When all else fails

[redhen]

It is only conceivable that the manifestation of God per say, to human (not angelic per say) experience would in its infinite potency nessecitate such a change as to surpass or at the minor, detriment the true freedom of volition or nolition.

Ok, forget angelic volition, let’s stick to humans. Did not Adam and Eve have first order experience of God? Did this circumvent their free will?

Did Moses not see God first hand? Did this take away his free will?

Same for Abraham, and the rest…

Apparently God doesn’t manifest in theophanies the way he used to, for some strange reason.

 

[JohnDamian]

Ok, forget angelic volition, let’s stick to humans. Did not Adam and Eve have first order experience of God? Did this circumvent their free will?

Did Moses not see God first hand? Did this take away his free will?

Same for Abraham, and the rest…

Apparently God doesn’t manifest in theophanies the way he used to, for some strange reason.

If we take the definition of will in a natural sense, insofar as it acts to elicit acts conforming to inclination (natural) we can see that the faithful and angelics experience per say - of God served as a compounding of faith, and in no sense an act intent to alter the natural inclinations of the subjective well - viz. to appear for the sake of appearing, to the ends of converting or compelling is itself an act contrary to the essence of God; and as earlier mentioned a contradiction – yet the act, per say of occuring experientially to the faithful (angel, Adam etc.) is itself not for the ends of asserting itself nessecarily to compel belief, but merely provoke the natural wills inclinations in a more clearly resounded fashion.

In the same sense, the holy spirit enters the disciples to compound the faith, and resoundly reinforces the natural inclinations of the will and dispels the illusiory temporal fear – wheras per say, occuring purely for the sake of acting to generate rather than to alleviate a will to the ends of its pursuit of natural intent (viz. the illusiory is removed, like Saul’s illusions dispelled). For the ends of the act are congruent with the prior essence of God’s will, and his praxis thus congruent, not contrary; to indulge praxis for praxis sake, or for sake alone of generations is contrary to the natural volitions of the will, for in the consession of a wills natural inclination toward God, the alleviation is a generosity, but for the sound compulsion of an uninclining will towards God nessecitates a contradiction of volition and prior essence.

Sorry, I’m trying to be precise, but not too complex

 

[KindredSoul]

God does not argue, God is silent. It is not God, whom I question, it is YOU.

You said:

…comes the final “argument”. It says: “Who are you to question God?”, or “God is supreme, he is the Creator, whatever he does, you cannot question him”. Or, as the Bible puts it:

Romans 9:19-21 (New International Version)

One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
Which, of course is nothing but shouting down the objection, when there are no more arguments left. Translation: “Might makes right!”. Whatever the guy with the big stick says must be obeyed, since he is the strong one, and the weak ones must submit. When push comes to shove, this is what Christianity boils down to.

If you are questioning us, then you have selected the entirely wrong passage and argument (we’ve never said that our rules are right because we are the Omnipotent creators of the universe). This passage and argument is totally focused on God, and is clearly in the context of a Universe where God is real and has given the commands we say He has. It has nothing to do with convincing an Atheist to agree with us, and it has nothing to do with convincing an Atheist that, if God exists, our religion teaches the right things about Him. Rather, this passage, and the argument you are critiquing, is for those people who already believe in God and already accept that our religion teaches the truth about Him and then question whether or not God (not the Church/Christians) is justified to have the rules He has. In other contexts, it can also be directed at Atheists who ask “How can God do X and be justified?” because by nature of the question, the Atheist has to accept the answer as though God’s existence and Will were established facts, for the sake of argument. Otherwise, the question is meaningless.

To that question, which is chiefly one of disgruntled believers and is thus in context of if our religion is true, the point of the passage stands, and not because might makes right either. Rather, it is a much simpler premise: That a Creator has a right to define what His Creation should do, and by what manner it should be discarded or dealt with if it fails. If it were simply a might makes right argument, God’s having created us would have nothing to do with it and we’d be defending the right of a Cosmic tyrant who didn’t create us but just happens to be more powerful…that’s not the point at all, though. God has the right not because He is omnipotent (that just enables Him to defend His right), but because He is the One Who created us, without Whom and without Whose will we wouldn’t exist in the first place. To reject His will is to reject the very reason we exist. Thus even if He was the weakest being imaginable, He’d still have the right to decide how we ought to live and how to deal with us, He just might not have the power, in that scenario, to exercise that right.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[redhen]

yet the act, per say of occuring experientially to the faithful (angel, Adam etc.) is itself not for the ends of asserting itself nessecarily to compel belief, but merely provoke the natural wills inclinations in a more clearly resounded fashion.

Let me see if I got this straight.

You previously wrote that a theophany would interfere with our free will, that’s why God doesn’t manifest Himself.

I countered with examples of humans, not angels, experiencing theophanies, yet retaining their free will.

You responded that for the faithful, such a theophany would not interfere with free will.

Do I have that right?

So, given the millions of faithful living today, would it not be fair to correct your original proposition, such that theophanies would interfere with the free will of atheists? Is that why God never manifests Himself to atheists? It seems just the thing needed to convince them.

I suppose that explains why the BVM only appears to faithful young shepherdesses.

 

[lemondiesel]

e He is the One Who created us, without Whom and without Whose will we wouldn’t exist in the first place. To reject His will is to reject the very reason we exist. Thus even if He was the weakest being imaginable, He’d still have the right to decide how we ought to live and how to deal with us, He just might not have the power, in that scenario, to exercise that right.

OMG! someone gets it!

Man would I love to teach people on this forum something new, but its not the place

Any religion is just the first step. Going deeper you will know something like a “God, or non conceivable idea” exists.

 

[o_mlly]

Quote:
*Originally Posted by o_mlly *
*But beware, the Holy Spirit can be resisted. *

I looked and did not find it. Is that a sign of “resistance”? …

It seems you are still looking else why so much time at this web site? Seek and you shall find.

 

[R_Daneel]

If you are questioning us, then you have selected the entirely wrong passage and argument (we’ve never said that our rules are right because we are the Omnipotent creators of the universe). This passage and argument is totally focused on God, and is clearly in the context of a Universe where God is real and has given the commands we say He has.

I am questioning what the believers say about God.

When it comes to a positive assertion about God (for example: “God is love”), the believers “think” that they are qualified to make such assertions, they take quotations from the Bible to support their arguments. When an unbeliever makes a critical observation, it is immediately declared that he does not have the proper understanding (in other words he is not qualified) and when he chooses a supporting quote from the Bible, then it is always taken out of context, it is misinterpreted and inapplicable. Strange, is it not?

To that question, which is chiefly one of disgruntled believers and is thus in context of if our religion is true, the point of the passage stands, and not because might makes right either. Rather, it is a much simpler premise: That a Creator has a right to define what His Creation should do, and by what manner it should be discarded or dealt with if it fails. If it were simply a might makes right argument, God’s having created us would have nothing to do with it and we’d be defending the right of a Cosmic tyrant who didn’t create us but just happens to be more powerful…that’s not the point at all, though. God has the right not because He is omnipotent (that just enables Him to defend His right), but because He is the One Who created us, without Whom and without Whose will we wouldn’t exist in the first place. To reject His will is to reject the very reason we exist. Thus even if He was the weakest being imaginable, He’d still have the right to decide how we ought to live and how to deal with us, He just might not have the power, in that scenario, to exercise that right.

No difference. Whether creator or not, the same problem stands. In one respect there is a difference. The creator is always responsible for the creation. The random cosmic tyrant is not.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Sorry, you all misunderstood my point.

God does not argue, God is silent. It is not God, whom I question, it is YOU. If God is right, why doesn’t he tell us? But God does does not do it. He leaves the arguing to the apologists, to YOU. And with all due due respect, you are all ineffective. It is not God who says: “shut up”, it is YOU - when all of your arguments are refuted. Be it about the problem of evil, about the horrific events in the Old Testament, about God’s non-showing love… eventually you run out of arguments, and then the final “argument” is coming: “God is all-powerful, so shut up!”. It is the apologists, who say “might makes right” - not God.

O_mlly has a good point, he who is right should be obeyed. Though “being right” does not make “might”. The trick is, how do we know that God is right? God does not tell us. And when you try to speak for God, you fail - and fail miserably.

Bob Crowley says that God allows us to argue. Undoubtedly. He also says that human tyrants put you up against the wall. And his point is valid. But he forgets that God does not just simply “put you up against the wall”, he puts you into hell, for eternal suffering. You know what? I choose the human tyrant.

You all say that I will know - eventually. When I am up against to God, who will judge me. You also say, that by that time it is too late. And you call that “fair” and “just”. Sorry, such an argument stinks, and stinks up to high heaven - if there is one.

Like I said, God allows us to argue. You’ve made your own ***willing ***choice. So what are you complaining about?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Let me see if I got this straight.

You previously wrote that a theophany would interfere with our free will, that’s why God doesn’t manifest Himself.

I countered with examples of humans, not angels, experiencing theophanies, yet retaining their free will.

You responded that for the faithful, such a theophany would not interfere with free will.

Do I have that right?

So, given the millions of faithful living today, would it not be fair to correct your original proposition, such that theophanies would interfere with the free will of atheists? Is that why God never manifests Himself to atheists? It seems just the thing needed to convince them.

I suppose that explains why the BVM only appears to faithful young shepherdesses.

Moses saw what he could of God, but not the face of God.
Moses also was not allowed to see the promised land, due to the good old pride thing.

 

[R_Daneel]

Like I said, God allows us to argue. You’ve made your own ***willing ***choice. So what are you complaining about?

It is not a “complain” about God. It is a complain about the sad efforts put forth by the apologists, who resort to the intimidation tactics when all else fails.

Usually they start with:

1. You wish to understand God with your inadequate power of understanding… then comes
2. You take the quotes out of context… and then
3. What you quote does not apply, it was only applicable to those old times… and then
4. Who are you to question God??? … and finally
5. God is the creator, whatever he does is moral, fine and dandy… be it murder, genocide, slavery… it is all fine, if God does it or orders it.
   Do you see the problem? I hope you do.

 

[R_Daneel]

Moses saw what he could of God, but not the face of God.

Can you share the video to support this?

And what about Adam and Eve… they saw God (allegedly) face to face. No, my friend, it would do us no harm if we had direct, irrefutable, physical evidence that God actually exists, and he has some very specific requirements for us to follow. Not just a hodgepodge of old, contradictory stories interpreted by some self-proclaimed “infallible” humans.

 

[Thing]

…comes the final “argument”. It says: “Who are you to question God?”, or “God is supreme, he is the Creator, whatever he does, you cannot question him”. Or, as the Bible puts it:

Romans 9:19-21 (New International Version)

One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
Which, of course is nothing but shouting down the objection, when there are no more arguments left. Translation: “Might makes right!”. Whatever the guy with the big stick says must be obeyed, since he is the strong one, and the weak ones must submit. When push comes to shove, this is what Christianity boils down to.

Thats why He volunteered to be tortured to death, to save your life.
Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

 

[R_Daneel]

Thats why He volunteered to be tortured to death, to save your life.
Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Well, you certainly brought up the least comprehensible event in Christianity - which has nothing to do with the question at hand.

Why was there any need for such an event? Why could God not simply forgive our sins? What is in a blood-sacrifice which is necessary for forgiveness? All the barbaric religions used a sacrifice to appease their respective gods, to make their gods look upon them favorably. That attitude was somewhat “reasonable”. Their gods were “hostile”, they needed to be “mollified”, hence the sacrifice.

This idea was “borrowed” by Christianity, and it was made truly nonsensical. What is so “wonderful” about murdering God’s “son”, which transformed God’s anger into forgiveness? Why could not God forgive “minor” trespasses, but when the ultimate “sin” occurred (slaughtering the Lamb of the Lord, totally sinless) that “appeased” God, and then he could forgive us? Don’t you see the total nonsense of this proposition?

 

[JohnDamian]

This idea was “borrowed” by Christianity, and it was made truly nonsensical. What is so “wonderful” about murdering God’s “son”, which transformed God’s anger into forgiveness? Why could not God forgive “minor” trespasses, but when the ultimate “sin” occurred (slaughtering the Lamb of the Lord, totally sinless) that “appeased” God, and then he could forgive us? Don’t you see the total nonsense of this proposition?

When Christ says “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Luke 23:34 – God demonstrates his forgiveness. As you say yourself, this is the “ultimate sin”, and from this petition, forgiveness is both sought and granted.

Through the sin, and through the Lords forgiveness, it becomes clear that the true love of man surpasses sin; so even the worst of sin can be forgiven.

 

[Thing]

Well, you certainly brought up the least comprehensible event in Christianity - which has nothing to do with the question at hand.

Why was there any need for such an event? Why could God not simply forgive our sins? What is in a blood-sacrifice which is necessary for forgiveness? All the barbaric religions used a sacrifice to appease their respective gods, to make their gods look upon them favorably. That attitude was somewhat “reasonable”. Their gods were “hostile”, they needed to be “mollified”, hence the sacrifice.

This idea was “borrowed” by Christianity, and it was made truly nonsensical. What is so “wonderful” about murdering God’s “son”, which transformed God’s anger into forgiveness? Why could not God forgive “minor” trespasses, but when the ultimate “sin” occurred (slaughtering the Lamb of the Lord, totally sinless) that “appeased” God, and then he could forgive us? Don’t you see the total nonsense of this proposition?

It has everything to do with your question.
Yes He was murdered. But He laid down His life Himself no-one took His life from Him.
Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
While you complain about being alive and created and why you think you ought to do this or that and every other annoying thought that passes through your mind about God, He, in the mean-time, laid down His own life to save your life. i.e. He put an end to your annoying inner-conversation about Him by *‘doing’ *something, dying, to get your trust and love, hopefully. You do not listen to arguments or reason, as no man wants to, since the beginning, after the fall of Adam. It takes action to shut up your complaints about God. This is what He did, not just what He said. He did’nt just say He would forgive your sins, He died to forgive your sins.

 

[o_mlly]

Well, you certainly brought up the least comprehensible event in Christianity - which has nothing to do with the question at hand.

Why was there any need for such an event? Why could God not simply forgive our sins? What is in a blood-sacrifice which is necessary for forgiveness? All the barbaric religions used a sacrifice to appease their respective gods, to make their gods look upon them favorably. That attitude was somewhat “reasonable”. Their gods were “hostile”, they needed to be “mollified”, hence the sacrifice.

This idea was “borrowed” by Christianity, and it was made truly nonsensical. What is so “wonderful” about murdering God’s “son”, which transformed God’s anger into forgiveness? Why could not God forgive “minor” trespasses, but when the ultimate “sin” occurred (slaughtering the Lamb of the Lord, totally sinless) that “appeased” God, and then he could forgive us? Don’t you see the total nonsense of this proposition?

I think you miss the point of Catholic soteriology entirely. Theodicide is not the salvific act for that was fallen man’s doing. The salvific act is in the God-man’s obedience even unto death as opposed to Adam’s disobeience. The salvific act is in the God-man’s humility as oppossed to Adams’ pride. Christ, unlike Adam, did not grasp for the apple that would make him “like God.”

St. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians makes clear this analogy to Adam’s sin: "Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross. (2:6-9)

Christ is obedient to the Father’s will to witness to the Truth – He would not deny His credentials to save His life. He would not in cowardice flee from His enemies. He could have and was even encouraged by Peter to head back to Nazareth and do a few carpentry jobs until His “driving out the money changers from the Temple” episode blew over. He saw this proposed flight as a temptation from Satan and ordered the evil one to stand behind Him.

 

[R_Daneel]

When Christ says “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Luke 23:34 – God demonstrates his forgiveness. As you say yourself, this is the “ultimate sin”, and from this petition, forgiveness is both sought and granted.

Through the sin, and through the Lords forgiveness, it becomes clear that the true love of man surpasses sin; so even the worst of sin can be forgiven.

This does not explain anything. God and Jesus are one and the same - according to Christianity. Jesus (God) asks forgiveness from himself, and it is “granted”. Forgiveness can be granted, even if it is not sought. The point is that God could only give his forgiveness when the “worst” sin was committed. If God could have granted his forgiveness without this event, then the “sacrifice” would not have been necessary. So, where is the logic in this?

 

[JohnDamian]

This does not explain anything. God and Jesus are one and the same - according to Christianity. Jesus (God) asks forgiveness from himself, and it is “granted”. Forgiveness can be granted, even if it is not sought. The point is that God could only give his forgiveness when the “worst” sin was committed. If God could have granted his forgiveness without this event, then the “sacrifice” would not have been necessary. So, where is the logic in this?

God granted forgiveness earlier in the bible, for after Adam and Eve sinned, they did not “surely die”, nor so was Jonah punished for his attempts to evade God’s desires, nor was Job or Job’s wife punished for questioning God, or even saying “curse God and die” etc.

The point of the Sacrafice of Jesus is that he in BOTH his humanity and Godlieness forgave the people who put him to death – setting an example that not only would the Godly example that even the severest sin (killing the Lord) is not unforgivable by God, and the Human example that even the severest sin (being murdered) is not unforgivable by humanity.

It is through this example that it is made clear the extent of the power of Godly, and Human forgiveness, his death and self-sacrafice are the embodiment of his commitment to his teachings, and serve as a real example to guide us.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Well, you certainly brought up the least comprehensible event in Christianity - which has nothing to do with the question at hand.

Why was there any need for such an event? Why could God not simply forgive our sins? What is in a blood-sacrifice which is necessary for forgiveness? All the barbaric religions used a sacrifice to appease their respective gods, to make their gods look upon them favorably. That attitude was somewhat “reasonable”. Their gods were “hostile”, they needed to be “mollified”, hence the sacrifice.

This idea was “borrowed” by Christianity, and it was made truly nonsensical. What is so “wonderful” about murdering God’s “son”, which transformed God’s anger into forgiveness? Why could not God forgive “minor” trespasses, but when the ultimate “sin” occurred (slaughtering the Lamb of the Lord, totally sinless) that “appeased” God, and then he could forgive us? Don’t you see the total nonsense of this proposition?

You’re ignoring the presence of the evil one in all this. Now I don’t want to get into a bun fight as to why God made the devil, but He did, and he does exist.

Whenever the moral law is broken, the devil gets a hold on a person’s soul. And he won’t let go. He has a legal claim to that person. It’s a bit like a tyrannical legal system which makes no allowance for mercy. The only thing that counts is justice or punishment. And there is nothing the person can do to overcome the offence. it’s been committed, and must be paid for.

It would appear there was only one way to overcome this legal hold the devil has and that was the death penalty applied to the lawmaker himself. While it was the human Christ who was crucified, the fact is that God the Father was in the Son reconciling Himself to the world.

 

[JRKH]

…comes the final “argument”. It says: “Who are you to question God?”, or “God is supreme, he is the Creator, whatever he does, you cannot question him”. Or, as the Bible puts it:

Romans 9:19-21 (New International Version)

One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
Which, of course is nothing but shouting down the objection, when there are no more arguments left. Translation: “Might makes right!”. Whatever the guy with the big stick says must be obeyed, since he is the strong one, and the weak ones must submit. When push comes to shove, this is what Christianity boils down to.

You know R, I agree with you that the “who are we to question God” retort is not the best answer when trying to evangelize or defend the faith. The far better and truer answer is the same answer that any good scientist will likely give when confronted with questions he cannot answer. “I Don’t Know”.
This answer is better for two reasons. First because it allows and validates your questions and second it provides the opportunity for both the believer and the non-believer to ask God to enlighten them.
“I don’t Know” can easily be followed with, “but I’ll ask”. It’s open ended and not only allows but encourages additional study and reflection. It leaves open the possibility for growth in wisdom. Christ tells us to ask:
Mt 7:7-11 7 “Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. 9 Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

Of course, just as in science, the answers we get can often times be different than those we seek or expect thus leading to more questions - and more seeking - and more information - and so on…
Wisdom grows from such seeking.

“Who are we to question…”, on the other hand is more closed. While it still admits to a lack of knowledge or understanding, which is ok, it also has the effect of limiting our openness to God’s enlightening power.
So I can see where such an answer is troubling to you. I much prefer to to hear someone simply say “I Don’t Know”, than to say that you should not question.

“Might makes right!”. Whatever the guy with the big stick says must be obeyed, since he is the strong one, and the weak ones must submit. When push comes to shove, this is what Christianity boils down to.

This is incorrect as I can easily demonstrate.
You refer to “Might Makes Right” and “Big Stick” and “Submiting”. You speak in terms of “Power” = force. Yet this is NOT what Christianity is based upon. It is NOT what christianity boils down to. Look at the teachings of Christ. Look at His commands. Look at the key he has given us to understanding all. It is Love.
Mt 22:36-40 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And He said to him, " YOU SHALL **LOVE** THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' 38 "This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 "The second is like it, YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ 40 “On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”

Mt 5:43-45 43 "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 **But I say to you, Love your enemies **and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

John 13:34-35 “34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

1 Cor 13:13 So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Christianity is based and built upon Love and upon freedom, not upon force.
So you see - Your concluding statement that, “When push comes to shove, this (force) is what Christianity boils down to”, is false.

This is not to say that there is not Power and Might in Christianity.
It is only to say that the Power and Might in Christianity stems from Love. Love that builds up and does not tear down. Love that gives; Love that even will let go if need be.

Peace
James