Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 3 of 12   [ 223 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 12  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: For TheJack - God is good
PostPosted: Sat Jul 20, 2019 10:02 am 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 5162
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
Light of the East wrote:
I would appreciate if you would stop with the straw man attacks. There is a sufficiently large enough body of evidence in scripture alone to prove that Universal salvation is true. You were the one who told me to use scripture to prove Universal salvation. I'm going to turn around ask the same respect from you. Do not accuse me of using emotionally-charged arguments when my arguments are based on scripture.

Perhaps we could start out with a couple of arguments in scripture and turn this around from the emotionally-charged issue that is seems to become. Prove to me that the Greek word aionios means eternal. We can use that one's a start and we can go on to other scriptures from which I will defend my pozition.

To accuse me have using simply emotionally-charged arguments, without any reference at all to scripture or the philosophical musings of which you and father seemed to be so fond of when recording Aquinas, is disingenuous. If you can use Aquinas and his philosophy, then I can use philosophy. To charge me with using only emotion is a low blow and I think it's unworthy of you

*Sigh*

It's not a strawman. Every word I said is absolutely correct, and a correct representation of the type of argument DD has engaged in. You have done this some yourself, but you are also sophisticated enough to stop and consider proper ways that this should be nuanced. So my comments were directed precisely at DD's formulation, and that following Fr's own comments directed precisely at DD's formulation.

So let's go through this yet again with still a little more nuance.

You can oppose the doctrine of hell in one of two ways. And to be clear, these ways are absolutely exhaustive. All arguments of any sort must follow one of these methods.

    1. You can reason from first principles to conclude that the idea in question directly contradicts what necessarily be true about God. This is the method the Church has always used to prove, for example, that God is simple or that Christ must have two distinct natures or that Christ's divine nature is exactly identical with (not like) the divine nature.
    2. You can reason from Authority (either Scripture or Tradition) either to conclude an opposing idea is true, such that the idea in question is necessarily false; or else that some idea is directly stated as false. This is the method the Church has always used to prove, for example, that salvation is not by works, the Jesus was born of a virgin, that Christ will return in a bodily way (and, in this, for example, that full preterism is false), etc.
    3. You can claim not that the argument is false, but that it is unwarranted. There are two ways corresponding to the two ways above:
      3a. That the argument, being rooted in first principles, is not logically valid, and thus the conclusion does not necessarily follow;
      3b. That the argument, being rooted in Authority, rests on a misinterpretation of that authority, and thus the conclusion does not necessarily follow.
    In either of those approaches, you are not saying that the idea is wrong but rather that we have no positive reason for affirming it. And thus the latinism, quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

So let's consider how opposition to Hell might be used with each of these three.

1. The claim that God condemns to Hell contradicts first principles. God cannot, logically speaking, condemn to Hell without creating a self-contradiction in the claim. The only way this argument either could be attempted or has been attempted (that I know of) is to say that because God is love, and love does not condemn, therefore God cannot condemn. But as has been repeatedly stated, this argument does not follow at all because it entails God being placed under compulsion and puts Him under authority or places restrictions on Him. Any argument whatsoever that appeals to anything God would or might or must do based on His essence must necessarily be false. We cannot reason from God's essence to God's acts. We can only reason from God's acts to God's essence.

2. The claim that God condemns to Hell contradicts Authority. Either Authority positively teaches universal salvation (therefore, condemnation is necessarily false) or else Authority directly and positively rejects the idea that God condemns. On this view, you would need to show in Scripture or Tradition either of those two statements. Neither have been presented from either you or DD, although this is what I have repeatedly suggested you do. Against this, however, the traditional interpretation of both Scripture and Tradition is that there are authoritative reasons for holding that God does condemn some to Hell, and therefore, on this mode of argument, there is positive reason to reject universal salvation.

3. The claim that God condemns to Hell is unwarranted by either first principles or authority. Either proponents are wrong in claiming that we can prove from reason alone that God must condemn some to Hell and/or they are wrong that Authority positively teaches some are, in fact, condemned. This argument is correctly directed at some (especially Evangelicals) who try to reason from God's Justice that He must condemn to Hell. As already said, we cannot reason from God's essence to His particular acts. He is free to do as He wills, so there is no warrant in First Principles for the claim that God must condemn to Hell. The argument that Authority does not hold that God does, in fact, condemn, is much less compelling. You have started to allude to this in your question of the meaning of ainonion above. This needs to be discussed in more detail.

As I said, nothing I proposed was a strawman. You can attempt the second and third approaches. You absolutely may not attempt the first approach. That is heresy, which is what DD (and all who attempt to appeal to God's love as the basis of argument) is doing.


edit:

There is such a thing as an argument from fittingness. This area is not my specialty, so I'll offer my understanding of how this works and would look for comments from others (i.e., Obi) to confirm or nuance as is appropriate.

Anyway, for examples of fittingness, it was fitting for Christ to be crucified or for Christ to be born of a virgin or to hold to Mary's perpetual virginity. These, however, while fitting, are not held merely because they are fitting. Rather, they are held because they are essentially rooted in the second approach above (the argument from Authority), and the fittingness flows from that. It has its own merits in terms of theological values, especially as it relates to warrant for an idea in general; we cannot, however, use the unfittingness of a claim in and of itself to reject an argument either from First Principles or from Authority. You can certainly recognize that an argument is unfitting and therefore use that as a warrant to more deeply investigate the First Principles warrant or else the Authoritative warrant. But the unfittingness itself is not the basis for rejection. In other words, if you feel that the doctrine that God condemns is unfitting of God's omnibenevolent nature (and you are well within your rights to make that statement), what you can do is use it to buttress the third approach above and investigate the warrant for the claim that Scripture and/or Tradition positively teaches that God condemns. You cannot use it as a positive claim that God cannot, in fact, condemn.

_________________
Indeed, the Lord Jesus, when He prayed to the Father, "that all may be one. . . as we are one" (John 17:21-22) opened up vistas closed to human reason, for He implied a certain likeness between the union of the divine Persons, and the unity of God's sons in truth and charity. This likeness reveals that man, who is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself, cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself. ~ Pope Paul VI, Gaudium et Spes 24.3


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: For TheJack - God is good
PostPosted: Sat Jul 20, 2019 12:17 pm 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2018 7:53 pm
Posts: 873
Religion: Looking for answers
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
I can agree with two thousand years of saints, some of whom had personal experiences of God's love, and yet still believed in Hell. Or I can agree with you. It's not a difficult decision.

It's not a matter of whether you agree with me or not, it's a matter of whether or not it makes sense, to your own intelligent mind, and to any reasonable intelligent person. You can't expect people to believe something that doesn't make sense no matter how many saints may have believed it.

You can believe that God has created an eternal hell for actual real people like you and me to suffer eternally, but you cannot believe that God is infinitely merciful and at the same time believe that He has created an eternal hell for actual real people like you and me to suffer eternally.

Your answer to this contradiction is that God is beyond human understanding and we don't understand what it means when we are told by Scripture that "God is love" and "is good to all" and "his mercy endureth for ever", but we KNOW it doesn't mean sadistic beyond human understanding or indifferent to a situation He Himself created in which people suffer the worst type of suffering imaginable for ever and is unmoved to do anything at all to help them. I wouldn't be indifferent to a dog, a cat, a donkey, a fox or a pig suffering for five minutes. I would do whatever I could to help the creature in the best way possible. So to believe that God is less compassionate than I am, and less compassionate than everyone I know, simply doesn't make sense.

Why would God lead us to believe that it is good to be humane and bad to be inhumane if He Himself falls very far short of the standards of a humane human being? Where does human kindness come from if not from God?

So how can we be expected to believe that "God is love" and "good to all" and "his mercy endureth for ever" and yet at the same time is indifferent to the eternal suffering of human beings to the extent that he is not moved to do anything at all to help them, but just allows them to suffer for ever, friends and relatives of you and me, and you and me too if we we're not careful, if we succumb to the sometimes very difficult-to-resist temptations of "sins of the flesh", for example, or believe the wrong thing, such as what theJack believes or what etcumspiri2-2-0 believes, and this is how we will be judged and consequently sent to suffer eternal punishment by an infinitely merciful God!!!

Those two things are so obviously contradictory that you cannot believe them both at the same time in any intelligent way. You can logically believe either of those two contradictory beliefs, or neither, but you cannot logically, intelligently believe both. An appeal to authority does not make these two contradictory beliefs uncontradictory.

Have any of the saints, to whose authority you are appealing, ever explained how they dealt with this very obvious contradiction?

Do you think these saints, who no doubt had great hearts, had minds free of the effects of cognitive dissonance?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: For TheJack - God is good
PostPosted: Sat Jul 20, 2019 12:32 pm 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2018 7:53 pm
Posts: 873
Religion: Looking for answers
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
It's also more than a little arrogant to claim that nearly everyone got this wrong for 1900 years.

How many of all these people who comprise what you describe as "nearly everyone" throughout 1900 years also believed that people like theJack who because they are not Catholic would almost certainly end up in the eternal hell which God in His infinite mercy created for them?

That's a rhetorical question, something for you and theJack to think about.

If they're wrong about that, what else might they be wrong about?

Is it "a little arrogant" for me to believe that so many got it wrong and theJack certainly won't end up in an eternal hell?


Last edited by Denise Dee on Sat Jul 20, 2019 12:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: For TheJack - God is good
PostPosted: Sat Jul 20, 2019 12:36 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 5162
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
Good rhetorical questions lead people to think, not to role their eyes by making it obvious that you are out of your depth and aren't interested in anything other than the sound of your own voice.

_________________
Indeed, the Lord Jesus, when He prayed to the Father, "that all may be one. . . as we are one" (John 17:21-22) opened up vistas closed to human reason, for He implied a certain likeness between the union of the divine Persons, and the unity of God's sons in truth and charity. This likeness reveals that man, who is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself, cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself. ~ Pope Paul VI, Gaudium et Spes 24.3


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: For TheJack - God is good
PostPosted: Sat Jul 20, 2019 12:39 pm 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2018 7:53 pm
Posts: 873
Religion: Looking for answers
theJack wrote:
Good rhetorical questions lead people to think, not to role their eyes by making it obvious that you are out of your depth and aren't interested in anything other than the sound of your own voice.

TheJack is now resorting to ad hominem attacks.

See you later.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: For TheJack - God is good
PostPosted: Sat Jul 20, 2019 12:59 pm 
Offline
Jr. Wazzooship-Winning Moderator
Jr. Wazzooship-Winning Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 7:18 pm
Posts: 19177
Location: Just visiting this planet.
Religion: Finally Catholic!
Church Affiliations: Legion of Mary, SVdP
Denise Dee wrote:
theJack wrote:
Good rhetorical questions lead people to think, not to role their eyes by making it obvious that you are out of your depth and aren't interested in anything other than the sound of your own voice.

TheJack is now resorting to ad hominem attacks.

See you later.

Sounds like someone’s not liking being beaten at her own game, so she’s taking up her football and going home. Bye, Felicia!

_________________
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." --Douglas Adams

Image

Commit to the Image

formerly "ghall512"--Thanks for the idea, arkcatholic! :clap:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: For TheJack - God is good
PostPosted: Sat Jul 20, 2019 1:34 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 82645
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
My short answer is that I submit my intellect to the mind of the Church. Yes, there are sins of the intellect. I think it is far more likely that I don't understand something than that I am right and the saints are wrong.

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: For TheJack - God is good
PostPosted: Sat Jul 20, 2019 2:29 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 82645
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
Ed, with respect to your question on "aionion," I think the ball is in your court to show why it doesn't mean "eternal" in the face of widespread belief, both geographically and across time, that it does. Even those who held universalist positions, and certainly the soft-universalist "dare we hope" folks, almost all held that it means "eternal." Even people who spoke Greek natively thought so. You'll be able to point to exceptions, I'm sure, but the large majority say "eternal."

So: Why should I think it doesn't mean that?

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: For TheJack - God is good
PostPosted: Sat Jul 20, 2019 7:08 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:25 pm
Posts: 10558
Location: As I understand it.....in God's will. This is the best place to be.
Religion: Orthodox (In Communion With Rome)
Church Affiliations: Past Grand Knight KoC 15107
I wrote something to TheJack in a PM that I think fits here:

If God is entirely free, then He is not only free to damn all mankind if He should will it, but He is also free to forgive all mankind if He should will it.

The issue now becomes proving that this is the will of God within His freedom. I do think I have Scripture on my side. I am going to try to present my case without resorting to ad hominem attacks or pejoratives, especially (for you Father) in the case of St. Augustine. If I have a case, I should be able to make it in a charitable manner


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: For TheJack - God is good
PostPosted: Sat Jul 20, 2019 7:31 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 82645
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
I doubt Jack would contest the premise that God could save all mankind if He wills it. I certainly don't.

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: For TheJack - God is good
PostPosted: Sat Jul 20, 2019 7:39 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:25 pm
Posts: 10558
Location: As I understand it.....in God's will. This is the best place to be.
Religion: Orthodox (In Communion With Rome)
Church Affiliations: Past Grand Knight KoC 15107
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
I doubt Jack would contest the premise that God could save all mankind if He wills it. I certainly don't.


I agree. Therefore, the onus is on each one of us to prove our hope. And I agree that rather than emotionally-charged diatribes, Sacred Scripture is a very good place from which to launch such defense. I am sure you would agree with that premise.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: For TheJack - God is good
PostPosted: Sat Jul 20, 2019 7:53 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 9:36 am
Posts: 9117
Location: India
Religion: Catholic (Syro Malabar)
Light of the East wrote:
theJack wrote:
Denise Dee wrote:
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
You (and LotE) want to use the word "love" univocally (i.e., in exactly the same way) for God and for created things. That's simply wrong; you end up with theistic personalism, as I mentioned before, a God who's like us but bigger and more powerful.

We can have analogical knowledge of God's love--it is in some ways like ours--but the differences will always be greater than the similarities because God is always more unlike created things than like them.

So we can know (in theory; it often gets garbled in practice) what God wants of us when we are commanded to love. We can know only partially and very imperfectly what "love" means when it's applied to God. We know something, but not as much as it's easy to think we do.

We know enough to know that God's love for us is not the opposite of how God wants us to understand what love is. We know that love is in the direction of compassion, forgiveness, understanding, kindness, unconditional love. We know that God is not less compassionate, not less forgiving, not less understanding, not less kind, not less loving than we are. No compassionate, forgiving, understanding, kind, loving person would ever devise a set-up in which human beings are punished for ever with no way to improve, no way to learn, no way to grow and evolve, no way to find hope, no way to find enlightenment, no way to find release from suffering.

Love is not sadism and no philosophical gymnastics will ever change that simple truth.

And this is the problem with emotionally driven arguments of any kind. People also insist that spanking is wrong and that no loving parent spanks their kids . . . that if you truly loved your child, you'd not spank them. As I've been arguing all along to LotE, the moment you say, "Well, God would never do X, because that wouldn't be loving," you're falling into the mistake of presuming your view of love is the absolutely objective and correct view from all eternal perspectives. It's an arrogance that's hard to fathom if you can't step outside of it . . . to impose your morality on God and insist He submit to your little kingdom. Wow. Just wow.


I would appreciate if you would stop with the straw man attacks. There is a sufficiently large enough body of evidence in scripture alone to prove that Universal salvation is true. You were the one who told me to use scripture to prove Universal salvation. I'm going to turn around ask the same respect from you. Do not accuse me of using emotionally-charged arguments when my arguments are based on scripture.

Perhaps we could start out with a couple of arguments in scripture and turn this around from the emotionally-charged issue that is seems to become. Prove to me that the Greek word aionios means eternal. We can use that one's a start and we can go on to other scriptures from which I will defend my pozition.

To accuse me have using simply emotionally-charged arguments, without any reference at all to scripture or the philosophical musings of which you and father seemed to be so fond of when recording Aquinas, is disingenuous. If you can use Aquinas and his philosophy, then I can use philosophy. To charge me with using only emotion is a low blow and I think it's unworthy of you


TheJack accused in that post DD, not you, of making emotionally charged arguments :scratch:

DD wrote:
I wouldn't be indifferent to a dog, a cat, a donkey, a fox or a pig suffering for five minutes. I would do whatever I could to help the creature in the best way possible. So to believe that God is less compassionate than I am, and less compassionate than everyone I know, simply doesn't make sense.

You conceive God being more loving than man - that is true, of course, but the way you conceive it - as though humans have one kilo of love and God has two - takes love in a univocal way.

Let me try to use a rough analogy:

"Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD'S thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is". "For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof." These are things that Scripture tells us about God. But that doesn't mean that, just as one farmer has ten acres of farmland, God too has land, but many more acres; nor does it mean that God owns like a warlord who achieved world domination. Yet the earth truly belongs to God.

Father/theJack: Is my analogy sound?

_________________
"May our tongues proclaim Your truth. May Your Cross be a protection for us as we let our tongues be turned into new harps and sing hymns with fiery lips"

-From the introduction to Our Father, "On the feasts of the Lord and other important feasts", Syro Malabar rite


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: For TheJack - God is good
PostPosted: Sat Jul 20, 2019 8:17 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:25 pm
Posts: 10558
Location: As I understand it.....in God's will. This is the best place to be.
Religion: Orthodox (In Communion With Rome)
Church Affiliations: Past Grand Knight KoC 15107
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
Ed, with respect to your question on "aionion," I think the ball is in your court to show why it doesn't mean "eternal" in the face of widespread belief, both geographically and across time, that it does. Even those who held universalist positions, and certainly the soft-universalist "dare we hope" folks, almost all held that it means "eternal." Even people who spoke Greek natively thought so. You'll be able to point to exceptions, I'm sure, but the large majority say "eternal."

So: Why should I think it doesn't mean that?


Okay. That is completely fair. But don't expect a quick answer as I will have to do my due diligence rather than just toss in an off-the-cuff reply.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: For TheJack - God is good
PostPosted: Sat Jul 20, 2019 9:31 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 82645
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
Light of the East wrote:
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
I doubt Jack would contest the premise that God could save all mankind if He wills it. I certainly don't.


I agree. Therefore, the onus is on each one of us to prove our hope. And I agree that rather than emotionally-charged diatribes, Sacred Scripture is a very good place from which to launch such defense. I am sure you would agree with that premise.

Certainly if you want theJack in on the discussion. I might bring in Tradition in a way he wouldn't, and I might reference private revelation as supplementary evidence, but I think we'd all be better served by sticking to one train of argument at a time.

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: For TheJack - God is good
PostPosted: Sat Jul 20, 2019 10:36 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 5162
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
I doubt Jack would contest the premise that God could save all mankind if He wills it. I certainly don't.

You are correct, as you well know. I would not contest the premise! To your later point, I have tried to be careful, as I'm sure you've noticed, to include Tradition as a legitimate way to claim warrant for a belief in Hell. Obviously, I wouldn't use it in the same way as you; but that's all related to deeper issues rooted in Authority. What remains true is that whether God damns (m)any or saves (m)any is entirely a matter of Authority, not philosophical theology or First Principles. We can show that either claim does not contradict First Principles. We cannot prove either claim from First Principles.

I just think, in my analysis of Scripture (to say nothing of Tradition!) that we are not only warranted by compelled to assent to claim that God damns people to Hell. In my humanity, I wish that were not the case. But that's something I make it a point to submit to God. "Father knows best." (Yes, yes, I know, this isn't a "best" issue . . . I just couldn't resist the reference. ;))

(fakeedit: I might, however, decline at the present time to get into an analysis of Authority (be it Scripture or Tradition) as to whether or not belief in God damning is warranted. My long running argument has only been to insist on what we can't do--that we can't use "God is love" to prove that damnation is impossible. I very honestly don't see that my opinion on the interpretation of Scripture is terribly important to anyone other than myself. I would only say to LotE (or whomever) what I often say to my own church: here's my view of what this passage means. You don't have to agree. You can disagree. If you do, just make sure your view is defensible, and remember that you are answering to God, not me. And the same is true for me as well.)


And Jack3, I like your analogy quite a bit, actually. The more we have to help people start to grasp that our language about God is analogical and that He is not just "more than" we are but on a basic level "other than" we are, the better. It rung true to me in an intuitive way, so thank you for that.

_________________
Indeed, the Lord Jesus, when He prayed to the Father, "that all may be one. . . as we are one" (John 17:21-22) opened up vistas closed to human reason, for He implied a certain likeness between the union of the divine Persons, and the unity of God's sons in truth and charity. This likeness reveals that man, who is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself, cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself. ~ Pope Paul VI, Gaudium et Spes 24.3


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: For TheJack - God is good
PostPosted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:08 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:25 pm
Posts: 10558
Location: As I understand it.....in God's will. This is the best place to be.
Religion: Orthodox (In Communion With Rome)
Church Affiliations: Past Grand Knight KoC 15107
theJack wrote:
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
I doubt Jack would contest the premise that God could save all mankind if He wills it. I certainly don't.

You are correct, as you well know. I would not contest the premise! To your later point, I have tried to be careful, as I'm sure you've noticed, to include Tradition as a legitimate way to claim warrant for a belief in Hell. Obviously, I wouldn't use it in the same way as you; but that's all related to deeper issues rooted in Authority. What remains true is that whether God damns (m)any or saves (m)any is entirely a matter of Authority, not philosophical theology or First Principles. We can show that either claim does not contradict First Principles. We cannot prove either claim from First Principles.

I just think, in my analysis of Scripture (to say nothing of Tradition!) that we are not only warranted by compelled to assent to claim that God damns people to Hell. In my humanity, I wish that were not the case. But that's something I make it a point to submit to God. "Father knows best." (Yes, yes, I know, this isn't a "best" issue . . . I just couldn't resist the reference. ;))

(fakeedit: I might, however, decline at the present time to get into an analysis of Authority (be it Scripture or Tradition) as to whether or not belief in God damning is warranted. My long running argument has only been to insist on what we can't do--that we can't use "God is love" to prove that damnation is impossible. I very honestly don't see that my opinion on the interpretation of Scripture is terribly important to anyone other than myself. I would only say to LotE (or whomever) what I often say to my own church: here's my view of what this passage means. You don't have to agree. You can disagree. If you do, just make sure your view is defensible, and remember that you are answering to God, not me. And the same is true for me as well.)


And Jack3, I like your analogy quite a bit, actually. The more we have to help people start to grasp that our language about God is analogical and that He is not just "more than" we are but on a basic level "other than" we are, the better. It rung true to me in an intuitive way, so thank you for that.


I have to say that in regards to what you said in the bold above, I find it interesting that to take certain positions on certain dogmatic statements gets me a TON of condemnation and threats that I am going to go to hell forever. It is not just that I have to answer to God, but apparently manner here on earth feel that they have the authority to condemn me to an eternity of suffer as well as the Almighty.

Anyway, I'm working on my first issue in regards to Apokatastasis, but I was thinking about something that really is at the heart of the issue. Neither I nor anyone who has this hope of God's final victory would ever say that there is no hell nor any suffering as a consequence of the wicked choices some people make [and unfortunately delight in] while alive. That is a common accusation which has no valid basis. Even St. Isaac the Syrian stated that hell is "the scourging of God's love" on sinners.

It seems to me therefore that the real core issue is this, since we agree on suffering for sin:

Does the suffering last forever?

As Father stated, since there appears to be a long consensus in the Western Church [as well as some Eastern Fathers] that hell is eternal, then the burden of proof is on me that it is not.

I hope to be able to present a cogent argument in defense of restorative punishment rather than eternal retribution, but as I said above, it will take a while. I will probably start a new thread when I feel I have something to say.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: For TheJack - God is good
PostPosted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:43 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 82645
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
Many Eastern Fathers :)

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: For TheJack - God is good
PostPosted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 8:19 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 5162
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
Light of the East wrote:
I have to say that in regards to what you said in the bold above, I find it interesting that to take certain positions on certain dogmatic statements gets me a TON of condemnation and threats that I am going to go to hell forever. It is not just that I have to answer to God, but apparently manner here on earth feel that they have the authority to condemn me to an eternity of suffer as well as the Almighty.

Anyway, I'm working on my first issue in regards to Apokatastasis, but I was thinking about something that really is at the heart of the issue. Neither I nor anyone who has this hope of God's final victory would ever say that there is no hell nor any suffering as a consequence of the wicked choices some people make [and unfortunately delight in] while alive. That is a common accusation which has no valid basis. Even St. Isaac the Syrian stated that hell is "the scourging of God's love" on sinners.

It seems to me therefore that the real core issue is this, since we agree on suffering for sin:

Does the suffering last forever?

As Father stated, since there appears to be a long consensus in the Western Church [as well as some Eastern Fathers] that hell is eternal, then the burden of proof is on me that it is not.

I hope to be able to present a cogent argument in defense of restorative punishment rather than eternal retribution, but as I said above, it will take a while. I will probably start a new thread when I feel I have something to say.

Let me offer a decided non-Catholic viewpoint on the whole nature of the discussion. Since I don't have an authoritative magisterium, I don't have to ask what said magisterium states. So, for a Catholic, if it is clear that the Catholic Church formally declares that one must believe that Hell is a place of eternal, conscious torment, then that's something to be believed regardless of what it seems Scripture does or does not say (and, of course, the Church would insist that her statements on Hell are completely consistent with Scripture). And it seems to me the Church does teach as much. My agreement with the Church isn't because I recognize her authority. It's because I think she got this one right.

But what about issues where I think she got it wrong? Well, then I just make my case, which has to be good enough for me. As I said, just as God is your judge, he is mine, too. The constant refrain in my seminary studies was that my professors were not trying to get me to adopt a particular theological view (although they admitted they had one, and largely the same one, as the school agreed to hire them for that reason), but rather they wanted me to adopt a particular way of approaching the question. The upshot was that all they insisted on when I disagreed with the was that I make a defensible case. They would point out where they thought I erred (if anywhere), but what they insisted on was a rational argument.

And that's what I'd suggest for you as well. In my non-Catholic opinion, you don't have to absolutely demonstrate that Universal Salvation is true. There are some things that you absolutely do have to do, and Obi and you have agreed on one. You do need to deal with the fact that, historically, the saints seem to hold to eternal damnation and that the word aionion certainly seems to be used that way. There are some things you obviously can't do (i.e., reason from directly from God's nature) that we've talked about a lot; you need to make your argument from Scripture or tradition. But within all those confines, in my opinion, you just need to make a defensible argument that is sufficient for your own conscience. In the end, I think that's the only way any of us at all can do philosophy and theology. And part of our conscience should be sensitive to what others, or betters, and our tradition has said--it helps to check against our presuppositions. But all the same, in the end, it's between you and God. Just make the best case you can as honestly as you can. No more, no less!

Again, that's a broadly non-Catholic view. Catholics here may agree or disagree in whole or in part or completely disregard as is their prerogative. :)

_________________
Indeed, the Lord Jesus, when He prayed to the Father, "that all may be one. . . as we are one" (John 17:21-22) opened up vistas closed to human reason, for He implied a certain likeness between the union of the divine Persons, and the unity of God's sons in truth and charity. This likeness reveals that man, who is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself, cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself. ~ Pope Paul VI, Gaudium et Spes 24.3


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: For TheJack - God is good
PostPosted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 9:07 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 9:36 am
Posts: 9117
Location: India
Religion: Catholic (Syro Malabar)
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/10 ... heist.html Ed Feser, defending classical theism against atheism, says that many atheist objections are directed to a caricature of theism. He covers many points related to this thread.

_________________
"May our tongues proclaim Your truth. May Your Cross be a protection for us as we let our tongues be turned into new harps and sing hymns with fiery lips"

-From the introduction to Our Father, "On the feasts of the Lord and other important feasts", Syro Malabar rite


Last edited by Jack3 on Mon Jul 22, 2019 9:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: For TheJack - God is good
PostPosted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 9:29 am 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 82645
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
A Catholic submits his conclusions to the "mind of the Church," so if, on my own, I would reach a conclusion that is opposed to the teaching of the Church--particularly when that teaching is definitive--I must conclude that the defect is in my reasoning and not in the teaching of the Church.

For LotE, at some point (I don't think it's a good place to start), one task is to demonstrate that his position does not conflict with definitive teaching of the Church.

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 3 of 12   [ 223 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 12  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


Jump to: