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. — Punshhh

I just used Catholics to pin down the narrative about the meaning of Jesus' death. If you say Christians believe x, there's going to be an exception somewhere.

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.

We may already be in hell, earth may be hell. The spirit in each of us is separated by this heavy dense material substance that we wear like a straight jacket. Indeed we are imprisoned in this physical world. The only freedom we have is our imagination and our free will to live a good, or not so good a life.
I really enjoyed the works of C.S.lewis by the way.

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

Enjoying your dry wit by the way.
If you imagine that God does actually exist theology makes sense. Although as I was saying to Frank, Catholicism took its theologies too far. Where it became an apology for controlling populations.

By contrast, if you are of the opinion that God does not exist, then it’s all just pie in the sky.

So really we just need to settle the issue of whether there is a God first, then we can make progress.

That’s the problem, you see, Catholicism. Maybe we could try Quakers, or Shakers. Although, I admit it might not translate well via the keyboard.

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

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. — Banno

Right, akin to invention rather than discovery, assumption rather than learning.

well, yes, although I would relate this back to my two ways to philosophy thread. theology has to be more discursive than critical. Philosophy should be more critical than than discursive. .

↪boundless The premise here is that the aim of justice is punishment. Why should we accept that? — Banno

One aim is certainly punishment. In fact, it seems to me essential to any concept of justice that it aims at reward the just, protect the oppressed etc but also to punish adequately the unjust. Of course, we can debate about the nature and the characteristics of punishment and what does it mean 'adequate'. But as a general principle it just makes sense. Also, it is quite a common idea found in basically most or all cultures, so I don't think it is particularly controversial.

Of course, perhaps the nature of the 'punishment' is related to the nature of 'sin'. And, even if we remain in the Gospels, we find different analogies for 'sin'. For instance, sometimes it is compared to a debt, as in the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:9-15). Other times, we are told that sin is like an illness or something that make us ill and in need for a physician (Luke 5:31-32). Also, it is compared to something that enslaves us (John 8:34). So, there are different analogies for the concept of 'sin' and, therefore, we have to reconcile them in some way.

The 'debt' analogy certainly supports a 'retributive' punishment. As financial debt requires repayment (in some form or in some ways), justice requires recompense of sins. This doesn't necessarily imply that God is wrathful in giving the punishment. In my previous post, I compared God to a just judge that sentences to a just punishment the criminal. In doing so, we should not conclude that the judge seeks revenge. In fact, maybe we can even imagine that the judge is, say, the 'loving father' of my first example who still loves the son but, being also just, sentences the 'son' to the just punishment. Possibly this happens after the judge offers mercy to the criminal but, of course, the criminal should cooperate in some way and make amends - if the criminal, refuses, it is obvious to me that it is simply 'just' that he has to experience the full sentence.

The 'sickness' analogy is also interesting. Here, instead, sin is something that makes us ill. We are in need of a physician. A medicine is offered but I can imagine that if we refuse it, we have to experience the suffering that is the natural consequence of the illness itself (and of our choice of rejecting the medicine). Again, the fact that we experience the 'punishment' given by suffering that is due to the illness. Clearly, we can't blame the physician who tried to help the patient that refused to take the medicine and, as a consequence, experience the pain.

Also, the 'slavery' analogy is similar. We are offered a chance to be free. But, again, if we refuse we remain stuck in the condition of slavery. IIRC, in the roman empire a 'manumission fee' had to be paid in order to free slaves. So, the 'ransom' analogy we find in e.g. Mark 10:45 for the action of the Jesus might refer to just this.

Another real life example is addiction. The problem with addiction is that the addict refuses to get help, often even if he knows that it is for his good. As time passes, it is more difficult to get cured from the addiction. Again, the suffering the addict experiences is not due to the revenge of someone. It is simply due to the fact that the addiction itself 'ruined' him and this ruin was also a consequence of his refusal to 'renounce' to the addiction itself by getting help and sticking with the necessary therapy.

As you can probably see, there is no need to literally believe that God seeks 'revenge'. It seems to me quite natural to think that one of the aims of justice is precisely to punish the unjust (at least, if the unjust doesn't repent, make amends and so on). Certainly, the fact that one of the aims of justice is also punishment (and there are different ways to understand 'punishment' here) doesn't imply the 'penal substition' model of atonement. It is perhaps a defensible interpretation but certainly not the only one.

Also, the 'official' Catholic view of Jesus' sacrifice doesn't seem to be the 'penal substitution'. See the relavant section of the Catechism.


As a parellel, consider the Buddhist doctrine of karma (which means 'action'). Also in that case, you find the idea that bad deeds deserve some kind of punishment as a consequence. But, interesting the actions that cause 'bad consequences'/'punishments' are called 'akusala karma', which means something like 'unwholesome action', which also suggests something a notion of illness.

I also plan to read this, which I only skimmed: "Feminine-Maternal Images of the Spirit in Early Syriac Tradition" (the link directly goes to a pdf). Near the end the author mentions that (p.17-18):

As mentioned earlier, although the use of feminine gender images for the
Spirit underwent a change in Syriac literature after 400 c.e., these earlier pneumatological intuitions continued into the later period. Syriac mystical authors also
employed a maternal imagery of the Spirit and tried to relate it to the life-giving
function of the Spirit. For example, John of Dalyatha, writing in eighth-century East Syria, calls the Spirit “mother” (...) and “begetter” (...).[63] For
him, in the new world of redemption wrought by the new covenant of Christ, the
Holy Spirit is the begetter of Christians.

[63] Addressing God, John of Dalyatha writes in his Letter 51, 11: “You are also the Father of the
rational beings arisen from your Spirit. This one [the Spirit] is called ‘the Generator’, in the
feminine, because he engendered all to this world so that they too might engender children in
our world. But he is ‘Générateur’ (Yhwt Y) nYd )dwl Y)when he engenders in the world
living rational beings who will not engender any more. He is the ‘Generator’ as well because he
nourishes his children and thanks to her they are increased.” Text in La Collection des Lettres
de Jean de Dalyatha [The Collected Letters of John of Dalyatha], ed. Robert Beulay, Patrologia
Orientalis 39 (Turnhout, Belgique: Brepols, 1978,) 478–479. Brock, “Come, Compassionate
Mother,” 255 remarks that Dalyatha uses the word )tdl Y (mother; one who brings forth;
begets or generates) rather than ()M)) (mother). Thus, it shows that even when a masculine
gender is applied to the Holy Spirit, the function of the Holy Spirit is compared to that of a
mother and the Spirit is called a “begetter” ()dwl Y). In fact, we can see that the mystics of
all time compared the love of the Spirit to that of a mother. St. Catherine of Sienna (d. 1380),
for example, in her Dialogue 141, writes that the Holy Spirit is like a mother to the one who
abandons himself to the providence of God. She writes: “Such a soul has the Holy Spirit as a
mother who nurses her at the breast of divine charity.” Text in Catherine of Siena, The Dialogue,
trans. Suzann Noffke, Classics of Western Spirituality (New York: Paulist, 1980), 292. St. John
of the Cross (d. 1591) in The Dark Night (Book 1:2), compares the grace of God to a loving mother
who regenerates the soul: “God nurtures and caresses the soul . . . like a loving mother. . . . The
grace of God acts just as a loving mother by reengendering in the soul new enthusiasm and
fervor in the service of God.” Text in The Collected Works of St. John of the Cross, tran. Kiernan
Kavanaugh and Otilio Rodriguez (Washington, DC: Institute of Carmelite Studies, 1979),
298.

Catholics believe humans are born cursed. — frank

Well, the Catholics have a document where you find the current 'offical' teachings, that is the Catechism. Now, of course, I don't believe that all Catholics follow the Catechism in every respect, but it is clearly the document which I would refer to if I were to describe the Catholic teaching.

For instance, this statement isn't a correct description of what the Church officially teaches now. In the relevant section of the Catechism, we find that:

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

And, also, the Catechism says that 'hell' is the consequence of 'mortal sin' (see e.g. paragraphs 1033, 1037), not the original sin. This doesn't mean that historically Catholics never said that original sin alone is enough for damnation. But nowadays the Catholic church doesn't teach that. So, at least your statement should be nuanced.

Note that I am not a Catholic BTW. But I believe that before making general sweeping statements it's better to read at least 'official' sources, if there are any (see also the link to the section of the Catechism that deals with Jesus' sacrifice, which doesn't seem to contain anything like the view that you attributed to 'Catholics' in the OP).

Not necessarily, we can’t assume that God knows any particular thing. — Punshhh

If God created the medium, then He should know what a medium is. You cannot act from pure ignorance!

Yes. In broad outlines, the Christian narrative is that God sacrificed his Son to save the human race from something. That alone captures the oddness of the narrative. That Christianity has survived about 1600 years with that narrative intact testifies to the ability of Christians to accept it. Whether they ever really make sense of it is another matter.

Maybe it's like a I Ching poem.

That’s the problem, you see, Catholicism. Maybe we could try Quakers, or Shakers. Although, I admit it might not translate well via the keyboard. — Punshhh

I used to know a Quaker. Awesome guy.

1) I mean, I agree that it is very easy to read God's actions as toxic and abusive from the outside; the Christian narrative only really works if you start at the assumption that God is good and correct. Internally though, they would likely attribute injustice and evil to people not obeying God's will. — MrLiminal

That is God's fault when it comes to sin if we accept that the creation is imperfect. What do you expect? An imperfect creation is subject to sin!

2) That sounds like a personal preference, but I see where you're coming from. Again, it makes more sense though when you start from the assumption that God is perfect and good. It doesn't really work otherwise as written, unless you want to start getting into the more obscure stuff like gnosticism. — MrLiminal

The question is, why should I go to Hell? Love God or Go to Hell!

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. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't recall any verse from the Bible that proposes an alternative way to become Godly.

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. — Count Timothy von Icarus

To me, good and evil are the main dual features of reality. Such as a good experience or an evil experience. There is neutral too, which resides between Good and Evil. Of there is no good when we are dealing with evil and vice versa!

The message, I believe, is quite powerful and immensely influential. Consider how influential it is in our concept of 'heroism', i.e. self-sacrifice to save others and Christianity says that God incarnate did that. Also, its message is also quite original, as philosopher Simone Weil remarked: "The extreme greatness of Christianity lies in the fact that it does not seek a supernatural remedy for suffering but a supernatural use for it." (Gravity and Grace). The fact that God himself incarnated an participated in the human condition, in suffering and mortality (in fact even in violent death) is certainly a strong message.

Note also that I think that the resurrection is even more central than the death on the cross. That is, by his self-sacrifice Jesus defeated death and that is the source of the Christian hope for eternal life or, in other words, the fact that God participated in humanity is the reason why humans can hope that death will be defeated and to attain eternal life in communion with God.

The whole message is quite powerful. That's the reason I believe, after all, Christianity survived...

If God created the medium, then He should know what a medium is. You cannot act from pure ignorance!

It might make sense from our perspective. But we are in almost total ignorance about these issues. All we can say with certainty is that we don’t know

God either created out of ignorance or not. Which one do you pick?

The whole message is quite powerful. — boundless

Give it meaning, and it will give meaning back to you.

I don't recall any verse from the Bible that proposes an alternative way to become Godly.

The key theological terms here are "theosis" (used more often in Eastern Christianity) and "diefication" (used more often in the Latin West). The idea is that man becomes "like onto God," and enters into union with the divine, a key theme of many mystics and of monastic and lay praxis.

In terms of verses used, there are lots, but important ones would be:

2 Peter 1:4, which speaks of becoming "partakers of the divine nature." Psalm 8 speaks of man as having been made "little less than a god," and Jesus' use of Psalm 82, "ye are gods," in the context he uses it, is also called on.

II Corinthians 3:18 is another: "But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit."

Or I John 3:2 — "Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet been revealed. What we do know is this: when he is revealed, we will be like him, for we will see him as he is."

There is also Romans 8 and the idea that Christ is the "first born of many sons and daughters," or Saint Paul's claim that it is "Christ who lives in [him]."

Plus, there is the original vision in Genesis of man ruling over the cosmos, and Christ is often seen as a recapitulation of Adam, only without the turning away from God.

In the metaphysics of God as Goodness itself, the seeking after any perfection, any improvement in oneself, is ultimately still a seeking after God, however flawed and self-destructive. Eating, sensing, knowing, all involve union, and union with being is ultimately always union with the divine, the divine as known through creation, since all things are signs and exemplars of their causes, and God is the First Cause.

So, on these readings, Satan's promise to "become like God," is indeed the very goal of man as God's image bearer. As to why man was not "created perfect," a lot of ink has been spilled here. Building on Plato's psychology, it is often taken that being "like onto God," involves man's transcending his own finitude in search of what is really true and truly good, and not settling for current beliefs and desires. The Fall represents a turning away from the Good that lies beyond, to what lies at hand, created things.

God either created out of ignorance or not. Which one do you pick?

I could toss a coin and let you know the result.

Or I John 3:2 — "Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet been revealed. What we do know is this: when he is revealed, we will be like him, for we will see him as he is." — Count Timothy von Icarus

So why didn't God reveal Himself to Adam and Eve to solve all problems, and instead put them in a sinful situation? What is the purpose of the Tree of Knowledge?

I could toss a coin and let you know the result. — Punshhh

Yet the medium was the first creation of God, created among many other things that God could create out of ignorance!?

For God creating universes might be like breathing, in and out. Or it might be for lesser beings, heavenly hosts to do it. We just don’t know.

I don't understand how this response could be a proper answer to my question.

One aim (of justice) is certainly punishment. — boundless

That's one view.

It suggests that justice is concerned with retribution, with affirming a moral order, with giving folk what they deserve.

A clearer view might be that justice involves equity and fairness rather than retribution. On such a view, the aim would be to repair or mitigate the harm done, and re-integrate and reform the wrong doer.

Punishing folk doesn't thereby fix the problem, or take away the injury.

But again there is a methodological point here. The Book says that punishment will occur, so it is not open to the theologian to question whether justice ought include punishment. That's a given. All that remains is for the theologian to attempt to show how this is coherent with a loving god.

Hence your rather long post excusing god's approach.

There's also the issue, raised elsewhere in the forums, of how an eternal punishment can ever be proportional.

A few side issues: Karma is not about punishment, but about restoring a balance. It is far more an example of restoration than retribution. The suggestion that a slave ought pay for their release is quite remise. And there's somewhat more to addiction than mere akrasia.

If you imagine that God does actually exist theology makes sense. — Punshhh

Rather, if the God described by some given theology makes sense, then that theology makes sense. It's not as if there are no alternative views on God, nor various ways in which folk have attempted to provide a coherent account of god. There is no "theology", there are "theologies".

Almost as if they were made up.

Although as I was saying to Frank, Catholicism took its theologies too far. Where it became an apology for controlling populations. — Punshhh

If Catholicism is right, then if Catholicism does indeed demand "controlling populations", then controlling populations would thereby be right.

I'm not seeing much here apart from the tautology that if some doctrine is right, then it is right.

The various methodological issues raised here apply to theology generally, not just catholicism.

Much the same goes for the specific issues as well, a consequence of the poor method seen in theology.

The discussion is not specific to Catholicism.

So all that was about restoring god's dignity?

Not all of it, but, yes, retribution is about restoring the dignity of the offended. Wouldn’t you agree? When some woman gets raped, a price must be paid to restore her dignity—retribution is required for justice. Justice isn’t just about rehabilitation: even if the rapist was sincerely sorry, all else being equal there is a price to be paid.

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?

Sort of, to be honest. I didn’t appeal to faith; and as we have discussed before I don’t believe in God on faith: my belief in based solely on natural theology.

Also, it’s kind of belittling and dismissive, no offense meant, to me, when I give an elaborate explanation and it is written off as ad hoc. Nothing about it was ad hoc in all honesty.

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.

Yes, and they were wrong. We don’t need to reject God’s existence to accept that that was wrong. We don’t even need to reject Jesus to accept that.

The catholic church has done a lot of immoral things: that’s true.

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.

We don’t have to start with the question of whether God exists to decipher God exists. Aristotle just wanted to explain change…

Also, theology is a branch of philosophy. All branches of philosophy start with a central question and try to solve it.