Mortal and venial sin

Originally posted by bbarr
I have no problem with these conditions, if your analogy is apt and my refusing to worship your megalomaniacal God results merely in my eternal seperation from Him. I'm perfectly fine, in fact I would prefer, not to associate with an entity that thinks homosexuality is evil and that genocide is morally permissible. If, however, your analogy is flawed, and i ...[text shortened]... orship you is unloving, unjust, and unmerciful. In fact, it is a form of psychotic narcissism.

For this to be true, it would have to be God inflicting punishment on you post-rejection. That is not, however, the Catholic understanding of Hell. Suffering as the consequence of mortal sin does not involve God's mediation. If you cut yourself while chopping tomatoes there is no intermediate step, no intervening entity.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
For this to be true, it would have to be God inflicting punishment on you post-rejection. That is not, however, the Catholic understanding of Hell. Suffering as the consequence of mortal sin does not involve God's mediation. If you cut yourself while chopping tomatoes there is no intermediate step, no intervening entity.

I don't understand this; Catholics believe in a literal Judgment Day don't they? If so, then God is sending someone to Hell, a place of punishment He created after judging them deserving of such punishment. He is definitely an "intervening entity" on Judgment Day, isn't He?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
For this to be true, it would have to be God inflicting punishment on you post-rejection. That is not, however, the Catholic understanding of Hell. Suffering as the consequence of mortal sin does not involve God's mediation. If you cut yourself while chopping tomatoes there is no intermediate step, no intervening entity.

So, God doesn't punish people, people punish themselves?

Holy delegation Batman!

Originally posted by Acolyte
Except that some Christian sources claim we are virtually incapable of good thoughts or actions without divine assistance (which extends even to unbelievers to some extent), so those in Hell descend to humanity's natural state, which is endless hatred, rage, depression etc. From what I've read, Christianity promotes the idea that humans are fundamentally ...[text shortened]... elong to either God or the Devil, to do with as they please. All we have is a choice of master.

I find it hard to take this view seriously. If God created humanity, and humanity is essentially wicked, then God is ultimately morally responsible for our wickedness. If we are essentially wicked, then that puts severe constraints on our ability to act freely, because freely acting rightly would involve acting contrary to our essential nature. If we are not essentially wicked, then there is no reason to think that seperation from God would entail our devolution into some Hobbesian state of nature. If whatever goodness or wickedness we evidence is ultimately a function of either God or the Devil acting through us, then we are no more than puppets of their respective agency. I can't believe that any moderately intelligent Christian would endorse any of these views.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Of course, "mere separation" in this case is equal to eternal suffering. What kind of suffering, I cannot really tell. The standard metaphors used involve fire, sulfur and brimstone ...

If the God of the Bible exists, then I am currently seperate from Him, and having a grand 'ol time. I love and am loved, and this is not dependent upon the machinations of your diety. There is simply no reason to think that mere seperation from the God of the Bible involves any suffering at all.

Originally posted by bbarr
I find it hard to take this view seriously. If God created humanity, and humanity is essentially wicked, then God is ultimately morally responsible for our wickedness. If we are essentially wicked, then that puts severe constraints on our ability to act freely, because freely acting rightly would involve acting contrary to our essential nature. If we are no ...[text shortened]... y. I can't believe that any moderately intelligent Christian would endorse any of these views.

The idea that one must have free will to be held responsible is widely assumed, but I don't think it has been shown to be true. It must be something more the "common sense" because common sense tells us that false things like heavy objects can't fly and man will never go to the moon, and time and matter are constants. So aside from the "common sense" answer, or this is how everyone understand responsibility - I'd like someone to logically tie responsibility with free will.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
For this to be true, it would have to be God inflicting punishment on you post-rejection. That is not, however, the Catholic understanding of Hell. Suffering as the consequence of mortal sin does not involve God's mediation. If you ...[text shortened]... ing tomatoes there is no intermediate step, no intervening entity.

If it is something like a natural law that mortal sins lead to eternal suffering, and God is the author of natural laws, then God is ultimately responsible for inflicting eternal suffering upon those who fail to worship Him. Why would a loving, just and merciful God choose to set up the world in this way? Why not, say, set up a limbo as found in the first circle of Dante's Inferno, where those of us who prefer to live by our own lights can hang out together, talk philosophy, play chess, etc?

You may claim that it is our choice not to worship, but this choice (if it is a choice; I certainly couldn't choose to worship a creature I sincerely believe is either non-existent or morally repugnant) is made under conditions of coercion. If I put a gun to your head and said "worship me with all your heart and soul, or else I'll pull the trigger", you certainly wouldn't think that if you failed to worship me appropriately, that it would be loving or just or merciful for me to pull the trigger. You certainly wouldn't think just because the possible consequences of failing to worship me were made clear to you beforehand, that you deserved to be shot for failing to worship me appropriately.

Originally posted by chinking58
Ok, so God is not unjust to not drag someone in who doesn't want to be in with Him. We have that part settled. My analogy was meant only to make that much of a point.

No, we don't have that part settled. The question what's "outside" is essential. When I agreed that it's okay to insist on house rules, it was under the assumption that "outside" is an acceptable alternative. If it isn't, that changes the whole situation. Let's say it's icy cold outside, the person in question doesn't have any other place to go, and you know he will freeze to death if he can't come in. I have to overstretch the analogy a bit here, because it doesn't seem likely that someone would still refuse to take their shoes off to be allowed in under those circumstances, but let's say that person has a religion which forbids to take off your shoes, or his socks stink so badly that he would rather die than inflict this stench on anybody. Whatever the reason, IMNSHO it would be very cruel to insist on your house rules and let the person die. If you are so concerned about your floor, maybe you could find plastic bags which he could wear over his shoes, or you might restrict his movements to a certain area. Or you could make a deal with him that he is allowed to come in with the shoes on, but has to clean your house in return. Now you might say I am really overstretching the analogy and missing your point again, and you may be right, but I did this to make another point: There are usually more alternatives than you first think about. If humans can come up with creative solutions both parts gain from, shouldn't god have that ability?

"As far as the 'other place'...

I don't believe there exists a village of places one might choose to hang out at if not with God. I think there is either with God, or in hell."
That's exactly why your analogy doesn't work, as I tried to explain above. Another problem with the analogy is that you have little influence on what's "outside", so it's not your fault if it's uncomfortable there. God, on the other hand, can make "outside" whatever he wants it to be (or you have to let go of the idea that he is omnipotent). So why doesn't he create an alternative?

Originally posted by Coletti
The idea that one must have free will to be held responsible is widely assumed, but I don't think it has been shown to be true. It must be something more the "common sense" because common sense tells us that false things like heavy objects can't fly and man will never go to the moon, and time and matter are constants. So aside from the "common sense" ...[text shortened]... understand responsibility - I'd like someone to logically tie responsibility with free will.

Nothing in my post above presumes that we have libertarian freedom of the will, nor that moral responsibility is predicated upon such freedom. The post above is perfectly consistent with a compatibilist notion of freedom of the will.

Originally posted by Nordlys
No, we don't have that part settled. The question what's "outside" is essential. When I agreed that it's okay to insist on house rules, it was under the assumption that "outside" is an acceptable alternative. If it isn't, that chang ...[text shortened]... that he is omnipotent). So why doesn't he create an alternative?

You are not missing his point, you are showing why his point is misguided. Nice post.

Originally posted by bbarr
Nothing in my post above presumes that we have libertarian freedom of the will, nor that moral responsibility is predicated upon such freedom. The post above is perfectly consistent with a compatibilist notion of freedom of the will.

Then what are the implications of God being responsible?

Originally posted by Coletti
Then what are the implications of God being responsible?

What are the implications of your being morally responsible for your actions? Answer that question, and you will have answered this question. Unless you want to jettison the whole notion of moral responsibility (which I'm sure you do not), then apply whatever notion you actually endorse.

Originally posted by bbarr
You are not missing his point, you are showing why his point is misguided. Nice post.

Thanks. Oh, BTW, want to come over and refuse to take off your shoes, anyone? I'd really like to make that cleaning deal... 😉

Originally posted by bbarr
What are the implications of your being morally responsible for your actions? Answer that question, and you will have answered this question. Unless you want to jettison the whole notion of moral responsibility (which I'm sure you do not), then apply whatever notion you actually endorse.

Even if God is the first cause - why does that make him responsible. What is the logical tie between cause and culpability (or credit)? Eveyone assumes it, but on what basis?

Originally posted by Coletti
Even if God is the first cause - why does that make him responsible. What is the logical tie between cause and culpability (or credit)? Eveyone assumes it, but on what basis?

It makes him morally responsible in the same way you are morally responsible for your actions. If you don't think you are morally responsible for your actions, then you won't think God is morally responsible either. Employ whatever notion of moral responsibility you wish. If you think that the very notion of moral responsibility doesn't make sense (because compatibilism is true) then that's O.K. by me.