Mother Theresa Doubted

[HardRockGTR]

That is why the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity became man! He was like us in all things but sin. He is fully God, and fully Man…two natures in one Person. Please be aware …Jesus is not “foreign”.

He is to me, namely because I’ve never met him (in a physical, personal way). I personally think Gandhi was a great man and respect him, but I wouldn’t say I love the man the way I love a friend.

Sure, even as a non-Christian I admire Jesus, just how I admire Buddha, or Baha’ullah, or Confucius, for a great part of his teachings (most of which are found in natural law), and especially for sacrificing himself for the greater good, even if, in the end, he happens to not be the messiah after all and only thought he was (just like many other messiah claimants in history; he is, however, perhaps the most likely one to actually be such). Despite this, I feel no “love” for him. If I met him right now, any hug I’d give him would be out of respect or admiration, not out of emotional attachment. I can feel compassion and empathy for him because of his incredibly brutal death sentence, but not love in the emotional sense.

That said, I have absolutely no reason not to respect God, an infinitely greater and more powerful being than I, but I cannot feel any emotion towards such a being that I don’t understand, let alone know if such a being even exists, and in what nature. I believe that it is more likely a moral lawgiver exists than not, be it God, gods, tao, dharma or something else. Also, I’m open to the idea Jesus is God, so I dislike thinking I reject him. I just feel that, with my current knowledge, it isn’t fair to adopt and assert such a belief, when there are plenty of other religions that don’t teach such a thing that I’m either not yet educated on, or feel as or more compelled to follow. This, combined with knowledge of both religious and secular arguments against Jesus’ divinity.

If I worship Christ and the Jews or Muslims happen to be correct (I know you think they’re not), then I am committing a grave sin. For the former, it breaks the first two commandments. As a matter of fact, even to certain Christians, Unitarians, is worshiping Christ as God considered idolatrous.

All in all, I feel it is better not to adopt a religion at all, with my current knowledge, whilst remaining open-minded (always assuming that I could be wrong about something), than to adopt a possibly false one (idolatry, etc.). I feel like it’s the most humble thing I can do, at least until I begin becoming increasingly certain about a specific belief.

Of course, this doesn’t reassure me when I realize that I could be fatally hit by a truck tomorrow morning, still ignorant. Thankfully, I know by modal logic that if God (or whichever lawgiver that is out there) is maximally just, I’ll have the maximally proper reward or punishment and I won’t be able to complain. If.

 

[HardRockGTR]

When we read and ponder the Gospels, and the great spiritual writers, we get to know what our all-loving, all-powerful, all-loving God is like. And according to how receptive we are to His Grace, we can become more and more like Him, and radiate His Goodness and Love everywhere.

One thing that confuses me is that since I’ve left the Catholic church, I’ve been a better person, even by church standards. Not to sound vain or anything (that’s not the point), but I look at my little brother who claims to be Christian, but doesn’t ever go to church, study the bible, or behave much like a good Christian (he’s the capricious brother while I’m the quiet one, so he’s always fighting with my parents, is gluttonous, behaves selfishly, etc.). Again, I’m not trying to make him look bad, considering he can always improve, but rather to make a point.

That said, when I was still within the church, my main vice was possibly lust, and since my apostasy, I’ve been a lot better at managing it (I still have some difficulties with it, but when I look at my colleagues, they’re… well, college kids, to say the least). I’ve been more charitable as well, donating blood for the first time (despite my dislike of needles) and being part of various campaigns and funds, something I hadn’t once done on my own accord when I was in the church. I became more philanthropic and empathetic as well; although people have always said I was a nice kid, looking back, I feel like I wasn’t all that much, at least in comparison to years later. I committed many good acts partly because they would benefit me, provided they didn’t hurt other people, rather than do actions because they were the right thing to do. Today, the most fundamental way I try to behave is in an ethically good way, not in a “mediocre” or “acceptable” way that will make me happy (I’m a eudaimonist, so I believe happiness likely arises from moral behavior, but shouldn’t be the reason for moral behavior). I’m always skeptical as to whether an action I commit is good or bad. Lately, I’ve been wondering whether eating meat is ethically acceptable. When I was still in the church, I didn’t really care. I just took orders while brushing others off as “meh, God won’t care”.

(I know it’s difficult to sound humble when talking this way, but I’m trying as much as possible to be such, in order to make a point)

Then, of course, things had happened in my personal life that took a toll on me, but that’s a different story I’m trying to recover from.

That said, why is it that faith in Christ allegedly makes me so much more moral? Especially since I’m incapable of believing something I don’t at the time being? As a matter of fact, it’s probably more moral for me to behave well out of compassion I found myself rather than behave well because “He told me to” (not that all Christians are like that, of course; I was, however). Also, there have been horrible Christians in the past (Torquemada, for instance), and great non-Christians alike (Gandhi was Hindu, Bill Gates is an atheist, and Jesus himself was Jewish).

 

[HardRockGTR]

Yes you’re are right, God doesn’t need us. He doesn’t need our worship, because He is already complete. Our worship doesn’t add anything to His greatness. So why do it? Because He tells us too. We worship and we love God because He says it brings us closer to Him, and He is the only reason we are here. He is the only thing that satisfies. "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Matthew 11:28
We worship because that is the very definition of God, “worthy of worship”

This is where a paradox arises; if God is complete, there’s really no reason for us to exist. If we exist, it’s because God needed us to.

Either God alone isn’t maximally great, or God just isn’t what we think He/She/It is; come to think of it, I have a hard time accepting that it is logically possible for God, despite His omnipotence, to be explained within a book, which is a human invention. A bit like how God cannot create a stone so heavy He cannot lift.

Did you try to get to know Him better? Did you seek? “seek and you will find” Matt 7:7

When I was still a Catholic and church-goer, I believed in God of the bible because I trusted that my parents, who are very educated (my father, very educated in many major and minor religions, is now a devout Catholic whom, at my age, was a staunch atheist), somehow knew with full conviction that they were correct, and I hadn’t really developed a sense of skepticism yet. I tried being a good Catholic (even though I had my vices) and prayed every night before going to bed.

Despite this, I didn’t feel like I was talking to nobody, but rather, that I was talking to somebody who wasn’t listening or, to the very least, wasn’t going to respond. With time, I concluded that God probably wasn’t that of the bible because I felt ignored. It’s not like I asked for a Ferrari or anything of the sorts. This, combined with many other factors (as explained in the following paragraph), made me leave the church to then identify as a “theist”, which in reality was more like deism than anything else. I thought it made more sense that an intelligent creator built the world than not, but that for whatever reason, he’s just not the one we’re used to. I didn’t really care much about which religion was “correct” anymore; I just believed that as long as I followed my gut feeling and did the right thing according to it, somehow, I’d be alright. All the major religions have so much in common that it really shouldn’t matter. If God loves me, he’ll forgive me if I’m honest with myself and follow a path of love and compassion.

This was a few years ago. Eventually I started having hints of skeptical thought, which allowed me to believe in the plausibility of things such as karma and reincarnation, as well as question certain Christian dogmas. Only just over a year ago did I realize the urgency of knowing what is correct and what isn’t, and since then I’m far more focused on knowing than I used to be. Today, what keeps me away from Christianity is nearly wholly different from what kept me away all those years ago. Big challenges for me are the concept of eternal hell, its coexistence with heaven, as well as my belief that no one is truly evil and that humans are mostly good-oriented. I also have this theory that evil in reality is nothing more than ignorance; people behave wrongly because they either don’t know it’s wrong, or don’t realize that it’s better not to behave in a certain way. They behave immorally because they know not piousness. If they truly knew piousness and its consequences, they wouldn’t behave impiously because they wouldn’t want to.

I pray you make a Journey back Home!

I know many non-Christians will scoff at that, but I personally genuinely appreciate it, because you are genuinely trying to help me, for my own good. It’s the intention that matters. That said, thanks.

You can visit these sites if you want answers
reasonablefaith.org/
catholic.com/

God Bless!

Thanks! I read a lot of theology and philosophy (religious and profane) on my own accord when I have the time. Plantinga and Craig are brilliant, and the former is also humorous in his works, haha.

 

[Ryuji_Yamazaki]

Lust is ridiculously easy to quench:

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth (Exodus 20.4)

A commandment conspicuously absent from the Catholics’ 10. Notice the wickedness of there still being 10 commandments, the 9th & 10th = the original 10th / 2.
Thank God for you can say

And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. (Revelation 18.4)

 

[Prodigal_Son]

That said, when I was still within the church, my main vice was possibly lust, and since my apostasy, I’ve been a lot better at managing it (I still have some difficulties with it, but when I look at my colleagues, they’re… well, college kids, to say the least). I’ve been more charitable as well, donating blood for the first time (despite my dislike of needles) and being part of various campaigns and funds, something I hadn’t once done on my own accord when I was in the church. I became more philanthropic and empathetic as well; although people have always said I was a nice kid, looking back, I feel like I wasn’t all that much, at least in comparison to years later. I committed many good acts partly because they would benefit me, provided they didn’t hurt other people, rather than do actions because they were the right thing to do. Today, the most fundamental way I try to behave is in an ethically good way, not in a “mediocre” or “acceptable” way that will make me happy (I’m a eudaimonist, so I believe happiness likely arises from moral behavior, but shouldn’t be the reason for moral behavior).

Well, I’m glad you have good motivations, but I find it curious that you think Christians have such bad motivations. Perhaps it’s because you had bad motivations as a Christian? I assure you, most Christians aren’t ruled by a desire for selfish good alone. Why do I not kick people in the shins, even if I want to? It’s not because God forbids it; it’s because the person will get hurt. Why do I try to refrain from masturbation? It’s not because God forbids it; it’s because it’s harmful to myself and my marriage.

Also, a question: **why **do you think that happiness arises from moral behavior? What evidence do you have of that?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

This is where a paradox arises; if God is complete, there’s really no reason for us to exist. If we exist, it’s because God needed us to.

Huh? Why couldn’t God want us to exist – not because of his need, but because of his generosity?

I also have this theory that evil in reality is nothing more than ignorance; people behave wrongly because they either don’t know it’s wrong, or don’t realize that it’s better not to behave in a certain way. They behave immorally because they know not piousness. If they truly knew piousness and its consequences, they wouldn’t behave impiously because they wouldn’t want to.

This is Socrates’s theory, and I certainly respect it. But surely some people are willfully ignorant. Haven’t you had this experience yourself – of knowing something but choosing to ignore it, because of some thought process you yourself knew was irrational?

 

[HardRockGTR]

Well, I’m glad you have good motivations, but I find it curious that you think Christians have such bad motivations.

When did I say that? I merely stated that since I left the church, I’ve improved as a person, even by church standards. I never said I improved because I left. All I’m trying to say is that being part of the church or having faith in Christ didn’t make me a good or “better” person.

I’m sorry if I offended you or anyone else; never was or is that my intention.

Perhaps it’s because you had bad motivations as a Christian? I assure you, most Christians aren’t ruled by a desire for selfish good alone. Why do I not kick people in the shins, even if I want to? It’s not because God forbids it; it’s because the person will get hurt. Why do I try to refrain from masturbation? It’s not because God forbids it; it’s because it’s harmful to myself and my marriage.

One thing that has once troubled me philosophically is the inherent egoism of all non-amoral actions. You could be the saintliest person who has ever lived and even the most pious action will have a small degree of selfishness to it.

For example, if I see a person who drops his wallet, the most moral thing to do would likely be to return it. But what motivates me to return it is that I’ll feel good about having done the right thing. In other words, I do the right thing, because if I didn’t I’d feel guilty; I’d realize my breaching of morality, which in itself taints me.

I’ve tried to think of a wholly non-egoistic and non-amoral action and always have found a tiny speck of egoism to it.

This doesn’t trouble me that much anymore since I’ve concluded that the main reason an action is committed (good intention) overrides any lesser reason (avoiding guilt). Because of this, that speck of egoism is trivial and might as well not be taken into consideration.

Doing a good action because God will reward you/not punish you is mainly egoistic, so definitely should you act because the act is good, or not act because the act is bad. That said, I admire people who do things because they’re good actions (“perfect” faith), and not to brownnose God (“imperfect” faith). Despite this, I’d rather people brownnose God than not behave correctly at all (to a certain degree; extremism leads to religious terrorism). In other words, someone should behave whether God sends them to heaven or not. To me, that would be maximal love for God.

One special case would be the psychopath. A psychopath who is born without guilt, remorse or empathy cannot behave compassionately (perfect faith), but can still behave morally because he or she will get the latter benefit (imperfect faith).

 

[HardRockGTR]

Also, a question: **why **do you think that happiness arises from moral behavior? What evidence do you have of that?

This is still a concept I am struggling with philosophically and theologically. Morality is a tricky concept, and because of it, I currently adhere to no religion. I can think of the Euthyphro dilemma (either: what is moral is such because God wills it (morality is arbitrary), or God wills it because it is moral (God is constrained by morality)) and its solution (God is moral, posited by William Lane Craig) and still feel unconvinced.

In Islam, abrogation is commonplace and accepted, because God is all-powerful and can do that sort of thing. God can turn black to white at will, and has, within the Qur’an (allegedly). Do I want to worship a false God or follow a false religion? If I worship Jesus and the Muslims happen to be right, I’m going to hell. If I follow the hadiths and the Christians happen to be right, I’m going to hell. This only covers half of the major Abrahamic religions (which include Judaism and Baha’i); there are plenty that are not part of that category such as Hinduism, Sikhism, paganism, Taoism, Buddhism, Jainism, as well as many others. That doesn’t even cover the various* branches* and denominations of these religions. Granted, my fear of hell makes my search for religion a bit egoistic, but nonetheless I still try my best to do it as selflessly as possible, by making morality the most important thing for me to abide to, even if my ethics rely entirely on gut feeling and rationality for the time being.

Because of this, I rationalized that what motivates us to behave morally is the consequences of good and bad actions, especially in the long-term. I do not at all condone utilitarianism because it has many faults. What makes us want to behave correctly is the assumption that a greater good will be achieved (general happiness). I am generally against immediate gratification, as it could easily result in a worse evil later on. For example, I could want to sleep with my neighbor’s wife. If I succeed in doing so, I’ve satiated my desire, but I could have easily ruined an entire marriage. This woman’s husband could take revenge and murder me. I could have impregnated the woman. I could have angered God. Clearly, succumbing to my desires can easily entail a worse situation. If I overcome temptation, I can improve as a person, and perhaps I’ll have less and less of these temptations.

Another example is getting drunk, which is immediate gratification. I could get drunk for fun or to forget my troubles, but in the end I could wind up an alcoholic, I could die from poisoning, alcohol might end up a gateway drug, I could lose my job, I could get liver failure, I could anger God (especially in the case of Islam), I could wind up driving or operating heavy machinery under the influence, and so on.

Ancient Greeks almost took eudaemonia for granted, but for different reasons. Epicureans held that we must behave morally because we’ll be happy (sounds egoistic to me). Stoics and Cynics held that we must obey moral laws, period, and it just so happens that it will result in happiness.

 

[HardRockGTR]

Huh? Why couldn’t God want us to exist – not because of his need, but because of his generosity?

If you look at it that way, it does make a bit more sense, but nonetheless, God created us for a reason. Generosity is non-existent if there is nobody to be generous to. You cannot love if there is nothing to love. These only exist as potentialities (which are in their own right, infinite) until they are acted upon. If God is complete, then our existence is trivial. If our existence isn’t trivial, then God is incomplete.

A possible refutation is that God is “infinite” (something I have a hard time grasping theologically, since infinity exists as a potentiality and not a tangible thing) and that adding to infinity equals infinity, but I feel that even that doesn’t really answer why God wanted us to exist. Another refutation you can bring is that what I’m saying is a false dichotomy, but then you’d have to elaborate.

I also don’t understand, from a purely theological stance, why omnibenevolence is taken for granted as a quality of God (loosely defined). It’s practically never questioned that God is all-knowing, all-powerful (nothing wrong here) and all-loving (why is this the case?). Why must God be, by nature, all-loving? It seems as if omnipotence and omniscience are really, minimally, the only things that really define a god (considering that omniscience really just is part of omnipotence). To say God is all-loving is like saying that God has a big nose. It could be true, but there really isn’t much of a reason to assume it as a fact that defines God. This isn’t to say God is evil (for the most part, I’d have a hard time believing that), but he could just be powerful (like deists believe) and our existence is due to something else than love. God could have an ulterior motive (as many Protestants will believe (God’s Plan)), or perhaps created the universe for a reason that our mortal intellect couldn’t possibly comprehend.

This is Socrates’s theory, and I certainly respect it. But surely some people are willfully ignorant. Haven’t you had this experience yourself – of knowing something but choosing to ignore it, because of some thought process you yourself knew was irrational?

It’s possible, but my impression is that either it results in guilt later on (which may be a form of penance), or it’s once again just ignorance (“I know it’s wrong, but I mean, nobody’s perfect, so I’ll let this one time slide. God won’t be too upset; he made me imperfect”). In other words, somebody is willfully ignorant because he or she doesn’t realize that they are being such, or that it’s not a big deal.

Even when I don’t bring God into the picture, I sometimes feel guilty when I go against my own personal principles such as eating too much sugar in one day, or not being careful enough with the amount of wine I drink at dinner, resulting in lightheadedness (I oppose drug and alcohol abuse).

You could be right, though. I just feel that in the end, evil is ignorance and that our trial here on Earth isn’t to choose between good and evil (which we only partly know about; strong arguments on both sides of a discussion or debate is evidence of this), but to learn why something is good or evil and its consequences. Once we all know what truly is good and what truly is evil, we won’t want to carry out evil acts. We may not even be capable of it. I do realize, however, that this relies heavily on eudaemonia.

I also didn’t know Socrates theorized that; thanks for pointing that out.

(I hope I’ve said everything I’ve needed to say)

 

[clem456]

I was shocked when I learned that Mother Teresa was plagued by extreme doubts during her entire ministry. It actually gave me comfort, as I realized that even the greatest servants struggle with doubts. Mother Teresa questioned God’s existence and experienced pain over her lack of faith, when she said:

“Where is my faith? Even deep down . . . there is nothing but emptiness and darkness . . . If there be God—please forgive me. When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven, there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives and hurt my very soul . . . How painful is this unknown pain—I have no Faith. Repulsed, empty, no faith, no love, no zeal . . . What do I labor for? If there be no God, there can be no soul. If there be no soul then, Jesus, You also are not true.”

Participation in the passion of Christ.
Later in her struggle (I hope I remember this correctly) she came to the conclusion with her spiritual advisor that God left her without any consolation so that he might fill her with his love, which it seems she accepted and shared.

“Come Be My Light”
ewtnreligiouscatalogue.com/Home+Page/BOOKS/Saints+Religious/MOTHER+TERESA+COME+BE+MY+LIGHT.axd

 

[tafan]

There is nothing wrong with healthy doubting. It proves a need for a rational response to Faith which the Church has demanded of all philosophy. Without doubt our faith will not strengthen. It is like exercising a muscle we use to reach for our God.
What we have surely in Mother Teresa is the dark night of the soul extended. Thus her beatification for her perseverance in both her faith and in the works that flowed from it, edifying us sinners. She was always with Jesus in all aspects of her life.
Your extrapolated assumptions of Catholic teaching are wrong. I hope to read your posts on your return journey.

We should not take Mother Teresa’s situation (which none of us fully understand) as a reason to think doubting can ever be healthy.

The church is quite clear on this. Voluntary doubt is sinful. And the thought that doubting can be healthy seems dang close to making it voluntary in my mind. If not making it voluntary, it is certainly opening the way towards cultivating it.

From the CCC:

2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

 

[clem456]

She did not doubt for very long, as these quotes will show-

ewtn.com/motherteresa/words.htm

Please show me sources to support the theory of doubt for her entire ministry.

Doubt might not be the right word? Dryness, or absence of consolation or spiritual comfort might more accurately describe what she went through. Whatever it was, it lasted for many years.

 

[clem456]

We should not take Mother Teresa’s situation (which none of us fully understand) as a reason to think doubting can ever be healthy.

The church is quite clear on this. Voluntary doubt is sinful. And the thought that doubting can be healthy seems dang close to making it voluntary in my mind. If not making it voluntary, it is certainly opening the way towards cultivating it.

From the CCC:

Maybe healthy is not the right word. Doubting is normal, as we are human beings with limited capacity to understand. Do we nurture doubts, look for reasons to cultivate them, or move forward with a trusting faith?

 

[tafan]

Maybe healthy is not the right word. Doubting is normal, as we are human beings with limited capacity to understand. Do we nurture doubts, look for reasons to cultivate them, or move forward with a trusting faith?

Actually, I think it is “doubt” that is not the right word. It is normal to question,ie to seek understanding. It is not normal to doubt, at the least it is a result of our fallen nature. As Cardinall Newman said: “Ten thousand questions do not equal one doubt”.

I am doubtful about one thing: if the word doubt is the proper word to describe what Mother Teresa went through.

 

[doormouse73]

Actually, I think it is “doubt” that is not the right word. It is normal to question,ie to seek understanding. It is not normal to doubt, at the least it is a result of our fallen nature. As Cardinall Newman said: “Ten thousand questions do not equal one doubt”.

I am doubtful about one thing: if the word doubt is the proper word to describe what Mother Teresa went through.

i do like this very much…

 

[Lochias]

If you look at it that way, it does make a bit more sense, but nonetheless, God created us for a reason.

Certainly…to know us and love us, and vice-versa. How blessed are we!

Generosity is non-existent if there is nobody to be generous to. You cannot love if there is nothing to love.

But God IS love. You’re trying to force God into a box of your own, limited, human design. It doesn’t work that way. We cannot be greater than He who created us. You’re trying too desperately to understand WHY God is, instead of just realize that He IS. There’s all kinds of theological, logic and historical proof for that. Why do you think that every last thing must be explained to your liking in order for it to be true?

These only exist as potentialities (which are in their own right, infinite) until they are acted upon.

And yet, God sees all things that could have been as well as what will be.

If God is complete, then our existence is trivial.

No, this is just wrong. This would be like saying “If I am a whole human being, then my marriage to my spouse is trivial.” You’ve spiraled into a complete misunderstanding of what love is.

If our existence isn’t trivial, then God is incomplete.

Says who? You? God needs nothing from us to be complete, but that doesn’t make us trivial…because He loves us. That makes us as far from trivial as we can be. Even the angels aren’t afforded the honor we are, God bless them all.

 

[clem456]

Here is some good reading on the subject:
motherteresa.org/13_anni/Reactionsandcomments.html#6

 

[Aloysium]

she said: “Where is my faith? Even deep down . . . there is nothing but emptiness and darkness . . . If there be God—please forgive me. When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven, there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives and hurt my very soul . . . How painful is this unknown pain—I have no Faith. Repulsed, empty, no faith, no love, no zeal . . . What do I labor for? If there be no God, there can be no soul. If there be no soul then, Jesus, You also are not true.”

These are very important writings that speak from her heart.
They leave us speechless, in awe of God’s power and ways.
Her moments of torture inspire the faith she so profoundly finds missing in her.
Contemplating how the “thoughts return like sharp knives and hurt my very soul”, one is left with a sense of the depths of the human soul: the greatness of the suffering that comes with being separated from God. They speak to how His real presence is the only true cure for our brokenness.
A very important message for this secular age. I am thankful that she was able to relate this to us. She truly is a Saint.

 

[Aloysium]

The story of man’s relationship with his Creator did not end 2000 years ago.
Mother Theresa presents as a modern Job.
But whereas Job lost all he had, this Mother Theresa had already relinquished to God in her vows.
She suffered something deeper and more profound: the loss of her connection to God.
The answer to Job was the coming of Christ, His death and resurrection.
The only real answer to her suffering is the second coming of Our Lord and the resurrection of the dead.

 

[HardRockGTR]

Certainly…to know us and love us, and vice-versa. How blessed are we!

I’ll hand it to you; that is a strong counter-argument. However, this takes into account only a personal, all-loving God.

One big theological issue for me is the coexistence of heaven and hell. It would seem like contradiction, and furthermore, punishing those who don’t know better does not sound like something a perfectly benevolent God would do.

Also, if we hadn’t been created, would God still be completely generous and completely loving? I know that God is not mundane like creation is, so it may not apply, but in human account, one is not considered generous until one gives selflessly. It would seem as if God’s infinite love hinges on our potential and/or actual existence.

I’m in no way intending to bring down God or to bring humanity upwards in this discussion – my intention isn’t to build the tower of Babel; this is merely for the sake of discussion. Just like how God not being capable of creating a stone so heavy He cannot lift it doesn’t negate His omnipotence, perhaps this argument doesn’t negate it either.

But God IS love. You’re trying to force God into a box of your own, limited, human design. It doesn’t work that way. We cannot be greater than He who created us. You’re trying too desperately to understand WHY God is, instead of just realize that He IS. There’s all kinds of theological, logic and historical proof for that. Why do you think that every last thing must be explained to your liking in order for it to be true?

What is love? From a non-theological standpoint, what is it? Love doesn’t occur unless there is an agent that loves another. Saying God is love is like saying that without us, God wouldn’t be, which is paradoxical. Or, God becomes love when he creates agents capable of it. Yet, God is unchanging.

Because of this, God has to be greater than love. Love and other things, perhaps. The traditional Christian view is that He is love. It’s far more easy to prove that “God” exists than to prove that God is the very same God as described in the bible. In its loosest definition, “God” cannot be denied, even by an atheist (that is, an uncaused cause). Any more specific you get (a personal god or gods, the laws of physics, the universe itself, etc.), the harder it is to prove.

So, assuming that God created the universe and that God is personal, we are left with the following: this could be YHWH, Brahma, al-Lah, Waheguru, Vishnu, Ahura Mazda (albeit only to a certain extent), and so on. Which am I supposed to worship? That’s the real issue from my standpoint, not whether God exists.

And yet, God sees all things that could have been as well as what will be.

With all due respect, I’m not sure whether this is a relevant retort to my original claim that love exists as a potentiality. Please elaborate.

No, this is just wrong. This would be like saying “If I am a whole human being, then my marriage to my spouse is trivial.” You’ve spiraled into a complete misunderstanding of what love is.

God could want us to be, just how I could want to get married. However, God doesn’t need us, just how I don’t need to have a wife to be content. Again though, good argument. I realize that by getting married, I’m supplying contentment to at least one other individual.

Says who? You? God needs nothing from us to be complete, but that doesn’t make us trivial…because He loves us. That makes us as far from trivial as we can be. Even the angels aren’t afforded the honor we are, God bless them all.

First, how are the angels not afforded the honor we are? I’m just really more curious than anything, as it would intuitively seem that God would love all creation equally, from the saints to Satan himself.

Second, it certainly doesn’t make us trivial (I would not deny that), but you didn’t actually counter-argue that last point; if we are not trivial* to God*, then God needs us, by definition, in some way or another, which I question, considering God is perfect and doesn’t “need” anything.