If God existed, why would He preside behind the Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation?

[Bohm_Bawerk]

This is something that always bothered me, even as my time as a Catholic. If God truly existed, why would He preside behind the Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation? So instead of what Catholics say is the “one truth”, you now have “multiple truths”, with different people preaching different things. How can this be so, when the Bible even says “God is not a God of disorder” (1 Corinthians 14:33)? So something is definitely rotten in the State of Denmark, to quote Shakespeare. To say, “God gave Man free will” is a weak argument. God gave Man free will to kill Jesus as a child, but God preserved Him from that. God gave free will to Man to kill the Virgin Mary, St. Anne, and all the other ancestors that would have broken their lineage, but they seem to have been preserved from that. So, in the same fashion, God could have equally preserved the Catholic Church or whatever is the “true religion” from disintegrating into several parts.

In addition, if God existed, why wasn’t Judaism the first religion? Why didn’t God reveal Himself to Mankind at first? Why is it that Hinduism and several branches of paganism all predate mainstream Judaism by about a thousand years, and it’s subsequent successor - Christianity - by several thousand years. This is quite an intriguing thought, as early humans searched for God rather than God searching them. Early humans didn’t receive revelation. But doesn’t Scripture say - “. . .]anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him” (Hebrews 11:6). So he rewarded these early humans with Hinduism/paganism - the very same religions that are now deplored across by the Abrahamic religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam?

 

[yablabo]

This is something that always bothered me, even as my time as a Catholic. If God truly existed, why would He preside behind the Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation?

It seems that you’re questioning why God leads or led the schismatics or protestants to fracture the Catholic Church and then continues to lead them now in their fractured sects, correct me if I’m wrong in that assessment. Well, if that is what you’re questioning, it’s an invalid question you’re asking based upon the assumption of faulty premises. The fractures are led by men, not God. The fractured sects are led by men, not God.

God cannot possibly deny God:

The First Vatican Council, On Faith and Reason:

Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since it is the same God who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason. God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth. The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason. Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false.

In addition, if God existed, why wasn’t Judaism the first religion? Why didn’t God reveal Himself to Mankind at first? Why is it that Hinduism and several branches of paganism all predate mainstream Judaism by about a thousand years, and it’s subsequent successor - Christianity - by several thousand years. This is quite an intriguing thought, as early humans searched for God rather than God searching them. Early humans didn’t receive revelation. But doesn’t Scripture say - “. . .]anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him” (Hebrews 11:6)

Your line of questioning again is invalid based upon faulty premises.

God DID reveal Himself to mankind from the very beginning, at first directly to Adam, and after Adam’s prevarication, to man in general indirectly through the physical laws of nature (cf. Romans 1:19).

It is no surprise that forms of paganism seem to predate the adoration and worship of the true God. Demons offering preternatural powers to man in exchange for worship or devotion can be very compelling to man’s fallen nature. These pagans see sensible (as in, perceiveable to the sense faculties) results, so they stick with it. It is far easier to live a brutish existence worshipping the created (demon) in return for treats (preternatural favors) now, than it is to rise above man’s temporal existence into one’s intellect to examine purpose and to strive for purity. So, no surprise there. To seek God demands intellectual pursuit and the rewards given (i.e., graces) are not that which can be perceived by the sense faculties. That being the case, most people choose the way of the merely sentient beasts (though they can’t even do that well since they’re not beasts ) to live a life of relative ease.

That, however, does not in any way deny the existence of God (i.e., uncreated Creator, First Cause himself uncaused, Necessary Being, etc.), it merely further illustrates the lacking/evil in man made by the original sin.

– Nicole

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

It seems that you’re questioning why God leads or led the schismatics or protestants to fracture the Catholic Church and then continues to lead them now in their fractured sects, correct me if I’m wrong in that assessment. Well, if that is what you’re questioning, it’s an invalid question you’re asking based upon the assumption of faulty premises. The fractures are led by men, not God. The fractured sects are led by men, not God.

I would first of all like to thank you for your quick and detailed reply. I appreciate it a lot.

That said, to claim the “fractures are led by men, not God” presupposes that the Catholic Church is the true Church. You are accepting a fact before it has even been put to trial. Yet you have the Eastern Orthodox who adamantly claim they are the “one, holy, Catholic and apostolic” Church. And they have a valid reason to make such claim - they have links to St. Andrew, the brother of St. Peter. You have the Anglican Church, who too claim they are the original Catholic Church. So much so, that during the 16th century through to the 18th century, the term “Catholic” generally referred to the Anglicans, and the terms “Roman Catholic” or “Papist” referred to the Roman Catholic Church. And then you have what we call “ecclesial communities”, who claim they are merely following God “directly”…in the fashion that Jesus intended it as laid out in Scripture. Thus, different people preaching different things. All of them are following Jesus. Mainstream Protestantism has 33,000+ branches alone. God, assuming He existed, presides over all of this and is allegedly presiding over all of this. He was there when these denominations were being set up. It sets up an atmosphere where Pascal’s Wager is reversed - which religion do I follow? Which door has the prize behind it? If this isn’t a refutation behind the claim that God is “not a God of disorder”, I don’t know what is. And even more terrifying, is that Scripture regards Satan as the “author of confusion” (cf. John 8:44). So with the differing opinions across the Christian community itself clearly established, does that not indicate that God and Satan are the same - one in character and personality?

Your line of questioning again is invalid based upon faulty premises.

God DID reveal Himself to mankind from the very beginning, at first directly to Adam, and after Adam’s prevarication, to man in general indirectly through the physical laws of nature (cf. Romans 1:19).

That’s not a historical fact as it is a teaching of the Church. To use a teaching of the Church to prove a Church’s teaching is what we call “circular logic”. Modern anthropology does not acknowledge the existence of Adam. It does not even acknowledge the existence of a “first man” - it speaks of a “first woman”, who I believe is called Lucy. And if this is what modern anthropology has discovered, shouldn’t the Church renew it’s antiquated teachings - after all, it professes to claim faith and reason are non-contradictory? Anthropology for anthropologians; history for historians and theology for theologians. Let’s not muddle the distinction between all three; indeed, many believers criticize Richard Dawkins for “stepping out of his boundaries” in regards to theology despite him being a biologist. And rightly so. Hopefully the Church will follow the same advice and practices what it preaches.

That, however, does not in any way deny the existence of God (i.e., uncreated Creator, First Cause himself uncaused, Necessary Being, etc.), it merely further illustrates the lacking/evil in man made by the original sin.

Yes it does illustrate the non-existence of God, or at the very least diminishes the possibility of His existence to virtually nil. What we find is that God never sought out Man. Quite to the contrary, Man has always sought out God. To paraphrase the Greek philosopher Xenophanes, “if horses could paint, they would paint their god(s) like horses”. What we find is that God’s existence is a purely neurological phenomenon, as Man always tries to find a “deeper reason” in his surroundings, especially when science is inadequate in explaining it. This explains why certain experiments which randomly process patterns across a white sheet have shown that the human brain tries to find a “picture”, or some kind of meaning in the patterns. In the same way, as Man’s environment changes, Man tries to seek a “deeper meaning” of what is really a random process of patterns. This is backed up historically - it was commonly thought that lightning was an “act of the gods”. Even in Scripture, we find that those with diseases and terrible conditions were often believed to have angered God: “His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” (John 9:2)

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Ave Maria Bohm,

If God truly existed, why would He preside behind the Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation? So instead of what Catholics say is the “one truth”, you now have “multiple truths”, with different people preaching different things. How can this be so, when the Bible even says “God is not a God of disorder” (1 Corinthians 14:33)? So something is definitely rotten in the State of Denmark, to quote Shakespeare. To say, “God gave Man free will” is a weak argument. God gave Man free will to kill Jesus as a child, but God preserved Him from that. God gave free will to Man to kill the Virgin Mary, St. Anne, and all the other ancestors that would have broken their lineage, but they seem to have been preserved from that. So, in the same fashion, God could have equally preserved the Catholic Church or whatever is the “true religion” from disintegrating into several parts.

I wasn’t aware the Church splintered. History says people broke away from the Church and the Church remained an ever constant. Not being confrontational, but the burden of proof is on you to show us how the Church “splintered” or the one truth became “multiple truths”. Rather, it seems that God has preserved the Church like your analogies, the Church cannot be blamed for rebellious people or schisms but the sin of pride of not showing obedience to the Bishop of Rome is the root cause of this.

In addition, if God existed, why wasn’t Judaism the first religion? Why didn’t God reveal Himself to Mankind at first?

Is it not written that he did reveal Himself to those of the Old Testament? Though not fully, but in accordance to His Divine Plan. I seem to remember the first humans, Adam and Eve (being literal or metaphorical) knew of God and sinned against His will and were removed from the Garden. If all humans proceeded from Adam and Eve, is it not plausible to suggest that knowledge of Him would’ve been past down?

Just to gauge the conversation, do you accept the written word as a valid means of historical evidence (namely the Pentateuch in this conversation)? Or do we need to employ scientific means to suggest humans sourcing from one region on the global (which is strangely close to or identical to the suggestion where the Garden was) or the Mitochondrial Eve?

Why is it that Hinduism and several branches of paganism all predate mainstream Judaism by about a thousand years, and it’s subsequent successor - Christianity - by several thousand years. This is quite an intriguing thought, as early humans searched for God rather than God searching them. Early humans didn’t receive revelation.

I find it rather interesting that “early humans” were searching for God at all. I wonder where that idea of an immaterial/supernatural existence sourced from. Either humans have an intrinsic nature that is drawn to divine or such an idea was extrinsically dispensed by an outside nature or agent to humankind. Either case suggests the existence of God. More or less, this line of reasoning is a branch of the “argument from desire” by Peter Kreeft, peterkreeft.com/topics/desire.htm Though, as he even stated that it is not a very strong argument but nevertheless deserves thought.

But doesn’t Scripture say - “. . .]anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him” (Hebrews 11:6). So he rewarded these early humans with Hinduism/paganism - the very same religions that are now deplored across by the Abrahamic religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam?

The invincible ignorance reply comes to mind.

 

[benedictus2]

This is something that always bothered me, even as my time as a Catholic. If God truly existed, why would He preside behind the Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation? So instead of what Catholics say is the “one truth”, you now have “multiple truths”, with different people preaching different things. How can this be so, when the Bible even says “God is not a God of disorder” (1 Corinthians 14:33)? So something is definitely rotten in the State of Denmark, to quote Shakespeare. To say, “God gave Man free will” is a weak argument. God gave Man free will to kill Jesus as a child, but God preserved Him from that. God gave free will to Man to kill the Virgin Mary, St. Anne, and all the other ancestors that would have broken their lineage, but they seem to have been preserved from that. So, in the same fashion, God could have equally preserved the Catholic Church or whatever is the “true religion” from disintegrating into several parts.

In addition, if God existed, why wasn’t Judaism the first religion? Why didn’t God reveal Himself to Mankind at first? Why is it that Hinduism and several branches of paganism all predate mainstream Judaism by about a thousand years, and it’s subsequent successor - Christianity - by several thousand years. This is quite an intriguing thought, as early humans searched for God rather than God searching them. Early humans didn’t receive revelation. But doesn’t Scripture say - “. . .]anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him” (Hebrews 11:6). So he rewarded these early humans with Hinduism/paganism - the very same religions that are now deplored across by the Abrahamic religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam?

Your use of terminology is very misleading and may in fact be the reason you have this misconception.

God DID NOT preside over the things you mentioned.

He allowed it. Only an all powerfull all loving God can allow evil to exist for awhile in order to bring about a higher good.

You are trying to fit into your tiny mind the reasons and purposes of the Mind that created the universe.

The things that have happened has been allowed to happen because He has given us free will. To not allow us to do what we want to do would mean to create robots. So God shows His greatness by the fact that even though we mess things up He makes something beautiful out of the mess.

Creation has not stopped. He continues to create and renew.

We are like tiny children watching our mother create this beautiful tapestry but we see only the bottom of it - the mass of tangled threads and seeming mess of colours. But from her vantage point a beautiful creation is taking shape.

It is foolish to limit God - who we have attributed with “omnis” - to conform to the understanding of our piddly little brain.

With regards the religions, it is said that in the “fullness of time” God became incarnate. The timing of divine revelation is also up to Him. Perhaps the reason why this is so is because after the fall, our understanding became so corrupted that it will take millenia before we can even begin to grasp it all.

If you look at the history of Judaism and Christianity, comprehension of God’s plan took time to take hold. Even now, the Holy Spirit continues to guide us deepening our understanding of the mysteries.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

This is something that always bothered me, even as my time as a Catholic. If God truly existed, why would He preside behind the Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation? So instead of what Catholics say is the “one truth”, you now have “multiple truths”, with different people preaching different things. How can this be so, when the Bible even says “God is not a God of disorder” (1 Corinthians 14:33)? So something is definitely rotten in the State of Denmark, to quote Shakespeare. To say, “God gave Man free will” is a weak argument. God gave Man free will to kill Jesus as a child, but God preserved Him from that. God gave free will to Man to kill the Virgin Mary, St. Anne, and all the other ancestors that would have broken their lineage, but they seem to have been preserved from that. So, in the same fashion, God could have equally preserved the Catholic Church or whatever is the “true religion” from disintegrating into several parts.

In addition, if God existed, why wasn’t Judaism the first religion? Why didn’t God reveal Himself to Mankind at first? Why is it that Hinduism and several branches of paganism all predate mainstream Judaism by about a thousand years, and it’s subsequent successor - Christianity - by several thousand years. This is quite an intriguing thought, as early humans searched for God rather than God searching them. Early humans didn’t receive revelation. But doesn’t Scripture say - “. . .]anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him” (Hebrews 11:6). So he rewarded these early humans with Hinduism/paganism - the very same religions that are now deplored across by the Abrahamic religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam?

Why? why? why?
What if? what if? what if?
Evil? Evil? Evil?
Atheist - former devout Catholic.

Id you you dont mind, I would joined all these questions taken from you post. That is what “I” took, somebody else would have taken some other idea.

Easier said that done. It is very easy so ask questions but extremely difficult to give answers. Why didnt the doctors diver HIV vaccine ofter 20 years of research? The answer if hard.

We could imagine trillions of worlds saying “what if” and trillions of questions. Again, and worse, on quantity, with no possible end on sight, and no solution.

There is no answer for evil and what you are talking about are several kinds of evil, like the separation of churches, the division among Christians, the Jewish and Hindu questions.

Finally, I realize that you are not a person of mild waters, what you do you do with grat responsibility, devotion and you take things seriously. So passed from being a devout Catholic to being an extremely hard questioner (English good?) of the religion you once so fiercely defended.

If I were you I would stop posing those questions and consuming yourself with these questions. You may spend 10 thousand lives posing the trillion “why” and “what if” questions and what you will receive is a deep silence.

God is a God of silence and He is not going to give you the answers to the questions you posed because you posed. It’s up to Him to set the timing and not for you. In short: it is a questions of authority that you now contest to God. It is not you who rule the Universe it is God.Of the trillions of possibilities, God chose the ones He wanted and he has got no explanation to give to one one, not even you.

If He chose Israel as His People, if He let the division of Churches, if He let Hinduism grow, if, if, if, it is up to His decision and you have a simple choice (rather than remain too much time thinking): accept or not accept. As simple as that.

St. Augustin says a wonderful story that someone who read CAF told me. There were 2 horses in the King’s stable and they were hearing the noise up in the first floor in the King’s palace during a feast. And one horse told to the other: “What a tasteful straw must be eating our king!” Horse’s thoughts. So are ours (mine and yours in this post) compared with God’s thoughts.

You know, Bible says, more or less, that as High the Sky is so up High from Earth, so God’s thoughts are from human’s thoughts. So, either you trust God and put your life into His Hands not knowing what comes next but putting you future into His thoughts or rather you remain within your little tiny shell thinking and rethinking your narrow minded thoughts (compared to God not to me), in your insignificance. If you put your hope in God and come back to the Church, you becoming Infinite, everlasting, Eternal.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Your use of terminology is very misleading and may in fact be the reason you have this misconception.

God DID NOT preside over the things you mentioned.

He allowed it. Only an all powerfull all loving God can allow evil to exist for awhile in order to bring about a higher good.

I’m well aware of St. Thomas Aquinas’ response to the existence of evil, namely, that only God - or a god - could bring good out of evil. But how can God, or a god, bring good out of division? After all, as a Christian, you believe Jesus was God Incarnate. And Jesus Himself responded to the Pharisees who claimed He received His power from Beezlebub the archdemon: “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand” (Matthew 12:25). Thus, God Himself has already spoken. And using His own logic, how can Christianity stand if it is divided, with even a mere debate about “proceeding from the Father and the Son” having caused such a historic rift within the Church. Perhaps this would explain why Jesus remarked in another Gospel, “. . .] when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?”" (Luke 18:8). How’s that for the gift of prophecy?
benedictus2;8299894:

You are trying to fit into your tiny mind the reasons and purposes of the Mind that created the universe.

The things that have happened has been allowed to happen because He has given us free will. To not allow us to do what we want to do would mean to create robots. So God shows His greatness by the fact that even though we mess things up He makes something beautiful out of the mess.

As I’ve said before, there are ways God could preserve the Church whilst maintaining free will. If I’m not mistaken, Herod wanted to kill Jesus, but God managed to “save” Jesus whilst still maintaing the free will that Herod had. The problem with the free will argument is that it’s often wielded as a “get-out-of-jail-free” card for God. Either God wants unity or He doesn’t want it.

If you look at the history of Judaism and Christianity, comprehension of God’s plan took time to take hold. Even now, the Holy Spirit continues to guide us deepening our understanding of the mysteries.

That was in the context of the “era of revelation”, though. That era has ended, since the death of the last apostle (St. John the Apostle, at 100 AD). We now know everything that God supposedly told Mankind, and thus, we are free to evaluate the deposit of faith as know there is nothing more that God has told Mankind. And the fact that we are free to evaluate the deposit of faith perhaps indicates to us that Jesus lied - after all, He claimed that those around Him would not die until they saw the Kingdom of Heaven: “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”" (Matthew 16:28)

 

[yablabo]

I would first of all like to thank you for your quick and detailed reply. I appreciate it a lot.

That said, to claim the “fractures are led by men, not God” presupposes that the Catholic Church is the true Church. You are accepting a fact before it has even been put to trial. Yet you have the Eastern Orthodox who adamantly claim they are the “one, holy, Catholic and apostolic” Church. And they have a valid reason to make such claim - they have links to St. Andrew, the brother of St. Peter. You have the Anglican Church, who too claim they are the original Catholic Church. So much so, that during the 16th century through to the 18th century, the term “Catholic” generally referred to the Anglicans, and the terms “Roman Catholic” or “Papist” referred to the Roman Catholic Church. And then you have what we call “ecclesial communities”, who claim they are merely following God “directly”…in the fashion that Jesus intended it as laid out in Scripture. Thus, different people preaching different things. All of them are following Jesus. Mainstream Protestantism has 33,000+ branches alone. God, assuming He existed, presides over all of this and is allegedly presiding over all of this. He was there when these denominations were being set up. It sets up an atmosphere where Pascal’s Wager is reversed - which religion do I follow? Which door has the prize behind it? If this isn’t a refutation behind the claim that God is “not a God of disorder”, I don’t know what is. And even more terrifying, is that Scripture regards Satan as the “author of confusion” (cf. John 8:44). So with the differing opinions across the Christian community itself clearly established, does that not indicate that God and Satan are the same - one in character and personality?

Firstly, you’re welcome for the response.

There seems to be a confused line throughout what you’re exposing here as your thoughts. Subjective claim does not make a truth. The fact that many people claim Christ does not mean they have Christ as their head. All of the sects of which you’ve spoken above lack the visible lieutenant on whom Christ founded his Church. There is a general misunderstanding and obstinacy amongst most on this issue. It is a fact, however, that Christ founded His Church on St. Peter and that See is conferred to others in a succession, so that the visible Church of Christ throughout the ages has a visible head. This is laid out most explicitly in a compilation of treatises that St. Francis de Sales wrote called The Catholic Controversy.

Providence, being what it is, does not interfere in the free will of man. Men who are validly baptized can choose to latch onto heresy, to fracture communion by schism, or to repudiate Christ completely by apostasy and God allows all of this so that we may see who is approved (I Corinthians 11:19).

The fact that man causes disorder does not in any way make God the cause of that disorder. I choose, like everyone does, to commit the acts I will. Part of growing to the maturity of adulthood is taking responsibility for those actions, not shirking it onto another such as God. The differing “opinions” of the so-called “christian community” mean nothing. It is the certitudes which have meaning. An opinion is really another way of saying “a probability” or “a practical contradiction” which is, effectually, nothing. So what if people hold differing opinions regarding what Jesus Christ taught? That is merely another example showing the fallen nature of man. If God has manifested what we must believe, we must believe it with certitude, absolute certitude to be exact. If we hold what God has manifested by opinion, we’re basically saying, well…maybe it is and maybe it isn’t, as if God could lie or be deceived.

How do we see the manifestation of God? In intelligence, which could not possibly come from nothing. In cause and effect, which could not have possibly had no beginning. In the existence of contingent beings, which demand a necessary, unchanging, constant, consistent, immutable, eternal Being.

How do we see the manifestation of God showing us what He wants us to believe? By miracles, that is, those occurrences which are not merely uncommon, yet ordinary, but rather, extraordinary and impossible to come by unaided human nature or preternature.

–continued below–

 

[yablabo]

That’s not a historical fact as it is a teaching of the Church. To use a teaching of the Church to prove a Church’s teaching is what we call “circular logic”. Modern anthropology does not acknowledge the existence of Adam. It does not even acknowledge the existence of a “first man” - it speaks of a “first woman”, who I believe is called Lucy. And if this is what modern anthropology has discovered, shouldn’t the Church renew it’s antiquated teachings - after all, it professes to claim faith and reason are non-contradictory? Anthropology for anthropologians; history for historians and theology for theologians. Let’s not muddle the distinction between all three; indeed, many believers criticize Richard Dawkins for “stepping out of his boundaries” in regards to theology despite him being a biologist. And rightly so. Hopefully the Church will follow the same advice and practices what it preaches.

It is only by fallacious or specious reasoning that we disregard the oral and written traditions of our forefathers in favor of the vain subtelties (referred to as knowledge) of our contemporaries. It is an historical fact that Adam existed, as scripture is an historical text. To deny that scripture is an historical text is to deny that a state-sponsored public school history “text” is, in fact, an historical text.

Anthropology is a relatively new field of study (which largely suffered due to the fakery of Margaret Mead and Fr. Tielhard de Chardin). It uses indirect circumstantial evidence to jump to conclusions as if certitudes, when the most the study offers is the possibility of an opinion. In order to come to certitude, we would need to have, at the very least, a witness of said beings and events, and a way of determining the credibility of that witness. Since anthropology is lacking across the board in witnesses of the living “Lucy” or sinanthropos, etc., we are under no compulsion to believe the conclusions of anthropologists with certitude. What they find may be accurate, but may also be inaccurate. That’s just plain common sense.

The Church has no need to renew (which I think you’re using in the sense of “change”) it’s antique doctrines. They’re in line with what is true, whether we can only know that by revelation or by conformation to what can be observed. As God does not change, neither does the truth which he revealed, nor does the truth which can be observed, change.

Yes it does illustrate the non-existence of God, or at the very least diminishes the possibility of His existence to virtually nil. What we find is that God never sought out Man. Quite to the contrary, Man has always sought out God. To paraphrase the Greek philosopher Xenophanes, “if horses could paint, they would paint their god(s) like horses”. What we find is that God’s existence is a purely neurological phenomenon, as Man always tries to find a “deeper reason” in his surroundings, especially when science is inadequate in explaining it. This explains why certain experiments which randomly process patterns across a white sheet have shown that the human brain tries to find a “picture”, or some kind of meaning in the patterns. In the same way, as Man’s environment changes, Man tries to seek a “deeper meaning” of what is really a random process of patterns. This is backed up historically - it was commonly thought that lightning was an “act of the gods”. Even in Scripture, we find that those with diseases and terrible conditions were often believed to have angered God: “His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” (John 9:2)

I am at a loss as to the logical process by which you determine that God never sought out Man…and then extrapolate that this illustrates either the non-existence of Existence (i.e., God) or diminishes the possibility of the existence of Existence to practically nil. That’s a contradiction to my eyes.

– Nicole

 

[Berean2]

BB, the substance issue behind your OP is the problem of theodicy (which tends to get dicey ). But to zero in on your question, you’d have to consider what is meant by “church,” and also don’t forget that Paul mentions the imparity of believers in 1 Cor. 12; it’s built into the Body. It’s also not surprising, considering all the variety you find in nature (different types of flowers, fish, trees, mammals, avians, etc., etc.).

as Man’s environment changes, Man tries to seek a “deeper meaning” of what is really a random process of patterns.

The blued section is an unproven assumption. Behind the amazing dendritic drainage on the shore, there lie equations; ditto for the nautilus spiral, and the pinecone and pineapple configurations, etc. I don’t see “random;” I see design and intelligence.

Even in Scripture, we find that those with diseases and terrible conditions were often believed to have angered God: “His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” (John 9:2)

That type of erroneous thinking in no way impugns God’s wisdom or power. Since when does your or my puniness or finite understanding negate God’s power, truth or revelation (much less His existence)?

Question for you: who is Jesus, according to you? If you accept that He is God, then how do you get around His strict adherence to Scripture and its inviolability? (You can not use the argument of “He was bowing to convention,” because He was impervious to it: His mission was Truth.)

http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/6726/jesusclaims.jpg

(source)

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

BB, the substance issue behind your OP is the problem of theodicy (which tends to get dicey ). But to zero in on your question, you’d have to consider what is meant by “church,” and also don’t forget that Paul mentions the imparity of believers in 1 Cor. 12; it’s built into the Body. It’s also not surprising, considering all the variety you find in nature (different types of flowers, fish, trees, mammals, avians, etc., etc.).

The “one body, many parts” doesn’t really refer to the different Christian denominations as it does refer to the different spiritualities within the Catholic Church - Traditionalist, Charismatic, Contemplative, etc… This of course is rooted in the belief that only the Catholic Church can lay claim to being “the body of Christ”, whilst Protestant churches are more appropriately called “ecclesial communities”. Of course, this boils down to what is the exact and correct meaning of “Catholic” (universal, or the Catholic Church), but that’s a different topic entirely. For the purpose of this thread, we’re assuming Catholic refers to the “Catholic Church” and not the universal Christian community.

The blued section is an unproven assumption. Behind the amazing dendritic drainage on the shore, there lie equations; ditto for the nautilus spiral, and the pinecone and pineapple configurations, etc. I don’t see “random;” I see design and intelligence.

It is a proven “assumption” by virtue of the fact it is what we see. We can only speak of what we see, and what we see are random patterns. You speak of what is unseen, but there is no evidence - either implicitly or explicitly - of what is unseen. And even if there was, if I brought a Muslim, a Hindu, a Jew, a Sikh, they would all claim about a “different unseen”, which is the problem that this thread is pointing out.

Question for you: who is Jesus, according to you? If you accept that He is God, then how do you get around His strict adherence to Scripture and its inviolability? (You can not use the argument of “He was bowing to convention,” because He was impervious to it: His mission was Truth.)

http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/6726/jesusclaims.jpg

(source)

I don’t really like that flow chart. It ignores many other possibilities. Again, this ignores the purpose of the thread - Jews believe Jesus was only a teacher; some even deny His existence altogether. Muslims believe He was merely a prophet. Even in the early Church, there were some who believed Jesus was God in appearance only (Docetism). The question of this thread is why God presides, or allows, all of this confusion. Either, then, that God is a god of disorder, no different from Satan. Or God doesn’t exist, and Man has merely projected an image of God - in short, “God was made in the image of Man”, to paraphrase one Marxist philosopher.

 

[Berean2]

Jesus lied - after all, He claimed that those around Him would not die until they saw the Kingdom of Heaven: “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”" (Matthew 16:28)

Yah, well, I don’t know what to make of that passage, either (altho you can find plenty of explanations), but I’d be exceedingly cautious about attributing lying to Jesus.

The “one body, many parts” doesn’t really refer to the different Christian denominations as it does refer to the different spiritualities within the Catholic Church - Traditionalist, Charismatic, Contemplative, etc.

According to who?---------> I find it amusing that though you call yourself atheist, you still define and view things from an RC perspective (that is not meant as a deprecation; merely as an expression of being puzzled).

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

There seems to be a confused line throughout what you’re exposing here as your thoughts. Subjective claim does not make a truth. The fact that many people claim Christ does not mean they have Christ as their head. All of the sects of which you’ve spoken above lack the visible lieutenant on whom Christ founded his Church. There is a general misunderstanding and obstinacy amongst most on this issue. It is a fact, however, that Christ founded His Church on St. Peter and that See is conferred to others in a succession, so that the visible Church of Christ throughout the ages has a visible head. This is laid out most explicitly in a compilation of treatises that St. Francis de Sales wrote called The Catholic Controversy.

It is true that a subjective claim does not make a truth. Then the necessary question that follows: “Which subjective claim is true? What if they are all false”. Catholics maintain Jesus founded the Church on St. Peter, but many biblical scholars agree that the verse ( “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it”; Matthew 16:18) was more of a rhetorical flourish by Jesus. In other words, Jesus was using “play-on” words, as Peter means “rock” in virtually all other languages apart from English.

Providence, being what it is, does not interfere in the free will of man. Men who are validly baptized can choose to latch onto heresy, to fracture communion by schism, or to repudiate Christ completely by apostasy and God allows all of this so that we may see who is approved (I Corinthians 11:19).

But the issue is that many of those who latch onto “heresy” sincerely believe they are doing the will of God. We see this in the Great Schism. We see this in the Protestant Reformation, where Martin Luther witnessed the corruption going on within the Church. God watches all of this, and thus allows the confusion. Today, there are now over 33,000+ Protestant denominations. The Church has not reconciled with the Orthodox. God is guilty by virtue of being complicity involved. In Catholic terminology, God has committed the sin of omission!

The fact that man causes disorder does not in any way make God the cause of that disorder. I choose, like everyone does, to commit the acts I will. Part of growing to the maturity of adulthood is taking responsibility for those actions, not shirking it onto another such as God.

He may not have caused it directly, but He caused it implicitly - by not doing anything. And by not doing anything with regards to division, He Himself has further ruined the spiritual growth of millions across the world. This is using the exact same logic of St. Irenaeus, who claimed that God allowed evil to ensure humans could develop. And in a weird fashion, we now find that the very evil God has permitted is the very evil that has led humans astray: “We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way . . .]” (Isaiah 53:6).

How do we see the manifestation of God? In intelligence, which could not possibly come from nothing. In cause and effect, which could not have possibly had no beginning. In the existence of contingent beings, which demand a necessary, unchanging, constant, consistent, immutable, eternal Being.

That’s a form of special pleading. It’s a fallacious argument. Why apply one rule for the things in this universe and another rule for those outside the universe --something you have never seen, felt, heard, tasted, or touched.

How do we see the manifestation of God showing us what He wants us to believe? By miracles, that is, those occurrences which are not merely uncommon, yet ordinary, but rather, extraordinary and impossible to come by unaided human nature or preternature.

Miracles are merely statistical in nature. They are events that do not usually happen. Catholics may claim to argue that the miracle of the dancing sun at Fatima was the a miracle no atheist can deny; but how do Catholics respond to Muslims, who claim Muhammad split the Moon, and there is a weird groove on the Moon to show for it:

“The hour drew nigh and the moon did rend asunder. And if they see a miracle they turn aside and say: Transient magic.” (Verse 54:1-2)

So what we find is what David Hume, an important Enlightenment philosopher, said a few hundred years ago: Miracles are not an act of God. And if they were, why is it that different religions claim to different miracles, and all these religions point to different gods or interpretations of God?

 

[GraceSofia]

Either, then, that God is a god of disorder… Or God doesn’t exist.

Oof… how do you know those are the only 2 possibilities? Maybe what you think is disorder is not disorder. Maybe it is wrong to decide that God must behave in a way that we think is according to “order.” Or perhaps we just can’t see the order because we can’t see the big picture-- we are looking at the tapestry from the underside, to use an old example.

As to the divisions in Christianity, the same way each of us has free will to reject God and the Church, groups have free will. It made me think of this quote, which I’ve looked up for you, by C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity:

“Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently He thought it worth the risk. Perhaps we feel inclined to disagree with Him. But there is a difficulty about disagreeing with God. He is the source from which all your reasoning power comes: you could not be right and He wrong any more than a stream can rise higher than its own source. When you are arguing against Him you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all: it is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on. If God thinks this state of war in the universe is a price worth paying for free will–that is, for making a live world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings–then we make take it it is worth paying.”

 

[GraceSofia]

In addition, if God existed, why wasn’t Judaism the first religion? Why didn’t God reveal Himself to Mankind at first? Why is it that Hinduism and several branches of paganism all predate mainstream Judaism by about a thousand years, and it’s subsequent successor - Christianity - by several thousand years. This is quite an intriguing thought, as early humans searched for God rather than God searching them. Early humans didn’t receive revelation. But doesn’t Scripture say - “. . .]anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him” (Hebrews 11:6). So he rewarded these early humans with Hinduism/paganism - the very same religions that are now deplored across by the Abrahamic religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam?

Tolkien said, “The story of Christ is simply a true myth: a myth working on us in the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference that it really happened…The Pagan stories are God expressing Himself through the minds of poets, using such images as He found there, while Christianity is God expressing Himself through what we call ‘real things.’”

If this catches your fancy, there is more here: Myth Become Fact

I really recommend that you read The Everlasting Man by Chesterton. I think you would find his discussion on this worthwhile.

I hope you don’t mind the quotes and links, but on this subject these writers are far more eloquent than I could ever be.

 

[JRRTFAN]

This is something that always bothered me, even as my time as a Catholic. If God truly existed, why would He preside behind the Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation? So instead of what Catholics say is the “one truth”, you now have “multiple truths”, with different people preaching different things. How can this be so, when the Bible even says “God is not a God of disorder” (1 Corinthians 14:33)? So something is definitely rotten in the State of Denmark, to quote Shakespeare. To say, “God gave Man free will” is a weak argument. God gave Man free will to kill Jesus as a child, but God preserved Him from that. God gave free will to Man to kill the Virgin Mary, St. Anne, and all the other ancestors that would have broken their lineage, but they seem to have been preserved from that. So, in the same fashion, God could have equally preserved the Catholic Church or whatever is the “true religion” from disintegrating into several parts.

In addition, if God existed, why wasn’t Judaism the first religion? Why didn’t God reveal Himself to Mankind at first? Why is it that Hinduism and several branches of paganism all predate mainstream Judaism by about a thousand years, and it’s subsequent successor - Christianity - by several thousand years. This is quite an intriguing thought, as early humans searched for God rather than God searching them. Early humans didn’t receive revelation. But doesn’t Scripture say - “. . .]anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him” (Hebrews 11:6). So he rewarded these early humans with Hinduism/paganism - the very same religions that are now deplored across by the Abrahamic religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam?

Why do you think God presided over the Reformation? The whole concept of a split in the Church flies in the face of the revealed truth, please clarify. Secondly, (to steel a thought from Frank J. Sheed) there are many people who will not accept any teaching of the Catholic Church, even the truth of Jesus Christ and therefore maybe God decided to allow avenues of some means of faith to be brought into existstence.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Oof… how do you know those are the only 2 possibilities? Maybe what you think is disorder is not disorder. Maybe it is wrong to decide that God must behave in a way that we think is according to “order.” Or perhaps we just can’t see the order because we can’t see the big picture-- we are looking at the tapestry from the underside, to use an old example.

It clearly is disorder, because the Church has recently advocated “ecumenism”, which is Greek alluding to unity. How can you unify something that is not disordered? To speak of unity, there must be division, and division exists across Christianity, and indeed, across the board of religion. Thus, the case still stands that God, assuming He exists, is presiding over disorder. He is therefore no different to Satan (the author of confusion), or does not even exist at all. And if He is no different to Satan, it is not worthy praying to a malevolent entity.

“Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently He thought it worth the risk. Perhaps we feel inclined to disagree with Him. But there is a difficulty about disagreeing with God. He is the source from which all your reasoning power comes: you could not be right and He wrong any more than a stream can rise higher than its own source. When you are arguing against Him you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all: it is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on. If God thinks this state of war in the universe is a price worth paying for free will–that is, for making a live world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings–then we make take it it is worth paying.”

That presupposes God’s existence and/or presupposes God’s omnibenevolence. C.S. Lewis, as smart as he may have been, is arguing from the reference point of God’s existence. I’m arguing from the reference point of nature - of what can be seen, smelt, touched, heard and tasted. He uses a priori statements whilst I’m using a posteriori statements, which is rooted in tangible evidence. He has no evidence, which again is the underpinning of this thread. Is he referring to the God of Abraham and Isaac; is he referring to Allah; is he referring to Brahman, Buddha, Haile Selaissie I, Zeus, or someone else?

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

I hope you don’t mind the quotes and links, but on this subject these writers are far more eloquent than I could ever be.

No, I don’t mind.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

For all posters on this thread, thank you very much for your responses. I haven’t ignored anyone. I’m coming back to respond to those I haven’t responded.

I’m logging off now to mourn. I’ll come back here later.

 

[benedictus2]

I have cut you quotes so I can respond to you in one post. Ran out of character quota

I’m well aware of St. Thomas Aquinas’ response to the existence of evil, namely, that only God - or a god - could bring good out of evil. But how can God, or a god, bring good out of division?
…
Perhaps this would explain why Jesus remarked in another Gospel, “. . .] when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?”" (Luke 18:8). How’s that for the gift of prophecy?

While this is not the entirety of the answer, if you look around the ones most passionate about the defence of Catholicism are precisely those who are converts from Protestantism.

In the end God will gather us to Himself. We cannot fathom the height, depth and width of the Mind of God. What we can do is trust that in His greatness He is more than capable of bringing about good out of the most miserable situation. I have many personal stories of like this and I am sure that is echoed by countless others.

He undid the fall through His death on the cross. He has conquered death. That is all there is to it. Everything else is just minutae that will be resolved and brought about to a glorious end in His time.

The source of all this division and strife is sin. At the very root of your question lies sin; and this sin God has already overcome on the cross.
Not only must we accept our inability to comprehend the Mind behind the universe, we must also have enough humility to accept His time.

Our greatest problem is impatience. We not demand that God conform to what we imagine an ‘omni” God must do, we also demand it be done in our time.

There’s a beautiful song that goes like this: In His time. In His time.He makes all things beautiful in His time.
Lord please show me every day, as you’re teaching me your way, that you’ll do just what you say in Your time.
I remind myself of this when things are not going according to my wishes. He makes all things beautiful in His time. Not my time, nor yours, but His.

Accepting this requires humility. We need to pray for that. We need to honestly and earnestly desire humility for it is to little children that God reveals His mysteries.

As I’ve said before, there are ways God could preserve the Church whilst maintaining free will. If I’m not mistaken, Herod wanted to kill Jesus, but God managed to “save” Jesus whilst still maintaing the free will that Herod had. The problem with the free will argument is that it’s often wielded as a “get-out-of-jail-free” card for God. Either God wants unity or He doesn’t want it.

And that will be your way. How do you know that your way is best? Are you creator of the universe? You presume to know better than God what is right? I would bet that you can’t even make every single facet of your life to work (no one has) and yet you presume to know better than God how to order about the universe and salvation.

In the book of Job, God does not answer Job with an explanation. Rather He goes into this beautiful discourse on the creation of the universe. I would recommend that you meditate on this book.

You say you were a Catholic once. What you should have prayed for then - when doubts started to get the better of you - is an increase in humility and an increase in trust.

There was a time in my life when I was at bottom of the pit and it seemed that the only thing I wanted to do was cry because I did not even know what to pray for anymore. And then one day God graced me with the insight that what I needed to pray for was to learn to hope. So I started praying over and over “Lord please help me to hope. Lord please teach me to hope.”

I have found in these forums that what differentiates the atheist from the believer is pride. Sure the believer can also be (and is often) prideful. But the pride of the atheist is of the primordial nature – this demand to be God. If God can’t prove Himself to them then there is no God. How silly and completely irrational and the atheist don’t even see the utter stupidity of that.

That was in the context of the “era of revelation”, though. That era has ended, since the death of the last apostle (St. John the Apostle, at 100 AD).

He claimed that those around Him would not die until they saw the Kingdom of Heaven: “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”" (Matthew 16:28)

In terms of revelation yes but we come into deeper understanding of this revelation.

And no, Jesus did not lie. ** All that your comment shows is that you do not know what He meant**. That is all. But that is okay. When He spoke of tearing down the temple and raising it on the last day, people misunderstood Him too.

Here is an explanation of this verse from the USSCB website.
*Coming in his kingdom: since the kingdom of the Son of Man has been described as “the world” and Jesus’ sovereignty precedes his final coming in glory (Mt 13:38, 41), the coming in this verse is not the parousia as in the preceding but the manifestation of Jesus’ rule after his resurrection.

**
*