Does God require penance from us?

[tdgesq]

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.

As always, I have thought about it. You seriously don’t see the implications of what you’ve just said here. This goes far beyond whether or not God chooses to be sad or angry in response to us. It is now anything that we do to which God responds:

We pray to God and he answers. According to you, we changed God.

The pre-Israelite people sinned and God sent the flood. According to you, they changed God.

Israel sinned against God. God dealt them many punishments. According to you, they changed God.

Moses pleaded with God to spare His people wandering in the desert, and God did. Guess what, according to you, he changed God.

But you are wrong. God made the choice in all of these situations to respond to the sinfulness and merits of his people, and if he also chooses to be sad, angry or pleased with the situation, that’s His choice too. If fact, he foresaw all of this in advance. In none of these situations was God changed, regardless of whether he was angry, grieved, or pleased.

 

[tdgesq]

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?

Yes. Of course I choose to use the definition of jealousy (zealous guarding or vigilance) that the context requires rather than one that you know doesn’t apply. But hey, since when has the truth mattered?

Moslems follow a jealous, conniving being. And, so do you!

The fallacy of guilt by association, a species of ad hominem. I reject it.

It’s to state that what was understood then is not as now.

No, they understood the dietary restrictions quite well. They were removed after the coming of Christ just like animal sacrifice. Your complete and utter inability to respond to similar claims of God’s anger and sadness in the New Testament speak volumes about your argument here. First it was that the Old Testament prophets just didn’t understand. Now it’s that the New Testament writers didn’t either.

And you think you’re greater than God!

If you think God answers your prayers, then by your reasoning so do you.

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.

What am I supposed to address? You haven’t made any argument as to how we are to supposedly interpret statements about God being pleased, angered, grieved. Jesus wept at the unfaithfulness before him. It’s an historical fact. Please, give us an exposition on how these statements are to be properly interpreted.

All you do is throw scripture back - literally interpreting, and attempting a *sola scriptura *argument to boot

Another circumstantial ad hominem? I could give you the teaching of my Church on the matter, but somehow I don’t think that would convince you. Then give us the heurmaneutic to properly understand these statements.

 

[jmcrae]

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.

God is perfect, but He is not trapped like an insect in amber.

God’s perfection is in the sense that His responses are ideally suited and correct for the situation at hand - not that He does not respond at all.

When God is sad, it is because sadness is the perfect response to the situation. It is God who chooses to be sad in response to these situations; we don’t cause Him to be sad - but we know that God will choose to be sad when we do things that are against His perfect will.

It is we who create the situations to which God responds in HIs perfection.

Obviously, God’s will cannot be overcome by emotion in the same way that a human being’s will can be overcome by emotion - but God does choose to experience emotions, and to respond emotionally to various different kinds of situations. As pointed out earlier, the Scriptures are full of examples of God behaving in this way.

 

[ChrisWRIT]

If he requires it, he’s not perfect.

Does God “need” anything? No.
Does God “require” anything? Yes.

Perhaps the difficulty is about problems with word definitions.

Respectfully, it should probably be pointed out that in most languages (including English), words may have multiple definitions.

“Require” can mean “to have need of”, but it also means “to ask for authoritatively or imperatively; demand.”

God requires our obedience, not in that he “needs” it, but in that he “demands” it.

How was God (who is perfect) injured?

The word “injury” can also have multiple meanings. One IS “harm or damage that is done or sustained”. Of course, we cannot harm or damage God.

However, the word injury also means “wrong or injustice done or suffered”. Disobeying God’s commands is performing a wrong, or an injustice, against Him.

THAT is how God is “injured” by our sin, by our disobedience.

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.

Yes, God IS perfect, nor does His nature change. However, neither fact claims, either implicitly or explicitly that He cannot respond or feel, so I disagree that His responses are “forced” on Him by us somehow.

Why is it unreasonable to believe that God feels sadness or anger or disappointment or happiness or love in response to our actions? Especially in light of the many examples in the Bible where He shows many of these emotions?

Doesn’t denying the ability of God to respond to others actions (with His own emotions or actions) also to deny His own freedom of will?

Is God somehow incapable of emotions? Are His responses to our actions involuntary?

And if so, where does the Catholic Church or the Bible say either of these things?

Chris

 

[Montalban]

Yes. Of course I choose to use the definition of jealousy (zealous guarding or vigilance) that the context requires rather than one that you know doesn’t apply. But hey, since when has the truth mattered?

What ‘context’? You literally think God gets upset. But not that he gets jealous.

The fallacy of guilt by association, a species of ad hominem. I reject it.

But that’s what YOU ARE DOING. There’s of course no causla links between Islam and your own beliefs - you’ve come to your heresy quite independently of them.

If you think God answers your prayers, then by your reasoning so do you.

It’s not God responding. We are tapping into that stream of love that’s endlessly flowing out.

But pehaps if you got a new bicycle one Christmas you think God got it for you.

What am I supposed to address? You haven’t made any argument as to how we are to supposedly interpret statements about God being pleased, angered, grieved.

Actually I have. By you saying you can affect God you’re making him less than perfect.

Jesus wept at the unfaithfulness before him. It’s an historical fact. Please, give us an exposition on how these statements are to be properly interpreted.

And here is another Moslem idea. Jesus was both God and Man. Or do you also maintain that God who is God can die?

Another circumstantial ad hominem?

You’ve come up with the wrong objection here. An ad hom is an attack about your person. There was no personal attack made by me against your character there. At best you could have said that I was arguing against something that you didn’t say… which is a straw-man attack. But then you are the one literally interpreting the scripture - and give nothing but scripture - which is a *sola scripture *argument. You argument is so poor you don’t properly know what it is you’re objecting to!

I could give you the teaching of my Church on the matter, but somehow I don’t think that would convince you.

That’s a hollow appeal

Then give us the heurmaneutic to properly understand these statements.

I did this.

God to be God CAN NOT CHANGE. If God changes, he’s not perfect. This error of a changing God was first attempted as far back as Origen.

God is always loving us. When WE turn to God and accept this, it’s not God changing, but us. We become closer to God. That’s also to do with Free Will - it’s always our choice.

God’s always ready to forgive because he’s always loving.

 

[Montalban]

God is perfect, but He is not trapped like an insect in amber.

God’s perfection is in the sense that His responses are ideally suited and correct for the situation at hand - not that He does not respond at all.

That’s false. God doesn’t change. He doesn’t start inactive, then active - when he properly responds. He doesn’t change.

When God is sad, it is because sadness is the perfect response to the situation

Then you believe you can affect a change in God - pefect, or otherwise

It is God who chooses to be sad in response to these situations; we don’t cause Him to be sad - but we know that God will choose to be sad when we do things that are against His perfect will.

Well then God changes from a loving God to a saddened God.

It is we who create the situations to which God responds in HIs perfection.

Obviously, God’s will cannot be overcome by emotion in the same way that a human being’s will can be overcome by emotion - but God does choose to experience emotions, and to respond emotionally to various different kinds of situations. As pointed out earlier, the Scriptures are full of examples of God behaving in this way.

But the Scriptures are simply attempting to understand our relationship with God - else you’d have to believe God gets jealous - as cited earlier from Exodus.

That’s why God said “I AM”, he just is.
Malachi 3:6 “For I am the Lord; I change not.”

James 1:17 " . . . the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither *shadow *of turning."

 

[Montalban]

The word “injury” can also have multiple meanings. One IS “harm or damage that is done or sustained”. Of course, we cannot harm or damage God.

However, the word injury also means “wrong or injustice done or suffered”. Disobeying God’s commands is performing a wrong, or an injustice, against Him.

THAT is how God is “injured” by our sin, by our disobedience.

Then you contradict yourself.

The words say God is injured. You explain this as we’re damaging our relationship with God. This is true - but that’s not an injury to God, but to ourselves. Sin is what separates us/injures us - not God.

You want to have it that injuries to us, injure God -but that they don’t, as well.

Yes, God IS perfect, nor does His nature change. However, neither fact claims, either implicitly or explicitly that He cannot respond or feel, so I disagree that His responses are “forced” on Him by us somehow.

They’re ‘reactions’ to people’s actions - making him change, and also less than the person affecting him.

And if so, where does the Catholic Church or the Bible say either of these things?

Chris

That’s what I’m arguing against, the Catholic church has a poor understanding of the nature of God by saying that he can be injured.

 

[Montalban]

If you think God answers your prayers, then by your reasoning so do you.

“Prayer does not change God; it changes me.” -C.S. Lewis (as portrayed in Shadowlands)

“Prayer does not change God, but changes him who prays.” -Søren Kierkegaard

 

[jmcrae]

Well then God changes from a loving God to a saddened God.

So you don’t think God can still be loving, while he is sad?

But the Scriptures are simply attempting to understand our relationship with God - else you’d have to believe God gets jealous - as cited earlier from Exodus.

I have no reason to doubt that, actually.

That’s why God said “I AM”, he just is.
Malachi 3:6 “For I am the Lord; I change not.”

That’s from the same Bible that tells us that He is a jealous God.

 

[ChrisWRIT]

Then you contradict yourself.

The words say God is injured. You explain this as we’re damaging our relationship with God.

This is incorrect. I did NOT say that we’re damaging our relationship with God, I said that our “injury” to God is in doing injustice to Him by our disobedience.

“Injury” may mean “harm or damage that is done or sustained”, OR, it may mean “wrong or injustice done or suffered”. Words may have multiple meanings, but it is an incorrect assumption that every possible meaning of a word applies with every use of that word.

They’re ‘reactions’ to people’s actions - making him change, and also less than the person affecting him.

That’s what I’m arguing against, the Catholic church has a poor understanding of the nature of God by saying that he can be injured.

That is an admirable attempt at a dodge; pretending to respond to my asking for Biblical support while ignoring what I am asking you to give Biblical support for.

I’m sorry if I’m mistaken, but it appears that you’re arguing that God does not have His own free will, and is incapable of emotions, which is an argument based in a poor understanding of grammar & word usage.

The fact that you or I may feel different emotions, or may respond differently to outside events does not change our human nature.

Neither does the fact that God may be saddened, or angry, or remorseful mean that He is any less divine. Claiming it does is to claim that He can feel no emotion, and He cannot freely decide how He will respond.

If you want me to distill my questions into one, then I will rephrase:

Where does the Bible say that God is incapable of emotion and incapable of free will?

Even a single book, chapter and verse would suffice.

Chris

 

[tdgesq]

What ‘context’? You literally think God gets upset. But not that he gets jealous.

I already said that He is a jealous God. He is zealous in his vigilance over us and refuses to share us with others who would deign to take his place. That is the context of the passage. Not that He wishes to be somebody else. But you already knew that.

But that’s what YOU ARE DOING. There’s of course no causla links between Islam and your own beliefs - you’ve come to your heresy quite independently of them.

Restating the fallacy doesn’t make it any more legitimate. It’s like me saying: golly, Deists claim that God can’t intervene in this world either, just like you.

It’s not God responding. We are tapping into that stream of love that’s endlessly flowing out.

I see, so the endless stream of eastern love just happens to provide the exact miracles that were requested by the Apostles and the Saints at the exact time they requested them. But it didn’t have anything to do with their requests. You demand precise and logical arguments from others yet expect a pass on this kind of silliness. Nice try.

Actually I have. By you saying you can affect God you’re making him less than perfect.

Then so are you. The eastern love stream doesn’t help you at all. Somebody actually had to do the tapping. And what they got back wasn’t just “love”; it was something very specific for which they asked. Time after time in the Scriptures. Time after time in Tradition. I’m very willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the EO Traditions, but not when you attempt to abuse them in this way.

And here is another Moslem idea. Jesus was both God and Man. Or do you also maintain that God who is God can die?

I see, so you have a problem with the Nicene Creed that specifically states that God became man. How could it be that God became man? Wouldn’t that mean that God changed?

You’ve come up with the wrong objection here. An ad hom is an attack about your person. There was no personal attack made by me against your character there. At best you could have said that I was arguing against something that you didn’t say… which is a straw-man attack. But then you are the one literally interpreting the scripture - and give nothing but scripture - which is a *sola scripture *argument. You argument is so poor you don’t properly know what it is you’re objecting to!

Sigh.

Circumstantial Ad Hominem. The circumstantial ad hominem consists of attempting to persuade someone to accept or reject a position based upon the special facts or circumstances of the person’s life, rather than on the merits of the position itself.

The fallacy of guilt by association, a special case of circumstantial ad hominem, consists of making negative judgments about people, or their positions and arguments, solely on the basis of their relationships with others. Critical Thinking, Joel Rudinow, et. al. (1994).

I cite to numerous passages of Scripture and you associate me with the sola scriptura crowd instead of answering the question. It’s a species of ad hominem. Somebody needs to pick up a fundamentals of logic text.

And folks, here is the question that Montalban is avoiding with his fallacies and sideshows, and that he will continue to try and avoid because he doesn’t have an answer. How do you interpret the myriad of passages in the New Testament that refer to God’s anger and grief? How does he explain Jesus weeping in the presence of unfaithfulness? He claims he’s given an answer. Where is it? All we hear is “God can’t change,” which of course we agree with. Lol! Here’s his answer below:

I did this.

You gave us your heurmaneutic for understanding these references in the New Testament? Where? You screaming again and again that God can’t change doesn’t say anything about how these passages are to be interpreted. And here it is again:

God to be God CAN NOT CHANGE. If God changes, he’s not perfect. This error of a changing God was first attempted as far back as Origen.

God is always loving us. When WE turn to God and accept this, it’s not God changing, but us.

Fine. None of the Catholics here believe that they have stated anything that would entail that God changes. You claim that they have - that is - God responding to the requests or sins of his flock in favor, sadness, or anger (whatever the case may be) means that human beings change God. Yet you refuse to give any explanation for how we are to interpret the Biblical statements that support the Catholic position, especially the New Testament quotes. All we know from you is that they aren’t to be interpreted literally.

You can avoid all the questions you like. It is obvious to everyone watching that’s what you’re doing.

 

[silentdeb]

I am not even a catholic now.

Thank you for humiliating me.

Hellisreal, could I ask what you are, if not Catholic? You are more than welcome to tell me to blank off and mind my own business. grin I’m just curious because I enjoy reading your posts.

Please don’t feel humiliated.

 

[Montalban]

This is incorrect. I did NOT say that we’re damaging our relationship with God, I said that our “injury” to God is in doing injustice to Him by our disobedience.

But it is damaging our relationship with God!

“Injury” may mean “harm or damage that is done or sustained”, OR, it may mean “wrong or injustice done or suffered”. Words may have multiple meanings, but it is an incorrect assumption that every possible meaning of a word applies with every use of that word.

Yes, but the injury is to us, not to God.

That is an admirable attempt at a dodge; pretending to respond to my asking for Biblical support while ignoring what I am asking you to give Biblical support for.

I told you that the Catholic stance, which you want me to cite, is faulty

You’re saying “Where is the Catholic proof…”

And I’m saying I’m not going to cite the Catholic proof, because it’s their stance that I’m actually arguing against - it wouldn’t thus support me, because it’s in opposition to me.

As to the Bible evidence - it supports that God does not change.

I’m sorry if I’m mistaken, but it appears that you’re arguing that God does not have His own free will, and is incapable of emotions, which is an argument based in a poor understanding of grammar & word usage.

Where have I said that?

The fact that you or I may feel different emotions, or may respond differently to outside events does not change our human nature.

But it’s not our nature to be unchanging. Us changing wouldn’t be affected by us changing. God doesn’t change.

Neither does the fact that God may be saddened, or angry, or remorseful mean that He is any less divine. Claiming it does is to claim that He can feel no emotion, and He cannot freely decide how He will respond.

Are you saying then that if God wills it he can be other than himself?

If you want me to distill my questions into one, then I will rephrase:

Where does the Bible say that God is incapable of emotion and incapable of free will?

I showed that God does not change.

Even a single book, chapter and verse would suffice.

Chris

Already done this.

 

[Montalban]

So you don’t think God can still be loving, while he is sad?

Didn’t say this. I said God can’t change.

You’d have him change from a state of being not sad, to being sad. He doesn’t change. God is perfect. His love is not waivering because he is all love and does not change.

I have no reason to doubt that, actually.

So would I. That’s the point about the language in the Bible talking about God’s emotions. Something that tdgesq can’t understand.

That’s from the same Bible that tells us that He is a jealous God.

Indeed, so how do you reconcile the two?

tdgesq’s reconciliation is to ignore that God doesn’t change, or to pretend that when he does change, he’s not.

My way, as already explained is to understand the limits of the language in describing God.

Even “I AM” is a difficult concept.

When we feel God’s anger it’s simply us feeling a state where are separated from God - BUT that the separation has been done by us.

God’s not pushing us away - which is what anger is. He’s always wanting to love us.

 

[Montalban]

Likewise, the Bible tells us that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart.

But God is love. He would not make Pharaoh turn away from him.

This is part of the Orthodox idea of salvation.

God is love (1 John 4:8). He does not change (Hebrews 13:8). He never angers. He eternally loves. When we refer to God’s anger it is how we react to His love. We describe it as anger as an anthropomorphism - using a human characteristic to describe God.
"God is the sun of justice, as it is written, who shines rays of goodness on simply everyone. The soul develops according it its free will into either wax because of its love for God or into mud because of its love of matter. Thus just as by nature the mud is dried out by the sun and wax is automatically softened, so also every soul which loves matter and the world and has fixed its mind from God is hardened as mud according to its free will and by itself advances to its perdition, as did Pharaoh.* However, every soul which loves God is softened as wax, and receiving divine impressions and characters it becomes ‘the dwelling place of God in the Spirit’

• St. Maximus the Confessor, Chapters on Knowledge 1:12 (quoted in Carlton, C (1999) “The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know about the Orthodox Church”, (Regina Orthodox Press), pp94-5)

God bestows His mercy equally on all. “For He makes the sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust” (Matthew 5:45)

Thus the hell for the wicked will be the reaction to God’s love.
Imagine if you will three people go to a party. They’re told the drinks will be free. One takes a large glass, another a paper cup, and the other nothing at all. God, the host of the party pours out His love in equal measure. I might get the fullness of God, and so might you, but you get less than me at the same time, because you have a smaller vessel. The evil person, spurning God’s initiation winds up with nothing, and thirsts.
"Even the fire of hell is, according to the Fathers of the Church, the love of God, which the damned experience in a negative way (Cf. Romans 12:20) For “our God is a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29). For the righteous the love of God is a purifying, illuminating and deifying fire. For the unrighteous it is a burning fire.
In order to participate in the life of God - or rather to experience God as a blessing and not a curse - our hearts and souls must be purified.” (Carlton, p95)

 

[LilyM]

Yes, but the injury is to us, not to God.

But if we haven’t injured God then we don’t need to pay any sort of satisfaction to him - we don’t need to apologise to Him, say we’re sorry to Him, offer a sin sacrifice to Him as the Jews had to. Yet He clearly required and requires all of those things of us when we sin!

How does offering a bullock as a burnt holocaust, for example, help me in any way repair the injury my sin does to myself? How does saying an act of Contrition to God heal the inury to myself? It doesn’t, it repairs the injury done to GOD!

And more importantly, why do we require GOD to forgive us of sin if that sin does no injury to Him? He’s not a party to the equation if that’s the case - totally irrelevant as is the very idea of obtaining His absolution and forgiveness.

 

[Montalban]

But if we haven’t injured God then we don’t need to pay any sort of satisfaction to him

Exactly! We don’t need to satisfy him.

How does offering a bullock as a burnt holocaust, for example, help me in any way repair the injury my sin does to myself?

Well I don’t think it’s necessary. That’s why we don’t do it. But I suppose some thought that it was the same way some people think going on a pilgrimage or doing 10 Hail Marys as pennace helps.

How does saying an act of Contrition to God heal the inury to myself? It doesn’t, it repairs the injury done to GOD!

How do you injure God? You’re a very powerful being then! God’s obviously not all-powerful.

 

[LilyM]

Exactly! We don’t need to satisfy him.

Well I don’t think it’s necessary. That’s why we don’t do it.

You don’t do penance at all? Very dangerous! ‘Unless you do penance you shall perish!’ But you DO say something similar to an Act of Contrition when you confess - or do the Orthodox not even do that much? In other words you do in your confession apologise to GOD for offending HIM, not to yourself for injuring yourself nor to any of your fellow men either.

How do you injure God? You’re a very powerful being then! God’s obviously not all-powerful.

YOU injured Christ - His wounds and death - AND abandonment by the Father - were because of your sins. You can’t deny that THOSE were real injuries. Clearly you’re more powerful than the Son of God by your ridiculous illogic.

I notice you havent answered the most important question - why is the priest required to forgive us our sins in the name of God if we haven’t injured Him? Why does God send us to hell if we sin badly enough if He isn’t injured or offended by our doings?

Our sins are really none of His business if we haven’t injured or offended Him, in fact. Certainly it’s not for Him to forgive them or punish us for them in any event - not unless God is an injured or offended party.

 

[Montalban]

You don’t do penance at all? Very dangerous! ‘Unless you do penance you shall perish!’ But you DO say something similar to an Act of Contrition when you confess - or do the Orthodox not even do that much? In other words you do in your confession apologise to GOD for offending HIM, not to yourself for injuring yourself nor to any of your fellow men either.

You seem to be confused.

No where have I said that one can’t/shouldn’t seek to return to Christ.

What I’ve argued is that God doesn’t need it. We do.

YOU injured Christ - His wounds and death - AND abandonment by the Father - were because of your sins. You can’t deny that THOSE were real injuries. Clearly you’re more powerful than the Son of God by your ridiculous illogic.

Christ had two natures, human and devine. Not even the Catholic Church teaches God died.

I notice you havent answered the most important question - why is the priest required to forgive us our sins in the name of God if we haven’t injured Him?

Sigh! You’re demanding again that I defend /answer to a doctrine I don’t believe in.

Why does God send us to hell if we sin badly enough if He isn’t injured or offended by our doings?

God doesn’t send us to hell. We send ourselves by separating ourselves from God.

Our sins are really none of His business if we haven’t injured or offended Him, in fact. Certainly it’s not for Him to forgive them or punish us for them in any event - not unless God is an injured or offended party.

How do you have an all-supreme being who can be injured?

 

[Montalban]

I think a lot of Catholics are confused by the anthropomorphisms of the Bible.

How do you injure an all-supreme being?