M
minkymurph
Guest
That’s how I understand it.
- Status
J
Jelrak_TB
Guest
OK, fair enough.
Does circumcision not appear a very strange way for a god to mark a covenant with mankind?
OK
That some may be capable of doing so was not in doubt. What was hopefully in doubt was whether you, I or any in one’s circle of close acquaintances might willingly do so.
Alternately, is it fair to equate God with being of a similar disposition to those that history has taught have committed such base behavior?
Certainly the more they say that they do not carry out the less believable they become?
Please disregard: this comment did not make sense.
J
Jelrak_TB
Guest
Merely to clarify that while God might have been patient, given his knowledge of the future, was not his patience quite different from that of the people who endured generations of hopelessness while he slowly plotted out his plan?
What parent might “eternalize” a child’s negative decision? Why did not the same parent “eternalize” the child’s decision when the child still loved him/her?
Is this the common understanding of love? Is it always a calm, patient choice between parties that never wavers in its commitment? Never ebbs and flows? Further, may no one influence another to love them by pure means rather than brute force?
What is being questioned is why a god of love would not be capable of naturally thawing the heart that has frozen him out rather than why he might not merely command love.
Given the original question was: “If one is not free to question one’s leadership, what true freedom might exist?”
If God is the source of all goodness, would not questioning him merely lead the questioner to a deeper understanding of goodness? What harm then might exist in the questioning?
Would this not necessarily require God to be largely apathetic to the results, were he to give in so easily? What if one might desire a god who truly cared enough for the one to fight for his/her love?
Further, is the question so clear as stated? Is it not more akin to God stating, “You did not discover which of my numerous religions was true so you will be discarded. Yes, I realize I claimed I loved each of you more than you could possibly know, but that was only while you were alive; in death I do not care quite as much.”
Would the content of the book of Job be capable of showing this respect God might have had for Job? What of the respect God might have had for Job’s children and wives?If you go one chapter before that and one chapter after that, i.e. Job chapters 37-39, I thought it was a magnificent answer and fully respectful of Job.
Would it not be more specific to state: “Some consider what we have been handed down for generations to be his plan. We never met these original authors, but we are confident that what they have written is accurate and somehow originated from God–well, at least most of it.”
An existence that does not involve wishing any other harm.
True, but might that not be why I am here among those who are convinced of their faith beyond doubt?
Yet is it true that one may no longer choose in death? Did not one third of angels rebel when in Heaven? If one may rebel in Heaven, why might one not rebel in Hell?
If it were one’s will to have a truly loving being concern itself with one’s well-being, would merely willing it so be sufficient?
Further, if one were to willingly reject Heaven as well as willingly reject Hell, would it be possible?
J
Jelrak_TB
Guest
I will leave the consolation to the Catholic members most able to assist, given it is their faith that you seek. Know only that I understand your confusion and pain, share it in no small portion, and wish you true healing and peace.
Naturally, if I may be of assistance you have but to ask.
Regards,
Jelrak TB
M
minkymurph
Guest
Yes, it does. To be honest I don’t really understand circumcision as a mark of a covenant. Someone once explained it to me as a sign the Israelite’s were different, which doesn’t hold. As you say, other cultures practiced circumcision and if it was a sign of a covenant, how would anyone else see this sign?
The Catholic faith explains circumcision as a forerunner to baptism. I don’t really understand this concept. The only thing I have ever come up with is it related to laws concerning personal hygiene and in addition, some concept of sexual morality.
What you raise is an interesting concept. It can be argued we would all do the same thing in certain circumstances. To illustrate, if you or I had lived in Nazi Germany, can we be sure we would not have done what others did? We all like to think we wouldn’t, but would we? Humans are capable of great evil and great good. As I may have told you, I’m a Law student. A module I am currently studying is Criminal Law. The reality is we all have the potential to be criminals, and in fact the potential to be psychopaths in the right circumstances. A case we looked at was what was known as the Dunblaine murders, were a man went amok with a gun and murdered a group of schoolchildren. We looked at the nature/nurture argument in terms of what makes someone kill. Society is reluctant to accept a ‘normal,’ (whatever that is) reasonable and rational person could commit such a crime. Society likes to think someone who would do such a thing is a ‘wierdo,’ ‘unbalanced’ and somehow pre-disposed to act in such a way, and rejects the notion it is a crime anyone could commit. I would argue it is a crime anyone could commit in the right circumstances. This particular murderer lived in a small village and was ostracized for a sustained period of time. It is a well known fact people who are bullied, which being ostracized is a form of, over a sustained period of time often fantasize about killing their aggressors. It’s not that strange that a rational, reasonable person may reach the point were they can’t take anymore and cross the boundary of fantasy and reality. In the concentration camps in Nazi Germany, it has been claimed Jews put in charge of other Jews, ‘prefects,’ treated their own worse than some Nazi’s - self-preservation. I don’t say this to condone what anyone else does, but merely to illustrate we don’t know what we might do in certain circumstances despite thinking we are above it. I grew up with guys who were great to be around, were very kind in some ways, yet murdered for no other reason than their victim professed a different religion. Not that any of them where very religious. If they had been, they would not have killed someone for that reason.
J
Jelrak_TB
Guest
Does a morally perfect being behave as does God in the Old Testament? Does the god of the New Testament correct the errors in perception of the Old?
Further, how often might one desire one’s enemies (or even simply those who have not learned to love with their entire being) be tormented for eternity? Is it not probable that my never wishing such a thing must necessarily divide me from a god that might?
This is possible.
Perhaps.
How is one certain the opposite is indeed true?
Why might he make such an arbitrary division on when his love for an individual might come to an end?
If one’s conscience seemingly improves based on experiencing negativity first-hand, is God speaking to them by providing said negativity?
As for my own observation, it would certainly appear that a Christian with a structured faith may appear to have fewer gray-area issues than would a non-observer of faith. Equally observed has been the seeming greater willingness on average of the non-observer to assist those in need who do not share a common point of view.
Certainly not. That would be absurd.
Is a child who rebels against a parent desirous of the parent eternalizing that directional moment? Or is the child often merely expressing a desire for a greater commitment of love and involvement? Further, is not the rebellion itself a sign that the child wishes to be able to do something that is currently being forbidden? Is desiring to do something forbidden the same as desiring to have no further contact with the parent?
Finally, in a situation in which one is not in rebellion with God, but merely regards him with suspicion and doubt, is it very likely that the desired outcome might be an eternity of torment?
Of course one is desirous of comfort and grace. One merely wishes it to be real comfort and not simply imagined.
Suffering also begets hardness. If a child is made to suffer unduly at the hand of a parent, the love of the child may wither.
Alternately, if suffering and humility are the prime requisites for having God finally speak to one, the costs will certainly be worthwhile if the god is truly loving and compassionate.
Truly?
If one is to get what one wants then one will clearly never set foot in Hell, but as Jesus specifically states otherwise what provides you with this certainty?
As for one with a charitable heart, might not Hell prove the most appropriate destination given the wider audience in need of charity compared with that of Heaven?
J
jmvizanko
Guest
If God created hell and knew people would go there, then you are wrong; God created hell for both angels and people to go to.
You can define him to be just by definition, but if he doesn’t act just, for instance because of his throwing people into hell, then he isn’t just.
No, it would not be morally right to let him go. But say the man was insane, and had no control over whether or not he commited the murder. Would it be right to send him to prison for life, let alone an infinitely longer eternity? In much the same way, somebody who is not capable of thinking religion is true, say me because I find it illogical, why should I be punished for something I can’t choose?
Yet if every man sins, and he does let people into heaven, then he lets sinners into heaven. Why does belief in Jesus make the sins of a believer completely ignored, while the sins of an unbeliever infinitely punished? If god can remove sin from a believer to enter heaven, why can’t he do that for an unbeliever? After all, he can do anything.
S
steve_b
Guest
Actually the plan was put in place immediately after the fall of A & E. It’s Gen 3:15. I gave that answer many posts ago. God continues testing humanity like He tested A & E.
J:
Isn’t the issue love? When a child stops loving the parent, the child has emotionally seperated themselves from the parent…true? What if that condition doesn’t change for the child? Does the parent want the child to be seperated? No. Maybe they’ve tried and tried with the child, to change the situation but to no avail. The child desires seperation to continue.
You asked “Why did not the same parent “eternalize” the child’s decision when the child still loved him/her?”
Can you force someone to love you when they don’t want to? What if they loved you once but no more? Can you force them to love you again? What if they don’t want anything to do with you? Do you pretend nothing is wrong when clearly there is something severely wrong?
People will to freely love or not to love. That’s by God’s design. “Remain” is a word used many times by Jesus. i.e. “remain in my love”, “remain in me” etc. It requires an act of our will and requires our perseverence to remain. He desires us to remain in love with Him, but the radical possibility is, one can choose not to remain in love, and persevere instead to remain seperated.
J:
I think, while you can still fog a mirror, take advantage of the time you have to make sure you seek God earnestly without agenda. By agenda, I mean learn about God from what He has revealed about Himself through scripture, Tradition, and the Church teaching, not strawman arguments. Life is short
J:
the question remains, how do you define “natural thawing”. What is He to do that He hasn’t done and isn’t doing already?
J:
Do you have children?
J:
There’s a difference between honest questioning and a challange from unbelief.
for example
· Mary asked the Angel Gabriel “how can this be, I know no man”. She was asking a valid question because she was a virgin and planned to remain a virgin, so how could she then have a child?
· Zechariah otoh, husband of Elizabeth, was told by the Angel Gabriel they would have a son, and Zechariah didn’t believe Gabriel so he was struck dumb as a result until his son was born
Same Angel, different results to the questioning…right?
[snip for space]
I’m going to suggest a book for you.
“Handbook of Christian Apologetics” by Peter Kreeft. If you’re interested it can be purchased online. Lots of questions answered.
J
Jelrak_TB
Guest
Surely it was not I who invented a God willing to burn an entire family alive for the fault of one of its members?
Is this not an idol? Does not Jesus clearly state that he will judge; that God will thrust those into Hell those unworthy? Which of these souls might have willingly chosen such a fate?
J
Jelrak_TB
Guest
- Did God not claim that the Israelites to be a “chosen people set apart?”
- Is there any other religion from that era claiming its origin from the same God?
Of what might hook worms be a privation?
Equally, did God not create Satan with the full knowledge of what he would ultimately become?
It is truly unfortunate if this is the impression. It is not willful.
It is quite possible.
An effort has been made to respond to all posts. I apologize if my responses may not have been as enlightened as may have hoped by this time, but kindly understand the degree of confusion that surrounds this subject for one with an outside view:
If all Christians do not believe as do you, why might that be? What if you are in error and I follow you in this error? From what Biblical source do you and others take your consolations that what I question, and many other Christians believe, is clearly misinterpreted? Are not the stakes potentially very high?
According to those who so believe, but not according to others. Further, where might God have made this clear distinction in his Bible? Was God not Omnisciently aware of how his words might be so obviously misinterpreted? Or was he simply unconcerned with the end result?
Well this is heartening to consider, thank you.
Unfortunately, given your opinion may not be the last word on the subject, should one not still seek to clarify where the words of God might have outlined a similar sentiment?
Given a scenario in which an atheist discovers there is a god (and that far from being a monster of caricature he is an all-loving being comprised of pure love), how long might it require for the atheist’s heart to thaw in the company of such a compassionate and warm entity?
How might it be possible for a heart to be hard enough to keep out almighty God for even an hour, let alone all of eternity?
To consider that God might exaggerate? Actually it is surprising to consider.
Fair enough.
Might one not then expect an occasional update from God? Something in the same vein as his Biblical Word?
Perhaps one circles this notion of God existing in a cultural vacuum because it appears to be the closest proximity to his original message. Perhaps it is also most instructive to consider a God that is unchanging to have an unchanging message?
J
Jelrak_TB
Guest
This is possible, but then why would Hell be a torment for them if they are not surrounded by those they despise?
OK
S
steve_b
Guest
could you be more specific?J:
Maybe you’re avoiding, something we’re all born with. A disposition to believe in God and wanting to know God. He has already preprogrammed us for that draw. Just look at the numbers in the world’s population who believe in God. To go against this, one has to be reprogrammed by others to take the opposing view. Eitherway, belief or non belief, is an act of the will. Just like remaining in belief or unbelief, is an act of the will.
C
CarolVP
Guest
In one sense, we don’t freely choose Hell. What we choose is the complete absence of God. Anyone who chooses to reject God, and keep him out of his/her life, is choosing the absence of God. Absence of God chosen in life, until the very last moment before death, is the absence of God chosen forever. God respects this choice.
Hell is simply the name given to the state of eternal unhappiness without God - the absence of God for eternity.
(Someone has probably already explained this.)
M
minkymurph
Guest
It’s a good question - how would one be ‘tormented’ if no one they despise was around to annoy them?
‘Torment’ can be defined in many ways. What is ‘torment’ to one person may not be to another. We don’t actually know what physical form the ‘torment’ of Hell takes. Therefore the answer I would give us is theoretical.
As I said previously, we catch glimpses of Heaven and Hell in this life. There are those who choose to live life in the absence of love, and as such are getting a glimpse of what an eternity in the absence of love would be like. That is the ‘torment.’
To illustrate, those who regularly make the conscious decision to choose ‘good’ over ‘evil’ are often very discontented, resentful people, who, for this reason, are never at peace with either themselves or others. They choose to surround themselves with like-minded people yet in fact despise them, as they reject notions of genuine friendship. They don’t form alliances with others because they particularly enjoy their company or have a genuine fondness for them. Such people don’t make true friends as their relationships are often merely contractual - formed on the basis of what others can do for them to their benefit, and in some cases the ‘contract’ is intended as one way traffic - in that they are the ‘taker’ in the relationship but never ‘give.’
In this life, such people are not completely shut off from love from God or others. It is still open to them. They are completely shut off from love when the soul is ‘drained’ of all ‘good’ as a consequence of persistently rejecting it. The soul then becomes completely corrupted. One could ask why God does not simply restore the soul to it’s original state. Catholics believe he does through baptism and the Sacrament of Reconciliation. However, once death occurs a soul that is completely corrupted remains in that state, as the soul has physically left this world and entered another state. One could question why God does simply restore the soul then? It would require interference with free will, in that the soul did not want to be restored. I also have a theory it would mean not restoring it but creating it over again. In which case it would not be the same soul but a replica, and God doesn’t ‘re-make’ the immortal soul over again because the person it was bestowed on chose to corrupt it to the extent they did.
Of course, that doesn’t explain why God would give someone the free will to totally corrupt their soul in the first place, and that my friend is something I cannot answer. Better people than me have tried to.
The only thing I could come up with is to imagine what life and the world we live in would be like if God used his power against our will to this extent.
C
CompSciGuy
Guest
God will take into account the circumstances with which they lived. Many things relating to God and His law are intrinsic to us, for example morality. If a man shows up on judgment day and has committed fifteen murders, and his only defense is that “well there wasn’t enough evidence for an objective morality, so how can I be judged for these crimes?” this will not suffice, because killing those people would be contrary to his own conscience, which he should have been listening to in the first place. In the same way, there are many things about God that we can know simply through the world around us, especially ourselves (as humans, having intellect, will, a capacity for compassion, etc). If a man makes no effort to try to know God, or to search for Him, despite the inner longings of his heart, then how can he claim innocent ignorance? “There is not enough evidence” is kind of a lame excuse.
M
minkymurph
Guest
I would agree the, ‘there is not enough evidence’ argument is a very weak one.
J
Jelrak_TB
Guest
Given it is largely understood that a psychopath is unable to feel normal emotions it would appear unlikely one would be able to repent. If God might fix such a problem in the afterlife, why might he not choose to effect a repair during the lifetime of the individual when time might yet exist for the one to benefit?
Further, considering many of the most heinous individuals of history have been psychopaths, might one then expect many of these to be in Heaven? If so, why might God choose to cure one ailment (mental) while refusing to cure others (emotional, spiritual)? If the most heinous might be expected to avoid Hell, who might be left worthy to endure it?
OK
J
Jelrak_TB
Guest
Adding to the peculiarity is that seemingly God did not seek a covenant with women…Yes, it does. To be honest I don’t really understand circumcision as a mark of a covenant. Someone once explained it to me as a sign the Israelite’s were different, which doesn’t hold. As you say, other cultures practiced circumcision and if it was a sign of a covenant, how would anyone else see this sign?
The Catholic faith explains circumcision as a forerunner to baptism. I don’t really understand this concept. The only thing I have ever come up with is it related to laws concerning personal hygiene and in addition, some concept of sexual morality.
This is a fascinating topic to consider. Largely it might be conceded that individuals from similar backgrounds often behave in a similar fashion, but clearly not in all cases. The facts do remain that some Nazi prison guards were more sympathetic than others–and some lost their lives by openly questioning their orders. Others appeared openly joyful to carry out the task at hand while others did their duty with mixed feelings.
It is probable that enough strain and pressure applied at the proper times might cause one to do just about anything.
Given this notion that the circumstances might craft the individual outlook, however, how might a just God be able to judge those raised in such error-forming households as being evil while those fortunate enough to exist in more stable environs as being good? Are not the good and evil inherent in these individuals largely attained without concession or merit?
M
minkymurph
Guest
The psychopath is a good question. This aspect of psychology/criminology is hotly contested and disputed. As I mentioned, there is the nature/nurture argument. Then there is the ‘warrior gene’ argument. As far as restoration of the soul of a psychopath is concerned, it’s a question I couldn’t answer, and wouldn’t attempt to. A psychopath may be unable to feel normal emotions. However, does this mean the psychopath is unable to distinguish between right and wrong, and is not responsible for their actions? They can, but to what extent are they culpable for their actions? I can’t answer that because I don’t know.
There is an argument in relation to the ‘warrior’ gene in terms of how it exhibits it’s effects. The argument is the family in which the psychopath is raised is a significant factor in how it exhibits it’s effects. The theory is those who carry the ‘warrior’ gene and have a stable family background, particularly a good relationship with their father, may be prone to violence but don’t become violent or serial killers. Men in particular, who carry this gene, bearing in mind it’s all very much theory at the moment, who have an unstable family and a violent father are more likely to become killers. In terms of judgement, I have no idea to what extent God would hold the latter type culpable. All I would say is God knows all things and all things are taken into account. If someone is incapable of repentance, God would not only know that but know why. God would also know to what extent they could distinguish the morality of their actions, and to what extent they are not able to do so.
Again I would have to say you’re asking a question I could only give a theoretical answer to. What I would say is God does not choose to heal one ailment but not another. No religion teaches God cures the psychopath but not one with with an emotional or spiritual ‘ailment.’ We don’t know the most heinous will avoid Hell, and we don’t know they won’t. We don’t know God only makes allowances for some conditions and not others. In relation to the thread, I would also say justice is non-arbitrary.
M
minkymurph
Guest
Didn’t He?
I don’t think being in a covenant with God requires possession of a particular body part that has been subjected to a surgical procedure - not as far as the book of Acts is concerned. However, I openly admit I don’t really understand the religious significance of circumcision.
I find human nature is fascinating. In terms of judgement concerning the eternal destiny of any individual or group of people, you’re asking me to make a call I can’t make. However, a just God takes all things into account and in addition, God knows what we are inside, not just outside. God also knows how external factors affect us, and to what extent we are responsible for ourselves.
- Status