The sign on God's desk says:

[Servus_Pio_XII]

Hitetlen:

That, unfortunately makes no sense. An omniscient being needs to “tests”, he already KNOWS the results. Your position either denies God’s omniscience, or paints a picture of a “stupid” God, who keeps performing tests, even when he knows the results.

No, it doesn’t. He knows all THAT THERE IS TO KNOW. What you suggest is some form of predestination, which is entirely contrary to our theology. Omniscience is negated by free will. Randomisation. God knows what will eventually happen, and He will guide us there, but relegation of a soul to Heaven or Hell before they have even a minute chance to redeem themselves is out of the question.

I am a bit short on time at the moment, I will respond to the rest of the post a little later (i.e. tomorrow).

 

[BlindSheep]

Hitetlen:

I agree you, but this brings us back to the original proposition: I said that the mere existence of free will does not allow God “off the hook” as far as the problem of evil goes. If the existence of free will is not the cause of evil, and evil exists, then what is the cause? You cannot argue “men’s sinful nature”, because God either did not create our “sinful nature”, or he did. If he did not create it, where did it come from? Did it come from against God’s desire? How is that possible? If he did create it, he is responsible.

You are treating free will as part of a chain of cause and effect, whereas free will actually implies the choice of how it is exercised is a cause in itself. The cause of evil is the way in which certain creatures chose to exercise their free will. Free will means that they could have chosen good, and therefore, are responsible for having chosen evil. Those angels, and Mary, who chose good from the first have free will, but exercised their free will in the choice to do good.

No, I did not mean compulsion, just a desire not to do evil. One can acts against one’s desire, but does not have to.

This is different for creatures without original sin or the stain of original sin, and those who have this. Without it, there is not a desire for evil in the sense that we have it, though choosing evil is still possible and was done by some beings. Those that have the stain of original sin (you and I) are subject to a disordered desire to do evil (concupiscence). Again, if you would like more information about this doctrine you might find a better explanation by looking in the Catechism, or try the Ask an Apologist forum, the Catholic Encyclopedia at newadvent.com, or just start another thread on the topic here, since I’m sure you’ll get a better explanation than I have given.

Huh, that is new to me. Do you mean that heaven is “frozen”? There is no change, no “time”, just a frozen existence? I don’t think that is a doctrine anyone has ever suggested. If there is some “meta-time”, then change is possible, and the angels (for example) do not wish to exercise their free will, because its would be against their “nature”. But that is not free will as you defined it.

Not frozen, maybe I could explain it better by saying it is unchanging because it is complete. We change our minds when we are exposed to new information, new experiences, when we see the consequences of our decisions, etc. while angels and saints in heaven have access to all this; they aren’t partially ignorant, as we are, and therefore don’t change their minds.
Again, this is my attempt to express in words a concept which is richer and fuller than the language, so you might get a more complete picture by reading other people’s descriptions.

 

[BlindSheep]

Hitetlen:

I fail to see the difference. Eternal pain, suffering and damnation is a threat, even if one chooses to call it a “promise”. (Use the “duck test” )

I would say it is a fact. Eternal life separated from God=eternal suffering for the soul, however, the choice to reject God is free and not due to ignorance, if it is to be damning. Therefore, the souls in hell would not choose differently now, since their hatred for God is greater than their suffering in being separated from Him. I can’t remember where I read it, but someone said the locks on the gates of hell are on the inside; not to keep the damned in, but to keep God out.

The promise not just an eternity being alone (though that would be pretty bad), but gnashing of teeth (by the way, do souls have teeth?) everlasting fire that is not quenched, and other bad things. I am sorry, but in my eyes that is mafia-tactics. A good mafioso never utters an explicit threat, but everyone understands what the smooth words actually mean.

The “fire” and “gnashing of teeth” are an expression of the suffering of a soul that is separated from God who created it. Actually, I would say we have a small taste of that suffering even now, when we turn away from God, in the spiritual yearning and emptiness people experience. Now, maybe you don’t, but a lot of people do experience such a feeling, in spite of fulfilling relationships, success, wealth, etc.

It would not be bad, if he said that the price is the cessation of existence. You don’t worship God, you cease to exist, and that is it. That would not be a threat. But everlasting pain is a totally different ballgame, and that is precisely what the Bible says, many times and explicitly.

It is what it is, not necessarily better or worse. If one accepts the idea of free will, we cannot blame God if our choices cause us suffering.
One important thing to consider (and I think this is different in protestant doctrine) is that God isn’t waiting to yell “gotcha!” and throw us into hell for being ignorant of His will, or lacking the strength to always act in perfect accord with it. Our eternal destiny depends on the choices we make “with full knowledge and consent”.

 

[Hitetlen]

Andreas Hofer:

Whoever put free will in terms of choosing or rejecting God, though, was spot on. You can’t frame a choice between only good and better. In that case, the better is for God and the good is against Him. Take the example of meeting a man and having a choice as to what to give him. If I give him a million dollars when God really wants me to give him two million dollars, I may have done a normally “good” action, but my action is sinful because of the rejection of God’s will in the matter. Although the act appears charitable, and charity in all its true meanings is good, the act of my giving the man ONLY one million dollars is an act of selfishness and refusal to place God’s will over my love of money. Sin means to “miss the mark.” You don’t necessarily have to be aiming in the opposite direction to miss the bull’s eye. Doing good but less than you should is still evil because it represents a deprivation of the full good. Fallenness.

Free will, then, in order to be truly free, must include an ability to love God or to reject God. The ability to choose “best” or “not best” includes this, although the terminology is very deceptive when presented as “good” and “better.” “Best” is good. Anything less is rejecting God. God made man capable of always choosing best; man just normally fails to live up to his potential.

Now that is a really tall order, nay simply impossible to fulfill. We have no direct (or indirect) line to God’s “mind” so we can never know if we really fulfilled whatever he wants us to do.

If doing good, but not the best (and we have no idea what the best is!) is already sinful, then there is no need to posit free will. The way we are created already ensures that we shall always be sinful, no matter what we do or try.

You say that God made us be able to do the best, but he neglected to tell us WHAT the best is (in the example is it one million dollar or two?). Therefore he is guilty of withholding necessary information - and thus CAUSED us being sinful.

Q.E.D.

 

[Hitetlen]

Andreas Hofer:

1. Since many of the greatest scientific minds in history have been believers in God, I find it most unreasonable to assert that one must sacrifice reason for faith. That claim may make one feel better about oneself, but it does no justice to the many eminent minds (including modern ones) who exhibit great reasoning capacity along with faith in God.

That is NOT what I meant. When reason and faith collide, one is obligated to choose faith over reason. And they will collide, because if something is reasonable, it does not require faith, and if something needs faith, it is not reasonable. (I am talking about faith as Tertullian expressed it: “Credo quia absurdum est”).
Andreas Hofer:

2)I’m not sure you could call Catholic salvation “forgiveness without any strings attached.” Man must be punished for every one of his sins. That can come in the form of suffering here on earth or in the life to come before entrance into the fullness of the beatific vision (heaven). But the fact that some “will be saved, but as through fire” makes it seem odd to talk of no strings attached.

That was a misunderstanding. I said that salvation does not come free, it DOES have strings attached.
Andreas Hofer:

1. Some have referred to hell as a sign of God’s mercy. The existence of hell honors a choice made by a creature. That creature has, in making the choice against God, so warped himself that he cannot stand the presence of God. The creature is thus allowed to live outside the presence of God to the greatest degree possible. I’ve never read a full articulation of this reasoning, so I couldn’t push it further. Just thought that should be on the table.

Ugh, that is the worst example of doublethink I have ever seen. To call eternal damnation, pain and suffering a sign of mercy goes beyond my wildest expectations. I know that people can rationalize almost anything but this I never would have thought possible.
Andreas Hofer:

God does not want suffering to exist. He simply has competing wants that he prioritizes. For example, let’s say a mother wants a) her son to freely choose whether or not to do his chores and b) his room to be very neat and orderly. It’s more important to her, though, that her son make his decision and live with it than that the room be clean. He, like many boys, chooses never to clean his room. Now you assert that the mother actually WANTS his room to be dirty. I assert that she simply wants something else MORE.

If there are competing priorities that God is unable to reconcile, then he is not omnipotent.

Besides, there was no suffering in the Garden of Eden, therefore it is not impossible to reconcile those priorities. And the Garden was not destroyed by men, it was destroyed by God, because he was angry that his command was violated.

 

[davy39]

The sign on God’s desk says “Shape up, folks. You’re really starting to annoy me.”

 

[Hitetlen]

frogman80:

Didn’t really avoid it, I just mistakenly thought it would follow that since our free will is to choose/not choose God… that God could never fall outside of that.

OK, so therefore God has no meaningful free will. He may have some irrelevant, minor choices - like creating a universe or not - but no free will. Of course, this is preposterous in my eyes. Of course I do agree that God has no free will, no freedom at all, but that is a different topic.

frogman80:

Consequences are not the same a threat. I do threaten my children with grounding / time outs… usually to protect them… sometimes to help form them. This threat of punishment is not an attempt at coercing love from them. It is to help them lead happy and healthy lives. Also encourage my children when they do something good is not an act of coercing love from them. “Threats", “punishment”, and “encouragement” are actually my love for my child.

Consequences MAY be different from a threat. But if you tell your child (for whatever reason) that disobedience will be disowning them, also you will torture them, that is a threat.

There is another problem with this analogy. I know you want the best for your children, but you are not omnipotent, so you can - at best - nudge them in the right direction. God cannot hide behind this defense. He could create a world without pain and misery, actually he did just that in the Garden of Eden - which he later destroyed, because of his anger. If your child disobeys you, you may put him into “time-out”, but you cannot disown him and still expect to be called a loving and caring parent.

 

[Hitetlen]

Brendan:

Assuming that evil has a principle cause, that is.

Evil is the deprivation of Good, a lack of Good if you will. It has no existance of it’s own, a part from the existance of Good.

A great analogy is that if light vs. darkness.

Light has existance, photons, Electromagnetic spectrum, Maxwell’s Equations, the whole lot.

Darkness, on the other had, has no existance. It can only be described as absense of something else, namely light.

Now could the source of light, such as a lightbulb, said to actually cause the darkness of a shadow, or does that which blocks the light be the ‘cause’ of the shadow.

If there is a source of Good, could it likewise be said to be the cause of it’s own deprivation (evil) ?

Unfortunately that is not a good analogy. Murder is not simply a lack of interference with someone else’s way of living. You have the option to leave him alone.

The mistake you made is to confuse the negation of something with the opposite of something. In a binary system they would be the same, but the world is not binary.

The negation of “white” is not “black”, the opposite of “white” is “black”. And the world is definitely NOT black and white!

 

[Hitetlen]

Della:

The gnashing of teeth is regret for lost opportunities to do good. Did you ever read A Christmas Carol–the passage about the lost souls who wish they could do good but cannot? Or the story of the rich man and Lazarus in which the rich man, suffering in Gehenna wished someone could/would warn his brothers about his fate so they wouldn’t end up where he was?

And the fire that cannot be quenched is the torment of the soul unable to go back and undo the bad he has done. The first is regret over sins of omission and the second is regret over the sins of commission. The fire of such regret is quite real and involves real suffering.

Jesus often used parables to teach about the consequences of our sin, which people in his day understood quite well. If you don’t know enough about the culture in which various parts of the Bible were written and the intent of the author, it is next to impossible to truly understand what is being talked about and why.

It does not really matter what form that eternal punishment takes. Whatever it is, it is a torture and eternal. And that makes it a threat, thus negating the freedom of choice. Fact is that every religion uses the carrot-and-stick apporach. Do as I say, and you will be rewarded. If you disobey, eternal punishment waits. That is the essence of it.

Della:

Life is God’s gift to us. He will not rescind that gift merely because we no longer want it. Once a person is alive he is alive forever–that is a fact of our existence that God will not violate. It is not his fault if people decide to live in misery for all eternity (in the eternal now) when they were perfectly free to do his will while they were alive on earth. And his will is not onerous or hard, but is the way of peace, joy, love, and beauty.

No one chooses to live in eternal tornment. God puts them there for violating his alleged commendments. And these commandments are not even unambiguous, they are not really spelled out black-on-white. They are constantly being discussed and debated even among the scholars.

Some posters said that sin in the lack of living up to God’s expectations. Since we have no idea about the specifics, we cannot make sure that we follow them, even if we want to.

 

[Della]

Hitetlen:

OK, so therefore God has no meaningful free will. He may have some irrelevant, minor choices - like creating a universe or not - but no free will. Of course, this is preposterous in my eyes. Of course I do agree that God has no free will, no freedom at all, but that is a different topic.

Whatever do you mean by saying that God has no free will? God certainly does have free will–and he exercises it as he sees fit. Sometimes he limits himself precisely to keep from coercing people to do the right thing. He wants us to do what is right because it is right not for a reward or threat of punishment, although he is so merciful that he will accept attrition rather that contrition in order to help us become truly holy. “A bent reed he will not break nor snuff out a smoldering wick.” He is always ready to give us every chance he can, without violating our free will, to make the right choices in our lives.

Consequences MAY be different from a threat. But if you tell your child (for whatever reason) that disobedience will be disowning them, also you will torture them, that is a threat.

We’ve already been over this ground. God doesn’t threaten nor does he disown anyone. The person himself disowns God–that is the very definition of human free will. We can each chose if we want to spend the eternal now with God or without him. He loves us too much to treat us like puppets.

There is another problem with this analogy. I know you want the best for your children, but you are not omnipotent, so you can - at best - nudge them in the right direction. God cannot hide behind this defense. He could create a world without pain and misery, actually he did just that in the Garden of Eden - which he later destroyed, because of his anger. If your child disobeys you, you may put him into “time-out”, but you cannot disown him and still expect to be called a loving and caring parent.

So, God isn’t a loving and caring parent because he lets us have the consequences of our own actions and decisions? According to you God shouldn’t do that–he should make us do what is right in spite of ourselves. Is that what you really want? That would turn God into a vicious tyrant and us into little brown-nosers.

God does not violate our wills. If we will to love and serve him that is our decision. He has given us every help in his Church, but we are free to reject him and his Church if that is what we truly want. We bring our own fortune upon our own heads because God treats us as adults who know their own minds.

 

[frogman80]

Hitetlen:

Consequences MAY be different from a threat. But if you tell your child (for whatever reason) that disobedience will be disowning them, also you will torture them, that is a threat.

Yes, and torture is not the same as just punishment. We believe that God is just and merciful. Any punishment a person would receive in hell would only be a completely just punishment… nothing more, and nothing less.

 

[Hitetlen]

BlindSheep:

I would say it is a fact. Eternal life separated from God=eternal suffering for the soul, however, the choice to reject God is free and not due to ignorance, if it is to be damning. Therefore, the souls in hell would not choose differently now, since their hatred for God is greater than their suffering in being separated from Him. I can’t remember where I read it, but someone said the locks on the gates of hell are on the inside; not to keep the damned in, but to keep God out.

Hatred? I don’t hate God, I simply do not believe that such a being exists. And I have very good reasons to do so. If God would manifest himself to me, I would KNOW that he exists (and I would need no faith!). If he made it plain (in sufficient detail) what his requirements are, I would follow (or not follow) them. (For example I would refuse to commit genocide just because God ordered me). If I had the knowledge, I could make my choice based upon information, not hearsay.

He chose not to do either one of these, therefore he removed himself from consideration. He may exist or he may not. He may have some wishes, or he may not. Irrelevant to our existence. If someone does good in this existence, he is a good person. If someone does evil in this existence, he is evil. We cannot postulate a hypothetical continuation of the “game of life” and make the evaluation of our current actions dependent on this continuation.

 

[frogman80]

Della:

Whatever do you mean by saying that God has no free will? God certainly does have free will–and he exercises it as he sees fit. Sometimes he limits himself precisely to keep from coercing people to do the right thing. He wants us to do what is right because it is right not for a reward or threat of punishment, although he is so merciful that he will accept attrition rather that contrition in order to help us become truly holy. “A bent reed he will not break nor snuff out a smoldering wick.” He is always ready to give us every chance he can, without violating our free will, to make the right choices in our lives.

Della… we have been defining free will as choosing or not choosing God. By this definition, It is not possible for God to “not choose” His own will. He Is Who He Is. God simply has a Will, and His Will is done.

 

[Della]

frogman80:

Della… we have been defining free will as choosing or not choosing God. By this definition, It is not possible for God to “not choose” His own will. He Is Who He Is. God simply has a Will, and His Will is done.

True, but he can decide to act or not to act, which is all I meant to convey. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[frogman80]

Hatred? I don’t hate God, I simply do not believe that such a being exists. And I have very good reasons to do so. If God would manifest himself to me, I would KNOW that he exists (and I would need no faith!). If he made it plain (in sufficient detail) what his requirements are, I would follow (or not follow) them. (For example I would refuse to commit genocide just because God ordered me). If I had the knowledge, I could make my choice based upon information, not hearsay.

He chose not to do either one of these, therefore he removed himself from consideration. He may exist or he may not. He may have some wishes, or he may not. Irrelevant to our existence. If someone does good in this existence, he is a good person. If someone does evil in this existence, he is evil. We cannot postulate a hypothetical continuation of the “game of life” and make the evaluation of our current actions dependent on this continuation.

Daily, ask “God If you exist, let it be known to me.” It would take but one moments thought. If you are sincere, it will happen.

 

[Della]

Hatred? I don’t hate God, I simply do not believe that such a being exists. And I have very good reasons to do so. If God would manifest himself to me, I would KNOW that he exists (and I would need no faith!).

He sent his Son to reveal the Father to us. Isn’t that enough? Or should he personally appear just for your sake as if he needed to?

If he made it plain (in sufficient detail) what his requirements are, I would follow (or not follow) them. (For example I would refuse to commit genocide just because God ordered me). If I had the knowledge, I could make my choice based upon information, not hearsay.

He has made it plain. He gave us the Ten Commandments as well as the teachings of his own Son given to the Apostles and passed down to us through the Church he established. And, it is highly unlikely that you would be asked to commit genocide or any other such thing in this age of grace. Of course you are referring to OT commands of God which you do not understand within their context and so cannot fairly judge.

He chose not to do either one of these, therefore he removed himself from consideration. He may exist or he may not. He may have some wishes, or he may not. Irrelevant to our existence. If someone does good in this existence, he is a good person. If someone does evil in this existence, he is evil. We cannot postulate a hypothetical continuation of the “game of life” and make the evaluation of our current actions dependent on this continuation.

God doesn’t have to redo what he has already done. He has revealed himself in thousands of ways. If you blind yourself to them that is up to you.

When people do right they are merely keeping the natural law that God implanted within every human heart. We can harden our hearts against them but that is our doing not his.

And those who knowingly do evil will have to answer for it because there are more than earthly consequences for doing evil in this life. If there were not, it would hardly matter if we did “good” or “evil” because there would be no such definitions without the Law of God.

 

[Hitetlen]

frogman80:

Yes, and torture is not the same as just punishment. We believe that God is just and merciful. Any punishment a person would receive in hell would only be a completely just punishment… nothing more, and nothing less.

That is a new topic, but I will respond. There is no such thing as merciful and just. Either one, but not both, at the same time toward the same person.

Merciful means total forgiveness, without preconditions. Just means a punishment commensurate to the deed. It is a logical contradiction to expect both. So at best you can say that God is sometimes merciful and some other times just.

Furthermore the word “just” cannot be defined as “whatever God says”, and still keep its meaning. This is the biggest barrier in our mutual understanding. You (believers in general) keep redefining words.

If a word means something when applied to humans, and means something completely different when applied to God, there is no way to understand what you mean. If God is still “good” when he orders a fullscale genocide, what does the word “good” mean? If God is still “loving” when he allows millions to perish in a tsunami, what does the word “loving” mean? If God is “just” when he punishes a temporal misdeed with eternal punishment, what does the word “just” mean?

How can there be a meaningful discussion when the most basic concepts are defined out of existence just to “protect” God from rational criticism. I will rephrase: I am not criticising “God”, I am criticising the concept of God as you exhibit it.

 

[frogman80]

Hitetlen:

That is a new topic, but I will respond. There is no such thing as merciful and just. Either one, but not both, at the same time toward the same person.

Merciful means total forgiveness, without preconditions. Just means a punishment commensurate to the deed. It is a logical contradiction to expect both. So at best you can say that God is sometimes merciful and some other times just.

Furthermore the word “just” cannot be defined as “whatever God says”, and still keep its meaning. This is the biggest barrier in our mutual understanding. You (believers in general) keep redefining words.

If a word means something when applied to humans, and means something completely different when applied to God, there is no way to understand what you mean. If God is still “good” when he orders a fullscale genocide, what does the word “good” mean? If God is still “loving” when he allows millions to perish in a tsunami, what does the word “loving” mean? If God is “just” when he punishes a temporal misdeed with eternal punishment, what does the word “just” mean?

How can there be a meaningful discussion when the most basic concepts are defined out of existence just to “protect” God from rational criticism. I will rephrase: I am not criticising “God”, I am criticising the concept of God as you exhibit it.

Just:

1. Honorable and fair in one’s dealings and actions: a just ruler.
2. Consistent with what is morally right; righteous: a just cause.
3. Properly due or merited: just deserts.
4. Law. Valid within the law; lawful: just claims.
5. Suitable or proper in nature; fitting: a just touch of solemnity.
6. Based on fact or sound reason; well-founded: a just appraisal.
   Mercy
7. Compassionate treatment, especially of those under one’s power; clemency.
8. A disposition to be kind and forgiving: a heart full of mercy.
9. Something for which to be thankful; a blessing: It was a mercy that no one was hurt.
10. Alleviation of distress; relief: Taking in the refugees was an act of mercy.

Seems that they can go together fine. I do not see the contradiction.

 

[Hitetlen]

Della:

He sent his Son to reveal the Father to us. Isn’t that enough? Or should he personally appear just for your sake as if he needed to?

Of course. That is the bare minimum. And it would be no big deal for him, would it?

Della:

He has made it plain. He gave us the Ten Commandments as well as the teachings of his own Son given to the Apostles and passed down to us through the Church he established. And, it is highly unlikely that you would be asked to commit genocide or any other such thing in this age of grace. Of course you are referring to OT commands of God which you do not understand within their context and so cannot fairly judge.

Unlikely does not cut it. By the way, which Ten Commandments do you mean? There are several varieties. Also observe, that several posters on your side disagree with you. They said that whatever falls short of God’s expectations is already a sin. If you donate a million dollars to a good cause, but God would expect you to give 2 millions, you already sinned. That is not clear at all. Believers keep interpreting the Bible, taking passages they happen to agree with and declare those as factual. Other passages are merely taken as parables. How can one decide? It is just a lot of wishful thinking.

Della:

God doesn’t have to redo what he has already done. He has revealed himself in thousands of ways. If you blind yourself to them that is up to you.

Not to my satisfaction, he did not. What you call “revelation” is not a fact.

Della:

When people do right they are merely keeping the natural law that God implanted within every human heart. We can harden our hearts against them but that is our doing not his.

My heart simply pumps blood.

 

[Hitetlen]

frogman80:

Just:

1. Honorable and fair in one’s dealings and actions: a just ruler.
2. Consistent with what is morally right; righteous: a just cause.
3. Properly due or merited: just deserts.
4. Law. Valid within the law; lawful: just claims.
5. Suitable or proper in nature; fitting: a just touch of solemnity.
6. Based on fact or sound reason; well-founded: a just appraisal.
   Mercy
7. Compassionate treatment, especially of those under one’s power; clemency.
8. A disposition to be kind and forgiving: a heart full of mercy.
9. Something for which to be thankful; a blessing: It was a mercy that no one was hurt.
10. Alleviation of distress; relief: Taking in the refugees was an act of mercy.

Seems that they can go together fine. I do not see the contradiction.

A just punishment is one that is commensurate to the deed (3 in your list). If a just punishment is meted out, that precludes mercy, which would allow to go the deed unpunished (1 in your list). They contradict each other.