Existence, the first occasion to sin

[tqualey]

Hi, AndyF,

There is this little poem I learned early on …

“If IF were a skiff - we’d all go sailing”

The issue is that we do existed and actually have existed for a goodly number of yers. We can be faulted for things we have done (like sin) and things we have failed to do (promoting virtue, avoiding sin, etc.) Because God loved us so much - He brought each of us into existance using the human agency of our parents to accomplish this task. God wills the salvation of all (created) men.

Those who were not created never will exist - it is a phantom of a concept … like you have all the solid gold leaves that fall fromt the trees. Since none have fallen - because none exist - will you still be waiting? Or, will you turn your attention to more realistic activities - for example - like doing good and avoiding evil?

God bless

If you never existed you can never be faulted nor do you need to assume risk.

 

[PRmerger]

Intelligence can be inferred from things written, or spoken, provided that they are not things parroted. There is no intelligence in respeaking the words of another, or reading from a teleprompter.

'Tis true, this.

Although, it’s also true that it does take intelligence in discerning whose words to re-speak, no?

Also, if one recites a beautiful piece of prose (I’m not that partial to poetry myself. It makes me) or quotes a particularly incisive phrase, that seems to speak of intelligence. One of my favorites is:

“He got straight A’s but flunked ordinary living”
-Walker Percy

and another is:

“Sarcasm is the protest of the weak”.
-from A Separate Peace.

Oh, and I just remembered another that I love to quote:

“There are 2 types of people in the world: those who accept dogma and know it, and those who accept dogma and don’t know it.”
-G.K. Chesterton

 

[AndyF]

Once you say that life or existence is not “good,” you deny all the Christian philosophers and Scripture itself.

dj

You didn’t answer my question.

My saying something is not good for me is a summation of my own position and I take the first person has a matter of convenience for this discussion only. The paradox you say it creates is a perceived consequence by you but that is not my fault, otherwise you would need to say to avoid the paradox from occurring then would be for no one to be allowed to say existence is not good.

Secondly, in plain truth our coerced existence impacts you in a way that you feel that you can never say anything negative concerning your existence has this puts your position in peril, or if you wish self preservation. You of course hope something to gain by this approach, but that’s your business.

I go on the Tabula Rasa position and I take confidence that God stated that I can consider him a natural Father. So that allows me to be critical, otherwise you and I are a victim of a terrible lie. See how we come full circle and what impacts me impacts you? I don’t do this on my own authority. To address those here who consider I place myself in peril by simply asking, the rules of the Church stipulates (De Fide)
my right to pious opinions and tolerated opinions. If you wish I can send you a run down.

It is true that implied threats such has you had “better see it our way” simply confirms my arguments that existence isn’t worth it. The coercion method doesn’t work. Men work on principle otherwise the front lines would have all the soldiers running in the opposite direction and no one would volunteer for dangerous missions.

By the way, the question is an objective question applying to no one in particular. It is a conclusion in typical logic and not loaded. Firstly, Sirach teaches us to avoid occasions of sin. Secondly, if at the point of existence a soul was taught Sirach first, then the conclusion would be an automatic one, that yes perhaps it would be best not to even venture into the front gates of life. It will always behoove the being it serves to convince those to take the risk. Unless of course he is first shoved through the front gate, then asked his choices or action measured.

My question plays out in logic every day. We avoid cities rather than deal with day to day muggings. We choose neighbourhoods that have more to offer with less effort.
We weigh the risks, the pros and cons, and some may conclude that non intrusive unaffected nothingness is an option.

So in an nutshell, there it is. Again answer questions, or not, your choice.

Andy

 

[PRmerger]

The 4 Gospels are riddled with inconsistencies of teaching, and even of example, suggesting that Christ was often more driven by emotion than by his core teachings.

Again, when you speak of what Christ did or said you are giving tacit acknowledgement of the authority of the CC. You would not know that Jesus had any emotion were it not for the Gospels, which were compiled by the CC.

Just sayin’…

but I prefer to regard Christ as an honest man who taught the best truth he knew.

Good. And this is because the CC told you he was.

(I refer to Christ as a man, because I know that if he existed at all, he was a man, at least. Belief in Christ as God is a religious dogma which I no longer find sufficient reason to accept.)

Fair enough.

If I was a great genius, the errors and inconsistencies would not have occurred.

Indeed. And you wouldn’t make grammatical errors, either.

My **estimate that someone who can present a number of complex, non-intuitive ideas consistently is smarter than someone who can present simple, generally intuitive ideas inconsistently, is entirely personal. ** I don’t recall suggesting that it was in any way scientific–- could you possibly have invented that accusation?

Well, then, again, you are* not* driven by science and data, but by faith and “estimate”.

Just like these folks:

That’s something I’d only expect of a smarmy, agenda-driven scumbag, not of you.

:yeah_me:

 

[PRmerger]

It’s always fun to hear from someone who jumps into a conversation and instantly knows its content.

Firstly, greylorn, you have been on the forum long enough to know that there’s lots of ways to join a thread. One need not be there from page 1.

In fact, I venture to say that you’ve perhaps “jumped into a conversation” here on the CAFs a time or two yourself?

Is this another case of your allowing yourself some right but not anyone else?

Secondly, it’s quite easy to know the content of a thread. And it’s absolutely impossible for you to know how long a member has been lurking. Perhaps someone who posted on page 40 has actually been here from the beginning, eh?

So for you to claim that someone who “jumps into the conversation” is not hip on its contents is another of your faith-filled “estimates”.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, PRmerger,

Good post … but, I think he is pouting. He did not respond to my challenge in Post #63 and he does not appear to be respondng to you. Who knows, with enough prodding he may shine forth more of his ego-centric dogma - so, keep on trying. I think requesting he just grow up and admit that while his god may live between his ears, the Real God created and rules all.

There is a chance that he has taken his self-satisfaction to the same destination as Narcissus … Only time will tell.

God bless

Again, when you speak of what Christ did or said you are giving tacit acknowledgement of the authority of the CC. You would not know that Jesus had any emotion were it not for the Gospels, which were compiled by the CC.

Just sayin’…

Good. And this is because the CC told you he was.

Fair enough.

Indeed. And you wouldn’t make grammatical errors, either.

Well, then, again, you are* not* driven by science and data, but by faith and “estimate”.

Just like these folks:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_t2Ry7I5DNuQ/Sr8cB-bAfuI/AAAAAAAAEiM/2P9UP95bxPk/s320/happy+clappy.jpg

:yeah_me:

 

[4Horsemen]

(Reply 1 of 2
More often, theories are followed by their disproofs.

Truly, as in Phlogiston Theory.

I recommend that you stop watching Dr. Caca on TV and forget about multiverse theory, which is something that the cosmology nits are proposing as a way to deflect attention from their incompetence.

I rarely watch t.v. and certainly not “Dr. Caca.”

LeMaitre did not observe the recession of galaxies or the expansion of space. That was Hubble.

LeMaitre theorized it before Hubble and Humason discovered the recession of galaxies in 1929. (I checked).

The OP is about existence, and that is exactly what we are discussing.

But existence as an occasion of sin. For me the question is a moot point. “Occasion of sin” needs to be defined. In the traditional sense, it could be a person, place or thing that provides a setting in that one could possibly commit a sin. I could stand corrected though.

If God had to breathe into a singularity to get it to explode, the “singularity” would no longer even have the pretense of being a scientific notion.

God could have used the natural laws He established for creation, but started the whole process off with a bang, er … Big Bang.

Here’s a hyperlink to the cover story. get-magazine.com/scientific-american-april-2011

Thanks. I bookmarked it in Favorites to read on the weekend.

A problem I often have with Christians is their tendency to make things up and throw in Biblical quotes as needed, to make their case. Your argument is exemplary in that respect.

I toss in a few Biblical quotes to show regard for the witnesses. You do believe that witnesses in a court of law generally tell what they know to be true. It’s the same with people in the time of Jesus.

Throughout the Bible and throughout my Catholic education, God was treated as an individual.

God is Three Persons in One. He can’t be compared to an “individual” the way we define it in human terms.

Moreover, the bible says, and Christians often reiterate, that man is made in God’s image. That seems to put God into the category of an individual entity. I suppose that you’re getting your stuff from some philosophers who’ve invented a lot of transcendent gobble-de-gook to mask any semblance of real meaning. That pretty much allows you to say whatever you want, I can’t argue with your “definition” of God any better than I can wrestle with fog.

We’re not called to wrestle with fog, just to believe. And, yes, we are made in the image and likeness of God, meaning we have a spiritual part of our being that is called the soul. (Definition of “soul” can be somewhat confusing. We can think of a soul as a person or as a component of a person along with a body).

The high mucky-mucks have declared that God is beyond human understanding as a way of job security. Notice that they seem perfectly capable of telling you anything they want you to know about God. All priesthoods have their mysteries. Watch the meaningless equations scribbled on blackboards to give the Dr. Caca show its measure of credibility.

You say that the nature of angels is spirit. Cool. You could say that their nature is, absolute bleft, or evanescent flargle. Meaningless, in all cases.

We can use our own reason to come to conclusions about the existence of God. But, just like you, I read the thinking of various philosophers time permitting. Just because I’m a Catholic doesn’t mean I don’t think. In fact, before I came back to the Church, I went through a period of study and reading before I spent a good part of a day reading all 4 gospels at once. That cinched it for Christianity. After that, I attempted to join a fellowship group (Protestant) but knew in my heart (soul, mind, brain, whatever) that Rome is home!

 

[4Horsemen]

An engineer cannot make a machine outside his own space of existence because there either is no such space, or, he cannot reach it. “Reaching it” would entail understanding its operational parameters, so as to build a machine that would work within them.

I suppose he could operate a machine outside of his sphere of influence or reach or space, as is done with robots.

Our creations, when manifested in the physical world, are outside of us and within the space in which we exist. That space is defined by the planet. If you want to know its dimensions, look them up, but I think that the actual numbers are irrelevant to the conversation.

Hmmmm . . . so we can define the dimensions of our space between parameters. I’m not sure where to look them up. But I guess they’re “irrelevant” anyhow.

I’ve heard of others who have made similar claims. Sorry, no references. I know of no proof of Christ’s successful same-body resurrection. The words of his followers don’t count. (All of Obama’s followers will tell you, from their comfy chairs in taxpayer-funded government offices, that his economic policies are working!)

Why don’t the words of Christ’s followers count? I asked something similar in the 1st of 2 posts. Afterall, we believe witnesses in other respects. They also saw Jesus prefigure His own Resurrection by watching Him raise Lazarus, Jairus’ daughter, and a boy from the dead. Those are only a few in the gospels. Like the evangelist said, that if all of Christ’s works were recorded, they would fill all the books possible.

If there were some post-resurrection quotes from, let’s say, the Roman soldiers who crucified him and the guy who cut him open, that would be worth something. A plea for forgiveness from Pontius Pilate or some Pharisee priests would be convincing— .

Who would listen to those jerks? Do you consider these men credible witnesses? (They work for Obama btw! LOL )

Followers are followers. There are millions of Mormons who’ll swear that an angel gave Joe Smith some golden tablets, then took them back after Joe translated them. That’s no more, no less believable than any other teaching. . .

But a rational person, that is one who thinks rightly, will come to conclusions based on what makes the most sense for salvation. Jesus’ life, death, and Resurrection point to the Truth, unlike the antics of foolish people who make up stories or hallucinate and, by their charisma, fool many. The Bible warns us of these adversaries. We can’t forget that the devil, yeah Lucifer and his minions (you probably don’t believe in Satan; some Catholics don’t), play a role in all this too.

Yes. Very intelligent fellow, and yet to be proved wrong. Look him up. Even better, read, The Prince. No, he was not Mr. Nice Guy.

Neither is Satan.

Fifty years ago, when I was in a crisis of belief, asking God for clarification, understanding, truth, whatever, I found my mind suddenly filled with a complete explanation of the nature of God, the origin of the universe, and the origin of the human soul, all different from my Catholic beliefs. I’ve no idea where these ideas originated. In the instant before their appearance, I’d not heard or considered them, except for one, in different form. Had someone told me these things, I’d have blown them off.

Did you pray with humility? It is presumptuous of us to expect God to come at our command and give us answers to everything immediately. St. Monica prayed for 30 years for the conversion of St. Augustine. It sounds like you had some sort of ephiphany (like author James Joyce wrote about – I think he’s the one), but, like you said, you don’t know where “these ideas originated.” Don’t forget that Satan can appear as an “angel of light.”

I’m a long way from suggesting that God gave me these ideas. If He did, if I find out about it, and if I ever get to meet Him (on a cold day in His annual visit to hell, perhaps) I promise to curse Him in person and upfront for ruining my life. I was as good a Catholic as any, and IMO I deserved different.

I detect a lot of anger in your tone. Remember you’re not the only one with difficulties and problems in life. Think of our young soldiers coming home without limbs. A few actually lose all 4 or parts of them. Think of children suffering from cold, want, abuse, abandonment. IOW, put others before yourself and go out there to help them as best as you can with your own physical condition. Some people volunteer in hospitals. My Dad used to say that when he went to a veterans’ hospital, he really saw suffering. Then and during WWII.

Nonetheless, I took what I got and developed the ideas further, to the best of my abilities. They have been applied in a variety of ways to the lives of many different people. The effects have always been positive, to the best of my knowledge, at least while the principles were put into operation. Moreover, no one has been killed or tortured, tied to a stake and burnt, socially ostracized, or deprived of their worldly goods, for refusing to accept any of the ideas I’ve proposed. Compared to some highly regarded belief systems, which my ideas are neither, that’s a decent track record.

So you’re starting a new religion?

 

[PRmerger]

You’re not clever enough to defend them, and they certainly do not need your help. Don’t you have a cat litter box to empty, or something?

"A great deal of resentment and hatred, these terrible outbursts from people whose principles are affronted when you disagree with them.”
-Saul Bellows

 

[PRmerger]

It is presumptuous of us to expect God to come at our command and give us answers to everything immediately.

Yes, as the Narnian folks say, “He is not a tame Lion.”

 

[4Horsemen]

Yes, as the Narnian folks say, “He is not a tame Lion.”

Ah, yes, I did read the Narnia collection. The children were told they needed to go back to earth and learn to recognize Aslan in a different form.

P.S. I checked out your blog. Good work! I must get back to it again.

God bless!
4H

 

[AndyF]

Hi, AndyF,

It was a typo - sorry about that!

Instead of ‘…your…’ I dropped the ‘y’ and made it ‘our’.

Actually, as i read the material it seemed like a genuine expression of concern for your safety in that your OP appeared despairing if not nihilistic. As i recall, the post was about YOUR possibly thinking of suicide.

Since you are still with us - great. Now, maybe you can share some of your thoughts specific to all the comments that have gheen generated on this OP.

God bless

Ok, thanks.

The hypothetical could be disturbing to some, but I’m perfectly at ease. I attribute these
forum reactions to various degrees of maturity of Faith, some temporarily precarious and thus feeling perhaps a slight intrusion or disturbance. This is why such categories are not healthy to the less entrenched members. Some could choose to remain distant from eschatological and ontological discussions.

You will note that the same format is used in initial discussions on Sententia Fidei Proxima theological discussions. The use of a third person “I” is common, but not personal. The objective is to counter the proposition through dogma,reason and logic, a format well exampled in the arguments and objections of Aquinas.

Andy

 

[tqualey]

Hi, AndyF,

I really do not understand your response. My question simply was an inquiry as to what you have obtained from the various response to your original post. And, yes, I am still interested in your answer.

Concerning the, "…less well entrenched … " members. Refer to Christ obvious affection and focus on certain other less entrenced members of his audienced as recorded in:

Matt 19:14, Mark 10:14 and Luke 18:16

Finally, I am remineded of advice given by an attorney to his client about to take the Witness Stand. “If he asks you what time it is, don’t give him the history of clocks throughout the world”.

God bless

Ok, thanks.

The hypothetical could be disturbing to some, but I’m perfectly at ease. I attribute these
forum reactions to various degrees of maturity of Faith, some temporarily precarious and thus feeling perhaps a slight intrusion or disturbance. This is why such categories are not healthy to the less entrenched members. Some could choose to remain distant from eschatological and ontological discussions.

You will note that the same format is used in initial discussions on Sententia Fidei Proxima theological discussions. The use of a third person “I” is common, but not personal. The objective is to counter the proposition through dogma,reason and logic, a format well exampled in the arguments and objections of Aquinas.

Andy

 

[AndyF]

Hi, AndyF,

We can be faulted for things we have done (like sin) and things we have failed to do (promoting virtue, avoiding sin, etc.)

But you skirt my questions. If we don’t exist we can’t “do” evil either, or DO at all, nor are we affected, period.

But there is a potential for a positive and an advantage. I’m not for scrapping the cosmic plan either, so I offer:

1/ hell becomes justified with the choice to exist.
2/ or, a celestial being of high order could volunteer to put his/it’s nature on hold, have the angelic beings hold his spot, be born into the human nature with a temporary soul, and actually struggle with maturing faith, endowed with typical not unusual graces, never knowing his true place. If he makes it without sin other than original, then hell is justified, otherwise choice to exist is the default. (No, Jesus had a kingly nature he was aware of).

I’m willing to go the toss of the coin, pretty good deal if you ask me.

Andy

 

[tqualey]

Hi, AndyF,

I do not think i skirted your questions - I really did my best to answer what you presented. The problem is, however, that they are like trying to discuss a ‘square circle’ - a total impossibility. If we do not exist - then we certainly would not be having a conversation. The heart of the matter is that we do exist - and it is from this stand point that we all must begin. We exist - and not in a vacuum - but in a multidimensional universe - created out of nothing by God, Who then set everthing in motion and into the patterns we see today.

And, yes, there consequences for being part of God’s creation - even though we did not ask to be created, because God chose to bring us into existence - and in our case - to keep us in existence for these many years (I hit the big 65 this year! ). We were created in God’s image and with a free will. We have been given work to do to bring about God’s Will - keeping the Commandments God gave us is a good starting point, and then we move on to the Commnads given by Christ. Using our free will to obey God will be recognized by Him when He judges all of His servants. Freely choosing to ignore His Will, is to be recognized, also.

Talking out hypothetical nothingness (God choosing to not created a certain being) can not be discussed - because there is nothing there to discuss - not even potential. If we can talk about it, then it exists. For example, we could talk about possible x-ray patterns given off BEYOND THE RANGE of the space telescope Hubble. Because they are beyond the range, we have no data - but, someone could imagine what the x-ray pattern would look like! Now we have several possibilities - of something that may not even exist!! And this is true bedause we have imagined the unknown by filling in the blanks from the known.

Most people can not really imagine our national debt (almost $65 trillion) and that is right here on earth!!! Try to imagine a Light Year of money! But, although these ideas are maddenly obscure - someone could get it. We can not imagine what has nothing to go on - and that is what ‘nothingness’ is all about. Now, let’s take a look at those questions you pose:

1/ hell becomes justified with the choice to exist.
2/ or, a celestial being of high order could volunteer to put his/it’s nature on hold, have the angelic beings hold his spot, be born into the human nature with a temporary soul, and actually struggle with maturing faith, endowed with typical not unusual graces, never knowing his true place. If he makes it without sin other than original, then hell is justified, otherwise choice to exist is the default. (No, Jesus had a kingly nature he was aware of).

I’m willing to go the toss of the coin, pretty good deal if you ask me.

Andy

A 1/ - There is no CHOICE to exist. You either exist or there is nothing else. By the same token, you did not choose your parents or time of your birth. But, make no mistake about it - there is a Hell, and your ticket there will be punched by the choices you freely make once you are given (without asking) existence.

A 2/ - I guess a celestial being can do anything your imagination tells him to do … but, that does not mean he can actually do it Truly, we may need to discuss the meaning of meaning before we proceed to this nonsense arrangement you are creating. There are definite realities - and either we accept them or we don’t - but, either way, this does not change the nature of the reality. A hot stove is hot and remains hot whether you touch it or not. Now, if you do not touch it, you can claim it is not hot - but, what kind of silly statement is that? If you chose to touch it you can claim it is not hot - and then wonder how you got the burn! You can also chose not to touch it and believe it is hot because someone in authority told you it was hot.

For those who are in touch with reality on a regular basis - Christ, the 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity and true man - came to earth as a babe, grew, and preached about the Love of God and His desire that men avoid sin - another reality that needs to be clearly identified. Those who believe Him AND do what He says will be with Him in Heaven. Those who fail in this matter will be without Him in Hell.

Your choice - but, the reality remains unchanged.

God bless

 

[PRmerger]

P.S. I checked out your blog. Good work! I must get back to it again.

God bless!
4H

Thanks, friend! I hope that you do.

(Posted in Century Gothic, in tribute to my buddy, tqualey. )

The twaddle must be important or you’d not have set it in a gaudy, century gothic colored font

What a :whacky: and completely arbitrary designation–who declared that century gothic is “gaudy” and that, say, arial is “classy”? Are we all supposed to know which one is elegant? Is there a font-god that I didn’t know about who revealed this?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, PRmerger,

Thanks! i must confess … I laughed and laughed about this!

Hey, if this guy doesn’t get with the program and start responding to the post that have been accumulating in his box, he may wind up being ‘forlorn’… Sorry… couldn’t resist!

God bless

Thanks, friend! I hope that you do.

(Posted in Century Gothic, in tribute to my buddy, tqualey. )

What a :whacky: and completely arbitrary designation–who declared that century gothic is “gaudy” and that, say, arial is “classy”? Are we all supposed to know which one is elegant? Is there a font-god that I didn’t know about who revealed this?

 

[Dave2300]

The original posters implies that the reason God created us was that so we would sin, rather than seeing sin as a result of our fallen state, as the result of our choices in life.

God did not create us to sin, we choose to sin.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dave2300,

Welcome to CAF! I think you will find this an excellent site for interacting with those who are really interested in their Catholic Faith - and those who wish to explore it in one way or another…

You have provided an excellent comment and one that cuts to the heart of the matter. Either we believe that God created us as an act of love - and He wants us to be His adopted children … or we don’t. The don’t part is littered through out history by those who either believe in multiple gods, wrathful gods, or no god at all. A truly despairing situation - no matter what type of philosophical spin is put on it!!

Looking forward to reading your posts.

God bless

The original posters implies that the reason God created us was that so we would sin, rather than seeing sin as a result of our fallen state, as the result of our choices in life.

God did not create us to sin, we choose to sin.