How can it be "Heaven" if you can't be with the ones you love?

[Voco_proTatiano]

This idea stems from a poor understanding of metaphysics. Evil is not a thing and does not in some way give goodness meaning. Rather, evil is a lack of goodness and thus a deprivation. God as such cannot lack any perfection or then He would not be God and therefore God by His very nature cannot do or partake or contain in Himself anything that is evil. This does not just stem from the nature of God but rather also stems from the nature of evil as a lack of being and not a thing in itself.

You are also making a critical (and typical) mistake about the definition of freedom. Freedom properly defined is the ability to choose the good. This is opposed to what is called license which is the ability to equally choose good or evil. This is not freedom as such.

Sorry Mosher, you are hoist with your own petard.
If evil is just lack of good, then lying is not evil, it is just an omission to be good, therefore, if GOD lies, then GOD is not doing evil, merely abstaining from good.
The error is not mine, it is yours.
It is indeed this attempt to define inabilities of GOD that made the concept of gnosticism inevitable. The gnostics were merely trying to comply with these futile attempts to limit the capabilities of the ALMIGHTY.

 

[IHS]

VOCO,Are you saying God is capable of committing sin?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

VOCO,Are you saying God is capable of committing sin?

ABSOLUTLY.
Consider the Flood.
And remember, to sin is to cause God to suffer pain.
God caused the flood to purge Mankind.
But seeing so much destruction caused so much suffereing,
and God suffers with ALL who suffer,
caused God to swear upon His bow, and set it in the sky,
to remind Him, and all others, that this must never be done again.
So here, in this account, is God causing Himself to suffer pain.
Thus God has sinned against Himself by purging Mankind.

 

[tequilamac]

Sorry Mosher, you are hoist with your own petard.
If evil is just lack of good, then lying is not evil, it is just an omission to be good, therefore, if GOD lies, then GOD is not doing evil, merely abstaining from good.
The error is not mine, it is yours.
It is indeed this attempt to define inabilities of GOD that made the concept of gnosticism inevitable. The gnostics were merely trying to comply with these futile attempts to limit the capabilities of the ALMIGHTY.

I agree with Mosher who is following Augustinian thought. Evil is not a thing, it has no substance. It’s effects can have substance and can attach to a thing, but evil itself is not an entity, it has no substance and is defined really as an absence of God or an absence of good, or an absence of holiness. This is what evil is- a void.

Lying IS an omission of good because God gave us free will. When confronted with the opportunity to tell the truth or lie, and we lie, then we are not exercising our capacity for good, in fact we are doing no good, our direct immediate action is void of good. This is what sin is, and incidentally addressing you rpost further down, is why God cannot sin. God can never be devoid of good.

God cannot lie because we have a Trinitarian God. We have God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. The word was with God in the beginning and we know that the Word was God because John tells us so. We know that God cannot deny Himself because Christ tells us so. In the Gospel. Christ gives a long homily on the denial of himself. He cannot do it he tells us.
He can deny us, we can deny Him as Peter did, but Christ/God cannot deny Himself. Now that is Gospel, Voco.

If God could either through His word, deny Himself, the Trinity would be less than perfect, therefore not all powerful. If you put forth that God as Word can lie, then the Trinity is imperfect and God is not All powerful. If you put forth that God can sin, then the Trinity is imperfect and God is not all powerful. And yet, Voco, you are saying that God can sin. God can lie. And trying to use the poor gnostics as evidence. This was not their game. The fact is once you claim that God can operate outside of good, or with an absence of good, or in defiance of good, then the three persons of the Trinity, Father Son and Spirit are no longer pure goodness and all goodness and the source of all goodness and mroe than that they are no longer perfectly good for now there is a void in tht goodness due to whatever action you have assigned, sin or lying, and therefore are no longer perfect and absolutely not all powerful.

Now Aphrodite, and Persephone and Zeus and all the other gods could lie and play dialing for dollars for human fates. They could stay in their respective heavens untouched and tell a lie or sin in order to direct human affairs much like kids playing with dolls in a doll house. And the Greeks and Romans accepted their gods as all powerful.But they wre fatalists.

You see when you start putting forth that your Trinity is capable of lying, or sinning or committing an evil act, you have set out on the journey toward fatalism. We are not fatalistic people. Primarily because we have a God who is all Powerful because he is perfect and all good.

 

[IHS]

ABSOLUTLY.
Consider the Flood.
And remember, to sin is to cause God to suffer pain.
God caused the flood to purge Mankind.
But seeing so much destruction caused so much suffereing,
and God suffers with ALL who suffer,
caused God to swear upon His bow, and set it in the sky,
to remind Him, and all others, that this must never be done again.
So here, in this account, is God causing Himself to suffer pain.
Thus God has sinned against Himself by purging Mankind.

It is not possible for God to sin.Your understanding is flawed because you do not have the mind of God.Also who are you to judge God?

 

[tequilamac]

ABSOLUTLY.
Consider the Flood.
And remember, to sin is to cause God to suffer pain.
God caused the flood to purge Mankind.
But seeing so much destruction caused so much suffereing,
and God suffers with ALL who suffer,
caused God to swear upon His bow, and set it in the sky,
to remind Him, and all others, that this must never be done again.
So here, in this account, is God causing Himself to suffer pain.
Thus God has sinned against Himself by purging Mankind.

You have a purely human sort of God who lacks a supernatural nature.

Our sins do not cause God pain. God does not have pain.
Our sins cause US pain becaue they cut us off from our good which is God.

This is a bizarre religion you are supporting. What is it? Does it have a name?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

You have a purely human sort of God who lacks a supernatural nature.

Naturally my understanding is human. Any human who claims to have supernatural understanding is a mount bank and a charlatan.
But we are made in the image of God, so our understanding is also in the image of God’s, though a poor shadow thereof, through a glass darkly.

Our sins do not cause God pain. God does not have pain.
Our sins cause US pain becaue they cut us off from our good which is God.

So your God does not share our suffering - I thought that was what God the Father was all about.
What is suffering but pain?
I do not mean injury, that is why I did not say hurt.

This is a bizarre religion you are supporting. What is it? Does it have a name?

I suppose you might call it ‘fundamentalist’, without the capital ‘F’.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

It is not possible for God to sin.Your understanding is flawed because you do not have the mind of God.Also who are you to judge God?

Sorry, you deny obvious truth. This is futile.

 

[starling]

As some of you may recall, my wife is a Protestant (not a fundamentalist evangelistic one though). One night, we happened to be watching Fr. Groeschel on EWTN when for some reason, he answered a question by saying that in fact, we would not be seeing our loved ones again in heaven, that the Catholic Church never taught that. Now, I have to admit, I’ve never been much interested in these kinds of things anyway, but I sure had a tough time trying to explain that one to my wife just at the time when she began taking an interest in the Catholic Church. I think these are harmless things that people believe and get comfort from, and I think clergy should be careful about demolishing them. Now, I’m not a fan of EWTN as a rule, but I do like Fr. Groeschel, usually. Thanks a lot for that one though, Father.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I agree with Mosher who is following Augustinian thought. Evil is not a thing, it has no substance. It’s effects can have substance and can attach to a thing, but evil itself is not an entity, it has no substance and is defined really as an absence of God or an absence of good, or an absence of holiness. This is what evil is- a void.

So most of the universe, which is empty space, thus a void, is evil?
You and I know this is an empty argument. A void is neutral. Evil is the antithesis of good. But this aproaches dualism. Either there are two equal and opposite gods, or God can have two natures which are equal and opposite. This argument is a trap to those who try to nail down the nature of God. Any attempt to limit the nature of God will per se create a heresy. Limiting the nature of God to entirely good, creates the heresy of an anti-god who is entirely evil. That is the nature of the universe.

Lying IS an omission of good because God gave us free will. When confronted with the opportunity to tell the truth or lie, and we lie, then we are not exercising our capacity for good, in fact we are doing no good, our direct immediate action is void of good. This is what sin is, and incidentally addressing you rpost further down, is why God cannot sin. God can never be devoid of good.

Yet God permits evil. That is an absense of good

God cannot lie because we have a Trinitarian God. We have God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. The word was with God in the beginning and we know that the Word was God because John tells us so. We know that God cannot deny Himself because Christ tells us so. In the Gospel. Christ gives a long homily on the denial of himself. He cannot do it he tells us.
He can deny us, we can deny Him as Peter did, but Christ/God cannot deny Himself. Now that is Gospel, Voco.

If you are saying that one person of God can stand against, and control another person of God, then God is divided, and a house divided against itself cannot stand.

If God could either through His word, deny Himself, the Trinity would be less than perfect, therefore not all powerful. If you put forth that God as Word can lie, then the Trinity is imperfect and God is not All powerful. If you put forth that God can sin, then the Trinity is imperfect and God is not all powerful. And yet, Voco, you are saying that God can sin. God can lie. And trying to use the poor gnostics as evidence. This was not their game. The fact is once you claim that God can operate outside of good, or with an absence of good, or in defiance of good, then the three persons of the Trinity, Father Son and Spirit are no longer pure goodness and all goodness and the source of all goodness and mroe than that they are no longer perfectly good for now there is a void in tht goodness due to whatever action you have assigned, sin or lying, and therefore are no longer perfect and absolutely not all powerful.

I say again; God can deny Himself, but to do so will bring the universe to an end, so God does not - yet.

Now Aphrodite, and Persephone and Zeus and all the other gods could lie and play dialing for dollars for human fates. They could stay in their respective heavens untouched and tell a lie or sin in order to direct human affairs much like kids playing with dolls in a doll house. And the Greeks and Romans accepted their gods as all powerful.But they wre fatalists.
You see when you start putting forth that your Trinity is capable of lying, or sinning or committing an evil act, you have set out on the journey toward fatalism. We are not fatalistic people. Primarily because we have a God who is all Powerful because he is perfect and all good.

You, being Catholic, accuse me being heretic, of ‘fatalism’? Tell me about ‘predestination’, and I will tell you of ‘uncertainty’.

ps
This is getting heavily off track. It is also quite futile. Maybe we should close this aspect of this thread.

 

[cynic]

. One of the flaws that exists in man after the fall is a disordered attachment to family over everyone else.

.

where do you get this?

 

[tequilamac]

So most of the universe, which is empty space, thus a void, is evil?
You and I know this is an empty argument. A void is neutral. Evil is the antithesis of good. But this aproaches dualism. Either there are two equal and opposite gods, or God can have two natures which are equal and opposite. This argument is a trap to those who try to nail down the nature of God. Any attempt to limit the nature of God will per se create a heresy. Limiting the nature of God to entirely good, creates the heresy of an anti-god who is entirely evil. That is the nature of the universe.

Yet God permits evil. That is an absense of good

If you are saying that one person of God can stand against, and control another person of God, then God is divided, and a house divided against itself cannot stand.

I say again; God can deny Himself, but to do so will bring the universe to an end, so God does not - yet.

You, being Catholic, accuse me being heretic, of ‘fatalism’? Tell me about ‘predestination’, and I will tell you of ‘uncertainty’.

ps
This is getting heavily off track. It is also quite futile. Maybe we should close this aspect of this thread.

Excuse Me! I called you a heretic because that is what you described yourself as in your own profile under religion. How ridiculous do you want to be?

Secondly, I do not see any reason to close this aspect of the thread because others disagree with you. On the contrary it is right on topic.

Catholics do not believe in predestination therefore there is not much you can tell me of uncertainty.

We KNOW God cannot deny Himself because he literally said so in the new testament.

God does not permit evil. God permits free will. And if we use free will to do evil, then there is evil. It does not come from some anti God in the sky or anywhere except us.

Saying God is all good is not limiting. It is actually empowering. For no one and nothing else is perfect and all good.
It is not dualism unless you propose that you are in fact a god who is the god of evil. For evil comes from man.

You made a non statement about the universe.
The nature of the Universe is not the nature of God.

The emptiness of evil is not a metaphysical space like the universe. It is an emptiness of human action. A tornado is not evil. A human being committing mayhem is evil.
A hurricane is not evil. someone deliberately blowing up a dam to drown people is evil.
Your refutations are empty and somewhat ignorant of the difference between physical and supernatural Voco.

You throw around words like dualism as if you know what you are talking of. The words you use are impressive- how you understand them is erroneous.
Peace

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

An interesting dilemma has occurred to me, and I find it quite troubling.

Imagine If I was granted admittance to Heaven, but the people that I loved were somehow denied because of multiple possibilities.

Now how can it be “Heaven” for me, if the ones that I love are not around me? In this light, I feel I must somehow choose between my love for Jesus and my love for my fellow man. But this is ridiculous and goes against the teachings of Jesus. Regardless, I feel I am being pushed into this corner by the notion of what Heaven is.

All the former things will be forgotten. You won’t even remember them.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Hi,
Im not sure I would say charitable so much as they REALIZE they made a GRAVE mistake not believing. Im not sure either and quite frankly dont want to find out either.

I think they might be repenting of the fact they didnt believe rather then of their misery. Of course they will be miserable(although that word is probably an understatement)

I suspect they will be full of regret, but be totally lacking in ability to repent. The true repentence comes by the Holy Spirit-- and in hell they are eternally separated from God.

Hell seems to be a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth, a perpetual regret for not listening to the ones you knew were right all along.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Hi agree with your analogy of the persons character, but wouldnt you think that when they get there–they think I made a mistake it is real and true and would want their family members in heaven? Like the story about the man who wanted to go back and tell his brother the truth and Abraham said no(I think it was Abraham).

See to it that no one misses the grace of God and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many. See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son. Afterward, as you know, when he wanted to inherit this blessing, he was rejected. He could bring about no change of mind, though he sought the blessing with tears.

In hell I think no one will be able to bring about a sincere change of mind, though they will seek the blessing with more than tears-- they will seek heaven with wailing and the gnashing of teeth. This is regret. Not repentence.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

ABSOLUTLY.
Consider the Flood.
And remember, to sin is to cause God to suffer pain.
God caused the flood to purge Mankind.
But seeing so much destruction caused so much suffereing,
and God suffers with ALL who suffer,
caused God to swear upon His bow, and set it in the sky,
to remind Him, and all others, that this must never be done again.
So here, in this account, is God causing Himself to suffer pain.
Thus God has sinned against Himself by purging Mankind.

No. The Lord is capable of regret-- and he definitely regreted making humanity prior to the great deluge. But regret is not sin. And God cannot sin and still be God. To do so would make him no longer God.

This is the whole point of the incarnation. The adversary was tempting Jesus to sin and forsake humanity in order to save himself.

However, if God the Son had saved himself, he would have been trapped within his own creation and no longer able to escape, the Father would have been trapped in heaven and no longer able to reach us, and the Holy Spirit would have been lost in-between the two and not able to connect either Father or Son.

If God the Son had saved himself, he would have been trapped within his own creation and no longer able to escape-- therefore breaking the Father’s trust in him and turning God the Father into a liar, blaspheming the God the Holy Spirit by refusing to obey the will of God, and forsaking his own divinity in order to save his own humanity thereby damming all of humanity in the process.

Everything is centered upon Jesus the Savior, who is true God and true man. If he were were more human, he would have failed God the Father. If he were more Godly, he would have failed humanity.

In short, if Jesus had not died on the cross, God would have died.

That’s why Jesus is 100% God and 100% man.

His temporary humanity had to die so that the fullness of his eternal divinity could live.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

No. The Lord is capable of regret-- and he definitely regreted making humanity prior to the great deluge. But regret is not sin. And God cannot sin and still be God. To do so would make him no longer God.

Regret is pain. Pain is not necessarily injury as hurt might be.
So God suffered pain as a result of
1/ creating humanity prior to the deluge, and
2/ attempting to purge humanity with the deluge.
Both of these actions caused God pain, and both of these actions were caused by God.

Therefore God caused pain to himself.
Causing pain to God is to sin against God.
Therefore God sinned against God.

It is not complicated.

What is complicated is the circuitoius argument to deny this blatent truth.

 

[thistle]

Regret is pain. Pain is not necessarily injury as hurt might be.
So God suffered pain as a result of
1/ creating humanity prior to the deluge, and
2/ attempting to purge humanity with the deluge.
Both of these actions caused God pain, and both of these actions were caused by God.

Therefore God caused pain to himself.
Causing pain to God is to sin against God.
Therefore God sinned against God.

It is not complicated.

What is complicated is the circuitoius argument to deny this blatent truth.

God CANNOT sin!!

 

[Mijoy2]

Even further we are actually commanded to forsake those who do not accept Him. A perfect example of this is the passage:

And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, as ye go forth out of that house or that city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.
(Mat 10:13-15)

also

And another of the disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus saith unto him, Follow me; and leave the dead to bury their own dead.
(Mat 8:21-22)

This teaches us something about what is meant by a healthy detachment in that God is before all else.

I would read this differently. The first passage is directed at a traveling evangelist. The instruction is to preeach and move on.

I’ve always been a bit troubled by Jesus’s intended meaning of this second passage, but whatever He intended, the man has already passed on.

Saint Monica never gave up on Augustine. I don’t think we are ever to “shake off the dust of our feet” of anyone here on earth. Arn’t we to have faith and hold out hope for all to be saved? Even if by the last breath of life?

Not being a biological parent I don’t experience that type of attachment.

This says volumes to me. I don’t know if anybody can truly feel the way a parent feels every time thier child rides a bike, or drives a car and thought of an accident enters thier mind. Or witnessing someone being cruel to them, or knowing thier hearts are broken.

I have parents sibliings, aunts uncles cousins etc. And I care about thier eternal life. However it doesn’t keep me up nights or enter my mind like a frieght train at the most unexpected of moments.

One of the flaws that exists in man after the fall is a disordered attachment to family over everyone else. We are taught that we are called to love equally to all. Thus, that love that you have for your children should be the same love that you have for everyone that you meet.

With all due respect, this goes against the fabric of how God created us. God, takes the role of “Father”. Jesus, takes the role of “Son”. This Father Son relationship, I believe, is illustrated this way for us to better understand His love for us. He has inherently designed in us a “disproportionate” love for our children.

Whether one has a child or not in irrelevant but you are missing in my comments (perhaps I should be more clear) is the basic fundamental, foundational, premise of the faith. This underlying truth is that our progress toward holiness is a process. Learning to love God above all things is a process. It is in the development of that relationship that this happens. This conversation reminds me of another conversation I had with a close friend and we both agreed on a singular statement about our respective further relationships. We said, “I desire a man/woman who loves God more than he/she loves me.” This is what I expected in a relationship and this is what I apply to all relationships whatever their bond to me. In turn what we learn is that if we love God above all things then our love for others becomes even greater.

Here I couldn’t agree more. If only we all had the knowledge maturity and spiritual maturity to know this before we selected a spouse. But most do not, most marry young and ignorant to many things.

I think the problem lays in the world. We have grown so comfortable, that thoughts of God or everlatsing life just simply doesn’t enter many people’s, often especially young’s people’s minds.

I think and pray that it is time for God to intervene in some difinitive manner. Give the world a stern reminder that there is more to us, then our perceptions.

 

[MikeDunphy]

Enodios;1673531:

am I so evil that I would say I love my fellow man more than G-d? …
Some say they can feel G-d within them…
can G-d really fault me for not loving him as much as my fellow man, or even if I did not love him at all?

Did you intentionally not to spell out the word “God”?

I can’t comment on Enodios’ motivations, but others write “G-d” instead of “God” as a sign of respect for His sacred name. This is primarily but not entirely a Jewish custom. You may find this article of interest. For some, the spelling “G-d” is unusual enough to cause one to pause, with the opportunity to acknowledge God.