So, who is responsible?

[Touchstone]

Warrenton:

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.

I’m thinking of Romans 1, where Paul says:

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

(my emphasis)

That last bit suggests not just knowledge of God, but universal conviction, doesn’t it? Per Paul, this understanding by all men is not grounded in the conviction of the Law, or the history of God interacting with man as recorded in scripture, but in God’s “invisible attributes” and his immanence, manifesting his divine nature.

I think that fits with your pointing to revelation, but isn’t Paul pointing to God’s immanence as the revelation that leaves all without excuse, rather than the shenanigans recorded in scripture, at least in Rom 1:20?

-TS

 

[Spock]

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

Technically this is true. There are lots of things which are not known or understood. Just a few examples:

1. It is not understood how large the diameter of the ice-ball in the middle of the Sun can be?
2. It is unknown what was the final result of the latest leprechaun-goblin soccer match, and who scored the winning touch-down?
3. We don’t know when you stopped beating your spouse.
4. What resides to the north from the North Pole?

These are all “unknown”. Are these “legitimate” mysteries? I accept, “technically” you are correct. But you are still guilty of obfuscation.

 

[Spock]

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

I never quarrel with your approach. You explain the foundation of your system, and I respect it. Unfortunately this method does not work for me.

 

[Spock]

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

No, you are not slow at all. No mockery was intended. It was mistakenly identified as such by others.

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.

That is not a problem per-se.

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.

This is a very good approach. Though no physicist will say that the universe expands “into something”, which cannot be described at present.

This “expansion” cannot be visualized. But to be able to visualize something is not an impediment to understanding. As long as the math “works”, and the result can be translated into everyday terms - there is no problem. You know the old saying: “don’t speculate, calculate”.

We cannot visualize the equations of quantum physics, we simply use them. We cannot visualize a tesseract (a four dimensional cube), but we can use the concept of “n-dimensional” mathematical space (vectors and matrices), we can perform calculations with these objects and translate the results into everyday terms - and very useful those results can be.

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

I agree. If these revelations would not even speak of reality, or if they would not contradict reality, there would be no problem. When a revelation and the observed reality are at odds with each other, one can have have two approaches. One san say that revelation is the pertinent, and it is just “too bad” for the facts. The other says: “well, there must be something wrong with the revelation”. Maybe it is not a revelation at all, or the revelation was misunderstood, or it was misinterpreted. And therein lies the difference between the believers and the atheists.

 

[Heliotropium]

First of all, I think that “free will” is a horrible blunder, a stupid decision on the part of the constructor. But that is a different issue, not pertinent to the thread. The point is, that if the creator knows that his creation will not work as intended, then it is a dumb idea to make the creation. Why create something that is contrary to the intention of the creator? Even if the creator considers it “worthy” to go ahead, it still does not lift the responsibility of the creator. The responsibility for the fault always rests with the creator - IF and only IF the creator knew in advance what will happen.

If the creator did not know how his creation will turn out, then he has a valid defense: “I had the best intentions, and I did not know that the creation will turn out differently from my good intentions”. The ignorance on part of the creator would be a valid and acceptable defense. But the alleged “omniscience” of God deprives him of this defense. With the allegation of omniscience the apologists painted themselves into a corner, from where there is no escape.

How do you know that Gods creation is not working as He intended? My friend your position is flawed based on a couple of things. Frist you make conclusions based on what you don’t know instead of what you do know. You presume that God has failed and is thus responsible for making a mistake without giving any evidence that the current situation that humanity is in is because a mistake was made in the Divine Plan. You propose that you have the only logical conclusion and are basically saying **“my way is the only way things could possibly be therefore God is wrong and made a mistake.” **You my friend would be the disciple during the crucifixion saying ** “why is God doing this to His Son? No Father would do this to their only Son! God must have made a mistake!”" **Then you would leave searching for a new thing and maybe a new “god” that you could comprehend and then by doing so miss out on the Resurrection. Gods atributes exempt him from making mistakes. In fact what it basically boils down to is your opinion. You think God made a mistake but you neither know it or can prove it. Basically what you say is a mistake is in reality Divine Providence.

 

[You]

Technically this is true. There are lots of things which are not known or understood. Just a few examples:

1. It is not understood how large the diameter of the ice-ball in the middle of the Sun can be?
2. It is unknown what was the final result of the latest leprechaun-goblin soccer match, and who scored the winning touch-down?
3. We don’t know when you stopped beating your spouse.
4. What resides to the north from the North Pole?

These are all “unknown”. Are these “legitimate” mysteries? I accept, “technically” you are correct. But you are still guilty of obfuscation.

As someone already suggested to you, what lies outside the universe is less well understood than the Trinity.
:shamrock2:

 

[seagal]

Technically this is true. There are lots of things which are not known or understood. Just a few examples:

1. It is not understood how large the diameter of the ice-ball in the middle of the Sun can be?
2. It is unknown what was the final result of the latest leprechaun-goblin soccer match, and who scored the winning touch-down?
3. We don’t know when you stopped beating your spouse.
4. What resides to the north from the North Pole?

These are all “unknown”. Are these “legitimate” mysteries? I accept, “technically” you are correct. But you are still guilty of obfuscation.

How many scientiests have tried to solve these mysteries? Have you read any theses on the mystery of the leprechaun or the goblin? There are no philosophers arguing their point of view on these topics. There has never been any serious writings about any of these things that generations of people have pored over to find the truth. No theologian has ever claimed that these “mysteries” have been revealed to him/her. In short, these are not things that people wonder about (except for atheists who like to create straw men).

Contrast that with what Catholics regard as religious mysteries. If you can’t see the difference here then you are either being disingenuous or deliberately perverse.

 

[ignatius777]

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.”

Is it your contention that God “created” evil thereby He is responsible for it wherever it occurs? Does that about sum it up?

 

[ignatius777]

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.”

We’ve been through this havent we? Why isnt a representative of Smith and Wesson imprisoned for murder everytime someone uses one of their guns to kill someone one? If you propose that because God “created” evil therefore He is responisble for it everywhere it happens then you must be a proponent of making the “creators” of guns responsible for murders. I’m not sure that makes sense to anyone but you.

 

[seagal]

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**

Hmmm, you don’t have a problem with Warrenton’s statement (highlighted above) but you have a problem with it being defined as a “mystery”. Again, look it up. Something that is “beyond human ability to perceive fully” is the very definition of “mystery”.

 

[seagal]

You propose that you have the only logical conclusion and are basically saying "my way is the only way things could possibly be therefore God is wrong and made a mistake."

That, in a nutshell, sums up pretty much all the arguments I have ever seen from atheists. That, and saying “God wouldn’t have done it this way, therefore there is no God.”

 

[ignatius777]

That, in a nutshell, sums up pretty much all the arguments I have ever seen from atheists. That, and saying “God wouldn’t have done it this way, therefore there is no God.”

Spock is basing his argument on the assertion that if a creator knows people will do harm and lets them do it anyway then the creator is as responsible as the person. Thats like saying because Smith and Wesson makes guns and knows that guns can kill people, they are as responsible for a murder as much as the person who pulls the trigger. All we need is a rational argument from Spock that supports this reasoning. In order for his argument to have any weight, everytime a person is convicted of killing somone with a gun a person repsresenting the gun manufacturer should be convicted as well. This would be true for knife makers, automobile makers etc etc. Dont we really think its absurd that people want to sue McDonalds for being fat? Thats the basis of Spock’s argument. It doesnt make sense here on earth and it doesnt make any more sense in heaven

 

[Warrenton]

. One san say that revelation is the pertinent, and it is just “too bad” for the facts. The other says: “well, there must be something wrong with the revelation”. Maybe it is not a revelation at all, or the revelation was misunderstood, or it was misinterpreted. And therein lies the difference between the believers and the atheists.

This sums it up perfectly. Tolstoy wrote an essay, I think called “What Must We Now Do?” and in it, made a comment regarding the Trinitarian belief to the effect that it is a theory of belief.

Orthodox (Catholics are within this definition) opt for the first option you outline, ie, we stick to the revelation, and have been letting the facts fall where they may for close on to 2K years.

Other Christians, such as the Nestorians, have opted for the second route.

Again, at the risk of boring everyone with the background, the “revelation” that gives imptetus to the Trinitarian formulation can be found in the Gospel of John. Shortly before his arrest, Jesus asked God the Father to return him (Jesus) to the glory that he had “before the world was made.” It goes on, but I won’t repeat it all. Suffice to say, the same theme is what Christ speaks about after his resurrection, and it thought to be the reference Christ makes in his last words “It is finished.”

I think you have demonstrated the validity of Tolstoy’s assertion rather convincingly over the past 17 pages!

Which is not bad work for an atheist!

 

[Warrenton]

Is it your contention that God “created” evil thereby He is responsible for it wherever it occurs? Does that about sum it up?

I thought that though that may have been where we began, the argument developed more along the lines “if there is a logical inconsistency regarding the nature of God, then our understanding of evil and culpability must be flawed.”

 

[seagal]

This sums it up perfectly. Tolstoy wrote an essay, I think called “What Must We Now Do?” and in it, made a comment regarding the Trinitarian belief to the effect that it is a theory of belief.

**Orthodox (Catholics are within this definition) opt for the first option you outline, ie, we stick to the revelation, and have been letting the facts fall where they may for close on to 2K years. **

Other Christians, such as the Nestorians, have opted for the second route.

Again, at the risk of boring everyone with the background, the “revelation” that gives imptetus to the Trinitarian formulation can be found in the Gospel of John. Shortly before his arrest, Jesus asked God the Father to return him (Jesus) to the glory that he had “before the world was made.” It goes on, but I won’t repeat it all. Suffice to say, the same theme is what Christ speaks about after his resurrection, and it thought to be the reference Christ makes in his last words “It is finished.”

I think you have demonstrated the validity of Tolstoy’s assertion rather convincingly over the past 17 pages!

Which is not bad work for an atheist!

Lest Spock get the wrong impression, I’d like to clarify that the Church does not accept every revelation that comes along willy-nilly. There are years of study that goes into it, to see if it fits in with other accepted revelations, to discern whether it is truly from God, and probably lots of other stuff I don’t know about.

 

[ignatius777]

I thought that though that may have been where we began, the argument developed more along the lines “if there is a logical inconsistency regarding the nature of God, then our understanding of evil and culpability must be flawed.”

Then he needs to be brought back to the beginning. The point is the only inconsistency is in his logic which I pointed out on 2 other posts today. Responsibility for evil can not rest with the God even if He created evil any more then smith and wesson can be responsible for murder when a person uses a gun they manufactured to commit the act.

 

[Heliotropium]

***Spock: 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.” ***

What God is saying is that all things come from Him (except sin). In all sin there are two things to be considered,–the guilt and the punishment. Now God is the author of the punishment which is attached to sin but is not the author of the guilt. So if you take away the guilt there is no evil belonging to the punishment which is not caused by God, or is not pleasing to Him. What this means is the evils of punishment, like the “evils” of nature, originate in the Divine Will. What is meant by the "evils’ of nature are things like hunger, thirst, disease, grief, natural disasters, and etc which are the things that very often have no connection with sin at all. This is why it is said that God truly wills the evils of punishment and nature for reasons of perfect justice, but only permits sin or guilt.

As we can see above since God is not the author of the guilt that is attached to sin then the punishments He permits and ordains that come from it are always a Perfect Judgement and therefore are always GOOD. Now what this leaves us with is the guilt of sin which we can see God did not create and is therefore not responcible for. The guilt from sin is a product of your intentions which are another thing God does not control in order that you can have free will. This therefore concludes that the evil that is in your intentions is not created by God and that the evil in your intentions is therefore the product of the incorrect use of your free will and the absence of the love of God in your heart. Logical examples of this can be seen all around us…for example based on the laws of physics cold does not exist! What we call cold is in reality the absense of heat. Same goes for darkness which does not exist but is in reality the absence of light. The Evil your talking about my friend does not exist and is in reality the absese of God in the hearts of man. This was a conclusion made by Albert Einstein

God Bless you my friend

 

[mellestad]

That, in a nutshell, sums up pretty much all the arguments I have ever seen from atheists. That, and saying “God wouldn’t have done it this way, therefore there is no God.”

You don’t debate many atheists then.

This debate is, at most, about showing that a particular deity concept is incoherent. That’s all. More realistically it is simply about navel gazing, which apparently we all enjoy.

Potentially it is also about moving believers towards more liberal and secular approaches to problem solving.

 

[seagal]

You don’t debate many atheists then.

This debate is, at most, about showing that a particular deity concept is incoherent. That’s all. More realistically it is simply about navel gazing, which apparently we all enjoy.

Potentially it is also about moving believers towards more liberal and secular approaches to problem solving.

No, I don’t debate many atheists, but I listen to lots of them between eminent apologists from both sides (atheists and theists). Yes, there are a lot of arguments against the existance of God based on the scientific findings and what have you. But what I hear more than any other argument is “If there was a God then why this, or why does he allow that to happen” or “If God exists then he’s not a very nice/logical/omnipotent God.” This particular debate may be couched in different terms but it seems to boil down to the second statement.

 

[fhansen]

No, I don’t debate many atheists, but I listen to lots of them between eminent apologists from both sides (atheists and theists). Yes, there are a lot of arguments against the existance of God based on the scientific findings and what have you. But what I hear more than any other argument is “If there was a God then why this, or why does he allow that to happen” or “If God exists then he’s not a very nice/logical/omnipotent God.” This particular debate may be couched in different terms but it seems to boil down to the second statement.

There are no arguments against the existence of God based on scientific findings. In any case none of this is navel-gazing, as mellestad referred to it, for a Christian because they believe they’ve found a treasure that solves problems that can’t even be addressed in other ways-such as the problem of death and the problem of evil.