Minor Thoughts from me to you

Above: Jonathan Edwards.

Webmaster Joe's really been crankin' out the apologetics recently. And it's all interesting - not so much the in-and-outs of the arguments themselves (which I say without offense to Joe, I hope - I simply know them already) as my reaction to them from a new, quasi-outsider perspective, what I'm learning about how mental paradigms work.

The theology Joe is taking the time to explain to all of us seems to me self-evidently crazy and even evil. Reading it, I realize how Nazis could slay 6 million Jews (or Jews could wipe out lands full of Canaanites), how Muslims could understand why one should blow up women and children on buses, why Catholics once forced baptisms and lit people on fire. Yet I remember quite clearly once making many of the same points to other people, and how justified I felt in doing so at the time. What's more, I know the man making them now, and I would never consider him less morally-inclined than I. I'm forced to reconsider a bromide I once casually dismissed about good men, bad men, and religion.

But I suppose I'd better get to answering it all. And that shouldn't take much time, since Joe stipulated at the beginning of his post that all of his logic is based on the unwarranted assumption that the universe exists according to orthodox Christian theology. On that basis there's little arguing to be done.

Except with Jonathan Edwards' logic. That might hold up if not for the fact that his entire argument is made up of phrases that either don't mean anything or are self-evidently untrue. That is, God does not have "infinite glory" since glory is something He has to be given by others - beings which are not Him. He is also only "infinitely excellent" (read: perfect) because we're judging Him against Himself. "Infinitely lovely" because... because... Well, that one just makes my head hurt (seriously, what on Earth is that supposed to mean?). And he certainly isn't possessed of "infinite majesty" - He may well have "all" majesty, but not "infinite" majesty. There's only a finite amount of majesty (def: sovereignty, authority) to go around, at least as applies to us humans.

Really, the only term understandable within Edwards' whole fubar essay is "infinite punishment", which is very understandable - and horrifying. Uncalled for, too: even taking Christian theology for granted, I can't possibly be under obligation to God for any more than has been given to me, which would be one life's worth of service. You're not obligated to give a return on what you haven't received. That's why when we give God "all praise" we (presumably) mean that we are thanking Him for "everything we have" rather than infinite possibilities (unicorns, pink elephants, honest politicians?).

But maybe I'm trying to prove far more than is necessary here. After all, there really isn't any reason for me or anyone else to bother refuting Jonathan Edwards' analysis of why we deserve Hell, since Jonathan Edwards was a Calvinist and hence believed the hellbound were predestined by God for eternal torture anyway. If that's the case, how can it make sense to say the hellbound deserve their fate, except in that they were built for it? One would assume the whole case to be an exercise in absurdity for a man of such beliefs.

Funny that the same objection was of course raised nearly 2000 years ago to the Bible's Paul. Funnier still that the self-proclaimed apostle had no answer, either.

I made an earlier obversation that Calvinism is a religion that possesses no perspective on humankind distinguishable from Atheism, except that many atheists cling to the idea Life has independent value. However, it does have a flaw the atheistic world view doesn't have; the Calvinist perspective might be structurally sound if unattractive ("We are God's organic toys. He loves some of us and smashes others because this makes Him look good"), but for the fact that Calvinists also must insist that we playthings somehow did wrong and thus _deserve _this whole process that shouldn't need any justification. That keeps tripping them up.

What Calvinism really needs in order to form a coherent perspective is to do away with the concept of Sin entirely - but its adherents naturally can't do that, so maintaining their beliefs requires a certain level of cognitive dissonance and a willingness not to think it through too much. I suppose they accept their confusion as part of God's mystery (His doubtlessly infinite mystery).

Would that they would take the advice of Ayn Rand, who said: "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."