Understanding God

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

Now, there was another thing I learned, namely that God does not predestine anyone to hell, but he does predestine some people to heaven. So there are some people who are given a generous amount of grace, who gain the necessary faith to love and serve God sufficiently well, so they will be admitted to heaven. These people of course retain their free will.

For the following discussion I will call these people “type-A” persons,…

In order to become a “type-A” person one does have to do anything, the grace and their resulting faith is a free gift from God.

While not a direct answer to your question, I would like to post the following about a type-A person we happen to honor today.

Patrick remained in his early years under the tutelage of his aunt,
and God was so desirous of showing to the world the favours with
which He had pre-determined to honour that pure soul, that He did not wait for the time when Patrick would be of an age to ask for them; since before he could speak the words God declared Himself his friend.

For a blind man, Gormas (a neighbour of his in that village), heard one day a voice in the air which said to him, that if he went to Patrick (a child recently baptised), who would with his right hand make the sign of the cross upon his eyes, he would be restored to sight. He did so, and saw: God no doubt to foreshadow by this the great things that he would eventually work through this His servant.

And this predestination, as it were, He made more remarkable by
another miracle, which, if it was not greater, was more acknowledged and more widely known from the number of persons who were astonished at beholding it…

from an etext on St. Patrick’s Purgatory (use search feature)
gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/prgsp10.txt

Happy St. Patrick’s Day

hurst

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen,

Your conception of predestination may or may not be right. This is not clearly defined by the Church. It seems you are arguing against one school of thought on the issue. This is fine as long as you realize that what you are arguing against is not necessarilly the belief of the Church. I’m sure Catholics everywhere will be thanking you for aiding in the clarification of this lose concept.

Adam

 

[hurst]

adamlsp:

Your conception of predestination may or may not be right. This is not clearly defined by the Church. It seems you are arguing against one school of thought on the issue. This is fine as long as you realize that what you are arguing against is not necessarilly the belief of the Church.

The Church teaches:

1. God, by His Eternal Resolve of Will, has predestined certain men to eternal blessedness (De fide)

unresolved: is this done before or after consideration of one’s merits? cf. Thomists and Molinists

1. God, by an Eternal Resolve of His Will, predestines certain men, on account of their foreseen sins, to eternal rejection (De fide)

note: this is of a conditional nature

The Church condemned the notion of unconditional predestination to hell in the Council of Trent and Synods of Orange, Quiercy, and Valence.

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 242-245

hurst

 

[Hitetlen]

2) Actually type A persons do have the desire to do bad acts…concupiscence.

That is just an assumption. I think that there are genuinely good people, who simply have no desire to commit “bad” or evil acts. I think that their number is miniscule. I also think that there are many people who have a passing “desire” to act “badly”, but they overcome it easily. What is the explanation for their behavior?

3) Granting your premise, why do some people desire bad acts and others not? God’s grace? Free will? My point was that either choice tends to misrepresent the picture. What do you say?

If you ask my personal opinion, here it comes. The brain is an immensly complicated structure. Its development is a chaotic process so the resulting mind is unpredictable, and shows a large deviation around some conceptual median value.

The behavior of humans as a mass can be very well predicted by statistical means, as a mass we show a Gauss distribution curve. There are a few on the “right” side, the exceptionally good people, and a few of the “wrong” side, the psychopaths. The rest is somewhere in the middle. The central distribution theorems of mathematics prove that every process, which is the result of many small, independent variables shows a “normal” or Gaussian distribution.

So our dispersion along the “good” - “bad” axis is not the result of some divine intervention, it is the result of the natural learning and growing process.

However, in this thread I am not arguing for this position, I would not have mentioned it had you not asked for it. I am interested in a rational explanation based upon the belief system that God created all, and created them in a widely varied manner, some exceptionally good (predestined to heaven), others not. This arrangement is capricious and unjust.

 

[Hitetlen]

DeFide:

Perhaps I should be clearer. Even the type-A’s are type-B’s in that they both have free will. God merely knows which ones will reject his gifts.

Knowing is not dictating anymore than remembering is dictating.

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.

 

[Hitetlen]

Aaron I.:

I’d imagine that type-Bs exist because God loves them. Even the mother of a terrible person loves them still, how much more true would this be for God.

Mothers would not want to “create” terrible kids, if it were in their power, so your analogy is not correct.

 

[Hitetlen]

Ahimsa:

One thing to keep in mind is that (1) even type-Bs are not predestined to hell; and (2) it is possible that everyone in type-B will be saved.

Possible is not the same as certainty, is it? And I seriously doubt that any believer would believe that all type-B’s eventually end up in heaven.

But since you brought it up, if I would believe in God, I would also believe that everyone would end in heaven.

 

[Hitetlen]

Mike O:

God is always good, whether or not human beings enjoy the results of His will. The concept of God “acting as He should” is no more than a cover for people’s “problem” with the “problem” of evil. This is one of the big myths/misconceptions long ago answered by C.S. Lewis and others, namely, that God’s goodness does not derive from people’s conception of how He should act.

Ah, the good old argument from ignorance - precisely as the limerick has said it. You said exactly the same thing.

 

[Hitetlen]

joshua_b:

Whenever we question “why” God would do certain things, we seem to forget that God has infinitely Perfect Wisdom, beyond our finite human intellectual understanding, and we probably can’t grasp with our human intellects (which fall short of the Beatific vision) God’s reasoning.

Thank you for your contribution, but that is also an argument from ignorance.

 

[Hitetlen]

adamlsp:

Hitetlen,

Your conception of predestination may or may not be right. This is not clearly defined by the Church. It seems you are arguing against one school of thought on the issue. This is fine as long as you realize that what you are arguing against is not necessarilly the belief of the Church. I’m sure Catholics everywhere will be thanking you for aiding in the clarification of this lose concept.

Adam

Nice to see you again I am sure there is a lot of discussion going on considering such difficult subjects.

 

[joshua_b]

Hitetlen:

Thank you for your contribution, but that is also an argument from ignorance.

What part of that statement would you construe as ignorant, that God is the infinite epitome of wisdom, or that we can not exist on the same level as God since we do not share the beatific vision ?

 

[Hitetlen]

joshua_b:

What part of that statement would you construe as ignorant, that God is the infinite epitome of wisdom, or that we can not exist on the same level as God since we do not share the beatific vision ?

The second one, of course. I find it unacceptable that God is being hailed for all the good things, because he is omnipotent and good, and “Mother Nature” being blamed for all the bad things. That is not an intellectually honest stance. If God has a “desk”, there is a sign on it: “The buck stops here!” accepting the responsibility for both the good and the bad.

 

[joshua_b]

Perhaps you misunderstood. I never said that God wasn’t to blame for all of the “bad”, just that our human perception of what is “bad” may not be as keen as that of One who is omnipotent. Another example (they all seem to go back to my kids, so sorry about that)…my 2 year old wants nothing more than to eat candy for breakfast. Of course when she is denied she throws a major fit, and I am certain you would concede that she is not capable of understanding WHY I wont allow her to eat candy for breakfast.

Maybe something a little more theological would help. The Church’s Doctrine has been that artificial contraception is intrinsically evil for 2000 years. For almost that long, it really hasn’t been understood WHY the Church would say that is the case, but now, with the advent of the birth control pill, the “morning after” pill, and the ensuing mechanical knowledge of how those things actually work (they are abortifacients…not in all cases I know, but that is not the topic of this thread), along with the fact that abortion rates have increased, divorce rates have increased, the number of children out of wedlock have increased (all just as the Pope predicted 40 years ago when he reaffirmed the Church’s 2000 year old stand against artificial contraception), it is a little bit more clear now then it would have been two millenia ago, but I can assure you God had the wisdom 2000 years ago to see what artificial contraception can lead to in a larger sense. I guess my ultimate point is that we, as human beings, lack in our essence the level ofconsciousness neccessary to fully comprehend God, and sometimes I don’t think that we will ever be able to answer “why” God does something, but rather as a Christian, I simply say that God does indeed have His reasons. We can not understand those reasons fully all the time since we are NOT oniscent, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent.

 

[Hitetlen]

joshua_b:

Perhaps you misunderstood. I never said that God wasn’t to blame for all of the “bad”, just that our human perception of what is “bad” may not be as keen as that of One who is omnipotent. Another example (they all seem to go back to my kids, so sorry about that)…my 2 year old wants nothing more than to eat candy for breakfast. Of course when she is denied she throws a major fit, and I am certain you would concede that she is not capable of understanding WHY I wont allow her to eat candy for breakfast.

I understand the basic reasoning. You say that just because we are unable to understand why something happens, it does not mean that there cannot be an adequately good reason behind it. No problem, this could be a valid reasoning. However you seem to forget that there is another possibility: since there is no apparently “good” reason for certain “bad” things, it is more likely that there in no “good” reason for them. You know: the duck test - if it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it tastes like a duck, then it IS a duck. 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.

And another thing: when one considers “bad” things and possible “good” things that come out of them, that is insuffucient to argue that the “good end” justifies the “bad means”. That is an unacceptable premise. “Means” and “ends” can form a justifyable sequence, but the “end” in and by itself can NEVER justify the means.

To argue that there MUST be something “good” behind the apparently “bad” things, JUST because you believe that God is “good” is at the very least a circular reasoning and to me it sounds like rationalizing.

joshua_b:

Maybe something a little more theological would help. The Church’s Doctrine has been that artificial contraception is intrinsically evil for 2000 years. For almost that long, it really hasn’t been understood WHY the Church would say that is the case, but now, with the advent of the birth control pill, the “morning after” pill, and the ensuing mechanical knowledge of how those things actually work (they are abortifacients…not in all cases I know, but that is not the topic of this thread), along with the fact that abortion rates have increased, divorce rates have increased, the number of children out of wedlock have increased (all just as the Pope predicted 40 years ago when he reaffirmed the Church’s 2000 year old stand against artificial contraception), it is a little bit more clear now then it would have been two millenia ago, but I can assure you God had the wisdom 2000 years ago to see what artificial contraception can lead to in a larger sense. I guess my ultimate point is that we, as human beings, lack in our essence the level ofconsciousness neccessary to fully comprehend God, and sometimes I don’t think that we will ever be able to answer “why” God does something, but rather as a Christian, I simply say that God does indeed have His reasons. We can not understand those reasons fully all the time since we are NOT oniscent, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent.

That is not a good example for me. I find the stance of the Church on sex, marriage, abortion and contraception totally unacceptable, ludicrous and horrible, for many reasons, which would go way too far beyond this particular thread. So let’s just drop it.

 

[Mike_O]

Hitetlen:

Ah, the good old argument from ignorance - precisely as the limerick has said it. You said exactly the same thing.

Wrong yet again.

The burden of proof in this matter, in fact, rests with you, because, though you are an atheist, you have begun this thread with the assumption that God exists. Therefore, postulating parts of His essence necessitates some proof.

The idea that God needs to reveal the reasons for His actions to you or else they must be deemed injust is nonsensical. The ignorance here is yours.

 

[Mike_O]

Hitetlen:

The second one, of course. I find it unacceptable that God is being hailed for all the good things, because he is omnipotent and good, and “Mother Nature” being blamed for all the bad things. That is not an intellectually honest stance. If God has a “desk”, there is a sign on it: “The buck stops here!” accepting the responsibility for both the good and the bad.

You speak with the judgment from your own personal conceptions of right and wrong, justice and injustice.

You have no support for the statement that God has any reason to will that anyone be happy or loved beyond your own personal desires. To argue that God should conform His ways to your own conceptions of the good, justice, and happiness presupposes the ridiculous notion that divine and infinite concepts are even conceivable to a finite human mind.

You fault others for arguments “from ignorance” and skip through your own arguments “from sentimental desire.”

The “problem of suffering” questions you verge onto (theodicy, “Why does a good God allow evil to happen?”, etc., etc. ad nauseam) have been answered 10,000 times over in every conceivable medium on and off line. It’s clear enough you’ve a bit of research left unfinished. Some books were already recommended to you. Knowing, as you must, that this a Catholic forum and you’re all but hopeless to gain “converts” to atheism, and seeing from your other posts that the belligerent undertone of your questions hints not at any “truth seeking” but at this atheistic desire to turn people to your “truth” (re: inanity), why bother continuing the line of questioning?

 

[Hitetlen]

Mike O:

The burden of proof in this matter, in fact, rests with you, because, though you are an atheist, you have begun this thread with the assumption that God exists. Therefore, postulating parts of His essence necessitates some proof.

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

The idea that God needs to reveal the reasons for His actions to you or else they must be deemed injust is nonsensical. The ignorance here is yours.

He does not “need” to reveal any reasons. I asked the posters about their possible reasonings. Big difference!

 

[Mike_O]

Hitetlen:

That is not a good example for me. I find the stance of the Church on sex, marriage, abortion and contraception totally unacceptable, ludicrous and horrible, for many reasons, which would go way too far beyond this particular thread. So let’s just drop it.

No, this is highly relevant.

That you find teachings such as “Taking innocent unborn life is never morally licit” repellant while at the same time faulting God for allowing tsunamis to “indiscriminately mow down thousands of lives” speaks volumes about the illogic that colors your thought processes.

 

[Hitetlen]

Mike O:

You speak with the judgment from your own personal conceptions of right and wrong, justice and injustice.

Those personal conceptions are shared by millions of others.
Mike O:

You have no support for the statement that God has any reason to will that anyone be happy or loved beyond your own personal desires. To argue that God should conform His ways to your own conceptions of the good, justice, and happiness presupposes the ridiculous notion that divine and infinite concepts are even conceivable to a finite human mind.

Infinity is a very easily comprehensible concept for mathematicians. The word “devine” is also a human concoction. You seem to forget that I am arguing the human concepts you and others express when you talk about God. It is just an easy “cop-out” to say: you cannot understand God. The word “God” is just a human concept, and I have no problem understanding it.
Mike O:

The “problem of suffering” questions you verge onto (theodicy, “Why does a good God allow evil to happen?”, etc., etc. ad nauseam) have been answered 10,000 times over in every conceivable medium on and off line.

And none of them is remotely satisfactory.
Mike O:

It’s clear enough you’ve a bit of research left unfinished. Some books were already recommended to you. Knowing, as you must, that this a Catholic forum and you’re all but hopeless to gain “converts” to atheism, and seeing from your other posts that the belligerent undertone of your questions hints not at any “truth seeking” but at this atheistic desire to turn people to your “truth” (re: inanity), why bother continuing the line of questioning?

I am not naive and don’t think that anyone can be “converted”, though it would be nice. I am not seeking “truth”, I am seeking opinions.

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

Hi

Peace to you

I am not a theologian , nor an intellectual - I just play one on TV so forgive me please if I end up complicating things.

It seems to me that the issue you are struggling with comes down to this: Type ‘A’ people are given more of the ‘juice’ to overcome and serve God as He wishes us all to do - while type ‘B’ people have to work at it. Your question, if I remember correctly, is ‘Why?’ .

IMO, people such as: Noah, Abraham, Mary, David, the Apostles, Augustine, Padre Pio, etc. etc. are there (and here) to provide examples, continue the flow of ‘good’ in the world. God’s plan necessarily included people such as these to provide hope for the rest of us. But that comes with a price as well - LK 12:47 And that servant who knew the will of his lord, and prepared not himself, and did not according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. LK 12:48 But he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more.

Nobody gets a ‘free ride’

Also - Adam and Eve made a choice, to know good and evil. Knowlege of evil, true knowlege for us - requires living it…just like true knowlege of good requires living it. You can have intellectual assent, intellectual understanding of many things…but you never truly know something until you do it. Put another way - we can come to an understanding of the saints, and even emulate them to a point , but Love cannot be emulated…it can only be lived. That, it seems to me, is the true point of ‘type B’ people. Gaining intimate knowlege of the adversary, while overcoming and learning the perfection of Love - the second part is done the same way as ‘type A’ people (*recieving the graces and knowlege *necessary to overcome and live a life from Love), while the difference of the first part remains (intimate knowlege of evil, or sin): type ‘A’ people generally don’t go through the first.

If your question in particular pertains to people who do go through both parts of my rationale - then the difference is merely the level of dedication and obedience to God - not the circumstances in which each type are found.

Peace to you

John