A Good Father?

[ClemtheCatholic]

A friend asked the following:

“If you see a toddler walking into a road and there’s a car coming you’ll grab the kid and pull him to safety, even if the toddler knows there’s a car coming and he’s using his free will to walk in the road you’re going to over-ride that and keep him safe because we know it’s in the toddler’s best interests to not be hit by a car. So, my question is…why doesn’t God do this? He knows we’re going to sin but He doesn’t try to stop us because we have free will. Why not? We didn’t let the toddler use his because we know what’s better for him, being hit by a car or not being hit by a car, and God knows what’s best for us but doesn’t stop us like we would a toddler walking into a road. (Was that clear? If not let me know and I’ll try to ask it in a different way.)”

I’m not sure how to respond…

Thank you!

 

[marty1818]

God gave us free will and he also gives us the grace to choose what is good over what is evil. God does not fail us, instead we fail to make use of the grace God provides us with. To use the analogy you mentioned:
The child runs into the street(we are tempted to sin). The father goes out and grabs the child’s hand to save him from the car(God gives us the grace to overcome temptation). While walking back to the sidewalk, the child chooses to kick the father in the groin and run back into the street and gets hit by the car(we willfully choose to turn our backs to God and commit the sin).

 

[FrancisBenedict]

You’re not a toddler, you’re an adult with the knowledge of good and evil.

 

[Jessie5000]

First God is loving and provides us with free will - we can decide to follow him or go against him. God does, however, tells us we will not be tempted beyond our ability to resist. He also provides us with a conscience.

 

[ClemtheCatholic]

@Marty, that sounds really interesting - thanks very much and I’ll think about it!

 

[Deus_tecum]

A friend asked the following:

“If you see a toddler walking into a road and there’s a car coming you’ll grab the kid and pull him to safety, even if the toddler knows there’s a car coming and he’s using his free will to walk in the road you’re going to over-ride that and keep him safe because we know it’s in the toddler’s best interests to not be hit by a car. So, my question is…why doesn’t God do this? He knows we’re going to sin but He doesn’t try to stop us because we have free will. Why not? We didn’t let the toddler use his because we know what’s better for him, being hit by a car or not being hit by a car, and God knows what’s best for us but doesn’t stop us like we would a toddler walking into a road. (Was that clear? If not let me know and I’ll try to ask it in a different way.)”

I’m not sure how to respond…

Thank you!

If God were to stop us from sinning, then we would only refrain from sinning because God stops us. We would never internalize the reason not to sin.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

A friend asked the following:

“If you see a toddler walking into a road and there’s a car coming you’ll grab the kid and pull him to safety, even if the toddler knows there’s a car coming and he’s using his free will to walk in the road you’re going to over-ride that and keep him safe because we know it’s in the toddler’s best interests to not be hit by a car. So, my question is…why doesn’t God do this? He knows we’re going to sin but He doesn’t try to stop us because we have free will. Why not? We didn’t let the toddler use his because we know what’s better for him, being hit by a car or not being hit by a car, and God knows what’s best for us but doesn’t stop us like we would a toddler walking into a road. (Was that clear? If not let me know and I’ll try to ask it in a different way.)”

I’m not sure how to respond…

Thank you!

It would be hard to find a toddler capable of making an informed decision based on the use of reason and conscience, in the exercising of their free will. This is why we don’t see toddlers lined up at the confessional because they are not culpable for any sin due to their lack of being able to reason.

As for why doesn’t God forcibly stop those who have attained reason from committing sin? There are many reasons, first because of free will, which we exercise using reason based on information received through our intellect and our conscience. Secondly because God in his infinite wisdom can see that a fall is the only way we are going to understand the importance of doing His will. Thirdly because God gives us what our hearts want, and lastly because love cannot be forced on another person; it can only be offered. God offers Himself to us out of love, and we if we truly love Him will offer ourselves to Him out of love.

Now go back and ask your friend this:
“What would you think of a parent that trapped their teenage son in a bubble to protect them from all of the possible dangers that are out in the world? This teen isn’t allowed to do anything or go anywhere. The teen is in isolation from everyone, except his parents.” Now I ask; is that truly loving?

 

[tabycat]

A friend asked the following:

“If you see a toddler walking into a road and there’s a car coming you’ll grab the kid and pull him to safety, even if the toddler knows there’s a car coming and he’s using his free will to walk in the road you’re going to over-ride that and keep him safe because we know it’s in the toddler’s best interests to not be hit by a car. So, my question is…why doesn’t God do this? He knows we’re going to sin but He doesn’t try to stop us because we have free will. Why not? We didn’t let the toddler use his because we know what’s better for him, being hit by a car or not being hit by a car, and God knows what’s best for us but doesn’t stop us like we would a toddler walking into a road. (Was that clear? If not let me know and I’ll try to ask it in a different way.)”

I’m not sure how to respond…

Thank you!

God uses the adult to get the toddler out of the car’s way. He is working, but through us.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Credo

This teen isn’t allowed to do anything or go anywhere. The teen is in isolation from everyone, except his parents." Now I ask; is that truly loving?

Indeed, life is and always should be an adventure, rather than an imprisonment.

 

[polytropos]

The toddler needs to be rescued from being run over. The ideal, however, is that when the toddler grows up, he will not walk in front of moving vehicles because he chooses not to, not because his father prevents him. That would be “good.”

 

[Tyrion]

A friend asked the following:

“If you see a toddler walking into a road and there’s a car coming you’ll grab the kid and pull him to safety, even if the toddler knows there’s a car coming and he’s using his free will to walk in the road you’re going to over-ride that and keep him safe because we know it’s in the toddler’s best interests to not be hit by a car. So, my question is…why doesn’t God do this? He knows we’re going to sin but He doesn’t try to stop us because we have free will. Why not? We didn’t let the toddler use his because we know what’s better for him, being hit by a car or not being hit by a car, and God knows what’s best for us but doesn’t stop us like we would a toddler walking into a road. (Was that clear? If not let me know and I’ll try to ask it in a different way.)”

I’m not sure how to respond…

Thank you!

While your parable is pretty good, unfortunately it is a little “off”. The toddler lacks two things: “reasoning power” and “information”. When the parable is applied to us, the respondents properly point out that adults have “reasoning power”, and therefore the parable is inapplicable. Where your parable is correct is, that we are like the toddler in the sense that we also lack the “information”.

There is no information about the circumstances of what is considered “sinful” in God’s eyes. There are a lot of loud voices, each of them claiming that they and only they are privy to God’s requirements.

The problem with the parable is that God never came personally and never gave us a clear, unambiguous and exhaustive list of “do”-s and “don’t”-s of divinely acceptable behavior. Catholics, of course will counter that with the proclamation that the “church” acts “in lieu” of God. But that is only a claim. Besides, most people do not accept the authority of the church. And it is more serious that the church cannot answer the most fundamental questions, like: “what is the fate of those who are not catholics?”, and “what is the fate of the unbaptized?”, and “how should one behave to achieve salvation?”, and “exactly what is grave matter?”, also “what constitutes ‘full knowledge’?” etc… the truly important questions are all unanswered. So even the church is not privy to that clear, unambiguous and exhaustive list. (“The blind leads the unsighted” is the phrase which comes to mind".)

Of course, even if a parent clearly explains to the child (not necessarily a toddler) that behavior “X” is lethal to the child’s existence, and the child disregards the warning, a loving parent would still override the child’s “free will”. Of all the “defenses” ever presented, the “free will defense” is least acceptable one. If one sees someone about to jump off from a bridge with the clear intent to commit suicide, one instinctively grabs the person, IF one cares…

 

[ClemtheCatholic]

Thanks guys. I feel my question has been very well answered! However, I’d just like to take it a little further for the sake of completeness.

In the scenario my friend brought up, we agree it is right to use force to stop the toddler being run over. Now, what if we replace the toddler with a sane, calculating, intelligent adult? Do we still use force to stop the adult being run over?

 

[Tyrion]

In the scenario my friend brought up, we agree it is right to use force to stop the toddler being run over. Now, what if we replace the toddler with a sane, calculating, intelligent adult? Do we still use force to stop the adult being run over?

Yes, you should.

If you have good reason to believe that the person is about to make an honest oversight, then obviously you should interfere. If you have very good reason to believe that he intends to commit suicide, then you should interfere as well. The reason is to save the driver the anguish and the legal hassle that he ran over a pedestrian. Then, when you interfered, you could try to talk the person out of his decision to commit suicide. If this effort is unsuccessful, then you should suggest him to use a quiet method, like going home and hang himself, after leaving a good suicide notice. After all he is the best one to judge what to do with his own life.

 

[Hypnotoad]

Yes, you should.

If you have good reason to believe that the person is about to make an honest oversight, then obviously you should interfere. If you have very good reason to believe that he intends to commit suicide, then you should interfere as well. The reason is to save the driver the anguish and the legal hassle that he ran over a pedestrian.

Interesting; so, you save the person not because you care about them but because you care about the inconvenience this may cause the driver of the car. Let’s say the driver doesn’t care about the legal hassle and like you just want to let this man do what he wants with his life? Would you then still try and stop the person from throwing themselves in front of the other person’s car? Also what gives you the authority or the right to stop anything just because it doesn’t jive with your own personal morality?

Then, when you interfered, you could try to talk the person out of his decision to commit suicide. If this effort is unsuccessful, then you should suggest him to use a quiet method, like going home and hang himself, after leaving a good suicide notice. After all he is the best one to judge what to do with his own life.

Now you contradict yourself. Why would you need to talk the person out of his decision if he is already the best one to judge what to do with his own life?

 

[Tyrion]

Interesting; so, you save the person not because you care about them but because you care about the inconvenience this may cause the driver of the car.

I did not elaborate on ALL my reasons. Neither did I give a “precederence” list for them. So, your assumptions are unwarranted. But it is true that I would be concerned about the driver, since it would be a traumatic experience to run over someone.

Let’s say the driver doesn’t care about the legal hassle and like you just want to let this man do what he wants with his life? Would you then still try and stop the person from throwing themselves in front of the other person’s car?

I have no information about the driver’s opinion in the matter, so I would use my best judgment. Since I would not wish to be put in the position where I will have to run over someone, I assume that the driver would not want it either. (I slam down on the brake even if a squirrel runs in front of my car.)

Also what gives you the authority or the right to stop anything just because it doesn’t jive with your own personal morality?

Authority? Right? What are you talking about? Legal rights? As a matter of fact, in many places NOT to render assistance is considered a criminal act, and from that follows that one should prevent such incidents if possible - without considering the “free will” of the people involved. If you would have good, reliable information about some crime to be committed, and you failed to prevent it, you would be - rightfully - considered an accomplice. No one of sound mind cares about the “free will” of the criminal.

Now you contradict yourself. Why would you need to talk the person out of his decision if he is already the best one to judge what to do with his own life?

There is no contradiction here. I just would want to be sure that he is of sound mind, and is capable of making a rational decision. If he goes and hangs himself or takes an overdose of some drugs, that is his business.

 

[Hypnotoad]

I did not elaborate on ALL my reasons. Neither did I give a “precederence” list for them. So, your assumptions are unwarranted. But it is true that I would be concerned about the driver, since it would be a traumatic experience to run over someone.

You wrote; “***The reason ***is to save the driver the anguish and the legal hassle that he ran over a pedestrian.”

I think my assumption is warranted based on what you wrote since you stated yourself that this is “THE REASON”. Last time I checked “the reason” would denote singular not plural, right? Maybe you could have said; “one reason…”?

Authority? Right? What are you talking about? Legal rights? As a matter of fact, in many places NOT to render assistance is considered a criminal act, and from that follows that one should prevent such incidents if possible - without considering the “free will” of the people involved. If you would have good, reliable information about some crime to be committed, and you failed to prevent it, you would be - rightfully - considered an accomplice. No one of sound mind cares about the “free will” of the criminal.

Good to know.

There is no contradiction here. I just would want to be sure that he is of sound mind, and is capable of making a rational decision.

Yet this is not what you wrote earlier. You stated: “Then, when you interfered, you could try to talk the person out of his decision to commit suicide.” You then later state; “After all he is the best one to judge what to do with his own life.”

Nothing in here about wanting to make sure the person is of sound mind. Rather you’re telling someone to talk a person out of committing suicide, a person you already claimed is his own perfect judge to decide what is best for him even if this includes suicide. That’s the contradiction; however, you quickly become a hypocrite when you actually recommend offering the person advice on better methods of suicide after saving his life!

You wrote: “If this effort is unsuccessful, then **you should suggest **him to use a quiet method, like going home and hang himself, after leaving a good suicide notice. ”

You added a smiley face also to that suggestion which I find kind of creepy. So you play concerned citizen when the public is watching but the reality is you don’t care and I could conclude by your answers that just because a person maybe tring to “save” you, it doesn’t really mean they cared since someone who cared would never write: If he goes and hangs himself or takes an overdose of some drugs, that is his business.

 

[bsroufek]

I believe God does keep us from sin, as the Psalms constantly plead. I also believe that God stops evil people from harming His people, which is against the free will of the evil people.

I believe that free will applies to Salvation but that God guides and restrains us often.

 

[Tyrion]

…

I suggest you learn the proper usage of the feature. I am not interested in trying to separate your reply from my text. Of course this is merely a suggestion.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Post 11 by Tyrion

While your parable is pretty good, unfortunately it is a little “off”. The toddler lacks two things: “reasoning power” and “information”. When the parable is applied to us, the respondents properly point out that adults have “reasoning power”, and therefore the parable is inapplicable. Where your parable is correct is, that we are like the toddler in the sense that we also lack the “information”

We shall see.

There is no information about the circumstances of what is considered “sinful” in God’s eyes. There are a lot of loud voices, each of them claiming that they and only they are privy to God’s requirements.

Oh, I think there is plenty of information. We have the entire history of God’s Revelation and 2,000 years of moral teaching and discussion through the Magisterium of the Church. And in the final analysis, you cannot commit a sin unless you know what you are about to do is a sin, and you freelly choose to do it anyway. And you never act with a doubtful conscience, you must resolve it according to the norms. And if, when confessing, you have a doubt about the sinfullness of something you did, that is the way you confess it.

But in Big things most normal people have no doubts.

The problem with the parable is that God never came personally and never gave us a clear, unambiguous and exhaustive list of “do”-s and “don’t”-s of divinely acceptable behavior.

My comment above covers that.

Catholics, of course will counter that with the proclamation that the “church” acts “in lieu” of God. But that is only a claim. Besides, most people do not accept the authority of the church.

You would be surprised at the number of non-Catholics who do follow the Church’s lead. Of course, many don’t. And that is a pity.

And it is more serious that the church cannot answer the most fundamental questions, like: “what is the fate of those who are not catholics?”, and “what is the fate of the unbaptized?”, and “how should one behave to achieve salvation?”, and “exactly what is grave matter?”, also “what constitutes ‘full knowledge’?” etc… the truly important questions are all unanswered. So even the church is not privy to that clear, unambiguous and exhaustive list

Well, you are welcome to your opinion. But you are wrong. And I invite the readers to examine the Catechism of the Catholic Church for themselves and form their own opinions.
The Church has answered these questions exhaustively. The problem is that for you and others like you the answers don’t fit into your particular world view or ideology.
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

(“The blind leads the unsighted” is the phrase which comes to mind".)

Or a bigot is known by his slights and a Tiger by his stripes.

Of course, even if a parent clearly explains to the child (not necessarily a toddler) that behavior “X” is lethal to the child’s existence, and the child disregards the warning, a loving parent would still override the child’s “free will”. Of all the “defenses” ever presented, the “free will defense” is least acceptable one. If one sees someone about to jump off from a bridge with the clear intent to commit suicide, one instinctively grabs the person, IF one cares…

Well, we all have the same human nature after all, so I guess there is still hope.

Linus2nd