Did God participate in blasphemy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thinkandmull
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thinkandmull

Guest
**This post touches on a previous thread of mine, but with a different angle. In modern times humans have been procreated outside of intercourse. How can we make sense of this? God it is said infused that soul, so He took part in that sin. On the other hand, the sperm and egg have life. How does it stand to reason to say that life ended when they fused and a new infused life began? Occam’s razor? **
 
No. Giving souls to children conceived in immoral ways is just one more way God brings good out of the evil that we do. Keep in mind that it isn’t the child that is evil, but the means by which the people involved chose to conceive him.
 
That sounds to me like, well, as if pagans were praying for their dead cow to be resurrected and God stepped in and said “sure, live cows are good”. Remember the story of Elijah and the false prophets. It just makes me wonder where God is in this strange modern world.😦
 
thinkandmull said:
That sounds to me like, well, as if pagans were praying for their dead cow to be resurrected and God stepped in and said “sure, live cows are good”. Remember the story of Elijah and the false prophets. It just makes me wonder where God is in this strange modern world.😦
Click to expand...
Let’s look at possible actions God could take in both your cow scenario, and (say) IVF to avoid in the first case resurrection and in the second a new human person.

In the cow scenario, God could simply refrain from setting aside His natural laws, resulting in no resurrected cow.

Now IVF. God could either a) refuse to impart a (rational) soul, or b) order reality so that this particular sort of evil act isn’t possible. I’m not even sure what a) would look like, exactly. If no soul at all (no animating principle), then we’d essentially be in case b), since the result of IVF would not ever be alive. Imparting a non-rational soul would result in an animal that looks human. A non-person in the body of a person. Such would still require action from God, and would, I think, be even worse.

Case b) is just back to the problem of evil in general - why is it possible that evil occur? Why didn’t God make a world in which evil things simply can’t happen? Which I won’t get into since that’s not the primary topic. But God does allow us to do evil, and while we may or may not be able to find an answer if we ask why a particular type is or is not possible, we do know that evil can occur, and that God does not cause it, but does bring good out of it. But there is a key difference between IVF and resurrecting cow by praying to non-existent gods - the first is using the way reality is built in evil ways, the second is requesting that beings that don’t exist change how reality works for a particular reason that may or may not be good. So the two aren’t really very similar.

I’m not going to pretend that God couldn’t find some way to act that hasn’t occurred to me, but it appears that having actions such as IVF result in actual humans with souls is just the best response to humans sinning. Which is kind of what God does.
 
Saying that the life of the sperm and the egg merge to form one new life seems more sensible to me than saying those two lifes dies when the two join and God imparts a new life. The mom and dad would be more parents of the child if their life got passed on instead of impeded and used for material vessalage.
 
I suggest God entered into a covenant with Adam & Eve, and thus he creates souls for all the occasions when sperm and egg merge. This occurs regardless of whether we sin by making that event unnatural. God cannot sin!😊
 
That’s a good argument, but what about my argument that parents are less real parents if it is God who gives the life form to the new person.
 
Catholics say the child receives his life from God and his body from the parents, instead of saying that the parents are the parents of his life
 
thinkandmull said:
**This post touches on a previous thread of mine, but with a different angle. In modern times humans have been procreated outside of intercourse. How can we make sense of this? God it is said infused that soul, so He took part in that sin. On the other hand, the sperm and egg have life. How does it stand to reason to say that life ended when they fused and a new infused life began? Occam’s razor? **
Click to expand...
Ive often wondered about that too, not so much in the "is God taking part in sin’ as in why would he breath life into souls/ fetuses that are created in pure sin…out of marriage, prostitution, accidents, etc.

We were always taught God MUST breathe life into EVERY living thing, but when you look at some of the conditions many kids are born into, it does make you wonder if birth is really not just some totally natural thing, and requires nothing of God…to me, it seems almost like a big machine in operation, people just keep cranking out babies, no matter what kind of lives they lead or what kind of people they are, some are born healthy and normal, but some are born with ‘defects’…this doesnt seem like something from God, seems more like a natural machine of sorts.
 
Mary conceived Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit. She provided the egg part, God provided the rest. Yet no one denies her motherhood, not just of the human part, but of the God-part* (Theotokos)*. You can’t be any more “real” mother than that.
 
mikekle said:
Ive often wondered about that too, not so much in the "is God taking part in sin’ as in why would he breath life into souls/ fetuses that are created in pure sin…out of marriage, prostitution, accidents, etc.

We were always taught God MUST breathe life into EVERY living thing, but when you look at some of the conditions many kids are born into, it does make you wonder if birth is really not just some totally natural thing, and requires nothing of God…to me, it seems almost like a big machine in operation, people just keep cranking out babies, no matter what kind of lives they lead or what kind of people they are, some are born healthy and normal, but some are born with ‘defects’…this doesnt seem like something from God, seems more like a natural machine of sorts.
Click to expand...
We are all born in sin…thus the need for a Savior…thus the need for a way to access that Savior…thus the need for baptism and faith (Mark 16:16). A person born via IVF is no more sinful than one born through natural childbirth. The body and soul of a baby born via IVF can still be saved, can still enter into God’s Heavenly Kingdom.

As another poster has already pointed out, an IVF child is not somehow ‘more sinful’ than anyone else…it is the particular sin attributed to those who joined the sperm and egg that may be considered ‘additionally sinful’ but the body and soul created via IVF is not born into greater sin.

As others have already said, God allows all manners of evil to exist. We are called to avoid such evils and draw closer to Him. This produces true love. God ‘could’ have created us as worshiping robots. But He knew from before creation that this would not be pleasing to either Him nor us. It is our God-given free will that allows us to enter into God’s ever open arms. We are called to desire to love Him completely and freely in spite of all the evil in the world.

Peace in Christ
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top