This question I believe is equivalent to “why is there evil?” This is a mystery, as yet unsolved. A partial explanation is that one of the purposes of our creation, our existence, is that God wishes us to experience the fullness of Love, the way He Loves. Without the ability to not choose it would deny us this experience. Why? Because Love is not complete and like God’s unless it is freely given.
At last an honest answer. Thank you. I contend that there is no way to reconcile the existence of evil with a loving God. Rabbi Kuschner in his book (“When bad things happen to good people”) gave the best possible explanation.
Sorry, I do not understand. If God’s love is compatible with all the evils he allows, it is not much a love - as I understand this word.
Why do you term opinions you disagree with as “dishonest”?
Then you misunderstand the word. If you loved someone deeply, but they decided that they did not want to be with you, you would have to let them go if you really loved them, even if you really didn’t want to. That’s where pain comes in. I really don’t see why it’s such a difficult argument to understand.
I don’t think I ever did. Not because I disagree with an opinion, anyhow.
Oh I understand that. Indeed I would let that person go, and that would be it.
I believe that part of the problem is that it appears that you have assumed that evil is an entity, in and of itself. Our Catholic understanding is that it is a privation, the absense of the good. It doesn’t “exist” in this context. When one doesn’t choose “good”, this is defined as “evil”. “Evil” is not a separate thing.
God does give us choices and lets us know what they are. He fully describes the outcome of each choice and it is entirely up to us to choose. Like any good parent, he informs his children but doesn’t make every decision for them for their entire lives. A good parent will allow their children to make mistakes, so that they can learn from them. And just like there are children who turn their backs to their parents and rebel from their teaching, so it is with God’s children. We know the consequences and we make the choice.
No, I do not believe that evil is an ontlogically existing object. My definition of “evil” is intentionally causing harm for its own sake.
Inbetween benevolent and evil there is a continuous realm of behaviors. The world is not black and white, there is an infinity of grey areas.
Not to me, he did not. The only “source” is the testimonial of unreliable, fallible humans - and that simply will not do.
The analogy breaks down, because we can never become “adults” in relation to God.
Again - the grey areas are a function of your mortal blindness (which we all have to some extent), not some neglect or causation coming from God. What do you think the phrase means, “to see the light”, to be “enlightened”, to have the “light of knowledge”? Perfect light is white. There are no shades. This is the character of Truth. There can’t be more than one answer to the question, “what’s one plus one”? The inability to see the answer is the result of sin and decay, **which man brings on himself with his own free will. **
A good parent is always willing to forgive a child AND practice tough love if their lives depended on it. I don’t know anyone - religious or atheist - who would agree with what you said. Check that - the only permissive parents I know have kids whose lives have already gone down the drain in addiction and refuse to move out of the house, because, well, the parents won’t make any deadlines.
This is inaccurate. The Church does not discount the possibility that, at the moment of death everyone receives the light of knowledge and an opportunity to embrace or reject Christ.
Hogwash! The demons received the light of knowledge and rejected God. Adam and Eve lived in an earthly paradise and chose the serpent over God. Truth has to be assented to, and the ego enslaved to sin will never choose God over itself. Therefore, there is still no slam-dunk - you still have to assent to Christ.
I don’t think so. Clear, obvious and miraculous interference on behalf of the starving children on Africa (just one example) would make skeptics think. But even if it did not, alleviating suffering is a worthy cause in and by itself and it is a sign of love. Love, if it does not manifest itself in deeds is just an empty word.
Now, that would be nice. But I have never heard that argument before, and heard the opposite many times. Do you have any source to substantiate that?
Any of the documents related to “no salvation outside the church” acknowledge that until one is dead, we have the chance of repenting and entering the Body of Christ. I do not have the titles in front of me.
Correct me if I am wrong, isn’t this because you personally have judged them so? Just because they don’t meet your standards doesn’t impugn their truth.
I accept that, but the assertion was different. TM30 said that even after death, when we have concrete, first hand knowledge of God, there is a chance that we can repent then and there. And that is not the same thing.
How could I answer that? I have only my judgment to rely on.
You did implicitelly, when you said “Finally, an honest answer!”
You misunderstand hell as Christianity understands it. Hell is not a piece of real estate that God dotted with iron maidens and lakes of fire; that’s just a very inadequate metaphor. Hell is the state of utter absense of God. That it is painful is incidental; all pleasure necessarily comes from God, so choosing not-God means you’re choosing to never have pleasure again, and the intense self-centeredness that being in hell means is itself torturous.
That’s what Earth is. That virtue is pleasure and vice pain is something that is consistently beaten into us by pure experience. Even the pagan Greeks and the modern Humanists know this!
We don’t know that something like this doesn’t happen. The moment of death is a total mystery to us. Maybe Jesus shows up and gives us instant knowledge or something; we just don’t know, because the knowledge isn’t relevant to our salvation. C.S. Lewis wrote a book called “The Great Divorce” about a bus ride from hell to heaven which is, as far as I know, not heretical, though definitelly speculative. The souls are persuaded to let go of their egotism, though most of them choose it anyway.
First, time works differently in the afterlife, so this idea of “changing your mind” is probably absurd on its face. Second, it is entierly conceiveable that the souls in hell have had the embers of their souls die such that they will never change their minds. Haven’t you ever known someone who could be really obstinant about something and you could argue with them forever and no matter how wrong they were they would never ever give an inch? Imagine that, but so much worse, backed by a total lack of spark.
We freely chose to take deadlines. Death was not part of God’s plan for humanity.
Of course not. But: A) it works both ways. You’re giving ultimatums to God right now, which is so incrediblly absurd as to be laughable. God knows what’s right. You barely have an inkling as to what’s right. How can you possible preference your puerile ultimatums to God’s absolute knowledge? B) reality is a certain way. It isn’t an ultimatum to say “don’t jump over that cliff, because you’ll die if you do,” but a statement of fact. So to with God’s commandments.
Which is why God is trying his darndest to convince us to not subject ourselves to it, while at the same time respecting our free will, because he loves us.
See, this here’s one of those ultimatums which it’s absurd to make, though granted it speaks to our compassion.
God hears them and does what he can. Just because you can’t see why someone who knows literally everything might know better than you doesn’t mean he isn’t doing his best.
Only if you distrust everyone else.
I vaguely remember something in one of St Faustina’s visions that supported this. Not exactly canonical, but a legitimate belief. I’ll try to remember and dig up a more precise source this weekend, time permitting.
But please, stop by a bookstore or library and give it a quick read. Well worth it!Well, I did not intend to be insulting. It was just an exclamation of joy. I always found that admitting ignorance on any subject is refreshingly honest - intellectually honest, mind you. Too many times have I been in a chasing game, when someone kept running in circles and never admitting ignorance on the subject.
Many Christians subscribe to its literal truth, and will quote the Bible to support them. And nothing you could say will sway their absolute “certainty” that they are right and you are wrong.
Sorry, God is absent from my life, and still it is quite pleasant, nay, wonderful.
Yes, that is a more modern way of thinking. People started to realize that the verbatim Biblical notion of hell is simply morally repugnant.
As I said before, I find your analysis much to my liking. But let’s be honest, it is nothing more than wishful thinking.
I cannot resist and tell you a joke (I hope you have not heard it). Here goes:
I can suggest a way to do it: let it be eternal sleep without any dreams. That would work just fine. No pleasure and no pain, just good old fashioned non-existence.
No, I am asking questions, not making demands. Very different.
I heard that before, and found it utterly unconvincing. I will give you a short synopsis of how I understand this line of reasoning.
When it comes to life-and-death importance it is the best policy to gather as much information as you can, and then make the decision. It is foolish (in my eyes) to trust others, when it comes to my life. How could any other human know as much about me as I know?