Conversation with atheist

[josh987654321]

.

I hope some of which I reply to John with may help you.

If I made a list of the top 10 questions to ask God this would be #1. “What sense does this make?”

I hope you don’t mind if I share some things that I believe may help
1 Corinthians 1:18-31:

Christ the Power and Wisdom of God

18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart.”

20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For consider your call, brethren; not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth; 27 but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong, 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. 30 He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption; 31 therefore, as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast of the Lord.”

Jesus to St. Faustina

"It is in My Passion that you must seek light and strength." (Diary, 654)

http://s15.postimg.org/s9fu5lkbv/Crucifixion.jpg
The Gospel of Matthew 27:35-44:

The Crucifixion of Jesus

35 And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots; 36 then they sat down and kept watch over him there. 37 And over his head they put the charge against him, which read, “This is Jesus the King of the Jews.” 38 Then two robbers were crucified with him, one on the right and one on the left. 39 And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads 40 and saying, “You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.” 41 So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him, saying, 42 “He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. 43 He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him; for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” 44 And the robbers who were crucified with him also reviled him in the same way.

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Jesus to Catalina:

From Sinai to Calvary - loveandmercy.org/Eng-FSC-Reg.pdf
(Roman Catholic Imprimatur)

4) "…In this profound pain which causes My sight to grow darker to the point that I can no longer see clearly those beings which I love and who remain at the foot of My agony, I know that Love has conquered, that it will conquer forever.

**6) “It is precisely because of that boundless love which, in the midst of My unfathomable suffering, I did not lose confidence in My Father. But rather, I was being overcome by immense joy in knowing that I was fulfilling His Will and, thus, demonstrating My Love for Him and for all mankind.”

1. “…you can see and understand with greater ease, why human suffering makes sense when it is endured for love’s sake, desiring to fulfill the Divine Will. And it is that the greatest pain, as intense as it may be, does not diminish the joy in the heart of those who sweeten themselves with the greatest Love.”**

*“And I saw the river over which every soul must pass to reach the kingdom of Heaven. And the name of that river was suffering… And I saw the boat which carries souls across the river. And the name of that boat was Love.” *- St John of the Cross
Jesus to Catalina:

From Sinai to Calvary - loveandmercy.org/Eng-FSC-Reg.pdf
(Roman Catholic Imprimatur)

Jesus said: **“Contemplate this scene, My beloved, and learn that My own cannot march through life without a cross. 4) “Go and tell the world what you are learning and, if they want to silence you, shout even louder. Do this for the sake of the power of the love that unites you to Me, which is as united as these two pieces of wood that form an instrument of salvation for all of humanity.

1. “Tell the consecrated souls that the cross that they wear, is not only to adorn their chests or identify them superficially with Me. First they must gird themselves with the cross and learn to “make themselves comfortable” on it instead of running away from it. Tell them they cannot long for Tabor, if they have not first passed through Golgotha. It is here on the Cross where they will learn charity, humility, poverty of spirit and temperance in all acts of their lives. 6) “Assure them that I give proof and testimony that, the devil can be easily defeated from the experience of the cross. Contemplate Me: I am a true Man, in whom the flesh manifests its limitations, and true God, in demonstrating the relentless force of Agape Love.
2. “Pray for those who do not know of sufferings, for it is certain that they are not among My own…Observe these two condemned ones who flank Me and meditate on the ways that men carry their crosses. 8) “Some carry it with rage, with bitterness, amidst much grief. He who carries a cross in similar circumstances and with those sentiments, carries for sure a cross, which has no sense because instead of drawing him closer, it pushes him away from Me. Usually that is the cross of those who refuse to understand the meaning of suffering, which takes on supernatural dimensions. That is the cross of the thief at My left, it is the cross which will always be heavy and will never be able to redeem.
3. “Dismas, on My right, accepts his cross with resignation and even with dignity; he assumes it at first because he has no other recourse. But suddenly, when he recognizes Me and knows that I Am the Son of God, he accepts that cross, acknowledging himself as a sinner, and asking that through it, Mercy remembers him. 10) “Finally, you have Me here in front of you, embracing My redeeming Cross to teach all of you to carry yours. I invite you to be co-redeemers with Me, making reparation for your own sins and those of all mankind. Know that this way of carrying the cross is reflected in your conduct, when before you are difficulties and pains and through them you draw closer to Me and you profit from them to give testimony before men. When you embrace your cross, you can feel that the only thing you desire is strength, because the thirst for souls consumes you."**

Jesus to Catalina:

The Passion - loveandmercy.org/Eng-TP-Reg.pdf
(Roman Catholic Imprimatur)

**17) My children, there are no glorious crosses on earth; they are all wrapped in mystery, in darkness, in exasperation: in mystery, because you do not understand it; in darkness, because they blind the mind; and in exasperation, because they strike blows in precisely those places where one does not wish to be struck.

1. …I tell you that not only did I carry the wooden cross that led Me to Glory, but, above all, that invisible but permanent Cross that was formed by the crosses of your sins. Yes, and of your sufferings. Everything that you suffer was the object of My sorrows, for I not only suffered to give you Redemption, but also for what you should suffer now. Look at the love that unites Me to you; in it have the confirmation of My Holy Will and unite yourselves to Me by observing how I behaved in the midst of unlimited bitterness.
2. I have taken as a symbol a piece of wood, a cross. I have carried it with great love, for the good of all. I have suffered real affliction so that all could rejoice in Me. But today, how many believe in the One who truly did love you and does love you? Contemplate Me in the image of the Christ that weeps and bleeds. There and in this way the world has Me.**

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Jesus to Catalina:

The Passion - loveandmercy.org/Eng-TP-Reg.pdf
(Roman Catholic Imprimatur)

24) I said: My Father; I did not say: My God. And what I want to teach you when your heart suffers most is that you should say “My Father” and ask Him comfort. Show Him your sufferings, your fears, and with moaning, remind Him that you are His children. Tell Him that your soul can bear no more! Ask trustingly like children and wait, for your Father will help you; He will give you and the souls entrusted to you, the necessary strength to go through this your tribulation.

Jesus to Catalina:

Divine Providence - loveandmercy.org/Eng-DP-Reg.pdf
(Roman Catholic Imprimatur)

During my prayers on the 23rd, the Lord, knowing that I was feeling very much alone, spoke to me and said: **2) “My beloved, here I am, responding to your call. However, not even for an instant have I abandoned you… You are seemingly alone but I am with you. 3) “Think of My anguish in the garden; I felt alone. 4) “Are you afraid? So was I. 5) “Do you need to talk to someone? Talk to Me. 6) “Do you need a hand to caress you? Here are Mine. 7) “Do you need a shoulder on which to cry? Do so on Mine and I will dry your tears with My kisses… Your tears will blend with Mine. I am not indifferent to your sufferings.

1. “Do you need someone’s company to pray with you? Here you have My Saints and My Angels… Offer Me your patience in this life of exile and, thus, each time that I come looking for you, you will be free of grief and able to enjoy great interior peace.**

Jesus to Catalina:

Divine Providence - loveandmercy.org/Eng-DP-Reg.pdf
(Roman Catholic Imprimatur)

On the 29th day the Lord told me: **“Gold is tested in the burning crucible. Everything that all of you are living is necessary for growth… I love you very much. Believe it and love Me more. Even if you think that you are incapable of loving more, continue to exert yourself in that for love is like a rubber container that expands, with the only difference being that the container never explodes, it is refined until it becomes noble material.” **

1. Later He continued: **4) “My desire is for every soul to be holy so it may come to Me at the moment of its death and remain in the Kingdom that the Father has prepared for it from all eternity. However, I desire to purify that soul even on earth, so that, as much as possible, it not be necessary to purge that which remained to be cleansed in life. That is why when a person is well disposed and desires to know Me, to love Me, to make Me known and to be purified on earth, I do my work as a potter and shape that clay, sometimes adding some more water to refine the mass, other times hitting or squeezing the mass to soften it, and when it is ready, I cook it in the burning oven of the virtues, in order to make that piece soft to the touch, shiny and worthy to be presented and offered to a King.” **
2. Even though I was certain of having seen my mother’s journey towards the Throne of the Lord, I kept wondering if her soul had to expiate for a time in Purgatory… It was then that the Lord told me: **6) “Why do you allow the devil to sow doubts in your mind? Trust and pray… None of you will understand until you are on this side, but even if you are almost certain (as I have revealed to certain souls) that your deceased ones are already enjoying Paradise, continue praying for them because in this way you complete what they lacked or increase what the souls of other persons close to you presented in their hands when they appeared before Me. 7) “When I said, ‘Come to Me all you who are burdened or tired…’ I also said it to you. Many things, which I allow or send, you sometimes find silly or unjust. Faith has to teach all of you that I plan everything for good. Remember that the soul, who maintains its peace and faith in the face of adversity, has the right to expect My Love and its benefits.” **

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Extract from the book 'Imitation of Christ' by Thomas a Kempis:

The Voice of Christ

My Child, I came down from heaven for your salvation and took upon Myself your miseries, not out of necessity but out of love, that you might learn to be patient and bear the sufferings of this life without repining. From the moment of My birth to My death on the cross, suffering did not leave me. I suffered great want of temporal goods. Often I heard complaints against Me. Disgrace and reviling I bore with patience. For My blessings I received ingratitude, for My miracles blasphemies, and for My teaching scorn.

The Disciple

O Lord, because you were patient in life, especially in fulfilling the design of the Father, it is fitting that I, a most miserable sinner, should live patiently according to Your will, and, as long as You shall wish, bear the burden of this corruptible body for the welfare of my soul. For though this present life seems burdensome, yet by Your grace it becomes meritorious, and it is made brighter and more endurable for the weak by Your example and the pathways of the saints. But it has also more consolation than formerly under the old law when the gates of heaven were closed, when the way thereto seemed darker than now, and when so few cared to seek the eternal kingdom. The just, the elect, could not enter heaven before Your sufferings and sacred death had paid the debt.

Oh, what great thanks I owe You, Who have shown me and all the faithful the good and right way to Your everlasting kingdom! Your life is our way and in Your holy patience we come nearer to You Who are our crown. Had You not gone before and taught us, who would have cared to follow? Alas, how many would have remained far behind, had they not before their eyes Your holy example! Behold, even we who have heard of Your many miracles and teachings are still lukewarm; what would happen if we did not have such light by which to follow You?

The Voice of Christ

**What are you saying, my child? Think of my suffering and that of the saints, and cease complaining. You have not yet resisted to the shedding of blood. What you suffer is very little compared with the great things they suffered who were so strongly tempted, so severely troubled, so tried and tormented in many ways. Well may you remember, therefore, the very painful woes of others, that you may bear your own little ones the more easily. And if they do not seem so small to you, examine if perhaps your impatience is not the cause of their apparent greatness; and whether they are great or small, try to bear them all patiently. The better you dispose yourself to suffer, the more wisely you act and the greater is the reward promised you. Thus you will suffer more easily if your mind and habits are diligently trained to it.

Do not say: “I cannot bear this from such a man, nor should I suffer things of this kind, for he has done me a great wrong. He has accused me of many things of which I never thought. However, from someone else I will gladly suffer as much as I think I should.”

Such a thought is foolish, for it does not consider the virtue of patience or the One Who will reward it, but rather weighs the person and the offense committed. The man who will suffer only as much as seems good to him, who will accept suffering only from those from whom he is pleased to accept it, is not truly patient. For the truly patient man does not consider from whom the suffering comes, whether from a superior, an equal, or an inferior, whether from a good and holy person or from a perverse and unworthy one; but no matter how great an adversity befalls him, no matter how often it comes or from whom it comes, he accepts it gratefully from the hand of God, and counts it a great gain. For with God nothing that is suffered for His sake, no matter how small, can pass without reward. Be prepared for the fight, then, if you wish to gain the victory. Without struggle you cannot obtain the crown of patience, and if you refuse to suffer you are refusing the crown. But if you desire to be crowned, fight manfully and bear up patiently. Without labor there is no rest, and without fighting, no victory.**

The Disciple

O Lord, let that which seems naturally impossible to me become possible through your grace. You know that I can suffer very little, and that I am quickly discouraged when any small adversity arises. Let the torment of tribulation suffered for Your name be pleasant and desirable to me, since to suffer and be troubled for Your sake is very beneficial for my soul.

I hope some of this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[truetofaith]

How many unbelievers did you poll to find out what they think? Unbelievers do not “reject” God. Of course, if God would be powerless to create anything better, then it would follow that not creating something is preferable to an inferior creation. However, since God can create anything and everything (except logical contradictions) it obviously follows that God could have created everyone with a good, loving, caring disposition. No concupiscence, no propensity for hurting others, no jealousy - as a few examples.

Maybe we would not exist preciely as we are now. But that objection presupposes that a world with slightly different “us” would be inferior. Can you substantiate that getting rid of a psychopath would make this world “worse”?

I cannot imagine that a sane human being would wish to keep the “wars, murderers, rapists, etc…” around, given half a chance to get rid of them. It is a universal effort to get rid of criminals, and no one that I know of (outside the criminals themselves) objects to that. Do you really think that it is better to see children kidnapped, raped, tortured and murdered rather than raised in kind loving environment? I should hope not.

As I asked Josh: “what is so desirable about the existence of psychopaths and sociopaths”? I heard this answer before: “we don’t know, but since God seems to prefer to have them around, there must be something, even if we cannot know it”. Of course such an answer would commit the fallacy of “argumentum ad ignoratiam”. If you (not just the personal you, but all the believers combined) cannot point out the advantages of having wars, murders, tortures and rapes around, then the only rational conclusion is that there are no advantages.

Now, let’s suppose that we find a way to get rid all the rapes, etc… maybe that would be a very bad world to live in - for you and all those (handful) who agree with you - but the rest of us would love it. So in that case I propose to have an island set aside for your kind, and let you have there all the wars, murders, whatever else that makes life so wonderful for you. It would be a win-win situation, we could have the goodness, kindness and benevolence we like and you could have all the misery and mayhem that you seem to crave. How 'bout such a nice arrangement? Never mind… I am sure you do not advocate what you said. You just did not think it through properly. Happens all the time.

Cheers, buddy!

I may be wrong, but it seems you are saying that when Adam & Eve disobeyed God & ate of the tree of knowledge of good & evil…He should have destroyed them and started over again.
It would have been foolish & unfair for God to do that, because they would have no chance to change their way & the next couple would also be tempted by satan & most likely fall into sin.
Instead God made a way for the whole human race to be redeemed through the death of Jesus on the cross.
He also could have made a couple who could not choose between good & evil, but God didn’t want robots with no feelings but a creation that would love Him.

You say there would be no rapists, murderers, etc. but if you committed even the smallest lie or anger at someone…there would be no forgiveness even for that.

I think God, in His Wisdom, considered all this & went with the current program!

 

[JohnJones]

:
Jesus to St. Faustina

"It is in My Passion that you must seek light and strength." (Diary, 654)

Thanks Josh, I like that quote the best. I have that book but had yet to read that far. Also in reading Ms Rivas’s writings I have learned one should focus on the suffering of Jesus. The crucified Christ should be the focus rather than the risen Christ.

I must read “THE IMITATION OF CHRIST”.

In “Get Us Out Of Here” the author mentions that you attain a higher level in heaven if you offer your suffering to Christ.

As an aside, I found it shocking when St. Faustina spoke of at least one nun who was bound for Hell. Evil can be found where you expect good and vice versa.

Thanks again Josh, my pain will subside eventually but for some it will not and I hope they find some comfort in your quotes. It is easy to reject God when experiencing severe suffering. I wish everyone the strength to carry their cross.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

First of all, thank you for your contribution.

truetofaith:

I may be wrong, but it seems you are saying that when Adam & Eve disobeyed God & ate of the tree of knowledge of good & evil…He should have destroyed them and started over again.

No, this is not I meant. There is no reason to use such drastic steps. There are many different solutions to this particular problem. You did not take into consideration that God is both omnipotent and omniscient. The disobedience was not a “surprise” for God, he knew it will happen before the creation. Now, there are two possibilities: 1) there was no other possibility, no matter which couple (Adam and Eve, or Steve and Susie, or Tom and Tina, or Peter and Paulina, etc…) God would have created, everyone would have “fallen”. Which means that there is no escape, the fall was “preordained” or “predetermined”. In other words, there is no “freedom” not to fall. This is against the church’s teaching about free will. The other possibility is 2) there was a different possible couple, who would not have “missed the mark”, and there would be no original sin. And this brings up the question: “why did God NOT choose the create this alternate couple”? Was it an unintended “oversight”? Impossible! The only rational explanation is that God wanted humanity to fail! This is underscored by the fact that the tree was left unguarded, when a single cherub with a flaming sword could have been a sufficient guard. Or not to expose humans to that “tree” at all.

A good, loving parent would not leave a loaded gun in full sight of the children, and warn them: “do not pull the trigger”, he would hide the gun out of reach, so no accident can happen.

truetofaith:

It would have been foolish & unfair for God to do that, because they would have no chance to change their way & the next couple would also be tempted by satan & most likely fall into sin.

There is no “most likely” on God’s level of knowledge. Either every conceivable couple would have fallen - which would indicate hard predestination - or at least one couple would have passed the test, and then there would be no original sin.

truetofaith:

He also could have made a couple who could not choose between good & evil, but God didn’t want robots with no feelings but a creation that would love Him.

I already made a comment on that. Just because someone has only “good” choices, that does not make him a “robot”. Limited choices, for sure. But we all suffer from limited choices.

truetofaith:

You say there would be no rapists, murderers, etc. but if you committed even the smallest lie or anger at someone…there would be no forgiveness even for that.

Who says, no forgiveness? On the very contrary, things can be forgiven unconditionally. Just try to answer the original question: “what is so valuable about the existence of wars, rapes, murders, etc…”? The “robot” cop-out is already gone. Try to show me what disadvantage would come from the lack of a murder?

truetofaith:

I think God, in His Wisdom, considered all this & went with the current program!

That is just another example of “argument from ignorance”, a common fallacy. And I don’t see any wisdom in not creating the best possible world, when it is feasible.

 

[josh987654321]

Thanks Josh, I like that quote the best. I have that book but had yet to read that far. Also in reading Ms Rivas’s writings I have learned one should focus on the suffering of Jesus. The crucified Christ should be the focus rather than the risen Christ.

I must read “THE IMITATION OF CHRIST”.

In “Get Us Out Of Here” the author mentions that you attain a higher level in heaven if you offer your suffering to Christ.

As an aside, I found it shocking when St. Faustina spoke of at least one nun who was bound for Hell. Evil can be found where you expect good and vice versa.

Thanks again Josh, my pain will subside eventually but for some it will not and I hope they find some comfort in your quotes. It is easy to reject God when experiencing severe suffering. I wish everyone the strength to carry their cross.

There was so much more that I quoted that I believe would have really helped. I hope you were able to read the longer version before it was shortened.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[truetofaith]

First of all, thank you for your contribution.

No, this is not I meant. There is no reason to use such drastic steps. There are many different solutions to this particular problem. You did not take into consideration that God is both omnipotent and omniscient. The disobedience was not a “surprise” for God, he knew it will happen before the creation. Now, there are two possibilities: 1) there was no other possibility, no matter which couple (Adam and Eve, or Steve and Susie, or Tom and Tina, or Peter and Paulina, etc…) God would have created, everyone would have “fallen”. Which means that there is no escape, the fall was “preordained” or “predetermined”. In other words, there is no “freedom” not to fall. This is against the church’s teaching about free will. The other possibility is 2) there was a different possible couple, who would not have “missed the mark”, and there would be no original sin. And this brings up the question: “why did God NOT choose the create this alternate couple”? Was it an unintended “oversight”? Impossible! The only rational explanation is that God wanted humanity to fail! This is underscored by the fact that the tree was left unguarded, when a single cherub with a flaming sword could have been a sufficient guard. Or not to expose humans to that “tree” at all.

A good, loving parent would not leave a loaded gun in full sight of the children, and warn them: “do not pull the trigger”, he would hide the gun out of reach, so no accident can happen.

There is no “most likely” on God’s level of knowledge. Either every conceivable couple would have fallen - which would indicate hard predestination - or at least one couple would have passed the test, and then there would be no original sin.

I already made a comment on that. Just because someone has only “good” choices, that does not make him a “robot”. Limited choices, for sure. But we all suffer from limited choices.

Who says, no forgiveness? On the very contrary, things can be forgiven unconditionally. Just try to answer the original question: “what is so valuable about the existence of wars, rapes, murders, etc…”? The “robot” cop-out is already gone. Try to show me what disadvantage would come from the lack of a murder?

That is just another example of “argument from ignorance”, a common fallacy. And I don’t see any wisdom in not creating the best possible world, when it is feasible.

You countered all my points, so I guess you’re right…God was a jerk & should have known better.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

truetofaith:

You countered all my points, so I guess you’re right…God was a jerk & should have known better.

*** sigh *** That is not what I said or insinuated. The point is that believers SAY all sorts of things ABOUT God which are logically inconsistent. Good parents forgive their children (unconditionally, of course) and do not chase them out of the house. They do not curse them for disobedience. But that is a minor issue. What I would like to understand is why do some believers argue for the continued existence of psychopaths and sociopaths? What do these people ADD to the love we feel toward others, and how would their removal from this existence negate or lower our love toward our fellow humans. After all there are ample natural causes for pain and suffering and we could fulfill our need to care for others by helping these people. I wish someone would take these questions seriously and attempt to answer them.

 

[josh987654321]

The so called “problem of evil” only occurs if one presumes an all-loving, all-caring, omnibenevolent God.

I agree.

In a godless universe there is no problem of evil,

I agree.

though, of course “evil” acts happen.

To concede the existence of evil, means one has a problem of evil I believe.

Now that does not mean that we should be indifferent to the actions of other people. We must do everything we can to minimalize the “evil”. The problem is that we are mostly powerless. All we can do is react, but cannot be proactive (most of the time). But if and when we can foresee an “evil” act, and happen to have the power to prevent it, we are obliged to do so. One can be guilty by comission and guilty by omission, and there is very little difference - if any.

? I don’t think you can see it, but to concede the existence of evil throws the sceptic into problems I believe.
Extract from C.S. Lewis' book 'Mere Christianity:

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it?

A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if i did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense.

Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe, we should never have know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.

There is also much more I believe I could say in this regard, but id very much recommend the book ‘Mere Christianity’ by C.S. Lewis, it has a whole section devoted to this.

You are perfectly right.

… Wait what? Can you say that again, I didn’t quite catch that.

haha, just too tempting.

If someone loudly proclaims one’s love, but that “love” is not manifested in actions, then all we have a few empty words, without substance. (And a hypocrite, too.)

I agree.

I did not explain it well, it seems. The “weapon” imposes “ecstasy” on the violent person, the kind which one can feel as the pinnacle of a sexual act. In such a state there can be no violence.

I believe I understood it and I believe the same answer still applies, maybe one can’t be violent but one I believe can certainly still perform an evil deed.

What does “freedom” have to do with anything? A good, helping, benevolent act remains good, helping and benevolent even if the person is not “free” to act otherwise.

Not really. it’s merely a robot in which case does nothing more than it’s programmed to do.

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

I would urge you to think it over again:

I urge likewise,
C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity:

If God is omnipotent and omniscient, is the existence of Satan in accordance with his will? If it is, he is a strange God, you will say: and if it is not, how can anything happen contrary to the will of a being with absolute power? But anyone who has been in authority knows how a thing can be in accordance with your will in one way and not in another. You make a thing voluntary and than half the people do not do it. That is not what you willed, but your will has made it possible. It’s the same in the universe. God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go either wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot.

If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata-of creatures that worked like machines-would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for his higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they must be free.

Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently He thought it worth it. Perhaps we feel inclined to disagree with him. But there is a difficulty about disagreeing with God. He is the source from which all your reasoning power comes; you could not be right and He wrong any more than a stream could rise higher than its own source. When you are arguing against him you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all: it is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on. If God thinks this state of war in the universe a price worth paying for free will-that is, for making a live world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings-then we may take it it is worth paying.

“what does the ability to kill someone else ADD to your love for your child (or anyone else)”? What is this nebulous “extra” that is gained from this freedom? Because I am unable to see it. Moreover, I am not talking about love as an emotion. Emotions are not volitional, they are either there, or not. So I am not talking about "eros, “filia” or “storge” - but about something usually called “agape” - a selfless action on behalf of someone else.

I believe your using two extremes and conflating them.

I believe as we have established, love and hate are confirmed through works, if your not free to love and perform loving deeds, than your not free to hate or perform deeds of hatred and vice versa. Because hate is simply the absence of love.

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Evil:

The professor of a university challenged his students with this question. “Did God create everything that exists?” A student answered bravely, “Yes, he did”.

The professor then asked, "If God created everything, then he created evil. Since evil exists (as noticed by our own actions), so God is evil. The student couldn’t respond to that statement causing the professor to conclude that he had “proved” that “belief in God” was a fairy tale, and therefore worthless.

Another student raised his hand and asked the professor, "May I pose a question? " “Of course” answered the professor.

The young student stood up and asked : “Professor does Cold exist?”

The professor answered, “What kind of question is that? …Of course the cold exists… haven’t you ever been cold?”

The young student answered, “In fact sir, Cold does not exist. According to the laws of Physics, what we consider cold, in fact is the absence of heat. Anything is able to be studied as long as it transmits energy (heat). Absolute Zero is the total absence of heat, but cold does not exist. What we have done is create a term to describe how we feel if we don’t have body heat or we are not hot.”

“And, does Dark exist?”, he continued. The professor answered “Of course”. This time the student responded, “Again you’re wrong, Sir. Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in fact simply the absence of light. Light can be studied, darkness cannot. Darkness cannot be broken down. A simple ray of light tears the darkness and illuminates the surface where the light beam finishes. Dark is a term that we humans have created to describe what happens when there’s lack of light.”

Finally, the student asked the professor, “Sir, does evil exist?” The professor replied, “Of course it exists, as I mentioned at the beginning, we see violations, crimes and violence anywhere in the world, and those things are evil.”

The student responded, “Sir, Evil does not exist. Just as in the previous cases, Evil is a term which man has created to describe the result of the absence of God’s presence in the hearts of man.”

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

I believe God is perfect, so if He were to forcefully stop everyone from sinning, then where would He start and where would He end? He would start with the murderers etc (as you illustrate he should) and then He would move onto you and I until we were all perfect.

Thus we find ourselves in a world where everyone is forcefully perfect and perfectly void of any choice in the matter, thus robots perfectly obeying God, without any choice.

God doesn’t want creatures to love Him who have no choice in the matter, He wants creatures who choose to love Him of their own free will.

Your usage of the word: “forced” is interesting. Let me give a real life scenario. I have been brought up in a family where I learned that one should always get up on the bus and pass one’s seat to an elderly person. Even today, when I am quite old, I cannot stay seated when I see someone who needs that seat more than I do. Theoretically, I am “free” to stay seated, but psychologically I find it impossible to do so. Now, because I was “brainwashed” into being polite… how does it diminish the value of my politeness? Am I “forced” by my upbringing? And if I am, what does the other person care? She would be happy to take that seat.

C.S. Lewis explains this very well in the opening pages of his book ‘Mere Christianity’ I would very much recommend that book.

That is simply not true. Let’s represent the “goodness/badness value” of deeds with numbers to visualize the question. Let positive numbers represent good deeds, negative numbers stand for bad (evil) deeds, and let zero stand for neutral (neither good, nor bad) deeds. The “big” numbers represent very good (or very bad) actions, while the small numbers are just mildly good or mildly bad ones. Of course we are already “limited” in our choices, the laws of physics do not allow ultra-super-extremely good or bad actions. So even if some power (maybe God) would not allow us to perform negative actions, we would still be free to decide to perform good actions of some kind. Since we are already curtailed in our options, what is the problem of making them even more limited? To put it bluntly: “what is wrong with having ONLY good people”? Or even more bluntly: “what is so desirable about having psychopaths and sociopaths”? Because when you argue for “freedom”, you argue for the freedom to commit murder, torture, rape, for the ability to cause needless and useless pain and suffering.

I think above where I mention evil as the absence of good may be able to help you with this. Thus it’s not so much goodness and badness, but simply goodness and the lack of goodness, which would be badness.

As a society we routinely put criminals in jails and prisons to prevent them from acting on their “will”. Would you argue to let them go free, so their freedom would not be as limited as it is now?

Nope.

I argue for limited freedom, more limited than we have now. An analogy: usually we are “free” to wear jeans and t-shirts in most circumstances. For a formal occasion we might be expected to wear a suit and a tie. Yet we have freedom to wear a red tie or a blue one. Our freedom is more limited, but it is not “gone”. Even if one is prevented to kill and rape, one is still free to do all sorts of good or neutral actions.

Imagine the following scale from 1-9

123456789

This is the scale of ‘love’ the lack of which is hate, at 1 you have your murderers etc and at 9 you have your saints, if we reduce that scale to 3-7

34567

Then you don’t have people free to be ‘as bad’ but you also don’t have people free to be ‘as good’ either.

How could you know that? If I were in such a predicament, I would not care “why” someone wanted to help me. Let me clarify: does the freedom NOT to render help make that bread taste better or worse, or is the taste the same? Also: does the freedom NOT to give have an effect on the nutritional value of that bread? All the recipient can see is a kind gesture on the part of the giver. She has no access to what the giver thinks. So how could they “care” about the motivation of the giver?

Do you care whether when someone says they ‘love’ you they mean it or not? Because either way the result of hearing ‘I love you’ is the same isn’t it?

Have a nice day.

And you too.

Thanks for the discussion thus far I hope this has somewhat helped.

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

What I would like to understand is why do some believers argue for the continued existence of psychopaths and sociopaths?

I don’t argue for that, but I do believe at the same time that we are all sinners, and hence if God were to forcefully stop these people, where would he start and where would He end? He would absolutely stop those people, but He would stop you and I also. He would stop the big sins as well as the little sins.

What do these people ADD to the love we feel toward others,

Nothing.

and how would their removal from this existence negate or lower our love toward our fellow humans.

It wouldn’t

After all there are ample natural causes for pain and suffering and we could fulfill our need to care for others by helping these people.

Yup, but I believe your missing the point, it’s the very act of ‘removing’ them that means he would have to remove every one of us at the same time.

Those who argue for God to forcefully stop others from sinning, I believe have forgotten their own sins or have forgotten or never known the power of God’s love and mercy.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Thank you for your post. You put a lot of effort to explain your position, and I appreciate it. A few remarks first. I read C.S. Lewis (and several other apologists), and I am familiar with anecdote about the “light” and “darkness”. But I appreciate your effort to include them.
"josh987654321:

To concede the existence of evil, means one has a problem of evil I believe.

The word “existence” is ambiguous here. “Evil” is not an entity, or object, it is a concept and adjective, which describes a very specific behavior, namely: “intentionally and knowingly causing gratuitous harm to a being with a pleasure-pain center, who (or what) did not consent to that process and cannot benefit from it”. The lack of rain is “bad” for an impatient (flower), and the rain is bad for a cactus. Good and bad are natural categories, relative to the needs of the one who receives it. “Evil” is a moral concept. When a cat “plays” with a mouse, it is very “bad” for the mouse. But since the cat does not that, it is “innocent” of “evil”.

The usual definition that “evil is a privation of good” is incorrect. It leaves out the “grey areas”, which are neither good nor bad - and most of our actions fall into that category. Besides, there is no such “thing” as “good” either. Its is only a concept and an “adjective”. “Good” is only applicable to living beings, and it means “something that is beneficial to the living entity”.

josh987654321:

I believe I understood it and I believe the same answer still applies, maybe one can’t be violent but one I believe can certainly still perform an evil deed.

The word ecstasy literally means standing outside oneself, where no conscious thought exists. Now, if we cannot agree on what “evil” might be, then we have a problem of mutual understanding.

josh987654321:

Not really. it’s merely a robot in which case does nothing more than it’s programmed to do.

That is quite simplistic. Have you ever pondered how “seriously programmed” we are? During our formative years we are exposed to constant learning, from our parents, neighbors, friends, churches, schools, etc. Every bit of learning leaves a “mark” on our brain (and mind). It is huge amount of “programming”. Children have no natural concept of “mine” and “yours”, they must be taught to respect the property of others. They have no innate guiding system of telling the “truth”, they lie shamelessly. They are willing to torture other children and animals. It takes a lot of effort to teach them that these behaviors are wrong. There is no natural, inborn guiding system, it is all learned behavior - which is essentially what “programming” is.

josh987654321:

I believe as we have established, love and hate are confirmed through works, if your not free to love and perform loving deeds, than your not free to hate or perform deeds of hatred and vice versa. Because hate is simply the absence of love.

Again, the black-and-white type of oversimplification. Amazing that such simple concepts need to be discussed. What happened to the concept of neither fish, nor fowl? How can anyone forget and/or deny the overwhelming majority of neutral actions? If I do not “love” someone it does not mean that I “hate” him.

josh987654321:

I believe God is perfect, so if He were to forcefully stop everyone from sinning, then where would He start and where would He end? He would start with the murderers etc (as you illustrate he should) and then He would move onto you and I until we were all perfect.

First, I do not accept that there is an objectively existing “perfection”. One can only be “perfect” in relation to something. A perfect bullet would penetrate any shield. A perfect shield would stop any bullet. Both cannot exist simultaneously. But this is not really important at this moment. I would be very happy, if all the violent actions would be removed. The resulting world would be incomparably better, don’t you agree?

josh987654321:

Imagine the following scale from 1-9

123456789

This is the scale of ‘love’ the lack of which is hate, at 1 you have your murderers etc and at 9 you have your saints, if we reduce that scale to 3-7

34567

Then you don’t have people free to be ‘as bad’ but you also don’t have people free to be ‘as good’ either.

But why reduce the “upper” section? There is no rational reason to limit “good” part? One can tend for the sick whether one is “free” to kill them or not.

josh987654321:

Do you care whether when someone says they ‘love’ you they mean it or not? Because either way the result of hearing ‘I love you’ is the same isn’t it?

I don’t care about the words. I only care about the deeds. We already agreed that the words without the deeds are empty. Words are cheap, and actions speak much louder than words do.

I don’t argue for that, but I do believe at the same time that we are all sinners, and hence if God were to forcefully stop these people, where would he start and where would He end? He would absolutely stop those people, but He would stop you and I also. He would stop the big sins as well as the little sins.

No, I am not talking about “sins”. Only about violent actions toward others. And the overwhelming majority of people is not violent.

I hope you will have time to continue. We certainly have a long road to travel if we wish to establish some mutual understanding, starting with the definitions of “good”, “bad”, “evil”, “love” and “hate”.

Best wishes to you

 

[Mintaka]

Let’s say you go out one morning, and you see your neighbor making pancakes. And then he gives you one.

1. Making and giving you a pancake was a good thing to do, in general. It was nice because your neighbor didn’t have to give it to you; he could have eaten it himself. Heck, he didn’t even have to make pancakes.
2. You are not particularly grateful to the griddle, the pancake mix, or the mixing bowl, even though they were involved in making the pancake. You don’t feel grateful to them because they didn’t have a choice to make the pancake; they were just tools and ingredients.

The next morning, you go down to the natural wonder called Pancake Park, where there are pancake plants that grow pancake flowers 24 hours a day. You are allowed to pick and eat pancake flowers as much as you want, and the pancake flowers bloom whether anybody is there or not.

1. It’s good that there is such a thing as pancake plants, but you are not particularly grateful to the pancake plants. They didn’t have a choice to make the pancake flowers; they are just plants that bloom automatically.

Without a free range of choices, any good works we would do and any love we would have would just be pancake flowers. It would just be something automatic that would happen, like pretty sunsets.

I like sunsets and I would really like pancake flowers, but my neighbor doing something loving of his own free will is a lot more important.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Mintaka:

Let’s say you go out one morning, and you see your neighbor making pancakes. And then he gives you one.

1. Making and giving you a pancake was a good thing to do, in general. It was nice because your neighbor didn’t have to give it to you; he could have eaten it himself. Heck, he didn’t even have to make pancakes.
2. You are not particularly grateful to the griddle, the pancake mix, or the mixing bowl, even though they were involved in making the pancake. You don’t feel grateful to them because they didn’t have a choice to make the pancake; they were just tools and ingredients.

The next morning, you go down to the natural wonder called Pancake Park, where there are pancake plants that grow pancake flowers 24 hours a day. You are allowed to pick and eat pancake flowers as much as you want, and the pancake flowers bloom whether anybody is there or not.

1. It’s good that there is such a thing as pancake plants, but you are not particularly grateful to the pancake plants. They didn’t have a choice to make the pancake flowers; they are just plants that bloom automatically.

Without a free range of choices, any good works we would do and any love we would have would just be pancake flowers. It would just be something automatic that would happen, like pretty sunsets.

I like sunsets and I would really like pancake flowers, but my neighbor doing something loving of his own free will is a lot more important.

Very nice analogy. Let’s dig into the details. Obviously you do not suggest that the taste and the nutritional value of the pancake plant is inferior or superior. Let’s say that there is no difference in that respect. In this case the difference lies beyond the taste and the nutrition. Do you agree so far?

Let me suppose that you do. It is obvious that the “goodwill” aspect has its own positive value. It is “good” to be appreciated. But the situation is still not simple.

For someone, who is close to starvation the “extra” aspect is irrelevant. She is just happy to survive. The next point is, that you do not know if the neighbor actually cared about you, or might have had ulterior motives in presenting you with the pancakes. Maybe he was pressured by his wife to try and “soften” you up before she asks a big favor. So you cannot fully trust the external signs of the benevolence.

I suspect that you would say that the external signs are all we have, and must make our judgment based upon those signs. I would agree wholeheartedly. We cannot “peek” into the other person’s thought process. We must accept the Forrest Gump-like assessment: “loving is as loving does”. And this leads to the next question: “if your neighbor is actually an android, whose behavior is exactly like the actions of a bona-fide human being, then does his behavior evoke the same good feeling of being appreciated”? (To clarify: “an android is an artificial being, who cannot be told apart from a biological human”.) Let’s say that the android has been “programmed” into being kind and helpful to others. As such it has no real free will, it is not able to hurt you. Does this fact lower the positive aspect of being “seemingly” appreciated and loved?

 

[truetofaith]

Very nice analogy. Let’s dig into the details. Obviously you do not suggest that the taste and the nutritional value of the pancake plant is inferior or superior. Let’s say that there is no difference in that respect. In this case the difference lies beyond the taste and the nutrition. Do you agree so far?

Let me suppose that you do. It is obvious that the “goodwill” aspect has its own positive value. It is “good” to be appreciated. But the situation is still not simple.

For someone, who is close to starvation the “extra” aspect is irrelevant. She is just happy to survive. The next point is, that you do not know if the neighbor actually cared about you, or might have had ulterior motives in presenting you with the pancakes. Maybe he was pressured by his wife to try and “soften” you up before she asks a big favor. So you cannot fully trust the external signs of the benevolence.

I suspect that you would say that the external signs are all we have, and must make our judgment based upon those signs. I would agree wholeheartedly. We cannot “peek” into the other person’s thought process. We must accept the Forrest Gump-like assessment: “loving is as loving does”. And this leads to the next question: “if your neighbor is actually an android, whose behavior is exactly like the actions of a bona-fide human being, then does his behavior evoke the same good feeling of being appreciated”? (To clarify: “an android is an artificial being, who cannot be told apart from a biological human”.) Let’s say that the android has been “programmed” into being kind and helpful to others. As such it has no real free will, it is not able to hurt you. Does this fact lower the positive aspect of being “seemingly” appreciated and loved?

Pallas…you & Josh must have a lot of time on your hands, judging by the length of your posts.
I no longer even remember what the actual problem is …now you are into pancakes & androids, so I’m out of this Psych class.

Good thing God inspired the writers of the Bible to explain things in a simpler manner!

 

[Pallas_Athene]

truetofaith:

Pallas…you & Josh must have a lot of time on your hands, judging by the length of your posts.
I no longer even remember what the actual problem is …now you are into pancakes & androids, so I’m out of this Psych class.

I do not know about Josh, but since I am retired, I certainly have more time than I used to have. The “problem” is again about “free will”, its merits and demerits. Old horse, but still worth “kicking or flogging it”.

The short summary in my opinion is this: if you love someone, you do not expose him to the possibility to commit fatal error. The best solution is to prevent the situation when one can commit such an error. One example: if you have a child, who plays with a piece of wire and is about to stick it into a live socket, the second best way to handle it is to interfere, and prevent the child from electrocuting himself - regardless of the “free will” of the child. The very best way to deal with it is to remove that dangerous piece of wire, and/or cover the live socket. Only a parent who does not care would allow such a dangerous situation to develop. His only excuse (lousy as it is) would be that he did not foresee the danger. Obviously this defense is not applicable to God. He has no excuse when he allowed the “fall”. Now whether he wanted it, or simply allowed it makes no difference. Needless to say that I simply do not believe the whole story about the fall.

truetofaith:

Good thing God inspired the writers of the Bible to explain things in a simpler manner!

If my memory serves well, the Bible is choke-full with analogies and parables, sometimes very obscure. But, be as it may, your contribution was appreciated.

 

[truetofaith]

I do not know about Josh, but since I am retired, I certainly have more time than I used to have. The “problem” is again about “free will”, its merits and demerits. Old horse, but still worth “kicking or flogging it”.

The short summary in my opinion is this: if you love someone, you do not expose him to the possibility to commit fatal error. The best solution is to prevent the situation when one can commit such an error. One example: if you have a child, who plays with a piece of wire and is about to stick it into a live socket, the second best way to handle it is to interfere, and prevent the child from electrocuting himself - regardless of the “free will” of the child. The very best way to deal with it is to remove that dangerous piece of wire, and/or cover the live socket. Only a parent who does not care would allow such a dangerous situation to develop. His only excuse (lousy as it is) would be that he did not foresee the danger. Obviously this defense is not applicable to God. He has no excuse when he allowed the “fall”. Now whether he wanted it, or simply allowed it makes no difference. Needless to say that I simply do not believe the whole story about the fall.

If my memory serves well, the Bible is choke-full with analogies and parables, sometimes very obscure. But, be as it may, your contribution was appreciated.

Jesus used parables to make difficult theological ideas, clear & understandable.