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

[Gorgias]

Who is asking you to anaylize it from God’s perspective? A more impossible task is difficult to imagine. What we are asking for is your personal take on it.

I’m pretty sure that after any given atrocity you do not shrug your shoulders and think ‘Ah well. All for the best I suppose’. But that is EXACTLY what you have just implied. ‘Well yeah, that didn’t have to happen God being omnipotent and all, so there MUST have been a good reason for it. But who can know the mind of God…’

From a human perspective, it’s never “ah, well… all for the best”. However, when we try to glean God’s perspective – and interestingly enough, that’s precisely what you said you weren’t interested in! – we can’t make sense of it, other than giving up and leaving it in His capable hands.

There is zero difference between God allowing anything at all to happen (because there MUST be a good reason behind it), to God doing anything at all.

There’s a big difference – in terms of the events. In terms of the eschatological outcome? You’re right – God’s plan will win out, regardless. I’m not such a fatalist that I just shrug and say “whatever”, though.

And in that case, words like love and just simply have no meaning when applied to Him.

Ahh… but they do! Especially when you bring the question of the eschaton into play!

You can envisage the worst possible thing and your argument obliges you to excuse it for the greater good.

You’ve just moved the goalposts. No one said anything about “excusing” any evil behavior! We just trust that God will make it all good in the end. Big difference.

 

[Gorgias]

A warning. Do nothing and lives will be destroyed.

From an eschatological perspective, though, do anything and lives will still be destroyed. (Albeit in a different way and at a different time.)

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.

But God is different from us. Therefore… no special pleading.

I mean, Fred knows the weakness in his complaint – that’s why he won’t fully engage in my ‘dog’ example. He’ll talk about the “capacity” of a dog… but not admit that he’s really talking about differences in nature. If it’s not “special pleading” to claim that Fido won’t quote Shakespeare, then it’s not special pleading to assert that God is God and not human, and therefore, not subject to human conditions.

It just happens to be inconvenient to admit it.

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.

No. Too much hand-waving for that to sum it up nicely. The right answer would be:

‘God loves us’ – using ‘love’ in this context, analogously, is fine and dandy, as long as we don’t conflate God’s love with human love.

‘God doesn’t love us’ – using ‘love’ in this context, implying divine love, isn’t correct. Heck… using human love, you actually might be correct – God doesn’t love us like we love each other!

But, what you can’t get away with is simply waving at the second statement and saying “nope. sorry. error of category.” You have to recognize that both statements are asserted analogously, and can be asserted validly in that way. And then, the second one is simply incorrect.

 

[blackforest]

The thread title suggests that you’re placing the responsibility for your spiritual future on anonymous Internet forum participants when the burden to search, explore, and think critically is actually on you.

My suggestion is that you explore faith as a matter of seeking insights, not answers. My journey as a Catholic got a lot easier once I had that epiphany.

For your questions about the afterlife and free will, I’d suggest reading The Great Divorce, by C.S. Lewis.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

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.

I do like the casual understatement: ‘…a little surprised’.

I’ve just started reading some of King’s books. Guess I’ll skip that one now. Way to go with the spoiler alert…

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

A warning. Do nothing and lives will be destroyed.

From an eschatological perspective, though, do anything and lives will still be destroyed. (Albeit in a different way and at a different time.)

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.

But God is different from us. Therefore… no special pleading.

I mean, Fred knows the weakness in his complaint – that’s why he won’t fully engage in my ‘dog’ example. He’ll talk about the “capacity” of a dog… but not admit that he’s really talking about differences in nature. If it’s not “special pleading” to claim that Fido won’t quote Shakespeare, then it’s not special pleading to assert that God is God and not human, and therefore, not subject to human conditions.

It just happens to be inconvenient to admit it.

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.

No. Too much hand-waving for that to sum it up nicely. The right answer would be:

‘God loves us’ – using ‘love’ in this context, analogously, is fine and dandy, as long as we don’t conflate God’s love with human love.

‘God doesn’t love us’ – using ‘love’ in this context, implying divine love, isn’t correct. Heck… using human love, you actually might be correct – God doesn’t love us like we love each other!

But, what you can’t get away with is simply waving at the second statement and saying “nope. sorry. error of category.” You have to recognize that both statements are asserted analogously, and can be asserted validly in that way. And then, the second one is simply incorrect.

Re Fido, there are areas of mutual understanding when it comes to right and wrong. He may not have an opinion on same sex marriage but if you train himnot to chew the furniture and he does, then when you come home he’ll be hiding behind the sofa because he knows he’s done wrong. Similarly with love, we know what it means to love someone and I’m pretty certain that when someone says ‘God loves us’, then we can understand what God feels for us.

So let’s try this: Does God love us?

You are saying that if the answer is yes, then love is a word that accurately described God’s feelings for us. But if the answer is no, then that somehow changes the meaning of the word in someway.

That’s nonsense.

 

[Gorgias]

Re Fido, there are areas of mutual understanding when it comes to right and wrong. He may not have an opinion on same sex marriage but if you train himnot to chew the furniture and he does, then when you come home he’ll be hiding behind the sofa because he knows he’s done wrong. Similarly with love, we know what it means to love someone and I’m pretty certain that when someone says ‘God loves us’, then we can understand what God feels for us.

Right. But, Fido has the nature of a dog, we have human nature, and God has a divine nature. The claim of special pleading fails on its face, even before we ask the question that you’re coming to – “does God love us?”

You are saying that if the answer is yes, then love is a word that accurately described God’s feelings for us. But if the answer is no, then that somehow changes the meaning of the word in someway.

No, that’s not what I’m saying.

I’m saying that, regardless the answer, we have to understand that we’re only using the word in an analogous way. And then, in the analogous way we use it, we have to decide whether it holds up to scrutiny. The meaning of the word is established before the question is asked, not after. And that’s why it’s not nonsense.

 

[Vonsalza]

Stick to the pre-90s stuff while he was still on the junk. Barring a few exceptions like Cujo (where he wrote it so blasted that the story is barely coherent), he did his best work during his druggie days.

It, The Shining and Pet Sematary are his masterworks. Particularly the last. Most frightened I’ve ever been reading. Read it alone at night for added effect.

 

[Bradskii]

I’m saying that, regardless the answer, we have to understand that we’re only using the word in an analogous way. And then, in the analogous way we use it, we have to decide whether it holds up to scrutiny. The meaning of the word is established before the question is asked, not after. And that’s why it’s not nonsense.

I can’t be explaining myself well enough.

Let’s consider the word ‘love’ and whether it can be used to define the relationship between God and us. You say that if we use it, we can only using it in an analogous way. And we need to decide if it holds up to scrutiny. But if someone says ‘God loves us’ or ‘God so loved the world etc’ despite it being analogous, we HAVE decided that it is applicable. Every Christian uses those phrases and others like it and we all know what they mean. There is no ambiguity. The meaning is as clear as it can be.

So the word ‘love’ is fine to use. Before we ask the question. Do we agree?

 

[Bradskii]

Just finished Needful Things. I was wondering how he was going to work the ending but when it
came it was about as subtle as a smack in the head with a sock full of rocks. But he gets one more chance so Pet Semetary now downloaded.

 

[Gorgias]

So the word ‘love’ is fine to use. Before we ask the question. Do we agree?

Yes.

And, once we ask the question “does God not love us?”, in the context of the analogous understanding, then the answer cannot be “you’re not allowed to use the word ‘love’.” I can be “God doesn’t ‘love’ us in the way we understand human love”, but that’s obvious from the prior discussion. At that point, the answer is “no, God doesn’t not love us.”

Not sure what the problem is, then…

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

So the word ‘love’ is fine to use. Before we ask the question. Do we agree?

Yes.

And, once we ask the question “does God not love us?”, in the context of the analogous understanding, then the answer cannot be “you’re not allowed to use the word ‘love’.”

Good. Let’s hold onto that. So here’s the question:

Does God love us?

Now if you answer ‘Yes’ and I answer ‘No’ (for whatever reasons we choose, whether they are right or wrong) then we are both using using the same word in exactly the same way. I know what you mean and you know what I mean. There cannot be a category error if we are both using exactly the same word - the one in the question, a word which we have decided, prior to the question being asked, is just fine and dandy.

 

[Koroi]

I think you have to give your email so I can send you more answers to your questions

 

[Gorgias]

Does God love us?

Now if you answer ‘Yes’ and I answer ‘No’ (for whatever reasons we choose, whether they are right or wrong) then we are both using using the same word in exactly the same way. I know what you mean and you know what I mean. There cannot be a category error if we are both using exactly the same word - the one in the question, a word which we have decided, prior to the question being asked, is just fine and dandy.

Presuming that we both hold to the same understanding of what “God’s love” means, and our answers reflect this meaning? Sure.

 

[Bradskii]

I think you have to give your email so I can send you more answers to your questions

I think you’re missing the point of actually having forums.

 

[setarcos]

Lol, greetings SbeeO. I hope this day finds you in good health and happiness. I just love those people who shut down a discussion with a single word. “Nope” you are wrong and I am right. I can agree with you that much myth grows around such things but I suspect unfortunately it seems to be perpetuated by both those pro-Catholic and anti-Catholic. I myself try to be impartial though I know I fail at times. I can only go with what I’ve researched and get feedback on that so let me share with you why I’ve stated what I’ve stated and get some feedback from you concerning such things.
First, I’ve found that according to the minutes of the inquisition meeting of June16, 1633, chaired by the pope it is clear that Galileo was summoned to the Roman inquisition solely due to Galileo holding and defending the views of a Heliocentric (Copernican) theory of the sun and planetary bodies. Nothing was mentioned of the Pope getting his feelings hurt or of Galileo “taunting” the Church purposefully. Actually Pope Urban VIII was an admirer of Galileo which may have played a part in the unprecedentedly benign treatment of Galileo considering his charges. It is imperative that one considers the political environment these things took place in. Galileo was under the protection of the Medici’s, his celebrity status, and this love-hate attitude of Pope Urban towards Galileo all contributed to his treatment after condemnation. It certainly wasn’t solely because of the oh so merciful and forgiving Inquisition of Rome.
One could argue that the ignorance of small minded clergy and the Church hierarchies hubris actually, in this case at least, hindered the progress of science. I will attempt to produce in the following posts a timeline of relevant events which lead up to Galileo’s trial and sentencing. Hopefully this will shed light on my perspective and we can find some common ground to agree upon.

 

[Sbee0]

Lol, greetings SbeeO. I hope this day finds you in good health and happiness. I just love those people who shut down a discussion with a single word. “Nope” you are wrong and I am right. I can agree with you that much myth grows around such things but I suspect unfortunately it seems to be perpetuated by both those pro-Catholic and anti-Catholic. I myself try to be impartial though I know I fail at times. I can only go with what I’ve researched and get feedback on that so let me share with you why I’ve stated what I’ve stated and get some feedback from you concerning such things. (Snip)

One could argue that the ignorance of small minded clergy and the Church hierarchies hubris actually, in this case at least, hindered the progress of science. I will attempt to produce in the following posts a timeline of relevant events which lead up to Galileo’s trial and sentencing. Hopefully this will shed light on my perspective and we can find some common ground to agree upon.

Hi @setarcos -I apologize if I came across as rude or abrupt, as that was not at all my intention but reading the post again perhaps it did look that way.

Like many other stories in the history of the church, society is always too eager to pit Christianity as in a conflict with science, and we know which side is always portrayed as “backwards”… and this is how stories like this start and inevitably turn into half truths. Admittedly it does get tiresome.

Everyone knows that the church was extremely harsh on Galileo and probably unreasonably so. What fewer people know is much of it was his own doing. Even fewer know the part of the story (which is easily found with research) where Galileo, who was an arrogant man to begin with, told the Church that scripture was wrong and his theories meant scripturehad to be fixed. The church’s reaction to this is much more understandable in that context. Who was Galileo to speak as a position of authority on scripture over the church? I think it’s interesting that not many people know that part, they just know the part where the Church condemned him. The bottom line is the church was never as anti science as they are often portrayed to be. Which is why I thought it was comical that an atheist on this board would say yay science.

And yes he did taunt the Church and called the pope a simpleton. Shouldn’t be hard to find in research.

 

[setarcos]

Thanks for the feedback. I do so enjoy reasoning together.

Like many other stories in the history of the church, society is always too eager to pit Christianity as in a conflict with science

Sadly misconceptions all too easily arise via inadequate knowledge, unverified rumor, and biasness. Sadder still is that these afflictions extend throughout the Roman Church as well. It would seem that on occasion the Roman Church is the author of its own troubles through the clergies mishandling of accusations and abuses. I believe it to be historically accurate to claim that while the Roman Church considered itself not to be in conflict with science, indeed even fostered science as a way to confirm revelations from God, It did however consider its divine revelations to be superior to science where perceived conflicts arose as is shown by the Galileo case.

Everyone knows that the church was extremely harsh on Galileo and probably unreasonably so.

Ah but here’s the interesting thing, the Roman Church WASN"T extremely harsh on Galileo, at least by the contemporary standards of the inquisition. I’ve presented some scholars theories on this in my earlier post. This confuses the issue by misdirecting the arguments against the Church as concerns the Galileo affair.

What fewer people know is much of it was his own doing.

Actually if you consider the facts, they show that Galileo was quite careful NOT to give the Church reason to convict him. In 1609 Copernicus’s theories caught his attention. However Galileo didn’t publish anything concerning this until after he perfected his telescope and make observations strengthening Copernican theory in 1610-1613. This put Galileo under increased condemnation from conservative clergy and philosophers who argued he was a heretic for such beliefs. It is true that in 1613 and 1615 he wrote letters to his disciple Benedetto Castelli and the grand Duchess dowager Christina but these were of a private nature. In 1615 a Dominican friar filed a complaint against him with the inquisition in Rome but Galileo was never summoned and he was exonerated due to the facts that key witnesses exonerated him, his critical letters had not been published, and his publications contained neither a categorical assertion of Corpernicanism nor a denial of the scientific authority of scripture. .

 

[setarcos]

Galileo actually went to Rome of his own accord in 1616 to defend Copernicanism and he won the intellectual arguments. It was Church hubris, and this is where things start to go wrong, that condemned Galileo through Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (in the name of the inquisition) who, even though Galileo won his argument, gave Galileo a warning forbidding him from holding or defending the view that the earth moved. Galileo AGREED TO COMPLY. The church basically forced him into agreeing to lie about his own convictions. How divine.
Galileo actually keeps quite about the subject until 1623 when Cardinal Maffeo Barberini becomes Pope Urban VIII. Since Pope Urban was an old admirer of Galileo he felt he could be freer to publish and writes a book defending Copernicanism but only indirectly and implicitly. Galileo again is being careful NOT to overly provoke the Church. In 1632 Galileo publishes a “Dialogue” showing arguments favoring earths motion but again he was careful to avoid discussing theological or biblical arguments.

Galileo, who was an arrogant man to begin with

Yes Galileo was probably considered by many of his time to be arrogant. Imagine if you will though that this man was a mountain of an intellect among molehills of minds. It is the bane of many Genius’s to be considered by their contemporaries to be arrogant. This would hardly have been unusual and definitely not cause for threat of torture or imprisonment. On the contrary Galileo, as I’ve shown, despite his supposed “arrogance” was quite careful not to go against the Church’s wishes despite his winning intellectual arguments showing the truth of his convictions.

told the Church that scripture was wrong and his theories meant scripturehad to be fixed.

I’m not sure where you got that Galileo told the Church that scripture had to be fixed? It is true that Galileo later published more straight forward defenses for Copernicanism but he never, that I could find, told the church that it had to “fix” scripture. At the most he argued for a better interpretation conforming to observations however the trial by the inquisition was solely based upon his holding an opinion other than an immovable earth centered theory of the universe.

Who was Galileo to speak as a position of authority on scripture over the church?

Galileo was a well respected intellectual giant admired even by the Pope. Galileo spoke with a recognized scientific authority. It was the Roman Church which, in this case, spoke as a superior authority over science which over time has only shown that the supposed superior Authority of the Roman Church was quite inferior given its being incorrect in its insistence in holding onto to untruth, consequently interpreting scripture incorrectly, and forcing those in opposition to conform and that my friend is, in my opinion, the bottom line.
God’s blessings be upon you.

 

[Gorgias]

Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (in the name of the inquisition) who, even though Galileo won his argument, gave Galileo a warning forbidding him from holding or defending the view that the earth moved. Galileo AGREED TO COMPLY. The church basically forced him into agreeing to lie about his own convictions.

Close, but not quite. The Church instructed Galileo not to say that his theory was proven, given that he couldn’t prove it. Big difference. In fact, he was permitted to teach his theories as theories.

Galileo again is being careful NOT to overly provoke the Church. In 1632 Galileo publishes a “Dialogue” showing arguments favoring earths motion but again he was careful to avoid discussing theological or biblical arguments.

Right. And his approach “not to overly provoke the Church” is to put the argument for geocentrism in his book in the mouth of a character, “Simplicio” – that is, “Simpleton” or “Idiot.” And you know what? One of Simplicio’s monologues is a nearly verbatim account of something that Pope Urban himself had written earlier.

Umm… that’s “not provoking the Church”??? Uhh… right.

 

[setarcos]

From our perspective. We either truly have free will, We can truly make choices based on our own perceived convictions etc. or we have the appearance of free will, thinking that we are making choices which are freely our own to make without recourse to some other entities desires. What, from our perception, is the difference?