So, who is responsible?

[butterbattle]

jmcrae:

Just because you disagree with how God does things, does not mean that God does not actually exist.

Right. I did not make that argument. The argument would be that if God existed, I would not agree with his morals.

jmcrae:

Suffering has a purifying effect. Obviously, it is unpleasant at the time, but we grow from it and become more generous and more mature because of it. I can also think of lots of better ways for God to do this for us than by suffering, but God has chosen to take the suffering that we have created through the wrong use of our free will, and use it for our good, rather than either causing our bad decisions to not have bad consequences, or causing us to mature and become more generous through some other, less painful means.

But why? Certainly, God can improve us as much as he wants with as little suffering as he wants, so with those assumptions, there must be some inherent value to suffering?

 

[butterbattle]

4Horsemen:

If God took away your free will, would you be grateful? (You couldn’t choose to be).

Hmmm, if I couldn’t tell the difference, then I’m not sure I really care either way.

 

[4Horsemen]

Hmmm, if I couldn’t tell the difference, then I’m not sure I really care either way.

Right! You wouldn’t care if you were a mechanism, machine, puppet, robot, animal . . . because you wouldn’t know the difference.

Isn’t this world more adventurous for human beings since we have a free will? We just need to lock up the psychopaths.

 

[fhansen]

The ability to know right from wrong is not “innate” according to Genesis. It was acquired when the forbidden fruit was tasted. Since God ordered that tree to be left alone, he preferred us not to know right from wrong.

It doesn’t mean they didn’t know right from wrong. It meant they didn’t determine what was right and what was wrong for themselves. As with all animate creation, the Law had been written in their hearts (consciences) but unlike beings lacking free will, they could override this Law-they could override their own natures. At some point a thought was posed for consideration. Why not oppose the Law? This was the equivalent of asking, why not create your own Law, why not play God? A consequence of eliminating God from the role of determining good and evil was that they would know good and evil-the very first evil known was their own disobedience of God-because anything in God’s creation which is out of sync with His will is ipso facto evil to one degree or another. And this is why they experienced shame/guilt immediately.

The result is that we live in a world where morality is relative-so that, if someone determines that the right thing to do is to take a gun and blow you out of existence, he may do so-but only because he’s been distanced form the God whose law is now only a faint echo somewhere inside, “Thou shall not kill” in this case.

So Adam & Eve’s wills were so free they could decide to make their morality relative to their own opinions, i.e. they could become the arbiters of right and wrong for themselves; they could become god. All evil follows from this simply because man is incapable of creating morality with any degree of certainty-he either follows the Laws of his own nature spontaneously, or once breaching them, he’s free to pursue whatever actions he deems right. In fact, he must pursue morality that way, having lost the connection to the God who’s meant to guide him internally. Man can opt to follow religious laws, or political ones, or societal norms, or make up his own, but he can’t find his way back to innocence again-at least not on his own.

 

[Spock]

The thing is, if you read closely the Bible, God acknowledges that He is ultimately responsible for the evils in the world, because in the final analysis He permits it. Just read the Book of Job.

Excellent. This is what I was arguing for, and I am delighted that we agree. Besides the Book of Job, there is an explicit reference to God “directly” creating evil, see Isiah 45:7 “I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.”

 

[Spock]

So when a parent punishes a child for writing on the wall when the parent told the child not to you believe the parent is repsonsible for the writing on the wall??? WOW!!! That logic is EXTREMELY flawed

I agree, but it is your logic, not mine. Leaving a loaded gun in sight is just a teeny-weeny different from leaving a few crayons on the table. But, if the parent does not want the child to scribble on the wall, he should make sure that the child does not have access to the crayons, except in supervised circumstances.

 

[Spock]

This is where the aspect of mystery enters into Catholic thought.

At the risk of being repetitive, mystery is that part of reality that can be perceived, or sometimes inferred, but is outside the ability to rationalize.

The closest thing I can think of as an analogy is the idea of infinity on a cartesian coordinate. We can imagine infinity, but we cannot describe it precisely, by which I mean, it would be nonsensical to ask "what is the number immediately preceding infinity?

Starting as Catholics do from the fact of revelation, we try to integrate the information that we see and have received within a logical framework. The received doctrines are the “facts” of the experiment. We know we have free will, because God has told us that we do. Interestingly, one of the readings in the new mass this past Sunday was on that same topic (Sirach).

As you and Spock and have observed, this creates certain limitations. We cannot, in a manner of speaking, repeat the experiment. The burning bush remains what is was, and God’s definition of Himself remains what it was. “Ego sum qui sum.”

You and Spock have more room to manoever: for instance, you can propose a reconciliation along the lines that free will is a kind of illusion, and results, much like our seeing things in the visible light spectrum, from physical happenstance. As to God, it is possible that Moses and the prophets were misled by some other physical being, who is not in fact eternal or omnipotent, but merely sufficiently advanced to create the impression that it was in certain people.

What you cannot do is acknowledge a zone of mystery that is inherently beyond the human ability to rationalize, because so far as we can observe, there is nothing beyond human ability to rationalize that is itself a human construct, like mathematics (there is no “realm” of math, or “actual” number 6).

That is the point where Catholic philosophy has an advantage, in that it can acknowledge an aspect of the universe that other science cannot: that certain things are unknowable. Non-Catholic philosophy, on this one score, cannot delve into that without implicating a host of other objections regarding the nature of observation and what not.

I guess it comes down to our inability to decouple the “facts” of the case from its theory, like you and Spock can.

It has always struck me as an interesting split.

A most excellent post. Thank you for it.

I have to express a little disagreement, however. Your example about math, “actual” numbers and infinity are not even close to the mystery you alluded to. Those are abstractions, concepts, and they are “true” by definition. As if luck would have it (just kidding here!), these abstractions describe certain aspects of reality really well, and for that we find them useful. But the usability aspect is not important. Chess is another abstract endeavor, which has no “use” except as a great game. There is absolutely no “mystery” involved in them.

The mysteries of Catholicism are very different. Expressed in words, the concept of the “Trinity”, is simply a self-contradiction, precisely like a “married bachelor”. Now, I have no idea how can you accept the Trinity as a “mystery”, and yet assert that a “married bachelor” is nonsense. That is the real “mystery” for me. I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, but this whole “mystery” thing is akin to the concept of “doublethink”. I was never able to understand that either. The concept of doublethink is clear, but the practice of it is beyond me.

 

[seagal]

The mysteries of Catholicism are very different. Expressed in words, the concept of the “Trinity”, is simply a self-contradiction, precisely like a “married bachelor”. Now, I have no idea how can you accept the Trinity as a “mystery”, and yet assert that a “married bachelor” is nonsense. That is the real “mystery” for me. I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, but this whole “mystery” thing is akin to the concept of “doublethink”. I was never able to understand that either. The concept of doublethink is clear, but the practice of it is beyond me.

The concept of the Trinity is totally different from the concept of a married bachelor. We know about the Trinity through the Bible. From the Old Testament we know God is one God, the one God who created everything, who walked with Adam and Eve in the garden, who instructed Noah to build an ark, who made himself known to Abraham, Moses, David, Samuel, Soloman, Issaiah, Jeremiah, etc., etc. From the New Testament, we know that Jesus is God’s son, that God acknowledges him as his beloved son, that Jesus prayed to his father in heaven. Also in the NT Jesus promised that a helper would be sent to be with us until he returns, the Holy Spirit, who came at Pentacost. This is what God himself revealed to us, that somehow there are 3 separate persons in one God. We don’t understand it but accept it as truth. That’s why it is a mystery.

By contrast, you can’t be a married man and an unmarried man at the same time. No mystery there.

I know as an atheist you don’t believe any of what I posted here. But if you want to challenge Catholic teaching you should at least try to understand what you are opposed to. Don’t mock what you don’t understand.

 

[ignatius777]

I agree, but it is your logic, not mine. Leaving a loaded gun in sight is just a teeny-weeny different from leaving a few crayons on the table. But, if the parent does not want the child to scribble on the wall, he should make sure that the child does not have access to the crayons, except in supervised circumstances.

No its not my friend the issue is who is responsible for behavior. What possible difference does the severity of the behavior make? Are you now suggesting that responsibility is limited by how severe the behavior is??? Are you also suggesting that God is not repsonsible for less severe behaviors or positive behaviors? I know you think you have an ironclad argument here but your adherence to it in spite of evidence which hightlights its limitations doesnt do you much good.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

4Horsemen, vz71: Thank you

Excellent. This is what I was arguing for, and I am delighted that we agree. Besides the Book of Job, there is an explicit reference to God “directly” creating evil, see Isiah 45:7 “I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.”

You haven’t read the rest of my post, have you?

God bless.

 

[Spock]

The concept of the Trinity is totally different from the concept of a married bachelor. We know about the Trinity through the Bible. From the Old Testament we know God is one God, the one God who created everything, who walked with Adam and Eve in the garden, who instructed Noah to build an ark, who made himself known to Abraham, Moses, David, Samuel, Soloman, Issaiah, Jeremiah, etc., etc. From the New Testament, we know that Jesus is God’s son, that God acknowledges him as his beloved son, that Jesus prayed to his father in heaven. Also in the NT Jesus promised that a helper would be sent to be with us until he returns, the Holy Spirit, who came at Pentacost. This is what God himself revealed to us, that somehow there are 3 separate persons in one God. We don’t understand it but accept it as truth. That’s why it is a mystery.

Well, as you said, you don’t understand it either. It is impossible to understand. To declare it a “mystery” does not help.

By contrast, you can’t be a married man and an unmarried man at the same time. No mystery there.

There is no mystery, but there is no contrast either. One being cannot be three. There is no difference. Especially when Jesus actually speaks of God as a different entity, the as father. And he says: “Father why have you forsaken me?”. Clearly Jesus does not speak of himself or to himself.

I know as an atheist you don’t believe any of what I posted here. But if you want to challenge Catholic teaching you should at least try to understand what you are opposed to. Don’t mock what you don’t understand.

It does not matter if I believe it or not. You don’t understand it and I don’t understand it. You put the label of “mystery” on one, and put the label of “contradiction” on the other. When I point this inconsistency out, it is not “mockery”, it is statement of a fact. It is easy to say that it is a “mockery” or a “caricature”. But it is just a fact.

 

[mellestad]

This is where the aspect of mystery enters into Catholic thought.

At the risk of being repetitive, mystery is that part of reality that can be perceived, or sometimes inferred, but is outside the ability to rationalize.

The closest thing I can think of as an analogy is the idea of infinity on a cartesian coordinate. We can imagine infinity, but we cannot describe it precisely, by which I mean, it would be nonsensical to ask "what is the number immediately preceding infinity?

Starting as Catholics do from the fact of revelation, we try to integrate the information that we see and have received within a logical framework. The received doctrines are the “facts” of the experiment. We know we have free will, because God has told us that we do. Interestingly, one of the readings in the new mass this past Sunday was on that same topic (Sirach).

As you and Spock and have observed, this creates certain limitations. We cannot, in a manner of speaking, repeat the experiment. The burning bush remains what is was, and God’s definition of Himself remains what it was. “Ego sum qui sum.”

You and Spock have more room to manoever: for instance, you can propose a reconciliation along the lines that free will is a kind of illusion, and results, much like our seeing things in the visible light spectrum, from physical happenstance. As to God, it is possible that Moses and the prophets were misled by some other physical being, who is not in fact eternal or omnipotent, but merely sufficiently advanced to create the impression that it was in certain people.

What you cannot do is acknowledge a zone of mystery that is inherently beyond the human ability to rationalize, because so far as we can observe, there is nothing beyond human ability to rationalize that is itself a human construct, like mathematics (there is no “realm” of math, or “actual” number 6).

That is the point where Catholic philosophy has an advantage, in that it can acknowledge an aspect of the universe that other science cannot: that certain things are unknowable. Non-Catholic philosophy, on this one score, cannot delve into that without implicating a host of other objections regarding the nature of observation and what not.

I guess it comes down to our inability to decouple the “facts” of the case from its theory, like you and Spock can.

It has always struck me as an interesting split.

Interesting.

I agree, we approach issues with different sets of assumptions. I’ve put some thought into this lately and I think it really just comes down to dualism and monism. Everything else is just tacked on.

I’d probably disagree with you on what you think is outside our ability to rationalize in a materialistic way though. I’m aware of (many!) gaps in our knowledge, but the only thing that strikes me as potentially being totally outside the realm of science is what existed pre big-bang (if that even has meaning, who knows) and all the implications that has on cosmology. To me though, that is only a limit because of our frame of reference, rather than a failure of materialism. Sort of like being locked in a box with no tools and attempting to theorize what might exist outside.

Outside of this thread what I’m attempting to do is approach problems from within the assumptions of dualism and try to understand how things work. It’s been very beneficial to me so far.

 

[seagal]

Well, as you said, you don’t understand it either. It is impossible to understand. To declare it a “mystery” does not help.

There is no mystery, but there is no contrast either. One being cannot be three. There is no difference. Especially when Jesus actually speaks of God as a different entity, the as father. And he says: “Father why have you forsaken me?”. Clearly Jesus does not speak of himself or to himself.

It does not matter if I believe it or not. You don’t understand it and I don’t understand it. You put the label of “mystery” on one, and put the label of “contradiction” on the other. When I point this inconsistency out, it is not “mockery”, it is statement of a fact. It is easy to say that it is a “mockery” or a “caricature”. But it is just a fact.

Do you understand the word “mystery”? It means literally “something not understood”. Look it up.

 

[You]

Well, as you said, you don’t understand it either. It is impossible to understand. To declare it a “mystery” does not help.

There is no mystery, but there is no contrast either. One being cannot be three. There is no difference. Especially when Jesus actually speaks of God as a different entity, the as father. And he says: “Father why have you forsaken me?”. Clearly Jesus does not speak of himself or to himself.

It does not matter if I believe it or not. You don’t understand it and I don’t understand it. You put the label of “mystery” on one, and put the label of “contradiction” on the other. When I point this inconsistency out, it is not “mockery”, it is statement of a fact. It is easy to say that it is a “mockery” or a “caricature”. But it is just a fact.

They are not three different omnipotent gods in one. They are the same one God in three persons; “go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name [singular not plural] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”

It is closer to the case of three distinct persons with a unity of nature. God is all three persons with a single divine nature.

 

[4Horsemen]

This is where the aspect of mystery enters into Catholic thought.

At the risk of being repetitive, mystery is that part of reality that can be perceived, or sometimes inferred, but is outside the ability to rationalize.

The closest thing I can think of as an analogy is the idea of infinity on a cartesian coordinate. We can imagine infinity, but we cannot describe it precisely, by which I mean, it would be nonsensical to ask "what is the number immediately preceding infinity?

Starting as Catholics do from the fact of revelation, we try to integrate the information that we see and have received within a logical framework. The received doctrines are the “facts” of the experiment. ** We know we have free will, because God has told us that we do. Interestingly, one of the readings in the new mass this past Sunday was on that same topic (Sirach)**.

Interesting post, but I’m not sure the theology is solid. Catholics agree that Revelation is the Deposit of Faith, but as for moral issues, our right reason can lead us to basic principles. That’s true for any individual and any society. We know we have free will not because God told us but because we are rational. Reason seeks out the good and then the will chooses it. No one questions whether or not we have reason, but people ask, “Is there such a thing as free will?” However, reason may be mistaken about what goodness consists of because we are not creatures of perfect integrity. Nonetheless, by nature we are spiritual and material beings who are both rational and free.

As you and Spock and have observed, this creates certain limitations. We cannot, in a manner of speaking, repeat the experiment. The burning bush remains what is was, and God’s definition of Himself remains what it was. “Ego sum qui sum.”

You and Spock have more room to manoever: for instance, you can propose a reconciliation along the lines that free will is a kind of illusion, and results, much like our seeing things in the visible light spectrum, from physical happenstance. As to God, it is possible that Moses and the prophets were misled by some other physical being, who is not in fact eternal or omnipotent, but merely sufficiently advanced to create the impression that it was in certain people.

The light of truth is so intense that it overpowers any small light that burning. Think of the light of the sun overpowering a flashlight. Moses saw God and heard Him speak in the burning bush, whose brightness overpowered all light. St. John of the Cross explains the God’s light in his commentary for today’s gospel:

Faith, the theologians say, is a certain and obscure habit of soul.! It is an obscure habit because it brings us to believe divinely revealed truths that transcend every natural light and infinitely exceed all human understanding. As a result the excessive light of faith bestowed on a soul is darkness for it; a brighter light will eclipse and suppress a dimmer one. The sun so obscures all other lights that they do not seem to be lights at all when it is shining, and instead of affording vision to the eyes, it overwhelms, blinds, and deprives them of vision since its light is excessive and unproportioned to the visual faculty. Similarly, the light of faith in its abundance suppresses and overwhelms that of the intellect…

Another clearer example…: If those born blind were told about the nature of the colors white or yellow, they would understand absolutely nothing no matter how much instruction they received since they never saw these colors… Only the names of these colors would be grasped since the names are perceptible through hearing… Such is faith to the soul; it informs us of matters we have never seen or known… The light of natural knowledge does not show them to us… Yet we come to know it through hearing, by believing what faith teaches in blinding our natural light and bringing it in to submission. St. Paul states:
«Faith comes through hearing» (Rm 10:17). This amounts to saying that faith is not a knowledge derived from the senses but an assent of the soul to what enters through hearing… Faith, manifestly, is a dark night for souls, but in this way it gives them light. The more darkness it brings on them, the more light it sheds. For by blinding it illumines them, according to those words of Isaiah: «If you do not believe, you will not understand» (cf. Is 7,9).

.

 

[PAboy57]

Excellent. This is what I was arguing for, and I am delighted that we agree. Besides the Book of Job, there is an explicit reference to God “directly” creating evil, see Isiah 45:7 “I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.”

Hi Spock,

We don’t understand that piece of scripture exactly the way you may be interpreting. When looking at Chapter 45 of Isaiah this is telling of the future release of the Israelites from the Babylonians.

King Cyrus, while not a believer, will be used by God to defeat those holding God’s people captive. The “evil” is not related to sin. It is the evils of afflictions and punishments as the result of war initiated by Cyrus.

There is no doubt that God will permit calamity to exist for a greater good – the freeing of His people. It isn’t by chance they are freed but rather God ultimately freeing them.

As a Catholic I rely upon the Bible, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church to interpret scripture. I am assured they will deliver the intended message to me. You may also rely upon that same method if you desire

 

[Warrenton]

. When I point this inconsistency out, it is not “mockery”, it is statement of a fact. It is easy to say that it is a “mockery” or a “caricature”. But it is just a fact.

Just so we are clear, I didn’t cross my mind that you were mocking what I said. Maybe I am slow!!

You are correct, there are important distinctions between mystery, like the Trinity, and math, which is an abstraction.

The Trinity, like the other mysteries, is “sui generis” in Catholic (actually, I should here say “Orthodox”) thinking. Describing them by logical analogy is somewhat difficult (for me) as a result, rather like trying to find an analogy for something like an elephant.

The other post that responded to you was basically correct, that Orthodox thought starts with the facts we know about God, and works from there. Because of that, it could be that “Trinity” and “Incarnation” are abstract descriptions for something that is beyond human ability to perceive fully, or describe fully.

In case I have been unclear, I will try to draw an analogy that I hope will be more apt.

In the expanding universe theory, the universe is expanding, but is not expanding “into” anything. This concept, while it can be explained under certain mathematical models, cannot be imagined. To visualize expansion, one must have two viewpoints: the thing expanding, and the area expanded into. It seems to me that when physicists insist that the universe is expanding into nothing, what they mean is “it is expanding into something that is beyond our ability to measure (at present).” It would be unfair to accuse them of doublespeak, when patently, they lack either a platform (the world) or experience to define the “non-existent” set, viz, the nothingness that into which the universe expands.

Forgive the wordiness. This is the dilemma of the Orthodox theologian. The revelations cannot be squared with any other type of observed reality.

As an aside, you might be amused by the fact that our best philosopher, St. Thomas, wrote some very moving hymns on the topic we are discussing, about the limits of reason and observation.

 

[Warrenton]

Interesting post, but I’m not sure the theology is solid. No one questions whether or not we have reason, but people ask, “Is there such a thing as free will?” However, reason may be mistaken about what goodness consists of because we are not creatures of perfect integrity. Nonetheless, by nature we are spiritual and material beings who are both rational and free…

We know that our will is sufficiently free to subject us to judgment because God has told us so, as recorded in scripture.

If the events that are recorded in scripture had never occurred, I do not think we would be able to infer that we would be judged by God for our acts. St. Paul explains in Romans why the knowledge of God is attributable to all men, but he does not suggest that the knowledge exists in a vacuum. It exists in light of revelation,which is how St. Paul knew what he knew and passed on in Romans.

 

[Warrenton]

I’ve put some thought into this lately and I think it really just comes down to dualism and monism.

I think this may be a good way to analyze the thread.

And this has been a very good thread, IMO!

 

[Warrenton]

And he says: “Father why have you forsaken me?”. Clearly Jesus does not speak of himself or to himself.

This in turn is interesting. As you probably know, Jesus here quotes Psalm 22. He is quoting King David, his ancestor, who is describing his (David’s) feelings. As you might expect, the resolution of the Psalm is instructive to the occassion.

Jesus, shortly before his death, used another Psalm in a similar way, much to the anger of some of the lawyers. In fact, it could be the discourse that led directly to his arrest and trial. Jesus explicated Psalm 110, which in Latin reads “Dixit Dominus, Domino meo,” in terms of himself, and his divinity.

Food for thought, not intended to derail anything! Who knows, it might help us sort some details out.

Great thread, btw