D
DCNBILL
Guest
I am sorry for your lack of rain, I will keep you and your situation in my prayers.
- Status
L
Los_Angeles
Guest
Since Catholics claim Jesus Christ was both fully God and fully Man, how do you propose Jesus Christ was exempt from being beaten and tortured before being hung on the Cross by His creation leading to His Resurrection for the forgivness of all mankinds sins, even though He was sinless?
If anything I have said is against the Catholic Chruch, let it be anathema.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
One example is that God would not punish someone for doing something that he or she had no way of knowing was forbidden. God is just, but that would be unjust. I’m sure there are many rules like that, but thats the first one that came to mind for an example.Please enumerate them.I think it is a very important point. And a question: where do these rules come from? And another one: “is God obliged to follow these rules”? A side story: after the Holocaust the Jews set up a court and accused God for breaking the covenant he had with them. During the proceedings they found God guilty, and convicted him - in absentia, of course.
God by nature is just, and will always follow these rules. I don’t know if obliged is the right word. It’s how God is.
I’m not sure where the rules or justice come from… justice just seems to be a concept that is there, written in our hearts or in the rules of the universe.
How do we evaluate the rightness or wrongness of God’s actions? Is that what you’re asking? I guess we can use reason in some cases. In some cases we might not be able to understand. Did you have some specific example in mind?
I’m following your logic here, and I think I agree with it. Yes, it would be wrong to torture an animal just for fun. And yes it would be wrong for God to torture a human being just because He wanted to. This example reminds me of the question of whether a just God would torture people in hell. (Is that what you had in mind?). The answer is that God wouldn’t just arbitrarily torture people because He wanted to. There must be some logical just explanation for hell. Perhaps, as Catholics believe, the primary punishment of hell is separation from God, and the only people who go there are people whose actions and choices make it impossible for them to be with God. Perhaps hell is a natural logical consequence of God creating free human beings who can make a choice to love God or not.
S
Spock
Guest
That is very kind of you. I am sure many more wonderful Catholics and Christians join you in your efforts. Somehow the power of intercessory prayers does not seem to work… google.hu/images?hl=hu&q=famine+in+africa&wrapid=tlif12912383226541&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1916&bih=1034
S
Spock
Guest
I am not sure how this is relevant. But since you brought it up, I have a question: why could not God simply forgive our “sins” without the need of “sacrificing” himself (?). What is the rationale of needing a sacrifice? It is so irrational that it is beyond my comprehension.
M
mark_a
Guest
S
Spock
Guest
Somehow that does not mesh with punishing the sins of the fathers all the way to the seventh generation. The descendants are punished for the sins of the fathers? Is that just?
Indeed we might not be in the position to have all the information to render a correct evaluation. To be sure, we never have full information even when evaluating the deeds of criminals - we cannot know what went on in their mind when they committed their action. The usual way is to go by the available evidence - the good old duck principle.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, tastes like a duck - then it is most probably a duck.I did not explicitly consider hell, but it is a good example. I thought about the Flood, where God simply exterminated everyone, even the unborn, who are “innocent” of any wrongdoing. But you might consider that to be just an allegory. Or the command to exterminate all the Amalekites for worshipping a “false” god.
However, considering hell, and your evaluation of it, it presents a question: if explicitly given information about the wonderful nature of heaven, and the horrible state in hell, who would “choose” hell? The lack of information is the problem here. We must “act” blindfolded, not having any information, so the verdict rendered is unjust. One cannot be expected to have full responsibility if one does not have full information.
R
Reservoir_Dog
Guest
Spock makes a valid point that deserves a straightforward answer. The massacre of the survivors of the Jericho siege happened at God’s direction. There were other incidents during the conquest of Canaan of similar brutality that cannot be reconciled with modern ethics.
Any Catholic should be able to explain why this was slaughter was necessary in terms of salvation history.
S
Spock
Guest
I have answered this question so many times, that now I decided to charge a 100 dollars for an answer.
Or you can use the search feature of the board, and get the answer for free. Your choice…
R
Reservoir_Dog
Guest
I’m assuming that they’re not explaining things well, as usual. This should be read as the consequences of sin are felt through the generations as the sins are repeated over and over. They should be pointing out examples from the OT where the kings failed to root out all forms of Ba’al worship in the Israelite kingdom(s) in spite of God’s order to do so. This was a sin. The result of this sin was a succession of bad rulers, and a reversion to outrages like child sacrifice.
T
tonyrey
Guest
How do you know it happened at God’s direction? Do you think Catholics believe every statement in the Old Testament is literally true?
R
Reservoir_Dog
Guest
Did the Israelites put to the sword the survivors of the Jericho siege at God’s direction?
That’s “yes” or “no”.
U
UnworthyApostle
Guest
Greeting Borthers and Sisters in Christ,
I wish to just say a few short words about this conversation.
This discussion truly shows how ignorant human beings are and how much we do not know.
That is, the mystery and glory of God is so beyond human comprehension, that it is almost futile to inquire into.
Often believers and skeptics alike use a strawman concept of God, a philosophical conception based on Plato and Aristotle, and it seriously harms the discussions between us.
The best sources of knowledge we have of God are prayer, the Bible, and the divine teachings of the church. Our intellect is good, but not complete.
As far as God and evil, I offer this analogy.
Nature is heirarchal in nature, and this is shown on many levels.
It would logically follow that supernature would be as well.
God is at the top of this heirarchy, and therefore has first and foremost rights to issue commands which would constitute morality.
It IS HIS PEROGATIVE to determine what morality is just as a government determines what civil laws are to be made and applied. A government will and can make laws no matter what we as citizens think or prefer, and to go against the law is an act of rebellion.
So, the whole “might is right” reasoning is correct and logical.
God has a right, expect a great deal more, to issue commands on those who are lower in heirarchy such as managers do to employees, governments to citizens, and parents to children. Any going against the commands from those higher in command is an act of disobedience and rebellion.
This is simple logic and any problems with it are not logical, but emotional.
God Bless
I wish to just say a few short words about this conversation.
This discussion truly shows how ignorant human beings are and how much we do not know.
That is, the mystery and glory of God is so beyond human comprehension, that it is almost futile to inquire into.
Often believers and skeptics alike use a strawman concept of God, a philosophical conception based on Plato and Aristotle, and it seriously harms the discussions between us.
The best sources of knowledge we have of God are prayer, the Bible, and the divine teachings of the church. Our intellect is good, but not complete.
As far as God and evil, I offer this analogy.
Nature is heirarchal in nature, and this is shown on many levels.
It would logically follow that supernature would be as well.
God is at the top of this heirarchy, and therefore has first and foremost rights to issue commands which would constitute morality.
It IS HIS PEROGATIVE to determine what morality is just as a government determines what civil laws are to be made and applied. A government will and can make laws no matter what we as citizens think or prefer, and to go against the law is an act of rebellion.
So, the whole “might is right” reasoning is correct and logical.
God has a right, expect a great deal more, to issue commands on those who are lower in heirarchy such as managers do to employees, governments to citizens, and parents to children. Any going against the commands from those higher in command is an act of disobedience and rebellion.
This is simple logic and any problems with it are not logical, but emotional.
God Bless
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
It doesn’t sound just to me, and I doubt God works that way. Anyway, definitely it wouldn’t be just for God to send someone to hell for the sins of his ancestors. Same goes for purgatory.
If this is referring to earthly punishments, I suppose when God punishes one person, it could affect other people around that person. For example, if a country has to be punished by God for harming its neighbours, the innocent in that country will suffer. Or if God punishes a father, it could affect those who depend on him. God would have to, in justice, (I suppose) make it up to the innocent in the afterlife for any undeserved sufferings they have in this life. Also God can make good come out of things that seem harmful to us.
Indeed we might not be in the position to have all the information to render a correct evaluation. To be sure, we never have full information even when evaluating the deeds of criminals - we cannot know what went on in their mind when they committed their action. The usual way is to go by the available evidence - the good old duck principle.
I’ll assume both of those are real historical events for the sake of discussion. (The teaching from the stories should be the same whether they are didactic fiction or history).
In the case of the flood, the bible says that everyone but Noah was evil, but you bring up the case of babies and the unborn. God as the author of life has the right to take life away. We can’t take each others lives, since we did not give them life in the first place. God can take it away since he gave them life and sustains their life. God didn’t sign a contract saying that they can stay alive for ever. He has the right to stop sustaining their lives. Also, consider the story from the perspective of a believer: any innocent people who died in the flood can be granted eternal life with God. So death isn’t really a loss to them.
As far as the Amalekites, remember this was a kill or be killed situation for the Hebrews. Imagine a tribe wandering in the desert with no land of their own, being attacked by surrounding tribes. I don’t know enough about the situation to know if there were opportunities for peaceful coexistence in their situation. Apparently God gave his friendship to the Israelites and helped them survive and defeat their enemies. I don’t think God desired for them to be harsher on their enemies than necessary, but perhaps people have to learn in stages. The Israelites had to understand that God loved them before they could come to see that God loves all men. I doubt that God specifically requested unnecessary harshness against the Amalekites. Maybe that was the only type of warfare the Israelites knew, and God told them to defend themselves, and they filled in the blanks.
People won’t go to hell for lack of information. You’re right, that would be unjust. People might go to hell for being too proud to admit that they need God, or too proud to accept His mercy. Or they might choose the pleasure of doing evil over the pleasure of serving God. Maybe some people refuse to put the effort into learning to appreciate knowing God. Or maybe they just really hate goodness for some reason.
There are all sorts of examples right here in this life of people choosing hell. People use drugs that they know will ruin their lives. They cheat on their spouses and ruin their marriages and lives, even though they are aware of the consequences. People commit crimes knowing that they will end up in prison. People sleep in instead of going to mass, even though they know from experience that true happiness comes from being close to God. They’re willing to accept a future of misery for a few more minutes in bed!
R
Reservoir_Dog
Guest
There is a coherent, rational theological explanation for the necessity of the slaughter at Jericho, and Spock deserves this explanation. Obviously this is a troubling issue for him, as it should be for anyone. Hiding it in mystery isn’t going to work.
M
mark_a
Guest
Do you take paypal?I have answered this question so many times, that now I decided to charge a 100 dollars for an answer.
J
JDaniel
Guest
Spock:
In the city where I live, a young girl was walking on the side of a roadway, with another girl. They passed over a small hill and went down the other side. Along came a car, perhaps traveling a tad over the legal limit, and struck her. The collision knocked the little girl into the air, and her little body landed, crumpled up like a wad of aluminum foil. On each side of the small hill, two Churches existed. A Catholic Church and a Baptist Church.
The girl was rushed to a nearby hospital, but, lay in a coma for many days. After a reasonable period of time - for her doctors, at least - it was decided that she was brain-dead and most likely would not recover. After several weeks, her family was called to the hospital for the distressing news. They were going to pull the wires and tubes keeping her alive and let her go in peace.
As 14 or 15 of her relatives waited additional relatives, the pastor of the Baptist Church, who was making his rounds of the hospital, noticed the family standing in sadness. Upon discovering what was about to happen to the girl, he asked the family if he could go into her room and pray over her. This they permitted.
About 30 - 45 minutes later, after much crying and praying, the group saw the pastor as he emerged from the girl’s room. He immediately indicated that the girl wanted to see her mom. The family was, needless to say, quite awe-struck. When her mom entered her daughter’s room, she was sitting up and talking with the pastor. That was about 14 years ago. The girl is doing just fine, happy and thriving.
The girl was my girlfriend’s younger sister. My girlfriend was one of the relatives, in the waiting room, praying for her sister, too. The foregoing is absolutely true. the point I am making is that there are about 40 people that would earnestly disagree with your statement that ‘intercessory prayer does not work.’ Her doctors are among the 40 or so people. The subsequent statements of several of them, to me, following the event, are good enough for me. I suspect that this sort of thing is occurring every day, in hospitals throughout the world.
I do not expect you to believe me. It’s my word against the drivel. But, I do not have to, nor will I go to ‘reconciliation’ to report this as a sin. I am clear and certain that I am telling you - all anyone else reading this - the truth. The Pastor was the pastor of the Baptist Church on the South side of the hill.
It raises my shackles when I hear, or read, how intercessory prayer does not work. I know such statements to be very wrong.
God bless,
jd
L
Los_Angeles
Guest
It is relevant becase you made the assertion that:
God **did **subject himself to His own laws! Jesus Christ never commited a sin His entire life.
Jesus Christ suffered, died on the Cross, and was buried, then was resurrected for the forgiveness of sins becuase that is how much He loves you, me, and all mankind. He took the punishment for all mankind’s sins.
If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.
R
Reservoir_Dog
Guest
And you’ll notice that, after the slaughter of the Jericho survivors and the failure of the attack against the town of Ai, that what troubles God is not the massacre of men, women and children, animals, and total destruction of Jericho, but the fact that one of the Israelites keeps the spoils of war. See Joshua, ch 7.
Certainly contrary to modern ethics and there is, of course, a valid theological reason. It would be better to just acknowledge the obvious and explain why, in salvation history, it happened.
Certainly contrary to modern ethics and there is, of course, a valid theological reason. It would be better to just acknowledge the obvious and explain why, in salvation history, it happened.
T
tonyrey
Guest
It is possible the Israelites put to the sword the survivors of the Jericho siege but the notion that they did it at God’s direction is inconsistent with His infinite love.
- Status