Understanding God

[john_doran]

Hitetlen:

So what is the difference? It does not answer why “type-B” people should exist at all. Why does the “doctor” not cure all the people, especially since the “doctor” is the one who created both types?

i’m not sure i get the question…the difference is that the doctor applies the cure to some, and lets the others choose whether or not to take the cure themselves.

if you’re asking what’s the difference between the A’s and B’s to the doctor, then i would say i don’t know. why does there have to be one? you seem to be making the assumption that actions must be exhaustively explained by the reasons for them, so that if there is no reason to prefer A to B, then one would choose neither, or the choosing of one or the other would be random. and that’s a poor assumption: a free choice is precisely a choice where nothing determines the choice except the choosing itself.

so. god chooses to apply the cure to some and chooses to present others with a choice they must make themselves.

why is that problematic?

 

[Hitetlen]

adamlsp:

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

Actually I did not forget it, but did not want to bring it into the debate. Please correct me, if I am wrong, but the “original sin” is not the fault of the persons involved, though it somehow “taints” them. When there are discussions about the unborn or the newborn before they are christened, they are supposed to be put into some purgatory, and not into hell, indicating that they were not fully at fault.

And the assertion that not everyone has sinned, simply comes from the definition of “sinning”, which requires a conscious decision making on the person’s part. Without a functioning brain this is impossible.

It is true that doctrines like the “original sin” are totally impossible to accept for someone who is not a believer. To say that a newborn is guilty, because someone among his ancestors committed something, and at the same time to maintain that God is somehow “just” simply goes too far to accept.

 

[Hitetlen]

john doran:

so. god chooses to apply the cure to some and chooses to present others with a choice they must make themselves.

why is that problematic?

Simply because it contradicts that God is just. If someone gets saved, though he did nothing to deserve it, and others do not get this privilige, then there is a discrepancy, which cannot be reconciled with “justice”. Of course “justice” here means that one does not give favors to some who do not merit it.

 

[DeFide]

Hitetlen:

I did not argue for the lack of free will. The existence of type-A and type-B personalities in the not the result of a random process (according to believers!), they are the result of God’s creating them in a different manner, some predestined to heaven, others not. Neither one had to do (or could do) anything to be placed into their respective categories, after all that has been decided before they were created.

You are watering down what free will means. Dictation is dictation whether it is done at the beginning or at points along the path.

God knows, but does not dictate our patterns of vetoing or rejecting his gifts. God gives all sufficient grace for salvation, but some freely reject it by their own free will.

 

[Mike_O]

Hitetlen:

To say that a newborn is guilty, because someone among his ancestors committed something, and at the same time to maintain that God is somehow “just” simply goes too far to accept.

This should be recast to say that you have not attained a sufficient knowledge of the doctrine of Original Sin to offer a meaningful position on the matter.

 

[adamlsp]

Mike O:

This should be recast to say that you have not attained a sufficient knowledge of the doctrine of Original Sin to offer a meaningful position on the matter.

Ditto.

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen:

Actually I did not forget it, but did not want to bring it into the debate. Please correct me, if I am wrong, but the “original sin” is not the fault of the persons involved, though it somehow “taints” them. When there are discussions about the unborn or the newborn before they are christened, they are supposed to be put into some purgatory, and not into hell, indicating that they were not fully at fault.

And the assertion that not everyone has sinned, simply comes from the definition of “sinning”, which requires a conscious decision making on the person’s part. Without a functioning brain this is impossible.

It is true that doctrines like the “original sin” are totally impossible to accept for someone who is not a believer. To say that a newborn is guilty, because someone among his ancestors committed something, and at the same time to maintain that God is somehow “just” simply goes too far to accept.

Hitetlen,

You persist in your error and I am sorry to say it would take a lot to correct your misunderstandings of Church teaching. Whether or not you agree with the teaching is a-whole-nother matter. If you care to be able to go anywhere in dialogue here, please read up on what you plan to discuss. It seems yet that you rely on secondhand sources and thirdhand sources to platform your misunderstandings. If you have time on your hands and if you care, pick up a catechism so that disagreements over simple definitions need not waste our time here. This will allow us to be able to move on to the more complex topics surrounding the issues at hand. I’m sure we all appreciate you anticipated cooperation.

Thanks,

Adam

 

[Hitetlen]

Well, the salvage attempt did not work. Too bad, this was an interesting thread while it lasted.

To sum it up: I asked for any reasonable explanation concerning the idea that God selectively predestines some people to heaven, while others left out from this “grace”. It means that God’s “just” nature remains unfounded.

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen:

Well, the salvage attempt did not work. Too bad, this was an interesting thread while it lasted.

To sum it up: I asked for any reasonable explanation concerning the idea that God selectively predestines some people to heaven, while others left out from this “grace”. It means that God’s “just” nature remains unfounded.

I dont think you’re understanding predestination. Give us that God is omniscient. If he is then he knows who will except his grace and who won’t. In the broadest sense every event has then been determined before the fact (predetermined). This does not mean that God is forcing these things. It only means that they will happen. Therefore very broadly, everything will happen and it is known by God before hand. Therefore if he knows that if he wills certain graces to certain people it will all work out then he is justified in not willing those graces to others. However predestination does not say that he does not will these graces to all. Only that not all accept and thus do not go to heaven. It’s just foreknowledge and grace. He does not randomly choose. He has justification. And if you want a reason for why each individual is predestined or not that would take a while. I’m sure using your imagination that you could find reason in this. Look at a aparticualr saints life and I’m sure you’ll see some reasons why God chose them.

Adam

 

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

To sum it up: I asked for any reasonable explanation concerning the idea that God selectively predestines some people to heaven, while others left out from this “grace”. It means that God’s “just” nature remains unfounded.

I think the answer to this is that God is not exercising His justice when He makes someone a type-A. In fact, He is not exercising His justice when He takes someone to heaven. Rather, He is exercising His mercy. And He can choose to give more mercy to one rather than to another, since any amount of mercy is already beyond the justice.

The other complaint you had regarding the “justice” in someone suffering the consequences of the sin of an ancestor can best be explained as justice towards our nature. If you feed your baby poison and it dies, then it suffered due to your sin. If you moved to Alaska and became so poor that neither you nor your family could move, then all your descendents will suffer from your poverty and choice of location, even long after you have died. Likewise, if you marry someone of a different race, then all your descendents will be mixed-race and suffer any discrimination or birth defects on account of your choice. As you can see, it is just the nature of things having consequences that last and affect others. So that Adam and Eve sinned will “naturally” have lasting effects on all their posterity, because they moved away from God, and thus are we born away from God. We still have our nature, but we lost grace due to Adam’s sin… Grace is above nature, and nature has no “right” to it.

Even if someone were to be sinless, they would have no right to heavenly bliss, because such bliss is supernatural and does not belong to our nature by right. It is mercy even to the sinless to receive such bliss. However, it requires one to be sinless in order to receive it. So for someone to be in sin means they would not be able to receive it even if it were given to them. One must first be delivered from sin, and that requires cooperation by repentance and longing for God’s help.

This still doesn’t answer your other question about why someone without grace would then have to go to hell forever. The answer is that God previously overlooked our ignorance, but since He has now has offered His mercy to all by means of His Son, then it follows that those who reject this mercy are now deserving of eternal justice.

Christ is real. Those who do not join Him and claim Victory, will oppose Him and suffer defeat.

hurst

 

[john_doran]

Hitetlen:

Of course “justice” here means that one does not give favors to some who do not merit it.

why should anyone believe it means that?

 

[Contarini]

adamlsp:

I dont think you’re understanding predestination. Give us that God is omniscient. If he is then he knows who will except his grace and who won’t. In the broadest sense every event has then been determined before the fact (predetermined). This does not mean that God is forcing these things. It only means that they will happen. Therefore very broadly, everything will happen and it is known by God before hand. Therefore if he knows that if he wills certain graces to certain people it will all work out then he is justified in not willing those graces to others. However predestination does not say that he does not will these graces to all. Only that not all accept and thus do not go to heaven. It’s just foreknowledge and grace. He does not randomly choose. He has justification. And if you want a reason for why each individual is predestined or not that would take a while. I’m sure using your imagination that you could find reason in this. Look at a aparticualr saints life and I’m sure you’ll see some reasons why God chose them.

Adam

Adam, you are indeed expressing a view commonly held by Catholics today, but not the view dominant with the Western Catholic tradition.

St. Thomas Aquinas would say that your view is untenable, because God’s knowledge is the cause of things that happen, not the other way round. The good works of the saints are the result, not the cause, of God’s predestination.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Hitetlen:

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

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

Not perfect as God. Perfect as a human being.

There are those who would say that the Incarnation somehow perfected God as God. I don’t think this is compatible with Christian orthodoxy, though it’s an appealing idea.

Edwin

 

[Mike_O]

Hitetlen:

Well, the salvage attempt did not work. Too bad, this was an interesting thread while it lasted.

To sum it up: I asked for any reasonable explanation concerning the idea that God selectively predestines some people to heaven, while others left out from this “grace”. It means that God’s “just” nature remains unfounded.

Hitetlen,

adamlsp has suggested–and rightly so–that you pick up a Catechism and educate yourself.

If this were really the noble, truth-seeking endeavor you’ve styled this thread to be, you would have done that long ago and gone straight to the source. The fact that you have not clearly points to the fact that you have an agenda–you need not have posted a thread to have your question answered, nor bungled theology to such a degree that anyone who’s read enough can see you are heavily in need of a visit to the following:

www.vatican.va

Use the search box. Type in “justice,” “predestination,” “God,” or whatever strikes your fancy. Have a ball.

Considering that you are an avowed atheist mired in falsehood, the very fact that you started this thread carries with it all the sincerity that might a neo-Nazi’s venture onto a Jewish forum to request instruction into the Mosaic law.

The most profound “arguments” you have offered against God’s justice have been your own visceral dislikes and discomforts with the fact that people die and human beings suffer. Good luck with advancing that argument in your travels; it was long ago dealt with by any number of theologians.

 

[adamlsp]

Contarini:

Adam, you are indeed expressing a view commonly held by Catholics today, but not the view dominant with the Western Catholic tradition.

St. Thomas Aquinas would say that your view is untenable, because God’s knowledge is the cause of things that happen, not the other way round. The good works of the saints are the result, not the cause, of God’s predestination.

Edwin

Edwin,

I agree and I’m sorry I wrote so generaly as to cause confusion. But you should also note that God is the cause of good things that happen not evil ones. Thus God is the cause of predestination but not reprobation. This sounds unfair though. Thinking like this I believe has lead Hitetlen to his questioning. Because it is heretical to say that man alone or God alone is the reason for predestination is heretical.

Adam

 

[Hitetlen]

hurst:

I think the answer to this is that God is not exercising His justice when He makes someone a type-A. In fact, He is not exercising His justice when He takes someone to heaven. Rather, He is exercising His mercy. And He can choose to give more mercy to one rather than to another, since any amount of mercy is already beyond the justice.

Yes, indeed, mercy is an appealing way to put it. You say that mercy is “beyond” justice, and in a sense it is - even though to me mercy is precisely as unjust as excessive punishment. What your wording insinuates is that God is sometimes “merciful” and sometimes “just” and it does not even contingent upon the person involved. This assumption “stains” both God’s alleged merciful and just nature - it simply makes God arbitrary and capricious.

hurst:

The other complaint you had regarding the “justice” in someone suffering the consequences of the sin of an ancestor can best be explained as justice towards our nature. If you feed your baby poison and it dies, then it suffered due to your sin.

It is very true that some of our actions have consequences on others, since we do not live in a vacuum.

hurst:

If you moved to Alaska and became so poor that neither you nor your family could move, then all your descendents will suffer from your poverty and choice of location, even long after you have died.

Yes, maybe for a long time, but not forever. They may start with a hindrance, but it can be overcome.

hurst:

Likewise, if you marry someone of a different race, then all your descendents will be mixed-race and suffer any discrimination or birth defects on account of your choice. As you can see, it is just the nature of things having consequences that last and affect others.

Yes, of course, for a limited time it does. In a few thousand years the effect will wear off.

hurst:

So that Adam and Eve sinned will “naturally” have lasting effects on all their posterity, because they moved away from God, and thus are we born away from God. We still have our nature, but we lost grace due to Adam’s sin… Grace is above nature, and nature has no “right” to it.

Did we lose the grace? Many posters assert that we are given “enough” grace. But that aside, it is not simply a loss of “grace” we talk about: it is an active “punishment” on someone, who has not committed any sin (since you believe that humanity starts are conception) being only a one-cell organism, without brain, without anything this being is already “sinful” enough not to deserve heaven.

 

[Hitetlen]

adamlsp:

I agree and I’m sorry I wrote so generaly as to cause confusion. But you should also note that God is the cause of good things that happen not evil ones. Thus God is the cause of predestination but not reprobation. This sounds unfair though. Thinking like this I believe has lead Hitetlen to his questioning. Because it is heretical to say that man alone or God alone is the reason for predestination is heretical.

Let me respond to this post of yours, since it amends your post directed to me. I have highlighted the sentence I most emphatically agree with. (Though I don’t understand the last sentence of your post. It is confusing.)

 

[Hitetlen]

Mike O:

Considering that you are an avowed atheist mired in falsehood, the very fact that you started this thread carries with it all the sincerity that might a neo-Nazi’s venture onto a Jewish forum to request instruction into the Mosaic law.

I have stopped answering your posts for quite some time (and will continue to do so), but this one needs a reply.

**I most emphatically reject your analogy. **
**I find it disgusting and repugnant. **

 

[Hitetlen]

Contarini:

Adam, you are indeed expressing a view commonly held by Catholics today, but not the view dominant with the Western Catholic tradition.

St. Thomas Aquinas would say that your view is untenable, because God’s knowledge is the cause of things that happen, not the other way round. The good works of the saints are the result, not the cause, of God’s predestination.

Edwin

Yes! This is a post with which I can agree with. It is so obvious, that everything that happens is either the result of God’s explicit will or is implicitly allowed by God. How else can one imagine omnipotence and omniscience? Nothing can happen if God does not want it.

 

[Contarini]

Hitetlen:

Yes! This is a post with which I can agree with. It is so obvious, that everything that happens is either the result of God’s explicit will or is implicitly allowed by God. How else can one imagine omnipotence and omniscience? Nothing can happen if God does not want it.

As Adam said, Christians traditionally distinguish between what God chooses and what God permits. If God permits something that doesn’t mean that He wants it. This annoys people who want clear-cut either/ors (Calvin could never quite see the point of the distinction). But to traditional Christians it’s key to upholding the goodness of God. We don’t claim to know why God permits evil. But we believe that He does *permit *and not *cause *it. And to us that makes a huge difference. Apparently it doesn’t to you.

I should add that many Christians today have abandoned the classical picture of God. Process theology, “theology of the future,” and evangelical “openness” theology are all attempts to rethink our understanding of God in order to deal with the problems in the classical picture. Myself, I can’t abandon the classical view with all its problems. But as an atheist/agnostic, you should recognize that there are some very significant philosophers/theologians who would uphold a view of God in which God is not omnipotent as traditionally understood (they would say that God is still omnipotent in the sense that eventually God moves the universe to the end the He desires).

Edwin