I am baffled, please explain

[Pallas_Athene]

You were the one who raised the subject of boredom! It’s the last thing I would have thought of in connection with the real challenges of life. I wonder why it occurred to you…

Because the opposite of variety and challenges IS a boring existence. It was you who argued for variety and challenges, so I thought I might show you some examples of “variety” and “challenges”. It is a real challenge to cope with the death of your loved one, who was gunned down in their church.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Because the opposite of variety and challenges IS a boring existence. It was you who argued for variety and challenges, so I thought I might show you some examples of “variety” and “challenges”. It is a real challenge to cope with the death of your loved one, who was gunned down in their church.

Indeed it is and how one deals with it does reveal the quality of the person being placed in that position. Certainly faith that there is a larger purpose to everything that happens provides quite a different ground for “dealing” with the fallout than conceding everything is simply the result of blind unguided material forces.

In any case, the death of a loved one is quite a different matter when the loved ONE is seen as potentially having eternal existence also loved by the Cause of all there is. A radically different outlook than seeing a loved one as a mere chance orchestration of chemicals only epiphenomenally real.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

God saw two things were necessary. 1) That all this sin, this violation of God and God’s Justice had to be made right … and 2) somehow mankind had to acquire the capability of receiving sharing in God’s Eternal Life, had to acquire the meriting of the right to share Eternal Life.

Hi JohnJ
Thank you for the post. I do not have the time or the inclination to reflect on everything in detail, so I selected this short, but very important paragraph. (It was not an easy read. )

Let me give a quick recap of what I think.

1. The “fall”, whatever it might have been exactly was not unavoidable. God could have created a world, where everyone freely and willingly would have been without sin: the “prototype” is the Virgin Mary. There is no logical reason that her disposition could not have been “propagated” into all human beings.
2. Of course, this is the inferior solution. The optimal solution would have been to “bypass” this vale of tears, and create everyone directly into heaven. In this case everyone would share the eternal life, as God - allegedly - wishes.
3. In either case there would be no need for a “redeemer”. The concept of “redeemer” is obviously a leftover from the pagan religions, where the cruel and vile gods had to be appeased by giving up (sacrifice) the “cream of the crop”. For a rational and benevolent God such sacrifice is not necessary. Just like a human father does not demand that his wayward child would break his favorite toy and offer the debris as a “sacrifice” for his “sin”, a benevolent God could simply forgive the trespasses, and also mete out a commensurate punishment - with the intention to teach a valuable lesson.

But of course in the solution #1, with using the Virgin Mary as the prototype there would be no sin at all. And in the solution #2 everyone would be sharing the eternal “love”, so there could be no trespasses either.

This is a very short synopsis of what I think about Genesis.

My simple approach is this: if someone has a goal in mind, which is very important for him, who has all the available tools to actualize that goal, an that goal is the best solution for all involved, then why not do it? Why chose an inferior approach which is NOT in the best interest of everyone. Simply: “why did God choose the current, highly inferior solution, when there were other options”? Of course this question is pertinent only for you, and not me.

 

[tonyrey]

Because the opposite of variety and challenges IS a boring existence. It was you who argued for variety and challenges, so I thought I might show you some examples of “variety” and “challenges”. It is a real challenge to cope with the death of your loved one, who was gunned down in their church.

For those who think this is the only life it is an insurmountable challenge but as you asked for a Christian explanation that view is irrelevant. For us nothing is excessive because we believe the Beatitudes are a logical consequence of Christ’s death for us on the Cross.

It is a question of all or nothing and if you opt for nothing it’s not surprising you are baffled. Whether your view is reasonable is another matter. To attribute the power of reason to mindless molecules is, in my opinion, the height of unreason. It is for you to decide which explanation corresponds to the way we live - in hope or despair…

 

[Pallas_Athene]

For those who think this is the only life it is an insurmountable challenge but as you asked for a Christian explanation that view is irrelevant. For us nothing is excessive because we believe the Beatitudes are a logical consequence of Christ’s death for us on the Cross.

I don’t see the significance of this. You asserted that life - THIS LIFE - needs variety and challenges. I gave you some really nasty, unwanted “variety” and “challenges”, to show that the variety and the challenges need to come in moderation. Certainly, some variety and challenges are much better than the eternal boredom. But the variety does not need to be extended into having rapes and murders. That was the point of my little hypothetical dialog, but it sure went over the head of everyone - on your side.

Now you switch over to some nebulous “other existence”. By the way, the Christian explanation is sorely lacking. If you believe that the departed loved one is now in heaven, enjoying the eternal happiness, then your tears at the funeral are irrational. You should be celebrating that the person is finally off of this vale of tears. The understandable sadness of departure should be more than compensated for by the happiness you should feel for your loved one’s wonderful experience in heaven.

It is a question of all or nothing and if you opt for nothing it’s not surprising you are baffled.

I am only “baffled” at the irrationality of those who subscribe to the Genesis, be their understanding literal or allegorical. And THAT bafflement is still with me.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I am only “baffled” at the irrationality of those who subscribe to the Genesis, be their understanding literal or allegorical. And THAT bafflement is still with me.

What is irrational about understanding that there was a beginning?

• that it was not a single event but that it occurred in a step-wise fashion, where one layer of creation was built on that before it?
• that animals are of a different order than atoms, than energy? (That we study diverse areas as physics, chemistry, biology and economics attests to this)
• that we are different from animals and exist as eternal beings in relation to one another and the Ground of our being?(There are many rational understandings of this, in different cultures, and they pretty much attest to much the same relationship with the Divine, although using different metaphors, some being better than others.)
• A belief in the existence of two original parents is no less rational than what anthropology has been suggesting. The logic rests on assumptions of what is fundamental to reality.
  Your bafflement reflects the reality of human ignorance. Many have pointed in the direction of the Light that makes all clear. Some prefer to remain baffled.

 

[Gorgias]

Technically, correct. But what is the use of being able to “will” something if you cannot act on it?

Ask a POW or a political prisoner. The value of retaining your will, against the unjust force of an aggressor, is what allows one to cling to his humanity in the face of oppressive evil.

If we go for hairsplitting, then let’s bring it to the logical conclusion. If only the ability to “will” something is what counts,

I didn’t say that ‘willing’ is the only thing that counts. Rather, it’s the only thing that ‘free will’ depends on. Both ‘will’ and ‘action’ are important in the context of virtue and sin.

then God could simply eliminate all the ability of a would-be-rapist to actually commit that rape.

No, that would put God back into the role of creating robots, albeit those of a different stripe. We’re not stupid – quickly enough, we’d realize that no matter what we willed to do, God would keep us from actualizing evil. Therefore, it would be impossible to sin. Would that mean that God wouldn’t know who willed virtue and who willed vice? Of course not. But, it would mean that God would be strong-arming humanity: everyone would know that ‘Big Brother’ was watching, and therefore, no one would have the opportunity to love God – they’d only have the opportunity to ‘obey’ or be prevented from disobeying. According to the argument presented here, that’s not what God wants of us – He wants our love, not just blind obedience.

Don’t forget, one of the offered defenses for the existence of “moral” evil is that robbing the bad people from their “free will” is the ultimate “evil”. Well, if the ability to actually commit the rape is not important, then let’s leave the would-be-rapists alone with their “free will”, and the would-be-victim will be much better off. Don’t you agree?

Nope. The would-be-victim, as well as the would-be-aggressor, would simply become pawns in the hands of an omnipotent tyrant. (And yes, I recognize the irony: that’s pretty much what you think God is… )

But we can leave this side-conversation alone for the time being. Let’s go back to the main thread.

Ok.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Hi JohnJ
Thank you for the post. I do not have the time or the inclination to reflect on everything in detail, so I selected this short, but very important paragraph. (It was not an easy read. )

Let me give a quick recap of what I think.

1. The “fall”, whatever it might have been exactly was not unavoidable. God could have created a world, where everyone freely and willingly would have been without sin: the “prototype” is the Virgin Mary. There is no logical reason that her disposition could not have been “propagated” into all human beings.

I suppose your CV is populated with your past accomplishments with regard to “creating worlds” such that you can speak from a wealth of experience creating those worlds where everyone freely and willingly exist without sin. You claim that “no logical reason” exists to stop the BVM’s disposition from being propagated “into all human beings” also comes from all those universes you have created in the past.

1. Of course, this is the inferior solution. The optimal solution would have been to “bypass” this vale of tears, and create everyone directly into heaven. In this case everyone would share the eternal life, as God - allegedly - wishes.

Of course, I suggested that this very possibility could be what Heaven is - God being the guarantor of good behaviour where the good see the new Heaven as bliss, but the evil view it as hell. Of course, you never did comment on that. Here it is again for the sake of supporting your claim that perhaps we have just such a world to look forward to.

Seems to me that a perfectly workable solution is to populate Heaven with all humans such that those humans always do the absolutely best thing possible in every instance. For the “good” that state would amount to perfect bliss; whereas for those who prefer to do evil such a place would be odious and extremely unpleasant. (Hell in fact.) Hell, as an experienced reality would be only as “hellish” as the agent’s penchant for evil and dislike of the good.

The reprobate would never rise above their own sordid subjectivity and remain trapped in their subjective hell. Those who could be rehabilitated would suffer some pangs (purgatory) but would eventually elevate their “taste” for the good to the point they would learn to enjoy the experience, while the saints would find the paradisal experience they have always sought. A completely just outcome, and it supports the contention that Hell is our choice with the bonus feature that all of your objections have been answered.

I still suggest that those who prefer evil to good will simply find God’s constant intervention to be hell for them

1. In either case there would be no need for a “redeemer”. The concept of “redeemer” is obviously a leftover from the pagan religions, where the cruel and vile gods had to be appeased by giving up (sacrifice) the “cream of the crop”. For a rational and benevolent God such sacrifice is not necessary. Just like a human father does not demand that his wayward child would break his favorite toy and offer the debris as a “sacrifice” for his “sin”, a benevolent God could simply forgive the trespasses, and also mete out a commensurate punishment - with the intention to teach a valuable lesson.

But of course in the solution #1, with using the Virgin Mary as the prototype there would be no sin at all. And in the solution #2 everyone would be sharing the eternal “love”, so there could be no trespasses either.

Assuming that the BVM had absolutely nothing to do with her sinlessness. I suspect this is where you misconceive what is really involved with personal autonomy and grace.

Sure there would be no trespasses with #2, but it isn’t clear that those who prefer evil will find this solution to be the blissful place you imagine.

 

[tonyrey]

For those who think this is the only life it is an insurmountable challenge but as you asked for a Christian explanation that view is irrelevant. For us nothing is excessive because we believe the Beatitudes are a logical consequence of Christ’s death for us on the Cross.

You need to explain how variety and challenges can be moderated according to your specifications…

Now you switch over to some nebulous “other existence”. By the way, the Christian explanation is sorely lacking. If you believe that the departed loved one is now in heaven, enjoying the eternal happiness, then your tears at the funeral are irrational. You should be celebrating that the person is finally off of this vale of tears. The understandable sadness of departure should be more than compensated for by the happiness you should feel for your loved one’s wonderful experience in heaven.

Tears are not irrational because death separates us from our loved ones in this life but we don’t give way to despair like those who believe we are freaks of nature that exist for no reason. Nothing can be bleaker than the sceptic’s view of life in which nothing makes sense and **everything **is fundamentally valueless, purposeless and meaningless. Negativity reigns supreme in your scheme of things. Persons are relegated to the zone of fantasy and **everything **consists of nothing but atomic particles. The “mind” is merely a complex of neural impulses and consciousness is an illusion. The sole reality is “a bundle of perceptions”, i.e. a mass of sense data…

It is a question of all or nothing and if you opt for nothing it’s not surprising you are baffled.

• I am only “baffled” at the irrationality of those who subscribe to the Genesis, be their understanding literal or allegorical. And THAT bafflement is still with me. .

You are baffled because you consign persons to the refuse bin of history. For you we are no more than naked apes in a “tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing”. You’re not entitled to be baffled because no one is entitled to anything! In fact bafflement is simply a molecular reaction like everything else. Matter reigns supreme and science neatly disposes of scientists with Occam’s Razor. Why postulate entities unnecessarily? The most economical explanation by far is the Big Bang. But then even explanations have to be reduced to little bangs! I wonder whether they are really powerful enough to speculate about anything… :ehh:

 

[Peter_Plato]

Hi JohnJ
Thank you for the post. I do not have the time or the inclination to reflect on everything in detail, so I selected this short, but very important paragraph. (It was not an easy read. )

Let me give a quick recap of what I think.

1. The “fall”, whatever it might have been exactly was not unavoidable. God could have created a world, where everyone freely and willingly would have been without sin: the “prototype” is the Virgin Mary. There is no logical reason that her disposition could not have been “propagated” into all human beings.
2. Of course, this is the inferior solution. The optimal solution would have been to “bypass” this vale of tears, and create everyone directly into heaven. In this case everyone would share the eternal life, as God - allegedly - wishes.
3. In either case there would be no need for a “redeemer”. The concept of “redeemer” is obviously a leftover from the pagan religions, where the cruel and vile gods had to be appeased by giving up (sacrifice) the “cream of the crop”. For a rational and benevolent God such sacrifice is not necessary. Just like a human father does not demand that his wayward child would break his favorite toy and offer the debris as a “sacrifice” for his “sin”, a benevolent God could simply forgive the trespasses, and also mete out a commensurate punishment - with the intention to teach a valuable lesson.

But of course in the solution #1, with using the Virgin Mary as the prototype there would be no sin at all. And in the solution #2 everyone would be sharing the eternal “love”, so there could be no trespasses either.

This is a very short synopsis of what I think about Genesis.

My simple approach is this: if someone has a goal in mind, which is very important for him, who has all the available tools to actualize that goal, an that goal is the best solution for all involved, then why not do it? Why chose an inferior approach which is NOT in the best interest of everyone. Simply: “why did God choose the current, highly inferior solution, when there were other options”? Of course this question is pertinent only for you, and not me.

The above reminds me of a trial transcript where the evidence is set before a judge in order to persuade the judge of the defendant’s guilt, at least, of negligence, if not pre-meditated cruelty. You also come across as a relentless accuser. (You know who else goes by that name.) So, apparently YOU have found God guilty and are about to lay down the sentence. Will it be scourging and crucifixion this time, also? You say you don’t understand sacrifice. Is it not better for one God to be sacrificed for the “good” of the people, in your view?

I would be very careful here, before you commit yourself to a position which you may find will be shown as a gross travesty of justice. You suppose you have sufficient evidence to determine guilt, but I would suggest it is only your trumped-up presumptions that take you there.

 

[PRmerger]

1. The “fall”, whatever it might have been exactly was not unavoidable. God could have created a world, where everyone freely and willingly would have been without sin: the “prototype” is the Virgin Mary. There is no logical reason that her disposition could not have been “propagated” into all human beings.

LOL!

Have you read Genesis, PA?

That’s exactly what God did. He created a world where everyone freely and willingly was without sin.

And then they chose, freely and willingly, to sin.

And ruined it for the rest of us.

 

[PRmerger]

1. In either case there would be no need for a “redeemer”. The concept of “redeemer” is obviously a leftover from the pagan religions, where the cruel and vile gods had to be appeased by giving up (sacrifice) the “cream of the crop”.

The fact that there are pagan religions which talk about apples…does that mean that apples don’t really exist?

No? You believe in the existence of apples?

Then it’s odd that you would deny the need for a redeemer simply because other ancient religions talk about redeemers in their mythology.

 

[josh987654321]

I am a theology student at the Master’s degree level, not a graduate theologian, however during my Old Testament studies in school, we have been told we are not free to interpret the Genesis story literally. The writer wanted to show that God created in an orderly fashion.

There are many things about God and his plan for the universe that we cannot understand at this stage and will never understand until God chooses to reveal the mystery to us.

God does know all, and so yes, he did know that Adam and Eve would disobey him, however, God gave man free will, and his knowing humans would disobey did not rob them of their free will, nor did it mean that he “wanted” them to fall. Sometimes we ask someone a question knowing what the answer will be, and sometimes it’s an answer we don’t like, but that does not mean that we wanted to hear that answer or that the person we asked was robbed of free will. Just the opposite. Even if every conceivable pair of humans would have given in to sin, it does not mean there is no free will. Every human being had the ability to say “no” to sin. If God would have created another pair deliberately knowing they would not fall, that would be robbing them of their free will.

The cornerstone of Christianity is Christ. God created the world for Jesus, not for us. We, too, were created for Jesus. Even had man not fallen, Jesus would have still entered human history. We have to trust in God that the way he entered it was the best way for all.

Genesis is highly allegorical. It is not to be taken literally. Man’s fall was not caused by eating an apple. It is wanting to be like God himself, to know all that God knows. It is, in short, pride. There probably was no tree that Adam and Eve could not eat from. Their sin was wanting to be like God. It was failing to subject themselves to the will of God and to his domination over them.

Personally, I don’t believe anyone can answer your questions completely. We don’t have all the answers. We are not like God. We don’t know all he knows. God is mystery, and he will remain mystery until he chooses to reveal all to us, at the end of time, when Christ comes again.

Thanks Lily Bernans, I like that answer.

God Bless You

Josh

 

[DCNBILL]

Please don’t misunderstand; I am a devout Catholic and a fifth-year theology student. I’m not being “won over” to atheism.

However, I think the point was that you, in the helicopter could do nothing to prevent what you see coming; God can.

But God has given us free will and will not violate that gift. It still is a valid argument that just because God knows what we have done, are doing and will do in the future does not mean that an almighty observer makes us choose what we are going to do.

 

[DCNBILL]

Your formula is obviously true. That some people don’t understand this is what baffles me. It seems so obvious as to be uncontroversial!

However, it doesn’t seem to necessarily follow that we don’t have any free will at all. God can know what we will do and actively sustain our essence as we do things, (and therefore incurs some responsibility) but we can still be somewhat responsible for our acts even in this case.

To use Bradski’s example, the gun store owner is certainly responsible but that doesn’t let the gunman off the hook! They’re both guilty. God is responsible for creating Stalin and should have to answer for it (and I believe he has, and will), but that doesn’t have to mean Stalin “gets off scot-free” or bears no responsibility does it?

Also, don’t forget the power of ignorance. Even if the future is infallibly known to God, we’re ignorant of it and therefore experience “freedom” as a result of this ignorance. We, I think, are morally responsible for our actions because for all we know we are the cause of those actions. I don’t think it is possible to intuit how God’s will precisely effects us in the present or in the future. We only know God’s will by looking backward (in my opinion).

Well, I do not “get it” at all. If I make a chair and ship it to a friend and that friend lets me know everything that happens to that chair until it goes up in flames in a fire, did I cause that fire?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Thanks Lily Bernans, I like that answer.

God Bless You

Josh

Thank you, Josh, not for agreeing with me, but for taking the time to tell me you liked something I wrote. God bless you, too.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

But God has given us free will and will not violate that gift. It still is a valid argument that just because God knows what we have done, are doing and will do in the future does not mean that an almighty observer makes us choose what we are going to do.

I agree. That’s what I’ve been saying all along. God will not violate our free will. He won’t make us do anything we don’t want to do.

I was commenting on another poster’s idea when I wrote what you are referencing. I think that caused some confusion. I believe God gave humans free will, and he will not violate that free will, and like you, I do not believe God’s omniscience violates our free will in any way.

I don’t even believe this debate has an answer. We can’t compare a deity that is eternal and lives outside of time to a human who is mortal and lives in linear time. There are things about God that are incomprehensible to the human mind and will remain so until Christ returns to establish his kingdom. Then, all will be revealed. Not before.

 

[Bahman]

But God has given us free will and will not violate that gift. It still is a valid argument that just because God knows what we have done, are doing and will do in the future does not mean that an almighty observer makes us choose what we are going to do.

But God with creation act gave us separate fate!

 

[oldcelt]

But God has given us free will and will not violate that gift. It still is a valid argument that just because God knows what we have done, are doing and will do in the future does not mean that an almighty observer makes us choose what we are going to do.

But, if he knows these things from all eternity and still creates you, he holds ultimate responsibility.

John

 

[PRmerger]

But, if he knows these things from all eternity and still creates you, he holds ultimate responsibility.

John

No.

No more than he is responsible for you typing the above.

Everything for God is in the Eternal Now.