Is God a kind, loving God or a mean, vengeful God?

[Peter_Plato]

Then show me your proof. Billions of people are waiting to hear from you.

Proof of what?

You, yourself, used the word “indescribable.” How does one “prove” what has already been determined to be indescribable?

The problem isn’t a lack of proof, it is the type of proof being demanded and the expectations of those billions who will only hear what they choose to hear.

 

[esieffe]

Precisely…What you describe is very possible without an interfering godhead. So far as peace…I’m about as close as I expect this life to allow.

Ahhh, but who is to say he is interfering? He may show grace for some of those who ask for it, but if one wants to be left alone, perhaps he stands back. One thing seems certain to me, if we plant a bitter seed we reap a bitter crop. A child learns by making mistakes. That is what the human race is isn’t it? Children? I act like one from time to time. I have had to learn lessons, sometimes the hard way.

I have experienced enough to know that there is a loving God out there. Often he acts through us, one way or another. Proof? You know it’s there. We only have to open ourselves to see it. There are those out there with hardened hearts, who can’t or won’t let themselves see.

Do you really think all of this is just a cosmic coincidence? What are the odds in that? To me it would be far more difficult to disprove the existence of God than to prove his existence.

 

[Faxero]

As far as “We *already *know what Heaven and Hell is like!!”, you may speak for yourself if you like but I do not think that you can speak for the other billions of people.

People can think of nice things and people can think of unnice things but as far as “things of heaven and hell”, I would say that NO ONE can imagine or conceive of either on their own, only God can give anyone an insight into either.

I certainly *can *speak for billions of other people as I just did in post #258.

You’re correct in saying that only God can give us insight on such topics, and he has certainly done so via private revelations, Near Death Experiences, (NDE) the bible, etc.

Anyway, we won’t fully experience the existences of Heaven and Hell until we end up there, but we may at least taste appetizers of them while on Earth.

---

Spiritual death is beyond despair.

I have said that I have experienced both hell and spiritual death.

I have also said that hell is NOT separation from God but is experiencing God’s love, which is NOT an attribute but is God’s Very Essence, as burning as opposed to caressing

When you say you experienced spiritual death, are you referring to a dark night of the soul, which involves one suffering because of God’s loving purifications?

catholictreasury.info/books/dark_night/dn20.php ← This seems to fit your description in post #262.

 

[PRmerger]

The conduct of man throughout history can have only three possible explanations, IMO.

1. That the interventionist god is incompetent or worse.
2. That we are merely the unintended result of a creator who has no interest in controlling anything.
3. There is no god what-so-ever.

There is no evidence of a big daddy in the sky observing our every move…none. That version of god sounds more like Santa Claus.

I find it astonishing, simply astonishing, that you would exclude the Catholic explanation as a possibility.

How is it that you could have forgotten you are on a Catholic forum?

Even if you reject it, the fact that you don’t consider it even a possibility in your list is telling. Quite telling.

Logic is rejected because of your agenda.
There is something about Christianity that is an emotional rejection for you.

Once you can get over the emotional reason you have for rejecting the Catholic explanation, then you can use your head to reason a bit better.

 

[oldcelt]

I find it astonishing, simply astonishing, that you would exclude the Catholic explanation as a possibility.

How is it that you could have forgotten you are on a Catholic forum?

Even if you reject it, the fact that you don’t consider it even a possibility in your list is telling. Quite telling.

Logic is rejected because of your agenda.
There is something about Christianity that is an emotional rejection for you.

Once you can get over the emotional reason you have for rejecting the Catholic explanation, then you can use your head to reason a bit better.

Why would I possibly include an explanation that I have thoroughly researched and found wanting? That, would defy logic.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Why would I possibly include an explanation that I have thoroughly researched and found wanting? That, would defy logic.

“Thoroughly researched” meaning what, precisely?

Could you give an example of what specifically you “found wanting?”

 

[PRmerger]

Why would I possibly include an explanation that I have thoroughly researched and found wanting? That, would defy logic.

Please cite the research that tells you that God made the universe but then left it alone.

It’s simply wishful thinking that you’ve used to make this decision.

 

[truetofaith]

Instead of Catholic Answers Forums, this site should be Atheist & Agnostic Forums. :tsktsk:

 

[Peter_Plato]

Instead of Catholic Answers Forums, this site should be Atheist & Agnostic Forums. :tsktsk:

Except that oldcelt isn’t an atheist nor an agnostic and neither is he arguing either position. He is a deist. He claimed that he has reason to think God created the universe but has since left it alone. That is decidedly not an atheist nor agnostic position.

He further claimed that no argument for the existence of God proves what its proponents claim that it does. That point is about arguments for or against God’s existence, not specifically about atheism or agnosticism. Discussion of the finer points in arguments like Aquinas’ Five Ways are not specifically banned on these fora.

If you think differently, then point out the rules or let the moderators know. I am pretty certain they keep an eye on such things.

Are you thinking of applying for a moderator’s position?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Ahhh, but who is to say he is interfering? He may show grace for some of those who ask for it, but if one wants to be left alone.

This is an important point. If a person such as oldcelt defines God in such a way that it means God is necessarily the “interfering” type, then because he does not see any signs of Godly interference, he concludes God has departed. Some may, from the same premise, draw the more parsimonious conclusion that God does not exist.

The problem with the argument, however, is that it depends on the assumption that if God exists, he must necessarily intervene in an obvious way, in order to further claim that he must have departed.

However, the overt and detectable signs of “intervention” being left by, say, a burglar breaking into your house depends upon the finesse of the burglar, whether he wants to divulge his presence and the intentions he has with regard to stealing goods.

 

[truetofaith]

Except that oldcelt isn’t an atheist nor an agnostic and neither is he arguing either position. He is a deist. He claimed that he has reason to think God created the universe but has since left it alone. That is decidedly not an atheist nor agnostic position.

He further claimed that no argument for the existence of God proves what its proponents claim that it does. That point is about arguments for or against God’s existence, not specifically about atheism or agnosticism. Discussion of the finer points in arguments like Aquinas’ Five Ways are not specifically banned on these fora.

If you think differently, then point out the rules or let the moderators know. I am pretty certain they keep an eye on such things.

Are you thinking of applying for a moderator’s position?

Oldcelt certainly had me fooled. I know it says Deist but his comments lean toward the A&A side especially when he writes God with a small “g.”

No, I don’t have the knowledge or the time to be a moderator. I just get very frustrated reading all the non-belief comments from professing Catholics on these Forums. :dts:

 

[oldcelt]

Oldcelt certainly had me fooled. I know it says Deist but his comments lean toward the A&A side especially when he writes God with a small “g.”

No, I don’t have the knowledge or the time to be a moderator. I just get very frustrated reading all the non-belief comments from professing Catholics on these Forums. :dts:

Actually, most Deists use the small g spelling to differentiate between the belief systems that believe in a personal god,

 

[oldcelt]

Please cite the research that tells you that God made the universe but then left it alone.

It’s simply wishful thinking that you’ve used to make this decision.

Simple observation of the human condition and the writings purporting to have been inspired by the Christian God.

 

[PRmerger]

Simple observation of the human condition and the writings purporting to have been inspired by the Christian God.

What observation leads you to the conclusion that it’s not possible for God to love us?

Remember, it is not logically impossible for bad things to happen while also asserting that God loves us.

It’s not the same thing as saying a married bachelor, or a 4 sided triangle.

As such, you need to offer some reasons why it’s just not possible for God to permit evil and suffering.

In fact, I think a simple observation of a loving father holding down his toddler in an Emergency Unit so the toddler can get poked a dozen times to get an IV started shows that it’s quite possible for a loving father to permit suffering.

So, again, what proof do you have that God isn’t involved in this world, except for the fact that you don’t like the idea that God permits suffering?

 

[esieffe]

Oldcelt certainly had me fooled. I know it says Deist but his comments lean toward the A&A side especially when he writes God with a small “g.”

No, I don’t have the knowledge or the time to be a moderator. I just get very frustrated reading all the non-belief comments from professing Catholics on these Forums. :dts:

“Belief” is a strange phenomena, or concept. I use these two words for lack of terms that English does not provide. Like the house that landed on the witch of the East in OZ, some people would not accept “proof” if it landed on them, it would be written off one way or another.

This is where desire and faith come in. These desires set the stage for accepting “proof” should it come our way. "Proof is all around us, but to witness even a speck of it, we have to open ourselves, prepare ourselves, be receptive, otherwise the moment is wasted. What good is witnessing a miracle if you refuse to believe your own eyes?

As Catholics, we can only hope that a seed planted through our efforts and HIS will one day grow. This is the best that we can do or hope for. I for one do not stress out about it, ever. I do what I can, and take my own medicine. I pray and hope for the best. The rest is up to the individual, God, and maybe… fate?

Blessings to all.
-E

 

[oldcelt]

What observation leads you to the conclusion that it’s not possible for God to love us?

Remember, it is not logically impossible for bad things to happen while also asserting that God loves us.

It’s not the same thing as saying a married bachelor, or a 4 sided triangle.

As such, you need to offer some reasons why it’s just not possible for God to permit evil and suffering.

In fact, I think a simple observation of a loving father holding down his toddler in an Emergency Unit so the toddler can get poked a dozen times to get an IV started shows that it’s quite possible for a loving father to permit suffering.

So, again, what proof do you have that God isn’t involved in this world, except for the fact that you don’t like the idea that God permits suffering?

Firstly, God is not a human father. He is an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc., etc., being, according to Christianity. That being said, the Christian God not only permits evil, He is complicit in it. He knew what would happen well before it did and still created each and every one of us…again, according to Christianity…He even created Satan with the full and perfect foreknowledge of precisely what he and his cohorts would do…So far as observations on the human condition through history…do I really have to list the multitude of obvious examples?
I simply have too much respect for the creator to believe that he, it, whatever, is actively involved with us. We are a product of evolution within god’s creation…not a direct creation and suffering is simply a consequence of being mortal. Evil, is defined by us, and the definitions vary across the face of the planet.

 

[PRmerger]

Firstly, God is not a human father.

No one has posited that God is a human father.

He is an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc., etc., being, according to Christianity. That being said, the Christian God not only permits evil, He is complicit in it. He knew what would happen well before it did and still created each and every one of us…again, according to Christianity…He even created Satan with the full and perfect foreknowledge of precisely what he and his cohorts would do…So far as observations on the human condition through history…do I really have to list the multitude of obvious examples?
I simply have too much respect for the creator to believe that he, it, whatever, is actively involved with us. We are a product of evolution within god’s creation…not a direct creation and suffering is simply a consequence of being mortal. Evil, is defined by us, and the definitions vary across the face of the planet.

All you are saying in the above is that *you don’t like that *God permits evil, therefore, He isn’t involved in our universe.

That’s simply creating a god that conforms to your own palates and ideas.

You still haven’t proven that it’s a logical contradiction for a loving God to permit evil.

You have to show that it’s the same thing as a married spinster or a square circle.

You can’t do that.

Thus, if it’s not a logical contradiction for a loving God to permit suffering (see the example of a human father who permits his son to be held down and “tortured” in the ER) then it’s quite possible for God to be loving while permitting evil and suffering.

If it’s possible, you have to demonstrate why you reject this possibility.

The only thing you’ve done so far is to show you don’t like it.

It’s like someone saying, “I don’t like that my wife shops all the time. Therefore, she doesn’t shop all the time.”

Illogical, no?

 

[truetofaith]

Firstly, God is not a human father. He is an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc., etc., being, according to Christianity. That being said, the Christian God not only permits evil, He is complicit in it. He knew what would happen well before it did and still created each and every one of us…again, according to Christianity…He even created Satan with the full and perfect foreknowledge of precisely what he and his cohorts would do…So far as observations on the human condition through history…do I really have to list the multitude of obvious examples?
I simply have too much respect for the creator to believe that he, it, whatever, is actively involved with us. We are a product of evolution within god’s creation…not a direct creation and suffering is simply a consequence of being mortal. Evil, is defined by us, and the definitions vary across the face of the planet.

I am as puzzled as you, Oldcelt as to why God would create satan & Adam & Eve when He knew the results. All I can guess is …if He didn’t create them, none of it would have happened and even God couldn’t know something that never happened.

The universe would still be a void if God decided to never create anything.

Anyone else have an answer to this?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I am as puzzled as you, Oldcelt as to why God would create satan & Adam & Eve when He knew the results. All I can guess is …if He didn’t create them, none of it would have happened and even God couldn’t know something that never happened.

The universe would still be a void if God decided to never create anything.

Anyone else have an answer to this?

Why do writers write stories, since before completing the writing they have to know the “results” (ending)?

Perhaps, it is because stories are not written for the benefit of the writer, but for the audience?

Perhaps because good and evil, permitted, make the story more dramatic and engaging for the sake of the audience - that real, meaningful and important consequences transpire in the “telling” of the story, or rather, in the playing a role in the story. It is more that we are actors ad libbing our parts on a stage than merely being readers of a book.

Perhaps that reality is too much to bear for some who would prefer to merely read the book than play a part, but, it seems, you can’t BE a human being by just reading about it in a book.

It seems that oldcelt has a problem, perhaps, with being thrust onto the stage ill-prepared, though this may mean that becoming human requires an apprenticeship of sorts, as well.

 

[oldcelt]

Why do writers write stories, since before completing the writing they have to know the “results” (ending)?

Perhaps, it is because stories are not written for the benefit of the writer, but for the audience?

Perhaps because good and evil, permitted, make the story more dramatic and engaging for the sake of the audience - that real, meaningful and important consequences transpire in the “telling” of the story, or rather, in the playing a role in the story. It is more that we are actors ad libbing our parts on a stage than merely being readers of a book.

Perhaps that reality is too much to bear for some who would prefer to merely read the book than play a part, but, it seems, you can’t BE a human being by just reading about it in a book.

It seems that oldcelt has a problem, perhaps, with being thrust onto the stage ill-prepared, though this may mean that becoming human requires an apprenticeship of sorts, as well.

I have played many roles in this life…some actually on stage, and I have never felt more prepared than now. In the Church they call it an epiphany.