Very much disappointed

[Trurl]

No one is perfect.

Indeed! Well, once I thought that I was wrong… but it turned out that I was mistaken.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

There is a rich Biblical tradition concerning the word “know” as a unitive and creative act. When a man and woman come to “know” each other, the result is a child. That is not a metaphor, the child is a being of its own right. When God “knows” something, it comes into being or existence. That is not a metaphor, that statement expresses a reality far more substantial than our knowledge can conceive.

“No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” (Luke 10:22)

Consider the above in light of Trinitarian theology that inadequately portrays the Son as the Father’s perfect self-knowledge. The Son proceeds from the Father as a perfect act of omniscient self-knowledge. The “knowledge” of the Father is the Son. So when the Son, “chooses to reveal” the Father, it is the light, the illuminating knowledge of the Son that brings us, as human persons, into being, just as the knowledge of the Father brings the Son into being, eternally. Our knowledge of ourselves if “in tune” with the Son’s knowledge of us, brings us into being, i.e., actualizes us. In fact, it is God’s knowledge of us that brings us into being. However, if we choose to “disconnect” ourselves from the Son’s actualizing knowledge of us, then, like the branch that severs itself from the tree, we, as persons, become less real, less actualized and more illusory. We are separated from God, from Truth and, ultimately, from Being itself.

The difference between the nature of God and the nature of man is that God exists necessarily because God’s nature is “to be.” His nature is to exist. God is Being itself. Our nature is contingent upon the Being of God. We do not exist by some essential quality in human nature because our nature is contingent upon God bringing us into being, sharing existence with us. We exist to the extent that we participate or share in existence, but that sharing is not necessary, it is contingent upon the will and knowledge of God.

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God — children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. (John 1:12)

What does “born of God” mean if not sharing, by participation, i.e., adoption, in the Being of God? Otherwise, there is no difference between merely being born of natural descent, human decision or will, and being “born of God.”

Reread my last two posts in light of this.

I am not saying we “create” our “selves” as God creates, but we do originate the kind of self that, if endorsed by God, is actualized into being by him. Self is only actually realized as an interplay between our will and God’s. On our own we cannot actualize what we conceive self to be. That would be a kind of spiritual masturbation, a self-love that goes nowhere precisely because God’s (name removed by moderator)ut is missing. We do not receive God, therefore we cannot be born of God, i.e., be fully actualized as existing “selves.”

Yet to all who received him,… he gave the right to become children of God … born of God. (John 1:12)

Incidentally, this explains why all forms of sexual auto-eroticism and homosexual love are inherently distortions of a much greater reality, the creative love of God. Doing things “our way” by shutting out God will only end in termination because there is no “power” to endure or create from contingency.

Yes, words have specific meanings in specific contexts. But you are getting off topic. When we are speaking about " creating " in regard to the existence of things we are in the realms of philosophy/Theology/Revelation. In those subjects " create " does not mean " develop " in any sense. We are a real Person at the moment of conception or at least at the moment God implants the soul. You spoke of " self. " We would have a " self " at the moment the soul is implanted. Person and self are synomynous. And as persons we become more and more perfect with the passage of time. And after the age of reason we begin to perfect our " self " or our " personality. " That is " growth " not creation.

If you don’t use terms properly in the proper context no one will understand what you are talking about. And a great deal of time is wasted. Learn to use terms properly or give up philosophy.

 

[fred_conty]

The beings in hell are not evil. They were created good and chose to reject good.

Davdv, thanks for you (name removed by moderator)ut.

Technically speaking, if it has existence, it is good like you said.

Practically speaking tho, not so. Especially evil personified, those in hell.

Just a thought.

 

[davidv]

Davdv, thanks for you (name removed by moderator)ut.

Technically speaking, if it has existence, it is good like you said.

Practically speaking tho, not so. Especially evil personified, those in hell.

Just a thought.

Understood.

 

[zro_x]

Nonexistence is far superior to eternal suffering.

My theory is that this is the case for the vast majority of possible souls who would eventually end up in hell who have never been created and never will be created. For the small minority that are, existence in a place separated from God which they choose and continue to choose throughout eternity (as opposed to being sentenced to an eternal torture of fire and brimstone), existence in hell is better than non-existence.

 

[Trurl]

My theory is that this is the case for the vast majority of possible souls who would eventually end up in hell who have never been created and never will be created. For the small minority that are, existence in a place separated from God which they choose and continue to choose throughout eternity (as opposed to being sentenced to an eternal torture of fire and brimstone), existence in hell is better than non-existence.

We are all free to theorize.

 

[Linux]

Davdv, thanks for you (name removed by moderator)ut.

Technically speaking, if it has existence, it is good like you said.

Practically speaking tho, not so. Especially evil personified, those in hell.

Just a thought.

Evil is not a being. Generally speaking to be in hell only means that you reject God and by rejecting God you refuse to express the inherent good of your existence. This is not the same as saying that evil positively exists as an entity. The nature and existence of every being in hell is truly good and does not cease to be because of hell. There is nothing positively evil about their nature or existence. Evil does not exist in and of itself. Its a privation of Moral Potential.

 

[DCNBILL]

In this case the “rejection” can only mean one thing: “a formal statement indicating that one does not wish to do anything with God”. Acting in a way that is supposed to be against God’s alleged will does not count, since neither God’s existence nor God’s supposed will has ever been substantiated. It remains on the level of the opinion of a certain group of people. As I said before, I fully reject this opinion, but that does not equate to rejecting the alleged referent of this opinion. As soon as God will come and manifest himself, we all shall be in the position to accept or reject him. But not until then.

Note that this has already happened and humanity was so affected by it they changed the manner in which we count the passing of years.

People are in fact in the position to reject or accept Him and do so all of the time.

 

[Trurl]

Note that this has already happened…

A 2 thousand year old “story” is insufficient. A personal manifestation is in order.

 

[DCNBILL]

A 2 thousand year old “story” is insufficient. A personal manifestation is in order.

Calling the most important event in the history of creation a “story” does not diminish it’s effects one iota.

Note that God acts at His will not ours. As stated above that has already taken place, just because it was before we were born does not make it any less relevant, the Church is the result of this personal manifestation, the fullness of the revelation of God was in the person of Jesus the Christ, that revelation is still being shared today, the body of Christ is now the Church.

 

[Peter_Plato]

A 2 thousand year old “story” is insufficient. A personal manifestation is in order.

God has chosen to personally “manifest” himself in and through human persons. To the extent that we allow God to “come alive” in and through each of us individually, that is the extent that he will manifest. Jesus Christ was and is the model and means by which that is to happen.

God has placed himself, indelibly inside each of us, (starving, suffering, poor, lost, traumatized, even wealthy and arrogant individuals) to guide us through death (which we must all suffer) to everlasting life but has also placed himself at the mercy of the rest of us to relinquish each other’s suffering by our actions guided by his grace. Our assent and choices are required for any “personal manifestation” to occur to us and through us to others. In the crucifixion, God, in the incarnation of Christ, has bound himself to human nature, to perfect it and reveal his presence through it. “Where two or three are gathered in my name there I will be…”

If you desire a “personal manifestation” it will happen to you, but also through you; only with your cooperation.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes, words have specific meanings in specific contexts. But you are getting off topic. When we are speaking about " creating " in regard to the existence of things we are in the realms of philosophy/Theology/Revelation. In those subjects " create " does not mean " develop " in any sense. We are a real Person at the moment of conception or at least at the moment God implants the soul. You spoke of " self. " We would have a " self " at the moment the soul is implanted. Person and self are synomynous. And as persons we become more and more perfect with the passage of time. And after the age of reason we begin to perfect our " self " or our " personality. " That is " growth " not creation.

If you don’t use terms properly in the proper context no one will understand what you are talking about. And a great deal of time is wasted. Learn to use terms properly or give up philosophy.

So you would hold that when a man and woman come together, in the Biblical sense, that they do not actually “create” new life? What is the problem with supposing that God allows, endorses and actually promotes “creativity?” Certainly he provides all the resources necessary, but, at times, leaves it up to humans to take the final crucial step in creating. Without the act of the, hopefully, loving couple, no new life would be created.

I am going to mess with your philosophical head once more. As far as I can tell, to love is to create. If God is pure act, then he is, in effect, a verb. When we love, we God. To God, means to create. We actually create when we God. We become the instrumental means by which his creative power actually creates that which is not actualized in and through us without our cooperation.

If a couple can, cooperating with God, create new life, then what is so disturbing about our own free choices being the instrumental means by which God does or does not, over time, create a self for each of us? If we love then we participate with God in creating our self. If we do not love then we do not participate with God and self is not created or, at least, not fully actualized.

As to self being merely personality, that is not what I am talking about, at least not in the natural, biological sense that you defined. What does Jesus mean when he says, ***"That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit.” (John 3:6)?

---

The biological aspect (born of the flesh) of a human being grows naturally, but that “which is born of the spirit” is created. “…unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Didn’t God give free will to humans who can then choose to procreate? In other words, people exercise their free will and decide to create a particular person or not. God created the possibility of human propigation, though is involved in creating the soul of each person at conception, “knitting them together in their mother’s womb”.

I hope that is consistent with Church teaching

Please use terms correctly. Only God " creates. " Man causes another human to " come to be " as a secondary cause, an instrumental cause. God creats the individual soul and places it in the body at the moment of conception or as soon after as he pleases. Because " create " is so often used incorrectly some here get the wrong idea of man’s causality.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Trurl, the apologist is correct. You may not like the answer, or think it is inconsistent, but the apologist gave the right answer and others on this thread already answered your concerns.

If you are still unsatisfied, there is no way anyone can help you, really.

What are your further concerns?

Beg to differ. Two errors were made. The first was to present a hypothetical which has nothing to do with the question. Even then, the " sham " would only exist in people’s minds. Those actually created would still have to exercise their free will. If Adam and Eve had not disobeyed God, the rest of us ( as far as we know ) would have been free of original sin and would have been given the same gifts of integrity given to Adam and Eve and, we assume, would never have sinned. But we still would have had to exercise our free wills, we would still have had to choose the good. The same would be the case with the Blessed Mother. Though given the gifts she was given, it is impossible that she could ever have sinned. But she still had to exercise her free will, she had to choose the good.

The second was not to answer the directly. God creates us the way he did by his own free will, eventhough he knew that many, perhaps most would be lost. In our present condition we cannot know more than that. But we could say that because some are indeed lost, that reflects more favorably on those who choose the good.

So, Trurl is basically right about his judgment about the answer given. On behalf of the Apologist however, it must be said that this is not a matter of Doctrine but of philosophical speculation only or a matter of personal opinion. Nothing wrong with that either.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Please use terms correctly. Only God " creates. " Man causes another human to " come to be " as a secondary cause, an instrumental cause. God creats the individual soul and places it in the body at the moment of conception or as soon after as he pleases. Because " create " is so often used incorrectly some here get the wrong idea of man’s causality.

The Word… came to his own domain and his own people did not accept him. But to all who did accept him he gave power to become children of God…
It is the power available to us that makes us free to become. That means the “becoming” is in our hands because the creative power is in our hands. Certainly, this power originates in God and comes to us through Christ, but it is in “taking up” this power that we become who we are meant to be. No one else, not even God, can make the choices we need to make in order to actualize the power from God to create our true selves.

As in the case of having a child. God has placed the means by which the child is created into the hands of the couple. The power to create the child has been placed by God within the act itself. By doing the act, the couple is creating the child. I am not sure what traction is to be gained by saying It is God who creates the child because God does not create the child without the couple. They are the chosen means by which God does the creating.

It seems a quibbling point to make to say that it is actually God who does the creating because by the rules that God himself has set up, the creating won’t happen without the instrumental cooperation of the human beings involved. The same with our own spiritual birth as “children of God.” We can’t “wait for God,” as if we can sit back and do nothing. Our cooperation of will and act is required. Accepting Christ means accepting and taking up the creative power by which we can “…become children of God.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

From the opening post:

Here is a quote of someone’s question to the official apologists:

Quote:
I am under the impression that God knows everything about our lives: past, present, and future. If he knows when he creates us that we are going to make choices that will end up with us being in hell, how can he even create us? Isn’t that very cruel?

And here is the answer:

Quote:
To the contrary, it shows us the depths of God’s love for us that he gave us the free will to reject him. Had he only created those he knew would choose him, then the gift of free will would have been a sham because it would have prevented its free exercise

.
The apologist asserts that if no one would reject God, then the ones who would choose and embrace God would not do this freely? The apologist says that the “freedom” of choosing God is CONTINGENT upon someone else rejecting God? How can something be “free” if it is contingent upon someone else’s action?

The problem the OP has with the apologist is based upon a distortion of what the apologist actually wrote. The apologist is not claiming that one person’s freedom of choosing God is contingent upon someone else rejecting him but is contingent on the nature of free will itself. In other words, free will could not be endowed to anyone without the possibility of evil choices being made by them.

The only way that God could prevent anyone from making wrong choices is by taking away the very faculty by which choices are made by anyone. If, as I believe, free will is precisely what endows personal identity on each individual, then taking away their free will, and thus the possibility of their making wrong choices, is, in fact, depriving them of the very thing that makes them who they are.

When the apologist writes, “Had he only created those he knew would choose him, then the gift of free will would have been a sham because it would have prevented its free exercise….” s/he is not claiming a contingency of the free will of some on the free will of others. That is a misinterpretation by the OP. What is being claimed is that God could not (i.e., it is not logically possible for God to,) have selectively endowed free will precisely because a free will is one where each individual having it, self-determines the outcome. God could not, in a logically consistent way, predetermine the outcome of free will without the individual being created to actually exercise free will, otherwise the concept of free will itself is a sham.

 

[liquidayno]

God forced me into existence, knew I would reject him and then condemns me to hell because I don’t love him.

Yeah, that’s perfect justice.

Your parents forced you into existence and God responded to your parents choice by giving you a rational soul, even though yes God knows what you will ultimately have decided by the time you die (which you don’t even know at this point, your life isn’t over, how could you truly know?). God hasn’t condemned you to hell; your life isn’t over yet, and you don’t have full knowledge of your future, you may just choose to love Him as he certainly loves you.