Theodicy/Problem of Evil

[redhen]

One quick recommendation I would make is to refrain from quoting an author (Lewis) presenting a perceived problem unless you also make note of that same authors conclusion (i.e. Lewis does not consider non-human suffering to hold any real bearing on the PoE). By omitting his conclusion, you have used his words out of context and so misrepresented his position. But when I am able, I can summarize Lewis’ view as well as my own understanding.

Ok, it’s been a while since I read that Lewis book. Refresh me please.

Both of course are just opinions. Mine mainly wonders, “Is physical pain ‘evil’ In what way?” Perhaps, if you have the time and do not mind, you can explain that to me…

I think that Lewis quotation actually expresses well. From another essay:

"What immediately distinguishes Lewis’s work is his frank acknowledgment of the reality of such pain and the profound problems it raises for belief in God. `The problem of animal suffering is appalling; not because the animals are so numerous. . . but because the Christian explanation of human pain cannot be extended to animal pain. So far as we know beasts are incapable either of sin or virtue: therefore they can neither deserve pain nor be improved by it.'3 " (italics mine).

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3818/is_199801/ai_n8802633/

So pain is evil when it is gratuitous, with no redeeming factor.

 

[Chiral]

Ok, it’s been a while since I read that Lewis book. Refresh me please.
…From another essay:
“What immediately distinguishes Lewis’s work is his frank acknowledgment of the reality of such pain and the profound problems it raises for belief in God…”

…So pain is evil when it is gratuitous, with no redeeming factor.

Alright, sorry for the delay, and I may have to keep this rather short.
I did read the previous essay you posted and watched the video, and I find that I have the same issue with both, more with the essay than the video as it goes in depth but lacks actual factual information.

To summarize from Lewis, that quote about animals & pain is how he presents the problem for that particular chapter. He then follows it by explaining why, for him, it does NOT raise ‘profound problems’ for belief in God:
A) The Bible doesn’t tell us much about animals and salvation history, it is a book directed at humans regarding their own history and salvation. God (in the Bible) has not revealed his plan regarding animals, only that it is our duty to care for them and our prerogative to utilize them. Why they feel pain, whether they are really ‘innocent’, whether there is a way for them to be ‘saved’ the Bible says nothing about.
B) There is a tradition that God granted Satan dominion over the earth and pain & suffering (for anything capable of it) was part of his plan (just like God grants us dominion over our actions which we can freely use for love or hate).
**C) **Lewis also goes into detail about questioning animal ‘pain’ as compared to human ‘pain’ bringing in consciousness of ‘self’ or ‘other’ or even the passage of time. This is an important point which both the essay and the video you suggested miss. A plethora of studies have been performed on various species (I have been involved in some of these myself) trying to determine a level of ‘consciousness’ in animals, what causes anxiety, fear, pleasure, etc. and why. The results (no matter how much many ‘animal rights’ scientists try to force it) always demonstrate a drastic divide between humans and other species, even chimps. They do NOT experience the world or pain & suffering or pleasure the way we do, and it would be erroneous to equate our experiences.
D) …I actually can’t remember D…

Anyway, the jist of Lewis’s argument is, animals do not possess a ‘self’ to comprehend pain as we do, we or another free entity might be directly responsible for their suffering, and we don’t know what the plan regarding them is.

So that’s Lewis.

As for your definition, may I modify it slightly? See, for me (and all Catholics) ‘evil’ does not arise from events themselves - events are neither ‘good’ nor ‘bad’ in a moral sense. Morality only applies to free agents, acting and responding. So quite literally, suffering is not ‘evil’…
A free agent who causes (or even desires) gratuitous (assuming truly unjustifiable) pain does ‘evil’. Indeed, a free agent who acts not out of (true) love does evil.
From this you could extrapolate that an object may experience the ‘evil’ of a free agent’s actions (or responses). But in this sense, even a rock can experience ‘evil’ when used as a weapon by one with malice in their heart.
y definition might be, An animal ‘suffers evil’ when acted upon by a free agent without regard for or in direct opposition to their innate dignity as a living thing.

What do you think?

 

[Chiral]

This is within the bucket ‘morally sufficient reasons.’

I’m assuming that by ‘antithesis’ you mean love, implying that removing evil would entail removing either love or free-will, which would remove the ability to love, correct?

‘Morally sufficient reasons’ is really tied up in the logic of ‘perfectly loving’. The premise implies a contradiction, which would negate the entire argument. And yes, removal of evil entails removal of free-will from beings that are not ‘perfectly loving’.

What about heaven? Will our love be genuine? Or do we lack free will?

Being ‘in heaven’ is the state of being nearly ‘perfectly loving’ (and therefore free) yet separate from god. It is logically impossible to create a free ‘perfectly loving’ being, even in ‘heaven’, one can only create a free being and then hope it loves as near to perfectly as possible. According to tradition, God created the free angels in heaven, yet many fell. Bypassing physical pain does not guarantee by-passing suffering, particularly if you believe we are more than matter.

Isn’t this all somewhat circular and more contrived as we go? I find it strikingly easier to drop all of the unprovable hypotheses required to answer this massive question by positing the existence of no supernatural being.

I find the positing of no supernatural being an un-provable hypotheses contra-indicated by empirical evidence and requires circular arguments that become more contrived as one goes, beginning with the inability to answer the massive question, “Why anything?” Atheism is by no means the simplest answer…
Can we agree to disagree on this? I think there is a moratorium on such topics…

Hmmm… You are relying on the fact that without evil, we would not know good… This means that god permits evil such that we can enjoy love more.

Nono, that would Satan’s contention, like in the Book of Job.
God ‘permits’ evil so that we can love at all, among other reasons (not saying I know them all, that’s just a logically necessary one based on assumptions about such a deity).

What about a baby who dies from complications which result in a brief but painful existence? How are we or the child benefitting from that?

The ways in which one can benefit from witnessing such tragedies are innumerable, as you probably already realize, the most obvious being learning the fragility of life. The choice to love (truly) or not in response to events with such import is where good or evil enters in.
How does it benefit the child? I’m not sure to what extent it does, really, nor does it necessarily need to, since I doubt that that ‘brief but painful existence’ is all that meaningful to the child who as yet lacks full understanding of what is happening. But Christians believe in an eternal afterlife, so everything in this life is ‘brief’, and the rest of existence may be everything except ‘painful’. If I died painfully tomorrow, I might think my death meaningless, but the ‘meaning’ may be substantial for someone else. You can toss that in your ‘sufficient moral justification’ bucket.

What about animals?

I’m getting into this with redhen.

Lastly, would you argue also that good needs to exist in order to know evil exists?..

…Could we not conceive of a hypothetical world where only various goods/pleasures resided? Would we not be able to compare greater goods without needing to compare them to evils?

You’ll need to explain your definition of ‘good’ & ‘evil’ here. The definition I’m used to is like light & dark – evil (dark) being the loss or deprivation of good (light). So without light, would you even know that darkness exists, or vice versa? The two are logically linked, can’t have one without the other. ‘Evil exists’ just means ‘a free agent exists that has chosen less than the perfect good’.
If there exists no free agents or only one consistent free agent and no higher moral authority, then there exists no moral ‘good’ or ‘evil’ other than as the only free agent wills. No, I cannot conceive of a hypothetical universe where non-identical free agents exist without the ‘existence’ of evil. The hypothesis contains a logical contradiction. It is not possible.
Does this make sense?

(Again, sorry for delays)

 

[R_Daneel]

As for your definition, may I modify it slightly? See, for me (and all Catholics) ‘evil’ does not arise from events themselves - events are neither ‘good’ nor ‘bad’ in a moral sense. Morality only applies to free agents, acting and responding. So quite literally, suffering is not ‘evil’…
A free agent who causes (or even desires) gratuitous (assuming truly unjustifiable) pain does ‘evil’. Indeed, a free agent who acts not out of (true) love does evil.
From this you could extrapolate that an object may experience the ‘evil’ of a free agent’s actions (or responses). But in this sense, even a rock can experience ‘evil’ when used as a weapon by one with malice in their heart.
y definition might be, An animal ‘suffers evil’ when acted upon by a free agent without regard for or in direct opposition to their innate dignity as a living thing.

What do you think?

Even you did not direct this observation to me, I must voice my complete and total agreement. (Well, with the exception that the rock does not experience anything, lacking the nervous system to do so - but I suspect it was just a poetic way of expressing yourself). I want to add one more thing. Actively committing an “evil” act, and passively allowing one (if one can prevent it) are equally “evil”.

Now, the face of this, God is a moral agent, and God has a “lot or power”. How can anyone try to whitewash God’s responsibility toward his creation? As for the pain and suffering of animals, that may not reach the mental anguish of humans, but it is far from being irrelevant. They (the animals) certainly exhibit their “desire” to avoid pain. Human laws also prohibit the cruely towards animals.

 

[Chiral]

Even you did not direct this observation to me, I must voice my complete and total agreement. (Well, with the exception that the rock does not experience anything, lacking the nervous system to do so - but I suspect it was just a poetic way of expressing yourself). I want to add one more thing. Actively committing an “evil” act, and passively allowing one (if one can prevent it) are equally “evil”.

Now, the face of this, God is a moral agent, and God has a “lot or power”. How can anyone try to whitewash God’s responsibility toward his creation? As for the pain and suffering of animals, that may not reach the mental anguish of humans, but it is far from being irrelevant. They (the animals) certainly exhibit their “desire” to avoid pain. Human laws also prohibit the cruely towards animals.

Yes, the ‘rock’ thing was poetic - I was using ‘experience’ in the very broad sense of simply ‘acted upon’ which can apply to inanimate objects.
And I most certainly agree that the pain of animals, while perhaps less central to the issue, is far from being irrelevant.

However, it would be a fallacy to equate actively committing ‘evil’ and passively allowing someone else to commit it, because the ‘evil’ resides in the acting agent, not the event itself. In fact, when two agents cooperate in an act, it is entirely possible that one is doing ‘evil’ and the other doing ‘good’. This scenario is often brought up in novels and films, where enemies find a common goal though they have separate motivations or purposes for desiring that goal.
As for this deity, what specifically do you think his responsibility is toward his creation? We may disagree on the answer. I will say now, it isn’t the same as our responsibility to it.
Also, an omnibenevolent deity may be required by logic to permit evil in creation. Which individual ‘evils’ (evil choices, ‘evil’ events) are permitted would depend on the individual circumstances, each judged specifically. I submit the possibility that God’s (self-imposed) ‘responsibility’ may be to ‘permit’ some evils and prevent others.
again, the Book of Job comes to mind - God gives Satan authority over all things surrounding Job’s life (including the lives of his animals and family) but denies him the power to kill Job himself…

 

[redhen]

**C) **Lewis also goes into detail about questioning animal ‘pain’ as compared to human ‘pain’ bringing in consciousness of ‘self’ or ‘other’ or even the passage of time. This is an important point which both the essay and the video you suggested miss. A plethora of studies have been performed on various species (I have been involved in some of these myself) trying to determine a level of ‘consciousness’ in animals, what causes anxiety, fear, pleasure, etc. and why. The results (no matter how much many ‘animal rights’ scientists try to force it) always demonstrate a drastic divide between humans and other species, even chimps. They do NOT experience the world or pain & suffering or pleasure the way we do, and it would be erroneous to equate our experiences.

Hmm, reminds me of the baby Albert experiments where scientists conditioned fear into an eight month old baby. Nice. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Albert_experiment

This unethical treatment of babies is of the same type of gratuitous evil inflicted on animals in the name of science. I abhor both.

As for consciousness being a criteria for pain, well, that’s just nonsense. Just because some non-human animals do not have an id or ego does not lessen any pain they experience. What about feral children? If they are raised by animals and never develop any speech or language skills, does that inhibit consciousness? If so, can we then treat them like lab rats? If not, why? Because they have an immortal soul?

As for your definition, may I modify it slightly? See, for me (and all Catholics) ‘evil’ does not arise from events themselves - events are neither ‘good’ nor ‘bad’ in a moral sense. Morality only applies to free agents, acting and responding. So quite literally, suffering is not ‘evil’…

Right, moral evil can plausibly be defeated by free will, I’ve said that before. But you deny the existence of natural evil. Evil being that which causes gratuitous pain/suffering. St. Augustine acknowledged the existence of natural evil, and like Plantiga, explained it as the actions of fallen angels. This neatly moves this problem back into the court of moral evil. Of course one has to assume that demons are busy shifting tectonic plates.

 

[R_Daneel]

Yes, the ‘rock’ thing was poetic - I was using ‘experience’ in the very broad sense of simply ‘acted upon’ which can apply to inanimate objects.
And I most certainly agree that the pain of animals, while perhaps less central to the issue, is far from being irrelevant.

I am glad for it. Thanks!

However, it would be a fallacy to equate actively committing ‘evil’ and passively allowing someone else to commit it, because the ‘evil’ resides in the acting agent, not the event itself. In fact, when two agents cooperate in an act, it is entirely possible that one is doing ‘evil’ and the other doing ‘good’. This scenario is often brought up in novels and films, where enemies find a common goal though they have separate motivations or purposes for desiring that goal.

I agree, by stipulatiing that allowing or committing the “seemingly” evil act can be morally justified with some greater good, if

1. the seemingly evil act is logically necessary for the greater good; and
2. the amount of the “seemingly evil” is not excessive (it stops precisely at the moment when the greater good can be realized); and
3. the recipient of the “seemingly evil” act and the beneficiary of the greater good are the same (it cannot be justified to inflict “evil” on “A” so that “B” will reap the benefits); and
4. the recipient would agree that the greater good will justify the “seemingly evil” act.

As for this deity, what specifically do you think his responsibility is toward his creation? We may disagree on the answer. I will say now, it isn’t the same as our responsibility to it.

Maybe we shall disagree. My view is that the creator is always responsible for the fate of his creation, just like a parent is responsible for their children - up until the point when they become adults.

Also, an omnibenevolent deity may be required by logic to permit evil in creation. Which individual ‘evils’ (evil choices, ‘evil’ events) are permitted would depend on the individual circumstances, each judged specifically. I submit the possibility that God’s (self-imposed) ‘responsibility’ may be to ‘permit’ some evils and prevent others.

Only if the process fulfills the 4 criteria delineated above.

again, the Book of Job comes to mind - God gives Satan authority over all things surrounding Job’s life (including the lives of his animals and family) but denies him the power to kill Job himself…

I find that part most horrifying and cruel. After all the children of Job did not benefit from the “experiment”. If you would argue that they were rewarded later in heaven, this argument would be incorrect, since their suffering was not a logical prerequisite for the reward. (See stipulation 1, above.)

 

[Sheila77]

Wow, put that way seems pretty ominous. Still, the original question is about the two weak characters and the child. God’s greatest commandment is to love. He will not force us. The weak characters have not love, to say the least.
Job’s first children suffered the loss of earthly life. I don’t understand why some do not think about eternity. We are not just matter, where we are conceived, born, suffer and die. We each have a soul and there is life after death. It’s true whether it is believed or not believed.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

To answer the original question:

No, I do not think we live in the best possible world. The best possible world was lost after the original sin. Our world is ruled by Satan. Jesus says so himself, I believe. Don’t know the exact verses, though.

Now, we have free will, which is why rape and bad things happen. Of course. But why doesn’t God stop it?

Well, if God went and stopped the rapist, that would contradict free will. God chooses not to do that. If we ask for help, He will give it to us, but if we don’t he won’t. If said child cries to God for help, then God will help him…perhaps not by stopping said rape, but by allowing the best possible outcome to occur, even if it involves allowing the rape.

 

[Chiral]

…I agree, by stipulatiing that allowing or committing the “seemingly” evil act can be morally justified with some greater good, if

1. the seemingly evil act is logically necessary for the greater good; and
2. the amount of the “seemingly evil” is not excessive (it stops precisely at the moment when the greater good can be realized); and
3. the recipient of the “seemingly evil” act and the beneficiary of the greater good are the same (it cannot be justified to inflict “evil” on “A” so that “B” will reap the benefits); and
4. the recipient would agree that the greater good will justify the “seemingly evil” act.

1 & 2 are well set.
#3 could use some tweaking, I think…
The ‘recipient’ needn’t be the only ‘beneficiary’. Important lessons can be learned (benefit) from witnessing the suffering of others.
Also, there is a degree of uncertainty here, namely that the ‘recipient’ is free to respond to his/her suffering well or badly (and must therefore be able to do so), and it is this very response which determines whether he/she benefits or not (Job). So, ultimately whether or not one ‘benefits’ from one’s suffering is up to oneself. (I’m not actually sure if it comes from the Bible, but Christians are fond of saying “God never gives us more than we can handle.” Now, the majority of us probably rarely handle things as well as we could, which is why the Church holds saints in special reverence…)

I also question #4 - the recipient is free to agree or disagree, but there is an objective reality which determines the truth of the matter (this is all within the framework of the Christian worldview which assumes this sort of objective reality - something you may reject:shrug.

Are these adjustments understandable? Glaring contradictions or points requiring further extrapolation?

I find that part most horrifying and cruel. After all the children of Job did not benefit from the “experiment”…

I agree, the story has always terrified me as well, but assuming that Job’s children did not ‘benefit’ from this ‘allowance’ of evil…? What makes you say that they did not receive any ‘benefit’? Or, what leads you to conclude that they were innocent and undeserving? Job1:2-3 suggests otherwise…

I was going to reply to redhen now, but my wife is requesting use of the computer.
I’ll post again later.

Don’t forget to call your Moms everybody!

 

[R_Daneel]

1 & 2 are well set.

Thanks.

#3 could use some tweaking, I think…
The ‘recipient’ needn’t be the only ‘beneficiary’. Important lessons can be learned (benefit) from witnessing the suffering of others.

Undoubtedly. But this is demeaning to the sufferer, by reducing his stance to that of a “teaching tool”. I would say that “using” a being as a “teaching tool” removes the “dignity” of that person. However, this would be inapplicable to the suffering of animals, unless it is asserted that animals also have their innate dignity. Be as it may, I think that the auxiliary benefit of teaching some else (not the sufferer) a valuable lesson does not invalidate that the sufferer himself cannot be “degraded” to a mere teaching tool.

As a practical example, it would not be morally justifyable to remove someone’s kidney without their prior consent just to save someone else’s life (even though one can have a healthy life with only one kidney). Similarly, we find it unacceptable to forcfully draw blood from someone (against his protestations) in order to save someone else’s life.

I also question #4 - the recipient is free to agree or disagree, but there is an objective reality which determines the truth of the matter (this is all within the framework of the Christian worldview which assumes this sort of objective reality - something you may reject:shrug.

It is a tough problem, for sure, and maybe not of utmost importance. I included it as the result of a hypothetical scenario. Suppose a child (who understands nothing) will have to undergo a painful medical procedure. He does not understand the reason for it, he only aware of the pain. However, the parents do, and allow the procedure to go ahead (obviously). Now, in this case the sufferer and the beneficiary are the same, though he does not understand it. That is why I said that “if he would understand it, he would give his consent”. The same applies to an unconscious person in an accident. He cannot give consent, but the doctors must assume that he would accept the treatment if he could.

However, if the “prospective” sufferer would understand the immediate and long term ramifications of his decision and still does not accept the suffering (rightly of incorrectly) then his decision is final. I suspect that you might disagree, but the “whose life is it anyway” can have only one answer: “the decision maker is in charge”. And that does not change even if that life is a “gift” from God. Once a gift is given, the giver of the gift relinquishes all control over the gift. Otherwise it is not a “gift” at all.

Are these adjustments understandable? Glaring contradictions or points requiring further extrapolation?

Back at you, buddy. Did I answer your points to your satisfaction?

I agree, the story has always terrified me as well, but assuming that Job’s children did not ‘benefit’ from this ‘allowance’ of evil…? What makes you say that they did not receive any ‘benefit’? Or, what leads you to conclude that they were innocent and undeserving?

Whatever benefit they recieved must have been the logical corollary of the “allowed” evil" - according to the stipulaton 1) we agreed upon. You must assume that without the “evil” the benefit would not have happened. I don’t think you can do that.

 

[sannb]

I have never experienced so much supercilious, jaw-breaking, head splitting nonsense as having read many of these posts! Re:“Snakemauler’s” question about God allowing evil:

Everything we need to know is in the Bible along with the Traditions taught by Jesus and passed down through the centuries through His teaching Church. Jesus is the Head and the members are the body of Christ. Faith means believing that there is a loving God, Our Father, as Jesus taught us to say, who wants us to live with Him eternally, and loving Him back. Good families are the model - loving parents try to teach their children what they need, to do well and be happy - they imitate the Trinity - living a life of prayer commitment, which is speaking to our family in heaven. And a life of obedience to the laws of God. This develops a true relationship, a true family of God. And yes, miracles do happen. They are mostly quiet and personal. Sometimes God does give us a public miracle for the benefit of all. God answers all prayer - sometimes yes, but sometimes for our own good, he says no. I think there are few people who pray constantly for the protection of their families, friends, Church, Country, etc. Most people go about their lives without praying (speaking to God) and when tragedy strikes they wonder where He was! If we don’t ask for His protection, God assumes we don’t want it.

God created the world and universe because He IS Love and He wanted creatures to love and who would love Him in return, as we families do with our children. He created the material world/universe; then the creatures (with a soul that is a life force only) who would always give him glory by doing what they naturally do. He then created mankind, Adam and Eve, giving them a spiritual soul that was unique, with a mind, will and intellect to make decisions that are more complex than animals, which can choose to eat or not to eat, run or to walk, but that can make no moral judgments, etc.

Adam and Eve had all they needed and were happy - completely in God’s will. He also gave them one rule to follow, as any good parent does, to protect them. Unfortunately, they chose to go where they were asked not to go, by giving in to temptation, with pride and disobedience. They had everything they needed, but couldn’t resist the opportunity to show that they know better than God (which is reminiscent of the comments written in this thread).

Once this decision was made, they allowed evil into that paradise, so in order to remove the evil from that place, they had to go away from it, and God cast them out. He said that from now on, life would be very difficult, filled with trials, dangers and pain. That is where we live, choosing to believe or not believe, acting out our basest desires, allowing ourselves to grovel in filth, and trying to get everybody else into the muck for company.

Fortunately for us, God loved us so much that He had a plan to give us the opportunity to live with Him in paradise again - He came into the world in our form in order to open up those closed gates (due to mankind’s original sin). Jesus showed us how to deal with all that comes with being here, by loving Our Father and obeying His rules, not living for the world, but spending time in it in order to get to our real home. Which is what this life is all about - getting to Heaven! There are many who do obey much of the time, and many who won’t obey under any circumstances. There are those in between who argue and postulate all day about why or why not, this or that, blah, blah, blah. Some call themselves Catholic; others are honest and do not.

The Church says that the evolutionary process of a species changing over time to adapt to conditions is okay to believe, but it is an error to think that one species became another species, as one of you mentioned evolving from apes. That is impossible, and most scientists today hold this to be true. Anyone clinging to the Darwinian ape theory is in grave error, especially one who has labeled himself as a “Catholic”. Adam and Eve were not apes. Also, past civilizations were not as stupid as we like to think. In our arrogance, we think we are more advanced and therefore better. We are launching ourselves into oblivion with all of the technology that has been created. I do not call that advancement! Most young people today cannot speak, add, subtract nor read properly! God and science are not separate. Science working with, in and through God would be as it was intended. Instead, we are destroying all life that God gave us, because we have been tempted to prove that God does not exist and we can be all-powerful creators.

Some angels were cast out of heaven because they too thought they knew better than God, and decided that they would leave Him and create a better world. The symptoms of those folks who are separating themselves from God are the same as those fallen angels. They think they would do a better job if they were in charge. When we don’t understand it is because we don’t want to submit or obey. We want to be in charge and go our own way, not changing ourselves for the benefit of ourselves and everyone else, but demanding that we be heard to spew our poisonous opinions. Our sins are not personal, but they do affect everyone else.

I pray for the conversion of all unbelievers every day. I was in your shoes at one time but, I am now so thankful for having been shown the truth, and having been “found” through the intercession of Our Blessed Mother, Mary who brought me to her Son, Jesus. Please stop working on arguments to defend the impossible position that there is no God, and go into quiet contemplation, asking God to give you the gift of faith, every day, not to prove Himself, but because you want to know Him, love Him and serve Him - to the death if necessary!
God bless you all…

 

[rwinner]

Well, lets go back to the beginning. God did not have to create anything. God was perfectly
happy in Himself, perfectly content and complete. Why did He create man, or anything?
God is complete and entire in Himself, needing nothing to complete His happiness. Why
create anything?

The answer is love. It is precisely because He didn’t have to create man, that the act is
a free, generous, loving act. This is the mystery of Love.

However, there are consequences. Man as a creation would not be perfect (or the image of
his Maker) if he had not free will. It is free will which gives man the dignity of his person,
enables him to freely love in imitation of the Love that created him. However, free will includes
in man’s case the freedom to do evil.

It is also true that it is hard to imagine how ‘the most perfect world’ could include scenarios
in which children are harmed by adults. I don’t have the answer, and I guess it could be filed
under ‘mystery,’ but I will say that the end result, which is the union of God’s creation
with God in Love is ‘better’ than God existing by Himself before the free act of creation.
But why this is so will have to remain a mystery for now!

HTH!

 

[jinminn]

I have never experienced so much supercilious, jaw-breaking, head splitting nonsense as having read many of these posts! Re:“Snakemauler’s” question about God allowing evil:

Everything we need to know is in the Bible along with the Traditions taught by Jesus and passed down through the centuries through His teaching Church…

Interesting hypothesis. Even moreso considering all the other religions have a wonderful story of how this all makes perfect sense as well. Oh, and it’s mutually exclusive with your story, has it’s own inspired holy book, hundreds of millions of believers, and all that jazz…

God answers all prayer - sometimes yes, but sometimes for our own good, he says no. I think there are few people who pray constantly for the protection of their families, friends, Church, Country, etc. Most people go about their lives without praying (speaking to God) and when tragedy strikes they wonder where He was! If we don’t ask for His protection, God assumes we don’t want it.

Though you could be right, take a look HERE and see how your statement will always happen to be true. I would love if you could manifest your knowledge about god’s yesses and no’s predictively, when the prayer is made. Why is this any different than praying to Ra, Vishnu or my TV cabinet? It will either answer ‘yes’ or sometimes for my own good… ‘no’. By the way, I am pretty sure you need to rephrase your statement: ‘god answers all prayer - very few times he will answer yes unless it’s probably going to happen anyway (like ‘help me to have a good day’, ‘help me to think of you often today’, etc.), but most of the time, for our own good, he will say no’. That’s more accurate.

He then created mankind, Adam and Eve, giving them a spiritual soul that was unique, with a mind, will and intellect to make decisions that are more complex than animals, which can choose to eat or not to eat, run or to walk, but that can make no moral judgments, etc.

Really? Just ran across THIS. Humans do far poorer than this, evidenced by a show on NBC called ‘What Were You Thinking’. You can find a transcript HERE in which a woman was willing to administer 300 volts to a subject simply to follow orders (the setup was fake; there was, in fact, no electricity supplied, but the subject did think she was administering shocks and was hearing acted out screams of pain and continued anyway).

Adam and Eve had all they needed and were happy - completely in God’s will. He also gave them one rule to follow, as any good parent does, to protect them. Unfortunately, they chose to go where they were asked not to go, by giving in to temptation, with pride and disobedience. They had everything they needed, but couldn’t resist the opportunity to show that they know better than God (which is reminiscent of the comments written in this thread).

I find this just so odd. They couldn’t have had everything, right? Obviously to give into ‘temptation’ (as you put it), they needed to lack something, right? How is one ‘tempted’ by something they don’t even have a desire for?

Once this decision was made, they allowed evil into that paradise, so in order to remove the evil from that place, they had to go away from it, and God cast them out.

So, were flesh eating bacteria and natural disasters created by god in the act of creation itself and Adam and Eve were simply ‘un-protected’ from it when they sinned? Or did these harms enter the world in response to sin? One would seem to make the world ‘not good’ as created; the other should have left some archaeological evidence behind.

To be continued…

 

[jinminn]

Continued…

The Church says that the evolutionary process of a species changing over time to adapt to conditions is okay to believe, but it is an error to think that one species became another species, as one of you mentioned evolving from apes. That is impossible, and most scientists today hold this to be true.

Interesting - any evidence to support this statement? HERE’S some night-time reading on evolution from the National Academy of Science if you’d like to brush up on what ‘most scientists today’ hold to be true. Excerpt from their brochure on ‘Science, Evolutionism, and Creationism’: “The common ancestor of the gorilla, chimpanzee, and human is most likely to have had the nucleotide that is the same in two of the three modern-day organisms because this would require just one DNA change rather than two.” Take away message? Humans, chimps, and gorillas have a common ancestor. You may trip up because you look for chimps turning into something that is human. We’re more like distantly related relatives than in a vertical progression.

Instead, we are destroying all life that God gave us, because we have been tempted to prove that God does not exist and we can be all-powerful creators.

I’m not ‘tempted’ to do any such thing. I want the truth at any cost. I want to be an evangelist for the truth. I began my journey of questioning and seeking specifically so that I could stand as firmly and confidently on the truth as possible. When I began, I understood that the answers I found might lead me away from Catholicism. I was okay with that, for the truth is more important to me than just following what I had been told to believe. Catholicism may very well be true and I will happily return if my quest leads me back, however I will believe because I have sought-and-found, not because I have listened-recited-and-obeyed.

Some angels were cast out of heaven because they too thought they knew better than God, and decided that they would leave Him and create a better world. The symptoms of those folks who are separating themselves from God are the same as those fallen angels. They think they would do a better job if they were in charge. When we don’t understand it is because we don’t want to submit or obey. We want to be in charge and go our own way, not changing ourselves for the benefit of ourselves and everyone else, but demanding that we be heard to spew our poisonous opinions.

I don’t want to ‘do a better job than god.’ I do think it’s striking that if I were to blindfold you and ask what ‘all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, etc.’ would look like, you would not paint a picture of the current world. Apologetics is (a phrase I’ve developed) an art in which we explain why what we least expected is exactly the way god actually had to do things.

I pray for the conversion of all unbelievers every day. I was in your shoes at one time but, I am now so thankful for having been shown the truth, and having been “found” through the intercession of Our Blessed Mother, Mary who brought me to her Son, Jesus. Please stop working on arguments to defend the impossible position that there is no God, and go into quiet contemplation, asking God to give you the gift of faith, every day, not to prove Himself, but because you want to know Him, love Him and serve Him - to the death if necessary!
God bless you all…

Thank you for your prayers. If there is one thing I ask you to take away from this conversation (if for no other reason at all, do it because you’re commanded to love your enemies), please remember this: atheists and agnostics are not stubborn, pig-headed, pride-filled demon-possessed individuals. Nor are they (as a whole or a classification) defined by any one of those qualifiers much less the whole list.

If you, as you say, used to be in ‘our/my situation’, then you will surely agree that the answers to these questions are hardly obvious. I have prayed. I continue to participate in a Catholic small group of other couples. I’ve let my fellow brothers pray over me in case I had a demon. I’ve let my best friend wash my feet and pray over me with his wife to ‘show me Jesus’ per his request, which I tell you I wanted to reject more than anything simply due to it being awkward. No one is trying to defend the impossible.

At face value, I strongly encourage you to consider your own answer riddled with holes. If nothing else, it has serious weaknesses explaining what ‘Adam and Eve’ actually were and when they were and why god does/does not answer prayers (seriously, any answer you come up with will inevitably be reduced to ‘if it’s his will’ or ‘we cannot know’).

If your answer was unobjectionable, the post would have had a one word answer and been marked ‘solved’. That answer would have been: Catechism.

Instead… here we are debating questions that have plagued minds for centuries. Your attempt, while it should help reinforce your own sense of orthodoxy, is nowhere near at the level required by the actual issue. In fact, none of us are probably at that level! We’re just rehashing answers already given in some form or another.

 

[sannb]

To Jinminn: There is one God. All peoples of all times have known this because God has written it in all hearts that He is God, so that we will desire try to get to know Him, and therefore know what He wants us to do. People have, throughout history, searched for Him, and have theorized, in their own way, who He is and what He wants of them (thus all the various “religions” you have mentioned). To better assist us in finding Him, God chose a conduit to help with this: the Israelites (not because they were better than anyone else as shown by all the tribulations they endured) to show all people the way to Himself, through chosen prophets, so that they did not have to guess and make up their own gods, and do harmful things such as human sacrifices, or (these days) declaring “jihad”. These are not God’s ways, these are mankind’s theories of God - their own man made religions. This does not take away from the goodness of some in all religions. There are very holy people within each religion (other than those based on the demonic, such as satanism and witchcraft - which does also include some good people who are confused and really don’t understand what they are involved with). The fact that people worship gods with different names only means that they have not yet found and understood Who the true God is - the Holy Trinity. They do their best and are truly loving God, they just don’t have the fullness of truth yet that Jesus shared with us. Jesus is where all truth is found!

One thing that needs to be stated here is that original sin brought death and suffering into the world. We were not supposed to die. Death of our bodies, only means that we are no longer functioning in the world as it is. We continue at death - our souls are then released to go to the place we have chosen for ourselves. God has great mercy on those who did not have the opportunity to know truth. As long as a person loves, and does not reject God, they will be with Him (most of us will likely do a stint in purgatory to be pure enough to face the all Holy God - only a few live heroic lives of sacrifice that merits immediate heaven). If a soul hates and wants nothing to do with God and the goodness that is God, they put themselves into hell. Suffering here is allowed for purification. Innocent people who suffer needlessly and do not turn to hate, are most likely martyrs. The thing that matters most is living eternally in Heaven. That does not mean that we condone or look forward to watching innocent suffering. We deplore hateful, demonic behavior, as God does. This is not easily understood by our finite minds, but we will understand when we are out of this place of exile and darkness.

Even with the help of God’s words through His prophets, over and over, as shown in the OT, the people turned away and did their own thing, so God had to continuously reign them in, trying to show them once again, the way to Himself. Sometimes harsh methods need to be used to get our attention. In times of strife, the good of people comes out and they turn to God (ie, 911). It seems that it is the only way to get us turned around, unfortunately, and when we hear of bad things, we may be more likely to begin to pray. God promised that He would send His Word (Truth) and when that happened they had already created their own image of who the promised Messiah would be, so when the real Messiah did not fit their image He was murdered. And by His blood Christianity was born. By the blood of martyrs, the Church has been renewed, throughout the ages. The good comes out of the bad, by God’s grace, so that evil will not win even though it tries its best to hurt and kill us - they can kill the body but not the soul - we need to fear our own selves to do that.

All this is hard for us to understand and we will never be able to fully understand until we get to the next world, so to spend so much time trying to do so is a waste of valuable time to become changed and holier. But our pride wants to know all the answers to the mysteries of God, and if we don’t get them, we reject Him, thinking we could do a better job. Little children can’t understand all the reasons why their parents impose rules and regulations for them - for their own good - but must learn to be obedient for their own safety and well-being. When they grow up they see why at times their parents seemed unfair and unloving. We are called to be like little children (not childish - but with childlike trust). If we can’t do this then we tend to fight, kick and scream, just as you see some children having tantrums, when we don’t get our way. It is all about TRUST. No one can give you all the answers you think you need. You may pick and choose what you think suits your thinking, but it is not necessarily the entire truth. We live in a brainwashed world of thinking one’s own reality is the truth, and that there are many truths that you can pick and choose from. There is one Truth only!

Unfortunately, because of man’s fallen nature, the Israelites and the Christians have not always lived and evangelized properly (ie,becoming living examples of God’s love and mercy for others to observe and want to emulate) so that mankind is still searching and confused. God is to be found in our hearts, not from seeking answers here, there and everywhere, from conflicting man-made theories. You can find an example of any erroneous teaching, or of man’s fallen nature, where ever you look, but it never proves that God is not our creator or is not loving. Every example that you present, is merely proof that man has a fallen nature and is unable, on his own, to do good at all times.

to be continued…

 

[sannb]

continued from previous post…

That is why we have the Sacraments instituted by Christ, to be able to have the help we need to work our way toward God - goodness, love, self-giving, all the attributes that Jesus tried to teach us when He came to earth and launched His Church. They are tools for us to use, to obtain the graces needed in order to live life abundantly - which does not translate to material things - but with joy in our hearts knowing and actually feeling God’s love, no matter what the circumstances are that we find ourselves in.

Bottom line, it is not about life on earth, it is about eternal life with God. We need to live our life on earth working our way toward that goal. The world is not doing that, and so everything is skewed. No one said it was easy - it isn’t, but it is possible to find the truth. You will not necessarily find it in books, or videos, or speeches, because all the opinions are out there, and it is terribly confusing to try to be close to God this way. You will only find it in the quiet of your heart, sitting in front of the Blessed Sacrament, praying for truth, wisdom, knowledge, understanding and discernment - daily, fervently, humbly, not seeking anything more than to know, love and serve our God in the best way you can. Also, the Church has all the basic truths if you read the Bible using Catholic commentary, the Catechism, books written by legitimate Catholic writers, the Church Fathers (those who learned from the Apostles), even present day prophets are speaking to us to lead us to Jesus through Mary. If you frequent the Sacraments, such as Confession, Holy Communion, daily if possible, you will receive strength and all you need because Jesus said “I am the bread of life, whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.” (Jn 6:35) “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” (Jn 6:51) “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life…for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.” (Jn 6:54-55)

PS: I do not think that “atheists and agnostics are stubborn, pig-headed, pride-filled demon-possessed individuals”. I was an atheist for many years, and my children and grandchildren continue to be there, although after 15 years of prayers, my daughter says she is an agnostic and my granddaughter (15) is going to begin RCIC in the fall. So I do believe in miracles, because no person could have accomplished this or my own conversion, which is a whole other story that would take pages to relate. No person was involved nor was I searching - it was a heavenly grace and it was an instantaneous clarity through the Blessed Mother’s intercession.

I am not your enemy. I am a fellow human being who is working my way toward salvation, and I am so thankful that I found Truth. I just want to share it with everyone and I am trying to help if I can, to live and teach what I have learned from my experiences. That is what life is all about…

 

[jinminn]

@sannb re. post 1

All peoples of all times have known this because God has written it in all hearts that He is God…To better assist us in finding Him, God chose a conduit to help with this: the Israelites (not because they were better than anyone else as shown by all the tribulations they endured) to show all people the way to Himself, through chosen prophets, so that they did not have to guess and make up their own gods, and do harmful things such as human sacrifices, or (these days) declaring “jihad”…

My thoughts:

• Why couldn’t god write specifically on our hearts who he is? Instead, as you suppose, I am to believe that I have something of an imprint of him on my heart, yet am quite confused about how he is possible.
• Billions of people throughout the world now and in ages past have also not found him or even been given the opportunity to do so.
• Even those who are given the opportunity to learn about Jesus are not convinced because an (according to you) ‘inferior’ religion was placed there first. Isn’t that odd? That the one truth you believe to exist in Christianity is completely ignored in favor of other religions’ silliness and wrong conceptions?
• Regarding being freed from all that other wicked stuff… I don’t know what version of the bible you read, but apparently god was extremely interested in sacrifices (feigning a human sacrifice in the case of Abraham) and jihads. He has ordered the killing of a tribe of non-believers down to ‘anything that breaths’. Well, except for the virgins, that is. Keep them.
  — Subpoint: For everyone who is so convinced that Jesus’ words are authentic due to their clashing with the cultural norms at the time… examine how his father would not break with cultural norms of tribal killing and sacrifice to free these poor ancients from the slavery of their misconceptions about god. All he had to do in any one of his many personal, directly-worded conversations was to say: ‘Hey, I’ve been meaning to tell you… I don’t really care for the butchering and burning of animals. You don’t have to do that anymore.’ Instead he wrote them out incredibly detailed orders of how wide to place the lamp stands, what metals to gild them with, and what shade of purple the drapes should be.

One thing that needs to be stated here is that original sin brought death and suffering into the world. We were not supposed to die… If a soul hates and wants nothing to do with God and the goodness that is God, they put themselves into hell. Suffering here is allowed for purification… This is not easily understood by our finite minds, but we will understand when we are out of this place of exile and darkness.

My thoughts:

• So, a world existed when death and suffering did not exist, and at the moment of sin, it entered the previously-perfect world? Just want to verify which camp you’re in. So… there should be some geological data to support a world in which no threats from natural disasters or flesh-eating bacteria existed, correct? Given no tangible evidence of such an amazing place and such a rapid transition in our world’s ecosystem and natural occurrences, why should we believe this?
• Please don’t assume (perhaps indirectly) that if I choose not to believe in god that this has anything whatsoever to do with ‘hating’ god or ‘wanting nothing to do with god and the goodness of god.’ My pursuit is for the truth in the form of the best explanation of the facts. That’s it. I love truth and decided to pursue it at all costs. It should only serve to set me free, correct?
• Regarding not knowing until we die… that’s convenient. This is the case for most faith claims that Christianity seems to make. This is my take since I started looking for solid evidence/proof. Inevitably, I seem to come to some form or another of the statement: ‘We don’t know how it’s true, but it is. Hey, at least we’ll know when we’re sharing the beatific vision with Jesus himself, am I right?!’ I don’t find this acceptable. You have to keep in mind that religions make claims about the tangible world and about how people should live their entire lives. This needs to be backed by facts that can be tangible seen in some form or another. You won’t walk off a cliff on my promise of an invisible man standing there unless you tepidly poke a foot down first and feel his shoulders there to rest on. Then you’ll scoot yourself off and he’ll catch you.

…Sometimes harsh methods need to be used to get our attention. In times of strife, the good of people comes out and they turn to God (ie, 911). It seems that it is the only way to get us turned around, unfortunately, and when we hear of bad things, we may be more likely to begin to pray.

Wow. Compare the above with passages where Jesus explicitly states that it is not the result of sin that anyone is born blind or that things crash down on innocents. Also, this form of ‘character building’ theodicy does nothing for the suffering of animals, mental invalids, and infants who have no character to build. Their lives are full of pain for no reason.

To be continued…

 

[jinminn]

Continued…

All this is hard for us to understand and we will never be able to fully understand until we get to the next world, so to spend so much time trying to do so is a waste of valuable time to become changed and holier…Little children can’t understand all the reasons why their parents impose rules and regulations for them - for their own good - but must learn to be obedient for their own safety and well-being. When they grow up they see why at times their parents seemed unfair and unloving. We are called to be like little children (not childish - but with childlike trust). If we can’t do this then we tend to fight, kick and scream, just as you see some children having tantrums, when we don’t get our way. It is all about TRUST. No one can give you all the answers you think you need. You may pick and choose what you think suits your thinking, but it is not necessarily the entire truth. We live in a brainwashed world of thinking one’s own reality is the truth, and that there are many truths that you can pick and choose from. There is one Truth only!

This is a gem of a paragraph:

• Children actually absorb anything and everything with no pre-filter from their parents. This is easily displayed in cultures like Africa where women think nothing of being circumcised after the birth of their first born. A friend of mine spent 6 months in Tanzania as a nurse and witnessed ‘Catholics’ participating in funeral orgies and ritual female circumcisions. Though ‘Catholic’ they had no concept of applying religious views on their culture. Culture always won. I illustrate this example only to show how powerful the influence of parents on children actually is. It is usually only when threatened, challenged from the outside or inside, or from some emotional trauma connected to beliefs that once grown, children will question some of the deeper things in life they have been taught.
• Another extremely easy example is that of racism. Children raised by racist parents have a very hard time letting this go completely.

To bring your analogy further, however, what does this look like with god?

• With my parents, I am able to directly ask, ‘So… why do you exactly think so poorly of race x?’ My parents can provide an answer and I can evaluate whether it is just. It will probably be connected to their parents or to some specific incident or set of incidents which caused them to form a generalization. What about god? I don’t get the opportunity to ask why all that stuff is in the Old Testament, which contradicts the words of his son. He doesn’t answer. Instead, all these ‘brainiacs’ run around constructing philosophical arguments about why there is, in fact, nothing contradictory about what I’m seeing.
• Why if I believe I have valid reasons to question beliefs of my parents once I grow older am I perfectly free and even encouraged to do so, but not with god? I simply ask questions and get labeled a ‘god hating’, ‘hard-hearted’, ‘hateful’, ‘prideful’, you-name-it heathen. Believers assume I have some moral agenda, as if this is the only reason anyone ever questions god!
• Also, you’ve basically stated:
  — When you’re a kid, you believe what your parents say
  — Once you’re older, you understand why they did things they way they did
  — Therefore, have trust in god (which I have not proven by any stretch of the imagination)
  — Even when you’re older and you still do not understand, trust in god
  — Even when you see apparent unresolvable contradictions, do not ask questions
  — Even if I provided you answers you will not be satisfied
  — Just believe until you’re dead and then you’ll find out

God is to be found in our hearts, not from seeking answers here, there and everywhere, from conflicting man-made theories.

Hmmm. Then why do apologetics exist in the first place? I wish someone would have just told me not to worry about thinking about this stuff but to give up. It can’t be found through thinking but only through the gift of faith which will come… when? How?

 

[jinminn]

@sannb post #2

That is why we have the Sacraments instituted by Christ, to be able to have the help we need to work our way toward God - goodness, love, self-giving, all the attributes that Jesus tried to teach us when He came to earth and launched His Church. They are tools for us to use, to obtain the graces needed in order to live life abundantly - which does not translate to material things - but with joy in our hearts knowing and actually feeling God’s love, no matter what the circumstances are that we find ourselves in.

I’m pretty sure this has to be wrong even according to rules of orthodoxy:

• For one, can’t god grant me grace without needing the sacraments? I’m sure, according to Augustine, he could. For how was Augustine converted without the sacraments. Any post-birth baptised individuals would be in a state of contradiction. They can’t be converted without the sacraments, yet they have no sacraments accessible to them… I would have figured that god was well above working solely through bread, water, and oil.
• Regarding ‘feeling god’s love’ so that we know him no matter what the circumstances? Try out Theresa of Avila or John of the Cross. I hardly would say that they ‘felt’ god’s love. I want to know with certainty whether he exists or not. This generally comes about through logical arguments or tangible evidence. Other than a priori arguments (trusting that the world is actually real, that I’m not a brain in a vat, etc.), everything else needs to have some basis for believing it.

No one said it was easy - it isn’t, but it is possible to find the truth. You will not necessarily find it in books, or videos, or speeches, because all the opinions are out there, and it is terribly confusing to try to be close to God this way. You will only find it in the quiet of your heart, sitting in front of the Blessed Sacrament, praying for truth, wisdom, knowledge, understanding and discernment - daily, fervently, humbly, not seeking anything more than to know, love and serve our God in the best way you can. Also, the Church has all the basic truths if you read the Bible using Catholic commentary, the Catechism, books written by legitimate Catholic writers, the Church Fathers (those who learned from the Apostles), even present day prophets are speaking to us to lead us to Jesus through Mary. If you frequent the Sacraments, such as Confession, Holy Communion, daily if possible, you will receive strength and all you need because Jesus said “I am the bread of life, whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.” (Jn 6:35) “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” (Jn 6:51) “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life…for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.” (Jn 6:54-55)

This sounds like mere self-indoctrination to me. Wouldn’t anyone believe after years of this practice which you suggest? I continue to go to Mass with my wife on Sundays, though I don’t receive because I don’t currently believe.

• Also you contradict yourself:
  — A: Don’t seek knowledge of god due to the plethora of opinions out there
  — B: Seek knowledge of god through ‘legitimate Catholic writers’
  — Which is it?

I believe that, at the end of the day, you can simply say: ‘I believe for unknown reasons. I did not really choose to believe, but it just happened.’ Now I will ramble about what that belief now entails for me (long stories about the fall, why the world is like it is, what we will get to know in heaven) but I have no proof other than my belief in those ideas about the world. I think this is acceptable to some degree; although I do not think it is acceptable to the degree with which others think I might go to hell or think of me as blind to the truth. It also does not form a basis for proclaiming your truth as superior to others. All you have is faith, no evidence. This is the same for any other religion of the world, stretching back to the first, whenever that was.

PS: I do not think that “atheists and agnostics are stubborn, pig-headed, pride-filled demon-possessed individuals”. I was an atheist for many years, and my children and grandchildren continue to be there, although after 15 years of prayers, my daughter says she is an agnostic and my granddaughter (15) is going to begin RCIC in the fall. So I do believe in miracles, because no person could have accomplished this or my own conversion, which is a whole other story that would take pages to relate. No person was involved nor was I searching - it was a heavenly grace and it was an instantaneous clarity through the Blessed Mother’s intercession.

I am not your enemy. I am a fellow human being who is working my way toward salvation, and I am so thankful that I found Truth. I just want to share it with everyone and I am trying to help if I can, to live and teach what I have learned from my experiences. That is what life is all about…

• I’m glad you do not think I am any of the above. Many do
• If no other person was involved and you were not searching, how was this not against your free will? I would love for this to happen to me. I am searching very hard and finding nothing. You did not ask and Jesus’ mother simply provided you with an instantaneous clarity that changed your mind? That sounds to convincing to not have overridden your free will in some way.
• How was no one involved yet you received intercession? Mary on her own chose to intercede for you?

Thanks for the continued dialog. I obviously disagree with a lot, but nevertheless like to write about these things greatly.