Quote:
Originally Posted by batair
Alright. But i dont know the answer and i could be wrong i just dont see it and was asking you to explain it without the question.
I'm not sure what we're talking about now. I'm not asking the question because I'm trying to explain something to you, I'm asking it because I don't know what your position is. I was referring back to my earlier post:
"Do you think "being wet" is a condition of "going swimming"? If so, I have no argument with you..."
I understand you think having light is a condition of seeing and I understand you think lacking a psychological state which you must obtain before getting into heaven is a condition - both of those involve a prior state of affairs which must obtain before the subsequent event can be said to occur. FWIW, I think both of them count as conditions (if 'getting into heaven' is taken to refer to some place you can either be inside or outside of).
I dont know if you would use the same terminology (ie 'condition' to label a state of affairs which occurs
after the event (or simultaneously with it)) and so I tried to come up with an uncomplicated example of such a thing.
I maintain that this is the distinction between 'getting into heaven' as I understand it and the way you are using it. I don't think there is any necessary state of affairs (beyond being sentient) which must obtain in order for you to get into heaven. There
is a consequence of being in heaven and there are a whole host of properties which anything in heaven has - the reason I think it's all basically semantic is that I dont think they count as 'conditions' because they were not prior requirements. I also dont think of heaven as a place you can either be in or out of. Consequently "God's love is unconditional" doesnt seem contradictory to me nor incompatible with annihilationism, but I am suspicious that we are meaning different things by 'unconditional' and 'getting into heaven'.
My swimming question was an attempt to clarify exactly where we disagree - it's not a very important disagreement if you think causal direction is irrelevant in speaking of conditionality - on that understanding of 'conditional' I agree with you.