When all else fails

[JRKH]

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?

You are right. God does not argue. He enlightens. He is not silent. He speaks to those near enough to hear and who are listening.

Perhaps you are just not listening…

If a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, it DOES still make a noise.
If someone is near and listening they will hear the noise.
If there is someone there who covers their ears, the tree STILL makes the same noise.
If one wishes to hear the noise of the tree, they must draw near and not cover their ears.

The same is true for God. If you truly wish to hear him, then draw near and truly listen.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

That is interesting, but far from being satisfactory. To answer your specific questions, no I have not. I very much try to treat everyone fairly, and I am not willing to “condemn” anyone without extreme pressure, when all the possible excuses have been exhausted and found wanting.

This is good and I am glad to hear it. However I suspect you’ve probably know someone who has done it.

I have absolutely no qualms about being judged by anyone, God or myself. I see no signs of a God, much less signs of “loving God”. If God “loves” us, he hides it soo well, that none of it shows. Something to clarify: “I do not and did not ever reject God”. I, however, reject all the nonsense brought up in defense of God. I wholeheartedly reject the all the apologist arguments as sheer cop-outs and BS.

Perhaps, but there is something that draws you back here.
Perhaps God is using you to sharpen our skills.

Besides, what you say is not supported by the Scriptures. It is God who will judge us. “Vengence is mine”, says the Lord. “It is frightening to fall into the hands of the living God” (Hebrews). Also, if those who stand in front of God, and realize their incredible error in their ways, by realizing it - they repent. And God is supposed to merciful - IF one repents. Are we supposed to be repentant only while we are unaware of God’s existence?

Actually it is supported by Scripture.
Why do you think it is “frightening to fall into the hands of the living God”. Read the verses preceding this quote and see.
Heb 10: 27-29
27 but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. 28 A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?
It is fearful not for God’s unjust wrath and just judgement but rather due to the guilt of those who have “Spurned the Son” and “profaned the blood”.
The only time that Judgement is to be feared is when there is a chance that such a judgement could be in error. At our Judgement it is we who will see with fully opened eyes how we have failed to Love God and neighbor as we should.

If we go before God in repentance, we will be saved. Of course this requires several things.

1. Belief in God without which we cannot reach out to His mercy.
2. Humility - Humility to admit our faults. Humility that overrides the Pride and Arrogance that wants to say - I will not submit. It’s your (God’s) fault for not being clear enough)

Now Paul goes on to speak about the confidence with which the just can and will approach judgement.
32 But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, 33 sometimes being publicly exposed to abuse and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated. 34 For you had compassion on the prisoners, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, **since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one. **35 Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. 36 For you have need of endurance, so that you may do the will of God and receive what is promised.
Those who believe and do God’s will have confidence. They approach God’s Judgement knowing they have not rejected and, while we certainly are not perfect, we have done the best we can. We approach our Lord with Humility, praising His name, and seeking only His will for us in the next life as in this life.

As further example of how we judge ourselves, take the example of Peter and Judas. Both betrayed Jesus. One dispaired and took his own life. The other repented, and was restored to Jesus company. Judas judged Himself unworthy of Christ and killed Himself. Peter Judged himself unworthy of Christ, but pleaded for mercy.

You see my friend. God is NOT silent. Nor is He unjust.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

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.

I do see the problem as it stands for you.
You reject God as described by Christianity. I suppose you also reject God as described by Islam, Mormons and many other faiths.
So what you do is reject God only on the basis of how He is described by others who, like you and I, are limited.
What you seek from us, I suppose, are justifications as to why we DO accept God as described by the Judeo-Christian heritage. Not so much to understand this description as to point out the inconsistancies.

Is that about right?

Peace
James

 

[KindredSoul]

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?

No, because when an unbeliever makes a “critical” observation like the one you claim to have, it’s because they believe there is a logical inconsistency or something wrong with the Christian God, not because they have any proof that everyone agrees with them that the “irreconcilable logical inconsistency” exists. Unbelievers try to usurp the authority to define truth in this matter as much if not more than any believers, and what you are saying right now is a prime example: Believers, as you have yourself pointed out, see no logical contradiction nor any problem in the Christian (Biblical) God’s sovereignty, yet because you do, you think we have to agree with you. What makes you, who see the contradictions as real and insurmountable, more “qualified” than those who think they are easily and logically explained by something else (even if you are not satisfied with their explanation)? You must certainly be capable of comprehending that someone else may simply disagree with you, may simply not reach the same conclusion as you? Honestly, you don’t appear to realize that. You appear to think that what you see wrong with our beliefs, everyone will, and if they say otherwise and can’t convince you they’re just in “denial” of some kind. You are not “qualified” to speak for everyone.

No difference. Whether creator or not, the same problem stands.

That is strictly an opinion, and one I can’t even begin to understand (I’m not calling you stupid–it just literally makes no sense to me, and puzzles me as much as calling an apple an orange). A Creator has every right over His Creation–if it is acceptable for Him to decide to make it in the first place, it is acceptable for Him to decide what its purpose is and what is to be its fate; there is no reason to believe that we should have our cake and eat it too: “Well God, I’m glad you created us, but you should have created us on OUR terms and for purposes WE find worthy, not for your own purposes. You have to follow very specific rules when dealing with us, okay? You’re not allowed to define any laws for us that You Yourself aren’t bound by, alright? Even though You could have just not created us in the first place, that doesn’t give you any special rights or anything over us that we ourselves don’t have, okay?” There is no logical reason to think we have the authority to tell God what He should and shouldn’t do with something (us/all the universe) that wouldn’t exist in the first place if He hadn’t created it. Again, because you see “no difference,” between the Omnipotent Creator and the Omnipotent non-creator regarding their rights, you appear to think you’re more “qualified” than we are to make that decision objectively (as though your opinion thus invalidates our religion), even as you accuse us of doing the same in reverse.

Furthermore, your complaint is a complaint about God–it’s a God you don’t believe in, but it is the God Himself whom you criticize. You are complaining about a God Who acts in a way you don’t think is just. You may not believe in that God, but you’re complaining about Him. If I criticize some aspect of, say, Krishna (I’m only using a random example, not actually saying anything about him one way or the other), I’m not criticizing Hindus for “daring to speak for Krishna”; I’m criticizing Krishna. I’m saying: “IF this Krishna that you Hindus believe in exists, there’s something wrong with KRISHNA.” I don’t believe in him, but clearly I am making a statement about him. The Christian God’s traits are defined by what the Christian religion says about Him (hence the Christian God). If you criticize what the Christian religion says about Him, you’re criticizing the Christian God. Deny it or not, that’s what you’re doing. Perhaps you’re not criticizing some vague Deist/Agnostic God…but you certainly shouldn’t be talking about specifically Christian scriptures and ideas if it’s a Deist/Agnostic God you’re discussing.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[redhen]

A Creator has every right over His Creation–if it is acceptable for Him to decide to make it in the first place, it is acceptable for Him to decide what its purpose is and what is to be its fate; there is no reason to believe that we should have our cake and eat it too

I don’t want to derail the thread, but this is a related question to your above post.

Is charity good because God wills it so? Or is it good because God approves of it?. If God wills it, then He could equally will cruelty as good. If God approves of it, then that implies another standard by which it is deemed good.

Furthermore, your complaint is a complaint about God–it’s a God you don’t believe in, but it is the God Himself whom you criticize. You are complaining about a God Who acts in a way you don’t think is just. You may not believe in that God, but you’re complaining about Him.

It’s not a complaint, it’s a rebuttal to the Christian truth claims. The atheists on all the theodicy threads are not complaining about God, they offer the evidential problem of evil as a counterfactual to God’s traits.

 

[KindredSoul]

I don’t want to derail the thread, but this is a related question to your above post.

Is charity good because God wills it so? Or is it good because God approves of it?. If God wills it, then He could equally will cruelty as good. If God approves of it, then that implies another standard by which it is deemed good.

To the last sentence, I don’t believe the premise is self evident, nor am I convinced that it would be true. It is good because God approves of it, but God’s approval, in itself, is the Standard by which He also wills for us to abide by it. God does approve of it and always has, and presuming He has been honest in His revelation to us (and that’s what trust is all about) there is every reason to think He always will…had God been a totally different Being (a useless what-if question) who did not approve of charity, things may have been different and that hypothetical deity may have created humans to be cruel–in which case that would be their purpose, and they ought to fulfill it…but that’s not the case. I’m thankful that God approves of charity, that He wills us to be charitable, but if a different hypothetical deity had decided to do otherwise with his creation, it would not be my place to tell a creator what function and purpose his creation–especially his creation made totally on his own, with absolutely no raw materials that belonged to anyone else–should fulfill.

It’s not a complaint, it’s a rebuttal to the Christian truth claims.

It is a rebuttal only in the perspective of those who think it’s a valid point. We don’t. Why do some people find it a valid rebuttal and others don’t? An honest person, on either side, might cautiously avoid assuming what’s going on in someone else’s brain and say “I don’t know why that is.” An arrogant person, on either side, might say “Because the people who don’t agree with me are in denial or simply aren’t good at logic.” I choose the first answer, and in good faith I presume you do too.

The atheists on all the theodicy threads are not complaining about God, they offer the evidential problem of evil as a counterfactual to God’s traits.

But saying that the problem of Evil is somehow “counterfactual” to God’s traits (I have yet to be the least bit convinced that it is) wouldn’t disprove the existence of God, even our specific God, at all. Atheist complaints on theodicy threads would not prove, at all, that Christian revelation did not come from the actual Creator of the Universe. They would, at best, give those who agree with the Atheists (and we do not) reason to think that a God who would give that revelation had to be giving us false information about Himself (whether deliberately or otherwise). For example, if an Atheist says “God couldn’t possibly both be good and allow there to be an eternal Hell” there is nothing about that statement, whatsoever, that proves that God doesn’t exist, or that He didn’t reveal Himself specially through Jesus and the Resurrection, etc. It just doesn’t prove that. It’s a non-sequiter. All it would indicate, if we accepted the premise (again, we do not) would be that this God, if He exists, lied or was mistaken by telling us two contradictory things about Himself, only one of which could be true. It would suggest that someone is wrong about God’s traits, but it would not prove that He Himself never claimed such traits, so that mistaken someone could just as easily, though perish the thought, be himself. Of course we don’t believe that, and would find it blasphemous; that’s partly because we are not convinced by your premise (I long to see more Atheists realize that just because they are convinced of their premise doesn’t mean anyone who disagrees must have an intellectual fault), but even if we accepted your premise whole-heartedly, the most it would logically demonstrate is what I have said. Therefore, it is first and foremost a complaint/critique about God.

If you want to intellectually compel us to believe that God never said these things about Himself and that we only made it up (for which, so far as Christianity is concerned, you would have to prove, to our satisfaction–since it’s us you hope to convince–that Jesus never vindicated Himself by a Resurrection and thus His followers who passed down His teachings weren’t really learning from God), which is what you and R Daneel assert is your point, you would have to use a totally different argument than this one…of course, that would have nothing to do with the OP.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[redhen]

It is a rebuttal only in the perspective of those who think it’s a valid point. We don’t.

Right, for you these propositions are not live options.

Atheist complaints on theodicy threads would not prove, at all, that Christian revelation did not come from the actual Creator of the Universe.

That’s not the claim. The claim is that the evidential problem of evil (not logical) is no consistent with an omnibenevolent God.

They would, at best, give those who agree with the Atheists (and we do not) reason to think that a God who would give that revelation had to be giving us false information about Himself (whether deliberately or otherwise).

Right, the non-existence of God didn’t come to mind as a possible explanation because it’s not a live option for you.

For example, if an Atheist says “God couldn’t possibly both be good and allow there to be an eternal Hell” there is nothing about that statement, whatsoever, that proves that God doesn’t exist, or that He didn’t reveal Himself specially through Jesus and the Resurrection, etc. It just doesn’t prove that. It’s a non-sequiter.

Right, an omnibenevolent God and hell are not logically contrary, there could be a greater good. But we can’t see Hell, we can however see the vast evidence for natural evil.

Of course we don’t believe that, and would find it blasphemous; that’s partly because we are not convinced by your premise (I long to see more Atheists realize that just because they are convinced of their premise doesn’t mean anyone who disagrees must have an intellectual fault), but even if we accepted your premise whole-heartedly, the most it would logically demonstrate is what I have said. Therefore, it is first and foremost a complaint/critique about God.

I’m not a strict atheist. I don’t claim to have proof for the non-existence of God. It’s possible the Abrahamic God exists. But I think the evidential problem of evil makes it implausible.

If you want to intellectually compel us to believe that God never said these things about Himself and that we only made it up (for which, so far as Christianity is concerned, you would have to prove, to our satisfaction–since it’s us you hope to convince–that Jesus never vindicated Himself by a Resurrection and thus His followers who passed down His teachings weren’t really learning from God), which is what you and R Daneel assert is your point, you would have to use a totally different argument than this one…of course, that would have nothing to do with the OP.

I’m not making a claim about what God said, the resurrection or apostolic succession. My original post was a response to the claim that a theophany would interfere with free will.

 

[StrawberryJam]

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.

For those who don’t realize that I do not believe in God, I will make this clearer for you.

According to the biblical account, Moses did not see the face of God or the promised land.

Better?

As far as Adam and Eve seeing the face of God, I don’t find that in the biblical account. I do find that God spoke to them directly without any middleman according to the bible.

 

[R_Daneel]

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.

One of the examples, when we look at the same thing, and draw different conclusions. God said not to taste the forbidden fruit, because “if you do, you will surely die”. They did taste it, and they did not die. You conclude that God was forgiving, I conclude that God lied. Impasse! I also conclude that God chased them away and cursed the ground (his own creation), which is not a sign a “forgiving” action.

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.

The trouble with your analysis is that in this case the sacrifice was not a “necessity” to reconcile God with humanity. God could have forgiven humans without such sacrifice, but for some reason (to teach by example) he chose the sacrificial “method”. I don’t know, but I don’t think that the CC would agree with your analysis. Besides, in my assessment, if that was his intent, he chose a very poor and ineffective method.

 

[R_Daneel]

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.

Even if I accepted your premise that there must be a “payment”, it is totally ridiculous to have an innocent one to kill to atone for someone else’s action. That is the complete antithesis of “justice”.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

God did not lie; Adam and Eve died a spiritual death.

 

[KindredSoul]

That’s not the claim. The claim is that the evidential problem of evil (not logical) is no consistent with an omnibenevolent God.

Alright, but we still disagree…and not just in the “We’re Catholic and we have to in order to be faithful” sense, but many of us simply remain genuinely unconvinced by the arguments Atheists posit for that inconsistency. We get that Atheists see an inconsistency, and we sometimes see how on the surface such an inconsistency might appear to be there…but upon deeper study, we genuinely find that so far as we are convinced the inconsistencies are always logically reconcilable in some way, and when Atheists object that they are not, we honestly just aren’t convinced by the arguments they give for why.

Right, the non-existence of God didn’t come to mind as a possible explanation because it’s not a live option for you.

It is not an option that appears logically valid to me. I’m not saying Atheists are illogical, as there’s possibly just an impasse between us–Atheists disagree with the things that convince me that there must be a God and I disagree with things that convince Atheists there might not be or probably isn’t. It’s just an impasse, that’s all. As long as “it’s not a live option for you” has this in mind and doesn’t mean “You’re Catholic/Theist so of course you won’t accept the possibility” then I probably have no qualms with what you’re saying here and elsewhere when you use the phrase.

Right, an omnibenevolent God and hell are not logically contrary, there could be a greater good. But we can’t see Hell, we can however see the vast evidence for natural evil.

My first paragraph above applies to this too, regarding the inconsistency implied by the latter sentence.

I’m not a strict atheist. I don’t claim to have proof for the non-existence of God. It’s possible the Abrahamic God exists. But I think the evidential problem of evil makes it implausible.

Regarding the last sentence, the same applies yet again as has applied above…again I’m not disputing your intelligence or your ability to engage in sound logic or anything like that (We religious people get that insult thrown at us enough to know it’s neither objectively accurate nor is it charitable), but it’s just that at this point–and I predict for my entire life–my own pondering of the evidence and where it points leads me to believe that the implausibility you posit doesn’t exist. We’re just convinced of two different things.

I’m not making a claim about what God said, the resurrection or apostolic succession. My original post was a response to the claim that a theophany would interfere with free will.

My original post wasn’t responding to your original post, but to something else, so if you’re saying my response is irrelevant to your original post, maybe we’ve just got a misunderstanding.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[R_Daneel]

God did not lie; Adam and Eve died a spiritual death.

A very nice, meaningless phrase.

 

[R_Daneel]

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".

I agree with you very strongly. To say “I don’t know” is always a valid option.

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!

Now, the problem is, it is promised that the answers will be forthcoming… but when? A vague promise is not reassuring, is it? Or, if you prefer, “words are cheap”… “where is the beef?”.

Christianity is based and built upon Love and upon freedom, not upon force.

Yes, it is claimed to be the case. But where is the evidence? Love is such a nice concept. But when it is not backed up by actions it is again just an empty claim, nothing more. What I see is this: “if you are willing to humble yourself, if you are willing to worship God, you will be be rewarded in heaven”, and conversely: “if you are not willing to do it, you will get punished forever”. It is the typical mafia tactics: “obey, and you will be rewarded, disobey and you will get punished”. A very old (and in my eyes, despicable) method of extracting someone’s “love” - and yes, it is based upon carrot and stick, in other words: “force”.

When it comes to expect love, one must give first, one must earn the love and the gratitude of someone. Now, this remark will be answered thus: “God gave you life” (unsupported assumption) and it is also based upon the unsubstantiated concept that “mere existence is always preferable to nonexistence” - which is simply false. The other argument is always based upon John 3:16 - and that is just another promise. God most certainly does not behave as one should expect from a loving person. If a human would behave as God does (or does not), no one would say that he is a “loving and caring” person.

And this leads to the final problem, which separates believers and non-believers: the non-believers use the same measuring rod, the believers use special pleading for God’s case. This is pretty ironic, since the believers assert that there is one “absolute morality”, and yet, they refuse to apply the same standard when it comes to God. And that is the problem. This is the reason for all the disgreements. And the non-believers cannot be blamed for the difference. We use the same measuring stick, the believers do not.

 

[R_Daneel]

You are right. God does not argue. He enlightens. He is not silent. He speaks to those near enough to hear and who are listening.

Perhaps you are just not listening…

I am sure you did not mean this to be insulting. But it is. The blame is always placed on the skeptics, they are unwilling to listen, or are impatient, or they are considered too “proud”, or they refuse to have “faith”, or they are not willing to trust authority, or they don’t like the restrictions put on their sex life, or… thousands of other excuses - all of them lame and insulting. Sorry to be harsh, but these kinds of “arguments” are wearing pretty thin after hundreds and thousands of repetitions.

 

[R_Daneel]

If we go before God in repentance, we will be saved. Of course this requires several things.

1. Belief in God without which we cannot reach out to His mercy.
2. Humility - Humility to admit our faults. Humility that overrides the Pride and Arrogance that wants to say - I will not submit. It’s your (God’s) fault for not being clear enough)

Well, that sounds pretty omninous. Obviously I do not believe, and the reason is simple: I don’t find the evidence sufficient.

So what is the evidence? An old book, loaded with superstitions, all sorts of errors, scientific nonsense, unbelievable claims. A human institution (the Catholic Church) which claims (but only claims!) to have been founded by Jesus. The evidence for this is the Bible (unreliable) and the “so-called” sacred tradition (human concoction). That is all. There are a bunch of logical “proofs”, all of which are founded on fallacies. There is nothing to put my hands on - the evidence given to Thomas is not available to us. As Bernard Russel said: “if he would find God after his death, he would say: ‘Ok, so you exist after all. But why didn’t you give more evidence?’…” and I agree with him. The evidence is seriously lacking.

Now, according to you (in general, not personal “you”) it was God who gave me this inquisitve mind. I simply cannot accept that God gave my skeptical nature, and at the same time he would demand to suspend my skills when it comes to religious claims. That would be inconsistent.

According to your post, I am out of luck. I don’t have faith, and therefore cannot repent, and therefore God is “unable” to forgive me. Tough luck… after all it is “only” eternal punishment which I am facing… no big deal - and that eternal punishment is meted out in the name of “love” and “mercy” and “justice”. As I used to say: “with a God like that, who needs the devil?”.

 

[JohnDamian]

Now, according to you (in general, not personal “you”) it was God who gave me this inquisitve mind. I simply cannot accept that God gave my skeptical nature, and at the same time he would demand to suspend my skills when it comes to religious claims. That would be inconsistent.

A skeptical mind is not a nessecary consequence of your nature; it is a product owing to the internalisation of the modes of socialisation; and it is also bad, and I shall explain why:

If the species abstracted from the thing is a concurrent factor in all knowlege, and if we cannot judge when such a species represents itself as such and when it represents itself as an object, then it makes no difference what occurs with such a species. We shall never have a certain norm for distinguishing the true from what merely appears to be true. These arguments then seem to lead to the conclusion that all is uncertain; Viz. the opinion of the Academicians.

I hold that the latter is undesireable at the least, and at the most untrue.

I am out of luck. I don’t have faith, and therefore cannot repent, and therefore God is “unable” to forgive me. Tough luck… after all it is “only” eternal punishment which I am facing… no big deal - and that eternal punishment is meted out in the name of “love” and “mercy” and “justice”. As I used to say: “with a God like that, who needs the devil?”.

You can easily repent in your heart if you cannot repent to God; in fact, if you do not believe (in God) it would be the only authentic repentance possible, of the greatest struggle possible, a plea for understanding that you cannot find. It would be incongruent and dishonest for you to proffess belief for the ends of inauthentically acheiving it’s possible merits (possible afterlife etc.); as it would be inauthentic for me to proffess another faith that is not in my heart. But, nonetheless, even if one is unable to find faith in God, they can repent in themselves - for it is incontestible that we are all imperfect.

It says in the Catechism 29: “But this “intimate and vital bond of man to God” can be forgotten overlooked, or even explicitly rejected by man. Such attitudes can have different causes: revolt against evil in the world; religious intolerance or indifference; the cares and riches of the world; the scandal of bad example on the part of believers; currents of thought hostile to religion and finally; that attitude of sinful man which makes him hide from God out of fear and flee his call”

In all honesty, if you seek in your heart, you will find.

 

[R_Daneel]

A skeptical mind is not a nessecary consequence of your nature; it is a product owing to the internalisation of the modes of socialisation; and it is also bad, and I shall explain why:

I did not go into all the details. We are all the products of nature and nurture, and it would be futile to try to decide which one is more important. Nevertheless, I am very skeptical, and also very open to new ideas. Yet, all the supposed “evidence” to God’s existence, let alone God’s supposed “nature” are either insufficient or outright nonsensical. I gave a very short analysis, why it is so.

We shall never have a certain norm for distinguishing the true from what merely appears to be true. These arguments then seem to lead to the conclusion that all is uncertain; Viz. the opinion of the Academicians.

Absolute certainty is only possible in the deductive sciences (like mathematics). Your differentiation between “true” and “seemingly true” is another problem.

You can easily repent in your heart if you cannot repent to God; in fact, if you do not believe (in God) it would be the only authentic repentance possible, of the greatest struggle possible, a plea for understanding that you cannot find. It would be incongruent and dishonest for you to proffess belief for the ends of inauthentically acheiving it’s possible merits (possible afterlife etc.); as it would be inauthentic for me to proffess another faith that is not in my heart. But, nonetheless, even if one is unable to find faith in God, they can repent in themselves - for it is incontestible that we are all imperfect.

That is agreeable. When I do something that I later judge to be incorrect, then I “repent”. However, that does not seem to be enough. since it is based upon my own judgment. Obviously I do many things, that the Catholic Church deems to be “mortal sin”, and I would never repent those, since I reject to concept of “sin” (which is disobedience to God), and I also reject the authority of the Church.

In all honesty, if you seek in your heart, you will find.

Seek what? Find what? And when?

 

[JohnDamian]

That is agreeable. When I do something that I later judge to be incorrect, then I “repent”. However, that does not seem to be enough. since it is based upon my own judgment. Obviously I do many things, that the Catholic Church deems to be “mortal sin”, and I would never repent those, since I reject to concept of “sin” (which is disobedience to God), and I also reject the authority of the Church.

Firstly, sin in it’s definition from the Catechism is this:

1849: “Sin is an offence against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is a failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods… etc.”

1850 Goes into detail about its relation to God, but essentially, if one truly does not believe in God - one cannot in full consciousness disobey him!

Even if one rejects God, the idea of sin as an offence to reason, truth and conscience, and as a failure of love for fellow man is a reasonable definition that most people would agree on. (of course, disagreement is almost certain about what “right conscience” is etc.) but the general premise holds.

Rejecting the churchs authority is one thing, but repenting in your heart is authentic if you are unable to believe; and rejecting actions that are selfish or unloving is a good thing - regardless of belief. We can only trust that God in his mercy and wisdom will understand.

Seek what? Find what? And when?

Only you know truly.

 

[JRKH]

I agree with you very strongly. To say “I don’t know” is always a valid option.

Wonderful. Now we can both recognize that, since neither one of us has died, we cannot “know” what happens after bodily death. In other words I if I ask you what happens after we die, your proper response is “I Don’t Know”, but I believe that…(such and such) happens based on (thus and so)…"

Now, the problem is, it is promised that the answers will be forthcoming… but when? A vague promise is not reassuring, is it? Or, if you prefer, “words are cheap”… “where is the beef?”.

I don’t know if I can give you a satisfactory answer here. I only know that the answers will come. Sometimes quickly sometimes only after years. Some answers I guess I’m still waiting on and won’t be answered until after I die.
The only analogy I can come up with is that of a student who is earestly studying some complex subject. Physics for example. Firts he studies the apparent physical world. The answers come easily because he can see teh cause and effects. Then, things get a bit more complex because things get more involved, and the causes and/or effects effects are invisable. Finally he begins to get into the realm of physics where things either have not been completely answered, or where the common assumptions don’t apply (quantum physics) etc. He still has questions, he still wnats answers, and still pursues the answers dilligently. It is his hope that the answers are forthcoming, but when???
It is obvious that, if he does not pursue the answers, continue to learn, to assume - to have faith - to believe that the answers are out there, that he will never find them.
The key in the above is a combination of proper disposition and dilligence. The Student/scientist, will never find the answer if he throws his hands up and says, “this is nuts it contraditcts, it… whatever…”, and then leaves and stops his studies and “loses his faith”. The studies remain - and the answers are still there, hidden from him, but till real answers. The Physical facts have not changed, he has. The answers are still there, he is simply no longer properly disposed to finding them.

Like all analogies, this is a poor one, but the best I could do.

Yes, it is claimed to be the case. But where is the evidence? Love is such a nice concept. But when it is not backed up by actions it is again just an empty claim, nothing more. What I see is this: “if you are willing to humble yourself, if you are willing to worship God, you will be be rewarded in heaven”, and conversely: “if you are not willing to do it, you will get punished forever”. It is the typical mafia tactics: “obey, and you will be rewarded, disobey and you will get punished”. A very old (and in my eyes, despicable) method of extracting someone’s “love” - and yes, it is based upon carrot and stick, in other words: “force”.

I will admit that I do not particularly like the concept of Hell - I don’t think anyone really does. I certainly don’t wish to see you there anymore that you would wish me there.
I also agree that there is a certain “carrot and stick” mentality behind it. But I wonder how much of that is because we really NEED it.
Truthfully, for myself, I almost never think of hell as a possibility. Why? Because I don’t look at my faith as an “avoidance of punishment” but rather as a journey toward Joy. In other words I’m not looking down, I’m looking up. I don’t avoid sin becuase I might “go to hell”, I avoid sin because it offends - because of what I see it do to my neighbor - because it violates the Law of Love.
Unfortunately there are many who do not see this. They hurt others indescriminately, look out only for their own skins etc. Hell is a way to try and save their hides.
In other words, God wishes our Love to be built on the positives of Love. In many cases he first has to get our attention. If the benefits of Love won’t get our attention, perhaps the threat of punishment will. Then, once he has our attention, he and we can begin to see and build on the benfits. Do you see what I’m driving at?
I know any number of parents - Good Loving Parents (my own included) who use this same tactic. Promise reward for good behavior but if that doesn’t work, then threaten punishment or bad behavior.

(Cont)