Privatio boni and hell

[Magnanimity]

Non-existence isn’t better than existence, regardless of how the particular existence turns out. Annihilation isn’t better than hell, since it would be ‘non-existence’ and a taking back of the gift of life from God.

Poor @Gorgias, always looking for a fight…
I would say that the awful persistence of 1,000,000 annual global suicides is all the evidence needed to show that “non-existence” is preferred to overwhelming suffering. Humans aren’t meant to perpetually suffer and persist in torment, and they’ll go to any lengths to remove such a state of existence from their experience. Why? Because they know they were meant for something better—they were made for happiness.

Apokatastasis was formally condemned as a teaching by the Council of Constantinople. Just sayin’…

If only. Here’s the history, according to contemporary scholarship. The emperor Justinian was opposed to the particular apokatastasis of Origen. He wrote several anathemas that he wanted the council fathers at Constantinople II to adopt—he wanted the force of an ecumenical council behind his condemnations of the particular teachings of Origen on this issue. However, as Norman Tanner notes in his introduction to Const II in his Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, “Our edition does not include the text of the anathemas against Origen since recent studies have shown that these anathemas cannot be attributed to this council,” (pp. 105-106).

 

[o_mlly]

And, as it were, completely at odds with philosophical / theological tradition. Non-existence isn’t better than existence, regardless of how the particular existence turns out. Annihilation isn’t better than hell, since it would be ‘non-existence’ and a taking back of the gift of life from God.

Matthew does not say non-existence isn’t better than existence and God does not renege is given. And to argue the purely academic would be to resurrect that phase of scholaticism most philosophers regret.

 

[Gorgias]

Poor @Gorgias, always looking for a fight…

LOL!

Nah… just always willing to discuss a point!

I would say that the awful persistence of 1,000,000 annual global suicides is all the evidence needed to show that “non-existence” is preferred to overwhelming suffering.

Only if you believe that folks who commit suicide are making a well-thought-out, rational choice. I don’t. Along with the Church, I believe that those who commit suicide are showing evidence of severe medical conditions (e.g., depression, etc), and are not acting rationally, but rather, are acting without “full knowledge and deliberate consent” of the rational will. (That is, I believe that suicide is not a slam-dunk mortal sin – which is what your comment sounds like it’s saying (at least by implication).)

as Norman Tanner notes in his introduction to Const II in his Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, “Our edition does not include the text of the anathemas against Origen since recent studies have shown that these anathemas cannot be attributed to this council,” (pp. 105-106).

I don’t have access to the Tanner compilation, so I can’t comment on your quote. (If you would be so kind as to give us details of the studies Tanner cites, from his bibliography, so that we could see what those studies are actually claiming, it would be greatly appreciated.) However, you seem to be working a bit of sleight of hand, here. Your argument is in favor of apokatastasis, as it were. The anathemas against Origin include one against that theory; so, I can see why you’d want to call into question the existence of them. However, Tanner doesn’t make the claim that the anathemas do not exist; rather, he only asserts that they cannot be attributed to Constantinople II. Important distinction, there.

So, what can we say about the anathemas? What you’re not mentioning is that, among those scholars who doubt that the anathemas were part of Constantinople II, they posit that the anathemas were part of the synod in Constantinople prior to the ecumenical council. Therefore, the council itself – which, no one disputes, actually did anathematize Origen and his teachings – seems to have ratified the anathemas which scholars assert may have been part of the lead-up to the council.

So… you’re kinda striking out, here. You’re not demonstrating that the Church did not anathematize belief in apokatastasis… you’re just quibbling about when it actually happened.

 

[Gorgias]

to argue the purely academic would be to resurrect that phase of scholaticism

“What has Jerusalem to do with Athens, the Church with the Academy?”, you mean…? I thought we got over that objection of Tertullian’s long, long ago…

 

[o_mlly]

“What has Jerusalem to do with Athens, the Church with the Academy?”, you mean…? I thought we got over that objection of Tertullian’s long, long ago…

I was thinking more along the possible number of angels on a pinhead.

 

[Magnanimity]

Only if you believe that folks who commit suicide are making a well-thought-out, rational choice.

Suicide was raised merely for the purpose of pointing out that humans are intolerant of suffering and torment. When suffering and torment feel inescapable, the last “escape” possible is sought—one’s own death.

However, Tanner doesn’t make the claim that the anathemas do not exist; rather, he only asserts that they cannot be attributed to Constantinople II . Important distinction, there.

There is plenty of historical evidence that the emperor anathematized the apokatastasis of Origen. And, we can be fairly certain that he sent his list of anathemas to the council fathers. Why they were not included within the decrees, I don’t know. From what I have read, historians are not settled on the question of why the council fathers did not include them in their decrees.

Folks love to appeal to the authority of ecumenical councils as support for their beliefs (as they should). I only wanted to point out that contemporary scholarship doesn’t support the belief that the Justinian anathemas were a part of one of the ecumenical councils of the 1st millennium. My claim doesn’t go beyond that.

So… you’re kinda striking out, here. You’re not demonstrating that the Church did not anathematize belief in apokatastasis… you’re just quibbling about when it actually happened.

I have no idea what this means. If scholars do not attribute the anathemas to the council, then they are attributable to Justinian alone, and he is not “the church.”

 

[Gorgias]

If scholars do not attribute the anathemas to the council, then they are attributable to Justinian alone, and he is not “the church.”

No – scholars do assert that they came from the synod (and they’re “the church”).

BTW … got those citations handy?

 

[Magnanimity]

No – scholars do assert that they came from the synod (and they’re “the church”).

BTW … got those citations handy?

What scholars? What are you talking about? I gave you a direct quote from a scholarly work on the councils. What citations? Between the two of us, I am the one who provided academic support for my position. As far as I know, your line above is just an unsupported assertion. I am not a scholar. So all I can do is take their word for it.

 

[Gorgias]

What scholars? What are you talking about? I gave you a direct quote from a scholarly work on the councils. What citations?

I’m repeating the request I made to you when I responded to your post in which you quoted Tanner. You said that Tanner wrote “recent studies have shown…”. Since I don’t have access to that book – and I’m assuming you do, since you quoted from it – I’m asking that you do me the favor of looking to see which ‘studies’ Tanner is referencing. I’d like to try and get a look at what they say. Of course, without access to the Tanner, I can’t see his bibliography or footnote that cites the studies. So, I’m asking if you wouldn’t mind posting the citations for those studies, if you don’t mind.

Between the two of us, I am the one who provided academic support for my position.

If you want me to cite the authors I’m referencing, who are still holding up the anathemas as legitimate, I can do that. Do you want those citations?

 

[jesusmademe]

Where in the encyclal?

 

[jesusmademe]

???what???
Please elaborate

 

[twf]

I don’t recall off hand. It’s pretty long. Perhaps use “ctrl F” for “fire” in the online version?

 

[Usagi]

Lucifer/Satan is actually an example of evil as the deprivation or corruption of an existing good thing. He’s not the personification of Evil or some kind of eternal anti-God. He’s a creature, created good like every other, who fell into evil and has since (mis)used his (good) gifts and powers to oppose God.

That’s the theory. Not that there’s no such thing as evil, but that evil is like darkness or cold — not an independent “thing” but a phenomenon caused by a relative lack of a thing (light or heat or goodness). God made what was good and creatures warped it into evil. There is no independent evil power or creation that is not somehow a twisting or abuse of a good thing.