I love you . . . but you chose to burn . . .

[jahozafet]

Case #1: Imagine God as the father of a household. A child wants to be happy so he eats a lot of candy before mealtime. The father finds out about this and teaches the child not to eat candy before supper. The child then does the same action again. This time the father takes the candy away since he/she disobeyed a second time. Then the child becomes clever and goes out of his/her way to get the candy. The father bans all candy from the house. That’s a loving father trying to teach the child a lesson. The child likely will learn that maybe he’ll/she’ll be able to have candy again if he/she just waits until after dinner.

Case #2: Alternative “God”: A child wants to be happy so he eats a lot of candy before mealtime. The father finds out about this and teaches the child not to eat candy before supper. The child then does the same action again. The father again finds out and tells the child no candy before meals but takes no further action. Then the child continues to take the candy since he/she knows that he/she won’t be punished for his/her actions. The father continues to tell the child that he/she should not have candy before meals in the hopes that some day he’ll/she’ll get it but does not put into place any punishment to teach a lesson. That’s a father that’s not allowing the child to grow. The child will never learn why it is not good to have candy before eating dinner.

I would pick the father in case #1 as the truly loving father since he wants his son to chose wisely by not eating the candy before supper. I hope that made sense.

The only problem is we aren’t talking about having candy taken away from us, we’re talking about eternal torture and misery. Apples and oranges.

 

[YinYangMom]

jahozafet:

The “why chance it” idea . . Pascal’s Wager . . . does not rub me the right way. That equates to faith out of fear. The only reason you are faithful is because you are giving in to threats. The theology should stand logically in it’s own right and not resort to threats.

True, but it’s a starting point. As cradle Catholics we are trained to fear God…we do or don’t do things out of fear of the consequences - even from our parents…that’s behavior modification for you.

The first step in parenting a child near flames is to get them to STOP heading toward the pretty lights. Once they’re safe in your arms you can explain “WHY” they shouldn’t touch the flame. Funny thing is, more often than not - even after the WHY - a kid still puts his hand in a flame at some point

If fear of God gets you to want to learn more about Him then it’s a good start. In the learning more you come to see the Truth and it is so easy to embrace at that point.

 

[squirt]

jahozafet:

God is supposedly all powerful, so the only reason that the parameters you describe exist is because God wants them to. If God is all powerful, then he could change those parameters at the blink of an eye. So either God wants people to suffer and not believe in him, or he is not all powerful.

It’s not necessarily an either/or situation. There are atheist philosophers who view the problem of suffering, in and of itself, insufficient to conclude that the attributes of omnipotence and omnibenevolence preclude a God who allows suffering.

One example is Rowe’s “The Evidential Argument from Evil”

 

[jahozafet]

YinYangMom:

If we don’t - after having been shown the way - then my son, that’s your choice - and He has set the consequence for that choice just as He has set the reward for choosing to accept Him.

You just said it yourself . . . god sets the consequences. Therefore, he could choose anything to be the consequence. And he chose and eternity of torture and misery. That is not an act of love.

 

[theMutant]

jahozafet:

This equates to blind faith. You are saying that you are not allowed to have judgement, anbd that the church makes judgements for you.

I did not say that the Church makes judgments for us because we are all free to choose whether or not to believe in the Church. Christ established the Church for us not as a dictatorial ruler who tells us not to think for ourselves, but as a loving servant who alone has the gift of infallibility. If any priest were to tell me to strap dynamite to myself and go blow up something, I am not bound in any way to do this because this contradicts the teaching of the Church which can NEVER change. Even if the Pope himself ordered me to do this and told me that I would go straight to heaven for doing such a thing, I would spurn the command because the Catholic faith requires that I do not have blind faith. For the Catholic, the so-called blind faith is not faith at all.

 

[jahozafet]

squirt:

It’s not necessarily an either/or situation. There are atheist philosophers who view the problem of suffering, in and of itself, insufficient to conclude that the attributes of omnipotence and omnibenevolence preclude a God who allows suffering.

One example is Rowe’s “The Evidential Argument from Evil”

How does the argument from evil go again? I can’t remember.

 

[theMutant]

jahozafet:

You just said it yourself . . . god sets the consequences. Therefore, he could choose anything to be the consequence. And he chose and eternity of torture and misery. That is not an act of love.

God did not choose an eternity of torture and misery, He chose that we would exist for eternity in the presence of His perfect love. That is an act of love.

 

[squirt]

jahozafet:

How does the argument from evil go again? I can’t remember.

Rowe’s argument? Or another one. There are many variants.

Try picking up Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings
by Michael Peterson. There are a few good articles in there from theists and non-theists.

Philosophy is best savoured slowly with a real book in front of you …

 

[jahozafet]

theMutant:

I did not say that the Church makes judgments for us because we are all free to choose whether or not to believe in the Church. Christ established the Church for us not as a dictatorial ruler who tells us not to think for ourselves, but as a loving servant who alone has the gift of infallibility. If any priest were to tell me to strap dynamite to myself and go blow up something, I am not bound in any way to do this because this contradicts the teaching of the Church which can NEVER change. Even if the Pope himself ordered me to do this and told me that I would go straight to heaven for doing such a thing, I would spurn the command because the Catholic faith requires that I do not have blind faith. For the Catholic, the so-called blind faith is not faith at all.

You did say, “It is not a matter of our private judgment because if our judgment contradicts that of the Church, we know that the Church is correct.” Either you are or are not allowed your own private judgement. You are contradicting yourself. You are saying that your are not allowed private judgments that differ from the church, and then that you are.

 

[YinYangMom]

jahozafet:

This equates to blind faith. You are saying that you are not allowed to have judgement, anbd that the church makes judgements for you.

Do you know who else has blind faith? Islamic extremists. They were told that if they blew up a bus full of innocent people, they would be immdiately with Allah. Blind faith is dangerous . . . I think people should think for themselves.

Gotta admit…that’s a good one…

I know that my faith is not blind. But you’ve forced me to recall why I know that to be true. It’ll come to me.

As for the terrorists (and I don’t considered them anything with regard to Islam, the leaders just use that to control them)…part of the answer comes from the source of the directive.

We believe Jesus founded the Catholic Church and therefore we trust it completely. In that way we are not blind.

Mohammad did not annoint the leaders of these terrorists so people following their directives are doing so outside Islams own guidelines.

For us Catholics the succession of Peter is what keeps us strong. For other Christians who follow the Christs’ teachings as interpreted by those not annointed in that succession, they are taking a gamble, in my opinion, and any particular denomination runs the risk of being used by Satan to steer souls away from God.

We Catholics can trust completely that the Church will never do that.

 

[jahozafet]

squirt:

Rowe’s argument? Or another one. There are many variants.

Try picking up Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings
by Michael Peterson. There are a few good articles in there from theists and non-theists.

Philosophy is best savoured slowly with a real book in front of you …

Here’s one:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” - Epicurus

 

[theMutant]

jahozafet:

You did say, “It is not a matter of our private judgment because if our judgment contradicts that of the Church, we know that the Church is correct.” Either you are or are not allowed your own private judgement. You are contradicting yourself. You are saying that your are not allowed private judgments that differ from the church, and then that you are.

By that reasoning, I could claim to be a Catholic but maintain that adultery is not a sin. I am free to choose not to believe adultery is a sin but, if I do so, I cease to be a Catholic because I know the teaching of the Church. Therefore, I am free to make my own judgment. In choosing to accept the infallible teaching authority of the Church in doctrinal and moral matters, I am exercising my free judgment. This is true for each and every instance that I reaffirm that teaching. For as long as I freely choose to be Catholic, I will not put my own interpretation above that defined by the Church’s magisterium.

Our free will is absolute. That, however, does not mean that we are allowed to do whatever we want. There are plenty of areas of Biblical interpretation that are open to different interpretations within the teaching of the Catholic Church because the Church has pronounced very few infallible intepretations regarding specific verses of Scripture.

 

[jahozafet]

YinYangMom:

We believe Jesus founded the Catholic Church and therefore we trust it completely. In that way we are not blind.

That is the definition of blind faith.

 

[squirt]

jahozafet:

Here’s one:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” - Epicurus

Yup. And there are lots of others that differ from that one … some background in formal logic helps if you’re going to read the book I suggested. There’s lots in there to really sink your teeth into if you want to consider alternative ways of looking at things. It’s up to you …

 

[theMutant]

jahozafet:

That is the definition of blind faith.

No, the definition of blind faith is faith without the use of reason. If we fully trust the teachings of the Catholic Church because we have found reasons to do so, then that faith is not blind.

 

[jahozafet]

theMutant:

For as long as I freely choose to be Catholic, I will not put my own interpretation above that defined by the Church’s magisterium.

So what you are saying is that you are freely choosing to have blind faith.

 

[Trinitatem]

Why is it that arrogance grabs our hearts and creates an anger and frustration about our salvation? Why do we believe we are not accountable for our actions? If someone murders, should he be released? Rewarded? God is our Father. People have this idea of what God should be - because we can only contemplate Him with our minds. We want what WE want. Not what God wants. We don’t want to suffer so we ask, “Why does God allow for suffering?” We don’t want purgatory or pain after death, so we ask, “Why does God allow purgatory?” We don’t want hell, so we either don’t believe in it, or ask why God allows for hell? You wouldn’t allow for your son to choose Hell and burn for eternity. True. But would you lock him in a basement to keep him from stealing? Or murdering? Or suffering. Life is choice. God gives us free will, because without it we would be robots. We would never grow nor learn.

I believe God is love. He wants us to be with Him in heaven. He guides us, calls us to reconcile with Him. He gives us signs, gifts and blessings. We have every opportunity here on this earth to perfect our lives and in obedience, try to guide others in the way He has taught us.

 

[jahozafet]

squirt:

Yup. And there are lots of others that differ from that one … some background in formal logic helps if you’re going to read the book I suggested. There’s lots in there to really sink your teeth into if you want to consider alternative ways of looking at things. It’s up to you …

Is your implication that one who is well-versed in logic will find the Catholic view to be correct?

 

[jahozafet]

theMutant:

No, the definition of blind faith is faith without the use of reason. If we fully trust the teachings of the Catholic Church because we have found reasons to do so, then that faith is not blind.

Islamic extremists have their reasons, too. Even though they are horrible, they are still reasons.

 

[squirt]

jahozafet:

Is your implication that one who is well-versed in logic will find the Catholic view to be correct?

Nope. Some of the papers are a bit technical. That’s all I’m saying.