Why is disbelief a sin?

[Hitetlen]

hurst:

But it is enough for you to have heard about the notion in order to decide to pursue an investigation of your own on the matter.

Why should it be enough? You see, I don’t doubt your utmost sincerety, nor do I doubt that everyone on your side of the fence is honest in their beliefs. But your honesty is based on a 2000+ years old ancient text, not even unique. Every primitive tribe had their tale about the creation of the world, their own set of gods. What makes your belief more relevant than theirs? If a believer of Zeus, Jupiter, the Sun-god, Brahma, or any one of those ancient beliefs (some much more ancient than yours) would come to you and insist that you should take them seriously, you would laugh into their face.

hurst:

He created it for the evil spirits. And we are saved from these evil spirits because God casts them into hell and protects us. But if we also rebel, then we too, shall go there to be subject to the evil spirits whom we chose to agree with.

Not good at all. He created those evil spirits, knowing perfectly well that they will turn evil. As I said before, if a creator knows up front that his creation will not turn out as he wants it, and still goes ahead and does it, he has to take full responsibility for it. You cannot claim selective amnesia and forget or disregard the fact that God knew the result before he even created those spirits.

hurst:

But with God there is forgiveness, so He saved us from our sins so that we may with freedom choose to return to Him and stay of our own accord.

There would be no need to forgive, if he did a decent job in the first place. Besides, it is not us who need forgiveness, it is him, who did such a botched job of his creation.

hurst:

He created us in grace (Adam and Eve), and they had the ability to live up to the obedience imposed on them regarding the tree of knowledge. But they decided to believe the evil spirit, who said God was just trying to hold them back. Thus, they fell by their own fault. They were punished because they knew better and were able to obey. They just decided not to. Sort of like how you decide not to, even though you are able to understand what we are called to do. But you believe the same notions that the evil spirits are insinuating against God - that He supposedly isn’t really Just.

Most emphatically NOT just. To punish others for his lousy job of creation is not just at all.

hurst:

See how you judge God by your own notions as if you had enough knowledge to make such a judgment? It is for this false judgment, judging the eternal being based on your finite knowledge, judging yourself as more worthy of being heeded, that you will be given justice in the form of punishment.

How many times do I have to repeat? I am not judging “God”, I am judging the human concept you happen to believe in. There is nothing infinite or eternal about this very human idea of “God”.

hurst:

Even fellow humans can see your hypocrisy: you condemn God for his supposed lack of justice based on your incomplete view, whereas you exclude yourself from your own judgment; but are you totally just yourself?

I never claimed to be “totally just”. I am not judging you (as a person) I am judging this human concept, for being self-contradictory.

hurst:

And who will punish you for your transgressions? Anyone? If you think you won’t be punished for things others are unaware of, then why should you complain about others being secretly unjust? Why be bothered whether God might be unjust, if you are not bothered about the prospect of you escaping your own injustice? Can you understand this point I am making? If you are willing to accept that there is no God, then you have accepted that there is no final justice - so why would you care about justice?

Justice is another human concept. It means commensurate reward/punishment for some deeds we do. If I transgress against another human being (commit a crime), the system will judge and punish me. If I do something worthy, the system will reward me.

hurst:

I think the reason many do not accept Him is because they do not want to forgive other people, which is a requirement to be forgiven by God.

You are wrong. There is not a whole lot I would have to forgive others. Sometimes I suffered injustice, and I just shrugged it off, never seeking retribution, even when I knew it was originated by sheer malice.

 

[FCEGM]

hurst:

Here you are correct. Man did not create the place called Hell. But perhaps what FCEGM meant was that since we are punished according to our conduct, that the nature of our punishment in hell is our own doing. Certainly God dishes out the punishment, but it is in keeping with what we have done in life. In that sense, we “create” our own hell.

Thanks for expressing it better than I did, Hurst.

 

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

But your honesty is based on a 2000+ years old ancient text, not even unique.

More specifically, a ~2000 year-old living Church with amazing teachings. I follow it in spite of hypocrites who might happen to be members or rulers in it, because I realize I don’t have to be like them when they are not following what the Church teaches. This is true for governments as well. Is the government invalid because some rulers break the law? We still need government.

Hitetlen:

Every primitive tribe had their tale about the creation of the world, their own set of gods. What makes your belief more relevant than theirs?

This is a good question. It has to do with God as a Creator. They did not believe in the one Creator. Only the hebrews preserved this faith, based on what I have read. Others believed in multiple “gods” who had competing powers to manipulate matter or energy or whatever. Evolution of matter was a belief held even by the greeks.

Hitetlen:

If a believer of Zeus, Jupiter, the Sun-god, Brahma, or any one of those ancient beliefs (some much more ancient than yours) would come to you and insist that you should take them seriously, you would laugh into their face.

Maybe, maybe not. I would certainly oppose them, though. These believers “fell away” from the truth that was passed down by Adam and Eve, and eventually children were raised who never heard the truth.

We can read about the martyrs who had to deal with ruling pagans who wanted to force them to offer incense to Zeus or the like. The martyrs are a witness to us that God is a living God, and not made of metal or wood or stone. Nor is He subject to human passions of greed or lust or envy as the greek gods were.

The idols of those ages were really more about money, and in that sense the same thing goes on today - perhaps in brand names and image marketing. It is possibly a deliberate substitute for the inborn tendency to seek glory.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

Not good at all. He created those evil spirits, knowing perfectly well that they will turn evil.

He created them well, and able to choose good. You are right that He knew what they would end up doing, since He knows all things. But it is their choice whether they will choose good or evil.

Hitetlen:

As I said before, if a creator knows up front that his creation will not turn out as he wants it, and still goes ahead and does it, he has to take full responsibility for it.

Agreed.

In any case, the reason He created them was for His own purposes, to show forth His power and glory in created vessels. If they refuse to willingly love Him, then fine, He will use them to show forth His justice. Either way, they all belong to Him and give Him glory.

I see myself also as a vessel that He created without consulting me. He is my conquerer, forcing me to exist out of nothing! I admire His power and find myself able to do various things, such as exercise judgment and faith. I decide to give Him back what is His, judging that it is right that He should be pleased with what He created. He keeps me in existence, and gives me the next moment in time, and will surely provide for whatever I need to be of use to Him. On my part, I continually fight against my selfish tendency to establish myself in anything created, which I now believe would lead to my self-destruction. Only the uncreated Creator can sustain me forever, and only He deserves to be served by my existence.

Hitetlen:

You cannot claim selective amnesia and forget or disregard the fact that God knew the result before he even created those spirits.

I agree. He had to have known.

Hitetlen:

There would be no need to forgive, if he did a decent job in the first place. Besides, it is not us who need forgiveness, it is him, who did such a botched job of his creation.

It is us humpty-dumpties who turned away and fell off the wall, who bothced things. He means it when He says we should give all our attention to Him - if we don’t then we lose our balance. It is also merciful for Him to command us to worship Him, because that means that He is willing and able to take care of us!

But even if He didn’t command these things to us, we would still have to be perfect in all ways in order to last for eternity without destroying ourselves. You have to admit that we can’t expect to break the law of gravity without serious consequences. Is it God’s fault, when someone falls off a cliff, for having created gravity? Whose fault is it when someone disobeys a law and gets put in jail? Is it the fault of the system or of the criminal? If you listened to the criminal, you might hear him say it is the system’s fault.

Hitetlen:

Most emphatically NOT just. To punish others for his lousy job of creation is not just at all.

You have integrated your own conclusion so much that you might believe He would say “And because of my lousy job at creation, I condemn you to hell”. I don’t believe He or anyone in their right mind would act like that.

But is it a lousy job? Nature works quite well. It awes many people, and inspires praise.

What is lousy are those who do not appreciate the maker.

You contend that He should never have allowed us to sin in the first place. Well, that would mean creating us immediately in the glory of heaven without having ever chosen Him over anything else. There would be no real opportunity to prove ourselves, to show who we are. How is that any different from you building the walls of your own house? But what is more interesting, the wall or a loyal friend? There are certain attributes about God, apparently, that can only be manifested by free will making a choice. That includes loyalty and love.

Since God created us to show forth His glory, then He is forcing us to participate in this reality, and we freely choose what our end will be, yet we have no choice but to make a choice. It should inspire a holy fear and respect for God, who wields such power over us.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

How many times do I have to repeat? I am not judging “God”, I am judging the human concept you happen to believe in. There is nothing infinite or eternal about this very human idea of “God”.

But it is a pointer to God. I agree the concept is imperfect, but it is better than nothing for helping us to practice the virtues we will need to truly welcome God when He manifests Himself to us.

I address my belief in the “Most High” to which the concepts point. I never hold onto the concept itself in such a way that I make it my God. It is like science. If any part of my concept falls short, then I allow a slight change to account for the new aspect of reality that I am given - typically through some grace I receive.

The same for Church Dogma. Those are fixed, but one’s understanding of it develops. We must keep our understanding in line with reality and the other revelations of the reality of God.

Since you tend to jump to conclusions quickly, as if you believed you had the ability to understand something quickly, I would suggest you proceed a bit more cautiously regarding Catholic Dogma, which have been established quite firmly by more than mere assertion. If you have any respect for the scientific method of discovery, then you should likewise respect the body of Church Dogma and doctrine as a similar endeavor. It is the “Science of the Saints”, and concerns the reality of the supernatural, just as natural science concerns the reality of the natural.

Hitetlen:

I never claimed to be “totally just”. I am not judging you (as a person) I am judging this human concept, for being self-contradictory.

But this is a highly important issue if ever you were to realize it as true. You should tread more cautiously, even if you don’t believe it, because as I said, you then respect the believers in something you find harmless (if indeed you do); and if you determine to believe it in the future, then you will have less regret.

Otherwise, perhaps you are like an expert critiquing my picture while denying you have anything against me or what the picture refers to? If so, then let me say that you can’t go 100% by my picture, but have to use some imagination to picture it better than how I am presenting it. You have to have faith in what I am referring to by opening your own eyes to the possibility of what I am saying - or of what you think I ought to be saying.

I am sorry I cannot infuse divine knowledge and faith into your soul so that you have a perfect understanding of the reality of these things. Besides, that could be dangerous. The angels are said to have been given so clear a picture, that they only needed one opportunity to make a final decision as to whether they would serve God willingly or not. They had no room to repent. But we are weaker, and since we are so prone to be short-sighted etc., we are given more opportunities to recover from mistakes because we can come across additional information that can lead us to change our opinion.

So consider it rather a benefit that you do not udnerstand everything so clearly. It really comes back, once again, to the decision to put one’s faith in God. Not faith that He exists, but faith that we will obey and serve Him with good will, with what does exist. I don’t think you are even at that point.

Hitetlen:

Justice is another human concept. It means commensurate reward/punishment for some deeds we do. If I transgress against another human being (commit a crime), the system will judge and punish me. If I do something worthy, the system will reward me.

Ok. But what about crimes that people never get caught for? What about crimes for which the wrong person is punished?

Hitetlen:

You are wrong. There is not a whole lot I would have to forgive others. Sometimes I suffered injustice, and I just shrugged it off, never seeking retribution, even when I knew it was originated by sheer malice.

Interesting. But what is the little you would have to forgive? Do you ever get the least bit frustrated by others who seem to oppose you? I suppose that if you believed there was no need for justice, then you would not be bothered by what happened, regardless of whether it involved the loss of your own life or that of your family or that of your income, etc.

hurst

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

Besides, it is not us who need forgiveness, it is him, who did such a botched job of his creation.

Your choice: to hear The Serpent (“You certainly will not die! you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad” (Gen 3, 4-5)) instead of God. The Serpent was the father of lies (John 8, 44), and Adam and Eve died because they preferred to believe the word of the father of lies rather than the true word of God.
We can say that in your case disbelief is a mortal sin that leads you directly to hell, with the father of lies. Why? Pride, superb, a strange kind of perverse self mutilation. With the whole force of your perverted will you have rejected reason an natural law (due to both of them every man recognizes a Creator). You have rejected also the teachings of the greatest philosophers (even those before Christ), the testimony of the saints, the Magisterium taught by the Church established by Christ, the Son of God.
What for? Only to follow your pride and superb. But your arguments are like dry grass. Atheistic to the point of fanaticism, only your pride can be compared with your vanity. (Let me add that I recognize a “decent” atheism, the one of Buddha, who at least realized the pain of existence, the tremendous misery of human condition, and futility of present life).
Little time ahead and you are going to be judged according to your pride and vanity (this judgment is not an option, it is beyond your opinions and ignorance) and because you rejected mercy you are going to be confused in hell for all eternity. And you are already condemned as St. John states, because you rejected the Light of the World.
Just little time ahead to understand that the divine fire of God’s mercy that purifies us in heaven is the same fire torments unbelievers in hell.

 

[cynic]

Why is it ok for God to glorify HIMSELF, but not ok for us? If he made us solely for the purpose of glorifying HIM then is that really love?

 

[Hitetlen]

hurst:

More specifically, a ~2000 year-old living Church with amazing teachings. I follow it in spite of hypocrites who might happen to be members or rulers in it, because I realize I don’t have to be like them when they are not following what the Church teaches. This is true for governments as well. Is the government invalid because some rulers break the law? We still need government.

I am not basing my opinion on the conduct of some members of the Church. As to whether those teachings are amazing or not, we can form our opinions. I don’t deny that there are many valid and good teachings in the Bible or in the Church. What those good teaching are, we probably could not agree upon.

hurst:

This is a good question. It has to do with God as a Creator. They did not believe in the one Creator. Only the hebrews preserved this faith, based on what I have read. Others believed in multiple “gods” who had competing powers to manipulate matter or energy or whatever. Evolution of matter was a belief held even by the greeks.

And what does the number of gods have to do with it? And some religions actually did believe in one creator, albeit it did not resemble the Christian God.

hurst:

We can read about the martyrs who had to deal with ruling pagans who wanted to force them to offer incense to Zeus or the like. The martyrs are a witness to us that God is a living God, and not made of metal or wood or stone. Nor is He subject to human passions of greed or lust or envy as the greek gods were.

I am sorry, but here you again refer back to the Bible, which is just an ancient book, without external verification. Even if those martyrs did suffer a bad fate, that does not substantiate God’s existence in the slightest.

 

[Hitetlen]

hurst:

He created them well, and able to choose good. You are right that He knew what they would end up doing, since He knows all things.

I am very glad that we can agree in this matter.

hurst:

You contend that He should never have allowed us to sin in the first place.

Almost exactly correct. It is not necessary to disallow “sin”, it would have been sufficient to make us to be able to choose sin, but give us the desire not to do it. This way there would be an intact free will.

hurst:

Well, that would mean creating us immediately in the glory of heaven without having ever chosen Him over anything else. There would be no real opportunity to prove ourselves, to show who we are.

Prove to whom? Show to whom? God already knows these things, doesn’t he?

hurst:

In any case, the reason He created them was for His own purposes, to show forth His power and glory in created vessels. If they refuse to willingly love Him, then fine, He will use them to show forth His justice. Either way, they all belong to Him and give Him glory.

In my eyes the idea that God wishes glory is ridiculous. Seeking “glory” is a sign of vanity. Besides, what “glory” is in the adoration of such low level beings as we are?

Imagine yourself in feeding a bunch of ants, taking care of them, protecting them. Suppose those ants would be capable of “adoration”. Would you find “glory” in their worshipping service to you? And the differnce between God and us is much greater than the differnce between you and the ants.

Moreover, God does not take care of us, he does not prevent earthquakes, tsunamis and wildfires from wiping out millions of people, good and bad alike, among them millions of children. He does not prevent draughts which cause widespread starvation. He does not lift his little finger when innocents die. Why should he expect anyone worshipping him?

 

[Hitetlen]

hurst:

But this is a highly important issue if ever you were to realize it as true. You should tread more cautiously, even if you don’t believe it, because as I said, you then respect the believers in something you find harmless (if indeed you do); and if you determine to believe it in the future, then you will have less regret.

That is an interesting question. I actually think that believing in any kind of supernatural is actually harmful for the believers, but since it is strictly their own business, it would not be my place to force and change them.

But the picture has another side, too. Some believers are not content by leading their lives freely according to their beliefs, they want everyone else to conform to their way of living, to accept their type of morality. Now, if only they would resort to expressing their ideas only, and would not try to change the legal system to their taste, everything would be all right.

I agree with Voltaire, who said: “I disagree with what you say, but I defend with my life your right to say it”. If you would suffer from religious persecution, I would come to your defense. Unfortunately the opposite is not likely. Some believers want to impose a “theocracy”, even when they vehemently deny that this is their aim.

hurst:

Otherwise, perhaps you are like an expert critiquing my picture while denying you have anything against me or what the picture refers to? If so, then let me say that you can’t go 100% by my picture, but have to use some imagination to picture it better than how I am presenting it. You have to have faith in what I am referring to by opening your own eyes to the possibility of what I am saying - or of what you think I ought to be saying.

It is not just you, it is everyone on your side of the fence. As a matter of fact, your attitude is very admirable. But you are correct, it is not the actual believers I have a problem with (albeit I cannot stand some of them, Pat Robertson, Billy Graham and their ilk comes to mind and Mother Theresa was also someone I despised) it is the picture itself which is unpalatable.

hurst:

Interesting. But what is the little you would have to forgive? Do you ever get the least bit frustrated by others who seem to oppose you? I suppose that if you believed there was no need for justice, then you would not be bothered by what happened, regardless of whether it involved the loss of your own life or that of your family or that of your income, etc.

Well, once I was cheated out of pretty much everything I accumulated, and had to restart my life again. Since it was legal, I could not do anything legally. I just decided that it is much better to concentrate on rebuilding my life and not waste time and energy on finding a retribution.

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

“Quote:
Originally Posted by hurst
We can read about the martyrs who had to deal with ruling pagans who wanted to force them to offer incense to Zeus or the like. The martyrs are a witness to us that God is a living God, and not made of metal or wood or stone. Nor is He subject to human passions of greed or lust or envy as the greek gods were.”

I am sorry, but here you again refer back to the Bible, which is just an ancient book, without external verification. Even if those martyrs did suffer a bad fate, that does not substantiate God’s existence in the slightest.

probably what hurst is mentioning here are the Acts of the Martyrs, the official records of the trials of early martyrs made by the notaries of the roman pagan courts. So he is not referring to the Bible, and as it has been shown there is no source capable of satisfying you.
As I stated before: ”Torture and death have nothing to do with the truth of a testimony. Because it is not the punishment but the cause what makes a martyr of God.”

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

But your honesty is based on a 2000+ years old ancient text, not even unique. Every primitive tribe had their tale about the creation of the world, their own set of gods. What makes your belief more relevant than theirs? If a believer of Zeus, Jupiter, the Sun-god, Brahma, or any one of those ancient beliefs (some much more ancient than yours) would come to you and insist that you should take them seriously, you would laugh into their face.

/QUOT

Well, interesting, what you consider a “con” is in reality a “pro”!
Here you have “the overwhelming majority of humankind of all ages” recognizing and worshiping a Creator.
But, who is right? The one who says: “Hi! Wake up! There is no God! I don’t see Him!”

“your honesty is based on a 2000+ year old ancient text”
A little correction: “2000+ year old historical facts”. Oh, I forget you deny also historical facts! Maybe we could date history from your birthday (if you are sure you do exist)!

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

But your honesty is based on a 2000+ years old ancient text, not even unique. Every primitive tribe had their tale about the creation of the world, their own set of gods. What makes your belief more relevant than theirs? If a believer of Zeus, Jupiter, the Sun-god, Brahma, or any one of those ancient beliefs (some much more ancient than yours) would come to you and insist that you should take them seriously, you would laugh into their face.

Well, interesting, what you consider a “con” is in reality a “pro”!
Here you have “the overwhelming majority of humankind of all ages” recognizing and worshiping a Creator.
But, who is right? The one who says: “Wake up! There is no God! I don’t see Him!”

“your honesty is based on a 2000+ year old ancient text”
A little correction: “2000+ year old historical facts”. Oh, I forget you deny also historical facts! Maybe we could date history from your birthday (if you are sure you do exist)!

 

[hurst]

cynic:

Why is it ok for God to glorify HIMSELF, but not ok for us? If he made us solely for the purpose of glorifying HIM then is that really love?

Good question. And the answer is in the understanding of what it means to glorify. It is the same problem with the word “love”. It can be taken in a selfish way or in a selfless way.

For example, one can love selfishly if they are doing it for themselves to the loss of others. If a person “loves” ice cream, then they will want to accumulate as much for themselves as possible, even if others don’t get any. If someone “loves” money, they will eventually even resort to schemes and theft in order to get it. It becomes like an addiction.

But true love is charity, it is in giving.

Likewise, a selfish kind of glory is one in which a person enjoys popular acclaim and respect, wielding a sort of power by which he may gloat over others and be served by others so that he is like a lottery winner in which he is enriched at the loss of others. He always gets his way and bosses people around.

But true glory is in giving. One who gives a gift is “glorified” when that gift is received and put to use. Thus, people glorify evil when they practice evil, but glorify goodness when they spread goodness around. The USA has glorified its founders by putting their principles in action and living according to them. At the same time, our country has been dishonoring our founders by the various ways in which it has started to diverge from their originating principles (e.g. judges making laws).

So to glorify God is to accept His gifts, laws, grace, and promises and to live by them so that our whole life is a reflection of His goodness to us that we and others can rejoice in. He too, seeing His work in us willingly received, will rejoice, and share that Joy with us.

It is like buying stock in a company. You enable the company to flourish, and at some point you share in a return of its increase.

God deserves to be glorified more than us because He is the only source of goodness and true love. Those of us who seek glory tend to do it selfishly. That is why there are so many contentions and wars and disputes. One seeks his way to be glorified, but another complains “why should we go according to your ideas, and not mine?”. But God is eternal and created us. He has the greatest claim for things to be done His way. It is only right that we serve His interests, and thus glorify His power and generosity.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

And what does the number of gods have to do with it? And some religions actually did believe in one creator, albeit it did not resemble the Christian God.

It has everything to do with it. If there are many gods, then they are not the kind that create anything. They are considered the source of their particular substance. Thus, there was a god of heat, of light, of fertility, of fire, etc. And they were thought to interact with each other in a manner similar to how heads of tribes interacted - with contention and scheming, and the like.

But for there to be one God means that all these other “gods” were not independent of each other, but were the work of the One God, who is then the source of them all, and has power over them all.

What other religions had the belief in one God as Creator? Islam claims Abraham as their Father, so they derived from the Hebrews. The Hebrews are part of the Christian heritage, since we worship the same God. What else is there that is not derived from the Hebrews?

hurst

 

[chris_ZA]

I am not sure if any of what follows will help as I am a novice in these matters but I would not reject the arguments for God’s existence on the basis of popularised arguments found in most apologetic books.

As an ex-atheist my own experience is that your understanding of these arguments has a lot to do with the ‘mindset’ that you approach them from.

Getting into the ‘habitus’ of thought takes some time to develop. I would suggest books like Maritain’s ‘Seven lectures on Being’ and Fr. Owen’s Christian Metaphysics. General reading in the History of Philosophy such as Fr Coplestone’s series.

Also some reading to understand the history of the ideas that you hold.

You may even just consider praying for understanding, humility and then faith. All you risk is a little bit of time and perhaps feeling and looking a bit silly to yourself. I confess that I wouldn’t have done this as an atheist although I can’t see why. Perhaps it was the fear of losing objectivity although I can promise you that that doesn’t happen.

You may also want to examine if you have any other reasons for your loss of faith. Some people have strange and often unconcious prejudices from their childhood. Of the “Why did God kill Granny variety?”

I find that many people are simply scared of the moral obligations of Catholicism or just don’t want to make the effort.

Finally, I think that every atheist who really examines every angle and takes every effort to find out the truth will receive the opportunity for faith and salvation.

I pray that you will.

Christopher

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

He does not lift his little finger when innocents die.

…including Jesus Christ, the most innocent…

 

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

Almost exactly correct. It is not necessary to disallow “sin”, it would have been sufficient to make us to be able to choose sin, but give us the desire not to do it. This way there would be an intact free will.

Actually, that is what happened. In the story of Adam and Eve, they were told not to eat of the tree of knowledge, lest they die.

So the the desire to live was placed against the desire to eat that fruit. But in the end, they chose to disbelieve that protective threat and instead enjoy the appearance of good fruit.

All sin is the result of false judgment whereby we choose something that is good over something else that is a greater good. But if it is a mistake, then why be punished? Because it was not a mistake until we freely departed from the path of obedience. Obedience commands us to avoid walking into danger, but once we disobey and end up in darkness, then we are easily deceived and fall into pits of sin.

You might ask, why not make us desire obedience? Well, God did do that. For we are born into the world clearly inferior to our parents, lacking knowledge among other things. We know enough about ourselves to know that we do not know everything, and thus look to what is greater than us for help. Thus we desire to also obey the help given us. And we are given commands we are expected to obey. “Stay away from the stove”. “Do not touch the knife”. We are able to obey, and thus be preserved from danger.

But we also have lower senses that like to feel good things, and we have curiosity that likes to know things, regardless of whether such things are good for us. These lower desires are unreasoning and only want what they want for no other reason than that it is a pleasurable stimulation. We are able to control them by our reasoning, and deny the fulfillment of these kinds of desires. “No, I must not do that because I was commanded by someone who knows more to stay away from it”.

But the desire is felt in the body, while the reasoning is in the mind. We are faced with making a choice between following the lower desire against reason and thus against obedience, or of denying ourselves of a pleasure in order to remain obedient to what we “know” is a greater source of knowledge.

But the sensual pleasure is right in front of us, whereas the reason to deny ourselves of it is something in our memory. We have to remember what we were commanded, and believe what we remember. Thus is required a kind of faith in order to overcome physical attractions to sin. “Mind over matter” is what we must practice.

Now you see how it can happen. We often decide to “doubt” the source of knowledge, thinking it must have missed out on this pleasure we have become aware of. We decide to disbelieve that our help from above knows more than we do, or worse, that it knows and maliciously wants to keep us from the pleasure. In any case, we soon break faith and make the false judgment that we know more or that we know better or that we know enough to contravene the command we were given by a legitimate authority over us, and we choose the lesser good of sensual pleasure over virtuous conduct.

Now, as I have shown, we were given the ability to desire obedience by the realization of our littleness and lack of all knowledge etc. That is also called humility. We were also given the ability to desire obedience by the threat of danger. Once someone departs from this little hut of humble obedience, they embark upon a dangerous journey frought with perils - and all because they chose to trust their sensual appetite over being faithful to the command of obedience.

That is why I was so atonished to read from you that you find it good to be curious, good to be proud, and emphatic that you wanted your reward now in this life! You fit the bill to the tee of one who has pursued a sensual life (body or mind), persevering in faithlessness and disobedience to virtue. Don’t you think it is contradictory to be mad at God for not taking away the desire in you to sin, when you are making every effort to hold on to that desire? (You do so because you have chosen to disbelieve the threat of death, which serves to give a desire to obey. Instead, you ridicule the desire God offers to avoid sin). Why be mad at a God who commands obedience to refrain from the very things that lead us to be deceived? Isn’t it obvious that we are not all-knowing and must be obedient to someone? Why do you not desire to obey, when that is precisely what will help you stop sinning?

Conclusion: you deny the very obedience God commands that will enable you to avoid the sin that you complain God has allowed us to desire.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

Originally Posted by hurst
Well, that would mean creating us immediately in the glory of heaven without having ever chosen Him over anything else. There would be no real opportunity to prove ourselves, to show who we are.

Prove to whom? Show to whom? God already knows these things, doesn’t he?

Prove to the world and ourselves, giving a testimony of God’s goodness and thereby bringing glory to Him in the world. Show to the world, like a flower.

God knows, yes. But like I said, He created the world to show forth His glory through vessels.

We can know what kind of plant is represented by a seed, but what use is that to the world? Rather, we plant it and let it grow, that it may be made manifest and be of some use to others. Plus, it serves as reproof to those who refuse to grow anything.

Hitetlen:

In my eyes the idea that God wishes glory is ridiculous. Seeking “glory” is a sign of vanity.

It can be for someone who is selfish. But as I described in my reply to the cynic, there is another perspective that makes more sense in regards to God. God’s glory is His work in us that brings beauty to the world. Any champion athlete knows that his “glory” is rooted in his humility of work-outs and discipline. The glory of people who gave up their life is amplified by the fact that we know they derive nothing from our praise, which cannot make up for the fact that they are gone from us. Even so, there is not enough praise we can give to God that will ever equal what He is deserving of, nor does His glory merely consist in our praise of Him. To truly give God glory is to let His work be made manifest to the world through us and for us to give Him credit for what is His, and thus cause all to praise and bless and thank Him. Doing that will multiply the spread of His work and make creation beautiful and ready for even more from God. And it will contribute to destroying the works of the devil that fill the world, which is another reason Jesus came.

Hitetlen:

Besides, what “glory” is in the adoration of such low level beings as we are?

Like I said, the glory we give is the obedience to His Will so that what we do is His work. We are vessels filled with Himself shining forth from us, if we obey Him in our hearts.

Alas, how many false Christians there are, not even trying to obey God, but rather serving their own interests! They are worse than pagans.

Yet, there are also Christians who are on the right path seeking to do God’s will, but are not yet perfect in their charity.

Hitetlen:

Imagine yourself in feeding a bunch of ants, taking care of them, protecting them. Suppose those ants would be capable of “adoration”. Would you find “glory” in their worshipping service to you? And the differnce between God and us is much greater than the differnce between you and the ants.

But the ants are not in our image, nor are they capable of understanding us.

However, we can put them in a position of giving us glory, I suppose, if we were able to get them to do our will. And in fact, we do this with various insects and animals. But no one really values it as such because we know the animals are just instinctive. But it can still be interesting to go to a circus or dog show.

Hitetlen:

Moreover, God does not take care of us, he does not prevent earthquakes, tsunamis and wildfires from wiping out millions of people, good and bad alike, among them millions of children. He does not prevent draughts which cause widespread starvation. He does not lift his little finger when innocents die. Why should he expect anyone worshipping him?

You may as well complain that people die at all, because we all have to die whether or not we are “innocent”. That it happens sooner in a calamity does not change that point.

But here we see God allowing natural calamities that cause deaths. The person of faith would see it as a wake-up call, as God giving us a reality check. We often forget how mortal we are. But the atheist will scoff at such reasoning, won’t they, even if only “guilty” people died.

Your heart is like a hardened rock, and the seed of faith given to you finds no root, but is quicky snatched up by the demonic birds of the air. You must allow yourself to be softened and broken, in order for anything to grow in your heart…

We should worship God while we are able to, in order to bloom like flowers for Him, to shine like stars for Him, because it is His creation, and He deserves this, for as long as we are able to do it, regardless of how long we end up being around.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

Some believers are not content by leading their lives freely according to their beliefs, they want everyone else to conform to their way of living, to accept their type of morality. Now, if only they would resort to expressing their ideas only, and would not try to change the legal system to their taste, everything would be all right.

Yes, if only the pro-abortion forces would keep their ideas out of the political system and state laws. If only those who like same-sex marriage would keep their ideas to themselves and not impose it on our organizations. If only the atheists would stay out of the wording of the pledge of allegiance. If only…

The fact is, Hitetlen, the laws that were created in the first place reflected people’s idea of morality.

It is important to have laws that ensure that good morals are not corrupted. Thus, while a state law cannot stop one’s thoughts, it ought to stop immoral behavior from being forced upon those who do not subscribe to it.

But those who do not care about immorality are now starting to force moral people into supporting their lifestyles at the cost of their jobs and businesses. Pharmacies now are forced to issue immoral drugs regardless of whether it is against the religion of the owner or worker. Catholic organizations are now being forced to provide insurance coverage for the very things the Church teaches is immoral and evil. And other examples abound.

All is done by immoral people complaining that they are being forced to endure morals they don’t agree with. How hypocritcal can that be?

Hitetlen:

Some believers want to impose a “theocracy”, even when they vehemently deny that this is their aim.

For those who do not believe in God, who do not believe in justice, who think they are just a mass of cells and chemical reactions, why should they care? But those who do believe in God care.

It follows that everything should be controlled by those who think it matters, while those who don’t think it matters should obey those who care.

The problem is that people fall into erroneous thinking, and then try to impose error on others. There is nothing wrong with taking command when one has the right to. Only the Creator can resolve errors, and thus a theocracy is not inherently bad…

Once someone says that what people think doesn’t matter, then they are subject to those who think it does matter. If they say only those things matter that don’t claim authority, then they are hypocritically claiming the authority to declare that. It is quite inherent that there is a truth that deserves to be in charge.

Hitetlen:

Well, once I was cheated out of pretty much everything I accumulated, and had to restart my life again. Since it was legal, I could not do anything legally. I just decided that it is much better to concentrate on rebuilding my life and not waste time and energy on finding a retribution.

That is interesting. So you are saying that someone “legally” “cheated” you. You then are appealing to a higher sense of morality than what the law enforces.

Don’t you think that the "cheated"ness needs to be punished somehow by someone, even if not right away? Afterall, what if it repeatedly happened every week and did not allow you to rebuild your life even if you tried? If it were legal, who would you cry to? Who would you appeal to? That is, if you cared about justice. But then, should a blob of cells and chemical reactions really care whether it lived a nice life in a house or in a mud puddle with pigs?

There is a parable about a boy who left home and took his inheritance with him. After he spent all, he at last worked on a farm, and was so poor he wished he could eat what was fed to the pigs. He finally decided it was better to go back home and be a servant, because at least the living conditions would be better.

We are better off living in a world run by the laws of God, then in a world flip-flopping between competing tyrants seeking to glorify their ideas.

hurst