Disobeying God = Disavowing God?

[erigby27]

Aperture,

You completely and totally miss my point. Again, when we sin, we don’t do something God dislikes, we actually harm him. We cause him pain. We personally offend him. We hammer a nail in his hand on the cross.

If you don’t drink, but your friend does, they may be doing something you find disagreeable, but they aren’t personally harming you in any way. They aren’t personally offending you.

If your friend does personally offend you by physically or emotionally harming you, and then is remorseless, it is safe to say your friend doesn’t love you.

I think you misunderstand what sin is. Sin isn’t about having different personal tastes than God does.

Pax.

 

[erigby27]

So basically God made humans because He wanted us to be exactly like he is?

Actually, yeah.

“God became man so that Man might become god” -St. Athanasius ‘On the Incarnation’

This is the moving principle behind the idea of theosis.

So God is basically the ultimate narcissist?

Um. No. God’s desire for us to be in ultimate communion with Him is really quite loving, and not narcissistic. Even more loving is his willingness to let us choose communion with Him of our own volition, though it might pain Him when we choose to be separated from Him.

 

[aperture]

Aperture,

You completely and totally miss my point. Again, when we sin, we don’t do something God dislikes, we actually harm him. We cause him pain. We personally offend him. We hammer a nail in his hand on the cross.

If you don’t drink, but your friend does, they may be doing something you find disagreeable, but they aren’t personally harming you in any way. They aren’t personally offending you.

If your friend does personally offend you by physically or emotionally harming you, and then is remorseless, it is safe to say your friend doesn’t love you.

I think you misunderstand what sin is. Sin isn’t about having different personal tastes than God does.

Pax.

But all you’re doing is saying “sin hurts God.” There’s no logic in here. I can’t exactly reason with an argument by fiat.

Um. No. God’s desire for us to be in ultimate communion with Him is really quite loving, and not narcissistic. Even more loving is his willingness to let us choose communion with Him of our own volition, though it might pain Him when we choose to be separated from Him.

Tell me; if you created life with the sole hope that they be exactly like you, because it pains you when they aren’t, how is that unselfish? Sure, you say that He allows us to choose to hurt Him. But from what you’re saying, God created so that He’d have a bunch of miniaturized versions of Himself. That sounds like an altogether human (that is, inaccurate) God.

 

[erigby27]

Aperture, you are anthropomorphizing God. God isn’t a parent who dresses his kids the way he wants to and makes them take ballet and piano and soccer because he did.

God wants us to be like him in goodness. He doesn’t make any demand that we compromise our individuality. Though he loves as individuals and loves the very different gifts we each have, which he expects us to use, all He wants from us in return is love.

And though faith and reason are compatible, if you are trying to talk yourself into being Catholic (or out of it) using logic alone, you are going to have some problems.

It defies logic that God became Man, yet I believe this.
It defies logic that a man was resurrected from the dead, yet I believe this.

If we accept that God became Man, and that he suffered and died for our sins, then we must further develop that. If Christ received the punishment for “our sins” (past present and future), that must mean that every time we sin, we add to the punishment Christ received. Now, we are sinful by nature, so God doesn’t expect that we will just stop sinning, although He can hope. He only expects that we repent of our sins and try not to sin. Which brings me to another point- if God wanted us to be “exactly like him” then He would have no tolerance for sin at all, even if we repented of it. We wouldn’t have the Sacrament of Confession, because the existence of that Sacrament necessarily is an acknowledgment of the reality of sin, and our inability to get away from it completely. If it was as simple as God wanting his “friends” to like all of the same things He did, He would be a lot more exclusive than He is. Even when we aren’t in mortal sin, we have a sinful nature, so why does He even bother with us? We’re never perfect, so we could never be perfect in the eyes of God. But “the Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slow-ness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).

If God was narcissistic, then He would have not only made us all perfect like Christ (which he did, originally), but He would not have given us free will so that we would have stayed like that forever.

You really need to stop thinking of “sin” as “having different interests than God”. This isn’t a case of, God likes cream in His coffee but I like skim milk. When it comes to sin, there isn’t really room for disagreement. If you disagree with God, you are unequivocally wrong, not because God is narcissistic and wants you to be wrong, but because God is always right by very nature of His Godness. Furthermore, it seems ridiculous to accuse God of narcissism after he humbled Himself in becoming a man (and a poor, humble one at that), and then allowed Himself to die a gruesome and unjust death, and then descended into Hell. That doesn’t sound like narcissism to me. It sounds like redemption.

 

[aperture]

Aperture, you are anthropomorphizing God. God isn’t a parent who dresses his kids the way he wants to and makes them take ballet and piano and soccer because he did.

God wants us to be like him in goodness. He doesn’t make any demand that we compromise our individuality. Though he loves as individuals and loves the very different gifts we each have, which he expects us to use, all He wants from us in return is love.

But according to this definition of love, truly loving God means being exactly like Him. How can this not compromise our individuality? If every dilemma we have has only one Godly choice, and if we must pick that one if we love God…how is there any individuality there? It’s the same as saying your reflection is an individual just because it isn’t you.

And though faith and reason are compatible, if you are trying to talk yourself into being Catholic (or out of it) using logic alone, you are going to have some problems.

It defies logic that God became Man, yet I believe this.
It defies logic that a man was resurrected from the dead, yet I believe this.

But the idea that an all-powerful being decided to make Himself known through means that contradicted what His creation saw all around them, decided to make their destinies contingent upon believing in something proofless…well, this topic will just de-rail the thread further, so I should probably stop there.

Which brings me to another point- if God wanted us to be “exactly like him” then He would have no tolerance for sin at all, even if we repented of it. We wouldn’t have the Sacrament of Confession, because the existence of that Sacrament necessarily is an acknowledgment of the reality of sin, and our inability to get away from it completely. If it was as simple as God wanting his “friends” to like all of the same things He did, He would be a lot more exclusive than He is. Even when we aren’t in mortal sin, we have a sinful nature, so why does He even bother with us? We’re never perfect, so we could never be perfect in the eyes of God. But “the Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slow-ness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).

Well, consider the alternative - no penance, ever. Wouldn’t this just make the world a lot more sinful as a whole? If one mistake is the end of your soul - well, I dare say that very, very, very, very few people would ever make it. If God wants free will and people to be like Him, then Reconciliation is the way to go.

If God was narcissistic, then He would have not only made us all perfect like Christ (which he did, originally), but He would not have given us free will so that we would have stayed like that forever.

True, if God gave free will, then that is a sign of Him granting us the ability to choose not to be like Him, which a true narcissist wouldn’t like. However, this doesn’t change the fact that, at the end of the day, Catholic theology revolves around a God who still wants everyone to be like Him. Does this not strike you as pointless?

You really need to stop thinking of “sin” as “having different interests than God”. This isn’t a case of, God likes cream in His coffee but I like skim milk. When it comes to sin, there isn’t really room for disagreement. If you disagree with God, you are unequivocally wrong, not because God is narcissistic and wants you to be wrong, but because God is always right by very nature of His Godness. Furthermore, it seems ridiculous to accuse God of narcissism after he humbled Himself in becoming a man (and a poor, humble one at that), and then allowed Himself to die a gruesome and unjust death, and then descended into Hell. That doesn’t sound like narcissism to me. It sounds like redemption.

If I say that I’m willing to die in order that you will be free to fulfill your destiny and be like me, is that not still narcissistic? The end is the same.

Perhaps narcissistic is true strong and negative a word. I do not want to suggest that God is evil or fallible; I just want to say that this understanding of Him seems way too human.

 

[erigby27]

I guess we’re just seeing this differently. It never would have occurred to me that God made a bunch of minions to be just like Him to satisfy His own ego, because the idea is supremely silly. God is God, and He doesn’t really need us. We don’t externally validate God when we choose Him. We don’t do anything for Him. The idea that God gets an ego boost every time an insignificant little person chooses Him is absurd. If God is happy when we choose Him, it’s because He loves us so much and is happy we made the right choice. If we don’t choose Him, He is sad because He loves us and we have not done what’s best for us. He’s not happy because He’s gaining anything from us, and He’s not sad because He’s losing anything. He’s happy for our sake, and sad for our sake.

Damnation isn’t God not liking something we did and then punishing us eternally. Think of it like this: God says, I’ll meet you at the Starbucks at 5:30, okay? And you say, sure, okay. And so God gets there early, say 3:00. And then He just sits there. At 5:00 you are at your house, basically ready to go, and your friend calls and says, yo a bunch of us are going to happy hour, wanna come? And you hesitate and then say, yeah sure. So you meet your friends at the bar. At 6:00, God calls you up and says, hey what’s up- I’m here, where are you? And you say, something came up. And God says, okay, well I’m going to stay here till they close- 11pm, okay? And you say, sure whatever. And you never show. At noon the next day He says, I’m coming over. And you say, alright. And He comes over, and you don’t answer the door. You just wait until He goes away. He calls you later and says, do you want to meet me or not? And you say, fine let’s meet at Starbucks at 5. He’s there at 4:30. At 5, you’re walking down the street, and you see a cute girl you know and you start talking. She says, you busy? Want to come back to my place and order some food and watch a movie? And you say, yeah why not? And you go with her.

God waited for you, but you chose someone or something else over God. It’s not that you showed up drunk and God got mad and left. You just plain didn’t show up, even when God got there early and stayed late. It’s not that you didn’t show up the first day but then showed up when He gave you a second chance. You just. didn’t. show up. He left, not dejected, but mourning your decision to choose debauchery over eternal bliss. It’s your loss, really. And your choice, too.

It’s not about being God, it’s about meeting God. And we all will be a little bit like our parents, though they love us no matter what.

 

[aperture]

I guess we’re just seeing this differently. It never would have occurred to me that God made a bunch of minions to be just like Him to satisfy His own ego, because the idea is supremely silly. God is God, and He doesn’t really need us. We don’t externally validate God when we choose Him. We don’t do anything for Him. The idea that God gets an ego boost every time an insignificant little person chooses Him is absurd. If God is happy when we choose Him, it’s because He loves us so much and is happy we made the right choice. If we don’t choose Him, He is sad because He loves us and we have not done what’s best for us. He’s not happy because He’s gaining anything from us, and He’s not sad because He’s losing anything. He’s happy for our sake, and sad for our sake.

I do agree that the idea seems a little silly and odd, but I still find it somewhat troubling.

The idea that God decided to make people, with His greatest hope being that they would be just like He is, just strikes me as rather pointless. Real happiness is a world of unending sameness?

Damnation isn’t God not liking something we did and then punishing us eternally. Think of it like this: God says, I’ll meet you at the Starbucks at 5:30, okay? And you say, sure, okay. And so God gets there early, say 3:00. And then He just sits there. At 5:00 you are at your house, basically ready to go, and your friend calls and says, yo a bunch of us are going to happy hour, wanna come? And you hesitate and then say, yeah sure. So you meet your friends at the bar. At 6:00, God calls you up and says, hey what’s up- I’m here, where are you? And you say, something came up. And God says, okay, well I’m going to stay here till they close- 11pm, okay? And you say, sure whatever. And you never show. At noon the next day He says, I’m coming over. And you say, alright. And He comes over, and you don’t answer the door. You just wait until He goes away. He calls you later and says, do you want to meet me or not? And you say, fine let’s meet at Starbucks at 5. He’s there at 4:30. At 5, you’re walking down the street, and you see a cute girl you know and you start talking. She says, you busy? Want to come back to my place and order some food and watch a movie? And you say, yeah why not? And you go with her.

God waited for you, but you chose someone or something else over God. It’s not that you showed up drunk and God got mad and left. You just plain didn’t show up, even when God got there early and stayed late. It’s not that you didn’t show up the first day but then showed up when He gave you a second chance. You just. didn’t. show up. He left, not dejected, but mourning your decision to choose debauchery over eternal bliss. It’s your loss, really. And your choice, too.

It’s not about being God, it’s about meeting God. And we all will be a little bit like our parents, though they love us no matter what.

Except if this metaphor really conformed to Catholic teaching, the sinner would choose something else over God for ~70 years and then God would refuse to meet him for the rest of time.

 

[TedDC]

I do agree that the idea seems a little silly and odd, but I still find it somewhat troubling.

The idea that God decided to make people, with His greatest hope being that they would be just like He is, just strikes me as rather pointless. Real happiness is a world of unending sameness?

Except if this metaphor really conformed to Catholic teaching, the sinner would choose something else over God for ~70 years and then God would refuse to meet him for the rest of time.

And what’s more - according to Catholic teaching - the sinner would just once disobey a rule made by a man (claiming authority somehow inherited from Peter, the “unerring guidance of the Holy Spirit”, etc.), and then God would refuse to meet him for the rest of time.

 

[LilyM]

I do agree that the idea seems a little silly and odd, but I still find it somewhat troubling.

The idea that God decided to make people, with His greatest hope being that they would be just like He is, just strikes me as rather pointless. Real happiness is a world of unending sameness?

Even the most cursory research into the lives of a small sample of the 10,000 canonised Saints who the Church recognises as having achieved the fullness of ‘real happiness’, should reveal that there is infinite variety in the Father’s house, not unending sameness.

The Saints are emphatically not cookie-cutter models. They may be alike in a certain number of essentials, but there is more than enough variety to reassure anyone that being saintly, and being in Heaven, is anything but ‘unending sameness’.

 

[erigby27]

And what’s more - according to Catholic teaching - the sinner would just once disobey a rule made by a man (claiming authority somehow inherited from Peter, the “unerring guidance of the Holy Spirit”, etc.), and then God would refuse to meet him for the rest of time.

I’m not sure what Catholic teaching you two are reading. It doesn’t matter how many times I sin, God never refuses to meet me until I’m dead. It is I who refuse to meet Him. The Church doesn’t teach anything different than that. Can someone Catholic correct me if I’m wrong?

Even the most cursory research into the lives of a small sample of the 10,000 canonised Saints who the Church recognises as having achieved the fullness of ‘real happiness’, should reveal that there is infinite variety in the Father’s house, not unending sameness.

The Saints are emphatically not cookie-cutter models. They may be alike in a certain number of essentials, but there is more than enough variety to reassure anyone that being saintly, and being in Heaven, is anything but ‘unending sameness’.

Quite right, Lily. Thank you. My father’s house has many rooms . Furthermore, most of the Saints disobeyed God many more times than once, and often for a great deal of time (St. Augustine, anyone?), and He didn’t refuse to meet any of them.

 

[jmcrae]

I do agree that the idea seems a little silly and odd, but I still find it somewhat troubling.

The idea that God decided to make people, with His greatest hope being that they would be just like He is, just strikes me as rather pointless. Real happiness is a world of unending sameness?

Where are you getting this idea from?

First, your individuality was given to you by God. He wants you to be unique - He created you that way. There are all kinds of wonderful things you can do, that don’t involve any kind of sin - paint pictures, play with children, make music, sing, invent stuff, or whatever.

God wants each of us to add our talents to the world that He has created. He’s not asking us all to be the same. He’s asking us to be without sin.

Those are two completely different concepts.

One person can be a painter, and another person cam be a mathematician, and a third person can be an accountant, without any of them committing any sin. Each person brings his or her own uniqueness to the world, without going against any of God’s laws.

In fact, it’s the sinners who seem to all be cookie-cutter copies of each other - they all go out at the same time to smoke, and to drink, and to fight, and to commit fornication, etc., and they all do these things in pretty much the same way as each other. Sin isn’t a creative act. (And in fact, most people get involved in sin because they want to “be like everyone else” and not be “too holy for my friends” because that would be too “different.”

Except if this metaphor really conformed to Catholic teaching, the sinner would choose something else over God for ~70 years and then God would refuse to meet him for the rest of time.

When we die, we lose our ability to make decisions. The last decision you make - for or against God - is cast in amber, and remains forever the same. That’s why those in Heaven can never choose against God, and why those in Hell can never choose for God.

 

[curlycool89]

I’m not sure what Catholic teaching you two are reading. It doesn’t matter how many times I sin, God never refuses to meet me until I’m dead. It is I who refuse to meet Him. The Church doesn’t teach anything different than that. Can someone Catholic correct me if I’m wrong?

Exactly. You get 1 life here on earth to ultimately make that choice. You get ~70 years (or whatever it ends up being) to make the choice, and not a second more. You can’t just put it off and put it off. You don’t get to complain about that being “not fair” because you have your whole life to choose.

The Biblical proof is in Luke 16:19-31.

 

[aperture]

Exactly. You get 1 life here on earth to ultimately make that choice. You get ~70 years (or whatever it ends up being) to make the choice, and not a second more. You can’t just put it off and put it off. You don’t get to complain about that being “not fair” because you have your whole life to choose.

The Biblical proof is in Luke 16:19-31.

This is a big point of contention for me, the idea that one’s status at death determines one’s status for all eternity. That free will is taken away in a biological event.

Why? Because I’ve read about many saints - St. Augustine is a good example - who led decidedly sinful lives and finally repented. Yet according to Catholic theology, had St. Augustine been struck by lightning in his early life, he would have gone to hell, and never had a chance to repent.

To be honest, this resonates so much for me because I think it’s similar to my situation. I’m 18, and I have bounced between atheism and Catholicism for some time now. For a few months I will feel as though I have a strong connection with God, and then doubts will creep in, and soon that “connection” feels empty and hypocritical; like it’s some self-comfort my unconscious fabricated. And then I turn to atheism, and at some point in that I might read a graphic description of hell or really think about what never existing again (the Atheist death) means, and be frightened back into Catholicism.

I’ll put it this way: have you ever seen a tightly-contested football game, in which both teams score every time they have the ball, and the game simply comes down to whoever has possession last? I feel like that’s how my life is going, that my eternal fate will be determined by the period - the months I’m an atheist or the months I’m a Catholic - in which I die. And that seems pretty wrong indeed

 

[jmcrae]

This is a big point of contention for me, the idea that one’s status at death determines one’s status for all eternity. That free will is taken away in a biological event.

Why? Because I’ve read about many saints - St. Augustine is a good example - who led decidedly sinful lives and finally repented. Yet according to Catholic theology, had St. Augustine been struck by lightning in his early life, he would have gone to hell, and never had a chance to repent.

To be honest, this resonates so much for me because I think it’s similar to my situation. I’m 18, and I have bounced between atheism and Catholicism for some time now. For a few months I will feel as though I have a strong connection with God, and then doubts will creep in, and soon that “connection” feels empty and hypocritical; like it’s some self-comfort my unconscious fabricated. And then I turn to atheism, and at some point in that I might read a graphic description of hell or really think about what never existing again (the Atheist death) means, and be frightened back into Catholicism.

I’ll put it this way: have you ever seen a tightly-contested football game, in which both teams score every time they have the ball, and the game simply comes down to whoever has possession last? I feel like that’s how my life is going, that my eternal fate will be determined by the period - the months I’m an atheist or the months I’m a Catholic - in which I die. And that seems pretty wrong indeed

At some point in the very near future, you will find that, in order to get on with the tasks of living your life, such as finding a girlfriend, finishing school, finding a job, getting married, having kids, doing your work, etc., you are going to fall on either one or the other side of the fence.

Most people choose long before death which side they are on, and they just stay there until they die, because other things are taking up their attention, and they don’t have time for the sort of anxious self-absorption that goes on during adolescence. Not that there’s anything wrong with that - it’s perfectly normal.

My advice to you would be simply to choose the Catholic side, schedule your calendar as a Catholic man does (Mass on Sundays, and KofC on whatever day it is at your parish) and be determined to do what Catholic men are supposed to do, without worrying too much about how you feel about it at any given moment.

Feelings are deceptive - they can be caused by all kinds of things - you might feel good about your faith simply because the sun is shining, and you might feel anxious about things, simply because the house needs to be tidied up. Take note of your feelings and do what you can to fix anything that might be wrong (such as tidying the house) but don’t let them rule over your soul or over your mind.

 

[TedDC]

This is a big point of contention for me, the idea that one’s status at death determines one’s status for all eternity. That free will is taken away in a biological event.

Why? Because I’ve read about many saints - St. Augustine is a good example - who led decidedly sinful lives and finally repented. Yet according to Catholic theology, had St. Augustine been struck by lightning in his early life, he would have gone to hell, and never had a chance to repent.

To be honest, this resonates so much for me because I think it’s similar to my situation. I’m 18, and I have bounced between atheism and Catholicism for some time now. For a few months I will feel as though I have a strong connection with God, and then doubts will creep in, and soon that “connection” feels empty and hypocritical; like it’s some self-comfort my unconscious fabricated. And then I turn to atheism, and at some point in that I might read a graphic description of hell or really think about what never existing again (the Atheist death) means, and be frightened back into Catholicism.

I’ll put it this way: have you ever seen a tightly-contested football game, in which both teams score every time they have the ball, and the game simply comes down to whoever has possession last? I feel like that’s how my life is going, that my eternal fate will be determined by the period - the months I’m an atheist or the months I’m a Catholic - in which I die. And that seems pretty wrong indeed

I just wanted to point out that there’s huge middle ground between Catholicism (or any other faith with a rigidly-defined set of doctrines) and atheism.

I left Catholicism because I realized, upon careful reflection, that I just didn’t believe many of its tenets - including the particular one that’s troubling you. But I never stopped believing that God exists and that He wants us to do good in the world. Much of Catholicism isn’t credible to me, but neither is atheism. For one thing, I’ve never seen a satisfactory answer to the simple question of how the world could have been created without the action of some higher power.

 

[aperture]

I just wanted to point out that there’s huge middle ground between Catholicism (or any other faith with a rigidly-defined set of doctrines) and atheism.

I left Catholicism because I realized, upon careful reflection, that I just didn’t believe many of its tenets - including the particular one that’s troubling you. But I never stopped believing that God exists and that He wants us to do good in the world. Much of Catholicism isn’t credible to me, but neither is atheism. For one thing, I’ve never seen a satisfactory answer to the simple question of how the world could have been created without the action of some higher power.

Reading that, I think I should probably amend my previous statement. I do sometimes swing to atheism, but most of my time outside the Catholic Church, these days, is spent more along the lines of deism/a less personal God.

 

[curlycool89]

This is a big point of contention for me, the idea that one’s status at death determines one’s status for all eternity. That free will is taken away in a biological event.

Ok, I guess it’s time to throw some theology around then. I got this from a theology class taught by a canonist priest.

Everything is related to original sin of our first parents Adam and Eve, the eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If Adam and Eve would have stayed faithful, then God probably would have given them that knowledge anyway. Death entered the world through original sin.

This is completely contrasted by the new Adam, Jesus Christ. He is who Adam should have been had he not sinned. Because of the sacrifice of the unblemished paschal lamb, Jesus, we can now enter paradise and eternal life. Although God would have probably granted us all eternal life immediately it were not for original sin, instead we are reborn into eternal life through death in this life. Therefore if you are with God at death then you may enter into eternal happiness with God, otherwise you cannot.

What exactly do you want, an eternity to decide? I would say that death is most natural time for the decision to happen. Our bodies die, but our souls live on and go to the Father if we are with God. It’s simply unfounded to suggest that our souls go to some “other life” where we then make the choice.

 

[TedDC]

Ok, I guess it’s time to throw some theology around then. I got this from a theology class taught by a canonist priest.

Everything is related to original sin of our first parents Adam and Eve, the eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If Adam and Eve would have stayed faithful, then God probably would have given them that knowledge anyway. Death entered the world through original sin.

This is completely contrasted by the new Adam, Jesus Christ. He is who Adam should have been had he not sinned. Because of the sacrifice of the unblemished paschal lamb, Jesus, we can now enter paradise and eternal life. Although God would have probably granted us all eternal life immediately it were not for original sin, instead we are reborn into eternal life through death in this life. Therefore if you are with God at death then you may enter into eternal happiness with God, otherwise you cannot.

What exactly do you want, an eternity to decide? I would say that death is most natural time for the decision to happen. Our bodies die, but our souls live on and go to the Father if we are with God. It’s simply unfounded to suggest that our souls go to some “other life” where we then make the choice.

I think what many of us find dubious is the idea that one unrepented sinful act prior to death would negate an otherwise virtuous life and send a person to hell.

 

[curlycool89]

I think what many of us find dubious is the idea that one unrepented sinful act prior to death would negate an otherwise virtuous life and send a person to hell.

Why?

 

[TedDC]

Why?

Because it defies reason by effectively rendering the totality of one’s life meaningless, reducing it to just one final act. Why would God give us numerous opportunities in life to choose good or evil, if a single bad choice at the end negates everything else?