H
Hellisreal
Guest
HE IS OUR LOVING FATHER
and when you as a loving father see your children dying what is that?
Define it?
God was on the Holy Cross INJURED
Think about that
- Status
and when you as a loving father see your children dying what is that?
Define it?
God was on the Holy Cross INJURED
Think about that
M
Montalban
Guest
I’ve not called you anything. I may have implied something - based on your own admissions, but then you can’t tell the difference between projection and a staw-man
I knew your dogs weren’t barking.
You certainly haven’t argued ‘catholic’, you’ve not deal with the evidence I’ve presented
Ouch! All I want from you is more than piles of indigation!
T
tdgesq
Guest
Just answer the question please: Do our sins sadden God?
M
Montalban
Guest
I have, and you keep saying God’s not perfect - by implication of these things.
M
Montalban
Guest
Well for Orthodox we want to be God. That’s theosis, or deification.
We want to be God, we don’t want to have a ledger of good deeds and bad deeds and have these measured - and if we’ve got too much bad deeds we’re made to be punished for it (purgatory).
This itself suggests God needs to be satisifed. Why he doesn’t just forgive you if you ask for it, I don’t know
M
Montalban
Guest
I thought I did answer the question. God is perfect. He’s not turned to saddness because of our sins. That would suggest we have a power over God -to affect him
T
tdgesq
Guest
So then God is not saddened by our sins. It’s a simple question. Yes or no.
M
Montalban
Guest
Obvioulsy me saying we can’t affect God is too descriptive an answer for you.
How about this then,
NO
Hope that’s clear enough for you!
M
Montalban
Guest
tdgesq if you believe you can make God sad then you’re greater than I am - because you can cause God to change His state (to being sad).
Isn’t this blasphemy?
Isn’t this blasphemy?
S
silentdeb
Guest
Why would we have the sacraments if we did not need something?
Of course we need it.
Its freely given by God to us (believers)
Yet, we also can not simply ignore this gift- and not want to open it up.
We are told what we can and cannot do and what pleases Him.
We are also told He Loves Us, and its not a one way street.
We must return this love
And we know that we can, He has given us every possible means to do this.
And yes, we are required to do these things, we ought to out of pure love, but God will even take the one who does it out of fear too.
He takes us as we are, but is not a Hippie God, that says ANYTHING GOES.
You can do what you want and you have nothing required of you.
heck, even atheists follow the golden rule.
What sets us apart, or set aside for Him?
That was beautiful!! Thank you, you so it so much more eloquently than I could! :hug1:
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Is this scriptural?For Catholics its part of punishment to rectify an injury done to God.
It’s all very legalistic. God’s the judge as well as the plaintiff and he demands satisfaction.
He *requires *it
Isn’t legalism a path to eternal death?
T
tdgesq
Guest
You mean yes, God is not saddened by our sins. Here you go:Obvioulsy me saying we can’t affect God is too descriptive an answer for you.
How about this then,
NO
Hope that’s clear enough for you!
5 The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, “I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD. Genesis 6.
You lose again Montalban.
T
tdgesq
Guest
What you’ve been given is a caricature by a non-Catholic of the Catholic position. We believe that the relationship between God and man is a familial one, not a legal one. That is not to say that there aren’t any rules we are required to follow. What I find very strange is that an Orthodox poster would deny that our free choices can invoke a response of sadness, anger or frustration from God. I think he’s out on his own on this one.
M
Montalban
Guest
Hey, and in the OT we’re not allowed to eat pork - relevance to now - nil. Why? We’ve a better understanding of God
You’re into point-scoring!
Rather than do that, try thinking about the implications of believing that you can affect change in God.
M
Montalban
Guest
What you’re now doing is presenting a counter-argument that’s nothing more than a just-so, which is also based on a very flawed and ill-thought out idea of God.
Try slowly to think about the implications about the nature of God if God can be affected to change by us.
Or, just try to think!
What you’re doing here is saying that God is less than perfect because he can change. And you’re saying that we’re greater than he, because we can cause him to change.
M
Montalban
Guest
What’s worse is there’s a person here blaspheming against God by saying that God’s not perfect and that he himself is so powerful as to change God in his state - to being saddened.
The problem stems from a total misunderstanding of Scriptural language. When we speak of God being angered, that’s simply our attempt to describe how we’ve separated ourselves from God.
God does not ‘become angry’, for God does not change. He is
tdgesq’s so keen to make cheap points that he’s failed to understand the nature of God.
T
tdgesq
Guest
So now you are going to compare a dietary law imposed upon the Jews to the nature of God as expressed in the Old Testament scriptures? Jesus no longer required these artificial requirements under the new covenant, he didn’t say that the Old Testament prophets were wrong that God became angry or sad with Israel and heaped punishments upon them as a result. Quite to the contrary:
29Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. 30And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Ephesians 4.
Some interpretations use word “sadden” rather than “grieve.”
32When Mary reached the place where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and said, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.”
33When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled. 34"Where have you laid him?" he asked.
“Come and see, Lord,” they replied.
35Jesus wept.
36Then the Jews said, “See how he loved him!”
37But some of them said, “Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?” John 11.
Why was Jesus troubled and why did he weep? It doesn’t really matter, because nothing that happens on Earth should sadden God as it would be something that changes him according to you. But what is apparent is that he is troubled by their lack of faith that simply because Lazarus died that Jesus couldn’t raise him. Even after he did it some of the Jews muttered among themselves why he couldn’t have kept Lazarus from dying in the first place.
God’s wrath and anger over man’s sins are referenced repeatedly in Romans.
You are way out in left field on this one.
M
Montalban
Guest
It’s to state that what was understood then is not as now.
And you think you’re greater than God!
Nothing you have done has addressed the limitations of language - or the absolute sense that you’re greater than God by virtue that you think you can literally affect him.
Sevral times I’ve tried/urged you to think about the consequences of such a position.
All you do is throw scripture back - literally interpreting, and attempting a *sola scriptura *argument to boot
M
Montalban
Guest
Ex. 20:5
You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
For you, God literally gets jealous. You think God who is ‘perfect’ would desire to be like something else, or feel ‘pressured’ by something else?
:whacky:
Moslems follow a jealous, conniving being. And, so do you!
T
tdgesq
Guest
The only blasphemy here is you trying to change God’s attributes from what is revealed to us in Scripture. I suppose God could choose not become sad or angry at any or our actions, but he does. It is ultimately His will that prevails on these matters. Your idea of perfection is not God’s. You don’t get to decide whether or not his his self-chosen nature meets your standards of perfection.
Where are you getting this? Was the flood that covered the Earth in response to anything man did or not? Put aside for a moment the question of whether he was angry with the sins of humanity. It appears that God must have changed because he dealt out punishment to man based upon something they did or didn’t do.
Yes He is and has certain attributes divinely revealed to us that you don’t get to change. If you want to say that God was timelessly angry or sad at those sins of mankind that he foreknew would occur, fine. That you can’t reconcile these two things is astonishing in light of the fact that God became man and you don’t seem to have any problem with that.
Let’s examine what’s really going on here. You came onto this thread like shot out of a cannon accusing Catholics that God “needs” something from us because we believe he requires penance. You either misunderstood or ignored the reality that what is required of us is not needed by God, it’s needed by us. When your error was pointed out you didn’t have anyplace to go other than to hang on to a single sentence out of the Catholic Encyclopedia you cited during the discussion that claimed we can injure God by our actions. In order that Catholics be wrong about something here (totally different than what you accused us of at the outset) you’ve taken the untenable position that because God can be angry or sad at our actions means that we can change Him. It’s easy to score points against someone who is not only wrong, but too proud to admit when he’s made a mistake.
- Status