Seeming free-will conundrum

[Roscoe_Turner]

Because even though God is everywhere, no created thing is God (save Christ’s human nature which was united to him, but that’s a technicality). We are not pantheists.

If God is not permeate every particle of the Universe then He isn’t everywhere.The model you present makes God is the Ocean we swim in. If He can be excluded He isn’t all omnipotent nor omnipresent. If you can say God is here but not here, that isn’t omnipresent, it’s finite.

 

[mrajax]

My brother seems to have turned from faith in God. It started with the issue of hell. He failed to see any justice in the doctrine, and here was the essence of his reasoning, as best as I can understand and describe it:

“God put our first parents in the garden - they were given free will. Then He put the serpent, the source of temptation in the garden. The fall, therefore, was facilitated by God. And a second point, related to the first, is that God could have made it so that our first parents were unable to fall. After all, doesn’t He do this with the Saints in heaven? Don’t give me that line that “free will is necessary in order for there to be love,” because the Saints in heaven are able to love, aren’t they, and yet they are forever secure.”

This is a difficult one for me to respond to. I’m not sure I understand fully the difference between the condition of our first parents in the garden (before the fall), and the condition of the Saints in heaven. Any ideas, or any references to materials which specifically deal with this issue?

I got this from my Priest and from spending so long studying this subject and doubting my faith. The Bible in Revelation also said that the doors of heaven will be open for anyone to leave on his own will. The Saints in heaven love God not through mind control but because they see God purely; they see Him not through their physical eyes but through their soul, in the same way our soul gets connected to Jesus when we have Holy Communion. They are secure because they recognize God without their fragile human body preventing them from desiring anything other than Himself. So yes, free will is necessary for there to be love, don’t give me that line like a whiny little child nothing who thinks he knows everything nothing.

And while it is true that God did create the serpent, the Bible does not mention how exactly he came to talk. It’s obvious that it’s the devil but why would God willingly put the devil with His own hand on earth just to make Adam and Eve fall? Why does God want Adam and Eve to disobey Him when He specifically told them not to eat the apple? Why would God contradict Himself? Answer: God only permitted the devil to enter the world, not by placing him in our world on purpose, He just permitted him. God’s morality does not work in the same way that we do; He demands that you prove your loyalty to Him by actions as actions actually strengthen our love not only for God but for each other. Not only that but God had nothing to gain by the fall of Adam and Eve. What was there to gain by opening a chance for men to go to hell?

But at the same time, God gave us the gift of free will and even if it meant the downfall of the human race, God was not going to force either Adam or Eve to do something against their own will; He wasn’t going to force them through mind control. If we were forced to do things through mind control, if we were truly force fed happiness, we’d be living a lie and our actions would mean nothing.

 

[mrajax]

If God is not permeate every particle of the Universe then He isn’t everywhere.The model you present makes God is the Ocean we swim in. If He can be excluded He isn’t all omnipotent nor omnipresent. If you can say God is here but not here, that isn’t omnipresent, it’s finite.

What a load of rubbish to be frank. God is not literally a truck, a piece of glass, an atom found in a table nor is he a piece of bread (as Jesus only looks like a piece of bread in the eucharist) but to say that He is everywhere is too complicated to talk about here. God is so everywhere that He doesn’t experience time like we do; right now, he could be experiencing the war of 1912 or the Last Judgement while we’re here doing nothing. God is so everywhere that He knows and sees our every action instantly, He can respond to the prayers of someone found in the ultra far reaches of a different solar system to our own and that is how He shows His influence and omnipresence.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

What a load of rubbish to be frank. God is not literally a truck, a piece of glass, an atom found in a table nor is he a piece of bread (as Jesus only looks like a piece of bread in the eucharist) but to say that He is everywhere is too complicated to talk about here. God is so everywhere that He doesn’t experience time like we do; right now, he could be experiencing the war of 1912 or the Last Judgement while we’re here doing nothing. God is so everywhere that He knows and sees our every action instantly, He can respond to the prayers of someone found in the ultra far reaches of a different solar system to our own and that is how He shows His influence and omnipresence.

If you can say God isn’t somewhere then He’s not everywhere.

 

[mrajax]

If you can say God isn’t somewhere then He’s not everywhere.

That doesn’t even make any sense. Since when have we said God isn’t somewhere? We said He isn’t SOMETHING. Your understanding of omnipresence is flawed beyond belief.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

That doesn’t even make any sense. Since when have we said God isn’t somewhere? We said He isn’t SOMETHING. Your understanding of omnipresence is flawed beyond belief.

Omnipresence means He is present everywhere. There is no where that He is not present.

Where am I mistaken?

Saying Hell is a separation from God is to say that He is not somewhere. How can you separate from something that is everywhere? There isn’t anyplace that you can go that He is not there.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Omnipresence means He is present everywhere. There is no where that He is not present.

Where am I mistaken?

Saying Hell is a separation from God is to say that He is not somewhere. How can you separate from something that is everywhere? There isn’t anyplace that you can go that He is not there.

Everything that exists is filled with God’s substance. Since demons exist, God’s substance fills them. Since Hell exists, God fills Hell with his substance. For if He were not Present by His substance, they would cease to exist. Linus2nd

 

[Anthony_V]

If God is not permeate every particle of the Universe then He isn’t everywhere.The model you present makes God is the Ocean we swim in. If He can be excluded He isn’t all omnipotent nor omnipresent. If you can say God is here but not here, that isn’t omnipresent, it’s finite.

God doesn’t “permeate” anything. In fact, nothing permeates anything. Substances are distinct. Created things participate in the Being-ness, the divine to-be, who is God. That’s why we exist.

Furthermore, God isn’t a particular. He’s even above universals. We don’t have a word for him because no word is possible. He simply is. It’s pointless to be critical of analogies.

Furthermore, when we talk about hell as a privation of God, we mean this from an existential and subjective point of view. The subject ceases to experience God in any matter of relationship. They do continue to exist by “participating” in God’s being, though this is rather God holding them there because they will not relate to God.

 

[Anthony_V]

Everything that exists is filled with God’s substance. Since demons exist, God’s substance fills them. Since Hell exists, God fills Hell with his substance. For if He were not Present by His substance, they would cease to exist. Linus2nd

:bigyikes: We are not filled with his substance. We do participate in his Being though. God differs in both substance and essence from us because he is uncreated as well as distinct. We aren’t pantheists nor are you Baruch Spinoza.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

God doesn’t “permeate” anything. In fact, nothing permeates anything. Substances are distinct. Created things participate in the Being-ness, the divine to-be, who is God. That’s why we exist.

Furthermore, God isn’t a particular. He’s even above universals. We don’t have a word for him because no word is possible. He simply is. It’s pointless to be critical of analogies.

Furthermore, when we talk about hell as a privation of God, we mean this from an existential and subjective point of view. The subject ceases to experience God in any matter of relationship. They do continue to exist by “participating” in God’s being, though this is rather God holding them there because they will not relate to God.

If they continue to exist by participating in God’s being there is a relationship. If they cease to exist there is no thing to have a relationship. If they are being sustained that is the relationship. That isn’t separated.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

:bigyikes: We are not filled with his substance. We do participate in his Being though. God differs in both substance and essence from us because he is uncreated as well as distinct. We aren’t pantheists nor are you Baruch Spinoza.

You better read St. Thomas again. His opinion is the major opinion among Catholic Philosophers of the Middle Ages. And it is not Pantheism. Thomas does not say that God is a part of created beings but that he fills them with his presence. Linus2nd

 

[Anthony_V]

If they continue to exist by participating in God’s being there is a relationship. If they cease to exist there is no thing to have a relationship. If they are being sustained that is the relationship. That isn’t separated.

I said there is no existential (subjective) relationship, not a lack of objective relating (insofar as being is concerned). I don’t understand why you’re being so hyper-critical about this. It’s giving me very little leverage to communicate with you.

 

[Anthony_V]

You better read St. Thomas again. His opinion is the major opinion among Catholic Philosophers of the Middle Ages. And it is not Pantheism. Thomas does not say that God is a part of created beings but that he fills them with his presence. Linus2nd

Perhaps you could direct me to a part of St. Thomas’ works were he explains that creation is a communication of God’s substance. My tonal inflection is not meant to be sarcastic, so I apologize if I’ve come across that way.

Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 13, Article 11, Reply to Objection 1

This name HE WHO IS is the name of God more properly than this name “God,” as regards its source, namely, existence; and as regards the mode of signification and consignification, as said above. But as regards the object intended by the name, this name “God” is more proper, as it is imposed to signify the divine nature; and still more proper is the Tetragrammaton, imposed to signify the substance of God itself, incommunicable and, if one may so speak, singular.

Now if you mean creation, on some level, participates in his being, then yes, I certainly agree. We might just be arguing over semantics.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I said there is no existential (subjective) relationship, not a lack of objective relating (insofar as being is concerned). I don’t understand why you’re being so hyper-critical about this. It’s giving me very little leverage to communicate with you.

I’m not trying to be difficult just having difficulty understanding. If hell is a separation how can even an objective relation be considered a separation?

 

[Anthony_V]

I’m not trying to be difficult just having difficulty understanding. If hell is a separation how can even an objective relation be considered a separation?

Because God and man are both subjects, and hell is a subjective experience. A rock, which certainly participates in the being of God by virtue of existing, cannot go to hell because it is not a subject with free will (hence the thread title). My apologies for not being more clear or patient.

Peace
Anthony

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Because God and man are both subjects, and hell is a subjective experience. A rock, which certainly participates in the being of God by virtue of existing, cannot go to hell because it is not a subject with free will (hence the thread title). My apologies for not being more clear or patient.

Peace
Anthony

Thank you for being patient. At this risk of trying it again let me rephrase my question -

So being subjects with free will how can we be truly separated from God since if we exist it is by Him sustaining us? If we were truly separated we’d blink out of existence, there would be no subject to be in Hell.

 

[Robertanthony]

Anthony V, I perused the links you provided and I must say they do address many points of contention I have. Bad theology or theology ill understood does a great disservice to our faith and relationship with God. Anyhow, if I can make your virtue of patience more perfect )), and I’m sorry if you already answered that one, but what makes God decide to keep the damned souls and the demons alive? Is it justice, because they can’t ever repay God (an infinite being, ergo the punishment can never cease on that account alone), or does it have more to do with the fact that God can’t un-create a soul or an angel because of his nature/attributes? That unrelenting resolve and determination to keep miserable beings alive long past a point in eternity where it could be determined that God’s justice has partially been satisfied troubles me. From scripture, I think we can safely say that the damned wish to die to see an end to their torment, are demons thought to share the same frame of mind? God bless.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Perhaps you could direct me to a part of St. Thomas’ works were he explains that creation is a communication of God’s substance. My tonal inflection is not meant to be sarcastic, so I apologize if I’ve come across that way.

Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 13, Article 11, Reply to Objection 1

Now if you mean creation, on some level, participates in his being, then yes, I certainly agree. We might just be arguing over semantics.

I can’t direct you to the precise paragraphs at the moment, perhaps later in the day I will find time. But it was Thomas’ view that wherever God’s power was, there was God in his very Substance. That doesn’t mean that God is mixed, ontologically, with his creatures ( that would be Pantheism, indeed ) but that He is there, and " innermostly. " Linus2nd

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I can’t direct you to the precise paragraphs at the moment, perhaps later in the day I will find time. But it was Thomas’ view that wherever God’s power was, there was God in his very Substance. That doesn’t mean that God is mixed, ontologically, with his creatures ( that would be Pantheism, indeed ) but that He is there, and " innermostly. " Linus2nd

I thought his idea was more like: God was like a king that had power over all material so where ever there was something physical God was because He has power over it. So it’s more influence rather than “placeness”

 

[Anthony_V]

Thank you for being patient. At this risk of trying it again let me rephrase my question -

So being subjects with free will how can we be truly separated from God since if we exist it is by Him sustaining us? If we were truly separated we’d blink out of existence, there would be no subject to be in Hell.

I see how you are trying to seek out hell as an absolute. But hell is not an absolute. We say that hell is a privation, but this is a general statement. The damned soul would inhabit the infinitesimal brink between being and non-being.