Why doesn't God just not create the bad people to keep them from going to hell

[Bradski]

Was Voltaire certain that “certainty is ridiculous”?

I don’t know. I just know that he wrote it. In French presumably. Maybe he read it on the wall in the toilet of the local bar. Maybe he was going to get some T shirts printed with that on it and sell them in Montemarte.

However, I do know that it reflects my views to a certain degree.

Edit: Ah, bit slow this morning. Just realised what you said. Very good. Not normally this dim. Need a coffee I think to get everything working as it should.

I could be wrong here too but I think that “some” atheists don’t necessarily not believe in God but that they don’t believe in the “conception of God” that many have presented to them.

I must admit I’m having difficulty coming to terms with a god (intentional lower case) who isn’t represented by a concept which I have had presented to me. To me they don’t exist, so I hardly have a mental picture of any particular one. Unless, that it, someone gives me their concept of their god. If you are specific as to which one, then I will just respond just as specifically (and I’ve lost count of the Christians who think that being an atheist means just not believing in the God of Abraham).

But in any case, isn’t the concept of God (upper case) one that has been presented to all Christians? You’re not all coming up with exactly the same concept individually. You are literally taught about God.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Time is not irrelevant to God because He created it. No one here has said that God is limited or restricted by time.

Where yours and Tom’s comments don’t follow is that when you speak about God’s omnipresence neither Him nor you are distinguishing between the mode of His presence. His presence in heaven is NOT the same as His presence veiled under the Eucharistic species.

I would say that the reason that I don’t say anything about “the mode of His presence” is because I have no idea what you are talking about, I do “know” that there are times that one “knows” God’s presense and times that one does not “know” God’s presense even tho God is present.

When God the Father revealed Himself to me in my heart, I “knew” that He was there, before He revealed Himself to me, He was there but I did not “know” it.

Wouldn’t God’s presense be God’s presense irregardless of “the mode”?

And as far as “His presence in heaven is NOT the same as His presence veiled under the Eucharistic species”, since it is “veiled” how do you know exactly what His presense is there and exactly how God’s presense in heaven is?

Why would they not be the same, for one thing God’s presense in heaven is also “veiled” to us at the present time?

Mosts things concerning God to me are beliefs, there is not a lot that I “know” about God but I do have a little “knowledge” concerning God.

 

[Tom_Baum]

I don’t see the connection between these questions and my answer. I would be happy to clarify if you would tell me the connection.

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.

You wrote, “He does not live in time but eternity.”

“He” in the above sentence meaning God.

The Incarnation was in time.

The Eucharist is in time.

We live in time and Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to help us in time.

God the Father does things in time if God the Father wants to.

God is very much present in time and active in time, is God dead or is God alive?

I would say that God “lives” in both eternity and time.

 

[Tom_Baum]

I have repeated your citation of the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Omnipresence with the part in blue which you excluded since not to do so would suggest the Catholic Church might be espousing a heretical form of pantheism.

That God is not subject to spatial limitations follows from His infinite simplicity; and that He is truly present in every place or thing — that He is omnipresent or ubiquitous — follows from the fact that He is the cause and ground of all reality. According to our finite manner of thinking we conceive this presence of God in things spatial as being primarily a presence of power and operation — immediate Divine efficiency being required to sustain created beings in existence and to enable them to act; but, as every kind of Divine action ad extra is really identical with the Divine nature or essence, it follows that God is really present everywhere in creation not merely per virtuten et operationem, but per essentiam. In other words God Himself, or the Divine nature, is in immediate contact with, or immanent in, every creature — conserving it in being and enabling it to act.** But while insisting on this truth we must, if we would avoid contradiction, reject every form of the pantheistic hypothesis. While emphasizing Divine immanence we must not overlook Divine transcendence.**

Pantheism:

1. the doctrine that God is the transcendent reality of which the material universe and human beings are only manifestations: it involves a denial of God’s personality and expresses a tendency to identify God and nature.
2. any religious belief or philosophical doctrine that identifies God with the universe.

As far as identifying God with the universe, I’ve said that God created the universe out of absolutely nothing and that God “knows” everything about everything concerning God’s creation, past, present and future.

Omniscience is a very simple concept but just because it is simple does NOT mean that we mere humans have an inkling of how a Being can be Omniscient and give us free will.

This is just one of the many ways that God is beyond our comprehension and conceptualization.

At least I am saying that God is beyond mine, I can not speak for others, but it is definitely my belief that it is true of all of us.

 

[Tom_Baum]

I don’t know. I just know that he wrote it. In French presumably. Maybe he read it on the wall in the toilet of the local bar. Maybe he was going to get some T shirts printed with that on it and sell them in Montemarte.

However, I do know that it reflects my views to a certain degree.

Edit: Ah, bit slow this morning. Just realised what you said. Very good. Not normally this dim. Need a coffee I think to get everything working as it should.

I must admit I’m having difficulty coming to terms with a god (intentional lower case) who isn’t represented by a concept which I have had presented to me. To me they don’t exist, so I hardly have a mental picture of any particular one. Unless, that it, someone gives me their concept of their god. If you are specific as to which one, then I will just respond just as specifically (and I’ve lost count of the Christians who think that being an atheist means just not believing in the God of Abraham).

But in any case, isn’t the concept of God (upper case) one that has been presented to all Christians? You’re not all coming up with exactly the same concept individually. You are literally taught about God.

I didn’t say all but some.

Also, when I read what different Christian people say concerning God, "the Christian “God” if you will, it is obvious to me that many people’s “conception” of God is quite different even if some of the “basics” are the same.

 

[Bradski]

I didn’t say all but some.

Also, when I read what different Christian people say concerning God, "the Christian “God” if you will, it is obvious to me that many people’s “conception” of God is quite different even if some of the “basics” are the same.

I think we can all agree he looks and sounds a lot like Morgan Freeman. Other than that…

 

[oldcelt]

It’s not “entirely different” at all. God is both Immanent and Transcendent. If omnipresence was meant as you seem to be implying it’d be suggesting that God is substantially present in a rock or a tree as He is in eternity which is absurd.

Left it out intentionally, indeed.

The definition, from a Catholic source, is quite specific about where the Christian God is present:

it follows that God is really present everywhere in creation not merely per virtuten et operationem, but per essentiam. In other words God Himself, or the Divine nature, is in immediate contact with, or immanent in, every creature — conserving it in being and enabling it to act

Pantheism is quite a different subject and one I have never accepted as valid. So, if you have an argument about omnipresence, it is not with me…it is with your church.

 

[Amandil]

The definition, from a Catholic source, is quite specific about where the Christian God is present:

It is quite specific.

Here’s what you said:

oldcelt:

As a young Catholic I was taught that omnipresence meant that God was in all places at all times in human terms.

Nowhere does the passage say that God is substantially present in “all places at all times”.

It says that God communicates His being to them essentially(per essentiam) by holding His creation in existence by His will.

oldcelt:

Pantheism is quite a different subject and one I have never accepted as valid. So, if you have an argument about omnipresence, it is not with me…it is with your church.

No, I have problem with you mischaracterizing the Church’s position based upon,to say the least, ague catechesis from 50 years ago.

 

[oldcelt]

It is quite specific.

Here’s what you said:

Nowhere does the passage say that God is substantially present in “all places at all times”.

It says that God communicates His being to them essentially(per essentiam) by holding His creation in existence by His will.

No, I have problem with you mischaracterizing the Church’s position based upon,to say the least, ague catechesis from 50 years ago.

 

[oldcelt]

It is quite specific.

Here’s what you said:

Nowhere does the passage say that God is substantially present in “all places at all times”.

It says that God communicates His being to them essentially(per essentiam) by holding His creation in existence by His will.

No, I have problem with you mischaracterizing the Church’s position based upon,to say the least, ague catechesis from 50 years ago.

Here is the definition again:

That God is not subject to spatial limitations follows from His infinite simplicity; and **that He is truly present in every place or thing **— that He is omnipresent or ubiquitous — follows from the fact that He is the cause and ground of all reality.

You are the one with the problem. I give you Catholic sources and you still argue Try actually reading the comment instead of just the name or religion of the person. It has grown extremely tiresome and boring, and I don’t think I am alone in this feeling.

 

[fred_conty]

You wrote, “He does not live in time but eternity.”

“He” in the above sentence meaning God.

The Incarnation was in time.

The Eucharist is in time.

We live in time and Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to help us in time.

God the Father does things in time if God the Father wants to.

God is very much present in time and active in time, is God dead or is God alive?

I would say that God “lives” in both eternity and time.

Christ’s divinity is not in time but humanity is in time. So while Christ’s humanity can change, his divinity does not change. His divinity is pure simple act…always…in eternity…outside of time…without change. For more info…see hypostatic union.
Hebrews 13:9
“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teaching.”

The Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, divinity of Christ. St. Thomas teaches that his substance is present, but the accidents seen are not those of Christ, but remain those of bread. Tho Christ’s accidents are present too, they cannot be seen. St. Thomas teaches that the substance is not contained in the accident of space (miraculously) because when the Eucharistic host is broken in pieces, each and every particle of the sacred host contains the whole of Christ.
Therefore the only thing that changes about the Eucharist are the accidents of bread which are not Christ. That make the Eucharist the same Christ the apostles received at the last supper…unchanged.

Tho the Holy Spirit abides in our soul, his abiding in us does not affect any change in him but only in us. If we said he is changed…then only is he subject to time.

God the Father does things in time for those who exist in time, e.g., the burning bush of Moses. But there is no change in the Father.

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Here is the concluding paragraph from the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Pantheism.

“There is nevertheless a fundamental unity which Christian philosophy has always recognized, and which has God for its centre. Not as the universal being, nor as the formal constituent principle of things, but as their efficient cause operating in and through each, and as the final cause for which things exist, God in a very true sense is the source of all thought and reality (see St. Thomas, “Contra Gentes”, I). His omnipresence and action, far from eliminating secondary causes, preserve each in the natural order of its efficiency-physical agents under the determination of physical law and human personality in the exercise of intelligence and freedom. the foundation of the moral order. The straining after unity in the pantheistic sense is without warrant, the only intelligible unity is that which God himself has established, a unity of purpose which is manifest alike in the processes of the material universe and in the free volition of man, and which moves on to its fulfilment in the union of the created spirit with the infinite Person, the author of the moral order and the object of religious worship.”

God is immanent everywhere in the universe by virtue of his power to sustain the universe.

If God withdrew his power, the universe and everything in it would cease to exist.

In that sense God is omnipresent.

 

[Amandil]

Here is the definition again:

You are the one with the problem. I give you Catholic sources and you still argue Try actually reading the comment instead of just the name or religion of the person. It has grown extremely tiresome and boring, and I don’t think I am alone in this feeling.

What you gave was incomplete, which seems to be a trend with you. Then you try to disingenuously turn it around as if I am the problem.

So perhaps you’re correct in this, since you apparently lack the ability to treat with things honestly and any genuine care due their significance, so I bid you adieu.

I’ll continue to pray for you as well.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Christ’s divinity is not in time but humanity is in time. So while Christ’s humanity can change, his divinity does not change. His divinity is pure simple act…always…in eternity…outside of time…without change. For more info…see hypostatic union.
Hebrews 13:9
“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teaching.”

Are you saying that part of Jesus was in time and part of Jesus was not in time?

Either God became Incarnate in the Person of Jesus or God did not, which is it, in your opinion, thought, belief or whatever?

The Incarnation is all about and simply about God (Divinity) becoming One of us (humanity) at a very specific time and place, it is either true or not true.

If you believe that the Incarnation happened, how can you possibly say that “Christ’s divinity is not in time”?

I am taking this (Christ’s divinity is not in time) as you meaning when Jesus walked this planet before His Crucifixion.

The Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, divinity of Christ. St. Thomas teaches that his substance is present, but the accidents seen are not those of Christ, but remain those of bread. Tho Christ’s accidents are present too, they cannot be seen. St. Thomas teaches that the substance is not contained in the accident of space (miraculously) because when the Eucharistic host is broken in pieces, each and every particle of the sacred host contains the whole of Christ.
Therefore the only thing that changes about the Eucharist are the accidents of bread which are not Christ. That make the Eucharist the same Christ the apostles received at the last supper…unchanged.

The Eucharist is Jesus and the Eucharist is in time therefore Jesus is somehow in time at this present moment.

What has anything that you wrote above got anything to do with Jesus being in time or not being in time?

I would say that quite a few of those going to Communion would disagree with you and I would also say that many of those going to Eucharistic Adoration would also disagree with you.

Tho the Holy Spirit abides in our soul, his abiding in us does not affect any change in him but only in us. If we said he is changed…then only is he subject to time.

What does “change or no change” have to do with Jesus speaking the truth concerning what He said about sending the Holy Spirit to us?

You may believe that Jesus was lying but I believe that Jesus was speaking the truth.

God the Father does things in time for those who exist in time, e.g., the burning bush of Moses. But there is no change in the Father.

Are you saying that it is impossible for God to enter into time?

You seem to be saying that God could not and did not enter God’s creation as One of us or that it is impossible for God to somehow enter God’s creation if God so desired, are you?

By the way, it might be the "spiritual realm but heaven is also part of God’s creation, do you think that it is impossible for God to be there or to visit there also?

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.

May God bless and have mercy on God’s entire creation which includes but is not limited to every human being past, present and yet to be.

 

[oldcelt]

What you gave was incomplete, which seems to be a trend with you. Then you try to disingenuously turn it around as if I am the problem.

So perhaps you’re correct in this, since you apparently lack the ability to treat with things honestly and any genuine care due their significance, so I bid you adieu.

I’ll continue to pray for you as well.

I gave you the portion that applied to your issue. Some of us prefer not to reprint needless words. Cut to the chase and be done with it. That is the essence of effective writing, and I am correct as the paragraph clearly and honestly presents.

Farewell.

 

[tonyrey]

oldcelt

Apparently nothing! :whacky:

 

[Richca]

Knowledge + Creation= Responsibility A highly defensible argument in the real world. One that has cost corporations billions.

The knowledge of God is not the cause of evil; but is the cause of the good whereby evil is known (St Thomas Aquinas). God is responsible and is the cause of all the good that a human being may possess such as their existence, nature, free will, intellect, etc. God is not the cause of the evil of sin; this is the result of a defective action by the creature, a misuse of his/her free will.

 

[Amandil]

I would say that the reason that I don’t say anything about “the mode of His presence” is because I have no idea what you are talking about…

Then perhaps you might want to refrain from doing apologetics altogether. It seems apparent that you are not particularly suited for it.

When God the Father revealed Himself to me in my heart, I “knew” that He was there, before He revealed Himself to me, He was there but I did not “know” it.

This is where you might want to keep such things to yourself.

Wouldn’t God’s presense be God’s presense irregardless of “the mode”?

So are you saying that since God is present in a tree that we are to now worship trees?

And “regardless” would suffice; “irregardless” is not a word.

And as far as “His presence in heaven is NOT the same as His presence veiled under the Eucharistic species”, since it is “veiled” how do you know exactly what His presense is there and exactly how God’s presense in heaven is?

It’s in the Catechism, Tom. Haven’t you ever studied the Catechism?

Starting at paragraph 1374

Why would they not be the same, for one thing God’s presense in heaven is also “veiled” to us at the present time?

Because we see God only “through a glass darkly”-through faith, Tom.

Those in heaven see and know God face-to-face.

It is not veiled to those in heaven.

Mosts things concerning God to me are beliefs, there is not a lot that I “know” about God but I do have a little “knowledge” concerning God.

Did Christ come so that we would know a “belief”? Or did Christ come so that we would know the truth?

I believe that Pepsi is better soda than Coke. But I’m not willing to die for that belief.

Is knowledge about God and Jesus, knowledge obtained through prayerful study of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church, more or less important that my belief about what the better soda is?

 

[oldcelt]

The knowledge of God is not the cause of evil; but is the cause of the good whereby evil is known (St Thomas Aquinas). God is responsible and is the cause of all the good that a human being may possess such as their existence, nature, free will, intellect, etc. God is not the cause of the evil of sin; this is the result of a defective action by the creature, a misuse of his/her free will.

You conveniently stepped over the creative act.

 

[oldcelt]

Apparently nothing! :whacky:

How many times does it take Tony? God initiated creation and then allowed it to follow its own course,We, as humans , are the result of the continued development of the universe.
Those are my beliefs, for the umpteenth time.