Does god hate science, are doctors going to hell?

[buffalo]

CHAPTER TWO
THE SACRAMENTS OF HEALING
ARTICLE 5
THE ANOINTING OF THE SICK
1499 "By the sacred anointing of the sick and the prayer of the priests the whole Church commends those who are ill to the suffering and glorified Lord, that he may raise them up and save them. And indeed she exhorts them to contribute to the good of the People of God by freely uniting themselves to the Passion and death of Christ."98
I. ITS FOUNDATIONS IN THE ECONOMY OF SALVATION
Illness in human life
1500 Illness and suffering have always been among the gravest problems confronted in human life. In illness, man experiences his powerlessness, his limitations, and his finitude. Every illness can make us glimpse death.
1501 Illness can lead to anguish, self-absorption, sometimes even despair and revolt against God. It can also make a person more mature, helping him discern in his life what is not essential so that he can turn toward that which is. Very often illness provokes a search for God and a return to him.
The sick person before God
1502 The man of the Old Testament lives his sickness in the presence of God. It is before God that he laments his illness, and it is of God, Master of life and death, that he implores healing.99 Illness becomes a way to conversion; God’s forgiveness initiates the healing.100 It is the experience of Israel that illness is mysteriously linked to sin and evil, and that faithfulness to God according to his law restores life: "For I am the Lord, your healer."101 The prophet intuits that suffering can also have a redemptive meaning for the sins of others.102 Finally Isaiah announces that God will usher in a time for Zion when he will pardon every offense and heal every illness.103
Christ the physician
1503 Christ’s compassion toward the sick and his many healings of every kind of infirmity are a resplendent sign that "God has visited his people"104 and that the Kingdom of God is close at hand. Jesus has the power not only to heal, but also to forgive sins;105 he has come to heal the whole man, soul and body; he is the physician the sick have need of.106 His compassion toward all who suffer goes so far that he identifies himself with them: "I was sick and you visited me."107 His preferential love for the sick has not ceased through the centuries to draw the very special attention of Christians toward all those who suffer in body and soul. It is the source of tireless efforts to comfort them.
1504 Often Jesus asks the sick to believe.108 He makes use of signs to heal: spittle and the laying on of hands,109 mud and washing.110 The sick try to touch him, "for power came forth from him and healed them all."111 And so in the sacraments Christ continues to “touch” us in order to heal us.
1505 Moved by so much suffering Christ not only allows himself to be touched by the sick, but he makes their miseries his own: “He took our infirmities and bore our diseases.”.112 But he did not heal all the sick. His healings were signs of the coming of the Kingdom of God. They announced a more radical healing: the victory over sin and death through his Passover. On the cross Christ took upon himself the whole weight of evil and took away the “sin of the world,”.113 of which illness is only a consequence. By his passion and death on the cross Christ has given a new meaning to suffering: it can henceforth configure us to him and unite us with his redemptive Passion.
"Heal the sick . . ."
1506 Christ invites his disciples to follow him by taking up their cross in their turn…114 By following him they acquire a new outlook on illness and the sick. Jesus associates them with his own life of poverty and service. He makes them share in his ministry of compassion and healing: “So they went out and preached that men should repent. And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them.”.115
http://javascript<b></b>:openWindow('cr/1507.htm');

 

[buffalo]

1507 The risen Lord renews this mission ("In my name . . . they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover."116) and confirms it through the signs that the Church performs by invoking his name.117 These signs demonstrate in a special way that Jesus is truly "God who saves."118
1508 The Holy Spirit gives to some a special charism of healing119 so as to make manifest the power of the grace of the risen Lord. But even the most intense prayers do not always obtain the healing of all illnesses. Thus St. Paul must learn from the Lord that “my grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness,” and that the sufferings to be endured can mean that "in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his Body, that is, the Church."120
1509 "Heal the sick!"121 The Church has received this charge from the Lord and strives to carry it out by taking care of the sick as well as by accompanying them with her prayer of intercession. She believes in the life-giving presence of Christ, the physician of souls and bodies. This presence is particularly active through the sacraments, and in an altogether special way through the Eucharist, the bread that gives eternal life and that St. Paul suggests is connected with bodily health.122
1510 However, the apostolic Church has its own rite for the sick, attested to by St. James: "Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders presbyters] of the Church and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven."123 Tradition has recognized in this rite one of the seven sacraments.124
A sacrament of the sick
1511 The Church believes and confesses that among the seven sacraments there is one especially intended to strengthen those who are being tried by illness, the Anointing of the Sick:

This sacred anointing of the sick was instituted by Christ our Lord as a true and proper sacrament of the New Testament. It is alluded to indeed by Mark, but is recommended to the faithful and promulgated by James the apostle and brother of the Lord.125 1512 From ancient times in the liturgical traditions of both East and West, we have testimonies to the practice of anointings of the sick with blessed oil. Over the centuries the Anointing of the Sick was conferred more and more exclusively on those at the point of death. Because of this it received the name “Extreme Unction.” Notwithstanding this evolution the liturgy has never failed to beg the Lord that the sick person may recover his health if it would be conducive to his salvation.126
1513 The Apostolic Constitution Sacram unctionem infirmorum,127 following upon the Second Vatican Council,128 established that henceforth, in the Roman Rite, the following be observed:

The sacrament of Anointing of the Sick is given to those who are seriously ill by anointing them on the forehead and hands with duly blessed oil - pressed from olives or from other plants - saying, only once: "Through this holy anointing may the Lord in his love and mercy help you with the grace of the Holy Spirit. May the Lord who frees you from sin save you and raise you up."129

 

[R_Daneel]

Are you suggesting that God should not respect our own ability to choose and to use our rational abilities?

Of course! That is **precisely **what we do when we encounter criminals. We put them in jail, where we take away their freedom to commit more crimes. They are perfectly free to repent, to make amends, but they are not free to make any more “mischief”. What is so astonishing about that??? The only difference that should be there is that God is supposedly able to foresee and prevent even the first one. He does not have to wait for the “starting” offense, unlike we have to. If he does not do it, he becomes accessory to all the crimes those criminals commit - equally guilty to them.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Does he hate humans for inventing cures which save the dammed? I mean if god says your time is your time who are we mere humans to go and invent penicillin?

The answer is no. So what is your point?

{but don’t confuse doctors with scientists… there is a huge difference)

 

[bpbasilphx]

\God cursed the creation (if one takes the story in a literal fashion), did not just issue a friendly warning. The creation did not get affected directly by the deed, rather the deed triggered the response from God - and that response was a curse.\

**** W * R * O * N * G * !!!*

If you were to read the passage for yourself, you would see that God did NOT curse anything.

God merely said that the ground was cursed because of Adam and Eve’s actions. THEY were the ones who had unleashed the curse.

BTW–are all the light sockets in YOUR house covered?**

 

[AlbertBall]

\God cursed the creation (if one takes the story in a literal fashion), did not just issue a friendly warning. The creation did not get affected directly by the deed, rather the deed triggered the response from God - and that response was a curse.\

**** W * R * O * N * G * !!!***

If you were to read the passage for yourself, you would see that God did NOT curse anything.

God merely said that the ground was cursed because of Adam and Eve’s actions. THEY were the ones who had unleashed the curse.

BTW–are all the light sockets in YOUR house covered?

Even if they were it was god choose to hand down the curse from generation to generation.

No they are not covered, they do however have lights in them?

 

[R_Daneel]

\God cursed the creation (if one takes the story in a literal fashion), did not just issue a friendly warning. The creation did not get affected directly by the deed, rather the deed triggered the response from God - and that response was a curse.\

• W * R * O * N * G * !!!

If you were to read the passage for yourself, you would see that God did NOT curse anything.

God merely said that the ground was cursed because of Adam and Eve’s actions. THEY were the ones who had unleashed the curse.

BTW–are all the light sockets in YOUR house covered?

Stop the shouting, please. What the heck does it mean: “they unleashed the curse?” A “curse” is not unleashed - it is uttered. And, no, the sockets are not covered, but I don’t have a small child in my house.

 

[lumenorientale]

. What the heck does it mean: “they unleashed the curse?” A “curse” is not unleashed - it is uttered.

Your definition is the utterance of the the words, however ours would be the actual situation that arose in response to Adam and Eve’s sin. Perhaps that is why we feel as if we are talking past each other. The reason that their sin cursed them, and not God, is because in God there is no sin. Therefore, whatever is not of God, whatever is against Him, whatever is outside His will is accursed. God is all goodness, so sin can be nowhere near Him. So, sin would really be the utterance of a curse, while death and misery would be the situation that arose from it. Do you see what I mean? If I’m not being clear enough, please ask me to clear it up, and I will do the best I can–given that I’m no theologian, I might have to ask those here to step in.

As in the passage: “Cursed be the ground because of you.” Man’s sin was the word/action that caused the ground to be cursed.

(disclaimer: Now, I’m not a believer in the “young earth.” How the Fall actually happened, I can’t say, but I believe the Genesis story is a condensed version of it.)

 

[R_Daneel]

Your definition is the utterance of the the words, however ours would be the actual situation that arose in response to Adam and Eve’s sin. Perhaps that is why we feel as if we are talking past each other. The reason that their sin cursed them, and not God, is because in God there is no sin. Therefore, whatever is not of God, whatever is against Him, whatever is outside His will is accursed. God is all goodness, so sin can be nowhere near Him. So, sin would really be the utterance of a curse, while death and misery would be the situation that arose from it. Do you see what I mean? If I’m not being clear enough, please ask me to clear it up, and I will do the best I can–given that I’m no theologian, I might have to ask those here to step in.

As in the passage: “Cursed be the ground because of you.” Man’s sin was the word/action that caused the ground to be cursed.

(disclaimer: Now, I’m not a believer in the “young earth.” How the Fall actually happened, I can’t say, but I believe the Genesis story is a condensed version of it.)

There was no TV crew to record that event, was there? Do we argue about some translation of some hypothetically uttered words? The point was that a loving, caring parent (or person) does not allow someone to place himself into mortal peril just by issuing a “warning” and allowing the event to happen. That is not what “love” means. Love is active involvement, and - if necessary - overriding the free will of the loved one - for his own sake. Of course it is even better to evade active involvement by preventing the situation where loved one would be placed into mortal danger - as in surrounding that “tree” by the Cherubs wielding flaming swords before the hypothetical Adam and Eve could be transgressing the command. No BS, no “original sin”, and everyone lives happily ever after. That **would **be love…

But if you wish to contemplate that actual words, see “cursed **BE **the ground…” is a clear indication that God cursed the ground. And if you really want to dig into the meaning of those passages, here is a tidbit to ponder. **Before **the act of disobedience, Adam did not know good from evil (that was the **result **of tasting the forbidden fruit) therefore he was innocent of malice. He might have disobeyed the command, but his act was like that of a child, not knowing what he did. And no loving parent would punish a child for an innocent act of disobedience. However God banished him, which is as unreasonable and cruel as they come - not to mention that God extended the punishment to all the innocent progeny - to us - which adds insult to injury. Of all the passages of the Bible, Genesis is the most revolting one - to me, of course. But this could be contemplated in another thread, I suppose.

 

[lumenorientale]

There was no TV crew to record that event, was there? Do we argue about some translation of some hypothetically uttered words? The point was that a loving, caring parent (or person) does not allow someone to place himself into mortal peril just by issuing a “warning” and allowing the event to happen. That is not what “love” means. Love is active involvement, and - if necessary - overriding the free will of the loved one - for his own sake. Of course it is even better to evade active involvement by preventing the situation where loved one would be placed into mortal danger - as in surrounding that “tree” by the Cherubs wielding flaming swords before the hypothetical Adam and Eve could be transgressing the command. No BS, no “original sin”, and everyone lives happily ever after. That **would **be love…

But if you wish to contemplate that actual words, see “cursed **BE **the ground…” is a clear indication that God cursed the ground. And if you really want to dig into the meaning of those passages, here is a tidbit to ponder. **Before **the act of disobedience, Adam did not know good from evil (that was the **result **of tasting the forbidden fruit) therefore he was innocent of malice. He might have disobeyed the command, but his act was like that of a child, not knowing what he did. And no loving parent would punish a child for an innocent act of disobedience. However God banished him, which is as unreasonable and cruel as they come - not to mention that God extended the punishment to all the innocent progeny - to us - which adds insult to injury. Of all the passages of the Bible, Genesis is the most revolting one - to me, of course. But this could be contemplated in another thread, I suppose.

Perhaps the best way to describe it, in my mind, is that of a parent of a grown child who had chosen to get into drugs. The parent can do all in his power to the discourage this, calling the police, trying intervention after intervention. But in the end, unless the drug addict wants to change, he will not–even if it leads to his death. Very little can be done by the parent, and in no way can the parent override the free will of the child. It just can’t physically be done.

And that is how God works–He warns us, He discourages us not to do something, He allows the natural consequences of our behavior to happen. If He didn’t allow that to happen, He’d be nothing more than an enabler to the drug addict.

And was Adam unknowingly eating of the fruit? No, God said “you’re going to die if you do that.” And Adam knew what death meant. He wasn’t completely like an infant. Just like a drug addict knows what death is. Even a little child has a vague idea of what death means.

I don’t believe that “love” is overriding the free will of someone. That is enslavement. God can be actively involved in our lives without taking away our freedom. In fact, He wants us to be free to choose Him, and to freely serve one another.

And are we completely that innocent? Maybe at birth, but it certainly doesn’t take very long for us to not be so innocent anymore.

Possibly another thread would be best, I’d hate to completely derail this one. I think the Sacred Scripture subforum would be the place. There are many there who could more adequately explain this, as I’ve said, I’m not theologian.

You seem rather angry, I apologize if I provoked you in some way. Sometimes we all send the wrong message online.

 

[Marfran]

Given that after the fall of man god introduced suffering, i.e. infectious bacteria, viruses. Given it knew even if at first they were not deadly, that they would evolve to be. Does he hate humans for inventing cures which save the dammed? I mean if god says your time is your time who are we mear humans to go and invent penicillin?

In short, no.

The universe was created for man and its intelligibility make for good science. It is mans faulty reasoning of his observations that are an issue.

Medical advances are good.

God is the author of science. Medical advances are not always good or should be pursued. We must exercise science responsibly. (Frankenstein good?? Or bad idea???) I don’t think the point of living on earth is about circumventing death and figuring out how to live here forever…

As we progress technologically life becomes physically easier but we are presented with new ethical and spiritual challenges. Do we create “designer” babies, etc???

Science is wonderful, but what we do with it may be up for debate.

 

[R_Daneel]

Perhaps the best way to describe it, in my mind, is that of a parent of a grown child who had chosen to get into drugs. The parent can do all in his power to the discourage this, calling the police, trying intervention after intervention. But in the end, unless the drug addict wants to change, he will not–even if it leads to his death. Very little can be done by the parent, and in no way can the parent override the free will of the child. It just can’t physically be done.

The parent does not have the **power **to change the child’s attitude. God would have this ability. If the parent could do the same, he would - since he loves the child. If the parent would have the power, and still would not do anything, he could not be called “loving”.

And was Adam unknowingly eating of the fruit? No, God said “you’re going to die if you do that.” And Adam knew what death meant. He wasn’t completely like an infant. Just like a drug addict knows what death is. Even a little child has a vague idea of what death means.

Not according to the usual interpretation, which asserts that “death” was also introduced into the world as the result of the original sin. But my point was that not being able to tell good apart from evil the “sin” of disobedience was not a malicious act, it stemmed from ignorance, or maybe stupidity. None of those merit the harsh response Genesis describes.

I don’t believe that “love” is overriding the free will of someone. That is enslavement. God can be actively involved in our lives without taking away our freedom. In fact, He wants us to be free to choose Him, and to freely serve one another.

I did not say that love means **always **overriding the free will of others. Sometimes we must override the free will of others and it is the proper thing to do.

Possibly another thread would be best, I’d hate to completely derail this one. I think the Sacred Scripture subforum would be the place. There are many there who could more adequately explain this, as I’ve said, I’m not theologian.

Very true.

You seem rather angry, I apologize if I provoked you in some way. Sometimes we all send the wrong message online.

Why on Earth would I be “angry”? Your posts are pleasantly formed, they contain good points and your way of expressing them is courteous.

 

[lumenorientale]

The parent does not have the **power **to change the child’s attitude. God would have this ability. If the parent could do the same, he would - since he loves the child. If the parent would have the power, and still would not do anything, he could not be called “loving”.

God may have the ability to force a change in our attitudes, but that is not what He made us for. We are made to serve Him and love Him in complete freedom. As my point below, that is enslavement.

Not according to the usual interpretation, which asserts that “death” was also introduced into the world as the result of the original sin. But my point was that not being able to tell good apart from evil the “sin” of disobedience was not a malicious act, it stemmed from ignorance, or maybe stupidity. None of those merit the harsh response Genesis describes.

Death itself was introduced into the world. However, when God had the conversation with Adam, “don’t do that or you’re going to die,” there was nothing written of Adam showing any ignorance of what death actually is. Maybe he asked the question, “yeah, but what’s death, Lord?” And the Lord answered it. Or maybe, being face to face with God, that knowledge was already there. So Adam did have full knowledge of what would happen if he disobeyed God. My other point would be that if you were able to walk in the Garden with God, who is all Life and all Goodness, right in your face, how much greater is the sin of disobedience? You have it all right there, in front of you, and then the response is “meh, I’d rather eat that fruit.” God standing right there, and Adam chose even then to reject Him.

I did not say that love means **always **overriding the free will of others. Sometimes we must override the free will of others and it is the proper thing to do.

**Can we actually override the free will of adults that we love? Lock them up in jail for a crime they commit, it doesn’t actually override the free will, because they are only physically restrained from doing it again (of course, knowing our prison system as it stands, they could still get around to criminal behavior). Take the restraint away, they do it again. As above, where you spoke of being unable to change the attitudes of a person, this works the same way.

Now God can and does insert Himself into our lives, sending us warnings, guidance, and blessings through others. He does allow the natural consequences to catch up with us. But, we are not to be slaves to His Will. He allows the natural ebb and flow of life to change our attitudes, because it all points to Him, in the end. Well, at least, that’s what a Christian believes. And I understand if you don’t believe it. **

Very true.

**And here I go again, derailing the thread… Actually, I inserted myself into the discussion because my career places me in the center of the healthcare delivery system. My imperfect acts of compassion to my patients are not the sins that will land me in Hell. I believe God has inspired scientists down through the ages to help relieve the suffering of others. Even in scripture, it is written “God does not will that any sinner should die.” That I believe, is what contradicts the Christian Science belief system. Unfortunately, I can’t remember where that is in the Bible–I’ve forgotten a lot of things since the start of my career, as I only have so much space in my brain…lol. My mind is full of such things as the calculations of vasopressor drips, ventilator settings, pathophysiology, etc. **
Why on Earth would I be “angry”? Your posts are pleasantly formed, they contain good points and your way of expressing them is courteous.

Aw…thank you. It is my belief that no matter how passionate one is about an issue, it is no excuse to be rude. I actually wish we could recapture some of that politeness that people had in the days of yore.

 

[R_Daneel]

God may have the ability to force a change in our attitudes, but that is not what He made us for.

How can you possibly know that? And what does that have to do with what I said? If a parent loves his child, and has the ability to prevent or rectify a potentially lethal or destructive behavior of the child, and fails to do so, then he is “indifferent” (at best) and not “loving”. If the same does not apply to God, then “God’s love” is meaningless.

Death itself was introduced into the world. However, when God had the conversation with Adam, “don’t do that or you’re going to die,” there was nothing written of Adam showing any ignorance of what death actually is. Maybe he asked the question, “yeah, but what’s death, Lord?” And the Lord answered it. Or maybe, being face to face with God, that knowledge was already there. So Adam did have full knowledge of what would happen if he disobeyed God. My other point would be that if you were able to walk in the Garden with God, who is all Life and all Goodness, right in your face, how much greater is the sin of disobedience? You have it all right there, in front of you, and then the response is “meh, I’d rather eat that fruit.” God standing right there, and Adam chose even then to reject Him.

You were not there to record that conversation. And the Bible says nothing on the subject. If there is any evaluation, it must be based upon what is written.

Can we actually override the free will of adults that we love? Lock them up in jail for a crime they commit, it doesn’t actually override the free will, because they are only physically restrained from doing it again (of course, knowing our prison system as it stands, they could still get around to criminal behavior). Take the restraint away, they do it again. As above, where you spoke of being unable to change the attitudes of a person, this works the same way.

But that does not apply to God. And when we lock up the criminals it does not take their desires away, but it sure prevents (sometimes unsuccessfuly) their ability to carry out their desires. There is a thread about “free will”, where I described just what it is. You are welcome to join it. No need to derail this one any more than we already did.

Now God can and does insert Himself into our lives, sending us warnings, guidance, and blessings through others. He does allow the natural consequences to catch up with us. But, we are not to be slaves to His Will. He allows the natural ebb and flow of life to change our attitudes, because it all points to Him, in the end. Well, at least, that’s what a Christian believes. And I understand if you don’t believe it.

I don’t.

Aw…thank you. It is my belief that no matter how passionate one is about an issue, it is no excuse to be rude. I actually wish we could recapture some of that politeness that people had in the days of yore.

Well, these days are what we do with them. Staying respectful and polite is not gone. It is our job to keep it up. And that is what we are doing here.

 

[lumenorientale]

How can you possibly know that? And what does that have to do with what I said? If a parent loves his child, and has the ability to prevent or rectify a potentially lethal or destructive behavior of the child, and fails to do so, then he is “indifferent” (at best) and not “loving”. If the same does not apply to God, then “God’s love” is meaningless.

**I know this because of what the entirety of the Bible teaches. It’s inferred, by the fact the Christ did not force anyone to do anything. Inferred from Genesis to Revelation. Of course, I’m looking at it through different eyes. I also don’t see God as being indifferent simply because He will not override a person’s free will (ugh…derailing the thread again). He offers us plenty of opportunities to choose life, as opposed to death. What He won’t do is enslave us. He loves us nonetheless. **

You were not there to record that conversation. And the Bible says nothing on the subject. If there is any evaluation, it must be based upon what is written.

Of course I wasn’t there. But what wasn’t written down can be fairly important, as well. Nothing points to Adam’s ignorance of death. I’m not a biblical fundamentalist, particularly of the Creation story, so that allows me some lattitude to interpret the passages.

But that does not apply to God. And when we lock up the criminals it does not take their desires away, but it sure prevents (sometimes unsuccessfuly) their ability to carry out their desires. There is a thread about “free will”, where I described just what it is. You are welcome to join it. No need to derail this one any more than we already did.

And if God were to “lock up the sinners,” would it take their desires away? And just how long should their sentence be? And what sins would earn a “prison sentence,” and which ones the metaphorical “slap on the wrist?” And who decides? It sounds like a much harsher God than I worship, who allows each person a fair chance.
Where is the thread at? I’m having trouble locating it. I’m certainly not the best at navigating the Web.

Well, these days are what we do with them. Staying respectful and polite is not gone. It is our job to keep it up. And that is what we are doing here.

I say polite people of the world should unite, start a revolution! Also, to let you know, the impending doom of 3 days of 12 hour shifts is looming over me, so I may not be able to respond immediately to your posts, perhaps until Sunday. But I’m very much enjoying our conversation. I shall see you when I return to the land of the living.

 

[cassini]

Given that after the fall of man god introduced suffering, i.e. infectious bacteria, viruses. Given it knew even if at first they were not deadly, that they would evolve to be. Does he hate humans for inventing cures which save the dammed? I mean if god says your time is your time who are we mear humans to go and invent penicillin?

Hi Albert, still causing trouble and giving high blood pressure I see. Anyway I really do not have the time to read all posts you received on this thread so I may be repeating what others said.

First of all your question about ‘infectious bacteria, viruses’ suffering etc is one asked by many Catholics throughout time, questions even more ‘contradictory’ that this one too.
All I can say after a lifetime of such questions is that I now believe God created the world according to natural laws. Now God has control over all and sustains all by His will. Until the Fall, revelation tells us, God suspended many of these laws, and there was no decay or ageing, or death. After the Fall, when man rejected God’s protection, God removed these suspensions and allowed nature to succumb to ‘natural forces.’ So it was man who was responsible for natural forces acting on life, on weather, on topography, and of course individual and social behaviour. An no God doesn’t hate man for inventing cures. Oh and God doesn’t damn anyone He loves everyone, especially you. But He gave us free will to reject this love, and the more you reject it the more He loves you hoping you will love Him back. Hell is rejecting God’s love, which you now seem to do. But remember this, the more you taunt him, deny Him, joke at His expense, the more He will love you in return. Its not over till you die Albert.

Finally, I see others have copped on to your attempts to reason without God. There are many mysteries Catholics could debate but we look for truth, you seem to look for conflict. Finally, yes there are things that even we Catholics cannot explain. No doubt this is irrational to a noner but we think only that the reason is to save souls. Happy new year Albert.

 

[R_Daneel]

I know this because of what the entirety of the Bible teaches. It’s inferred, by the fact the Christ did not force anyone to do anything. Inferred from Genesis to Revelation. Of course, I’m looking at it through different eyes. I also don’t see God as being indifferent simply because He will not override a person’s free will (ugh…derailing the thread again). He offers us plenty of opportunities to choose life, as opposed to death. What He won’t do is enslave us. He loves us nonetheless.

That is the whole question. A love which does not manifest itself in actions is not love.

Of course I wasn’t there. But what wasn’t written down can be fairly important, as well. Nothing points to Adam’s ignorance of death. I’m not a biblical fundamentalist, particularly of the Creation story, so that allows me some lattitude to interpret the passages.

I do the same.

And if God were to “lock up the sinners,” would it take their desires away? And just how long should their sentence be? And what sins would earn a “prison sentence,” and which ones the metaphorical “slap on the wrist?” And who decides? It sounds like a much harsher God than I worship, who allows each person a fair chance.

“Locking up” is not a very effective way of dealing with the problem. I am sure you are familiar with the concept: “an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure”. The solution is obvious: the creation should have only contained Mary-lookalikes, people without sin, but with free will (not that I personally think that free will is a good idea, but that is a nother story). And that is all there is to it.

I say polite people of the world should unite, start a revolution! Also, to let you know, the impending doom of 3 days of 12 hour shifts is looming over me, so I may not be able to respond immediately to your posts, perhaps until Sunday. But I’m very much enjoying our conversation. I shall see you when I return to the land of the living.

I will be around. Happy New Year to you.

 

[lumenorientale]

That is the whole question. A love which does not manifest itself in actions is not love.

God is active. He is active through people. He wants us to be participators in His Will, not slaves to it. I understand you don’t believe this, and that is why we come at these questions with totally different world views. I see, or attempt to see, Jesus in everyone. He sends people into my life to tell me something, to bless me somehow, to teach me in some way. Yes, I even see Jesus in you. Yes, you. I don’t know what I’m giving to you, but this is what you are giving to me: a chance to step outside my comfort zone, and an opportunity to truly address these questions that are indeed valid questions. He always wants people to be outside their comfort zone–and mine is a withdrawal from people, from discussion, because I’m not a very social person. But you bless me in this way, you see, because you ask the questions, you make me think. I know God loves me because of you. And this is an example.

“Locking up” is not a very effective way of dealing with the problem. I am sure you are familiar with the concept: “an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure”. The solution is obvious: the creation should have only contained Mary-lookalikes, people without sin, but with free will (not that I personally think that free will is a good idea, but that is a nother story). And that is all there is to it.

The profound thing about Mary is that she CHOSE not to sin. She still had free will, and was conceived without sin. But she lived her life free of sin because of her active choice NOT to sin. If Adam had chosen the same, things would be different.

I will be around. Happy New Year to you.

And a Happy New Year to you. Hope you had a safe and good time.

 

[R_Daneel]

God is active. He is active through people. He wants us to be participators in His Will, not slaves to it. I understand you don’t believe this, and that is why we come at these questions with totally different world views. I see, or attempt to see, Jesus in everyone. He sends people into my life to tell me something, to bless me somehow, to teach me in some way. Yes, I even see Jesus in you. Yes, you. I don’t know what I’m giving to you, but this is what you are giving to me: a chance to step outside my comfort zone, and an opportunity to truly address these questions that are indeed valid questions. He always wants people to be outside their comfort zone–and mine is a withdrawal from people, from discussion, because I’m not a very social person. But you bless me in this way, you see, because you ask the questions, you make me think. I know God loves me because of you. And this is an example.

These are very kind words, thank you. As for the highlighted text, unfortunately that is just an assumption. And even if it were true, it would be “outsourcing” the needed help to some fallible human beings - and that would indicate laziness or simple indifference. Moreover, many times the other humans do not perform the needed help, and sometimes they are unable to do so. Even in these cases God definitely does not come out and actively help people. So I do not see that “loving” nature being manifested in actions.

Suppose I would see a homeless person, who needs help. Suppose, I could help him very easily. Suppose, I would not do it with the purpose to give someone else the opportunity to exercise “virtue” and perform the needed help. How would you charaterize my behavior? Would my behavior be labeled as “loving”? I doubt it. I would be viewed as a cold-hearted, lazy person without compassion - and rightfully so.

The profound thing about Mary is that she CHOSE not to sin. She still had free will, and was conceived without sin. But she lived her life free of sin because of her active choice NOT to sin. If Adam had chosen the same, things would be different.

But this is exactly my point. If Mary was purposefully created to be free and able to choose to live without sin, then everyone else could have been created in the same way - Adam, too. And, as you say, it would have been different. Now, you may say that Mary was “special” and God extended some special grace which helped her to choose to live like she did. Of course, God could have created everyone with the same special grace.

No matter how we twist it, God could have created a world with free will and without sin. Since that is the kind of world you guys assert God really wanted, and since he could have done it, the question arises: “why didn’t he do it?”. It simply makes no sense to posit a wise, intelligent, smart, powerful, good, benevolent creator, who wants something, who is able to do something and yet who does something totally different. It is this kind of contradiction (and this is but one of many) which makes the whole belief system impossible to accept as logical and rational. Looking from the “outside” I see an illogical, and irrational set of beliefs, where the basic assumptions contradict each other and they are contradicted by the actual world we all observe.

 

[tonyrey]

No matter how we twist it, God could have created a world with free will and without sin.

Free will is possible only if God shares His power with others. Power-sharing implies independence for all parties and the inability of one party to ensure that any particular decisions are made. The more parties there are the more improbable it becomes that they will all make the same decisions…