If you were God...

[R_Daneel]

Sure it is, just not to non-believers

Yes, that is exactly what I meant

I think dskysmine answered this well.

And I answered him, telling my reservations. Maybe he will come back and answer those.

We allow our children to suffer the pain of a shot because we know it will make them healthier. Does that mean we must not love them? God helps strengthen us through our trials and suffering, which is the loving thing to do.

As far as our actions go, you are correct. We do not have the ability to make the shot painless, since we do not have God’s omnipotence. If we could inoculate the children painlessly, and would sill use the painful method, it could correctly be called a “not-loving” procedure. God could achieve the same “strengthening” by simply willing it, and there would be no need for the “trials and tribulations”. The same principle: two methods, same results, one method is painful, the other is painless. Which one would a loving person do?

As for torture, God loves even the torturer, and so allows the actions out of respect for free will (a sign of love), but that does not mean He personally causes or condones it. God can, if we trust Him, make good come even from torture, which is evidence of His love as well.

That is where we part company. Why does God “respect” the free will of a strong and evil person more, than the free will of a weak victim, who does not want to get violated? And, please don’t tell me that God “respects” both will equally. A bystander, who has the power to interfere and has the power to preempt a horrible act, yet does not do it is guilty by omission, if not comission. Yes, he implicitly condones the act. Please read the “defense” of the first officer in this little essay: infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/five.html

 

[R_Daneel]

Please pardon me for interrupting, but, I had to. RD, your concept of the parameters, as listed, could be imperfect. There are two more parameters, besides the three you listed:

1. no change occurs to God at any point between, before, or after, what merely appears to us as privation and possession,
   (as in Creation: something is made where there was nothing before, and the descriptive words are merely our human convention to help us understand it)
2. or, merely the species that is the union of the matter and form is changed, not the efficient cause, i.e., God (where it involves an efficient cause).
   (in the same way a builder is not changed, per se, upon building a house. He is an external cause.)

This, I think, is how the Church Fathers and Aquinas view it. Now, you may verbally deride it, but, nonetheless, you can’t prove it wrong, or impossible.

As you correctly point out in the next part, we are unable to communicate, and get through to each other.

We seem to be like two creatures from two different planets, who appear to communicate, but, really, we may only be talking past each other. What seems logically absurd to you, is not to us. And what seems logically absurd to us, is not to you. I think our language is very pregnant, while yours is fecund, but not yet pregnant.

True observation. We use the same words and different meanings. So far I have tried to find some common ground, where we can conduct some meaningful conversation, and the more I try, the less I succeed. It is quite discouraging. Maybe I should know better, and just fold my cards, cut my losses, and leave. I think about it more and more. And there is a light at the end of this long, long tunnel. In less than two weeks a new expansion of my favorite online game comes out, and I can get busy again leveling up my three characters. Maybe then I can break this habit of trying get across, when I am clearly doomed to fail.

 

[R_Daneel]

Perfect Justice implies Perfect Mercy. You can’t split them apart!! Therefore, there is no contradiction whatsoever. They must balance each other, in the scheme of all things.

Since I have no idea what your meaning of “justice” and “mercy” might be, I am unable to comment. I already explained what those words mean to me.

 

[R_Daneel]

Justice, according to the Catechism, “is the moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor” (CCC, 1807)

As JD corrrectly pointed out, we use the same words and assign different meanings to them.

 

[JDaniel]

To be a “just” judge means that the sentence delivered is precisely commensurate to the deed. A good deed will get a commensurate reward (not too much, nor too little), while a bad deed will get a commensurate punishment, not too excessive, nor too lenient.

But your definitions then limit God. If God wants to be less commensurate, as you put it, your definitions disallow for that. God is not Perfect Justice to the exclusion of Perfect Mercy. That is something mere mortals do. But, God, being Perfect, can and does perfectly combine the two. Sorry, that is no contradiction.

That is the definition of a just sentence. A merciful sentence only applies to punishment, it delivers a sentence which is less than merited. If the judge is merciful, the sentence will be more lenient than it should be. Therefore one particular sentence can either be just, or merciful, but never both. If you say that God is sometimes just, while other times merciful then you deny both justice and mercy.

But that in no way means that Perfect Justice must exclude Perfect Mercy. Neither does Perfect Mercy exclude Perfect Justice. If either do, then they are not Perfect. They are merely manipulations. It is the ongoing perfecting balance of the two that perfects them, not an ongoing unbalancing.

Perfect Justice may prescribe a certain just-punishment, but, Perfect Mercy, might reduce it. Because of the imperfect natures of men, and/or other mitigating considerations, that is not unthinkable. It is not a contradiction, unless one defines the concepts too strictly, and surrenders it to the realm of the a posteriori only.

Also, all good Justice is tempered by running it comparatively against good Mercy. The results are the prescribed punishments. This justice/mercy comparing/balancing is then the precedent for reducing a punishment. I do not see this to be any kind exclusionary action.

Perfect Justice is not static, nor is it a static, though it might seem that it should be. The circumstances of the subjects of justice are never exactly the same. Now, you could say that God judges us by a simple set of rules. For him, they are. But, for example, the invincible ignorance of the multitude of subjects can be wildly different. The composite of venial and mortal sins can be wildly different. The mitigations can be wildly different. The redemptive prayers for the subjects can be wildly different. God meets out Perfect Justice based upon the prior consideration of the totality of such mitigators. We cannot even begin to know what they were.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I am patient. Show me where the Cathecism talks about God’s fecundity and tells us that it is a fundamental, inalianable property of God.

As far as I understand it, God and Christ and the Holy Spirit are one and the same. They are the three “faces” or “manifestations” of God, not some different entities. (Of course the Trinity is just another example of a “married bachelor”, one, and yet three… which the believers call a “mystery” and what I call a contradiction.)

Obviously, the Infinite can do anything that the Infinite can do, while the finite can merely do what the finite can do. There is no valid comparison or analogy.

This is not the place to get into the lengthy discussion of the considerations regarding our triune God. But, it is sufficient to say that neither of us can see, so to speak, the whole big picture. At some time and in another thread, such discussion might/could take place.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

"… declaring a seeming contradiction to be a contradiction can be sign of “narrow-mindedness” Or, something else.

God bless,
jd

 

[R_Daneel]

But your definitions then limit God. If God wants to be less commensurate, as you put it, your definitions disallow for that. God is not Perfect Justice to the exclusion of Perfect Mercy. That is something mere mortals do. But, God, being Perfect, can and does perfectly combine the two. Sorry, that is no contradiction.

Well, last time I saw the words, it was “perfectly just” and "infinitely merciful. Perfect justice is a sensible concept (taking into account all the mitigating and aggravating circumstances and strike an exact balance reflected by the sentence), however “perfect” mercy is nonsense. Seems like we are doomed to fail at communication.

 

[JDaniel]

First, I am not talking about “forgiveness”, I am talking about “unconditional forgiveness”

Rd:

You nakedly assert that humans (can) forgive without conditionality. I’m not sure that they can. (I have only cleanly seen that where my kids were concerned. And, even then not always.) But, we’ll agree to disagree here.

The quoted text tells that God has a precondition of a final sacrifice (in the form of Jesus or himself… not clear) to be able to forgive.

First of all, that is primarily for the removal of the primordial (Original) sin of Adam and Eve.

It is asserted that God is willing to forgive the trespasses of those who repent, and ask for forgiveness. But that is not unconditional forgiveness.

Certainly it is: the moment the conditions precedent are fulfilled, the conditions posterior are resolved into unconditional forgiveness. Fulfilling the conditions precedent does not in any way alter the concept of unconditional forgiveness. Remember, this has to do with Original Sin, not subsequent transgressions, even though, all of man’s acquired sins were relieved upon the Cross at the moment of the Cross. Humans didn’t have to accomplish anything else. Also remember, this was not an ongoing eternal forgiveness. Humans will always have conditions posterior regarding future transgressions.

We are able to forgive unconditionally

A naked assertion, as I said before.

And the number of acts of forgiveness before Jesus is not relevant. Even if there was one act of unconditional forgiveness, it destroys the idea that Jesus’ sacrifice was necessary for human forgiveness.

Relevance to this discussion?

Indeed it is. And it is not a mystery, it is absurd. An action without change is absurd. An action without time is absurd. The idea of “eternal now” is absurd.

On the contrary. Your naked assertions are absurd. You have no way of proving anything to the contrary. Uncategorical denials are not sufficient refutations.

A nonsense will stay a nonsense even if someone calls it a mystery.

Another naked assertion? There can be no such things as mysteries?

You know, I am not saying that God does not exist. But I can say that if God exists, he nothing like the Catholic Church asserts he is. You could not be further away from the truth - and this is nothing more than my opinion.

Then, your opinion seems to connote that Jesus’ life and God’s Revelation are nothing more than abject lies, or, at the very least, that the past 3,500 (Jewish through Catholic tradition) years of oral tradition, written tradition and edited tradition revelation has been horrendously incorrect.

God bless,
jd

 

[R_Daneel]

You nakedly assert that humans (can) forgive without conditionality. I’m not sure that they can. (I have only cleanly seen that where my kids were concerned. And, even then not always.) But, we’ll agree to disagree here.

How can we disagree here? You, yourself said that you have seen it as long as your kids are concerned. I did not say that “unconditional forgiveness happens all the time”. If there is just one instance of “unconditional forgiveness” (not demanding repentance or asking for forgiveness), then the criteria for “unconditional” forgiveness are fulfilled.

First of all, that is primarily for the removal of the primordial (Original) sin of Adam and Eve.

Oh, brother. Not again.

Certainly it is: the moment the conditions precedent are fulfilled, the conditions posterior are resolved into unconditional forgiveness. Fulfilling the conditions precedent does not in any way alter the concept of unconditional forgiveness.

You are cracking me up, my friend, you really do. Once the conditions for forgiveness are fulfilled, then it will become unconditional.

Then, your opinion seems to connote that Jesus’ life and God’s Revelation are nothing more than abject lies, or, at the very least, that the past 3,500 (Jewish through Catholic tradition) years of oral tradition, written tradition and edited tradition revelation has been horrendously incorrect.

Not lies, as I said before. A legend. As for the dependability of oral tradition, try the “whispering story” experiment, and see for yourself, how accurate orally transmitted information happens to be.

 

[JDaniel]

That would be fine, if only Christians would come clean, and declare honestly: “We have absolutely no idea what God is. We cannot comprehend God. We are unable to fathom anything about God. None of our concepts can describe God and his ways”.

Well, we really don’t. All we know is from Jesus, God’s only son, and God’s Revelation. I guess, through all those years and all those people, we could be wrong. Certainly, God will remain substantially unknowable and insuperable.

That would be quite acceptable. But Christians don’t do that. They talk about God and God’s attributes as if their utterings were sound and meaningful. Only when someone like me comes around and scratches the surface, do Christians pull back into the God of Universal Agnosticism, of whom nothing meaningful can be said, since our vocabulary and our concepts are simply not applicable.

But, you see, that’s not so. We can’t just chuck out Revelation. It has been given to us by God, Himself, unless he was just joking. We derive his determinants directly from his Revelation - if we are honest and knowledgeable Christians. I’ll be the first to admit that I might be wrong. But, I have enough familiarity with his Revelation to know that our Church’s extrapolations are completely parallel to it. Please forgive us if we don’t state it quite to the acceptance of all. But, that is mere semantics.

That is the problem. You cannot have it both ways. If I cannot say anything “bad” about God, because my words are insufficient and my concepts are inapplicable, then you cannot say anything “good” about God, for the very same reason.

Well, of course, that is unreasonable and absurd. Revelation, Revelation, Revelation. Neither of us can get past it - without its total denial.

There were several legal systems developed independenty from each other.

We simply cannot know whether any of that knowledge was a priori infused, or, merely a posteriori. Certainly seems that all of the morality systems emerged during a fairly consistent time range.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I hope you don’t think that this assertion is acceptable.

It is not simply an assertion. If a Christian’s understanding is substantially in accord with Revelation, it is not an assertion.

Still, words have meanings. If you say that God’s justice is “more just”, because he can evaluate all the circumstances of a deed “precisely” and so his sentence is “exactly” commensurate to the deed, while our ability to do so is imperfect, then there is no problem. The word “justice” still means exactly the same, but God’s justice is “better” or more precise.

Acceptable.

If you say that God’s mercy is “better”, then we cannot agree. “Mercy” is a imbalance, mercy means that the person should get a “just sentence”, but is given a lesser sentence.

That may be what mercy means, but it is not necessarily what perfect mercy means. How could it? Then the two concepts and definitions would be circular.

The phrase: “justice tempered by mercy” is nothing but a meaningless oxymoron.

Good Lord, I hope not!

But under no circumstances can a sentence be both “just” and “merciful”. That is a logical contradiction.

No. It is not. One cannot arrive at justice without running a comparison against what is merciful. Two men commit the same crime. One man gets two years. He is a single man and is remorseful. The second man gets six months plus one and a half years of probation. He is a married man, with children to feed, and is remorseful. Seems unjust. But is it really? If so, how? Of course, this is just humans comparing the human side of this exigency.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

The trouble is that being “just” is taking everything into consideration, even the perpetrator’s state of mind.

Is that even possible for man? People get different sentences for the same crimes every day. We know know precisely why.

That does not belong to mercy, it is part of a just sentence.

Semantics. Justice is always run against the backdrop of mercy before arrival at a sentence. Times may vary. Courts may wish to show different faces at different times. Of course, you could say, “that’s politics.” Strictly speaking it is also mercy.

Also, the accused might look like the judge’s well-loved brother.

There is another problem I can see. When you talk about human circumstances, part of the process is “revenge” and part of it is “rehabilitation” - to allow the criminal to change and become a better person. That is why showing repentance will allow a lighter sentence - which is “just” since all the circumstances must be considered. This is not applicable in the “heavenly” justice scenario. There is no “rehab” there, the sentence is final - and last forever.

Well, we just don’t know all there is to know about the “heavenly scenario.” Add to that, remember, “whatever is bound on earth, by the Church, is bound also in Heaven.” The Catholic Church has many methods of mercy, of un-binding, at Her unique disposal.

True, we humans are unable to reach perfection in justice, but God can, that is why I said that God’s justice is “better” - but the meaning of the word is still the same.

The Earth, with its various countries, States, and courts, seems to expose a reality that might be quite a bit different from the way it ought to be. Or, at least as it seems that it ought to be.

What do you propose “mercy” means, if it does not mean an unwarranted “lighter sentence”?

I think I would lighten the restrictions on the word, “unwarranted.” It is not ours to say that an act of mercy is “unwarranted.” We don’t necessarily know what the judge’s considerations were, or, you could say, what were his whims. Mercy can be warranted. And, mercy does not necessarily equal fairness. Of course, God does not have whims.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

As you correctly point out in the next part, we are unable to communicate, and get through to each other.

True observation. We use the same words and different meanings. So far I have tried to find some common ground, where we can conduct some meaningful conversation, and the more I try, the less I succeed. It is quite discouraging. Maybe I should know better, and just fold my cards, cut my losses, and leave. I think about it more and more. And there is a light at the end of this long, long tunnel. In less than two weeks a new expansion of my favorite online game comes out, and I can get busy again leveling up my three characters. Maybe then I can break this habit of trying get across, when I am clearly doomed to fail.

Dittos. Yes, so have I. I will only say that perhaps this is not the proper venue for a full-scale discussion of this subject. Prerequisites abound. But, whose prerequisites are the true prerequisites? Were it not for Revelation, I would more than likely agree with the majority of your assessments. I will admit that I just can’t get past Revelation.



God bless you my Friend,
jd

 

[d_erford]

God could achieve the same “strengthening” by simply willing it, and there would be no need for the “trials and tribulations”. The same principle: two methods, same results, one method is painful, the other is painless. Which one would a loving person do?

The flaw is that they are not the same results. The painless shot has the unfortunate side affect of causing schizophrenia, inflated ego, and bouts of selfishness. In other words, it brings things worse than the pain of the shot. Which shot is now more loving? A forced willing of ‘strength’ does not simply make the person stronger, it changes the person himself.

That is where we part company. Why does God “respect” the free will of a strong and evil person more, than the free will of a weak victim, who does not want to get violated? And, please don’t tell me that God “respects” both will equally. A bystander, who has the power to interfere and has the power to preempt a horrible act, yet does not do it is guilty by omission, if not comission. Yes, he implicitly condones the act. Please read the “defense” of the first officer in this little essay: infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/five.html

God created a world in which our wills can affect other people, originally with the purpose of building each other up, but we have corrupted it. Nonetheless, God still respects those wills. To crush the will of the attacker would be an evil done to achieve a good, but God cannot do anything evil. The weak victim, assuming they are a faithful believer, will receive help, even if it is not in the form they would wish.

I know the essay you submitted seems to address the things said above, but it is a misleading attempt. God is a perfect combination of justice, mercy, love, forgiveness, etc. The essay takes those different aspects of God and separates them from the others, stretching them to an extreme that makes them seem ridiculous. But you cannot separate God in such a way and still have it be God.

 

[R_Daneel]

Dittos. Yes, so have I. I will only say that perhaps this is not the proper venue for a full-scale discussion of this subject. Prerequisites abound. But, whose prerequisites are the true prerequisites? Were it not for Revelation, I would more than likely agree with the majority of your assessments. I will admit that I just can’t get past Revelation.



God bless you my Friend,
jd

This is the nicest post I have ever read. I am most grateful that you chose to honor me by calling me friend. I will reciprocate it.

Best wishes my Friend.

 

[R_Daneel]

The flaw is that they are not the same results. The painless shot has the unfortunate side affect of causing schizophrenia, inflated ego, and bouts of selfishness.

You got to be kidding. A painless flushot would have such wide-ranging effects? You can’t be serious.

A forced willing of ‘strength’ does not simply make the person stronger, it changes the person himself.

It certainly does. So what? By the time you finsh reading this post, your will not the “same”. There will be new neural connections in your brain.

God created a world in which our wills can affect other people, originally with the purpose of building each other up, but we have corrupted it. Nonetheless, God still respects those wills. To crush the will of the attacker would be an evil done to achieve a good, but God cannot do anything evil. The weak victim, assuming they are a faithful believer, will receive help, even if it is not in the form they would wish.

So if a policeman happens to hear about a rape to be committed, and prevents it from happening, he committed an “evil” act, by restricting the attacker’s free will? Gimme a break. And what about the victim, who is not a “faithful believer”? Or maybe gets raped and then tortured to death? Would it be evil to prevent that???

 

[R_Daneel]

Is that even possible for man? People get different sentences for the same crimes every day. We know know precisely why.

It is impossible for humans. We lack the information. But God has all the information, doesn’t he? That is why I say that perfect justice is a sensible idea.

Semantics. Justice is always run against the backdrop of mercy before arrival at a sentence. Times may vary. Courts may wish to show different faces at different times. Of course, you could say, “that’s politics.” Strictly speaking it is also mercy.

It is not just semantics. I define “perfect justice” to take every aspect into consideration - when determining the “just” punishment. Would you disagree with that?

I think I would lighten the restrictions on the word, “unwarranted.” It is not ours to say that an act of mercy is “unwarranted.” We don’t necessarily know what the judge’s considerations were, or, you could say, what were his whims. Mercy can be warranted.

If a decrease of the punishment is warranted, then it belongs to the “just” part - at least according to the definition I offered. If you wish to offer a different definition, then we shall keep disagreeing.

 

[thirdworld]

If I were God I would always make myself visible and known to all humans.

I would give those in hell a second chance.

I would mess with free will by not allowing people like Hitler to have ever been born.

 

[tonyrey]

If I were God I would always make myself visible and known to all humans.