Is the concept of God self-contradictory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tonyrey
**
He does! God’s infinite love is not the obstacle but Satan’s decisions to love himself more than God. It would be unjust if Satan were deprived of his free will on account of the finite choices he has made and presumably is making. A creature’s eternal destiny is never irrevocably determined by God because He respects our power of self-determination and knows our capacity for love can never be entirely obliterated. It is a mistake to think we are fossilised in the afterlife and incapable of making decisions - even in hell! **

You mean people can get out of hell?
 
tonyrey
**
He does! God’s infinite love is not the obstacle but Satan’s decisions to love himself more than God. It would be unjust if Satan were deprived of his free will on account of the finite choices he has made and presumably is making. A creature’s eternal destiny is never irrevocably determined by God because He respects our power of self-determination and knows our capacity for love can never be entirely obliterated. It is a mistake to think we are fossilised in the afterlife and incapable of making decisions - even in hell! **

You mean people can get out of hell?
It is not for me to determine whether anyone ever does get out of hell. All I am saying is:
  1. God’s infinite love is not the obstacle.
  2. It would be unjust if Satan - or anyone else - were deprived of his or her free will for a finite offence.
I don’t believe the rejection of God is an infinite offence - given that a person is finite - but I may be mistaken and I leave others to draw their own conclusions… 🙂
 
But, God is more than Love, right? Else, what is there to love?

What is dynamic is variegated. In other words, God isn’t just this absolutely simple being with no multifacetedness within its own nature.
That is where the Christian belief in the Blessed Trinity comes in. The concept of Three Persons perfectly united by their love is unique, strikingly original and distnguished by the fact that there is no other adequate explanation of love.

A solitary Person would be the apotheosis of egoism!
 
That is where the Christian belief in the Blessed Trinity comes in. The concept of Three Persons perfectly united by their love is unique, strikingly original and distnguished by the fact that there is no other adequate explanation of love.
Alright, but I don’t think you answered the question really. God is love, and God is three persons. For what reason do the persons love one another? If you say there is no reason, that is fine, I believe in unconditional love, but not all loves are equal. I love my brother more than some cute bunny rabbit. Why? Well, I have more in common with him. Qualities. THINGS. Me and him have a similar sense of humor, a similar way of looking at the world, similar tastes, etc. Sure, I can have a universal love towards everything, but that love would not be special.

What, specifically, makes the love between the members of the Trinity special?
A solitary Person would be the apotheosis of egoism!
So it might seem. But in a sense I think this is necessary for the likes of God. God is the true “I.”
 
Now here’s a puzzler:

Why did God not give Satan a chance to be redeemed, as he gave humans that chance? 🍿
CCC

393 It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels’ sin unforgivable. "There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death."272

(272 St. John Damascene, De Fide orth. 2,4: PG 94,877.)

As far as why, St. Aquinas might give you your answer but might require reading the entire section on Angels. How their first act of the will is unchangeable of which was willed. If the angel willed charity, he entered into beatitudes immediately. If the angel willed pride, he entered into eternal punishment immediately. Why this being the case is due to their intellect and having a higher existence of act and less of potency then man.
 
It is not for me to determine whether anyone ever does get out of hell. All I am saying is:
  1. God’s infinite love is not the obstacle.
  2. It would be unjust if Satan - or anyone else - were deprived of his or her free will for a finite offence.
I don’t believe the rejection of God is an infinite offence - given that a person is finite - but I may be mistaken and I leave others to draw their own conclusions… 🙂
This is also my understanding, if by that you mean that nobody is in hell that does not will themselves to be there. In other words, if God is infinitely love, and heaven is an infinitely free gift, then it follows that God would never retract that gift since it was not given on the basis of our deserving it in the first place. Therefore hell can only ever be the refusal to serve God rather than a place that is impossible to escape from. Its impossible for somebody to be in hell that does not want to be there. They may not want to suffer, but that does not mean that they want to serve love for all eternity. They want to be there own Gods, and thus God allows this to be so.

But, while I like the idea of that theology, and would prefer that version to be true, there is perhaps another possible theology which implies that to be in hell is by definition to be without Gods grace (a difficult idea to understand), and what that means is, if you don’t have Gods grace its impossible to want love or will it since it was by Gods grace alone that you desired it in the first place (God being the source of all love, is the sufficient cause); and thus the freedom to reject the grace of God also means the freedom to reject the very basis upon which you are able to repent and return to God. Which makes sense of the fact that my priest once said to me that it is by Gods grace that you repented; glory to the Father, if I remember correctly.

So while I agree to an extent with what you have said Tony, I must say that there is a lot to be said about Gods grace and its role when discussing the permanency of hell. I am not sure that its possible to change your mind once you are in hell because Gods grace is not present. But then again, I like your position since there is much to be said about the idea that a finite crime does not deserve an infinite Punishment; not to mention the fact that Gods gift is never taken back. So perhaps Gods grace is in hell also?

Comes to think of it, I don;t know what my position is on the subject.😦

I have a feeling that the sufficiency of grace is the correct theology.
 
Alright, but I don’t think you answered the question really. God is love, and God is three persons. For what reason do the persons love one another? If you say there is no reason, that is fine, I believe in unconditional love, but not all loves are equal. I love my brother more than some cute bunny rabbit. Why? Well, I have more in common with him. Qualities. THINGS. Me and him have a similar sense of humor, a similar way of looking at the world, similar tastes, etc. Sure, I can have a universal love towards everything, but that love would not be special.

What, specifically, makes the love between the members of the Trinity special?
Kismet:

Since God is Omnipotent, it follows that He is All Loving. Why? Just imagine if He weren’t! (This is a bit of a thought exercise.) Also, He is The Creator. Can that which is maximally Creator stop creating? So, God must, from always, create. Now, since God must always create, and has always created, before He created anything else, He created the Son and the Holy Spirit. Why? Well, what would be the two primary activities of a being such as God?

If you answered: “thought” and “will,” you’d be correct. These are the principal activities of an infinite being and they can be perpetual, assuming that being’s total knowledge of everything (which follows as well). Now, what would God think of? Would a perfect being think of the imperfect? No, he would be drawn to think of the perfect. But, what’s the perfect? If you answered that “He is,” that would be correct again. Can a perfect being take his eyes off the perfect, as they might say, even for a moment? So therefore, He is not altruistic.

What’s the next activity of a perfect being? Willing? He is All Fecund and All Creative. So, what would a maximally fecund, maximally creational being do? Well, if you answered, He would virtually have to create whatever He thought, you’d be correct again.

Now, what would a maximally loving being love? How could a maximally loving being maximally love anything but himself and what he conceives, that is, thinks and wills? Consider how a craftsman, or craftswoman, feels upon the successful manufacturing of that which he or she sought to make. Though we’re different in degree, we’re made in His image, so we can get some idea of that sense of achievement He receives from the processions of the Son and the Holy Spirit. His expression of maximal Love, creativity, fecundity, power, and so forth, can best be expressed through the acts of “thinking” and “willing,” which necessarily produce.

When a parent takes his/her child to the doctor, there is often the expectation that the child may get a shot. The parent permits the “pain” of the shot because s/he knows that it is for the betterment of the child. By it, the child is protected from disease. Nevertheless, the parent “feels” the child’s pain. So, in like manner, God feels our “pains.” Like the one-year old, we have no real idea as to why we received that pain, only that we did. Fortunately, in time, the child forgets just as we tend forget. But, our betterment is assured and we are strengthened. Now, does the child love his/her parent(s) any less? Probably not. More than likely the child intensely dislikes the doctor! But, it was not the parent that gave him/her the shot. The child properly projects its anger where it belongs - away from its parent(s).

My apologies for speaking in such a way as to sound arrogant. Arrogance was not my intention. What I intended was to have any readers “think it through” with me. This is how the Catholic should think it through. And, of course, it was brief. Since we are on a forum that virtually requires sound-bite explanations. Again, if you will forgive the sound of arrogance, I think this explanation will answer most of your questions.

God bless,
jd
 
My apologies for speaking in such a way as to sound arrogant. Arrogance was not my intention. What I intended was to have any readers “think it through” with me. This is how the Catholic should think it through. And, of course, it was brief. Since we are on a forum that virtually requires sound-bite explanations. Again, if you will forgive the sound of arrogance, I think this explanation will answer most of your questions.

God bless,
jd
My issue with your post was not at all that you were arrogant, but that all you wrote was basically alienating to me and meaningless. You did not answer my question in the least as far as I am concerned and I have no greater interest or admiration in your God than I had before.

Your scientific abstractions were simply of no benefit to me.
 
This is also my understanding, if by that you mean that nobody is in hell that does not will themselves to be there. In other words, if God is infinitely love, and heaven is an infinitely free gift, then it follows that God would never retract that gift since it was not given on the basis of our deserving it in the first place. Therefore hell can only ever be the refusal to serve God rather than a place that is impossible to escape from. Its impossible for somebody to be in hell that does not want to be there. They may not want to suffer, but that does not mean that they want to serve love for all eternity. They want to be there own Gods, and thus God allows this to be so.

But, while I like the idea of that theology, and would prefer that version to be true, there is perhaps another possible theology which implies that to be in hell is by definition to be without Gods grace (a difficult idea to understand), and what that means is, if you don’t have Gods grace its impossible to want love or will it since it was by Gods grace alone that you desired it in the first place (God being the source of all love, is the sufficient cause); and thus the freedom to reject the grace of God also means the freedom to reject the very basis upon which you are able to repent and return to God. Which makes sense of the fact that my priest once said to me that it is by Gods grace that you repented; glory to the Father, if I remember correctly.

So while I agree to an extent with what you have said Tony, I must say that there is a lot to be said about Gods grace and its role when discussing the permanency of hell. I am not sure that its possible to change your mind once you are in hell because Gods grace is not present. But then again, I like your position since there is much to be said about the idea that a finite crime does not deserve an infinite Punishment; not to mention the fact that Gods gift is never taken back. So perhaps Gods grace is in hell also?

Comes to think of it, I don;t know what my position is on the subject.😦

I have a feeling that the sufficiency of grace is the correct theology.
MoM:

I have thought about this matter too. We can do nothing except by God’s grace. So, when your Priest said, "Your repentance was due to (and a sign of) God’s grace, no wonder he was happy. God does not waste His graces. God’s graces are given to whose who want them and will follow their leads. Look up “sufficient grace” in the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia. You’ll discover that this is the primordial grace given to everyone. But, the other graces may be withheld if God knows we will do nothing more. This is part of the theory of reprobation.

I have a problem with viewing hell as “punishment.” I think it is where we are when we exclude ourselves from Him. Yet, there have been miracles where hell was shown to certain people. Also, when we are in heaven, we will not “see” those on the other side. Heaven is heaven. It will be free from those sights, activities, and thoughts that will make something less than heaven.

God bless,
jd
 
My issue with your post was not at all that you were arrogant, but that all you wrote was basically alienating to me and meaningless. You did not answer my question in the least as far as I am concerned and I have no greater interest or admiration in your God than I had before.

Your scientific abstractions were simply of no benefit to me.
Kismet:

Sorry about that. I grant that I do not know how, or if, you will fit in. In Matthew we are told not to enter through the widest door, by the widest street. In essence, Matthew is saying that the “saved” will not be the majority. If you have been alienated, my sincerest apologies. If I were to have said it in any other way, it would have been a sugar-coated lie. But, as I said, I don’t know how it will work for those who are not followers of Christ.

A question for you, then: Why are you here (at CAF)?

God bless,
jd
 
Kismet:
A question for you, then: Why are you here (at CAF)?

God bless,
jd
As I think I mentioned in one of my older posts, my ambition here was originally to get a more philosophical orientation. Debating skeptics is something I find tiresome as my worldview is not that of materialism. Talking with fellow Hindus can actually be a mind-numbing experience sometimes, with all due respect. I had always known Catholics were philosophical, so I decided to go right in.

Unfortunately, what I am feeling now is a sense that my way of thinking really cannot fit, even on agreeable terms, that it is at odds, and I don’t feel any of my queries are really being answered. This is a case in point.
 
As I think I mentioned in one of my older posts, my ambition here was originally to get a more philosophical orientation. Debating skeptics is something I find tiresome as my worldview is not that of materialism. Talking with fellow Hindus can actually be a mind-numbing experience sometimes, with all due respect. I had always known Catholics were philosophical, so I decided to go right in.

Unfortunately, what I am feeling now is a sense that my way of thinking really cannot fit, even on agreeable terms, that it is at odds, and I don’t feel any of my queries are really being answered. This is a case in point.
what answers are you looking for?
 
what answers are you looking for?
Answers that make sense to me.

And actually, there were some answers which I have gotten. For example, until you came along I didn’t realize I was objectifying nothingness. That is something I must take into account even if I may not agree entirely with your view to nothingness.

But, overall, I have not gotten the comprehensive, all-embracing reasons in the robust sense which I was hoping to elucidate for myself on coming here.
 
This is also my understanding, if by that you mean that nobody is in hell that does not will themselves to be there. In other words, if God is infinitely love, and heaven is an infinitely free gift, then it follows that God would never retract that gift since it was not given on the basis of our deserving it in the first place. Therefore hell can only ever be the refusal to serve God rather than a place that is impossible to escape from. Its impossible for somebody to be in hell that does not want to be there. They may not want to suffer, but that does not mean that they want to serve love for all eternity. They want to be their own Gods, and thus God allows this to be so.
Precisely!
But, while I like the idea of that theology, and would prefer that version to be true, there is perhaps another possible theology which implies that to be in hell is by definition to be without Gods grace (a difficult idea to understand), and what that means is, if you don’t have Gods grace its impossible to want love or will it since it was by Gods grace alone that you desired it in the first place (God being the source of all love, is the sufficient cause); and thus the freedom to reject the grace of God also means the freedom to reject the very basis upon which you are able to repent and return to God. Which makes sense of the fact that my priest once said to me that it is by Gods grace that you repented; glory to the Father, if I remember correctly.
The problem here is to explain why God who loves all His creatures should withhold His grace **entirely **from some of them - given that no one is **entirely **evil…
So while I agree to an extent with what you have said Tony, I must say that there is a lot to be said about Gods grace and its role when discussing the permanency of hell. I am not sure that its possible to change your mind once you are in hell because Gods grace is not present. But then again, I like your position since there is much to be said about the idea that a finite crime does not deserve an infinite Punishment; not to mention the fact that Gods gift is never taken back.
That was Antony Flew’s argument when he was an atheist (apart from God’s gift!)
So perhaps Gods grace is in hell also?
Since hell is a state of mind rather than a place there seems no difficulty in that respect - given that no one is **entirely **evil…
Comes to think of it, I don;t know what my position is on the subject.
I have a feeling that the sufficiency of grace is the correct theology.
Your feeling is supported by the combination of the infinite power of Christ’s love revealed on the Cross and the value of just one trace of compunction on the part of the sinner… For God all things are possible - even in hell! 🙂
 
Alright, but I don’t think you answered the question really. God is love, and God is three persons. For what reason do the persons love one another?
God is certainly the true “I” - and the perfect unity of three divine Persons is the apotheosis of love. Jesus prayed that His followers “may be one as we are one”. He also said “The Father and I are one” and referred to the Holy Spirit who would guide the Church after His Ascension into Heaven.
 
God is certainly the true “I” - and the perfect unity of three divine Persons is the apotheosis of love. Jesus prayed that His followers “may be one as we are one”. He also said “The Father and I are one” and referred to the Holy Spirit who would guide the Church after His Ascension into Heaven.
But, you see, this is what I consider the problem. To talk in these highfalutin abstractions: God is supreme Love, God is infinite love, God is perfection, the Trinity’s love for one another is special because it is supreme perfection: all these things have pretty much zero content for me (at least, as of now). I do not see what is the big deal. I do not see what is the meaning of it all. These are just words. Semantic placeholders for some alien God who I have absolutely nothing in common with really. Beyond, that is, some puffed up and pompous idea of “truth.” In that department, I do not see at all what any of this means.
 
I’m sorry you are puzzled, Annie. 😉

The concept is contradicting itself! It’s a commonly used personification of a concept when it’s regarded as nonsensical.
well then that is easy, the answer is NO
 
As I think I mentioned in one of my older posts, my ambition here was originally to get a more philosophical orientation. Debating skeptics is something I find tiresome as my worldview is not that of materialism. Talking with fellow Hindus can actually be a mind-numbing experience sometimes, with all due respect. I had always known Catholics were philosophical, so I decided to go right in.

Unfortunately, what I am feeling now is a sense that my way of thinking really cannot fit, even on agreeable terms, that it is at odds, and I don’t feel any of my queries are really being answered. This is a case in point.
Kismet:

Well then, what’s the sense in staying?

What you want is conversion to your worldview. You probably won’t get that from any Christians here. You might get concurrence from other Hindus you find herein 😉

God bless,
jd
 
Kismet:

Well then, what’s the sense in staying?
Well, I am occasionally challenged. In subtle ways: like maybe that point in my worldview might be in need of some revision.

Also, I think every forum needs a gadfly; someone who flies in the face of orthodox conformity and shifts things up, ya know what I’m sayin?’
What you want is conversion to your worldview. You probably won’t get that from any Christians here. You might get concurrence from other Hindus you find herein 😉

God bless,
jd
I can always try. Plus, its better to bounce ideas off of people who don’t completely agree with you than those who do: they can’t offer as much insight.

So, like it or not, I’m staying. Unless I get banned, which might happen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top