I am baffled, please explain

[tonyrey]

Thank you, tonyrey. I thought she was a “she,” but wasn’t sure, I admit.

Your uncertainty has prompted me to investigate:

Pallas: German (of Slavic origin): from a pet form of the personal name Pavel or Pawel, respectively the Czech and Polish forms of Paul, or from a Sorbian cognate.German (of Slavic origin): nickname for a small man…

ancestry.co.uk/name-origin?surname=pallas

Athene: From the Greek, meaning “wise”.
Origin of Athene Name Greek
Gender of Athene **Boy **

meaning-of-name.co.uk/athene/

So my apology wasn’t necessary but my investigation was entertaining:

Letter Analysis:

A : Thoughtful
T : Perfectionist
H : Witty
E : Victorious
N : Stubborn
E : Victorious

meaning-of-name.co.uk/athene/

It doesn’t specify in what respect Athene is victorious…

 

[tonyrey]

And, in that sentence, you, yourself have given the answer to this whole dilemma, or what you see as a dilemma. Everything God did and does is deliberate, with full knowledge of its outcome.

We woefully lack full knowledge of an incident’s outcome. We are not omniscient. We cannot judge something “good” or “bad” without knowing its ultimate outcome, and we will not know that until Christ’s Second Coming when it was promised that “all would be made clear.”

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For** now we see through a glass, darkly**; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

1 Corinthians 9 -13

 

[tonyrey]

It would be more to the point, Brad, if you specify how many

No need to apologise. You’re entitled to your views.

God doesn’t doom anyone to an early death in a plummeting aircraft. Neither does He save the odd passenger from a fiery death when one does drop out of the sky.

I agree!

I am pointing out the nonsensical position that some people take in believing that he steps in for the good moments in life and then ignore His responsibility for the bad ones.

The second part of your sentence doesn’t follow from the first. God permits the bad moments because the world would be topsy-turvy if He intervened to prevent every accident. It would defeat the purpose of creating a predictable system.

Please explain the precise range of God’s activity.

This is exactly what we are trying to determine what Christians believe. I haven’t had to point this out for some time, apart from mentioning it in passing above, but I don’t believe God has any range of activities at all.

Then you need to give a reason why the universe is a rational, intelligible system instead of being chaotic.

Those who believe in God appear to have a range of views and descriptions for what they believe God to be. Therein lies the problem. You asking me what I think of God is hardly going to shed any light on the problem.

But it sheds light on the atheist’s problem! You take all the good things for granted and single out the bad ones as more significant when in fact nothing is significant in a Godless universe. It doesn’t even make sense to distinguish good from bad if the whole caboodle is pointless and absurd…

 

[Pallas_Athene]

This does not prove your case, however, and you keep failing to see that. Your assertion is that it is possible that an entire world, throughout all its existence and in all its humans, may have free will and exercise it perfectly in all cases and situations. You cannot prove that this case is viable by demonstrating one person who does this.

Well, you fell into the trap. HOW MANY people could have the property of freely exercising their will, and NOT sin, even if they COULD sin? There is one example… Mary.

I was hoping to see you start pondering along these lines: One was possible. But… wait. Is it possible to have two? Or maybe even three? Two billion? Is there an upper limit of such people? A limit, that even God’s omnipotence cannot overcome. If you would be a mathematician, you would be familiar with the method called “mathematical induction”, where you start with one actual example, and then propagate it from any “N” to the next “N+1”…

God did not make Mary “act freely and correctly.” She cooperated with the singular grace He gave her.

Sure, because she was deliberately created to “cooperate”. There is no such thing as unwanted or random creation. Was God unable to bestow that “singular grace” on others? That is the question you are supposed to be pondering, too.

If He “deliberately created everyone” so that they would always act correctly, then they wouldn’t “act freely”. If He “deliberately created everyone” so that they would always act freely, then He could not make them “act correctly.” From the fact that Mary led a sinless life, it does not follow that everyone will do the same. Adam and Eve proved that fact convincingly.

But “Steve and Susie” would have demonstrated the opposite. All that means is that God deliberately chose the “losers” instead of the “winners”.

Immaterial to our discussion. We’re not talking about the free will decisions between morally good and/or morally neutral actions. You’re explicitly talking about free will in the context of choosing not to sin.

Sure. But to have free will it is NOT necessary to have the “evil option”.

You say that it is impossible to deliberately create someone who will freely choose the correct option. This is the foundation you used. This foundation is incorrect as the Mary example shows. Then you started to argue that from one example it is impossible to extrapolate, to make sure that there will be no “counter examples”. That is only true if there is “random creation”. But God does not act randomly. Each and every creation is done deliberately, while fully knowing what the outcome will be - and that does not detract from the “freedom” of the choice. That is exactly what the apologists assert when they are confronted with the question of foreknowledge vs. freedom of choice.

 

[oldcelt]

Like two delicate and pampered ladies from years past who would feign a “faint” at anything even remotely difficult for them to deal with. Ah, you two “run” like Victorian girls.

No Peter, but I know futility when I see it.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

PA, do you not see the weakness of your argument here? You said I could not compare myself to my cat, and by the way, I wasn’t, I was contrasting; however, you are comparing what an eternal omniscient Deity sees with what a mortal, limited knowledge human sees. Just as my cat is not a human and can’t be tied to the human view of things, God is not a human and cannot be tied to the human view of things.

Since you wish to talk about God using human terms, then you are not in the position to chastise me for doing the same.

And most biblical scholars believe there was no actual “tree,” no “candy on the table.” The great sin of Adam and Eve was in trying to be gods themselves, trying to subject God to their will, not following his.

The exact circumstances are not important. Why is it unforgivable to try and imitate the “creator”? Since they were doomed to fail, why was God jealous to see them trying? You just demonstrated that the basic tenet of Christianity is not “love”, but blind “obedience”.

If you want to ask why God allows evil into the world, you have to go back further than Adam and Eve’s sin and ask why God allowed Lucifer and his group of fallen angels to roam free in Paradise. He could have destroyed Lucifer or at least kept him confined to hell.

Yes, excellent question, for which no apologist was ever able to give a logical and rational answer. But we can make some educated guesses. Maybe God was bored and wanted to have some “variety” (ask tonyrey, he is a self-professed expert on the principle of “varietas delectat”… ) After all he played a game with Lucifer, and the human pieces on the chessboard were Job and is family. Maybe the stench of the burnt offering was pleasing to his nostrils?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . The exact circumstances are not important. Why is it unforgivable to try and imitate the “creator”? Since they were doomed to fail, why was God jealous to see them trying? You just demonstrated that the basic tenet of Christianity is not “love”, but blind “obedience”. . .

This is either a strawman argument or you simply don’t get it. There is a third option which only you know.

What went wrong in the Garden was that Adam and Eve attempted to be gods without God.
In Christ, through the incarnation, His death and resurrection, we can become Gods.
He was not jealous; that was the Devil’s lie, that you sir are buying into.
God is Love, one cannot commune with Him, if one is not loving.
Obedience demonstrates, faith in God’s goodness and love, that He is interested in what is best for us. It offers hope in the midst of our suffering and is an act of giving, as He has given Himself to us. This is what paradise is all about - love.

 

[tonyrey]

Note: Frankly, I don’t care if you answer my posts or not. It is much easier for me to pick apart your posts knowing that you choose not to rebut my points.

PA doesn’t reply when the going is too tough!

 

[Pallas_Athene]

This is not an argument, but a poem and drama of sorts.

Very well written.

It is quite telling that there was no rebuttal, only an assertion that “this is not what the church teaches”. But, yes, that is exactly what the church teaches, albeit it uses different, more politically correct words. It is also telling that the church does not have information about the fate of the unborn, who were not baptized. Not too long ago the teaching was that all the unbaptized went directly to hell (do not pass “GO”, do not collect 200 dollars).

That teaching was amply demonstrated by the conquistadores, who took away the newborns of native people, baptized them and then immediately crushed their skulls against the next, conveniently placed rock. And they did this being 100% sure that they acted in the best interest of those newborns, who were directly transported to heaven, having been washed away the “original sin”, and being in the state of “grace”.

This teaching was about faith and morals, and as such the holy spirit was supposed to protect the church from failure. Yet, this infallible teaching was toned down in modern times.

The point is that there is no unchangeable teaching of the church. Whenever something inconvenient or unpalatable argument is presented, the only rebuttal is: “but that is NOT what the church teaches”.

 

[tonyrey]

Maybe God was bored and wanted to have some “variety” (ask tonyrey, he is a self-professed expert on the principle of “varietas delectat”…

You are undoubtedly an expert on the principle of “silentium est aureum” when you are baffled by a rebuttal of your argument that nothing makes sense in this Godless universe of ours - which unfortunately is self-refuting… :console:

 

[tonyrey]

I agree completely…and yet I am a conservative Catholic. Have a look at my review of Bart Ehrman’s (my favorite atheist!) book, “God’s Problem” (about the problem of evil).

smile.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1AKC2D2FTZ85D?ie=UTF8&display=public&page=2&sort_by=MostRecentReview

You might find it interesting.

If you believe God never steps in for the good moments in life and then ignores His responsibility for the bad ones you cannot be a Christian, let alone a Catholic. It’s not surprising you have a “favorite atheist”…

 

[tonyrey]

Very well written.

It is quite telling that there was no rebuttal, only an assertion that “this is not what the church teaches”.

There was no rebuttal because it isn’t a rational argument.

But, yes, that is exactly what the church teaches, albeit it uses different, more politically correct words. It is also telling that the church does not have information about the fate of the unborn, who were not baptized. Not too long ago the teaching was that all the unbaptized went directly to hell (do not pass “GO”, do not collect 200 dollars).

False - unless you can produce a citation to that effect.

That teaching was amply demonstrated by the conquistadores, who took away the newborns of native people, baptized them and then immediately crushed their skulls against the next, conveniently placed rock. And they did this being 100% sure that they acted in the best interest of those newborns, who were directly transported to heaven, having been washed away the “original sin”, and being in the state of “grace”.
This teaching was about faith and morals, and as such the holy spirit was supposed to protect the church from failure. Yet, this infallible teaching was toned down in modern times.

False! Do you really believe the conquistadores were following the teaching of the Church? If so produce a citation to that effect.

The point is that there is no unchangeable teaching of the church. Whenever something inconvenient or unpalatable argument is presented, the only rebuttal is: “but that is NOT what the church teaches”.

False! You are obviously unaware of the development of doctrine.

 

[tonyrey]

…Yes, excellent question, for which no apologist was ever able to give a logical and rational answer.

There is no rational answer because it is an allegory which is not literally true. Yet another strawman!

 

[tonyrey]

No Peter, but I know futility when I see it.

There can be no greater example of futility than a God who creates without knowing or caring what He is doing!

 

[oldcelt]

There can be no greater example of futility than a God who creates without knowing or caring what He is doing!

Obviously, I would beg to differ. Futility is to be created by a deity who already knew your outcome and every action at the instant of your creation. That is my belief.

 

[mamlukman]

If you believe God never steps in for the good moments in life and then ignores His responsibility for the bad ones you cannot be a Christian, let alone a Catholic. It’s not surprising you have a “favorite atheist”…

Hi again! I’m back from vacation, and I see we’re both on another thread with the same subject.

Show me in some Church document that it is an article of faith that I have to believe in miracles (other than Jesus & Apostles), and I will recant. Keep in mind that I believe miracles are possible, but I don’t believe they actually happen.

And no, I’m afraid no miracles appeared while I was on vacation.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

No more rational arguments from me on this thread. I think we’ve collectively proven to each other that it just doesn’t work. Whether the angel in my story speaks Catholic teachings is up to the judgment of the reader. To inform that judgment it may make sense to read the writings of saints, popes, doctors, and councils prior to the mid 20th century.

Tonyrey, I still haven’t finished a thread on the gratuitous evil of hell. I hope it will be a whopper though! I am trying to make it as absolutely clear, concise, and question-provoking as possible. This is much more difficult than spilling a great many words. Perhaps another thread debating what constitutes “church teaching” is also in order?

 

[Aloysium]

It is interesting, to a certain point, to be told by an assortment of Deists, fallen away Catholics, atheists, the baffled and generally confused what we as Catholics are supposed to hold as true. It does tend to get more than a little annoying as false accusations always do. Since the Catechism and Scripture are readily available on-line, these sorts of posts reveal themselves ultimately to be merely trolling.

 

[tonyrey]

… But God does not act randomly. Each and every creation is done deliberately, while fully knowing what the outcome will be - and that does not detract from the “freedom” of the choice. That is exactly what the apologists assert when they are confronted with the question of foreknowledge vs. freedom of choice.

Like so many others you have failed to explain how knowledge is coercive…

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I’m afraid no miracles appeared while I was on vacation.

Your very existence, your capacity to perceive, feel and understand seems pretty miraculous. But, you weren’t speaking about something so utterly awesome. Miracles are everywhere. I suppose cynicism and doubt can shoot down just about anything, leaving behind only the skeletal remnants of vibrant reality.
Not wanting an answer but to stimulate thought: While you were away, what proportion of your day was spent in prayer and in contemplation of the Churches teachings? And, what about the mass and the Eucharist? Charitable works?