Divine punishment? Is it needed?

[Hmm]

I don't think the rational people who I am interested in engaging will oppose the claim that an appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy. I could dig up historical testimony, but I doubt you would go through the trouble of finding the source and reading it. In this case a simple Google search should take you far.

I suspect Spock would have actually answered my questions. Your ad hominem is highly illogical.

 

[zippy2006]

I suspect Spock would have actually answered my questions. Your ad hominem is highly illogical.

Just to be clear: you reject my claim that an appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy?

 

[Hmm]

Just to be clear: you reject my claim that an appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy?

Your claim makes no sense. Emotions are given to us by God and is one way in which we apprehend Him. Think of the illogical love that is shown everyday by acts of forgiveness and by being our brother's keeper.

Reason (which I presume is what you mean by logic) is another gift through which we relate to the world and understand God to be a rational being who has created an orderly universe.

The two things are not in opposition. It is not "appealing to emotion" to say that God does not torture people forever. It's using our reason and emotions together.

Being logical does not mean believing in something simply because it is the opposite of "emotional". Can you explain the logic behind punishment that continues forever. I doubt you'll answer this though because you didn't answer my previous questions. In contrast, I have logically answered yours.

 

[zippy2006]

Your claim makes no sense.

Sure it does. Google the fallacy I referenced or grab a book on logic.

Being logical does not mean believing in something simply because it is the opposite of "emotional". Can you explain the logic behind punishment that continues forever. I doubt you'll answer this though because you didn't answer my previous questions. In contrast, I have logically answered yours.

We have already discussed that topic on other threads which are devoted to it.

 

[Hmm]

Sure it does. Google the fallacy I referenced or grab a book on logic.



We have already discussed that topic on other threads which are devoted to it.

As I predicted, you have not answered my question. Fascinating.

 

[zippy2006]

I doubt you'll answer this though because you didn't answer my previous questions.

Dude, you asked me to find two people who think appeals to emotion are fallacies. That's like asking me to find two people who think 2+2=4 because you aren't convinced. Who has time for such things?

 

[Hmm]

Dude, you asked me to find two people who think appeals to emotion are fallacies. That's like asking me to find two people who think 2+2=4 because you aren't convinced. Who has time for such things?

You're right, life is too short. You can have the last word (he says illogically).

 

[zippy2006]

As Philo pointed out, there are rigorous criteria that Christians use to determine doctrine (and the criteria vary from denomination to denomination, but they often relate to Scripture). The problem is that what you and others are offering are essentially non-rigorous appeals to emotion. It is something like, "ECT seems mean, therefore Christians shouldn't hold it." But such appeals to emotion are not rationally or religiously grounded. In fact, we used to recognize that such approaches are logically fallacious.

Now, obviously those who oppose ECT present the garb of rationality, so why think that it is nothing more than a garb? The test for whether someone is ultimately relying on an emotional appeal is simple. Let “AG” represent an argument against ECT (or secondarily, a set of arguments against ECT). This is represented as follows:

1. If AG, then ~ECT​

When it comes to the question of an appeal to emotion, the relevant question is whether the opponent of ECT sees AG as meaningful, or merely as a useful tool to rationalize their predetermined emotional conclusion. If they are being rationally honest and are not appealing to emotion, then the following must be true:

2. If ~AG, then [ECT becomes more plausible]​

This is because, if I think that ECT is false (in part) because AG is true, then when I learn that AG is false I will become less certain that ECT is false. If AG’s presence increases epistemic certitude, then AG’s absence must decrease epistemic certitude. Therefore:

3. (1) -> (2)​

Now, do those who oppose ECT hold to (2)? Generally not, and I have not ever encountered such a person. When their argument against ECT fails, they don’t bat an eye. They just move on as if nothing at all has changed. When every argument they possess fails against ECT, they remain just as certain as ever that ECT must be false. All along, their certitude came from emotional conviction rather than from rational considerations, and this certitude does not diminish in the least when all of their former arguments are lying broken at their feet.

 

[zippy2006]

…For an example of a related phenomenon, see the thread “Marilyn McCord Adams and the Problem of Hell.” It seems to me that in that thread someone found an argument lying by the side of the road. When they saw that it concluded, “ECT is false,” they picked it up with joy and started presenting it as a conclusive argument against ECT. Yet when faced with the very simple request of explaining the premises of the argument so that the argument itself would be at least semi-intelligible and substantive, they simply refused to do so.

This sort of thing happens in Catholicism, too. For an even more extreme example of this sort of strategy from a Catholic apologist, see “Brian Holdsworth's 'Mathematical Proof of God's Existence'.” In both cases the “arguments” are more a matter of validating a preconception than a matter of intellectual inquiry or seeking truth.

In these cases the “garb” is not surrendered, but the fact that the interlocutor is unable to give an explanation of the argument is proof that it is nothing more than a garb.


(In general, this is why I take issue with progressive forms of Christianity. They are rationalizations of emotion. It is true that some forms of traditional Christianity can become rationalizations of dogma or tradition, but there is more cognizance of this fact from traditionalists, who are often willing to offer positive arguments in favor of dogma or tradition as rules of faith.)

 

[wendykvw]

All somewhat interesting but without any clearly identified historical resources it is a humungous waste of band width. See e.g. my post #344, above. No more compelling than the scribblings on a public facility wall. "This guy said this, that guy said that, some other guy said something else."
See my post #344 above for Ramelli's lack of integrity.

Thanks for this information. I will research this and share what I discover.

 

[wendykvw]

I refer to Ramelli as the high priestess of UR [for those who don't know UR refers to Universal Reconciliation i.e. the belief that all mankind will be saved the righteous and unrighteous alike no matter what.
But I will document a false statement she made. A error that no competent scholar, in any field should make.

"But even the aiónes will come to an end, Origen tells us: “After aiónios life a leap will take place and all will pass from the aeons to the Father, who is beyond aiónios life. For Christ is Life, but the Father, who is ‘greater than Christ,’ is greater than life” (Comm. in Io 13.3; quoted in Ramelli, p. 160).
Sometimes Eternity Ain’t Forever: Aiónios and the Universalist Hope"​

That is what Ramelli claims Origen said. Here is what Origen actually said.

Origen Commentary On The Gospel Of John Book Thirteen[1]
(18) For, as there, [Song 2:8] the bridegroom leaps upon souls that are more noble-natured and divine, called mountains, and skips upon the inferior ones called hills, so here [Joh 4:14] the fountain that appears in the one who drinks of the water that Jesus gives leaps into eternal life.
(19) And after eternal life, perhaps it will also leap into the Father who is beyond eternal life. For Christ is life; but he who is greater than Christ is greater than life.20[2] Pg. 23​

Contrary to the assertion by UR high priestess Ilaria Ramelli and her loyal followers, here is the one and only time Origen mentions “after eternal life.”
Note the context, Origen is not talking about the fate of believers he is talking about the well of water, John 4:14. Origen is saying after the well of water springs into eternal life perhaps, not for certain, it [the well of water] springs into the Father because the Father is beyond eternal life.

(59) He [Heracleon] is not wrong, however, when he says that the water that the Savior gives is of his spirit and power.[John 4:14]
(60) And he has explained the statement, “But he shall not thirst forever,” as follows with these very words: For the life he gives is eternal and never perishes, as, indeed, does the first life which comes from the well; the life he gives remains. For the grace and the gift of our Savior is not to be taken away, nor is it consumed, nor does it perish, when one partakes of it.
(61) He would be correct when he grants that the first life perishes if he meant that life which is according to the letter, when it seeks and discovers the life according to the Spirit by the removal of the veil. But, if he is accusing the ancient words of passing out of existence all together, it is clear that he does this because he does not perceive that those good words contain the shadow of future things.
(291) But neither is it possible here to understand the statement “He who reaps receives a reward, and gathers fruit for eternal life” to have reference to the same things as the statement, “He who sows in the flesh, of the flesh shall reap corruption, and he who sows in the spirit, of the spirit will reap eternal life.”
(292) For according to the Apostle’s words, it is the same person who sows and reaps, whether in the flesh or in the spirit, and on this basis reaps either corruption or eternal life. [Gal 6:8] But according to the present words, it is one who sows and another who reaps.[4] Pg 128
[1] Origen. (1993). Commentary on the Gospel according to John Books 13–32. (T. P. Halton, Ed., R. E. Heine, Trans.) (Vol. 89, pp. 67–69). Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press.
[2] Origen. (1993). Commentary on the Gospel according to John Books 13–32. (T. P. Halton, Ed., R. E. Heine, Trans.) (Vol. 89, pp. 72–73). Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press.
[3] Origen. (1993). Commentary on the Gospel according to John Books 13–32. (T. P. Halton, Ed., R. E. Heine, Trans.) (Vol. 89, pp. 81–82). Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press.
[4] Origen. (1993). Commentary on the Gospel according to John Books 13–32. (T. P. Halton, Ed., R. E. Heine, Trans.) (Vol. 89, pp. 128–129). Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press.​

Unfortunately Origen's commentary on John is still in copyright. If you want to read this document you must go to a university which has it in the library or purchase it online. It cost me $40.00 from "Logos."
Origen says that the life Jesus gives is "eternal,""never perishes 2X,""remains,""is not taken away" and "is not consumed."



.

Regarding your last comment. I'll just make the following points. (1) Not sure where the unfounded claim that Ramelli is the "high priestess" of UR came from. Like you, I might cite scholars from time to time who support my view but my belief in the eventual restoration of all is not dependent on Ramelli or anyone else. (2) You claimed that Ramelli's translation of Origen's commentary on John was wrong (i.e, "Here is what Origen actually said"). But if you read what Ramelli wrote and compare it to the translation you provided, they aren't very different. I assume you understand that Ramelli left the word 'eternal' untranslated as 'aionios' on purpose. And sure there are a few minor differences in translation but that is to be expected. No two translators will translate the same text the same way. If you need proof, just flip through a few translations of the New Testament. To claim, as you did, that Ramelli made a "false statement" is outrageous and borders on slanderous. Anyone reading Ramelli's translation and the one you provided, will not find any significant differences; certainly none that would justify such a claim. But I can tell you that Ramelli's translation, "After eternal life a leap will take place..." makes much more sense then the one you provided which reads, "And after eternal life, perhaps it will also leap into the Father..." Huh? Or If by "false statement," you meant that Ramelli's interpretation of what Origen said is wrong, then that does not qualify as a "false statement"; it simply means that you disagree with her assessment. (3) Presumably you don't speak Greek so it's not clear to me how you can be so sure of what "Origen actually said?" In other words, how do you know Ramelli's translation is not closer to the original? (4) Then it appears you copied and pasted someone's comments on John 4:14 to justify your views. So applying your logic, that would make Halton or Heine your "high priest." Right? (5) And finally, I believe God will eventually save everyone because even if only one person spends eternity in hell (notice I didn't say "goes to hell"), then by definition, Jesus lost the cosmic struggle for our souls because He was not able to save as many as Adam destroyed. On the contrary, I believe Jesus is stronger than Satan (and certainly Adam) and therefore, all that Adam destroyed, Christ will eventually save.

 

[Der Alte]

...

 

[Der Alte]

Regarding your last comment. I'll just make the following points. (1) Not sure where the unfounded claim that Ramelli is the "high priestess" of UR came from. Like you, I might cite scholars from time to time who support my view but my belief in the eventual restoration of all is not dependent on Ramelli or anyone else. (2) You claimed that Ramelli's translation of Origen's commentary on John was wrong (i.e, "Here is what Origen actually said"). But if you read what Ramelli wrote and compare it to the translation you provided, they aren't very different. I assume you understand that Ramelli left the word 'eternal' untranslated as 'aionios' on purpose. And sure there are a few minor differences in translation but that is to be expected. No two translators will translate the same text the same way. If you need proof, just flip through a few translations of the New Testament. To claim, as you did, that Ramelli made a "false statement" is outrageous and borders on slanderous. Anyone reading Ramelli's translation and the one you provided, will not find any significant differences; certainly none that would justify such a claim. But I can tell you that Ramelli's translation, "After eternal life a leap will take place..." makes much more sense then the one you provided which reads, "And after eternal life, perhaps it will also leap into the Father..." Huh? Or If by "false statement," you meant that Ramelli's interpretation of what Origen said is wrong, then that does not qualify as a "false statement"; it simply means that you disagree with her assessment. (3) Presumably you don't speak Greek so it's not clear to me how you can be so sure of what "Origen actually said?" In other words, how do you know Ramelli's translation is not closer to the original? (4) Then it appears you copied and pasted someone's comments on John 4:14 to justify your views. So applying your logic, that would make Halton or Heine your "high priest." Right? (5) And finally, I believe God will eventually save everyone because even if only one person spends eternity in hell (notice I didn't say "goes to hell"), then by definition, Jesus lost the cosmic struggle for our souls because He was not able to save as many as Adam destroyed. On the contrary, I believe Jesus is stronger than Satan (and certainly Adam) and therefore, all that Adam destroyed, Christ will eventually save.

It is not relevant but I started learning to speak Greek more than 6 decades ago working with Greeks, in Germany, who did not speak English. I studied both Biblical languages at the graduate level 2 decades later. I can’t believe the nonsense I am reading here. If you do not have actual copies of my sources which I clearly identified and I know you don’t, the only basis you have to challenge anything I posted is your bias. I provided a link to Ramelli. If you want to read the translation of Origen you will need to shell out about $60.00. it is still in copyright. Until you have acquired both documents don’t call me a liar or accuse me of not knowing what I am talking about.
The bulk of you post is meningless scribbling.

 

[Der Alte]

@wendykvw
The very relevant part of my previous post.

But I will document a false statement she [Ramelli] made. A error that no competent scholar, in any field should make.
"But even the aiónes will come to an end, Origen tells us: “After aiónios life a leap will take place and all will pass from the aeons to the Father, who is beyond aiónios life. For Christ is Life, but the Father, who is ‘greater than Christ,’ is greater than life” (Comm. in Io 13.3; quoted in Ramelli, p. 160).
[Link to quoted writing]Sometimes Eternity Ain’t Forever: Aiónios and the Universalist Hope"​

In this brief passage Ramelli claims that Origen said "even the aiónes will come to an end."
Here is what Origen actually said. This writing is still in copy right, no link possible

Origen Commentary On The Gospel Of John Book Thirteen[1]
(18) For, as there, [Song 2:8] the bridegroom leaps upon souls that are more noble-natured and divine, called mountains, and skips upon the inferior ones called hills, so here [Joh 4:14] the fountain that appears in the one who drinks of the water that Jesus gives leaps into eternal life.
(19) And after eternal life, perhaps it will also leap into the Father who is beyond eternal life. For Christ is life; but he who is greater than Christ is greater than life.20[2] Pg. 23​

Contrary to the assertion by UR high priestess Ilaria Ramelli and her loyal followers, here is the one and only time Origen mentions “after eternal life.”
Note the context, Origen is not talking about the fate of believers he is talking about the well of water, John 4:14. Origen is saying after the well of water springs into eternal life perhaps, not for certain, it [the well of water] springs into the Father because the Father is beyond eternal life.

(59) He [Heracleon] is not wrong, however, when he says that the water that the Savior gives is of his spirit and power.[John 4:14]
(60) And he has explained the statement, “But he shall not thirst forever,” as follows with these very words: For the life he gives is eternal and never perishes, as, indeed, does the first life which comes from the well; the life he gives remains. For the grace and the gift of our Savior is not to be taken away, nor is it consumed, nor does it perish, when one partakes of it.​

Origen most certainly does not say anywhere in this writing that "even the aiónes will come to an end" and later in the same document say "the life he [Jesus]gives is eternal...never perishes [twice]...remains... is not to be taken away, is not consumed,"

 

[wendykvw]

The bulk of you post is meningless scribbling.

Thank you for pointing out that you have no interest in my scribbling. I will save you your time and frustration.

 

[Hmm]

Thank you for pointing out that you have no interest in my scribbling. I will save you your time and frustration.

That's the kindest strategy to take in this case. Needless to say, your "scribbling" makes far more sense than all this endless copied and pasted walls of texts, despite the varied and interesting selection of fonts and colours.

 

[public hermit]

The only form of punishment that makes sense in relation to the divine is reformative, cathartic, healing punishment. It's like bad medicine but good in the end.

Retributive punishment makes no sense in relation to the divine. God lacks nothing; nothing can be taken from God. Hence, no retribution needed. God can heal, restore, redeem creation with a mere thought (a Word, even), if God so desires. There's just no need for divine retribution.

There's no need for God to use punishment as a deterrent. God knows the heart. If fear of punishment keeps us from acting, but our hearts desire the act, God knows that; and therefore, God knows our hearts are rotten and need healing.

Yes, the idea of divine punishment as an eternal act is repulsive. And, it just doesn't make sense, either.

 

[RickReads]

The only form of punishment that makes sense in relation to the divine is reformative, cathartic, healing punishment. It's like bad medicine but good in the end.

Retributive punishment makes no sense in relation to the divine. God lacks nothing; nothing can be taken from God. Hence, no retribution needed. God can heal, restore, redeem creation with a mere thought (a Word, even), if God so desires. There's just no need for divine retribution.

There's no need for God to use punishment as a deterrent. God knows the heart. If fear of punishment keeps us from acting, but our hearts desire the act, God knows that; and therefore, God knows our hearts are rotten and need healing.

Yes, the idea of divine punishment as an eternal act is repulsive. And, it just doesn't make sense, either.

If God is going to forgive us whether we accept Jesus or not why did He have to die?

 

[public hermit]

If God is going to forgive us whether we accept Jesus or not why did He have to die?

God doesn't have to do anything except be God. Creation/redemption is all a free act by God, and however God does that, the reason is in God alone. The moment we say 'Jesus had to die' we entangle God in creation, making the relationship between God and creation mutually interdependent, which is fine if your thing is process theology. Otherwise, we have a situation where God is necessitated by something other than God.

 

[RickReads]

God doesn't have to do anything except be God. Creation/redemption is all a free act by God, and however God does that, the reason is in God alone. The moment we say 'Jesus had to die' we entangle God in creation, making the relationship between God and creation mutually interdependent, which is fine if your thing is process theology. Otherwise, we have a situation where God is necessitated by something other than God.

That's evading my question on a technicality. To fulfill He had to die.