What would you do if you were God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Samuel1991
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Samuel1991

Guest
What would have you do if you were the Creator God? Would you have different ideas? Would you create an Eternal Hell for mortal sinners? Would you punish Adam and Eve? Would you create a religion to worship you?
 
The premise behind this topic is that goodness and justice are subjective and arbitrary, and God is just another subjective being

And the Catholic position on religion is that nothing adds to God. Not worship. Not anything. Religion wasn’t established by God so he could be worshipped, it was established to help men and women achieve their fulfillment, their ends (according to their nature, not as in whatever their personal goal may be).

Sorry for not directly answering the question, but it’s… well, the question itself isn’t consistent with classical theist or Catholic thoughts on God’s nature. It makes as much sense to a Catholic like me as asking, “if you were a square, would you still choose to be a plane figure with four equal straight sides and four right angles?” When someone answers “no, I’d rather be _____”, it loses all meaning, because you are supposedly now a square that’s not a square.

🤷
 
Abolish suffering and make everyone happy, and this is not only limited to humans, so don’t get started with the free will thing, babies and innocents of all beings suffer regardless of the human limited free will or whether humans exist or not.
 
Abolish suffering and make everyone happy, and this is not only limited to humans, so don’t get started with the free will thing, babies and innocents of all beings suffer regardless of the human limited free will or whether humans exist or not.
So essentially enslave people and turn them into robots? Nice 🤷
 
Well, Were Adam and Eve robots or did they have free will to commit crimes that happen in this world?
 
Well, Were Adam and Eve robots or did they have free will to commit crimes that happen in this world?
I feel like the robots/free will debate is already raging in half a dozen active topics on this board, but to your particular question… Adam and Eve were not prevented from sinning, no? So in both thought and action, certainly they had free will.
 
What would I do if I were a “god” just like “God”? Answer: nothing. God is supposed to sovereign, self-sufficient, lacking nothing, someone who is already “perfect” in every respect, so there is no way to add anything to that perfection. From the top, all roads lead downhill. (Of course the question also arises: if God is perfect in every respect, is he also perfect in cruelty? The idea of hell certainly suggest that he is. :))
 
Abolish suffering and make everyone happy, and this is not only limited to humans, so don’t get started with the free will thing, babies and innocents of all beings suffer regardless of the human limited free will or whether humans exist or not.
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
 
Wesrock , are you saying that Adam and Eve were free to commit serious crimes or only to reject Eden eating the forbidden fruit?
 
Abolish suffering and make everyone happy, and this is not only limited to humans, so don’t get started with the free will thing, babies and innocents of all beings suffer regardless of the human limited free will or whether humans exist or not.
Well, if not limited to humans, how do you deal with predation?

Herbivorous animals have gotten eaten by predators since long, long before human life was around to have free-will. Presumably getting eaten makes animals unhappy. But starving to death would make the predators unhappy too, and needing to eat meat, at least in the cat family, is part of their nature, so just telling them to eat grass won’t cut it.

How do you deal with natural fires, that are needed to clear the forests for future growth, but kill animals in their path?

I.e., is there really a way to make every (being) happy?

ICXC NIKA
 
Wesrock , are you saying that Adam and Eve were free to commit serious crimes or only to reject Eden eating the forbidden fruit?
I don’t believe Adam and Even sinned by eating a forbidden literal fruit. I believe Adam and Eve are historical, I believe that Adam and Eve sinned, but I think the eating of the fruit in the story just symbolizes their disordered act that broke union with God.

The sin didn’t give them new powers. They always had the capability of choosing against God even with their “unwounded” nature and the preternatural gifts given them, and they did.

Even with a literal fruit, they were obviously still capable of sin, given that they did sin.
 
The premise behind this topic is that goodness and justice are subjective and arbitrary, and God is just another subjective being

And the Catholic position on religion is that nothing adds to God. Not worship. Not anything. Religion wasn’t established by God so he could be worshipped, it was established to help men and women achieve their fulfillment, their ends (according to their nature, not as in whatever their personal goal may be).

Sorry for not directly answering the question, but it’s… well, the question itself isn’t consistent with classical theist or Catholic thoughts on God’s nature. It makes as much sense to a Catholic like me as asking, “if you were a square, would you still choose to be a plane figure with four equal straight sides and four right angles?” When someone answers “no, I’d rather be _____”, it loses all meaning, because you are supposedly now a square that’s not a square.

🤷
True, but is there room to accomodate the questions that simply flow naturally from conclusions in truth?. We see this in little children in grade school religion. Their questions are never loaded. Some form a regulation may be in order, but I think the Church gives it low priority except in cases of hostile intent. Nihil Obstat considered, I wonder what the limits are to the lay community for fire side chat eschatological and ontological discussion?.
 
True, but is there room to accomodate the questions that simply flow naturally from conclusions in truth?. We see this in little children in grade school religion. Their questions are never loaded. Some form a regulation may be in order, but I think the Church gives it low priority except in cases of hostile intent. Nihil Obstat considered, I wonder what the limits are to the lay community for fire side chat eschatological and ontological discussion?.
I’m not going to tell people they can’t discuss something, and I can see this line of inquiry bearing fruit for Catholics if done in the manner of a Socratic discussion. But that assumes there’s someone sound enough in the faith to play Socrates.

I’m not claiming that role. I just wanted to add some words of caution at the start about potential pitfalls, especially given popular sensibilities as they are in some parts of the world today.

Perhaps I was too hasty to express concern, though.
 
The premise behind this topic is that goodness and justice are subjective and arbitrary, and God is just another subjective being
But as all participants in beauty pageants know, the objectively correct answer is world peace.
 
If I were God for a short period of time, I would pay abusers a personal visit. I would give them a taste of their own medicine.

A man in Cottonwood chained a little chihuahua to the back bumper of his car and dragged her for one half mile. I would chain him to his car and drag him for a half mile. I would make sure he never got another pet. He would land in jail. End of story.

(From what I understand he did this to get back at his girlfriend because they split up. The dog was his, but the girlfriend loved the dog and hopes the judge will let her have the animal.)
 
What would I do if I were a “god” just like “God”? Answer: nothing. God is supposed to sovereign, self-sufficient, lacking nothing, someone who is already “perfect” in every respect, so there is no way to add anything to that perfection. From the top, all roads lead downhill. (Of course the question also arises: if God is perfect in every respect, is he also perfect in cruelty? The idea of hell certainly suggest that he is. :))
It helps us to remember that God does not condemn anyone to hell. When they meet Him at their death, it is they that turn away and go into hell. God honors our choices. He does not force us to love Him, although He deserves all our love.
 
It helps us to remember that God does not condemn anyone to hell. When they meet Him at their death, it is they that turn away and go into hell. God honors our choices. He does not force us to love Him, although He deserves all our love.
That is called baloney. No one has ever been reported to bang on the doors of hell (which are alleged to be closed from inside) demanding admittance.
 
That is called baloney. No one has ever been reported to bang on the doors of hell (which are alleged to be closed from inside) demanding admittance.
The soul makes a choice about what it loves at death. It is a voluntary choice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top