Is altruism the key to a morally absolute afterlife?

[moving finger]

The important matter is whether issues related to free will/responsibility and so on can be considered a CENTRAL concern in the religion. It decidedly is not, IMO.

How can anyone rationally defend a belief in God and at the same time claim that humans do not have free will?
That God gave humans free will is absolutely central to most monotheistic beliefs.

Check the entries under Judaism, Mormonism, Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, Methodism in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will - Free Will is central to all.

Best Regards

 

[neophysique]

How can anyone rationally defend a belief in God and at the same time claim that humans do not have free will?
That God gave humans free will is absolutely central to most monotheistic beliefs.

Best Regards

Well, religious extremists and fundamentalists seem incapable
of choice and yet they believe fervently in God.

 

[moving finger]

Well, religious extremists and fundamentalists seem incapable
of choice and yet they believe fervently in God.

Good one - but I assume this was "tongue in cheek"?

Best Regards

 

[neophysique]

Good one - but I assume this was "tongue in cheek"?

Best Regards

Maybe a test of free will would be to try to convert an Islamic
terrorist to Christianity or a Christian Fundamentalist to Islam.

I think theism without free will sounds oxymoronic
and yet our consciousness and our belief in God
seems to be a product of the seemingly deterministic
biological mechanisms in our brain. If you surgically
removed the parts of our brain involved in
consciousness, a human would become a
robot or less and could hardly contemplate
about God. So in the end, this oxymoron
might actually be right unless one can
explain how apparently deterministic parts can be assembled
into a freely choosing whole.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Well, religious extremists and fundamentalists seem incapable of choice and yet they believe fervently in God.

That is funny, but it has a serious side to it as well. Let's assume we have free will, which most people believe they do whether they are theistic or atheistic. But . . .

We are also subject to conditioning (whether from repetitive behaviour, brain washing, one's biology, or whatever). There is no reason I know of why consciousness can't have both free will and be susceptible to conditioning. Yet between the two, free can win if one desires enough to be free of some undesirable conditioning.

 

[arildno]

When the primary concept of evil in Christianity is that of "INHERITED sin"* , a concept that is not at all related to a particular individual's actions (and hence, with his free will), then it is simply incorrect to say that free will is anything else than a peripheral concern in that religion.






*And the primary objective how to escape the consequences of "inherited sin", i.e, eternal punishment for not stealing some apple.

 

[Les Sleeth]

In other words to hell with the documents, I am going to make up the Jesus that fits my preconceptions and talk a blue streak to try to bully people into not objecting.

Yes, that’s right sA, you are the one making up Jesus and bullying, not me. I can tell from what you say you don’t know squat about the documents, so why are you acting like you do know. If somebody comes here talking about God being energy, that quantum mechanics proves free will, or some other scientific nonsense, would you sit still for it? So, what am I supposed to do, pretend I don’t know this subject?

The gospels, and maybe some of the papyruses that have been found, are the only evidence we have about what Jesus said. To play games with their text in this way is to abandon any legitimate scholarship for sheer fantasy.

In the past I’ve stuck up for you (not that you need it) when you were accused of ignorance. But here sir you are uncharacteristically talking out of your grumpy old backside.

First of all, my undergrad degree in religious studies and the many years of study afterwards qualifies me as more of a scholar on this subject than most. Further, I’ve studied NOT as a Christian, but as an agnostic hoping to find out what really was known about Jesus (and I am still not religious in any way). In the process I came to understand historical processes (as you know, history is document based). It is impossible to understand anything that was included in the Bible (or why it was included) without also understanding the way language was used, and what the cultural conditions were when things were written. Also necessary to understand are the Bible’s authors, which is why scholarship on the history of the Bible is crucial to study.

I tell you that the overwhelmingly strongest reason why any Christian believes in hell is because their religion insists on it. It is not because the evidence supports the idea even slightly, as a number of my professors made very clear. Also, read modern objective scholarship from religious studies departments at top universities like Harvard or Princeton (Elaine Pagals, for instance, and her book “The Origin of Satan”), and you won’t find any objective thinker who agrees with the modern religious theory that claims hell is supported by Jesus or anyone, even the nut who wrote Revelations.

Are you really going to make me do your homework for you? You could Google and find all this out for yourself if you were more interested in scholarship than maintaining hell so you can continue to insist Jesus and gang were deluded fear mongers. But okay, I’ll help a little. The following is excerpted from an essay on the history of hell, written by a Christian, but his thinking is close to what is best supported by evidence:

Gehenna, the word hell is given for in the New Testament, is rooted in an Old Testament location. It is generally regarded as derived from a valley nearby Jerusalem that originally belonged to a man named Hinnom. Scholars say the word is a transliteration of the Valley of the Sons of Hinnom, a valley that had a long history in the Old Testament, all of it bad. Hence, Gehenna is a proper name like the Rio Grande Valley of Texas and New Mexico. This being true, the word should never have been translated “hell,” for as we'll see, the two words have nothing in common.

We first find Hinnom in Josh. 1.8 and 18.16, where he is mentioned in Joshua's layout of the lands of Judah and Benjamin. In II K. 23.10, we find that righteous King Josiah “defiled Topheth in the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech.”

Josiah, in his purification of the land of Judah, violated the idolatrous worship to the idol Molech by tearing down the shrines. Topheth (also spelled Tophet) was a word meaning literally, “a place of burning.” In II Chron. 28.3, idolatrous King Ahaz burnt incense and his children in the fire there, as did idolatrous King Manasseh in II Chron. 33.6. In Neh. 11.30, we find some settling in Topheth after the restoration of the Jewish captives from Babylon.

In Jer. 19.2, 6, Jeremiah prophesied calamity coming upon the idolatrous Jews there, calling it the valley of slaughter, because God was going to slaughter the Jews there, using Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon. In Jer. 7.32, Jeremiah prophesied destruction coming upon the idolatrous Jews of his day with these words:

“Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that it shall no more be called Tophet, nor the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of slaughter; for they shall burn in Tophet, till there be no peace.”

Notice the mention of Topheth, “the place of burning,” again. Isaiah also spoke of Topheth this way in Isa. 30.33, when he warned the pro-Egypt party among the Jews (i.e., those trusting in Egypt for their salvation from Babylon rather than God) of a fiery judgment coming on them.

In Jer. 19.11-14, Jeremiah gave this pronouncement of judgment by Babylon on Jerusalem at the valley of Hinnom:

And the houses of Jerusalem, and the houses of the kings of Judah, shall be defiled as the place of Tophet, because of all the houses upon whose roofs they have burned incense unto all the host of heaven, and have poured out drink offerings unto other gods.

From these passages we can see that, to the Jews, the valley of Hinnom, or Topheth, from which the New Testament concept of Gehenna arose, came to mean a place of burning, a valley of slaughter, and a place of calamitous fiery judgment.

Thus, Thayer in his Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, said, concerning Gehenna:

"Gehenna, the name of a valley on the S. and E. of Jerusalem...which was so called from the cries of the little children who were thrown into the fiery arms of Moloch, i.e., of an idol having the form of a bull. The Jews so abhorred the place after these horrible sacrifices had been abolished by king Josiah (2 Kings xxiii.10), that they cast into it not only all manner of refuse, but even the dead bodies of animals and of unburied criminals who had been executed. And since fires were always needed to consume the dead bodies, that the air might not become tainted by the putrefaction, it came to pass that the place was called Gehenna."

Actually, since Gehenna was a proper name of a valley, it would have been called Gehenna whether or not any idolatry, burning, or dumping of garbage had ever occurred there, and it did, as we now see. Fudge said concerning the history of the valley of Hinnom:

"The valley bore this name at least as early as the writing of Joshua (Josh. 15:8; 18:16), though nothing is known of its origin. It was the site of child-sacrifices to Moloch in the days of Ahaz and Manasseh (apparently in 2 Kings 16:3; 21:6). This earned it the name “Topheth,” a place to be spit on or abhorred. This “Topheth” may have become a gigantic pyre for burning corpses in the days of Hezekiah after God slew 185,000 Assyrian soldiers in a night and saved Jerusalem (Isa. 30:31-33; 37:26)."

Jeremiah predicted that it would be filled to overflowing with Israelite corpses when God judged them for their sins (Jer. 7:31-33; 19:2-13). Josephus indicates that the same valley was heaped with dead bodies of the Jews following the Roman siege of Jerusalem about A.D. 69-70...Josiah desecrated the repugnant valley as part of his godly reform (2 Kings 23:10). Long before the time of Jesus, the Valley of Hinnom had become crusted over with connotations of whatever is “condemned, useless, corrupt, and forever discarded.” (Edward William Fudge, The Fire That Consumes [Houston: Providential Press, 1982], p. 160.)

We need to keep this place in mind as we read Jesus' teaching using a word referring back to this location in the new Testament. Now here’s only a brief explanation of when Jesus picks up the term (you can read the exegesis of all Jesus’ use of the term here -- http://gospelthemes.com/hell.htm ):

In Mt. 5.21-22, Jesus used Gehenna for the first time in inspired speech:

“Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment, and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire (Gehenna--SGD).”

As we mentioned earlier in this study, Jesus actually used the Greek word Gehenna for the first time in inspired writing. The word had never occurred in the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint. When we read the word hell, all kinds of sermon outlines, illustrations, and ideas come to the fore of our minds. None of these came to the minds of Jesus' listeners, for they had never heard the word before in inspired speech. It is very significant that the word did not occur even once in the Septuagint, quoted by Jesus and his apostles.

I suggest that to the Jews in Jesus' audience, Jesus' words referred merely to the valley southeast of Jerusalem. In their Old Testament background, Gehenna meant a place of burning, a valley where rebellious Jews had been slaughtered before and would be again if they didn't repent, as Malachi, John the Baptist, and Jesus urged them to do. Jesus didn't have to say what Gehenna was, as it was a well-known place to the people of that area, but his teaching was at least consistent with the national judgment announced by Malachi and John the Baptist. The closest fire in the context is Mt. 3.10-12, where John announced imminent fiery judgment on the nation of Israel.

Let's notice the other Gehenna passages to ascertain more about Jesus' use of Gehenna. As we do so, let's analyze each passage thus: Does the passage teach things we don't believe about an unending fiery hell, but which fit national judgment in Gehenna? The author’s interpretation of a “national judgement” is right on target in my opinion. You didn’t have to be seer to recognize what the Jewish state was headed for with Rome. Rome simply did not tolerate rebellion, and Jeruselem was a constant pain in the neck to Rome.

It doesn’t matter whether or not you believe Jesus had come to show the faithful a way to experience “heaven,” and to show them how to face death without worry they could survive death. What we do know is that within forty years of Jesus’ death Jeruselem was no more. It and the temple were destroyed, 3 million Jews were killed or taken into slavery.

Is that hell (not to mention apocalyptic) enough for you?

 

[Les Sleeth]

And, by the way, it is precisely because the foundations of Christianity (and of Islam and..) are nonsensical that their proponents should be criticized. Unremittingly so.

I wouldn't disagree (though I don't like to join in).

However, all I have said is that it is a mistake to confuse religious belief with the possbility that the universe is conscious overall, and that some successful introspectionists have developed a way (through union/meditation) to experience that consciousness; and, that the experience-based reports of "God" stem from these inner practitioners. Religion is something different all together.

 

[Les Sleeth]

What do you think he had in mind for what he did not speak, did he need any words? The message has endured 20 centuries, believe or not humans have followed it.

There is no evidence, and it is utterly illogical to assume, that hell is what he didn't speak.

In effect we are all an invention of our own experience.

And what should we substitute for our own experience? Religious dogma passed down from . . . who knows?

If we assume that the divinity and humanity was commonly shared by Jesus Christ the message to be understood when He said to the thief on the cross that this day you will be with me in Paradise, compiles the whole meaning of what it is to be human. Humans know what ought to be. They have a choice.

I haven't disputed choice, I have disputed that saying the thief could be in heaven has absolutely no implications about hell.

 

[arildno]

However, all I have said is that it is a mistake to confuse religious belief with the possbility that the universe is conscious overall,

Agreed.

and that some successful introspectionists have developed a way (through union/meditation) to experience that consciousness; and, that the experience-based reports of "God" stem from these inner practitioners.

Very probably.

Religion is something different all together.

In fact, I would say mostly unrelated.
While on occasion some of your mystics may inadvertently have started a religion, or brought their own peculiar fervour into it, I think most mystics like the sufis have had little missionary zeal or, indeed, interest of participating in "ordinary society" (if that is to be regarded as something worthwhile").

 

[Rader]

There is no evidence, and it is utterly illogical to assume, that hell is what he didn't speak.

The evidence is that, that is exactly the interpretation of the message passed down through the centuries. Catholic doctrine interpreted those words to mean that the thief who understood what ought to be went to paradise and the bad thief who did not understand what ought to be, did not. His words are a human interpretation of an unknowable thought, in this case Jesus. There is other evidence but again it is human interpretation of words. At the last supper the words this bread and wine which is my body and blood will be shed “for many” is an interpretation from Hebrew to Latin to English. Later after Vatican II changed the words to “ for all” only then was the full meaning of his words understood. Not all but many will understand what there humanity is all about. If you have another explanation for what he did not speak I would be interested to know what that is. There is no other human interpretation for allowing the repentant thief into paradise, if you do not send the other wherever. At any rate my imho theological interpretation of hell is not a lake of fire with all its devils but an absence from the light of divine concepts of knowing.

And what should we substitute for our own experience? Religious dogma passed down from . . . who knows?

That’s not my meaning of what I am tying to tell you. We could not exchange our experience for anyone elses, its personal; it’s what we build our database of what we think we know of the world. Have you ever asked anyone what a heaven or hell might be like? There answers would be nonsensical, who has ever experienced anything of the like, except in there own heads? What I meant is that neither you or I or anyone else is going know what He meant, we can only try to come close to knowing.

I haven't disputed choice, I have disputed that saying the thief could be in heaven has absolutely no implications about hell.

Les there was two thieves on the cross; one understood his humanity and the other failed to see it. Jesus only said to one, this day you will be with me in paradise, where does that leave the other? Humans can not categorize anything except in opposites. Maybe a Divine Being could, maybe that is why he said nothing of the other. The choice was made by Jesus based on whatever He knew that we could not. Then what are the implications in your opinion?

 

[neophysique]

When the primary concept of evil in Christianity is that of "INHERITED sin"* , a concept that is not at all related to a particular individual's actions (and hence, with his free will), then it is simply incorrect to say that free will is anything else than a peripheral concern in that religion.






*And the primary objective how to escape the consequences of "inherited sin", i.e, eternal punishment for not stealing some apple.

And the instructions given by Jesus Christ to escape the consequences
involves making a choice - to follow his words or to deny them. This
act requires some degree of free will. If man could not make a choice,
Jesus's words were unnecessary so wouldn't you say that the relevance
of Jesus's words to the Bible a main concern in Christianity?

 

[Les Sleeth]

The evidence is that, that is exactly the interpretation of the message passed down through the centuries. Catholic doctrine interpreted those words to mean that the thief who understood what ought to be went to paradise and the bad thief who did not understand what ought to be, did not.

Fine so far. I didn’t say both thieves went to paradise; I said there is nothing Jesus is recorded as saying that clearly indicates because one doesn’t end up in paradise means one ends up burning in hell for eternity. I am not arguing the truth of falsity of hell or heaven, only what we can safely assume from Jesus’ words.

If you have another explanation for what he did not speak I would be interested to know what that is. There is no other human interpretation for allowing the repentant thief into paradise, if you do not send the other wherever.

It doesn’t matter “what he did not speak.” You can’t assume anything from what he didn’t say, you can only be sure of what he did speak (or what biblical authors say he spoke). He didn’t say the non-repentant thief was going to Los Angeles, so should we assume he might have been sent there?

Les there was two thieves on the cross; one understood his humanity and the other failed to see it. Jesus only said to one, this day you will be with me in paradise, where does that leave the other? Humans can not categorize anything except in opposites. Maybe a Divine Being could, maybe that is why he said nothing of the other. The choice was made by Jesus based on whatever He knew that we could not. Then what are the implications in your opinion?

But that isn’t true. We can and do think in plenty of ways other than opposites. Only blockheads think only black or white. The discriminating thinker forms his concepts from the way reality is, and reality is more than one extreme or the other.

At any rate my imho theological interpretation of hell is not a lake of fire with all its devils but an absence from the light of divine concepts of knowing.

Now you’re talking. Logically, if paradise is to be in the presence of, or one with God, then the absence of God might be interpreted as hell (at least for lovers of God – those who don’t love God might not consider not being unified with God a problem). All I said (or meant to say) was that the mainstream conception of hell as burning in agony for eternity is not supported by Jesus’ references to Gehenna.

 

[neophysique]

That is funny, but it has a serious side to it as well. Let's assume we have free will, which most people believe they do whether they are theistic or atheistic. But . . .

We are also subject to conditioning (whether from repetitive behaviour, brain washing, one's biology, or whatever). There is no reason I know of why consciousness can't have both free will and be susceptible to conditioning. Yet between the two, free can win if one desires enough to be free of some undesirable conditioning.

I think our free will is limited by conditioning, obviously. Like,
no matter how hard I will myself, I wouldn't be able to
deliver a speech right now in Japanese , French, or Portuguese,
as I was never conditioned (learned) these languages. But
conditioning is a deterministic action so free will is not a logical
consequence from it.

 

[neophysique]

Of course, the problem with these types of discussions is that we must divorce ourselves from reality to discuss issues intellectually. No one is questioning all the assumptions we need to have in order to talk about things. Above you say the "Christian God," and I understand you are talking about Christian religious theology, but Jesus is the guy who everyone has claimed they are representing with their religion. Are they? What evidence is there that Jesus ever talked about hell, for instance? If we include Jewish doctrine, then Moses was the man. Where does he talk about hell?

In every case I know of where "religion" has followed the inner realization of someone, it isn't long before everyone has tacked on tons of spiritual, moral, theocratic, judgmental, supernatural (you name it) concepts that have absolutely nothing to do with the originator's realization. Religion is one thing, and that original realization is something altogether different.

So I suppose to give our intellects a little exercise we can assume a God capable of creation is so petty he punishes people and even tortures them in hell, but there is no realized person I've ever studied who claimed that. It's nasty-minded Renaissance authors, popes, imams, patriarchal mindsets, etc. who dream up these horrors out of their own fears, arrogance, and hatred.

The Old Testament God punished his creations, whether
they sinned or not, through horrible natural
disasters. He used a flood to drown most of the human race for
example. The Jesus ministry might have offered a more optimistic
picture of God but it hasn't stopped major earthquakes, floods,
plagues, famine, etc from wiping out whole populations. So
the Christian theologists seem to have a logical argument, especially given the historical behaviour of their God as recorded in the Old Testament, when they make up hell as a possible punishment for
sinners in the afterlife analogous to the hell the living sinners
experience.

I think it's out of character though , like you, for a loving God
to resort to such punishments. Would be like a parent who
would cook a great dinner and read a favourite book to
their kid to bed for them getting a good grade on a test
to go buy a rifle and blow the kids brains out because
he refused to take out the trash when told. Yea, out of
character.

So maybe there is a devil?

 

[arildno]

And the instructions given by Jesus Christ to escape the consequences
involves making a choice - to follow his words or to deny them. This
act requires some degree of free will. If man could not make a choice,
Jesus's words were unnecessary so wouldn't you say that the relevance
of Jesus's words to the Bible a main concern in Christianity?

Again, you blithely ignore the main point!
While it is trivial that any type of normative statement needs to presume some sort of free will in order for the statement as normative to have any meaning, it by no means follow that the peculiar moral issues (like individual moral agency/ responsibility for your own, but not others, actions and so on) flowing from the concept of free will are the central concern within that normative statement.

The "inherited sin" concept (and its automatic punishment) is, in fact, a totally nonsensical idea from the viewpoint of free will; it belongs to a quite different tradition of representing evil.

 

[moving finger]

any type of normative statement needs to presume some sort of free will in order for the statement as normative to have any meaning

Could you explain why you believe this to be the case?

Best Regards

 

[arildno]

If you form a statement in the shape "You ought/should do.(specific action).." (i.e a normative statement), then the possibility that the recipient COULD ACT OTHERWISE (than the action described in the statement) is contained within it.

As for regarding the statement AS normative, that condition must be regarded as possible.

Otherwise, the statement is merely a descriptive statement in an awkward fashion.

Better representations would then be:
"I hope it will turn out that you do..(specific action)"
"I wish you would have done..(specific action)"
and so on.

These are roughly the original statement as a DESCRIPTIVE statement, rather than as a normative statement.

 

[moving finger]

If you form a statement in the shape "You ought/should do.(specific action).." (i.e a normative statement), then the possibility that the recipient COULD ACT OTHERWISE (than the action described in the statement) is contained within it.

Why does this entail free will? (I assume here that we are talking of libertarian free will).

If the premise of libertarian free will is false and the world is completely causally deterministic, I can still say "you ought/should do...", meaning "this is my advice to you about what I think you should do, based upon my beliefs" (and my advice then becomes part of the causally deterministic chain of events). I see absolutely no reason why such a state of affairs entails free will.

Best Regards

 

[arildno]

Well, but it isn't any longer a normative statement.

 

[moving finger]

Well, but it isn't any longer a normative statement.

Could you perhaps explain what else the statement "You ought/should do..." might mean, apart from "this is my advice to you about what I think you should do, based upon my beliefs..."?

Thanks

 

[moving finger]

Well, but it isn't any longer a normative statement.

My understanding is that normative ethics involves arriving at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. In a sense, it is a search for an ideal test of proper behavior. The Golden Rule is a classic example of a normative principle: We should do to others what we would want others to do to us. Since I do not want my neighbor to steal my car, then it is wrong for me to steal his car. Since I would want people to feed me if I was starving, then I should help feed starving people. Using this same reasoning, I can theoretically determine whether any possible action is right or wrong. So, based on the Golden Rule, it would also be wrong for me to lie to, harass, victimize, assault, or kill others. The Golden Rule is an example of a normative theory that establishes a single principle against which we judge all actions.

Absolutely none of this entails free will.

Best Regards

 

[neophysique]

Again, you blithely ignore the main point!
While it is trivial that any type of normative statement needs to presume some sort of free will in order for the statement as normative to have any meaning, it by no means follow that the peculiar moral issues (like individual moral agency/ responsibility for your own, but not others, actions and so on) flowing from the concept of free will are the central concern within that normative statement.

The "inherited sin" concept (and its automatic punishment) is, in fact, a totally nonsensical idea from the viewpoint of free will; it belongs to a quite different tradition of representing evil.

I don't find the above disagreeable. The main point I was getting
at before was that a monotheistic religion requires free will
in its believers to have any meaning.

As for the inherited sin and Jesus Christ dying on the cross to
atone for it, I still can't see what he did. Did he get rid
of the stain by sacrificing himself? So, why did he need to
preach at all?

 

[arildno]

As for the inherited sin and Jesus Christ dying on the cross to
atone for it, I still can't see what he did. Did he get rid
of the stain by sacrificing himself? So, why did he need to
preach at all?

Don't ask me.
Why, for example, should Jesus in the first place "atone" for a taint that for no reason whatsoever was attached to every other person??
This idea is wholly at odds with a morality where the central concern is that of individual responsibility/respect for a person's fundamental autonomy, i.e, concerns springing directly out from the assumption of free will.

 

[neophysique]

Don't ask me.
Why, for example, should Jesus in the first place "atone" for a taint that for no reason whatsoever was attached to every other person??
This idea is wholly at odds with a morality where the central concern is that of individual responsibility/respect for a person's fundamental autonomy, i.e, concerns springing directly out from the assumption of free will.

There's some good stuff on wikipedia under "original sin"
on this topic. The Orthodox Jews interpretation is insightful
I think. Though they didn't mention Jesus Christ, he would
fit in nicely as the main guide to the spiritual enlightenment
required to return to Paradise. His resurrection from death
then was supposed to act as a proof that his way was the
right way.

 

[Rader]

Fine so far. I didn’t say both thieves went to paradise; I said there is nothing Jesus is recorded as saying that clearly indicates because one doesn’t end up in paradise means one ends up burning in hell for eternity. I am not arguing the truth of falsity of hell or heaven, only what we can safely assume from Jesus’ words.

Well know you got me all mixed up. How can you believe in heaven and hell and assume from what Jesus said that he does not, where did you get your notion that a heaven and a hell exists from then, even if you consider hell as something many do not?

It doesn’t matter “what he did not speak.” You can’t assume anything from what he didn’t say, you can only be sure of what he did speak (or what biblical authors say he spoke). He didn’t say the non-repentant thief was going to Los Angeles, so should we assume he might have been sent there?

You can assume not for two reasons Los Angelus did not exist at that time. How can you contend that the words spoken to the good thief have no implications on what is meant to the other? Do you really believe this? You said that you had undergrad degree in religious studies, is this conclusion of what they teach? My education is based on San Tomas Aquinas and it is quite the opposite of there conclusion. Notwithstanding I understand quite well why this happens because no one really understands there own interpretation of the words that someone else spoke either insinuated or not because you can not know there thoughts. Only sometimes do we get it real close and sometimes we are way off the mark.

But that isn’t true. We can and do think in plenty of ways other than opposites. Only blockheads think only black or white. The discriminating thinker forms his concepts from the way reality is, and reality is more than one extreme or the other.

You know what I mean but if you insist I am a blockhead that’s OK. If you’re interested in how I think read this thread you missed. Moving Finger did not get it maybe you can. https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=121360

Now you’re talking. Logically, if paradise is to be in the presence of, or one with God, then the absence of God might be interpreted as hell (at least for lovers of God – those who don’t love God might not consider not being unified with God a problem). All I said (or meant to say) was that the mainstream conception of hell as burning in agony for eternity is not supported by Jesus’ references to Gehenna.

I think I have understood you on that point and you have understood mine.

There is a big problem here though, (at least for me) if God is not separable from the universe, how would it keep part of it, to not know itself? An easy solution would be that it is.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Well know you got me all mixed up. How can you believe in heaven and hell and assume from what Jesus said that he does not, where did you get your notion that a heaven and a hell exists from then, even if you consider hell as something many do not?

You are just misunderstanding me. I said that in this discussion I am not trying to argue whether there is a heaven or hell, or whether there is not heaven and hell (what I believe about them is irrelevant to my point). I have only been trying to argue that burning forever in hell cannot be soundly inferred from anything Jesus said if you understand the history of the words he used and the cultural context within which he is speaking.

You can assume not for two reasons Los Angelus did not exist at that time. How can you contend that the words spoken to the good thief have no implications on what is meant to the other?

Yes it does have implications, and that is that one thief is headed for paradise, and the other isn't. That is it, period. There is no fact you have that Jesus is implying anything more than not being in paradise, which is entirely different that saying not in paradise equals burning forever in hell.

Do you understand that this argument all started with me saying Jesus did not talk about the fire and brimstone hell so popular in Christianity. That has been my only point (about hell at least), and all that I am defending.

You said that you had undergrad degree in religious studies, is this conclusion of what they teach?

My education is based on San Tomas Aquinas and it is quite the opposite of there conclusion.

As you can see, you are putting words in mouth. If you understand my above points then yes, that is exactly what a historical study of the facts renders.

And surely you don't think a Catholic education is going to give you pure objective history when it comes to Christianity and Jesus do you?

You know what I mean but if you insist I am a blockhead that’s OK.

Noooooooooooo. I wasn't referring to you. I am sure you don't think only black and white. I was just referring to those who do (and I know a few).

There is a big problem here though, (at least for me) if God is not separable from the universe, how would it keep part of it, to not know itself? An easy solution would be that it is.

A great question. Since you seem to be Catholic, there are some great monastics in that tradition who have said that the body itself is set up to create the illusion of separation. In essence we are still one with the God, but the body, by limiting our perception to the physical senses, convinces us we are separate. This achieves two things.

One is, the body individuates us, where before we were indistinct within the greater consciousness (aka, God). The second is that it creates a longing to rejoin our source, but conscious now as an individual. To retain our individuality it has to be our CHOICE to remerge our consciousness with the greater one. In order to do that we have learn to feel our essence which is still one with the source. That is why mystics like John of the Cross, Teresa, Meister Eckhart, et al spent so much time practicing union. They wanted to be conscious of God, not just present in God which we all are already (according to the "mystical" model of course).

 

[moving finger]

Don't ask me.
Why, for example, should Jesus in the first place "atone" for a taint that for no reason whatsoever was attached to every other person??
This idea is wholly at odds with a morality where the central concern is that of individual responsibility/respect for a person's fundamental autonomy, i.e, concerns springing directly out from the assumption of free will.

There you go again with this strange notion of assumptions of free will.

Why would one think that moral responsibility entails free will?

Responsibility entails both ownership and determinism, but I can't see what free will has to do with it (the idea of free will isn't even coherent).

Best Regards

 

[selfAdjoint]

There you go again with this strange notion of assumptions of free will.

Why would one think that moral responsibility entails free will?

Responsibility entails both ownership and determinism, but I can't see what free will has to do with it (the idea of free will isn't even coherent).

Best Regards

Well Finger, you are the main sponsor here of the idea that a theodicy without "libertarian free will" is no theodicy at all. Apply the same reasoning to a legal system. A Law which proscribes punishment to a robot for carrying out its program is surely unjust, no?

 

[Rader]

You are just misunderstanding me. I said that in this discussion I am not trying to argue whether there is a heaven or hell, or whether there is not heaven and hell (what I believe about them is irrelevant to my point). I have only been trying to argue that burning forever in hell cannot be soundly inferred from anything Jesus said if you understand the history of the words he used and the cultural context within which he is speaking.

OK I understand your evaluation of this and mine is that there are things that may be known a” priori” that can be deduced from His statements, now understand they are personal and only mine. You might know that either of our views might be considered heresy, since neither of them contemplate a hell with devils and pitchfork in hand.

Yes it does have implications, and that is that one thief is headed for paradise, and the other isn't. That is it, period. There is no fact you have that Jesus is implying anything more than not being in paradise, which is entirely different that saying not in paradise equals burning forever in hell.

Do you understand that this argument all started with me saying Jesus did not talk about the fire and brimstone hell so popular in Christianity. That has been my only point (about hell at least), and all that I am defending.

I understand your point what I do not understand is why you do not want to make a logical deduction from all this. I have meditated much time on this very brief moment in history. To me it is the culmination of human history. It is a new way of thinking. It is the beginning of a thinking to evolve to absolute concepts. The alternative for the other thief is incomprehensible in our present way of thinking.

As you can see, you are putting words in mouth. If you understand my above points then yes, that is exactly what a historical study of the facts renders.

And surely you don't think a Catholic education is going to give you pure objective history when it comes to Christianity and Jesus do you?

The best way to interpret Jesus words imho is through Traditional Catholicism by theologians, would you choose an agnostic in math to do string theory?

Noooooooooooo. I wasn't referring to you. I am sure you don't think only black and white. I was just referring to those who do (and I know a few).

OK fine.

A great question. Since you seem to be Catholic, there are some great monastics in that tradition who have said that the body itself is set up to create the illusion of separation. In essence we are still one with the God, but the body, by limiting our perception to the physical senses, convinces us we are separate. This achieves two things.

One is, the body individuates us, where before we were indistinct within the greater consciousness (aka, God). The second is that it creates a longing to rejoin our source, but conscious now as an individual. To retain our individuality it has to be our CHOICE to remerge our consciousness with the greater one. In order to do that we have learn to feel our essence which is still one with the source. That is why mystics like John of the Cross, Teresa, Meister Eckhart, et al spent so much time practicing union. They wanted to be conscious of God, not just present in God which we all are already (according to the "mystical" model of course).

It quite mystifies me how two different searches for the same answer, come so very close to the same solution. That happens in math sometimes but I do not think it is very common.

 

[Les Sleeth]

It quite mystifies me how two different searches for the same answer, come so very close to the same solution. That happens in math sometimes but I do not think it is very common.

I wrote a bunch of stuff, but after thinking about it I deleted it. Maybe what you say here is more important than differences in the details.

 

[moving finger]

Well Finger, you are the main sponsor here of the idea that a theodicy without "libertarian free will" is no theodicy at all. Apply the same reasoning to a legal system. A Law which proscribes punishment to a robot for carrying out its program is surely unjust, no?

Ask yourself : What purpose does secular punishment serve?

Do we punish agents because we seek to change what they did (ie to change the past)? Obviously not
.
Do we punish agents because we simply seek revenge or retribution as an end in itself? I would argue not.

I believe we punish agents for one or more of the following reasons :

1) If the punishment is imprisonment, this removes the agent from society, and this will prevent the agent from committing further similar acts during its term of imprisonment, thereby protecting society.

2) As part of the punishment, society may choose to offer counseling and treatment to the agent, to try and modify its attitudes or behaviour such that it is less likely to re-offend when released.

3) The punishment acts as a warning to the agent, in effect a warning to change its ways and to obey the law in future if it wishes to avoid punishment.

4) The punishment also serves as a “warning” to other would-be offenders that they should remain law-abiding agents.

Can anyone suggest any other rational purpose served by secular punishment, apart from the (1) to (4) above?

All of (1) to (4) inclusive are completely compatible with a deterministic account of behaviour, without the need to invoke any incoherent free will concept.

Best Regards

 

[Loren Booda]

Punishment by society often punishes society itself:

1. Certain ethnic, economic and mental illness classes, are chosen for punishment far more often than others.

2. Permanent punishment, like the death penalty, lobotomy and castration, assumes the ability to judge absolutely.

3. Secondary conditions of punishment, like the incidence of AIDS, tuberculosis and violence in prison, are common consequences of incarceration.

4. The fact that felons have been discriminated against in vocations, voting and social services may disenfranchise them from becoming effective citizens after paying their debt to society.

 

[moving finger]

Punishment by society often punishes society itself:

1. Certain ethnic, economic and mental illness classes, are chosen for punishment far more often than others.

Perhaps so – what would you suggest is the best way to manage this situation?

2. Permanent punishment, like the death penalty, lobotomy and castration, assumes the ability to judge absolutely.

Castration is not really a punishment – it’s an attempt to cure the problem. The same could be said of the death penalty and lobotomy. Perhaps these are attempts to balance the costs and benefits of “getting it wrong” with the costs and benefits of “getting it right”. In the case of an alleged child rapist, one has the choice of (a) locking him up for good (b) releasing him after a term of imprisonment and hoping he will not re-offend (c) imposing some “permanent” solution such as castration or other medical or surgical procedure. In deciding the best solution one needs to take into account, and balance, the rights of the alleged offender as well as the rights of the rest of society. In a perfect world we would never punish an innocent person, but the world is not perfect. Perhaps it is better to risk a small chance of castrating an innocent person, compared to the risk of allowing a child-rapist to roam the streets.

3. Secondary conditions of punishment, like the incidence of AIDS, tuberculosis and violence in prison, are common consequences of incarceration.

Perhaps so – what would you suggest is the best way to manage this situation?

4. The fact that felons have been discriminated against in vocations, voting and social services may disenfranchise them from becoming effective citizens after paying their debt to society.

Perhaps so – what would you suggest is the best way to manage this situation?

Your comments are valid, but they simply point to the need to better manage the punishment and rehabilitation of criminals. It’s all still completely consistent with a deterministic account of secular law and punishment.

Best Regards

 

[Loren Booda]

#1, 3, and 4 - Jail diversion and Crisis Intervention Training, see http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=CIT2&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=31587"

Perhaps the last vestige of social prejudice will be directed upon the felon. Many who are arrested for relatively minor drug charges are sent to the "school of crime," making fodder for further law breaking, and denying resources for others in need. Ethnically, give a great education, currently separate and unequal, to allow an out for those in the ghetto. The best solution to criminality is an effective job program - workers have a much less incidence for commiting crime. Violence in prison often results from an environment of torture, rather than rehabilitation. The U.S. is no role model when it comes to the fair treatment of prisoners; in any place criminals are often not of their own volition, but from social forces so abusive that few of us would dare explore them.

Many services could be financed by acknowledging - empathizing with - the basic needs of those eventually being released to society.

 

[moving finger]

The best solution to criminality is an effective job program - workers have a much less incidence for commiting crime.

I'm not defending the existing system of secular law enforcement and punishment, I'm sure there is plenty of room for improvement.

The point is that whatever methods we adopt for secular law enforcement and control of behaviour, they all have deterministic explanations. Including job programs.

Best Regards

 

[Loren Booda]

Why not altruism? Must all reformation be Pavlovian punishment - deterministic Darwinism, greed, or carrot and stick behaviorism? Can an investment in providing prisoners unconditional positive regard give an attitude of "Love thy neighbor" (as some prison missions do) rather than the quid pro quo, status quo. Many successful ex-cons have found a basis in religious love and discipline. (Admittedly, some use jailhouse "conversion" seeking to gain favor.) A secular education with a moral foundation provided to convicts can also reduce recidivism.

 

[moving finger]

Why not altruism? Must all reformation be Pavlovian punishment - deterministic Darwinism, greed, or carrot and stick behaviorism? Can an investment in providing prisoners unconditional positive regard give an attitude of "Love thy neighbor" (as some prison missions do) rather than the quid pro quo, status quo. Many successful ex-cons have found a basis in religious love and discipline. (Admittedly, some use jailhouse "conversion" seeking to gain favor.) A secular education with a moral foundation provided to convicts can also reduce recidivism.

It seems you are suggesting there are good rational reasons supporting altrusitic behaviour. If altruism reduces recidivism then it seems to me that it is a good means to an end. And all compatible with a completely deterministic account of the world.

"Love thy neighbour" is an example of "do as you would be done by", all understandable based on deterministic models of behaviour.

Determinism is not limited to simplistic behavioural models of "carrot and stick". Humans are very complex agents, but I see nothing in that complexity which is incompatible with determinism.

Best regards