Gnostic Atheism

[reggieM]

I’m going to assume (maybe stupidly) that there is some element of genuine inquiry trapped under this obviously baiting and juvenile response.

Penance generally requires restoration when possible. If someone suffers a material loss by my sinful act, part of my penance (not all) would likely be the restoration of their loss if that’s possible.

I recall one candid fellow who was sharing his experience with penance after he confessed to his priest that he was cheating on his wife. Part of his penance was informing his wife of the fact.

Anecdotal, yes. But penance for a grave sin requires a bit more than a few spoken words. See your priest for more info.

Restoration is necessary.
It’s important to learn about the Sacrament of Reconciliation - I mean before getting outraged about various things and exposing one’s ignorance.
The penance given by the priest satisfies the sacramental absolution - but there is something more. The CCC calls it “the temporal punishment of sin”, or "fruitful satisfaction’.
1450 "Penance requires . . . the sinner to endure all things willingly, be contrite of heart, confess with the lips, and practice complete humility and fruitful satisfaction."49
The Catholic teaching on Purgatory is essential here.
Fr. F.X. Schouppe’s book is a fairly standard reference.

 

[reggieM]

If someone raped and murdered my child, then how much would he have to do to recompense for that. And that’s a serious question. I would like an answer

There are quite a lot of problems here and they really all come back to you.
I already asked you and Vera_Ljuba a simple question but you both skipped over it.
No - the problem is for you to start explaining what you mean by justice - instead of just making jokes and trivializing it. I mean, even a secular court has to understand this.

Let’s pretend you insulted me on-line, for example. How much recompense should you owe me? A million dollars? Two million? I’d appreciate some scientific precision here. What is the just amount and how do you know?

… an eternity in heaven can easily recompense for whatever horrors we suffer in this life.

Again, as I said - this is your challenge that you refused to answer.
If you caused me some injury, of any kind - how much recompense should you give me to “undo the deed”?
It should be fairly easy, right?
You’re complaining about Justice, so I’m assuming you know how to administer and adjudicate a system of justice that can answer precisely how much, what kind and what balances and weights of Justice should be used in whatever hypothetical scenarios you are ruling in your mind. Because that’s where your system of justice is right now - in your own mind.

I have no access to it. Do you take into account Motive? Prior awareness, pre-meditation, various levels of guilt by all parties? Do you have some way to scientifically measure precise quantities of injustice? Is physical pain the worst thing possible to suffer in this life? If so - how do you know that? Clearly, you talk about someone raping and murdering your child. Are you concerned about justice due to yourself, or justice due to your dead child? If to yourself - where precisely is your pain? What quantity are you suffering? You weren’t raped or murdered - so there is no physical pain. So, you’re saying “emotional pain” has to be paid back somehow? Right?

I will take it farther in my next post - if you’re interested. But as a hint - the idea that an atheist is morally outraged about a lack of justice is illogical and irrational in itself.

 

[minkymurph]

Yep, pretty much.

And that’s because of my oft-repeated mantra: scratch an atheist, find a fundamentalist.

In order to remain adamantine about one’s atheism one needs to view things, (esp Scripture) with a fundamentalist lens.

There is no doubt uncanny comparisons can made between the atheist view and fundamentalism, and in my view any form of fundamentalism is detrimental to society irrespective of what it is.

Quite frankly I don’t understand for the life of me why anyone want to argue justice and mercy are mutually exclusive. What purpose would it serve to establish they in fact are? Let’s say be definition justice and mercy are mutually exclusive. They are certainly not mutually exclusive on application. What kind of legal system would we have if mercy was exclusive to it and in order to be just a judge could not be merciful? What kind of society would we have if in order to engage in just dealings we would be obliged to exclude mercy, or in order to be merciful we cannot be just? Maybe someone else can make sense of this but I can’t.

 

[PRmerger]

There is no doubt uncanny comparisons can made between the atheist view and fundamentalism, and in my view any form of fundamentalism is detrimental to society irrespective of what it is.

Quite frankly I don’t understand for the life of me why anyone want to argue justice and mercy are mutually exclusive.

So that one can remain obdurate and intractable about one’s atheism, one would think.

 

[reggieM]

There is no doubt uncanny comparisons can made between the atheist view and fundamentalism, and in my view any form of fundamentalism is detrimental to society irrespective of what it is.

Quite frankly I don’t understand for the life of me why anyone want to argue justice and mercy are mutually exclusive. What purpose would it serve to establish they in fact are? Let’s say be definition justice and mercy are mutually exclusive. They are certainly not mutually exclusive on application. What kind of legal system would we have if mercy was exclusive to it and in order to be just a judge could not be merciful? What kind of society would we have if in order to engage in just dealings we would be obliged to exclude mercy, or in order to be merciful we cannot be just? Maybe someone else can make sense of this but I can’t.

I think what someone is saying is: God is perfect Justice. He is also perfect Mercy.
Supposedly, this is a contradiction.
But as pointed out, repentance, atonement, making satisfaction for sin - also deserves a Just Response. To simply claim that God should ignore a sincere attempt to make up for a sin is to have an Unjust God - not a perfectly Just one.
So, a God of perfect Justice, must also be a God of perfect Mercy. Since the perfection of both is required for the Perfection of Goodness, which is what God is.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I can honestly say this is the first time in my life I have ever heard it said justice and mercy are mutually exclusive - in any forum; legal, religious, political, philosophical, or anything else.

All you need is read the definitions and use elementary logic.

Justice is when you get what you deserve.
Mercy is when you DON’T get what you deserve.
Grace is when you get what you DON’T deserve.

These are the Catholic definitions. Nothing else needs to be said.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I’m going to assume (maybe stupidly) that there is some element of genuine inquiry trapped under this obviously baiting and juvenile response.

Actually, it is sarcastic. In real life there is no “undo” button, so full restoration is IMPOSSIBLE. There would be a solution, however… If God would foresee the bad action, and would interfere. There would be no need for restoration.

 

[minkymurph]

All you need is read the definitions and use elementary logic.

Justice is when you get what you deserve.
Mercy is when you DON’T get what you deserve.
Grace is when you get what you DON’T deserve.

These are the Catholic definitions. Nothing else needs to be said.

There is something else to be said. Where in Catholic theology did you read these definitions?

 

[Vonsalza]

Actually, it is sarcastic. In real life there is no “undo” button, so full restoration is IMPOSSIBLE. There would be a solution, however… If God would foresee the bad action, and would interfere. There would be no need for restoration.

Aaaaaaaaaand were back to Vera’s destruction of free moral agency.

The morally-locked lemming isn’t what God created, as it would render impossible the fulfillment of God’s desire for mankind to worship Him of their free will.

You have the capability to be good or bad. Your objection to this consequences of this reality is irrelevant. It’s like trying to argue that fire shouldn’t be hot. It simply is, independent of anyone’s feelings.

---

But to your point, full-restoration is indeed impossible. We cannot return to Eden. The consequences of our acts echo across creation like a moral butterfly effect.

This is not, however, an excuse to refuse to restore what can be restored.

 

[STT]

Aaaaaaaaaand were back to Vera’s destruction of free moral agency.

You need to show that God cannot create a very specific creation which evil free.

The morally-locked lemming isn’t what God created, as it would render impossible the fulfillment of God’s desire for mankind to worship Him of their free will.

What do you mean with worship. God is complete and doesn’t need any thing. So what is the God purpose?

You have the capability to be good or bad. Your objection to this consequences of this reality is irrelevant. It’s like trying to argue that fire shouldn’t be hot. It simply is, independent of anyone’s feelings.

That is correct.

But to your point, full-restoration is indeed impossible. We cannot return to Eden. The consequences of our acts echo across creation like a moral butterfly effect.

That is not true. God could reverse the movie, all our experiences.

This is not, however, an excuse to refuse to restore what can be restored.

There is a problem here.

 

[Vonsalza]

You need to show that God cannot create a very specific creation which evil free.

No sir, I do not. But to satisfy your request, the tree in your front yard probably isn’t evil. However, it lacks moral agency.

What do you mean with worship. God is complete and doesn’t need any thing. So what is the God purpose?

Your penchant for conflations resurfaces. Desire =/= Need.

That is not true. God could reverse the movie, all our experiences.

Doing so would annihilate our moral agency as “effect” is chained to “cause”.
You and Vera would be bunk-mates on the issue.

There is a problem here.

…then identify it? :ehh:

 

[STT]

No sir, I do not. But to satisfy your request, the tree in your front yard probably isn’t evil. However, it lacks moral agency.

I was talking about ability whether God could create evil free universe when there are moral agent withe free will. Tree is not a moral agent with free will.

Your penchant for conflations resurfaces. Desire =/= Need.

What do you mean with desire and need? Aren’t they related?

Doing so would annihilate our moral agency as “effect” is chained to “cause”.
You and Vera would be bunk-mates on the issue.

You are correct but I meant experience without decision. God has ability to shutdown our freedom as He wishes. God in fact is sustaining us.

…then identify it? :ehh:

What you think is not correct.

 

[Vonsalza]

I was talking about ability whether God could create evil free universe when there are moral agent withe free will. Tree is not a moral agent with free will.

When there is only one option, there is no possibility of agency.

If there was no alternative, His desire for freely chosen worship and obedience couldn’t be fulfilled.

What do you mean with desire and need? Aren’t they related?

Yes, sorta like how lions and tabbys are related. Still different things.

“…I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God…” - Exodus 20

 

[STT]

When there is only one option, there is no possibility of agency.

That is not true. The number of possible universe, what it could be if we have done so and so, is infinite.

If there was no alternative, His desire for freely chosen worship and obedience couldn’t be fulfilled.

The universe without evil is possible. Why He didn’t desire that?

Yes, sorta like how lions and tabbys are related. Still different things.

“…I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God…” - Exodus 20

Isn’t jealousy a sin?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Aaaaaaaaaand were back to Vera’s destruction of free moral agency.

I guess you don’t understand the difference between “destroy” and “limit”.

The morally-locked lemming isn’t what God created, as it would render impossible the fulfillment of God’s desire for mankind to worship Him of their free will.

So, if we would be allowed “not to worship” God, that would be sufficient freedom. There is no need to have the freedom to do “evil” acts against our fellow human beings. I wonder if you understand this.

 

[reggieM]

The universe without evil is possible. Why He didn’t desire that?
?

Because then His creatures would not be able to freely choose to love Him.

Through the potential for evil, a greater good came from it.

 

[STT]

Because then His creatures would not be able to freely choose to love Him.

There is no bond in a good universe against free will. It is just a possibility.

Through the potential for evil, a greater good came from it.

It is always better to do perfectly good rather than sometimes do evil for greater good.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

And the problems of Good and Evil exist for atheists too.

They have no explanation.

Nor do they have any satisfaction.

A cousin dies at age 12 of bone cancer and the atheist has to tell his child, “Yes, child, that is all that happens to him. I am sorry but there’s no satisfying way to tell you that this is fair or that there is any justice for him”.

You still don’t understand the nature of the problem. The question is NOT: “why does evil exist?”, is “why does evil exist when God could prevent it”? I wonder how many times this simple difference will have to be repeated before you will hit the Eureka moment.

But if a 12 years old child asks: “why did my cousin die of cancer?”… the obvious answer is: “because there is no loving God”. That is a perfectly satisfactory answer to a smart child, and it is also the foundation of raising a good, skeptical person, who will not swallow inane cop-outs. Better to swallow the bitter pill that there is no fairness, there is no justice than to wallow in some syrupy self-deception.

It is unwise to lie to a child. They will see through you.

 

[STT]

You still don’t understand the nature of the problem. The question is NOT: “why does evil exist?”, is “why does evil exist when God could prevent it”? I wonder how many times this simple difference will have to be repeated before you will hit the Eureka moment.

But if a 12 years old child asks: “why did my cousin die of cancer?”… the obvious answer is: “because there is no loving God”. That is a perfectly satisfactory answer to a smart child, and it is also the foundation of raising a good, skeptical person, who will not swallow inane cop-outs. Better to swallow the bitter pill that there is no fairness, there is no justice than to wallow in some syrupy self-deception.

It is unwise to lie to a child. They will see through you.

Therefore God is neutral in good and evil.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Therefore God is neutral in good and evil.

Yes, that would be a rational conclusion.