I am baffled, please explain

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pallas_Athene
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There we go, now we seem to be getting somewhere. 1) Yes, you are exactly right, Molinism does not solve the “problem of hell” however it does explain how we can have free will and how God’s will can be totally and absolutely accomplished simultaneously. 2) I don’t have to demonstrate what you asked, because I don’t believe that God is unjust or unfair to anyone, precisely because I think he has access to the knowledge of “all possible worlds” and we don’t have enough reason to suppose this isn’t the best one (on the whole). The OP (Pallas Athene) and I do not share a common set of beliefs, I can assure you. We (and others) argue that there is a substantial issue here, but I believe in the God of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.

To be precise, the punishment of hell does not seem to me to be eternal but (allegedly) “everlasting.” Only God is eternal. Everything else has a beginning in time. Hell is supposedly one of those things. Even if it is not a discreet “thing” it is totally contingent upon the existence of creatures brought into existence at a specific time, even if that time was “immediately from the first instant.” The CCC uses the word “eternal” to describe the duration of hell, but the Greek word in the “new testament” upon which these teachings seem to be based is variously translated as either everlasting or eternal. From reason we can deduce that “everlasting” is meant, otherwise hell has always existed, or we have always existed, or both.

Of course I can’t judge God or know whether his rewards and punishments are deserved. I take it as axiomatic. However, everlasting torment is the kind of punishment that can never be just, reasonable, loving, beautiful, etc. I think if an angel appeared to me and told me that God wanted me to worship an idol or go kill dozens of children, I would rightfully argue that God wouldn’t want me to do something like that, and therefore the angel can’t possibly represent God. I think eternal hell is like that. If a man/church appears teaching that eternal hell awaits most of humanity, or even one person, that man/church does not represent God.
Well, here is what I see as the problem.

The universe exists with time as an integral component to it. Yet, the universe as a whole exists eternally in God – i.e., God, merely by thinking it, endows to it eternality of sorts even though the time signature within the universe is temporal.

In that sense, persons exist in the mind of God. His thoughts are eternal. Ergo, by creating human persons, even though we view our existence chronologically, God views our existence eternally. We exist eternally as far as God is concerned because he has created us. He loves us eternally and cannot, as far as his eternal love for us is concerned, just “forget” us. In that sense, when we do evil, what we harm and harm ETERNALLY is God’s creative love for us – something he cannot just forget.

In a sense, it is his “pain” that endures eternally, his creative awareness of our being that suffers FOR us by our inflicting evil on the imago dei he has of us. By selfishly viewing our condition ONLY from our point of view, we miss completely the intrinsic BOTH/AND perspective that sharing God’s love for us would provide to us. We don’t SEE it precisely because we don’t see with and through God’s love for us. In a sense, the eternal pain of hell could well be the eternal pain that God suffers for losing us.
 
Wait…are we discussing the possibility that Santa does not exist? :confused:
Only in a hypothetical sense…

Rest easy, you will get presents from Santa at Christmas 😉

And I only know that because you will continue to choose to be good, not that my foreknowledge has determined it :jrbirdman:

My foreknowledge could actually be “knowledge” only if you continue to choose to be good.
 
Only in a hypothetical sense…

Rest easy, you will get presents from Santa at Christmas 😉

And I only know that because you will continue to choose to be good, not that my foreknowledge has determined it :jrbirdman:
Phew, thanks, for a second I got a little panicked. If you have any pull in that area let the jolly man know I would like a green one. He will know what I am talking about.👍
 
Only in a hypothetical sense…

Rest easy, you will get presents from Santa at Christmas 😉

And I only know that because you will continue to choose to be good, not that my foreknowledge has determined it :jrbirdman:

My foreknowledge could actually be “knowledge” only if you continue to choose to be good.
OK I regret using Santa as an example. 😛 My apologies, although I’m afraid I have landed myself on the “naughty” list by alleging that he doesn’t exist. :eek:
 
OK I regret using Santa as an example. 😛 My apologies, although I’m afraid I have landed myself on the “naughty” list by alleging that he doesn’t exist. :eek:
My understanding is that he is a forgiving fellow with regard to those who disbelieve in him. Just leave him a cookie.

A word of caution, however, I wouldn’t express a disbelief in the divinity of Christ in his presence. THAT he will not tolerate. Just ask Arius…

patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2011/12/on-the-st-nick-punch.html

More on the subject…

taylormarshall.com/?s=arius&submit=Search

Don’t miss the combox contributions on the Badcatholic site.

From Santa Fan:

Arius the Bloody-Nosed Heretic

Luther and Calvin
And Wesley, and John Smyth,
John Knox, Nestorius,
Eddy and Joe Smith.
But do you recall
The bloodiest heretic of all?

Arius the bloody-nosed heretic
Had some dissenting views
And if you ever heard them
you would have left your pews.
Most of the other bishops
Used to laugh and call him names
But a few of the others
did believe in his claims

Then stood up St Nicholas
and moving from his place
“ότι είναι αίρεση!" *
Then he punched him in the face

That caused the other bishops
to shout out with glee
“Arius you bloody-faced heretic
You’ll go down in history!”

ότι είναι αίρεση (“O-tee I-nay I-re-say”) - “That is heresy!”
 
So, he who punches the hardest is always the most right?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

#questionablephilosophicaltheories
 
It is a “mystery”, of course. Or a manifestation of God’s omnipotence. If God already knows what the person will do in his whole life, then it is not problematic to ask the poor guy if he wants it or not. But God does not ask… he just pushes that “gift” on him.

😉
It is a mystery that belongs exclusively to you in spite of not being a logical possibility - unless logicians embrace absurdity eagerly, relieved that its principles are not immutable and can be adapted to suit any hypothesis. Absolute freedom of thought at last!
 
Well, technically, there was only one punch, so there were no other punches to compare which one was the “hardest.”

You are clutching at straws here, PC.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2053&pictureid=17329
Well as long as you don’t light my straws on fire and tie me to a stake in the middle of it we’re OK. 😉

Do you know that no one is sure what Arius actually taught since the emperor burned all of his works? Religious freedom wasn’t a value back then I think. So glad and thankful to have it now! Very grateful for this website as well. It is a testament to the charity and fair-mindedness of Catholic Answers that they allow this kind of dissent to be expressed.

As I was typing this my other thread was deleted without warning, though I truly don’t understand how it violated any forum rules. Their prerogative I guess. I am grateful still for whatever free expression is allowed.
 
Well as long as you don’t light my straws on fire and tie me to a stake in the middle of it we’re OK. 😉

Do you know that no one is sure what Arius actually taught since the emperor burned all of his works? Religious freedom wasn’t a value back then I think. So glad and thankful to have it now! Very grateful for this website as well. It is a testament to the charity and fair-mindedness of Catholic Answers that they allow this kind of dissent to be expressed.
A gentle reminder that you haven’t chosen to respond to this post, as yet…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13125987&postcount=1182
 
It belittles the daughter. Any normal parent would wish for a son as well as a daughter.
Your hope is understandable but it is undermined by your explicit statements:
There is no “right” to exist. We exist because our parents happened to conceive us.
That is why if you were God you would be prepared to dispense with our lives and the lives of our ancestors to prevent injustice and suffering.
Your starting point was that God should have created another human pair who would not have succumbed to the temptation - which implies that you reject the existing human race lock, stock and barrel.
Not “ALL”. There could be many exceptions, but in any case wishing to have a DIFFERENT set of people, does not include that the existing one should be “killed”.

Do you mean they should co-exist? 😉
They can’t be incommensurable if you are prepared to sacrifice the existing human race in favour of a sinless couple and their descendants.
The OP makes it clear that you reject the world with its people.
I reject a world, where there is unnecessary pain and suffering. If the remedy would necessitate that some people would be created DIFFERENTLY, then so be it. It is still not a death wish.

It amounts to depriving our ancestors and all their descendants - including us - of our existence, a solution far worse than genocide: humanicide…:eek:
What makes you think I don’t ? There are far more realistic solutions than wishing for a sinless world.
First of all, I never said anything about a “sinless world”. I only talked about a world without pain and suffering.

Your starting point was original sin on which you based your hypothesis of a superior world.
As of yet you have never elucidated on your “far more realistic solution”.
I don’t need to because it exists already.
Why not start a new thread about it, since this one is way over the usual 1000 posts limit. You could use an eye-catching title like: “Tony’s solution of eliminating pain and suffering”. That would be rather cool.
There is already a solution you have ignored. Quite simply the teaching, life and death of a Jewish carpenter. You may dismiss the Resurrection but you would be unwise to reject the other factors and their significance…
 
A gentle reminder that you haven’t chosen to respond to this post, as yet…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13125987&postcount=1182
I wasn’t sure that you expected a response, sorry. It doesn’t seem like God can experience “pain” or “suffering” since he doesn’t change, isn’t surprised, doesn’t make decisions, is totally inviolate, and isn’t vulnerable in any way to the various things that cause suffering.

I don’t know what “an eternality of sorts” means. Literally have no idea.

Your second paragraph is one possible explanation for how God can interact with time, I think. I think there are several competing explanations and I am not totally convinced by any of them, but I haven’t spent too much time with this particular problem. I’m not sure that by allowing us to return to the nothingness from which we were created, God would be “forgetting his love for us.” I’m not sure that we were created out of love, but rather to glorify God and because of his super-abundant goodness.
 
T

Of course I can’t judge God or know whether his rewards and punishments are deserved. I take it as axiomatic. However, everlasting torment is the kind of punishment that can never be just, reasonable, loving, beautiful, etc. I think if an angel appeared to me and told me that God wanted me to worship an idol or go kill dozens of children, I would rightfully argue that God wouldn’t want me to do something like that, and therefore the angel can’t possibly represent God. I think eternal hell is like that. If a man/church appears teaching that eternal hell awaits most of humanity, or even one person, that man/church does not represent God.
I admire your compassion and mercy for the fallen angels and the people and Hitlers of the world who may be in hell all of whom are hell-bent on your destruction. But, I’m sure glad you are not God. You have probably never met one of these malicious beings in person but if you did, you may come to a different frame of mind. The fallen angels and the human beings in hell are all unrepentant sinners. It’s like if you had say a 8 year old daughter who was kidnapped, tortured, beaten, raped, and murdered, and you met this criminal in court and he says to your face “I’m glad I did it, I’d do it again.” Are you going to feel sorry for this criminal? I would hope you would think for your daughter’s sake that this person needs to be punished, locked up for a lifetime behind bars or strung up and hung. And then you meet this same person after death in the next life and he says to you the same thing “I’m glad I did it, I’d do it again if I could.” Again, are you going to have compassion or feel sorry for this person? I would hope not unless you want your daughter to go through the same ordeal.

Thankfully, there is an after life where perfect justice will prevail and you can hope while still living on earth that your daughter who was maliciously murdered on earth is in heaven. The murderer took your daughter’s one chance at life on earth for all eternity. In a sense, the murderer committed an eternal damage for we live one time on earth and that’s it. How can the murderer compensate for this crime? It appears to me to be impossible for once we die we do not come back to earth. The only just sentence for such a criminal is to be punished for eternity, everlasting, forever. Why for eternity? Because there is never going to be a time even after a zillion years to compensate for the crime. The victim, the daughter, is not going to come back to earth to live no matter how long the criminal is punished for. The criminal does not necessarily have to end up in hell. He/she can while still living on earth, repent of his/her crime, ask forgiveness from God and God will forgive him/her and this person can end up in heaven. Consider the repentant thief on the cross next to Jesus. It is not God’s will that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. Unfortunately, not all repent but are happy to live in sin. But, living in sin is not true happiness but an apparent happiness. And as the Scripture says whatever a person chooses will be given them:
“Set before you are fire and water;
to whatever you choose, stretch out your hand.
Before everyone are life and death,
whichever they choose will be given them” (Sirach 15: 16-17).

Now, thankfully, God values life and the things He made much more than we do and so there is a heaven and a hell. Jesus, the God-Man who speaks the words of God, has told us there is an eternal punishment awaiting evil people. Catholics, who are followers of Christ, believe in the words of Christ as well as the words in other parts of Holy Scripture which is the word of God that tells of an eternal punishment awaiting the evil people. Since we believe God is perfectly just, an eternal punishment of hell must be just. We may not fully comprehend this in this life but we will see the justice of it in the next life.

In my view, pumpkin cookie, you have way to much compassion and mercy for those beings in hell, again, who are hell-bent on your destruction. These beings are our enemies. I would not worry about trying to understand fully the eternal punishment of hell in this life, we will see the perfect justice of this in the next life, or worry about your enemies in hell. Instead, do all you can in this life so you don’t end up in hell. Leave the rest to God and believe with absolute certainty that God is perfectly just and that an eternal punishment of hell is perfectly just. I honestly do not understand your compassion, mercy, and worry over our enemies who are hell-bent on our own destruction.

Another thought that has occurred to me is this. Since you do not believe that an eternal punishment is just according to your finite mind, maybe we ought to eliminate the other part of Jesus’ teaching about the good people entering eternal life. Maybe the bad people ought to be punished for, lets say, a thousand years; and the good people rewarded for a thousand years. After this, they both can cease to exist. How does this sound?
 
That is why if you were God you would be prepared to dispense with our lives and the lives of our ancestors to prevent injustice and suffering.
I am getting really tired of this. NOT creating someone is not the same and KILLING someone. Sure, not creating a murderer would “deprive” his HYPOTHETICAL descendants from being born, but there is nothing problematic about this. Every time you “fail” in your endeavor to procreate (no matter how “open” you might be), you also “deprive” that possible “someone” and his or her descendants from ever coming into existence. Or if you or your spouse are simply tired, or have a headache, you also “deprive” the possible offsprings from coming into existence. Do you feel bad about it? (And this is not a rhetorical question!)
That is why if you were God you would be prepared to dispense with our lives and the lives of our ancestors to prevent injustice and suffering.
There would be others to take their place. And then we would have no injustice and suffering. I wonder: “why do you think that I or you are SPECIAL”? We are not. If we would not exist, then someone else would exist in our place.
There is already a solution you have ignored. Quite simply the teaching, life and death of a Jewish carpenter. You may dismiss the Resurrection but you would be unwise to reject the other factors and their significance…
Oh, please, that is so lame. I see a lot of pain and suffering, which that “carpenter” could have prevented, but did not. If that is your “better” solution, then there is nothing to talk about.
 
I’m not sure that we were created out of love, but rather to glorify God and because of his super-abundant goodness.
Well, if God IS Love, then it follows that we were created “out of Love” in the sense that Love would be the explanation for why we were created. Love simply is his “super-abundant goodness.”
 
Well as long as you don’t light my straws on fire and tie me to a stake in the middle of it we’re OK. 😉
Nor will I come and threaten to boycott your place of business, lobby the courts to have you fined; nor even allege irreparable (well… at least not fixable by $135,000) emotional harm to me and my like-minded kin just because you happen to disagree on this issue.
 
. . . I wonder: “why do you think that I or you are SPECIAL”? We are not. If we would not exist, then someone else would exist in our place. . .
No one else in all creation, all time and space feels it when you stub your toe.

It sounds like you don’t want to be here, so this would not be special, but rather a curse.

I am sure there are like-minded people who would voice their befuddlement if you were not here.
I suppose I would not know the difference. That doesn’t make you any less irreplaceable and unique.
But to people who see others as a means to their own gratification, I suppose we are all replaceable.
I know I am not in myself, nor are those whom I have loved and lost.
 
Long ago, when I got my MBA, we studied linear programming. It’s a computer program that optimizes the ingredients of some product. For example, what is the best and cheapest chicken feed you can make given 10 different ingredients that are all priced at different levels depending on the quantity bought?

Obviously this is a problem that would be unsolvable before computers. Today it’s solvable at the push of a button. Compare that to God’s knowledge–knowledge not just of the future that will exist, but futures that may exist but won’t. God sees all the possible paths. We have trouble understanding that (there seem to be two camps on this thread) because it’s hard for us to take ourselves outside of time and because of the seeming complexity of the problem. And yet before computers, finding the optimum and cheapest mix of ingredients for chicken feed was so complex it was considered “impossible.” Times change.

For a being who we all agree created a universe (or multi-verses!) with billions of galaxies, trillions of stars, and physical laws we still don’t understand, some of us seem very reluctant to grant that being the ability to see potential futures or “counterfactuals.” If you define “counter-factual” as something that requires a change in the past, I agree, because I don’t believe God breaks his own laws of time and space. But in the case related a while back, if two people marry and produce a child, it would be easy for God to know what color the eyes of the child would be, and the future of the child–and the futures of all the children who could have been born of those parents but weren’t. Why not?

Now the discussion seems to have turned to Hell, etc. If you accept the premise that God knows all the possible futures, wouldn’t it be possible that he in fact chose the future with the best outcome? Granted we can’t see that because we can’t see all the possibilities simultaneously. But God could.

And, at the risk of repeating something that’s been said 1,000 times, the monkey wrench is free will. Assuming God wants creatures who have free will, the future is determined to a large extent by those creatures. He could choose to not create some of those creatures for whatever reason, but that would also deny them the chance to exercise their free will in their potential futures.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top