The problem with those that bring up "the problem with evil"

[SGWessells]

“an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” was not a Law.

“Anyone who inflicts a permanent injury on his or her neighbor shall receive the same in return: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The same injury that one gives another shall be inflicted in return.” Leviticus 24:19, 20

Ex. 20:22: “The LORD said to Moses: this is what you will say to the Israelites: you have seen for yourselves that I have spoken to you from heaven…”
Ex. 21:1 [God still speaking]: "These are the ordinances you shall lay before them…
Ex. 21:23 [in that same list of ordinances God personally spoke to Moses]: “But if injury ensues [in a fight between two men], you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand…” etc.
It was as much a law as any of the Ten Commandments.

You are assuming the entire OT is literally true…

What follows if I don’t assume that in the specific passages referred to? The Bible says something about God that is not literally true. Is it true in any sense? If so, in what sense? Metaphorically? A metaphor has to refer to something literal, or it is not a metaphor. If we say, “Samson had a lion’s strength,” we are referring to a real strength, not a fictional or mythic one. In the same way, if we read that God ordered his people to kill every living thing in the city of X, of what reality can that be a metaphor? If it says anything at all about God, it says he is as bloodthirsty and insecure about his honor as any human tyrant who ever lived. If you say it says nothing about God, you contradict the Church’s teaching that every affirmation made by the biblical authors is asserted by the Holy Spirit and is thus without error. Once you say that, you are stuck with at least some degree of literalism whether you like it or not.

One reason human history is so bloodthirsty is that many people believe they can do what they like with impunity…

Well, Pol Pot did; what did God do to punish him? That we know about, that is. I am always told that the Church does not teach that anyone is actually in Hell, which always seemed counter-productive to me; what kind of a threat is a place of torment which might not have anyone in it? At any rate, the Church cannot say with certainty that this man, who murdered millions of his countrymen and disrupted the entire economy, is in Hell. He certainly lived his life in wealth and comfort and died in his bed.

Israel could murder with impunity when God said so. But they had better murder everybody; don’t leave anyone unscathed. In 1 Sam. 15:3, God tells Saul, “now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and women, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.” But Saul keeps back the best sheep and donkeys (though they saved only the king – how typical), and God was angry because he had not slaughtered everybody. I guess there wasn’t enough blood to satisfy him.
By the way, the reason Saul was to smite Amalek was because of “what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt.” (15:2) But that was hundreds of years in the past, in the days of Joshua. Nobody in Amalek was still alive who had done what God punished them for; they were brutally murdered for what their ancestors had done. I guess only God gets to kill with impunity in the end, and he certainly takes advantage of the opportunity.
Or maybe I’m reading this too “literally.” If so, please tell me a less literal way to read it. If it’s symbolic, what does it symbolize? That God will punish disobedience? How do we know this? Well, look for instance in 1 Sam. 15, where God punished Saul…er, I mean…um… Do you get the point? If it didn’t happen, it teaches nothing. If it did happen, we must judge for ourselves what it teaches us.

 

[tonyrey]

“Anyone who inflicts a permanent injury on his or her neighbor shall receive the same in return: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The same injury that one gives another shall be inflicted in return.” Leviticus 24:19, 20

I suppose you think “And do not go up to my altar on steps, or your private parts may be exposed” is in the same category as “Thou shalt not kill.”?

The Jews at the time of the Exodus were a primitive people who were not infallible yet they recognised the fundamental moral laws that still apply in the twenty-first century.

What follows if I don’t assume that in the specific passages referred to? The Bible says something about God that is not literally true. Is it true in any sense? If so, in what sense? Metaphorically? A metaphor has to refer to something literal, or it is not a metaphor. If we say, “Samson had a lion’s strength,” we are referring to a real strength, not a fictional or mythic one. In the same way, if we read that God ordered his people to kill every living thing in the city of X, of what reality can that be a metaphor? If it says anything at all about God, it says he is as bloodthirsty and insecure about his honor as any human tyrant who ever lived. If you say it says nothing about God, you contradict the Church’s teaching that every affirmation made by the biblical authors is asserted by the Holy Spirit and is thus without error. Once you say that, you are stuck with at least some degree of literalism whether you like it or not.

The Jews at the time of the Exodus were a primitive people who were not infallible yet they recognised the fundamental moral laws that still apply in the twenty-first century.

Well, Pol Pot did; what did God do to punish him? That we know about, that is. I am always told that the Church does not teach that anyone is actually in Hell, which always seemed counter-productive to me; what kind of a threat is a place of torment which might not have anyone in it? At any rate, the Church cannot say with certainty that this man, who murdered millions of his countrymen and disrupted the entire economy, is in Hell. He certainly lived his life in wealth and comfort and died in his bed.

Your moral indignation has no rational basis in an amoral universe! Would it really make any difference in your scheme of things if the Church proclaimed that Pol Pot is in hell?

Israel could murder with impunity when God said so. But they had better murder everybody; don’t leave anyone unscathed. In 1 Sam. 15:3, God tells Saul, “now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and women, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.” But Saul keeps back the best sheep and donkeys (though they saved only the king – how typical), and God was angry because he had not slaughtered everybody. I guess there wasn’t enough blood to satisfy him.
By the way, the reason Saul was to smite Amalek was because of “what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt.” (15:2) But that was hundreds of years in the past, in the days of Joshua. Nobody in Amalek was still alive who had done what God punished them for; they were brutally murdered for what their ancestors had done. I guess only God gets to kill with impunity in the end, and he certainly takes advantage of the opportunity.
Or maybe I’m reading this too “literally.” If so, please tell me a less literal way to read it. If it’s symbolic, what does it symbolize? That God will punish disobedience? How do we know this? Well, look for instance in 1 Sam. 15, where God punished Saul…er, I mean…um… Do you get the point? If it didn’t happen, it teaches nothing. If it did happen, we must judge for ourselves what it teaches us.

Hasn’t it occurred to you that these passages throw more light on - and teach us more about - the mentality of a primitive tribe than the nature of God? The prophets’ concept of God and morality foreshadowed the teaching of Jesus who referred to Hosea “I want mercy not sacrifice”…

 

[jochoa]

A method of knowing the Christian God of Catholicism - Part Five - The Faith of Existence and a Direct Alignment of the Absolutes of Existence with John 1:1
Please note: the following are only personal concepts which help me grow closer to God. My intentions for sharing are to hopefully draw others closer to the Christian God of Catholicism, and as subject to harsh criticisms of alignment with Catholicism.

The Unavoidable Faith of Coming into Existence
In existence there are questions of how and why did the existence come to be. Any solution to the questions proposed by earthly life will always require some amount of faith. This is all encompassing of any level of existence, from being to world, world to galaxy, galaxy to universe, universe to multi-verse, God’s existence, etc. Even in regards to the existence of the mind, some say “I think, therefore I am,” which acknowledges one must operate under the assumption of existence.

Although faith is unavoidable, there are some Absolutes of Existence, which any solution will have to satisfy.
First, please consider the Unchanging Forces of the world*
There are seemingly various gravitational forces in the world as we know it. There is, among many, gravity - Why a person forcefully seeks the ground if placed in mid-air. Then there are: peace, happiness, energy, wisdom, and love - Why a person forcefully desires peace, happiness, energy/power, wisdom, and/or companionship, when a person is distressed or sick, sad or violent, unmotivated or weak, ignorant, or lonely. These are the unchanging Laws of Physics and Metaphysics, which must have been fully in place at the moment of Creation.
The recognition of the gravitational forces of peace, happiness, energy, wisdom, and love, is found in the always-present characteristics of every single thought of the mind, feeling of the body, and action of the will of the mind and body.
*The use is not bound to any limit of worldliness. It could refer to mind, planet, solar system, galaxy, universe, multi-universes, parallel universes, etc.

The Necessary Components guaranteed at the start of the world:
John 1:1- “IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Since the Laws of Physics and Metaphysics do not change, this System of Laws must have been fully in place prior to the beginning. (The Word)
All the matter and energy of the world must come from a single source (God)
One or both must be True: A Perfectly Loving God set the Word, and/or these Laws must be fully supportive of a Nature of Perfect Love - Perfect Peace, Patience, Happiness, Kindness, Energy, Motivation, Wisdom, and Knowledge throughout all the body and all the spirit and all the mind and all the will towards others and the self (Either “the Word was with God” or the Nature of God Existed)
All of these factors must work together in unity, to cause the world to begin, to initially start motion, and to be the source all of the resources that can be found in the world. (“the Word was God”)
It is these Absolutes that can be recognized as the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, the Nature of God and the Triune God.

This is currently the extent of my writings on a method of knowing the Christian God of Catholicism. I know of at least three more parts I hope to write on: Recognizing a concept of Fullness of God’s Person and Nature in the Distinct Persons of the Holy Trinity, How the Roles of Situational Living Affect the Actions of Patience and Kindness, and to bring it back to the subject title: Why Pure Evil can only Exist in Spirit.

Please share your thoughts on these concepts, your thoughts on whether or not there is enough alignment to accept the Christian God of Catholicism as Truth, and your thoughts on what topics in addition to those I stated would be beneficial to strengthening the “proof.”

Thank you very much for your time and consideration. I had great fun pondering your challenging question and look forward to more thought!

 

[LittleSoldier]

Well, Pol Pot did; what did God do to punish him? That we know about, that is. I am always told that the Church does not teach that anyone is actually in Hell, which always seemed counter-productive to me; what kind of a threat is a place of torment which might not have anyone in it?

The Church does not teach that anyone specifically is in hell; she does not teach that Hitler is there or that Vlad the Impaler is there, or the Marquis de Sade or my uncle or anyone else. There are definitely people in hell but the Church does not have the knowledge that anyone specifically, by name, is there.

 

[Sair]

Your moral indignation has no rational basis in an amoral universe! Would it really make any difference in your scheme of things if the Church proclaimed that Pol Pot is in hell?

That seems to be a common tactic amongst those who would claim that no morality exists without a (specifically Judeo-Christian) God to supervise and control it - we should all accept that this particular being can act in ways that violate human moral inclinations, as it does according to Biblical documentation; then turn around and say that anyone who denies that this being exists has no right to consider moral concerns. The fact that the universe itself is amoral has no bearing whatsoever upon the fact that humans, as subjective beings within that universe, care about the way we behave towards each other. Yes, we should feel shamed that the likes of Pol Pot got away with their actions - diverting the punishment to an imaginary afterlife is a false absolution for us.

 

[tonyrey]

It is impossible to find out from fossils anything about the precise number of our ancestors but that’s not the real issue. It is an undeniable historical fact that one of our forbears must have grasped for the first time that what he intended to do was wrong - and he went ahead nevertheless.

No response!

There must have been an original sin - unless one denies the reality of good and evil altogether. We can only speculate as to its nature but it must have been very serious, i.e. a mortal sin. Otherwise it would not have occurred to some one who had been amoral until that moment. It was probably an act of murder given the savage environment. It is also probable that a woman was involved because the man would not have lived alone. At all events there is no doubt whatsoever that the bloodstained record and guilt of humanity had a beginning in time and space. That is not a gratuitous theological belief but a rational philsophical conclusion based on inexorable logic…

No response!

That seems to be a common tactic amongst those who would claim that no morality exists without a (specifically Judeo-Christian) God to supervise and control it …

An erroneous notion of the relation of morality to God - as proved by the bloodstained history of humanity…

• we should all accept that this particular being can act in ways that violate human moral inclinations, as it does according to Biblical documentation; then turn around and say that anyone who denies that this being exists has no right to consider moral concerns.

A fundamentalistic distortion diametrically opposed to the concept of God in the New Testament.

The fact that the universe itself is amoral has no bearing whatsoever upon the fact that humans, as subjective beings within that universe, care about the way we behave towards each other.

It has an immense bearing on the fact that millions of people have not, do not and will not care about the way others are treated - including those who put the lives of their pets before persons they do not know…

Yes, we should feel shamed that the likes of Pol Pot got away with their actions - diverting the punishment to an imaginary afterlife is a false absolution for us.

Your dogmatic assertion reveals a closed mind…

 

[LittleSoldier]

That seems to be a common tactic amongst those who would claim that no morality exists without a (specifically Judeo-Christian) God to supervise and control it - we should all accept that this particular being can act in ways that violate human moral inclinations, as it does according to Biblical documentation; then turn around and say that anyone who denies that this being exists has no right to consider moral concerns.

Morality can exist without a God at all. And nobody has to accept that God exists or that, if He does, can act in ways that “violate” HUMAN moral inclinations. God is not human, with the exception of Jesus who is God-incarnate. Why should a Being that is not human be subjected to human moral inclinations? Are cats subject to human moral inclinations? Banana slugs? Dolphins?

You can very well deny that God exists and yet still consider moral concerns. Why would anyone say otherwise? Many, if not most atheists are good, moral human beings. But there is a slight problem. Who determines morality? What if I decide that it is morally acceptable (and good) for me to murder someone? What if I carry it through? Am I being moral? Who is to say that I’m not? You? Who is the authority? If you say your authority is you then you really should admit that my authority should be me and then we end up with moral relativism and the whole system collapses.

Who is your authority?

The fact that the universe itself is amoral has no bearing whatsoever upon the fact that humans, as subjective beings within that universe, care about the way we behave towards each other. Yes, we should feel shamed that the likes of Pol Pot got away with their actions - diverting the punishment to an imaginary afterlife is a false absolution for us.

How do you know there is no afterlife? If there is an afterlife what is wrong with diverting the punishment to that afterlife? It’s not false absolution for us - it is knowledge that we, as human beings, just aren’t good at determining punishment or even guilt.

 

[PJM]

=jochoa;8517004]The First Part of Knowing is by the Supreme Philosophy of Being Peaceful, Happy, Energetic, and Wise as an Individual and Society, also including a Simple, and working, Concept of the Holy Trinity.
Please note that the following are only personal conceptualizations.
Here are some Guiding Questions to consider:
Do you want to live in a state of Unbreakable Peace?
Do you want to live in a state of Limitless Happiness?
Do you want to live with Unstoppable Energy?
Do you want All the Wisdom Necessary to be at Peace with Limited Knowledge?
Do you want Others around you to live in the Culmination of These Blessings?

EXTREMELY THOUGHT provoking

However I sense two evident “holes” in your idea of an attainable perfect utopia in this life.

I didn’t notice the absolutely essential role of the Church and the Magisterium not do I see an accounting for these case and cause of human suffering.

Take Up your Cross and Follow Me
**Phil.2: 8 “**And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross **Luke.9 :23 **And he said to all, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. Mark.8: 34 And he called to him the multitude with his disciples, and said to them, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. Luke.9: 23 And he said to all, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. **Luke.14: 7 **]Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple.”

1Pet.4: 13 ” But rejoice in so far as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.

1Pet.5: 1, 9 “So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experience of suffering is required of your brotherhood throughout the world.”

2Tim.4: 5 “As for you, always be steady, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.”

Phil.1: 29 “For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, “

2Thes.1: 5 “This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be made worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering “

Heb. 2: 10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering."

ALONG WITH the keys to gate of heaven [control of access] given to Peter alone and through Him to His RCC… Are these evidences.

** Matt. 28:16-20 " Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." **

**John 17: 15-19 **[Jesus Praying for Peter and the other Apostles] "I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. ** As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. **[19] And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth

So here Jesus passes on to and through Peter His very own powers and God as well as His authority as The Christ.

Well done; but these two issues must find a way into the text, and perhaps a mre realistic view of the possibilites of totoal happiness, joy, and peace?

God Bless you, THANKS,
Pat

 

[PJM]

A Method of Knowing God - Part Two - The Nature of a Truly Loving Action and the Law of Every Single Action
Please note, in the first part of my proposed method, I was only sharing the simplified concept of the Holy Trinity to greater glorify the wisdom found in the Greatest Commandments. Since the major focus of my method is to focus on achieving and “spreading the means to” peace, happiness, energy, and wisdom, please consider further insight gained from the Greatest Commandments. And as always, these are personal concepts which have helped me grow closer to God, and I share in hopes of you grower closer to God, and your sharing of harsh critiques of misalignment with Catholicism.

A Truly Loving Action is the pinnacle of all the factors of the Greatest Commandments.
For simplicity of presentation, please consider some basic logic:
Love=patience and kindness, and It yields peace and happiness
True Love/God’s Nature=the Greatest Commandments lived perfectly and fittingly with the desires of God all the time - The purpose of man and humanity
Heart=all parts of the body
Soul=the spirit, the immaterial version of the person, including the nature of the person
Mind=all thoughts of the mind
Strength=all actions of the Will, which proceeds from the body and mind
Neighbor=all others
Yourself=the self
God=God, God IS, The Creator, Lord, The Holy Trinity, The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit, Love, Peace, Happiness, Energy, Jesus Christ, and the List Goes On and On…
Nature=The how and why the person does what s/he does. The nature can be further recognized as the combination of the following:
-the desiring of peace, happiness, energy, and wisdom
-the qualities of patience, kindness, motivation, and knowledge
-the achievement of patience/peace, kindness/happiness, motivation/energy, and knowledge/wisdom
Result=unbreakable peace, limitless happiness, and unstoppable energy as an individual and society
Therefore…
TLA=LG(H+S+M+W)(N+Y)
Expansion…
TLA=LGHN+LGHY+LGSN+LGHY+LGMN+LGMY+LGWN+LGWY
Therefore…
A truly loving action will satisfy all factors in the above equation.

I would like to propose the following as law. It is a formula which I believe is unchanging and applicable to every action.
Every single action is the combination of:
-The desires of peace/patience, happiness/kindness, and energy/motivation throughout the body, spirit, thoughts, and will
-The quality of patience/peace, kindness/happiness, and motivation/energy of the body, spirit, thoughts, and will

Human Nature versus God’s Nature
God’s nature is doing, desiring to do, and partaking in the blessings of truly loving actions all the time with all his being. This can be defined further as:
-perfect patience, perfect kindness, perfect motivation, and perfect knowledge
-unbreakable peace, limitless happiness, unstoppable energy, and complete wisdom
-desiring others to freely participate in the perfections of patience, kindness, motivation, and knowledge, so they may also experience and share the means to unbreakable peace, limitless happiness, unstoppable energy, and perfect knowledge
Human nature can be recognized as any incomplete/unperfected combination of the factors of a being’s nature.

Guiding Questions to Determine the Quality of Practice

1. If your body is feeling tense, or your mind is thinking stressful thoughts: why or how are you not being patient?
2. If your body is feeling hurt or angry, or your mind is thinking sad or frustrated thoughts: Why or how are you not being kind?
3. If your body is feeling tired of being patient and kind, or your mind is fatigued of being patient and kind: why or how are you not being motivated for God?
4. If your relationships are experiencing strife or boredom or sadness: why or how are you not being, respectively, patient or kind?
   *Please Note: An action of patience and kindness requires consideration of situation, relation, recognition of complete purpose, the knowledge and wisdom of yourself and those whom you interact with, and other considerations I have yet to realize.

The next part of a method of knowing God is defining somewhat deeper the states of perfection, followed by the natural progression of becoming One with the Holy Spirit.

Thoughts?

WOW; VERY deep and profound. The parts I hi-lighted in RED have little real value and may even add to the confusion.

IF I understand your position and goal, it is the absolute need for charity and love to be manifestly evident if everything we do? In particular is your concern [and rightly so] for what we find at times to be caustic remarks against god and against the ONLY church actually founded by God.

The odds of such people reading your post are quite limited due to two factors. The “life” of a post and the length of you lesson.

I LOVE your enthusiasm and applaud your goal. How do you plan to get your message to those for whom it is directed? Yes, I do understand that you see the potential for good being applicable to everyone. Perhaps a simpler title would help? “ RU seeking peace, joy, love?” or some such? Narrowing your focus may help to get wider readership?

PLEASE keep me in the loop, and again I’m sorry I did not respond earlier. I was locked out for a time due to password issues.

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[LittleSoldier]

WOW; VERY deep and profound. The parts I hi-lighted in RED have little real value and may even add to the confusion.

IF I understand your position and goal, it is the absolute need for charity and love to be manifestly evident if everything we do? In particular is your concern [and rightly so] for what we find at times to be caustic remarks against god and against the ONLY church actually founded by God.

The odds of such people reading your post are quite limited due to two factors. The “life” of a post and the length of you lesson.

I LOVE your enthusiasm and applaud your goal. How do you plan to get your message to those for whom it is directed? Yes, I do understand that you see the potential for good being applicable to everyone. Perhaps a simpler title would help? “ RU seeking peace, joy, love?” or some such? Narrowing your focus may help to get wider readership?

PLEASE keep me in the loop, and again I’m sorry I did not respond earlier. I was locked out for a time due to password issues.

Love and prayers,
Pat

I love the parts you highlighted in red, although I can understand that they might be confusing. I’m always amazed by people who have the ability to take constructs in one form and turn them into mathematical formulas (I guess that should really be “formulae…”).

I’m keeping a copy of all the posts because I can see how helpful they can be for me.

 

[LittleSoldier]

LittleSoldier wrote: "It doesn’t matter if people “decide.” The existence of God (and there is only one) is true whether people decide that God is to their liking or not. His presence is not subjective. Our acceptance of God makes no difference as to whether God exists. He just exists.

Yup. That’s what I wrote.

True, but irrelevant. We still have to decide which God, if any, deserves our allegiance, since none of them appears to us as Jesus did to Paul. And the only instrument we have to make that decision with is our own judgment. Other things can influence us, such as parents, peers, culture, desires, etc., but in the end, our own judgment has to decide. It is true that deciding that God exists doesn’t make him exist, just as deciding that he doesn’t exist doesn’t make him nonexistent. But this is true of any god that exists. You believe that the god you accept is the only one that exists, yes; but by your own principle, that doesn’t make him the only god that exists. Each person has to determine which one he believes in for himself.

Not irrelevant at all. There is only one God and so the problem of deciding “which God…deserves our allegience” is simplified. No other Gods exist. Of course one does not need to promise allegiance to the one God or can choose someone like Satan or a golden calf, who are not gods at all. But as God is Love, the best option is to offer one’s allegiance to the one God.

How do you know that God doesn’t appear to us as Jesus did to Paul? Maybe He doesn’t appear to men on horseback and blind them (or maybe He does) but He certainly can appear to people!

You’re right that my acceptance of the God I believe exists does not make that God exist. I’m certainly not powerful enough to call a God into being. However, I do more than believe that my (and everyone’s) God exists - I KNOW it. God is not subjective; people can no more create their own gods than create their own worlds. And if I were to create a god I certainly wouldn’t create one who would tell me to not be selfish as I would have to be selfish to create him in the first place. I also wouldn’t create a god that suffers so horribly to save me or who tells me to worship him on Sunday and to be chaste and love my neighbor when the truth is I would really like to pop him one across the face. There is one God and the existence of this God is not dependent on anyone’s acceptance of Him. He exists because He exists. He is because He is.

Did I say the minority should be “of no consequence”? If I give a thousand dollars to feed the poor, then more poor people will be fed than if I gave a hundred dollars. Does that mean that I consider the poor who are not fed “of no consequence”? That they deserve to starve? Of course not. What it does mean is that it’s better to give a thousand because more people will be in the fed group and fewer in the hungry group.

You implied it by your statement:

Why can’t we say morality should be determined by whatever produces the greatest good for the greatest number…

Your sentence kind of deteriorates at this point (there is no right parenthesis or question mark. Would you care to restate it?

Exactly. We are not omniscient. But we are responsible. Jesus said feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc.; in fact, he made doing so a condition for entering the Kingdom in Mat. 25:31-46, did he not? Despite the fact that we don’t know whether they would be better off starving and shivering. God can act on his knowledge, we have to act on ours, limited as it is. In your quote above, you’re only justifying the goats. Jesus, on the other hand, said “as you have done to the least of these, you have done to me.”
But I don’t have to believe in Jesus to know that a man well fed can get to heaven as easily as a hungry one, and be well fed in addition. Maybe he can get there easier, being also filled with gratitude to God rather than bitterness.

I’m not referring to the ease of a man being well-fed going to God; I am referring to the person who has fed him. How do you know that a “man well fed can get to heaven as easily as a hungry one?” That indicates some sort of authority. Who is your authority?

I’m not justifying the goats in my quote. I don’t have the ability to justify anyone. My point is that even the least of God’s brethren are important. If anything that points to the sheep because the sheep are the ones who feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those in prison, etc. And by doing that to their fellow human beings they are doing it to God.
We are not always responsible. Having free choice gives us the power to decide whether to be responsible or to shirk what probably should be our responsibilities.

-----continued in next post-----

 

[LittleSoldier]

-----continuation of last post-----

If God’s commands are absolute and unchanging, how can Jesus change them? In Matt. 5:19, Jesus says whoever teaches others to break the least commandment of the law will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; then he teaches others to do just that in Mat. 5:38-39: “You have heard that it was said, ‘an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth’; it I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil, etc.” They have not just “heard it said;” God himself commanded it in Ex. 21:24 and Lev. 24:20. So which of these is absolute and unchanging?

Does God have to obey his own laws, or not? If not, then they are good for us, but not for him, therefore not absolute; if so, why does he disobey them so often in the Bible? God either disobeys or commands others to disobey every one of the ten commandments but the first.

And how well does God conform to his own definition of love? 1 Cor. 13 says love is not jealous, but God is, Ex. 20:5; love does not “brood over injury” (1 Cor. 13:5), but God “visits the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children to the fourth generation,” Ex. 34:7, and commands Saul to murder the Amalekits for what their ancestors did generations before, 1 Sam. 15:2. Love is “not quick-tempered”, but although the OT often says God is slow to anger, his anger was kindled pretty swiftly against Moses in Ex. 4:14; against Israel in Num. 11:14; against Uzzah in 2 Sam. 6>7 (for only wanting to steady the ark to keep it from falling; but God was so furious that he instantly killed him; in fact, I’m amazed that he didn’t follow his usual pattern and kill a few thousand innocents standing around). A good concordance will show many more examples, but I will move on. “Love is patient,” 1 Cor. 13:4. Well, when God is nursing his wrath against a nation, he can certainly be patient, but I doubt that’s what Paul meant; and Uzzah certainly experienced God’s patience. Love “rejoices not in wrongdoing,” and scripture defines lying as damnable, Rev. 21:8; but God commands people to lie on his behalf in Ex. 3:18 and 5:1, in 1 Sam. 16:2, rewards Rahab for lying in Jos. 2:3-6, puts a lying spirit in a prophet’s mouth, 1 Kings 22:23, etc. God forbids adultery, then engineers it in 2 Sam. 12:11, 12. Believe me, I could go on for pages. So unless you are willing to deny the accuracy of the whole OT, don’t tell me that God’s commands are absolute, since he doesn’t respect them enough to follow them himself. Maybe one reason human history is so bloodthirsty is that so many are following their Maker’s example like we’re supposed to.

I am not a bible scholar but I do know that in order to be one I would need to know the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and other languages as they were used in the time of the OT and NT (which means one would have to know about hyperbole, nuances, speech inflections, and what every single word meant in the time it was used - remember when people were called “turkeys” and everyone yukked it up (except me; I just never found that funny); people were also called “lobsters” at one time in the US and people yukked it up then, too. Surely you don’t think that people were really believing that other people were turkeys and lobsters.) I would also need to be a historian with expertise in the period of time covered by the entire bible and an expert in Judaism, Christianity, and the various pagan religions practiced during bible times (and probably before).

It’s certainly easy enough to find “errors” in the bible and these are probably due to errors in translation (e.g. are we really commanded to “not kill?” I kill every time I breathe or step on a tiny insect; I can’t help it.) If you wish to discuss every bit of scripture you have provided (and more) with me you will have to use the original language and context. Otherwise I can’t discuss these with you. Sorry. I’m trying to learn Latin right now and am having problems enough with that language; I’d love to learn Hebrew and Greek and Aramaic but I don’t think I have time enough on this earth to be able to accomplish that task. Also, each of those examples you have provided should have its own thread. You state yourself that you could write pages; so could I but I’m already 2,000 characters over the limit for one post.

God’s commands *are *absolute; however they are *His *commands, not ours and they are His to do with as He wishes. I’m not going to claim that God can’t do whatever He wants to do - if He wants to change a command then He can change a command. I never stated that God’s commands are unchanging; I stated that God is unchanging. There is a huge difference between the two.

 

[jochoa]

EXTREMELY THOUGHT provoking

However I sense two evident “holes” in your idea of an attainable perfect utopia in this life.

I didn’t notice the absolutely essential role of the Church and the Magisterium not do I see an accounting for these case and cause of human suffering.

Thank you very much for your kind thoughts and your lengthy consideration! I deeply appreciate your criticisms and look forward to developing my understandings of the purpose accordingly.

Regarding the Evident “Holes”
Will the following three factors justify the absolute necessity of the Church?
A revised title of the work is now: “A method to knowing the Christian God of Catholicism is Truth.” Please note that other than myself using Catholicism, including its Bible, Sacraments, Prayers, Catechisms, and Doctrines, this is not yet presented as a method to knowing Catholicism is God’s Church.
A preface or disclaimer, as well as a signature which states: What I share are personal reflections from the combination of Scripture (founded heavily on the Greatest Commandments), as Jesus taught and demonstrated in his Crucifixion, as celebrated in the Sacraments of Catholicism, as found in prayers of Catholicism, as lead by the Doctrines of the Magisterium, as taught by the Catechisms of the Church, and as experienced in life.

Regarding Suffering
Will the following addition to the achievement of peace, happiness, motivation, and wisdom by suffice?
Now Recognize:
Unbreakable Peace is only achievable through Perfect Patience.
Limitless Happiness…through Perfect Kindness.
Unstoppable Energy…through Perfect Motivation.
The Foundation of Wisdom…through the Perfect Philosophy of Peace, Happiness, and Energy throughout the Being and Society, as well as a working Simple Philosophy of the 3 Persons in the One Person of God.
Please note: Although your life and relationships will become far more peaceful, happy, energetic, and wise by perfecting your practice of patience, kindness, motivation, and wisdom, it is the most difficult challenge found in being part of a free society in which not everyone lives according to similar rules.

WOW; VERY deep and profound. The parts I hi-lighted in RED have little real value and may even add to the confusion.

Could you explain a little deeper why you perceive little value and confusion? The reason why I resorted to defining by means of variables of factors of an equation is because I think it reveals the challenge of a truly loving action without too much redundancy, and I find writing out each factor in words appears too redundant and easily perceived as disconnected.

IF I understand your position and goal, it is the absolute need for charity and love to be manifestly evident if everything we do? In particular is your concern [and rightly so] for what we find at times to be caustic remarks against god and against the ONLY church actually founded by God.

By sharing my understandings, my primary goal is to learn from others and through reflection how to be more at one with God, His Church, and my purpose. My secondary goal is to hopefully draw others to accept Christ as Savior, God as Father, and Catholicism as the Means. The primary goal of defining and doing a truly loving action is to learn how to and to experience a greater closeness with God, The Holy Spirit, peace, happiness, energy, and wisdom as a person and society, which can only be assessed by the peace, happiness, energy, and wisdom that is manifestly evident in everything we do.

The odds of such people reading your post are quite limited due to two factors. The “life” of a post and the length of you lesson.

The idea is to only share the parts which are requested. For this particular instance, SGWessells asked, “Religions have also disagreed on what moral laws God wants us to obey. But if God is the supreme arbiter of morality, how do you decide which God is the right one? My thinking was to recognize what is supreme morality, which God is aligned with supreme morality, and provide supporting facts. I may have gotten a little carried away by sharing more parts before SGWessells responded, but I thought it might help in his analysis. I am always working on stating it more concisely, however, this is currently the extent of my wisdom.

I LOVE your enthusiasm and applaud your goal. How do you plan to get your message to those for whom it is directed? Yes, I do understand that you see the potential for good being applicable to everyone. Perhaps a simpler title would help? “ RU seeking peace, joy, love?” or some such? Narrowing your focus may help to get wider readership?

The first part of the plan is to work on me. I am far from being perfect at loving God through my life, family, and work. Second, I will continue to learn and share here at Catholic Forums, for it is one of the only places I know where people are regularly asking, discussing, and teaching how to be better followers of Christ and His Church and sharing differing perspectives of outlooks on life. Third, if my understandings can ever be recognized as fully inside the teachings of Catholicism, perhaps I will venture elsewhere to spread the word. Regarding sharing the message: I only plan to share as much of the message that is necessary to satisfy the one questioning. Regarding the Title, what do you think of the following? A method to knowing the Christian God of Catholicism is Truth

Thank you very much for your excellent considerations! I look forward to hearing your thoughts!

 

[PJM]

=jochoa;8544761]Thank you very much for your kind thoughts and your lengthy consideration! I deeply appreciate your criticisms and look forward to developing my understandings of the purpose accordingly.

Regarding the Evident “Holes”
Will the following three factors justify the absolute necessity of the Church?
A revised title of the work is now: “A method to knowing the Christian God of Catholicism is Truth.” Please note that other than myself using Catholicism, including its Bible, Sacraments, Prayers, Catechisms, and Doctrines, this is not yet presented as a method to knowing Catholicism is God’s Church.
A preface or disclaimer, as well as a signature which states: What I share are personal reflections from the combination of Scripture (founded heavily on the Greatest Commandments), as Jesus taught and demonstrated in his Crucifixion, as celebrated in the Sacraments of Catholicism, as found in prayers of Catholicism, as lead by the Doctrines of the Magisterium, as taught by the Catechisms of the Church, and as experienced in life.

Regarding Suffering
Will the following addition to the achievement of peace, happiness, motivation, and wisdom by suffice?
Now Recognize:
Unbreakable Peace is only achievable through Perfect Patience.
Limitless Happiness…through Perfect Kindness.
Unstoppable Energy…through Perfect Motivation.
The Foundation of Wisdom…through the Perfect Philosophy of Peace, Happiness, and Energy throughout the Being and Society, as well as a working Simple Philosophy of the 3 Persons in the One Person of God.
Please note: Although your life and relationships will become far more peaceful, happy, energetic, and wise by perfecting your practice of patience, kindness, motivation, and wisdom, it is the most difficult challenge found in being part of a free society in which not everyone lives according to similar rules.

Could you explain a little deeper why you perceive little value and confusion? The reason why I resorted to defining by means of variables of factors of an equation is because I think it reveals the challenge of a truly loving action without too much redundancy, and I find writing out each factor in words appears too redundant and easily perceived as disconnected.

By sharing my understandings, my primary goal is to learn from others and through reflection how to be more at one with God, His Church, and my purpose. My secondary goal is to hopefully draw others to accept Christ as Savior, God as Father, and Catholicism as the Means. The primary goal of defining and doing a truly loving action is to learn how to and to experience a greater closeness with God, The Holy Spirit, peace, happiness, energy, and wisdom as a person and society, which can only be assessed by the peace, happiness, energy, and wisdom that is manifestly evident in everything we do.

The idea is to only share the parts which are requested. For this particular instance, SGWessells asked, “Religions have also disagreed on what moral laws God wants us to obey. But if God is the supreme arbiter of morality, how do you decide which God is the right one? My thinking was to recognize what is supreme morality, which God is aligned with supreme morality, and provide supporting facts. I may have gotten a little carried away by sharing more parts before SGWessells responded, but I thought it might help in his analysis. I am always working on stating it more concisely, however, this is currently the extent of my wisdom.

The first part of the plan is to work on me. I am far from being perfect at loving God through my life, family, and work. Second, I will continue to learn and share here at Catholic Forums, for it is one of the only places I know where people are regularly asking, discussing, and teaching how to be better followers of Christ and His Church and sharing differing perspectives of outlooks on life. Third, if my understandings can ever be recognized as fully inside the teachings of Catholicism, perhaps I will venture elsewhere to spread the word. Regarding sharing the message: I only plan to share as much of the message that is necessary to satisfy the one questioning. Regarding the Title, what do you think of the following? A method to knowing the Christian God of Catholicism is Truth

Thank you very much for your excellent considerations! I look forward to hearing your thoughts!

Rarely at a loss for words. I’m unsure where to go with this. Your goal is perfection, and as I understand as your teaching; it is only through attaining this precise level that ones self-“complete” is attained.

I wonder how many of us mortals see perfection as a real attainable goal. Certainly it is a MUST in the spiritual realm for eteranl glory with Christ; but we have the sacraments and grace to aid us in this reguard. The areas of perfection you speak of somehow seem to me [IMO! only] to be more of personal gratifications than spiritual? BUT I’m not entirely clear on that either? There is a connect there that I can’t quite grasp.

I wish I could be of more help to you. Your sencerity and intensity are most gratifying.

I’ll keep you in my prayers,
God Bless you,
Pat

 

[jochoa]

I love the parts you highlighted in red, although I can understand that they might be confusing. I’m always amazed by people who have the ability to take constructs in one form and turn them into mathematical formulas (I guess that should really be “formulae…”).

I’m keeping a copy of all the posts because I can see how helpful they can be for me.

I greatly appreciate you sharing your kind thoughts! As I share these understandings, my truest intentions are to strengthen faith, foster hope, and share a simple means to enable others to help themselves better help others, in order to make our world a far better place.

In your consideration of my understandings, please share any errors, small or big, you come across.

 

[jochoa]

Rarely at a loss for words. I’m unsure where to go with this. Your goal is perfection, and as I understand as your teaching; it is only through attaining this precise level that ones self-“complete” is attained.

Please note: In regards to the teaching, I consider this only an understanding of the teachings of the Lord, Our God and His Church. In regards to self-“completion”: I would prefer to refer to it as perfectly loving, for when one dedicates their life to spreading the Love of God, the self will never be complete because there will always be more sharing to do.

I wonder how many of us mortals see perfection as a real attainable goal. Certainly it is a MUST in the spiritual realm for eteranl glory with Christ; but we have the sacraments and grace to aid us in this reguard. The areas of perfection you speak of somehow seem to me [IMO! only] to be more of personal gratifications than spiritual? BUT I’m not entirely clear on that either? There is a connect there that I can’t quite grasp.

I apologize for my approach in presenting these concepts. My intentions are not to challenge others to perfection because I know the world can be a cruel place. Unfortunately, I can only present my ideas based on my current knowledge and await feedback from differing perspectives. Thank you for helping me consider where I might be too intrusive, I will try my best to consider a gentler approach. Please consider a few concepts:
-In regards to perfection: The idea is to not think about achieving perfection, the idea is to think about trying to obtain greater and longer lasting peace and happiness, through the powers of patience, kindness, motivation, and wisdom, as individuals and a society, today, than we did yesterday.
-In regards to becoming one of perfection, the sacraments, prayer, and grace are required, as well as, the best means to get there. Also, if we must be perfect before entering God’s Kingdom, then we can and must attain perfection.
-In regards to personal gratifications, please consider the following concepts:
First, thank you for being honest. These are the harsh criticisms I seek.
Second, I am trying very hard to figure out how to gracefully include that “spreading the means” is not only a necessary part of love, it is the most important. However, in order to “spread the means” one must be excellent, if not perfect, at doing the means personally. And it is not until one “spreads the means” that limitless happiness is truly possible because if one does not “spread the means,” s/he will always be subject to the limits of her/his mind, body, and will. Limitless happiness requires outside influence. I like to think this is one method of understanding the paradox of a Selfish, but Selfless God. The only way to experience a limitless happiness is to be unconditionally selfless.

I wish I could be of more help to you. Your sencerity and intensity are most gratifying.

You have been of tremendous help! Thank you very much for all your time, consideration, and words.

Thank you for the prayers, and you will definitely be in mine!

 

[SGWessells]

I suppose you think “And do not go up to my altar on steps, or your private parts may be exposed” is in the same category as “Thou shalt not kill.”?

Evidently Jesus did. “Do not think that I am come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.” Mat. 5:17,18.

Your moral indignation has no rational basis in an amoral universe! Would it really make any difference in your scheme of things if the Church proclaimed that Pol Pot is in hell?

It might give the church a bit more credibility as a moral teacher.

Hasn’t it occurred to you that these passages throw more light on - and teach us more about - the mentality of a primitive tribe than the nature of God?

Of course! The whole OT is like that. But a faithful Catholic, it seems to me, is not allowed to write off any part of scripture as the “mentality of a primitive tribe” and not about the nature of God. All scripture, with all its parts, is revealed by the Holy Spirit, and therefore without error in all it affirms. That is the teaching of your church, so you are stuck with it. I am not.

 

[SGWessells]

That seems to be a common tactic amongst those who would claim that no morality exists without a (specifically Judeo-Christian) God to supervise and control it - we should all accept that this particular being can act in ways that violate human moral inclinations, as it does according to Biblical documentation; then turn around and say that anyone who denies that this being exists has no right to consider moral concerns. The fact that the universe itself is amoral has no bearing whatsoever upon the fact that humans, as subjective beings within that universe, care about the way we behave towards each other. Yes, we should feel shamed that the likes of Pol Pot got away with their actions - diverting the punishment to an imaginary afterlife is a false absolution for us.

Bravo! :clapping:

 

[SGWessells]

Who determines morality? What if I decide that it is morally acceptable (and good) for me to murder someone? What if I carry it through? Am I being moral? Who is to say that I’m not? You? Who is the authority? If you say your authority is you then you really should admit that my authority should be me and then we end up with moral relativism and the whole system collapses.

This is a difficult issue, but I don’t see where saying “the God I believe in says murder is wrong” is essentially different from saying “I say murder is wrong.” Invoking a deity just gives your private judgment a moral authority it has not earned.
Besides, somebody else can say, “well, my God thinks it’s perfectly okay, in fact obligatory, to kill a woman who allows herself to be raped.” There are some Muslims who believe this (thankfully, not all). How is the authority of their God any less valid for them than that of your God is for you? Invoking God just pushes the issue back a notch; it doesn’t resolve it, unless you assume that your God has greater authority than anyone else’s, and you can say with certainty what his moral teaching is. But then you have to prove it.
I don’t ground moral authority on my authority or any other individual’s authority. My experience is that everyone gradually forms a conscience out of parental and religious teachings, inborn temperament, life experience, and cultural laws and norms. These sometimes conflict with our desires and inherited behavior patterns from our primate ancestors, and we have to determine the best course of action by our own reason applied to the values formed as I said. That isn’t as comfortable as having a handy list of do’s and don’ts from your deity which saves you from having to think about it overmuch, but it is also not as arbitrary as me saying “yes it is” and you saying “no it isn’t.”
There are certain values we take for granted no matter what our religion. They seem to be hardwired in us. However, they can be overcome given sufficient passion or rationalization. I don’t believe in the “doctrine” of original sin, but I believe in the reality; that is, that each of us is capable of good or evil, and ultimately our personal reason, judging from our values, tells us what we ought to do. Then it’s up to our will to do it.

 

[SGWessells]

However, I do more than believe that my (and everyone’s) God exists - I KNOW it.

You have a feeling that you know God exists. Other people have a feeling just as strong that they KNOW that Krishna exists, or Allah, or lots of other gods. Just as your subjective conviction cannot make God exist, your subjective feeling that you KNOW God exists is not the same as knowledge that God exists. That needs evidence and objective proof.