Gift versus loan

[Spock]

Are you asking me to address the analogy above or your original one…?
Just want to make sure we are on the same page.

The original, please. But if you care to address both, that is fine by me.

 

[You]

Very kind of you. But this is just a specific example. If the Jesuits say that existence is always, under any and all circumstances better then nonexistence, then this claim needs to be substantiated in general. Bringing up one instance is not sufficient. If however the Jesuits say that sometimes existence is better than noneixstence, then I will agree. But that is not much of a “claim”.

They say existence is better than non-existence without qualification.
Like Life is better than non existent life. Because, they would possibly argue, that Life is a ‘good’; and the existence of a good is better than the non-existence of a good.

I am pretty harmless. But assume that I am an evil, malevolent computer programmer, who intends to trash the whole site, and infect all the computers used by the Catholic posters here. In that case I doubt if you would say that it is better to an Evil_Spock, than not to have one.

Irregardless of how you feel about this answer; they would say that yes, it is better that you exist.

***Duh! ***

Thats probably also the answer to your "…they didn’t ask to be born…"point.
They did not ask not to be born either. Silly babies.
Being born is neutral. Having existence is good. Overall its very positive, I feel.

 

[JRKH]

I have a different analogy (not surprisingly). The problem is the assumption that the recipient of gift does not gain ownership over the gift.

So, let’s use another analogy. The parents give a car to the child, who is - say 20 years old. The child did not ask for the car, but he is “stuck” with it, cannot refuse it. He is responsible for the maintenance, insurance, gas, repairs, etc… but he is forbidden to get rid of the car. The parents also attach a whole lot of other conditions. They do not allow the “free” use of the car, which may be dangerous, but make the use of the car more fun. The parents do not prevent him from selling the car, or giving it away, or simply destroying it. But, if he does, some very serious repercussions will happen. The “loving” parents beat him to pulp, employ thumbscrews, burn him… carefully so he cannot die. But the torture does not stop, it goes on forever.

Maybe the car was a junk from the onset. It did not work properly in the first place, it is a pain to use it. It cannot be repaired. Well, the parents could repair it, and child asks for it, but the parents refuse. He is stuck with this unwanted “gift”, responsible for the “gift”, but cannot do whatever he wants to do with it.

Is that a “gift”? Before anyone jumps in, the point is not the condition of the car. It is that with the responsibility does not come the ownership.

Well - I would say that there is something missing in your analogy. You have given me all of the negatives, but what are the positives? Why did the parents give the car? What are the purposes for the restrictions? What is gained by the child by a proper handling of the car in all it’s requirements?
On this you are silent…you are only looking at the negatives…
Would you care to fill this out for me??

Peace
James

 

[Spock]

They say existence is better than non-existence without qualification.
Like Life is better than non existent life. Because, they would possibly argue, that Life is a ‘good’; and the existence of a good is better than the non-existence of a good.

Now how are they going to prove that “life” (existence) is “good”?

 

[You]

Now how are they going to prove that “life” (existence) is “good”?

Life is “a good”.

 

[Spock]

Well - I would say that there is something missing in your analogy. You have given me all of the negatives, but what are the positives?

1. Why did the parents give the car?
2. What are the purposes for the restrictions?
3. What is gained by the child by a proper handling of the car in all it’s requirements?

On this you are silent…you are only looking at the negatives…
Would you care to fill this out for me??

Of course I will answer your questions. (I modified your post and put in the list to make my answers easier.)

1. Let’s suppose it was real love and because the parents thought that the child will want the car. But the parents could be wrong here.
2. Let’s suppose they posited the restrictions because they think that they know better. But this is a huge “IF”. It can be because the parents wanted to retain control for the control’s sake.
3. The car probably would last longer, though that is not certain.

I really tried to accommodate you. I assumed the best intentions for the parents. Let’s see how do you reconcile these admittedly good intentions with the negatives I presented. Especially with the “eternal” repercussions for disobedience. If you need more clarification, just say it. If you are satisified, go ahead and show where my analogy breaks down. I admit up front that the analogy is not perfect, no analogy can ever be perfect.

 

[Spock]

Life is “a good”.

Please, pretty please, don’t give me empty slogans. I am not interested in one liner slogans.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Very true observation. As usually we shall have to agree to disagree. I am a bit sad that this is the best we can achieve. It might be interesting to pursue this subject, and try to find out how come that we see the same fact, and still have different conclusions.

Just a little story. I remember that I had some wonderful conversation with my mother. We loved her very much and she loved us very much. She said that bringing children into the world is a very selfish act. Parents, of course rationalize their act. But what they really want is the joy they derive from their children. They can be pretty sure that the life of the children will not be a “cakewalk”, that there will be ups and downs, that the children will suffer. Think of those parents who know that their child will suffer from Down-syndrome, and they will die prematurely, sometimes even in great pain. Even those parents say that it was worth it, because they derived so much joy from their children. Selfishness all the way. Sometimes it is very hard to look into one’s “soul” and admit this fact.

As usual, I disagree.

It is not a fact that this is selfishness. We all want to love and be loved, even those down-syndrome kids and those who die prematurely. Fact is, we all search for it. Is it selfish that we want to love and be loved? What right do we have to refuse them of their right to humanity’s greatest search? Having children, whether ill or not, is not selfishness in any sense of the act. Of course, I am sure there are or have been crazies who reproduce to sell and what not.

Parents do not “rationalize”. The people who attack others who have a lot of kids, whether with illness or not, rationalize their own attacks to make it fit into their own pessimism. I am not saying you or your mother are doing this, but the reality is exactly as you said before. We see the same exact thing but still come to different conclusions. But, it is a bit ironic that most families with over 10 children do just as well (if not better) financially as those with less than 4 kids. (This considers comparisons of those in the same class. Low class, middle class and high class…) I have seen it happen and I have never seen the contrary either, but I say most because I am sure there are some who do not do as well.

This is also exactly the difference between our ideas of a “gift”. The questions is: Why would one NOT treat something they were given as a gift better then something they themselves get for themselves? Sometimes even if it is a terrible gift we still at least treat it with respect, but the gift of life is arguably the the best gift anyone can give or receive.

And with the car analogy… In my opinion, the child is the selfish one. All he did is want more and was being greedy with something that he did not even deserve in the first place. (Of course, I am basing this objection on stuff that is outside your analogy.) Perhaps, I misunderstood the analogy, but all he needed to do was unconditionally accept the gift. How hard is that? But, he created conditions for his own happiness. This is just my opinion though.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Now how are they going to prove that “life” (existence) is “good”?

Jesus Himself did say about Judas, “It would have been better for him had he not been born.” (Or something like that. I do not remember the exact words, nor do I know which part of the Bible it is in. I am such a stereotypical Catholic.)

This goes to show that the abuse of the gift of life would make it far worse to exist than to not exist. So, I would have to agree with your idea about the Jesuits… Kind of… I am sure even then we will disagree on something!

 

[GreggAlvarez]

When one speaks about life as being a gift from God, the word “gift” is taken in the second meaning above. The word “gift” should not be confused with “loan”, they are antonyms. Gift means to relinquish ownership.

I agree to a point.

However, when speaking of our life and our body, the apologists assert that God does not grant us “ownership” over our lives, we are merely caretakers or stewards, who must take care of our bodies, but we cannot make final decisions concerning it. Specifically, the apologists deny one’s right to end one’s own life.

Not just apologists… Society also.

My point is the incorrect usage of the word “gift” in this respect. It is a linguistical error to maintain that our life is a “gift”. It is not. Of course it does not sound so “noble” to say that life is just a “loan”, it sounds so much nicer to say that our life is a “gift”.

There is no incorrect usage.

If you were to buy yourself a watch and you also received a watch from your mother and lost both of them, would you not feel more ****** about the one you bought or the gift from your mother? There is a reason for your answer. Gifts are not just about ownership; nay, gifts are not about ownership at all. It is about giving and a selfless act of love.

Perhaps, in the completely technical sense of the word “gift”, you are right… but who cares about technicalities when were are talking about things that are selflessly given. Those are the best gifts of all, right? Even if we do not necessarily like them.

Take care buddy… I may not be back until tomorrow.

 

[You]

Please, pretty please, don’t give me empty slogans. I am not interested in one liner slogans.

Why do you say its a slogan. Your namesake was a Vulcan; that may help to understand things objectively, like ‘a good’. Objectively, existence is ‘a good’ totally regardless of any subjective state of existence. Objectively, food is ‘a good’, the type of recipe is not the issue.

 

[JRKH]

Of course I will answer your questions. (I modified your post and put in the list to make my answers easier.)

1. Let’s suppose it was real love and because the parents thought that the child will want the car. But the parents could be wrong here.
2. Let’s suppose they posited the restrictions because they think that they know better. But this is a huge “IF”. It can be because the parents wanted to retain control for the control’s sake.
3. The car probably would last longer, though that is not certain.

I really tried to accommodate you. I assumed the best intentions for the parents. Let’s see how do you reconcile these admittedly good intentions with the negatives I presented. Especially with the “eternal” repercussions for disobedience. If you need more clarification, just say it. If you are satisified, go ahead and show where my analogy breaks down. I admit up front that the analogy is not perfect, no analogy can ever be perfect.

OK - Thanks for the additional info…
Given this scenerio, the “up side” is not comensurate with the down side so the scenerio does not accurtely represent the relationship between ourselves and God.
God promises eternal life and happiness in His presence for meeting his conditions.
The parents in your scenerio have made no similar promise (like if you keep this car for 15 years we’ll give you a million dollars) to offset the torture threatened in your original scenerio…so there is no real upside and this makes the scenerio bogus in trying to compare one relationship to the other.

You see - this is what I see in your posts. A desire only to see the bad, the “threat” the downside…And I’m not pointing just at you here, I see this with many people who want to reject God.

I wonder if this is why you chose to not address my scenerio (more positive and built on fatherly Love) at all and instead decided to substitute your own - much darker and negative view.
Something to think about…

Peace
James

 

[Spock]

The parents in your scenerio have made no similar promise (like if you keep this car for 15 years we’ll give you a million dollars) to offset the torture threatened in your original scenerio…so there is no real upside and this makes the scenerio bogus in trying to compare one relationship to the other.

I am willing to update the analogy, but let’s do it properly. The parents may promise that when the car finally breaks down (which may happen at any time, no need to stipulate a fixed 15 years), they will give the kid those 1 million dollars. That is the upside. Fine. The problem is the other “promise”, which you did not answer yet: if the child deliberately destroys the car, he will be tortured eternally. If the car runs properly and smoothly, it is sensible to keep it. However, if the car is junk, if its upkeep costs more that it is worth, then why would one wish to keep it? If the continued upkeep only brings pain and misery, but no joy any more, why should one be “obliged” to keep it? That is not an act of “love”. I hope you will address this part, because it is the point.

You see - this is what I see in your posts. A desire only to see the bad, the “threat” the downside…And I’m not pointing just at you here, I see this with many people who want to reject God.

There is no “desire” in me. I am just willing to look at the whole picture, not just the rosy part of it. You see, I am willing to admit that your suggestion is sensible, that the updated analogy is better.

I wonder if this is why you chose to not address my scenerio (more positive and built on fatherly Love) at all and instead decided to substitute your own - much darker and negative view.

But I did. Just as you suggested to update my analogy, I pointed out how your analogy is incorrect. Those loving parents in the Victorian era are a much more precise representation of God’s “love and care”.

 

[JRKH]

I am willing to update the analogy, but let’s do it properly. The parents may promise that when the car finally breaks down (which may happen at any time, no need to stipulate a fixed 15 years), they will give the kid those 1 million dollars. That is the upside. Fine. The problem is the other “promise”, which you did not answer yet: if the child deliberately destroys the car, he will be tortured eternally. If the car runs properly and smoothly, it is sensible to keep it. However, if the car is junk, if its upkeep costs more that it is worth, then why would one wish to keep it? If the continued upkeep only brings pain and misery, but no joy any more, why should one be “obliged” to keep it? That is not an act of “love”. I hope you will address this part, because it is the point.

Actually I had some difficulty originally picking up on the parallel of the analogy but I am assuming that you are relating the people in this to our souls/spirits and the car to the body and it is your contention that we should be free to do with the body whatever we want, even to the point of deliberately destroying it.

I think that both you and I will agree that analogies, by their very natures, are imperfect and this one is no exception. For one thing you say that if the child deliberately destroys the car he will be “eternally punished” which of course the parents cannot do since they will eventually die just as the child eventually will…But all that aside.

We cannot know the reasons or the intent of the parents for giving the child the car with the conditions attached unless you, as the originator of the senerio, tell us. Only then, by understanding the motivations we can decide if the motives stem from a true, Agape Love. If they do then the motivations will be for the highest good of the child. If they don’t then the analogy falls apart because God’s motivations are always for our highest good.

SO - If we are to assume that the parents ARE acting out of a true love for the child then we must likewise assume that teaching and helping the child to grow IS what is behind the conditions etc. For if this is not the case then they are not acting out of True, Loving motivations.

But I did. Just as you suggested to update my analogy, I pointed out how your analogy is incorrect. Those loving parents in the Victorian era are a much more precise representation of God’s “love and care”.

I did not really see the “Victorian variant” as a specific scenerio because you really did not present it that way. You just offered some a couple of general examples…
But taking the general concept, yes I can see how this works as a parallel. We are created by God and placed in the charge of others etc…
Of course God DOES know his own and does keep close tabs on those who have charge over us. In the bible Christ speaks of how teachers, and those in authority will have more to answer for when they come to judgement. Just as a Nanny, or Teachers or whomever would have to answer to the wise and loving Parent.
You see - in the case of God, he has not assigned us to the care of others because he is uncaring, but because both we and the caregivers can and should learn from each other and grow. He keeps close tabs, and unlike the father in your example, should he meet us on the street he would know very well that we were his children.
Likewise if there is mistreatment (as perceived by the child), the Father is not oblivious to it, but keeps tabs and makes adjustments as needed. Often times what a child sees as “mistreatment” a parent sees as a beneficial discipline. Should the child have charge of which is which or should the parent?

I think that the bottom line in all of this is how we choose to see God. Jesus taught us to see Him as Father… and thus familial analogies are appropriate. Likewise Jesus taught us that the Father is a Loving Father. Thus any analogies should work from that perspective.
So - working from the basis that God is a Loving Father, who gave us Life, we need to recognize that just as a loving father here on earth will both hug and discipline a child, so much more will our Father in heaven. We as children may not know why but we must trust that He has good reason. I think that is the thing that seperates my view from yours. I trust in the goodness of my Heavenly Father and strive to be a good son and to learn that which He wishes to teach me.

 

[Spock]

Actually I had some difficulty originally picking up on the parallel of the analogy but I am assuming that you are relating the people in this to our souls/spirits and the car to the body and it is your contention that we should be free to do with the body whatever we want, even to the point of deliberately destroying it.

Good summary.

I think that both you and I will agree that analogies, by their very natures, are imperfect and this one is no exception. For one thing you say that if the child deliberately destroys the car he will be “eternally punished” which of course the parents cannot do since they will eventually die just as the child eventually will…But all that aside.

Agreed. Analogies are imperfect. The trouble is that we must make analogies, since God does not come “down”, and tell us the details. Yes, I know that you consider the teachings of the church authoritative, but I do not. We are both speculating. You are not on firmer ground than I am.

We cannot know the reasons or the intent of the parents for giving the child the car with the conditions attached unless you, as the originator of the senerio, tell us. Only then, by understanding the motivations we can decide if the motives stem from a true, Agape Love. If they do then the motivations will be for the highest good of the child. If they don’t then the analogy falls apart because God’s motivations are always for our highest good.

I already agreed that the parents act out of love.

SO - If we are to assume that the parents ARE acting out of a true love for the child then we must likewise assume that teaching and helping the child to grow IS what is behind the conditions etc. For if this is not the case then they are not acting out of True, Loving motivations.

Yes, but the child may have a differing opinion. And his opinion is what counts, for two reasons. One is that it is his “skin” in the game, he is the one who suffers from the usage of the “junk car”. Two is that the “parents” do not provide the necessary explanation.

But taking the general concept, yes I can see how this works as a parallel. We are created by God and placed in the charge of others etc…

This is called “outsourcing”. Let me offer another, admittedly imperfect analogy. There is a homeless beggar on the street, shivering from cold. A very rich man walks by, who could easily help the beggar. Yet, he says: “If I would give some alms to this beggar, I would prevent other people to practise charity, and they would thus be deprived of the opportunity to grow ‘spiritually’… so I will not give to this beggar anything”. The rich man is, of course, God in the parable. Now, if this would NOT be a parable, we both would say that the rich man is full of “that proverbial substance” (I wish I could use the 4-letter equivalent), because he leaves that homeless out in the cold, instead of helping him. The gain for the homeless beggar would far outweigh the “spiritual growth” for some unspecified bystander, who might not even be there to help.

You see - in the case of God, he has not assigned us to the care of others because he is uncaring, but because both we and the caregivers can and should learn from each other and grow.

In most cases there will be no one there to help. So, what then? In other cases there might be willing people who want to help, but they are unable to help. Just think of those miners who are trapped underground, who will perish, despite all the efforts to free them. No one benefits, neither the people who need help, nor those who try to help. Just don’t say that the beggars who will freeze to death, because there is no one to help, or the miners who suffocate there, despite the all the efforts - will be “rewarded” in heaven. It would be an inexcusable moving of the goalposts.

Likewise if there is mistreatment (as perceived by the child), the Father is not oblivious to it, but keeps tabs and makes adjustments as needed.

Sounds nice, but is there any evidence for this?

Often times what a child sees as “mistreatment” a parent sees as a beneficial discipline. Should the child have charge of which is which or should the parent?

If the parent refuses to come and explain, then, yes, it is only the child’s opinion that counts.

I think that the bottom line in all of this is how we choose to see God. Jesus taught us to see Him as Father… and thus familial analogies are appropriate. Likewise Jesus taught us that the Father is a Loving Father. Thus any analogies should work from that perspective.
So - working from the basis that God is a Loving Father, who gave us Life, we need to recognize that just as a loving father here on earth will both hug and discipline a child, so much more will our Father in heaven. We as children may not know why but we must trust that He has good reason. I think that is the thing that seperates my view from yours. I trust in the goodness of my Heavenly Father and strive to be a good son and to learn that which He wishes to teach me.

Yes, this is the difference. The only trouble is that all you can offer is your trust. There is nothing to support it. That is why we cannot agree.

 

[JRKH]

Good summary.

Agreed. Analogies are imperfect. The trouble is that we must make analogies, since God does not come “down”, and tell us the details. Yes, I know that you consider the teachings of the church authoritative, but I do not. We are both speculating. You are not on firmer ground than I am.

But God already did come down you see. He came was born lived and died. Not in a “junk car” (diseased defective body) but rather he was tormented suffered and died at the hands of the very people he was trying to reach.
Of course before that time he spent three years teaching…and He taught others to teach…who taught others to teach… and so on. Some even wrote some things down and gave us insight to understanding HOW to hear God, etc.
So - you see in a discussion about God I AM on firmer ground since I believe in God.
Since you do not we can perhaps use yet another imperfect analogy…The little boy in the corner covering his ears and yelling “I can’t hear you…” (Just kidding - - mostly )

I already agreed that the parents act out of love.

Yes, but the child may have a differing opinion. And his opinion is what counts, for two reasons. One is that it is his “skin” in the game, he is the one who suffers from the usage of the “junk car”. Two is that the “parents” do not provide the necessary explanation.

Yes but one needs to look at the actions as well as the claim. Is this not one of the things that you are holding up as a case against God? That we claim he loves us but then He does all of these things that you see as “unloving”?
In your original scenerio you provided the conditions and circumstance but the only “reward” you could think of was a negative one (eternal torment). I saw this as saying a lot about how you viewed God, and life in general. I realize that you were more than willing to amend the scenerio but it is the mere fact of the ommsion in the first place that raises the next and most importnant question. How do you see and define Love - Agape Love.
If we agree that the parents act out of pure Agape Love (the kind that God employs) then there are good sound reasons for doing what they did and how they did it, whether they explained the reasons or not.

This is called “outsourcing”. Let me offer another, admittedly imperfect analogy. There is a homeless beggar on the street, shivering from cold. A very rich man walks by, who could easily help the beggar. Yet, he says: “If I would give some alms to this beggar, I would prevent other people to practise charity, and they would thus be deprived of the opportunity to grow ‘spiritually’… so I will not give to this beggar anything”. The rich man is, of course, God in the parable. Now, if this would NOT be a parable, we both would say that the rich man is full of “that proverbial substance” (I wish I could use the 4-letter equivalent), because he leaves that homeless out in the cold, instead of helping him. The gain for the homeless beggar would far outweigh the “spiritual growth” for some unspecified bystander, who might not even be there to help.

In most cases there will be no one there to help. So, what then? In other cases there might be willing people who want to help, but they are unable to help. Just think of those miners who are trapped underground, who will perish, despite all the efforts to free them. No one benefits, neither the people who need help, nor those who try to help. Just don’t say that the beggars who will freeze to death, because there is no one to help, or the miners who suffocate there, despite the all the efforts - will be “rewarded” in heaven. It would be an inexcusable moving of the goalposts.

Don’t worry about me miving the goalposts - you do a fine job of that all by yourself.
First it was the kid and the car
Then ot was a Victorian Father
Now it’s a beggar…


Peace
James

 

[Spock]

Don’t worry about me miving the goalposts - you do a fine job of that all by yourself.
First it was the kid and the car
Then ot was a Victorian Father
Now it’s a beggar…

If you honestly think that giving those different analogies mean “moving the goalposts”, then it is useless for me to argue any further.

 

[JRKH]

If you honestly think that giving those different analogies mean “moving the goalposts”, then it is useless for me to argue any further.

Well I do think it is when a given analogy is not dealt with before another is raised…
Or perhaps I am just not mentally nimble enough to keep up with all of these changes. :hypno:
It may not be “technically” moving the goal posts but it sure does get confusing.

At any rate - Allow me to address your latest Scenerio…The beggar…You said:
*Let me offer another, admittedly imperfect analogy. There is a homeless beggar on the street, shivering from cold. A very rich man walks by, who could easily help the beggar. Yet, he says: “If I would give some alms to this beggar, I would prevent other people to practise charity, and they would thus be deprived of the opportunity to grow ‘spiritually’… so I will not give to this beggar anything”. The rich man is, of course, God in the parable. Now, if this would NOT be a parable, we both would say that the rich man is full of “that proverbial substance” (I wish I could use the 4-letter equivalent), because he leaves that homeless out in the cold, instead of helping him. The gain for the homeless beggar would far outweigh the “spiritual growth” for some unspecified bystander, who might not even be there to help. *

My first thought is that “The Rich Man” being God indicates that he has already given this man something. Life. The opportunity to Live and Love and to grow.
Likewise our rich man (God), recognizing that there are others who need to learn greater charity, goes and sends one from his household who needs this lesson. In this way both the beggar and the one giving aid are raised up and Love is promoted in two instead of one.
But let us take this just one step further and say that the person the rich man sends does nothing, or worse squanders the funds entrusted to him by the rich man for the benefit of the beggar…The begger, cold and hungry is at the very brink of starvation when the Rich man comes by again to check up on things…Seeing that the beggar is at the end of the line, and pleading witht he rich man to not forsake him, the rich man, moved my pity and mercy, takes the begger into his house, warms him feeds him and restores his health. The beggar is so greatful to the rich man that he vows to serve him with all his vigor and forever. Thus the beggar remains in the rich mans house as his friend and trusted member of the household dressed in fine clothes and seated at the Father’s table
While the one who was sent to help the beggar is tracked down, arrested and forced to repay all that he stole.

Now to explain, obviuosly the one who was sent back failed and turned against God (of his own free will) while the begger, who never really lost hope, was taken finally to Heaven, the Father’s house and lived, as they say in the fairy tales, “happily ever after”…
If the beggar had dispaired and killed himself before the return of the rich man, he wuld never had known the joy of living in and knowing the rich man and the rich mans’ great and true generosity.

You see this is the thing, once again, that you miss in your analogies. Life does not end…It only changes. Love can be expressed in many different ways and at many different times.
Faith and Trust in God will be rewarded, but in God’s time and for God’s purposes (which are always good and loving). It may not occur in this life, but for those who persevere, it will happen.

Peace
James

 

[Spock]

At any rate - Allow me to address your latest Scenerio…The beggar…You said:
*Let me offer another, admittedly imperfect analogy. There is a homeless beggar on the street, shivering from cold. A very rich man walks by, who could easily help the beggar. Yet, he says: “If I would give some alms to this beggar, I would prevent other people to practise charity, and they would thus be deprived of the opportunity to grow ‘spiritually’… so I will not give to this beggar anything”. The rich man is, of course, God in the parable. Now, if this would NOT be a parable, we both would say that the rich man is full of “that proverbial substance” (I wish I could use the 4-letter equivalent), because he leaves that homeless out in the cold, instead of helping him. The gain for the homeless beggar would far outweigh the “spiritual growth” for some unspecified bystander, who might not even be there to help. *

My first thought is that “The Rich Man” being God indicates that he has already given this man something. Life. The opportunity to Live and Love and to grow.

Well, this is “moving the goalpost”, but I am not going to complain. So you say that God gave the guy his life, and with that he fulfilled all his “duty”. Just like parents who have a newborn, and put him out on the street to fend for himself as he can, or be picked up by a passer-by, if one happens to be there. I am not questioning whether it is the “right thing to do”, I am questioning if this is the sign of a “loving parent”?

Likewise our rich man (God), recognizing that there are others who need to learn greater charity, goes and sends one from his household who needs this lesson. In this way both the beggar and the one giving aid are raised up and Love is promoted in two instead of one.
But let us take this just one step further and say that the person the rich man sends does nothing, or worse squanders the funds entrusted to him by the rich man for the benefit of the beggar…The begger, cold and hungry is at the very brink of starvation when the Rich man comes by again to check up on things…Seeing that the beggar is at the end of the line, and pleading witht he rich man to not forsake him, the rich man, moved my pity and mercy, takes the begger into his house, warms him feeds him and restores his health. The beggar is so greatful to the rich man that he vows to serve him with all his vigor and forever. Thus the beggar remains in the rich mans house as his friend and trusted member of the household dressed in fine clothes and seated at the Father’s table
While the one who was sent to help the beggar is tracked down, arrested and forced to repay all that he stole.

That would be nice, if you could argue that in every instance this is what happens. You also modified the setup again, but I will let that pass. What you have not addressed is the real scenario. God walks by, “hoping” that someone else will pick up the “tab”, but it just so happens that no one is in the neighborhood, and the beggar dies of cold.

Now to explain, obviuosly the one who was sent back failed and turned against God (of his own free will) while the begger, who never really lost hope, was taken finally to Heaven, the Father’s house and lived, as they say in the fairy tales, “happily ever after”…
If the beggar had dispaired and killed himself before the return of the rich man, he wuld never had known the joy of living in and knowing the rich man and the rich mans’ great and true generosity.

No, the beggar did not kill himslef, he simply died.

You see this is the thing, once again, that you miss in your analogies. Life does not end…It only changes.

Of course I do not include them in the analogies, because these questions are only pertinent here and now. Whether there is a reward in the “afterlife” or not, is completety irrelevant in this existence. Sure, you hope for it, but your hope is not an argument.

This is precisely what I am talking about, when I complain about the moving goalposts. This life is important. For me, because I don’t believe in any “afterlife”. For you, because it is your opportunity to grow, to become a better person, to get the grace to get to heaven. You can’t just dismiss it with a wave of hand. What happens in this life is of utmost importance. If God does not interfere, even in the most dire situations, then you have no “right” to insist that he “loves” us.

 

[JRKH]

Well, this is “moving the goalpost”, but I am not going to complain. So you say that God gave the guy his life, and with that he fulfilled all his “duty”. Just like parents who have a newborn, and put him out on the street to fend for himself as he can, or be picked up by a passer-by, if one happens to be there. I am not questioning whether it is the “right thing to do”, I am questioning if this is the sign of a “loving parent”?

Well I don’t consider that I moved any goalposts…after all it was you that said the “rich man” was God - so I addressed this…
The rest is, frankly not worthy of response…

That would be nice, if you could argue that in every instance this is what happens. You also modified the setup again, but I will let that pass. What you have not addressed is the real scenario. God walks by, “hoping” that someone else will pick up the “tab”, but it just so happens that no one is in the neighborhood, and the beggar dies of cold.

Well God never walsk by “hoping” anything…He knows and He plans and He might even step in as needed, only it is rarely in ways that we recognize as Him.

No, the beggar did not kill himslef, he simply died.

You seem to have missed the point of what I had written…

Of course I do not include them in the analogies, because these questions are only pertinent here and now. Whether there is a reward in the “afterlife” or not, is completety irrelevant in this existence. Sure, you hope for it, but your hope is not an argument.

The here and now includes both joy and sorow. Rewards and punishments. so why do you not include rewards in you r analogies but only point up the worst?

This is precisely what I am talking about, when I complain about the moving goalposts. This life is important. For me, because I don’t believe in any “afterlife”. For you, because it is your opportunity to grow, to become a better person, to get the grace to get to heaven. You can’t just dismiss it with a wave of hand. What happens in this life is of utmost importance. If God does not interfere, even in the most dire situations, then you have no “right” to insist that he “loves” us.

I don’t dismiss it - where did you ever get that idea…Of course everything that happens in this life is of the utmost importance…

And I have every right to insist that God Loves us…Including You…since He brought you here to us…

Open your heart to Love…

Peace
James