Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Is it Just to punish an innocent man? Pt. 3

"Come on, this whole conversation, heck, all of religion is pure conjecture. There is no evidence for any of it."

Depending on one's usage, certainly. If we speak of conjecture in terms of drawing conclusions based upon evidence, but not evidence which is proof, and we consider proof to be of an infallible sort, then yes, it is conjecture. But by the same definition, science is conjecture, religion is conjecture, philosophy is conjecture, and every thing else in existence is conjecture, since a skeptical person can find reason to doubt EVERY thing.

You, however, seem to think there's no evidence for religion. You're mistaken. That you don't accept it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, which is the entire problem with evidence of any sort. So your understanding of conjecture refers to how I was using it, drawing conclusions without evidence or solid grounds, even if being rational. Religion doesn't fall into the same category as this sort.

"It seems incredibly cruel not to. By keeping the afterlife out of time God is robbing people of being able to make a choice. Not only that, he is robbing them from choosing him."

Robbing? No. It is not robbery to give a person a gift that only lasts a certain period of time and then expires. Don't presume to entitlement of choice, none of us is entitled to anything.

As for robbing them from choosing Him, nothing could be farther from the truth. Did they not have ample opportunities to choose while alive? I find the words of Abraham to the rich man in Christ's parable quite fitting,

"And he said: Then, father, I beseech thee, that thou wouldst send him to my father's house, for I have five brethren, That he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torments. And Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance. And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead."

By what means do you think people would change their minds after the whole of their lives have been spent in denial? Do you think it easy to convert? To deny and sacrifice everything you were before, to sacrifice your very self for God? A God who promises you not riches, or comfort, but pain in this life and an ethereal salvation in the next? Or for the one in Hell, the God most likely to be blamed for one's present circumstances?

Do you think you could repent under such circumstances? Forgive me, for I rather doubt it.

"Okay, so it only occurs when we reject him as completely as we can?"

That is the nature of mortal sin. Mortal sin is sin which engenders a complete rejection of God. It requires that we commit a gravely evil act, fully aware of that evil and choosing it as freely as humans are capable of choosing anything. Failing to meet one or more of these characteristics, it would be a venial sin, which doesn't entail a complete rejection. Of course, build up enough venial sins, and you'll arrive in the same state of separation.

"Which church?"

Your question doesn't make sense. There's only one Christian Church, of which there are multiple schismatic sects and heretical sects. Those which are schismatic may be called Churches in as much as they possess valid authority from Christ, but as they share common belief in dogmatic principles, they are united in belief. Those which are heretical lack valid authority and lack common belief with the Church, hence their nature as heretical as opposed to orthodox.

If you desire a name, the Church would be called Catholic because of its nature as a universal institution.

"Just because Life is good does not necessarily mean that good is life."

You are thinking in terms that are exceedingly minute. Life is NOT the same as existence. Rock exists, rock doesn't live. The universe exists, the universe doesn't live. Existence is good, the principle good in fact, the only objective good we can know. Life, as an expression of existence is also good. But not the principle good of existence.

"It's like how all dogs are mammals, but not all mammals are dogs."

No. No, it's not. Your analogy refers to one set which is a member of another set. Life and goodness are two sets that are not members of the other.

"Now you seem to be saying that good is life, otherwise the whole rejection of good means death would not be a valid argument."

I am saying that life is good, thus the rejection of good entails an ending to life which is good. If that which is good is corrupted, some measure of it is lost. Do not draw conclusions which do not follow from my statements. That's not solid reasoning.

"But you also said that existence is good, which, I'm assuming means good is existence."

You shouldn't assume, assuming is unwise, particularly in logical discourse.

"So then, that means that rejection of good means non-existence. Which means you can't be in hell. Because in order to be in hell you have to be."

The only problem with your conclusion is that you neither understand hell, nor understand existence.

Humans exist because God wills for us to exist. We were created for a teleological purpose which is Love, just as everything else was created for that teleological purpose. Taking part in the act of existence requires the continuous willing of the being whose nature is existence itself. We completely lack the power, through choice or anything else, to end our own existence because our existence is utterly dependent upon this entity. We can commit suicide, but that only ends our Earthly life. We can commit suicide because our physical life is contingent upon our physical body's survival, which is within our power. Our metaphysical existence is contingent upon God's will, which is not without our power to alter, as it is immutable.

While we rejected God in sin, and Fell, and thus brought about the corruption of the good of our lives that is death, no human action or choice can alter the immutable will of God that we exist. Only God could possibly end our existence, and God will not do so since, as you've no doubt realized, God is Good, God does not do evil, and stripping us of our very existence would be the evilest of acts.

"Why did it do that?"

Plenty of answers to that. Pride, for one. A desire to be equal to God, for another. Of course, those are rather related. At the most basic, I suppose we'd have to say that humanity decided to follow a selfish desire as opposed to a self-sacrificing desire.

"Did God's plan change?"

God's "plan" does not refer to a blueprint or chart of the acts in time that God wants us to go through or plans on us reaching. What is meant by this expression is that God possesses all knowledge that can be possessed, and God exists outside of Time, such that all moments in time for us are one eternal moment to Him. At the moment of Creation from our perspective, God not only created but brought to its teleological conclusion everything. So no, no changes in the plan. The "plan," like God, is.

I also posted for my debating partner the essay on the Trap of Heaven and Hell, since she seemed to have a rather dichotomous view of the subject, as did others present, to which she replied:

"This brings up an interesting question."

I enjoy interesting questions. :-)

"If God were evil would you follow Him?"

I'm afraid this doesn't make sense. The word "God" has a specific meaning in philosophical and theological discussion, which is what we're having. It refers to that Being whose essence is equal to its own existence, and nothing else. If I'm right that existence is good, then this being logically cannot be evil. Asking a hypothetical question that entails a logical contradiction is meaningless and can't be answered legitimately.

For God to be evil, existence would have to be evil, and then I would be logically brought to suicide or whatever means I could think of to terminate my existence, beyond my abilities as I may know it to be.

"That's not true, martyrdom is much older than Christianity and is seen throughout history in many religions including Islam, Bahá'í, Sikhism, etc."

Islam, Baha'i and Sikhism are not only younger than Christianity, but greatly influenced by Christianity. Islam is a resurgence of the Arian heresy mixed with elements of Arabic paganism. Sikhism is a movement from the 16th Century in India that coincidentally (or not so much) arose out of a region that had both Christian missionary influences and Islamic aggression. If you study its teachings, you'll see quite a few adaptations towards the Christian/Islamic position. And Baha'i is even younger as I understand it, and is yet another syncretic religion. Hardly examples which demonstrate your desired point.

Now, martyrdom is, indeed, older than Christianity. People were willing to die for causes, certainly.

But you've missed two key points. First, is that I am talking about joyous martyrdoms. IE people who were happy to be brutally murdered, and for the reason of the love they had for God. Second, is that I'm referring specifically to a comparison with the Roman religion(s).

It is completely true that Christians were happy to be made into human candles for God, something that the Romans did not understand, as they had no notion of it within their own religion. Name the glorious martyrs for Jupiter, why don't you? Or the martyrs to Diana and Apollo among the Greeks? Where are the martyrs for Moloch, all we have for him are murders.

If you can provide evidence of a history and tradition of joyous martyrdom among pagan religious traditions prior to Christianity, I'd be happy to examine it. But as far as I'm aware, such a tradition doesn't exist. The closest I expect you'd get is Judaism.