Concupiscence

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
You simply reject, out of hand, the very concept of God.

That’s an oversimplification.

I reject the gods of all religions out of hand. They’re self-evidently man-made and not even worth a fleeting thought. …{snip}…

Well, since there IS only one God, even though there are innumerable “gods”, which is true as well, my “oversimplification” is in fact confirmed by you as true.

You simply reject God, out of hand.

Quote:
You do that because you have an overiding religion, which is materialism. Our two religions are inherently incompatible, as they should be and must be.

The question is how our respective religions deal with the problem of why man fails to do what is most wise.

I am a philosophical materialist, but calling this a religion is more than a stretch, it’s a play from the Tu Quoque Ministry of Apologetics.

I fully agree with you that you can identify your “school” quite well.

Is it, though, true or not that our “religions” are inherently incompatible (more like mutually exclusive actually), and that there is SOME way that they (our religions) deal with the question of why man doesn’t always do the most wise thing?

I don’t have a religion that addresses questions of wisdom. Nobody seems to claim that we’re perfect, so man failing to be wise is a tautology.

You do indeed have a religion that addresses the questions of why man isn’t always wisest…!

Yours says: I have no idea why, but I can certainly look around and see if I can figure it out…!

Ours (mine anyway) says: Check the deposit of the faith (revelation) for the LONG answer, but the short answer is “concupescence”.

Quote:
If we have no free will, then what is it that we do? Who is it that does it? Why is it done?

The materialist answers: Those are nonsensical questions, and have nothing to do with me observing as much of the universe as I can to try to figure out what I SHOULD be doing to make myself most happy.

But, why is “happiness” important? And what IS happiness?

To that the materialist answers: Whatever I want it to be.

Let the “kill or be killed” circus begin…

Since you’re presumptuous enough to put words into my mouth, I won’t enlighten you and tell you what I really think.

I haven’t put words in YOUR mouth. I’ve only put words in the mouth of my “imaginary materialist”.

How do you differ from my “imaginary friend”, who at least plays the game of “c o n v e r s a t i o n” with me…?

I would have thought you come here to talk, and not just be “insulted” by conversation in, apparently, “unusual form” from other people who don’t think like you do.

Quote:
Where did the machine come from? And why?

Big Bang, abiogenesis, evolution. Why? Because.

And I’m sure that answer suits your needs,… for now.

Quote:
You misunderstand the meaning of the word “mystery” as Christians use it.

I don’t misunderstand the word myth. I used it very deliberately to voice my conviction about Christianity as a representative of all religions. Calling it a mystery tells me that you’re making stuff up and have backed yourself into a corner.

That tells me nothing of how you understand the Christian meaning of the word “mystery”, which was I was talking about above.

Did you understand, in the least, my analogy of the Christian word “mystery” to the mathematicians word “limit”…?

If you’d rather not have a conversation with me, and simply spout “poo-poo’s” at my religion, you won’t have to worry about hurting my feelings and simply not speak to me any longer.

Though,… that means you LOSE…!

(( Materialists HATE to lose,… even if it’s someone else’s definition of the word “lose”. ))

 

[Hubriss]

Sin entered the world AS they made that choice.

The ability to choose pre-existed the choice, but choosing wrongly (sinning) existed only AFTER making that choice.

Do you see the sequence here?

No that doesn’t make sense with the belief that we are then all born with original sin. Plus the belief that the fruit which they ate is believed to have given them knowledge of sin, which goes unadressed.

God’s will is ALWAYS the best thing for His creatures. That is axiomatic.

Making man, through the “education” of man’s history, come to understand the consequences of that original choice is THE WISEST thing God could have done, simply because God did it.

You are confusing “punishment” with “education”.

God’s actions may SEEM like punishment, when in fact they are ALWAYS the wisest course of action to our best benefit.

What kind of an explanation is that? And education is supposed to have some kind of result to it. There was no positive result that humans could come to with this “education.” This was not a learning education experience at all, it was a punishment alike to a deformation from the supposed eternal life and goodness that we were supposed to have already had in store for us. In the end you believe that God had to “save” us from what he did to us.

So, what is your question here again?

We were banished from “perfection” so that we would learn what the actual consequences of sin were.

We CHOOSE to learn (or not) that sin is not a good thing to do, and has cosequences.

We have hope, in fact certain knowledge, that God will always forgive us if we truly want it and act on that want.

Since we will always have free will (on earth), we always have the choice to sin or not, so there is NO “mechanism” by which to “never sin again” other than simply choosing to never sin again intentionally in each instance.

What is illogical about “If you want not to sin, don’t. If you do sin, due to concupiscence, forgiveness is available if you choose it.”…?

Well, what is illogical or insensible about the entire thing all together is that there are huge assumptions being made. Like the Bible and christian churches somehow know what they’re talking about through circular logic. Everything in the Bible is true otherwise we’re just picking and choosing what we think appropriate. All this going against what we ACTUALLY know and experience/don’t experience; but while instead some just choose to be spoon fed.

But what is illogical about the story specifically is that contrary to everything we know about life, we were supposed to live forever, when we know everything perishes. And we know actually how humans came about, that there were other humanoids who lived during our time whom likely possessed an intelligence comparable to ours. It assumes the devil is real and animals can talk to us. Mulititudes of things that sensible people today would completely ignore if they heard that from someone else.

 

[Hubriss]

That tells me nothing of how you understand the Christian meaning of the word “mystery”, which was I was talking about above.

Did you understand, in the least, my analogy of the Christian word “mystery” to the mathematicians word “limit”…?

If you’d rather not have a conversation with me, and simply spout “poo-poo’s” at my religion, you won’t have to worry about hurting my feelings and simply not speak to me any longer.

Though,… that means you LOSE…!

(( Materialists HATE to lose,… even if it’s someone else’s definition of the word “lose”. ))

Christian mystery and mathematical limits are no way analogus. Limits are based off equations that we do actually in factly know AND they actually have a practical purpose in mathematics to explain reality and help us derive and integrate equations (among many other things most likely, but I’m only in Calculus II at the moment.) Your Christian mystery is based off stuff you pretend to know, and has no practical applications in the real world except to influence and control the way people think and act, maybe positively but still deceptively.

But yes it’s tough to argue with people who make up facts and definitions along the way based on their misinformed opinions.

Just wanted to throw in my 2 cents, Not a theist will likely want to reply as well.

 

[Keikiolu]

Christian mystery and mathematical limits are no way analogus.

We’ll have to disagree about that. Could you perhaps “stretch” yourself so as to at least TRY to see how I could say that?

Thanks in advance.

Limits are based off equations that we do actually in factly know AND they actually have a practical purpose in mathematics to explain reality and help us derive and integrate equations (among many other things most likely, but I’m only in Calculus II at the moment.)

Your Christian mystery is based off stuff you pretend to know, and has no practical applications in the real world except to influence and control the way people think and act, maybe positively but still deceptively.

Apparently we’ll have to disagree about that as well. Just because YOU see no practical applications for religion, other than “evil” ones, tells me quite a bit about where you’re coming from, which is what discussions like this are really all about anyway.

But yes it’s tough to argue with people who make up facts and definitions along the way based on their misinformed opinions.

Yes, it is. And your inability, or more likely simple stubborness, in even trying to understand what your conversation partner is talking about is very indicative of why having a sensible discussion of these topics with the “hard hearted” is so “interesting”.

Thanks for being such an exemplary materialist, so that we can get to know you better…!

Just wanted to throw in my 2 cents, Not a theist will likely want to reply as well.

Excellent. Keep up the good work of converting us deluded Christians.

Thank 'ya brother…!

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[not_a_theist]

Well, since there IS only one God, even though there are innumerable “gods”, which is true as well, my “oversimplification” is in fact confirmed by you as true.

You simply reject God, out of hand.

Have it your way.

If you’d rather not have a conversation with me, and simply spout “poo-poo’s” at my religion, you won’t have to worry about hurting my feelings and simply not speak to me any longer.

Though,… that means you LOSE…!

(( Materialists HATE to lose,… even if it’s someone else’s definition of the word “lose”. ))

I’d rather not continue this exercise in futility. Since you’re the one who thinks in terms of winning or losing, feel free to define the final tally to your liking.

 

[clmowry]

Big Bang, abiogenesis, evolution. Why? Because.

You believe in abiogenesis? Now that’s what I call faith.

Chuck

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*Well, since there IS only one God, even though there are innumerable “gods”, which is true as well, my “oversimplification” is in fact confirmed by you as true.

You simply reject God, out of hand.*

Have it your way.

I’d rather have it OUR way,… which is the case…!

Quote:
If you’d rather not have a conversation with me, and simply spout “poo-poo’s” at my religion, you won’t have to worry about hurting my feelings and simply not speak to me any longer.

Though,… that means you LOSE…!

(( Materialists HATE to lose,… even if it’s someone else’s definition of the word “lose”. ))

I’d rather not continue this exercise in futility. Since you’re the one who thinks in terms of winning or losing, feel free to define the final tally to your liking.

Since you’re not interested, for example, in exploring the idea that there is a similarity of Christian “mystery” with the mathematical idea of “limit”, then I’d like to know why you bothered to get into a discussion of this sort to begin with…?

My contention is that you got into this discussion simply to bash religion, which you apparently don’t understand and aren’t interested in understanding.

You put forward reasons why religion is “bunk”, but you don’t listen to understand why others hold the beliefs they do.

Talking with me is an “exercise in futility” to you because you’re GOAL is to “win the argument”, or at least simply bash what you don’t understand without incurring any “damage” to yourself, which I won’t let you get away with by showing you how your “bashes” are unfounded under our belief system (while they are founded under your system).

Since you’re not “winning”, you’d rather run away and find an easier target to smack around, and claim a victory by virtue of the fact that “you don’t play with the witless”, which I am in your estimation.

Now, if you’d like to find out how this idea of “original sin” DOES make sense to one who finds that it does make sense, while not being obligated to agreeing with the fact that it does make sense, come on back, and learn something.

…or not.

 

[Hubriss]

I’d rather have it OUR way,… which is the case…!

Since you’re not interested, for example, in exploring the idea that there is a similarity of Christian “mystery” with the mathematical idea of “limit”, then I’d like to know why you bothered to get into a discussion of this sort to begin with…?

My contention is that you got into this discussion simply to bash religion, which you apparently don’t understand and aren’t interested in understanding.

You put forward reasons why religion is “bunk”, but you don’t listen to understand why others hold the beliefs they do.

Talking with me is an “exercise in futility” to you because you’re GOAL is to “win the argument”, or at least simply bash what you don’t understand without incurring any “damage” to yourself, which I won’t let you get away with by showing you how your “bashes” are unfounded under our belief system (while they are founded under your system).

Since you’re not “winning”, you’d rather run away and find an easier target to smack around, and claim a victory by virtue of the fact that “you don’t play with the witless”, which I am in your estimation.

Now, if you’d like to find out how this idea of “original sin” DOES make sense to one who finds that it does make sense, while not being obligated to agreeing with the fact that it does make sense, come on back, and learn something.

…or not.

Ok keikiolu, here’s your chance.

Explain:

1. How there is a similarity with christian mystery to mathematical limits.
2. How does the idea of original sin make sense to one who finds that it does make sense? Explain to us your reasoning and your entire reasoning please, start from the beginning.

 

[clmowry]

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt1art1p7.htm

 

[Keikiolu]

Ok keikiolu, here’s your chance.

Explain:

1. How there is a similarity with christian mystery to mathematical limits.

The idea of each is that it is a fact, but can’t be completely “visualized” due to it’s inherent “non-visual”-ness.

The idea of “infinity” (all the infinities, actually) is similar.

The “problem” of “fully graphing out the curve” of a limit condition, is exactly the same as the “problem” of “fully rationalizing the particulars” of a Christian mystery.

You simply KNOW that the curve approaches the limit boundary, just as you simply KNOW that the Christian mystery is as it says it is, without trying any further to “see the ultimate answer”,…

…which in the case of the limit condition is to SEE where the curve is “closest” to the limit,…

…and in the case of the Christian mystery is to fully rationalize the apparent inconsistencies of the elements within the particular mystery.

1. How does the idea of original sin make sense to one who finds that it does make sense? Explain to us your reasoning and your entire reasoning please, start from the beginning.

This is, of course, only my personal take on it, but:

Original sin is the act which put us in the state of learning the consequences of making the choice to not be wise.

Once the choice to not be wise (disobeying God) is made, the chooser (man) is forced to deal with the self-complicating consequences of that “sin” while trying to return to his “natural/created” state (we “yearn for” paradise [aka the beatific vision]) of being with the all wise one (God).

The “original sin”, the “origin of all sins”, is the initiator of our struggle with “the world with ‘fallen’ man in it”.

Concupiscence is our tendency toward creating more “complications” for ourselves by choosing to not “do” wisdom.

The ability to have DONE the “original sin” is a result of God’s gift of free will to man.

That the original sin WAS done is evidenced by our present condition. We are “learning” about the consequences of our free will (God’s gift) acting on the world (God’s gift) when we choose correctly and incorrectly.

Baptism removes the “overiding dominance” of the process started by the “original sin” but it doesn’t remove the concupiscence (tendency toward doing the unwise) of our fallen condition.

Baptism “commits” us to the course toward God, but certainly doesn’t guarantee any progress in that direction, due to (wait for it… ) free will.

At least, if we’ve been baptised, we are AIMED at doing what God wants (wisdom), instead of being obssessed with doing what our “god” (usually ourself) wants.

 

[Hubriss]

The idea of each is that it is a fact, but can’t be completely “visualized” due to it’s inherent “non-visual”-ness.

The idea of “infinity” (all the infinities, actually) is similar.

The “problem” of “fully graphing out the curve” of a limit condition, is exactly the same as the “problem” of “fully rationalizing the particulars” of a Christian mystery.

You simply KNOW that the curve approaches the limit boundary, just as you simply KNOW that the Christian mystery is as it says it is, without trying any further to “see the ultimate answer”,…

…which in the case of the limit condition is to SEE where the curve is “closest” to the limit,…

…and in the case of the Christian mystery is to fully rationalize the apparent inconsistencies of the elements within the particular mystery.

The analogy is horrible for several reasons:
a) The limits you are talking about are only the ones that have asymptotes which causes the curve to not have an endpoint. Your analogy should be asymptotes to christian mysteries, not limits to christian mysteries. Limits are used to find values whos difference to its actual value is negligible. Limits do not only have to be taken when you have an asymptote, but are most practical in those situations. Nevertheless they are used to find REAL values, not imaginary ones.

b) With respect to visualization, you can visualize a curve as it gets closer and closer to an asymptote by graphing it. If you plug in any real number to a function which has an asymptote in its graph, you will get a real number as the answer. Limits are used on UNREAL numbers to give them a sort of meaning we can use mathematically. A simple example in mathematics would be the graph of y=1/x. This graph has asymptotes at y=0 and x=0 since you cannot divide a number by 0 because it is meaningless. You can visualize limits to asymptotes based on knowledge and get practical answers, you cannot do the same with God.

c) Basically same as the reason for b. You do not know that a christian mystery is as it says it is the same way you know an asymptote approaches a boundary. You can visualize the asymptote, obtain practical solutions, and TEST it. You cannot do the same with God.

d) You said there are inconsistencies in christian mysteries. There are however no inconsistencies with mathematical asymptotes and limits. A curve will Consistently approach the asymptote forever.

In response to your answer to “2. How does the idea of original sin make sense to one who finds that it does make sense? Explain to us your reasoning and your entire reasoning please, start from the beginning.” I could not quote your answer because it was too long to fit, but here is my reply.

How does this fit with an omniscient, omnipotent god who is infinitely good and created everything good? If there is such a thing as God’s plan, that means that we cannot do anything to affect his plan, because whatever we do, he planned, even if we have free will. This includes murder and abortions since God has planned each of our births and deaths.

Furthermore, how can evil exist when God is infinitely good, and created the world good (and in addition also in light of the belief that he has a divine plan), would the infinite good completely obliterate any remote possiblity of evil, especially considering he is present among us. But if there is evil, God would have to be the ultimate cause of it since he is all powerful and all knowing and has a divine plan.

The reason I’ve heard that we are all born with original sin is because sin entered the world at the moment Adam sinned. That means sin is now independant of free will since we cannot sin when we are born.

Another question I have about the belief, is what did God mean when he told Adam that “You will surely die” if he at the fruit? Does that mean we would be immortal on Earth? How does that justify a heaven as Earth was intended to be our heaven?

Also, you are obliged to prove to us the existence of God, since you continuously say that we KNOW christian mysteries are true. I would like to hear your reasoning/evidense for that as well, since it is an assumption you have made which I have not, therefore your aclaimed knowledge is meaningless to me.

 

[Keikiolu]

Firstly, I’d REALLY like to thank you for being responsive to this conversation. It is so very heartening to simply be in conversation with another person who values the truth as you obviously do.

We may not agree on various things, but I know for a fact that you do care about truth and are willing to put your mouth where your money is,… so to speak.

The analogy is horrible for several reasons:

a) The limits you are talking about are only the ones that have asymptotes which causes the curve to not have an endpoint. Your analogy should be asymptotes to christian mysteries, not limits to christian mysteries. Limits are used to find values whos difference to its actual value is negligible. Limits do not only have to be taken when you have an asymptote, but are most practical in those situations. Nevertheless they are used to find REAL values, not imaginary ones.

Asymptotes are “line-like” limits of a function.

The “unbridgable” gap between the function (our possible human experience) and it’s asymptotic limit (God) is called “mystery” to a Christian. That is what I’m getting at.

The fact that neither gap, the mathematical and the Christian, can be “bridged” (smoothly seen) but only “leapt” (the “leap of faith”) is the analogy that I’m drawing.

The “value” that is the asymptotic limit/curve-line (God) is a REAL value, and is the “guide” and indicator of the proper “function/curve” (our actions) that we should use to “approach” a likeness to our “limit” (God), which we regard as perfection.

This value is not imaginary, but quite real to the Christian.

b) With respect to visualization, you can visualize a curve as it gets closer and closer to an asymptote by graphing it. If you plug in any real number to a function which has an asymptote in its graph, you will get a real number as the answer. Limits are used on UNREAL numbers to give them a sort of meaning we can use mathematically.

**A simple example in mathematics would be the graph of y=1/x. This graph has asymptotes at y=0 and x=0 since you cannot divide a number by 0 because it is meaningless. **

You can visualize limits to asymptotes based on knowledge and get practical answers, you cannot do the same with God.

The question in play is what is the meaning of “mystery” as the Christian knows it.

Just as you can’t find the “answer” to a number divided by zero, you can see that the curve of a function that implies that “answer” (y=1/x) does indeed trend toward an approximate “answer”.

The “answer” pointed-to by that trend is unreachable, but is nonetheless what the function will always and only try to reach.

The “mystery” is the un-answerableness, yet unrelentingness, of the relationship between the function (us) and it’s “trended toward” limit (God).

c) Basically same as the reason for b. You do not know that a christian mystery is as it says it is the same way you know an asymptote approaches a boundary. You can visualize the asymptote, obtain practical solutions, and TEST it. You cannot do the same with God.

If you define God as untestable as to His existence, then He is untestable in that regard. This is what you do.

Prayer is a simple “test” of God, which always results in confirmation of His existence.

The visualization of the “curve and limit” of the mathematical function is “seen”, and tested, by a belief in the notation used in the visualization. You believe it because the system of notation “works”.

The visualization of the “curve and limit” of Christian mystery (us versus God) is “seen” by a belief in Christian “notation”.

One of the “items” of Christian “notation”, which is totally unacceptable to the materialist, is the understanding that belief comes before reason in matters of faith. No “proof” of God’s operation in our time is available unless you first believe in God’s existence, and once you do believe that, proof of God’s operation is ubiquitous.

…continued below —>

 

[Keikiolu]

…continued from above:

d) You said there are inconsistencies in christian mysteries. There are however no inconsistencies with mathematical asymptotes and limits. A curve will Consistently approach the asymptote forever.

The “inconsistencies” in Christian mystery are simply the observation that the GAP between the “curve” and it’s limit (us and God), in every case observable by the human mind, is “inconsistent” in that they (curve and limit) never “agree”.

In exactly the same way is the curve of a function never “consistent” with it’s limit (asymptote).

In response to your answer to “2. How does the idea of original sin make sense to one who finds that it does make sense? Explain to us your reasoning and your entire reasoning please, start from the beginning.” I could not quote your answer because it was too long to fit, but here is my reply.

How does this fit with an omniscient, omnipotent god who is infinitely good and created everything good? If there is such a thing as God’s plan, that means that we cannot do anything to affect his plan, because whatever we do, he planned, even if we have free will. This includes murder and abortions since God has planned each of our births and deaths.

You insist that mystery, as the difference between what we understand of God’s will and what His will actually is, be “clear” to you.

That is not the case.

There is an inherent “mystery” (humanly unknowability yet nonetheless existant) between the FACT of how God’s will does not utterly negate man’s free will.

You impose the condition that if God’s will determines all then man’s free will is nonexistent.

That is YOUR condition, not God’s.

This “you-centeredness” is called, in Christian terms, idolatry. The worship/insistence of self over revealed truth.

That this idolatry is your condition is simply due to the fact that you refuse to give it up, which is perfectly natural, and which can only be “breached”, as can the gap between the curve and it’s limit, by the “leap” of faith which we call “grace”, which no one can “make” but only choose to freely recieve.

Furthermore, how can evil exist when God is infinitely good, and created the world good (and in addition also in light of the belief that he has a divine plan), would the infinite good completely obliterate any remote possiblity of evil, especially considering he is present among us. But if there is evil, God would have to be the ultimate cause of it since he is all powerful and all knowing and has a divine plan.

The “original sin” was the result of the gift of free will by God.

Free will implies the possibility of evil, but the existence of free will neither creates nor guarantees that it (free will) will actually be used to create evil.

It is a mystery how the creation of evil by man relates to God’s plan,… but the “trend” as we’ve observed it is that evil is used as a “teaching instrument” in the further education of man.

God did not create evil. He created man with free will.

Man without free will is not what God wanted to “relate to”, most likely because man thus constituted would be rather boring.

The reason I’ve heard that we are all born with original sin is because sin entered the world at the moment Adam sinned. That means sin is now independant of free will since we cannot sin when we are born.

Man is a “community creature”. God created man, not “a man”.

Before man was completely “done”, fully out of the oven as it were, he was created man and woman, in communion.

When he was finally fully created he was a community.

When he, man, not any particular man, sinned, he, man, not a man, was set on a path of learning the consequences of sin.

Man’s, not any particular man’s, trait that keeps him on the path of history (learning God’s plan) is “original sin”, which we all share in, even at our conception, as man, the community of all men.

…continued below —>

 

[Keikiolu]

…continued from above:

Another question I have about the belief, is what did God mean when he told Adam that “You will surely die” if he at the fruit? Does that mean we would be immortal on Earth? How does that justify a heaven as Earth was intended to be our heaven?

We, as man, were meant to be immortal (as we actually are though not “bodily” as we see on this planet) in “the garden”.

What (where) was the “garden”? That is yet another mystery. Let’s say that it was indeed a paradise of perfect wonderfulness where man was to commune directly with God.

When man created evil in relation to himself, by flunking the test of not doing wisdom, his “education” was commenced, instead of his destruction, by a gratuitous gift of God.

Death (as man knows it), the point at which your choices (free will) cease to be counted for or against you by God in His “disposition” of you, was instituted as a “test point” for any particular man, NOT for “man the community”, to allow for the nature of man, which is temporal and needed a beginning and ending of life to make “life” meaningful.

Heaven, as where we can once again be in communion with God (as best we’re allowed, I imagine), didn’t exist until Christ Jesus “opened” it.

Dead people existed “in waiting”, in various “states” in relation to God, which is another mystery of course, between the “heaven” of the Garden and the “heaven” that the saints presently know.

Also, you are obliged to prove to us the existence of God, since you continuously say that we KNOW christian mysteries are true. I would like to hear your reasoning/evidense for that as well, since it is an assumption you have made which I have not, therefore your aclaimed knowledge is meaningless to me.

Proof of God’s operation (effects of God in time) is the result of believing in God’s existence. It is presented to the believer in massive abundance once the required “leap of faith” is taken.

Faith must preceed reason in the realm of religion.

Your faith in the basic assumptions of your religion are accepted as axioms, which is the necessary fulfillment of the requirement of putting faith before reason to support your particular religion (materialism).

The is the irreconcilable “gap” which you refuse to accept. Your “leap” of your gap is acceptable to you. My “leap” of my gap is unacceptable to you.

Until you can take the leap I’ve taken, God’s plan is as it should be, which is that you are to deal with the world without God.

Your “lesson” is to discover the effects of putting yourself forward as the final authority.

Best to you in your education.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Hubriss]

Yeah I like these conversations. And your analogy is a bit more clear now, but on to bigger things.

Prayer is a simple “test” of God, which always results in confirmation of His existence.

You said this when you were still talking about the mystery-limit analogy. If the answer to prayer is always “Yes, no, or wait” then that really doesn’t mean anything, because those will always be the answers if God didn’t answer prayers. There have been many statistical studies done to test the effectiveness of prayer. Over all the results have shown no statistical significance. Some show effectiveness, some show negativeness, others there is more closely no difference in effect at all. One huge study has recently been done which has shown that there is no statistical significance whatsoever, and the people being prayed for did in fact do worse. Here’s a link to an article:

seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2002901053_pray31.html

You insist that mystery, as the difference between what we understand of God’s will and what His will actually is, be “clear” to you.

That is not the case.

There is an inherent “mystery” (humanly unknowability yet nonetheless existant) between the FACT of how God’s will does not utterly negate man’s free will.

You impose the condition that if God’s will determines all then man’s free will is nonexistent.

That is YOUR condition, not God’s.

This “you-centeredness” is called, in Christian terms, idolatry. The worship/insistence of self over revealed truth.

That this idolatry is your condition is simply due to the fact that you refuse to give it up, which is perfectly natural, and which can only be “breached”, as can the gap between the curve and it’s limit, by the “leap” of faith which we call “grace”, which no one can “make” but only choose to freely recieve.

That’s all well and good but you’re still insisting that these mysteries are fact. You call my self-centeredness idolatry, but that is where we must start. We start off being born with a clean slate, no ideas, no preconceptions. We are taught and develope our ability to reason through our own experience. We are able to validate as true what we are told if it correlates with what we experience. I’ll talk more about this later…

The “original sin” was the result of the gift of free will by God.

Free will implies the possibility of evil, but the existence of free will neither creates nor guarantees that it (free will) will actually be used to create evil.

It is a mystery how the creation of evil by man relates to God’s plan,… but the “trend” as we’ve observed it is that evil is used as a “teaching instrument” in the further education of man.

God did not create evil. He created man with free will.

Man without free will is not what God wanted to “relate to”, most likely because man thus constituted would be rather boring.

You sort of shake your finger at me for believing I can deduce whether or not god exists and his nature through my sefl-centered reasoning and the natural world, yet your last sentence there does the same. But really that argument goes both ways. I can say that about all religions and all their beliefs about their gods. The most hubris thing to do in my opinion would say that God created us in his image, when it is in fact we created him in ours.

Back to original sin and free will. You explain it through your mystery again. I fail to see how evil is a “teaching instrument in the future education of man.” If we disagree with an evil act, all we would learn from witnessing it is to not do it. But if no one did it in the first place, there would be no need to learn. Eating the fruit of knowledge was supposed to be our learning experience anyways. For example you don’t teach mathematics then tell your students to never use it ever in their lives because it is “evil.”

Also when you said that allowing free will does not gurantee that it would be used to create evil, you sound like God is just playing dice. Again that contradicts God’s omniscient nature as he does not need to deal with statistical probabilities. It was guranteed.

More…

 

[richardwy]

The sin is trying to achieve that with an evil, radical autonomy, which denies our contingent, creaturely state, and tries to make ourselves superior to the Creator.

-Rob

Really well said, Rob.

 

[Hubriss]

Man is a “community creature”. God created man, not “a man”.

Before man was completely “done”, fully out of the oven as it were, he was created man and woman, in communion.

When he was finally fully created he was a community.

When he, man, not any particular man, sinned, he, man, not a man, was set on a path of learning the consequences of sin.

Man’s, not any particular man’s, trait that keeps him on the path of history (learning God’s plan) is “original sin”, which we all share in, even at our conception, as man, the community of all men.

-Keikiolu
When you say that this learning experience is meant for us to learn the consequences of sin. So these consequences are supposed to be from God and not man since no societal law existed in the first generations of man. The only consequence we of from God is hell, and hell is for eternity. Learning consequences is supposed to be constructive and influential on future decisions. But if we’re in hell for eternity, it doesn’t really matter.

We, as man, were meant to be immortal (as we actually are though not “bodily” as we see on this planet) in “the garden”.

What (where) was the “garden”? That is yet another mystery. Let’s say that it was indeed a paradise of perfect wonderfulness where man was to commune directly with God.

When man created evil in relation to himself, by flunking the test of not doing wisdom, his “education” was commenced, instead of his destruction, by a gratuitous gift of God.

Death (as man knows it), the point at which your choices (free will) cease to be counted for or against you by God in His “disposition” of you, was instituted as a “test point” for any particular man, NOT for “man the community”, to allow for the nature of man, which is temporal and needed a beginning and ending of life to make “life” meaningful.

Heaven, as where we can once again be in communion with God (as best we’re allowed, I imagine), didn’t exist until Christ Jesus “opened” it.

Dead people existed “in waiting”, in various “states” in relation to God, which is another mystery of course, between the “heaven” of the Garden and the “heaven” that the saints presently know.

I see. I just can’t reconsile that with what we know about life, matter, and the universe.

Proof of God’s operation (effects of God in time) is the result of believing in God’s existence. It is presented to the believer in massive abundance once the required “leap of faith” is taken.

Faith must preceed reason in the realm of religion.

Your faith in the basic assumptions of your religion are accepted as axioms, which is the necessary fulfillment of the requirement of putting faith before reason to support your particular religion (materialism).

The is the irreconcilable “gap” which you refuse to accept. Your “leap” of your gap is acceptable to you. My “leap” of my gap is unacceptable to you.

Until you can take the leap I’ve taken, God’s plan is as it should be, which is that you are to deal with the world without God.

Your “lesson” is to discover the effects of putting yourself forward as the final authority.

Best to you in your education.

You’re right, this leap of the gap is unacceptable to me, for several reasons. It is apparent to me that belief in Catholicism depends on circular reasoning, and this leap of the gap is the leap into this circle. You cannot arive at Catholicism from the outside with logic and reason, you have to jump a wall somewhere. I do not like circular reasoning becuase it goes nowhere, just a continuous circle. I’ve learned this by talking to various catholic apologists in person. I’d ask a question, they’d explain it, ask another question based on their first explanation, they’d explain that, but then I’d be brought back to the first question I asked, and ask it again. (It’s usually more than just 2 questions, more like 4 or 5 in deep discussions).

Faith really should never preced reason. You’d be the most gullible person in the entire world. If that’s so, what is to keep you from believing in the Celestial Teacup that floats in space, who’s power and knowledge is infinite. He is the one who created the universe, not this invisible God of yours. That’s prbly a bad example, but what’s to keep you from believing that the jews are right and Jesus wasn’t the Mesaiah, or Islam, or Mormonism for that matter. I’m sure if you took the leap of faith into those religions, it would all make sense to you… if you can live with the circular logic.

 

[Hubriss]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobNY
The sin is trying to achieve that with an evil, radical autonomy, which denies our contingent, creaturely state, and tries to make ourselves superior to the Creator.

-Rob

Really well said, Rob.

With that definition I don’t think anyone sins at all.

 

[richardwy]

Why do so many people who love God fear they’re going to hell then - the countless threads here worrying that they’re in a state of mortal sin?

Don’t believe everything you hear and read. I know what you wrote captures well what is said is prevalent. And others repeat it too. People I know.

As far as deep personal conversations with anyone, no one has ever said to me, “Richard, I’m very worried about going to hell.” I say that not to open the door to a discussion of the truth of heaven and hell. I say that to point out we humans are the talkingest animals around. We say anything and everything.

In my experience as a speaker and listener, what we say and pronounce explicitly is usually off the mark. The matter at hand is tangental to something more important.

For example, “See how unjust God is! Hell!! Arguuuuh!!!” So then 18 million words are spilt either defending or attacking the justness or unjustness of God. While all the time the person who started it is feeling guilty about what they have been up too.

What I did not say in the past, what you do not hear from those who begin such harrangues, is this, “You know . . . I’ve been up to no good of late. I’m feeling very guilty about it too.”

We are such talkers, and we speak askew.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quoterayer is a simple “test” of God, which always results in confirmation of His existence.
You said this when you were still talking about the mystery-limit analogy. If the answer to prayer is always “Yes, no, or wait” then that really doesn’t mean anything, because those will always be the answers if God didn’t answer prayers.

The condition that prayer ALWAYS gets a “yes/no/wait” answer is incorrect.

The “answer” to prayer is always God suggesting that we do the wisest thing. How that is actually communicated is (most likely) never the same twice, even for any one person, but that “advice” is what is communicated.

You have to “be there” to understand what that means, Hubriss, and that’s impossible unless the prerequisites to prayer are met. One of those prerequisites is actually believing that you’re communicating with a person to whom it is acceptable to “take your troubles”.

There have been many statistical studies done to test the effectiveness of prayer. Over all the results…{snip}…

Yeah yeah yeah,… not having a basic understanding of what one is testing FOR maks for an amusingly meaningless test. Oh well. I can test my hot oatmeal breakfast cereal for efficacy in determining whether the angels fell all at once or in rapid succession after the first one did, but what the heck does THAT mean…?

Quote:You insist that mystery, as the difference between what we understand of God’s will and what His will actually is, be “clear” to you.

That is not the case.

There is an inherent “mystery” (humanly unknowability yet nonetheless existant) between the FACT of how God’s will does not utterly negate man’s free will.

You impose the condition that if God’s will determines all then man’s free will is nonexistent.

That is YOUR condition, not God’s.

This “you-centeredness” is called, in Christian terms, idolatry. The worship/insistence of self over revealed truth.

That this idolatry is your condition is simply due to the fact that you refuse to give it up, which is perfectly natural, and which can only be “breached”, as can the gap between the curve and it’s limit, by the “leap” of faith which we call “grace”, which no one can “make” but only choose to freely recieve.

That’s all well and good but you’re still insisting that these mysteries are fact. You call my self-centeredness idolatry, but that is where we must start. We start off being born with a clean slate, no ideas, no preconceptions. We are taught and develope our ability to reason through our own experience. We are able to validate as true what we are told if it correlates with what we experience.

Idolatry (of self) is indeed where every person “starts”. Then we learn that there are “things” that are “greater than us”. Then we learn that there are “principles” greater than things. Then we learn that there is “a principle” greater than all other principles. Then we learn that there is only one principle, from which all of everything comes. Then we HAVE REVEALED TO US that one God as three persons is the “answer” to all our learning, and that communing with God is our purpose here.

But,… if that doesn’t correlate with any particular person’s experience, then that person is satisfied with wherever it is that they “stop” on the “path”,… until they NEED to start again.

Quite often people start again too late.

I’ll talk more about this later…

Quote:The “original sin” was the result of the gift of free will by God.

Free will implies the possibility of evil, but the existence of free will neither creates nor guarantees that it (free will) will actually be used to create evil.

It is a mystery how the creation of evil by man relates to God’s plan,… but the “trend” as we’ve observed it is that evil is used as a “teaching instrument” in the further education of man.

God did not create evil. He created man with free will.

Man without free will is not what God wanted to “relate to”, most likely because man thus constituted would be rather boring.

You sort of shake your finger at me for believing I can deduce whether or not god exists and his nature through my sefl-centered reasoning and the natural world, yet your last sentence there does the same.

You can deduce that God “probably” does or doesn’t exist by reasoning within the natural world, but you can’t know That He DOES without freely accepting revelation as truth. That acceptance opens the gate of “proof” of God’s work, and confirmation of His existence.

I grant that that is utter nonsense to folks who believe as you do, but that’s fine.

…continued below —>