God is indifferent

[inocente]

NB Such extraneous comments violate the forum rule of courtesy.

Another impolite request.

A third example of discourtesy…

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

I can’t see how. At the top-right of each post there is a red triangle. Please click it on my post and tell the moderator each of the forum rules you think it violates and why you think it does.

I’ll leave responding to your post to give you time to report me. I don’t understand how I broke forum rules, and don’t want to unknowingly break any more.

 

[tonyrey]

I can’t see how. At the top-right of each post there is a red triangle. Please click it on my post and tell the moderator each of the forum rules you think it violates and why you think it does.

I’ll leave responding to your post to give you time to report me. I don’t understand how I broke forum rules, and don’t want to unknowingly break any more.

I don’t report anyone on principle. I leave it to the mods to decide when people have gone too far. If you don’t understand just imagine how you would feel if some one wrote to you: “By your unique theology”, “Enlighten me then on…”, " in your theology" and “Your non-standard theology”. Just make objective statements or ask objective questions without prefacing them with personal comments which are unnecessary and either sarcastic or condescending. I have already pointed out they violate the forum rule of courtesy.

 

[inocente]

I don’t report anyone on principle. I leave it to the mods to decide when people have gone too far. If you don’t understand just imagine how you would feel if some one wrote to you: “By your unique theology”, “Enlighten me then on…”, " in your theology" and “Your non-standard theology”. Just make objective statements or ask objective questions without prefacing them with personal comments which are unnecessary and either sarcastic or condescending. I have already pointed out they violate the forum rule of courtesy.

You contradict yourself by saying you leave it to the mods to decide when you then claim I violated a rule. You cannot both decide yourself and also leave it to the mods to decide.

I’m not trying to be discourteous. See it from my point of view. This is a public forum and as a non-Catholic I need to make it clear to others that I am not critiquing any doctrine of the Church here. That is why I refer to your theology as non-standard.

For example, I have never before heard any Christian of any denomination say, as you did to another poster (#198): “divine omniscience which enables the Creator to decide who will benefit society and themselves the most from being cured”. In the same post you say “It would certainly be reckless for God to heal everyone”. Please show me where the Church teaches either of those. For that matter, show me any mainstream theologian who does. Otherwise it’s just plain fact, from those two points alone, that your theology is unique to you personally.

Read those two points again. Can you not see they both explicitly reject divine mercy? That’s why I said start again. I think somewhere along the line either your thinking or your explanation of your thinking has got way out of whack with the Holy Spirit.

 

[Bradski]

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.

Off the top of my head…I can’t imagine someone being able to have the opinion that premarital sex is wrong in all cases and also hold the opinion that it is acceptable depending on the circumstances.

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.

Which I presume you believe to be true. In which case the opposite case you must hold to be false. If you are unsure, then it’s not an applicable example.

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,

So you are admitting you could be wrong. Which, again, I don’t see as a valid example. I could easily say myself: ‘I think bombing Isis is a good thing, but I could be wrong’. That is not supporting something which I don’t believe. If I DID think it was wrong, it is bizarre in extremis for me to even consider saying: ‘Bombing Isis is the right thing to do’.

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.

What others do has no bearing on what you personally believe to be true. You cannot hold a diametrically opposed position just in case someone follows your lead. One assumes that what you believe you hold to be true. If it’s not applicable to anyone else, then simply say so.

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

Not relevant.

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

Ditto.

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

You don’t have to. But if you disagree with any aspect of Catholic faith then that is it. Period. Whether you still comply is another matter. But you cannot agree and disagree at the same time.

 

[STT]

Then we disagree. When there is only one antidote and two sick people, we cannot cure both of them. This is reality. If God would be “good”, he could simply double the antidote, so that both people could be cured. If God would be “bad”, he could spoil the antidote so that neither could be cured. But God does not do either. The only rational analysis is that God (if exists at all) simply does not care.

It would be so nice if you all would stick to the topic of the thread. Not trying to present evidence for God’s existence, because that was already stipulated (for the purposes of this discussion) in the opening post.
The sun shines on the righteous and wicked alike. Some good people have good life, other good people have a horrible life. Some bad people have good life, other bad people have bad life.
A good God would lessen (or eliminate) the bad outcomes - that is what would make God “good”. An evil God would minimize (or eliminate) the good outcomes, that is what would make God “bad”. Why can’t you discuss these simple propositions?

Because Catholics define bad/evil as lack of good. God is the best therefore God is the best in good since the best in bad/evil does not exist. This means that God cares since He is the best in good. Why He doesn’t act to remove bad/evil? Because that is our responsibility-- at least to a degree that we can afford it.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Because Catholics define bad/evil as lack of good. God is the best therefore God is the best in good since the best in bad/evil does not exist. This means that God cares since He is the best in good. Why He doesn’t act to remove bad/evil? Because that is our responsibility-- at least to a degree that we can afford it.

This is a good example why I am rapidly losing interest in these conversations. You define something in a fashion that is nonsensical for others, and then expect those others to accept your definition. Just for the fun of it I will tell you the correct definition of evil: “we speak of evil acts, when someone volitionally causes (or allows) harm to someone who (or what) has a nervous system which can experience pain and suffering”. A tsunami can cause tremendous harm, but since it has no volition, it is merely harmful, but NOT evil. A cat can “play” with a mouse, but since it does not know the suffering if causes, it is NOT evil.

And I am not talking about “responsibility” either. Any decent person would prevent any gratuitous harm IF they are capable of doing it. Maybe you are familiar with the story of good Samaritan. One of the few stories in the Bible that are worthy to read and contemplate.

You don’t have to try to respond with the usual arguments, “free will” and / or “since we are ignorant of the possible positive outcomes of the harm, we are not in the position to criticize God”. I have seen the all, and more, and I am getting sick of seeing these staple responses.

 

[STT]

This is a good example why I am rapidly losing interest in these conversations. You define something in a fashion that is nonsensical for others, and then expect those others to accept your definition.

That is their definition. Not mine. I am wondering why nobody in here defend her/his belief.

Just for the fun of it I will tell you the correct definition of evil: “we speak of evil acts, when someone volitionally causes harm to someone who (or what) has a nervous system which can experience pain and suffering”. A tsunami can cause tremendous harm, but since it has no volition, it is merely harmful, but NOT evil. A cat can “play” with a mouse, but since it does not know the suffering if causes, it is NOT evil.

I partially agree with your definition. To me evil act is an act which causes confusion and suffering.

And I am not talking about “responsibility” either. Any decent person would prevent any gratuitous harm IF they are capable of doing it. Maybe you are familiar with the story of good Samaritan. One of the few stories in the Bible that are worthy to read and contemplate.

I am not familiar with Samaritan. I however think that responsibility is related to the topic of your thread since a good God intervene because He is responsible if we were ignorant. He however doesn’t because we are not ignorant and are responsible for our lives.

You don’t have to try to respond with the usual arguments, “free will” and / or “since we are ignorant of the possible positive outcomes of the harm, we are not in the position to criticize God”. I have seen the all, and more, and I am getting sick of seeing these staple responses.

I think we are allowed to criticize God but we are always wrong.

 

[Vonsalza]

That is their definition. Not mine. I am wondering why nobody in here defend her/his belief.
I partially agree with your definition. To me evil act is an act which causes confusion and suffering.
I am not familiar with Samaritan. I however think that responsibility is related to the topic of your thread since a good God intervene because He is responsible if we were ignorant. He however doesn’t because we are not ignorant and are responsible for our lives.
I think we are allowed to criticize God but we are always wrong.

I’m glad you two found each other.

Happy Valentines Day!

Oh, and "“since we are ignorant of the possible positive outcomes of the harm, we are not in the position to criticize God”. is a valid correct response to “suffering is useless” because it returns the argument to the correct state of uncertainty in the absence of any proof one-way-or-another.

 

[minkymurph]

Off the top of my head…I can’t imagine someone being able to have the opinion that premarital sex is wrong in all cases and also hold the opinion that it is acceptable depending on the circumstances.

Bradski you have returned! Thought you’d chickened out when presented with a worthy opponent.

That statement is what we call in my part of the world a ‘wind up.’ A ‘wind up’ is where you don’t really mean what you say but teasing.

If premarital sex involves rape or child abuse - wrong. I don’t believe you or I have any difficulty in categorizing such an act as ‘wrong’.

That said, I doubt if you are referring to rape or child abuse but rather sex between two consenting adults? Catholicism holds to the ideal. The Catholic ideal of sexual union is it happens within a marriage for procreation - children. This benchmark is not a ‘bad’ benchmark. It cannot be considered ‘bad’ for two people who choose to refrain from sex until married and when they have sex are open to the possibility a child may result. It cannot be said this is a ‘bad’ thing, but I concede an unrealistic thing.

We could consider societies where they had female slaves but we will not as as I would guess that is not what you are talking about. I would also guess you are not talking about rape or incest. You may be talking about couples that have sex purely for physical gratification. Sex in these circumstances can be categorized as morally(not legally) ‘wrong’ on the harm principle.

Let’s say you are not talking about this. In terms of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ there is a black and white bench marks, but also shades of grey. It is true Catholicism holds to an ideal. That ideal can be considered unrealistic, outdated and many other things, but I would assert that in the absence of the benchmark it is difficult to set our standards of morality.

I personally would hold that as a general rule premarital sex is wrong in all circumstances in a general sense, I hold it is wrong in all circumstances based on the harm principle in that harm is less likely to result if sex only happens within marriage and both parties are open to accepting any children that may result. That said, what I have presented is a black and white interpretation of right and wrong and there are shades of grey. There are many circumstance in which we have sex that are not the Catholic ideal and thus could technically be categorized as ‘wrong.’ But - the law of our land is willing to excuse what in a technical sense is ‘wrong’ and rightly do as life is not a text book.

The law of land allows defenses to crime. It can never be said it is not wrong kill someone, but there are circumstances in which we are willing to excuse. Not that having sex is akin to murder, but to illustrate there are shade of grey in terms of premarital sex. There is a distinction between rape, child abuse, sexual experimentation, sex for physical gratification and sex with someone you care about. There are thus shades of grey in falling short of the Catholic ideal. That ideal can be said to be bizarre and unrealistic, but it’s set for reason as I have illustrated. Thus,if you believe sexual union within marriage and both parties are open to children is the ideal, others who fall short of the ideal are technically ‘wrong’ but we are willing to excuse them, it can be said premarital sex is always wrong, but acceptable depending on the circumstances,

 

[STT]

I’m glad you two found each other.

Happy Valentines Day!

Thank you

Oh, and "“since we are ignorant of the possible positive outcomes of the harm, we are not in the position to criticize God”. is a valid correct response to “suffering is useless” because it returns the argument to the correct state of uncertainty in the absence of any proof one-way-or-another.

It is better to say to judge your God instead of criticizing Him. This way, you will have a better understanding of what really God is.

 

[Vonsalza]

Thank you
It is better to say to judge your God instead of criticizing Him. This way, you will have a better understanding of what really God is.

That was a quote from Vera

 

[minkymurph]

Which I presume you believe to be true. In which case the opposite case you must hold to be false. If you are unsure, then it’s not an applicable example.

I believe my personal opinions are true? Of course I don’t! All my personal opinions are true? What a presumptuous, arrogant thing to say? Of course my personal opinions can be wrong - as can yours.

Anything we are not absolutely certain about is not applicable? Are you saying there is nothing no one cannot be uncertain about and anything I personally am uncertain about does not merit consideration in any shape, form or capacity? I am uncertain God does not exist.

So you are admitting you could be wrong. Which, again, I don’t see as a valid example. I could easily say myself: ‘I think bombing Isis is a good thing, but I could be wrong’. That is not supporting something which I don’t believe. If I DID think it was wrong, it is bizarre in extremis for me to even consider saying: ‘Bombing Isis is the right thing to do’.

Of course I can be wrong. Is it no way possible you can be wrong? Bombing ISIS is in sense wrong. Bombing ISIS may also be justified. I am confident there are thing you believe are wrong but also believe can be justified.

What others do has no bearing on what you personally believe to be true. You cannot hold a diametrically opposed position just in case someone follows your lead. One assumes that what you believe you hold to be true. If it’s not applicable to anyone else, then simply say so.

What others do has a considerable bearing on what we personally believe to be true. If you can go through life forming no opinions in terms of what is true based on what others do, you must be very detached from others,

Give me an example of something someone believes to true, a contrasting opinion they also believe to be true, then provide me empirical evidence the individual who holds these contrasting opinions is as you asserted insane.

 

[minkymurph]

Not relevant…

Fair enough.

You don’t have to. But if you disagree with any aspect of Catholic faith then that is it. Period. Whether you still comply is another matter. But you cannot agree and disagree at the same time.

If you cannot agree and disagree at the same time, then what you are asserting is this is impossible. I assert it’s not impossible. Yes, there are contrasting opinions it is highly improbable one would believe two conflicting opinions are true but that would depend on what the opinions are. Neither can it be stated categorically someone who, as you asserted, believes two conflicting opinion are true is insane. You are entitled to believe that, but I was of the opinion atheists did not believe anything unless it could be visibly demonstrated and supported by empirical evidence. I am not a psychiatrist, but I would assume more is involved in certifying someone as insane that the fact they believe two conflicting opinions are true.

 

[tonyrey]

You contradict yourself by saying you leave it to the mods to decide when you then claim I violated a rule. You cannot both decide yourself and also leave it to the mods to decide.

False dilemma. Like everyone else I am entitled to my opinion.

I’m not trying to be discourteous. See it from my point of view. This is a public forum and as a non-Catholic I need to make it clear to others that I am not critiquing any doctrine of the Church here. That is why I refer to your theology as non-standard.
For example, I have never before heard any Christian of any denomination say, as you did to another poster (#198): “divine omniscience which enables the Creator to decide who will benefit society and themselves the most from being cured”. In the same post you say “It would certainly be reckless for God to heal everyone”. Please show me where the Church teaches either of those. For that matter, show me any mainstream theologian who does. Otherwise it’s just plain fact, from those two points alone, that your theology is unique to you personally.

**1.There are many truths the Church does not teach explicitly. **

**2. God’s infinite love and wisdom ensure that no one will suffer unnecessarily and He intervenes when He knows it is in everyone’s best interests.

1. These are facts which are not “unique to me personally”. **

 

[minkymurph]

What others do has no bearing on what you personally believe to be true. You cannot hold a diametrically opposed position just in case someone follows your lead. One assumes that what you believe you hold to be true. If it’s not applicable to anyone else, then simply say so.

Ooops - missed these points.

It’s not applicable to anyone else at law - in terms of the law of land. It’s not applicable to anyone else in terms of freedom of choice. If someone chooses not to believe the matter is between them and God. Someone may choose not to believe on the ground they are unconvinced for genuine reasons. Others may in fact be suitably convinced but don’t care - and there are shades of grey in between.

You don’t have to. But if you disagree with any aspect of Catholic faith then that is it. Period. Whether you still comply is another matter. But you cannot agree and disagree at the same time.

Have you never heard it said I agree but also disagree? Or - I agree in principle but…?
To me these are statements a thinking person would make.

I also had a teacher that often said there is no such thing as can’t. You can say someone should not, but saying they can’t when they in fact do is somewhat futile. ‘You can’t do that!’ I just did.

 

[inocente]

**1.There are many truths the Church does not teach explicitly. **

**2. God’s infinite love and wisdom ensure that no one will suffer unnecessarily and He intervenes when He knows it is in everyone’s best interests.

1. These are facts which are not “unique to me personally”.**

Your claim that “He intervenes when He knows it is in everyone’s best interests” is not a fact!

It’s a utilitarian claim. But God, aka Jesus, instead teaches us (Luke 10) to intervene when it’s in the victim’s interest, regardless of everyone’s best interests. And God always does what he preaches (Matt 23).

Apply your claim to all those millions of children who have died from waterborne disease over the centuries. You yourself said it’s immoral not to try to save them. It harms the victim and everyone’s interest. There is no possible benefit of innocents dying from diarrhea for tens of thousands of years. So it cannot follow that “He intervenes when He knows it is in everyone’s best interests”.

When you add in your other claims, I doubt your theology is compatible with Church teaching.

On the skipped post from yesterday:

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

You said “A Christian should believe that if He allows a person to die it is for a good reason”. In which case, for every single child in the millions who have died from diarrhea over the centuries, I should believe God allowed it for a good reason. And for every single Jew who died in the Holocaust, God allowed it for a good reason. The Good Samaritan should have allowed the victim to die, knowing it was for a good reason. No, no, no.

*Precisely **how ***should God have prevented the Holocaust?

Your argument is that “He intervenes when He knows it is in everyone’s best interests”, so if God is omnipotent, he could have caused key Nazis to have heart attacks. I mean, you say God miraculously cures people at Lourdes, so he surely had the power to intervene, knowing it was in everyone’s best interests.

inocente;14472726:

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?

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:

If God is good to allow eight million deaths in order to protect one person’s free will, are we good if we allow eight million deaths to protect one person’s free will? Or must we do the opposite of God to be good?

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.

No, there’s no love in the Holocaust or the deaths of all those children, no love at all. Their millions of deaths were obscene. None of them were a blessing, not even one.

If you really can’t see the glaring contradictions in your theology at this point, I predict you never will.

 

[tonyrey]

Your claim that “He intervenes when He knows it is in everyone’s best interests” is not a fact!

It’s a utilitarian claim. But God, aka Jesus, instead teaches us (Luke 10) to intervene when it’s in the victim’s interest, regardless of everyone’s best interests. And God always does what he preaches (Matt 23).

Apply your claim to all those millions of children who have died from waterborne disease over the centuries. You yourself said it’s immoral not to try to save them. It harms the victim and everyone’s interest. There is no possible benefit of innocents dying from diarrhea for tens of thousands of years. So it cannot follow that “He intervenes when He knows it is in everyone’s best interests”.

When you add in your other claims, I doubt your theology is compatible with Church teaching.

On the skipped post from yesterday:

You said “A Christian should believe that if He allows a person to die it is for a good reason”. In which case, for every single child in the millions who have died from diarrhea over the centuries, I should believe God allowed it for a good reason. And for every single Jew who died in the Holocaust, God allowed it for a good reason. The Good Samaritan should have allowed the victim to die, knowing it was for a good reason. No, no, no.

Your argument is that “He intervenes when He knows it is in everyone’s best interests”, so if God is omnipotent, he could have caused key Nazis to have heart attacks. I mean, you say God miraculously cures people at Lourdes, so he surely had the power to intervene, knowing it was in everyone’s best interests.

If God is good to allow eight million deaths in order to protect one person’s free will, are we good if we allow eight million deaths to protect one person’s free will? Or must we do the opposite of God to be good?

No, there’s no love in the Holocaust or the deaths of all those children, no love at all. Their millions of deaths were obscene. None of them were a blessing, not even one.

If you really can’t see the glaring contradictions in your theology at this point, I predict you never will.

Please answer one simple question:

Does God permit unnecessary suffering?

 

[inocente]

Please answer one simple question:

Does God permit unnecessary suffering?

We’ve already been around this. I asked you whether Hitler’s free-will was more important to God than the free-will of the Jews slaughtered in the Holocaust, and you replied “He knows it is better for us to have free will - without which we would be incapable of love - than prevent evil”.

But none of those eight million people had any free-will about being put in cattle trucks, about being gassed and burned in ovens. God never got their consent for any of that. God never even thought to ask them. All of them were denied free-will throughout. So your claim fails, eight million times your claim fails.

How could any of that suffering possibly be necessary to the victims? How could any of it be necessary to their families? To us?

No. You’ve ended up with a god who does the opposite of what he preaches. I can understand how you’ve tried to solve the problem of evil, but some questions don’t have answers.

My heart is not proud, Lord,
my eyes are not haughty;
I do not concern myself with great matters
or things too wonderful for me.

But I have calmed and quieted myself,
I am like a weaned child with its mother;
like a weaned child I am content.

Israel, put your hope in the Lord
both now and forevermore.

Ps 131

 

[davidv]

We’ve already been around this. I asked you whether Hitler’s free-will was more important to God than the free-will of the Jews slaughtered in the Holocaust, and you replied “He knows it is better for us to have free will - without which we would be incapable of love - than prevent evil”.

But none of those eight million people had any free-will about being put in cattle trucks, about being gassed and burned in ovens. God never got their consent for any of that. God never even thought to ask them. All of them were denied free-will throughout. So your claim fails, eight million times your claim fails.

How could any of that suffering possibly be necessary to the victims? How could any of it be necessary to their families? To us?

No. You’ve ended up with a god who does the opposite of what he preaches. I can understand how you’ve tried to solve the problem of evil, but some questions don’t have answers.

My heart is not proud, Lord,
my eyes are not haughty;
I do not concern myself with great matters
or things too wonderful for me.

But I have calmed and quieted myself,
I am like a weaned child with its mother;
like a weaned child I am content.

Israel, put your hope in the Lord
both now and forevermore.

Ps 131

It seems that freedom and free-will are being illogically conflated. The Jews freedom was taken away. However, their free will not hindered by the actions of their captures.

 

[tonyrey]

Please answer one simple question:

Is it correct to say you believe God does permit unnecessary suffering?