Okay. Your basic, telling a kid fire is hot instead of momentarily putting their hand on a stove or over said fire, for example. Of course. That's right and proper. Anything else is the hallmark of a beast or savage. Understandable.

So, basically, once someone kills, say your child or mother or father or what have you, any sort of punishment is unjust simply for the fact "what's done is done." Surely you don't mean that. Do you? — Outlander

I have an idea: The person who killed my family is innocent if the act is due to his/her genes. Otherwise, you need to know what brought the murderer to a situation to perform such an act. The main causes of the crime are a lack of proper education or uncertainty in life. We can only fix education. Once this is done, it is what it is: a perfect life!

Thomism relies on divine simplicity. It understands god as pure and as simple. So mercy and justice are for god the very same. This is how Thomism responds to the Euthyphro; the good and god's will are the very same.

But if we cannot make meaningful distinctions between such notions as justice and mercy, then we cannot use them to explain the nature of god.

Weirdly, Thomism undermines itself, showing that theology is impossible.

If course, Thomism has responses to these criticisms. But equally, more theology simply serves to undermine theology further.

I was talking about legitimate debt. Are you suggesting that the idea of sin is illegitimate?

Sure, but that doesn't imply that Pilate isn't blameworthy, or that Pilate lacked freedom in any special sense when he chose to crucify Christ (i.e., he did not lack freedom any more or any less than when he had anyone else crucified, or at least, there doesn't seem to be any indication of this).

There might be a stronger case to be made in the other direction with Judas. Consider John 6:64:

"Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. "

And 70-71:

"Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” 71 (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)"

But this is really just the same old question of if divine foreknowledge precludes freewill, which has generally (but not always) been answered in the negative (e.g. Saint Augustine, Boethius, etc.)

Yet there are also to consider the mentions of Satan "entering" Judas at John 13:27 and Luke 22:3. In general, demoniacs are not represented as blameworthy in the NT, so this could be read as absolving Judas. Historically, it hasn't though, the idea being that Judas has already conspired to betray Christ at this point, with Satan's appearance merely signaling the point of no return. Also, in Matthew 27:3–5 he repents of having betrayed Jesus and tries to return the money he was paid, claiming he has "sinned," before deciding to hang himself.

My invocation of Thomism here was to give @Frank a reasonable Christian answer to their OP's blatant straw manning of Christianity; which doesn't necessitate that I accept the metaphysics.

On a separate note, I actually do find a lot of Thomism plausible. However, I know you have a lot of knowledge of philosophy and if there's alternatives that you would like to discuss with me then I am all ears.

Yes, I suppose that's a possible response, although I Peter 4 suggests that Christ suffered.

I agree. My point is that you can't take the responsibility for Jesus' death off of God without denying the doctrine of the propitiatory sacrifice. You can't resolve the conundrum that God is supposed to have sacrificed himself, to himself, to save us from himself, without denying the Trinity.

I think the best answer to this would be what a Southern Baptist seminary student told me after realizing that I was really trying to understand how he could believe in hell. He paused, cupped his hands together, and said, "Christianity is about loving another person."

Baptist seminary students read the New Testament in Greek. They don't fool around. But this one student was willing to just push all of that to the side to say what religion meant to him. It's in people like that that Christianity is still a living religion. In other words, the answer to the OP: yes, it doesn't make any sense. Christianity is about loving another person.

Do you really think that there was a chance of @frank accepting Thomism as an answer to his questions? Wouldn't he simple see it as a more verbose expression of the very same confusions? And indeed, with good reason.

I am all ears. — Bob Ross

I've suggested silentism as the most reasonable response to such issues - admitting that we don't know the answer.

But if we cannot make meaningful distinctions between such notions as justice and mercy, then we cannot use them to explain the nature of god.

We can though, at least for St. Thomas, since they're valid conceptual distinctions. For comparison, consider that goodness and truth (and all the other transcendentals) are also merely conceptual distinctions within St. Thomas's thought as well. That is, they don't add anything to Being, which is maximally general. Rather they consider it under some particular aspect (e.g. as relates to desirability/appetite under Goodness). But if, as you say, a distinction being merely conceptual renders it meaningless, then there should also be no meaningful difference between truth, goodness, and existence. Yet there clearly seems to be a meaningful difference between these within Thomistic accounts.

Likewise, the difference between a cup that is half full and half empty is conceptual, but not meaningless.

You didn't just read it, frank, you ignored it and responded to low hanging fruits. I've given you many opportunities to engage and you refuse, which is your perogative; however, it saddens me that you go along with people in this forum in straw manning and condescending claims about views when people have and are willing to provide you with the real positions that you should be responding to.

I understand for @Banno Christianity probably holds no water and has every right to desecrate on it in here (although that also is disappointing); but you made the OP: there's no excuse. I responded to your OP with the Thomistic response and you ignored it and continued to act like no one can give any responses to what you are asking. Banno isn't obligated to read all the other posts in someone else's OP and respond accordingly.

All I am saying is why do you create an OP asking about a topic in a condescending and straw-manning way just to ignore anyone that gives you a response that is actually challenging for you?

You didn't just read it, frank, you ignored it — Bob Ross

It looked to me like you weren't considering the way the Trinity plays into the problem. You wouldn't answer me when I asked you if you think Jesus is God. So from my perspective, it's you who is being reticent. I just exited the discussion when you wouldn't answer me.

 Do you really think that there was a chance of @frank accepting Thomism as an answer to his questions? Wouldn't he simple see it as a more verbose expression of the very same confusions? And indeed, with good reason.

@frank wrote in the OP:

The Catholic Church teaches that God Almighty came down from heaven to save us... from His own wrath... by allowing Himself to be tortured to death. And apparently this strategy worked in spite of the fact that he didn't actually die (people saw him walking around three days later), and most people didn't get saved.

Don't you agree this is a straw man? The Catholic Church does not teach this nor is it an iron-manned position on the topic. I think we all can agree that it is intellectually vicious to straw man positions when creating an OP; especially when it is written in a condescending way.

I would not think to purposefully desecrate and straw-man anyone's position in an OP on a philosophy forum: that's just disingenuine, closed minded, and dishonest. Can we agree on that? Can we not agree on being intellectually virtuous when discussing ideas on a philosophy forum?

I've suggested silentism as the most reasonable response to such issues - admitting that we don't know the answer.

I don't know what that means. Can you elaborate please?

All of which just takes the Thomistic metaphysic as granted.

An absurdity can seem internally consistent.

This:

...yes, it doesn't make any sense. Christianity is about loving another person. — frank

may be as helpful as Summa Theologica.

I wouldn't answer because it is irrelevant; but ok, I'll answer to further the discussion. I don't believe Jesus is the Son of God.

This is irrelevant because:

1. I was providing a view that is internal coherent and plausible within Christianity to address why God sent His Son to die on the cross; and

2. One could hold the view I gave and not be a Christian. Nothing about what I said actually entailed that Jesus was the Son of God. It entailed that the Son of God would have to incarnated at some point to be sacrificed for our sins in some way.

Asking me if I believe that Jesus was God is like:

1. Me asking "what are reasons someone would believe that we have a soul?".
2. You give me an exposition of one avenue someone could take to believe in us having a soul.
3. I ignore your exposition and ask you "do you believe that we have a soul?"

Well, that's irrelevant if you think about it: you could hold that we have no souls and that your exposition suffices to give a plausible account of us having a soul relative to some metaphysical theory.

I was talking about legitimate debt. Are you suggesting that the idea of sin is illegitimate? — Bob Ross

If we're talking about legitimate debt, don't we need to talk about legitimate sin? What, exactly, is a sin? Is masturbation something I need to be forgiven for? Eating shellfish? Homosexuality? Anal sex with my wife? Making a graven image? Suffering a witch to live? Taking the lord's name in vain?

Yes, I suppose that's a possible response, although I Peter 4 suggests that Christ suffered. — Count Timothy von Icarus

How would Peter know, he wasn't even there?

I don't believe Jesus is the Son of God. — Bob Ross

I didn't ask if you believe Jesus was the Son of God. I asked if you think Jesus is God. Catholics do believe that. In fact, most Christians do.

This:
...yes, it doesn't make any sense. Christianity is about loving another person.
— frank
may be as helpful as Summa Theologica. — Banno

:up:

The Op is satire.

Frank asked "How does a person [moderator redacted] make sense of this?"

You provide an answer in the sophistry of Thomism, which is quite unlikely to appease Frank.

(I hope the mod redacting was not one of those participating in the discussion.)

You can't resolve the conundrum that God is supposed to have sacrificed himself, to himself, to save us from himself, without denying the Trinity.

This is not how I would put it, although it's better than your OP. While we can speak of God's "wrath" analogously, the Fathers are pretty much unanimous on the idea that God is immutable and, crucially, impassible.

For example:

You will find many more similar examples of God bearing the ways of man. If you hear of God's anger and his fury, do not think of fury and anger as emotions experienced by God. Accommodations of the use of language like that are designed for the correction and improvement of the little child. We too put on a severe face for children not because that is our true feeling but because we are accommodating ourselves to their level. If we let our kindly feelings towards the child show in our face and allow our affection for it to be clearly seen, if we don't distort our real selves and make some sort of change for the purpose of its correction, we spoil the child and make it worse. So God is said to be wrathful [“furious”] and declares that he is angry in order that you may be corrected and improved. But God is not really wrathful or angry. Yet you will experience the effects of wrath and anger, through finding yourself in trouble that can scarcely be borne on account of your wickedness, when you are being disciplined by the so-called wrath of God.

Origen - Homilies on Jeremiah 18, 6 (Jeremiah 18:7-10)

Or:

The wrath and rage of the Lord God, however, should not be understood as a disturbance of the mind, but as a force by which he takes vengeance most righteously, with all creation subjected to him to serve him. Indeed, we must examine and hold fast to what Solomon has written: But you, O Lord of power, judge with calmness, and you set us in order with great awe. The wrath of God, therefore, is a motion that comes about in a soul which knows the law of God when it sees the same law to be disregarded by a sinner; for through this motion of just souls many transgressions are avenged–although the wrath of God can also be rightly understood as the very darkening of the mind that overtakes those who transgress the law of God.

Saint Augustine - Commentary on Psalm 2

You can see something quite similar in how the Patristics address God's "repentance," for example.

But as a I pointed out earlier, even setting aside "wrath," to say the primary goal is: "to save us from himself," makes it seem like the problem of sin is entirely extrinsic. That is, it suggests that the entire problem with sin is that it has made God mad, not that it is inherently bad and bad for man. This would imply that if God simply chose not to "have a cow" over sin, there would be no issue at all. Thus, the Christian narrative would be all about how this extrinsic evil is removed from humanity, or at least some of humanity.

Yet this is not how Christians have traditionally understood sin (i.e., in the traditional Orthodox and Catholic Churches). I will allow that there are some forms of Protestant theology that hew a bit closer to this (although I imagine they might have qualms with this description as well). There are also many forms of Protestant theology that don't.

I think we all can agree that it is intellectually vicious to straw man positions when creating an OP; especially when it is written in a condescending way.

Probably not. Bigots almost always think their bigotry is rationally and morally justified, and that engaging in bigotry is a moral act. They also tend to be extremely confident in their understanding of the groups they are bigoted against. No one understands women more than the misogynists of the "Manosphere", no on understands African American culture better than White Nationalists, no one understands Islam better than folks like Tommy Robinson, and no one understands two millennia of Christian thought better than internet atheists.

Yet this is not how Christians have traditionally understood sin (i.e., in the traditional Orthodox and Catholic Churches). I will allow that there are some forms of Protestant theology that hew a bit closer to this (although I imagine they might have qualms with this description as well). There are also many forms of Protestant theology that don't. — Count Timothy von Icarus

A Catholic accepts the doctrine of the Trinity, which says the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one. A Catholic also accepts the doctrine of the propitiatory sacrifice, as outlined in John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life"

Put the two together, and we have God sacrificing Himself, to Himself, to save us from Himself. If there's a part of this you deny, you're enjoying the good luck of living in a world where the Protestants long ago took charge and provided religious freedom so that you don't have to worry about being burned at the stake for heresy. :wink:

↪Count Timothy von Icarus All of which just takes the Thomistic metaphysic as granted.

It takes the difference between real and conceptual distinctions for granted, or at least, tries to understand them properly in context. I don't see how that's an absurd distinction though.

An absurdity can seem internally consistent. — Banno

But wasn't your original argument that Thomism was internally self-undermining?

Thomism relies on divine simplicity. It understands god as pure and as simple. So mercy and justice are for god the very same. This is how Thomism responds to the Euthyphro; the good and god's will are the very same.

But if we cannot make meaningful distinctions between such notions as justice and mercy, then we cannot use them to explain the nature of god.

Weirdly,Thomism undermines itself, showing that theology is impossible.

If course, Thomism has responses to these criticisms. But equally, more theology simply serves to undermine theology further. — Banno

But again, this only seems like a valid criticism if "meaningful" distinctions must be real, instead of conceptual.

You're equivocating here between your initial formulation, which sounds like straight penal substitution theology, and the idea of propitiation. Something like:

“God became man and freely offered Himself to save us from sin and eternal separation from Him.”

“God, in His love and justice, sent His Son to conquer sin and death by His Passion.”

“Through His suffering and death, Christ made satisfaction for our sins and reconciled us to the Father.”

...would be sound.

But wasn't your original argument that Thomism was internally self-undermining? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Not really. It seems you think it consistent, but using a way of talking about consistency that is itself Thomist.

Someone who thinks there is a difference between justice and mercy will not need an explanation of how they are different in the face of the simplicity of god, if they do not accept the simplicity of god.

And so, around and around, the various cogs spin without meshing.

“God became man and freely offered Himself to save us from sin and eternal separation from Him.” — Count Timothy von Icarus

God became man and allowed Himself to be tortured to death. Do you agree with this? Taking baby steps here.

Tim can't articulate your criticism in his terms, it seems.

Tim can't articulate your criticism in his terms, it seems. — Banno

I'm not holding my breath. I don't think there are any teeth on the cogs.

Oh, perhaps Tim's engine will spin by itself. It's how it makes contact with the world that might make the difference.

I don't see it gaining much traction for you and I.

Oh, perhaps Tim's engine will spin by itself. It's how it makes contact with the world that might make the difference.

I don;t see it gaining much traction for you and I. — Banno

Best leave it here, then, huh?

Guess so.