God of the Gaps Argument

There is a very simple way to tell the difference between a “God of the Gaps” argument and other arguments (i.e. the cosmological argument). It is dependent on the form of the syllogism it can be reduced to.

So, a God of the Gaps argument looks like this;

1) We don’t know this

2) Therefore God

If the argument for God is rooted in some form of ignorance we have, then it is a God of the Gaps argument.

It won’t be a God of the Gaps argument when we argue from knowledge.

1) We do know this

2) Therefore God

If the argument posits something we do know (such as my cosmological argument) to know that God exists, then the argument isn’t a “God of the Gaps” argument.

A Further Note on Hell: Mystical Visions and Judgment

A Further Note on Hell: Mystical Visions and Judgment

This note will probably only make sense after you read my previous essay “Hell.” This is an addendum more than anything. I am not here revoking anything I’ve said, I’m only adding to it.

The first issue I wish to deal with are some objections that my conception of Hell is “rosy” or in some way not really Hell. I don’t know how to stress that this is further from the truth. If we are creatures created to be with God, then certainly there can be nothing worse then separation from the fount of all love, joy, and reason.

There are some visions of Hell had by some mystics, such as John Vianney, where Hell is described as being quite literally a lake of fire. I do not necessarily disagree with this picture, but I only think that these pictures painted are metaphorical, and that there is no gain to be had from strictly maintaining that there is positive punishment in Hell. Certainly, based on the argument made, there cannot be anything worse than separation from God. Anything in addition to this couldn’t even be noticed. In fact, I think my conception of Hell is ultimately more terrible than a mere lake of fire. To be tortured in fire for eternity would be infinitely better than actually being cut off from God! While the idea of sensual pain is more immediately striking, I guarantee that, properly understood, there cannot be anything worse than being cut off from God. To have any positive pain in addition to the pain of being cut off from God would be like cutting the fingers off of an arm that’s already been cut off of us. The idea of having our fingers cut off is a rather painful thought, but once you realize these fingers will have already been severed by being attached to the arm that’s been cut off, you see that the reason I’m not concerned with whether the “flames” are literal or not is simply because its like wondering whether it would be more painful to have my thumb or pinky cut off when its my arm that’s being cut off.

The flames of Hell are an accurate depiction, I will not deny. They are useful for illustration, to pertinently explain that Hell will be painful. But to insist that primary reason for Hell being suffering is because of some fire rather than the separation from God is an elementary mistake.

Now, as to judgment, there will be more I have to say. In my last essay I did not actually cover what constituted reasons for judgment. While I left it as being ultimately a “choice,” I didn’t explain precisely what form this choice took.

Judgment, in Hans Urs von Balthasar’s conception, is not an act of God, but an act of the sinner, wrought upon one’s self by refusing the forgiveness, salvation, sanctification, love, and perfection of God. A person judges themselves to Hell by judging God.

While I do not wholly agree with this, it does help to illustrate to an extent of how I view judgment. Ultimately, judgment is rendered by God, through His own action; there would not be judgment if God did not commit it. There is no one who can rightly judge except God.

But, to the extent that I agree with Balthasar, God’s judgment is dependent upon the person’s heart of whom He is judging. (Luke 16:15)

By making the heart be the basis of judgment, there are certain implications that follow. But first, what is the heart?

The heart, as it would be intuitively understood, is the totality of the person’s desires and acts as committed based on the knowledge they could know to have.

This idea is easier shown with a few scenarios.

First, take the atheist who has grown up his whole life without ever once having been challenged to believe in God in any way; in fact, he never really considered the idea of God, but just unwittingly assumed that a God did not exist. While this may seem silly to those who are very committed and intellectual theists, allow us to assume that this man’s life really was without challenge, and nothing existed for him that made him have to ponder on God.

Is there hope for this man?

I would say yes, but only qualifiedly. This man could be saved, because his witting beliefs were formed out of unwitting assumptions. Ultimately, whether he will be saved will be based on whether he rejects God or not; and whether he rejects God or not is something only God truly knows, in His omniscience. In this way, the eternal fate of souls is indeterminable, since we do not have access to other people’s hearts, even those whom we are closest to. “It is between him and God” is as good as we may say.

But for ourselves, we are master. Whether we reject God or not in our heart is our choice to make, as best we can make it. It’s not ultimately dependent upon a witting recognition of Christ’s saving grace, for while it is ordinarily necessary, God is not bound to work through the ordinary (or revealed) methods. “The Sacraments are bound to God, but not God to the Sacraments.” God can work in ways other than a confession in the saving power of Christ. While ultimately, if we choose to reject Christ in the end, if we reject Christ in this life based upon unwitting assumptions or misunderstandings, then our rejection of Christ may not be so in the end.

This is an important distinction to make; my beliefs now are not necessarily my beliefs in the end. By “in the end, “ I mean those beliefs I hold in my heart based upon what I will of God for me. For every person, their beliefs in the end are indeterminate, and so that is why we cannot judge, but it is God’s alone. It is simply that we have no way of knowing whether Richard Dawkins the avowed atheist is really an atheist in the end in his heart; only God through His omniscience would know.

But, do not mistake this for a leniency. It is still our responsibility to act on our knowledge, and one of the most intuitive principles we hold as humans is to gather more knowledge. While it is not knowledge that saves, if we hold our beliefs through a lack of will to gather that knowledge we would have otherwise held, then that is as bad as knowing and rejecting; while ultimately only God can judge the extent to which our ignorance is not entirely our fault, or how culpable we are for our ignorance.

For an illustration of culpability, imagine this. A girl grows up in Saudi Arabia, and is, inevitably, Muslim. Based upon what she knows and learns about Allah, she worships Him as best she knows. All she ever learns about Christianity is that it is a good, but false, religion. In her entire life she only has one encounter with a Christian, who strongly advocates that she convert, but based upon what she has learned her entire life about what to believe, she rejects the Christian and so remains a Muslim.

According to some Christians she would be wholly culpable for this rejection, but this is obviously irreflective of the reality. Did she reject the Christian message because she truly rejected Christ, or because she had been taught to reject Christ and was trusting in the wisdom of those imams who she knew could be trusted to be wise about so many other things?

Only God would be able to judge her by knowing how culpable she was for her rejection of Christ. While yes, if she obstinately holds a belief in Mohammed as prophet to the end, she would be damned, we do not know whether she would. Since God judges our hearts, and not our minds, there is hope for the Muslim woman from this scenario.

That is, in a nutshell, my though about judgment. God through His omniscience judges perfectly, so we cannot ever say we know what is required of a person to be saved now, since God will know whether we accept of reject Him in the end; but whether we accept or reject Him in the end is also dependent upon how we act now, and so we are responsible to the knowledge we have now and to gain more knowledge.

Hell

Hell

 

What is Hell? In discussions on the nature of Hell and whether it is just or unjust, this is often the crux; a universalist is open to a conception of Hell that is “escapist,” while non-universalists are committed to a conception of Hell that implies a permanent, unescapable fate. Atheists and agnostics alike find the idea of Hell in conjunction with a God who is supposedly omnibenevolent repulsive and often make a point of it in polemics. I am of the view that the idea of Hell is in fact a profitable idea, that it helps to illumine the extent to which man truly has free will. I believe it is best to talk about Hell philosophically, for while Scripture is profitable, a literalist conception of Hell, while perhaps metaphorically accurate, as spoken about in Scripture doesn’t appear to offer a succinct definition and idea of Hell.

 

The first and most important thing to consider of Hell is that is not Heaven. According to Anselm, God is the maximally perfect being, and so if good comes from God (specifically His omnibenevolence), evil does not. Evil, since it doesn’t come from God, but exists, is that which is a corruption or privation of that which is good. Things that are evil can only exist where there is a good for it to corrupt. For instance, lying is the unjustified withholding of the truth, a distortion of reality. Truth on the other hand is simply that which corresponds to reality; truth is not a privation of falsity, but rather falsity a privation of truth. There is no original evil.

 

Thus, Hell can only be understood as an antithesis of Heaven. Since my idea in this essay is to present a rational understanding of Hell and its meaning, I will have to develop the idea of Heaven.

 

I am of the view that whatever exists positively (in an additive sense, not a good/evil sense) exists insofar as it compares to God, who is the fount of all that exists. Since God is absolutely logical, He could not create something in antithesis to Himself, so everything that He creates would be comparable to Him, there being nothing created that doesn’t compare to Him. This is not say that God compares to what He creates, but only that what He creates is comparable to Him. So, the very idea of being and existence are fundamentally something insofar as they compare to the “existence” and “being” of God. God, who is being, creates what we perceive and recognize to be being. Something can only be understood as comparable to God in this way. God is “wholly other,” but only in the sense that we cannot truly compare God to everything we perceive around us except through metaphor.

 

So, if I were to posit there actually exists such a thing universally recognized as Beauty, then this only actually exists in the world insofar as it compares to the Beauty that is God. It is the same with every immanent and transcendental thing; from being and existence to logic and good. It is the Good that I am primarily interested in here.

 

Since we posit that there is good, there is only good because it comes from God. There is nothing that exists that does not come from God; evil in this sense is not a “thing” because it is a privation of good. As there can only be evil if there is good (like earlier discussed), then there can only be Hell if there is Heaven.

 

If Heaven then is the ideal state for man, which is synonymous with God’s created intent for man, Hell only exists insofar as it is a privation of Heaven. It is the not-ideal state for man, it is in flat contradiction to God’s intent. As God is omnibenevolent, His intent will be for the best of His creation, and so by nature and the nature of God the best state, or ideal state, will always be in every possible world a perfect eternal communion with God. This is what Heaven is. Hell, then, is an eternal separation from God. If this separation isn’t eternal, it isn’t Hell.

 

As this is a philosophical definition arrived at without support from Scripture, we cannot yet be so bold as to identify this conception of Hell with the Hell spoken of in Scripture. Whether Hades and/or Gehenna are synonymous with this conception of Hell is to be seen. At the very least, however, it is established that Hell is a rational concept which can be understood and meaningfully discussed.

 

The next question then is “Why would there be Hell?” This again can only be answered by understanding Heaven.

 

Heaven, as being a perfect communion with God, implies a relationship of I-Thou. A relationship between an I-It is not meaningful, for the It can never return my love or appreciation in any way, because the It has no ability of being a person. For instance, my relationship with this laptop which I write this essay on is strictly I-It; as emotionally or mentally moved I may be by its being lost or broken, if I were to have a great loss, even if I died, this laptop, not even in one single atom that composes it, would have the least of sympathy, because it is simply incapable of such an act, being entirely impersonal. Hence, a communion, by implying relationship, only meaningfully exists between two or more persons. A communion between myself and a book is not in any way actually meaningful. Heaven then is only possible for persons outside of God, but not for chairs, lamps, or stars.

 

Further implicated by relationship is free will; if another person with whom I think I have a relationship with is not acting under their own free will, then we do not truly have a relationship. It could appear like a relationship based upon what we experience as a relationship, but the substance of what defines a relationship, mutual free will, lacking, would annihilate there being any possibility of a relationship. If I am not free of myself to choose to form a relationship with another person or not, then I cannot form a relationship. If I am just an automata who can only have the appearance of having a relationship, I cannot have a relationship. Free will is absolutely necessary for a relationship and communion.

 

Therefore, there can only be a Heaven if there are persons outside of God who can of their own free will choose to accept communion with God. If I am not free to accept God’s invitation, then it is not Heaven; also, if I am not free to reject God’s invitation, it is again not Heaven. There can only be the façade of Heaven, but that it is all it could be.

 

Now Hell, being the antithesis of Heaven, would be understood in this way to a human; since Heaven is the freely accepted perfect eternal communion with God, Hell is the freely chosen eternal separation from God. This doesn’t yet establish that there necessarily must be the possibility of Hell, but it further develops an idea of what Hell necessarily would be understood as. The question “Why Hell?” is answered, though; Hell is a person’s choice to reject God. If there wasn’t a Hell to choose, there wouldn’t be a Heaven to have.

 

The next question to consider in developing a conception of Hell is “Is Hell in the Biblical sense eternal?”

 

I think this question can be answered teleologically. If God was going to force me to make the choice an infinite amount of times whether or not I would accept or reject God without allowing me to remain confirmed in my initial choice, then necessarily I will be saved. Hence, teleologically, I have no free will to reject God. Since I would have no free will to reject God ultimately, then, because Heaven can only be Heaven if its chosen out of my free will. This seems to not make sense prima facie, but allow me to fill in a crucial detail.

 

If I were to truly have free will, it may not matter whether or not I can choose to have brown hair or blond hair, whether I can choose to buy a Honda Civic or a Toyota Corolla, it would only really matter whether I could choose to accept or reject God. In the end, the only choice that will really matter is our acceptance or rejection of God.

 

If this choice can only be made based on God’s continuing to offer us the choice, then it is not yet a rejection of God if I am still offered the choice. My ultimate decision will rest on one of two things; either I accept the invitation and am fulfilled such that I am confirmed in my decision, or I reject the invitation such that I am no longer offered the invitation. We are given the free will to determine whether or not God will continue to extend His mercy and grace. If I was not free to choose for God to quit extending Himself to me, then I was never really free to accept Him, because I had no way to reject God. Hell in this way becomes God giving us precisely what a person would choose in rejecting God; the absence of God, as implied by separation. After God has been made absent, then if God were to once again force Himself on us after this decision has been made, He is essentially breaking our free will, and a broken free will cannot appreciate Heaven. A person with a broken free will is nothing more than an automata.

 

Thus, a person in Hell is trapped within themselves, since even God couldn’t break in without making any grace He would extend to them moot, since the only meaningful grace is that which is extended to a person who can freely accept or reject it. Its a matter of logic at this point. The idea that God should be able to rescue people form this Hell is thus a matter of misunderstanding, a pretending the nature of God and free will is other than it is. It is thus established that Hell is a necessary possibility, and that the Biblical Hell can only be such a Hell as philosophically determined. If not, then the God of the Bible cannot be the God who truly exists.

 

The last question to consider is “Is there suffering in Hell?”

 

I think the answer is rightly yes, but not because the suffering of Hell is something that is positively inflicted, rather because it is God letting people who reject Him have exactly what they wish, and they find it to be unfulfilling in every possible way. It would be impossible for a person to exist eternally without eventually coming to a knowledge of what they rejected in choosing themselves over God. Thus, their suffering happens because they have caused it upon themselves, but they will choose to have this suffering over letting God rescue them (for the reason listed about about teleological free will). In fact, this may even be a matter of mercy, for certainly the person who has rejected God would find it worse to be within the presence of God than to be without, for they should find it to be everything possibly objectionable, since they have spited very existence itself.

 

Further circumstances of suffering may be involved in that, by having been cut off from God, persons find themselves in a situation they weren’t created for, nor could they have been possibly created for. As it was God’s intent for them to be in His presence, then they should find God’s non-presence unsuitable to them just as one might find the surface of the sun very unsuitable, because their body is suited for the temperature ranges found on earth.

 

Another possibility is that pain is caused in trying to escape God’s presence, since hypothetically the question of whether God, if He is omnipresent, is found in God. The Orthodox conception of Hell places it in the same presence of God and the Saints, except that people find it unsuitable because they have decided they do not like God, especially not His presence. I am wary of this particular conception, however, since I have already defined Hell as being a separation from God.

 

Like the Orthodox conception, though, is the idea that Hell is the attempt to escape God’s presence through continually diminishing and approaching non-being, and this is found unsuitable to the person for the reasons listed above.

 

Thus, I think the most probable explanation for suffering in Hell is that it is unsuitable to us by the fact of what we were intended for by God.

 

Final objections to Hell can be easily refuted by the application of the conception of Hell I’ve just developed here. It doesn’t make sense for God to not offer the possibility of Hell, because that would make the notion of Heaven meaningless since we wouldn’t be free to reject it ultimately. That God shouldn’t let people have exactly what they’ve chosen seems a very unjust idea, as the question we shall be asked on judgment day is not “Heaven or Hell?” but “You or Me?” We are free to choose ourselves or God.

 

A last question worth considering has not to do with the conception of Hell but about those in Heaven. Certainly we shall not lose our knowledge of those people who we discover are in Hell. The question then is “How shall people in Heaven be able to enjoy Heaven knowing the suffering of people in Hell?”

 

I am confident the question is not for the same reasons as Jonathan Edwards imagined, as if we shall be happy in the glory of God’s justice inflicting His wrath upon those sinners He decided not to save. However, I believe there may be some value to this idea, not in conjunction with Edwards’ conception of Hell, free will, and election, but with my own; those in Heaven shall be content in God’s absolute justice by letting people have exactly what they want. If we shall not be content with God’s letting them have their choice to reject Him (and the Saints, by extension), then we allow Hell a veto to the idea of Heaven, a divine extortion by the damned against God that would disallow Heaven to be a Paradise.

 

To some universalists, this is exactly why God must save all people, but I think the universalists are in fact in this way just selfish. They care more about their own wish for all to be saved than for each person to have the free will to accept or reject God. In this way universalists, as noble as they might appear, are as bad as the Calvinists who also don’t allow people the free will to accept or reject God (but don’t think I favor Arminianism).

 

On the other hand, I would support the speculation of a weak universalism. In comparison to your typical universalists who says that all will be saved, a weak universalist could say that all might be saved, and the only thing that prevents us from being a strong universalist, at least now, is our epistemological ability to know the fate of those on the other side of time. Hans Urs von Balthasar forwarded this view, and though it is highly controversial, it is still a speculative possibility to the extent that the Church cannot speak infallibly on whether or not any single person has been damned, only as to whether a person has been saved as revealed by God. The reply that it would seem Judas has been damned because Jesus said “It would have been better for this person to not be born” is tempered by the knowledge that Judas partook of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, which certainly outweighs Hell if we consider God infinitely great and anything evil without the ability to overcome Him.

 

To summarize, it has been developed in this essay that Heaven is a freely chosen eternal perfect communion with God as chosen by a person according to the rule of I-Thou/I-It, and that Hell, being the antithesis of Heaven, is a necessary possibility if Heaven is to be a possibility, as a freely chosen eternal separation from God in which the damned are trapped within themselves and cannot be saved by the nature of this choice.

 

This essay thus establishes that there is a rational way to go about conceiving Hell and discussing it, and that Hell is not contradictory to the existence of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient God.

Premarital Sex

Premarital Sex

 

I have been meaning to get around to writing on this topic for a while now. In contemporary times, there has been so few defenses of traditional understandings of sexual ethics that it is no surprise many teenagers think there is no reason for people to wait until marriage to have sex, and that the primary reason teenagers do remain abstinent is wholly for religious, not philosophical, reasons. My intent then with this essay is to restore a veritable defense of traditional understandings of sexual ethics by demonstrating the premises from which my conclusions follow. I will be defending the assertion that premarital sex, in the sense that it is sex outside the bounds of marriage, is wrong. I will develop the notion of marriage as it is understood based on social premises, and clarify illegitimate objections to marriage or its traditional understandings.

 

Sexual intercourse, biologically speaking, has one purpose; reproduction. It is no wonder then that sex is hugely pleasurable; those creatures which didn’t find its reproductive methods pleasurable didn’t participate in reproduction as much, while those that did reproduced more often, and evolution happened. Hence we as humans have a huge drive to have sex and find it intensely, almost spiritually, pleasing.

 

There are, however, problems to humans having sex as often as and with whomever they wished. Evolution in humans is not limited to acting out biologically like it does with the rest of the animal kingdom, but it plays out in society as well. Where in biological terms evolution predicts that creatures that are stronger, faster, better at hiding, more poisonous, etc, will survive while those that are weaker and slower will die out and their genes not get passed on, in societal terms, evolution predicts that those societies that have norms which are beneficial to reproduction will win out.

 

Let me give two illustrations.

 

First, in biology. If we have two dozen penguins in Antarctica, with one dozen having warmer feathers than the other, we would expect to see the penguins with warmer feathers to dominate, and their genes to be found in later generations of penguins. Those penguins with less warm feathers are more likely to die, and in dying, not reproducing, meaning they don’t pass on their genes. This is how evolution works.

 

Second, in society. This is more complex, but the same principle goes to work. Where with the penguins it was a matter of which penguins lived, with humans it is often which have stronger beliefs in the goodness of children. For instance, the entire history of religions that demanded celibacy of their adherents could be covered with nothing more than a footnote, while religions that highly valued fertility, reproduction, and children (such as Islam) dominate history. If a society makes a norm of infanticide, it is no wonder that these societies die out, if not in entirety of themselves, then at least these norms in the societies they were found. It should be no wonder that Christianity came to “conquer” the Roman Empire when one considers the decadent moral practices of the pagan Romans, especially as regards sexuality and reproduction.

 

Considering this sort of societal evolution helps to explain why, when one studies cultures, that there is an institution we would recognize as marriage is found universally. It has not so much to do with human nature itself, but simply because those cultures that didn’t believe in marriage didn’t make any mark on history because they were too brief, too weak, and too fragile, as they were likely incorporated into other societies. On the other hand, this also explains why one typically sees a resurgence of conservative attitudes towards sexuality time and again in cultures that at one time were rather liberal; the Greeks, the Japanese, and Chinese were all at some time in their histories liberal about sex, but then the conservative norms won out.

 

As history repeats itself, I would consider myself well within speculation to estimate that a hundred years from now, if the USA still exists, it will have “reverted” to the same views of sexual ethics (not necessarily of sex itself) as it did fifty years ago. Why? Just because those people with strong conservative beliefs regarding sex tend to reproduce more; this is why there are so many Catholics and Muslims in the world. The same predictions could be made regarding abortion, but that isn’t the purpose of this essay.

 

Rather, analyzing the historical data, the question becomes “Why do we find marriage in every culture that we know existed?” I think the reasoning is actually quite simple and requires a very elementary knowledge of sexual intercourse.

 

As anyone with a high school education can tell you, sex is the cause of children. Where there is a child, there has been sex. There has never been a child without two parents (one male, one female) participating in sexual intercourse, save Mary, of course (IVF doesn’t count). Undoubtedly this was as well known to the ancients as it is to us.

 

In this sense, the fact of sex becomes a problem to be solved. Considering evolution again, those parents who were strongly attached to their children in the primate/hominid lines (considering the lengthy maturation of children in these species) were more likely to have children who grew and reproduced themselves. This instinct was found in our human ancestors as well, undoubtedly. On the other hand, civilizations who had developed culture to the point of specialized occupations (farmer, scribe, soldier, etc) tempered the instinct humans had towards monogamy, since the family unit had expanded into the community. Thus arose the institution of laws and, later, philosophy.

 

Let us start with examining the tribe, however. In a tribe, there may be only as many as several hundred people. One injustice in the tribe has deeper repercussions than one injustice in a society of thousands. Probably the first problem to be solved then was of sex and children; since sex lead to children, and the tribe was dependent upon their children, sex was a good thing, but since children were also a good thing, they needed to be raised. The responsibility of raising the children was then of the parents who brought those children into the world. The way to make sure that the parents stuck together through a rite recognized by us as marriage, where two people, male and female (nothing came of male/male or female/female relationships, so what was the point of “gay marriage?), made vows of lifelong fidelity to each other in front of the community. This has perennially what we’ve understood as marriage, then and now.

 

Now that the parents would be together, then the two could have sex freely without worrying about the children, since the children had thus been reasonably secured an ideal relationship to be born into, with a mother and father who could both take care of them. Other tribes that perhaps left it up to the mother alone inevitably died out, while those tribes with the solution of marriage lived on (and still do today, in Africa and South America).

 

Since there is now recognized an institution of marriage, there could then be such a thing as “premarital sex.” What was the matter of this?

 

It was as much a problem as not having marriage at all. The children that resulted of sex were just as likewise not reasonably secured an ideal relationship to be born into, and so the tribe was weak, and so the tribe died.

 

Hence we find marriage universally in all cultures.

 

What then of the modern day? In fact, we now have even more reasons to value the institution of marriage than the tribes did. We need not value it only for its ability to be a foundation of society, but because it is solves a human rights abuse. The tribe may have had a fuzzy notion of human rights, but in the last 2500 years it has been expounded upon, beginning with Greek philosophy and inculcated in Christian Europe and flowering richly for the last several centuries. It needn’t be stated that we now recognize the innate dignity of all humans, no matter age, location, ethnicity, or any other accidental feature for all to know that this is precisely what needs to be believed for people to make it in society.

 

So what then does the modern problem of sex look like? The biology hasn’t changed; sex still leads to children. Even contraception hasn’t been able to override this natural function of the body perfectly. As this is so, we have a responsibility towards the children we would have through sex. What responsibility? Quite simply, the same as in the tribe; to raise, educate, and provide for our children all that is required until they come of age. To do this we are obligated to provide a reasonably secured relationship for these things to be provided; and even yet, this still is the same. Children are most benefited by having both parents of male and female sex than not. As such is the case, then premarital sex, because it has not provided for the children of which sex by its nature leads to, can be described as a gross effrontery to the infinite dignity of human beings. Its a gravely immoral wrong, not merely for religious reasons, but due to the dignity of humanity.

 

Hence, marriage is necessary for sex to be responsible. Its a very simple dictum; nobody should have sex until they are ready for children, and no one is ready for children until they have provided for those children a marriage to be born into.

 

The reply “I’ll just make sure to use contraception then” is inadequate. First, there is no such thing as a perfect contraception. Even if I were to place a bullet in one chamber in one gun of a hundred, it would still be wrong for me to pick up one of those guns and pull the trigger at another just in case I so happen to pick up the gun with the bullet in the right chamber. There is nothing essentially different with premarital sex.

 

Second, contraception is itself a grave immoral wrong, as it reduces the dignity of humans to nothing more than objects of sexual lust. The notion that a girl can take some pills or that a guy can just put a condom on and be perfectly suited to have sex is what leads to the objectification of the body. Its why we find that there are an estimated 10 million single mothers living in the US right now; because the men who had sex with them didn’t care enough to stick around for the children, only for the sex. Its why there are so many abortions; because the body becomes viewed as nothing more than a tool for one’s pleasure and no more.

 

While it is rightly immediately repulsive to many people that such objectification should happen, the use of contraceptives offers no defense against it happening. If I am with a girl who uses contraceptives, then I could just as well have sex with her and leave the next day, because there are no consequences that are intended in having sex, except pleasure. Using contraceptives causes this, for sex to be viewed as nothing more than a means to pleasure, requiring the use of another person’s body who I don’t need to have a care for. I wish to quote, because the statement is succinct and expressive in a way I can’t match; “a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.” This of course works vice versa, perpetrated by the woman against the man.

 

The argument against the use of contraception has empirical evidence in addition to its rational evidence. As was predicted by opponents of contraception when it became widely available, there would become a generally lowered moral standard and increased marital infidelity, both of which have been found to be true. As contraceptive use went up, divorce rates went up, probably for the exact reason as the quote in the above paragraph said. A husband whose wife is on the pill who then becomes dissatisfied with her is more prone to abandon her (and the children) altogether to find another woman who can better satisfy his desires, rather than finding a problem with his own desires and seeking to better reverence his wife and his children.

 

The consequences of using contraception even between married couples are dubious. While the argument might be made that its used to help establish a relationship between the parents in the first place in benefit of future children, what then of the child that may result? Considering there has been effort put forth by the parents to strive against a child’s existing, then this would limit the ability of the parents to have unconditional love and respect for their child, unless they repent of their use of contraceptives.

The last resort, abortion, is obviously disqualified by anyone who has followed these logical progressions. As it is a debate in and of itself, I will not cover it here, but as I have done elsewhere, I will assume that abortion is wrong for the purposes of continuity in this essay.

 

Finally, there are those who wonder precisely what great evils premarital sex causes, if any at all. As I have shown, there are great reductions of human dignity presumed in premarital sex, and as I can point out, its not for any other reason that there are now 10 million single mothers in the US (where in 1970 there were only 3 million) and that there are daily ~4,000 abortions. No one can pretend that premarital sex is not a grave problem in this culture looking at these statistics.

 

To summarize, my argument that premarital sex is always wrong is dependent upon these premises;

 

1) It is wrong to have sex without being ready for children

 

2) One is only ready for children in a marriage

 

3) Contraception is an evil

 

4) Abortion is an evil

 

Thus, the conclusion

 

5) Therefore, premarital sex is an act of utmost selfishness and disregard for human dignity

 

is veritably founded.

The Biblical Church

The Biblical Church

 

I have accepted as a challenge from a reader to present a Biblical picture of the Church and demonstrate that it is the Catholic Church which can make the claim to be precisely that Church in its entirety. I will not here be dealing with the logical or historical issues, but merely demonstrating that the Catholic Church’s conception of herself is resonant and congruent with a particular interpretation of Scripture. I say “a particular interpretation” precisely because ultimately any interpretation of Scripture is naturally prone to error and misunderstanding. It is for this reason I much more strongly believe and argue for the Catholic Church’s singularity based on logical and historical means, because logic and history cannot be “interpreted away.” This essay here should not be read apart from my historico-logical arguments, but simply as supplements to demonstrate that the Church does work in accordance with her own teaching that Holy Scripture is inspired and inerrant.

 

First, I will illumine that I do not believe the Bible is holy, inspired, and inerrant because the Bible supposedly tells me it; that would be circular, not even mentioning most books of the Bible don’t even make the claim of inspiration or inerrancy. I believe what the Bible says because the Church tells me the Bible is true in its true meaning. Christians who work their theology from Scripture may well be commendable for doing so, but to center their theology on Scripture is blatantly unChristian; we are called “Christians” for a reason. Christ is central, Scripture is supplementary.

 

I know that I go work from the Church to Scripture sounds plainly unChristian and unBiblical to Protestant Christian Sola Scripturists, but this is because I have found that “Scripture Alone” is untenable. Rather than measure the Church by Scripture, I measure Scripture by the Church. Hence, I am a Catholic. The reason for my providing this Scriptural defense of the Catholic Church’s ecclesiology is for demonstration purposes more than anything else, so that it cannot be honestly claimed the Catholic Church gives herself a view which is in contradiction with her own Scriptures.

 

I will use Scripture to demonstrate the Niceno-Constapntinopalian definition of the Church as “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic” is Scripturally rooted. Perhaps in a later post I will demonstrate the meaning of the Church being “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic” properly means as the Church Fathers who gave us that definition meant by it (and to use some definition other than they meant puts one outside of continuity with those Christians). I will also supply Scriptural evidence for several other qualifiers of the nature of the Church; that she is visible, infallible, and authoritative.

 

The Church is One

 

First and foremost, there is Jesus’ declaration that He will “build [His] church.” (Matt. 16:18) Of note here is that He declares His church in the singular, not the multiple. He does not promise churches, but just a church. Thus, the Catholic Church’s claim to be the One Church of Christ is not in any way arrogant, but is, to the Catholic Church, just a fact of Scripture. For Catholics to admit the validity of other churches to being part of the Church started at Pentecost becomes simply a matter of contradicting Scripture.

 

“There shall be one flock and one shepherd.” (John 10:16) This is true of the Catholic Church and no other church; the Catholic Church is one communion under the singular leadership of the Pope. In Protestantism and Orthodoxy alike we see multiple communions under the leadership of multiple people.

 

“Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one; that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” (John 17:11,21,23) Jesus’ prayer is naturally efficacious. If Jesus prays for the Church to be One, then the Church shall be undeniably One. It is certainly not out of God’s ability to protect the unity of the Church.

 

“I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.” (Rom. 16:17) Paul here urges the Roman Church to maintain unity, because the Church is One.

 

“I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.” (1 Cor. 1:10) A Church that has a varying degree of unascertainable doctrines is no Church at all.

 

“There is one body and one Spirit…one Lord, one faith.” (Eph. 4:4-5) Paul here adamantly claims that the Church is One.

 

Note: I’m obviously interpreting “One” differently than Protestants, as I am a Catholic. However, I believe my interpretation superior not on that account, but because it holds with fidelity to the true meaning of the words with which the Apostles and those Paul’s letters were written to would have understood them.

 

Jesus spoke to the Apostles about the Church as the “kingdom,” which in itself has political connotations of an indivisible body. In the Protestant idea of the Church, the Church comprises all those who are Christians. This is not reflected in Scripture. Rather, per the political connotations of a kingdom, just like an Israelite and Hittite are both not in the same kingdom, the kingdom, or Church, is only One if that unity is indivisible and not separated through doctrinal and organizational disagreements and differences. For the Catholic to claim “I am in the Church” is not the same as for the Protestant to claim “I am in the Church.” The Catholic understands that they are in the Church because they are connected to the historical body which claims to be started at Pentecost and that it has maintained the same unity of doctrine and organization since the beginning. The Protestant claim is, in comparison, ahistorical and non-ecclesiastical. This is not to the offense of my Protestant brethren, but it is simply the fact of reality. To take umbrage over my maintaining integrity to my belief that the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ started at Pentecost is like me taking umbrage over you having a different interpretation of Scripture. I disagree, but I will not act offended. If you think being offended makes me wrong, that simply makes you believe you can extort me into repenting my confessions of belief.

 

The Church is Holy

 

“I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.” (Rev. 21:2) I believe this verse sufficient to demonstrate that the Church is holy. The “Holy City,” “new Jerusalem,” and “bride” are all euphemisms for the Church, just like elsewhere in Scripture. Not every reference to a kingdom or city is about the Church, but you can tell by context.

 

The Church is Catholic

 

A quick note; the word “catholic” comes from Greek katholikos, which means “universal.”

 

For this precept, I like to point not so much to declarations by Jesus or the Apostles in the New Testament, but to prophecies which clearly foretell of the coming kingdom of God. In Isaiah, there is often drawn a distinction between the unrighteousness of the Jews and the sanctity of the future kingdom where God will have His temple (which is the Lamb, see Rev. 21). From “See how the faithful city has become a harlot!” (Is. 1:21) to “I will turn my hand against you; I will thoroughly purge away your dross and remove all your impurities. I will restore your judges as in days of old, your counselors as at the beginning. Afterward you will be called the City of Righteousness, the Faithful City.” (Is. 1:25-26) I believe these are clear prophecies of the coming Church.

 

I like Isaiah particularly for his vivid imagery about the Church. Like I mentioned before, there are certain euphemisms for the Church used throughout Scripture. These are the house, city, kingdom, hill, mountain, Zion, Jerusalem, woman, bride, and mother. Pertaining to the Church’s catholicity, you can especially see it here; “In the last days the mountain of the LORD’s temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills, and all nations will stream to it. Many peoples will come and say, Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths. The law will go out from Zion, the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.” (Is. 2:2-3) It is here clearly illustrated that the Church will 1) be composed of peoples from all nations, 2) be established above all other nations, 3) the Church teaches, and 4) God’s law and word (read: doctrines) come down from the Church. This is strengthened when cross-referenced with “His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,” (Eph. 3:10) which indicates that even the angels gain their knowledge of God through the Church.

 

The Church is Apostolic

 

There is a very simple logical demonstration of this based off of a single verse. Jesus says to the Apostles “As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” (John 20:21) Examining this, it tells us that the Father sent the Son to send. As the Son is sent by the Father, the Son sends the Apostles. Since the Son was sent to send, then the Apostles are also sent to send. Hence, Apostolic Succession. The Holy Spirit is manifested through the line of authority present from the Apostles through the bishops they ordained, and those bishops those bishops ordained, and so on. Each generation is sent to send just as the Son Himself was originally sent by the Father.

 

The Church is Visible

 

What does it mean that the Church is visible? It means that the Church is not merely some ethereal invisible connection between all Christians; in one sense, this is what the Church is. However, the Church is also not merely invisible, but very visible. This means that the Church can be found through history, and that the Church can be definitively found, that it has a communion which is real and organized, rather than being free form.

 

If the Church is visible, then the Church can speak authoritatively. An authoritative invisible Church is a contradiction in terms, because that would make it impossible for the authority of the Church to be ratified anywhere, since there wouldn’t be any visible irrefutable signs that who is speaking is truly who the Holy Spirit is resting on or working through.

 

“A city on a hill cannot be hidden.” (Matt. 5:14)

 

“I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matt. 18:18) How can an invisible body do such works of authority? The Church must necessarily be visible if it is to be able to do such things.

 

“[The Church] is Christ’s body.” (Eph. 1:23) This is telling; Paul uses the word body, which is visible, as opposed to the soul, which is invisible. If Paul meant an invisible connection between all believers, why did he use the word “body?”

 

The Church is Infallible

 

This is probably the most strongly supportable proposition in defining the Church. Scripture everywhere points to this fact.

 

“God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” (1 Tim. 3:15) This is the most definite and obvious verse on the matter of the Church’s infallibility. It very easily follows that if the Church really is the “pillar and foundation of the truth,” then the Church is infallible. Some Protestants respond to this use of the verse by claiming that Paul is speaking about the local Church; this is absurd, as his sense clearly changes from before, and it doesn’t make any sense to believe that any one local church is infallible.

 

“And a highway will be there; it will be called the Way of Holiness. The unclean will not journey on it; it will be for those who walk in that Way; the simple will not stray from it.” (Is. 35:8) This verse appears to indicate that not even “the simple” will err in the Way. This can only be if there is some infallible authority.

 

The Church is Authoritative

 

Never mind that the Church’s authority is logically necessary to my being able to use Scripture the way I am here, let us proceed.

 

“If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matt. 18:15-18) Yes, I already used one part of this verse, but it helps to make clear the Church’s authority. Jesus’ progression is logical, and culminates with the Church. If the Church does not really have the authority to decide matters of doctrine, then why does Jesus recommend the Church as the “Supreme Court” to decide these matters?

 

“This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.” (1 Cor. 2:13) Paul here is speaking about ministers of the Church, indicating that they are led by the Holy Spirit in matters of faith. It is by being led by the Holy Spirit that authority is possible.

 

Conclusion

 

It was not my aim to prove that the Catholic Church is the Church here in this essay, but merely to demonstrate that there is a veritable Catholic interpretation to Scripture which shows how the Catholic Church’s conception of herself is in fact congruent and resonant with Scripture. You can claim I misinterpreted, but you can’t now claim I didn’t use Scripture to back up the Church’s claims about herself.

What Does it Matter?

I recently wrote a short story, and the message is theological enough that I thought it worth posting.

What Does it Matter?

 

I have had an extensive career as a psychologist, and so I have dealt with multifarious types of people, from the most politely sane to the most imaginatively insane. Being professionally trained, I am not often moved by the stories I hear in any meaningful way; I treat my patients disinterestedly but personally, as one would bring a beloved pet to the veterinarian, and, when it comes to it, one must hold the pet down while the vet delivers the shots that are for its health. There was one particular patient I had, however, that I found deeply disturbing, who put my own psychological health in a bit of crisis. That is why I am writing this down, of course, for the analysis of another, although I am sure, being a psychologist, that there is truly nothing to be done about this.

The patient in question was a man referenced to my care by his family members, who were worried over his ability to communicate with others. When he first entered my office (on a Tuesday afternoon, I believe) I was hardly mystified as to why; he was dreadfully unhygienic. He needed to shave, his hair was greasy, his clothes were stained, his teeth yellow with rot, and, I remember quite clearly, he stunk, so much so that I could smell him from across the room, and my nose wrinkles at the memory. He sat down and stared at me like one stares at a squirrel burying acorns.

After several tedious and extended moments, I introduced myself. “Hello, I am Dr. Durant. I understand that you are here because your family asked that you come?”

He did not look like he intended to reply or pursue conversation, but neither did he appear to enjoinder it.

“Your family has paid—in advance—for four sessions, although, if you are this talkative, I feat it may take a dozen to get through what would usually only take one!”

My joke was very dry, and he did not laugh or even feign amusement in the slightest. This wasn’t going well. However, results mattered only where the money kept coming in, and so at the very least, I would need to get him talking somehow if I expected his family to keep paying for him to come. This was probably my mistake, to try to make him talk.

“Your family is worried about you, your ability to communicate with others. Now, I can see why. When was the last time you bathed, groomed, or cleaned yourself?”

No answer. I looked over his records, and found his details equally disappointing: does not like to talk. At the very least, though, this was something to work with. It meant he might talk, even if he didn’t like it. I could try and get him angry, lie about him, ask him leading questions about embarrassing topics… In my naivety, I decided to be subtle, and drive directly towards his obviously unhygienic practices.

“There is something to be positively said about practicing hygiene. It helps one to be able to have friends, keep relations with family, feel good about one’s self. You wake up, and take a shower, and so your day starts, freshly and cleanly, prepared to take on the world. Society thinks a lot more higher of those who practice hygiene, I’m sure you know. So—”

“So what?” he said calmly, like a child asking why the sky is blue. There was no hint of indignation in his voice. not as if I was striking at a nerve like I thought I would be doing.

His answer took me for quite a shock, and so I needed a few moments to regain my footing. I hadn’t dealt with too many anti-social patients before, but this man was different in that he didn’t react with indignation towards a person valuing the appreciation of society. “Well, society is very important…”

“Why?”

I saw this wasn’t going to be easy. “Society is made up of people. People are important, and so what people value is important. Hence, it is important for a person to be able to get along in their society.”

“Why?”

I saw I was going to need to prepare my answers further in advance, to have better replies so that he wouldn’t keep asking “Why?” “Because you’re a person.”

“So?”

At least he hadn’t asked “Why?” again, because then I wouldn’t have known how to respond. “Don’t you think you’re important? Wouldn’t you care if someone took something of yours you didn’t want to be taken, if someone murdered you?”

“Why should I? From oblivion I come, to oblivion I go, why should it matter in between, if it didn’t matter before and it won’t matter in the end?” His face did not lighten up, and he answered (or rhetorically asked) as dryly as a person commenting on the weather. I could not tell if he was sane or insane at this point, though I leaned towards insanity. It was always the more dangerous insanity that could appear sane.

“For one, I care. Shouldn’t I care?”

“I don’t know why I should care about my own, why should you care about yours?” He raised his eyebrows slightly, the first nonverbal form of communication he’d employed since he’d walked in.

“Why shouldn’t we?”

“That doesn’t answer my question. Positive assertions require positive evidence. Do you have any evidence that your life is so important I couldn’t kill you without it mattering?”

“Yes, of course. I’m alive, and I care about my life. Why should I care about my life if it isn’t important?”

The man smiled. “Why should I care that you care? Why does it matter that you care, or what you care about?”

“Because I’m important! I am a human person with rights!”

“Says what?”

My temper had flared, and it had caused me to lose track of the fact that this man was my patient. He was in my universe, not me in his. I took a few seconds to calm down, and replied evenly “Says all rational people.”

“I find no reason that humans matter or that their life is in any way important. This, by your account, precludes me from being rational. However, if I’m being so irrational, why is it that you cannot show my questions to be irrational? It would seem that all people who have said ‘Life is important’ weren’t really being rational at all, if they cannot answer why.”

“We can make ourselves important. We create our meaning and purpose. Its because we say we have rights that we have rights.” I did not know how else to answer; his questions were exhausting me in an embarrassingly short time.

“What does it matter what we make of ourselves?”

There was a pause. I gaped at the man, head slightly turned, eyes slightly squinted, peering at him skeptically like a man does at a person on the street making irrational claims. I finally retorted “For God’s sake!—”

“There is no God,” he answered without a pause, almost as if he’d been waiting for me to bring Him up.

And he was right, I suppose, but, “How do you know I don’t believe in God?”

He chuckled. “It’s very simple, really. If you had believed in God, you would’ve been able to think about the fact that without God, there is no possible way for anything to have meaning; not what you do, what you say, what is done to you, who you are, why you are, how you are, or what anything around you is like. In that, you would’ve known the correct answer to ‘Why does anything matter?’ can only be ‘God.’ There is nothing else that can give meaning to existence. But you haven’t, because those in the darkness are afraid to comprehend the darkness, while those in the light are not.”

I saw a problem with his answer, though, and I jumped on it quickly. “But what about what I said? That we can create meaning? See, we don’t need a God to give us meaning, we can create it!” I stood in triumph at my desk, slamming my fist down with glee.

He waited a few seconds. “What does is matter? What meaningful meaning can a meaningless person make? Isn’t it ultimately meaningless?” He paused before going on. “If I go up to a person on the street and say ‘I am meaningful!’ does this give me meaning? If I go up to a chair, a desk, a dog, a lamp, and say ‘I am meaningful!’ does this give me meaning?” He coughed a bit. I sat down. “It is some strange sort of insanity for a person to believe that because they go up to the cold, unfeeling, impersonal universe and shout ‘I am meaningful!’ they have given themselves meaning, as if their opposition to the universe’s meaninglessness gives them meaning. This is, in reality, nothing more than slightest insanity. It is sane to pursue premises to their logical ends, and so if you believe that you can create your meaning where you are undoubtedly meaningless—because you cannot, of course, prove you have any intrinsic meaning—then you are the insane one, the one who is out of touch with reality, who had deluded himself with fantasies no greater than the God of the religious zealots.” I shrunk in my chair while he continued. “What will you do? Pretend you are meaningful, that there is meaning? You cannot live with that, and no one rightly can, just as much as a person can pretend that a square can be a circle. Isn’t it even more meaningless to pretend there is meaning in a meaningless world? Doesn’t that do nothing more than highlight your desperation, your cowardice, your inability to deal with reality? Any sane person should find it funny that I am considered the insane one by the society that is ultimately irrational!” With this he stood up, laughing, laughing thoroughly like as if a person was hearing a particularly hilarious story of irony from a good friend at a dinner gathering, and he left, his joyful but hollow bellows echoing down the hall, where they seemed to descend on me like a thousand-ton weight, flooring me, grounding me, obliterating me as I stared into the empty space of the chair he’d sat on.

And so thus I write, and so thus I ask; What does it matter?

Short Intuitive Argument Against Abortion

I am a human. To be a human is to have human DNA. Every distinct set of human DNA corresponds to a distinct human being.

At the moment of conception, a new set of human DNA comes into being. Therefore, a distinct human being has just come into being, and exists as the zygote which is the body of the being in which the human DNA is found.

In short; wherever there is human DNA there is a human being. At conception, there is new human DNA. Therefore, there is a new human being.

A Short Note on Authority

The idea of extra-Scriptural authority to authoritatively verify the authority of Scripture is, surprisingly, accepted by quite a few of my Protestant friends. It’s simple to them; if you deny the authority of the Church, then you cut off the branch you’re sitting on, aka the Bible. Without the Church, no Bible.

 

What I then find even more surprising is that they aren’t clamoring to enter the Catholic or Orthodox Church, which both claim to be the Church, and can lay historical claim to ties with the Church that Jesus Christ started, whereas any other churches are in that sense ahistorical and disconnected from the Church started at Pentecost. So I ask them why.

Their explanation is that somehow the authority of the early Church has dissipated and been lost somehow. Which I don’t understand. How should an organization established by God with authority “lose” this authority?

Apparently, the authority has been dispersed among the Christian community. Never mind that now no one has the ability to speak authoritatively, it hasn’t really disappeared, its just that it can’t be used. The early synergy of the Church is no more, so there’s no more ability to be authoritative.

I think this is contradictory in nature.

From the beginning there have been heretics and those “outside the Church.” It’s always been understand that a Christian isn’t in the Church just because they think they are. There has always been the Catholic Church and the heretics.

So why should it be different now?

One explanation is that because of the Great Schism, authority was lost by both Churches.

I find this absurd. If a person were to steal my food, does that mean I no longer have a rightful claim to what is essentially my food? No, the food that I earned/was given is my food, and the actions of another shouldn’t require that I no longer make a claim to what is my food. So, a body splitting off from the Church wouldn’t make the Church unable to exercise its authority no longer; that’s nothing more than granting the right of people to extort rights out of others.

The other explanation is similar; because of the Reformation, authority was lost by the Catholic Church, because of the multifarious sects of Christianity. Again, same problem; that grants Luther and Calvin and the Anabaptists, if not infallibility, the right to extortion, making the Church not she that will forever prevail over the powers of Hell, its lies and deceptions, but a weak bride that cannot defend herself and who has been abandoned by Christ to the gutter, like some sort of divine divorce.

I find this sort of idea demeaning to the sanctity of Christ’s bride, the beliefs of the early Church and her theologians, and demeaning to the power of Christ to establish a Church that could truly be a “city on a hill” that even fools should not go astray in, the light not hidden away, the foundation of truth that should not be destroyed from Pentecost to eternity.

How to Beat the Game

Although this is not theology, since this is my blog, and posting something on a blog gives it validity, I have decided to here publish for the Internet archives that I, Bryce Laliberte, am the first to know how to beat the Game. The game’s rules are explained here.

To some, this is heresy, since one of the rules is “You cannot win the Game.” However, this operates off the fallacy of begging the question; that “beating” a game is equivocal to “winning” a game.

My argument is this; “the Game” is a meme. As it is a meme which places a person in competition with its own rules of obligation which cannot be legitimately ignored or disbelieved, then it can be legitimately lost to, or alternately, beat. The only way in which it could be unbeatable is if it were omnipotent; however, the Game is less than God, and since only God possesses the attribute of omnipotence, then no other thing could possess this attribute, as this would create a contradiction; only one being or thing can possess omnipotence, for to have omnipotence is to be both unstoppable by any other actual or potential force. Therefore, only one thing can have omnipotence. God has omnipotence. Therefore, the Game cannot have omnipotence.

I have thus established that the Game is beatable.

I will now here establish how the Game can be beaten.

As the Game is a meme with its own internal rules, the Game cannot be beat by the obligations of rules it offers to the person. However, the Game does not exist in a vacuum. It is therefore under the power of other memes which are older, and so stronger, and so require a person’s more immediate obligation before the Game offers it obligation upon a person.

Therefore, the way in which a person would beat the Game is by doing something so that, in order to fulfill the obligation of a greater meme than the Game, they cannot lose the Game.

My own personal means was this;

At 11:11, it is known that a person can make a wish that will come true. However, if that person tells someone else that wish, that wish cannot come true.

At 11:11, I wished that “I would lose the Game.” I then told my friend, meaning that my wish could not come true; I could not lose the Game.

The 11:11 wish meme holds a greater obligation over a person than the Game does. Therefore, in order to fulfill the obligation of the 11:11 wish meme I cannot lose the Game, and so the Game has lost all its power over me.

I therefore say “I am the first to beat the Game.”

Christ, Original Sin, and the Church at the Omega Point

This essay is, admittedly, quite lengthy. However, it’s darn good.

 

Christ, Original Sin, and the Church at the Omega Point

 

The concept of the Omega Point as conceived by Teilhard de Chardin and elaborated upon by Frank J. Tipler sounds so radical that a Christian familiar with Scripture, upon hearing of the idea, will struggle to understand how the idea can even be reconciled to Scripture at all, if it isn’t plainly heretical. The Omega Point theory is dependent upon such recent developments of science, in contrast to the theological traditions of Christianity, that it has not yet taken hold or even been seriously considered by any self-claimed authoritative body in Christianity, receiving no recognition from Anglicanism, Eastern Orthodoxy, essentially the whole or Protestantism, and having been shirked at first by Catholicism. As a Catholic, I am wary of stepping over bounds of orthodoxy, and I do honestly try my best to maintain my beliefs and speculations within orthodoxy. As far as I am aware, my ideas do not require the rejection of any infallibly defined doctrine of faith, although I am aware that it rejects the classical historical explanation to the origins of Original Sin. It is my intent in this essay to expound upon the Omega Point theory (from here on abbreviated as OP) in my own conception and thought.

 

“And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of 

heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband.”

Revelation 21:2

 

Centrality of Christ to the Universe

 

Why did God create? This is a question that theologians and philosophers have struggled with for millennia. It is an ultimately mysterious question, which is seemingly simple but ponderously difficult. If God is infinitely and eternally self-sufficient, then while He may have the ability to create, why should He create if it offers nothing to Himself? There is, I think, no sufficient way of answering this side of time, and while there are certainly fruits to considering it, this is not the essay for it. However, we must accept that, no matter the precise reason, God has chosen to create, for we are here to ponder the question, and, naturally, only existing things ponder. As Balthasar so aptly put; “ If there is no absolute being, what reason could there be that these finite, ephemeral things exist in the midst of nothing, things that could never add up to the absolute as a whole or evolve into it? But, on the other hand, if there is an absolute being, and if this being is sufficient unto itself, it is almost more mysterious why there should exist something else.”

Since God did create, there are two more questions worth answering; What does God have to do with His Creation? and What does Creation have to do with its God? It is in the frame of these two questions that my essay will make sense.

Since God has created, it can be presumed He knows His creation; God is, after all, omniscient. If He knows His creation, then it is not a leap to say that God cares about His creation. And so, if God cares about His creation (for why should He create if He doesn’t care?), then in some way He must care to reveal Himself.

The revelation of God is immediately apparent in that there is creation; the cosmological proof of God is simply the recognition of God as the author of nature. But, this is not the sort of revelation that a God who cares about His creation would reveal. For that to be all He revealed would be for God to have hidden Himself beyond not only those who despise Him, but those who would seek Him. And so, if there are those who would seek Him, and God is one who cares, then there must be some revelation of Himself to His creation.

What is this revelation, then?

As only persons can care to seek God, and God is personal, there must be some sort of communication between God and the created persons on the personal level. As God is a community of persons, then this community of persons must be the highest state of spiritual achievement, for “in God we rest,” which is almost tautological; God is Himself eternally existent, and so to exist as God is to exist in perfect peace. If God wishes to make communion with His creation, or creation make communion with God, then the created must be raised up to the level of God to partake in the Trinitarian life that is God for the created to be able to truly communicate with God.

This is where the difficulty lies; how does creation become raised up to God? If this is to happen, it is necessary for God to first “lower” Himself to creation. The answer to this is the Incarnation.

So, if from the beginning it was God’s knowledge that beings in the universe would seek Him, then from the beginning it was not only God’s intent for these beings to reside in perfect union with Him, but for Himself to bring these beings into perfect union with Him; so God’s intent from the beginning (I speak from our perspective in time) was the Incarnation. The Incarnation is for the universe, and the universe is for the Incarnation.

Hence the universe can only be made sense of by the Incarnation, and, on the other hand, the Incarnation can only be made sense of by the universe. The two exist for each other.

Who is to be the Incarnation? We can know from reason alone that God must exist in multiple persons (but not necessarily as a Trinity; I do not yet know how to reason that God must exist in three persons rather than only two or four), so this grants us at least two persons in God who immediately seem as valid candidates for the Incarnation; the Father and the Son.

However, the Father is the one who the other is begotten of; the Son is the revelation of God to Himself, as God’s love necessitates He love another beyond Himself (hence others in God). So, the Father cannot be the Incarnation, as He is the person of the Trinity unsuitable to being the revelation of God. Therefore, it must be the son who is the revelation of God, making the Son the Incarnation with is the revelation of God to Creation.

 

Since this is so, it is then necessary that the proper worldview starts with the Incarnation, meaning it illuminates the universe with the light of the Cross. It is only in this light that the meaning of the universe becomes apparent, and otherwise we are left with unanswerable questions and suppositions.

Why the Cross? That is the next question I aim to pursue.

 

Creative Transformation of the Universe

 

God is, by His nature, infinitely perfect. His perfection cannot be added to in any way, as it is already infinite.

Creation, on the other hand, is by necessity not infinitely perfect, for to be infinitely perfect is to be God. However, to be less than infinitely perfect is to be finitely perfect, and not necessarily less than perfect.

By His nature, God’s creation will be initially perfect, though it can only be finitely perfect. Because of its less than infinite perfection, imperfections can enter into creation through its own means (and as being rejections of God in any form that is the perversion of God’s natural goodness, truth, and beauty). However, this is no reason for despair; this possible imperfection offers another thing; the ability to grow. God by His nature is infinite, without potentiality, and so He cannot possibly grow in any way, except for being not God, except that He is God. The universe, being not God, can grow, and will always remain with a potentially infinite amount of growth ahead of it.

Therefore, no matter what arbitrarily finite perfection God creates His creation at, it will have an infinite stretch of growth ahead of it, a growth that by God’s intent would be to bring it ever closer to God’s infinite perfection. Hence, the “rest of God” that Augustine speaks of is actually an unhindered journey to God at the peak of an infinite mountain. By this, it is meaningless to consider the amount of perfection that creation was begun with, but what perfection it is being made into and what lies ahead of it.

Since any greater perfection can only be measured and performed by a more greatly perfect being on another less greatly perfect being, then God, by creating, necessarily entails Himself to raising up His creation to ever higher reaches up to Himself. The idea of a “greatest finite” is a contradiction in terms and meaningless. Therefore, creation was, is, and always shall be in a process of creative transformation. Its initial perfection is through creation, and its continuing perfection is through creative stimulation.

Since it is only God who can always stimulate creative transformation into His creation, the method necessarily involves Himself. If it involves Himself, what better way than the Incarnation? The Incarnation has the ability to offer man a means to the journey of greater perfection, since the Incarnation is God.

It should then be a good time to ponder upon what perfection will look like. These terms of perfection can only be understood as perfection appears in God, so we shall start with God.

The most apparent aspect of God to perfection is His eternal and perfect community of persons. There exists an unhindered and infinitely virtuous love between all three persons of the Trinity, vertically under the Father and horizontally across all three persons.

If this is so, then this will necessarily be replicated, or mirrored, in creation, for everything is what it is as it is like who God is. Perfection then entails the universe as a community of persons horizontally between each other and vertically under God; this is a description of the Church.

The Church, then, is the bride of the Incarnation, as it is the Church which the Incarnation comes to establish as the means of depositing creative transformation into creation; in traditional terms, it can be said that the Church is Christ’s bride through which all graces of justification and sanctification flow into the world by her sacraments as established by Christ.

I will explain this later, but I believe it here established that Christ came to establish the Church as the means for which God’s creative transformation to be imputed into creation, and this has everything to do with the OP.

 

Evolution and Original Sin

 

The problems of Scholastic theology in contemporary times revolve around one crucial error; the theology was meant to make sense in a static and anthropocentric cosmos. With scientific achievements of the last several centuries, it has been demonstrated how fluid and non-anthropocentric the universe really is. Evolution is essentially a basic fact of the world, as it explains nearly everything in living things on earth, from diversity of life to “junk” DNA. All opponents of evolution have been demonstrated to defend nothing more than a single particular interpretation of the Genesis creation accounts, and moreover, that their interpretations glean nothing meaningful or important to the human condition or the character of God.

This being so, theology has not yet been able to properly respond. It is immediately obvious to the intellectual Christian that the fact of evolution offers no argument against the existence of God, or the work of Christ, His divinity, or the infallibility of the Church, or the inspiration of Scripture. However, evolution, being a radical change of our conception of the cosmos since Augustine and the Scholastics, is a threat to traditional understandings of the historical origin of Original Sin.

Original Sin is, more or less, the doctrine that all of humanity is under the taint of concupiscence, which entered the human consciousness through the sin of Adam and Eve, who are the ancestors of all people on the earth. The antithetical image of Christ to Adam, as the orderer rather than the destroyer, is dependent upon this certain historical understanding, of there being a certain Adam with a certain Eve who were in God’s perfect and natural grace. Christ’s work was to suffer and die on the Cross, to bridge the infinite distance created between man and God by this sin committed by our first parents, Adam and Eve. While the reading of the Genesis account of the Garden of Eden is typically metaphorical, it is asserted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that “Genesis 3 […] affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.” (390)

According to evolution, it is impossible that an entire race should be born of a single pair; the branch of the evolutive tree that humanity inhabits is defined by an indeterminately large group (although no more than several dozen, if even that many) of hominids who became separated from others related to them, including homo erectus and the Neanderthals. The most commonly agreed upon theory of human transmigration points to Africa as the cradle of life, where humans as we would recognize them first lived and breathed.

The difficulty then becomes that there is no determinate single pair of parents from whom all people are born of, and so it would seem that Original Sin, no matter how apparently real it is in history, must have some history other than it has been classically told.

On the other hand, why is it that Original Sin can be proved so easily from history, yet the historical cause of it is so mysterious, when the answer to its origins seems to be just as immediately obvious from history as well? According to evolution, those traits which were beneficial were passed on; this did not lend itself to perfection except until after an infinite amount of time (or at least up to the time that God would decide to intervene), but to feasibility. A creature doesn’t need to be “the most fit” to survive, only “fit enough.”

As evolution lent itself to fitness, there are certain vices which can become apparent as determined by nature to be pragmatically beneficial; an intense desire towards sex, selfishness, and pride. Those creatures born without pride do need attempt to establish themselves as fathers or mothers as well as those creatures who do, and so, by evolution, the characteristic of pride in the instinct of animals was determined.

As pride is a classical vice, and the doctrine of Original Sin is overtly historical, why should it not be attributed to the imperfection of evolution that has not yet finished? Yes, I propose an evolution that is still at work in humans, though not necessarily in the same way as it worked before in animals. Let me come back to this in just a moment.

If evolution delivers up concupiscence, and concupiscence is what makes sin desirable, then concupiscence is established as being historically rooted in prehistory. On the other hand, what of the original transgression, which places man outside God’s natural grace? As Original Sin can only be caused by actual sin (not mere material sin), actual intent of separation from God, what does the story of Adam and Eve really look like?

 

New Historical Conception of the Sin of Adam

 

How then, if it didn’t happen in the Genesis account exactly like it said, did it really happen?

There are really only several things that need to be established for a valid conception, that there is;

 

1) an event

2) in which our parents

3) who were in a perfect and natural state of grace with God

4) sinned

5) because deceived by Satan

6) that they could be God

 

I will here describe a way in which this could have happened, not contradicting the teachings of the Catholic Church or evolution.

 

Before the distinct race known as homo sapiens sapiens came about, pre-human species were evolving. These species, as remarked before, were not without vices as dictated by what evolution found beneficial enough. The origin of their vices, however, were not from the mind, but from instincts.

This is the first difference to be drawn between man recognized by God, and pre-human hominids. Where man operates both on a subconscious level and a self-aware conscious level, the operation of animals can be sufficiently described as instinctual, not meaningfully distinct from computer programs or complex machines. They had a material soul, or “rational animating principle,” which is, to be redundant, merely material, that guided them to live; however, we must be wary of over-anthropomorphizing these animals, as they did not think as we do.

Those animals who were the first people, and so no longer animals, were those beings which, though they displayed many human characteristics already, entered into communication on the divine (using abstract language) and so God revealed Himself. This is, of course speculation; I don’t really know. They might have only just entered into communication (even with just gestures and grunts), they might have started communicating on the nature of God, they might not even have started communicating at all. Allow me to speculate however, and show why I make this particular speculation (which is probably wrong).

The divine life of the Trinity consists in perfect community. Community can only happen where there is some form of communication. Communication as we understand it is as nearly perfect as possible through abstract tokens of denotations, aka words. Whichever humans it were who started this communication most nearly reflected the divine life of the Trinity, and so God chose to reveal Himself to these humans, giving them a supernatural soul, making them creatures capable of sin as they were now morally obliged to obey the natural moral law.

This then meant there existed a supernatural soul alongside the natural soul; an immaterial mind, but ultimately bound to the physical body, and a supermaterial mind, which would exist for eternity. I do not mean to confuse my reader, so allow me to clarify a bit more.

This natural soul was bound up in instincts and was not held up to moral obligation. The supernatural soul, though, had knowledge of the divine, and so, conversely, (theoretical) knowledge of evil. As the supernatural soul was the seat of moral will, it would be in competition with the natural soul which was no more than the result of evolution. However, the supernatural soul was originally in perfect dominance of this natural soul; reason held the seat of the will, and the passions and appetites were subservient.

I have here so far described criterion one through three.

These people, being now in perfect community with each other under their relationship with God, were perfect, but only finitely so (as described above). They were set apart from the others, and so those others of their race died out (as they presumably didn’t reproduce with them). Whether this happened before or after the event of the Fall is further than I can speculate.

These humans, now having formed a perfectly knit group (for they are without sinful desires), were eventually tempted by Satan

. As the story in Genesis would reveal, the nature of this temptation appeared to be that these humans could be better than God. I believe that this manifested itself by humans believing they could reject God, and create for themselves a better moral law

. This was a sin of the entire group, without exception; or, if there was exception, they were killed (by the demand of the group’s new, better moral law).

This is, of course, impossible, and it is a transgression against that which God had revealed to them, for them to obey the natural moral law which found its substance in the creation of God. In this way could Original Sin have occurred, by which man was placed outside the natural state of grace with God and the supernatural soul was perverted, so that concupiscence offered temptation to man.

The conception I just offered as a possible historical model is, of course, speculation, but I believe there is more to be found in revelation. I speak of Genesis 3, in which the serpent tests Adam and Eve to eat the fruit. There is moral value to the story, and while it may not be historically valuable, there is worth to understanding the story on that account.

In the Scriptural terms, Adam and Eve represent those people who were the ones to encounter Satan, or the group of people as a whole. The serpent, of course, represents Satan, or even their own malicious minds. The fruit of the tree represents the line of moral demarcation; what line couldn’t be crossed without being able to come back to Original Justice (the state of man before Original Sin).

However, beyond these metaphors, I believe there is greater significance. While the garden is traditionally placed in only the past, I would place it in the future as well; not the mistake, but its correction. I do not reference Jesus as the Second Adam, but the belief that the state of perfect union with God that man will reach at the end of the universe, the Omega Point.

 

Ecclesiological Eschatology

 

As Christ is wed to the Church, it is a most grievous error to discount the Church from theology or any conception of Christian history. This has seemed to be to be the actual practice of Protestantism, which has made “the Church” nothing more than some vague and ephemeral body of believers, which has not ability to define doctrine or authoritatively decide anything for Christians. This conception of the Church is, as I have elaborated many places else, is an avoidance of reality, being both human nature and history. However, there are a few principles that I must bring up to help come to the conclusion as to an ecclesiological eschatology.

The first and most crucial aspect is that man is unable to know that he knows correct Christian doctrine. Whether from interpreting Scripture or just having a good idea of doctrine, no person is guaranteed a correct conclusion. Even I here am speculating, and though I might be pretty sure that I’m right at least on most counts, I could be grievously wrong without knowing it. Protestants who truly believe that they can discern truth from error just by interpreting the Bible attribute to themselves a greater ability than any man has apparently had, for all the Reformers’ beliefs were at times radically opposed, and the history of Protestantism under the “justification” of private interpretation through Sola Scriptura only serves to illustrate this like fish out of water dying serves to illustrate they need to be in water to live.

The idea that God’s kingdom shall be full of divergent and contradictory beliefs is absurd, if not laughable, and so I don’t think it worth responding to the view that latitudinarianism is really what God wants. Convergence towards common belief and practice appears to be what Paul preached, and he didn’t withstand error even in churches not under his jurisdiction.

A man by himself being unable to discern truth leads to one conclusion; there must necessarily be a visible authoritative body that can discern the truth for its faithful; the Church. The Church, led by the Holy Spirit, is necessary to answer not only doctrinal controversies of the past, but moral questions of our own day, and it will be always necessary throughout history to discern truth. A believer will always be able to look to the Church, Christ’s bride, to know what is true.

Again, I have developed this all elsewhere, so this principle is sufficient here.

As the Church is the bride of Christ, and all ability to raise up creation to higher perfections comes through the Incarnation, then all graces, via the sacraments, come through the Church. There is no grace anywhere in the world that did not first come from Christ’s bride; otherwise Christ would be an adulterer.

The history of the universe demonstrates convergence. Elementary units of matter became atoms, atoms formed molecules, molecules became self-replicating, life occurred, life evolved, humans came about and were self-aware, humans entered and enter into increasingly complex and interconnectedness modes of life. All things are tending towards convergence; super-individuality organized horizontally in human relationships united under the vertical relationship the Church has with Christ who is the mediator between man and God. This means that at the Omega Point, the Church will have incorporated all people; at the Omega Point, all knees will bow. This is not to implicate universalism, only a universal Church.

This is necessary towards everything being pulled up towards the Father at the OP. The universe is in constant flux, constant growth, under transformative creation. In the end, matter and spirit will be identical, the universe being spiritualized, made to be truly the Kingdom of Heaven, the Church, Christ’s bride.

As Christ came to establish the Church, and God is a community above a communion, then it can only make sense to interpret and understand Christ amidst the Church. Christ cannot be truly perceived outside the communion of the Church. In the end, all souls must be united to each other as they are united to God. Not that their individuality is obliterated, but that their individuality is made sense of as a part of the whole united under Christ. “The organ for seeing God is not the isolated human soul; it is the human soul united to all the other souls, under the humanity of Christ.” (Teilhard de Chardin)

 

Overview

 

It was my intent to paint the cosmos as a whole and relate Christ to it, and it to Christ, in this essay. There is room for improvement and better explanation, but as I have spoken of it here is as best I can put it yet. I understand my view is sweeping and cosmological, but I find it to be sufficiently explanatory. My view here offers a theodicy, as well, and also strengthens all my other beliefs, this being a framework for them to relate to by placing Christ at the center of everything in reality. It is in this way I read Scripture, and in this way I look forward to the eschaton.

 

I’ll see you at the Omega Point, then.

“Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them.” (Rev. 21:3)

 

Footnotes:

 

¹ Note I am saying that the Incarnation exists for the universe, and the universe for the Incarnation. I am not saying God exists for the universe or the universe for God; I am maintaining that God’s existence is self-sufficient, and the universe’s existence is contingently dependent upon God.

² I would formulate it this way with Scripture; “The Son Incarnate is the revelation of God the Father to Creation. (2 Cor. 4:4, Col. 1:15) The Son is the only suitable mediator between man (creation) and God the Father. (1 Tim. 2:5) We are drawn to the Father through the Son. (John 14:6) Hence the Incarnation is necessary for the universe to be drawn to the Father.”

³ In fact, that these people were tempted by Satan is not necessary; however, this is my own speculation, and this temptation by Satan seems to be the only way I can imagine that the idea of committing sin would even come about. For practical purposes, however, we can actually do away with criterion 5 and 6.

⁴ I admit I may be influenced by my own age, which has exalted human reason and ability, to the point that its become feasible to some people that man can create his own meaning in the universe (and so, by extension, his own valid ethical law); just see Sartre.

⁵ I would suggest reading Revelation 21 with my idea of the Omega Point in mind, and you should be able to see it quite clearly.