I thought God was all-loving. How could an all-loving being not care for souls wherever it he/she/it encountered them?
God is perfectly loving, perfectly loving and perfectly just. He can be no other way. You choose your eternal fate.I thought God was all-loving. How could an all-loving being not care for souls wherever it he/she/it encountered them?
That doesn’t really answer the question. How could an all-loving God not do something for people in torment?God is perfectly loving, perfectly loving and perfectly just. He can be no other way. You choose your eternal fate.
It is because He is perfectly loving and perfectly just that He respects your free will choice. If you choose against him, He will not fix it for you. He will extend His mercy as much as possible.That doesn’t really answer the question. How could an all-loving God not do something for people in torment?
No, it is not that simple. A free, **volitional **choice presupposes that the person making the choice is aware of the validity of the choice.It means we chose our actions on Earth, and God judges us decides what to do with us after our death. It’s not that difficult to comprehend.
It is interesting that you are willing to give the benefit of your inability to resolve contradictions to “reality,” but not to God.These are not contradictions, of course. Reality is more complicated than a few convenient labels.
Remember that these are only labels after all. Does your own consciousness or self-consciousness have “parts?” Can mind be compartmentalized like matter?However, one of God’s alleged attributes is that God is simple - meaning that God has no “parts”. That cannot be reconciled with the Father-Son-Holy-spirit. Something is either a simple, indivisible entity, or 3 distinct entities. The contradiction is still there.
Since reality is defined, but God is not, how can I use the same method in relation to them?It is interesting that you are willing to give the benefit of your inability to resolve contradictions to “reality,” but not to God.
God may well be beyond a few labels, but at least the labels we use should not be contradictory.Knowledge of God may also be beyond what a few convenient labels can possibly capture. At least be as generous with God as you are with “reality.”
The mind, which is the electrochemical working of a few billion neurons is anything but simple. The “mapping” of its different functions to different physical areas of the brain has barely been started, but we certainly can claim a few successes in the process. The parts of the brain which are responsible for pleasure and pain have been quite well established.Remember that these are only labels after all. Does your own consciousness or self-consciousness have “parts?” Can mind be compartmentalized like matter?
A “thing” imples an inanimate object, so God is not claimed to be a thing. He is claimed to be an entity or a being. Not that much different. And, please remember, it was not I, who claims that God is simple, it is part of the accepted Catholic definiton.Something material may either need to be simple or distinct, but no one claimed God is “a thing.”
Right on. We imagnied this dichotomy that the sub-atomic elements are either waves or particles. Physical experiments showed that the alleged dichotomy was erroneous.You didn’t answer my point that light has wavelike and particle-like properties other than to say “reality is more complicated than convenient labels.”
Let us assume that Christianity is correct that human beings are presently in a “fallen state.” In other words our “state of being” is one of being caught between two “realities.” On the one hand is a state of being enslaved by our “fallen nature” through distorted passions and incapacitated mind to choices coerced by them. On the other is God, our only chance at absolute freedom because of His omnipotence. In Him we can do all things. So God can only be loved freely and without coercion if we make the one choice that we are commanded to make - to love God with “our whole being.” When we make that choice, God’s grace and power provides the means to our freedom and power to love Him and all humanity.Now comes the fun part: all the believers unanimously assert that God wants to be loved, freely and without coercion. (After all an enforced, coerced love is not worth anything). Then they take a full turn and say that God commands us to love him, otherwise the “reward” is eternal punishment.
How is this not a monstruous contradicton? God wants to be loved, freely, and then commands us to love him. Are you guys serious?
If to say “a being is both one and three” were an accurate use of Trinitarian terms, you’d have a point. Since to say “a being is both one and three” is not an accurate use of Trinitarian terms, what you’re really saying is, at best, “How about this strawman?”You mean redefinition??? To say that a being is both one and three is a contradiction… not a “mystery”…
How are you sure that anything is real at all? Maybe God exists and you do not.Since reality is defined, but God is not, how can I use the same method in relation to them?
God is not claimed to be “an entity” or “a being” but Being Itself – quite different.A “thing” imples an inanimate object, so God is not claimed to be a thing. He is claimed to be an entity or a being. Not that much different. And, please remember, it was not I, who claims that God is simple, it is part of the accepted Catholic definiton.
Yes God is incomprehensible as part of Catholic doctrine. However, the method for ascertaining that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit is part of revealed doctrine. That is God revealed those aspects of Himself to human beings. They would be beyond the minds of humans to invent or understand fully. We assume that those terms are used analogically, not literally.What method would you use to ascertain that God is both a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit. Mind you, I am not speaking of physical experiments. Any method you could suggest?
If the believers would say that God is an immaterial being, who is totally beyond understanding and comprehension I would have no problem with it. (I wish to remind you, that one of the accepted “labels” by the Catholic definition of God is: “incomprehensible”.)
For an occasionally incomprehensible being, you, yourself can be frustratingly simple-minded.The labels: “Father” and “Son” are not applicable, or at least should not be. Obviously God and us are not the same species, so the word “Father” - in relation to us - is incorrect. The “Son” is even worse. One being cannot be his own father and son, which are the results of a sexual relationship.
Think of God as using subatomic particles as control “nodes” like a CGI animator uses “nodes” to make an animated object move in a certain way. Being “all-powerful” God could arrange molecules to form an egg and form its genes in any intended way using immediate control at the molecular level. Therefore, having a virgin give birth would be no nonsensical feat for Him. Merely because “biology” works in a certain observable way does not mean it has to logically work that way.And another thing, which is not a logical contradiction, rather a biological nonsense. Virgin birth (as claimed by the believers) can never produce a male offspring, because the resulting being would be the genetic equivalent of the mother.
These are only problems for a materialist who assumes their framework for reality is the correct one and takes the further unsubstantiated leap to declare all other frameworks are contradictory based upon his own framework. Perhaps your framework does not have the reach you think it has.The problems just keep mounting, don’t they?
And if we fail this test, then this “loving God” will “reward” us with eternal torture and misery. Not simple annihilation, not simply “discarding” the ones who did not measure up (sin means falling short) as a failed experiment, but acutally put us (or as you guys say: “allow us”) to be in a place where there is no hope, where existence is pure pain and misery, possibly through eternal fire and the worm eating our innards.We have free will in the sense that we can make the one truly free and, yet, obligatory choice available to us - to love God. We are commanded to do so because only by doing so are we enabled by the grace and power of God to be restored to the absolute freedom which is written into our “pristine” nature when we “live in God.”
If we fail to make that one choice available to us - to love God fully, then we remain trapped within our fallen state of “slavery” to passions and inherent incapacities. At the end of time when “all is resolved” our love of God (and hence our freedom) will be the final test.
I sure hope you do not insinuate that Christians (or any other creed) would have a monopoly on kindness and love.Christianity is only illogical to those who are either of the world, or who have not experienced the love from Christians themselves.
it was illogical to me until i received the forgiveness and love that i had never experienced prior.
Is this a hypothetical question or a real one? If it is real, then cut your finger a little (not too much) with a sharp object and see if it hurts. God cannot feel pain, not being material. If it hurts, you are real.How are you sure that anything is real at all? Maybe God exists and you do not.
Allegories…We assume that those terms are used analogically, not literally.
… and magic. Just as I said above.Being “all-powerful” God could arrange molecules to form an egg and form its genes in any intended way using immediate control at the molecular level. Therefore, having a virgin give birth would be no nonsensical feat for Him.
I prefer the attempt to be precise.You are just being intentionally daft here.
Perhaps so. After all, it has “only” been verified and substantiated about a few trillion times. When and where was your framework substantiated in a manner that is subject to first hand verification? I will be happy to dig into it, and see where it leads.These are only problems for a materialist who assumes their framework for reality is the correct one and takes the further unsubstantiated leap to declare all other frameworks are contradictory based upon his own framework. Perhaps your framework does not have the reach you think it has.
The revelation you are looking for is to be found at the very core of your being. How much clearer do you want it? By being completely sincere, truthful and authentic you will find yourself and God. The simple sign is “Ateista is here!” As Plato said, “Know thyself!” But it means unchaining yourself from assumptions, delusions and false notions.If there would be a real revelation, it would be clear, conscise, without even the smallest possible misinterpretation, with a simple sign: “Kilroy was here”. So when in doubt, we could look at the commandments and see what we should do.
A truly good mechanical engineer would create robots to do exactly as He designed them to. A truly and intensely personal God would create persons capable of independent identity and choice and bear the risk having something “go wrong” then take complete responsibility by putting Himself wholly into His creation – i.e., become fully human – to repair the derailment and bear the consequences – be crucified by his own creation; the cost of creating independent beings capable of free choice. Ask any parent about the “price” they pay for their children’s free choices.Of course this still would be a sloppy design. A really good designer would make absolutely sure that he does not have to “resort” to dubious commandments, his creation would only work as intended, without no chance of straying from the clear and correct path. There would no “fall”, there would be no “sin”, there would be eternal “oneness” with God, as he allegedly wanted it in the first place.
ateista;3456521In my eyes it is the ultimate cruelty to create an overwhelming majority of the beings who are merely “hell-fodder” said:It is not clear to me that an “overwhelming majority” will be “hell-fodder” as you claim.
[SIGN]“After that I saw a huge number, impossible to count, of people from every nation, race, tribe and language; they were standing in front of the throne and in front of the Lamb, dressed in white robes…” Revelation 7:9
[/SIGN]
When Jesus speaks of the 100 sheep, the one that is lost and how the Good Shepherd will stop at nothing to find and return that one implies something about proportions of who ends up where.
I suspect that the “many” not making it is intended to be read as “too many.” Even one is “too many.”
Also, if making a “strong point” about entering by “the narrow path” and leaving “no stone unturned” will help any of us who “assume” we will make it to think twice about our own state, I suspect this statement about the narrow gate is intended for anyone who is taking their “inheritance” for granted. The “gravity” or importance of our choices is the issue here. There is a great deal at stake – don’t throw this away thoughtlessly. Reconsider every delusion or possibly “false” notion or wayward motive before convincing yourself that your belief is accurate.
Why are you letting a possible “misconception” that you fully comprehend God’s intentions for the destiny of humanity colour your perspective? Why not take a “wait and see” position on this issue? When everyone is lined up at the final judgement and you are convinced of the injustice of God’s decision regarding humanity then would be the time to voice your disagreement. I suspect that believing yourself to be more “just” or “merciful” than God needs to be reconsidered. Why jeopardize your own destiny by having a false notion at this time?
How do you know the extent that God will go to ensure that “all” are saved? Taking the form of man and being crucified should at least alert you that He does not take human destiny lightly. Would you be willing to suffer excruciating pain and humiliation in order to spare your worst enemy just retribution?
The difficulty here is the nature of the framework. You are dealing with a concrete, externally verifiable framework which by its very “nature” has consistently acted in a way that can be measured, poked, prodded and tested.Perhaps so. After all, it has “only” been verified and substantiated about a few trillion times. When and where was your framework substantiated in a manner that is subject to first hand verification? I will be happy to dig into it, and see where it leads.