Religious dilemma

[Liberanosamalo]

Well, you’d have to understand Judaism and religion and the sense of unity with God first.

The Jews used to pick a spotless lamb and put their sins on it (figuratively) and send it out into the desert as expiation for sin. Sin is a rupture of a relationship with God. When someone injures you, you have a ruptured relationship. They can say they’re sorry, but is that enough? Don’t you have to repair what is broken? Restore the brokenness to its original wholeness? (Like your GF is doing with her relationship with God. She suffered terribly when it was broken.)

The word atonement (at-one-ment) is what we call that.

Go slash your neighbor’s tires and tell him you’re sorry. You think I’m sorry fixes it? No. He expects the tires to be fixed too. At your expense. So here we have an example of how a right order needs to be restored by a worthy compensatory act.

If your neighbor punches you, and he sends his friend to apologize, does that fix it? No. You want to hear HIM say he’s sorry. Here we have an example of how it matters WHO does the apologizing. When a nation accidentally sinks another nation’s fishing boat, do they send out a second grader to apologize? No. The ambassador or president does the apologizing, showing how seriously sorry they are for the offense.

And it also matters who is offended. If someone punches a local tv reporter, that’s bad. But if someone walked up and punched the governor, or the Pope or someone else, the magnitude of the offense is much greater. The dignity of the person offended also has something to do with the punishment given. In the USA we can see that by how much more attention you’ll get if you threaten to hit your neighbor versus threatening to hit the president of the USA.

So in the matter of sin, the person offended is GOD. So the degree of atonement is much higher. How do you fix that? Can anybody fix it? A mere man? With his puny efforts, can he begin to right the existential wrong? No. It would take someone comparable to God Himself to balance the scales of eternal justice. And it would take an act of atonement equally comparable to the severing of the love and obedience done during Original Sin to right the wrong. So the Ultimate Act of Love and Obedience by One who is Worthy to do so is the only way to make it acceptable to the One who was offended.

God Himself had to right the wrong. By His Son accepting the punishment, the sacrifice, taking on our sins and being punished for them to restore Man’s unity with his Creator. That’s what the Crucifixion is all about. Hanging on the Cross, Christ hung in our place and begged God to forgive us. His death reopened the severed relationship between the Creator and mankind. Kind of “peace talks” as it were. Man was no longer in a state of enmity with his Creator. Christ signed the treaty with His own blood.

However, you are correct. Our sins are not an abstract. We all own our own personal misdeeds and will have to suffer for them as well. In that sense, we are called to suffer for them and unite them with the suffering of Christ in atonement for our own personal sins. But Christ is the one who gave that suffering validity and currency in the eyes of God. By His blood we were washed clean. But that does not negate our own responsibility to suffer personally. No, we’re not off the hook.

But for justice to matter, you’d have to actually see sin for what it really is… how wrong and hideous it is, and what an affront to the design of God and His own Truth, Goodness and Beauty sin is. Because every sin lacks Truth, Goodness and Beauty to a greater or lesser extent. And insofar as any deed lacks those things, it is evil and divides us from God.

Think in your own life how this would be. You set up a company. You hire someone. Because of you he has a job, security and prosperity. Then he betrays you. He begins stealing from your company. You as the boss have a right to kick him out the door. An injustice has been done to you after everything you have given him. This is a very small microcosm of the affront to God. But in this we can see a little of how bad our offenses are against God, to whom we owe so much more.

So maybe you can understand objectively the injustice involved in sin. And the fact that until the injustice is repaired there can be no worthy relationship. Would you rehire that guy the next day and pretend he didn’t steal? Doesn’t he have to “fix” things before you could ever consider him to be an employee again?

Think about it…

 

[ContegoFides]

I will say that you are right, I do not believe in souls. However, unless Jesus lost his soul by dying on the cross, this is irrelevant. And even if he did lose his soul, he presumably regained it three days later, so I am not sure what this would mean. PS: I would not say that not believing in souls automatically results in viewing people as machines. Also, what functions are performed by souls if consciousness and personal identity are not?

Actual loss is not what is relevant, what is relevant is the intent. It is the giving of self that makes a sacrifice meritorious. Where the giving of self is total, the meritorious act is greatest.

If you believe people do not have souls then it is inevitable that you must believe that people are machines; your assertion to the contrary is not correct. If people do not have souls, then they are nothing more than the agglomeration of their parts and experiences. Thus, people are defined as a machine is defined; in terms of function and experience. If people have no souls, then when they die their existence is completely extinguished, just as a machine’s existence is extinguished when it is destroyed.

Let’s put it in the positive: Prove that people are not machines if they do not have souls. Prove that, absent self interest, there is a reason to treat others with respect.

Finally, your question regarding the function of souls again proceeds from the assumption that people can ultimately be defined in their essence. A soul is not defined in terms of function, a soul simply is. Similarly, God simply is - that is why He chose the name “I AM” when Moses asked Him His name.

That is why we are all immortal. While our physical bodies are material, existing in time and space, our souls simply are and exist independently of time and space.

It does change the nature of the sacrifice, because Jill didn’t lose her life. You are trying to separate the element of consequences or loss from the concept of sacrifice . To say that sacrifice is simply intending to lose something, and acting to lose something, is the same as saying murder is the same as attempted murder. But it is clearly not the same. The actual consequences of your intentions and actions matters in both cases. Of course, I would not say that Jill didn’t do something admirable or that she didn’t sacrifice anything at all.

Actuall loss does not change the subjective nature of the sacrifice, which is the standard by which we guage the qualitative merit of a sacrifice. The nature and meritorious quality of sacrifice is guaged by intent and the qualitative measure of what one has truly offered up - regardless of outcome. Again, you are trapped in a world where everything must be measured quantitatively.

For example, your statement that murder is the same as attempted murder is correct, which ironically you seem to think is incorrect. The two are the same in terms of subjective guilt of the perpetrator. That is why Jesus teaches us that looking at a woman with lust makes you just as guilty of adultery as if you had actually committed physical adultery. Likewise, anger with the intent to kill produces the same degree of moral guilt whether you actually killed or not.

In fact, in many jurisdictions, the essential punishment for attempted murder is the same as murder itself.

You seem to be missing the point. I didn’t say that it isn’t a sacrifice for Jesus to incarnate himself in a human body. I said that you couldn’t say this is a sacrifice while simultaneously saying it is a sacrifice for Jesus to leave this incarnation. That would be like the wizard returning to his human body, and complaining that it was a sacrifice for him to do so.

It is a sacrifice for Jesus to leave his body for two reasons 1) He is both fully divine and fully human. In his full humanity, he experienced death just as we do; and accordingly offered up exactly what we would. 2) The wizard could return to his human body and complain that doing so was a sacrifice if the circumstances of the return were painful or difficult, as it was in the case of Jesus.

Well, I did not actually claim that Jesus didn’t sacrifice anything in this scenario. I am happy to give you that the torture in and of itself can be seen as a sacrifice. Even so, I do not see that there is a point to this sacrifice. Of course, I do understand it literally, but I don’t think it makes much sense.

There are at least three major points to the sacrifice. First, it fulfills the demand for justice for our sins. From the time of original sin, we have committed offenses against God by breaking His laws. God is infinite and unchanging, and anything that is at variance with God offends Him and separates us from Him. While everyone likes to focus on the fact that God is infinitely good and loving, He is also infinitely just. The punishment for sin is eternal separation from God. However, God loves us so much, His solution to the problem is to assume human form and take the punishment for us; thereby satisfying justice.

Second, the sacrifice shows us how much He loves. We learn something about the nature of God. We move from a more vengeful, justice oriented understanding of God revealed in the old testament to a more accurate, loving understading of God in the new testament. The justice is still there; however, now we can understand not only that He loves, but we get a dim notion of how much He loves.

Third, God wants us to understand that true love, one in which the beloved is put ahead of the lover, requires sacrifice. We cannot understand love without experiencing sacrifice.

 

[ContegoFides]

…To punish somebody else (his own son) sounds like a miscarriage of justice. It seems like you (not you specifically) see our wrongdoings as an abstract or supernatural set that is separable from ourselves (thereby enabling someone else to deal with them), and that the punishment of Jesus in some way negates the set. I don’t see the sense in this strange abstraction of justice-related concepts

The key here is to realize that it is God who is wronged. Sin is not just some failing that attaches to us, it is an offense to a person - God. Just as you are in a position to forgive someone who has offended you, God is in a position to forgive our offenses against Him.

Look at it this way; say I owe you $5. I ask you to forgive the debt. Out of charity, you agree. Whereas it could be said that the $5 debt was “attached to me,” once you have forgiven it the $5 debt is gone. It is no longer attached to me, even though it was you that had to make the decision to forgive the debt.

I think the trouble with abstraction you are having is that there is a required relationship between the debt holder and the debtor. The debt doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

As for punishing someone else, there is no miscarriage of justice because Jesus voluntarily accepted the punishment. He didn’t have to; he wasn’t forced. Additionally remember that Jesus is fully divine as well as fully human. For this reason, He is also the owner of our debt (we offended Him) and accordingly he is in a position to handle that debt in a manner He sees fit.

 

[newbetx]

For those who have read some of my previous threads, you might remember that my fiancée has had issues with her faith. She lost her faith some time into our relationship, and didn’t take it well. She has since returned to the faith, but I think her faith is still somewhat unstable. My dilemma is this:

Should I shut up (risking issues further down the line), or should I voice my newfound concerns now? Based on non-catholic advice and my own thinking (I don’t really know any Catholics besides my fiancée), I am leaning towards keeping my mouth shut and just see how it plays out. Would you, as a Catholic, see my concerns as important, or would it not matter that much?

I wanted to go back to the original post for a minute.

If you are saying you won’t say anything because of your agreement to compromise on the subject and risk offending your future bride, why bring it here? Sounds like you talk about this behind her back with your friends.

If you are saying that you doubt that you will be able to maintain your sanity living with this stuff, then not saying anything means you are living a lie. I say, no. You really do need to discuss this with your future bride. Letting it slide will hurt down the line. The longer it builds up, the worse it gets. Take it from an old married man that knows this well.

Marriage is tough enough, but a mixed marriage can be nearly inhumane. I’m afraid that you may be missing some tools you need to go forward here.

This is far different from “Does this dress make me look fat?” Your value structure is at odds with hers. In the future, will you again attack her faith with persuasion and confidence?
What about the kids? Mommy, why doesn’t Daddy go to church with us? Daddy, why don’t you believe in God? Can you honestly say it’s OK for your children to be brought up in the faith?

 

[ContegoFides]

Marriage is tough enough, but a mixed marriage can be nearly inhumane. I’m afraid that you may be missing some tools you need to go forward here.

Agreed. In a time of darkness I married an anti-Catholic, unbaptized woman. My marriage has been a tremendous cross ever since - and it has been no picnic for her either.

Only a fool goes into a mixed-religion marriage thinking things will be all hunkey-dorey; I know, I was a fool.

Besides, what IS marriage to you? To her? Do you think it’s to get legal benefits and lots of nookie (friend with benefits)? If you believe that, then you have another thing coming.

 

[joandarc2008]

Agreed. In a time of darkness I married an anti-Catholic, unbaptized woman. My marriage has been a tremendous cross ever since - and it has been no picnic for her either.

Only a fool goes into a mixed-religion marriage thinking things will be all hunkey-dorey; I know, I was a fool.

Besides, what IS marriage to you? To her? Do you think it’s to get legal benefits and lots of nookie (friend with benefits)? If you believe that, then you have another thing coming.

I have a very dear friend of mine in a situation like yours. Recently she felt that calling to go into lay ministry. He would not even sign the form giving permission for her to do that nor can she get her marriage convalidated. So there she is two kids, a husband, no Eucharist, no ministry.

 

[newbetx]

one of the reasons pre-marital sex is a bad thing is that it helps us pick wrong mates for the wrong reasons. My first marriage was definitely more about great sex than anything else. It didn’t take too long before sex wasn’t so great anymore especially in the light of all of the other issues.

This is why it’s recommended that the couple abstain and move out if they are living together prior to the wedding. It allows for a “clearer head” to observe some of the issues earlier in the relationship.

The sooner these “marriage killers” are discovered the sooner they can be addressed.

 

[Persuader]

Think in your own life how this would be. You set up a company. You hire someone. Because of you he has a job, security and prosperity. Then he betrays you. He begins stealing from your company. You as the boss have a right to kick him out the door. An injustice has been done to you after everything you have given him. This is a very small microcosm of the affront to God. But in this we can see a little of how bad our offenses are against God, to whom we owe so much more.

Think about it…

Look, I do not mean this in a demeaning way, but I already understand this. I don’t think my questions can be answered in the way you are attempting. Let me explain why, and give you some other questions. If I hit someone, I could pay any financial injury the victim sustained by my actions. Apart from that, I could apologize and go to jail (which would be a punishment). I suppose you could see me going to jail as a compensation in the sense that the victims psychological need for revenge might be satisfied. There are other reasons for me going to jail, but these reasons are not about retribution or revenge - they are about protecting the public from offenders etc. God hardly needs to be protected from us, so those reasons would not be relevant. What is left, is retributive justice. So, I have some general questions:

1. do all the sins of every human tally up to an abstract set that is somehow compensated by Jesus’ suffering on the cross?
2. does God have a psychological need for revenge (just like the human victim that wants the offender in jail to satisfy his own psychological needs)?
3. if God does not have this psychological need, what is the point of this kind of retributive punishment?
4. why doesn’t God follow the example of his own son, and turn the other cheek?

ContegoFides:

Let’s put it in the positive: Prove that people are not machines if they do not have souls. Prove that, absent self interest, there is a reason to treat others with respect.

I think we might be getting a bit off base here, but I will answer your claim about souls since the understanding of souls might have something to do with the catholic view of sacrifice.

So a computer is a machine. The definition of a machine is not as clear, so let’s show that souls doesn’t necessarily have to exist to make a human a non-computer. A computer is a symbol-processing machine (fact). The human mind exhibits semantic qualities (fact). It is not clear whether or not a symbol-processing machine (SPM) can ground semantics. If it cannot, the human mind is not reducible to a SPM and is not a computer-machine. You can claim that the irreducibility of the mind is thanks to the soul, but that is just a claim, and not the only possible reason. Whatever it is that makes it irreducible, has to perform the function of grounding the mind in semantics.

ContegoFides:

Finally, your question regarding the function of souls again proceeds from the assumption that people can ultimately be defined in their essence. A soul is not defined in terms of function, a soul simply is. Similarly, God simply is - that is why He chose the name “I AM” when Moses asked Him His name.”

Certainly, you wouldn’t say God is not performing a function. If he is listening and responding to prayers (for instance), he is performing a function. Maybe you could explain to me what a soul is, if it is not doing anything.

ContegoFides:

For example, your statement that murder is the same as attempted murder is correct, which ironically you seem to think is incorrect. The two are the same in terms of subjective guilt of the perpetrator. That is why Jesus teaches us that looking at a woman with lust makes you just as guilty of adultery as if you had actually committed physical adultery. Likewise, anger with the intent to kill produces the same degree of moral guilt whether you actually killed or not.

I see. So if we have a world where every offender intended to do wrong, but never succeeded, this world would be identical in terms of moral guilt. As an example, Hitler could try to start world war 2, but wouldn’t succeed. However, Hitlers moral guilt would be identical, right? I am assuming you are not speaking only of the feeling of moral guilt. Surely, you would not say that someone does not feel additional guilt by actually succeeding in killing someone?

To relate this to sacrifice, we can have two sets of soldiers in a war. Set A would consist of soldiers losing their lives to save another human being, and set B would consist of soldiers with the same intentions and actions to do so, but as it happens they didn’t lose their lives. According to this logic of sacrifice, both A and B sacrificed equally. I don’t see the sense in this.

ContegoFides:

As for punishing someone else, there is no miscarriage of justice because Jesus voluntarily accepted the punishment. He didn’t have to; he wasn’t forced. Additionally remember that Jesus is fully divine as well as fully human. For this reason, He is also the owner of our debt (we offended Him) and accordingly he is in a position to handle that debt in a manner He sees fit.

Whether or not it is voluntary doesn’t matter, it would still be a miscarriage of justice (the definition of the term does not discriminate based on voluntarism). It is true that Jesus is the victim. Problem is, I do not see how the victim punishing himself serves any purpose. It is like I said - there seems to be some kind of abstraction of retribution that is just incomprehensible.

 

[Persuader]

I wanted to go back to the original post for a minute.

If you are saying you won’t say anything because of your agreement to compromise on the subject and risk offending your future bride, why bring it here? Sounds like you talk about this behind her back with your friends.

If you are saying that you doubt that you will be able to maintain your sanity living with this stuff, then not saying anything means you are living a lie. I say, no. You really do need to discuss this with your future bride.

I am reluctant to say anything because I don’t want to upset her unnecessarily. I am not talking about this behind her back with my friends. I have no catholic friends to speak to. I am speaking about this online because this is a way for me to speak to catholics about faith-issues. Not very complicated.

She knows how I think about faith in general. This is not a secret. What I have not talked to her about, is what I think of the theology. My agnosticism/atheism has a philosophical basis, not a theological one. The issue is whether or not I should speak to her about my newfound impressions of catholic theology. This is what I am conflicted about.

It is impossible to predict the future, but as it stands, I have said that I am willing to let the faith-stuff be. So, naturally I don’t think I will lose my mind over this. It might be a source of some irritation in the long run, but it is my experience that you will find something that irritates you in everyone you get to know.

 

[ContegoFides]

1. do all the sins of every human tally up to an abstract set that is somehow compensated by Jesus’ suffering on the cross?

1. does God have a psychological need for revenge (just like the human victim that wants the offender in jail to satisfy his own psychological needs)?

1. if God does not have this psychological need, what is the point of this kind of retributive punishment?

1. why doesn’t God follow the example of his own son, and turn the other cheek?

1. Sin is personal, though it affects everyone. You could consider all sins to be a set, but the members of the set are discrete to each person. Jesus’ suffering, death, and resurrection pays the price for all sins in the set - but only if a sinner cooperates with that grace because God gives us the dignity of the power to choose for or against him. So, in a sense an asbtract set is “compensated” by Jesus’ suffering and death, but there is no “sum total.”
2. No. Revenge is not about justice, but is about responding in anger. That being said, God is infinitely just and thus will exact justice for all wrongs according to His wisdom.
3. Punishment is not necessarily about revenge. In classical human jurisprudence, there are several reasons to punish: 1) Rehabilitation (rehabilitate the offender), 2) Specific Deterrence (i.e., stop the individual from committing a crime), 3) General Deterrence (scare others to not commit the same crime), 4) Restoration (make the victim whole, restore balance, or otherwise compensate for the wrong done), and 5) Retribution (exact revenge to give victims a place for their venting anger without engaging in vigilantism).

In the eternal sense, God uses 1, 3, and 4, but not 2 or 5. After death, 2 is pointless and 5 is not in God’s nature. 1 is expressed in purgatory, 3 is expressed in scaring us to life, and 4 relates to the concept of divine justice I have been talking about.

1. You are judging God by a human standard, and additionally don’t fully appreciate what turn the other cheak means. First, God is the author of life and is infinitely wise, loving, and just, and thus has full control and rights over when and how punishment is applied. Part of “turn the other cheek” is for US not to fall into anger, not necessarily a truth that applies to God in all circumstances.

Additionally, “turn the other cheek” does not necessarily mean to simply let someone hit you again. It is a show of righteous courage, to present your cheek to another who has wronged you and say, “Oh yeah? I’m still right! Go ahead and hit me again to further prove my point.”

 

[newbetx]

B**ased on non-catholic advice and my own thinking **(I don’t really know any Catholics besides my fiancée), I am leaning towards keeping my mouth shut and just see how it plays out.

I am reluctant to say anything because I don’t want to upset her unnecessarily. I am not talking about this behind her back with my friends. .

This is where I came up with the idea you were “talking behind her back.” Sorry on two accounts. I didn’t mean it in a derogatory way and I didn’t know what “non-Catholic” advice was but it worried me.

I am reluctant to say anything because I don’t want to upset her unnecessarily. I am not talking about this behind her back with my friends. I have no catholic friends to speak to. I am speaking about this online because this is a way for me to speak to catholics about faith-issues. Not very complicated.

She knows how I think about faith in general. This is not a secret. What I have not talked to her about, is what I think of the theology. My agnosticism/atheism has a philosophical basis, not a theological one. The issue is whether or not I should speak to her about my newfound impressions of catholic theology. This is what I am conflicted about.

It is impossible to predict the future, but as it stands, I have said that I am willing to let the faith-stuff be. So, naturally I don’t think I will lose my mind over this. It might be a source of some irritation in the long run, but it is my experience that you will find something that irritates you in everyone you get to know.

I will always welcome your questions. As someone, as I’ve said before, that understands where you are coming from and have been down that road before, I just don’t want your lives messed up because of underestimation of what lies in front of you. Trust me. I didn’t know what I was doing then but I sure did think I did. You need to ask more questions about marriage to help yourself and her. We’ll answer.

The biggest fear of course is what she may think. She may think she can change you if you don’t persist in protest. That would be a costly mistake, no?

 

[ContegoFides]

So a computer is a machine. The definition of a machine is not as clear, so let’s show that souls doesn’t necessarily have to exist to make a human a non-computer…

Even if correct, your logic fails to prove the point because a non-computer can still be a machine. Your premise is to show that the possible non-existence of souls is compatible with a human non-computer. A human non-computer may still be a machine.

I assert that a machine may be defined as: An agglomeration of physically defined parts that have one or more functions, wherein the functions of the agglomeration of parts may be affected by prior use.

Challenge the definition if you like, but I maintain that if you believe that people don’t have souls then the inescapable logical conclusion is that people are machines - with all the resulting horrors that world view will entail (and did entail as shown in the 19th and 20th century notions of communism and nazism).

Note, I have not yet claimed to prove the soul (though I can do that ontologically speaking). All I’m doing is asserting that your world view results in viewing people as machines - with all that philosophy entails.

Certainly, you wouldn’t say God is not performing a function. If he is listening and responding to prayers (for instance), he is performing a function. Maybe you could explain to me what a soul is, if it is not doing anything.

God may perform functions, but the problem remains that you are hung up on the notion that a thing may be defined by the sum of its functions. Your very question can be paraphrased “what is a soul if it is not doing anything” shows that you just can’t let go of that preconceived notion.

In His nature, God simply is. He defines reality. God made us (our souls) in His image. Thus, we, too simply are - an essence that needs no function in order to be considered to exist.

Try reading this non-religious treatise for different ideas of the soul: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul

Traditional Catholic understanding of the soul is that it is the form of the body. In the view of Acquinas, what that means is that the soul is the ineffable spark that gives life to the component parts of the body. Stated still differently, our souls give our body form - not the other way around.

I see. So if we have a world where every offender intended to do wrong, but never succeeded, this world would be identical in terms of moral guilt. As an example, Hitler could try to start world war 2, but wouldn’t succeed. However, Hitlers moral guilt would be identical, right?..

To relate this to sacrifice, we can have two sets of soldiers in a war. Set A would consist of soldiers losing their lives to save another human being, and set B would consist of soldiers with the same intentions and actions to do so, but as it happens they didn’t lose their lives. According to this logic of sacrifice, both A and B sacrificed equally. I don’t see the sense in this.

On level correct, another confused. The confusion stems from not seeing the difference between subjective and objective. Subjective relates to the mind of the person. Objective is what others can observe and determine. We make these distinctions all the time in criminal law, where subjective intent makes a huge difference as to the culpability for the same act.

In your example, Hitler’s subjective guilt would be exactly the same in both cases. Objectively, they would not be the same.

However, what is important to your relationship with God is not your *objective * guilt or innocence, but rather your *subjective *guilt or innocence.

Turning to your soldier example, subjectively both groups of soldiers have earned the same merit becaue both offered up their entire lives. Group A had to acually pay the price, group B did not. Objectively they are not the same, because B did not die.

However, what matters to God when you face judgement is not how much you succeeded or what you did - but why you did it and why you selected the method for doing it. The subjective merit is what counts.

We see this again in Jesus’ parable of the talents. The master informs the lazy servant that it would have been better for him had he invested and lost the money given to him, rather than burying and returning it. Success or deeds are not the measure of the man before God, but rather his intent and his heart.

The reason why you cannot make sense of this difference is because you define the entire world around you in terms of function and quantitative measurement. In such a philosophy, intent is irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ContegoFides
As for punishing someone else, there is no miscarriage of justice because Jesus voluntarily accepted the punishment. He didn’t have to; he wasn’t forced. Additionally remember that Jesus is fully divine as well as fully human. For this reason, He is also the owner of our debt (we offended Him) and accordingly he is in a position to handle that debt in a manner He sees fit.

Whether or not it is voluntary doesn’t matter, it would still be a miscarriage of justice (the definition of the term does not discriminate based on voluntarism). It is true that Jesus is the victim. Problem is, I do not see how the victim punishing himself serves any purpose…

I included my original quote in this because you addressed only my point A without addressing point B. You cannot separate A from B and claim to have addressed my argument. Jesus, being fully God, held our debt - he is much more than the victim. Thus, he was in the position to forgive it or do what he liked with it. Being also infinitely just, he chose to satisfy justice by accepting the punishment onto himself as a blameless and infinite sacrifice. Thus, there is no miscarraige of justice, but rather the fulfillment of justice.

 

[Liberanosamalo]

1. Sin is personal, though it affects everyone. You could consider all sins to be a set, but the members of the set are discrete to each person. Jesus’ suffering, death, and resurrection pays the price for all sins in the set - but only if a sinner cooperates with that grace because God gives us the dignity of the power to choose for or against him. So, in a sense an asbtract set is “compensated” by Jesus’ suffering and death, but there is no “sum total.”
2. No. Revenge is not about justice, but is about responding in anger. That being said, God is infinitely just and thus will exact justice for all wrongs according to His wisdom.
3. Punishment is not necessarily about revenge. In classical human jurisprudence, there are several reasons to punish: 1) Rehabilitation (rehabilitate the offender), 2) Specific Deterrence (i.e., stop the individual from committing a crime), 3) General Deterrence (scare others to not commit the same crime), 4) Restoration (make the victim whole, restore balance, or otherwise compensate for the wrong done), and 5) Retribution (exact revenge to give victims a place for their venting anger without engaging in vigilantism).

In the eternal sense, God uses 1, 3, and 4, but not 2 or 5. After death, 2 is pointless and 5 is not in God’s nature. 1 is expressed in purgatory, 3 is expressed in scaring us to life, and 4 relates to the concept of divine justice I have been talking about.

1. You are judging God by a human standard, and additionally don’t fully appreciate what turn the other cheak means. First, God is the author of life and is infinitely wise, loving, and just, and thus has full control and rights over when and how punishment is applied. Part of “turn the other cheek” is for US not to fall into anger, not necessarily a truth that applies to God in all circumstances.

Additionally, “turn the other cheek” does not necessarily mean to simply let someone hit you again. It is a show of righteous courage, to present your cheek to another who has wronged you and say, “Oh yeah? I’m still right! Go ahead and hit me again to further prove my point.”

Perfect. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

 

[ContegoFides]

She knows how I think about faith in general. This is not a secret. What I have not talked to her about, is what I think of the theology. My agnosticism/atheism has a philosophical basis, not a theological one. The issue is whether or not I should speak to her about my newfound impressions of catholic theology. This is what I am conflicted about.

You and your GF will end up being misreable if you do not see eye to eye on faith issues. Trust me. In a time of darkness I married an unbaptized anti-Catholic woman, and now there is great conflict between us even though at the time of marriage everything seemed hunkey dorey.

You may not agree with me, you may argue with me, and you may be irritated at me - but please know I have your best interest in mind when I give you this advice. Unless you can resolve your faith issues with your GF you will be in for real trouble and misery.

IMHO, the best resolution is to recognize that the Catholic Church holds the fullness of Truth. I am prepared to defend this assertion.

If your agnosticism/atheism has a philosophical basis, then that is where the focus of the discussion should be. Everything else will fall into place if you address the core of the issue.

So, what is your basis for not recognizing the existence of God?

In the meantime, I can provide a very brief ontological proof of God’s existence. There are many proofs, but this one just happens to be my favorite. It is the proof of first cause combined with Pascal’s Wager.

You sound like you might be familiar with these terms. So, I will keep them real short here just for summary.

The proof of first cause stems from our natural observation that all things have a cause. We can trace all causes back to the Big Bang. However, even Stephen Hawking wonders “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?” In other words, what caused the Big Bang?

Objectively, I don’t know, you don’t know; no one knows.

You could assert that it is a natural phenomenon. I could assert that it is God. From a pure logic perspective, without more, both statements are matters of unproven faith.

However, when considered ontologically in conjunction with other observations it makes more sense to say that there is a God. See the orderliness of the universe and the incredible complexity of even individual cells, especially the orderliness oriented towards an overall goal not knowable by the individual cells. The only time we see such industrial complexity is in our own intelligent designs. Occom’s Razor suggests that the simplest explanation for an effect is the most likely answer to the cause. Thus, it is reasonable, if not scientifically provable, that an intelligence caused the Big Bang.

But we can know more. Ontologically speaking the first cause must, itself, have no cause. If not, then you have an infinite chain of causation which is meaningless - because an infinite chain of causation has no cause itself. If the first cause has no cause itself, then the first cause must exist in and of itself independent of the universe and outside of the universe.

Therefore, it is reasonable to assert that an intelligence that exists in and of itself, out of time, was the cause of the Big Bang. For the sake of argument, call this intelligence God.

So, what else do we know about God? God is powerful relative to us. 150 billion galaxies is a lot. Our own complexity, even if arrived at randomly, is possible in this universe - and that is itself power.

But we know much more. Jesus claimed to be God, the same God that created everything. Jesus was one of a liar, a lunatic, or God. I am sure that you will assert either liar or lunatic, but I will leave that debate for another time and rather assert (for now without proof) that he could be neither liar nor lunatic.

If Jesus is God, then we may rely on all He says and teaches. Jesus instituted the Church and gave her His authority. Thus, the Catholic Church professes the fullness of Truth.

Many will attack this assertion by trying to show that science is incompatible with God. As a physcist, I can safely say that everyone - even Stephen Hawking - who has tried has failed.

Not persuaded? Then here’s the kicker. Pascal’s wager is to assume without preconception 4 possibilities 1) belief in God and there is a God, 2) no belief in God and there is a God, 3) belief in God and there is no God, and 4) no belief in God and there is no God. (It is in all 4 cases assumed that God is the Christian notion of God, including an afterlife of either Heaven or Hell.)

In case 1 you may receive infinite reward. In case 2 you suffer infinite loss. In case 3 you lose and receive nothing. In case 4 you lose and receive nothing. For 3, in this life you may lose some pleasure or get ridiculed by having to obey silly rules, but such loss is by definition finite - whereas the potential reward is infinite. When comparing limited reward (4) to infinite risk (2) and infinite reward (1) it is not reasonable to risk 4. On the flipside, limited loss (3) is worth the potential reward (1)/ risk (2).

Therefore, your safe bet is to go with option 1 - belief in the Christian God. Such belief is reasonable for the reasons given above.

Naturally, this treatment is hardly complete or bullet proof, but it gets you started.

 

[Persuader]

1. Sin is personal, though it affects everyone. You could consider all sins to be a set, but the members of the set are discrete to each person. Jesus’ suffering, death, and resurrection pays the price for all sins in the set - but only if a sinner cooperates with that grace because God gives us the dignity of the power to choose for or against him. So, in a sense an asbtract set is “compensated” by Jesus’ suffering and death, but there is no “sum total.”
2. No. Revenge is not about justice, but is about responding in anger. That being said, God is infinitely just and thus will exact justice for all wrongs according to His wisdom.
3. Punishment is not necessarily about revenge. In classical human jurisprudence, there are several reasons to punish: 1) Rehabilitation (rehabilitate the offender), 2) Specific Deterrence (i.e., stop the individual from committing a crime), 3) General Deterrence (scare others to not commit the same crime), 4) Restoration (make the victim whole, restore balance, or otherwise compensate for the wrong done), and 5) Retribution (exact revenge to give victims a place for their venting anger without engaging in vigilantism).

In the eternal sense, God uses 1, 3, and 4, but not 2 or 5. After death, 2 is pointless and 5 is not in God’s nature. 1 is expressed in purgatory, 3 is expressed in scaring us to life, and 4 relates to the concept of divine justice I have been talking about.

Good, so now we are getting somewhere.

1)This is fine.
2) Right, so retributive justice is (according to you) not the reason for punishment in this case.
3) I agree with everything you said about reasons for punishment. You listed all the reasons, and that is fine. You further said that God uses 1, 3 and 4, so let’s use those on the sacrifice of Jesus. We should be able to say that God sacrifices Jesus on the cross to:

(a) rehabilitate the offender. What is the logic of this? In normal courts, rehabilitation of the offender could be psychological help, for instance. How is Jesus offering rehabilitation to the offender by sacrificing himself on the cross? You have to admit that this sounds very strange.

(b) generally deter. Again, what is the logic of this? Am I, for instance, supposed to be frightened or prevented from sinning because Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross? I don’t see this either. Also, it has supposedly happened already, so the actions (sins) performed after the sacrifice would seemingly have no effect on the sacrifice.

(c) restore. The main point of restorative justice is that the offender is taking an active part in restoring the damages. For instance by fixing the house he vandalized. How is Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross encouraging the offender to take an active part, and how exactly is the offender taking the active part in actually restoring something? If Jesus is doing the restoring (how are you restoring something by being subjected to suffering?), the offender isn’t doing it, is he?

Frankly, I find it hard to believe that these three principles explains Jesus’ suffering. When I have read about this, it seems to me that Jesus needed to be subjected to tremendous pain and suffering to right a wrong. There is no other explanation for this than retributive justice. Rehabilitation is not about suffering, neither is restoration. Now, if it is really the case that all this (alleged) pain and suffering of Jesus is to explained as a general deterrent to sin, it seems (at best) like an extremely ineffective way of doing it. The alternate explanation of this whole affair is to understand it as a product of its time. At that time, retributive justice was how justice was understood, and in this framework it might make sense. Let me quote some history:

“Gradually there would arise the idea of proportionate punishment, of which the characteristic type is an eye for an eye. The second stage was punishment by individuals under the control of the state, or community; in the third stage, with the growth of law, the state took over the primitive function and provided itself with the machinery of justice for the maintenance of public order.

Even at this stage the vindictive or retributive character of punishment remains, but gradually, and specially after the humanist movement under thinkers like Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, new theories begin to emerge. Two chief trains of thought have combined in the condemnation of primitive theory and practice. On the one hand the retributive principle itself has been very largely superseded by the protective and the reformative; on the other punishments involving bodily pain have become objectionable to the general sense of society. Consequently corporal and even capital punishment occupy a far less prominent position, and tend everywhere to disappear.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment#History_and_rationale

So, in any case, this type of analysis of Jesus’ sacrifice seems to be a modern interpretation based on secular progress in thinking about punishment.

 

[Persuader]

I assert that a machine may be defined as: An agglomeration of physically defined parts that have one or more functions, wherein the functions of the agglomeration of parts may be affected by prior use.

Challenge the definition if you like, but I maintain that if you believe that people don’t have souls then the inescapable logical conclusion is that people are machines - with all the resulting horrors that world view will entail (and did entail as shown in the 19th and 20th century notions of communism and nazism).

Well, according to that definition, the human mind might have to have some non-physical substance to escape being a machine (since what you are effectively saying is that any organized, physical system is a machine). However, substance dualism does not entail the existence of souls, so my position still holds. I cannot see how this results in Nazism or communism, though. I welcome you to investigate the most secular countries today (northern-European countries), and find Nazism or communism. However, I propose we lay this topic to rest, it doesn’t seem particularly relevant to Jesus’ sacrifice.

Traditional Catholic understanding of the soul is that it is the form of the body. In the view of Acquinas, what that means is that the soul is the ineffable spark that gives life to the component parts of the body. Stated still differently, our souls give our body form - not the other way around.

Right, so I assume there would not be life without that spark. Therefore, the soul is performing the function of being the spark of life in this scenario.

However, what matters to God when you face judgement is not how much you succeeded or what you did - but why you did it and why you selected the method for doing it. The subjective merit is what counts.

So what you are saying is that there is no difference in subjective merit between the soldiers in A compared to the soldiers in B. I agree, of course, that soldiers in both A and B could have the same intent. They could even act the same. So in the mind of a soldier (regardless of his group-affiliation), he is thinking that he is sacrificing his life and acting in accordance with this intent. So what could be said of any of the soldiers, is that they at t1 (where t=time) are intending and acting to sacrifice their life. There are no differences between A and B at this point in time. What can also be said, is that at t2 (after the fact) soldiers in A are successful and thus have sacrificed their lives, whereas the soldiers in B are not successful and thus have not sacrificed their lives. The consequences of the actions and intentions of the soldiers will also have subjective importance, since whether or not you are alive is a matter of subjective experience (you presumably don’t have one if you are dead).

What you are talking about is what can be gauged by God (or anyone else for that matter) based on this. He might very well deem the difference in actualization between A and B irrelevant when evaluating the merit of the acting agents (although I might disagree).I was simply saying that there is a difference in what is actually being sacrificed, which is still true. That both A and B are the same at t1 (not dead) doesn’t change that they are different at t2 (As are dead). This has a subjective relevance since subjective experience is lost for A at t2 but retained for B. If what you want to say is that God values sacrifice of life the same as an “attempted” sacrifice of life, that is a value-judgment on the actions involved.

In this value-judgment, it would (according to yourself) be relevant what is actually believed by a person in state t1. If we say that Jesus is a person at t1 (that is to say, a person who is intending and acting to sacrifice his life), what he thinks of the consequences of those actions are relevant. If he believes, at this time, that he will rise again after ca. 3 days (comparable to an extended sleep), I would argue that his intentions are not as meritorious as a person in t1 thinking his sacrifice will mean the final end of everything he is. I am not even sure it could be said that Jesus intended to sacrifice his life if he already knew he would rise again in ca. 3 days. Surely, the reason we are afraid of dying is not because we are afraid of losing consciousness, or being “gone”, for 3 days. The reason we are afraid is because we suspect it is the final end of ourselves. That we are prepared to make this ultimate sacrifice, the final loss of our own existence, is what is implied in sacrifice of life, and the reason for why it is seen as so meritorious.

The reason why you cannot make sense of this difference is because you define the entire world around you in terms of function and quantitative measurement. In such a philosophy, intent is irrelevant.

Intentionality is not a problem for physicalism in the way seem you think (it sounds very strange to me that you would think I would ignore intentionality). As you can see, I am perfectly able to understand the concept of intentionality.

I included my original quote in this because you addressed only my point A without addressing point B. You cannot separate A from B and claim to have addressed my argument.

True, I didn’t address B. That is because I couldn’t see how it was even remotely relevant. Miscarriage of justice is the punishment of a person for an offense they didn’t commit. So, if we substitute “Jesus” for “a person”, we have a perfect example of miscarriage of justice. Surely, you wouldn’t say that Jesus is not punished or that Jesus committed the offense? This is a judicial concept with a specific meaning. I think you might mean something else when you refer to miscarriage of justice.

 

[Liberanosamalo]

(a) rehabilitate the offender. What is the logic of this? In normal courts, rehabilitation of the offender could be psychological help, for instance. How is Jesus offering rehabilitation to the offender by sacrificing himself on the cross? You have to admit that this sounds very strange.

(b) generally deter. Again, what is the logic of this? Am I, for instance, supposed to be frightened or prevented from sinning because Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross? I don’t see this either. Also, it has supposedly happened already, so the actions (sins) performed after the sacrifice would seemingly have no effect on the sacrifice.

(c) restore. The main point of restorative justice is that the offender is taking an active part in restoring the damages. For instance by fixing the house he vandalized. How is Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross encouraging the offender to take an active part, and how exactly is the offender taking the active part in actually restoring something? If Jesus is doing the restoring (how are you restoring something by being subjected to suffering?), the offender isn’t doing it, is he?

Actually, crucifixion was used by the Romans as a deterrence. A lesson to non-citizens what fate would befall them if they broke the law. Yes, there are many people who behave themselves because they do not want to be punished, either on earth or in eternity.

How does Christ’s death rehabilitate the offender? Well, Persuader, sin is glamorized by the world. It feels good. It’s sometimes difficult to see beyond the glossy wrapping paper at what sin does to the soul and the character. The real hideousness of it all. When Christ suffered and died, he suffered in all five of his senses… the senses we glorify when we sin. Smell, taste, hearing, sight and touch. All of them were ravaged that day. In atonement for the sins we commit. And a thinking person looking at the Crucifix suddenly realizes THAT is what sin really looks like. THAT is the effective punishment WE will undergo at death if we do not turn away. Sin isn’t beautiful or glamorous. It is hideous and it deforms us in ways we don’t understand. But if you look at utter Perfection Himself and what Sin did to Him, it should be rehabilitative to a thinking person. You determine YOU do not want to add to that suffering of Christ. Because His act of redemption was historical but it takes place every day on every altar in an unbloody sacrifice of the Mass. Our sins put Him to death.

It helps us see our actions in their right scope. Sin is not fun and beautiful. It is ugly and bloody and its greatest victims are usually the most innocent among us.

Now, if the love of Christ doesn’t stop you from adding to His Crucifixion… well, the knowlege that THAT is the justice God has in store for those who die unrepentant… if His own Son didn’t escape justice, who are we to presume that unatoned sins won’t go unpunished. I do not wish an eternity of pain and suffering. It is a deterrence. But you’d have to believe that there is a hell waiting for evil people who die as enemies of God.

And we can restore… the old “offer it up for the poor souls in purgatory.” Our suffering here and now has redemptive value. We can unite it with Christ’s suffering on the cross and join Him in suffering and doing penance for sin. You see that in the world by people who chip in to a co-op and all benefit from a garden or a club or a condo fund. Or shared labor in a project… well, suffering shared is like that also. In the spiritual sense, you can unite your suffering to Christ’s and that grace can be applied to others.

Yes, you’ve seen the “pay it forward” effect… being nice to someone and they pass it along. A weak simile, but it’s the best I can do right now. Suffering can do the same.

I’d suggest if you really want to get a little deeper into this, read Fulton J. Sheen’s “The Life of Christ.” Really. Then if you don’t agree with it, at least you will know what you don’t agree with.

 

[Persuader]

Actually, crucifixion was used by the Romans as a deterrence. A lesson to non-citizens what fate would befall them if they broke the law.

How does Christ’s death rehabilitate the offender? Well, Persuader, sin is glamorized by the world. It feels good. It’s sometimes difficult to see beyond the glossy wrapping paper at what sin does to the soul and the character. The real hideousness of it all…

…Now, if the love of Christ doesn’t stop you from adding to His Crucifixion… well, the knowlege that THAT is the justice God has in store for those who die unrepentant…

…And we can restore… the old “offer it up for the poor souls in purgatory.” Our suffering here and now has redemptive value. We can unite it with Christ’s suffering on the cross and join Him in suffering and doing penance for sin.

Right, I think this is at the crux of the issue.

(a) Rehabilitation: What you seem to be saying is that Jesus suffering is supposed to rehabilitate us by showing what sin looks like. But you also say that this is the punishment we will undergo. Does that mean that what we see is the punishment for the sin, or is what we see the sin itself? I am not sure what it means to see the nature of sin. This would seem to an abstraction or transcendence of sin. Also, what exactly is rehabilitated in this scenario and how it is accomplished? Could you give a clear example (like anger management for anger-issues)?

(b) General deterrence: So the deterrence is primarily accomplished by us not wanting to harm Jesus. But how can we add to an event that has already taken place? Are you suggesting some sort of backwards causation? This sounds very strange. Secondarily, the deterrence is that if we do not care about Jesus’ suffering, we will receive an eternity of pain and suffering… Well, that is certainly a deterrence if you believe it, but presumably this would be accomplished without the need for Jesus to suffer (that is to say, without Jesus’ sacrifice, this deterrence would remain).

(c) Restoration: What you say regarding this sounds very strange to me. You are saying that we can suffer now, and in that way do penance for sin. But what exactly is restored, and how is someone suffering a restoration for someone else?

What you say seems to confirm my suspicions. You talk about sin as an transcendent or abstract concept quite removed from the events we constitute as offenses. When you say that we add our suffering to a pool of suffering meant to restore something, what exactly are we restoring? How is it to be done? For instance, if someone gets their house vandalized, restoration would be accomplished by fixing this house. For immaterial damage or emotional damage, restoration could be accomplished by some sort of appropriate action taken by the offender for the benefit of the victim. A psychologist would be best able to ascertain if this could be possible and how it could be accomplished in a specific case. I find it hard to believe that general suffering of random people would somehow restore that immaterial or emotional damage (I talk about the direct damage done to human beings now). I don’t understand how an offender can be rehabilitated, or a victim restored, by the suffering of somebody else. When you speak of sins and justice, you seem to say that someone needs to be punished for the sins, and that the punishment must hurt. Someone has to suffer to right the wrongs. This sounds like retributive justice to me.

Yes, you are right about the Romans. They used deterrence too. But the primary reason for punishment was retribution. You have to understand that the modern views are not about hurting the offender as an end in itself. I am not sure you know this. We send him to jail (for one thing) to protect society from him, not to hurt him. If the reason is to hurt him, then we have retributive punishment. If we hurt him in the process of restoration, rehabilitation or deterrence, then that is just collateral or as a means to accomplish the goals of restoration, rehabilitation and deterrence. It is not an end in itself.

 

[Liberanosamalo]

(a) Rehabilitation: What you seem to be saying is that Jesus suffering is supposed to rehabilitate us by showing what sin looks like. But you also say that this is the punishment we will undergo. Does that mean that what we see is the punishment for the sin, or is what we see the sin itself? I am not sure what it means to see the nature of sin. This would seem to an abstraction or transcendence of sin. Also, what exactly is rehabilitated in this scenario and how it is accomplished? Could you give a clear example (like anger management for anger-issues)?

Sin is an act… a bad act. An act that divides us from God. It lacks truth, goodness or beauty. (really, is drunkenness beautiful? Is adultery really goodness? Is there truth in stealing?) It has an outward component and an inward reality. It hardens our heart. Sin begets more sin. Just like an unkind act disposes us to feel more hostile toward our victim, and a kind act disposes us to feel kinder toward someone (psychological reality used in behavior modification), sin makes us feel hostile toward God, alienated. Less in union. The same way a cheating spouse starts to resent the innocent spouse. The innocent spouse hasn’t changed. Sin changes the sinner. Sin is ugly. It distorts the conscience and the soul. The Crucifix is the reality of how ugly sin is and what it does to the perfection of God’s creation. And at the same time, yes, we will be punished in those senses after death that we did not control in life. To make up for the sins committed by our ears, eyes, tongue, mind, lips and body. The nature of a sin is that the act lacks goodness.

All sin to some degree lacks truth, goodness and/or beauty. And sin is transcendent. Its effects linger, spread and are handed down through generations in the effects on people and families. No sin is a final act. It has reverberations through eternity. Sometimes people even imitate them. So when someone looks honestly at Christ’s suffering, it strips the glamor away from drunkenness, to see Christ having a spear with a vinegar-soaked sponge shoved between His blessed parched lips. When He looked down at the crowd of people He healed and preached to, and saw them spitting and heard their jeers, it stripped the glamor away from all the sins we commit with our eyes and ears and mouths. The stench of the rotting bodies on Calvary… the pain of the senses, the emotional pain of seeing His mother standing there at His feet weeping… Sin eventually destroys and decays those who take part in it. Seeing Calvary was seeing all the effects of sin telescoped into 3 hours.

Sometimes the physical punishment from our vices is the effect and punishment of sin rolled into one. Ask the person dying in agony of AIDS. Seeing sin in this light rehabilitates the person who sees it for what it is… because it makes them want the opposite. It leads to a repulsion for that which would cause the innocent to suffer. Make no mistake about it… look around the world. Those who suffer most from sin and evil are those who are helpless and innocent and not at all participatory. Ask the kids orphaned by the drunk driver or the child aborted and thrown in a garbage can.

Seeing Calvary, our consciences are rehabilitated by the amount of LOVE that it took to suffer for us in expiation for our sins. The antidote to sin is a real love for God and a real obedience because in Calvary we see the cost of disobedience. At the heart of all sin is disobedience of God. That was the sin in Eden. We see the end result of disobedience and the power of Christ’s complete obedience to God to overcome evil.

(b) General deterrence: So the deterrence is primarily accomplished by us not wanting to harm Jesus. But how can we add to an event that has already taken place? Are you suggesting some sort of backwards causation? This sounds very strange. Secondarily, the deterrence is that if we do not care about Jesus’ suffering, we will receive an eternity of pain and suffering… Well, that is certainly a deterrence if you believe it, but presumably this would be accomplished without the need for Jesus to suffer (that is to say, without Jesus’ sacrifice, this deterrence would remain).

Christ’s act of redemption occurs over and over again each time someone embraces it in his or her life and accepts it and picks up their own cross and follows Christ in obedience to God. It is like a country that overthrows tyranny. It holds elections. Each election, each free vote is a country that is adding to an event that already took place, increasing the strength and scope of that democracy. Or think of a bank that is founded. The act occurred in history. But each deposit by an investor adds to the financial power of that bank. Well, each time we look at Christ and pick the action that is holy, we add to the grace and truth and beauty and goodness in the world.

Yes, people would suffer even if Jesus didn’t suffer. the deterrence should remain. But His suffering and death gave the good an option of eternal union with God. It reestablished our right to be in His presence. He redeemed man. Yes, it’s a deterrence, but it also is a positive. Death wasn’t the only part of the Easter mystery. Death was the thing feared most. The Great Mystery. Satan had the world in bondage and darkness. The world was a place of death. Christ died. But Good Friday turned to Easter Sunday. What looked like the moment of Satan’s greatest triumph… man killing His God, was stripped of all triumph. Death was NOT permanent. Christ restored man’s original eternal soul and gave us hope of eternal union with God again. Satan’s bondage was broken. Christ’s resurrection triumphed over death.

 

[Liberanosamalo]

(c) Restoration: What you say regarding this sounds very strange to me. You are saying that we can suffer now, and in that way do penance for sin. But what exactly is restored, and how is someone suffering a restoration for someone else?

Again, by doing penance, our right relationship with God as His humble creatures is restored. When man sins, he is saying the words of Satan, NON SERVIAM! I will not serve! Christ laid down his life in humble service and obedience to God’s will. When we do penance, when we give up something good, when we make a sacrifice, we are imitating Christ and saying to God, I will put myself second in humble obedience and service to you. It restores the proper order. Think of a body gone haywire. It gets all out of shape. And unhealthy. By doing exercise and fasting (penance) it restores the body to proper health and shape. Well our souls must also be disciplined to be restored to the proper health and shape. By fasting, penance, prayer, giving to the poor, acts of obedience to God. Christ showed us how on Calvary.

Christ was God also. So His act had a significance ours cannot. But in God’s eyes, someone offering up something or fasting or praying or doing penance for someone else, is like putting a deposit of Grace in the Eternal treasury that another soul can draw upon. We do that on earh in a little way… when you smile and are kind to someone, doesn’t it make them a little happier and less likely to bite someone’s head off or cut someone off in traffic? By being good, you can restore someone else’s faith in humanity. Ever returned a lost wallet with all the money inside and have someone tell you you restored their faith in humanity? Or the guy that jumps off a bridge and endangers his life to save someone else… he is a hero… his sacrifice and peril saved someone. Restored someone from the point of drowning. Or the guy that dives on the grenade and saves his buddies from death, giving his own life. He suffers, but others are restored. And our faith that man is good is restored on some level. Or it balances out the evil we do see.

What you say seems to confirm my suspicions. You talk about sin as an transcendent or abstract concept quite removed from the events we constitute as offenses. When you say that we add our suffering to a pool of suffering meant to restore something, what exactly are we restoring? How is it to be done? For instance, if someone gets their house vandalized, restoration would be accomplished by fixing this house. For immaterial damage or emotional damage, restoration could be accomplished by some sort of appropriate action taken by the offender for the benefit of the victim. A psychologist would be best able to ascertain if this could be possible and how it could be accomplished in a specific case. I find it hard to believe that general suffering of random people would somehow restore that immaterial or emotional damage (I talk about the direct damage done to human beings now). I don’t understand how an offender can be rehabilitated, or a victim restored, by the suffering of somebody else. When you speak of sins and justice, you seem to say that someone needs to be punished for the sins, and that the punishment must hurt. Someone has to suffer to right the wrongs. This sounds like retributive justice to me.

Ever seen people suffering and the world joins in and suffers with them? It lightens the load. Look at Poland. Does it help them that many in the world have shed a tear for them? There is a solidarity in the pain. Sometimes the offender never apologizes. But others step in and attempt to make amends for a sin they did not commit. Like the people who come repair the vandalized house. What is restored? Faith in humanity. That strangers would care.

We had a drunk driver in town who maimed a young woman horribly for life. Her suffering was part of his rehabilitation. When he realized what he had done to her. Had he been able to just drive on, he might have done it over and over. Her pain and suffering became his guilt and his suffering too. Other people seeing what his actions did to her rethought their own views of drunk driving. The effects of his sin have lasted for years. God does not seek retribution. He seeks restoration. Or He could have squashed humanity like a bug a zillion years ago.

Yes, you are right about the Romans. They used deterrence too. But the primary reason for punishment was retribution. You have to understand that the modern views are not about hurting the offender as an end in itself. I am not sure you know this. We send him to jail (for one thing) to protect society from him, not to hurt him. If the reason is to hurt him, then we have retributive punishment. If we hurt him in the process of restoration, rehabilitation or deterrence, then that is just collateral or as a means to accomplish the goals of restoration, rehabilitation and deterrence. It is not an end in itself.

Oh, I know more than you think I do about this. The Romans also left the bodies hanging on the crosses as a reminder to future rebels and criminals. The English used that tactic also… drawing and quartering and sending the parts to all corners of the Empire. A warning to be sure. We do send offenders to jail. But in our country we try not to make jail too pleasant for them. Their years shouldn’t be lived out in a comfort denied their victims.