Did God Have Control over the Effects of Original Sin?

[Mystophilus]

clarkal:

Then you disagree with the teaching of Original Sin?

I’m a heretic: I refuse to believe anything that does not make sense to me, for which I expect to be thoroughly scolded come Judgement Day.

I was using an analogy in regards to Original Sin. My point was that if the stakes are infinitely and eternally high, then God *should *step in and stop us from making an unintelligent decision, something that we puny humans cannot even comprehend. Unlike the 12 year old’s parents, of course, He has the power to do more, for he can do everything, as you said.

Are the stakes “infinitely and eternally high”?

 

[clarkal]

Mystophilus:

I’m a heretic: I refuse to believe anything that does not make sense to me, for which I expect to be thoroughly scolded come Judgement Day.

Are the stakes “infinitely and eternally high”?

Ah, I see, a fellow heretic!

And, if you believe in Catholicism, they are.

Hell is “infinite punishment” and eternal. This is what orthodoxy teaches. Correct me if I am wrong. I know that Aquinas believed in it.

 

[clarkal]

I would love to stay and respond to all your wonderful posts, but I am leaving on an impromtu trip to New York City in an hour or so. I will be back by the end of the weekend, I think.

Thank you all for your (name removed by moderator)ut. It was a pleasure.

See you in a little while.

best,

clarkal

 

[Mystophilus]

clarkal:

What about free will?

If God has power over everything, then God has power over free will, because God can choose whether or not to intervene. This does not preclude the possibility of free will, as some thinkers have asserted, because God does not tamper with the individual’s decision-making process (so far as we know). However, this does make God partially responsible for everything, for failing to prevent it.

Perhaps physical suffering. But does this apply to an all-consuming, uncontrollable and irrational mental disease such as anxiety or OCD? I suffered physically before I suffered mentally, and it is different. Also, I have had seriously bad OCD symptoms for years now, and there is no change in the amount that I perceive that I suffer. I have never really adapted to it.

Was there a time when you did not have OCD, and do you perceive that you now perceive as great a degree of suffering from other causes as much as you did then? My reason for asking this is that I have an acute condition which, when it arrives, involves a considerable amount of pain. Ever since the initial onset of this condition, other things have bothered me considerably less, because of the comparison.

They lead torturous lives, entirely consumed with the fear of hell and sin.

My apologies: I got that one mixed up and was talking about people generally, not specifically those with OCD. For those people, life was certainly an unending trial. However, would leaving their religion really help? Because the condition would remain, would it not simply transfer, thus manifesting as a phobia of something else?

Read the Catholic Encyclopedia’s Article on ‘Scrupulosity’.Scruple, in case anyone was looking for it: an interesting example of a religious foray into psychiatry.

 

[paramedicgirl]

clarkal:

Yes, I am searching for the truth. I want to know if my objections to Catholicism are misunderstandings, but not because I am afraid that Catholicism might be true, but because I want my understanding to be correct for future dialogues. I am quite sure that Catholicism is untrue. There is no anxiety here.

Your objections to Catholicism are not so much based on misunderstandings as they are based on obstinate refusal to recognize the truth…

 

[paramedicgirl]

clarkal:

Hell is “infinite punishment” and eternal. This is what orthodoxy teaches. Correct me if I am wrong. I know that Aquinas believed in it.

You are right, so why risk it?

 

[barsapp]

clarkal:

I didn’t quote Democritus. I quoted the author of the web site ebonmusings.org. The whole quote was about how our energy moves on into different forms when we die, so I don’t see how the quote “Nothing is new under the sun” applies to what I quoted. Did Pascal make the bolded statement or did you? If you said it, then it is insulting, but I do not know whether you said it intentionally. Well, why did God gives us a brain then?

You are right in saying that I was paraphrasing Pascal’s Wager: the following quotes have been taken directly from “Pensées” (The Necessity of the Wager):

“This is demonstrable; and if men are capable of any truths, this is one.” “Atheism shows strength of mind, but only to a certain degree.”

“You do not have to be very smart to notice that the first option is the “reasonable” one.”, is my logical conclusion regarding Pascal’s Wager. But consider it as a non-personal statement.

“I didn’t quote Democritus. I quoted the author of the web site ebonmusings.org.” You are right. To shorten things I put it that way. I wrote “Nothing is new under the sun.” (Ecc. 1, 9), because ebonmusings.org is only paraphrasing Democritus atomic theory. As you know Democritus is considered one of the fathers of materialism and atheism.

“Well, why did God gives us a brain then?” To understand that “our brain” is not enough to reach the complete truth. Consider the testimony of Socrates (certainly a smart guy (400 hundred years before Christ), not like me) (taken from Plato’s Phaedo):

“for I have good hope that there is yet something remaining for the dead, and, as has been said of old, some far better thing for the good than for the evil.”

“he who has lived as a true philosopher has reason to be of good cheer when he is about to die, and that after death he may hope to receive the greatest good in the other world.”

“And now that the hour of departure is appointed to me, this is the hope with which I depart, and not I only, but every man who believes that he has his mind purified.”

“Never fear (…) that a soul which has been thus nurtured and has had these pursuits, will at her departure from the body be scattered and blown away by the winds and be nowhere and nothing.”

We have two wings to reach the Truth: reason and hope.

Your quote: “This is exactly my point. It is not just or fair for innocent children to inherit a disease that they had nothing to do with.” Well, that is why Jesus incarnated… Behind your words I notice some sense of justice and goodness… Be sure that the sum of all justice and goodness is Christ, “God with us”, Emmanuel (Mt 1, 23).

 

[paramedicgirl]

clarkal:

What about free will?

Of course God has control over our free will. He just chooses not to excersise it. Because then it wouldn’t be free will, would it? Instead, God gives us little, (or sometimes big) pushes in the right direction. This is called grace. Actual grace.

 

[LSK]

I do not accept your premise that there is more evil in the world than good. Refering to Africa, I know personally of incredible, wonderfully loving people and happenings there. I know you have fallen into despair if you believe that there is more evil than good in the world. That is a premise you must hold onto in order to justify denying the Lord.

And I think your presence on this board shows you are on the way home. If you did not care, you would not be posting.

You will not win converts to atheism here because we accept premsises that you deny, while you deny premises that we accept. I also think you know this, which is why you are trying so hard to convince yourself.

You hate gambling because of your mother - my brother, in the examply I used, is not an alcoholic while the genetic component is there and may manifest itself in his children. I wonder, since your mother suffers from a disease of addiction, have you decided to have yourself sterilized just in case you may carry the gene? Perhaps you have - that certainly would show that you ‘walk your talk’. I think, however, that there are other ways to deal with possible genetic anamolies and so we have decided to deal with them differently that would an atheist.

I don’t follow a lot of your arguments. There is a lot of “oh, yeah?” kind of statements. The reality is, there is more goodness in the world than evil. And instead of pointing to a specific continent, I will point instead to the entire world as my proof.

Welcome back on the road to Christ.

 

[LSK]

barsapp:

You are right in saying that I was paraphrasing Pascal’s Wager: the following quotes have been taken directly from “Pensées” (The Necessity of the Wager):

“This is demonstrable; and if men are capable of any truths, this is one.” “Atheism shows strength of mind, but only to a certain degree.”

“You do not have to be very smart to notice that the first option is the “reasonable” one.”, is my logical conclusion regarding Pascal’s Wager. But consider it as a non-personal statement.

“I didn’t quote Democritus. I quoted the author of the web site ebonmusings.org.” You are right. To shorten things I put it that way. I wrote “Nothing is new under the sun.” (Ecc. 1, 9), because ebonmusings.org is only paraphrasing Democritus atomic theory. As you know Democritus is considered one of the fathers of materialism and atheism.

“Well, why did God gives us a brain then?” To understand that “our brain” is not enough to reach the complete truth. Consider the testimony of Socrates (certainly a smart guy (400 hundred years before Christ), not like me) (taken from Plato’s Phaedo):

“for I have good hope that there is yet something remaining for the dead, and, as has been said of old, some far better thing for the good than for the evil.”

“he who has lived as a true philosopher has reason to be of good cheer when he is about to die, and that after death he may hope to receive the greatest good in the other world.”

“And now that the hour of departure is appointed to me, this is the hope with which I depart, and not I only, but every man who believes that he has his mind purified.”

“Never fear (…) that a soul which has been thus nurtured and has had these pursuits, will at her departure from the body be scattered and blown away by the winds and be nowhere and nothing.”

We have two wings to reach the Truth: reason and hope.

Your quote: “This is exactly my point. It is not just or fair for innocent children to inherit a disease that they had nothing to do with.” Well, that is why Jesus incarnated… Behind your words I notice some sense of justice and goodness… Be sure that the sum of all justice and goodness is Christ, “God with us”, Emmanuel (Mt 1, 23).

What is so wonderful about Socrates is that he deduced the Truth for that time - and was martyred for it! Read “The Four Witnesses” by Rod Bennet…when I studied Socrates as a Rhetoric major at UC Berkeley I remember pointing that out to the professor and he said, “Yes, he does seem to indicate that all of man’s existence has been underscored by a need to love a power greater than himself.”

 

[Mystophilus]

[Hell as infinite punishment]
You are right, so why risk it?

Some values are higher than the avoidance of pain, especially when it is merely possible pain.

 

[Mystophilus]

clarkal:

I would love to stay and respond to all your wonderful posts, but I am leaving on an impromptu trip to New York City in an hour or so. I will be back by the end of the weekend, I think.

Thank you all for your (name removed by moderator)ut. It was a pleasure.

No, thank you, and have a nice trip.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Mystophilus:

Some values are higher than the avoidance of pain, especially when it is merely possible pain.

OK, so you don’t believe in hell? What then happens to the unjust in your opinion?

 

[Mystophilus]

paramedicgirl:

OK, so you don’t believe in hell? What then happens to the unjust in your opinion?

I did not say that I do not believe in Hell. The reason that I characterised Hell as possible pain is because it is only pain if one goes there, and whether or not clarkal will go there has not yet been established.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Mystophilus:

I did not say that I do not believe in Hell. The reason that I characterised Hell as possible pain is because it is only pain if one goes there, and whether or not clarkal will go there has not yet been established.

Thanks for clarifying your meaning. It was a rather ambiguous statement to me. I hope I never implied anyone is going there (hell). That is known to God alone.

 

[LSK]

This has been an interesting discussion but it seems to now be going in circles. Thank you for your questions and good luck in the future.

 

[LSK]

clarkal:

I think he is. When you are an infinite being with unlimited wisdom and knowledge, it would seem that, if you knew that two people with a very limited intellect and understanding had the fate of humanity in their hands and would sin against you and cause basically the ruin and suffering of countless generations, then who wouldn’t step in and not let those two imbeciles make this horribly wrong decision, no matter how much you “respected” their free will.

It is like putting a child in front of a nuclear missle launching button and saying, “Don’t hit that button or else!” except the consequences are infinitely more damaging.

You are taking for granted that the only thing that happenned for countless generations is ruin and suffering. That is a very depressed point of view and I do not share it.

Not me. But my point with the 12 year old analogy was that something needs to be done other than warning a child: “I wouldn’t do that, as it’s really bad for your body and mommy will punish you severely, but it’s your free will, so go ahead if you really want to, because I respect your free will.”

Such as? Your analogy doesn’t hold…eventually that 12 year old has be allowed to make a decision…

Compare this to Adam and Eve’s situation and up the seriousness to an infinite degree and you have it. Adam and Eve were children in God’s sight, no matter how intelligent or wise they were. How could they possibly understand infinite consequences?

People make poor decisions all the time knowing the possible consequences. At some point mankind was given the opportunity to exercise their faith and trust in God.

Also, I have had moments of conscience that have hit me like lightning. But I do not consider them divine, as a lot of my moments of conscience go against the Church’s moral teachings.

Which is odd - I would suspect that your moments of conscience that go against the Church’s moral teachings (since you are using a scatter shot approach to this discussion and not being specific) were based on self-centered fear. These kind of ‘moments of conscience’ usually get us out of a situation and may even seem to be expedient and for the best, but they are always based on fear and our own fear of consequences.

 

[Lazerlike42]

I think he is. When you are an infinite being with unlimited wisdom and knowledge, it would seem that, if you knew that two people with a very limited intellect and understanding had the fate of humanity in their hands and would sin against you and cause basically the ruin and suffering of countless generations, then who wouldn’t step in and not let those two imbeciles make this horribly wrong decision, no matter how much you “respected” their free will.

It is like putting a child in front of a nuclear missle launching button and saying, “Don’t hit that button or else!” except the consequences are infinitely more damaging.

It seems to me the only alternative would be to lock the child in his room and not let him do anything. That’s hardly a good thing to do.

 

[clarkal]

Hey, y’all, I’m back. I’ll attempt to respond now. I see that some new people have entered the discussion and contributed nicely. Anyway, here goes:

 

[clarkal]

Mystophilus:

Was there a time when you did not have OCD, and do you perceive that you now perceive as great a degree of suffering from other causes as much as you did then? My reason for asking this is that I have an acute condition which, when it arrives, involves a considerable amount of pain. Ever since the initial onset of this condition, other things have bothered me considerably less, because of the comparison.

This is a good question, and one that I am asked a lot. The answer: No. I have always had OCD, but what triggered and inflamed my mild symptoms to ones that were life disrupting was the Catholic Church’s teaching on sin and hell.
Mysto:

My apologies: I got that one mixed up and was talking about people generally, not specifically those with OCD. For those people, life was certainly an unending trial. However, would leaving their religion really help? Because the condition would remain, would it not simply transfer, thus manifesting as a phobia of something else?

Oh, ok. No prob.