Seeming free-will conundrum

[Love4All]

You didn’t address the “insisting on keeping the damned alive” thing. That’s just cruel. Even “good” old Adolf deserves a million years of heart-wrenching agony, then let the old bastard simply cease to exist.

In Heaven, they are completely surrendered to God, and God sustains them. In Hell, just the opposite, they are have utterly refused to surrender to God, and God for His part destroys them. However, in order to be really destroyed, they would have to surrender to God, and we have already established that they refuse to surrender; ergo, neither can they be destroyed. It is their very opposition to God that sustains them. If they could let that go, they’d be in Heaven; but they don’t.

 

[Anthony_V]

It is grace, that we lack, not anything we have by nature. And if grace is not gratis, how would it be grace?

I wish to fraternally correct you, my friend. We are indeed lacking in the nature department, but we are only wounded. We are not fully corrupt as our Protestant brethren claim, as we still possess our free will faculties.

Do not sin.

I think he is complaining about the fact that we do not have any of the preternatural gifts–namely integrity–and so we have to evidently “work harder” than Adam and Eve. That we have to suffer among one another with the problem of evil, while Adam and Eve did not. That, although we still have our free will faculties, they are maimed to a certain extent.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I must disagree with this. Adam and Eve had infused knowledge. They knew full well that doing against what God said was bad, or else it would be superfluous for God to have said, “…you will surely die”. The “knowledge” from the tree they would have been gained anyway by cooperating with God’s grace and growing in love. But instead of choosing to become like God, they decided to take the “quick” route by making themselves gods, to seize the knowledge for themselves. They certainly got the knowledge alright, but they destroyed their relationship with God, which is what mattered in the end.

[BIBLEDRB]Ecclesiasticus 17:5-9[/BIBLEDRB]

That’s very interesting especially v.6 because it implies that the only knowledge that was gained or could be gained from eating of thee tree was the knowledge of death. I’ve never looked at it that way.

 

[Robertanthony]

I wish to fraternally correct you, my friend. We are indeed lacking in the nature department, but we are only wounded. We are not fully corrupt as our Protestant brethren claim, as we still possess our free will faculties.

I think he is complaining about the fact that we do not have any of the preternatural gifts–namely integrity–and so we have to evidently “work harder” than Adam and Eve. That we have to suffer among one another with the problem of evil, while Adam and Eve did not. That, although we still have our free will faculties, they are maimed to a certain extent.

I think i’ll never understand how it was an act of love for God to place that “Tree” (whatever that was) so that the possiblity to disobey him was there and remained. Would A&E have been so miserable living the way they did but with no option to disobey God? I think people have it backwards, God doesn’t give us free-will because “he loves us so much” but because he wants to test us. Same with Lucifer and the rest of the angels, some think they were put through a test and those who decided to stick with God, well, stuck with God. Eden without the Tree would be a problem for God, not for humans, he doesn’t want a free access to himself. As a young man discerning the priesthood, what do you think of a temporary hell? ProdigalArtchitect misunderstood me on one point, i do understand dogmas, I was just saying that if a temporary hell was a dogma, hence taught by the CC, people would defend it, saying it befits our merciful God, who has mercy even on those who refuse him to the bitter end. But since the CC does not teach such thing (temporary hell) people will try to come up with arguments that reconcile a good, benevolent God with such a cruel sentence (eternal misery).

Someone mentioned that God doesn’t owe me anything, actually he’s merciful because all i deserve is hell because of that single act of disobedience by people I don’t know millenia ago! How can you not love a God like that? When you beget a child, there’s this idea that you’re gonna love, support, feed, protect the child, that you’re responsible for the child, God creates me through my parents and he owes me nothing? God is self-sufficent, is apparently not lacking in the self-esteem department, I can’t add nor take away anything from his holy person, if he had no intention of taking proper care of me, maybe he should have prevented my conception? Maybe I would have been better off never hearing about God? He drew me from nothingness, perhaps he does owe me something. Or maybe the next time my kid asks for something, I’ll say (just like God would?), “I owe you nothing”. Either some people’s theology is off, or we could have had a better God. Perhaps with a different God, things would be different, pain would not be so painful, temporal happiness would be more fairly distributed, God would be more present, but in a veiled way, so that not all would choose him, hell would be temporary etc. Just because we have this God doesn’t mean we couldn’t have had a better God. No God would have been fine by me, too.

 

[snarflemike]

I find this interesting because Before A&E ate from the tree they had no knowledge of good and evil nor death. They couldn’t have understand the choice that they were making nor the weight that it carried.

How do you know any of this?

 

[Anthony_V]

Robert Anthony,

I offer no credibility for being a seminarian. I have not started on my masters of theology yet (that’s not until major seminary). But I will commit to eventually answering your questions as best I can because you called upon me to do so. I ask that you try and peel back the layers of what I am suggesting, because I am cognizant of deeper trends within your thought process. I think others see it, but are not focused on articulating it.

I think you are using some incorrect paradigms as lenses for viewing God: namely, psychology. Its impossible to view God as merciful if you don’t first concede he is mercy. What a human might constitute as “mercy” may not necessarily be so in the grand scheme of things. I say “God is mercy”, and then watch and listen. No, I am not advocating a feeble-minded surrender to all things dogma. Dogmas are sturdy enough. Rather, inviting you to step into its own world. Its very hard to try and answer your question on the grounds that there needs to be some sort of theological and philosophical paradigm shift in your thinking. The question is valid, I think (we’ll see), but what is the approach? What lens are you viewing it through? Theology is also about the questions as well as the answers because its organic. That is, as the questions start to be asked, they change because certain aspects become less important.

On scientific microscopes, there are different amplifications, or objectives. From a phenomenological point of view, the objective lens provides, at the same time, a new perspective as well as a piece of the bigger picture. There are different objectives, also, in theology. The newest addition is fundamental theology, an offshoot from dogmatic theology (also known as “apologetics”), there is dogmatic theology (which deals with dogmas as divine mysteries), mystical theology (which deals with the more existential aspect of spirituality), and ascetical (or moral) theology (which deals with how the Christian ought to live in order to live like Christ).

Notice how psychology is not its own objective. It is certainly considered in mystical (a 25x objective) and ascetical theology (a 10x objective), but in something like dogmatic theology (a 5x objective) or fundamental theology (just the lens itself), it has little to no merit. The reason is, as St. Anselm got at quite well, “God is always greater”. The scope changes from immanent to transcendental. Theology is a divine science, and the specimen is always bigger and more expansive than we can fathom, let alone observe. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, a rather brilliant neo-renaissance man, proposed some quarrels with applying a Newtonian aggressive empirical approach to philosophy and theology. One of which is this: such an approach is insufficient because its like ripping a specimen out of the ground and placing it under a microscope to watch it grow. Rather, the observer must step into the world of the specimen and observe. Not only this, but be willing to forfeit his own questions if the questions of the subject itself are different. Or even better, bracket all questions to begin with, and wait for the subject to ask its own questions. I hope I’m boring you. Wax on!

God only makes sense in light of divine mysteries. If I were using your approach (nevermind your position), your lens, my first complaint would be that the human nature and divine nature of Christ lie unconfusedly and noncompetitively. This is because my understanding of the natural world is very different. If Christ could not exist in such a way, he certainly was who he said he is! An example of this is If I inhabited the space you exist in, that would be quite invasive. But God is somehow different and above that. God incorporated the human nature, but he also transcended it in doing so. Even the mention of incorporation (literally, to bring into the body) is fascinating and somewhat illogical, because God is not a body, but this is what he did. We call this Body many things. The Church, the Bride of Christ, etc. It is something we participate in, but also constitute in a synergistic sense with the Holy Spirit. I’m merely using the Church as an example, but all things are connected in theology. Perhaps it will come up again.

Among the things in God that lie unconfused and noncompetitive are his attributes. We may say, “God is good” and “God is just” and “God is merciful”. Certainly, justice is good. The same with mercy. But they seem antithetical. How can justice be merciful? or mercy be just? It nearly seems like a showdown between Hammurabi and Mahatma Gandhi! Many would say Hammurabi to be bad and Gandhi to be good. But I cannot subject Hammurabi or Gandhi to some sort of moral litmus test to check my answers if I am skeptical that one even exists. Or we could be the moral philosophers of ancient times past, old hunched over men with flowing white hair and beards. How can I talk about God without theo-logic?

I am wandering and meandering like this to frustrate your thought process (hopefully not frustrating you) and invite you to adopt a new one: We are thought of God. That is called creation. We think about God. That could potentially be re-creation. In any case, we are creative. For us, that creativity takes place in constructing parallels or metaphors or parables or long-drawn-out thoughts (as I am doing) that talk of God, but not about God. But why not talk of God?: How could we do such a thing sufficiently?? I cannot say how Christ has two natures existing noncompetitively under one hypostasis! I can simply say what I just said. I’ll start answering your questions now. My point was to set up the meta-framework by talking about it. Making connections. Saying much but saying little. Wax off!

You needn’t reply to this if you don’t wish. I apologize for the length.

CONTINUED

 

[Anthony_V]

Continued

…Would A&E have been so miserable living the way they did but with no option to disobey God?

God is self-giving. He created Adam and Eve to fully give himself away to them. If they had no free will, they could not be “temples of the Holy Spirit”, to use the terminology of St. Paul. God’s love is of utmost precedence, because Love is his highest name. God’s love does not mean it was strictly about the creature to being with. It means it was about their relationship, how they related and lived together. Relating is God nature, because it is his Trinitarian life of love, which he is (both Life and Love).

I think people have it backwards, God doesn’t give us free-will because “he loves us so much” but because he wants to test us.

Have you ever listened to Gustav Holst’s “Jupiter”? It’s very lively and playful (Jupiter: Bringer of Jollity), but also sort of cosmic and ethereal in some parts. It’s very uncanny, unpredictable. If I had to pick a theme music for Genesis, it would be that. God is like that, creative but serene, uncanny but faithful, mysterious (to us) but always warm and near, just and merciful. If God’s highest name is love, that means the all those things, namely his creativity for our purposes, is an overflowing of his life of love, who he is. God creates out of love. Free will is, by necessity, a participation in that love. There is nothing else that can be meaningfully done with it! Freedom has its origins, not in nature, but in the Trinity. An endless cycle of self-donation between Lover (Father), Beloved (Son), and Love (Holy Spirit). Authentic freedom is in love. Using freedom apart from love is merely trying to substitute love for something else, which does not work.

…Eden without the Tree would be a problem for God, not for humans, he doesn’t want a free access to himself.

Ah, but yes he does want us to have free access to himself! That’s why we’re free, and we should hate sin. Sin is simply the commission of the free will to that which is not love. The more we persevere in grace, the more we are free and can more fully receive God’s self-donation of love, who he is.

…if a temporary hell was a dogma, hence taught by the CC, people would defend it, saying it befits our merciful God, who has mercy even on those who refuse him to the bitter end. But since the CC does not teach such thing (temporary hell) people will try to come up with arguments that reconcile a good, benevolent God with such a cruel sentence (eternal misery).

You speak of dogmas as if they are not divine mysteries. Have you read through the ecumenical councils which provide us with these dogmas? Dogmas are not dogmas for the sake that “the Church says so”. The Church says so because they are revealed as dogmas! Or perhaps you are trying to propose a hypothetical wherein the dogma is temporary hell, and asking me why it wouldn’t work? I would have to think about this. My tentative answer is that it would put into question the balanced fidelity of God. If God isn’t faithful to the free will of the damned, why can we have faith in his faithfulness? e.g., that he will be faithful to his promise of Redemption in us? We cannot isolate benevolence by cutting back on fidelity, because benevolence is antithetical to isolation. That doesn’t fully engulf the question, but it is the best I have for now.

Someone mentioned that God doesn’t owe me anything, actually he’s merciful because all i deserve is hell because of that single act of disobedience by people I don’t know millenia ago! How can you not love a God like that?

God does owe you something: that which is proper to your nature. What he does not owe you is grace. Now, in regards to original sin, we do not inherit the guilt of the sin (I do not think that is Catholic teaching), but rather the incidence of it. Salvation does not happen outside the person, but inside. It is not a transaction. Backtracking, it would seem that original sin is the condition in which spiritual life cannot be passed on. Its not what we inherit, its what we don’t inherit–spiritual life.

When you beget a child, there’s this idea that you’re gonna love, support, feed, protect the child, that you’re responsible for the child, God creates me through my parents and he owes me nothing? God is self-sufficent, is apparently not lacking in the self-esteem department, I can’t add nor take away anything from his holy person, if he had no intention of taking proper care of me, maybe he should have prevented my conception? Maybe I would have been better off never hearing about God…

I commend to you this and this article, by New Apologetics (very very good fundamental theologians!!). Also, check out their facebook page. Just post on their wall, and they’ll answer your question. I would suggest asking in particular your question: “God creates me through my parents and he owes me nothing? God is self-sufficent, is apparently not lacking in the self-esteem department, I can’t add nor take away anything from his holy person, if he had no intention of taking proper care of me, maybe he should have prevented my conception?”

 

[Robertanthony]

Continued

God is self-giving. He created Adam and Eve to fully give himself away to them. If they had no free will, they could not be “temples of the Holy Spirit”, to use the terminology of St. Paul. God’s love is of utmost precedence, because Love is his highest name. God’s love does not mean it was strictly about the creature to being with. It means it was about their relationship, how they related and lived together. Relating is God nature, because it is his Trinitarian life of love, which he is (both Life and Love).

Have you ever listened to Gustav Holst’s “Jupiter”? It’s very lively and playful (Jupiter: Bringer of Jollity), but also sort of cosmic and ethereal in some parts. It’s very uncanny, unpredictable. If I had to pick a theme music for Genesis, it would be that. God is like that, creative but serene, uncanny but faithful, mysterious (to us) but always warm and near, just and merciful. If God’s highest name is love, that means the all those things, namely his creativity for our purposes, is an overflowing of his life of love, who he is. God creates out of love. Free will is, by necessity, a participation in that love. There is nothing else that can be meaningfully done with it! Freedom has its origins, not in nature, but in the Trinity. An endless cycle of self-donation between Lover (Father), Beloved (Son), and Love (Holy Spirit). Authentic freedom is in love. Using freedom apart from love is merely trying to substitute love for something else, which does not work.

Ah, but yes he does want us to have free access to himself! That’s why we’re free, and we should hate sin. Sin is simply the commission of the free will to that which is not love. The more we persevere in grace, the more we are free and can more fully receive God’s self-donation of love, who he is.

You speak of dogmas as if they are not divine mysteries. Have you read through the ecumenical councils which provide us with these dogmas? Dogmas are not dogmas for the sake that “the Church says so”. The Church says so because they are revealed as dogmas! Or perhaps you are trying to propose a hypothetical wherein the dogma is temporary hell, and asking me why it wouldn’t work? I would have to think about this. My tentative answer is that it would put into question the balanced fidelity of God. If God isn’t faithful to the free will of the damned, why can we have faith in his faithfulness? e.g., that he will be faithful to his promise of Redemption in us? We cannot isolate benevolence by cutting back on fidelity, because benevolence is antithetical to isolation. That doesn’t fully engulf the question, but it is the best I have for now.

God does owe you something: that which is proper to your nature. What he does not owe you is grace. Now, in regards to original sin, we do not inherit the guilt of the sin (I do not think that is Catholic teaching), but rather the incidence of it. Salvation does not happen outside the person, but inside. It is not a transaction. Backtracking, it would seem that original sin is the condition in which spiritual life cannot be passed on. Its not what we inherit, its what we don’t inherit–spiritual life.

I commend to you this and this article, by New Apologetics (very very good fundamental theologians!!). Also, check out their facebook page. Just post on their wall, and they’ll answer your question. I would suggest asking in particular your question: “God creates me through my parents and he owes me nothing? God is self-sufficent, is apparently not lacking in the self-esteem department, I can’t add nor take away anything from his holy person, if he had no intention of taking proper care of me, maybe he should have prevented my conception?”

Thank you for taking the time, Anthony V. I’ll listen to “Jupiter” and will go to the links you provided. And yes I understand dogmas, and my question about a temporary hell was speculative theology if such a term exists. I’m sure God would probably answer, “Where were you when I created the Earth?”. I’ve always, from a very young age, had periods where I strongly resented being alive because of who God made me and the environment he placed me in, not wanting to be alive obviously puts a strain on one’s relationship with the giver of life. That’s like starting a friendship with a major misunderstanding, you don’t start on good, solid foundations. God bless.

 

[Anthony_V]

Thank you for taking the time, Anthony V. I’ll listen to “Jupiter” and will go to the links you provided. And yes I understand dogmas, and my question about a temporary hell was speculative theology if such a term exists. I’m sure God would probably answer, “Where were you when I created the Earth?”. I’ve always, from a very young age, had periods where I strongly resented being alive because of who God made me and the environment he placed me in, not wanting to be alive obviously puts a strain on one’s relationship with the giver of life. That’s like starting a friendship with a major misunderstanding, you don’t start on good, solid foundations. God bless.

Oh, I understand now. No, such a thing does not exist in orthodox Catholic theology. My prayers are that you come to understand God as a a joyful giver and sharer of life and love. Commit to prayer!

God bless, my friend!f

 

[Tyrion]

That soul is not destroyed, it is simply experience the repercussions of its choices. They are painful and saddening repercussions, sure, but the soul remains intact. It may seem unjust to you, but you are a mere human. God is not, He is above and beyond us; who are we to question his justice?

None of us questions “God’s justice”. No one has the slightest information about God’s justice (or any other attributes). We all question what certain human believers SAY about God’s justice. We question what the church might SAY about God’s justice, because we find it incompatible with the concept of justice.

Also, that one act of defilement speaks to an underlying disregard for God. In order for an action to be mortal it requires three things:

#1: It’s a grave matter
#2: You have full knowledge that it’s a grave matter
#3: You have full consent of will, making the deliberate choice to engage in that action.

Aha! But we do NOT KNOW that certain acts are a grave matter! We only know that some humans assert that it is a grave a matter. Again, we question what humans say, because we do not trust those humans.

Basically, this means that even though you know an action is morally indefensible, you make the full and complete decision to engage in that action.

Again, all we know that certain humans CALL that action “morally indefensible”. And we do not hold those humans “infallible”… no matter how many times they CALL themselves “infallible”.

This basically applies to people who say “screw you God, I’m doing it in spite of you.”

No, again, NO. We say: “screw you people. we are doing it in spite of YOU”.

What you miss is this. There is not the slightest real evidence that what you teach is right. Call God down to declare those requirements with his own (imaginary) lips, and then you can appeal to God’s justice. The story (as unbelivable as any fairy-tale) that has been propagated during a few thousand years simply does not cut it.

 

[Anthony_V]

None of us questions “God’s justice”. No one has the slightest information about God’s justice (or any other attributes). We all question what certain human believers SAY about God’s justice. We question what the church might SAY about God’s justice, because we find it incompatible with the concept of justice.

Aha! But we do NOT KNOW that certain acts are a grave matter! We only know that some humans assert that it is a grave a matter. Again, we question what humans say, because we do not trust those humans.

Again, all we know that certain humans CALL that action “morally indefensible”. And we do not hold those humans “infallible”… no matter how many times they CALL themselves “infallible”.

What you miss is this. There is not the slightest real evidence that what you teach is right. Call God down to declare those requirements with his own (imaginary) lips, and then you can appeal to God’s justice. The story (as unbelivable as any fairy-tale) that has been propagated during a few thousand years simply does not cut it.

It’s interesting you say all these things, without so much as mentioning why you have confidence in saying them. But nevertheless, this thread is based more on a priori reasoning, not hyper-critical empiricism and sarcasm. It is also working under the premise (as an axiom, for our purposes) that the Christian religion is, to some extent or another, true. A posteriori statements, unless they are existential, are largely irrelevant to the conversation.

An ignostic viewpoint is automatically excluded from such a conversation, because it prejudges them such an idea as nonsensical. I don’t know why, other than to be hyper-critical for the sake of being hyper-critical (but labeling it under something different), or to convince oneself of the tenability of one’s views based on the inability of other people to answer, one would propose such ideas in this context.

Perhaps you could explain all this to me, because I wish to be committed to fruitful dialogue, and all social conventions that allow for such.

Peace to you
Anthony

 

[Blinky]

What you miss is this. There is not the slightest real evidence that what you teach is right. Call God down to declare those requirements with his own (imaginary) lips, and then you can appeal to God’s justice. The story (as unbelivable as any fairy-tale) that has been propagated during a few thousand years simply does not cut it.

Now the snake was the most cunning of all the wild animals that the LORD God had made. … “You certainly will not die! God knows well that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, who know good and evil.”

 

[Love4All]

I hope you don’t take offense at this, but generally I have trouble agree with some of what you write.

This time, I have to say, seems spot on to me. Cudos.

Well, thanks! For whatever it’s worth to you, I understand that some of my ideas seem a bit radical. I do not take offense if someone disagrees. But it seems possible to me that the root of the disagreement may be a lack of understanding, and if you ask specific questions, hopefully, I can answer. I would simply encourage you and ask you kindly to speak up, if you find something you disagree with.

 

[Love4All]

I wish to fraternally correct you, my friend. We are indeed lacking in the nature department, but we are only wounded. We are not fully corrupt as our Protestant brethren claim, as we still possess our free will faculties.

I think he is complaining about the fact that we do not have any of the preternatural gifts–namely integrity–and so we have to evidently “work harder” than Adam and Eve. That we have to suffer among one another with the problem of evil, while Adam and Eve did not. That, although we still have our free will faculties, they are maimed to a certain extent.

Thank you for the correction. It is true that we are lacking in the Divine intent of human nature. Our wills are weakened and our intellects are darkened. What I was trying to get at was the idea that we are not lacking in anything proper to our animal nature. The will and the intellect are the powers of our spiritual souls, and it is primarily these that were wounded by the sin of our first parents. The natural immortality that God intended for Adam and Eve, I think, would have involved their eating of the Fruit of the Tree of Life. My point was that, judging from a perspective that does not include the Garden of Paradise and man’s Original Integrity, we are not lacking anything proper to the biological species Homo sapiens.

I think it is useful to consider the difference between a man and a beast, and to note that the beasts are not capable of sin. Asking why humans are capable of sin and complaining about that is essentially asking why we are not mere beasts, without the capacity for morally significant action. And the simple answer to that is, God already did create all manner of beasts. In the human, He was doing something new, introducing Spirit into the world of Matter. We are given dominion, because we are intelligent spirits, and being so, we naturally have options, some of which are good and others of which are evil. In the Garden, Adam and Eve were specifically protected against any thought that would lead to evil, thus they were called “innocent.” That innocence was in fact a supernatural condition, brought about by infused grace. Their eyes were indeed opened by the action of the Fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, to all possibility rather than only good possibility. Before that, no evil thought could have occurred to them, not because there were no evil thoughts possible, but because God specially protected them against such thoughts.

Unfortunately for us, the knowledge of all possibility is not a boon to us but a burden. We would have been better off remaining in innocence, our thoughts limited to only the good. It is very much a case wherein the additional freedom we gained is actually bondage. Now, rather than being free to do whatever we like, we are burdened with moral considerations.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

None of us questions “God’s justice”. No one has the slightest information about God’s justice (or any other attributes). We all question what certain human believers SAY about God’s justice. We question what the church might SAY about God’s justice, because we find it incompatible with the concept of justice.

Aha! But we do NOT KNOW that certain acts are a grave matter! We only know that some humans assert that it is a grave a matter. Again, we question what humans say, because we do not trust those humans.

Again, all we know that certain humans CALL that action “morally indefensible”. And we do not hold those humans “infallible”… no matter how many times they CALL themselves “infallible”.

No, again, NO. We say: “screw you people. we are doing it in spite of YOU”.

What you miss is this. There is not the slightest real evidence that what you teach is right. Call God down to declare those requirements with his own (imaginary) lips, and then you can appeal to God’s justice. The story (as unbelivable as any fairy-tale) that has been propagated during a few thousand years simply does not cut it.

Something from Mark Shea that might mean something to you.

ncregister.com/daily-news/knowledge-all-truth-is-gods-truth

I think if you read the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, instead of dismissing them out of hand, you may change your mind. Linus2nd

 

[Christianus_Dei]

Apparently, of the Hebrew words used to describe “Knowledge” the one used referred to experiential knowledge.

Also, on hell: Heaven is good because God is there. Hell is torturous because those who are there are cut off from He who is the source of all good. The decision to be with or without God carries into eternity at death.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Apparently, of the Hebrew words used to describe “Knowledge” the one used referred to experiential knowledge.

Also, on hell: Heaven is good because God is there. Hell is torturous because those who are there are cut off from He who is the source of all good. The decision to be with or without God carries into eternity at death.

I started a thread about this and don’t want derail this thread but…

If God is everywhere how can we be separated?

 

[dmar198]

I started a thread about this and don’t want derail this thread but…

If God is everywhere how can we be separated?

It’s difficult to understand your question because on the surface the answer seems pretty obvious: because we aren’t God. But I guess what you’re asking is, isn’t there still a connection between everything because God is omnipresent in everything? And yes, there is something that, in a sense, connects every created thing. “In Him we live and move and have our being.” Acts 17:28. You can’t become entirely separated from God or else you would cease to exist. By upholding the existence of every created thing, God is behind every aspect of creation except sin (which technically isn’t a part of creation, since creation is good, and sin is the absence of good). Anyway, it’s getting to a point where I can’t complete the thought beyond this point, but I hope that helps.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

It’s difficult to understand your question because on the surface the answer seems pretty obvious: because we aren’t God. But I guess what you’re asking is, isn’t there still a connection between everything because God is omnipresent in everything? And yes, there is something that, in a sense, connects every created thing. “In Him we live and move and have our being.” Acts 17:28. You can’t become entirely separated from God or else you would cease to exist. By upholding the existence of every created thing, God is behind every aspect of creation except sin (which technically isn’t a part of creation, since creation is good, and sin is the absence of good). Anyway, it’s getting to a point where I can’t complete the thought beyond this point, but I hope that helps.

Thanks, it’s a tough thing to figure. It gets sort of circular. If sin is the absence of good but God is all good and everywhere how can there be an absence of good?

 

[Anthony_V]

Thanks, it’s a tough thing to figure. It gets sort of circular. If sin is the absence of good but God is all good and everywhere how can there be an absence of good?

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.