What does God "want"?

[fhansen]

That is the basic question. If I would know that I should not do something, because it is forbidden AND I cannot get away with it, AND still would do it, I would be a mental case. If one can hope to avoid punishment, that would be different. But Christians do not have that hope… Big Brother always watches them and punishes not just the actions, but the thoughts, too (even if one does not act on them).

The thoughts of murders lead to murder-that’s why Christians understand that the root of sin must be addressed, not merely the act. And human nature is paradoxical in many ways; people do things they know they shouldn’t, and may not get away with, all the time. But there’s always that hope that *we’ll *win the jackpot, or can afford that car we probably can’t afford, or might look better if we just fudge the truth a bit. Pride unreasonably influences much of what we do towards the excessive or inordinate.

In any case humans are conflicted in many ways; we’re at times proud and humble or ashamed, in love or in hate, trying to strike a balance between one extreme or another in what we want, opposing desires pulling us this way or that, not always sure of the right path to take. Free will can be a drag. And these things are common to all.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

The thoughts of murders lead to murder-that’s why Christians understand that the root of sin must be addressed, not merely the act.

This is simply not true. The thoughts MAY lead to something (murder?) but mere thoughts do nothing. And the thoughts do not exist in a vacuum. Contrary to the inane “free will”-ers, our thoughts are caused by external events. We may not act on those thoughts, but we cannot avoid having them.

As the old example shows, try to close your eyes and try NOT to think about “masturbating” for about 5 seconds. Now, if you are honest, you should admit that you spent 5 seconds on thinking of “masturbating”, and nothing else. But that mere thought does not compel you to following up on that thought.

And human nature is paradoxical in many ways; people do things they know they shouldn’t, and may not get away with, all the time.

The point is that for Christians there is no MAY, they are absolutely convinced that they cannot “get away” with what they do. And they STILL do those things. That is not simply paradoxical, it is just plain stupid. After all Big Brother is always watching and does not forget.

 

[fhansen]

This is simply not true. The thoughts MAY lead to something (murder?) but mere thoughts do nothing. And the thoughts do not exist in a vacuum. Contrary to the inane “free will”-ers, our thoughts are caused by external events. We may not act on those thoughts, but we cannot avoid having them.

It simply IS true. The committing of some atrocious crime doesn’t occur, except in the case of insanity perhaps, out of the blue, in a vacuum, as if an otherwise gentle soul, without reason or motivation, suddenly begins raping and hacking people to death like some zombie automaton. Rather, there’s already a spiritual sickness present; actions follow the will, or the heart, so to speak. It has nothing to do with anyone daydreaming about playing with themselves or murdering someone; that’s not what the Church is addressing.

The point is that for Christians there is no MAY, they are absolutely convinced that they cannot “get away” with what they do. And they STILL do those things. That is not simply paradoxical, it is just plain stupid. After all Big Brother is always watching and does not forget.

Stupid or not it’s human nature. Like children, adults still stubbornly think they can get away with it anyway, whether BB is an earthly or a heavenly one. That’s honesty. We can prefer and embrace and act on doubt for the moment it takes to commit some sin-since faith is optional-controlled by ourselves- in a world where the boss isn’t in our immediate presence anyway.

 

[Clevus]

We are being tested. The reason is that only perfection can gain access to heaven. But our only requirement is to try for perfection. His Son waits for our individual test period to end, then he continues in his work to have him with him. He further qualifies us by removing the blight on us that disqualifies us to it. He has us go through reparation to the degree that repairs the tear in his justice, a patch work of time that has us wait patiently and visitors comfort us. If through our acts we showed no caring for betterment, and so are making the choice to turn our backs on justice(reparation), then he cannot apply his remedy because we refuse it. It’s really a process that is quite reasonable.

To me it is the Reality of realities, a most wonderful news, the knowing that somehow heaven is incomplete with us not being there, I’ll say it again, incomplete with us not being there. That place setting with the Father will remain empty and Jesus does what he can to ensure that won’t happen. Even now, Jesus doesn’t work alone in this task. Those residents could, if they were not so full of love for humanity, give up on us. He asks his Mother to help him, and she obliges. She promises(real promises) to take the time to help us and receive our discussions of the Rosary each day of our lives. Many other saints he enlisted for our sake, in fact heaven, if it were possible, would cry out for us to choose to complete their environment. We have intuitive evidence. We have factual evidence of their works through the centuries. The evidence is overwhelming.

How many that are yet to come and have come to us from that wonderful place, take the time to help us to prepare for that welcoming home.

You are a special, one of a kind unique miracle in this world. Everyone is to see Him in you, with the Divine dignity you have been bestowed, … and no wonder.

God Bless you.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

We are being tested.

Only an idiot would resort to “testing”, if he already KNEW the outcome. God does NOT need “testing”.

It simply IS true. The committing of some atrocious crime doesn’t occur, except in the case of insanity perhaps, out of the blue, in a vacuum, as if an otherwise gentle soul, without reason or motivation, suddenly begins raping and hacking people to death like some zombie automaton. Rather, there’s already a spiritual sickness present; actions follow the will, or the heart, so to speak. It has nothing to do with anyone daydreaming about playing with themselves or murdering someone; that’s not what the Church is addressing.

Jesus addressed it exactly. Even if you do NOT engage in adultery, just think about it, it is considered equally “punishable”. At least you should know your own religion.

Stupid or not it’s human nature. Like children, adults still stubbornly think they can get away with it anyway, whether BB is an earthly or a heavenly one. That’s honesty. We can prefer and embrace and act on doubt for the moment it takes to commit some sin-since faith is optional-controlled by ourselves- in a world where the boss isn’t in our immediate presence anyway.

Again, only a mentally deficient believer would “hope” to avoid the ever-present eyes of the Big Brother.

 

[fhansen]

Only an idiot would resort to “testing”, if he already KNEW the outcome. God does NOT need “testing”.

Jesus addressed it exactly. Even if you do NOT engage in adultery, just think about it, it is considered equally “punishable”. At least you should know your own religion.

Well, if you knew my religion, and had a little clearer thinking of your own, you’d realize that Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount are exactly what I’ve been referring to. What He actually said has nothing to do with thinking about adultery per se, but “I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” The condition or state of the heart dictates actions-this is Catholicism 101. A sick heart leads to bad actions, a healthy heart leads to good ones.

“For out of the heart come evil thoughts–murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.” Matt 5

This is why the New Covenant is all about a change of heart, about* real *change, because actions in themselves don’t necessarily tell if a person is truly good or bad interiorly. And this is why Scripture also tells us that God judges by the heart, not by appearances.

So lust, covetousness, greed, anger, etc, are all said to be bad dispositions simply because of the harm they can and often do end up causing one’s neighbor.

 

[fhansen]

Again, only a mentally deficient believer would “hope” to avoid the ever-present eyes of the Big Brother.

In reality people are pulled in different directions at the same time, various influences pressuring us to make this decision or that, our minds making judgments on the morality of this act or that. To the extent that we follow the truth and righteousness over our selfish interests or the interests of others if and when they conflict, we obey God-and we’re expressing a true faith in, hope in, and love for Him. To the extent that we sin we admit to a lesser degree of those virtues, i.e. we don’t believe in-let alone hope in or love- Big Brother to the degree we might prefer to believe and profess; actions speak louder than words at least. Either way, absolute perfection isn’t attained here- the commitment to do the right thing involves struggle in this life.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

What He actually said has nothing to do with thinking about adultery per se, but “I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” The condition or state of the heart dictates actions-this is Catholicism 101.

And it is incorrect. Any action will always be preceded by the thoughts (which have nothing to do with the “heart”), but thoughts do NOT necessarily lead to actions. To punish the thoughts which do NOT lead to actions is the quintessential concept of “thought-crime”. Looks like that Catholicism is just a variant of the society described in 1984 with thought police, thought crime and Big Brother, who is watching you.

The fact that you do not make this distinction is very disappointing, and makes further conversation futile.

As a side remark: “adultery is defined as sexual act between a married and an unmarried person”, not just some (perfectly natural) lust when looking at someone else. Lust comes from chemical attraction, but most people do not even attempt to act on it. To call it “sinful” makes the Catholic approach irrational and unacceptable.

 

[fhansen]

And it is incorrect. Any action will always be preceded by the thoughts (which have nothing to do with the “heart”), but thoughts do NOT necessarily lead to actions. To punish the thoughts which do NOT lead to actions is the quintessential concept of “thought-crime”. Looks like that Catholicism is just a variant of the society described in 1984 with thought police, thought crime and Big Brother, who is watching you.

The fact that you do not make this distinction is very disappointing, and makes further conversation futile.

As a side remark: “adultery is defined as sexual act between a married and an unmarried person”, not just some (perfectly natural) lust when looking at someone else. Lust comes from chemical attraction, but most people do not even attempt to act on it. To call it “sinful” makes the Catholic approach irrational and unacceptable.

Lust as used in this case by the church is *opposed * to perfectly natural and good desires or attractions. It’s taking something good and abusing it, like overeating is the abuse of the natural appetite for food and greed or covetousness is the abuse of the natural need to possess things for various uses. When taken to their extremes, these “inordinate desires” often become sources of harm to ourselves and or neighbor. In the name of freedom, we become enslaved, and never quite satisfied in any case.

But, yes, it will be futile to continue if you insist on a preference for pop-mythology or sensationalism. Thoughts, the will, the heart, all speak of something that’s going on inside of a person. So there’s a very simple principle involved, that Jesus states here:
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. "Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

 

[Vonsalza]

Any action will always be preceded by the thoughts (which have nothing to do with the “heart”)

How utterly inane.

Looks like that Catholicism is just a variant of the society described in 1984 with thought police, thought crime and Big Brother, who is watching you.

Welcome to “religion” in general. Our God judges the serial killer to hell. The eastern gods reincarnate him into a lesser, more penal form. Both are inescapable.

To call it “sinful” makes the Catholic approach irrational and unacceptable.

I guess the same goes for those darn easterners too. By and large, they’re not very “pro-lust” either (to Rossum: of course, of course, there are always exceptions). It’s almost like religion expects you to obtain some control over yourself…

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Welcome to “religion” in general.

No. Not all religions threaten you with eternal torture for “impure” thoughts, even if you don’t intend to put them into practice. The Christian variant of God is just like the Big Brother, who punishes even the thoughts.

 

[Vonsalza]

No. Not all religions threaten you with eternal torture for “impure” thoughts, even if you don’t intend to put them into practice. The Christian variant of God is just like the Big Brother, who punishes even the thoughts.

Your distinction here is likely subjective and erroneous. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Shinto represent the overwhelming majority of religious people on this planet and they all teach the tempering of your mind; with negative consequences for those that refuse to do so.

There are others and I’m sure there are a few obscure sects even within these six that may disagree. But minor exceptions notwithstanding, your assertion here is largely not correct.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Shinto represent the overwhelming majority of religious people on this planet and they all teach the tempering of your mind; with negative consequences for those that refuse to do so.

Tempering with the mind is not the same as the scare-tactics of threatening with eternal punishment for “impure” thoughts.

 

[Vonsalza]

Tempering with the mind is not the same as the scare-tactics of threatening with eternal punishment for “impure” thoughts.

They all come “complete” with “scare-tactics” that manifest if you refuse to conform to the religious ideal. Otherwise, why bother?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

They all come “complete” with “scare-tactics” that manifest if you refuse to conform to the religious ideal. Otherwise, why bother?

Enumerate them, with actual quotes from those religions. For example, what are the repercussions for disagreeing with “nirvana”? To my best knowledge it is only Christianity which is similar to the horrible society of 1984, with thought police, thought crimes and the ever watching Big Brother. Of course I am not “omniscient”, so I can be wrong. But you need to present actual, authoritative quotes from the other religions if you can.

 

[Vonsalza]

Enumerate them, with actual quotes from those religions. For example, what are the repercussions for disagreeing with “nirvana”? To my best knowledge it is only Christianity which is similar to the horrible society of 1984, with thought police, thought crimes and the ever watching Big Brother. Of course I am not “omniscient”, so I can be wrong. But you need to present actual, authoritative quotes from the other religions if you can.

Islam:"…fear the Fire whose fuel is men and stones,- which is prepared for those who reject Faith" (2:24).

Judaism: …Master of the Universe, You created the Garden of Eden and You created Gehenna, You created the righteous and You created the wicked. May it be Your will that men shall not stumble because of me and consequently go to Gehenna. (Talmud Sotah 22a)

Hindu/Buddhism/Jainism/Sikhism: Naraka (Sanskrit: नरक), where sinners are tormented after death.
Hindu - Naraka in Vedas, is a place where souls are sent for the expiation of their sins. It is mentioned especially in dharmaśāstras, itihāsas and Purāṇas but also in Vedic samhitas, Aranyakas and Upaniṣads.
Buddhism - In Buddhism, Naraka refers to the worlds of greatest suffering. Buddhist texts describe a vast array of tortures and realms of torment in Naraka; an example is the Devadūta-sutta from the Pāli Canon.

These are a good start. For sake of speed, borrowed from wikis.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Islam:"…fear the Fire whose fuel is men and stones,- which is prepared for those who reject Faith" (2:24).

Judaism: …Master of the Universe, You created the Garden of Eden and You created Gehenna, You created the righteous and You created the wicked. May it be Your will that men shall not stumble because of me and consequently go to Gehenna. (Talmud Sotah 22a)

Hindu/Buddhism/Jainism/Sikhism: Naraka (Sanskrit: नरक), where sinners are tormented after death.
Hindu - Naraka in Vedas, is a place where souls are sent for the expiation of their sins. It is mentioned especially in dharmaśāstras, itihāsas and Purāṇas but also in Vedic samhitas, Aranyakas and Upaniṣads.
Buddhism - In Buddhism, Naraka refers to the worlds of greatest suffering. Buddhist texts describe a vast array of tortures and realms of torment in Naraka; an example is the Devadūta-sutta from the Pāli Canon.

These are a good start. For sake of speed, borrowed from wikis.

Not one of them actually deals with the problem at hand - punishing someone for their thoughts.

 

[Vonsalza]

Not one of them actually deals with the problem at hand - punishing someone for their thoughts.

:doh2:

 

[goout]

If God does or permits something, then the only logical conclusion is that God does not object to it. It may be that God positively prefers it, or it may be that God is indifferent to it. To say that God does NOT want something, and yet he does / allows it would describe God to be an idiot. And that is not very complimentary.

You’re speaking about an omnipotent person who can bring about whatever he wills (that includes your person, which you can’t explain), hence your question is…

You’re also speaking about God, who is not entirely comprehensible to the human mind, and consigning him to your understanding of merely human attributes.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

You’re speaking about an omnipotent person who can bring about whatever he wills (that includes your person, which you can’t explain), hence your question is…

You’re also speaking about God, who is not entirely comprehensible to the human mind, and consigning him to your understanding of merely human attributes.

No, I am talking about anybody and everybody. I am talking about a principle, which says: “if you (anyone!) encounter a possible action, which you can prevent and do NOT prevent it, then you either approve of that action or do not disapprove of it”. That is all. God does not get any special consideration. I know you want to give a special whitewashing to God, but you don’t get it.

I especially like the attitude of “there is absolute and objective morality, which is applicable to everyone”… and then you quickly add… “except of course God”. This “except” makes your morality neither absolute nor objective. Elementary linguistics my friend.