Understanding God

[Contarini]

Hitetlen:

Another great post. In my eyes the “good” that overcame “evil” in not better than a simple, existing “good”. It brings up a strange concept that it is better to be “bad” first, then struggle and become “good”. Why is this preferable?

No, it’s not necessarily better to be bad first. And I didn’t say that it was better even to struggle with evil (which is different from being bad). If in fact, as probably most Christians believe, all who die in infancy or in the womb are saved, then (as C. S. Lewis pointed out) only a minority of human beings ever have the experience of struggling with evil. I said it was different, not necessarily better. St. Thomas Aquinas would say that God wants a universe with all different kinds and degrees of goodness.

The experience of resisting evil and enduring suffering does give a maturity that I don’t think a created being can acquire any other way. The startling passage in Hebrews that speaks of the Son of God “learning obedience by the things He suffered” indicates that in some sense even God, when He became Man, needed to have that experience in order to be perfect.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

doomhammer:

Before asserting that try to study the decrees about predestination of the Synods of Orange, Quiercy, and Valence.

While I don’t claim to be intimately familiar with all the decrees of these councils, I do think I understand the gist of them.

They do not dogmatically define one particular view. They rule out certain extremes on both sides.

Furthermore, it’s not clear to me that these Synods are entirely binding on the Catholic Church.

Edwin

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

Those personal conceptions are shared by millions of others.

You holding the “argumentum ad numerum”?
And what about the absolute majority of humankind of all ages recognizing the existence of God?

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

Not really. I just “borrowed” some attributes of God as presented by the posters around here.

but “incomprehensible”.

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen:

Yes, indeed such questions merit attention. They seem to contradict the alleged aspiration of God to have a perfect heaven, without “disturbing” elements. If someone without omnipotence seeks to achieve a goal, that is an understandable endeavor. There will be trials and errors, improvement of techniques and getting better and better results.

For someone who can create whatever he wishes, not doing a “perfect” job is, well… strange. And the usual answer that “light” needs darkness as a “backdrop”, “good” needs “evil” as a contrast are simply equivocations. After all, in heaven there is no “evil” or “darkness”, is there?

This post was OK except you are saying that God didn’t create us perfect. This is a misconception. Satan was created perfect. Adam and Eve were as well. Use these beings as examples for everyone alright?

Satan chose using his free will, completely free, to be evil. It is not that he is of a different kind of being than the rest of the angels. God could not just create a “type” that always chose him. That would be creating robots. God does not control our choices, he merely knows what they will be. We believe every soul has free choice and that God did not just create something that would choose him everytime, but he knows in advance which of his creatures will. This is why every human is equal. This is why we punish people for wrongs equally or should. Everyone has the potential to go either way.

God created the best possible world. This is the world that is the best. God could have created us without original sin like Jesus and Mary. However Jesus and Mary were still tempted to choose wrong they never did though. Adam and Eve were made the same way as Jesus and Mary, without orginal sin, but they still chose wrong. Everyone who has had original sin, us, has actually sinned at some point in their life as well. Even if God would have given us the grace of Jesus and Mary he must somehow have known that we would have rejected it like Adam and Eve and not accepted it like Jesus and Mary.

There are several theodicies for Evil. Free will is the most important. It is because we are completely free to choose and not bound by anything. Our response to the world around us is are choice, our freedom. Satan responded poorly. Michael responded well. Why certain beings respond one way and certain beings another, I don’t think could be said. If someone has an answer to that please post it.

Adam

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen:

Simple curiosity. I enjoy talking to people with other viewpoints from mine, I can learn about their thinking process. It would be so boring to talk with people with whom I would be in agreement. What can anyone learn by talking into a mirror?

True, sometimes it can be frustrating, but that adds some spice to it. Not everyone is polite around here, even though the overwhelming majority of the posters are very polite. Those who are not do not merit attention, and I usually just disregard them.

Hitetlen,

OK. Good enough for me.

I notice you didn’t respond to my first post. Do you now see the Church’s position? What we believe and what we don’t. The things that are not dogmas are still in debate and thus you could belive either and still be right.

Adam

 

[Magicsilence]

The Type A people and Type B people will be equally judged according to what God has given them.

Lots of grace does NOT equal an easy ride.

Besides, who ever said Type B people couldnt become Type A people?

In Christ.

Andre

 

[Hitetlen]

adamlsp:

This post was OK except you are saying that God didn’t create us perfect. This is a misconception. Satan was created perfect. Adam and Eve were as well. Use these beings as examples for everyone alright?

In that case we use a different definition of “perfect”. In my understanding someone who is “perfect” never chooses anything less than perfect.

adamlsp:

Satan chose using his free will, completely free, to be evil. It is not that he is of a different kind of being than the rest of the angels. God could not just create a “type” that always chose him. That would be creating robots.

I disagree. There are many people who consciously choose to be loving, caring and good. They are not robots in any sense. They could choose “evil” but they don’t.

adamlsp:

God created the best possible world. This is the world that is the best. God could have created us without original sin like Jesus and Mary. However Jesus and Mary were still tempted to choose wrong they never did though.

That is the point. Free will does not cause anything.

adamlsp:

There are several theodicies for Evil. Free will is the most important. It is because we are completely free to choose and not bound by anything. Our response to the world around us is are choice, our freedom. Satan responded poorly. Michael responded well. Why certain beings respond one way and certain beings another, I don’t think could be said. If someone has an answer to that please post it.

Just as I said above. Some people always choose good, and their freedom is still there.

 

[Hitetlen]

adamlsp:

I notice you didn’t respond to my first post. Do you now see the Church’s position? What we believe and what we don’t. The things that are not dogmas are still in debate and thus you could belive either and still be right.

True, because I see your point. Maybe some believers consider it an open and shut case, so my opening post was directed to them.

 

[Hitetlen]

Contarini:

The experience of resisting evil and enduring suffering does give a maturity that I don’t think a created being can acquire any other way.

That is quite possible. I am nor sure that it is somehow “desirable”.

Contarini:

The startling passage in Hebrews that speaks of the Son of God “learning obedience by the things He suffered” indicates that in some sense even God, when He became Man, needed to have that experience in order to be perfect.

Interesting, though some people might find it disturbing to accept that God needed a human experience to become perfect.

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen:

In that case we use a different definition of “perfect”. In my understanding someone who is “perfect” never chooses anything less than perfect.

I disagree. There are many people who consciously choose to be loving, caring and good. They are not robots in any sense. They could choose “evil” but they don’t.

That is the point. Free will does not cause anything.

Just as I said above. Some people always choose good, and their freedom is still there.

Hitetlen,

The definition of perfect may be someone untouched by sin. This can refer to a person’s state at a particular moment or at the sum of a person’s moments. Creating something perfect means it was perfect at that moment but free choice allows for that to change. I think free will is much more complicated than what posts here could explain.

I think you are thinking about this wrong. Everyone has sinned. There is not one individual - the exceptions being Jesus, Mary and the angels in heaven - who has not sinned. Sin is choosing something, anything over God and what is good. This is then evil. Though the evil deed may not be completely evil, it is not perfectly good and that makes it a lesser evil. Though good people may generally choose good, they have at at least one point in their life chosen less than perfect good, aka evil.

Adam

 

[Hitetlen]

adamlsp:

The definition of perfect may be someone untouched by sin. This can refer to a person’s state at a particular moment or at the sum of a person’s moments. Creating something perfect means it was perfect at that moment but free choice allows for that to change. I think free will is much more complicated than what posts here could explain.

I am sorry, but my definition is different. I usually try to stay away such “absolutes” as “perfect” and “truth”, because they are overused adjectives and nouns.

adamlsp:

I think you are thinking about this wrong. Everyone has sinned. There is not one individual - the exceptions being Jesus, Mary and the angels in heaven - who has not sinned. Sin is choosing something, anything over God and what is good. This is then evil. Though the evil deed may not be completely evil, it is not perfectly good and that makes it a lesser evil. Though good people may generally choose good, they have at at least one point in their life chosen less than perfect good, aka evil.

Here we differ on the definition again. You definition already presupposes God and his “will” or desire. If “sin” is something contrary to God’s will (as the usual definition goes) then we are in a conondrum. Since God does not explicitly tell us what his desires are, we can only estimate it from the Bible or personal revelations. By definition, personal revelations are not accessible to others, so we must accept a person’s testimony, which is unsupported. I am not willing to do that. If you rely on the Bible, the same problem happens. The Bible is just an old collection of arbitrarily chosen stories, all written, edited and selected by humans. If you wish to say that the Church can interpret it for us, I am still unimpressed. The Church is comprised of fellow human beings, whose “interpretation” is just as unsupported as anyone else’s testimony. And to declare the the pope is somehow “inerrant” when speaking of ex-cathedra, that is just another unsupported assertion.

To say that all of us has “sinned” is simply an undefined utterance, since the concept of “sin” is too fluid. Moreover, to “sin” requires a conscious decision, and in the early stages of life we simply do not have a sufficiently developed mind to make decisions at all.

I think it would be a good idea to open a new thread which contanins nothing else, but an attempt to clarify the definitions of words we are using. There is a wide variety of usage, and without common definitions we are talking past each other, which is most unfortunate.

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

I think it would be a good idea to open a new thread which contanins nothing else, but an attempt to clarify the definitions of words we are using. There is a wide variety of usage, and without common definitions we are talking past each other, which is most unfortunate.

What for? Your definition of the Bible (“The Bible is just an old collection of arbitrarily chosen stories, all written, edited and selected by humans.” (Post # 72)) shows an astonishing degree of ignorance.
You are your own little god and your realm consists in “opinions”.
“I am not seeking “truth”, I am seeking opinions.” (Post # 39)
What are you trying to demonstrate here?

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

No one can sanely argue that there must be a “good” reason behind a plague, a hurricane or a tsunami which indiscriminately mows down millions and moreover if there WOULD be a good reason behind them it would NOT be commensurate to devastation these events bring along.

Life is just an electro-chemical function of the brain which will completely cease at death.
So why do you worry about the victims of the tsunami? (Or any other victim of any other natural catastrophe).
What really happens? Some electro-chemical functions of the brain cease. There is nothing sacred here. So what? That is going to happen sooner or later. Who cares? Could be a tsumani, a car crash, a disease, natural death. Sooner or later is all finished. Total death.
So why do you care?

 

[joshua_b]

Hitetlen:

I am sorry, but my definition is different. I usually try to stay away such “absolutes” as “perfect” and “truth”, because they are overused adjectives and nouns.

Here we differ on the definition again. You definition already presupposes God and his “will” or desire. If “sin” is something contrary to God’s will (as the usual definition goes) then we are in a conondrum. Since God does not explicitly tell us what his desires are, we can only estimate it from the Bible or personal revelations. By definition, personal revelations are not accessible to others, so we must accept a person’s testimony, which is unsupported. I am not willing to do that. If you rely on the Bible, the same problem happens. The Bible is just an old collection of arbitrarily chosen stories, all written, edited and selected by humans. If you wish to say that the Church can interpret it for us, I am still unimpressed. The Church is comprised of fellow human beings, whose “interpretation” is just as unsupported as anyone else’s testimony. And to declare the the pope is somehow “inerrant” when speaking of ex-cathedra, that is just another unsupported assertion.

To say that all of us has “sinned” is simply an undefined utterance, since the concept of “sin” is too fluid. Moreover, to “sin” requires a conscious decision, and in the early stages of life we simply do not have a sufficiently developed mind to make decisions at all.

I think it would be a good idea to open a new thread which contanins nothing else, but an attempt to clarify the definitions of words we are using. There is a wide variety of usage, and without common definitions we are talking past each other, which is most unfortunate.

Im glad you pointed this out because Im starting to think this conversation is futile. Hitetlen, you can not ask someone a question and then state that their answer is “out of ignorance” or that your definition of whatever word is not the same, and use that as a basis for any type of objection. Im going to go out on a limb here and say something objectively (not personally)…you can not and will not ever be able to completely comprehend the essence of God with your intellect. Human beings have been trying for thousands of years. Even those who have believed and been closest too Him have had nothing more than a dim intimation of the True essence of God in their lives here on earth. I certainly am not trying to dissuade this conversation; on the contrary I urge you to continue with it. But, as you have stated initially, God is onmniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent (by our definition). No human being is any of those things, and I don’t see how you can expect to understand the full essence of something like that while lacking those traits. None of us who believe in Him will claim such a comprehensive understanding, and I for one have no problem being humble enough to admit that I do not have the infinitely Perfect wisdom to tell you “why” God does alot of things.

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen:

I am sorry, but my definition is different. I usually try to stay away such “absolutes” as “perfect” and “truth”, because they are overused adjectives and nouns.

Here we differ on the definition again. You definition already presupposes God and his “will” or desire. If “sin” is something contrary to God’s will (as the usual definition goes) then we are in a conondrum. Since God does not explicitly tell us what his desires are, we can only estimate it from the Bible or personal revelations. By definition, personal revelations are not accessible to others, so we must accept a person’s testimony, which is unsupported. I am not willing to do that. If you rely on the Bible, the same problem happens. The Bible is just an old collection of arbitrarily chosen stories, all written, edited and selected by humans. If you wish to say that the Church can interpret it for us, I am still unimpressed. The Church is comprised of fellow human beings, whose “interpretation” is just as unsupported as anyone else’s testimony. And to declare the the pope is somehow “inerrant” when speaking of ex-cathedra, that is just another unsupported assertion.

To say that all of us has “sinned” is simply an undefined utterance, since the concept of “sin” is too fluid. Moreover, to “sin” requires a conscious decision, and in the early stages of life we simply do not have a sufficiently developed mind to make decisions at all.

I think it would be a good idea to open a new thread which contanins nothing else, but an attempt to clarify the definitions of words we are using. There is a wide variety of usage, and without common definitions we are talking past each other, which is most unfortunate.

Hitetlen,

Definitions. Redefining well defined things. OK. Philosophers do it all the time. I think you are a little under qualified, but you have read many philosophical texts I’m sure (I hope). But if you wish I will humor you on another thread, as I’m sure my definitions could use a little refining. I didn’t think I had to break everything down so simply but if you cannot understand me then I must be wrong.

Your paragraph in response to the defintion of sin I gave is at once incredulous and rediculous. The retorts are awful arguments (I now they’re not real arguments, just one liners, but still). You speak as if talking to a fundamentalist who happens to believe in the pope. I am not a Protestant. You should not argue like you understand Church teachings. We would both do well to remember our place. You must forgive me, I only continue to critique you from here, hopefully in a positive way.

The definiton of sin is easy enough to understand if you have read anything about it. Though different groups interpret it in different ways do not assume all must be wrong. Your atheistic stylings are like that of an amateur musican trying to redefine C. Take the advice of some professional musicians and listen to their keys.

Your amateurish understanding of philosophical concepts such as the soul leaves us all wanting to help you walk away with more wisdom. Please respond with a little more reading under your belt about the Church. You should have read the writer you plan to critique. It seems you are putting forth arguments you read in atheist apologetic books. Watching a film and having someone describe it to you are two different things. As I understand it, you were a Protestant and that is what you are using as your first hand experience; they do not understand Church teachings either. I would be so bold as to say there are few who completely understand the teachings of the Church and I am not one of them.

If you wish to open a new thread please alert me on this one because I have a feeling s others have stated this thread is has no reasonable end in sight.

I pray for your conversion,

Adam

 

[Mike_O]

Hitetlen:

By definition, personal revelations are not accessible to others, so we must accept a person’s testimony, which is unsupported. I am not willing to do that.

It’s funny; the torrent of atheistic nonsense that has been flowing forth from your keyboard since the start of the thread is also unsupported. Seizing this internal logical failure of yours, I suppose we had best dismiss what you say–it’s personal testimony, all of it unsupported.

The Bible is just an old collection of arbitrarily chosen stories, all written, edited and selected by humans.

If this is your genuine understanding of the Bible, you’re several hundred hours of study shy of being able to meaningfully discuss the topic that began the thread.

If you wish to say that the Church can interpret it for us, I am still unimpressed.

Well, that settles it. We’ll have to phone the Holy Father and tell him to get right to work on impressing Hitetlen in order to validate the 2,000 year old faith.

The Church is comprised of fellow human beings, whose “interpretation” is just as unsupported as anyone else’s testimony. And to declare the the pope is somehow “inerrant” when speaking of ex-cathedra, that is just another unsupported assertion.

This reveals that you do not know what “ex cathedra” means at all. You suggested starting a thread defining uses of words. I suggest, even before doing that, you find a priest and begin moving through the Catechism to actually learn what the Church teaches, rather than relying on 79 variations of the “Human beings said/taught/wrote/did it, so it can’t be reliable” argument.

 

[doomhammer]

March 19, 2006 Third Sunday of Lent Reading II 1 Cor 1:22-25
”Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.”

 

[Hitetlen]

I will try and drag the thread back unto the track. It is amazing how quickly a thread can go sideways. Truly it was partially my fault to speak about the dubious nature of sin when Adam brought up that “every human sinned”.

I should have just pointed out that “to sin” one must have make a conscious, volitional effort to transgress God’s alleged will, therefore those who are too young to be able to make conscious decisions have not sinned (yet). (Risking another derail attempt I will say that this is also reflected in the usual phrase of “innocent baybees” who are aborted, so even believers do not think that “everyone” sinned. Caveat: I will not respond to any attempt to go into an abortion debate.)

Also to say that everyone has sinned is an unwarranted assumption, and would need the utterer to be able and see into the thought process of every human being. Not likely to happen. Now hopefully we can return to our topic and talk about the “type-A” and “type-B” persons.

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen:

I will try and drag the thread back unto the track. It is amazing how quickly a thread can go sideways. Truly it was partially my fault to speak about the dubious nature of sin when Adam brought up that “every human sinned”.

I should have just pointed out that “to sin” one must have make a conscious, volitional effort to transgress God’s alleged will, therefore those who are too young to be able to make conscious decisions have not sinned (yet). (Risking another derail attempt I will say that this is also reflected in the usual phrase of “innocent baybees” who are aborted, so even believers do not think that “everyone” sinned. Caveat: I will not respond to any attempt to go into an abortion debate.)

Also to say that everyone has sinned is an unwarranted assumption, and would need the utterer to be able and see into the thought process of every human being. Not likely to happen. Now hopefully we can return to our topic and talk about the “type-A” and “type-B” persons.

Hitetlen,

Very quickly, you are forgetting about the doctrine of original sin. Every human has sinned and we do not need empirical evidence because it is one of our beliefs. If you want to go into this further I agree to start another thread. If you need answers further explained then ask rather than stating your misconceptions of what we teach. And just fyi making your statement that not every one has sinned requires empirical evidence too. Your opinions are nice to listen to though just make sure you know what you’re saying before you say it. It seems like you really don’t know that much about the Church. Ask one of us if you have a problem. I’m sure many of us could answer your questions about the Church’s answers and at least you might be able to understand some of it even if you disagree.

Adam