Another serious reason why these conversations are futile

[JDaniel]

There is no statistical evidence for that.

I’ll bet there is. I’ll bet that if you asked a sizable group of Catholic Priests (and/or marriage counselors) which, among their jobs is to counsel marrieds, you might find a scary truth. I know you may say, “Well, they would be inclined to say that.” But, I don’t believe they would lie to you. I’m sure you don’t believe they would either.

Life is risky, no matter how we view it. There are acceptable risks and there are unacceptable ones. But “one size fits all” is demostratebly untrue.

That’s particularly true of shoes!

Indeed. But the question is not just a faceless, generic “maker”, it concerns the non-generic God of Christianity. We can restrict the conversation to the generic version of “god” (uncapitalized) if you wish.

So, because some Christians are unsophisticated and make muddy water, you throw out our Christian God with the bath water?

God has revealed himself to us. He has determinants as any existentiality might have. Among them are the superlatives of the predicates under consideration - as one might expect. Though, these attributes have been known for thousands of years. And, known by many of the smartest men in history.

The dilemma is a bit more complicated. An alleged good God cannot allow “senseless, unnecessary suffering”.

But, you don’t know that he does, nor do you know that, if he does, it is senseless. You only surmise it from an ineffable human vantage point.

What, and you don’t think nature has its contradictions? What are the advantages to evolutionary selection in having the sensation of pain? Then, why erase it with shock? Most of the time, shock seems to set in almost before the pain arrives!

There are 3 usual defenses when considering the problem of evil.

Yes, yes, yes.

Number one is that all the seemingly unneccesary sufferings logically and inevitably lead to some “greater good”, which is impossible to achieve even for God, his omnipotence notwithstanding. In this defense the suffering is a logical prerequisite. (The proponents are of course unable to show what this greater good might be, and how does the suffering lead to it.)

Why, then, we would be anthropomorphizing - which is precisely what you have herein been railing against. However, we have Job, where we are taught that certain sufferings may be purgative. The early Greek plays were often of a purgative nature. Without God, in many instances, such people had the emptiness in the pits of their stomachs that comes from committing sins without commensurate atonement. Confession and forgiveness may not be enough, in some cases. And, in many cases, atonement is a thing that is self-imposed. You are aware of this. In any event, we are never treated to purgative plays any more. Those plays or stories had a purpose. They cleansed the viewers, in some way we are now immune from. And they did their job without the application of physical pain.

Anyway, I’ve been introduced to excruciating pain a couple of times, in my life, and thanked God for the gracious application of the phenomenon of (bodily) shock.

Number two is a total opposite, it says that a lot of evil and a lot of suffering is the result of God granting us free will. Here the unnecessary suffering is a logical consequence. This defense is ridiculous. There is no logical path that would lead to the actuality of suffering, only to the potentiality of it. To allow unnecessary suffering as a logical consequence of “free will” still contradicts God’s alleged goodness.

You persist in calling that which you and I do not have the slightest understanding of, relative to the mysteries of our universe, “unnecessary.” That is an adjective that when applied to certain pain and suffering, is impossible to assert. By the way, why can’t pain simply be a characteristic of matter? If not Matter purely and simply, then it is caused by the prerequisites of evolution. In order to survive, we must occasionally take flight. Some dangers require pain as our wake up call. So, God is not the cause, pain comes solely from Matter. Now, we can finally put the blame where it properly belongs, on the god of the materialists.

Number three is the outright denial of suffering. It comes up sometimes when the suffering of animals is discussed. Some people deny that the animals actually “suffer”. I have no idea how can they say that, maybe they think that the animals actually “enjoy” being burned alive in a wildfire?

I really don’t know who these people are, but, if they propose according to your description, I’d like to leave them in a wildfire! Fortunately, most animals trapped in forest fires die from smoke inhalation before the fire roasts them. At least, that’s my hope.

Let me stress this again. When I speak of God, I am not talking about an entity with certain characteristics. I am talking about the human concept, and I am questioning the ideas like “all-knowing”, or “infinite being”.

Those are two of God’s revealed attributes, known for millennia. Not necessarily uncontroversially though.

God bless,
jd

 

[Spock]

No statistical evidence of what? Oh, there is statistical evidence. Your assertion seems to be that its existence does not matter because something different might make some people happier, or, how can I know unless I try everything else, perhaps. However, the teaching is quite correct in stating a very orderly format for society, that of chastity, and the use of the sexual faculties only inside of a marriage. Sure there will be failures, and some people deviate from this norm, but, I think its dishonest to defend the deviations as just as valid and healthy for society. I think such an assertion is both ultimately dishonest, and statistically invalid.

Well, I will ask you the same question: “what specific detrimental effects can come to society if two loving (maybe even married) people express their love toward each other in a fashion which prevents a possible conception?”. Because that kind of behavior is also “prohibited” by the Church. Be specific, please.

As for “deviation”, the current concept of monogamous marriage is just one of the possible arrangements. Several different ones have been tried before, and all of them produced orderly, and healthy societies.

Why do you believe that a Good God cannot allow any suffering, when I clearly defined evil as the absence of Good. It is like saying that if warm exists that cold cannot exist, in that cold is ‘merely’ the absence of heat or warmth to be more true to the comparison.

Two remarks here. First, I did not say “any” suffering. If some suffering will bring forth some greater good, which is the logical corollary to that suffering, and which greater good cannot be achieved if the suffering would be lessened, than that suffering can be reconciled with the notion of a good, benevolent God. Second, I do not accept the definition of “evil” as simply the privation of “good”. Evil is the volitional causation (or passive allowance) of harm, which is not balanced by some greater good.

You propose that God cannot derive good from evil as well, you seem to just sit omnipotence aside. If you believe in Heaven then merits can adjust the situation for just reason, even if we don’t fully understand. Further, many people learn lessons from failure, so, in many cases people do benefit from suffering.

“Many cases” simply does not cut it. If God is all-good, then he cannot cause or allow even one instance of unnecessary suffering. Ponder the following scenario: “an unfortunate woman is at the wrong place at the wrong time. She is assaulted, gang-raped, mutilated and murdered by some vicious people”. Where is the “greater good” in that? Or, another one: “Children are out on a field trip. One of them gets lost, falls down into a crevasse, and slowly dies of his injuries”. It is an unfortunate accident, uncaused by human evil, yet the suffering is real. What possible good can come out of it, which cannot be achieved otherwise, and which more than compensates the child’s suffering? And please do not try to say that “maybe God will compensate in heaven”. There is no logical chain which would make the suffering a necessary prerequisite to the alleged reward.

 

[Spock]

Hmm… I thought all those things could be reduced to the atomic level… Diamonds are more dense because of the way the atoms are packed together, light passes through diamonds because of … well… something to do with the crystal structure. etc.?

Yes, the arrangement of the atoms is significant. However, the arrangement itself is not a physical object (but, of course it is not something supernatural either). We talk about the emergent attributes, which cannot be reduced to the constituent elements. Pure physics is not sufficient to explain the chemical properties of molecules - one needs chemistry to do that. Pure chemistry cannot explain the properties of cells, one needs biology for that. Pure biology is insufficient to explain the human emotions or interactions, we need social sciences for that purpose. Reductionism is an untenable concept, and it is only used when the proponent has no idea what he is talking about.

By “the limits of science” I was thinking more about things like… theories about other universes that we can’t detect, based on untestable hypotheses. Or art. Can art be explained by science? Do you expect that some day art will be considered a science?

Actually art can be explained by sience. We find something beautiful, if we are exposed to it. Look at the medieval pictures of Madonna. In their time those women were considered beutiful, but not today. Look at those bulging eyes, due to the lack of the necessary iodine in the drinking water. Today those eyes are not beautiful at all. Even the ancient Greeks were familiar with the ratio called the Golden Cut. (Square root of 5 minus one, divided by two = approximately 0.618033988…) When you look at nature, this ratio is all over the place. When you look at the beautiful picture of Michelangelo, the Last Supper, this ratio is everywhere on the picture. Music we find beautiful, because it resonates with brain-waves.

Well can you prove, using science that we all perceive sensory stimulus in the same way? I don’t think you’re giving their theories fair consideration. It sounds to me like you have made scienctific observation your magic Key to all knowledge, and you stop thinking logically whenever you come up against the limits of what science can do.

I have been asking for substitutes, and for a long time. None was ever offered, which would withstand the scrutiny of rational examination. Usually people try to criticize the “scientific method”, and their criticism is pretty lame. But none, ever tried to offer an alternative. I am still waiting.

It’s exactly the same as what you see happen to religious people when you ask questions that they don’t know the answer to - it unsettles them, their world starts to seem uncertain, and they get emotional and start talking nonsense. Seriously, thats what all humans do when their cherished assumptions are questioned. I think it applies to people with a religious belief in science too.

Most certainly it upsets people when their most fundamental beliefs are questioned, especially when they are shattered. It can be a very traumatic experience. I guess, I am not fully human, since I look forward to challenges.

\//

 

[Spock]

I’ll bet there is. I’ll bet that if you asked a sizable group of Catholic Priests (and/or marriage counselors) which, among their jobs is to counsel marrieds, you might find a scary truth. I know you may say, “Well, they would be inclined to say that.” But, I don’t believe they would lie to you. I’m sure you don’t believe they would either.

I don’t think they would lie. But they could be honestly mistaken. I would like to hear an answer to the previous question: “what specific harm can come to society if loving people express their mutual commitment to each other in a way which does not allow procreation”? I mean actual harm, not some allegedly “gravely disordered” action. Because I see no possible harm.

So, because some Christians are unsophisticated and make muddy water, you throw out our Christian God with the bath water?

The water is crystal clear for me. It is empty.

God has revealed himself to us. He has determinants as any existentiality might have. Among them are the superlatives of the predicates under consideration - as one might expect. Though, these attributes have been known for thousands of years. And, known by many of the smartest men in history.

This is where we deviate. I am sure you believe that there was a genuine “revelation”. I am also sure you know that I don’t think so. And those attributes you speak of are the exaggerations of some some valued human traits to the extreme, and they have no real meaning.

But, you don’t know that he does, nor do you know that, if he does, it is senseless. You only surmise it from an ineffable human vantage point.

I never said otherwise. We must make our assessments and judgments according to the best information we have. When you hear about a child having been molested and killed by some pervert, what is your reaction to that? Is it (a) what a horrible, senseless act, or (b) well, obviously God has permitted it for his inscrutable reasons, and something really good will come out if this act?

If you would be on the jury for that previous crime, would you say: “well we are not privy to the full information as to why this pervert committed his deed, and thus we cannot render a verdict”? We must go by the available evidence, we must follow the “duck principle” - which says: “if it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, if it looks like a duck, if it tastes like a duck, it is (very probably) a duck”. If a deed “looks like” a senseless and evil act beyond any reasonable doubt, we accept the verdict as proper. And to say that “maybe” there is something we don’t know about will not be considered a “reasonable doubt”.

You see, you try to have your cake and eat it, too. It does not work. If you would know about a planned abduction and molestation, and would be in the position to prevent it, I am sure you would prevent it. Maybe you would think: “thank God for putting me in the position to prevent such an act. Surely it was God’s will to allow me to intervene”. If you would be in the position to know about this planned abduction and molestation, but unable to prevent it, what would you think? Would you think that it was God’s will that you were just one step too far to prevent the abduction?

You persist in calling that which you and I do not have the slightest understanding of, relative to the mysteries of our universe, “unnecessary.” That is an adjective that when applied to certain pain and suffering, is impossible to assert. By the way, why can’t pain simply be a characteristic of matter? If not Matter purely and simply, then it is caused by the prerequisites of evolution. In order to survive, we must occasionally take flight. Some dangers require pain as our wake up call. So, God is not the cause, pain comes solely from Matter. Now, we can finally put the blame where it properly belongs, on the god of the materialists.

Of course. No doubt about that. But “matter” or “evolution” are non-sentient entites, they have no responsibility. “Matter” is not “good”, nor it is “evil”. It simply is what it is. But you don’t believe that. You place God over the “matter”, you assert that God created “matter” with all its properties, therefore God carries the responsibility. As I said before, if God has his desk, where he works, it should carry the sign: “The buck stops here!”.

Those are two of God’s revealed attributes, known for millennia. Not necessarily uncontroversially though.

Hehe, “uncontroversial” is pretty mild. Downright nonsensical, if you ask me, “revealed” or otherwise.

 

[JDaniel]

I don’t think they would lie. But they could be honestly mistaken.

What? Thousands of people providing such services to married couples, over many centuries? Are simply mistaken? “Honestly mistaken?” “Goo Geese,” as my granddaughter would say!

I would like to hear an answer to the previous question: “what specific harm can come to society if loving people express their mutual commitment to each other in a way which does not allow procreation”?

It is widely known by counselors and psychiatric consultants that such behavior usually has at least two deleterious results: (1) the husband looses closeness with his wife (and/or, vice versa). Of course, he doesn’t need her for much of anything, as time rolls forward, with the possible exception of washing his dirty clothes and making his dinner. That this happens is not even up for debate. Then, with the closeness bond dissipating, so goes the marriage. Then society has millions of un-wed mothers with children - filing “head-of-household” tax status. As if that helps!

(2) Actually, people do express their mutual commitment to each other in loving ways and don’t procreate. The Church simply asks that the married couple be open to procreation. and, there are ways to do that without “breaking the rules,” so to speak.

Now, I have a question: "“what specific harm can come to society if loving people express their mutual commitment to each other” by having children? The happiest families I have ever seen in my life have been huge families; ten or more kids.

The water is crystal clear for me. It is empty.

So sad. :sad_yes:

This is where we deviate. I am sure you believe that there was a genuine “revelation”. I am also sure you know that I don’t think so. And those attributes you speak of are the exaggerations of some some valued human traits to the extreme, and they have no real meaning.

I find this very sad, too. You pick and choose the books you give credence to. If a book is devoid of God, it is one you accept. If it is replete with God, that one is unacceptable to you. You come to these decisions with a willing continuation of disbelief. Like I said, I sure hope you know what you are doing!

I never said otherwise. We must make our assessments and judgments according to the best information we have. When you hear about a child having been molested and killed by some pervert, what is your reaction to that? Is it (a) what a horrible, senseless act, or (b) well, obviously God has permitted it for his inscrutable reasons, and something really good will come out if this act?

I generally see it as a effuse combination of both. I do not ignore the horror of the act and the suffering of the child, but, since I am not limited to this life, I recognize that the child has more than likely gone on to a better place.

If you would be on the jury for that previous crime, would you say: “well we are not privy to the full information as to why this pervert committed his deed, and thus we cannot render a verdict”? We must go by the available evidence, we must follow the “duck principle” - which says: “if it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, if it looks like a duck, if it tastes like a duck, it is (very probably) a duck”. If a deed “looks like” a senseless and evil act beyond any reasonable doubt, we accept the verdict as proper. And to say that “maybe” there is something we don’t know about will not be considered a “reasonable doubt”.

Were I on a jury that found such a defendant guilty without doubt, I would expect that such a person be removed from any further commingling with his own kind. He may have, and may continue on his evil way. We are commanded to love the least of his children as he loves us. I view that type of person as a willing vessel for Satan to use to vent his punishment on this world that refuses to bow to him. I could not deliver a death sentence, but, I could deliver a life in prison sentence.

You see, you try to have your cake and eat it, too. It does not work. If you would know about a planned abduction and molestation, and would be in the position to prevent it, I am sure you would prevent it. Maybe you would think: “thank God for putting me in the position to prevent such an act. Surely it was God’s will to allow me to intervene”.

I would regard such an event of fortune as an event of fortune. It is the human condition to make utterances without thinking. Everyone does it. But, after second thought, I would be just amazed that I won that lottery. That said, it could still have been part of God’s plan. No one knows. Not even atheists.

cont . . .

 

[JDaniel]

cont . . .

If you would be in the position to know about this planned abduction and molestation, but unable to prevent it, what would you think? Would you think that it was God’s will that you were just one step too far to prevent the abduction?

Truthfully, I would not. This sort of thing is probably more attributable to pure luck; pure chance. But, as said in the paragraph above, who knows? Neither you nor I do.

Of course. No doubt about that. But “matter” or “evolution” are non-sentient entites, they have no responsibility. “Matter” is not “good”, nor it is “evil”. It simply is what it is. But you don’t believe that. You place God over the “matter”, you assert that God created “matter” with all its properties, therefore God carries the responsibility. As I said before, if God has his desk, where he works, it should carry the sign: “The buck stops here!”.

Well, wait a minute. You may blame God because, as you see it, he has acquiesced to the existentiality of evil. Why, then, can’t I blame matter/evolution for their active participation? If God has blame for inaction, matter and evolution have even more blame precisely because they have an appetite for evil. They are active participants in it due to its inherency in them. Without God, that would be the truth of the matter. With God, in the picture, we can blame-shift to our exquisite whim.

God bless,
jd

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Yes, the arrangement of the atoms is significant. However, the arrangement itself is not a physical object (but, of course it is not something supernatural either). We talk about the emergent attributes, which cannot be reduced to the constituent elements. Pure physics is not sufficient to explain the chemical properties of molecules - one needs chemistry to do that. Pure chemistry cannot explain the properties of cells, one needs biology for that. Pure biology is insufficient to explain the human emotions or interactions, we need social sciences for that purpose. Reductionism is an untenable concept, and it is only used when the proponent has no idea what he is talking about.

But… doesn’t chemistry reduce down to physics? And doesn’t biology reduce down to chemistry? Except where there are still gaps in our knowledge, but there has been a lot of progress in explaining chemistry in terms of physics, etc.

Actually art can be explained by sience. We find something beautiful, if we are exposed to it. Look at the medieval pictures of Madonna. In their time those women were considered beutiful, but not today. Look at those bulging eyes, due to the lack of the necessary iodine in the drinking water. Today those eyes are not beautiful at all. Even the ancient Greeks were familiar with the ratio called the Golden Cut. (Square root of 5 minus one, divided by two = approximately 0.618033988…) When you look at nature, this ratio is all over the place. When you look at the beautiful picture of Michelangelo, the Last Supper, this ratio is everywhere on the picture. Music we find beautiful, because it resonates with brain-waves.

Okay… so you’re going to use science now to come up with a scientifically perfect artwork, then you’ll tell people who don’t like it that they’re illogical?

I have been asking for substitutes, and for a long time. None was ever offered, which would withstand the scrutiny of rational examination. Usually people try to criticize the “scientific method”, and their criticism is pretty lame. But none, ever tried to offer an alternative. I am still waiting.

So you’re going to take the substitutes for science, and analyze them with your scientific method to see if they are better? Isn’t that a bit circular?

That’s like saying I’m going to decide whether science is better than religion by seeing if Jesus ever talks about science in the bible.

Seriously, I think you have an emotional script which makes you call people insane when they don’t accept your cherished beliefs about science. The belief that science is the key to all truth, even the truth of poetry and art! It’s very human of you.

 

[Spock]

What? Thousands of people providing such services to married couples, over many centuries? Are simply mistaken? “Honestly mistaken?” “Goo Geese,” as my granddaughter would say!

Why not? Thousands and thousands of astrologers honestly believed that the stars at the time of birth influenced the personality.

It is widely known by counselors and psychiatric consultants that such behavior usually has at least two deleterious results: (1) the husband looses closeness with his wife (and/or, vice versa). That this happens is not even up for debate. Then, with the closeness bond dissipating, so goes the marriage. Then society has millions of un-wed mothers with children - filing “head-of-household” tax status. As if that helps!

Sometimes it can happen. But it does not “usually” have such results. There is absolutely no evidence that having oral sex, for example would have any negative effects on a couple.

(2) Actually, people do express their mutual commitment to each other in loving ways and don’t procreate. The Church simply asks that the married couple be open to procreation. and, there are ways to do that without “breaking the rules,” so to speak.

Not true. First the Church does not “nicely ask”, it expresses in no uncertain terms that certain sexual behaviors are “deviant”, or “gravely disordered”, and simply forbidden.

Now, I have a question: "“what specific harm can come to society if loving people express their mutual commitment to each other” by having children?

Nothing wrong with it all, as long as they want all those children and are able to provide for those children. However, one size does not fit all. Other people are happier to have few children, or even none. Or wish to postpone procreation to a more opportune time, and wish to practice active birth prevention. NFP is unreliable, and abstinence is frustrating and impractical.

I find this very sad, too. You pick and choose the books you give credence to. If a book is devoid of God, it is one you accept. If it is replete with God, that one is unacceptable to you. You come to these decisions with a willing continuation of disbelief. Like I said, I sure hope you know what you are doing!

That is not true either. The contents of the books is what I take into consideration, not the subject of book. You know, I am quite open to new ideas. When I took a psychological test for personality, my trait for openness was literally off the scale. But of course I am very skepitcal, and just because something was believed by millions of people for over thousands of years is not indicative of its validity.

I generally see it as a effuse combination of both. I do not ignore the horror of the act and the suffering of the child, but, since I am not limited to this life, I recognize that the child has more than likely gone on to a better place.

Three problems with that. First, it is wishful thinking, you have no evidence that it will happen. Second, according to Jesus the road to hell is wide and the road to heaven is narrow, and only a few will make it. So, by the percentages, it is much more likely that the child will end up in hell. Third, even if the child goes to heaven, the suffering is not a logically necessary prerequisite, and therefore the later reward will noy retroacively justify it.

Were I on a jury that found such a defendant guilty without doubt, I would expect that such a person be removed from any further commingling with his own kind. He may have, and may continue on his evil way. We are commanded to love the least of his children as he loves us. I view that type of person as a willing vessel for Satan to use to vent his punishment on this world that refuses to bow to him. I could not deliver a death sentence, but, I could deliver a life in prison sentence.

I agree on all counts, I am also against death sentence. But that was not the question. You said that I should not judge God, because I lack the complete knowledge. You also lack full knowledge, you cannot tell if that person could not have some unknown intent in mind. Yet, you say that I am not supposed to judge, but you can judge.

Truthfully, I would not. This sort of thing is probably more attributable to pure luck; pure chance. But, as said in the paragraph above, who knows? Neither you nor I do.

Correct. So God uses “luck” and “chance” when he allows one atrocity to happen, and allows another one to be prevented? You see, this is the problem. When you assume that God “foresees” everthing, and can “intervene” if he wishes to, there is no more “chance and luck”.

Well, wait a minute. You may blame God because, as you see it, he has acquiesced to the existentiality of evil. Why, then, can’t I blame matter/evolution for their active participation? If God has blame for inaction, matter and evolution have even more blame precisely because they have an appetite for evil. They are active participants in it due to its inherency in them. Without God, that would be the truth of the matter. With God, in the picture, we can blame-shift to our exquisite whim.

Of course I do not “blame” God. How could I blame God, if I don’t believe he exists? All I am doing here is exposing the theistic belief system as being internally contradictory and purposefully evasive when it is maintained in face of opposing evidence.

 

[Spock]

But… doesn’t chemistry reduce down to physics? And doesn’t biology reduce down to chemistry? Except where there are still gaps in our knowledge, but there has been a lot of progress in explaining chemistry in terms of physics, etc.

No, they are not reducible. The complexity of the material when viewed as a unit (living cells) introduces a new level, which cannot be reduced to the constituent elements.

Okay… so you’re going to use science now to come up with a scientifically perfect artwork, then you’ll tell people who don’t like it that they’re illogical?

Why would anyone do that? The human mind is so complicated, that such an endeavor would be futile. All I am saying that art is not a complete “mystery”, there are rules, which the artists employ (instinctively, of course) to create what they think is beautiful. They live in a specific social environment, which has its own prevalent standard of “beauty”, and try to fulfill the need for that.

So you’re going to take the substitutes for science, and analyze them with your scientific method to see if they are better? Isn’t that a bit circular?

If and when I see an alternative method proposed, I will use it and see if it “works” as projected and claimed. There are many proponents of the paranormal, people who use dowsing rods (for example) and say that those methods “work”. A simple, double blind experiment exposes them that they do not work. I am using the “proof of the pudding” - which is not circular. When push comes to shove: “does it work, or does it not”?

That’s like saying I’m going to decide whether science is better than religion by seeing if Jesus ever talks about science in the bible.

I am not expecting Jesus to speak of science, though it certainly would help. He could have told the people to wash their hands before trying to help at a child birth, and not wait for many centuries until Semmelweiss realized that child-birth fever can be prevented by simply washing hands - and millions and millions of mothers would not have died leaving their children orphans. No special knowledge would have been imparted. Of course he could have described a fusion reactor, too. The people of his age would not have understood it, but he could have dictated it, aiming his narrative to us, and now we could utilize it and not burn up our oil reserves. Or he could return today, and explain it to us. What a scoop would it be!

But the Bible is not “devoid” of some scientifically absurd passages, and those passages are nonsensical. Moreover, there are some verses which are mathematically incorrect, even though the more educated population already know a more precise answer.

Seriously, I think you have an emotional script which makes you call people insane when they don’t accept your cherished beliefs about science. The belief that science is the key to all truth, even the truth of poetry and art! It’s very human of you.

My beliefs are not “cherished”, they are thorougly grounded in reality. By the way the phrase “truth of poetry” is a meaningless combination of words. Poetry (or art) is either moving or not, it is either beautiful or not, but it is not “true” or “false”. These adjectives are simply not applicable.

 

[Man]

Well, I will ask you the same question: “what specific detrimental effects can come to society if two loving (maybe even married) people express their love toward each other in a fashion which prevents a possible conception?”. Because that kind of behavior is also “prohibited” by the Church. Be specific, please.

As for “deviation”, the current concept of monogamous marriage is just one of the possible arrangements. Several different ones have been tried before, and all of them produced orderly, and healthy societies.

A discussion of the bolded part will reveal everything. Can you please describe these societies, paying special attention to the place of women in these societies.

Two remarks here. First, I did not say “any” suffering. If some suffering will bring forth some greater good, which is the logical corollary to that suffering, and which greater good cannot be achieved if the suffering would be lessened, than that suffering can be reconciled with the notion of a good, benevolent God. Second, I do not accept the definition of “evil” as simply the privation of “good”. Evil is the volitional causation (or passive allowance) of harm, which is not balanced by some greater good.

With no cause? Perhaps I’m just not following the logic that allows you to just reject evil as the absence of good, or why it is so compelling that it seems you are asserting that I should probably do so as well. It looks like we just reached the end of this discussion because you decided that you didn’t like that explanation. If God exists, then, your rejection of reality does not change reality.

“Many cases” simply does not cut it. If God is all-good, then he cannot cause or allow even one instance of unnecessary suffering. Ponder the following scenario: “an unfortunate woman is at the wrong place at the wrong time. She is assaulted, gang-raped, mutilated and murdered by some vicious people”. Where is the “greater good” in that? Or, another one: “Children are out on a field trip. One of them gets lost, falls down into a crevasse, and slowly dies of his injuries”. It is an unfortunate accident, uncaused by human evil, yet the suffering is real. What possible good can come out of it, which cannot be achieved otherwise, and which more than compensates the child’s suffering? And please do not try to say that “maybe God will compensate in heaven”. There is no logical chain which would make the suffering a necessary prerequisite to the alleged reward.

This is a derivative of what I fail to see as a compelling argument for rejecting evil as the absence of good.

That is to say that the rational answer to the OP is the evil is the absence of good. And it the rejection of this assertion and not falling back on ‘who are you to judge’ that is the ultimate barrier in this discussion.

 

[JDaniel]

Why not? Thousands and thousands of astrologers honestly believed that the stars at the time of birth influenced the personality.

Today? Does anyone with an IQ above marginal really take that stuff seriously today? I know a lot of people. I don’t know any that do. Usually, astrology is the subject of mockery.

Sometimes it can happen. But it does not “usually” have such results. There is absolutely no evidence that having oral sex, for example would have any negative effects on a couple.

I didn’t know you were specifying. Oral sex as a form of foreplay, might not be deleterious, but, only if the other person is gladly willing and not subject to coercion. If one is subject to coercion, then I resolutely disagree with you. My experience with the world is that willing agreement to the act is usually withheld by one or both parties. Almost 80% (if not more) of females are not gladly willing participants to oral sex, in my opinion. If you disagree, you’re looking through a tiny hole at the outside real world.

Not true. First the Church does not “nicely ask”, it expresses in no uncertain terms that certain sexual behaviors are “deviant”, or “gravely disordered”, and simply forbidden.

It seems that you are confusing the subjects. Homosexual acts are gravely disordered. And, some are downright deviant. Are you telling me that you have been talking about homosexual sex acts all this time? And here I thought you were referring to heterosexuals.

Nothing wrong with it all, as long as they want all those children and are able to provide for those children. However, one size does not fit all.

(Now we’re back to shoes!)

Other people are happier to have few children, or even none.

I doubt that. Happier?

Or wish to postpone procreation to a more opportune time, and wish to practice active birth prevention. NFP is unreliable, and abstinence is frustrating and impractical.

NFP is not unreliable. The parents need to be responsible in their use of it. When my wife and I needed to use NFP, and we used it responsibly, it worked just fine. When we threw all responsibility to the wind, unexpected pregnancy. Notice I didn’t say, “unwanted” pregnancy. There was a time when I was going back and forth between the US and Spain, for school. that’s when we didn’t want an unexpected birth.

That is not true either. The contents of the books is what I take into consideration, not the subject of book. You know, I am quite open to new ideas. When I took a psychological test for personality, my trait for openness was literally off the scale. But of course I am very skepitcal, and just because something was believed by millions of people for over thousands of years is not indicative of its validity.

True. And just because one takes a “test” and does well, does not mean it accurately accessed the test subject.

Three problems with that. First, it is wishful thinking, you have no evidence that it will happen.

And, we don’t know that it will not.

Second, according to Jesus the road to hell is wide and the road to heaven is narrow, and only a few will make it. So, by the percentages, it is much more likely that the child will end up in hell.

The odds for the invincibly ignorant (children) are skewed greatly in favor of them going to heaven. There’s no question about it. Remember, Jesus’ most important commandment, paraphrased: “What thou doest to these the least of my children, thou doest unto me.” That is unambiguous.

Third, even if the child goes to heaven, the suffering is not a logically necessary prerequisite, and therefore the later reward will noy retroacively justify it.

Again, that’s your surmise.

I agree on all counts, I am also against death sentence. But that was not the question. You said that I should not judge God, because I lack the complete knowledge. You also lack full knowledge, you cannot tell if that person could not have some unknown intent in mind. Yet, you say that I am not supposed to judge, but you can judge.

I’m sorry; I must have poorly worded whatever I said. I’ll go back and review it for better wording, and thus, meaning.

Correct. So God uses “luck” and “chance” when he allows one atrocity to happen, and allows another one to be prevented? You see, this is the problem. When you assume that God “foresees” everthing, and can “intervene” if he wishes to, there is no more “chance and luck”.

It’s not a problem: except for one who thinks that God is supposed to micromanage. And, micromanage willful events.

Of course I do not “blame” God. How could I blame God, if I don’t believe he exists? All I am doing here is exposing the theistic belief system as being internally contradictory and purposefully evasive when it is maintained in face of opposing evidence.

“Evidence?” I have seen no evidence. I’ve seen surmise and conjecture. And, before you say it, there has no doubt been some from me too.

God bless,
jd

 

[Spock]

A discussion of the bolded part will reveal everything. Can you please describe these societies, paying special attention to the place of women in these societies.

I don’t think we should go through all the societies ever established by humanity. There were matriachical societies (in the ancient times) where women ruled, and where there were no established “marriages”. Everyone cared for all the children, and no one actually know who the father was. Remember the old saying: “Mater semper certa, pater semper incertus est”.

If God exists, then, your rejection of reality does not change reality.

“If” is the operating word.

This is a derivative of what I fail to see as a compelling argument for rejecting evil as the absence of good.

So an avalanche destroying a village is “evil”? Is the cat “evil” for “playing” with a mouse? If this is what you maintain, then certainly there is no common ground for us to conduct a conversation. Language is supposed to convey information. If the basic words cannot be defined to mutual satisfaction, then conversation is impossible.

 

[Man]

I don’t think we should go through all the societies ever established by humanity. There were matriachical societies (in the ancient times) where women ruled, and where there were no established “marriages”. Everyone cared for all the children, and no one actually know who the father was. Remember the old saying: “Mater semper certa, pater semper incertus est”.

And what group is that? Also, is that an exception or the rule? How is this similar to your philosophy?

“If” is the operating word.

So an avalanche destroying a village is “evil”? Is the cat “evil” for “playing” with a mouse? If this is what you maintain, then certainly there is no common ground for us to conduct a conversation. Language is supposed to convey information. If the basic words cannot be defined to mutual satisfaction, then conversation is impossible.

I’m fairly certain that I said that suffering is ‘evil’. I did not say that evil actions make someone or something evil. This is probably very similar or identical to the way you would use the term (“stealing is evil”, for instance). Is God present in the act of stealing, has God instigated the theft, or merely allowed it?

I think we can proceed back to ‘why does God permit evil?’, which I have partially addressed. The matter is ultimately a mystery, be we know, at least, that it is altogether possible for God to bring good out of evil. Such as when one’s behavior is corrected.

 

[Spock]

Today? Does anyone with an IQ above marginal really take that stuff seriously today? I know a lot of people. I don’t know any that do. Usually, astrology is the subject of mockery.

And it should be. I am astonished that some people take it seriously, but unfortunately, many people do. Also they go to all sorts of quacks and charlatans for medical treatment. Some of those “heal” people with laying on hands… The point here is that just because many people believe in something for a very long stretch of time, it does not lend any credence to the validity of that belief.

I didn’t know you were specifying. Oral sex as a form of foreplay, might not be deleterious, but, only if the other person is gladly willing and not subject to coercion. If one is subject to coercion, then I resolutely disagree with you.

Actually, we do agree that any form of coercion is despicable. I am talking about willing, consensual participation where both parties wish to give as much pleasure as they can to their partner and receive the same when their turn comes. No, not just a foreplay, but the whole shebang.

My experience with the world is that willing agreement to the act is usually withheld by one or both parties. Almost 80% (if not more) of females are not gladly willing participants to oral sex, in my opinion. If you disagree, you’re looking through a tiny hole at the outside real world.

I rather doubt that. My experience is different from yours.

It seems that you are confusing the subjects. Homosexual acts are gravely disordered. And, some are downright deviant. Are you telling me that you have been talking about homosexual sex acts all this time? And here I thought you were referring to heterosexuals.

I did not confuse anything, but I left it deliberately vague. Whatever two loving people do in the privacy of their bedrooms does not have a detrimental effect on anyone else, much less on the whole society. If you disagree, show me some evidence.

I doubt that. Happier?

Sure. Not all people feel compelled to propagate their genes. Why are you surprised?

NFP is not unreliable. The parents need to be responsible in their use of it. When my wife and I needed to use NFP, and we used it responsibly, it worked just fine.

Well, it is true that the best birth control pill is the aspirin, if she holds it firmly between her knees. But no NFP can be as effective as proper birth control.

And, we don’t know that it will not.

Argument from ignorance.

The odds for the invincibly ignorant (children) are skewed greatly in favor of them going to heaven. There’s no question about it. Remember, Jesus’ most important commandment, paraphrased: “What thou doest to these the least of my children, thou doest unto me.” That is unambiguous.

That “child” might well be past the age of “ignorance”. And the “invincible ignorance” is just a relatively recent concoction.

Again, that’s your surmise.

No, it is not a “surmise”. It is a basic principle, established by logic. Whatever reward is given retroactively, if it is not the logical corollary of the suffering, cannot justify the previous suffering.

It’s not a problem: except for one who thinks that God is supposed to micromanage. And, micromanage willful events.

If there is no other way to prevent needless suffering, then, yes, micromanaging is the way to go. We do try to prevent evil acts by confining the perpetrators to penitentiaries, we deliberately take away their freedom to act in an undesired manner. We already agreed to that. And there is nothing wrong with it. (By the way, many people around here assert that God must maintain the Universe every second, otherwise the whole Universe would fall apart. This is called the sustaining cause. Maybe you agree with them, maybe you don’t. But those apologists definitely assert that God must micromanage the whole Universe all the way down to the subatomic level. Funny, is it not?)

 

[Elijah_Baley]

Spock:

Then it is neither universal nor absolute. Don’t you know the meaning of these words?

Universal means wholly within our cosmos. God exists also outside the cosmos. Hope this clears things up.

 

[Spock]

And what group is that? Also, is that an exception or the rule? How is this similar to your philosophy?

There is only one rule I subscribe to, the inverted golden rule: “do NOT do unto others what you would NOT want them unto you”. It is so very obvious that in almost every society accepted it in some form.

I’m fairly certain that I said that suffering is ‘evil’. I did not say that evil actions make someone or something evil. This is probably very similar or identical to the way you would use the term (“stealing is evil”, for instance). Is God present in the act of stealing, has God instigated the theft, or merely allowed it?

I disagree that “stealing is evil” in each and every case. If one needs to resort to stealing after having exhausted all the other possibilities to sustain his life, then in such a case the stealing is justified (or can be justified) by stipulating that some piece of bread is negiligible compared to the life saved from starvation. Also: suffering to natural causes is not “evil”, but failing to prevent such an incident (if foreseen and within the power of someone to prevent it) is evil. There is no difference in actively committing an act or passively allowing it - IF God foresees and is able to prevent it.

I think we can proceed back to ‘why does God permit evil?’, which I have partially addressed. The matter is ultimately a mystery, be we know, at least, that it is altogether possible for God to bring good out of evil. Such as when one’s behavior is corrected.

Well, it is not that simple. The Catholic Church teaches that the “end does not justify the means”, and I wholeheartedly agree with it. However, the end and the means together MAY or may not form a justifyable sequence - and this opens a door for your reasoning. But, again, it is not that simple. A whole lot of other things must be considered.

1. If the beneficial result so good that the detrimental part of the deed is acceptable compared to the suffering caused by the means?
2. Is the suffering logically necessary to achieve the good result? Or can the same result be achieved via some other means, which avoids or lessens the suffering? Does the suffering stop as soon as the desired result becomes possible?
3. Is the suffering accepted volitionally, or is it imposed on the sufferer, who might not want to accept it? In other words, is the sufferer USED as a means, which he might not want to endure? To lessen the impact of this requirement, is it reasonable to assume that the sufferer would accept the price of suffering, if he were able to ponder it rationally?

If you can answer these question affirmatively, then the suffering justified. But not in any other case.

An example is due here. Assume that a doctor and his friend are on a field trip, and the friend is bitten by a poisonous snake. The doctor must perform an amputation to save the friend’s life. In this case the suffering caused by the amputation is justifyable. The result is to save life, and that outweighs the suffering of the amputation. However, if the doctor would have an antidote, but does not use it, then the amputation cannot be justified. The same result could have been achieved by using an alternate method. If that friend is a child, who does not understand the procedure, but would understand if he were in the position to comprehend it, then the doctor must take the responsibility and do what is necessary even over the child’s protest.

I need to add one more thing. It is never acceptable to say that “maybe” that means+end scenario would be justifyable, IF we would be privy to all the information. MAYBE is never an argument. And it is the most frequent “argument” around here. Which is a crying shame.

 

[Man]

There is only one rule I subscribe to, the inverted golden rule: “do NOT do unto others what you would NOT want them unto you”. It is so very obvious that in almost every society accepted it in some form.

I disagree that “stealing is evil” in each and every case. If one needs to resort to stealing after having exhausted all the other possibilities to sustain his life, then in such a case the stealing is justified (or can be justified) by stipulating that some piece of bread is negiligible compared to the life saved from starvation. Also: suffering to natural causes is not “evil”, but failing to prevent such an incident (if foreseen and within the power of someone to prevent it) is evil**There is no difference in actively committing an act or passively allowing it - IF God foresees and is able to prevent it… **

Stealing is always evil, unless what we have is something that another should already have. If they are starving, they are merely taking what is theirs, and I assume that a jury of their peers, or God, would certainly agree, within reason. I have heard it said that in such cases, they are merely taking that which is already theirs. In Catholic tradition, you can see some of the theory behind this in ‘just war’ theory, I believe in the Summa Theologica.

I believe that suffering is an evil. It is clearly not ‘of God’ as a Catholic would define it. We seek to limit suffering where possible, but not so much as to cross any other line, such as allowing or sanctioning the killing of someone.

As to the bold, why should we expect God to drop a piano on everyone who fails to actively do as they ought all the time.

The pope actually spoke on this issue yesterday:

Benedict XVI called the mystery of the Immaculate Conception a “source of interior light, of hope and of consolation”: “In the midst of life’s trials, and especially of the contradictions man experiences in his interior and around him, Mary, Mother of Christ, tells us that Grace is greater than sin, that God’s mercy is more powerful than evil, and it is able to transform it into goodness.”

The Pope lamented that evil is something that is experienced everyday, and which has its root “in man’s heart, a wounded, sick heart, incapable of curing itself.”

According to Scripture, he continued, “the origin of all evil is disobedience to the will of God,” and “death has prevailed because human liberty has yielded to the temptation of the Evil One.”

“However,” the Pontiff said, "God does not fail in his plan of love and life: …
zenit.org/article-31190?l=english

Well, it is not that simple. The Catholic Church teaches that the “end does not justify the means”, and I wholeheartedly agree with it. However, the end and the means together MAY or may not form a justifyable sequence - and this opens a door for your reasoning. But, again, it is not that simple. A whole lot of other things must be considered.

1. If the beneficial result so good that the detrimental part of the deed is acceptable compared to the suffering caused by the means?
2. Is the suffering logically necessary to achieve the good result? Or can the same result be achieved via some other means, which avoids or lessens the suffering? Does the suffering stop as soon as the desired result becomes possible?
3. Is the suffering accepted volitionally, or is it imposed on the sufferer, who might not want to accept it? In other words, is the sufferer USED as a means, which he might not want to endure? To lessen the impact of this requirement, is it reasonable to assume that the sufferer would accept the price of suffering, if he were able to ponder it rationally?

If you can answer these question affirmatively, then the suffering justified. But not in any other case.

An example is due here. Assume that a doctor and his friend are on a field trip, and the friend is bitten by a poisonous snake. The doctor must perform an amputation to save the friend’s life. In this case the suffering caused by the amputation is justifyable. The result is to save life, and that outweighs the suffering of the amputation. However, if the doctor would have an antidote, but does not use it, then the amputation cannot be justified. The same result could have been achieved by using an alternate method. If that friend is a child, who does not understand the procedure, but would understand if he were in the position to comprehend it, then the doctor must take the responsibility and do what is necessary even over the child’s protest.

I need to add one more thing. It is never acceptable to say that “maybe” that means+end scenario would be justifyable, IF we would be privy to all the information. MAYBE is never an argument. And it is the most frequent “argument” around here. Which is a crying shame.

There seems to be a loophole here that allows one to kill someone who is innocent to save someone else. I question that validity of that view. I could see instances when such could be the cases, but if the one to be killed for the sake of the others is atheist it must certainly not be allowed. Now, a note to readers, this is a bit of a risky statement, but I have put much consideration into it, with regards to the existence of Heaven on Earth.

While this post seems to follow right along in our discussion, it doesn’t seem to fit the OP. It seems like you’re opposed to the mystery of evil existing if God is good. I realize that I cannot completely describe the mystery, and admit that I am not a true expert on this, either, but it does not seem that the existence of an all good God necessarily excludes the possibility of an existence the includes evil, especially when connected with the nature of being all good, including a respect for peoples opinions, even if they are wrong.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

No, they are not reducible. The complexity of the material when viewed as a unit (living cells) introduces a new level, which cannot be reduced to the constituent elements.

Well, as a big fan of science, I think that at least in principle you can reduce chemistry to physics. Chemical reactions can be explained in terms of protons, neutrons and electroncs. There’s a much bigger gap between biology to chemistry but the trend has been to slowly make the gap smaller. Unless science discovers a life-force, I don’t see why biology wouldn’t eventually be explainable in terms of chemistry.

If and when I see an alternative method proposed, I will use it and see if it “works” as projected and claimed. There are many proponents of the paranormal, people who use dowsing rods (for example) and say that those methods “work”. A simple, double blind experiment exposes them that they do not work. I am using the “proof of the pudding” - which is not circular. When push comes to shove: “does it work, or does it not”?

Well these are examples of people using other methods to solve scientific problems.

Here’s an example of something I think is beyond science, but still is worthy of knowing: What lies beyond our universe. Are there other universes? Do you think this is a problem that science can solve? It seems to me more of a philosophical problem, yet some scientists seem to think its within their realm to speculate on what “must exist” outside our universe.

 

[JDaniel]

And it should be. I am astonished that some people take it seriously, but unfortunately, many people do. Also they go to all sorts of quacks and charlatans for medical treatment. Some of those “heal” people with laying on hands… The point here is that just because many people believe in something for a very long stretch of time, it does not lend any credence to the validity of that belief.

It’s more than merely a sustained belief; it is belief that was held by the historically acknowledged brightest minds of each era. They were not quasi-intelligent people that died and passed on their legacies to lesser and lesser intelligent people, as time went on, like the perhaps the bumpkin astrologists. There’s no adequate comparison.

Actually, we do agree that any form of coercion is despicable. I am talking about willing, consensual participation where both parties wish to give as much pleasure as they can to their partner and receive the same when their turn comes. No, not just a foreplay, but the whole shebang.

Hmmm. And, you think that there is no diminution of esteem or admiration by either party for the other because of the peculiarly disrespectful placement of organs during the event? It would be very interesting to put a thousand regular women (not prostitutes) in a hall, assure them that there are no males, and have other females ask pertinent questions about this. I think you’d find that you were considerably more than a tad wrong.

I rather doubt that. My experience is different from yours.

As I said in my above. BTW, I have seen it done, but with a little less than a hundred normal women, in a free-wheeling office environment. The women who conducted the Q & A would not lie about it, as they were among the very few that were for it. They were noticeably surprised. I have come to the conclusion that women, like men, desire to be treated and regarded with the utmost respect - even in the marriage bed.

I did not confuse anything, but I left it deliberately vague. Whatever two loving people do in the privacy of their bedrooms does not have a detrimental effect on anyone else, much less on the whole society. If you disagree, show me some evidence.

I strongly disagree. As I can, I will research it and get back to you.

Sure. Not all people feel compelled to propagate their genes. Why are you surprised?

You do realize the impossible conundrum of such a test project, don’t you?

Well, it is true that the best birth control pill is the aspirin, if she holds it firmly between her knees. But no NFP can be as effective as proper birth control.

Because?

That “child” might well be past the age of “ignorance”. And the “invincible ignorance” is just a relatively recent concoction.

Not so. St. Augustine wrote about Invincible Ignorance 1,500 years ago. This is not some “recent concoction!”

No, it is not a “surmise”. It is a basic principle, established by logic. Whatever reward is given retroactively, if it is not the logical corollary of the suffering, cannot justify the previous suffering.

The New Law of Spock?

If there is no other way to prevent needless suffering, then, yes, micromanaging is the way to go.

And thus one of us at least speaks in the place of God.

We do try to prevent evil acts by confining the perpetrators to penitentiaries, we deliberately take away their freedom to act in an undesired manner. We already agreed to that. And there is nothing wrong with it.

But that’s us.

(By the way, many people around here assert that God must maintain the Universe every second, otherwise the whole Universe would fall apart. This is called the sustaining cause. Maybe you agree with them, maybe you don’t. But those apologists definitely assert that God must micromanage the whole Universe all the way down to the subatomic level. Funny, is it not?)

Up to and except for sin and evil. Those denote imperfection. Were they to be found in God they would be contradictions.

You refuse to understand evil. Evil is not a thing. A thing can possess the condition of evility. Matter can possess the condition of evil, so can the creatures that descend via evolution. Whenever you think that this is not so, your “giant open mind” is not thinking it through.

How can a thing be evil? Men can be overcome by evilness and perform “evil” actions. But, to say that the man is evil is a misnomer. You know that. His essence is not evility. The act is the result of a mind that is lacking normalcy. It is impossible to have an evil man without first having a man. And, the condition doesn’t take on the man, rather the man takes on the condition.

You mentioned the child falling into a crevasse, in one of your earlier posts. Is the earth per se evil? Or, is what we deem to be evil the actuality of that which is missing? The crevasse is absent earth. It is correctly in this sense that one can say that the crevasse is bad.

And, even though the earth inherently possesses the absence - which is the evil, so to speak - it remains the god of the materialists. The god of the positivists. And the insanity is that some will blame that absence of earth on the God-that-they-don’t-believe-in. That is what is absurd. Can’t you see that?

God bless,
jd

 

[Elijah_Baley]

I was going to write nice long post addressing your concerns, but then I found out I was on the first page and everyone else was on the fourth. Oh well.

Further reading for already-addressed questions:

Why doesn’t the Church define more?

The Church recognizes that there is a legitimate diversity of opinion in much in the Bible. There are Catholic annotated Bibles, but going verse-by-verse is irresponsible, more likely to muddy the waters than to clear them.

How can God be the source of all morality yet allow evil?

Theodicy, the problem of evil, always boils down to a discussion of what it means to to have free will. Knowing your distaste for a plethora of contradictory opinions from as many people, I submit to the explanation of Lewis, who is pretty much authoritative.
Why is God landing in this enemy-occupied world in disguise and starting a sort of secret society to undermine the devil? Why is He not landing in force, invading it? Is it dial He is not strong enough? Well, Christians think He is going to land in force; we do not know when. But we can guess why He is delaying. He wants to give us the chance of joining His side freely. I do not suppose you and I would have thought much of a Frenchman who waited till the Allies were marching into Germany and then announced he was on our side. God will invade.

But I wonder whether people who ask God to interfere openly and directly in our world quite realise what it will be like when He does. When that happens, it is the end of the world. When the author walks on to the stage the play is over. God is going to invade, all right: but what is the good of saying you are on His side then, when you see the whole natural universe melting away like a dream and something else-something it never entered your head to conceive-comes crashing in; something so beautiful to some of us and so terrible to others that none of us will have any choice left? For this time it will be God without disguise; something so overwhelming that it will strike either irresistible love or irresistible horror into every creature. It will be too late then to choose your side. There is no use saying you choose to lie down when it has become impossible to stand up. That will not be the time for choosing: it will be the time when we discover which side we really have chosen, whether we realised it before or not.

Now, today, this moment, is our chance to choose the right side. God is holding back to give us that chance. It will not last for ever. We must take it or leave it.

How is there anything to interpret in the God of the Old Testament?

I’ll let Father Barron field this one. In short, understanding God as Father does a great deal to help understand how he deals with his Chosen People.