I am baffled, please explain

[Lily_Bernans]

Of course, on both counts. And I only had good experiences with the pastors. Very nice people, though I was still too young and inexperienced to ask the real, penetrating questions. But they could not have provided the answers anyone. No one can - at least for the time being no one could. But I am an incurable optimist. Maybe there are some rational answers out there.

No, I am not lonely and I do not long for God. I am simply interested in other people’s though processes.

Why do you think God created man? (And please, for the sake of argument, let’s say you do believe he did create man.)

 

[PRmerger]

Your claim is that we are irrational because of -]a story/-] an event in Genesis -

Yes, sir.

which every sane person treats as metaphorical,

True.

which tells of a single couple from whom we are all descended – which we know didn’t happen,

You have no idea whether it happened or didn’t.

You are simply offering, ironically, a statement of great…

faith.

disobeyed God – not sure who was there to record all this,

Why would someone need to be present to record all this? The Christian paradigm is that the Holy Spirit inspires writers to write what He wills.

of their own free will – which God knew they were going to use in that way as He designed it that way (or did it come as a surprise?) and that therefore, we are ‘fallen’ and prone to evil and irrational acts – because as it can’t be God’s fault, it must be ours (gotta love the logic in there).

There is no “they were going to use” for God.

All is in the Eternal Now for God.

And I’m leaving out the (obviously?) metaphorical fig leaves, apple trees,

Perhaps you need to re-read your Bible before you post on a Catholic forum, Bradski.

There are no apple trees in Genesis.

So where we draw the line between metaphor and the absolute truth of the matter seems open to personal interpretation

Within certain parameters, yes.

Now a rational act and an irrational act are separated by a continuum of acts starting at the very reasonable end and ending with the most irrational acts you can imagine. Now I am going to suggest to you that, for example, feeling anger at having something taken from you is an entirely natural reaction. This goes all the way back to someone pinching your mastodon steak while you were tending the fire.

Sure.

So feeling anger is natural. It’s in our genetic make-up. It evolved from our earliest times when it was a useful tool to overcome fear, protect your food, save your loved ones from harm etc. Nothing to do with eating -]apples/-]

With the exception of the “apple” part (read Genesis, Brad!), I agree.

But how we react to it defines the rational or irrational. So if someone ‘borrows’ a colleagues pen in work and doesn’t return it, what they could do might range from ignoring it completely (they have a dozen other pens on their desk) to taking out their Saturday Night Special and blowing the guy’s brains out.

Ok.

Maybe you could tell me at what point you can say: ‘That’s it! At that specific point she moved from an entirely natural, evolutionary ordained reaction to one that is governed by a story in Genesis about a guy eating an apple!’

Again with the apple! Oy!

I draw it at the same place you do, probably. Not sure what your point is?

I’ve been reading your post and with this really big build up I’m waiting for the…explosion.

So far I’m underwhelmed.

What exactly is this buildup you’re leading up to?

 

[Bradski]

God doesn’t have tenses, Bradski.

You’ll need to speak to the Vatican about that. I can’t find the Eternal Now tense in anything they’ve written at all. S’been a long time since I did Latin, but I’m sure it doesn’t contain it either.

If you can understand the Catechism (which uses those boring old present, past, future, past indicative etc tenses when talking about our relationship with God), then I’m sure you can understand me.

 

[oldcelt]

Well, if you think in tenses with God you will continue to be baffled.

God doesn’t have tenses, Bradski.

https://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9ohb3w7GL1qa6ipw.gif

That is correct…the Christian God knows everything, all the time. It still does not remove culpability in creation…in fact…it verifies it.

John

 

[PRmerger]

You’ll need to speak to the Vatican about that. I can’t find the Eternal Now tense in anything they’ve written at all. S’been a long time since I did Latin, but I’m sure it doesn’t contain it either.

I suggest you read Aquinas (after you’ve read Genesis )

If you can understand the Catechism (which uses those boring old present, past, future, past indicative etc tenses when talking about our relationship with God), then I’m sure you can understand me.

Oh, don’t misunderstand, Brad: I understand you perfectly.

I am simply saying your question is nonsensical. It’s like asking: define poetry using only parabolas.

 

[Peter_Plato]

My arguments have been to point out that there are some serious issues if you have a deity with absolute foreknowledge of all events who still creates sentient beings and then judges them for actions that deity knew they would undertake.

What you forget is that God does not judge them, but graces them every second of their existence, which means their responses to the eternal and infinite goodness of God is what is their judge.

Jesus made it quite clear that neither he nor the Father judge anyone…

Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son… (John 5:22)

…you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. But if I do judge, my decisions are true,… (John 8:15-16)

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Hypothetically, let’s say I can create human beings and I have unlimited wealth (LOL). So I buy a fairly large private island and decide to create some people to keep me company (God did not need company, though I, as a mortal human, do). If I create these people. Naturally, I want these people to love me so we’ll all get along and life will be paradise. So I create people I know will love and adore me. It’s okay at first, but then, I get sad because I know these people love me because I MADE them love me. What emotionally healthy person wants love that isn’t freely given? None. (Please note that I said “emotionally healthy.” I know there are some people who are not emotionally healthy who don’t care why people love them just as long as they do.) I become sad about my creation and I don’t know if the people I love would sincerely love me or not. What started out as a paradise would turn into a hell because no one could be sure that anyone’s love was sincere or just the programmed response.

I am always willing to explore hypothetical problems. Actually, I think that they are great tools to find out a lot about ourselves. So, let’s explore your stipulated scenario.

You created all those “beings” for the sole purpose that they would love you - freely and without being programmed to do it. No problems here. But your thought experiment is not “fleshed” out. There is this island, and there are those “beings”. All of a sudden a disaster strikes, for example a hurricane. What are you going to do? Will you come to their aid, and help them? Or will you stay behind the walls of your hypothetical dwelling, and observe their trials and tribulations without showing your love for them?

Why would you expect them to love you, if you are not willing to show your love to them? Love is not a give-and-take, a tit-for-tat, but if you just sit in your ivory castle, and do not offer the signs of YOUR love for them, then why would you expect them to love you?

Maybe you say: “I already showed my love, by creating you, and that is enough”. But it is not. Life, existence - in and of itself - is neither good nor bad. A good, pleasant, fun-filled life would be good, but a painful, misery-filled life is not good.

God wants people to come to him freely and sincerely. If they choose to risk hell (Catholic theology says we do not KNOW if anyone is in hell or not) then God allows that. And that’s the real answer: God only wants love that is freely and sincerely given. If he programmed us to love him, it would not be sincere. We could not love one another sincerely.

If he wants to be loved, then he should show his love for us, unmistakably and clearly. Since he does not, he does not deserve to be loved (Jesus and his unnecessary “self-sacrifice” notwithstanding).

 

[oldcelt]

What you forget is that God does not judge them, but graces them every second of their existence, which means their responses to the eternal and infinite goodness of God is what is their judge.

Jesus made it quite clear that neither he nor the Father judge anyone…

The two passages you quote are contradictory:

Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son… (John 5:22)

Is not the Son Jesus? Is not Jesus one of the Trinity and therefore, God?

.

you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. You judge by human standards;** I pass judgment on no one. But if I do judge, my decisions are true,**… (John 8:15-16)

I don’t judge, but if I do…

 

[Pallas_Athene]

If you have stayed in bed when you should have gotten up, passed by a stranded motorist when you were late, eaten too much, drank too much, skipped your workout, taken someone else’s medicine because you didn’t want to go to the doctor, considered cheating on your wife or girlfriend, thought you were better than a homeless person, wished to harm your neighbor who left doggy do-do in your yard, flipped off a little old lady who was driving too slowly…or anything that, in retrospect, if you had to do it over again and were in your “right mind” wouldn’t have done it the same way…you’re guilty.

Guilty of what? Something that requires eternal damnation?

And I defy you to say you’ve never in retrospect wished you’d done something differently because you chose the easier, wrong way.

Of course I made many, many bad (stupid, even idiotic) choices in my life. But I never hurt anyone intentionally. I also made many choices which I considered smart, meaningful choices, which YOU would describe as mortally sinful. But since I do not accept the concept of “sin”, much less the concept of “mortal sin”, I did not and do not wish to be admitted to hell, for eternal torture and damnation. And that is where this mini-derailment started.

Surely you’re not saying that because some people are delusional, all people are.

That would be…absurd, right?

Of course it would be. But I don’t say that… I only say that some people are delusional… and stop calling me “Surely”. Though I just love the movie “Airplane” with Leslie Nielsen.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Why do you think God created man? (And please, for the sake of argument, let’s say you do believe he did create man.)

For the sake of argument… I am willing to stipulate it. But I have no idea (after all God is inscrutable). But one thing is certain, he did not create us for our well-being. Not here, and not in the “here-after”. Here he gives no sign of caring about us. And he does not “lift” us to him in the hereafter.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Fascinating! However, can you please explain how this “fixing” is distinct from deception? Are you saying the saints are deceived by God for all eternity?

First, I presented this as a speculative scenario which counters PA’s claim. (Note that PA hasn’t raised any objection to this “option” at all.)

It may not be deception since God will then have perfected every human being for eternity. It wouldn’t be his “fault” if some don’t find their own perfection blissful. He would only be fulfilling his part of the bargain by perfecting all and ushering in his Kingdom fully.

It answers PA’s quandary by showing that God could perfect every human being and make every person’s actions good and right while still retaining the possibility of hell for those who don’t appreciate goodness. It would be the evil ones who are being duplicitous by trying to be something that they are not - after all, if God is the ground of existence, then the manner in which he grounds existence is the truth and not duplicitous. That the evil ones don’t enjoy what is eminently enjoyable is not his problem. Those who choose to not participate in ultimate reality would have reduced their subjectivity to a shadowy simulacra; while their true self lives on without them. They would have, in a sense, abdicated their real self, while it goes on without them

 

[tonyrey]

That is correct…the Christian God knows everything, all the time. It still does not remove culpability in creation…in fact…it verifies it.

John

Do you blame God for having created **all members **of the human race?

 

[tonyrey]

All that is knowable, John, but with our limited intelligence we cannot know the precise limits of knowability.

So you believe we are omniscient? Rather presumptuous for minute creatures with limited insight, knowledge and intelligence on a tiny planet in an immense universe…

 

[Bradski]

Do you blame God for having created **all members **of the human race?

Is He not responsible?

So you believe we are omniscient? Rather presumptuous for minute creatures with limited insight, knowledge and intelligence on a tiny planet in an immense universe…

Are you being deliberately obtuse? We are talking about one of the attributes of God.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Well, if you think in tenses with God you will continue to be baffled.

God doesn’t have tenses, Bradski.

https://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9ohb3w7GL1qa6ipw.gif

If God “doesn’t have tenses” then he is fundamentally unable to relate to time. Either that, or it is impossible for us to understand his relation to time. If it is impossible for us to understand his relationship to time, then any confident pronouncements about his involvement with causality or “what happens” are totally unfounded.

However, I do not think this is so! The very first words of the Torah are: “In the beginning…” From the outset, our understanding of God’s creativity is indexed to time.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

First, I presented this as a speculative scenario which counters PA’s claim. (Note that PA hasn’t raised any objection to this “option” at all.)

It may not be deception since God will then have perfected every human being for eternity. It wouldn’t be his “fault” if some don’t find their own perfection blissful. He would only be fulfilling his part of the bargain by perfecting all and ushering in his Kingdom fully.

It answers PA’s quandary by showing that God could perfect every human being and make every person’s actions good and right while still retaining the possibility of hell for those who don’t appreciate goodness. It would be the evil ones who are being duplicitous by trying to be something that they are not - after all, if God is the ground of existence, then the manner in which he grounds existence is the truth and not duplicitous. That the evil ones don’t enjoy what is eminently enjoyable is not his problem. Those who choose to not participate in ultimate reality would have reduced their subjectivity to a shadowy simulacra; while their true self lives on without them. They would have, in a sense, abdicated their real self, while it goes on without them

OK. Specifically I questioned the idea that God could make those who are suffering “appear” as if they are enjoying the bliss of heaven. Surely grimaces and mourning would accompany the pains of hell and sicken anyone with an ounce of compassion? Would God hide their “weeping and gnashing of teeth” from the saints so that they appear happy? How would this be accomplished? Would this not be a kind of deception?

I’m curious: are you actually a believer in the Platonic religion? I had a professor in college who actually believed in the realm of forms and considered Phaedrus and the Symposium as sacred texts. He was one of the most interesting people I’ve ever met!

 

[Pallas_Athene]

First, I presented this as a speculative scenario which counters PA’s claim. (Note that PA hasn’t raised any objection to this “option” at all.)

As I was quickly scanning the pages, I happened to read this paragraph. The reason that I did not reflect on it is very simple. I do not read your posts any more. Sometimes I happen to see part of them, and if I see something that needs to be replied to, then I may even reply. But don’t think that the lack of reply indicates any kind of agreement.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I must say it is interesting to see this discussion spin around and around again. It seems like it proceeds this way:

Atheist(s): The Christian concept of God is irrational, ridiculous, and sadistic. There is no reason to believe it!

Catholic(s): No, no! There are many long and complicated explanations, rationalizations, and justifications for God’s supposed “irrationality, ridiculousness, and sadism.” All we have to do is obliterate the meanings of these words here, and shuffle this blame over there, shift the conversation to how this undoes morality and voila: you should believe it!

Could there be another way? I suppose deism is a kind of “third option.” The Deist god seems to be almost as cruel as the Christian one in its utter disregard. However, the Deist god has no moral responsibility since (I suppose) its creative act “just happens” and is not “willed.” I suppose this god isn’t omniscient and isn’t the moral “law giver” or anything like that. This seems like an unsatisfactory solution as well but I respect this belief since many of the most brilliant minds of the 18th century believed this.

A closer examination of the Torah without “reading in” a Christian theology is very illuminating. No eternal hell, no original sin, doing good is more important than having the right beliefs, God rewards and punishes reasonably and fairly both in this life and the next, peoples of all nations can please God and fulfill his commandments without destroying their cultures and “converting,” etc.

For me, this “bafflement” the OP speaks of lead me to understand that something is deeply awry in Christian theology. The center doesn’t hold: something has to give. But, just because Christianity’s view of God doesn’t seem to make sense doesn’t mean that there isn’t an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent God who cares for humanity and wants us to be happy.

 

[PRmerger]

That is correct…the Christian God knows everything, all the time. It still does not remove culpability in creation…in fact…it verifies it.

John

How so?

How is God culpable for me typing, “Your mama’s socks smell so bad even the flies in the house wear gas masks”.

God is responsible for that? Right now?

 

[PRmerger]

Guilty of what? Something that requires eternal damnation?

Let’s not get ahead of ourselves, PA.

Step by step here.

Can you first acknowledge that you don’t do the things you should do and do things you shouldn’t have done?