- There are some things that are different for man than they are for God and other things that are one and the same. If the commission of a particular act is a sin for a person, for example, then it is perceived as a sin by God also.
How can you disagree?
If someone has committed a sin - not done something that resembles the description of a sin - committed a sin, like the stain of the act is on their souls, and we would all see it if we could all see the spirit realm, then that sin is
perceived as sin by God as well. I’m not saying that it would be a sin for God to execute that same act necessarily. I’m saying that if something is sin, it is sin. A particular committed act either is sin or its not. It’s impossible to say that someone has committed a sin and then for God to come along and say, “Well…Not really.” Either it’s a sin and God agrees or God declares it a sin and so it is. Which ever way you want to look at it, doesn’t matter.
And this is exactly what I meant by ‘binding God to human morality’. Let me be clear about this: I regard God as good. Maximally good. But I think the virtue and nature of God’s position entails permitting some evil in the world. The evil itself is not celebrated, the evil itself is not something anyone is happy about. But the alternative is not acceptable.
Permitting as in allowing, yes. Permitting as in endorsing, no.
But, I didn’t argue the necessity of free will like that. In fact, I said my views are compatible with whatever view on free will is chosen. And I’ll repeat: It may well be a punishable offense because given acts are both are once are themselves punishable, while at the same time necessary to be permitted by God.
And, again, if by “permitted” you mean allowed by God, rather than given the thumbs up, I fully agree with everything you’ve said here.
Necessary to be permitted (allowed to take place), or necessary to be committed? Very distinct difference.
There’s no logical inconsistency;
There is in the notion that one should and should not do something at the very same time. Something cannot exist and not exist at the same time. It cannot be tall and short at the same time. (It may be tall
in relation to one item and short
in relation to another. But it cannot be tall and short in itself at the same time as the two descriptors are opposites.) “Should not and should” is impossible. “Should not, but should be allowed the freedom to choose to” is an entirely different and entirely workable matter.
in this case, the agent knows there’s a commandment against it. They likely know that what they are doing is wrong. They even realize that it may merit dire punishment. But they choose to do it anyway. God’s allowing them that freedom to do what they’re doing is necessary by my view. God knows that they can/will do what they’re doing. But the decision remains their own.
Yes! Agreement!
Let me ask you - what do you see as the alternative? Universal salvation?
An alternative to what? I have never argued against God allowing people to sin. (Tolerating it.) I have only argued against God giving the green light to those sins, a thumbs up.
Frankly, I’m not instinctively opposed to views like that. Again, Fr. Neuhaus says that we may pray hell is empty.
Yes, we may. And wouldn’t that be awesome if it turned out that way in the end…
I’d add, we may pray that even eternal hell may confer a bearable existence to those in it, even though some kind of punishment may be eternal as well. The argument I’ve outlined works better against evil than it does against damnation, though I think there’s some consideration there as well.
That does open up another door, though. Assume damnation can be as I suggested: Eternal, punishing, but bearable. An endurable existence. Is it better to hope that anyone who would end up there never exist? That, to me, introduces another dilemma, and I can imagine someone arguing that, no, it’s not better.
I dont know that I want to hop a great length down this rabbit trail since we’re having a hard enough time finishing the one that has come before it
but if I might just toss out a quick thought to you - Hell will already be “bearable” for all that end up there for the simple reason that all who end up there will “just know” that that’s where they belong in the first place.
We are tempted to think that things are such that if the gates of hell were opened, so to say, everybody would fight to get out. That’s actually not true. While there exists here on the earth a veil over our senses that prevents us from seeing with perfect clarity and allows us to make excuses for this and that and the other thing, on the other side it will not be so. We will see with perfect clarity the reason we end up where we do and will have nothing to say against our end…other than maybe, “Oh crud…”
SK
