God is indifferent

[inocente]

The derogatory term “capriciously” overlooks divine omniscience which enables the Creator to decide who will benefit society and themselves the most from being cured.

You are telling us that our loved ones died because God decided that keeping them alive would not sufficiently benefit society. Only pitiless despots do that. I saw your post #218. Please have another go.

You are losing sight of the possibility that the thousands of known miraculous cures are still a small minority because it would not ultimately benefit the others or society. We are limited by our ignorance of the full consequences of even one miracle, let alone probably hundreds of thousands. It would certainly be reckless for God to heal everyone nor does He limit the number explicitly to conceal His existence.
And now you’re telling us that our loved ones died because God would have been reckless to have mercy. Is this really what is taught on RCIA?

*There would be no point in creating the laws of nature if they are going to be constantly suspended and make life unpredictable. Already we complain about Big Brother observing everything we do in public. It would be far worse if we knew for certain we never have any privacy wherever we are. **Constant ***

intervention would indeed reveal God’s existence but there are other reasons why we are left in the dark, the main one being that we would no longer be independent - and that is an objection atheists have raised on this forum. It is disconcerting to know there is a higher authority whose laws we have to obey from the moment we are born until the moment we die.
Yikes. Well, either you’re right, and God tied himself up with lots of red tape. Or you’re wrong.

 

[tonyrey]

There is only one problem is your argument. It is based un the unproven and unsubstantiated assertion that the miracles attributed to Jesus are correct. The story of Jesus is just another ancient fable.

You need to explain why the teaching of Jesus that we have a heavenly Father has survived for two thousand years, is accepted by over two billion people - far more than any other religion - and is the only rational foundation of the principles of liberty, equality and **fraternity **which are accepted by every civilised person throughout the world (including you no doubt).

 

[minkymurph]

Contrasting prepositions:

1. Cricket is boring

Cricket is fascinating.

The cricket enthusiast is likely to be the latter is true. Is someone doesn’t like cricket they are more likely to think the former is true.

The objective person can believe both are true.

1. I feel I want to die but also feel I want to live.

To the individual concerned both prepositions are true. They truly feel both ways. Their course of action will depend on which truth they choose, but does not negate the truth of the other.

 

[tonyrey]

You are telling us that our loved ones died because God decided that keeping them alive would not sufficiently benefit society. Only pitiless despots do that. I saw your post #218. Please have another go.

A distortion of my argument. You need to read it again…

And now you’re telling us that our loved ones died because God would have been reckless to have mercy. Is this really what is taught on RCIA?

Another distortion…

Yikes. Well, either you’re right, and God tied himself up with lots of red tape. Or you’re wrong.

A third distortion…
Please explain precisely how you reached those conclusions.

 

[inocente]

In fact there is plenty of substantial evidence that scientifically unexplained recoveries have occurred in answer to prayer at Lourdes, for example, where the International Medical Committee consists of specialists who are not necessarily Catholics.

There is plenty of substantial evidence that scientifically unexplained recoveries occur everywhere. A hundred years ago there were far more unexplained recoveries simply because there was less medical knowledge.

Either God is in everything or God is in nothing. People who only see God in supposed interventions are doomed to see less and less God as medical knowledge increases.

 

[tonyrey]

There is plenty of substantial evidence that scientifically unexplained recoveries occur everywhere. A hundred years ago there were far more unexplained recoveries simply because there was less medical knowledge.

Either God is in everything or God is in nothing. People who only see God in supposed interventions are doomed to see less and less God as medical knowledge increases.

Do you mean **all **accounts of miracles are misguided?

What makes you think people only see God in “interventions”?

 

[inocente]

A distortion of my argument. You need to read it again…
Another distortion…
A third distortion…
Please explain precisely how you reached those conclusions.

You said “divine omniscience which enables the Creator to decide who will benefit society and themselves the most from being cured.”

Enables the Creator to decide my wife would not benefit society and herself the most from being cured. So he let her die.

That’s not distortion, that’s exactly what you said. I’m not the first to say that either.

 

[inocente]

Do you mean **all **accounts of miracles are misguided?

I didn’t say miracles and didn’t say all accounts. I said “people who only see God in supposed interventions”. Did you mean that your “scientifically unexplained recoveries” are miracles? Is everything which is “scientifically unexplained” a sign of God?

What makes you think people only see God in “interventions”?

I didn’t say people, I said “people who only see God in supposed interventions”. Such as when you said “Constant intervention would indeed reveal God’s existence”.

Whereas Paul says *everything *reveals God’s existence - “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” - Romans 1

The OP is about a deity which proves its existence by interventions that cannot otherwise be explained. Some theists on the thread appear to want that too. But it’s a well known fallacy:

“God of the Gaps arguments are a discredited and outmoded approach to apologetics, in which a gap in scientific knowledge is used as evidence for the existence of God.” - theopedia.com/god-of-the-gaps

 

[tonyrey]

I didn’t say miracles and didn’t say all accounts. I said “people who only see God in supposed interventions”. Did you mean that your “scientifically unexplained recoveries” are miracles? Is everything which is “scientifically unexplained” a sign of God?

I didn’t say people, I said “people who only see God in supposed interventions”. Such as when you said “Constant intervention would indeed reveal God’s existence”.

Whereas Paul says *everything *reveals God’s existence - “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” - Romans 1

The OP is about a deity which proves its existence by interventions that cannot otherwise be explained. Some theists on the thread appear to want that too. But it’s a well known fallacy:

“God of the Gaps arguments are a discredited and outmoded approach to apologetics, in which a gap in scientific knowledge is used as evidence for the existence of God.” - theopedia.com/god-of-the-gaps

The OP doesn’t even mention interventions. It simply states that good and bad happen to good and bad people alike - as if the world should have been created otherwise right from the start.

 

[tonyrey]

You said “divine omniscience which enables the Creator to decide who s benefit society and themselves the most from being cured.”

Enables the Creator to decide my wife would not benefit society and herself the most from being cured. So he let her die.

That’s not distortion, that’s exactly what you said. I’m not the first to say that either.

I have already pointed out that the Creator doesn’t make explicit decisions to let people live or die. He allows the laws of nature to take their course but our prayers and behaviour also have an effect on the outcome of events. To think otherwise is to reject Christ’s teaching. God knows far better than we do what is in our best interests. A Christian should believe that if He allows a person to die it is for a good reason even though we believe it is a tragedy. Death is not the worst evil…

 

[Bradski]

I have already pointed out that the Creator doesn’t make explicit decisions to let people live or die.

And yet:

The derogatory term “capriciously” overlooks divine omniscience which enables the Creator to decide who will benefit society and themselves the most from being cured.

Is someone adding posts under your name which directly conflict with what you have previously written? And as you said:

To a large extent we get what we deserve in this world as well as the next.

And so we return to the mother whose child is dying of cancer. You have already told us that you have no idea why God would choose one person over another, other than the fact that it must benefit society and themselves. So either the death of the child is simply an accident of nature (and the saving of another life is an act of God, which makes Him capricious), or the kid’s death is beneficial.

Already we complain about Big Brother observing everything we do in public. It would be far worse if we knew for certain we never have any privacy wherever we are.

You don’t. Everything, as far as you are concerned, is being watched. The very hairs of your head are numbered, Tony. There is no safe room.

 

[Bradski]

I don’t handle criminal cases but I have advocated cases where in personal view the opposing party was in the right.

There is a certain amount of expediency to be expected in matters lawful and political. And I certainly support free speech, for example, even when it leads to people saying things with which I vehemently disagree. And you could also support the right of women to choose whether to have an abortion if you don’t actually support abortions in the first instance. As you said yourself:

Surely you must have encountered circumstances where individuals advocate the rights of others even though they personally don’t share their views?

But that is not the same as specifically supporting something with which you disagree.

What sort of a world would we live in if we lent support only to what we personally believe to be right?

The word ‘honest’ springs to mind. But perhaps there are aspects of your faith with which you disagree that you support.

What is determined to be true in one set of circumstances may in fact be false in another.

Horrors…relativism!

Contrasting prepositions:

1. Cricket is boring

Cricket is fascinating.

The cricket enthusiast is likely to be the latter is true. Is someone doesn’t like cricket they are more likely to think the former is true.

The objective person can believe both are true.

That person can certainly believe that the enthusiast and the non-enthusiast will hold differing opinion (my wife and myself for example), but I don’t know any sane person who could hold both at the same time.

 

[inocente]

I have already pointed out that the Creator doesn’t make explicit decisions to let people live or die. He allows the laws of nature to take their course but our prayers and behaviour also have an effect on the outcome of events. To think otherwise is to reject Christ’s teaching. God knows far better than we do what is in our best interests. A Christian should believe that if He allows a person to die it is for a good reason even though we believe it is a tragedy. Death is not the worst evil…

No, the journey to death can be far worse. Every minute of every day, somewhere a child below the age of three dies from diarrhea caused by waterborne diseases. As you read this post, another dies.

You tell me God knows far better than we do what is in our best interests. Hence, by your logic, dying of diarrhea is in her best interests. And it’s in the mother’s best interests to have her baby die of diarrhea. Divine omniscience enables the creator to know she will die, know when she will die, know how she will die, know the agony of her death. To know that for every one of those children, every minute of every day.

Which, you tell me, “enables the Creator to decide who will benefit society and themselves the most from being cured”.

Which, you tell me, is a necessary process because “it would certainly be reckless for God to heal everyone”. Hence divine mercy, divine compassion, must be rationed out. And so God intervenes occasionally to miraculously cure one child. While knowingly and benevolently letting the others die in their best interests, every minute of every day.

I’ve never heard anything like your theology from any other Catholic, in real life or on CAF. The moral thing to do is to stop these deaths, by donating money and/or time to charities which provide clean water and sanitation. The immoral thing to do is to try to justify the continued slaughter by a few supposed miraculous cures. I suggest you start again.

 

[tonyrey]

I have already pointed out that the Creator doesn’t make explicit decisions to let people live or die. He

The journey to death is not the worst evil. The worst evil is the indifference, selfishness, greed and corruption that allow others to die from preventable disease…

You tell me God knows far better than we do what is in our best interests. Hence, by your logic, dying of diarrhea is in her best interests. And it’s in the mother’s best interests to have her baby die of diarrhea. Divine omniscience enables the creator to know she will die, know when she will die, know how she will die, know the agony of her death. To know that for every one of those children, every minute of every day. Which, you tell me, “enables the Creator to decide who will benefit society and themselves the most from being cured”.

It is not God who is responsible but** we **whose indifference, selfishness, greed and corruption allow others to die from preventable disease.

Which, you tell me, is a necessary process because “it would certainly be reckless for God to heal everyone”. Hence divine mercy, divine compassion, must be rationed out. And so God intervenes occasionally to miraculously cure one child. While knowingly and benevolently letting the others die in their best interests, every minute of every day.

God knows far better than we do what is in everyone’s best interest. There are far worse evils than death. It is better to die than be victims of the diabolical injustice for which men and women are responsible. To be forced to live in appalling poverty and misery for the rest of one’s life or as a slave maltreated, raped, mutilated and imprisoned for the rest of one’s life is hell on earth. Why do people choose to die fighting for freedom and justice?

I’ve never heard anything like your theology from any other Catholic, in real life or on CAF. The moral thing to do is to stop these deaths, by donating money and/or time to charities which provide clean water and sanitation. The immoral thing to do is to try to justify the continued slaughter by a few supposed miraculous cures. I suggest you start again.

A false dilemma. The choice between helping others and believing God cures and helps us as the result of our prayers is absurd. It is unChristian to believe in a remote deity who never intervenes when there are evils like famines, droughts, earthquakes, tsunamis, pandemics, wars, massacres and revolutions. The notion that “God’s in His heaven, all is right with the world” is infantile and pernicious. And if God did nothing whatsoever when all is not right with the world He would be diabolical…

 

[tonyrey]

I have already pointed out that the Creator doesn’t make explicit decisions

There is no conflict whatsoever. God doesn’t make ad hoc decisions like us. Divine omniscience exists beyond time and space in the eternal present. I didn’t write “decided” but “enables the Creator to decide”.

And as you said:

To a large extent we get what we deserve in this world as well as the next.

And so we return to the mother whose child is dying of cancer. You have already told us that you have no idea why God would choose one person over another, other than the fact that it must benefit society and themselves. So either the death of the child is simply an accident of nature (and the saving of another life is an act of God, which makes Him capricious), or the kid’s death is beneficial.

The term “capricious” is nonsensical in the context of omniscience. If we knew what would happen to children in their subsequent lives if they are cured we would be able to decide what is in their best interests. To think all of them would be better off alive in this world is clearly absurd because it ignores the appalling misery, suffering and injustice to which millions of people are subjected through no fault of their own even in so-called civilised nations. Death is certainly not the worst of evils and in many cases it is a blessing particularly if there is a better life in the next world. Once again Pascal’s wager should be taken into account: it is a question of all or nothing. I know which I prefer.

Already we complain about Big Brother observing everything we do in public. It would be far worse if we knew for certain we never have any privacy wherever we are.

You don’t. Everything, as far as you are concerned, is being watched. The very hairs of your head are numbered, Tony. There is no safe room.

If our conscience is clear we don’t need a safe room, Brad. Obviously we have all done - or not done - things we regret but if we are prepared to make amends we have nothing to hide and nothing to fear. To think there’s nothing we can do is unrealistic because if there is no remedy just to express our regret and good will is enough. We’re not expected to be infallible or impeccable but sincere, considerate and - a neglected virtue - humble…

 

[tonyrey]

And you could also support the right of women to choose whether to have an abortion if you don’t actually support abortions in the first instance.

If you sincerely believe abortion is the murder of an unborn child you would be an accessory to murder if you supported the right of women to choose to have an abortion - unless the woman’s life is at stake or the lives of her other children are imperilled in some way, such as starvation.

 

[inocente]

The journey to death is not the worst evil. The worst evil is the indifference, selfishness, greed and corruption that allow others to die from preventable disease.

By your unique theology, the worst evil is trying to prevent the deaths.

Children have died from these diseases for tens of thousands of years. We didn’t know how to prevent their deaths until 150 years ago. But all that time God knew, and God did nothing. God allowed them to die. God still lets them die. One a minute.

According to you, it’s in their best interests, and “A Christian should believe that if He allows a person to die it is for a good reason even though we believe it is a tragedy”. By which rule we must never try to prevent their deaths, as that works against their best interests and against God’s good reason.

God knows far better than we do what is in everyone’s best interest. There are far worse evils than death. It is better to die than be victims of the diabolical injustice for which men and women are responsible. To be forced to live in appalling poverty and misery for the rest of one’s life or as a slave maltreated, raped, mutilated and imprisoned for the rest of one’s life is hell on earth. Why do people choose to die fighting for freedom and justice?

Enlighten me then on why you think God didn’t intervene to stop the Holocaust. Was Hitler’s free-will more important to God than the free-will of the millions slaughtered? Or for every one of those millions of industrialized deaths ought we believe “that if He allows a person to die it is for a good reason even though we believe it is a tragedy”? Or have I missed some other rule in your theology?

A false dilemma. The choice between helping others and believing God cures and helps us as the result of our prayers is absurd. It is unChristian to believe in a remote deity who never intervenes when there are evils like famines, droughts, earthquakes, tsunamis, pandemics, wars, massacres and revolutions. The notion that “God’s in His heaven, all is right with the world” is infantile and pernicious. And if God did nothing whatsoever when all is not right with the world He would be diabolical…

Occasionally an illness gets better for reasons currently unknown to medical science. Maybe that’s God, but God didn’t intervene to stop the Holocaust. And He didn’t intervene to prevent the deaths of all those children over all those centuries, and still doesn’t, every minute of every day.

Your non-standard theology doesn’t work. God is in everything, not just the unexplained. God works through us. God be in my head / And in my understanding. Don’t ask for signs, for none will be given:

*"Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.”

He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." - Matt 12*

 

[minkymurph]

There is a certain amount of expediency to be expected in matters lawful and political. And I certainly support free speech, for example, even when it leads to people saying things with which I vehemently disagree. And you could also support the right of women to choose whether to have an abortion if you don’t actually support abortions in the first instance. As you said yourself:

I don’t want to discuss abortion on this thread. The reasons should be obvious. If you genuinely want me to respond to the issue you have raised, send me a PM.

The word ‘honest’ springs to mind. But perhaps there are aspects of your faith with which you disagree that you support.

Honest may spring to your mind, but the tyranny of the majority and dictatorship spring to my mind.

Horrors…relativism!

Fair comment, at lot of people dislike relativism, but what I have stated is a fact. A lot of people say, ‘horror’s’ when presented with an ideology they do not embrace or dislike, but if you remove something from the equation you have to put something else equally good or better in it’s place. If you (not you personally) can’t, saying ‘horror’s’ is an ineffectual critique.

It is a fact the rigors of the common law are tempered with the law of Equity. The reason is rigid application of the common law can produce unjust results. Equity produces a more just result. An example is the doctrine of estoppel. If you genuinely want me to expand on this I am happy to do so.

That person can certainly believe that the enthusiast and the non-enthusiast will hold differing opinion (my wife and myself for example), but I don’t know any sane person who could hold both at the same time.

Can you back this up with an example of two differing opinions a sane person could not hold at the same time. Stating we disagree with what someone has said presents little difficulty. It must be your turn to provide examples and mine to critique.

 

[minkymurph]

The word ‘honest’ springs to mind. But perhaps there are aspects of your faith with which you disagree that you support.

Apologies - did not address the latter part of this assertion. Don’t want to be accused of ducking the question.

Yes, there are aspects of my faith which I personally would disagree but support.

Reasons are as follows:

It is based on a personal opinion.

I do not believe my personal opinions are ‘it’ - for want of a better phrase and it is at least possible I could be wrong,

Where we advocate anything and others follow a specific course of action as a result of our promptings we must take personal responsibility for their actions. I believe we must not ‘dodge the bullet’ but hiding behind an ‘Well I didn’t say you had to do it’ screen if things don’t go well - and they may not.

I do not believe I have the right to interfere with another’s individual conscience nor impose my personal will on others.

I do not believe I have the right to determine what others should or should not believe,

I don’t believe I have the authority to determine the tenet of the Catholic faith.

On the last point it’s probably just as well.

 

[tonyrey]

The journey to death is not the worst evil. The worst evil is the indifference, selfishness, greed and corruption that allow others to die from preventable disease.

NB Such extraneous comments violate the forum rule of courtesy. It is also absurd to deduce that I believe the worst evil is trying to prevent “the deaths”. Where is the logic in that conclusion?

Children have died from these diseases for tens of thousands of years. We didn’t know how to prevent their deaths until 150 years ago. But all that time God knew, and God did nothing. God allowed them to die. God still lets them die. One a minute.

Precisely how could God have enlightened our ancestors?

According to you, it’s in their best interests, and “A Christian should believe that if He allows a person to die it is for a good reason even though we believe it is a tragedy”. By which rule we must never try to prevent their deaths, as that works against their best interests and against God’s good reason.

Yet another non sequitur. Is God not justified in permitting those deaths? If not why not?

God knows far better than we do what is in everyone’s best interest. There are far worse evils than death. It is better to die than be victims of the diabolical injustice for which men and women are responsible. To be forced to live in appalling poverty and misery for the rest of one’s life or as a slave maltreated, raped, mutilated and imprisoned for the rest of one’s life is hell on earth. Why do people choose to die fighting for freedom and justice?

Is that argument invalid? If so why?

Enlighten me then on why you think God didn’t intervene to stop the Holocaust.

Another impolite request. “Why didn’t God intervene to stop the Holocaust?” is sufficient. Precisely **how **should God have prevented the Holocaust?

Was Hitler’s free-will more important to God than the free-will of the millions slaughtered? Or for every one of those millions of industrialized deaths ought we believe “that if He allows a person to die it is for a good reason even though we believe it is a tragedy”?

God is omniscient and we are not. He knows it is better for us to have free will - without which we would be incapable of love - than prevent evil. Jesus chose to become a victim to liberate us from a this-worldly mentality which regards survival as the first priority:

• Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
• Blessed are they who mourn, for they will be comforted.
• Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the land.
• Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied.
• Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
• Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God.
• Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
• Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Or have I missed some other rule in your theology?

A third example of discourtesy…

A false dilemma. A choice between helping others and believing God cures and helps us as the result of our prayers is absurd. It is unChristian to believe He is a remote deity who never intervenes when there are evils like famines, droughts, earthquakes, tsunamis, pandemics, wars, massacres and revolutions. The notion that “God’s in His heaven, all is right with the world” is infantile and pernicious. If God did nothing when all is not right with the world He would be diabolical…

Occasionally an illness gets better for reasons currently unknown to medical science. Maybe that’s God, but God didn’t intervene to stop the Holocaust. And He didn’t intervene to prevent the deaths of all those children over all those centuries, and still doesn’t, every minute of every day.

To put scientific explanation before the promise of Jesus that our prayers will be answered is a false priority.

Your non-standard theology doesn’t work.

God is in everything, not just the unexplained. God works through us. God be in my head / And in my understanding. Don’t ask for signs, for none will be given:

*"Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.”

He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." - Matt 12*

To pray for our needs is not to ask for signs but to respond to Christ’s instruction:
“Ask and you shall receive”. Our prayers are always answered but not always in the way we wish because only He knows what is ultimately best for all of us. It is presumptuous to think we know what God should have done, should be doing and should do in the future. What seems a tragedy to us will always turn out to be a blessing but we need to have faith in His wisdom and love for us. Otherwise we’ll become bitter and cynical. Many people think it was folly for Jesus to let Himself be mocked, scourged and crucified but we know His example and teaching have proved to be a source of hope, inspiration and consolation to countless people throughout history and throughout the world.

NB If you cannot refrain from unnecessary, personal comments this is the last response I shall make to your posts.