitation, though that would require some interesting theological and philosophical speculations - which are not going to happen here, unfortunately.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
So all Jesus said about turning the other cheek was meaningless.
Again, Jesus also spoke lots about eternal hell fire and the doom of the wicked. You cannot simply rip one saying out of context and use it to dismiss a truckload of other sayings.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Pointing out that God is a sadistic torturer who set things up such that humans were going to get tortured as the perfect result of God's perfect will is not something you want to hear. It is, of course, the point.
It is your point, certainly, and you wish to establish it by endless repetition, since you cannot by reason. However, I'm quite happy to acknowledge, as it happens, that God created man in a way and under circumstances that make it possible for man to end in eternal torture. So in that ultimate sense God is indeed responsible for the fate of the doomed. I just don't think that that is "malevolent", exactly. As I've said above, I think "challenging" is a possible descriptor. If you want it more negatively, you could say "not nice".
I've always wondered where the concept of a "nice" God comes from. Certainly not from scripture...
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
That is one way to justify it. It is not the only way to justify it. Rob Ford smoking crack while clamping down on crack is hypocricy.
I've not claimed that it is the only way. All I was showing is that you were stressing one side of upping the ante on the uppers, but ignoring the other. One nice effect of this is that Rob Ford does not have to say anything on crack, and still stand condemned for being unworthy of his office. It is not required that he is a hypocrite, smoking crack is as such incompatible with the dignity of the position he has claimed for himself.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
All you need is the mantra that "With great power comes great responsibility".
That's working well in practice, is it?
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Until they are 18 the kids can do whatever they like if they say sorry. Once they turn 18 they get tortured as soon as they put a foot out of line. This isn't justice either. Justice requires consistency. If this is God's normal behaviour then hell is changing the rules in the course of play - the opposite of justice.
It's the same mistake over and over and over again. The afterlife is not a simple continuation of this life, like ageing one extra day to become 18 years old certainly is. It is a qualitative step change, a completely different set of circumstances and drastically altered players. It is simply not true that you can just extrapolate from this life into the next. Both lives are connected, by personal continuation, but through a radical transformation. And the living situation is just totally different before and after.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
*Another* attempt to absolve the architect for setting up the system and creating the torture chamber, paying for the torturers, and making sure that there would be a supply of victims?
That you refuse to think about the differences before and after does not make them any less important or meaningful. It is also slightly amusing that you paint a picture of hell much like Hieronymus Bosch would. But anyway, as mentioned above, I do think that God is in fact responsible for the fact that you might end up in hell. He is not responsible if you do end up in hell, that will be your fault. But God is responsible for offering a choice where there would not need to be one. So God is not "loving" in a simplistic "all giving, never demanding" sort of way. That bit should be sort of obvious from just living this life, but it apparently is not to some...
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Once more your apparent lack of anything other than Catholic philosophy and morality is showing.
I think that one can likely show that our modern system of justice derives in part from Christians worrying about allowing sufficient opportunity for repentance to perpetrators. It's rather ironic that the resulting justice system now gets twisted against these concerns.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Under the justice system of the time the auto da fe was just. This does not make it other than monstrous and the people who first tortured (in order that the Church could wash its hands of the torture) and then burned the victims alive do not get a free pass because that's what the law said.
The Spanish Inquisition, as the name says, was primarily a national institution more comparable to a secret police force, or perhaps the FBI. Religious adherence was back then considered part and parcel of adherence to a crown busy with "overcoming" the multi-religious legacy of the reconquest. If you want an appropriate comparison to modernity, then perhaps the current "war on terror" will do. I'm not so sure that our modern justice systems are holding up all that much better under political pressure now than they did back then.
Anyway, this is a side issue, surely.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Aquinas is creating a distinction without a difference.
It is a distinction of obvious merit. If I rejoice in your suffering, then I hate you. If I rejoice in justice being carried out, even if that entails suffering for you as the perpetrator, then this does not have to involve any animosity on my part for you (but for what you have done).
At a minimum you were misrepresenting Aquinas unintentionally. I think it would be a basic sign of fairness to acknowledge that. That really costs you very little here, since once more this was a side issue.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
He is also creating a group of unfeeling robots in heaven, less than humans because they lack other than reasoned passions.
It would be correct to say that Aquinas believes that in the saints reason is perfectly in charge, and that the passions are in harmony with reason ("reasonable", not "reasoned"). This obviously is not "unfeeling", and your claim was self-contradictory there. But it is indeed very different from how we are now.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
It is however infinitely disproportionate to the magnitude of any offence unless God is infinitely petty, mean, and weak.
Rather, of infinite goodness and dignity.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Then as a creator God is not flawless.
In the restricted sense that God could not create perfection, since that is impossible, but nevertheless chose to create - you can say that.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And God is responsible for the consequences. Just as if I create a robot and it goes on a murder spree because I fucked up that's my responsibility.
You are not a robot, you are a free agent. You can avoid going on a murder spree. If you nevertheless go on a murder spree, you are to blame.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, with the need for diverstity in order to have the tools available to adapt to new situations, and the way things get more diverse when there are no stresses on the other hand has shaped my morals. As has game theory.
Please do go ahead and extend your explanation to some actual moral laws, and show how you could not have arrived at these laws otherwise (or at least how this would have been very difficult).
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
The way I see it is based around the 1 Corinthians quote above…
What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.
The idea behind this for me is that the physical body is left behind forever, to decay and die, to be separated from God, which is one definition of Hell, and one I subscribe to.
The spiritual body is raised at the death of the physical body, and is taken to Heaven.
The “bad” parts of us die with the physical body and remain in the Hell of separation, and the “good” parts of us live on eternally in God’s love and grace in Heaven.
But we don’t notice the death of the bad parts, they are of this world, they actually ARE our physical bodes and our minds and thoughts. We only display our sinful natures in this world using what we have here on Earth, and so when we die those sinful aspects remain in this world with the physical body, to die and remain separated from God. The spiritual parts of us, the love, mercy and just parts of us, however large or small, enter into the divine love of God.
It may not be theologically sound, but I just cannot accept that a just God will offer eternal punishment for wrongdoing committed in a physical realm of finite length. As humans we have no concept of “eternity” and what it means, so to use that as a punishment is not Just.
If I kill someone I may deny them of 50 years of mortal human life, if they are 40 and would die naturally at 90. Is it just that I spend more than 50 years being punished for that killing? A hundred? A thousand? Ten million, twenty billion? Eternity? At what point does a punishment become unjust for denying someone of 50 years of Earthly life? God created everything, seen and unseen and so He must bear ultimate responsibility for His creation and our sinful natures. Which he did, on the cross.
A merciful and just God must be one who cannot punish, but must forgive all and embrace them with love and mercy.
Of course my theorem doesn’t offer hope for punishments beyond the grave for those whom we would like to see punished for eternity. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, any child rapist and murderer you care to mention, will all leave behind their evil natures to rot or burn with their Earthly bodies. Sorry if that doesn’t appeal, but in claiming that God is just and merciful, then I must be a Universalist, and I can’t be a Universalist and exclude even one from Gods mercy and love.
The theorem is also rooted in my own Atonement theorem, in that I believe that Christ looked at us and saw that every one of us was capable of love. Even Hitler probably loved his mother, and even if someone doesn’t love anyone, we are all capable of love. We, as humans, have the capacity for love, and I think that was enough for God to want to bring us into His own infinite and everlasting love. We get the prize because we can reciprocate. We have no choice, having the capacity to love is built in to humanity.
Therefore Christ died for us in order that he was able to defeat death’s hold over us and threw open wide the gates of heaven. No longer are we dead in the ground, but our spirits, our love is taken into heaven and those parts not needed are left behind.
I have no theological basis for my own belief, but as I’m a High-Church Anglican with Affirming Catholic and sometimes Anglo-Catholic leanings, I am used to having my cake and eating it. I will gratefully accept any Biblical passages, canonical or non-canonical, early church father writings of what have you that justify my theories, and will equally cheerfully ignore anything that knocks it down.
Yes it is an easy theology to use as an excuse for sinning when convenient, but I truly cannot comprehend of a just God as having use for punishments at all, let alone ones lasting an eternity for sins committed in a finite, mortal realm.
I don’t mean that to mean we should all behave sinfully, selfishly and power-seeking. I think we are not like that as humans. That spark of love in all of us burns brighter in the majority and we do try for a just and peaceful world here on Earth in the main. We don’t always succeed, but humanity really does strive for the good rather than the bad, on the whole.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The Bible, and even the Gospels, portrays God as both a loving and forgiving Father, and as a sadistic bastard. The IngoBs of the world square this circle by saying that being a sadistic bastard is a fine thing if you're God (but not if you're man) because God's morals include being a sadistic bastard, and man's do not. Or to put it the nice way, what counts as sadistic bastardy in man does not count as sadistic bastardy in God because, well, because God.
At long last, some reason and honesty! I'm not sarcastic at all, it is refreshing to hear that somebody actually has read the bible for what it is. The "My Little Pony" gibberish I often hear about scripture makes a session of Vogon poetry seem highly attractive in comparison.
We can quibble about the "sadistic bastard" bit, but I will take that in my stride since you of course have to motivate somehow why you are not attempting to "square the circle" yourself.
But "squaring the circle" is just right for me. That is exactly what theology must be like, in my opinion. And I do not reject this, I embrace it enthusiastically. The harder it gets to square the circle, the closer to God. Reality is the ultimate koan, and God is gate, gate, paragate, parasamgate (gone, gone, gone beyond, gone utterly beyond).
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Fire that bullet at an elephant, you might be lucky if it penetrates the hide. Fire it at the infinite God, ... nothing.
Well, that didn't last long... Back we are to firing bullets at an incorporeal Spirit. Nobody has ever claimed that sin consists in harming God physically (?!?) - unless you are talking about the special case of the Incarnation. The offence against God results from a privation of form or order or due measure of what He has willed for the world, a falling short as compared to what He has ordained. God wills that the world be thus, but it is not, as a result of our will enacted. Ultimately, it is an uprising against rightful rule, a denial of supreme authority, a disobedience of God, even if that is not the primary intention that we have. Sin "harms" God insofar as His will ought to be done on earth as it is in heaven, but isn't. This offence is infinite insofar as we reject the infinite good, God, over some finite good, which we wish to obtain by sinning.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
The afterlife is not a simple continuation of this life, like ageing one extra day to become 18 years old certainly is. It is a qualitative step change, a completely different set of circumstances and drastically altered players. It is simply not true that you can just extrapolate from this life into the next. Both lives are connected, by personal continuation, but through a radical transformation. And the living situation is just totally different before and after.
That is actually not quite true.
There is a spiritual continuity from this life into the next. As concerns condemnation...
John 3:18-19 - "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."
In other words, those who love darkness rather than light, and therefore are judged to be 'unbelievers', are condemned already. This is not just a legal status that is held in suspense until they die, because the passage refers to their actual spiritual state. Their condemnation consists in the fact that they "hate the light". This is completely consistent with everything I have said about the nature of hell, that it is the spiritual experience of the wicked when exposed to the reality of God. The light of Christ - His presence, which of course includes His love - is abhorrent to those who love evil. This is a reality in this life, as well as the next.
As concerns salvation...
Colossians 3:1-4 - If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth. For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory.
True believers have already been raised with Christ spiritually. This is also mentioned in Ephesians:
Ephesians 2:4-7 - But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
A genuine conversion involves a real spiritual change which is the beginnings of a process which finds its ultimate fulfilment in heaven. But that journey is a continuum, as this verse makes clear:
Proverbs 4:18 - But the path of the just is like the shining sun, that shines ever brighter unto the perfect day.
This describes a continuum. The "perfect day" is not essentially different from the shining that increases throughout the life of the just person.
And finally...
1 Corinthians 2:9-12 - But as it is written:
“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”
But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Reality is the ultimate koan, and God is gate, gate, paragate, parasamgate (gone, gone, gone beyond, gone utterly beyond).
The answer to that Koan as Martin would say is Love.
I can't conceive of any position more diametrically opposed to the message of the Heart Sutra than the one articulated by you in this thread.
The Thathagata's don't hate and they most certainly don't torture.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Or course God is 'utterly beyond' and our finite minds can't comprehend the length and breadth and height and depth and so on ...
But it strikes me that you're doing the opposite of what you're claiming to do here.
The closer we get to God the greater the Mystery, certainly - but you seem to what everything cut and dried and all neatly and prescriptively laid out. That's the Latin mind for you.
The Orthodox, as you know, tend to go in for fuzzy ... and their common accusation against Rome - and Western Christianity per se - is that it tries to batten everything down and overly define it. Hence late medieval Scholasticism on the one hand, hence its bastard-child Calvinism on the other ...
I don't think any of us here who would call ourselves Christians are calling for what C S Lewis called a 'milk and water' Christianity.
'Our God is a consuming fire.'
No, Aslan isn't safe, to quote Lewis again.
So, yes, I'm with you to the extent that you're right when you say that much of contemporary Christianity has become rather touchy-feely and has attempted to elide the trickier or less palatable parts. Agreed.
But to resist that trend doesn't mean that we have to adopt a medieval view of Hell - a kind of literal Dante's Inferno. Heck, it's by no means certain how literally Dante and his contemporaries took some of this stuff for all the hideously graphic frescoes lining the inside of the Duomo in Florence and the equally graphic - but rather more naive - images of Hell over in the Baptistery ...
Forgive me, but at times you almost appear to harbour some kind of glee at this prospect ... rather like the missioner in James Joyce's 'Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man' almost salivating over the prospect of eternal hell-fire.
I'm reminded of the story from a different tradition to your own about the Baptist church where they had an interregnum between ministers and two prospective candidates came to 'preach with a view' on two consecutive Sundays.
A few weeks later one of the deacons meets a friend from another Baptist church as he's walking down the street. The friend asks him how the search for a new minister is going.
'Well,' said the deacon, 'The first candidate came along and preached that sinners were to be cast out from God's presence into eternal Hell-fire and torment. Then the second came to preach the following Sunday and took the same text - that sinners would be cast into outer darkness and eternal Hell-fire.'
'So which one did you choose?' asked the friend.
'The second.'
'Why was that? He preached on the same subject. What was there to choose between them?'
'The first seemed rather pleased about it ...'
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
Gamaliel -
Who are you talking to in your last post?
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
There are times when atheism sounds more attractive than Christianity. This thread is one of those times.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
I can't conceive of any position more diametrically opposed to the message of the Heart Sutra than the one articulated by you in this thread. The Thathagata's don't hate and they most certainly don't torture.
I don't really have time to discuss Buddhism at length as well. But briefly: the equivalent to God in Buddhism are not the Buddha(s) as human person(s). Perhaps "Buddha nature" or "emptiness" or what have you would be the closest match. And Buddhism is all hell, though finite, but no heaven, ever. Where by "hell" I do not refer to Buddhist hell, but simply to the entirety of the life cycle ("Samsara"), which is considered as suffering. The point of Buddhism is not to get reborn for another fun ride, that's Western corruption, the point is to stop these hellish rebirths through enlightenment as soon as humanly possible. In comparison to Christianity, Buddhism trades a finite (though possibly incredibly long) "hell" for the loss of "heaven". "Nirvana" is decidedly not the entry to heaven, but rather the state in which one can finally be snuffed out. It's the bliss of being able to die to all that suffering, spiritual euthanasia. The Buddhas show the way how to escape universal torture, by successfully ceasing to be. Is that a more optimistic picture? I think it is pretty grim.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But it strikes me that you're doing the opposite of what you're claiming to do here. The closer we get to God the greater the Mystery, certainly - but you seem to what everything cut and dried and all neatly and prescriptively laid out. That's the Latin mind for you. The Orthodox, as you know, tend to go in for fuzzy ... and their common accusation against Rome - and Western Christianity per se - is that it tries to batten everything down and overly define it. Hence late medieval Scholasticism on the one hand, hence its bastard-child Calvinism on the other ...
Naw, that's a risible misunderstanding of God and the human mind. (Well, I don't think that the Orthodox are actually confused about this. But they sure don't mind using this sort of nonsense in the West for their advertisement advantage...)
God is to the intellect what a black hole is to matter. We cannot peer inside the event horizon, only cross over it to never return. But we sure as heck can locate where that black hole precisely sits by observing the surrounding matter (gravitational pull, accretion disk, jets, ...) or possibly sending probes towards it.
It is totally daft to demand that the blackness of the black hole must be protected, and that astronomers must cease their observations and astrophysicists their calculations. The black hole is in no way diminished in its blackness by human minds observing it (or rather "what is around it"). In fact, the true appreciation of its blackness comes precisely from studying hard all that is around it. And yes, we very much can say what the matter surrounding it is doing.
Indeed, by the revelation of the laws of gravity we can even make reasonable predictions of what matter does that crosses the event horizon, though we cannot ever observe that. Again, this is no insult to the black hole, but in fact a celebration of what we are allowed to learn about it.
This is what the "Latins" have been doing. This is very much also what the "Orthodox" have been doing - just more slowly as their academic ability largely ground to a halt with the end of the Byzantine empire. But of course we have St Palamas to remind us that such activity did not die even under such adversity.
This is also not in any way at odds with what the mystics have been doing - just a little reminder here that most of the famous mystics actually are RCs. The mystics are perhaps like the probes one sends toward the black hole, rather than the astrophysicist slaving over some data on his computer. But they precisely do not disagree in their efforts. Neither are the Orthodox hesychasts at odds with the theology of St Palamas (surprise, surprise).
If anybody wants to claim that any of these efforts "went to far", let's hear about it. It is of course possible that some hypothesis or the other is false, that some analysis went awry. But this idea that one can sit on a pile of evidence from scripture and tradition, refuse to think about it, and feel all holy about it - that's just feeble-minded bullshit. And for that matter, sinful, for we are to dedicate our minds to God just as much as our bodies, hearts and souls.
Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
I can't conceive of any position more diametrically opposed to the message of the Heart Sutra than the one articulated by you in this thread. The Thathagata's don't hate and they most certainly don't torture.
I don't really have time to discuss Buddhism at length as well.
You were the one quoting the Heart Sutra
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
[QUOTE]
But briefly: the equivalent to God in Buddhism are not the Buddha(s) as human person(s). Perhaps "Buddha nature" or "emptiness" or what have you would be the closest match.
But "gate gate pāragate pārasaṃgate bodhi svāhā" which you quoted is not something said by any "god".
I just mentioned that Buddhas would not torture, as an argument against enlisting Buddhism as part of your analogies.
I won't correct your misconceptions of what Buddhism is since that would further derail the thread. But Someone who claims that the source of all being tortures people he created for all eternity is in no position to call Buddhism "grim".
You quote heaven as a feature of Christianity that somehow makes it better than Buddhism.
But as people have very eloquently expressed in the rest of this thread being in heaven while knowing there are people in hell is not heaven at all.
I am reminded of an excellent short story by Ursula K. Le Guin "The ones who walk away from Omelas" In it she describes an utopian city that she leaves to the imagination of the reader but it is as good as it can possibly be, except for one detail. The good that they all share in the city depends on the suffering of one innocent child that is kept suffering forever. Everyone in the City is told about him. Other than that everything is perfect. But even tough the city is so great, there are still those " who walk away from Omelas".
While you can claim that your heaven is "good" and Justice is being done to those in the Hell you believe in. I don't think I am alone in hoping that I would be one of the ones walking away from such a heaven if it existed.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
That it is a mantra of horror is the entire point.
It is your entire point, certainly.
It is sufficient but not necessary for my case that hell is monstrously unjust to the point that only an evil tyrant or someone who had massively fucked up would have created such a system. Only once you have dealt with this point are any of the other statements you made relevant.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
How is rehabilitation intended to be bad for the punished?
It may be the aim of the punisher to set the punished on a path to a better life through the punishment. That does not change the fact that the punishment itself is an evil suffered by the punished.
I thought you had a grounding in Catholic morality. You might want to look up the Doctrine of Double Effect some day. The intent is rehabilitation and social protection. The harm suffered by the punished should be minimised and only suffered to that end.
quote:
The English used to deport prisoners to Australia. At the time, very little if any news came back from Australia. Are you seriously claiming that "being deported to Australia" would not have acted as a deterrent for you if you had lived at the time?
As normal your analogies are obviously lacking in understanding of what was actually happening. The deported to Australia part wouldn't have made the blindest bit of difference. But being deported would. It would have ripped me away from my family and friends so that I would never see them again - and I could seep people being deported and the families they left behind. Deported to Australia would have been no different from deported to Timbuktu or, for that matter, Oz (the one with the munchkins, flying monkeys, and drop bears).
However being deported is not an equivalent to dying because everyone dies - on this scale Hell is no different to Heaven in terms of what we can see.
quote:
It really is patently absurd to claim that hell cannot act as a deterrent. The typical complaint is rather that it has been over-used in this way in the past.
That's because Christians have got off on the torture porn aspect of Hell.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Pointing out that God is a sadistic torturer who set things up such that humans were going to get tortured as the perfect result of God's perfect will is not something you want to hear. It is, of course, the point.
It is your point, certainly, and you wish to establish it by endless repetition, since you cannot by reason.
You know, however often you keep repeating that doesn't make it true.
quote:
However, I'm quite happy to acknowledge, as it happens, that God created man in a way and under circumstances that make it possible for man to end in eternal torture. So in that ultimate sense God is indeed responsible for the fate of the doomed. I just don't think that that is "malevolent", exactly. As I've said above, I think "challenging" is a possible descriptor. If you want it more negatively, you could say "not nice".
Nice is different than good. But the word I'd actually use is evil.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
All you need is the mantra that "With great power comes great responsibility".
That's working well in practice, is it?
Better than the morality of the Catholic Church in my experience.
quote:
It's the same mistake over and over and over again. The afterlife is not a simple continuation of this life, like ageing one extra day to become 18 years old certainly is. It is a qualitative step change, a completely different set of circumstances and drastically altered players.
And yet the step change is based entirely on the previous state and leads to monumentally unjust outcomes.
quote:
That you refuse to think about the differences before and after does not make them any less important or meaningful.
Or any less a perversion of the concept of justice.
quote:
I think that one can likely show that our modern system of justice derives in part from Christians worrying about allowing sufficient opportunity for repentance to perpetrators. It's rather ironic that the resulting justice system now gets twisted against these concerns.
The fate of all successful radicals. To be rooted in the world they were reforming and not ready for the world they created because they were too rooted in the world that needed reforming. This is an irony inherent in moral progress.
quote:
The Spanish Inquisition, as the name says, was primarily a national institution more comparable to a secret police force, or perhaps the FBI.
A great comfort to the Cathars of France and Italy, I'm sure. Even the auto da fe started in France.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Aquinas is creating a distinction without a difference.
It is a distinction of obvious merit. If I rejoice in your suffering, then I hate you. If I rejoice in justice being carried out, even if that entails suffering for you as the perpetrator, then this does not have to involve any animosity on my part for you (but for what you have done).
If you find anything to rejoyce in in the torture of another being rather than pity then yes it is a distinction without a difference.
quote:
At a minimum you were misrepresenting Aquinas unintentionally. I think it would be a basic sign of fairness to acknowledge that.
On the contrary. You were and continue to try to whitewash Aquinas. I think it would be a basic sign of honesty to accept that according to Aquinas the blessed see the damned in pain and rejoyce in their torture and pity them not at all.
That your supposedly blessed have no pity or compassion for the damned, thus allowing them to rejoice with bleached clean consciences is not a misrepresentation of Aquinas. On the other hand acknowledging that the saints in heaven don't even have ordinary human compassion according to Aquinas would cost you a lot so I don't expect you to acknowledge it.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
It is however infinitely disproportionate to the magnitude of any offence unless God is infinitely petty, mean, and weak.
Rather, of infinite goodness and dignity.
If God were of infinite dignity then there would be literally nothing that could even remotely affect that dignity. Therefore affronts to that dignity would be utterly meaningless.
If God were of infinite goodness no one would be in an eternal Hell. Not even Hitler deserves that.
Or, to quote Inigo Montoya "You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they do."
quote:
You are not a robot, you are a free agent. You can avoid going on a murder spree. If you nevertheless go on a murder spree, you are to blame.
If I strip you of everything including the clothes off your back and you then steal a loaf of bread to survive then you are responsible for stealing - and I am responsible for putting you in a position where you needed to steal.
quote:
Please do go ahead and extend your explanation to some actual moral laws, and show how you could not have arrived at these laws otherwise (or at least how this would have been very difficult).
And once again you try to change the ground rules. I do not have to show how there is no other way. I merely have to say it's how I get there. And a good way of telling that something is morally right is that a lot of roads lead there.
Evolution has been described by some as survival of the fittest. This is true - but the challenge is not known in advance. So what the fittest for any given situation will be is not known. We therefore need to diversify our strategies whenever we can. Single strategies, single bases of morality, single anything used as a yardstick end up with the sort of perversions that the Kennel Club encourage. This is a big part of why I distrust any book of conformance to type, whether it's a bible, a catechism, or a stock breeder's guide unless it's either inherent rules of the game or basic training. It locks you in, making you brittle.
Game theory - I'm sure you're familiar with Prisoner's Dilemma and the dominant solo strategy being Tit-For-Tat. On its own this leads to "An eye for an eye". But then we add to our ecosystem difficulties in communication - so that a certain number of our results are misread. At this point Tit-For-Tat fails to be an effective strategy, and with it goes retributive justice - something I used to believe in until I thought about it through the lens of game theory and information coding.
Please show somewhere that the Catholic Church does similar.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Apropos of nothing, the thought of other people going to hell gets much less thought in my theologizing and spirituality than the thought of me going to hell.
Really apropos of nothing, one of my personal images of God's judgment comes from grade school. I had been very bad one day. I don't remember what I did, but it was so bad that my teacher called my mother. I went home after school and lay in bed waiting for my mother to get home.
The thing is, I knew full well I deserved what I had coming, but could only wait in dread for that punishment to arrive. I suppose I bring this up because the thought that I don't deserve to go to hell hasn't really occurred to me. "My sin is ever before me," as the good book says. All this complaining about the excess of eternal torture only makes me consider the possibility that I have been vile enough to deserve it. It doesn't take long, in such of frame of mind, to remember my really awful sins, sins which can never be taken back and can never be made better.
But this is all terribly self-indulgent musing.
[ 22. November 2013, 01:01: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
We can quibble about the "sadistic bastard" bit,
That's not a quibble. That's the entirety of the discussion.
quote:
but I will take that in my stride since you of course have to motivate somehow why you are not attempting to "square the circle" yourself.
Who says I don't? This thread is about one particular attempt to square the circle by making God into either (a) morally inscrutable, and/or (b) evil.
quote:
But "squaring the circle" is just right for me. <etc>
Yeah, yeah. It's just that your squaring is evil.
quote:
Well, that didn't last long... Back we are to firing bullets at an incorporeal Spirit.
You know, I specifically warned about taking parts of this analogy literally that were not part of the point. And here it is, just as predicted. IT IS A FUCKING METAPHOR.
quote:
Nobody has ever claimed that sin consists in harming God physically (?!?)
IT.
IS.
A.
FUCKING.
METAPHOR.
quote:
The offence against God results from a privation of form or order or due measure of what He has willed for the world, a falling short as compared to what He has ordained.
And this just totally destroys him. He is hardly capable of getting out of bed in the morning. My point is that whatever harm it does to God is about nil compared to the infinite power and majesty and all that. Nil. God is not diminished in any way. He can't be, or he's not God.
quote:
Sin "harms" God insofar as His will ought to be done on earth as it is in heaven, but isn't.
Now you are redefining "harm." That's not what "harm" means. "Harm" means something happens to someone that takes something away from them. You can't take anything away from God.
quote:
This offence is infinite insofar as we reject the infinite good, God, over some finite good, which we wish to obtain by sinning.
No. It's not infinite. We are finite. We cannot do anything infinite. We are tiny puny little bugs. We are finite in every way. There is nothing infinite we can possibly do.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Kaplan - on the Oakhamist Nominalism thing, quite possibly - although I know little about William of Ockham apart from his famous razor.
I was thinking more of his belief in absolute voluntarism, or God's inscrutability, which means that as the totally Other, God is not limited by human concepts of logic, morality or consistency.
Of course to believe (or claim to believe) such a thing is to saw through the theological branch one is sitting on, because if God's idea of truth and language is whatever he chooses it to be (rather like Carroll's Humpty Dumpty)then he could be (in our limited human understanding) lying to us in all we think he is revealing.
The issue raised by this thread is a real one, because:-
a. God says he is love
b. in Christ's teachings and actions he
demonstrates what he means by love
BUT
c. the idea of the overwhelming majority of
humanity being created for the sole purpose of
being tortured in hell for eternity is
inconsistent with that love
I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that IngoB's Ockhamist sophistry (God can say and do what he likes no matter how incomprehensible it is to us) does not help at all.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I like the idea of a necessarily imperfect human understanding of Divine Justice, Love, Grace etc. We have 'inklings' about these things because we know in part. There is ambiguity in the human position since we are, somehow, made in the image of God and, somehow, fallen. But our imperfect understanding does not lead to world views in which 'up' really is 'down'.
The issue hangs on the damage done by the fall. Is the image of God obscured by sin or obliterated by sin?
I think Kaplan Corday puts it well. The argument that we can have no understanding of the mind of God re Justice and Love goes too far, just as much as the idea that we can have a full understanding of these things. There are paradoxes in Christianity because of this. We must hold some issues in tension, since we throw babies away with bath water if we don't.
I guess considerations of Hell and eternal fate illustrate this very well. All the criticisms of fear-mongering and control have force. But the other side of that is the agonising cries of victims of human cruelty. I saw a heart-rending programme about child victims of the Master Race policies last night; people whose lives were permanently damaged and have had to live, somehow, with the suffering so caused. They cannot get justice in this life. Is there some kind of eternal reckoning for that too?
He'll is an intolerable doctrine, but then unrequited suffering would seem to have no place in eternity either. Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? I hope so, but am not at all clear about how.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@EE - I was talking to IngoB, sorry, I should have made that clear ...
I think Kaplan's nailed it. IngoB has effectively accused me of lazy and feeble-minded thinking. I'm not going to call him to Hell over it as there's probably an eye-for-an-eye thing going on here ... after all, I did accuse him of apparently taking delight in the eternal tortures of the damned ...
So we're square.
However, I don't think it is a case of taking a feeble-minded rather than a robust approach. FWIW the thing I admire about Roman Catholicism is it's very robust and almost architectural mode of thinking. I completely agree that the intellectual side of things continued to develop in the West whereas in the Christian East it was dampened down to a certain extent by the constraints of Ottoman rule etc.
I also completely agree with his point about many, if not most, of the great mystics being Roman Catholics. Yes, indeed ... and I don't particularly have a problem with the broad thrust of the argument he's raised.
However, the devil, as always, is in the detail and I do think that there is a tendency within Roman Catholicism to over-define and over-Scholasticise ... you can see this in the difference between the RCs and the East in the way that the Real Presence in the Eucharist is put forward and described ... The Orthodox (and some forms of Protestant) also believe in the Real Presence but they don't feel the need to adopt neo-Aristotelian formularies in order to encrypt it.
I'm simply suggesting that a similar tendency is being played out here in terms of the approach IngoB is taking to the concept of Hell.
@Zach82 - on the issue of our deserving Hell and deserving punishment ... yes, I can see that and like you I'd hold my hand up and say, 'yes, I'm a sinner and don't deserve to come into God's eternal presence ...' but I'd also say (as I'm sure you would) 'Only say the word and I shall be healed ...'
There's a balance here. I'm sure you've read books and tracts like 'Grace Abounding' by John Bunyan - these old Puritan guys used to suffer agonies over their sins. They weren't at all flippant about it - and yes, I'd agree that the sense of godly sorrow at ones sins can so easily be lost in today's Big Mac fast-food Christianity ...
Yes, I believe in divine judgement but I'm less inclined to speculate about what form that takes and who will or won't be subject to it in its ultimate form.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
You were the one quoting the Heart Sutra
Appreciatively, not by name, and to no other effect than to deny simplistic this-wordly discussions of God.
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
But "gate gate pāragate pārasaṃgate bodhi svāhā" which you quoted is not something said by any "god".
Indeed. And I quoted it as an excellent human expression of the right human attitude to the Transcendent, which it is.
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
I just mentioned that Buddhas would not torture, as an argument against enlisting Buddhism as part of your analogies.
I was not enlisting Buddhism in my analogies. Neither was this said in that context, nor was Buddhism invoked by name, teacher or teachings. It is your response which got Buddhism involved now. And if you quit, I'm sure Buddhism will drop out of this discussion again.
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
But Someone who claims that the source of all being tortures people he created for all eternity is in no position to call Buddhism "grim".
I consider a fighting chance for heaven in one life much less grim than unrelenting suffering through multiple lives until I finally manage to snuff myself out. But to each his own.
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
The good that they all share in the city depends on the suffering of one innocent child that is kept suffering forever.
As analogy for hell this is pernicious, and indeed, quite typical. The doomed are in no way or form "innocent children". They are mortal sinners, and given the requirements for mortal sin, it is basically impossible that they are in hell for sins committed as children (much less are they innocent). But perhaps even more importantly, nobody is in heaven because of the doomed. Every single person is judged individually, and there simply isn't any sense in which being heaven depends on other people being in hell. Hell certainly could be empty, with absolutely everybody in heaven. That is possible in principle. We know that this is not the case in practice, but not because anybody requires or desires people to go to hell, least of all God.
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
While you can claim that your heaven is "good" and Justice is being done to those in the Hell you believe in. I don't think I am alone in hoping that I would be one of the ones walking away from such a heaven if it existed.
There is only one other "place" you can "walk to" in the afterlife. In the light of God, there is only black or white. Grey is for this life only. All those images evoking some kind of righteous protest movement against God by "walk-outs" from heaven are just silly projections from this life. There is nothing like this in the afterlife. Not because God somehow interdicts it by employing a police force or whatever, that's more silly projection. This just is not a possibility.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
There are times when atheism sounds more attractive than Christianity. This thread is one of those times.
Well, of course!!! Have you ever looked at the BHA's home page?
P.S. Admiration as always for debating skills of posters.
[ 22. November 2013, 09:26: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
My point is that whatever harm it does to God is about nil compared to the infinite power and majesty and all that. Nil. God is not diminished in any way. He can't be, or he's not God.
This is now getting close to being helpful. I agree with this. I do not think my sin "harms" God in the sense of diminishing him in any way.
I believe that my sin damages the part of me that *is* God - marrs the appearance of God in me - makes me unGodly. And that this offends and saddens him. And it is entirely right and just that I should comprehend the extent of this offence and sadness, either in this life, or in the next.
But can anyone really sin so much that they become wholly unGodly? That they are no longer in God's image at all?
The difficulty is that as a human parent, I cannot imagine what my children could grow up to do that would make me say "You are not my child".
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, I believe in divine judgement but I'm less inclined to speculate about what form that takes and who will or won't be subject to it in its ultimate form.
Totally agree.
I doubt this thread would commend Christianity to me, were I at the exploring/seeking stage ...
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Well, of course!!! Have you ever looked at the BHA's home page?
I just looked. Somewhat dogmatic statements like 'for the one life we have' immediately make me go 'yes, but ...'
I doubt I would ever convert to atheism. Even if I were not a Christian, I could not be easily persuaded that this life is all we have. (Of course we all have to make it count: not denying that.) Jesus is much bigger than His church, and I'd honestly miss Him too much.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
All the criticisms of fear-mongering and control have force. But the other side of that is the agonising cries of victims of human cruelty. I saw a heart-rending programme about child victims of the Master Race policies last night; people whose lives were permanently damaged and have had to live, somehow, with the suffering so caused. They cannot get justice in this life. Is there some kind of eternal reckoning for that too?
He'll is an intolerable doctrine, but then unrequited suffering would seem to have no place in eternity either. Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? I hope so, but am not at all clear about how.
What about if God's justice is restorative rather than retributive? So justice will be done because God will make all things new; no more suffering, death, tears and so on. Maybe it's a trap of western, modernist thinking to consider that justice being done means some kind of retribution, either in this life or eternity...
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Gamaliel, you repeatedly typify Orthodox theology as faith refusing to seek understanding out of some idea of respect for "mystery"—whatever that is. Are you talking about any theologian in particular?
Because it doesn't really square with the Orthodox theologians I have read.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I completely agree that the intellectual side of things continued to develop in the West whereas in the Christian East it was dampened down to a certain extent by the constraints of Ottoman rule etc.
I read a book recently that claimed the real theology-development (and many other branches of theory development) killer in the east was the rise of hesychasm.
We have a formula in the east that "Theology is the putting-into-words of people's experience of God." We don't experience anything that would give rise to Scholasticism. It's removed from where we live. It's speculation, for the sake of creating neat little pigeonholes.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
That's strange. I just read a 250 page book on Orthodox Eucharistic theology. I'm not claiming to be an expert or anything, but the objections to "scholasticism" on this thread, and on the ship in general, have remained extremely vague, to me, in all my years hanging out around here.
[ 22. November 2013, 15:34: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
That's strange. I just read a 250 page book on Orthodox Eucharistic theology. I'm not claiming to be an expert or anything, but the objections to "scholasticism" on this thread, and on the ship in general, have remained extremely vague, to me, in all my years hanging out around here.
Remember we don't have a central imprimatur-granting body. Anybody can write a book and say it's about Orthodox theology. But this doesn't contradict what I said, even so. Eucharist is experience of God.
Anyway, it's funny you should say our eschewing of over-definition is vague. Yeah, almost by definition, wot?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Remember we don't have a central imprimatur-granting body. Anybody can write a book and say it's about Orthodox theology.
Uh oh, True Scotsman alert.
This is the guy I read, by the way. A truly impressive set of credentials there. This guy is also extremely verbose, for a theology that is beyond words.
quote:
But this doesn't contradict what I said, even so. Eucharist is experience of God.
Pretty much every Western theologian I know of would agree with that. Including Calvin. Scholastics would never claim to exhaust the significance of the Eucharist.
quote:
Anyway, it's funny you should say our eschewing of over-definition is vague. Yeah, almost by definition, wot?
The experience of God is certainly beyond words, any credible scholastic would agree with that. Unlike the experience of God, the logic behind human endeavors like theology CAN be put into words. If you are going to say that the approach of Western theology is misguided, then you really should be able to elucidate why.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82
Really apropos of nothing, one of my personal images of God's judgment comes from grade school. I had been very bad one day. I don't remember what I did, but it was so bad that my teacher called my mother. I went home after school and lay in bed waiting for my mother to get home.
The thing is, I knew full well I deserved what I had coming, but could only wait in dread for that punishment to arrive. I suppose I bring this up because the thought that I don't deserve to go to hell hasn't really occurred to me. "My sin is ever before me," as the good book says. All this complaining about the excess of eternal torture only makes me consider the possibility that I have been vile enough to deserve it. It doesn't take long, in such of frame of mind, to remember my really awful sins, sins which can never be taken back and can never be made better.
Did your mother burn you all over with a blowtorch to punish you for your 'vileness'? And when your wounds healed, did she apply the blowtorch again? And again and again and again... for as long as possible...?
If not, why not?
No one deserves hell if it is impossible to desist from committing sins. A wrong action can only be a legitimate sin in contrast to the righteous act that ought to have been done and therefore which the accused could have done. If a sinner cannot help being a sinner, and God deliberately brought that person into a fallen world, where they could not but be a sinner, then that person possesses no moral responsibility, because responsibility implies genuine choice. According to Calvinism that choice does not exist.
So all this talk about "deserving hell" is incoherent.
Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I consider a fighting chance for heaven in one life much less grim than unrelenting suffering through multiple lives until I finally manage to snuff myself out. But to each his own.
quote:
"Since there is nothing to attain,
the Bodhisattva lives by Prajna Paramita,
with no hindrance in the mind; no hindrance and therefore no fear;
far beyond delusive thinking right here is Nirvana."
Heart Sutra again . Nirvana is in this life or it is nowhere. But I agree that Buddhism is of topic. So Ill stop.
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
The good that they all share in the city depends on the suffering of one innocent child that is kept suffering forever.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
As analogy for hell this is pernicious, and indeed, quite typical.
I agree its imperfect, it was not meant as an analogy of hell by the author, just as a moral dilemma. But in Omelas there is a benefit from the suffering. Many people benefit from the suffering of just one. Who benefits from Hell?
And of course people in Hell are supposed to "deserve it" but EE's great comment about Calvinism fits in here also. If God creates the conditions that lead to the "Sin" is it a "Sin"?
So they are not "innocent" but you have failed to convince most people here that what they did is enough to deserve eternal punishment.
But people have gone over this much more eloquently before.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Remember we don't have a central imprimatur-granting body. Anybody can write a book and say it's about Orthodox theology.
Uh oh, True Scotsman alert.
Mom, what should I do if I don't have a really good argument?
Son, use some glib expression that makes it look like you have actually said something.
quote:
quote:
But this doesn't contradict what I said, even so. Eucharist is experience of God.
Pretty much every Western theologian I know of would agree with that. Including Calvin. Scholastics would never claim to exhaust the significance of the Eucharist.
You completely missed the point. I mean like totally. I mean like OMFG.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If you are going to say that the approach of Western theology is misguided, then you really should be able to elucidate why.
I have. It's speculative and not based on experience of God. (By "it" I mean the parts that are misguided; of course not all Western theology is speculative.)
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Mom, what should I do if I don't have a really good argument?
Son, use some glib expression that makes it look like you have actually said something.
It is a True Scotsman argument. I cited prominent Orthodox theologians that contradict your characterization, and you responded by saying, basically "Those aren't REAL Orthodox theologians."
quote:
You completely missed the point. I mean like totally. I mean like OMFG.
Apparently? What am I missing?
quote:
I have. It's speculative and not based on experience of God. (By "it" I mean the parts that are misguided; of course not all Western theology is speculative.)
Do you have examples where this mistake is especially clear?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
What about if God's justice is restorative rather than retributive? So justice will be done because God will make all things new; no more suffering, death, tears and so on. Maybe it's a trap of western, modernist thinking to consider that justice being done means some kind of retribution, either in this life or eternity...
In human terms, justice has both retributive and restorative dimensions. And of course you see both dimensions attributed to God in scripture, and in tradition. What's not clear is how much of each applies in any particular set of circumstances - or indeed the extent to which we are projecting human understandings of balance, of fairness, onto God.
What we have are 'inklings' and, I guess, some personal preferences, hopes and fears. God will be 'all in all' in the end. I prefer to leave it there.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I cited prominent Orthodox theologians
You didn't cite SHIT. You said, "I read a book." In my world that's not citing.
quote:
that contradict your characterization,
You didn't mention that either.
quote:
and you responded by saying, basically "Those aren't REAL Orthodox theologians."
I couldn't possibly have, because I didn't know who the fuck you thought you were citing. I just said "just because something is published doesn't make it the official Orthodox position." On many things we don't even HAVE an official Orthodox position. Most, really. WHICH IS THE FUCKING POINT.
quote:
Apparently? What am I missing?
That we don't do speculative theology. I said nothing about whether Western theologians have exhausted the whatever. I don't even know what that means.
quote:
Do you have examples where this mistake is especially clear?
Defining transubstantiation based on the categories of Aristotelian physics is probably one of the most blatant examples.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
I couldn't possibly have, because I didn't know who the fuck you thought you were citing. I just said "just because something is published doesn't make it the official Orthodox position." On many things we don't even HAVE an official Orthodox position. Most, really. WHICH IS THE FUCKING POINT.
OoooooooKaaaaay. I accept that you say the Orthodox don't do speculative theology... having read a lot of speculative theology from prominent Orthodox theologians that totally defines terms clearly even though that's the hallmark of evil scholastic theology. Whatever.
quote:
Defining transubstantiation based on the categories of Aristotelian physics is probably one of the most blatant examples.
Transubstantiation merely asserts that the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ, while maintaining the physical characteristics of bread and wine. The translation of this concept into Aristotelian metaphysics has not, contrary to common belief, ever been declared a matter of dogmatic belief.
So how this runs afoul of the truer, more mystical Orthodox approach isn't readily apparent to me.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The translation of this concept into Aristotelian metaphysics has not, contrary to common belief, ever been declared a matter of dogmatic belief.
Is dogma the only category of official Roman Catholic theology?
quote:
So how this runs afoul of the truer, more mystical Orthodox approach isn't readily apparent to me.
I can believe it.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
There's Orthodox speculative theology which doesn't constitute the official position and Western speculative theology that doesn't constitute the official position. You haven't explained the difference, MT.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
You haven't come up with any examples of speculative theology.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Just for those of us who don't read pronouncements of the Roman Catholic Church, the official line on transubstantiation reads—
"By the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."
None of the words are officially given the Thomistic or Aristotelian meaning, in fact both "substance" and "transubstantiation" had been in circulation in the west to describe the Eucharist before Aristotle was in wide circulation among Western theologians. Roman Catholic theology in no way seeks to define the mystery of the experience of God in the Eucharist, or even how it could possibly happen. It is the mere assertion that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ when they are consecrated.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You haven't come up with any examples of speculative theology.
Neither have you.
I'll start. Describing the relationship between the Father and the Son with the non-biblical word homoousias.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You haven't come up with any examples of speculative theology.
Neither have you.
Actually, I did, you just dismissed it because it wasn't dogma. Big difference.
quote:
Describing the relationship between the Father and the Son with the non-biblical word homoousias.
I'm sorry, is that Orthodox-specific? Doesn't your church accept the Creed?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Actually, I did, you just dismissed it because it wasn't dogma. Big difference.
You're the one that decided that only official stances counted. To quote, "I couldn't possibly have, because I didn't know who the fuck you thought you were citing. I just said "just because something is published doesn't make it the official Orthodox position." On many things we don't even HAVE an official Orthodox position. Most, really. WHICH IS THE FUCKING POINT."
When we looked at the official stance of the Roman Catholic Church, it turned out to not be terribly speculative.
quote:
I'm sorry, is that Orthodox-specific? Doesn't your church accept the Creed?
It's Orthodox, innit? And, it so happens, a clear move of speculative theology.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
There are times when atheism sounds more attractive than Christianity. This thread is one of those times.
I am reminded of the saying "Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company."
Posted by hugorune (# 17793) on
:
Heaven and hell are two elements of Christianity that I think about less than anything. I don't understand if, and in what nature they exist, and to be honest I don't think either our language or our imagination are adequate to explain them if they do. I think Dante's Inferno is an interesting story, and a great inspiration for a couple of heavy metal tunes, but that's where it ends. I think the torture fantasies that some Christians like to express about atheists are self-indulgent nonsense, and that's as kind as I can put it.
Anyway, what happens to all of us after death is between us and God. The important thing is to focus on God's unconditional love for us, the sacrifice of Christ which can free us from bondage to sin, and the sanctifying power of grace. Other than that, all we can do is trust in the goodness, justice, and mercy of God.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Amen hugorune. It's got NOTHING to do with eternity that's for sure. Heaven and hell are about now. Eternal life is now.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Hmmmm ... On the speculative theology thing, I suspect all of us go in for that to some extent or other. I certainly wouldn't suggest that the Orthodox East has never engaged in that.
No, I'm thinking in broad terms and in very broad and generalised terms I think it is fair to say that the East hasn't gone in for speculative/scholastic style theology as much as the West has. Or perhaps I'm simply naive and have swallowed too much of the PlotTM.
That isn't to say that Orthodox theologians can't be dense and difficult to follow - Zizoulas anyone?
But I do, in very general terms, think that there is certainly a far more juridical and 'clinical' approach in the West and that you can see this in Aquinas and you can see it in Calvin.
That's not to suggest that absolutely everything in Aquinas and Calvin is speculative and Scholastic - of course not. But it is to identify a tendency which I believe to be prevalent within Western theology per se - and that's a tendency to attempt to define and characterise things to the nth degree.
Which is how, as far as Calvinism is concerned, we end up with the Five-Points - TULIP and so forth.
I can't think of any single issue where we might be able to find the Orthodox coming out with a Five-Points of this, a 7-points of that, (apart from the Seven Ecumenical Councils perhaps ... ) or the 17-points of Something Else.
For better or worse, it seems to me, there is an inveterate tendency within the 'Latin mind' which both RCs and Protestants share to overly codify and define things.
The 5-Points of This, the 15-Points of that, the 17.27 Points of Something Else.
You find it, I submit, at all levels. From the highly refined dogma of the RC Church through to Protestant fundies with their '4-Spiritual Laws' or the Pentecostals endlessly speculating about how many spiritual gifts can be identified from the New Testament ...
That's the tendency I'm identifying and I'm suggesting that it is this tendency - rather than the plain meaning of scripture - that leads to the constructing of conceptual edifices like TULIP and so on.
I'm suggesting that it's pure speculation and doesn't get us anywhere.
There's certainly an 'experiential' and observational aspect behind some of this stuff - I've heard that one of the reasons Calvin was exercised over the whole predestination/Elect thing was because he observed how some people responded and amended their way of life under his preaching at Geneva, whilst others apparently remained oblivious.
So, lawyer and Scholastic that he was, he began to speculate why this might be ...
Aha, some people must Reprobate and are therefore not chosen to share in the joys of the Elect ...
Bingo!
Ok, so I'm exaggerating to make a point, but I think the points there to be made.
Rather than accept the Mystery (and the fact that it's none of our business) a whole clunky edifice with TULIPs and points and sub-clauses and goodness knows what else develops in order to try to make some sense of the whole thing.
Nice try. But when it comes up against scriptures, traditions and plain commonsense observations that don't conform to its own interior logic it faces a problem ... which it has to neatly side-step and resolve through sophistry.
That's the point I'm making and that's what the Calvinists share in common with the RCs, despite all their other differences.
Ok, so there might be other forms of the same thing operating in the East other different issues - and yes, if we wanted to we could level similar criticisms at the way the doctrine of the Trinity came to be codified, as it were ...
But I think we're dealing with different things there ... I mean, all of us who are creedal Christians - whether Orthodox, RC or Protestant - would agree on the Trinitarian formularies. We don't all agree on the issue of predestination, free-will, monergism vs synergism and how soteriology works, let alone issues around eternal judgement.
Which suggests to me that much of that area is pretty speculative.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But I do, in very general terms, think that there is certainly a far more juridical and 'clinical' approach in the West and that you can see this in Aquinas and you can see it in Calvin.
. . . . For better or worse, it seems to me, there is an inveterate tendency within the 'Latin mind' which both RCs and Protestants share to overly codify and define things.
I think there's truth to this.
I also wonder if different basic understandings of soteriology come into play here. For the most part, the discussion of hell has focused on understandings of guilt and punishment, which I have long understood to be a Western approach to understanding salvation—being saved from punishment. As I understand the Eastern approach, it sees salvation more in terms of illness and healing—being saved from death.
I wonder how that plays into understandings of what or why hell is.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I think there's truth to this.
I also wonder if different basic understandings of soteriology come into play here. For the most part, the discussion of hell has focused on understandings of guilt and punishment, which I have long understood to be a Western approach to understanding salvation—being saved from punishment. As I understand the Eastern approach, it sees salvation more in terms of illness and healing—being saved from death.
I wonder how that plays into understandings of what or why hell is.
I think it's key to our approach. An olive branch offered by the loving God is consistent with our knowledge of the living God.
A torturing god has more to do with false idols, which in the imagination demand appeasement.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Calvinism doesn't "over codify" anything. It does its best to remain faithful to the witness of scripture. It may interpret scripture incorrectly, of course, but I should hope discussing the propositions of scripture clearly and accepting the consequences shouldn't be the black mark against it.
I do find some irony here that Calvinism and Catholicism are being roasted for "overly defining" matters, when it's a Calvinist and a Catholic who are arguing that God's goodness is inscrutable.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Au contraire, like any other schema, Calvinism doesn't do it's best to remain faithful to the witness of scripture, what it actually does is to do its best to remain faithful to what it believes scripture to teach ...
There's a subtle difference.
And if there are scriptures that apparently contradict it then it seeks - by sophistry - either to suggest that they say no such thing or else to elide them in some way.
Calvinism isn't alone in that. Other traditions do the self-same thing over different issues. I'm sure we could think of some between ourselves.
The black mark against Calvinism, if there is one, is that it conveniently ignores any scriptural references that don't support its own internal logic.
This is more apparent at the populist or hyper end of the spectrum. I've actually heard Calvinists say that when scriptures says that God so loved the world, it can't possibly mean the entire world but only 'the world of the Elect'.
How's that protecting the meaning of scripture? It's distorting the meaning of scripture.
Obviously, in that example it's not representative of Calvinism as a whole - there are plenty of Calvinists who can affirm that God loved the world whilst maintaining that only the Elect will be saved.
But surely you can see the point I'm trying to make?
As for irony, I'm pleased that you've got an irony-bone in your body. That's something I've not found in too many of your countrymen ... mind you, I notice you come from Boston so that implies that you're from the narrow strip along each coast which actually 'gets' irony ...
(Which is a joke, don't take me to Hell, people).
Seriously, I'm not at all surprised that a Calvinist and a Catholic are arguing here that God's goodness is inscrutable. It's not only Catholics and Calvinists who find that to be the case.
The real irony, of course, is that you don't see the irony of how close your schema is to speculative late-medieval Scholasticism.
And even if you could or did, you don't particularly seem bothered about it.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Au contraire, like any other schema, Calvinism doesn't do it's best to remain faithful to the witness of scripture, what it actually does is to do its best to remain faithful to what it believes scripture to teach ...
Of course Calvinsim seeks to remain faithful to the Bible as it understands it. Whose interpretation would it remain faithful to? It isn't high minded piety to ignore the scriptures interpreted as best one can— it's faithlessness.
quote:
And if there are scriptures that apparently contradict it then it seeks - by sophistry - either to suggest that they say no such thing or else to elide them in some way...The black mark against Calvinism, if there is one, is that it conveniently ignores any scriptural references that don't support its own internal logic.
Calvin does no such thing. He was, in fact, not a terribly systematic thinker. He would see an assertion in the Scriptures and argue for it with relentless reasoning, but he was perfectly comfortable with logical tension in his overall system.
Though, once again, on one side of this argument are people who sincerely believe that God is good, yet insist that the passages in the Bible asserting eternal damnation must be true, (Tension!) and this other side that refuse to take those passages seriously because it is inconsistent with their belief structure. (No tension)
Guess which side the Calvinist/Catholic side is!
quote:
This is more apparent at the populist or hyper end of the spectrum. I've actually heard Calvinists say that when scriptures says that God so loved the world, it can't possibly mean the entire world but only 'the world of the Elect'.
How's that protecting the meaning of scripture? It's distorting the meaning of scripture.
They exist in every "system." Who cares?
quote:
But surely you can see the point I'm trying to make?
Better than you ever seem capable of admitting.
quote:
As for irony, I'm pleased that you've got an irony-bone in your body. That's something I've not found in too many of your countrymen ... mind you, I notice you come from Boston so that implies that you're from the narrow strip along each coast which actually 'gets' irony ...
(Which is a joke, don't take me to Hell, people).
Jokes are usually funny.
quote:
Seriously, I'm not at all surprised that a Calvinist and a Catholic are arguing here that God's goodness is inscrutable. It's not only Catholics and Calvinists who find that to be the case.
What doesn't make any sense is that you are pitching about how Calvinists and Catholics over define everything in said situation. It's "the other side" that's insisting on defining God's goodness.
quote:
The real irony, of course, is that you don't see the irony of how close your schema is to speculative late-medieval Scholasticism.
Close to your understanding of speculative late-medieval Scholasticism. Sadly, you can't see the difference.
quote:
And even if you could or did, you don't particularly seem bothered about it.
Why should I? Being close to scholasticism is a lot better than being close to the vague jargon, hand waving, and insults veiled as humor that composes your theology.
[ 23. November 2013, 13:55: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's "the other side" that's insisting on defining God's goodness.
No, we're defending it against your definitions.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's "the other side" that's insisting on defining God's goodness.
No, we're defending it against your definitions.
For myself, I only insist that eternal damnation is in the Scriptures alongside the assertion that God is good. Even though I am a Westerner that is totally speculative and seeks to define everything, I attribute this tension to God's inscrutability. To say that attributing inscrutability to God is to define God is an error on the level of attributing characteristics to nothing.
Since you are the one insisting that eternal damnation is inconsistent with God's goodness, you are indeed positing at least part of a definition of God's goodness, if only implicitly. Which is strange, because putting God into such human logical categories is supposed to be the poison of Western thinking.
[ 23. November 2013, 16:05: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Absolutely - and that's where the irony lies and it would lie there irrespective of my posting style and barbed comments.
Because the way things out in Calvinism (or hyper-Calvinism perhaps, to be more charitable) is that rather than admit they've over-egged things and over defined things to the nth degree they'd rather make God out to be a total bastard who creates people for the sole purpose of being eternally predestined for eternal damnation.
They'd rather charge God with such calumny than admit that they are wrong.
Think about that for a moment.
Calvinism is attractive. I used to be attracted to it, by virtue of it having a logical schema and eliding the emotionalism and manipulation which I took to be a feature of the more full-on Arminian systems (I'm thinking of particular brands of evangelicalism and Pentecostalism here).
And yes, at some points it is consonant with the scriptures. But not at every point. And that's where the sleights of hand come in.
Sure, all traditions can be guilty of casuistry and sophistry. Calvinists and Catholics aren't the only ones capable of that. We all are.
But none of the other systems paint God into such a corner that he becomes some kind of Molech.
As it happens, I do believe in eternal judgement. It's just that I'm reluctant to define exactly what that comprises. If that makes for vagueness, so be it. The other end of the pole might not be vague but it's certainly unpalatable.
It's got a kind of cold, calculating, twisted logic about it. It gives me the creeps.
It's as if Calvinists are so petrified that someone might get it into their heads that there's a soupcon of synergy or self-effort involved in their salvation that they have to concoct an entire schema predicated on the vast majority of humanity having no chance whatsoever of redemption.
They end up arguing that black is white and the polar opposite of what they are setting out to assert and defend. They imprison the Almighty in a strait-jacket of their own making.
Whose interpretation of scripture should Calvinists be faithful to? Well, any interpretation that doesn't play fast and loose with the biblical record, that isn't hyper-selective in the extreme and which doesn't box the Almighty into some kind of strait-jacket.
The other available interpretations may have other flaws, but they don't have this one.
I've said nothing about high-minded piety nor lack of faithfulness to the scriptures. Being faithful to the scriptures means being able to acknowledge when they say something which appears to contradict one's own position.
It doesn't mean resorting to sophistry to try to make them say something other than they intend.
That isn't to say, of course, that Calvinists can't deal with tension. Of course they can. And do.
But it's the extremes I'm talking about here ... the taking of things to their logical conclusion.
I agree with your point that there are people here who are arguing against eternal damnation - as traditionally understood in the Christian West - because it doesn't fit their belief system.
But there are those who do believe in eternal damnation as traditionally understood in the West who don't accept the corollary that Calvinists place on these things - that atonement is limited and that millions or people are eternally predestined to hell-fire and damnation because of that limitation.
That's where the sophistry comes in. You have to fill in the gaps, the blanks in our understanding. We all do that. It's just that Calvinism has done it in a particularly grotesque way and then tries to make a virtue out of it.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
As usual, Gamaliel, you can't tell the difference between actual Calvin and your understanding of him.
And really, no system deserves to be defined by its self proclaimed enemies.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
By the way, Gamaliel, have you noticed that, in response to a Calvinist arguing solely from the belief that God is mysterious and beyond human categories, all you can do it bang on with your tired mantra about Calvinists over defining everything?
[ 23. November 2013, 17:15: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
To an extent - except I'm not an enemy of Calvinism. I am however, an enemy of casuistry and sophistry.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Put it this way, Zach82, I am more than happy to affirm Calvinism where its witness accords with scripture, reason and tradition.
Where I part company with it is where it goes beyond what can reasonably be deduced from the scriptures - and I would posit that 'limited atonement' is one area where it does that and also that the idea that God would predestine millions of people to eternal hell-fire and torment without there being a single thing that anyone or anything can do about it is another.
To assert the latter isn't to say that God's love is inscrutable at all. It's to say the opposite.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Calvinism doesn't "over codify" anything.
Well, to be fair and speaking as a life-long Presbyterian, I would say that many in the Reformed tradition would readily admit that "over-codifying" has happened and is a danger that must be guarded against in Calvinism. Calvin may not have done it himself, but some (certainly not all) of his heirs have been prone to from time to time.
Posted by hugorune (# 17793) on
:
I struggled a bit with Calvinism as a youngster - I grew up in a strict Reformed church, and was very enthusiastic about God, in my own childish way. At the same time growing into a teenager, I was struggling to come to terms with my homosexuality, which was condemned by the church and I was in the closet out of fear. I developed a belief that I was must not, in fact, part of the elect, despite that I clearly believed in God and wanted to serve him, because I was being punished with a sin that would damn me - and that led to anger, resentment, lashing out, and a lot of pretty dark thoughts.
Can I legitimately blame the doctrine I was being taught for what I went through back then? Maybe it's unfair to, but I know it wouldn't have happened if I was attending a church similar to the one I am at now - an affirming Anglo-Catholic church.
The irony, however, is that from my recent experiences I know that God brought me back into the church, because I didn't possess the will and strength to be reconciled myself. Which is ironically a Calvinist way of thinking about it. In contrast though, I believe that Christ died for all humanity, and his atonement was intended for all who, with a full intent, repent of their sin and partake in the body and blood of Christ, in the transformative sense of the sacrament. And the Church should, if it is to serve Christ's purpose, invite all to His table. Which is, if I'm right, not particularly Calvinist, although it may be a semantic distinction.
[ 23. November 2013, 18:54: Message edited by: hugorune ]
Posted by hugorune (# 17793) on
:
I really, really, need to get into the habit of proofreading my posts.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Which is strange, because putting God into such human logical categories is supposed to be the poison of Western thinking.
Nope, just taking Him at His Word.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Yeah but ...
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Some here believe in Jesus.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
It is sufficient but not necessary for my case that hell is monstrously unjust to the point that only an evil tyrant or someone who had massively fucked up would have created such a system. Only once you have dealt with this point are any of the other statements you made relevant.
It is "sufficient but not necessary"? So there would be other valid points you could make? Let's have them then, because frankly this is getting nowhere. I'm quite satisfied that I have successfully answered your point, and that you are reduced to endlessly repeating sentimental rhetoric. You are convinced that I have said nothing of value and am evading your single point. No further progress is to be expected from this.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I thought you had a grounding in Catholic morality. You might want to look up the Doctrine of Double Effect some day. The intent is rehabilitation and social protection. The harm suffered by the punished should be minimised and only suffered to that end.
"Double effect" requires that an evil occurs, in this case it would be the evil of punishment, as I said. It is just acceptable, because the evil is not intended but a "side effect". I'm not sure why we are even discussing this, it is ridiculous to deny that punishment is an evil suffered for the punished as far as the punishment itself goes. Whether you have to stand in a corner or are being whipped to shreds, punishment obviously is a negative experience for you, and intended as such. But since you are so informed about double effect, I note that your final sentence is quite problematic. Double effect does precisely not allow doing an evil to achieve a good.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
As normal your analogies are obviously lacking in understanding of what was actually happening.
As I've stated, it is not necessary for deterrence that one gets information from the punished, as you claimed, but merely that one is reliably informed about their punishment. That is what my Australia example illustrated, successfully, though it really is obvious. We can conclude that it is no argument against deterrence that we cannot talk to those suffering punishment in hell, it is enough to know that they are being punished. Again, this is blindingly obvious, but apparently had to be argued here.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Nice is different than good. But the word I'd actually use is evil.
My point was merely that other people can also be wrong about God, like you are, but in a different manner. God is not "nice", but He can still be "good", since as you correctly say these are different things.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Better than the morality of the Catholic Church in my experience.
Really? Hitler, Stalin, Mao? Or any number of minor figures since then, say a Mugabe or Jong-il? Let's keep some perspective here, please.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And yet the step change is based entirely on the previous state and leads to monumentally unjust outcomes.
To outcomes that you claim to be unjust, yes. One of the points I have been trying to make is that it really is inappropriate to evaluate all this as if it was some kind of court case against God. In fact, I would argue that "justice" is nothing but a human codification of certain aspects of the moral law that God has written on our hearts. And God has written those rules on our heart precisely as guidance for us during this life, which ends in a "selection process" for heaven or hell. God is "supremely just" in the sense that He writes those rules on our hearts as He see fits, He just is justice by virtue of creating us under these constraints. God is not "supremely just" in the sense that His creation - in particular the "selection process" - has to correspond to the systems of justice that we created among ourselves in response to the moral laws God has given to humans. This is just an over-extrapolation from our lives to His. As argued, one can make that work, given certain assumptions about how human justice should work. But if one rejects these assumptions one simply rejects the over-extrapolation, not what God does.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
If you find anything to rejoyce in in the torture of another being rather than pity then yes it is a distinction without a difference.
But if the only thing one rejoices in is that justice is being done, then we are simply back to your claim that justice is not being done. So that is clearly a distinction with a difference, unless you wish to say that we should never rejoice in justice being done.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
On the contrary. You were and continue to try to whitewash Aquinas. I think it would be a basic sign of honesty to accept that according to Aquinas the blessed see the damned in pain and rejoyce in their torture and pity them not at all.
I "whitewashed" Aquinas by quoting him directly, showing explicitly that your claim of the saints rejoicing in the torture of the damned as such is false. This is simple calumny on your part, now repeated once more. Stop, please.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
That your supposedly blessed have no pity or compassion for the damned, thus allowing them to rejoice with bleached clean consciences is not a misrepresentation of Aquinas. On the other hand acknowledging that the saints in heaven don't even have ordinary human compassion according to Aquinas would cost you a lot so I don't expect you to acknowledge it.
Unlike you, I am not in the habit of stating falsehoods about publicly available texts. Your repeated claim that according to Aquinas the blessed rejoice in the punishment of the wicked as such is simply wrong. Whereas it is correct to say that Aquinas does not believe that the blessed will pity the wicked. This is so because he believes that all emotions in heaven will be reasonable, and because he believes that pity arises from the wish to help someone out of their evils. Since there is no such help possible for the damned, it is not reasonable that one pities them. Since emotions in heaven are reasonable, there is then no pity in the saints. You can perhaps question his assumptions, but not really his conclusions. (One should also note that while most of the Summa Theologiae is a mature expression of his faith, all this comes from the Supplement of the Third Part. This was not written by Aquinas himself, but rather compiled by da Piperno from one of the earliest academic works of Aquinas, his commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard. We simply do not know whether Aquinas the "distinguished Professor", to put it in our terms, would have said the same things there as Aquinas the "fresh Masters".)
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
If God were of infinite dignity then there would be literally nothing that could even remotely affect that dignity. Therefore affronts to that dignity would be utterly meaningless.
This is plain nonsense. If I violate the finite dignity of the queen by shitting on her throne, then this does not mean that the dignity of the queen as such is now reduced by some amount. It is not the case that somebody else can now shit on her throne as well without further violating her dignity, because I have removed that dignity from her. What gets punished is the disrespect shown to the dignity, not some kind of actual diminishment of that dignity. I "diminish" the dignity of the queen by shitting on her throne only in the sense that I act as if there was no such dignity. Likewise, God's infinite dignity obviously cannot be diminished by anything I do in the sense of whittling it down as far as everybody is concerned. That does not mean that I cannot violate it, "diminishing" it in the sense of acting as if it did not exist.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
If I strip you of everything including the clothes off your back and you then steal a loaf of bread to survive then you are responsible for stealing - and I am responsible for putting you in a position where you needed to steal.
That's correct. You do not need to sin though, even in your fallen state, thanks to God's grace.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And a good way of telling that something is morally right is that a lot of roads lead there.
A lot of roads lead to the morally wrong. Anyway, you tried to take me to task about not incorporating modern scientific insight into my morality. Your following blather shows that you do not do so either. Your discussion of evolution and morals is at "all is relative, because Einstein" level. And tit-for-tat as strategy is hardly an insight that arose from game theory, and you don't even bring an argument there, but just pure interpretative assertion (assuming that we swallow in the first place that the prisoner's dilemma is the summary of all moral calculus). I'm still waiting for any major moral reasoning arising from quantum theory or the discovery of DNA. Face it, people remain people, and we have known what we need to know about people in order to discuss morality since prehistory. What modern science does is to massively increase our available actions, and hence it raises a truckload of new moral questions. It does not provide us with many answers though, if any so far.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Unlike you, I am not in the habit of stating falsehoods about publicly available texts.
Hosting/
IngoB, you have achieved the dubious honour of being the first poster to attract my hostly attention twice since I took up this duty. On this board, not only are we not in the habit of impugning other posters' character, it is specifically against the Ship's Ten Commandments as applied to Purgatory. Vigorous debate is fine. Personal attacks are not. Please desist. Now.
/Hosting
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And yet the step change is based entirely on the previous state and leads to monumentally unjust outcomes.
To outcomes that you claim to be unjust, yes. One of the points I have been trying to make is that it really is inappropriate to evaluate all this as if it was some kind of court case against God. In fact, I would argue that "justice" is nothing but a human codification of certain aspects of the moral law that God has written on our hearts. And God has written those rules on our heart precisely as guidance for us during this life, which ends in a "selection process" for heaven or hell. God is "supremely just" in the sense that He writes those rules on our hearts as He see fits, He just is justice by virtue of creating us under these constraints. God is not "supremely just" in the sense that His creation - in particular the "selection process" - has to correspond to the systems of justice that we created among ourselves in response to the moral laws God has given to humans. This is just an over-extrapolation from our lives to His. As argued, one can make that work, given certain assumptions about how human justice should work. But if one rejects these assumptions one simply rejects the over-extrapolation, not what God does.
This paragraph contains some very poor reasoning indeed.
Firstly, this life does not end in a "selection process" for heaven and hell, as if to suggest that everyone's life hangs in the balance right up to the point of death. The Scripture makes clear that salvation and eternal life begins in this life as a reality for those who receive the grace of God. See this post.
Secondly, it is absolutely nonsensical to say that we can talk about God being 'just' with a concept of justice that is unrecognisable or unknown to the human mind. Words convey meaning, and they enable communication between minds. Therefore their meaning must be accepted by both minds, in order for communication to have any success. Your comment that we are simply extrapolating our sense of justice into God's makes no sense at all. If your view was logical, then we could affirm anything about God, and claim it to be true, by appealing to His infinite superiority. Why not say that "the love of God, or the justice of God or the grace of God" is defined simply as "that which God happens to do", period? Such a view strips these ideas of their meaning and communicates nothing to us.
What you seem to be doing is - by appealing to His supreme status - manoeuvring God into a position where He is really a tabula rasa onto which you can write your own version of His ways, and when anyone challenges you on your pronouncements, you have a foolproof way of dismissing those arguments. I regard this as an intellectual scam.
When Jesus said "He who has seen me, has seen the Father", He presupposed that we have sufficient intellectual equipment to understand God and His ways as they actually are in essence. Otherwise those words are deceitful. And to impute deceit to Christ is, of course, blasphemy.
We are not made in the image of God for nothing, you know!
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
IngoB,
Is your point above that "double effect" requires that the evil consequence of one's action has to be an unintended side-effect of what one is trying to achieve (rather than the means by which one achieves whatever good consequence one is aiming at) ?
So that, for example, a powerful government may not torture someone for the sake of creating an example for others and thus deterring them from evil deeds, because the evil act iof torture is then the intended means to the good end.
But the powerful government could very publicly create a torture chamber and play recordings of human screams therein, and just not send anyone there. Thereby gaining the desired deterrent effect without actually hurting anyone.
So that any powerful government that is competent enough to maintain such a charade has, under the doctrine of double effect, no moral grounds for actually punishing anyone ? Unless the punishment is a good-in-itself in some way...
Is that your understanding of "double effect" or do you interpret it differently ?
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is "sufficient but not necessary"? So there would be other valid points you could make?
The arguments about the purpose of punishment. The arguments about the inherent meanness and pettiness of a God who is infinitely offended by the slightest affront.
quote:
"Double effect" requires that an evil occurs, in this case it would be the evil of punishment, as I said. It is just acceptable, because the evil is not intended but a "side effect". I'm not sure why we are even discussing this, it is ridiculous to deny that punishment is an evil suffered for the punished as far as the punishment itself goes.
Whether you have to stand in a corner or are being whipped to shreds, punishment obviously is a negative experience for you, and intended as such. But since you are so informed about double effect, I note that your final sentence is quite problematic. Double effect does precisely not allow doing an evil to achieve a good.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
As normal your analogies are obviously lacking in understanding of what was actually happening.
As I've stated, it is not necessary for deterrence that one gets information from the punished, as you claimed, but merely that one is reliably informed about their punishment. That is what my Australia example illustrated, successfully, though it really is obvious. We can conclude that it is no argument against deterrence that we cannot talk to those suffering punishment in hell, it is enough to know that they are being punished. Again, this is blindingly obvious, but apparently had to be argued here.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Nice is different than good. But the word I'd actually use is evil.
My point was merely that other people can also be wrong about God, like you are, but in a different manner. God is not "nice", but He can still be "good", since as you correctly say these are different things.
quote:
Really? Hitler, Stalin, Mao? Or any number of minor figures since then, say a Mugabe or Jong-il? Let's keep some perspective here, please.
Stalin: Poster child for the mantra "With great power comes great responsibility". Right.
quote:
To outcomes that you claim to be unjust, yes. One of the points I have been trying to make is that it really is inappropriate to evaluate all this as if it was some kind of court case against God. In fact, I would argue that "justice" is nothing but a human codification of certain aspects of the moral law that God has written on our hearts.
And if God doesn't live up to the standards you claim God instilled in us then what are we called to do about it?
quote:
And God has written those rules on our heart precisely as guidance for us during this life, which ends in a "selection process" for heaven or hell. God is "supremely just" in the sense that He writes those rules on our hearts as He see fits, He just is justice by virtue of creating us under these constraints.
`When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, `I always pay it extra.'
Seriously, you are entirely redefining the normal meaning of such words in order to ensure that God is not subject to them.
quote:
But if the only thing one rejoices in is that justice is being done, then we are simply back to your claim that justice is not being done. So that is clearly a distinction with a difference, unless you wish to say that we should never rejoice in justice being done.
We shouldn't if you narrow down the meaning of the word "Justice" to mean "Retribution". We should be relieved, possibly.
quote:
I "whitewashed" Aquinas by quoting him directly, showing explicitly that your claim of the saints rejoicing in the torture of the damned as such is false. This is simple calumny on your part, now repeated once more. Stop, please.
As I said you created a distinction without a difference. Your saints are like a crowd round standing round the gibbet and cheering at the hangings because that is 'justice being done' rather than cheering the deaths of the people being killed. There is literally no practical difference between those cheering at the people being hung because they are being hung and those cheering at the executions.
This is not calumny. It is an expose of just how fractally wrong your supposed justice system is.
quote:
Unlike you, I am not in the habit of stating falsehoods about publicly available texts. Your repeated claim that according to Aquinas the blessed rejoice in the punishment of the wicked as such is simply wrong.
No. It is simply that the attempted justification for why the blessed rejoyce in the punishment of the wicked is more full of crap than a used colostomy bag.
quote:
The Summa Theologica
On the contrary, It is written (Psalm 57:11): "The just shall rejoice when he shall see the revenge."
I don't care how the blessed (or rather Aquinas) try to justify the fact that they are rejoicing in the torture of others. They might as well say that they are watching human sacrifice to appreciate the elegance of the cut and the artistry the heart is ripped out with. They are still spectators rejoicing at the punishment of others.
quote:
You can perhaps question his assumptions, but not really his conclusions.
Oh, Aquinas is normally logically correct based on his premises. He's excellent for exposing a moral vacuum, as here.
quote:
This is plain nonsense. If I violate the finite dignity of the queen by shitting on her throne, then this does not mean that the dignity of the queen as such is now reduced by some amount. It is not the case that somebody else can now shit on her throne as well without further violating her dignity, because I have removed that dignity from her. What gets punished is the disrespect shown to the dignity, not some kind of actual diminishment of that dignity.
In short the punishment is for nothing tangible or even real?
quote:
That's correct. You do not need to sin though, even in your fallen state, thanks to God's grace.
You don't need to sin - but no one who was not immaculately conceived has ever been free from sin. Riiiiiiight.
quote:
A lot of roads lead to the morally wrong. Anyway, you tried to take me to task about not incorporating modern scientific insight into my morality. Your following blather shows that you do not do so either. Your discussion of evolution and morals is at "all is relative, because Einstein" level.
I'll chalk that down to you understanding it no better than you do the Golden Rule.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Double effect does precisely not allow doing an evil to achieve a good.
It's okay when God does evil to achieve good. His ways are not our ways and all that.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
So butchering Amalekite babies was good how?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
We can't understand God's morality, Martin. If he said to do it, though, it must have been good.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Mousethief quote:
Martin PC: So butchering Amalekite babies was good how?
--------------------
Mousethief: We can't understand God's morality, Martin. If he said to do it, though, it must have been good.
Clearly, He didn't!
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Mousethief quote:
Martin PC: So butchering Amalekite babies was good how?
--------------------
Mousethief: We can't understand God's morality, Martin. If he said to do it, though, it must have been good.
Clearly, He didn't!
Clearly? What about 1 Samuel 15:3?
quote:
Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Hmmmmmmm. mousethief, I trust you're being ironic, although I'm never quite sure.
This is doing my head in. Welcome to the world I s'pose.
Rob Bell does a great job here rationalizing the Bible. The best I've seen. I need to get out more I'm sure. The best I've seen nonetheless, because he's come to this the hard way from a conservative start.
But ... if he's right, and rationally he must be, then the text evolved from oral tradition, clay tablets, scrolls that are lost until we get up to the C6th BC, post exile, when we can get forensic with a chain of evidence.
Consciousness evolved through this time.
And the incarnation occurred at the earliest possible time for the narrative to go global.
So, I've finally become a near raving liberal. I WILL not rationalize away the incarnation. That's about it. Everything else is swamped by culture. Even the milieu, writing, mores of the culture of the incarnation and Jesus' human limitations, which He transcended at the vertex of the hyperbola of evolving consciousness. The point at which the curve went ballistic, started to turn much more vertical.
I'm left as a red-letter Christian.
Which is just as well. The example of Jesus, including perfect non-passive pacifism, is all that remains.
"... you find these stories violence [sic] and repulsive and primitive and barbaric
because they are.
If you didn’t find them shocking and awful and confusing, something is wrong with you. And people who read these stories and say Well, that’s just how God is have a very, very warped and dangerous view of God."
Which doesn't mean of course ... that isn't how He is ...
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
It's clearly in the Bible, DaveW, but does that mean God actually said it? That's the key question and, like MartinPC..., I am deeply troubled by the cognitive dissonance of trying to reconcile this picture of God with that given to us by Jesus.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Hmmmmmmm. mousethief, I trust you're being ironic, although I'm never quite sure.
In this case, I was indeed being ironic.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
It's clearly in the Bible, DaveW, but does that mean God actually said it?
Noted theologian Cab Calloway (and others) would say no - but I think you need more than just a rejection of inerrancy to say that "Clearly, He didn't!" You have to bring additional arguments to the table, and just stating that something is clear doesn't make it so.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Dave W quote:
Noted theologian Cab Calloway (and others) would say no - but I think you need more than just a rejection of inerrancy to say that "Clearly, He didn't!" You have to bring additional arguments to the table, and just stating that something is clear doesn't make it so.
He didn't say it, assuming God is the one revealed in Christ Jesus, or by Jonah for that matter.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
DaveW - it's not something I've read up on all that much but I guess I'm keen on the idea of progressive revelation. I'm particularly looking forward to Greg Boyd's forthcoming book on how we might reconcile the divine violence in the OT with the apparent nature of Jesus, The Crucifixion of the Warrior God.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
We can't understand God's morality, Martin. If he said to do it, though, it must have been good.
Seems to me that the fundamental choice here is between worshipping goodness and worshipping power.
If you worship power, then goodness or morality is just whatever code of conduct the Being or the group with the power chooses to command.
If you worship goodness, then all use of power (especially by and in our own tradition - remove first the plank) should be judged against the universal moral standard.
That may be too reductionist, but at the moment I'm struggling to see if there's an excluded middle position. It seems to he a matter of serving two masters.
Either God is good, and is worthy of our worship precisely because of His through-and-through goodness.
Or goodness is just something He thought up, and He can and does do something different whenever He feels like it because He is the Power. (With the corollary that as long as we do His will as revealed to us then we don't need to worry about whether it's right or wrong in the moral sense).
Too simplified ?
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Russ quote:
Seems to me that the fundamental choice here is between worshipping goodness and worshipping power.
Spot on, Russ. IMO at the heart of many discussion on the Ship is a disagreement between those who start with the Sovereignty of God and those who start with a God whose essence is Love (rather than goodness).
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
I'm surprised Thomson hasn't popped by to tell us how Marcionite we're being.
Ordering that Greg Boyd when I'm done here.
For 45 years I've been justifying God. I'm STILL haunted by the intense power of Abraham under the Terebinth trees at Mamre, haggling for Sodom and Gomorrah. Plagued by Exodus up to the Heresy of Peor. Horrendous, weird stuff in Judges.
You mean all of this was made up? Yet God was in it?
Like Hell? Satan? Did Jesus actually NOT believe in Satan? Or was that part of His unprogressed revelation? He did, but He was wrong? Because He didn't need to be right about it?
Right about beholding having beheld Satan fall like lightning?
And this is all on a quite tight continuum from the OP. It ranges this far that quick.
What would you have us believe, Lord?
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Russ quote:
Seems to me that the fundamental choice here is between worshipping goodness and worshipping power.
Spot on, Russ. IMO at the heart of many discussion on the Ship is a disagreement between those who start with the Sovereignty of God and those who start with a God whose essence is Love (rather than goodness).
How about worshipping God, who is at the same time goodness, love, power and justice, but who no human being can fathom?
God may or may not have commanded what we see as evil, and without being there at the time, and knowing nothing about the situation or people concerned, we can cast judgement on God based on our own sense of right and wrong in the 21st century.
It will make no difference at all as to who God really is, it will only make a difference to what we believe about the nature of God. Where should we go to find out God's true nature? Should we not go directly to God through Christ, and allow him to tell us about himself and show us glimpses of himself so that we come to know that God is all of my first sentence or more?
God is worthy of our worship. Wrestling with old scrolls is only worthwhile if done so with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and with a perspective which says that story-tellers tell stories, and there is always more to them than meets the eye.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Dave W quote:
Noted theologian Cab Calloway (and others) would say no - but I think you need more than just a rejection of inerrancy to say that "Clearly, He didn't!" You have to bring additional arguments to the table, and just stating that something is clear doesn't make it so.
He didn't say it, assuming God is the one revealed in Christ Jesus, or by Jonah for that matter.
You can't just keep asserting "He didn't say it" and expect that to be accepted without further support. If he didn't say it, why does the Bible say he did, do you think? (I'm not saying your position can't be reasonable, I'm just trying to get you to say what that position is, exactly. Is the 1 Samuel verse a fraud? A transcription error or interpolation? A metaphor? What?)
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Kwesi will answer for himself.
None of the above.
Bell's assumption is that Samuel was innocently projecting Bronze age ethics. That progressive revelation hadn't got that far. The more one writes these thoughts down the more milage (and the spellchecker on this site is WRONG there, there is no mute 'e' in milage) they have.
Do the thought experiment. Unless God spoke audibly to Samuel (as He apparently did when he was a little boy) and told him to pronounce genocide, Samuel reasonably inferred it. It's what one did. It's normal. He was God's prophet, that's what he thought, that was that. That was God inspiring him, 'speaking' to him.
How could Samuel NOT believe and speak and act thus? It has NOTHING to do with God causally, but He is in it, carrying it, sustaining it, empowering it, evolving, progressing it.
Willing US, drawing us to Himself. Despite and because of it.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Dave W, it would appear that Samuel claimed he had a message from God that told him to order the genocide of the Amalekites as a punishment for the unhelpful attitude of their ancestors towards the children is Israel as they entered the the Promised Land. Most people today would regard genocide as egregiously wrong, ditto collective punishment, ditto being punished for actions for which one is not culpable. It is utterly tribal in its morality: that those outside the tribe can be treated totally without consideration and worth. For those believing in a tribal God, as did Samuel, such a command was in the natural order of things.
The shift in the paradigm from a tribal to a universal God had critical implications, as can be traced by later developments, particularly during and after the Babylonian exile. The writer of Jonah exemplifies this when God asks the prophet why he should not be concerned about the people of Nineveh. This insight comes to greater fruition in the New Testament, especially post-Pentecost. Such a God was unlikely to order genocide, especially of innocents. We also have to consider the God revealed in Christ and ask ourselves whether he pointed to the God of Samuel 15. I would submit he did not.
If we believe in a God who is consistent in his nature, then we are faced with a stark choice in relation to Samuel 15. If God gave the order then the witness of Jesus is false. If Jesus is true then the God of Samuel 15 either not the same God that Jesus worshiped and/or the command was the child of the judge's fevered desire.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
God is worthy of our worship.
Does He earn that value-judgment from you by His love/goodness/mercy ? Or by his authority and power ? Or does He not have to earn it at all ?
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Superb Kwesi. Last year I was finally shorn, pruned of dispensationalism and millenialism. It was breathtaking, scary and liberating.
Exhilarating.
Progressive revelation is having the same effect. The tension to the point of crisis over God the Killer that I have proclaimed, justified here for 15 years, that only beagn to kick back when I encountered progressive revelation from Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Steve Chalke and now Greg Boyd is fading, most rationally, least emotionally as is always the case with these things. Except when it's the opposite and it oscillates anyway.
The Greg Boyd link is brilliant.
In Christ is YES! I'm moved to tears.
Where's our resident Thomist conservative when you want him? Scourge of heretics. The last coherent (only ever?) champion of God the Killer on SOF?
C'mon IngoB, the synthesis is overcome, the antithesis is winning. Fight back even harder. Smarter! And here's a clue, there's more to rhetoric than logos.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
God is worthy of our worship.
Does He earn that value-judgment from you by His love/goodness/mercy ? Or by his authority and power ? Or does He not have to earn it at all ?
Best wishes,
Russ
God doesn't have to earn it. Our natural response to the personality of God, (whose extraordinary qualities of power /love /goodness /mercy /authority /creativity / justice /omniscience, etc are given to those who experience relationship with God faintly but surely by the Holy Spirit so as not to be over-whelming), is love and awe - recognition that God is worthy of worship. We know in our hearts that God is pure goodness.
God is God, whether we like the idea of Gods existence or not. Life, death and the afterlife are in God's realm (which is not to say that God orchestrates life events under normal circumstances). This is not easy for us, but if trust comes with love, there's no need to be afraid.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Dave W, it would appear that Samuel claimed he had a message from God that told him to order the genocide of the Amalekites as a punishment for the unhelpful attitude of their ancestors towards the children is Israel as they entered the the Promised Land. Most people today would regard genocide as egregiously wrong, ditto collective punishment, ditto being punished for actions for which one is not culpable. It is utterly tribal in its morality: that those outside the tribe can be treated totally without consideration and worth. For those believing in a tribal God, as did Samuel, such a command was in the natural order of things.
The shift in the paradigm from a tribal to a universal God had critical implications, as can be traced by later developments, particularly during and after the Babylonian exile. The writer of Jonah exemplifies this when God asks the prophet why he should not be concerned about the people of Nineveh. This insight comes to greater fruition in the New Testament, especially post-Pentecost. Such a God was unlikely to order genocide, especially of innocents. We also have to consider the God revealed in Christ and ask ourselves whether he pointed to the God of Samuel 15. I would submit he did not.
If we believe in a God who is consistent in his nature, then we are faced with a stark choice in relation to Samuel 15. If God gave the order then the witness of Jesus is false. If Jesus is true then the God of Samuel 15 either not the same God that Jesus worshiped and/or the command was the child of the judge's fevered desire.
Thanks, Kwesi, that's helpful. (I'm still not sure it merits the adverb "Clearly!" though.)
I'm not too convinced by your "most people today" argument. Even aside from the questionable assumption that modern sensibilities must be superior because they're informed by Christ's teachings (they could also be affected by e.g. lots of decadent backsliding), I'm pretty sure one could find large congregations today who would be quite willing to agree that the Amalekites were just asking for it and deserved to get it good and hard - women, infants, livestock(!) and all.
I'd be interested to learn more about the development of the interpretation you subscribe to. Do you happen to know about when (and by whom) it was first argued that the Amalekite genocide is problematic for Christians?
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I'd be interested to learn more about the development of the interpretation you subscribe to. Do you happen to know about when (and by whom) it was first argued that the Amalekite genocide is problematic for Christians?
Good question. I'm sure it'll be covered in the Boyd book I linked to upthread, but I look forward to reading anything that Shipmates already know about. I have read that the early Christians (first century or two?) were strongly pacifist, refusing to serve in the military and even in judiciary roles. But I'm not sure how solid this speculation is...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
This insight comes to greater fruition in the New Testament, especially post-Pentecost. Such a God was unlikely to order genocide, especially of innocents.
That made me immediately think of the Holy Innocents. You might say that the Gospel of Matthew starts right out telling us that this kind of thing does not come from God but from evil human beings. "Just so you know which God we're talking about here," you can almost hear him say. It would seem to be a rejection of the slaughters of innocents in the OT.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I'd be interested to learn more about the development of the interpretation you subscribe to. Do you happen to know about when (and by whom) it was first argued that the Amalekite genocide is problematic for Christians?
Good question. I'm sure it'll be covered in the Boyd book I linked to upthread, but I look forward to reading anything that Shipmates already know about. I have read that the early Christians (first century or two?) were strongly pacifist, refusing to serve in the military and even in judiciary roles. But I'm not sure how solid this speculation is...
Thanks, Kevin. Following the trail of one of your links, I find a blog post defending Boyd from the charge of Marcionism. Since this heresy dates to around the year 144, it appears that this kind of OT/NT dissonance was recognized fairly early on.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Firstly, this life does not end in a "selection process" for heaven and hell, as if to suggest that everyone's life hangs in the balance right up to the point of death. The Scripture makes clear that salvation and eternal life begins in this life as a reality for those who receive the grace of God.
This life certainly hangs in the balance till the very end. There is a continuous addition and subtraction of weights, which can make the scales tip heavily one way or the other. Still, just the gravest of sinners can become a saint with their last breath, so the holiest of saints can become a sinner with the theirs. And there is no contradiction at all between that and the beginning of salvation in this life. That simply means that we can tip the scales towards heaven.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Secondly, it is absolutely nonsensical to say that we can talk about God being 'just' with a concept of justice that is unrecognisable or unknown to the human mind.
You clearly did not read at all what I said. I can call the inventor of Lego bricks supremely and ultimately Lego, for without him there would be nothing built with Lego at all, indeed, the very concept of a Lego build would not exist. That does not mean that the inventor of Lego bricks is a Lego brick, and that it is meaningful to stack clones of him together to build things. Likewise, we can attribute perfect human justice to God without thereby making the rather obvious category error of subjecting God to human justice. What we can say is that God wants us to behave in specific ways, which we call justice. Hence He is supremely and ultimately just, in an entirely understandable way. It does not follow that He must follow human justice.
Or as Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite says in the Divine Names: "Almighty God is celebrated as justice, as distributing things suitable to all, both due measure, and beauty, and good order, and arrangement, and marking out all distributions and orders for each, according to that which truly is the most just limit, and as being Cause for all of the free action of each. ... They ought to know that the Divine Justice in this respect is really a true justice, because it distributes to all the things proper to themselves, according to the fitness of each existing thing, and preserves the nature of each in its own order and capacity."
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Why not say that "the love of God, or the justice of God or the grace of God" is defined simply as "that which God happens to do", period?
All these words indeed are simply capturing aspects of what God happens to do. You really need to stop thinking of God as of a human being. Or simply stick with Jesus Christ. The Incarnation is a most generous accommodation of human inability to avoid idolatrous anthropomorphizing.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What you seem to be doing is - by appealing to His supreme status - manoeuvring God into a position where He is really a tabula rasa onto which you can write your own version of His ways, and when anyone challenges you on your pronouncements, you have a foolproof way of dismissing those arguments. I regard this as an intellectual scam.
My own version? An intellectual scam? We know God and His will through nature (metaphysics and natural moral law) and revelation (tradition, scripture and Church). These are accessible to all and provide the basis for sound argument. If you can prove me wrong from these valid sources, then I will retract.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
When Jesus said "He who has seen me, has seen the Father", He presupposed that we have sufficient intellectual equipment to understand God and His ways as they actually are in essence.
In the beatific vision we will indeed see the essence of God, though we will not be able to grasp it fully. If you would understand God fully, then you literally would be God (to be precise, the Second Person). Jesus of course goes on to explain His statement in John 14, and what it clearly does not mean is some kind of simplistic identity.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
We are not made in the image of God for nothing, you know!
Indeed. Often I get accused of pretending to understand too much about God. Now you accuse me of pretending to understand too little about God. I think I've got it about right.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But the powerful government could very publicly create a torture chamber and play recordings of human screams therein, and just not send anyone there. Thereby gaining the desired deterrent effect without actually hurting anyone.
That's lying. Lying is evil. One may not do evil to achieve good.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The arguments about the purpose of punishment. The arguments about the inherent meanness and pettiness of a God who is infinitely offended by the slightest affront.
Retribution. The slightest affront? Hardly.
I note that you have a considerable batch of text in your post that looks like it is from you now, but is actually from me.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Stalin: Poster child for the mantra "With great power comes great responsibility". Right.
Well, exactly not, which was my point. Remember, the question was whether that mantra was working for you. My suggestion is that "utter failure" is the judgement of history: rarely does great power assume great responsibility.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And if God doesn't live up to the standards you claim God instilled in us then what are we called to do about it?
Nothing, since we should not expect this even if we arrogate to outselves the capacity to judge this.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Seriously, you are entirely redefining the normal meaning of such words in order to ensure that God is not subject to them.
If you wish. Christianity has a history of redefining words, and no human words can apply to God other than by stretched analogy anyhow. My point is however that any such redefinition is scriptural (see Job), traditional (see Dionysius above) and intellectually coherent (see me ).
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Your saints are like a crowd round standing round the gibbet and cheering at the hangings because that is 'justice being done' rather than cheering the deaths of the people being killed.
Your imagery still tries to impose schadenfreude, or even blood-lust, on the saints. However, if you read in the newspaper that a rapist has been caught and jailed, you may very well say "That is good." and feel quietly joyful, without thereby enjoying as such that the rapist is being jailed. It is rather a joy at the right thing being done, even if that means that the rapist is justly punished.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
It is simply that the attempted justification for why the blessed rejoyce in the punishment of the wicked is more full of crap than a used colostomy bag.
Even if that were so, it would not allow you to claim that Aquinas says that the saints rejoice in the torture of the wicked. Aquinas himself clearly thought that the distinction works and explicitly stated that the saints do not do that. You can attack his reasoning, but you cannot pretend that he said the opposite of what he in fact said. Basically, you assume that if you showed Aquinas his purported error of reasoning, he would say "Oh, I guess you are right, so the saints do enjoy the torturing of the wicked directly." But you cannot know that. Perhaps he would have found some other way to make the distinction. Perhaps he would have turned universalist on the spot. I do not know. You do not know. What we know is what he said. We should praise or critique him for that, we should not put words in his mouth.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
You don't need to sin - but no one who was not immaculately conceived has ever been free from sin. Riiiiiiight.
Skipping rather swiftly over original sin, are we?
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
So butchering Amalekite babies was good how?
The OT is a spiritual icon carved right out of this world and its history, often at great cost to the people involved.
In Amalek we see something that is crucial to Christianity of the past and today, though it is profoundly anti-modern: full representational unity. Amalek attacked Israel, and hence Amalek had to be destroyed (Dt 25:17-19). But to this day we are the children of Adam, united and represented by Him in rebellion, unless and until we become the children of God, siblings by adoption of Christ. Being a Christian is not simply a belief, it is belonging to this kind of representational unity. That's how we become a "Body of Christ". In Christianity such things are lifted up from their imperfect, worldly instantiation (the tribe of Amalek vs. the tribe of Israel) and made spiritual, but not in a more abstract but a more accessible way. You can do nothing about being of Amalek or for that matter of Israel, but because this becomes now a spiritual representational unity, you can do something about being of Christ instead of Adam.
Also, the Amalekites opposed Israel as it escaped out of Egypt. They hence represent what hinders us to escape from the slavery of sin. The Lord teaches us here to destroy any such hindrance ruthlessly and totally when we get strong, even down to what appears to us as totally harmless (like a baby or domestic animal) but could eventually aid the reappearance of this hindrance. The Lord also teaches us to not be like Saul, keeping parts of these hindrances alive supposedly to sacrifice them later to the Lord. Destroy now, destroy completely, anything else does not please the Lord.
The Lord wrote this icon in the blood and guts and torment of real people (and it doesn't really matter for this point whether this is real history, or a story inspired by real history). We can now indeed go through the whole debate about hell again, only this time focusing on the worldly fate of the Amalekites. Except we then of course have the escape route of their eternal fate. Temporal and eternal punishment do not map one to one. Yet I really think these are distractions from thoughts like the above. It is important to remind ourselves that God does not shy away from writing bloody spiritual icons into this world. I invite you to look at a cross and tell me what you see there and why you think it means anything. (Well, rather look at a crucifix...)
I also would say that Christ was the end of history. Obviously not the end of secular history, which has been going on since. But precisely of this history of carving an icon into the world, even if that draws blood. Christ is like the capstone of this, and the crucifix is the final ornament placed to complete the picture. Or perhaps you can think of Noah as type, and see the crucifixion like the flood. That was the final time God tried to write a message into the very fabric of this world, noting that this final death and horror, His own death and horror, shall be the last inflicted on humanity in the attempt to write God's word into this world physically.
The bible drips of blood, OT and NT. You can try to soak it all up with the antiseptic cloth of historical exegesis. You can try to create a sanitized version by plastering "love" stickers over anything that hurts. Better bring lots of those stickers... But you can also just take it as it is, soaked in blood, and say: this came to me at great cost to many people, what could it speak about that is worth all that in the end?
Or Who.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
It's like coming home on Sunday evening from a month in paradise and back to work Monday isn't it? Like you've never been away. It was just a dream.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Which isn't fair. A noble rear guard action IngoB.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
We know in our hearts that God is pure goodness.
It is because we "know in our hearts that God is pure goodness" that despite our lack of understanding of how He operates we can have the confidence to stand up and say "No" to those elements of our tradition which have Him acting in evil ways.
And the explanation for how such elements have crept into the tradition is in "fallen" human nature. Which includes feelings of awe when encountering anything large and powerful.
But such awe (with or without shock) has no connection to morality. Whatever admiration we feel for the merely great (such as the Great Wall of China) should not be allowed to sway our moral judgment. If we hear of a great crime (Great Train Robbery) the awe we may feel at its greatness diminishes its moral wrongness not in the slightest. But it's human to feel that in some way it does.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
You have been way up ahead of me for years Russ, glad to realise we're on the same road.
Posted by Grokesx (# 17221) on
:
quote:
Your imagery still tries to impose schadenfreude, or even blood-lust, on the saints. However, if you read in the newspaper that a rapist has been caught and jailed, you may very well say "That is good." and feel quietly joyful, without thereby enjoying as such that the rapist is being jailed. It is rather a joy at the right thing being done, even if that means that the rapist is justly punished.
Except that what we're talking about is reading in the newspaper that the rapist is being jailed in some Turkish or Venezuelan prison and that all the torture and abuse he is going to suffer there is part of a cause for joy. And there will be no squeamish misgivings about this idea of justice where torture can be good when meted out by the suitable authorities and I won't worry my pretty little head and just concentrate on feeling the joy.
quote:
Which isn't fair. A noble rear guard action IngoB.
Well, I'd agree with that if, as Ingo apparently endorses, we define words to mean what we want them to. I'm going with "noble" redefined as "cold, dead eyed" and "rearguard action" as "rationalisation".
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Ah come on Grokesx, I want to include IngoB, even though he's stuck where I was for nearly half a century, up until about last week, justifying Bronze age psychopathy.
Imagine the joy in heaven and here when a mind as good as his comes to repentance!
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
This week actually. A couple of days ago. It's all so incredibly liberating.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
We know in our hearts that God is pure goodness.
It is because we "know in our hearts that God is pure goodness" that despite our lack of understanding of how He operates we can have the confidence to stand up and say "No" to those elements of our tradition which have Him acting in evil ways.
And the explanation for how such elements have crept into the tradition is in "fallen" human nature. Which includes feelings of awe when encountering anything large and powerful.
But such awe (with or without shock) has no connection to morality. Whatever admiration we feel for the merely great (such as the Great Wall of China) should not be allowed to sway our moral judgment. If we hear of a great crime (Great Train Robbery) the awe we may feel at its greatness diminishes its moral wrongness not in the slightest. But it's human to feel that in some way it does.
Best wishes,
Russ
The awe with which we respond to the presence of God surely has no comparison with any 'wow' factor we feel when we see any man-made achievement, or horror we may feel at the depths of human depravity. They stir us, yes, but not to the knee-bending extent of the awesomeness of God.
Knowing that God is pure goodness is the icing on the cake. Knowing that God is love, and that when we live in love we live in God, is the cake itself.
I agree with you Russ that God will not act in evil ways. I'm not sure about the 'fallen nature' idea. I'd argue that the source of some of the scriptural writings aims at describing what he sees as good acts of God, rather than evil acts. In war time, destruction of the enemy seems as if it's a good thing.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
I can't find in the bible where it says my soul is inherently immortal.
Posted by Cara (# 16966) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Your imagery still tries to impose schadenfreude, or even blood-lust, on the saints. However, if you read in the newspaper that a rapist has been caught and jailed, you may very well say "That is good." and feel quietly joyful, without thereby enjoying as such that the rapist is being jailed. It is rather a joy at the right thing being done, even if that means that the rapist is justly punished.
This analogy doesn't work for me. I would feel joy--or relief-not because "the right thing" has been done, but because the rapist is no longer out there able to harm anyone else. The relief would be in knowing potential victims are now protected--from that particular rapist, anyway. It gives me no pleasure to think of the rapist's punishment.
It doesn't work to compare this with a potential joy in heaven because evil-doers are in hell, because presumably God in his kingdom could work it that everyone could be protected from evil-doers...so the relief we feel on earth at their being put where they can do no harm wouldn't, surely, apply in the afterlife....???
quote:
from IngoB:
The Lord wrote this icon in the blood and guts and torment of real people (and it doesn't really matter for this point whether this is real history, or a story inspired by real history). We can now indeed go through the whole debate about hell again, only this time focusing on the worldly fate of the Amalekites. Except we then of course have the escape route of their eternal fate. Temporal and eternal punishment do not map one to one. Yet I really think these are distractions from thoughts like the above. It is important to remind ourselves that God does not shy away from writing bloody spiritual icons into this world. I invite you to look at a cross and tell me what you see there and why you think it means anything. (Well, rather look at a crucifix...)
I also would say that Christ was the end of history. Obviously not the end of secular history, which has been going on since. But precisely of this history of carving an icon into the world, even if that draws blood. Christ is like the capstone of this, and the crucifix is the final ornament placed to complete the picture. Or perhaps you can think of Noah as type, and see the crucifixion like the flood. That was the final time God tried to write a message into the very fabric of this world, noting that this final death and horror, His own death and horror, shall be the last inflicted on humanity in the attempt to write God's word into this world physically.
The bible drips of blood, OT and NT. You can try to soak it all up with the antiseptic cloth of historical exegesis. You can try to create a sanitized version by plastering "love" stickers over anything that hurts. Better bring lots of those stickers... But you can also just take it as it is, soaked in blood, and say: this came to me at great cost to many people, what could it speak about that is worth all that in the end?
Or Who.
That last part I've quoted is well-put and very striking. I like the concept of God's writing a message into the fabric of the world....
[mended fabric of UBB code]
[ 06. December 2013, 16:51: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
What we can say is that God wants us to behave in specific ways, which we call justice. Hence He is supremely and ultimately just, in an entirely understandable way. It does not follow that He must follow human justice.
But it's not human justice. It's divine justice, as you go on to say. We didn't invent it, he gave it to us. If it's not justice, it's nonsense to call it justice. If it is a case of "do as I say, not as I do" then it's not so much justice as Might Makes Right.
And the Lego analogy is beneath contempt. Legos are a physical thing that God nor any human being simply cannot be. Just is a thing God could be, but you're saying he's not, at least as he himself has taught us to use the term.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
mousethief. He WILL not have it. He WILL not be just. And the he isn't He.
[ 06. December 2013, 22:57: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
Seems to me that in the Christian tradition there are two versions of judgment.
The older version has the just and upright going to eternal bliss and the wicked to eternal torment.
IngoB has pointed out that
- justice is proportionality
- such a system is black-and-white while this life is all shades of grey.
These two accurate observations, taken together, dispose of the notion that such a judgment is just.
The other version I've heard is that everyone will be condemned to hell but the judge will let off those who are friends of His Son.
At face value that seems even less just.
How can anyone deny that traditional Christian ideas of judgment are flawed and broken ? And that those who seek to twist the everyday meanings of words so as to avoid that conclusion are unadmirable ?
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Russ, His Consciousness is with us as always. Waiting for us at the top of the mountain. In the abyss. Through much tribulation we enter the kingdom.
His concept of justice breaks through our distorted response to encounter with it despite us. In the Bible. In tradition.
Enlightenment requires none to be punished. None to be given up on. Ever. I feel a yeah-but myself to that, but leave it unsaid.
And no I haven't suffered enough obviously, otherwise I would naturally want God's vengeance on evil doers.
But in paradise there will be no wanting or needing of vengeance.
Posted by Cara (# 16966) on
:
Sorry about the coding, Eutychus--thank you for mending the fabric!
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Where's our resident Thomist conservative when you want him? Scourge of heretics. The last coherent (only ever?) champion of God the Killer on SOF?
IngoB isn't the only shipmate who believes that God will execute judgement, I do too. I just don't have the time to engage in debate on here to the same extent that he does.
I see the execution of the Amalekites for their rebellion against God and opposition to His people as a prefigurement of the Last Judgement when all people from all nations who rebel against God and oppose His purposes will suffer 'the second death'. So bringing up the account of the Amalekites is highly relevant to the subject under discussion.
Much of this thread, and many previous ones on the same subject, contain arguments against God’s judgement that could perhaps be summed up as: ‘God can’t do that – it would be evil.’ This is making the mistake of thinking that God is validly subject to human moral judgement. He isn’t. It’s a category error to think that He is. On the contrary, we are subject to His judgement, not the other way round. To go from thinking that God can be validly judged by human moral assessment, to recognising God’s valid judgement of oneself requires a major change of mind. The Greeks had a word for it – metanoia – commonly translated as ‘repentance’.
As for how the righteous will view the fate of the ungodly, I don’t at the moment have anything other than speculation. I guess that as the righteous will be like God, they will share exactly the same attitude that God has, - whatever that might be. As Jesus is recorded as weeping over Jerusalem, maybe, when God consigns to destruction the elements of His creation that have gone wrong, there might be (to use an anthropomorphism) a tear in his eye. And perhaps the righteous will view the fate of the ungodly and think ‘There but for the grace of God, go I...’
Angus
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
A.Pilgrim - do you agree that God has more love than any human could ever have?
If so, then His justice must be more full of love than any human is capable of. He must be capable of forgiveness far beyond our imagining.
And He is, of course, as demonstrated by Jesus. Jesus didn't wait for repentance before He forgave and his Prodigal Son parable underlines this in no uncertain terms.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
So do I Angus. And it will be indescribably good as Boogie forsees. For Sodom as Jesus promises twice. So obviously it will be for the Amalekites faithfully murdered by Samuel.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
IngoB isn't the only shipmate who believes that God will execute judgement, I do too. I just don't have the time to engage in debate on here to the same extent that he does.
I see the execution of the Amalekites for their rebellion against God and opposition to His people as a prefigurement of the Last Judgement when all people from all nations who rebel against God and oppose His purposes will suffer 'the second death'. So bringing up the account of the Amalekites is highly relevant to the subject under discussion.
Much of this thread, and many previous ones on the same subject, contain arguments against God’s judgement that could perhaps be summed up as: ‘God can’t do that – it would be evil.’ This is making the mistake of thinking that God is validly subject to human moral judgement. He isn’t. It’s a category error to think that He is. On the contrary, we are subject to His judgement, not the other way round. To go from thinking that God can be validly judged by human moral assessment, to recognising God’s valid judgement of oneself requires a major change of mind. The Greeks had a word for it – metanoia – commonly translated as ‘repentance’.
As for how the righteous will view the fate of the ungodly, I don’t at the moment have anything other than speculation. I guess that as the righteous will be like God, they will share exactly the same attitude that God has, - whatever that might be. As Jesus is recorded as weeping over Jerusalem, maybe, when God consigns to destruction the elements of His creation that have gone wrong, there might be (to use an anthropomorphism) a tear in his eye. And perhaps the righteous will view the fate of the ungodly and think ‘There but for the grace of God, go I...’
Angus
If God loved Moses and King David who were murderers, and gave Solomon wisdom beyond anyone's dreams despite his womanising, we all stand a chance eh?
The only one who was and is perfect is Jesus. Now I prefer to think of God as being so far superior to human beings that he is fully aware of every minute detail of us while we can only catch a glimpse here and there of him. I trust completely in God's wisdom, justice, and love. Therefore I can imagine that God will ultimately put us all through the fire of the Holy Spirit, so that those harmful traits that caused us and others so much pain will be burned off and become our most beautiful features in the perfect world to come.
Of course, my imaginings might be far from the truth, but the more I discover that our failings are connected to our nature and nurture, the more I see broken human beings who have been turned away from God as children (by those whose refinement will be more uncomfortable than that of being thrown into a pond with a millstone around their necks), the more I see God's love in action, the more my faith in God's justice stands firm.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
And as IngoB HATES me saying, Jesus promises even Sodom a MORE bearable judgment, twice.
Progressive revelation doesn't even end after death!
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
Much of this thread, and many previous ones on the same subject, contain arguments against God’s judgement that could perhaps be summed up as: ‘God can’t do that – it would be evil.’ This is making the mistake of thinking that God is validly subject to human moral judgement.
No-one here is judging God. Certain religious ideas are being judged as unworthy of God. Which seems entirely proper - given that we cannot see, hear or feel God, we have to use our reason in trying to work out which ideas fit with the little that we can tentatively know.
I'm unimpressed with the position that is quite happy for us to call reported actions of God great, merciful and just - favourable judgments - but bleat about inability to judge when it comes to actions that seem petty, ruthless or unjust. If you really think we are not in a position to make judgments, then out of the window goes all praise.
Your position seems to have much in common with a claim to aristocratic privilege - "Who are you, peasant, to judge a lord ?". Such an attitude is no less arrogant when projected onto Him who has been described as the king of kings and lord of lords. Which may have been an understandable way of thinking about God in the Feudal Age. But needs to be rethought in a world which no longer believes in noble blood. But can still be moved by nobility of action.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Raptor Eye, your imaginings are beautiful and therefore true.
Jesus had them about Sodom after all. Twice as even IngoB has to concede.
Russ, cutting between bone and marrow there, superb.
[ 09. December 2013, 07:22: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
And beautiful too Russ. That last paragraph.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
Martin your posts would be even more beautiful if you didn't keep making gratuitous, personal digs at IngoB. Thank you in advance.
/hosting
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
My apologies. A greater lion than the one I was childishly trying to poke with a stick between the bars of his cage has spoken!
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
Much of this thread, and many previous ones on the same subject, contain arguments against God’s judgement that could perhaps be summed up as: ‘God can’t do that – it would be evil.’ This is making the mistake of thinking that God is validly subject to human moral judgement.
No-one here is judging God. Certain religious ideas are being judged as unworthy of God. Which seems entirely proper - given that we cannot see, hear or feel God, we have to use our reason in trying to work out which ideas fit with the little that we can tentatively know.
I'm unimpressed with the position that is quite happy for us to call reported actions of God great, merciful and just - favourable judgments - but bleat about inability to judge when it comes to actions that seem petty, ruthless or unjust. If you really think we are not in a position to make judgments, then out of the window goes all praise.
Your position seems to have much in common with a claim to aristocratic privilege - "Who are you, peasant, to judge a lord ?". Such an attitude is no less arrogant when projected onto Him who has been described as the king of kings and lord of lords. Which may have been an understandable way of thinking about God in the Feudal Age. But needs to be rethought in a world which no longer believes in noble blood. But can still be moved by nobility of action.
Best wishes,
Russ
Exactly this. If it is to have any meaning if I call God a wonderful saviour when I consider the Incarnation, I have to also be able to meaningfully say that he's an evil bastard if he orders the putting of babies to the sword. I think I'd check myself in for an assessment for sociopathy if I ever started to see it otherwise.
[ 09. December 2013, 12:50: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm unimpressed with the position that is quite happy for us to call reported actions of God great, merciful and just - favourable judgments - but bleat about inability to judge when it comes to actions that seem petty, ruthless or unjust. If you really think we are not in a position to make judgments, then out of the window goes all praise.
Just adding my 'hear hear' to the chorus of approval for Russ's comment...
I'm sure some theologians have come up with an answer to this; can anyone here supply it for us 'progressive revelationists'?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
The Bible calls God unjust and unfair all the time, especially in the psalms.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
My question to people who can't let go of the idea of eternal punishment for unrepentant evildoers: In most civilized countries, punishment is understood to be corrective, not retributive -- in other words, at least in theory, we punish criminals by taking away their physical freedom in an effort to reform their behavior: "Gee, if this is what happens when I steal people's wallets, maybe I should stop stealing." We punish a child for writing on the wall with crayons not because we think s/he deserves it, but so that s/he will learn not to write with crayons on the walls.
In the eternal-punishment model of afterlife, there would seem to be no corrective/rehabilitative function in punishing "bad" people. So...why would God do it? Revenge on behalf of other angry people? Divine revenge? If so, how does that square with the image of Jesus embracing ways of nonviolence and forgiving his enemies from the Cross?
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
In most civilized countries, punishment is understood to be corrective, not retributive
And in the New Testament too, seeing as the word they chose to use, kolasis, refers to remedial punishment, whereas timoria, which they didn't use, refers to retributive punishment. The only time timoria is used (Hebrews 10:29) is in relation to believers, not unbelievers(!)
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
As on the "Why did Jesus have to choose to die?" thread you can see the progressive revelation at work in LutheranChik and goperryrevs, SCK.
There's just a lag of 2000 years. Hopefully we'll make more progress in the next.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0