A Logical Problem...

[Nihm]

Hey all!:)

I am in a email debate with a christian... and this little fella is a hoot!
Every whiff of sarcasm or condescension on my part he cries "Ad Hominem!" and as of right now in our debate we are at this...

(these first two are his propositions.)

1) Evil is necessary for Free-Will.
And
2) We will have Free-Will in heaven.

Now this part is me...

THEREFORE!
IF propositions 1 and 2 are both true, THEN...
3) Evil is necessary in heaven.

He is crying that my logic is flawed.
And he is also trying to say that I am committing a "fallacy of limited options"... I guess he means an "either/or fallacy".

So help me out folks, am I committing a logical fallacy or a "fallacy of limited option"...?

[Ichneumonwasp]

The possibility of committing evil is necessary for free will. We see that possibility actualized on earth.

It could be the case that in heaven the possibility of committing evil exists but that no one will choose that option, so evil does not need to exist in actuality (though it does in potentia) in heaven.

The problem is that this necessarily implies that in heaven we would be different from the way we are now, so it wouldn't be us up there.

[Dave Rogers]

No, you're not. Your argument is a properly constructed example of affirming the antecedent, which is correct in formal logic. I don't know the notation, but this is so clear as to be trivially obvious.

Let's look at his premises.
1. Evil is necessary for free will.
This may be re-written as "Free will is impossible without evil", or "If free will is present, then evil must also be present".
2. We will have free will in heaven.
This must imply that free will is present in heaven. Therefore, evil must also be present in heaven.

Ask him to explain in detail the fallacy you're committing, because none is apparent to me.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

The possibility of committing evil is necessary for free will. We see that possibility actualized on earth.

If that were premise 1 as stated, then there would be a fallacy; the conclusion would be that evil is possible in Heaven, rather than necessary. However, the conclusion follows correctly from the premises as stated in the OP.

Dave

[X]

He probably thinks "The ability to choose evil is necessary for free will, but in heaven the people are good and won't choose it."

Unfortunately for him, that is not what he wrote.

Your logic is good, I think perhaps he needs to re-word his argument.

[JetLeg]

Hey all!:)

I am in a email debate with a christian... and this little fella is a hoot!
Every whiff of sarcasm or condescension on my part he cries "Ad Hominem!" and as of right now in our debate we are at this...

(these first two are his propositions.)

1) Evil is necessary for Free-Will.
And
2) We will have Free-Will in heaven.

Now this part is me...

THEREFORE!
IF propositions 1 and 2 are both true, THEN...
3) Evil is necessary in heaven.

He is crying that my logic is flawed.
And he is also trying to say that I am committing a "fallacy of limited options"... I guess he means an "either/or fallacy".

So help me out folks, am I committing a logical fallacy or a "fallacy of limited option"...?


I don't think you are. An either/or fallacy, says that one of the two options must be true, when it isn't.

Wiki has a good article on this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy



Intuitively (I haven't studied formal logic, so the scholars might correct me)

If A then B
If C then A
Therefore, If C then B.

(A = Existance of free will, B = Existance of evil, C=existance in heaven)

If there is free will then there is evil
If one is in heaven, then one is in a place where free will exists
Therefore one is in heaven, then one is in a place where there is evil.

-----

I think I am familiar with his debating style. It can be very annoying, since he tries to wear the mask of a person that is logical, and even knowledgable, but actually he misuses the terms he uses every time!

I suggest

1) To ask him to drop the names of the logical fallacies. Instead of giving a certain name of a fallacy (being proud of it), one should just point where the logic is faulty...

For example, your opponent is saying "You are an idiot, and therefore what you are saying is wrong", or "You are with us or against us".

One answer would be exposing the names of the loigical fallacies. "ad hominem" and "false dichotomy".

A better one would be just pointing the faulty logic directly... "Do you imply that an idiot is _always_ wrong? Can't an idiot be right, even if I am one??? " and "There are other options that you have forgotten about. I can be neither with you neither against you, like Switzerland in the two world wars".

The second is a much better way of debating, I think.

2) Realize that whether intentionally or not, your oponent is intellectually dishonest. He commits obvious logical fallacies, but tries to make them appear as logical arguments, in order to appear smart. What will you gain from debating him? I say nothing. He won't change his mind. So I think that one shouldn't waste time to debate with people that make obvious logical fallacies, yet pretend to be intellectually sophisticated.

[fuelair]

The fallacy he is committing is not allowing the xtian to have all words used and the way they are put together mean whatever the xtian says they do and be immediately believed because of what the xtian says they mean. It is,within my experience, the Revised Standard Xtian Fallacy.*


*The latest of that I have gotten is essentially that the Bible is inerrant even though there are all sorts of clear inconsistancies in anything checkable/comparable because they don't have anything to do with inerrancy. Inerrancy is purely the idea that J died for our sins and we are redeemed through him, so all the checkable stuff that is wrong has nothing to do with it at all. Honest. Trust me. Don't make that face, you know I'm right. We never made it to the problem of evil.

Fortunately she is a friend (and her hubby too) and we have agreed she'll just have to miss me when I am in Hell and she is otherwise engaged!

I have lost no sleep over this.

Oh, she is the one who did ask my opinion over atheists being evil because we do not see future punishment. I pointed out my ways with kids and with her and hubby and she agreed there had to be a flaw in that one since clearly I prefer good to evil though I am clearly an atheist.

[QED]

Why is evil necessary for free will to exist? How do you define evil? How do you define free will*? I think those are all questions that need to be addressed in order to have a meaningful discussion about the topic. But depending on the person you're discussing this with (and seeing how he doesn't seem to like logic very much when the conclusion doesn't coincide with his preconception) it almost definitely will be... frustrating (at best). ;)

*There are interesting discussions going on in other threads here about whether free will exists.

[Nihm]

Wow guys, thank you for all the fast replies!:D

See the way this started was that this person was justifying to somebody why God did not create the world perfect, with no suffering or evil or pain. God wanted us to have free-will, and we cannot have free will without evil.

That's where I chimed in "Do we have free will in heaven?"
And the argument ensued.

My greater point that I am trying to get this little numskull to see is that if "The ability to choose evil is necessary for free will, but in heaven the people are good and won't choose it." is a true statement THEN God COULD HAVE created the world perfect with no suffering or evil or pain and not take away our free-will, but chose NOT to.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Wow guys, thank you for all the fast replies!:D

See the way this started was that this person was justifying to somebody why God did not create the world perfect, with no suffering or evil or pain. God wanted us to have free-will, and we cannot have free will without evil.

That's where I chimed in "Do we have free will in heaven?"
And the argument ensued.

My greater point that I am trying to get this little numskull to see is that if "The ability to choose evil is necessary for free will, but in heaven the people are good and won't choose it." is a true statement THEN God COULD HAVE created the world perfect with no suffering or evil or pain and not take away our free-will, but chose NOT to.

Right -- that's the main issue that comes out of this. Or as Doctor X on the Skeptic Board is fond of saying, either God is irrelevant or evil.

[JetLeg]

Wow guys, thank you for all the fast replies!:D

See the way this started was that this person was justifying to somebody why God did not create the world perfect, with no suffering or evil or pain. God wanted us to have free-will, and we cannot have free will without evil.

That's where I chimed in "Do we have free will in heaven?"
And the argument ensued.

My greater point that I am trying to get this little numskull to see is that if "The ability to choose evil is necessary for free will, but in heaven the people are good and won't choose it." is a true statement THEN God COULD HAVE created the world perfect with no suffering or evil or pain and not take away our free-will, but chose NOT to.

You have a good and interesting point.

[Pure Argent]

Either that or Heaven isn't all it's cracked up to be.

[quarky]

Crack is free in heaven, but no one chooses to smoke it.

[Cainkane1]

I avoid arguments like this. The level of religious stupidity in said arguments causes me to be depressed.

[Beerina]

The possibility of committing evil is necessary for free will. We see that possibility actualized on earth.

This is the flaw. There is no such thing as "evil" per se. Not in some grand cosmic way, anyway.

Now if you want to define individual actions, that's another thing. For example, deliberately causing pain unnecessarily would be considered evil by most people. Fair enough, and I'd agree.

But pain doesn't need to exist to begin with just so humans can have the option of forcing it on each other.


Let's consider murder -- the unlawful killing of others. Ignore capital punishment and so on for now, or cases with extenuating circumstances. (Also disregard the notion that they're gonna be sent to Heaven. In the best case.)

Why is it bad? Because it ends a life, independent of any religion's concept of resurrection or reincarnation. It also frequently involves pain and terror, also considered evil by most.


There's no reason death, with the strong suggestion from reality that that's it for life, end of story. There is no reason it needs to be irreversible or painful or terrorizing -- or something people can force on eath other.

Death must exist so people can be given the option to kill others, or not? WTF.


If you analyze actual instances of evil, there's no reason any must exist.


In other words, it's not a two-way street. You don't need the existence of bad choices to give "free will" something to choose. I'm perfectly fine between choosing a shrimp po boy or a Chinese buffet for lunch.


As with many things with religion, first came the concept that God was good and perfect (itself evolving from pantheons of non-omnipotence), and then came the bass-ackwards, ad hoc explanations. Why does evil exist, then?


Ummmmmm. Uhhhhhh. Well, it must because obviously it wouldn't unless this world were perfect because it is a necessary condition of creating lesser beings with free will. The idea of evil as necessary for free will thus exists to serve keeping the idea of an omnipotent, good, loving god from collapsing.

[Towlie]

This reminds me of the syllogism you can construct from Proverbs 1:7 and Ecclesiastes 1:18.

(1) "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction." - Proverbs 1:7

(2) "For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow." - Ecclesiastes 1:18

(3) Therefore, fools despise grief and sorrow.

[Malerin]

It's a bind for the Christian. They could argue that free-will to do only good things is a type of free-will (though a limited type). For example, suppose you wanted to give money to charity (let's assume this is a "good" thing). There are many ways for you to do this, thus you have free will in the matter.

The problem is, if that kind of free will is sufficient, why is there evil in the world? What's good enough for heaven should be good enough down here.

[Dr Adequate]

The possibility of committing evil is necessary for free will. The possibility of desiring to commit evil would be necessary for free will. The possibility of actually doing so is no more necessary to free will than the possibility of actually flying to the moon by flapping your arms.

[Denver]

I agree with earlier posters in that "evil" needs to be better defied for the argument to make sense.

One definition in this context that I have heard is similar to sin: that which keeps a person from coming closer to God. So if free will exists, then evil exists, meaning the potential to distance oneself from God exists. If you want to quote that more, the whole Lucifer story should do it. By common Christian theology, he was in heaven, and he was evil. So while the potential for evil does exist in heaven, the consequence is that the evil doer either leaves (distances himself from God) or is cast out.

ETA: So maybe the statement whether there is evil in heaven may better be qualified by dividing it up: Evil can occur in heaven, but cannot persist there?

[quarky]

Heavenly dreams have monsters, but you've learned not to be tormented by them.
In hellish dreams, one lacks the pre-requisite control to dispel the evil.

[A Christian Sceptic]

The problem is that this necessarily implies that in heaven we would be different from the way we are now, so it wouldn't be us up there.

You're different now then when you were a toddler - correct? But you're still you - or do you consider you now as not you then?

[Delvo]

if that kind of free will is sufficient, why is there evil in the world?Maybe God's using this life/world as a filter, a step in the creation of the ideal population for Heaven, which is his real target creation.

[Mashuna]

Maybe God's using this life/world as a filter, a step in the creation of the ideal population for Heaven, which is his real target creation.

You'd think he could skip a step, really.

[Ichneumonwasp]

The possibility of desiring to commit evil would be necessary for free will. The possibility of actually doing so is no more necessary to free will than the possibility of actually flying to the moon by flapping your arms.


Yes, correct.

[Ichneumonwasp]

You're different now then when you were a toddler - correct? But you're still you - or do you consider you now as not you then?


I have no memory of myself as a toddler; I am not now as I was then, though there must have been some sort of 'me' then. The only real continuity between those two entities is in the space taken up and the DNA.

The 'me' that exists now clearly has the potential (and the actuality) for committing sin. If I cannot commit sin in some projected future (in heaven), I do not see how that could be 'me'; that would require a radically different personality at the very least.

[Ichneumonwasp]

This is the flaw. There is no such thing as "evil" per se.


Sure there is. The Pittsburg Steelers*. There, I run rings around your argument.:D




















*I grew up in Houston

[A Christian Sceptic]

I have no memory of myself as a toddler; I am not now as I was then, though there must have been some sort of 'me' then. The only real continuity between those two entities is in the space taken up and the DNA.

The 'me' that exists now clearly has the potential (and the actuality) for committing sin. If I cannot commit sin in some projected future (in heaven), I do not see how that could be 'me'; that would require a radically different personality at the very least.

What about as a teenager (assuming you're not one now)? What about as a ten year old? Clearly throughout your entire life you are constantly changing - growing - maturing - learning - acting - doing?
Would you say that the you now in this moment is the real you and the only you and the you from yesterday is no longer you or never was you?

[Ichneumonwasp]

What about as a teenager (assuming you're not one now)? What about as a ten year old? Clearly throughout your entire life you are constantly changing - growing - maturing - learning - acting - doing?
Would you say that the you now in this moment is the real you and the only you and the you from yesterday is no longer you or never was you?


My action tendencies as a teenager and young adult are not significantly different from what they are now (sure, there are differences, but not major ones) -- insert immaturity joke <here>. In general, one may change one's behavior (and behaviors do change over time), but personalities remain fairly constant.

What is being proposed would require a major change in personality, particularly if one of the versions of "what God wants" is true -- that God cannot abide sin in any fashion, and 'evil' thoughts themselves constitute sin.

That people change over time is not analgous to the radical shift that is proposed by many Christians in what would constitute heaven.

[Trakar]

The possibility of committing evil is necessary for free will. We see that possibility actualized on earth.

It could be the case that in heaven the possibility of committing evil exists but that no one will choose that option, so evil does not need to exist in actuality (though it does in potentia) in heaven.

The problem is that this necessarily implies that in heaven we would be different from the way we are now, so it wouldn't be us up there.

If we are to take the mythos of the Fall of Lucifer (which really does not have a scriptural basis) as representative of an actual event, then evil and heaven are not mutually exclusive propositions. This however depends upon a very simplistic interpretation of Heaven and Hell.

To many Christians, Heaven and Hell are states of being, moreso than physical locations, with Heaven being considered being in a state of complete communion with God, and Hell being a state where one isolates or cuts themselves off from God. In this understanding, it is perfectly understandable to be in the physical presence of God or any particular location and yet be in Hell, likewise it is possible to be in the midst of and amongst the damned and yet be in Heaven, but being in a state of complete communion with God and being Evil at the same time is an impossible state, as evil is at its essence the placing of self in the stead of God. Even in full Communion with God, however, free-will persists and one can choose to cut one's self off from God or to place one's self ahead of God or turn to evil/hell while in the state of heaven.

[A Christian Sceptic]

In general, one may change one's behavior (and behaviors do change over time), but personalities remain fairly constant.

You say behaviors change over time, but personalities remain fairly constant. Why would it be different if eventually you change your behavior to never desiring or choosing sin?

You seem to be contradicting yourself with your conclusion of never choosing sin means ceasing to be you. Or, maybe that's the one exception? You're you as long as you choose sin, but once you no longer choose sin you cease to be you? If that's the case - why that exception?

[Ichneumonwasp]

You say behaviors change over time, but personalities remain fairly constant. Why would it be different if eventually you change your behavior to never desiring or choosing sin?

You seem to be contradicting yourself with your conclusion of never choosing sin means ceasing to be you. Or, maybe that's the one exception? You're you as long as you choose sin, but once you no longer choose sin you cease to be you? If that's the case - why that exception?


I have no idea how you've arrived at the idea of a contradiction.

Personalities supply behavioral tendencies, and behaviors emerge from those tendencies. As we age we are able to inhibit some behaviors more easily because our frontal lobes become more efficient. The tendencies toward many actions remain the same, but behavioral output can change within a small, but finite, range.

The absence of sin, if sin is defined in terms of thought itself, requires a radical break from who and what we are now if free will remains intact. While we can inhibit some behavioral tendencies as we age, we cannot inhibit them all. The absence of sin would require total inhibition of any negative tendencies. That would not be 'me'. There is no exception involved.

ETA:

Or let me rephrase...........

I use 'behavior' above to refer to actual actions in the world. We may control actual behaviors in the world by suppressing them -- suppressing parts of our basic personalities. But Christianity defines sin in terms not of actual behavior in the world but in terms of basic desires and motivational states. To suppress desires and motivational states so that they never arise implies a radical shift in personality. Does that make more sense?

[Trakar]

I have no idea how you've arrived at the idea of a contradiction.

Personalities supply behavioral tendencies, and behaviors emerge from those tendencies. As we age we are able to inhibit some behaviors more easily because our frontal lobes become more efficient. The tendencies toward many actions remain the same, but behavioral output can change within a small, but finite, range.

The absence of sin, if sin is defined in terms of thought itself, requires a radical break from who and what we are now if free will remains intact. While we can inhibit some behavioral tendencies as we age, we cannot inhibit them all. The absence of sin would require total inhibition of any negative tendencies. That would not be 'me'. There is no exception involved.

ETA:

Or let me rephrase...........

I use 'behavior' above to refer to actual actions in the world. We may control actual behaviors in the world by suppressing them -- suppressing parts of our basic personalities. But Christianity defines sin in terms not of actual behavior in the world but in terms of basic desires and motivational states. To suppress desires and motivational states so that they never arise implies a radical shift in personality. Does that make more sense?


This, again depends upon how one defines "sin." To the line of consideration I started earlier, a bad action is not a sin but rather the result of a sin. The sin is in placing one's self ahead of God, the bad action is the result of the sin of placing yourself before God. You don't commit a sin by thinking bad thoughts or behaving in a bad manner, you think bad thoughts and behave badly because you have committed the sin of placing yourself ahead of God in your own considerations. Even in Heaven one would have the free will to turn away from God or place yourself ahead of God, but to act on that free will and actually do so, would by the aforementioned definition of heaven and hell, instantly transpose one from the state of Heaven to state of Hell.

[Ichneumonwasp]

This, again depends upon how one defines "sin." To the line of consideration I started earlier, a bad action is not a sin but rather the result of a sin. The sin is in placing one's self ahead of God, the bad action is the result of the sin of placing yourself before God. You don't commit a sin by thinking bad thoughts or behaving in a bad manner, you think bad thoughts and behave badly because you have committed the sin of placing yourself ahead of God in your own considerations. Even in Heaven one would have the free will to turn away from God or place yourself ahead of God, but to act on that free will and actually do so, would by the aforementioned definition of heaven and hell, instantly transpose one from the state of Heaven to state of Hell.


So, heaven is not eternal bliss for those who enter? You have to keep toeing the line?

And the reason for this earth would be what precisely, then?

[doronshadmi]

Hey all!:)
1) Evil is necessary for Free-Will.

Unless Evil is exactly the proprty that prevents Free-Will.

[Trakar]

So, heaven is not eternal bliss for those who enter? You have to keep toeing the line?

And the reason for this earth would be what precisely, then?

No line to toe, except whatever personal standards one chooses to set. Communion with God is Heaven, if you choose to turn away from God that seperation is the definition of Hell.

As for the reason for Earthly existence, your guess is as good as the next, I personally sometimes contemplate upon whether it actually is Purgatory/Hell, dependent upon whether one's stay here is temporary or permanent, and we are all here to learn and suffer the consequences of turning away from God, and the value of turning toward God, but that is just idle and fanciful speculation.

[Ichneumonwasp]

No line to toe, except whatever personal standards one chooses to set. Communion with God is Heaven, if you choose to turn away from God that seperation is the definition of Hell.

As for the reason for Earthly existence, your guess is as good as the next, I personally sometimes contemplate upon whether it actually is Purgatory/Hell, dependent upon whether one's stay here is temporary or permanent, and we are all here to learn and suffer the consequences of turning away from God, and the value of turning toward God, but that is just idle and fanciful speculation.


Agreed. According to the rules set, this would be Hell, since it is separation from God.

Communion with God would seem to be possible in the here and now. Is Heaven possible for everyone today?

[Trakar]

Agreed. According to the rules set, this would be Hell, since it is separation from God.

Communion with God would seem to be possible in the here and now. Is Heaven possible for everyone today?

Well, I'm unaware of any strictures against such, and I'd like to believe that Heaven is available equally for all of humanity, but in going much beyond this, I really couldn't say, I'm only going on my own personal understandings and beliefs.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Don't know. Seems like it's a tad opposed to Paul's ideas in 1st Corinthians, but I don't have any objection if that's the way you think about things.

[westprog]

The possibility of committing evil is necessary for free will. We see that possibility actualized on earth.

It could be the case that in heaven the possibility of committing evil exists but that no one will choose that option, so evil does not need to exist in actuality (though it does in potentia) in heaven.

The problem is that this necessarily implies that in heaven we would be different from the way we are now, so it wouldn't be us up there.

It could be the case that there are no sinful options available. What could someone do in heaven that was sinful? If everything available was permitted, then sin just wouldn't exist.

[Ichneumonwasp]

It could be the case that there are no sinful options available. What could someone do in heaven that was sinful? If everything available was permitted, then sin just wouldn't exist.

Then how is the will free? There is always the freedom to reject God. That requires no other enabling conditions.

[Trakar]

Don't know. Seems like it's a tad opposed to Paul's ideas in 1st Corinthians, but I don't have any objection if that's the way you think about things.

I'm not aware of any direct contradiction, but would be interested in your cosiderations of the issue. Scripture is often a great starting point for the consideration and discussion of spiritual and religious issues, but I, personally have never considered them to be the endpoint "Answers" of such issues. But again that is just me, and that is certainly not the case with all or even most Christians.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'm not aware of any direct contradiction, but would be interested in your cosiderations of the issue. Scripture is often a great starting point for the consideration and discussion of spiritual and religious issues, but I, personally have never considered them to be the endpoint "Answers" of such issues. But again that is just me, and that is certainly not the case with all or even most Christians.

Seems to me that the whole point he was making was that folks shouldn't consider that they had already begun to enjoy the benefits of the resurrection in some spiritual sense -- and that misunderstandings of the resurrection were the underlying cause for all the problems in the Corinthian church.

He argued first that Christ must have been resurrected:

15:12 "Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?"

and then that the benefits will not happen until the final resurrection:

15:23 "But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.
Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.
For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. "

The latter being a reference to Psalm 110 which envisions (according to most Christians) Jesus sitting at the right hand of God until God subdues the enemies of Jesus.

and later, in the discussion of the "type of body" folks will have after the resurrection:

15:36 "What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.
And what you sow is not the body which is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain.
But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body.
For not all flesh is alike, but there is one kind for men, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish.
There are celestial bodies and there are terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. "


The implication being that the "reward" is acheivable through general resurrection and not through an immediate trasference to heaven with death; and that one could not participate in that reward while in this flesh but must wait for the resurrection after death (or from 1 Thessalonians -- if alive when the Kingdom arrives, then a transformation from the present body into a spiritual body). He seems to be arguing that until Jesus returns, no one can participate fully in the Kingdom; the Kingdom will be realized only at the return.

[Trakar]

Seems to me that the whole point he was making was that folks shouldn't consider that they had already begun to enjoy the benefits of the resurrection in some spiritual sense -- and that misunderstandings of the resurrection were the underlying cause for all the problems in the Corinthian church.

He argued first that Christ must have been resurrected:

15:12 "Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?"

and then that the benefits will not happen until the final resurrection:

15:23 "But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.
Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.
For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. "

The latter being a reference to Psalm 110 which envisions (according to most Christians) Jesus sitting at the right hand of God until God subdues the enemies of Jesus.

and later, in the discussion of the "type of body" folks will have after the resurrection:

15:36 "What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.
And what you sow is not the body which is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain.
But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body.
For not all flesh is alike, but there is one kind for men, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish.
There are celestial bodies and there are terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. "


The implication being that the "reward" is acheivable through general resurrection and not through an immediate trasference to heaven with death; and that one could not participate in that reward while in this flesh but must wait for the resurrection after death (or from 1 Thessalonians -- if alive when the Kingdom arrives, then a transformation from the present body into a spiritual body). He seems to be arguing that until Jesus returns, no one can participate fully in the Kingdom; the Kingdom will be realized only at the return.

Well there is certainly an issue of counting your chickens before they have hatched, to be considered, which seems to be the primary issue in the first remarks. But this really doesn't have anything to do with the potential to achieve the state of heaven while still on Earth. The conditions which made me consider that such may be possible, are the situations where some select few individuals have been taken "body and soul" (Assumption) into heaven (e.g. Mary, Enoch, Elijah, etc.,.). I suspect, however that such is quite rare and ordinarily difficult to achieve, perhaps there is a corrupting influence in being bound to the body that makes it especially difficult to achieve complete communion with God,...but that is, again, just idle speculation. And of course, even though the Christ died for our sins that we might all be resurrected into eternal life with God the Father, that doesn't mean that we don't have to "earn our wings" as it were, as mentioned earlier, serving our time in purgatory, purifying our souls so that they are properly prepared for God (sort of like Jesus paid our admission fee, but we are still required to climb up to the gate and pass the dress code before we get into the party - metaphorically speaking, of course). As for the rest, I'm not sure, I understand the meanings that Paul was trying to impress upon these early Greek christians and the reasonings why, but I'm not sure how much literal importance I attach to them, personally. But I do enjoy the exchange of ideas and considerations and appreciate your thoughts on the issue.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Fair enough, and I also appreciate the exchange of ideas.

One more question, if you don't mind. It seems to me that this theology is a theology of sacrifice. What was the point of Jesus' sacrifice, then?

Sacrifice doesn't mean, necessarily, "to have your throat slit for God" but "to set aside for God". Does not this theology set aside everyone for God, so everyone is a sacrifice? It would also, and in the same vein, seem to imply that we should have no ego (not ego as pride but ego as "I", since ego as "I" implies pride in some sense), which is an old, widespread and venerable religious idea.

It would also seem to imply that the point of life is to rid oneself of free will, to submit, which fits nicely into Islam.

[Trakar]

Fair enough, and I also appreciate the exchange of ideas.

One more question, if you don't mind. It seems to me that this theology is a theology of sacrifice. What was the point of Jesus' sacrifice, then?

Sacrifice doesn't mean, necessarily, "to have your throat slit for God" but "to set aside for God". Does not this theology set aside everyone for God, so everyone is a sacrifice? It would also, and in the same vein, seem to imply that we should have no ego (not ego as pride but ego as "I", since ego as "I" implies pride in some sense), which is an old, widespread and venerable religious idea.

It would also seem to imply that the point of life is to rid oneself of free will, to submit, which fits nicely into Islam.

I certainly don't mind questions, with the stipulation that my responses are roughly based upon general Catholic teachings when much younger and then a lifetime's worth of other readings, considerations and discussions with people (some Catholic some not so much so). So while my answers do reflect my own considerations and I am Roman Catholic, my views should not necessarily be mistaken for Official Catholic Doctrine and Teachings (though I don't believe they are terribly out of line with such in any given particular).

That being said:

Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all rather bound at the hip regardless of how the more extremist evangelists of all three groups foam at the mouth over such suggestions.

It is my understanding that the sacrifice of Jesus unlocked the gates of heaven for all of humanity. I don't know that it would have been impossible to achieve heaven without His sacrifice, but I do believe that because of His sacrifice every human has been guaranteed the option of heaven. My understanding is that God is very big on free-will, so no one is going to be condemned to Heaven. And there are probably many to whom Hell (the isolation from God) is no real big whoop (if you'll pardon my colloquialism). My understanding, however, is that heaven depends not on the elimination of ego, but upon the removal of self from the forefront or primary focus and consideration of all one's thoughts and actions. It goes back to a saying I picked up, but am not sure where it came from, that at their most basic, "evil" is simply the placing of self and self interests ahead of God and all others, whereas the Grace of God is most evident in the selfless acts.

I think the only place I would strongly differ my understanding with your commentary, isn't that we are to have no ego, but that our sense of self should be properly constrained in the order of our thoughts and actions and that when we allow ourselves and our own selfish wants, needs, and desires to be the primary focus of our existence then we are obviously leaving little room for service to God and our fellow man.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I certainly don't mind questions, with the stipulation that my responses are roughly based upon general Catholic teachings when much younger and then a lifetime's worth of other readings, considerations and discussions with people (some Catholic some not so much so). So while my answers do reflect my own considerations and I am Roman Catholic, my views should not necessarily be mistaken for Official Catholic Doctrine and Teachings (though I don't believe they are terribly out of line with such in any given particular).

That being said:

Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all rather bound at the hip regardless of how the more extremist evangelists of all three groups foam at the mouth over such suggestions.

It is my understanding that the sacrifice of Jesus unlocked the gates of heaven for all of humanity. I don't know that it would have been impossible to achieve heaven without His sacrifice, but I do believe that because of His sacrifice every human has been guaranteed the option of heaven. My understanding is that God is very big on free-will, so no one is going to be condemned to Heaven. And there are probably many to whom Hell (the isolation from God) is no real big whoop (if you'll pardon my colloquialism). My understanding, however, is that heaven depends not on the elimination of ego, but upon the removal of self from the forefront or primary focus and consideration of all one's thoughts and actions. It goes back to a saying I picked up, but am not sure where it came from, that at their most basic, "evil" is simply the placing of self and self interests ahead of God and all others, whereas the Grace of God is most evident in the selfless acts.

I think the only place I would strongly differ my understanding with your commentary, isn't that we are to have no ego, but that our sense of self should be properly constrained in the order of our thoughts and actions and that when we allow ourselves and our own selfish wants, needs, and desires to be the primary focus of our existence then we are obviously leaving little room for service to God and our fellow man.



So, instead of ego elimination, along the ideas of Hinduism or Buddhism, more the idea of reverence properly applied?

Sounds good to me.