I am baffled, please explain

[Peter_Plato]

Am I slipping in my ability to make people understand basic concepts?

Yup.

Is what I write too complex or obtuse?

Nope

Maybe people switch off when the see the description ‘Atheist’ up in the corner of my posts.

Doubtful

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.

Perhaps it is you missing something of the subtlety.

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?

The cases are not transposable because, unlike God, the shop owner does not really know what is going to happen nor does he know the far reaching effects and repercussions down through all future time. Having privileged access to that knowledge means that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly just God would know how selling the gun not only affects the immediate future but all the future. Not only that but, unlike God, the shop owner does not know precisely the “just desserts” of every human who has or ever will exist. The shop owner blindly treats all as equally meritorious of future goods, whereas God knows otherwise.

This is not to say Bradski, that just because someone gets shot it means they deserved it, it does mean that their getting shot has significance that neither you nor I can possibly fathom, but that God knows precisely.

 

[Aloysium]

Hypotheticals are a feature of ignorance.
God does not deal in ifs except when trying to communicate a point to people.
Cain is told that if he does not abandon his course, he will sin greatly.
God knows what Cain will do, but the warning transforms his action from one of passion to a choice, freely taken.
Chorazin and Bathaisda are told that had Tyre and Sidon witnessed the wonders performed there, they would have repented, and that is why judgement will be easier on them.
These stories of guns and children going bad may have some meaning for the person dreaming them up, but they have nothing to do with the reality of a relationship with God.

 

[PRmerger]

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?”

Sigh.

He did, PC.

They were called Adam and Eve.

But they chose to sin.

This lack of knowledge about a very basic Christian tenet suggests that your “years” of study as a RC were done while you were daydreaming?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Sigh.

He did, PC.

They were called Adam and Eve.

But they chose to sin.

I answered the same question on the previous page under post #425 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13078147&postcount=425
Why don’t you read it? The point is not just create a couple who are “originally” sinless, but to create a different one, which also STAYS sinless? Why create losers, when he could have created winners? Is that too much to ask for from an omnipotent God? Once you can answer that question… then you can “sigh”.

 

[Bradski]

The cases are not transposable because, unlike God, the shop owner does not really know what is going to happen nor does he know the far reaching effects and repercussions down through all future time.

Yes, the shop owner does know what is going to happen. That is a stipulation of the hypothetical. And no, he does nor know what the ultimate affects will be. Neither do we. I just want you to answer the simple question.

Does he bear any responsibility.

Nobody wants to answer this. Not in this format or any other similar format. Not just in this thread, but many others as well. We all know why. Because we all know what the answer is.

 

[PRmerger]

I answered the same question on the previous page under post #425 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13078147&postcount=425
Why don’t you read it? The point is not just create a couple who are “originally” sinless, but to create a different one, which also STAYS sinless?

Then that would, PA, be a violation of their free will.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

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

The Christian concept of Satan serves to undermine any of our beliefs quite effectively. The problem is that it is quite universal. How do you know you haven’t been following Satan your entire life also? Ironically, I believe Jesus had a good answer to this when the Pharisees accused him of being a test of ha satan:

The scribes who had come from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” 10 and “By the prince of demons he drives out demons.” 23 Summoning them, he began to speak to them in parables, "How can Satan drive out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand; that is the end of him.

• Mark 3:22-26

This of course is the unforgivable sin, to ascribe to Satan the work of God (according to Jesus). Having left aside false beliefs and the practice of idolatry I can tell you that my love and fear of God has grown tremendously. I pray more, give more to charity, help others more, have improved health, and have been blessed to an incredible extent! Before, I was afraid of an irrational and vicious trinity, morbid saints, scandalous church, demons and a powerful Satan. Now I understand that there is no one “Satan” who is a powerful enemy of God ready to destroy his children. God has no enemies and is in total control. That is what omnipotence means. To deny this is to diminish God’s power and greatness. Ha satan is just an angelic servant, sent to test our obedience and goodness. He always does God’s will, just like every other angel. To think otherwise is to think God creates his own enemies and pretends to be unable to do anything about it! The prologue to the book of Job made no sense to me, how could God make a deal with his enemy at the expense of poor Job? Now I understand that this shows ha satan’s role: the tester, the accuser.

I have a more likely scenario: maybe I’m just ignorant and/or stupid. Maybe I’m just listening to my own desires (as opposed to my conscience). Isn’t that far more likely and come with so much less metaphysical baggage?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

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?

It is easier to get orange juice by squeezing a rock than to get an honest answer for such questions.

My only problem with your question is that it does not “dig” deep enough. Obviously the owner is “only” guilty of providing the wherewithal to the murder, while fully knowing what will happen. That is called accomplice or accessory to the murder. But that does not describe the full extent of the culpability of God.

Let’s just use PP’s time machine as the building block (instead of a dream). Rufus is about to sire Brutus. But before he consummates the act, he gets into his time machine, and visits the future where he sees Brutus to kill some people and rob that bank. Going back to the present, he now has the option of going on with the process of siring Brutus, or stopping it.

If he goes on, then he will be FULLY responsible for the acts of Brutus, not just partially responsible like the gun shop’s owner. “Knowing and doing” is more serious than “knowing and allowing” though the difference is not too big.

The feeble attempt of the apologists that God has also access to the full ramifications of the act of Brutus, and MAYBE there are mitigating circumstances somewhere down the line (in a few hundred years?) is simply called “argumentum ad ignoratiam” - which is a basic logical fallacy. But since it seems to allow to “get out of jail free”, it is frequently employed by those who run out of arguments. Because God forbid that they would be intellectually honest and declare “oops, I was wrong”. What was that parable about the “eye of the needle”??

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Sigh.

He did, PC.

They were called Adam and Eve.

But they chose to sin.

This lack of knowledge about a very basic Christian tenet suggests that your “years” of study as a RC were done while you were daydreaming?

A very basic Christian tenet? Weird how it wasn’t official until…1854! I guess all those Christians before the mid 19th century were just as silly as me.

Even Aquinas thinks this formulation makes no sense. How can one be redeemed from something one has not been harmed by?

Further, the preternatual state of Adam and Eve is considered to be inferior to the condition of Mary. She was given a “singular” grace by virtue of Jesus’s sacrifice. If God were to do that for Adam and Eve, then they wouldn’t have sinned, but then Jesus would be unnecessary, so it wouldn’t make any sense to ascribe “grace” to them because they never would have done the thing they needed to do to make Jesus necessary and so on, in a loop, forever.

Here, read this, by Pope John Paul II: ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm24.htm

The Pope is very clear that Mary “was preserved” from all sin throughout her life. The passive voice indicates that the “preserving” was done from without. Thus, it seems founded to believe that it is God’s “special” grace that is doing the “preserving,” not just her own will.

The question is: why is this grace special? Why did it have to be contingent upon a blood sacrifice of a god-man in the future? Is God not able to preserve us all from sin? Is he not willing? Did Mary not have free will? Was she a robot?

I have my own answers to these questions, but the RC answers just don’t seem to make sense.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Then that would, PA, be a violation of their free will.

Oh, my, my… creating losers is fine with their free will? Creating winners is not… come on. God deliberately chose to create the loser couple (Adam and Eve), instead of the winner couple of “Steve and Susie”. If a deliberate choice of creating one is a violation of free will, then we all lack free will, because God deliberately created ALL of us. God is unable to act “randomly”; everything he does is “deliberate”.

Now you can “sigh”.

 

[PRmerger]

A very basic Christian tenet? Weird how it wasn’t official until…1854!

PC, again your lack of catechesis is showing.

Firstly, the fact that it wasn’t “official” doesn’t mean that it was believed, professed and taught until that time.

I suggest you read my blogpost for 2011 on this very thing:
threeminuteapologetics.blogspot.com/2011/01/didnt-church-just-invent-dogma-of.html

You do know that the Trinity dogma didn’t become “official” until the 4th century, but you ought to know that this was the belief of the Church for centuries before that, yes?

So, what’s “official” got to do with anything?

Also, can you be specific about what you’re referring to in 1854, vis a vis Adam and Eve?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

The kind of free will that would *not allow *one to choose sinning over not sinning, even when he or she wants to sin, would entail a logical contradiction.

If God had created us so that we would never choose to sin, not even in the slightest, we would then only be able to choose to do other than what we might prefer to do. However, if we are choosing other than what we prefer, then we are choosing to do something against our will. This would be logically contradictory – to will to do something that we did not will to do.

If we were created to always choose good over sin, then we would be robotic, programmed, and would lack free will.

A woman is pregnant for the second time outside of marriage - a sin (both times). She wanted to have sex outside of marriage, even knowing it was sinful. She wanted to choose to sin rather than to avoid sin because she wanted to indulge her physical appetites. If she had chosen to avoid sin, wanting to sin, it would have been a logical contradiction.

She could have been programmed - sorry created - to never wish to choose sin over good. But then she would not have free will.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

If God had created us so that we would never choose to sin, not even in the slightest, we would then only be able to choose to do other than what we might prefer to do.

The example of the Virgin Mary shows that it is possible to create humans, who DO NOT PREFER to do something sinful - and yet still retain full free will. You cannot get around the “fact” that God is unable to act “randomly”. Everything he does is deliberate. If he chooses to create the loser couple of “Adam and Eve”, who will freely choose to disobey, then the alternate choice of creating “Steve and Susie” is an example of a couple who would also be free to obey. No violation of their “free will”.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

PC, again your lack of catechesis is showing.

Firstly, the fact that it wasn’t “official” doesn’t mean that it was believed, professed and taught until that time.

I suggest you read my blogpost for 2011 on this very thing:
threeminuteapologetics.blogspot.com/2011/01/didnt-church-just-invent-dogma-of.html

You do know that the Trinity dogma didn’t become “official” until the 4th century, but you ought to know that this was the belief of the Church for centuries before that, yes?

So, what’s “official” got to do with anything?

Also, can you be specific about what you’re referring to in 1854, vis a vis Adam and Eve?

Based on your blog post, I think you know some of the history. However, if it were such a clear case of “everyone believing it” prior to 1854 why did the pope convene a meeting of theologians to discuss and debate it? Why would it take 19 centuries to come to agreement if it were so obvious and believed by so many? Why are there many prominent church fathers, saints, and theologians who dissent?

If your children have always known their daily routine, why would you officially proclaim it to them when they reach age 50 and have already moved out of the home? It makes no sense. The doctrine of the immaculate conception has always been a controversy among Christians, and still is! (Unless you don’t consider protestants and eastern orthodox believers as Christians?)

Further, there is abundant evidence that many Christians did not believe in the trinity. You just call them “heretics.” They considered themselves Christians however. The earliest Jewish believers in Jesus did not consider him to be God, and neither did the Arians (of which there were many).

Further, the fact that many people have long held a belief does not mean it is a true belief, nor representative of the “original beliefs.”

I didn’t mean that the teaching about Adam and Eve was codified in 1854, but that an opinion about Mary’s “singular grace” was codified in 1854. If the grace was “singular” that means no one else could have had it, including Adam and Eve. Right?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

The example of the Virgin Mary shows that it is possible to create humans, who DO NOT PREFER to do something sinful - and yet still retain full free will. You cannot get around the “fact” that God is unable to act “randomly”. Everything he does is deliberate. If he chooses to create the loser couple of “Adam and Eve”, who will freely choose to disobey, then the alternate choice of creating “Steve and Susie” is an example of a couple who would also be free to obey. No violation of their “free will”.

I CAN get around the fact that God does nothing randomly. I believe he does everything deliberately. I don’t think anything happens that is not the will of God.

God knows how all of humanity will play out. You and I do not. I trust him to have chosen the best path. You don’t even believe he exists.

Sure, God could have created a race of robots, programmed to be his “yes people.” I would rather have free will than be someone’s “yes girl.” I would rather go to God out of love and trust than be programmed to do so.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Sure, God could have created a race of robots, programmed to be his “yes people.”

I will make one more attempt. Simple questions:

1. Was the VM deliberately created to stay sinless? Yes or No?
2. Did the VM retain her free will? Yes or No?
3. Was the VM a “robot”? Yes or No?

If your answer is “Yes” to the first two questions and “No” to the third one, then it is possible to have deliberately created people with free will, who do not desire to commit evil, and who are able to avoid doing evil. Since creating such humans is logically non-contradictory, therefore God is able to create innumerable such people, all with free will, and all volitionally choosing the “right choice”. No “robots”. And at the same time deliberately NOT create those who would freely choose evil…

I will add one more thing. You all operate under the misconception that to have free will it is necessary to choose between something “good” and something “evil”. Not so. It is sufficient if one is free to choose between two good options.

If you understand this, fine. If you don’t that is fine too.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I will make one more attempt. Simple questions:

1. Was the VM deliberately created to stay sinless? Yes or No?
2. Did the VM retain her free will? Yes or No?
3. Was the VM a “robot”? Yes or No?

If your answer is “Yes” to the first two questions and “No” to the third one, then it is possible to have deliberately created people with free will, who do not desire to commit evil, and who are able to avoid doing evil. Since creating such humans is logically non-contradictory, therefore God is able to create innumerable such people, all with free will, and all volitionally choosing the “right choice”. No “robots”. And at the same time deliberately NOT create those who would freely choose evil…

If you understand this, fine. If you don’t that is fine too.

1. She was born without original sin and chose to live a sinless life.
2. Yes, she had free will.
3. No, she wasn’t a robot.

We have the free will to say no to sin as well. Most of us just don’t do it all the time.

The flaw here is that Mary was born into a sinful world. She knew what sin was even though she did not commit any sin, and she knew what sin brought into the world. If everyone had been created that way, from the beginning of time, they would be programmed.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

We are free to read Genesis as a literal description or the events leading to the original sin, or an allegorical one, with some unspecified command and disobedience. For the sake of simplicity, I will use the literal version.

1. God told Adam and Eve not to touch the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
2. The serpent tempted them, and they disobeyed.
3. God chased them away from his presence and cursed the whole creation.

Looks pretty simple and straightforward, doesn’t it? Disobedience, which leads to punishment. Happens all the time.

The problem occurs when we start to consider God’s omniscience. God KNEW that the humans WILL disobey.

The first question is this:
Could God have created a different pair, like George and Susie, who would NOT have succumbed to the temptation, and would NOT have chosen to disobey? If every conceivable human pair would have succumbed to the temptation then there is no free will; the fall would have been preordained or predestined. Sounds quite unreasonable. The existence of free will is a basic tenet.

Now if God could have created another human pair, who would not have succumbed to the temptation, then the question is: “why didn’t he do it?”. God is supposed to be free to actualize any state of affairs, which is not logically impossible.

**The second question is: **
Why did he put them to the test in the first place if he knew that they will fail? What is the point to put someone to a test which will lead to death when the person fails? There are several solutions here: NOT to place that tree there. Or do not command them not to touch it. No command or no tree - no disobedience - no “original sin” - no “fall”. Everyone wins, we would still be in the Garden.

For God there are no unforeseen events, no surprises. The conclusion is very disturbing: God deliberately chose the sequence of events which lead to the “fall”, God wanted us to fall. That is not how a “loving” father behaves. No loving father would put a bowl of poisoned candy (tasting of which leads to death) on the table and command his child not to taste it. A loving father would not place that candy on the table, he would make sure that the candy is inaccessible.

**The next question is: **
If a father “tricks” his children into an act of disobedience with the explicit aim / desire to teach him a lesson, then the test cannot be a “lethal” one. Moreover, the failed test must be followed by an immediate and minor punishment, which must be followed by an unconditional, free pardon. And, of course, the punishment cannot be extended to other ones, least of all to those who have not even born yet.

There is no need to go one into reconciliation process of God’s self-sacrifice (in the form of Jesus). If there would be no original sin, there would be no need for reconciliation.

So the whole story just does not compute. Unfortunately the concept of original sin is the cornerstone of Christianity. So, there…

I simply don’t get it.

Free will is a created thing too. There is nothing that is that hasn’t been created by God. God created creation from beginning to end, and everything within it. A human being has no power to do something other than what God has already created. There’s no choice on whether a human being can in anyway change the outcome of which God has already created. God gives you your life because that is what he has created for you to be and to have. Your free will is his revelation of you. You can’t add or take away anything that God has created as you through such free will. EVERYTHING CAME FROM GOD; there is nothing within or without that God has not created.

 

[Aloysium]

It is my experience that a good question provides its own answer either immediately or by suggesting a method for its solution.
The question, which has previously been answered on this thread as to “God’s responsibility”, is irrational. That is why it does not reveal truth.
When we speak of responsibility, we imply a judgement, someone or some standard to whom we must provide an explanation.
God is the person to whom we must answer, His goodness and His will are the standard.
Is all that God does, good? Yes.
Is He the creator of all there is, within and above all time, the reason we exist, the Source of our being? Yes.
Perhaps people should argue with Calvanists. We do not believe He creates good and bad people. We chose.
As to the Blessed Virgin Mary, she is venerated because, as the new Eve, she chose to do God’s will. This would be simply another bland, meaningless, pretentious level of hell had she chosen otherwise. We now have a way out.
I don’t understand the attitude of argumentativeness, when it comes to the Divine. Most of the foundations for my being Catholic were laid in meditation and reading sacred scriptures like the Upanishads. We can learn from one another.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

The question the OP wants answered now is: Why didn’t God create all humans, from Adam and Eve on, with no inclination to ever sin. In that way, humanity would have remained sinless and death and decay, and pain and suffering, and all the bad stuff would not have been brought into the world.

I am not the OP, by the way.