I am baffled, please explain

[PumpkinCookie]

The problem with your analogy is that the fire was the chair’s *final *fate. Nothing of it could be saved afterward. We do *not know *our final fate. We do not really know why things happen as they do and when they do because we have limited knowledge. If you know your own final, eternal fate, then please share with those of us whom God has not chosen to enlighten with such omniscience.

God, however, does know our final, eternal fate, and perhaps it’s better than we could ever imagine. Trust plays a part in every human relationship. Why shouldn’t it play a part in our relationship with God?

Right, we don’t know our final fate, but God does. God is the chair maker and we are the chair. Does that make more sense? Since God infallibly and absolutely knows the outcome and is totally responsible for the existence of absolutely everything, then he is responsible to some extent, for everything that happens. God is totally sovereign and rules this universe alone. He has no equals and no enemies. Everything that happens is his will.

Yes, this means all the evil in the world is his will also. However, we have hope that all these bad things happen for some ultimate good. No, it doesn’t seem like it at all, but we can’t confidently proclaim it “not so!” and thus should have hope that God will set it aright some day.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Not really helpful at all, I do not care in the least what the chairs end is, only that it serves my friends needs up to whatever end that may come of it. It is just a chair and it did make its own chair decisions, and that is why it ended up as it did in the end even if I knew what that end was going to be.

Hopefully God cares more about us than you do about your chairs!

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Have you read Genesis, PA?

Oh, yes. I did more than just read it, I analyzed it, and thought about it - in detail. And I realized that the story is seriously amiss.

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

At least for a short time.

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

Aha. And God had no option to choose to create Steve and Susie, who would not have fallen to the temptation? This is what I already explained several times. God was not “forced” to choose those two losers (called Adam and Eve). There were infinitely many possible humans to choose from.

If there were no possible humans who would have resisted temptation, then even God’s omnipotence would have been “impotent” to choose a “winning couple”. But that is a contradiction. God is only unable to create “married bachelors” or “four sided triangles”, but not create people with proper strength to resist any temptation. (Again: prototype is the Virgin Marry).

So it follows logically that God could have chosen “two winners”, instead of “two losers”. Since God is unable to act randomly, he purposefully chose the ones he knew will fail. Was that a malicious act, or simply a lack of caring? Does not matter, the result is that he purposefully selected the “losers”, when he could have picked the “winners”. So whose fault is it?

And ruined it for the rest of us.

Actually, it was God, who cursed the whole creation. He explicitly “ruined” it for us.

This is the easy-to-understand analysis of the Genesis.

---

Addendum to all of you. Please do not confuse the concept of direct responsibility with ultimate responsibility. If God creates a will-be-murderer, then God is not “directly” responsible for the murderer’s action, but is “ultimately” responsible for it.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Right, we don’t know our final fate, but God does. God is the chair maker and we are the chair. Does that make more sense? Since God infallibly and absolutely knows the outcome and is totally responsible for the existence of absolutely everything, then he is responsible to some extent, for everything that happens. God is totally sovereign and rules this universe alone. He has no equals and no enemies. Everything that happens is his will.

Yes, this means all the evil in the world is his will also. However, we have hope that all these bad things happen for some ultimate good. No, it doesn’t seem like it at all, but we can’t confidently proclaim it “not so!” and thus should have hope that God will set it aright some day.

Thank you for the clarification.

Theology is difficult, to be sure, and it brings up many questions, as it should. The job of an apologist is to defend the faith, but the job of a theologian is to enlarge the faith, much as Odo Casel did.

I had very few questions during my first year as a theology student. I mistakenly thought I had it all figured out, or more rightly, that the Church had figured it all out for me. (And I grew up in a Carmelite cloister, lived there for thirteen years.) I didn’t even have too many problems during my second year. It was in my third year that many, many questions began to pop up. Now in my fifth year, the questions have really multiplied, though I find the deeper I get, the more rooted in the Catholic faith I become.

I agree that some things can’t possibly seem to be for any good at all. Not that I can see. However, I hope and pray that it will be all be made known to me some day.

 

[DCNBILL]

Hopefully God cares more about us than you do about your chairs!

Well I am only human after all.

 

[DCNBILL]

I used to be a Roman Catholic not so long ago, and it was after years of prayer, scripture study, and many discussions with theologians, priests, and rabbis that I was finally able to walk away. I remember when (a version of) this problem first occurred to me: it was the feast of the immaculate conception 6 years ago. Sitting at mass, I thought:

“Wait…if God could make Mary such that she would never commit a sin by virtue of a “singular grace” bestowed upon her due to his foreknowledge of Jesus’s sacrificial act, then why couldn’t he have done it for all of humanity?”

In my opinion, the doctrine of the immaculate conception presupposes and relies upon the very concept of foreknowledge that some dispute on this thread. This little question blossomed into so many more and lead me on a journey toward the true God, who is one, who does not have a body, who cannot be born and cannot die, and who is absolutely sovereign. I have always had intense doubts about the truth of Roman Catholicism, even from when I was a young child. The “still small voice” always said to me…“this isn’t the truth.” but I ignored it. I repent of this! I contorted and brutalized my conscience because I was afraid that leaving the RCC would cause me to be tortured forever and forever by God. I am ashamed of my cowardice, but the threat of eternal torture is so immense. Nonetheless, I repent of this too!

I am so much happier now. And, it is all thanks to this problem. For years I prayed desperately “God, please show me the truth! Please teach me!” and He finally answered me by confronting me with this. I can understand, however, that many do not have an understanding of this issue. It is buried deep. I do not think God punishes those who cannot understand, but I wish that some would at least try. Maybe God is calling all of us to a deeper reflection upon this? Maybe these threads will serve some good by helping those who read but choose not to comment. I hope so!

It seems so obvious and straightforward to me now, but I remember the haze and confusion of my beliefs when I was a Roman Catholic. I remember being OK with flat contradictions because Chesterton assured me that paradoxes are the mark of truth or something like that. I remember ignoring and fearing the contradictions because they were a “temptation.”

Some light may pour through the Church’s windows, but the source of that light is outside, I believe. May God help each of us to learn.

I understand your journey.

What, however would you say of those of us who have had profound experiences of God to the point that we have cast away our own lives and have endeavored to live not a life of our own but a life for Him alone, a radical giving of ones self for His greater glory?

Are we delusional fools who have mistaken a case of indigestion for an encounter with God and even though we are not only happy but elated to live the lives that we do, not caring for the suffering that we are experiencing but offering it back to God with joyful hearts because we understand that we are joining our suffering with that of Christ on the cross and would not give that up for all the rice in China?

End of rant. And now back to your regularly scheduled baffelments.

 

[Aloysium]

Obviously I don’t share your belief that God cannot undo what he has already done since God can do anything. . . .

This is interesting.
If something is said to be undone it can mean:

1. that it never happened.
   To have happened and never happened is a contradiction.
   It would be impossible for God to uncreate in this sense, because the statement is meaningless.
   God is all powerful, but not to do what are merely distorted thoughts rather than possibilities.
   (See Peter’s picture of the optical illusion pages back - hmm, maybe it was on another thread.)
2. that it’s consequences are rectified.
   This would be the case perhaps with the flood. Creation is good; the way things were going was bad, so it was terminated.
   This is what happens ultimately as in the resurrection; death was destroyed.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I understand your journey.

What, however would you say of those of us who have had profound experiences of God to the point that we have cast away our own lives and have endeavored to live not a life of our own but a life for Him alone, a radical giving of ones self for His greater glory?

Are we delusional fools who have mistaken a case of indigestion for an encounter with God and even though we are not only happy but elated to live the lives that we do, not caring for the suffering that we are experiencing but offering it back to God with joyful hearts because we understand that we are joining our suffering with that of Christ on the cross and would not give that up for all the rice in China?

End of rant. And now back to your regularly scheduled baffelments.

I hope that God will be generous and fair in his judgment of Gentiles. The vast majority of humanity throughout history has worshiped idols and continues to do so. This won’t change until the Messiah comes and leads all people to the Torah for the truth about God. However, many of these people worship idols out of habit, cultural pressure, family pressure, etc. I cannot explain your subjective experiences whatsoever, and it wouldn’t be right for me to do so. However, I doubt they are the result of indigestion! I believe God will reward and punish each of us in this life and the next principally on account of our actions, of which “having true beliefs” is only one, especially for Gentiles. Ultimately, we must follow our consciences, for that is the only thing for which we can truly answer to God, 100%. My conscience tells me that God is one, not three, not a human, does not have intermediaries, is not born, and cannot die. My conscience tells me the eucharist is an idol, all the saints are idols, Jesus is an idol, etc. I can’t deny it!

Fortunately, by living a Roman Catholic morality and life, you do not breach the Noahide code incumbent upon all of humanity (except for idolatry). Also we must be careful to avoid cruelty to animals and abuse of nature. Suffering so others may benefit is a good deed (in my opinion). Wanting to devote your life to the service of God and the benefit of humanity is admirable. I think we’re not so far apart as you might imagine.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Ultimately, we must follow our consciences, for that is the only thing for which we can truly answer to God, 100%. My conscience tells me that God is one, not three, not a human, does not have intermediaries, is not born, and cannot die. My conscience tells me the eucharist is an idol, all the saints are idols, Jesus is an idol, etc. I can’t deny it! . . .

Does your conscience inform you that God is Love?

 

[tonyrey]

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.

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.

Yet you have progressed from “It’s all Greek to me” to the Noahide religion and presumably accept some parts of the Old Testament. How do you discern which are true?

 

[Aloysium]

Conscience:
God created a cosmos which behaves in its allotted fashion, ourselves having free will.
All is in constant flux. Some things change very quickly, others take eons. Creation is a symphony.
Time fills this moment, whose being, right here and now, the perceptions, feelings, ideas, come into existence springing forth from an eternal Fount of Life.
All this glory, all the suffering, the sacred Heart of Jesus, the Word incarnate drawing us into holy union with our Creator.
It is wise to listen to the Silence.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Yet you have progressed from “It’s all Greek to me” to the Noahide religion and presumably accept some parts of the Old Testament. How do you discern which are true?

I think you may be confusing me with the OP. Though we have presented similar arguments on this forum I do not think we share the same religious beliefs. Just to be clear: I do not believe there is a “Noahide” religion. The true religion is Judaism (in my opinion). However, it is my opinion (shared by many) that Gentiles are not required to convert to Judaism in order to fulfill the covenant between God and Noah, the ancestor of every human being alive today. Those Gentiles who attempt to live by the laws given to Noah are known as “Noahides” in English. We’re just human beings who acknowledge that the Torah tells us about God, and who attempt to live by this wisdom. Every single person alive today is a “Noahide” in the sense that we all have a covenant with God just by being a human. Some are more aware of this than others.

I can’t go into detail about why I believe this because it is drastically off-topic. But, roughly, I believe monotheism is a justifiable belief based on reason, and the only truly monotheistic religion is Judaism. (Yes there are others, but the God of the Torah seems to match most closely with the God arrived at by reason, this is why there was a fascination with Judaism among the philosophical Greeks of antiquity).

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Conscience:
God created a cosmos which behaves in its allotted fashion, ourselves having free will.
All is in constant flux. Some things change very quickly, others take eons. Creation is a symphony.
Time fills this moment, whose being, right here and now, the perceptions, feelings, ideas, come into existence springing forth from an eternal Fount of Life.
All this glory, all the suffering, the sacred Heart of Jesus, the Word incarnate drawing us into holy union with our Creator.
It is wise to listen to the Silence.

Aloysium, I appreciate your contributions but I’m not sure how to respond. My conscience does not tell me that God is “love.” I don’t believe much can be said about what God is to be honest. Maimonides speaks of this at length. Google “Maimonides negative theology” if you want.

 

[tonyrey]

I think you may be confusing me with the OP. Though we have presented similar arguments on this forum I do not think we share the same religious beliefs. Just to be clear: I do not believe there is a “Noahide” religion. The true religion is Judaism (in my opinion). However, it is my opinion (shared by many) that Gentiles are not required to convert to Judaism in order to fulfill the covenant between God and Noah, the ancestor of every human being alive today. Those Gentiles who attempt to live by the laws given to Noah are known as “Noahides” in English. We’re just human beings who acknowledge that the Torah tells us about God, and who attempt to live by this wisdom. Every single person alive today is a “Noahide” in the sense that we all have a covenant with God just by being a human. Some are more aware of this than others.

I can’t go into detail about why I believe this because it is drastically off-topic. But, roughly, I believe monotheism is a justifiable belief based on reason, and the only truly monotheistic religion is Judaism. (Yes there are others, but the God of the Torah seems to match most closely with the God arrived at by reason, this is why there was a fascination with Judaism among the philosophical Greeks of antiquity).

Sorry about that! I thought such a drastic change was very strange. My excuse is that you are united in your attacks on Catholicism.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Yet you have progressed from “It’s all Greek to me” to the Noahide religion and presumably accept some parts of the Old Testament. How do you discern which are true?

Please read on.

I think you may be confusing me with the OP. Though we have presented similar arguments on this forum I do not think we share the same religious beliefs. Just to be clear: I do not believe there is a “Noahide” religion.

Spot-on PumpkinCookie. I think a better spelling would be: “naugahyde” religion… if there would be such a thing. google.com/#q=naugahyde But let me come clean, I do not believe in anything so-called “supernatural” or “transcendent”. Nature is beautiful and complex enough for me. By the way, the phrase: “It’s all Greek to me” indicates that I cannot understand any of the professed religions.

Sorry about that! I thought such a drastic change was very strange. My excuse is that you are united in your attacks on Catholicism.

I do not consider asking tough questions should be considered “attacks”. If and when I will see well-reasoned and rational explanations, I will be very happy and satisfied.

 

[Aloysium]

Unable to witness the Divine, to which all religions speak, one lacks an appreciation of what is fundamental to reality. Living in what is ultimately a condition of illusion, the truth will never make sense. Its description will seem far fetched and irrational. To the world, the Beatitudes are merely fanciful fictions.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . My conscience does not tell me that God is “love.” . . .

Call it what you will, I fear you are listening to another voice.

 

[Peter_Plato]

He believes…I would bet that he does not footnote that statement unless he borrowed it. We have no way of knowing what God thinks or understands…God is unobservable.

This only holds if knowing can only come through observation. How would you know THAT to be true? You haven’t observed it to be true, you assume it to be true. God could reveal himself in ways other than the observable. We have a mind’s eye for good reason. To know means to grasp the abstract, not the concrete observable particulars. It only requires sentience to observe physical reality. The intellect apprehends abstract concepts, ideas and principles, and who knows what else?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Right, we don’t know our final fate, but God does. God is the chair maker and we are the chair. Does that make more sense? Since God infallibly and absolutely knows the outcome and is totally responsible for the existence of absolutely everything, then he is responsible to some extent, for everything that happens. God is totally sovereign and rules this universe alone. He has no equals and no enemies. Everything that happens is his will.

Yes, this means all the evil in the world is his will also. However, we have hope that all these bad things happen for some ultimate good. No, it doesn’t seem like it at all, but we can’t confidently proclaim it “not so!” and thus should have hope that God will set it aright some day.

I think I now see what this is all about.

Suppose a fellow, named Rufus, invented a time machine and went into the future to the next week. While there he saw his best friend, Brutus, rob a bank. Coming back to the present, Rufus would know infallibly what Brutus will do. Now obviously, Rufus knowing what Brutus will do cannot be the cause of Brutus’ doing it. Ergo, God’s foreknowledge, in and of itself, CANNOT be the cause of the acts of free willed agents.

What you are complaining about cannot be that Rufus causes Brutus to do the dastardly deed, what you are complaining about is that Rufus doesn’t - knowing what will transpire - stop Brutus from doing the deed. Your complaint, then, is that God, by foreknowing the evil we will do could stop us but doesn’t. In other words, you are complaining that God allows us to be responsible for our actions and doesn’t relieve us of all moral responsibility for what we do.

You should have just said that. We shouldn’t have to suffer the consequences of our bad behaviour. Rufus is evil because he doesn’t stop Brutus.

Suppose Rufus travelled another week further ahead in time and there learned that the bank robbery wasn’t successful and Brutus was arrested. As a result of the failed attempt Brutus completely reformed his outlook and became the man he always should have been. Would you still claim Rufus should have done something to stop Brutus after his first time excursion?

Extrapolate to God. God would not only know what Brutus will do next week or the week after but for all time. He also has access to the wills and wants of all human agents and all events through all time. His decisions vis a vis the future can not be second guessed by our little minds with limited access to a very small slice of reality.

I would suggest that God’s justice and foreknowledge together, in the end, mean that all human agents receive what they merit because in the end God will allow us to determine our own destiny. Those who, in God’s final appraisal, deserve to be saved will be, those who do not won’t be. Very simple, very just.

Again, this moves us back to your real issue - that God allows us to be fully responsible for the outcome of our lives and doesn’t save us from ourselves without our full cooperation - mind, heart and soul.

 

[Bradski]

I think I now see what this is all about.

Suppose a fellow, named Rufus, invented a time machine and went into the future to the next week. While there he saw his best friend, Brutus, rob a bank. Coming back to the present, Rufus would know infallibly what Brutus will do. Now obviously, Rufus knowing what Brutus will do cannot be the cause of Brutus’ doing it. Ergo, God’s foreknowledge, in and of itself, CANNOT be the cause of the acts of free willed agents.

Am I slipping in my ability to make people understand basic concepts? Is what I write too complex or obtuse? Maybe people switch off when the see the description ‘Atheist’ up in the corner of my posts.

But something is going on, otherwise why all these scenarios with burning chairs and time machines and bank robbers? None of which represent an accurate metaphor for the problem we are discussing.

No-one is saying that God’s foreknowledge (or however you would like to describe it in the Eternal Now - henceforth EN) is the cause of the chair burning or the bank being robbed of the family being killed.

If you have any doubts about the argument or can’t quite grasp the nuances, then simply answer the following question: Does the gun shop owner, knowing what is going to happen, bear any responsibility for selling the gun?

There is really no point in further convoluted argument or claim and counter claim if you cannot answer that extraordinarily simple question. Once you have answered it, then you will understand why some of us have a problem with omniscience and free will.

Maybe try another scenario (but please answer the first before you start arguing with this one):

You are thinking of maybe having one more child. But for any number of reasons you can’t decide. You pray for guidance and God comes to you in a dream. You ask Him that if you have another child, will it turn out OK? Will he be happy? Would he maybe become a doctor or priest? Will he get married and have children?

Well, God says: ‘Hey, this is your call. It’s going to be your decision, but here’s a quick look at how things will turn out if you do have a son.’

And you see he doesn’t have children. You see the misery he causes. You see the deaths. You see the families torn apart by grief. You see the cold blooded killings. You see young girls gunned down in front of their mothers. Babies shot at point blank range.It’s too hard to watch.

And as you wake up, you can hear God saying: Hey, it’s your decision…

You would not deprive future generations of his descendants of the chance to exist if you choose not to have another child because you have seen that he doesn’t have any. But you know that many people will die if you do.

Please don’t tell me you’d have the kid.