tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post5649992808363461388..comments2024-03-29T08:19:26.011-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Popes, creeds, councils, and catechisms contra universalismEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger69125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2716808350886497732020-10-15T04:13:10.738-07:002020-10-15T04:13:10.738-07:00Inquisitor Benedictus,
Yes it is decided even tho...Inquisitor Benedictus,<br /><br />Yes it is decided even though Christ didn't want it that way. Did he not understand human nature enough to make an effective mechanism for knowing truly what he taught? <br /><br />Yes double predestination is terrible it creates 2 logical problems of evil. Both oaths are not due to human choice one to separation though no fault one to spiritual rape. <br /><br />Because it raises up God in a Pagan way to not work though his creatures but have puppets. <br /><br />I don't think hell needs to be presented carefully to the young. He fire speeches are more appropriate for hardened reprobates not sensitive souls. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06371150838441461067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67252039473757920772020-10-15T04:07:06.802-07:002020-10-15T04:07:06.802-07:00Daniel,
Care to explain why you think that? Do y...Daniel,<br /><br />Care to explain why you think that? Do you fully understand the doctrine on what it takes to commit a subjectively mortal sin? <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06371150838441461067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79130956352745207952020-10-15T04:05:00.278-07:002020-10-15T04:05:00.278-07:00Filozofia,
If you choose never to eat of the only...Filozofia,<br /><br />If you choose never to eat of the only fruit that is provide you starve. Is that the fault of the man who holds it out and day take and eat? What do you call eternal starvation save torment?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06371150838441461067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-70039718821943253962020-10-15T04:02:35.454-07:002020-10-15T04:02:35.454-07:00Stardust, conclusion
Democratic command theory fa...Stardust, conclusion<br /><br />Democratic command theory fails for the same reasons as DCT plus it tries to make large amounts of subjective opinions an objective fact seems a large argument ad popularum. As well it seems circular since where the principle that what most people want is true morality came from it can't have been most people but some other authority which would be? Plus if pain is bad pleasure is good is your only standard then why not pleasent untruth?<br />Also if there is no purpose in human life our minds don't have purpose. If our mind is fully material it's no more free than any other bit of matter and so can there be any freethinkers given materialism? Further is survival calibrated your mind you can at best be 50/50 on non survival binary answer questions. Given that evolution created religion and religious longing and experiences plus phobias blindness and mental deficiencies. All in systems that are needed for survival how are you certian about anything that is non survival related. For a strict materialist it seems to me intense skepticism is what ine needs to remain in that view. Perhaps so much skepticism that science is impossible. If you can't do the preambles to science on your worldview. Must you not discard it (the worldview.) <br /><br /><br />Is democratic slavery ok?<br /><br /><br /><br />* I'm not arguing to throw out morality of Scince but to throw out a worldview that cannot support or undermines one or both. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06371150838441461067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58886392963619745202020-10-15T04:02:18.219-07:002020-10-15T04:02:18.219-07:00Stardust, continued
If you don't want to fo...Stardust, continued <br /><br />If you don't want to follow the law then your declared an outlaw outside Gods full embrace in the outer darkness where other outlaws live. Unfortunately ex humans won't be the biggest meanest things in that jungle. Outside the law (natural law/Gods love) it is only the "law of the Jungle", the war of all against all, Hell is other people/Deamons. Chaos because there is no conductor no Lord of the dance just will to power and strife. If you think Guatamalan prison sucks Hell is much worse. <br /><br />I don't think God does anything for you but grant you your hearts desire to be left alone and to not be reformed by grace. He gives you what you allowed him to by you refused to serve so He is not your sovereign Lord and protector. He is Good so he will not destroy you but sin will eat away at your bearing till you are an unman an Orc instead of an elf. He will not torture you He does not need nor want information from you. Separation from all good is worse than any other punishment so there is not need for any other punishment satisfy justice. While this may not seem bad it is way way worse then being burnt alive. So a mite to literal view served as a better deterrent than a more enlightened view. The fires of Gehena are a trash heap. If you refused to be cleansed of sin and fixed you are a broken toy that refused your final end. <br /><br />Those that choose their final end will receive justice/tempered with Christs mercy in purgatory and will probably scream as the rabbit is teared away so the man may emerge. The fully cognizant chosen orientation of your will decides your fate. <br /><br />God all powerful He can make a universe with more ease than you can make a stickman. Smarts, Brawn theses are mean less to Him he can make everyone brilliant or everyone strong with ease. A person that is a being that has the fundamental option to choose to serve the High King. He will pursue and ty to win over/back all the creatures that are made on the way (in time.) Who got cut of from zoe(spiritual life) when the 1st vine withered and the branches were cut off. By grafting those who choose unto the new vine. He has made you without your permission but he is a gentlemen and he will not save/marry you without permission. From us to God we are spiritually feminine which may be why women have an easier go of it.<br /><br />Now you may find this all hard to believe but then you think a mind (yours) calibrated in an unjust world this one knows justice accurately. Evolutionarily speaking Genhis Khan is best man ever very philogrogenative. But its almost certian your view of Justice is shaped more by Jesus than any other thinker. You afterall live in a culture still drenched in Christian thoughts. You also think there is true Justice (order) without an orderer. You treat reason which on an random evolutinary account is a tool as a master. You apeal to reason to tell people how to live but reason while parts may have helped us survive on your account is like an ants instinct to sacrifice for the colony. Once the ant realizes this why obey it? <br /><br />Man had an illusion of a lawgiver in his mind but you have slain the lawgiver why follow the rules? <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06371150838441461067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31019713429363154672020-10-15T04:01:22.665-07:002020-10-15T04:01:22.665-07:00Stardust,
Hell is not in contradiction universali...Stardust,<br /><br />Hell is not in contradiction universalism makes God a spiritual rapist. God cannot spiritually kill nor spiritually rape us and still be all good. <br /><br />Heaven is a relationship much more intimate that the degraded view we have of sex and higher even than death due us part marriage. With love her as Jesus loves his Church. You know die (turn your will) towards her daily and physically if it comes to it. <br /><br />For God to force this on us would make all the murder ever on this earth look like nothing.<br /><br />I think as a theological opinion that if it will do any good he may if He desires or in response to prayers make a last ditch effort to save people between the bridge and the water so to speak. However that effort needs co-operation. If most of us look into our hearts we don't really truly want Heaven we want to play God and make the rules.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06371150838441461067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29956102955427742362020-10-04T23:12:50.459-07:002020-10-04T23:12:50.459-07:00That God is unworthy of worship. It might as well ...That God is unworthy of worship. It might as well be the blind gibbering gods of Lovecraftian fiction. Ill pass on the worship of Moloch, thanks, lol.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13355587888748967262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43779591174300616602020-08-19T03:52:19.530-07:002020-08-19T03:52:19.530-07:00Very interesting post. For me Christian doctrine i...Very interesting post. For me Christian doctrine is just crazy: "After the resurrection of the flesh, man in the fullness of his nature, that is, in body and in soul, will be for ever happy or for ever tormented…"Filozofiahttps://filozofia.blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48064835362879342872020-08-16T10:35:08.688-07:002020-08-16T10:35:08.688-07:00Probably what will happen is the Church will conti...Probably what will happen is the Church will continue to deemphasize hell and it will take up less and less real estate in people's minds and other aspect of Catholicism will be more important and discussed. Hell won't be abandoned just tabled and if in 1000 years the teaching on hell is again viable or useful it will be put back in play. Weourohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15069104780648357256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73120340685444960902020-08-14T10:17:36.197-07:002020-08-14T10:17:36.197-07:00I wonder what universalists would think of this cl...I wonder what universalists would think of this claim: "It is not an absurd hypothesis to think of Christ's great act of atonement as having an exclusively divine side -- that is to say, Christ could have died on the Cross with the exclusive purpose of giving back to the Father all the glory which the Father had lost through man's transgression, without the human race being in any way the better for it." (Dom Anscar Vonier) IOW, consider the possibility that it's not metaphysically necessary that even one man be saved, never mind that not even one may fail to be.David McPikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04997702078077124822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4177373654467709452020-08-11T06:52:12.989-07:002020-08-11T06:52:12.989-07:00William,
”God, of course, is simple -- there is no...William,<br />”God, of course, is simple -- there is no actual division in His nature. “<br />Incoherent, but let’s continue.<br /><br />“Hence, His justice and His mercy are really one and the same, the two words are simply ways of describing two different details or instantiations of God's nature.”<br />So, god has different details or different instantiations, yet god is simple. You have contradicted yourself already; hence, your position is incoherent already.<br /><br />“ But the two points are certainly not contradictory or opposed. “<br />They certainly are contradictory; the words you just wrote contradict each other directly. You said that X has differences or different instantiations, yet X has no differences (is perfectly simple). Your statement is blatantly self-contradictory.<br /><br />“Now, because man has sin, he deserves death,”<br />Sin is god’s fault because god created everything in the universe except himself. God created sin. God created evil. Therefore god is sinful and evil.<br /><br />“ for "the wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23).”<br />Argument from authority is a logical fallacy.<br /><br /> “ Sanctifying grace is a free-gift of God, one which man does not earn but which God gives freely. “<br />Apparently not freely given for the masses god damns to hell. All men sin, yet god damns some, so god is not all merciful, god is not all loving. God created man’s nature as it is, and god created the universe as it is, with malice of perfect foreknowledge and free will and omnipotent capacity to have created otherwise. Therefore god is responsible for the suffering of the damned in hell and thus god is the most evil being in the universe.<br /><br />“Analogously, a man gives a homeless man some money. The homeless man then insults and degrades the gifter. Can it be said that, if he subsequently takes back the money, the gifter is unjust? Not at all, it was entirely a free gift in the first place.”<br />It can be said that if you are hurt by the words of a deranged incompetent you are not all wise, all loving, or all merciful, rather, petty, small, vindictive, and childish. Are you really so petty that upon hearing the rantings of a homeless man you would take your gift back? If you had a shred of serenity and charity you would wish the man peace in spite of his rantings and leave him with your charity hoping he might find some small solace from it in his obvious misery, especially if you were a trillionaire who had given the man a mere dollar, as any gift from the almighty would be in proportion.<br /><br />Your vindictive petty god hasn’t the slightest compassion by your own example.<br /><br />But god does not merely take the money back, as it were, god kicks the man in the groin, squirts lighter fluid on him, and sets him on fire. Then god keeps the man alive so he can continue to burn him over and over and over again for a trillion trillion trillion years of agonizing torture, which is only just the beginning of the torture that is to last an eternity.<br /><br />There is your loving god.<br /><br />“Man has merited hell by his sins.”<br />All sin is god’s fault, because he had perfect foreknowledge, omnipotent capability to create otherwise, free will, and created both man’s nature and the structure of the universe as it is, knowing billions of souls would suffer in agony in hell for eternity with no chance to learn or change or repent.<br /><br />“ If we then reject God, “<br />God hides himself. God sends a multitude of false images to Earth. God does almost everything one could think of to encourage disbelief. <br /><br />“His withdrawal of the free gift is not contrary to mercy, “<br />Of course it is. If your son rejects you do you write him off? Did you learn nothing from the story of the Prodigal Son? The Prodigal Son’s Father is infinitely more wise and merciful than your god who created hell.<br /><br />Dr. David Bentley Hart stated that the stance against universalism is incoherent, he is right, and you have only proved his point here.<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42307177496998659582020-08-10T21:04:34.588-07:002020-08-10T21:04:34.588-07:00@stardustypsyche
The Roman Catholic Church's ...@stardustypsyche<br /><br />The Roman Catholic Church's perspective is not contradictory; an assertion that it is, is more a reflection of ones own misunderstanding of love, mercy, and justice than it is a rebuttal to the Church's position. Allow me to explain:<br /><br />God, of course, is simple -- there is no actual division in His nature. Hence, His justice and His mercy are really one and the same, the two words are simply ways of describing two different details or instantiations of God's nature. But the two points are certainly not contradictory or opposed. What does justice mean? Justice means rendering to one what is due to them. Now, because man has sin, he deserves death, for "the wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23). Not only physical death, but likewise spiritual death; that is, the loss of sanctifying grace, the life of the soul. Sanctifying grace is a free-gift of God, one which man does not earn but which God gives freely. Thus, it is not contrary to either justice or mercy to take it way. Analogously, a man gives a homeless man some money. The homeless man then insults and degrades the gifter. Can it be said that, if he subsequently takes back the money, the gifter is unjust? Not at all, it was entirely a free gift in the first place.<br />As an extension, we must remember that a spiritual death, to an eternal spirit, is an eternal death, i.e. hell. Man has merited hell by his sins. God, in His mercy, gives us the gift of grace -- like gifting money to a homeless criminal -- to help us. If we then reject God, His withdrawal of the free gift is not contrary to mercy, for He showed mercy by simply offering it, nor is it contrary to justice, for he does not owe it to us. In fact, it is only in keeping with justice, in that we justly deserve hell and by our own free will have rejected God's mercy. This is a spiritual death, it is a "sin unto death," (1 Jn. 5:16), and, the spirit being eternal, it is an eternal death.<br /><br />God Bless! Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07344664631686490881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73063426637080683862020-08-10T17:16:16.070-07:002020-08-10T17:16:16.070-07:00Based on the material Feser presented in the last ...Based on the material Feser presented in the last couple of posts, there was a roughly 2-century gap before universalism showed up as a proposal. On what basis do you say that it was present in "the first few centuries"? If it wasn't proposed until 2 centuries after Christ, <i>on what basis</i> could one argue that it is "just as ancient" as the opposed teaching of infernalism? And on what basis could one argue that there is a <i>continuous</i> tradition from the Apostles forward to (say) Gregory of Nyssa in favor of universalism, if there is a 2-century gap? Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48460734520105032162020-08-10T06:37:05.331-07:002020-08-10T06:37:05.331-07:00I don't think the bounds of 'orthodoxy'...I don't think the bounds of 'orthodoxy' are as extensive as the Denzinger theology would imagine. Perhaps it would be comforting to have a Summa Theologiae of Catholic dogma — which is more or less the aim of Denzinger — but I don't think Christian teaching is (nor do I think Christ intended to be) so systematic and scholastic. What we have is a divine revelation handed down roughly to us in scriptures, summarised in creeds, clarified at general councils, and interpreted in theological schools. And I think what we have had too often in the Church is the scribes of the theological schools dictating their opinions to the pharisees in the ecclesiastical prelacies, in order to exclude, condemn, and persecute (even violently) those Christians who think differently about divine revelation. And what I don't think Feser takes into account is how much theological opinions can seize vast swathes of the Church for centuries, and perpetuate as dogma what is mostly a prejudice. Just think how many souls, how many baptised Christians, have grown up and lived under the shadow of Calvinism and the dark doctrine of double predestination. For hundreds of years that's the version of Christianity that many have known. Now universalism was one of the theological schools in the early Church, for the first few centuries. Perhaps it was a minority tradition (though apparently in some places it was a majority), but it was an early tradition regardless. Therefore, we shouldn't underestimate the possibility that the doctrine of eternal hell is only one tradition, one school of thought, one theological prejudice, that has seized the greatest portion of the church for the last 1500 years or so in large part due to political and sociological reasons. If that seems extraordinary, just look around and see how stupidly divided Christianity is into so many branches and sects, and how this division has risen for usually very carnal reasons of pride, power, and rivalry.Inquisitor Benedictushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00362357123181369436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89674360353643161682020-08-09T20:51:25.239-07:002020-08-09T20:51:25.239-07:00That hardly constitutes taking up the issue that t...That hardly constitutes taking up the issue that the position of Dr. Feser and of the popes quoted is logically incoherent.<br /><br />When one arrives at a self contradictory conclusion the logical thing to do is to go back and figure out where one went wrong.<br /><br />That is what Dr. Hart has done, but Dr. Feser, at least as far as anything I have read of his, refuses to do so.<br /><br />Either he has reasons that I have not read that to be opposed to universalism is somehow coherent, or he realizes his position is incoherent and simply wants to avoid the subject.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4077448969143918322020-08-09T19:09:32.385-07:002020-08-09T19:09:32.385-07:00Nema, except, they can't call and ecumenical c...Nema, except, they can't call and ecumenical council, b/c there is not "primal" authority to ratify it.<br /><br />"While the Eastern Orthodox churches are autocephalous, they share communion with one another, and so are one Church in that sense at least."<br />Except the Russian Orthodox and not in communion with the so called 'Ecumenical Patriach' becuase of a dispute over the status of the Ukranian Orthodox church, and whose right it is to declar autocephaly.Tapnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80343928964536974032020-08-09T14:35:03.470-07:002020-08-09T14:35:03.470-07:00Feser mentioned that you can believe eternal hell ...Feser mentioned that you can believe eternal hell to be incoherent or something to that effect but that you can't deny the Church has always taught it. Weourohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15069104780648357256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4723130244395335592020-08-08T20:41:19.946-07:002020-08-08T20:41:19.946-07:00Dianelos Georgoudis
When I spoke of knowledge I m...Dianelos Georgoudis<br /><br />When I spoke of knowledge I meant knowledge by way of divine revelation. It was not necessary for the sake of what I was talking about to distinguish between revealed knowledge and natural knowledge and to speak of faith and knowledge.<br /><br />For is not particularly important with respect of the distinction if one thing is about our petitionary prayerful disposition to X and the other thing is about natural knowledge of X or else if one thing is about our petitionary prayerful disposition to X and the other thing is about revealed knowledge of X.<br /><br />The point is that the acceptable interpretation of the Balthazar view is holding that we should in petition and prayer etc dispose ourselves such that we earnestly hope that every single man we consider is saved. We should not reserve our desire with respect of the salvation of others.<br /><br />The other, universalism, is saying that we know in some way, either because God has told us or by way of natural reason or some combination of these, that God will in fact save all men and no one shall be damned. This is very different from the former view.<br /><br />this distinction strictly speaking does not require much of an excursus into knowledge except the basic acceptance which any Catholic is going to hold that we can know that stuff is of such and such a character and we can know in some respect things like "Jesus Christ descended into hell" because God has revealed it to us. This second category of knowledge is not merely dispositional. We do not merely sincerely desire that Christ descended into hell. And if one thinks that this is all that's going on, then you've already rejected Revelation altogether and we had a much larger problem then the distinction between Balthazar and universalism.iwpoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17751879308012191778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7330614628280745152020-08-08T20:31:46.614-07:002020-08-08T20:31:46.614-07:00Her spiritual advice is not binding and other sain...Her spiritual advice is not binding and other saints obviously are not "grossed out" meditating on hell and the last things. Indeed, Teresa of Avila famously meditates on hell in a vision written down in her own autobiography and distributed for general reflection, in which case I don't even really believe you and your account of her nevertheless your general spiritual advice. I mean we can't mention of Christ in the apostles mention it? Get out of here.<br /><br />As far as I can tell you have a personal problem.iwpoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17751879308012191778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26323505915134527952020-08-08T17:17:31.782-07:002020-08-08T17:17:31.782-07:00Atno, I don't see any reason to hold out hope ...Atno, I don't see any reason to hold out hope in Dr. Coyle's hypothesis. The idea seems to be to generate a split between the "I" who is saved and eventually in heaven, and the "I" who is damned to hell. If it even means anything at all, that is. But I think it fails on one of two difficulties, (or both). First, even if there is such bifurcated "I"s who can be discerned, the theory just posits that Christ saved only one and not the other. It is irrelevant that the idea was structured <i>in order to explain</i> that everyone is saved AT THE EXPENSE of a one - the one in slavery to sin and death - who is to be eternally consumed in self-immolating death: THAT one will not be saved. Thus denying universalism. <br /><br />The other is of course that <b>the person cannot be bifurcated in that way</b>. The subject of sin and the subject of grace are the same underlying substrate, a subsistence of a rational nature. Christ saves us sinners by meriting for us grace, so that we become (like Adam had been before sin) the receptacles of and participants in God's own life. Mortal sin does not inhabit such a soul, and when a person commits a mortal sin, such grace does not inhabit such a soul. The subject of sin and of grace is the same underlying unity, the person. <br /><br />Maybe I didn't half understand Coyle, but that's what I took away from the very cursory explanation of the idea. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53325282463812669752020-08-08T17:07:14.937-07:002020-08-08T17:07:14.937-07:00Atno, I don't see any reason to hold out hope ...Atno, I don't see any reason to hold out hope in Dr. Coyle's hypothesis. The idea seems to be to generate a split between the "I" who is saved and eventually in heaven, and the "I" who is damned to hell. If it even means anything at all, that is. But I think it fails on one of two difficulties, (or both). First, even if there is such bifurcated "I"s who can be discerned, the theory just posits that Christ saved only one and not the other. It is irrelevant that the idea was structured <i>in order to explain</i> that everyone is saved AT THE EXPENSE of a one - the one in slavery to sin and death - who is to be eternally consumed in self-immolating death: THAT one will not be saved. Thus denying universalism. <br /><br />The other is of course that <b>the person cannot be bifurcated in that way</b>. The subject of sin and the subject of grace are the same underlying substrate, a subsistence of a rational nature. Christ saves us sinners by meriting for us grace, so that we become (like Adam had been before sin) the receptacles of and participants in God's own life. Mortal sin does not inhabit such a soul, and when a person commits a mortal sin, such grace does not inhabit such a soul. The subject of sin and of grace is the same underlying unity, the person. <br /><br />Maybe I didn't half understand Coyle, but that's what I took away from the very cursory explanation of the idea. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23182014195370660842020-08-08T12:24:29.323-07:002020-08-08T12:24:29.323-07:00Tim, Dr. Feser,
Since you are both on the subject ...Tim, Dr. Feser,<br />Since you are both on the subject of logical fallacies I have yet to see either of you, and perhaps I just missed it, address a core assertion of Dr. Hart.<br /><br />The Roman Catholic doctrine of eternal damnation in hell is incoherent, that is, despite the long list of quotes from popes, despite the various bible passages cited, that doctrine is incoherent.<br /><br />In other words, to oppose universalism and hold to eternal damnation in hell is a logical contradiction with the other properties attributed to god, most especially his all loving nature exemplified by the life and resurrection of Jesus.<br /><br />Consider this set of properties attributed to god:<br />1.Onmincient, especially, god knew every detail of the universe he was going to create before he even created it.<br />2.Omnipotent, capable of creating or not creating anything in any manner of his choosing.<br />3.Free will, god acts of his own free choice.<br />4.Perfectly good, all god does is for an ultimate good.<br />5.Infinetly loving, acts with love and care for all.<br />6.Infinetly just, god has judgment that is fair, as in an eye for an eye.<br />7.Creator of all except himself, god is ontologically prior to all that exists except himself.<br /><br />Now, just supposing there really is a god with all those traits, another bit is added:<br />8.God created hell as a place of eternal damnation and torture and god created the universe with malice of forethought such that he knew vast numbers of human souls would be tortured for all eternity. <br /><br />God intended before he created anything at all that for the damned even as they suffer in agony for a googolplex years their sufferings would only just be beginning, and always their sufferings will only just be beginning, all because in the span of a comparatively infinitesimal amount of time they did not profess the Catholic Faith, and for all eternity there will be no chance to learn or change or come to Jesus for these eternally damned souls, as intended by god as he foresaw it. <br /><br />Now, god acts in free will, so he chose to create all this suffering, because he is omnipotent and therefore could have created otherwise. So god is responsible for all this evil, since he foresaw it, and freely chose to create it, and could have created otherwise. <br /><br />Thus, on his creation of hell filled with damned souls being tortured for eternity, god cannot be all good and cannot be all loving and cannot be perfectly just, and is in fact the most evil, hateful, unjust being in the universe.<br /><br /><br /><br />Clearly, the positions of the popes over the centuries have been incoherent. Dr. Feser is repeating those incoherent positions without addressing how logically self-contradictory they are given the whole of the attribute set ascribed to god.<br /><br />Fortunately, we have a scholar such as Dr. David Bentley Hart who clearly points out that the Roman Catholic conclusion is logically incoherent, and then applies his considerable language skills and biblical scholarship to show how the often cited passages that appear to mandate eternal damnation can be reconciled with the only coherent Christian position, that all shall be saved.<br /><br />Yet nobody here on these recent threads has been willing to take up the issue of the incoherence of the Roman Catholic popes. Why is that?<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36819968987000863872020-08-08T10:51:34.545-07:002020-08-08T10:51:34.545-07:00"I'd say faith can be an utterly reasonab..."I'd say faith can be an utterly reasonable belief one ultimately *chooses* to embrace by an act of sovereign will."<br /><br />I read your post a couple of times but can't tell if you're actually saying something or if you've confused yourself. Would you be willing to rephrase yourself in simpler terms? Pl0noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27213535714030738062020-08-08T08:38:29.089-07:002020-08-08T08:38:29.089-07:00What about dr. Coyle's hypothesis which I shar...What about dr. Coyle's hypothesis which I shared here?Atnohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13138424784532839636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49102034312859308792020-08-08T07:47:53.454-07:002020-08-08T07:47:53.454-07:00Raghn Crow,
While the Eastern Orthodox churches a...Raghn Crow,<br /><br />While the Eastern Orthodox churches are autocephalous, they share communion with one another, and so are one Church in that sense at least.<br /><br />I tend to agree with you that there might be a wide variety of teachings, hence the question about consensus. Even without a central authority, a consensus can be reached through spiritual fellowship and rational discourse, and Ecumencial Councils provide a venue for these. I think they would say this is the way it should be. :)Nemohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15049785243711109947noreply@blogger.com