Perhaps a bit of a tangent, but one interpretation of Christianity I really liked both before and after losing my faith was C.S. Lewis's interpretation (Anglican, iirc) that hell is not necessarily eternal. In one of his apologetic works (I forget which one) he posits that God's power of redemption is so powerful and outside of time that if a person truly repented in hell, they could be raised up to heaven in a way that recontextualizes it as always having been purgatory instead. So in his interpretation, hell is only eternal for people who truly never repented and was shown to be almost atomically small, because evil has no real power (or some such). Imo this feels a lot more internally consistent with the Christian redemption narrative and neatly answers some of the more ethically dubious aspects of eternal damnation for non-eternal actions. Tbh from what I recall of his apologetic works, C.S. Lewis was a pretty laid back Christian and some of his insights were pretty interesting.

I also think there are some interesting parallels to draw between the idea of living God's will with other concepts like living your Tao or other forms of enlightenment. I have seen some interpretations of hell as being bad not as a punishment so much as the natural state of being separated from God and his love/will, and because God is perfect, he cannot interact with imperfect beings directly, hence the necessity of Jesus as a sacrificial intermediary. In that reading, I think it's possible to see similarities, but perhaps I'm reaching.

...its default sycophantic tilt — Count Timothy von Icarus

We can agree on a dislike for the tone, to be sure. It was your suggestion to make use of it, and again you seem to renege when faced with the consequence.

So I asked it about Frank's post, and it sugested the following re-write of Frank's post:

The Catholic Church teaches that God, in His infinite love, entered into our world — not to appease His own anger, but to rescue humanity from the alienation brought about by sin. This rescue took the form of Jesus Christ freely undergoing death — not as a victim of divine rage, but as an act of perfect self-giving love.
Still, it remains mysterious: God reconciles the world to Himself by suffering at the hands of those He came to save. Justice is not satisfied by punishment, but by a love so radical it absorbs violence and answers it with forgiveness. — ChatGPT

It then asks :

Why is such suffering needed at all for God to forgive or heal? — ChatGPT

Now that is a good question. Here's an issue worth considering. Chat is of course only inferring, from a huge DB of word strings, the appropriate next words in a string of words that starts with Frank's OP, and this is what it comes up with. The question follows from Frank's OP.

Is your answer the same as ChatGPT's? That is it a "mystery"?

Or is your reply only the tu quoque of your parody on atheism?

Is it possible to have a productive conversation concerning the consistency of God?

It then asks :

Why is such suffering needed at all for God to forgive or heal? — ChatGPT

Now that is a good question. Here's an issue worth considering. Chat is of course only inferring, from a huge DB of word strings, the appropriate next words in a string of words that starts with Frank's OP, and this is what it comes up with. The question follows from Frank's OP. — Banno

I think part of the post I made directly before yours has some insight there.

I have seen some interpretations of hell as being bad not as a punishment so much as the natural state of being separated from God and his love/will, and because God is perfect, he cannot interact with imperfect beings directly, hence the necessity of Jesus as a sacrificial intermediary. — MrLiminal

Right, so the narrative is that Jesus redeems us from the curse of Adam. Without that redemption, we're condemned. — frank

The idea that children should be held responsible for the sins of their parents is also... problematic.

Doubtless there are theological explanations.

And here again we face a problem with the method of theology, which aims to explain what is already taken as granted. It is not open to the theologian to conclude that God is wrong to visit the sins of Adam on his children. Theology as the institutionalisation of confirmation bias.

Of course, some theological approaches might avoid this accusation. But I do not see them hereabouts.

...because God is perfect, he cannot interact with imperfect beings directly — MrLiminal

Wouldn't a god that can interact with imperfect beings, and lead them to the light, be better than a god who cannot interact with imperfect beings?

But the higher point is the methodological one made above, that theology consists in justifying a given series of doctrines, not in their critique.

It starts with the conclusion and works through to the explanation, unable to reach an alternate conclusion.

Wouldn't a god that can interact with imperfect beings, and lead them to the light, be better than a god who cannot interact with imperfect beings? — Banno

I would agree, though my understanding was that it was more our fault than his according to doctrine. It's not a requirement, but Christianity hits low self-esteem in an interesting way. Either way, if I were an all powerful god, I would do things very differently, lol.

But the higher point is the methodological one made above, that theology consists in justifying a given series of doctrines, not in their critique.

It starts with the conclusion and works through to the explanation, unable to reach an alternate conclusion. — Banno

Agree here as well. I added more of your statement than intended, I think. Although I do think your point fails to account for how often the church disagrees and schisms over those doctrines, which possibly indicates that it's not always *entirely* self-affirming. Coming to similar but different conclusions is still coming to different conclusions.

The idea that children should be held responsible for the sins of their parents is also... problematic. — Banno

It partly comes from primitive intuitions about inheritance. You have your parent's physical features, so wouldn't you also inherit their sinful nature? On the one hand, telling people that they're born flawed can be psychologically devastating. Catholics even have a name for a condition where that belief becomes overwhelming: it's called scruples.

But on the other hand, it can be liberating to know that certain mental health issues and alcoholism have genetic components. It's not a personal failing. It's a link to your family tree.

But the higher point is the methodological one made above, that theology consists in justifying a given series of doctrines, not in their critique. — Banno

And I think that's how religions die. They become rigid. Life leaks out and goes looking for better metaphors.

Theology is not philosophy.

Theology starts with a conclusion, and seeks to explain how it fits in with how things are. It seeks to make a given doctrine consistent.

Philosophy starts with how things are and looks for a consistent explanation.

Theology can't say "That's inconsistent", and so eventually has to rely instead on mystery.

I'm not sure I would agree. Theology is a subset of philosophy dealing specifically within religious thought, as I see it. Religion was the original philosophy, in a way, just operating with much less scientific knowledge and filling in the gaps with assumptions and pre-existing cultural ideas.

Religion was the original philosophy — MrLiminal

Is it open to a theologian to conclude that there is no god and remain a theologian?

A philosopher may do so and remain a philosopher.

It partly comes from primitive intuitions about inheritance. — frank

As if blame were genetic. The story of original sin appears morally indefensible. Theology is that defence.

So, becoming Godly is the final goal, and it is all right, too. Adam and Eve just wanted to look Godly. What is wrong with that?

Precisely; this gets highlighted a lot in theology or in "the Bible as literature." Adam and Eve have the right goal, "becoming like onto God," but have approached it in the wrong way. It's an attempt to be like God by turning away from God, which is not how one becomes like God. God alone is subsistent being, "in whom we live and move and have our being," (Acts 17:28), so this is also in a sense a turn towards nothingness/mere potentiality, and away from the full actualization of the human being.

And there is the problem of evil too, for a perfect good God who can only create a good creation. To my understanding God of the Old Testament is closer to being true since He accepted to be the source of good and evil.

Well, from the orthodox Christian perspective, they are the same God (Isaiah 45:7 is read in various ways here, often as the text speaking about creating "evil" from the perspective of the wicked, i.e., the wicked see just punishment as "evil"). Most, but certainly not all Christian theology follows a privation theory of evil. Evil has no positive essence. Evil is merely the absence of good. Sickness is just the absence of health, evil an absence of properly actualized virtue/perfection. There is a gradation of goodness in creation, but creation itself is an ordered whole. Hence, God does not create evil. However, since creation is free, it is also capable of turning away from God, the "Fall," and this is how evil, as a privation, emerges. This includes the fall of man, but also the rebellious archons and principalities, Satan as the "prince of this world," and the idea that the entire cosmos has been subjected to decay and futility.

I am not as well versed in the Jewish tradition, but I know the privation theory of evil was popular with at least some Jewish (as well as Islamic) thinkers (Philo, Maimonides, Gaon). This isn't the only view though.

As if blame were genetic. The story of original sin appears morally indefensible. Theology is that defence. — Banno

If a child was not baptized, it wouldn't be buried on sacred ground, and the mother would be told it was in Hell. Horrible.

I have seen some interpretations of hell as being bad not as a punishment so much as the natural state of being separated from God and his love/will, and because God is perfect, he cannot interact with imperfect beings directly, hence the necessity of Jesus as a sacrificial intermediary. In that reading, I think it's possible to see similarities, but perhaps I'm reaching. — MrLiminal

As society becomes more concerned with parity and social justice, ideas about God also tend to become less severe and more inclusive. That’s why some Western churches now fly the rainbow flag of diversity, while in less diverse and more rigid societies (generally Muslim), people are still executed for being gay based on religion.

It strikes me as odd that some have built significant narratives about God's intentions and actions, along with the functions of hell and punishment even though we’ve yet to establish whether any god exists, and if so, which one.

Is it open to a theologian to conclude that there is no god and remain a theologian?

A philosopher may do so and remain a philosopher. — Banno

I would not think that constraining philosophical beliefs to a specific framework and set of assumptions would make it not philosophy. It may not be *accurate* philosophy, but I would argue Theology is still an act of philosophy in practice, just a narrowly defined one.



Agreed; religion almost always mutates along with the culture practicing it. I would think many of the inconsistencies in long term religions often arise from trying to square beliefs from different eras cohesively.

CC: @Banno

Why does there have to be a punishment?

Punishment to the offender is not per se necessary: the final end of justice is bringing everything under the proper respect of the order of creation. This is why rehabilitation is a higher-focus than retribution for justice; but both are aspects of it.

Retribution is necessary for justice because the offended’s dignity has to be restored, and this may require punishment of the offended (although it doesn’t necessitate it); and this is the only aspect of corrective justice that is necessary. Rehabilitation is not necessary but is good for justice, because it should restore the offender back to the proper respecting of things; rehabilitation, however, without punishment is oftentimes mercy without justice because it omits retribution(but this is not always the case). The best option for corrective justice is to provide what is owed to the victim and restore the offender back to the proper respect of things.

ETA: Scratch that. Let's say we have two people, Bob and Alice. Alice is an atheist who lives a decent life and does no great harm to anyone, just minor sins here and there. Bob is a serial killer who's tortured and killed untold numbers of kids. On his deathbed, Bob accepts Jesus into his heart. Alice doesn't. What do Alice's and Bob's punishments look like?

This is an interesting, provoking, and common counter-example to the idea of mercy and acceptance of the Son—although it isn’t necessarily only facially applicable to Jesus’ forgiveness—and I understand where you are coming from here. I also used to think this way.

I would say, to be honest, that both would end up in heaven. Let me break down the general theory first and then address your questions directly.

1. I do not believe that one has to rigidly accept the Son of God (which may be Jesus if you would like) to be saved or that they have to participate in rituals (like baptism) to be accepted. As you alluded to with your example, someone can love God—love love itself: love goodness itself—without knowing the word “God”, having a concept of God that is robust, or having been exposed to some particular religion. God is judging us based off of our choices we make given the fact that we are not absolutely in control of ourselves (as natural organisms) and is evaluating how well we exhibited the virtues and, generally speaking, loved love (Himself).

2. For the vast majority of us, we have sinned before we die (although infants, e.g., haven’t if they are killed young); so for most of us we have offended God and, as I noted to @frank who ignored me, retribution is evaluated primarily based off of the dignity of the offended party (hence why shooting a rabbit illegitimately is lesser of an offense and deserving of less of a punishment than shooting a human the exact same way). With finite dignities, which are beings that are finitely good, there is a proportionate finite retribution (at least in principle) for every sin which one could, potentially, pay before they die (and thusly “serving their time” for the sin as it relates to the immanent victim—e.g., the human who was murdered). However, a sin is always also an offense against God and God is infinite goodness which is infinite dignity; so no proportionate retribution to something finite whatsoever can repay what is owed. This is why any sin, insofar as we are talking about the aspect of it that is an offense against God, damns us in a way where we ourselves cannot get out.

3. Loving love—being the a truly exceptional human being—will not repay the debt owed to an offended party with infinite dignity: Alice, or anyone of a high-caliber of virtue, is facially damned if they have sinned at least once.

4. God is all-just and all-merciful. He is all-just because He is purely actual and a creator, and so He cannot lack at anything in terms of creating; but to fail to order His creation properly is to lack at something as a creator. Therefore, God cannot fail to order His creation properly; and ordering His creation properly is none other than to arrange the dignity of things in a hierarchy that most reflects what is perfectly good—which is Himself. He is all-merciful because He is love and love is to will the good of something for-itself even when that something doesn’t deserve it. Mercy and justice, however, as described above, are prima facie opposed to each other: if, e.g., I have mercy on you then I am not being just and if I am just then I leave no room for mercy. To be brief, the perfect synthesis of the two is for a proper representative of the group of persons that has an appropriate dignity to pay the debt of their sins so that if they truly restore their will to what is right they can be shown mercy.

5. God must, then, synthesize justice and mercy by allowing a proper representative of humans to pay for our sins; but no human can repay it. It follows, then, that God must incarnate Himself as a human to be that representative. EDIT: I forgot to mention that God is the only one that can repay the debt because He is the only one with infinite dignity to offer as repayment.

6. The Son must be the one out of the Godhead that is incarnated because God creates by willing in accord with knowledge; His knowledge of Himself is what He uses to incarnate Himself; and the Son is His self-knowledge.

So, let me answer your questions with that in mind:

1. Alice and Bob have NOT committed equal sins: I don’t think that the fact that any given sin is unrepayable to God entails that all sins are equal. It just entails that all sins require something of infinite dignity to properly repay. Admittedly, it gets kind of weird fast working with retribution for infinite demerit. For example, in hell both of them will be punished for eternity but Alice’s punishment would be something far far less than Bob’s.

2. Since God saves us through His mercy (as described before), God does not have to punish us if we repent; and repentance is not some superficial utterance “I am sorry!” or, for your example, “Jesus I accept you!”. Repentance is normally through the sincerity of heart and through actions. A person who has never heard of God at all could be saved, under my theory, because they sincerely love love itself—God Himself—through action and this doesn’t need to be a perfect life that was lived (since God must sacrifice Himself to Himself to allow for mercy upon us). Alice, I would say, would be repentant in action and (most probably in spirit) for any minor sins she commits because she is such a good hearted person. If she were to do a lot of things that are virtuous but have the psychological disposition that doing good and loving her community, family, friends, etc. is horrible and something she despises; then she isn’t really acting virtuously. That’s like someone helping the poor as a practical joke or something instead of doing it out of love.

3. For Bob, it gets more interesting: your hypothetical eliminates the possibility of the good deeds part of what is normally a part of repentance since he is on his death bed when he has a change of heart. I would say that assuming he is not superficially saying “I am sorry (psst: hopefully I get into heaven this way!)”, then I would say that God’s mercy would allow him into heaven—at least eventually. Maybe there’s a purgatory faze where he is punished a bit for it first: I don’t know. However, what I do know is that Alice will be rewarded more than Bob; because reward is proportionate to the good deeds you have performed and goes beyond giving someone mercy from punishment. I do not believe that everyone in heaven is equal; or that God loves us all the same. That’s hippie bulls**t.

Let me know what you think.

I would think many of the inconsistencies in long term religions often arise from trying to square beliefs from different eras cohesively. — MrLiminal

Good point.

Does the Parable of Laborers not contradict this theory somewhat?

I would not think that constraining philosophical beliefs to a specific framework and set of assumptions would make it not philosophy. — MrLiminal

it's not the beliefs, it's the method. Not what is being affirmed, but why it is being affirmed.

Hence:

the final end of justice is bringing everything under the proper respect of the order of creation. — Bob Ross

I don't think so, but Protestants would tend to agree with you.

Perhaps we are arguing semantics then.



Interesting.

I would say Catholics and Orthodox Christians accept that not everyone is equal in heaven. There are plenty of refences in the NT to Jesus talking about people sitting at the right hand or left hand of the Father and alluding to it being more glorious and honorable.

It is also the basis for Saints being held in higher regard; and Mary being held in the highest regard among the blessed.

Retribution is necessary for justice because the offended’s dignity has to be restored — Bob Ross

So all that was about restoring god's dignity?

Ok.

More seriously, can you see how to one who does not accept the tenants of faith, that post at least looks like self-justifying, ad hoc confirmation bias?

I suppose that tracks with "the least shall be the greatest among you" and whatnot. I do not have a lot of direct experience with Catholicism.

Perhaps we are arguing semantics then. — MrLiminal

Well, yes - we are discussing whether theology is a part of philosophy, and that means discussing whether "philosophy" can be appleid to things theological.

Each biblical reference here supports the methodological point that theology presupposes its conclusion.

Well, I'm not an expert either. I see what you are saying: it is hard to interpret the texts. They seem disparate.

retribution is evaluated primarily based off of the dignity of the offended party (hence why shooting a rabbit illegitimately is lesser of an offense and deserving of less of a punishment than shooting a human the exact same way). — Bob Ross

There was a time when black people weren't thought of as having the same "dignity" as white people. Hence, it was ok to enslave them. This is another example of how doctrine blinds people to what's moral. The Pope gave his blessing on the beginnings of the Atlantic Slave Trade, one of many cases of all out moral failure.

That most Christian of Western nations is the one that still allows capital punishment. The acceptability of retribution, indeed the equating of retribution and justice - hadn't thought of that as a Christian attribute.

That most Christian of Western nations is the one that still allows capital punishment. The acceptability of retribution, indeed the equating of retribution and justice - hadn't thought of that as a Christian attribute. — Banno

The United States was involved in the Atlantic Slave Trade at the level of about 7% of the total. Portugal started it and after a few centuries, was by far the largest participant. Most of the proceeds went to the Portuguese Crown. The second biggest participant was the UK, masters of the triangular trade, involving the British Caribbean. At the bottom of the list are the Spanish, the Dutch, and last is the USA. The US ended importation of slaves from Africa in 1808.

The greatest portion of the crime of the Atlantic Slave Trade is not celebrated in films, or discussed every year during Black History Month. The huge number of people who died miserable deaths should be more well known. Those unnamed victims should be brought into the light of day.

That you assume the Pope would have blessed importation of slaves to the US is a testament to that country's fearless admission of guilt. I for one, am proud of that.

ps. Americans wouldn't have looked to the Pope for guidance. They were mostly Protestants.

Americans wouldn't have looked to the Pope for guidance. They were mostly Protestants

Then why all this focus on Catholicism?
All these doctrinal abominations you and Banno are going on about are just over reach in the Catholic Church. There are other religions and theologies.