Is it a mortal sin

[Spock]

The problem with trying to analyze the posit is that you already have your mind made up on it.

Now, let me recap the exchange:
JRKH: If a man professes to “love his wife” but then ignores and abuses her, can he be said to truly love her?
Spock: Of course not. Now replace the “man” with God, and the “wife” with humans, and think about what you just said here.
JRKH: Or we could leave “man” and just change “wife” to God and see what that produces.
Spock: Certainly. But I would like to analyze what I posited. Would you be amenable?
JRKH: The problem with trying to analyze the posit is that you already have your mind made up on it.

I answered your question honestly with “Of course not”. And posited my question in return. You did not answer my question. Instead you attempted to derail with another question. I answered that one with: “Certainly”. And asked you if you would be willing to analyze my original scenario. You declined it again, with the feeble excuse, that “I already made up my mind”. Sorry, my friend, that is not the way an honest exchange of ideas works. Get back to me when you are interested in a real conversation, not just evasions.

 

[Jlcastagna]

The bottom line is are you moving towards God and Godliness or are you moving away from God and rejecting Him. Spock whether you know it or not God has brought you to this site for a reason. You can choose (freewill) to accept or reject his call to being drawn closer to him. The accepting or rejecting does not even have to happen today but at some point within your lifetime. If you reject God that would be Sin. So your question about mortal sin and different faiths or none faith all depends on were you are at on your journey in this life. The degree of your sin if you choose to reject Gods call would be different for you than for lets say for the Pope. Using your example of not going to church.

May God bless and protect us,

Jerry

 

[JRKH]

Now, let me recap the exchange:
JRKH: If a man professes to “love his wife” but then ignores and abuses her, can he be said to truly love her?
Spock: Of course not. Now replace the “man” with God, and the “wife” with humans, and think about what you just said here.
JRKH: Or we could leave “man” and just change “wife” to God and see what that produces.
Spock: Certainly. But I would like to analyze what I posited. Would you be amenable?
JRKH: The problem with trying to analyze the posit is that you already have your mind made up on it.

I answered your question honestly with “Of course not”. And posited my question in return. You did not answer my question. Instead you attempted to derail with another question. I answered that one with: “Certainly”. And asked you if you would be willing to analyze my original scenario. You declined it again, with the feeble excuse, that “I already made up my mind”. Sorry, my friend, that is not the way an honest exchange of ideas works. Get back to me when you are interested in a real conversation, not just evasions.

Fair enough. Permit me to withdraw my statement that you have already made up you mind about it. It was a poor conclusion on my part. Mea Culpa

In the last statement from you in the above recap…you asked if I would be amenable to analyzing what you posited. I guess my answer must be that no I am not particularly amenable.
The reason is that I disagree that making the change you propose (substituting “man” with God, and the “wife” with humans) equals, "your proposition mirrors mine, with extreme precision. The reason I disagree is that, in dealing with the relationship between two humans we can define what is or is not abuse based solely on human standards contained within the natural,visible, world. In a relationship between the creator and the created, we cannot know all of the factors nor can we objectively define what is or is not abuse in the “eternal”, “supernatural” spiritual world.
I hope that you find this reasoning to be less “feeble”

Now - On to the matters you completely ignored in my post…
I found your comments about “insufficiency” of “mere words” and how “all the texts are not God’s words - in any shape or form I can recognize”, and so forth to be much more enlightening and foundational.
So if mere words are insufficient, then what would you “recognize”, what would be “sufficient” what would you “wish” the proofs to be?

Peace
James

 

[Spock]

Fair enough. Permit me to withdraw my statement that you have already made up you mind about it. It was a poor conclusion on my part. Mea Culpa

Ok. No problem. And no harm done.

In the last statement from you in the above recap…you asked if I would be amenable to analyzing what you posited. I guess my answer must be that no I am not particularly amenable.

Which is, of course, your prerogative.

The reason is that I disagree that making the change you propose (substituting “man” with God, and the “wife” with humans) equals, "your proposition mirrors mine, with extreme precision. The reason I disagree is that, in dealing with the relationship between two humans we can define what is or is not abuse based solely on human standards contained within the natural,visible, world. In a relationship between the creator and the created, we cannot know all of the factors nor can we objectively define what is or is not abuse in the “eternal”, “supernatural” spiritual world.

Now, I guess you did do an analysis. My answer is that I understand your analysis, but (what a surprise!) I disagree. I am willing to accept that we don’t have all the knowledge that God has. But that is not relevant.

Are you familiar with the statue of “Justitia”? The Roman goddess of justice? She wears a blindfold, to indicate that there is no difference who the “accused” is, justice does not care. You said that it is the sign of lack of love if a man merely says “I love my wife”, but does nothing to show that love. You refuse to apply the same standards when the man is replaced by God, and the woman is replaced by “humanity”. In the ancient times there was a Roman proverb: “Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi” - what is allowed for Jupiter is not allowed for the ox. I refuse this attitude. If something is wrong for humans, then it is wrong for God (God’s omniscience notwithstanding).

If you say that God, being the creator can do whatever he wants, because the standards do not apply to him, then you just destroyed the concept of “divine morality”, and substituted it with “whatever God wants”. So if, God commands someone to murder, rape or kill, the that is the “moral” thing to do. Sorry, that is not my cup of tea. If there is a universal moral standard, then it must apply to God. Of course now we are back to old “Euthyphro dilemma”.

Now - On to the matters you completely ignored in my post…
I found your comments about “insufficiency” of “mere words” and how “all the texts are not God’s words - in any shape or form I can recognize”, and so forth to be much more enlightening and foundational.
So if mere words are insufficient, then what would you “recognize”, what would be “sufficient” what would you “wish” the proofs to be?

Since we got that misunderstanding out of the way, I am glad to continue. Yes, the perfect proof would be a personal manifestation, and a personal dialog - in a setting that would allow me and others to capture the dialog (TV comes to mind), and review it later. It is important that I would not be alone, so I could compare my observations with others. It is important that the manifestation would be captured by the media, so I can be sure that I and the other participants were not “hypnotized”.

Of course I would be skeptical first. But I cannot deny the report of my senses, especially if it was captured on an independent medium.

Now, if I would not be one of the chosen ones in that dialog, but a bunch of other skeptics were, that would be almost as good an evidence, but not quite. My skeptical inclination would make me doubt.

 

[JRKH]

Since we got that misunderstanding out of the way, I am glad to continue. Yes, the perfect proof would be a personal manifestation, and a personal dialog - in a setting that would allow me and others to capture the dialog (TV comes to mind), and review it later. It is important that I would not be alone, so I could compare my observations with others. It is important that the manifestation would be captured by the media, so I can be sure that I and the other participants were not “hypnotized”.

Of course I would be skeptical first. But I cannot deny the report of my senses, especially if it was captured on an independent medium.

Now, if I would not be one of the chosen ones in that dialog, but a bunch of other skeptics were, that would be almost as good an evidence, but not quite. My skeptical inclination would make me doubt.

Some interesting things in the above “ideal”…While you say that the “mere words” of others are insufficient, you are quite adamant that you not be alone in this “personal manifestation”. You want to “compare” what you experienced with the experience of other etc…
But putting all of that aside…
Your initial statement that, “the perfect proof would be a personal manifestation, and a personal dialog…” is precisely what I am recommending for you.
Unfortunately the “setting” where it could be “captured” is unlikely to occur. Not entirely impossible of course - there is a book called the Dialogues of St Catherine of Siena which contain transcribed conversations between God and St Catherine…So there is precedence…
However…if the personal dialog DID occur during contemplative reflection and prayer, it would likely come in a most convincing form so that there would be no need to, “deny the report of my senses”. Your heart would convince you.

I know that the Church teaches we can know God through our reason, and I don’t deny the teaching of the Church, but in truth I am not much of a Thomist and lean more toward the mystical. So we may have a very fundamental difference in approach here.

So perhaps I am asking you here to consider, using your reason, to recognize that the mode and method of communication between God in the eternal and man in the temporal might be in a fundamentally different form than those devised by man to communicate amongst themselves.
Then, by recognizing this possibility, studying and reflecting upon it and perhaps even pursuing it as a possible means of gaining insight on a very fundamental level which would effect - not that you reason things through, but how you reason things through.

So long as you continue to operate solely in the “insufficient” realm of “mere words” there can really be no advancement for you. Only in the realm of “encounter” through prayer and an open heart, can progress be made.

Peace
James

 

[Spock]

Some interesting things in the above “ideal”…While you say that the “mere words” of others are insufficient, you are quite adamant that you not be alone in this “personal manifestation”. You want to “compare” what you experienced with the experience of other etc…

Don’t forget, in this scenario we are talking about comparing the recollections of first-hand witnesses. We sit there together in the audience, and I ask my neighbor: “do you see what I see?”, or “do you hear the same words?”. Not reading the testimonial of some unknown people, who have never witnessed what they write about.

Your initial statement that, “the perfect proof would be a personal manifestation, and a personal dialog…” is precisely what I am recommending for you.
Unfortunately the “setting” where it could be “captured” is unlikely to occur. Not entirely impossible of course - there is a book called the Dialogues of St Catherine of Siena which contain transcribed conversations between God and St Catherine…So there is precedence…

It sure would be nice. Especially on prime-time TV, where we could just say our questions at home, and God could answer our questions one-on-one.

However…if the personal dialog DID occur during contemplative reflection and prayer, it would likely come in a most convincing form so that there would be no need to, “deny the report of my senses”. Your heart would convince you.

I am sure that the poetic referral to the “heart” is not to be taken literally. I used to be a believer a very long time ago. I did pray to God as honestly as only a child can. Nothing ever happened.

I know that the Church teaches we can know God through our reason, and I don’t deny the teaching of the Church, but in truth I am not much of a Thomist and lean more toward the mystical. So we may have a very fundamental difference in approach here.

Possible. Though I read the catecism, and I never found the details of just “how” can reason lead to God. It was a bare assertion, and nothing else. That was one example of “mere words”. Besides, if “pure reason” would be sufficient, then faith would be unnecessary. And reading the Bible I could not help but notice the disdain for reason, and the glorification of faith. Luther said: “Reason must be trampled underfoot”, and “reason must be made the handmaiden of faith”. Of course Luther was not an exemplary Catholic. But still… he knew the Bible really well.

So perhaps I am asking you here to consider, using your reason, to recognize that the mode and method of communication between God in the eternal and man in the temporal might be in a fundamentally different form than those devised by man to communicate amongst themselves.

I am sure that God can “come down” to our level and use our kind of communication, if he is so inclined.

So long as you continue to operate solely in the “insufficient” realm of “mere words” there can really be no advancement for you. Only in the realm of “encounter” through prayer and an open heart, can progress be made.

I am sure you are right, but not for the same reason. My door is open to God, and so is my mind. As I said, I did prayer and it did not work.

 

[JRKH]

Don’t forget, in this scenario we are talking about comparing the recollections of first-hand witnesses. We sit there together in the audience, and I ask my neighbor: “do you see what I see?”, or “do you hear the same words?”. Not reading the testimonial of some unknown people, who have never witnessed what they write about.

How do you know that “unknown people” never witnessed what they write about? If the autographs of the NT are to be believed, we have at the very least, John, Paul and Luke being contemporaries…John being an Eyewitness to Christ himself, Paul possibly having seen Christ “in the flesh” though we don’t know that for sure.and Luke being acquainted with Paul who was witness to "the things they write about.
In addition, those who transcribed St Catherine’s ecstasies were “eyewitnesses” to the events…
While I agree that it would be most interesting to be personally present when such things occur, I don’t find my lack of personal presence to be reason to disbelieve either…

It sure would be nice. Especially on prime-time TV, where we could just say our questions at home, and God could answer our questions one-on-one.

You must have a different TV than I do…My TV never talks back to me…

I am sure that the poetic referral to the “heart” is not to be taken literally. I used to be a believer a very long time ago. I did pray to God as honestly as only a child can. Nothing ever happened.

I’m sorry to hear that. of course not knowing the specifics, I can’t offer any insight…I’m not asking by the way…

Possible. Though I read the catechism, and I never found the details of just “how” can reason lead to God. It was a bare assertion, and nothing else. That was one example of “mere words”. Besides, if “pure reason” would be sufficient, then faith would be unnecessary. And reading the Bible I could not help but notice the disdain for reason, and the glorification of faith. Luther said: “Reason must be trampled underfoot”, and “reason must be made the handmaiden of faith”. Of course Luther was not an exemplary Catholic. But still… he knew the Bible really well.

I think that if one wishes to pursue the “reason” angle, it’s probably better to read things such authors as Thomas Aquinas or G.K. Chesterton.
For me personally I find such avenues, while somewhat interesting, to be too dry. In my mind, God is more simple and direct.

I am sure that God can “come down” to our level and use our kind of communication, if he is so inclined.

Perhaps - perhaps not. Perhaps in order to do so He has used various persons to speak His words, but then some people choose to accept “mere words”. Perhaps in order to do so He sends his own Son, and those to whom He is sent, ignore and eventually kill Him.
Perhaps…
But then perhaps He does not “come down to our level” because, in order to fulfill our potential, we need to strive to reach “up to his level”.
An adult can do much to help a newborn infant, but the adult can never “come down to” the infants level. Instead the infant strives to reach up to the adults level. It’s called growth.

I am sure you are right, but not for the same reason. My door is open to God, and so is my mind. As I said, I did prayer and it did not work.

Well someday I hope that you will try it again. Perhaps the prayers of a Truth seeking adult, carefully and patiently applied, will provide greater insight than the simple prayers of a child who might or might not recognize an answer.

Peace
James

 

[Spock]

While I agree that it would be most interesting to be personally present when such things occur, I don’t find my lack of personal presence to be reason to disbelieve either…

I understand. Our milage may vary… and it usually does.

I’m sorry to hear that. of course not knowing the specifics, I can’t offer any insight…I’m not asking by the way…

That is fine. No one can offer an insight. It is just a fact.

I think that if one wishes to pursue the “reason” angle, it’s probably better to read things such authors as Thomas Aquinas or G.K. Chesterton.

Sure. And I am quite familiar with the works of these people. All of them (without exception) commit some fallacies, sometimes more than one. If there would be one flawless, purely logical way to prove God’s existence, there would be no non-Christians, because in that case to deny God’s existence would entail a logical absurdity, and only clinically insane people can believe in a contradiction.

An adult can do much to help a newborn infant, but the adult can never “come down to” the infants level. Instead the infant strives to reach up to the adults level. It’s called growth.

Right on. But an infant is not a sentient being. An infant has no understanding. If we are really just infants compared to God, then why does God not care for us as if we were infants? A parent has obligation to the infant. An infant needs to be fed, provided for, healed when sick… etc.

If, however, we are small children compared to God, with some understanding then God should come down to our level to teach us, to facilitate our growth, to get closer to him.

 

[JRKH]

Right on. But an infant is not a sentient being. An infant has no understanding. If we are really just infants compared to God, then why does God not care for us as if we were infants? A parent has obligation to the infant. An infant needs to be fed, provided for, healed when sick… etc.

If, however, we are small children compared to God, with some understanding then God should come down to our level to teach us, to facilitate our growth, to get closer to him.

In the above you make the assumption that God does NOT care for us, feed us, healed, etc. You make that assumption because God does not do it in a way that YOU recognize and accept.

Consider…An infant does not understand what the parent does for it. As the infant grows and becomes a toddler, it begins to learn things about interacting with its environment and sees that the parent does do things for the him, yet still the toddler understands little or nothing about the hows or whys of what the parent does or demands, the sound reasons behind the punishments or rewards that the parent employs.
As the child continues to grow, they usually go through a time when the parent is their “best friend” and buddy, but then they hit the teen years and the parent becomes an adversary…and this only is settled after the child become mature enough and experienced enough to recognize all that the parent did for them and all the ways in which the parent did them (some obvious and some very subtle).

In all of this, the parent, while recognizing the child’s limitations, is seeking not to "get down to the child’s level, but to draw the child up to the adult level.
God likewise recognizes our limitations but like a good parent seeks to draw us to Him while at the same time respecting our own freedom to choose…

Peace
James

 

[Spock]

In the above you make the assumption that God does NOT care for us, feed us, healed, etc. You make that assumption because God does not do it in a way that YOU recognize and accept.

You are perfectly correct in your observation. If God cares for us it is in a way I cannot “recognize”. (The word “accept” above is not necessary. Acceptance can only come after recognition.) But why are you surprised? I have been told many times that God cannot be “tested”, if God senses that a “test” is about to happen, he can “quietly twist the setup”, so there will be no sign of God “being there” and “pulling the strings”. So it is obvious that I cannot recognize God’s care. He made it certain that I cannot recognize his “care”, he made sure that all his tracks are “obliterated”.

And if there is no sign of this care, then why assume that there is care? You yourself stated before, if there is no sign of love, then one should not assume that there is “love”. I urge you to stick to the duck principle: “if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, tastes like a duck, then there is no reason to assume that it is not a duck”. And this “duck-principle” must be applied equally (in a good “catholic” fashion ), to humans and to God.

Consider…An infant does not understand what the parent does for it. As the infant grows and becomes a toddler, it begins to learn things about interacting with its environment and sees that the parent does do things for the him, yet still the toddler understands little or nothing about the hows or whys of what the parent does or demands, the sound reasons behind the punishments or rewards that the parent employs.

As the child continues to grow, they usually go through a time when the parent is their “best friend” and buddy, but then they hit the teen years and the parent becomes an adversary…and this only is settled after the child become mature enough and experienced enough to recognize all that the parent did for them and all the ways in which the parent did them (some obvious and some very subtle).

The question is now: what do you think, where are we now on this scale? Infant, toddler, small child, adolescent, adult?

In all of this, the parent, while recognizing the child’s limitations, is seeking not to "get down to the child’s level, but to draw the child up to the adult level.

When it comes to explanation, the parent must always get down to the child’s level. The child need to be taught and educated. Only a horrible parent would resort to “because I said so!”, or - even worse! - employ the “silent treatment”.

God likewise recognizes our limitations but like a good parent seeks to draw us to Him while at the same time respecting our own freedom to choose…

A good parent will ruthlessly curtail the freedom of the child, when he sees that the child is about to embark on a course which is fatal to the child. That is what a good and loving parent must do. Not just issue a “warning” and stay on the sidelines. Interfere forcefully so that the child cannot make a fatal mistake. (Mind you, non-fatal mistakes should be allowed, so that the child will learn from them.)

I don’t have many wishes. But I fervently wish that the reference to “respecting the free will” argument would disappear forever. I cannot use strong enough words to express my dismay to see it coming up over and over again.

 

[JRKH]

You are perfectly correct in your observation. If God cares for us it is in a way I cannot “recognize”. (The word “accept” above is not necessary. Acceptance can only come after recognition.) But why are you surprised? I have been told many times that God cannot be “tested”, if God senses that a “test” is about to happen, he can “quietly twist the setup”, so there will be no sign of God “being there” and “pulling the strings”. So it is obvious that I cannot recognize God’s care. He made it certain that I cannot recognize his “care”, he made sure that all his tracks are “obliterated”.

And if there is no sign of this care, then why assume that there is care? You yourself stated before, if there is no sign of love, then one should not assume that there is “love”. I urge you to stick to the duck principle: “if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, tastes like a duck, then there is no reason to assume that it is not a duck”. And this “duck-principle” must be applied equally (in a good “catholic” fashion ), to humans and to God.

The thing above that you have “heard many times” (that God cannot be tested), I have never heard…Man is constantly “testing God” Just as Children “test” their parents…

The question is now: what do you think, where are we now on this scale? Infant, toddler, small child, adolescent, adult?

Well It’s tough to say. I think for most of us we exist in differing groups all at the same time…
For one who has not accepted God, such as yourself, I’d say you have yet to be “born”. (Born of spirit is how the Bible puts it)
The one who accepts completely on Faith without need or ability to understand, is the infant.
The one who is actively trying to understand and to grow begins to get into the more complex toddler stage to adolescent stage - a combination of obedience and rebellion…Few are able to truly pass this stage before physical death.
For myself, I’m somewhere between infant and toddler…I know God IS, I know that God Loves me and I try, in my infantile way, to understand and to respond to that Love with Love.

When it comes to explanation, the parent must always get down to the child’s level. The child need to be taught and educated. Only a horrible parent would resort to “because I said so!”, or - even worse! - employ the “silent treatment”.

Yet even should the parent try “to get down to the child’s level”, this doesn’t mean that the child will recognize it. And frankly sometimes “because I said so” is the only answer that will work, until the Child is older and able to understand.

A good parent will ruthlessly curtail the freedom of the child, when he sees that the child is about to embark on a course which is fatal to the child. That is what a good and loving parent must do. Not just issue a “warning” and stay on the sidelines. Interfere forcefully so that the child cannot make a fatal mistake. (Mind you, non-fatal mistakes should be allowed, so that the child will learn from them.)

It’s interesting that earlier you claim that it is a horrible parent that uses “because I said so” but here you espouse the use of “ruthlessly curtail(ing) the freedom of the child” under more extreme circumstances. I find this an interesting contrast…
But actually I do agree with what you say, the parent has the duty to act in order to prevent the child’s demise…Of course we must also recognize that such action might just as easily drive the child further from the parent as draw them closer. I have seen where a parent seeks to protect their child and the child only fights harder to get away from the parent. Eventually this conflict becomes so pronounced that the child leaves, makes the very fatal mistakes that the parent tried to prevent…
There is a delicate balance that requires the effort of both parties.

I don’t have many wishes. But I fervently wish that the reference to “respecting the free will” argument would disappear forever. I cannot use strong enough words to express my dismay to see it coming up over and over again.

Sorry - Can’t help you there…

Peace
James

 

[Spock]

The thing above that you have “heard many times” (that God cannot be tested), I have never heard…Man is constantly “testing God” Just as Children “test” their parents…

Surprises never end, I guess. All I can suggest that you open a new thread with a title: “Let’s test God and God’s benevolence”, and see the result. Maybe insert a poll with a few options. You will be surprised. Also, here is a Biblical quote to consider.

Then the devil took Him into the holy city; and he had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God throw Yourself down; for it is written, ‘He will give His angels charge concerning You’; and ‘On their hands they will bear You up, lest You strike Your foot against a stone.’” Jesus said to him, “On the other hand, it is written, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’” (Matthew 4:5-7)

Well It’s tough to say. I think for most of us we exist in differing groups all at the same time…
For one who has not accepted God, such as yourself, I’d say you have yet to be “born”. (Born of spirit is how the Bible puts it)
The one who accepts completely on Faith without need or ability to understand, is the infant.
The one who is actively trying to understand and to grow begins to get into the more complex toddler stage to adolescent stage - a combination of obedience and rebellion…Few are able to truly pass this stage before physical death.
For myself, I’m somewhere between infant and toddler…I know God IS, I know that God Loves me and I try, in my infantile way, to understand and to respond to that Love with Love.

Interesting line of thought.

Yet even should the parent try “to get down to the child’s level”, this doesn’t mean that the child will recognize it.

Sorry that is not an excuse for not even trying. Maybe you see me as someone who is not even born yet (and as such I cannot understand anything at all) but I view myself a tad higher. I am open to any rational explanation, and willing to welcome God in our humble abode if he is willing to drop by.

And frankly sometimes “because I said so” is the only answer that will work, until the Child is older and able to understand.

I cannot agree. if a child is able to understand “because I said so”, then there is a way to explain (in simple language, for sure) the why’s and wherefore’s. Do not underestimate children. Unless they are hopelessly retarded, they understand a lot.

It’s interesting that earlier you claim that it is a horrible parent that uses “because I said so” but here you espouse the use of “ruthlessly curtail(ing) the freedom of the child” under more extreme circumstances. I find this an interesting contrast…

I see no problem. Sometimes there is no time for a conversation, he parent must take the role of a “dictator”. Of course, if there is time for explanation, that should come first. Example: the child is about to insert a wire into a live socket. The parent must interfere and prevent the “experiment” forcefully - and the parent should not “respect the freedom of the child”. The child would not understand the concept of electrical shock. Naturally, a really responsible and loving parent would cover the outlet, so that the child will be unable to “experiment” with it. (If you see a parallel with Genesis, and the tree of knowledge, that is not a coincidence.)

But actually I do agree with what you say, the parent has the duty to act in order to prevent the child’s demise…Of course we must also recognize that such action might just as easily drive the child further from the parent as draw them closer. I have seen where a parent seeks to protect their child and the child only fights harder to get away from the parent. Eventually this conflict becomes so pronounced that the child leaves, makes the very fatal mistakes that the parent tried to prevent…
There is a delicate balance that requires the effort of both parties.

I am glad to see some agreement. I really am. Certainly such an benevolent endeavor might backfire. But again, that is not an excuse for not trying.

Sorry - Can’t help you there…

Actually you could. When you see someone using the ridiculous argument that “God does not interfere because he respects our freedom”, you could point out this error, and that would be a huge help. Loving parents habitually interfere with the children’s choices (no respect for free will there), if they see that the choice is fatal. The society regularly interferes with the freedom of criminals, to protect the freedom of others. There is nothing improper or wrong to curtail the freedom of others, under some very well defined circumstances.

 

[JRKH]

Surprises never end, I guess. All I can suggest that you open a new thread with a title: “Let’s test God and God’s benevolence”, and see the result. Maybe insert a poll with a few options. You will be surprised. Also, here is a Biblical quote to consider.

Then the devil took Him into the holy city; and he had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God throw Yourself down; for it is written, ‘He will give His angels charge concerning You’; and ‘On their hands they will bear You up, lest You strike Your foot against a stone.’” Jesus said to him, “On the other hand, it is written, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’” (Matthew 4:5-7)

Well there was a lot more in what you said than simply that we should not put God to the test…you said:
I have been told many times that God cannot be “tested”, if God senses that a “test” is about to happen, he can “quietly twist the setup”, so there will be no sign of God “being there” and “pulling the strings”.
I have never heard any of this stuff. As for the Bible quote it warns us not to put God to the test. It does not deny us the capability nor does it say anything about God hiding his tracks etc…If others are saying this, that is personal opinion…

Interesting line of thought.

Thanks

Sorry that is not an excuse for not even trying. Maybe you see me as someone who is not even born yet (and as such I cannot understand anything at all) but I view myself a tad higher. I am open to any rational explanation, and willing to welcome God in our humble abode if he is willing to drop by.

Glad to hear you are open…Just as a note - the very young, whether physically or spiritually, are much more likely to be moved by their hearts than by their brains…“rational explanations” may not be suitable for where you are spiritually - Now Love - and being moved in the heart that is another matter. The very young learn much more through Love than through logic and rationalism…

I cannot agree. if a child is able to understand “because I said so”, then there is a way to explain (in simple language, for sure) the why’s and wherefore’s. Do not underestimate children. Unless they are hopelessly retarded, they understand a lot.

But if God has already explained in simple language the whys and wherefore’s why do you insist He do it again? While we are not underestimating children, lets not underestimate God.

I see no problem. Sometimes there is no time for a conversation, he parent must take the role of a “dictator”. Of course, if there is time for explanation, that should come first. Example: the child is about to insert a wire into a live socket. The parent must interfere and prevent the “experiment” forcefully - and the parent should not “respect the freedom of the child”. The child would not understand the concept of electrical shock. Naturally, a really responsible and loving parent would cover the outlet, so that the child will be unable to “experiment” with it. (If you see a parallel with Genesis, and the tree of knowledge, that is not a coincidence.)

I am glad to see some agreement. I really am. Certainly such an benevolent endeavor might backfire. But again, that is not an excuse for not trying.

Again - I just don’t see where God is not trying…

Actually you could. When you see someone using the ridiculous argument that “God does not interfere because he respects our freedom”, you could point out this error, and that would be a huge help. Loving parents habitually interfere with the children’s choices (no respect for free will there), if they see that the choice is fatal. The society regularly interferes with the freedom of criminals, to protect the freedom of others. There is nothing improper or wrong to curtail the freedom of others, under some very well defined circumstances.

Well I suppose if I agreed with you here, then I could help you out, but I don’t agree…

 

[Spock]

Well there was a lot more in what you said than simply that we should not put God to the test…you said:
I have been told many times that God cannot be “tested”, if God senses that a “test” is about to happen, he can “quietly twist the setup”, so there will be no sign of God “being there” and “pulling the strings”.
I have never heard any of this stuff. As for the Bible quote it warns us not to put God to the test. It does not deny us the capability nor does it say anything about God hiding his tracks etc…If others are saying this, that is personal opinion…

Don’t get bogged down on the phrase. If you want to, you can post a thread and you will see. But, of course it is “logical” in a sense. If we could set up an experiment and verify God’s existence or create an experiment and verify God’s benevolence, then God simply could come clean and present himself.

Glad to hear you are open…Just as a note - the very young, whether physically or spiritually, are much more likely to be moved by their hearts than by their brains…“rational explanations” may not be suitable for where you are spiritually - Now Love - and being moved in the heart that is another matter. The very young learn much more through Love than through logic and rationalism…

Sorry, the word “spiritual” is meaningless for me. Love is an emotion, it does not need to be taught, it is intrinsic in our nervous system. And my heart is still just pumping blood, it does not participate in my mental life. I know that you use it allegorically, but allegories used thousands and millions of times are really annoying.

But if God has already explained in simple language the whys and wherefore’s why do you insist He do it again? While we are not underestimating children, lets not underestimate God.

He did not. Not in a way the non-believers can recognize.

Again - I just don’t see where God is not trying…

If we are children, when God should act like a loving parent, and make it impossible for us to make “fatal” decisions - like the parent who hides the power outlet to prevent the child from the fatal experimentation. If we are adults (of course we can never be “really” adults in relation to God), then God should respect us and come clean with explanation so we can have the necessary information to make good decisions. When we have full information, then God can start to respect our free will. Not to give full information and still demand full responsibility is not fair, not just, and definitely not “loving”.

We have come full circle now. That lack of information is what I have been talking about in this thread. The Bible is insufficient, the assertions of the Church are insufficient. Only God’s personal affirmation of the rules would be sufficient.

Well I suppose if I agreed with you here, then I could help you out, but I don’t agree…

Well, that pretty much sums it up. You do not agree that parents should limit the freedom of the children for their oun safety, and you do not agree that society should limit the freedom of criminals for the safety of the rest of the population. Thanks for the clarification. At least I see clearly. With this “unbridgable” gap in our opinion I don’t see if there can be a useful interchange between us. This is the usual problem: there is no common ground to start from. Not even such an obvious proposition: “free will is not sacrosanct, sometimes it must be curtailed in the name of love”. But it was a fun dialog, thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[fhansen]

God could choose to create or not create these people. Is it in the best interest of these people (who will end up in hell) to have them created? No one of sound mind can argue that it is in the best interest of someone to get created when at the end he will be tortured forever. So either there are no people who will end up in hell, or there are some, but in the letter case God is not benevolent. You choose which one to believe.

Let’s say that existence is undeniably good. We could still always deny this, of course, but, for the sake of argument, let’s say that existence is objectively good, i.e. it’s better to exist than not exist. Then we would have to pose the question to those in hell, whatever that is, “Would you rather cease existing or continue to exist?” Perhaps, if the absence of God is what makes hell what it is, these are people who still prefer existence but adamantly, continuously, prefer it apart from God, regardless of what that means.

If, however, we are small children compared to God, with some understanding then God should come down to our level to teach us, to facilitate our growth, to get closer to him.

God is said to have gotten down to our level via the incarnation-and basically He said and demonstrated that this world and this life-a life apart from God-is not all there is and is also, simply, not enough; only life with God, beginning in the here and now if we’re at all willing, is the goal- the end of evil and misery and the source of eternal happiness.

You’re right in any case-life ain’t fair. And we all pretty much know that the worst evils are the unnatural ones-the ones committed out of malice by people who could easily enough choose to restrain themselves and do otherwise -as opposed to natural tragedies.

But St Paul said he counted the sufferings of this present life to be nothing compared to the glory to come-a glory and happiness he had been made witness to. On many occasions he was persecuted, stoned, nearly beaten to death, imprisoned, and finally beheaded in Rome.

 

[Spock]

Let’s say that existence is undeniably good. We could still always deny this, of course, but, for the sake of argument, let’s say that existence is objectively good, i.e. it’s better to exist than not exist. Then we would have to pose the question to those in hell, whatever that is, “Would you rather cease existing or continue to exist?” Perhaps, if the absence of God is what makes hell what it is, these are people who still prefer existence but adamantly, continuously, prefer it apart from God, regardless of what that means.

Ok. Now let’s go and see if those in hell would prefer to exist in their condition. That would be a decisive way to settle the problem. Of course it seems to be unlikely that we shall be allowed to go down there with a camera and conduct a few interviews. So we need to speculate. It is a fact there are people who feel that this life (which is obviously vastly superior to the torture in hell) is still intolerable, and they choose to commit suicide. So I don’t think that the “damned” down there would prefer a continued existence, if given the option.

God is said to have gotten down to our level via the incarnation-and basically He said and demonstrated that this world and this life-a life apart from God-is not all there is and is also, simply, not enough; only life with God, beginning in the here and now if we’re at all willing, is the goal- the end of evil and misery and the source of eternal happiness.

Indeed, God is “said” to have done this and other things, too. But I am sure you see that it is not generally accepted. It would be much better if God would come and declare exactly and precisely what are the requirements to “make the grade”. In that case no one could “hide” behind the defense: “but I did not know…”.

You’re right in any case-life ain’t fair. And we all pretty much know that the worst evils are the unnatural ones-the ones committed out of malice by people who could easily enough choose to restrain themselves and do otherwise -as opposed to natural tragedies.

I am not sure if the general statement is true or not. It may be true. But even in that case getting rid of the natural tragedies would still be a huge improvement, would it not? The latest tsunami in Japan was not exactly a cakewalk for the affected ones. I am sure they would all vote in favor of not having another one.

But St Paul said he counted the sufferings of this present life to be nothing compared to the glory to come-a glory and happiness he had been made witness to.

If the end result is heaven, then this might be true. People are willing to endure a lot if there is a worthy goal at the end. But we are not talking about heaven now. We are talking about hell.

 

[JRKH]

Don’t get bogged down on the phrase. If you want to, you can post a thread and you will see. But, of course it is “logical” in a sense. If we could set up an experiment and verify God’s existence or create an experiment and verify God’s benevolence, then God simply could come clean and present himself.

He has - but you do not recognize it. You claim to be “open minded” but then dismiss as “insufficient” God’s revelation of Himself.

Sorry, the word “spiritual” is meaningless for me. Love is an emotion, it does not need to be taught, it is intrinsic in our nervous system. And my heart is still just pumping blood, it does not participate in my mental life. I know that you use it allegorically, but allegories used thousands and millions of times are really annoying.

I’m sorry that you are annoyed by these things…I guess you take you screen name very seriously…

He did not. Not in a way the non-believers can recognize.

I would substitute “choose to” for “can”…

If we are children, when God should act like a loving parent, and make it impossible for us to make “fatal” decisions - like the parent who hides the power outlet to prevent the child from the fatal experimentation. If we are adults (of course we can never be “really” adults in relation to God), then God should respect us and come clean with explanation so we can have the necessary information to make good decisions. When we have full information, then God can start to respect our free will. Not to give full information and still demand full responsibility is not fair, not just, and definitely not “loving”.

I agree - and I keep expressing to you that you cannot expect God to come clean if you are not willing to talk to him. There is already a great deal of information already available, which you deem “insufficient” from a rational viewpoint, and you choose not to pursue a relationship in the spiritual/mystical format through prayer and contemplation.
If we continue the parent child analogy, its like the child who won’t stop playing with his “science kit” long enough to hear his fathers call and see all the Love that the parent has to offer.

We have come full circle now. That lack of information is what I have been talking about in this thread. The Bible is insufficient, the assertions of the Church are insufficient. Only God’s personal affirmation of the rules would be sufficient.

Pray and contemplate…Break down the barriers you have put up. Be Still and Hear God’s Voice…It takes time and commitment, but it works.

Well, that pretty much sums it up. You do not agree that parents should limit the freedom of the children for their oun safety, and you do not agree that society should limit the freedom of criminals for the safety of the rest of the population. Thanks for the clarification. At least I see clearly. With this “unbridgable” gap in our opinion I don’t see if there can be a useful interchange between us. This is the usual problem: there is no common ground to start from. Not even such an obvious proposition: “free will is not sacrosanct, sometimes it must be curtailed in the name of love”. But it was a fun dialog, thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Well this was misunderstood…Partly my fault…My Apologies.

You do not like the free will argument…I disagree with that and therefore cannot help you by “point in got their error”, as you said in an earlier post.

As far as parents and society interfering with free will - yes they certainly do…They lay down rules and there are consequences for the breaking of those rules. But none of this interferes with a persons free will. Societal rules are broken all the time. Parental rules likewise are broken. No matter what steps a parent might take to keep a child safe, children still can and do disobey and get injured or die.
No matter what Laws are enacted to protect society, people choose to disobey them and often times, when caught, rail against the injustice of the Law instead of their own poor judgement and culpability. Our prisons and court systems have a high percentage of repeat offenders…Further indication of “free will” in action despite attempts by society to regulate behavior for everyone’s benefit.

Move this to the realm of God as presented in the Bible and once again you see rules laid down with the intention of being of benefit to everyone along with both positive and negative consequences…All nicely laid out. And in the NT we Jesus reduce the whole shebang to two, interconnected Laws based on Love…Straightforward and perfect in their simplicity and all encompassing reach.
Yet men, utilizing free will continues to deny and defy them…

It is on this basis then that I cannot agree that the “free will” argument is an “error”.

Peace
James

 

[fhansen]

Ok. Now let’s go and see if those in hell would prefer to exist in their condition. That would be a decisive way to settle the problem. Of course it seems to be unlikely that we shall be allowed to go down there with a camera and conduct a few interviews. So we need to speculate. It is a fact there are people who feel that this life (which is obviously vastly superior to the torture in hell) is still intolerable, and they choose to commit suicide. So I don’t think that the “damned” down there would prefer a continued existence, if given the option.

I think we can safely presume that even the tiny percentage of people who commit suicide would still prefer to continue to exist if they could figure out how to do so happily-they’re not trying to end their existence so much as end pain in one form or another that they haven’t been able to cope with.

Indeed, God is “said” to have done this and other things, too. But I am sure you see that it is not generally accepted. It would be much better if God would come and declare exactly and precisely what are the requirements to “make the grade”. In that case no one could “hide” behind the defense: “but I did not know…”.

The Sermon on the Mount is the basic handbook. And in this discourse he’s telling us that making the grade equates to achieving true peace and happiness. Most of us balk at the meekness and humility part, though. I struggle with it myself at times.

I am not sure if the general statement is true or not. It may be true. But even in that case getting rid of the natural tragedies would still be a huge improvement, would it not? The latest tsunami in Japan was not exactly a cakewalk for the affected ones. I am sure they would all vote in favor of not having another one.

True enough-I can’t argue with that. It seems that both our own moral worlds as well as the physical world are radically free to do as they will. Both may swing between reasonable order and chaos, the only restraints, as far as we know, being whatever is within their capabilities to do.

If the end result is heaven, then this might be true. People are willing to endure a lot if there is a worthy goal at the end. But we are not talking about heaven now. We are talking about hell.

We are talking about having to choose-rather than be complacent or “above” having to choose-between good and evil, life and death, love and selfishness, God and no God.

 

[Spock]

He has - but you do not recognize it. You claim to be “open minded” but then dismiss as “insufficient” God’s revelation of Himself.

Maybe we cannot agree on what “open-mindedness” is. In my neck of the woods it means that no matter how strongly one holds a belief, if a sufficient argument is presented against that belief, one should abandon it. It does not mean lowering the standards. It does not mean accepting something that is an insufficient evidence.

I’m sorry that you are annoyed by these things…I guess you take you screen name very seriously…

Maybe. The problem is that using an allegory too many times robs it of its original meaning and it becomes an “empty slogan”.

I would substitute “choose to” for “can”…

Another interesting example of lack of agreement. I cannot “choose” what to believe. (By the way that is another of those nonsensical propositions - which I would love to get rid of - when someone states that I can “choose” what I believe.) Beliefs are not under volitional control.

I agree - and I keep expressing to you that you cannot expect God to come clean if you are not willing to talk to him.

But I am most willing. I hope you believe me when I say that my door is open. God is welcome to come any time.

There is already a great deal of information already available, which you deem “insufficient” from a rational viewpoint, and you choose not to pursue a relationship in the spiritual/mystical format through prayer and contemplation.

I was a believer once. I prayed, as honestly as only a child can do. Nothing ever happened. I have been told many times, that “if I pray long enough, honestly enough, hard enough” then “eventually” God will answer. When I asked “how long is long enough?” there was no reply (naturally). Sorry, my friend, such open-ended promises cannot be taken seriously.

Pray and contemplate…Break down the barriers you have put up. Be Still and Hear God’s Voice…It takes time and commitment, but it works.

Oops. How long?

Well this was misunderstood…Partly my fault…My Apologies.

You do not like the free will argument…I disagree with that and therefore cannot help you by “point in got their error”, as you said in an earlier post.

As far as parents and society interfering with free will - yes they certainly do…They lay down rules and there are consequences for the breaking of those rules. But none of this interferes with a persons free will.

Hold it right there. I sense another huge misunderstanding. “Free will” as the ability to “wish, want, will, desire” something is totally irreleveant. I am no looking for brain-washing. The ability of carry out that “wish, want, will, desire” is what I am talking about. The criminal stays “free” to will another rape or torture. But society pluts him into jail, and prevents him from carrying out his “will”. He can “freely will” whatever comes into his mind, as long as his ability is curtailed.

Societal rules are broken all the time. Parental rules likewise are broken. No matter what steps a parent might take to keep a child safe, children still can and do disobey and get injured or die.

No matter what Laws are enacted to protect society, people choose to disobey them and often times, when caught, rail against the injustice of the Law instead of their own poor judgement and culpability. Our prisons and court systems have a high percentage of repeat offenders…Further indication of “free will” in action despite attempts by society to regulate behavior for everyone’s benefit.

Again, not relevant. First, if just one “freely chosen” action or rape is prevented by putting that criminal into jail, it was a wise decision. If just one child survives because the parent overruled the child’s desire to put that wire into a live socket, it was great decision. You cannot defend the status quo by saying that no matter how hard we try, there will be a few who can sneak by the protection. God is not impotent. We are. God can make perfect safeguards, we cannot.

Move this to the realm of God as presented in the Bible and once again you see rules laid down with the intention of being of benefit to everyone along with both positive and negative consequences…All nicely laid out. And in the NT we Jesus reduce the whole shebang to two, interconnected Laws based on Love…Straightforward and perfect in their simplicity and all encompassing reach.
Yet men, utilizing free will continues to deny and defy them…

Telling to that child not to insert that wire into a live socket is not the same then physically preventing it by covering that outlet. Telling that criminal not to commit a rape is not the same as throwing that criminal into jail. One ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.

It is on this basis then that I cannot agree that the “free will” argument is an “error”.

Maybe you will reconsider. I am unable to become a “mystic”. But you are free to use your critical skills. All I do is refer to reason and logic. Supposedly faith and reason are not contradictory. So drop your mysicism, and contemplate rationally what I just said. The “free will” is not the same as the “ability to carry out that will”. Unfortunately these two terms are frequently used interchangeably. If and when God “foresees” something that he definitely does not want to happen, he can prevent the action be carried out, without “tampering” with the person’s “free will”. And all of a sudden human evil will disappear.

 

[JRKH]

Maybe we cannot agree on what “open-mindedness” is. In my neck of the woods it means that no matter how strongly one holds a belief, if a sufficient argument is presented against that belief, one should abandon it. It does not mean lowering the standards. It does not mean accepting something that is an insufficient evidence.

Perhaps you are right and we cannot agree. Especially since it is obvious that our differing world views prevent us from seeing the others arguments as sufficiently persuasive to change our respective “strongly held beliefs”.

Maybe. The problem is that using an allegory too many times robs it of its original meaning and it becomes an “empty slogan”.

I agree with this in some cases and with some individuals, but when a certain allegory is the best way one can express their true feelings, understandings etc…The allegory remains correct no matter how many times it’s used…It only becomes an “empty slogan” when someone who doesn’t understand it or accepts it gets tired of hearing it

But I am most willing. I hope you believe me when I say that my door is open. God is welcome to come any time.

I know you believe that and I cannot say otherwise, but at the same time your desire that God meet you on your terms demonstrates something less than pure openness…I don’t say this as a put-down - We all put up barriers of some sort.

I was a believer once. I prayed, as honestly as only a child can do. Nothing ever happened. I have been told many times, that “if I pray long enough, honestly enough, hard enough” then “eventually” God will answer. When I asked “how long is long enough?” there was no reply (naturally). Sorry, my friend, such open-ended promises cannot be taken seriously.

It has been my experience that we sometimes get answers we don’t want and/or don’t recognize. As I say I’ve some considerable experience with this. I can also say that, by maintaining faith and by seeking to be still in prayer and contemplation, God can and does speak quite clearly and distinctly. I’ve had it happen to me personally.

Oops. How long?

Usually not that long…generally it’s more a matter of recognizing the answer than not getting one.

Hold it right there.

Holding…

I sense another huge misunderstanding. “Free will” as the ability to “wish, want, will, desire” something is totally irrelevant. I am no looking for brain-washing. The ability of carry out that “wish, want, will, desire” is what I am talking about. The criminal stays “free” to will another rape or torture. But society pluts him into jail, and prevents him from carrying out his “will”. He can “freely will” whatever comes into his mind, as long as his ability is curtailed.

Again, not relevant. First, if just one “freely chosen” action or rape is prevented by putting that criminal into jail, it was a wise decision. If just one child survives because the parent overruled the child’s desire to put that wire into a live socket, it was great decision. You cannot defend the status quo by saying that no matter how hard we try, there will be a few who can sneak by the protection. God is not impotent. We are. God can make perfect safeguards, we cannot.

Here again you confuse the intent and action. In the physical world action takes so much greater precedent and our laws are built around controlling action. In the world of spirituality, intent is the greater…If we choose evil, will eventually tear us down and destroy us. If we choose Love, it will build us up to eternal life.

Telling to that child not to insert that wire into a live socket is not the same then physically preventing it by covering that outlet. Telling that criminal not to commit a rape is not the same as throwing that criminal into jail. One ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.

So you think there are no rapes committed in jail?
If a child is old enough and determined enough they too will get around the safeguards…

Maybe you will reconsider. I am unable to become a “mystic”. But you are free to use your critical skills. All I do is refer to reason and logic. Supposedly faith and reason are not contradictory. So drop your mysicism, and contemplate rationally what I just said. The “free will” is not the same as the “ability to carry out that will”. Unfortunately these two terms are frequently used interchangeably. If and when God “foresees” something that he definitely does not want to happen, he can prevent the action be carried out, without “tampering” with the person’s “free will”. And all of a sudden human evil will disappear.

As I already explained above, you are confusing what is truly important in the spirit life. Look at and read through Matthew ch 5, 6, 7. Look at how much emphasis Jesus places on intent - on right thinking - on not just “acting right” but “being right”.
The world looks for actions. God looks for intent…

Peace
James