tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11048437.post5300929077130756238..comments2023-07-03T21:53:07.651+08:00Comments on Verisimilitude: An Easter Reflection on Original Sin and the Secular StateJegohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11806891595153451306noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11048437.post-68088628109003363762008-04-05T13:33:00.000+08:002008-04-05T13:33:00.000+08:00Okay, you have a point. Will leave it at that, tho...Okay, you have a point. Will leave it at that, though: a mystery. God being God, I don't think He'll reveal it anytime soon.Resty Odonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06308416791417331341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11048437.post-13468975333165064582008-04-04T23:16:00.000+08:002008-04-04T23:16:00.000+08:00Resty, it's not a logical as much as a moral contr...Resty, it's not a <I>logical</I> as much as a <I>moral</I> contradiction. But maybe different rules apply to God because he is God.cvjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00327799000000108953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11048437.post-20176366559286792972008-04-04T13:49:00.000+08:002008-04-04T13:49:00.000+08:00A distinction needs to be made between an obvious ...A distinction needs to be made between an obvious contradiction (which I'd call "illogic") and a paradox, which is just a seeming contradiction, but in fact contains a profound truth somewhere. With regard to the heaven-hell issue, you say it's plain contradiction; I'd hazard that it is a paradoxical matter. I'd say hazard because I'm just guessing in my personal capacity as a believer by choice ('cause I've been down the skeptical road before).Resty Odonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06308416791417331341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11048437.post-58720522197994695072008-04-04T11:05:00.000+08:002008-04-04T11:05:00.000+08:00Resty, i am in agreement when you say these things...Resty, i am in agreement when you say these things are a 'mystery' and if i adopt the point of view of a believer, i'm prepared to leave it at that. What i disagree with is denying that such a <I>mystery</I> or <I>paradox</I> or <I>puzzles</I> are not <I>contradictions</I>. They are. Such are the tensions within the Christian faith that a believer has to live with which is why he/she is required to have faith, as a way to get past these mysteries. After all, wasn't that God's response to Job's questions?cvjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00327799000000108953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11048437.post-32838682814330449442008-04-04T10:25:00.000+08:002008-04-04T10:25:00.000+08:00argh. too many typos. sorry. just read it very fas...argh. too many typos. sorry. just read it very fast na langResty Odonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06308416791417331341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11048437.post-38316207055050277332008-04-04T10:20:00.000+08:002008-04-04T10:20:00.000+08:00I just think that the gift cheque analogy is not a...<I>I just think that the gift cheque analogy is not apt because of the gravity of the consequence of non-acceptance which, to my mind, is in conflict with a God who professes Unconditional Love.</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, well it's an analogy. A 'perfect analogy' is an oxymoron because if you have a perfect analogy, you dont really need an analogy. Just use the real thing. Besides, an analogy is mostly rhetorical, not expositive. ;-)<BR/><BR/>Going back to the theology of unconditional love, it doesnt preclude human free agency. Analogy ulit: I can love a woman without asking compelling her to love me back. 'Compelled love' isnt love. She is free to love or not love me back, but it doesnt change my love for her. It's hers.Jegohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11806891595153451306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11048437.post-11488828744368837122008-04-04T10:14:00.000+08:002008-04-04T10:14:00.000+08:00Looks like the Orthodox 'hell' is quite different ...<I>Looks like the Orthodox 'hell' is quite different from the Catholic (and Biblical) 'hell'.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Youd be surprised. There is no 'Biblical' hell, if you mean a place of eternal torment for people. Jesus used Gehenna which the KJV translated hell. Gehenna is an actual place outside Jerusalem where trash was burned (along with the bodies of criminals). During King James's time, hell just means a hole in the ground. Any hole in the ground. You bury your potatoes in hell for the winter. In the Bible, the fires of gehenna consume people, that is, they kill them. The only fella in the Bible who doesnt die by fire is the devil since he's spirit and can't be consumed.Jegohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11806891595153451306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11048437.post-19850279054608421092008-04-04T10:05:00.000+08:002008-04-04T10:05:00.000+08:00By the way, my reference for Orthodox belief is th...By the way, my reference for Orthodox belief is the book <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Church-New-Timothy-Ware/dp/0140146563/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207274624&sr=1-1" REL="nofollow">The Orthodox Church</A> by Timothy Ware. He is a Metropolitan of the Orthodox Church.Jegohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11806891595153451306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11048437.post-52178505145356138722008-04-04T10:04:00.000+08:002008-04-04T10:04:00.000+08:00Then again, let me offer you this thought, which c...Then again, let me offer you this thought, which can be possibly address your dilemma: God's love is not unconditional because of hell? But what is hell anyway? They say that God never throws anyone to hell. It's the individual soul's choice to go to hell. I bet hell is a place that's logical and necessary because God's love is also a love that's based on justice. Hell has to be created, not out of God's own liking, but because of the rebellious angels' (and equally rebellious souls') choice. Hell is an inevitabel (or logical, if you are looking for logic) consequence of that choice.Resty Odonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06308416791417331341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11048437.post-77557287063180522322008-04-04T10:00:00.000+08:002008-04-04T10:00:00.000+08:00I also find the Orthodx's conception of hell surpr...I also find the Orthodx's conception of hell surprising.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, back to "unconditional." I really can't give you an easy answer at this point. All I can say the question is a puzzle, a mystery. I've asked the same question before, including the inconsistencies of the concept and freedom, and decided, personally, that there really is no freedom. I have several blogs on that question, the question of freedom. The only freedom that matters, according to the Christian viewpoint, is the freedom to obey? Contradiction? Illogic? I'd prefer to call it paradox because it holds a deep truth somewhere if we but dig deeper.Resty Odonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06308416791417331341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11048437.post-486411893899697122008-04-04T00:30:00.000+08:002008-04-04T00:30:00.000+08:00Looks like the Orthodox 'hell' is quite different ...Looks like the Orthodox 'hell' is quite different from the Catholic (and Biblical) 'hell'. <BR/><BR/>On your second paragraph, no i was not arguing along those lines. I just think that the gift cheque analogy is not apt because of the gravity of the consequence of non-acceptance which, to my mind, is in conflict with a God who professes Unconditional Love.cvjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00327799000000108953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11048437.post-87685546424712423252008-04-03T19:04:00.000+08:002008-04-03T19:04:00.000+08:00The gift cheques are given no strings attached. An...The gift cheques are given no strings attached. And torture? That's Dante. The Orthodox Church dont subscribe to that. In fact, although they do have opinions on what happens after you die, they dont have doctrine on it and are generally agnostic.<BR/><BR/>Oh wait, are you arguing that since it's under pain of torture, it's not a real choice? That people would rationally choose to avoid short term pleasure because of the consequence of long-term pain?Jegohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11806891595153451306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11048437.post-70773311720153988302008-04-03T18:58:00.000+08:002008-04-03T18:58:00.000+08:00Jego, people are not usually compelled to accept g...Jego, people are not usually compelled to accept gift cheques under pain of torture.cvjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00327799000000108953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11048437.post-54698417790466579022008-04-03T17:43:00.000+08:002008-04-03T17:43:00.000+08:00You know what would make the analogy better? If th...You know what would make the analogy better? If the gift were a gift cheque for SM supermarkets. It's yours, but it's up to you if youll use it to buy groceries or not. :-DJegohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11806891595153451306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11048437.post-49708399568723411772008-04-03T17:03:00.000+08:002008-04-03T17:03:00.000+08:00An analogy would be a gift. A gift that is given t...An analogy would be a gift. A gift that is given to everybody no questions asked, no strings attached. A fella can choose to accept it, or leave it. In any case, the gift is given and will not be taken back. It could be different in Catholicism -- Resty could expound on that -- but in the Orthodox Church, there is no deadline within which somebody chooses to accept the gift; no limited time offer. He can freely choose to accept it anytime.Jegohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11806891595153451306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11048437.post-28387275461691747332008-04-03T16:50:00.000+08:002008-04-03T16:50:00.000+08:00If God's love is conditional on a person's accepta...If God's love is conditional on a person's acceptance, doesn't that negate the 'unconditional' aspect. Isn't it then more accurate to define God's love as 'a limited time only offer, terms and conditions apply'?cvjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00327799000000108953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11048437.post-80514914359359329052008-04-03T09:59:00.000+08:002008-04-03T09:59:00.000+08:00God's offer of unconditional love is for those who...God's offer of unconditional love is for those who decide to be for Him/Her. God gives us humans that freedom: the power of choice, which is not given to anyone else in the whole of creation.Resty Odonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06308416791417331341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11048437.post-40342352649766833532008-04-03T09:39:00.000+08:002008-04-03T09:39:00.000+08:00Does that mean that God does not practice Uncondit...Does that mean that God does not practice Unconditional Love?cvjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00327799000000108953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11048437.post-46726113899185238042008-04-02T12:25:00.000+08:002008-04-02T12:25:00.000+08:00Thanks for that, Resty. Like I said, my answer isn...Thanks for that, Resty. Like I said, my answer isnt the one given by Catholics. It is more in line with the Orthodox Church.<BR/><BR/>To the Orthodox, the rejection of God itself is hell. God's love is experienced by those in him as a good thing, while the very same love is experienced by those who reject him as hell. But since God's love is 'infinite', this suffering cannot be infinite. It will last only as long as the person continues to reject God. Once that fella in hell chooses to repent and seek God, he will then be brought out of hell.<BR/><BR/>Another view is from Origen, one of the Church Fathers, who believed that the so-called fires of hell arent a punishment, but a purifying fire, much like what Catholics believe Purgatory is. Once the purification process is complete, the person will be welcomed to God's presence. Another Church Father, Gregory of Nyssa (I think) believed that God's love is such that if the devil repents, God will forgive him and welcome him back.Jegohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11806891595153451306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11048437.post-39088827505039776982008-04-02T10:57:00.000+08:002008-04-02T10:57:00.000+08:00This is for CVJ. I quote here what somebody said i...This is for CVJ. I quote here what somebody said in reaction to his comment above:<BR/><BR/>"There is no manifest contradiction here. The only "contradiction" here lies in the mind of the unbeliever. Exactly, if God's love is infinite, then the rejection of that love should also be infinite - an eternal series of continual rejection to the infinite love that God unceasingly offers. Hence, Christianity (Catholicism in particular) ironically teaches that the existence of hell as clear proof of God's eternal love for creatures. <BR/><BR/>Being a traditional Catholic, I reject the so-called "primacy of science" in the realm of knowledge. One does not prove the ultimate veracity of things through the frailty of science (which contradicts itself every 20 years), rather it is having faith in the unchanging and full inerrant Word of God and His revelation. In his Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas demonstrates that even on the question of human certitude, Divine Revelation holds the first place, since unlike science which bases its conclusion on the relativity of the human mind; Divine Revelation comes from the very infallible, and inerrant mouth of God, who created the things that we know, the things that we'll come to know, the way we know those things, and the things that we'll never know. Thus for a Catholic, intellectual honesty is when one admits the insufficiency of his mind, and readily asks the crutch of Revelation."Resty Odonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06308416791417331341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11048437.post-53133682593190112092008-03-25T18:58:00.000+08:002008-03-25T18:58:00.000+08:00The fact of course that the definition of science ...<I>The fact of course that the definition of science is still being debated in Philosophy of Science classes is beside the point.</I><BR/><BR/>On second thought, maybe it <I>is</I> the point. ;-)Jegohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11806891595153451306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11048437.post-9300851484649090302008-03-25T18:55:00.000+08:002008-03-25T18:55:00.000+08:00I basically agreed with the statement. Our theolog...I basically agreed with the statement. Our theology says that man and women as members of society <I>cannot</I> arrive at a workable criteria on their own. Or can arrive there only by walking through a veritable valley of death. But sure, they can arrive at <I>a</I> workable criteria on their own... maybe. But at what cost? Perhaps we eventually would be able to arrive at something similar to the ideas on rights and freedoms and the worth of a human life, but how many lives must be needlessly slaughtered before we get there? Im not too optimistic about us finding a workable criteria on our own but there's always that slim chance we stumble on the right path.<BR/><BR/>Re: science. All definitions are tautologies and therefore exempt from the authentification process. We just have to get enough people to agree on the definition. (The fact of course that the definition of science is still being debated in Philosophy of Science classes is beside the point.)Jegohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11806891595153451306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11048437.post-90676296635781928212008-03-25T18:40:00.000+08:002008-03-25T18:40:00.000+08:00Jeg, not sure if that meant you agreed or disagree...Jeg, not sure if that meant you agreed or disagreed with that statement, but what i want to emphasize is that the designation 'good' or 'evil' always has to be done by an observer (aka a 'subject'). What is arguable, to my mind (and in this i think we're in agreement), is whether such an observer is or has to be 'God' or whether, absent such an entity, men and women as members of society can arrive at a workable criteria on their own.<BR/><BR/>That definition of science cannot be accepted as scientific truth since such assertion is exempted from the authentication process as practiced within the scientific discipline. I can live with that inconsistency but not everyone can.cvjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00327799000000108953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11048437.post-10157869999715122622008-03-25T17:05:00.000+08:002008-03-25T17:05:00.000+08:00Maybe that's because there is nothing inherently g...<I>Maybe that's because there is nothing inherently good or inherently evil.</I><BR/><BR/>That's it right there. That's the human failing, the fruit of the forbidden tree. Man says there is no inherent good and inherent evil so we have to determine which is which on our own. But Christianity says there is, but we are not capable of seeing it clearly. We see through a glass, darkly. Who was it who said that if God didnt exist, we would have to invent him? Civilization needs God, whether you believe he exists or not. Without God, man is the sole judge of right and wrong. I mean why not get rid of cripples, the infirm, the insane, the retarded, the elderly, those who have a tendency to pass on genetic diseases, or those who just consume resources? The species would be better off without them since it will ensure only the fittest survive. Why would it be wrong to do so? There is no such thing as good and evil anyway apart from what we determine to be so. <BR/><BR/>For the contradiction between God's love and hell, I have some answers but I'll let Resty have a crack at it. My answer isnt mainstream Catholic.<BR/><BR/>As for the contradiction between science in religion, that only happens when religion is taught as science and science is taught as religion. Otherwise, there is really no contradiction. Science could be defined as 'the formal study of how God did things in nature'. That definition wouldnt change scientific findings over the last 500 years.Jegohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11806891595153451306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11048437.post-76725952076483071492008-03-25T16:09:00.000+08:002008-03-25T16:09:00.000+08:00Jeg, i suppose by 'defining objectively', you mean...Jeg, i suppose by 'defining objectively', you mean outside of the subject. Maybe that's because there is nothing inherently good or inherently evil. 'Good/evil' like 'truth/untruth' are codes that observers (like you and me) assign to what is being observed. <BR/><BR/>Resty, for me, 'Congressmen in cassocks' aside, the main contradiction of Christianity the simultaneous existence of God's infinite love (aka infinite goodness) and eternal damnation. I know the Catholic Church has some explanation for this but whatever explanation it gives does not erase the contradiction. As a believer, you just have to accept it and over time, something has to give.<BR/><BR/>The other contradiction is not inherent in Christianity but is embodied in all relgious belief, i.e. that between religious and scientific truth. Either you ground relgious truth in revelation (as Winnie has done above) which means you have to find scientific proof for it. Otherwise, you have to find a way to accommodate both world views which is not an easy thing to do if you value intellectual honesty. Nevertheless, man is not completely rational which is why i still keep my lights on at night.cvjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00327799000000108953noreply@blogger.com