If I can find an answer to these questions, I will turn back to religion

[Bradskii]

Scoff? I could scoff for Australia.

 

[Sbee0]

Secant:

God will not send us to hell. If we are to go there, it will be because we choose it.

Hope this helps.

Let me ask you something. Think of someone truly evil - Let’s say Martin Bryant who slaughtered men, women and children in Australia in 1996.

So you are one of his parents and before he is born you are granted a vision of the future. You see the massacre. You get to watch him gun down small children and shoot mothers and their babies. You then have a choice. Do you go straight to the local clinic and get sterilised or do you think: ‘I have to allow him to make his own choices’.

False dilemma, yes? There are other options such as making treatment available to him earlier in life that would have helped make him not inclined to do such a thing.

God does not send someone to hell. That is 100% our own doing, from our own free will.

 

[SeriousQuestion]

If you got sterilized and didn’t give birth to him, than was it truly a vision from the future?

 

[Bradskii]

Well, how do we define moral? Rational actors voluntarily acting in accordance with their nature?

Let’s assume that God is rational. And is His nature good? Yes. He is goodness.

Now does that line mean anything at all? Yes it does. It is a description of God that we recognise because we understand the terms ‘rational’ and ‘good’. And they can be used to describe what we understand as a moral being. So God is moral. As we understand the term.

And if we act in a manner that is not moral then we understand that because we understand what it takes to be moral. But if God acts in a way that we understand to be not moral, despite all the descriptions of God that we understood previously, then all bets are off?

Yeah. They are. And we back to Fred’s complaint of special pleading. These descriptions we use for us and for God and the attribute of morality that flows from them does not apply to God. Because…He is God.

His rules for us do not apply to Him.

 

[Bradskii]

If you got sterilized and didn’t give birth to him, than was it truly a vision from the future?

A warning. Do nothing and lives will be destroyed.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Secant:

God will not send us to hell. If we are to go there, it will be because we choose it.

Hope this helps.

Let me ask you something. Think of someone truly evil - Let’s say Martin Bryant who slaughtered men, women and children in Australia in 1996.

So you are one of his parents and before he is born you are granted a vision of the future. You see the massacre. You get to watch him gun down small children and shoot mothers and their babies. You then have a choice. Do you go straight to the local clinic and get sterilised or do you think: ‘I have to allow him to make his own choices’.

False dilemma, yes? There are other options such as making treatment available to him earlier in life that would have helped make him not inclined to do such a thing.

Yeah. You could do that. The point being that you would do what you could, whatever it was, if it was within your power, to prevent lives being ruined. As if you were omnipotent as it were.

Unless you are of the opinion that there MUST have been a good reason for it. In which let it take its course. ‘Oh, yeah. I knew that was going to happen but it must be God’s will. And who am I to thwart God’s will…’

What other answer can there possibly be?

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Well, how do we define moral? Rational actors voluntarily acting in accordance with their nature?

Let’s assume that God is rational. And is His nature good? Yes. He is goodness.

Now does that line mean anything at all? Yes it does. It is a description of God that we recognise because we understand the terms ‘rational’ and ‘good’. And they can be used to describe what we understand as a moral being. So God is moral. As we understand the term.

And if we act in a manner that is not moral then we understand that because we understand what it takes to be moral. But if God acts in a way that we understand to be not moral, despite all the descriptions of God that we understood previously, then all bets are off?

Yeah. They are. And we back to Fred’s complaint of special pleading. These descriptions we use for us and for God and the attribute of morality that flows from them does not apply to God. Because…He is God.

His rules for us do not apply to Him.

I’ve already explained in detail how this is not special pleading in detail in two posts you read but had no comment on and it’s readily apparent in my post.

Let’s go back to this:

And if we [humans] act in a manner that is not [consistent with human nature] then we understand that because we understand what it takes to [act consistent with human nature]. But if God acts in a way that we understand to be [inconsistent with the divine nature], despite all the descriptions of God that we understood previously, then all bets are off?

Reworded, based on the definition you accepted, the fallacy becomes clear. If it were true, you’d be right. However, God does act consistent with the divine nature. You are simply begging the question against my earlier argument and definition by equating all [moral] goodness as acting in a manner consistent with human nature when, if spelled out, it is about acting in manners consistent with one’s own nature. That is not special pleading. What would be special pleading is if the claim was “rational actors are morally good insofar as the rational actor’s voluntary actions are in accordance with its own nature” but then claimed an exemption from this rule for a rational actor. I’ve done no such thing.

 

[Sbee0]

Liz.9182:

Since God is responsible for both the biology of people and for the situations/experiences they have, he is therefore also responsible for their actions and every decision they make. This means that nobody is personally responsible for their ‘sins’, so how can God send people to hell when it is actually HIM who is the one who caused them to sin?

This thread you started got me curios.

Do you believe God was the one who is responsible for starting this thread and made you ignore every response you received over the past 7 days? OR do you believe you freely chose to walk away from these responses, instead of engage in a dialogue with the people who freely chose to try to help you? My guess would be because you did not want to have to accept any of the responses except for the one you have freely made up your mind that you are willing to accept?

Just curious.

God Bless

Eh, there could be lots of reasons why the OP hasn’t posted. There’s been some great answers here and hopefully she finds the answers she is looking for.

With that said, what the OP describes succumbs to a logical fallacy. Consider these statements:

1. God is perfect and all-good.
2. It is impossible for God to have “faults”
3. God does permit us to “sin”
4. It’s God’s fault that we sin

1 is true.
Therefore, 2 must be true. If God is perfect than it is logically absurd for a perfect God to have faults. Anything we say would be a “fault” would not be recognized as such by anyone including God himself. Saying God has faults then is completely meaningless.
3 is true. There are examples in scripture that God permits sin. As I said before evil and sin exists in the world and that must be either from God or from our own free will. Saying they’re caused by God is a logical contradiction of 1 and therefore there is only one valid option, it’s our free will.
4 is FALSE - as it is a logical contradiction of 2. We just proved God cannot possibly have faults.

Therefore, it is an absurdity to say that it’s God’s fault for allowing sin.

 

[Wesrock]

MT1926:

Liz.9182:

Since God is responsible for both the biology of people and for the situations/experiences they have, he is therefore also responsible for their actions and every decision they make. This means that nobody is personally responsible for their ‘sins’, so how can God send people to hell when it is actually HIM who is the one who caused them to sin?

This thread you started got me curios.

Do you believe God was the one who is responsible for starting this thread and made you ignore every response you received over the past 7 days? OR do you believe you freely chose to walk away from these responses, instead of engage in a dialogue with the people who freely chose to try to help you? My guess would be because you did not want to have to accept any of the responses except for the one you have freely made up your mind that you are willing to accept?

Just curious.

God Bless

Eh, there could be lots of reasons why the OP hasn’t posted. There’s been some great answers here and hopefully she finds the answers she is looking for.

With that said, what the OP describes succumbs to a logical fallacy. Consider these statements:

1. God is perfect and all-good.
2. It is impossible for God to have “faults”
3. God does permit us to “sin”
4. It’s God’s fault that we sin

1 is true.
Therefore, 2 must be true. If God is perfect than it is logically absurd for a perfect God to have faults. Anything we say would be a “fault” would not be recognized as such by anyone including God himself. Saying God has faults then is completely meaningless.
3 is true. There are examples in scripture that God permits sin. As I said before evil and sin exists in the world and that must be either from God or from our own free will. Saying they’re caused by God is a logical contradiction of 1 and therefore there is only one valid option, it’s our free will.
4 is FALSE - as it is a logical contradiction of 2. We just proved God cannot possibly have faults.

Therefore, it is an absurdity to say that it’s God’s fault for allowing sin.

Eh… God cannot have faults, but the allowance of sin is under his Providence, it’s within his Sovereignty.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

MT1926:

Liz.9182:

Since God is responsible for both the biology of people and for the situations/experiences they have, he is therefore also responsible for their actions and every decision they make. This means that nobody is personally responsible for their ‘sins’, so how can God send people to hell when it is actually HIM who is the one who caused them to sin?

This thread you started got me curios.

Do you believe God was the one who is responsible for starting this thread and made you ignore every response you received over the past 7 days? OR do you believe you freely chose to walk away from these responses, instead of engage in a dialogue with the people who freely chose to try to help you? My guess would be because you did not want to have to accept any of the responses except for the one you have freely made up your mind that you are willing to accept?

Just curious.

God Bless

Eh, there could be lots of reasons why the OP hasn’t posted. There’s been some great answers here and hopefully she finds the answers she is looking for.

With that said, what the OP describes succumbs to a logical fallacy. Consider these statements:

1. God is perfect and all-good.
2. It is impossible for God to have “faults”
3. God does permit us to “sin”
4. It’s God’s fault that we sin

1 is true.
Therefore, 2 must be true. If God is perfect than it is logically absurd for a perfect God to have faults. Anything we say would be a “fault” would not be recognized as such by anyone including God himself. Saying God has faults then is completely meaningless.
3 is true. There are examples in scripture that God permits sin. As I said before evil and sin exists in the world and that must be either from God or from our own free will. Saying they’re caused by God is a logical contradiction of 1 and therefore there is only one valid option, it’s our free will.
4 is FALSE - as it is a logical contradiction of 2. We just proved God cannot possibly have faults.

Therefore, it is an absurdity to say that it’s God’s fault for allowing sin.

Eh… God cannot have faults, but the allowance of sin is under his Providence, it’s within his Sovereignty.

Yup.
Isaiah 29:16
You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, “You did not make me”? Can the pot say to the potter, “You know nothing”?

 

[Richca]

1. Why would God create the entire universe for the sole purpose of having people worship him? This seems very egotistical to me, and I just can’t get my head around the fact that our only purpose in life is to worship God. This is not to say that I am not thankful for what I have (I don’t have any issues with worshipping god), it’s just that I don’t understand why God would be so needing of worship that he created our entire reality just so that he can get it. I feel like it would make a lot more sense if he created us for a purpose other than this.

The Baltimore Catechism asks 'Why did God create you?

Answer: God created me to know, love, and serve him in this life and be happy with him forever in heaven.

The fact is God could not have created human beings for a greater purpose than to have a share in his own eternal blessedness and happiness for eternity. God is reality and happiness itself. Creatures who have been created out of nothing are virtually nothing. As St Paul says ‘What have you that you have not received?’ Whatever we are and have God has given to us and created out of nothing. God could not give a greater gift to human beings than Himself in truth and love which he calls all human beings too in a personal and intimate relationship with Him in this life through grace culminating in the beatific vision in heaven and eternal happiness with Him. God cannot bestow on rational creatures a greater destiny and purpose than himself as their is nothing greater than Him.

1. It is a scientific fact that everyone’s personalities and actions are formed by two things 1. Their biology, and 2. Their experiences (nature and nurture), however nobody is personally responsible for these things - meaning that nobody is actually responsible for their actions. Since God is responsible for both the biology of people and for the situations/experiences they have, he is therefore also responsible for their actions and every decision they make. This means that nobody is personally responsible for their ‘sins’, so how can God send people to hell when it is actually HIM who is the one who caused them to sin?

This is a scientific error as if human beings are solely bodies made out of matter. Human beings are composed of a spiritual and immortal soul with the spiritual faculties of intellect and will by which they are principally made in the image and likeness of God, and a body made out of matter. The principle cause of the actions of normal human beings derive from their intellect and will which are spiritual faculties and powers of the spiritual soul and not from their bodies and biology though the body senses and lower sensory powers of the soul can and do have an influence on the rational faculties of the soul and many people live by their carnal desires but christians are called to put to death the deeds of the flesh and body so as to live by the Spirit.

 

[LilyM]

Who says God does or did nothing?

As a left-of-field example, what if each of MB’s victims, if not killed on that day, would have gone on to do far worse things than he did?

See it’s not so much that God has a different definition of ‘good’ applied to Him, it’s more that we believe that He possesses knowledge and information that we don’t. Which means that what looks unjust or unfair to us might not be so at all.

 

[Calliope]

As St Paul says ‘What have you that you have not received?’ Whatever we are and have God has given to us and created out of nothing.

Apparently humans are responsible for their sinful nature. Somehow they acquired that all on their own since we are told God didn’t give it to us.

 

[Richca]

Richca:

As St Paul says ‘What have you that you have not received?’ Whatever we are and have God has given to us and created out of nothing.

Apparently humans are responsible for their sinful nature. Somehow they acquired that all on their own since we are told God didn’t give it to us.

Yes, I didn’t mean that God is the cause of our sins. Sinning is a misuse of the free will and human nature that God did give us.

 

[Secant]

First, I would say that I would never get sterilized, but instead give this person a chance at a better life, often by looking at my parenting strategies and seeing how I could modify them. I would watch closely and see if there was psychological/psychiatric (not sure of the difference) help needed.

However, given the relation of this question to God, you are mistaking God’s active will with His passive will. God will grant us all the grace needed to go to heaven. We just have to accept it. Often times, questioning is the start of accepting that grace. Sometimes we need seeds planted by other people for God to give the grace to grow. Finally, though, it comes down to if we are willing to change to accept the grace. For example, would someone who suffers from the sin of gluttony decide to put God first or are they too attached to their sin? If they are too attached to their sin, God will not force them to love him and accept his grace. He will passively allow them to go to hell.

To consider your analogy, I’m going to go with a situation closer to my own life, as I know nothing about this serial killer. This is often how parent of alcoholics feel. I know a woman who could predict that at least one of her children would become an alcoholic as alcoholism has hit many people in both her family and that of her husband… She tried everything she knew to keep her kids away from alcohol. One child is an alcoholic, one can drink safely and chooses to do so, and one has such medical afflictions that if she were to become alcoholic, she would have a drug interactions that would kill her, so she keeps clean. Is the eldest’s tendency to abuse alcohol and drugs her mother’s fault? Her mother preached against any alcohol consumption from the beginning. She got her daughter help as soon as the tendencies appeared as a teenager. She has paid for everything from therapy to rehab. She buys the groceries from time to time, she financed her daughter’s place to live, her medical problems, her transportation, and more. This woman has done everything from coddling to tough love for her 45 year old daughter except physically tying her to a wall to keep her from buying alcohol. At some point, she had to accept that her daughter would make whatever choice she would make. The mother can love her daughter, but she has to let her live.

 

[Bradskii]

Exactly. I agree.

 

[Bradskii]

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Bradskii]

What would be special pleading is if the claim was “rational actors are morally good insofar as the rational actor’s voluntary actions are in accordance with its own nature” but then claimed an exemption from this rule for a rational actor. I’ve done no such thing.

I think we can sum this up quite succintly:

‘God loves us’ - using ‘love’ in this context is fine and dandy.
‘God doesn’t love us’ - using ‘love’ in this context is a categorical error.

Go figure.

 

[Vonsalza]

SeriousQuestion:

If you got sterilized and didn’t give birth to him, than was it truly a vision from the future?

A warning. Do nothing and lives will be destroyed.

Sorry, late to the discussion.

Reminds me of Stephen King’s book “11/22/63”.

Having what he thought was complete information, the protagonist of the book goes back in time and stops the Kennedy assassination.

Thinking he did a good thing, he’s a little surprised when he returns to the present to see the world a nuked wasteland because Kennedy lived.

 

[Gorgias]

What we invariably get is this:

C: God loves us all.
B: But God does not appear to love us all because X.
C: No (plaintively). You are using the term ‘love’ in the wrong way!

When in actuality we are not using the term in any way other than the given Christian is using it.

Fair enough. I think, though, that the hinge in that discussion isn’t the definition of “divine love”, per se, but rather, the assertion “because X” (i.e., “because God doesn’t love us all”). At the very least, that’s the way I’d approach that discussion – that is, that the X in question doesn’t disprove love. Maybe our human idea of what love means; maybe the reason that love can be asserted in the face of counter-intuitive situations (“yes son, I love you, even though I’m subjecting you to the pains of junior-high-school life”)… but not primarily “God is different”. That’s true, of course, but I think that most answers do not rise to that particular discussion.

So what the reply effectively means is: ‘You don’t understand me because I have used a term which describes God’s feeling for us when used in a positive way but which means something else entirely if you use it in an argument against my position’.

I disagree, and this representation – coming from you – disappoints me, because, having read your posts over the years, I wouldn’t have expected you to make this case.

In essence, your assertion here means “I reject your argument because of you.” In other words, this assertion is an ad hominem attack. (And, I wouldn’t have expected that take from you. As ironic as this reaction is. )

I think that I would nuance your reaction a bit, in order to be more accurate:
“You don’t understand me because I have used a term which attempts to describe God in human terms – which, necessarily, can only hope to approximate an understanding of God – but, if you use this word in a purely human sense, in order to argue against my position, I’m going to remind you that the human application of the term must necessarily be different than the divine application of the term.”

In that way, I’m not saying “I’m arguing against you”, but rather, “I’m arguing against your use of terms.” At least, that’s the way I perceive your take on it.

Words like just and merciful and vengeful and loving are all terms we are familiar with. We all know to what they refer. If they don’t apply to God then don’t use them.

Very naturally, they are unable to apply to God in the same way that they apply to humans. If you want to say “don’t use the word ‘love’; use the word ‘szywyg’, since that won’t get conflated with the word for human love”, you’re free to do that. Still, however, we’ll never be able to fully get our heads wrapped around the nature of God.