Why is disbelief a sin?

[Thal59]

Hitetlen:

Aha, so God is not omnisicent any more?

You are inferring that a God who is omniscient and omnipotent must know everything at all times. In other words, He has no choice or ability to do otherwise. But if this were the case, He would not be omnipotent, would He? Let’s say I have 10 children - one child in each of ten bedrooms. I have a camera in each room which connects to 10 monitors in my master bedroom. I can see what each child is doing at the same time. But if I decide to allow privacy, I can switch off cameras 4,6,9, for instance.

I would no longer be able to know what was going on in those bedrooms but it would not be because I can’t know, it would be because I used my power to not know, at least for a while and for a purpose.

Since omnipotence suggests that God has the power to momentarily limit Himself to suit His purpose, one cannot presume God knows all things at all times since one cannot know how God might limit His presence and knowledge for reasons beyond our understanding. This opens the possibility that God may have made the situation such that He momentarily did not know how Adam and Eve would respond to the test, does it not?

Thal59

 

[Thal59]

Hitetlen:

But your presentation of God shows something totally different: ONE test, one failure, no second chances (and don’t even mention Jesus, who came thousands of years later) and the result is being expelled from the “school”, and the ground is cursed under their feet. Is this your idea of a “good” teacher?

Blue text: My presentation shows something far more important than a simple math test. But your expression “no second chances…” is incorrect. Adam and Eve did have a second chance at eternal bliss in heaven, just not by way of the earthly paradise. Scripture records that God did forgive them later. They received many chances to redeem themselves, the same way that the failing child may have to work harder in detention before he can return to the classroom. Certainly as a teacher you understand the occasional necessity of regulating a child to a more severe environment to induce greater comittment to their studies from them.

Red text: If Adam and Eve lived a mortal life and then died forever, it would indeed be pointless to mention Jesus. But your request that I do not mention Jesus shows a lack of understanding of the relationship between the creator and His creatures. The “qualifier” of His coming “thousands of years later” carries no weight as God is eternal. So too is the existence of His children in at least a spiritual life independent of a physical body.

Green text: The ground was “cursed” only in relation to the “blessed” fertility of Eden. Surely you are not suggesting that the currently available farmland which yields crops so abundantly is “cursed.” And your “expellation” statement is also faulty. If a human teacher expells a student from school, the two are truly seperated. But even after God expelled Adam and Eve from Eden, He was still with them, teaching them, and guiding them; only not as intimately as it was in the garden.

Is this my idea of a good teacher? One who is always present 24 hours a day and always guiding the child back to Him… this is my idea of a perfect teacher.

Your problem Hitetlen, is you keep trying to understand and equate God on purely human terms ignoring the divine difference. You won’t get anywhere in your understanding of God in this way.

Hitetlen:

Somehow I am not getting through. I do NOT hate God. I do NOT believe God exists. How many times do I have to repeat it?

Everytime you engage in rhetoric aimed at God in a spirit of contempt.

Hitetlen:

Now suppose I am wrong, and God exists. Even if he took offense at my disbelief, which I cannot believe, he would not punish anyone with eternal damnation for a short, temporal deed, especially since he knows that he never gave adequate reason to believe in his existence. Contrary to your assertion, this is the definition of justice.

This is my definition of nonsense. You are presupposing God’s reaction to your lifestyle on your own limited reasoning, which is biased in your favor to begin with. You state that God knows…"that he never gave adequate reason to believe in his existence…" yet this reason to believe in His existence was more than adequate for so many who do believe in Him. You are blaming God for your failure to believe. As I said before, you are trying to have your cake and eat it to. You wish to live independent of God, not believing, obeying, or loving Him, while at the same time you are trying to make arguments that will preserve you from His divine judgement.

You are “suckling like a pig on His hospitality,” while trying to avoid “paying the piper” when it is time. You cannot have it both ways.

Thal59

 

[Hitetlen]

Thal59:

Blue text: If God did everyhting you suggest here, it would remove total free will. This is especially evident in your suggestion that… “I would not hesitate and change all the sociopaths to become loving people…” In other words, if I were omnipotent, I would not hesitate to change people from what they have chosen to be, to what I think they should be. Not ALL free will, but I would certainly restrict it! The hang-up on free will is your “problem” not mine. As a designer (what I actually AM) I despise free will. When I create a program (not a universe, for sure), I make my best efforts to remove even the remotest possibility of “free will” from the programs I write. Those instances, when my programs exhibit “free will” are BUGS (errors), where they deviate from my design specs.

Thal59:

If you did all of this, everyone and everything would be like a puppet on a string. They would have no love for you, since you would obviously use your omnipotent power to turn hate, or at least indifference, into a burning love for you. But, of course, this would be no love at all. What you would have succeeded in doing was use your omnipotence to make yourself inconsequential in relation to your creation. You would be a God without a purpose, without love, without honor, without anything of worth; and so too would your creation.

No, I would not give a damn if they loved me or not. To be more precise, I would NEVER reveal my existence to them - so they would not feel compelled to “love me”. It would serve no purpose, they would gain nothing from it. I would make their life as pleasant as possible, I would consider it my DUTY. They would not ask to be created, and if I chose to create them, it would be my DUTY to make their life pleasant, free of problems and disasters. I would care for the good ones, who love and help others, and the rest (the sociopaths) I would change, so I would not have to weed them out. Contrary to what you think, I would not consider myself worthy of “praise” and adoration. The creator has the DUTY toward the created ones, not the other way round.

Thal59:

You would have made a very poor God.

That is your opinion, nothing more. I happen to differ, and I gave my reasons, too.

Thal59:

Red text: To answer the text in red, I must momentarily go back to the phrase in blue where you describe rape and murder as an instinct. Rape and murder is not instinctive as killing might be to an animal. They are the product of evil. Of course, I am sure that if you do not believe in God, you certainly also do not believe in Satan. But it is Satan that gives you the example you asked for in the text I highlighted in red.

Not acceptable at all. Give me one example where my alleged omnipotence would force me to allow the death of a beloved friend.

Thal59:

Lucifer was once very beloved of God, occupying the most powerful position in heaven; second only to God Himself. Lucifer, of his own free will, decided he wanted to replace God. The evil of his rebellion though was not limited to himself as one-third of the heavenly host rebelled with him. Here is an example of when you would have to condemn an old friend to death; when he rebells against you and would seek to destroy you - if that were possible.

That is not much of an example. I would never relegate an old friend to a secondary status. If he wanted me to share the power, I would not hesitate to share it. I am not selfish, I don’t crave to be “unique”. In all my professional life (both as a teacher and as a computer programmer) I always shared all I know, helped everyone who wanted to know everything I knew, helped everyone who wanted to be able to do everything I could do. (Side remark: the word Lucifer means the Lightbringer; a very commendable name!).

Thal59:

Of course, you could just forgive the offense, take away Lucifer’s greed and aspirations, and force his followers to love you artificially since they don’t love you sincerely. But if you do that, you again become inconsequential.

How little do you know about true love, selfless love. I would not keep the knowledge and power to myself, I would not be selfish. And if I wanted to be loved, I would try to earn it, not demand it.

Thal59:

Congratulations, you become the God of puppets; which is no God at all.

Yep, in the light of what I said above, now you can reconsider. Are you intellectually honest enough to do so?

 

[Hitetlen]

Thal59:

You are inferring that a God who is omniscient and omnipotent must know everything at all times. In other words, He has no choice or ability to do otherwise. But if this were the case, He would not be omnipotent, would He? Let’s say I have 10 children - one child in each of ten bedrooms. I have a camera in each room which connects to 10 monitors in my master bedroom. I can see what each child is doing at the same time. But if I decide to allow privacy, I can switch off cameras 4,6,9, for instance.

I don’t think that “omniscience” can be turned on or off at will. If you say that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive, I will agree. In my eyes the concept of the omniscience is nonsensical, since the future has not happened yet, but if you insist on omnisicence being correct, then you can’t also argue that it is an “intermittent” happening. It either exists or not.

I would accept that God is unable to see the future, and he did not know how Adam and Eve will behave. That is a reasonable point of view. In that case the “test” would really be a test for all involved. But you wish to establish that God is “usually” omniscient, but can turn this feature off, when convenient. Sorry, but that makes no sense at all. This is truly twisting the meaning of the words to suit your needs.

 

[Thal59]

Hitetlen:

Not ALL free will, but I would certainly restrict it! The hang-up on free will is your “problem” not mine. As a designer (what I actually AM) I despise free will. When I create a program (not a universe, for sure), I make my best efforts to remove even the remotest possibility of “free will” from the programs I write. Those instances, when my programs exhibit “free will” are BUGS (errors), where they deviate from my design specs.

No, I would not give a damn if they loved me or not. To be more precise, I would NEVER reveal my existence to them - so they would not feel compelled to “love me”. It would serve no purpose, they would gain nothing from it. I would make their life as pleasant as possible, I would consider it my DUTY. They would not ask to be created, and if I chose to create them, it would be my DUTY to make their life pleasant, free of problems and disasters. (snip)The creator has the DUTY toward the created ones, not the other way round.

That is not much of an example. I would never relegate an old friend to a secondary status. If he wanted me to share the power, I would not hesitate to share it. I am not selfish, I don’t crave to be “unique”. In all my professional life (both as a teacher and as a computer programmer) I always shared all I know, helped everyone who wanted to know everything I knew, helped everyone who wanted to be able to do everything I could do.

Yep, in the light of what I said above, now you can reconsider. Are you intellectually honest enough to do so?

There is no need for me to challenge your assertions on a point for point basis. The whole is refutable enough.

The poor analogy of the programmer and his program compared to God and the universe is so feeble it would be pointless to debate other than to point out that comparing a “bug” in a program to the free will God gave humans shows an astonishingly low ability to perceive subject matter on an equitable scale.

You then insist that it is the creators duty to serve His creation if He is to fullfil your conception of Godhood. You, as a God, would “hide” yourself so as not to inconvenience them. Your duty in life is to make their temporal existence as agreable to them as possible. Hitetlen, this is too ludicrous to be credited! You may think your conception tangible, but it is really quite impotent as you have succeeded in making the creator the servant, and the creature the master. This is a recurring theme for you when you stated in earlier posts that you might be able to believe in a God if He had characteristics that were agreeable to you. Or, if God would humble Himself and appear in your presence, you might consider it sufficient evidence to believe in Him.

In your mind, God must please you and satisfy your requirements, while you are not required to do anything acceptable to Him.

But the part of your post that I have highlighted in grey is most revealing. It is quite an acclamation you credit upon yourself. If a dear friend wanted you to share your omnipotent power with him, you would be so selfless and loving and caring to allow it; totally blind to the corruption it might infect him with. And if his lust to be greater than you was such that he wanted all of your power, not merely and equal share in it, I suppose you would allow that also.

If he felt the only way to gain that power was to cut your throat you would gladly expose your throat to him, completely ignorant of the ongoing power struggles and future assassinations that would result from your failing to secure that infinite power.

You are claiming to be all sharing, all loving, all selfless. Yet, you do not recognize these traits in either God the father, creator of all that you are or ever will be, nor in Jesus His son who died on the cross for you.

Hitetlen, I tell you that it is impossible for someone to have the traits that you have credited yourself with, especially to the degree that you claim, without being able to recognize the primordial source of these traits (God) from which these traits flow.

You ask if I have the intellectual honesty to reconsider my position. If intellectual honesty is what you want, I will accomodate you. Understand first though, that I type these words with no feeling of malice. I say calmly back to you that after reading your words - intellectual honesty demands that I conclude that you are not only arrogant, but a liar and a hypocrite as well. This is not mere name calling, this is the unavoidable conclusion your claims direct me to.

Now, off to your second post…

Thal59

 

[Thal59]

Hitetlen:

I don’t think that “omniscience” can be turned on or off at will. If you say that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive, I will agree. In my eyes the concept of the omniscience is nonsensical, since the future has not happened yet, but if you insist on omnisicence being correct, then you can’t also argue that it is an “intermittent” happening. It either exists or not.

I would accept that God is unable to see the future, and he did not know how Adam and Eve will behave. That is a reasonable point of view. In that case the “test” would really be a test for all involved. But you wish to establish that God is “usually” omniscient, but can turn this feature off, when convenient. Sorry, but that makes no sense at all. This is truly twisting the meaning of the words to suit your needs.

Omniscience is subordinate to omnipotence. God says “I will remember your sins no more.” How is it possible for God to “forget” historical events, unless of course His omniscience is subordinate to omnipotence.

Thal59

 

[hurst]

Thal59:

Omniscience is subordinate to omnipotence. God says “I will remember your sins no more.” How is it possible for God to “forget” historical events, unless of course His omniscience is subordinate to omnipotence.

Let me just add to this.

In a sense, God does not forget. The way I see it, He adds to the action in such a manner that it changes it to something good, and in that sense, the evil is forgotten.

Example. Someone cruelly pokes into a maple tree with the intent to damage it, which they do. They are now subject to punishment. However, they soon repent, and wonder how things could possibly be righted. God now looks at things with a will to do good. And He makes it so that the previous bad act results in something good - in this case, maple syrup from the tree.

Another example is the famous “If someone gives you a lemon, make lemonade”. Yet another, “Instead of cursing the darkness, light a candle”.

And so it is with God. For all the evil we hand Him, He is busy making lemonade, lighting candles, and so on.

He even turned what happened to Christ into our very source of life. That’s right, we pierced Him, but in His powerful goodness, He lets that blood be our new life.

The fact is, God allowed evil because He can readily overcome it and in doing so bring reward to the good and reproach to the wicked. The good believed He was good, but the wicked did not believe He was good. He shows forth His Kingship, Justice, and Mercy! He is so awesome! Do what you will, God can handle it. But take note that there are consequences.

hurst

 

[Hitetlen]

You certainly missed a lot, but since I did not spell it out in detail, maybe it is my fault.

Thal59:

The poor analogy of the programmer and his program compared to God

It is not a poor analogy at all. Every reasonable creator has some purpose in mind, and directs his activities toward that goal. God’s goal was to seek glory, you and others repeatedly said so. My purpose would be different. The scale of a complicated computer program for me is a much bigger undertaking than the creation of the world was for God, due to my lack of omnipotence and omniscience.

There is a wonderful short story by Stanislaw Lem, its title is “Non Serviam”. Only about 17 pages, and it appeared in the book “A perfect vacuum”. Not an easy read, it has a serious content of computer science an philosophy. I suggest you get it from the library and read it.

Thal59:

You then insist that it is the creators duty to serve His creation Hitetlen, this is too ludicrous to be credited!

I cannot help you if you are unable to imagine it.

as you have succeeded in making the creator the servant, and the creature the master.

Not a “servant” and a “master”. These are ancient categories, and your usage of them shows that you just cannot get past those times.

Thal59:

But the part of your post that I have highlighted in grey is most revealing. ; totally blind to the corruption it might infect him with. And if his lust to be greater than you was such that he wanted all of your power, not merely and equal share in it, I suppose you would allow that also.

You understand nothing. If I had omnipotence and omniscience, I would never create anyone who would turn evil. Wanting and lust are human categories, you just project them (and all the other anthropomorphisms) to these higher beings. Vanity, lust, vengence, seeking love, glory, adoration, these are ALL human traits (some of them quite despicable), and you project them onto God, Lucifer etc. It just shows that your imagination is very poor (or you refuse to use it).

Thal59:

You are claiming to be all sharing, all loving, all selfless. Yet, you do not recognize these traits in either God the father, creator of all that you are or ever will be, nor in Jesus His son who died on the cross for you.

I don’t see any evidence for it at all. And I am NOT talking about tangible evidence, I am talking about your testimonial (and the other believers’ testimonials). You speak of selfless love on the part of God. Usually it is accompanied by quoting “John 3:16”: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”. But if you actually read the words, and not just mindlessly parrotting them, you would realize that it is NOT unconditional: “whoever believes in him” is a precondition. Selfless love does NOT impose preconditions, it just gives, unconditionally.

Thal59:

Hitetlen, I tell you that it is impossible for someone to have the traits that you have credited yourself with, especially to the degree that you claim, without being able to recognize the primordial source of these traits (God) from which these traits flow.

I just told them, and I am not a believer. You cannot imagine it, and say so in your closing paragraph:

Thal59:

You ask if I have the intellectual honesty to reconsider my position. If intellectual honesty is what you want, I will accomodate you. Understand first though, that I type these words with no feeling of malice. I say calmly back to you that after reading your words - intellectual honesty demands that I conclude that you are not only arrogant, but a liar and a hypocrite as well. This is not mere name calling, this is the unavoidable conclusion your claims direct me to.

That is fine, I take no offense. You are unable to imangine it, and I certainly cannot demonstrate it - not on these boards. I can even understand your reluctance: everything I said goes against you deeply held conviction that atheists are inherently evil. Do you also believe that the life of Gandhi was also a big, complicated lie?

But I will tell you something more: those instances I described are true, and I don’t think they are something special either. Not at all: since I love teaching, it is no special burden for me to share my knowledge with others. I enjoy the fact that they learn something new. Those traits which you are unable to imagine in an atheist, are present in every good teacher (millions of them), who loves his profession.

 

[Hitetlen]

Thal59:

Omniscience is subordinate to omnipotence. God says “I will remember your sins no more.” How is it possible for God to “forget” historical events, unless of course His omniscience is subordinate to omnipotence.

There is nothing to support this assertion. It is impossible for God to “forget”. What do think, can God selectively “forget” and then bring those lost memories back at will? What you say is a logical absurdity.

 

[Hitetlen]

Thal59:

First of all because he has kept a very even-keel on his position without resorting to personal attacks or insults; some of which have been hurled at him in frustration. (A very interesting enigma; the atheist has been more “Christian” in his behavior than the Christians.)

Thal59:

You ask if I have the intellectual honesty to reconsider my position. If intellectual honesty is what you want, I will accomodate you. Understand first though, that I type these words with no feeling of malice. I say calmly back to you that after reading your words - intellectual honesty demands that I conclude that you are not only arrogant, but a liar and a hypocrite as well. This is not mere name calling, this is the unavoidable conclusion your claims direct me to.

Funny, how your perception has dropped in just a few days: from being “more Christian than the real Christians” to a “hypocrite and a liar”.

Don’t worry, I am not complaining. I appreciate your candor. I understand that you meant no malice, but the words “hypocrite” and “liar” are the worst insults in my vocabulary.

What makes this even more interesting is the fact that your original assessment was the accurate one. Naturally I cannot demonstrate it, and since you think I am a liar, you will probably doubt what I am about to tell you. In the office I am surrounded my believers. There was only one other atheist I knew of, and he retired a while ago.

I do not declare my lack of belief, unless asked about it. And since I never lie (it is beneath my dignity) if someone explicitly asks me, I will tell them the truth. Every time I meet with sheer incredulity, they simply cannot fathom that someone who displays the best attributes of “good” Christians can be an “abominable heathen”. I could quote from the assessment my peers give about me (anonymously on a yearly basis), but what would be the purpose? It is unsubstantiated, anecdotal evidence, and from a “liar” it would carry no weight.

But I am asking you, what could I gain by lying on a discussion board? Do you think that I just created a brand new persona for this board specifically? Indeed, there is an old saying, the true personality is always displayed when someone is playing and the participation on the board is just a game for me. I have no reason to try and decieve you or anyone else.

You are free to do whatever you want with this post, You can believe it, or discard it, it is your prerogative.

 

[Thal59]

Hitetlen:

It is not a poor analogy at all. Every reasonable creator has some purpose in mind, and directs his activities toward that goal. God’s goal was to seek glory, you and others repeatedly said so.

Whoever told you that God’s **goal **is to seek glory? While all glory, praise, and honor are due to Him, His ultimate means, method, and goal is perfect life through perfect love. You cannot try to diminish God by singling out one specific attribute and then presenting it as a sole goal or motivation. The problem is that you have already decided that God is unjust, unmerciful, and a seeker of glory who is not capable of complete self-less love. Because of this faulty premise, you simply cannot perceive God in a positive way.

Hitetlen:

Not a “servant” and a “master”. These are ancient categories, and your usage of them shows that you just cannot get past those times.

Master/Servant - Teacher/Student - Parent/Child - Leader/Follower - General/Soldier - King/Subject - Employer/Employee, take your choice. The terminology may differ but the relationship is the same; namely, the relationship of one who has power or authority over another. They are ancient categories, and they are modern. There is nothing to get past.

Hitetlen:

If I had omnipotence and omniscience, I would never create anyone who would turn evil. Wanting and lust are human categories, you just project them (and all the other anthropomorphisms) to these higher beings. Vanity, lust, vengence, seeking love, glory, adoration, these are ALL human traits (some of them quite despicable), and you project them onto God, Lucifer etc.

Once again you have it backwards. Since you do not believe in God or Satan, everything starts with man. But if God is the source of all good, and Satan is the source of all evil, then it is they who project their traits onto us, not the other way around as you have stated. But if God and Satan do not exist, then any one of the traits that you described are no worse and no better than any other. Whether or not a specific trait is “quite despicable” as you put it, would entirely depend on one’s personal opinion.

I could decide that being a seeker of glory to the point that I would enslave others is a wonderful trait as it would serve my personal, temporal pleasures wonderfully. But because I understand the source of those traits, I can, through free will, determine which I approve of and which are to be avoided. Without this understanding of who is the source of such traits, without knowing their motives and their love or hate for me and humanity, I could just as easily decide that Hitetlen is a perpetual irritant in my life and I would do best to simply eliminate him. Could I not deem violence as a positive trait that relieves me of people I do not want to deal with - whereas love is a cowardly trait that prolongs unhappy relationships with people I do not like?

If everyone deemed such traits as purely human, if everyone refused to recognize their supernatural sources, what would be the rule upon which each trait is classified as right or wrong other than personal opinion? What would be the cataclysmic result on humanity?

Hitetlen:

You speak of selfless love on the part of God. Usually it is accompanied by quoting “John 3:16”: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”. But if you actually read the words, and not just mindlessly parrotting them, you would realize that it is NOT unconditional: “whoever believes in him” is a precondition. Selfless love does NOT impose preconditions, it just gives, unconditionally./QUOTE]

More nonsense. Lets paraphrase to make it clearer. Lets say you tell me that you have an unconditional love for me and that you want to do everything for me that will alleviate my suffering and gain me a happier life. I, in return say “I don’t believe you, get out of my life.” How can your unconditional love benefit me now? How can you give it? Of course, if I believe that you are sincere, if I believe in your love as well as your motives, I would open myself to you and I could then receive, and benefit by, your help.

You seem to believe that the only way God’s love can be unconditional is if He forces it on you, or gives everything to you that you want and need regardless of your relationship to Him.

Naturally being “open to receive” unconditional love is a precondition for receiving it. But it is a precondition for the “receiving” not the love itself.

Thal59

 

[Thal59]

Hitetlen:

That is fine, I take no offense. You are unable to imangine it, and I certainly cannot demonstrate it - not on these boards. I can even understand your reluctance: everything I said goes against you deeply held conviction that atheists are inherently evil. Do you also believe that the life of Gandhi was also a big, complicated lie?

Another unsubstantiated guess. I do not believe that they are all inherently evil, I simply believe they are more susceptible to it. If you do not believe in God, you will not be open to His guidance, love, and aid. If you do not believe in the devil, you will be woefully unprepared for his attacks. Could this not be why, as was indicated in a link I offered you several posts ago, that the rate of suicide is significantly higher among atheists?

Could it possibly be due to the fact that they let the devil tear them down, while at the same time they have shut themselves off from God’s protection and support?

Hitetlen:

But I will tell you something more: those instances I described are true, and I don’t think they are something special either. Not at all: since I love teaching, it is no special burden for me to share my knowledge with others. I enjoy the fact that they learn something new. Those traits which you are unable to imagine in an atheist, are present in every good teacher (millions of them), who loves his profession.

I did not say you did not have those traits, I questioned the degree to which you claimed them. Too often, Hitetlen, you have made God sound contemptable, while you have painted a picture of yourself that is far superior to God. You would do better than God, you would not have made His mistakes, His chraracter flaws are so obvious He cannot possibly exist as you guys have painted Him, etc.

I will be busy today. If I can, I will answer your other posts later.

Thal59

 

[Hitetlen]

Thal59:

Hitetlen:

You speak of selfless love on the part of God. Usually it is accompanied by quoting “John 3:16”: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him

shall not perish but have eternal life.". But if you actually read the words, and not just mindlessly parrotting them, you would realize that it is NOT unconditional: “whoever believes in him” is a precondition. Selfless love does NOT impose preconditions, it just gives, unconditionally.More nonsense. Lets paraphrase to make it clearer. Lets say you tell me that you have an unconditional love for me and that you want to do everything for me that will alleviate my suffering and gain me a happier life. I, in return say “I don’t believe you, get out of my life.” How can your unconditional love benefit me now? How can you give it? Of course, if I believe that you are sincere, if I believe in your love as well as your motives, I would open myself to you and I could then receive, and benefit by, your help.

There was no need to paraphrase, the original text is crystal clear. If I would wish to give you a free gift, and you refused it, it would be your decision. If I offered you a gift with some strings attached, you could evaluate if the “price” is worth the gift.

Thal59:

You seem to believe that the only way God’s love can be unconditional is if He forces it on you, or gives everything to you that you want and need regardless of your relationship to Him.

What a joke. Who said anything about “force”?

Thal59:

Naturally being “open to receive” unconditional love is a precondition for receiving it. But it is a precondition for the “receiving” not the love itself.

The gift of “eternal life” is not a free gift. Period. And “selfless” love does not impose preconditions. It just offers the gift, and does not even expect gratitude from the reciever.

If you want to read a little satire about “free gifts”, check out the following link:

geocities.com/Athens/Styx/2347/kiss.html

 

[johnben]

Pray for belief in God, every day, and beg Him. Don’t let Him go. Even if you don’t believe, it should make sense that if there’s any possibility you should pray in hopes of answer.

Remember St. Augustine said that there are many inside the Church that do not belong to God and there are many outside the Church that do. Even if you never come to believe in God, you have hopes of obtaining eternal life.

The Church teaches that faith is a gift. You can do nothing to believe in God if He chooses not to reveal Himself. On the other hand, this does not mean that He sends to hell those whom he neglects to give faith. If you prepare yourself and He just never knocks, you are saved. Just how the Indians were secluded from Christianity before Columbus, it could be you are destined for heaven despite intimacy with God. I do not believe this to be the case for you but is a possibility.

I will pray for you. I understand your struggles and I have asked God the same questions myself. There’s still a lot I don’t know but I have found many of my stumbling blocks to be merely nothing. Before you posted this thread I had asked already this question myself and about a hundred others of the same difficulty. I don’t have the answers yet but I want to make it my life’s work since there is such a void of answers. Half the problem is that nobody poses these questions. When they are posed, then we can make progress.

I cannot say I’ve conquered all my doubts but I believe in God because His grace has been sufficient. My family and I have experienced miracles and charismatic gifts and I don’t believe that anything other than God can explain these things.

It could be that God is using you even now. If He brings you to Him and after grasping the answers to these questions, you will come out stronger than the world and will strengthen those who need you.

Think of how the Church was absent of St. Thomas Aquinas’s “Five Ways” for a whole millenia, it could be the Church is absent now of important defenses in your areas of difficulty with the faith. I don’t think there’s a complete void but the answers are certainly difficult to come by. It could be that God is giving you this desire and these questions in order to mold you into something fitting of His purpose.

 

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

Every reasonable creator has some purpose in mind, and directs his activities toward that goal. God’s goal was to seek glory, you and others repeatedly said so.

I also made a distinction between selfish and selfless glory.

God is not seeking it in such a manner that He needs in order to be enriched. It is rather the opposite - He is seeking to give, and to see proof of what He has given to be made manifest.

What do you do with a broken light bulb? Throw it in the trash, right?

It is as if electricity were seeking to be glorified in some Christmas lights. The light bulbs are energized by the electricity. The electricity does not receive any power from the light bulbs. If any light bulb refuses “to give glory” to the electricity, how is it any different from a broken bulb that deserves to be thrown in the trash? And the trash is the “refuse” of glory…

In the same way, God seeks to fill us with His glory in heaven, but first is putting us through the mill of grace on earth. Those who refuse to participate in the rough grinding will not be able to render any honor to God, and by their own fault end up in the junkpile of those who refuse to participate in manifesting the glory of God and who seek the selfish glory of refusal.

Those who refuse God will themselves be refused from His Kingdom.

hurst

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

** if God commanded you to go and slaughter children, would you do it?**

Are you referring to Abraham’s sacrifice of his son Isaac (Genesis, chapter 22)?

Your misconceptions regarding religion in general and your wrong understanding of Catholicism in particular are so deep and abstruse that it is really difficult to move forward.
Furthermore, you don’t want to learn or understand anything. As I see so far you only want to scorn and ridicule all truth and holiness. Perhaps you find funny or intelligent the link
geocities.com/Athens/Styx/2347/kiss.html
but it is really stupid, sad and pathetic. “in the damnation of those who are lost, evil merits precede the just judgment of God”.
Tell me how to explain colors to a blind, or music to a deaf. Maybe you do not recognize in yourself the “hate of God”, but that is the real motive of atheism. Otherwise explain me why the first task of any atheistic totalitarian regime is to reduce to ash (literally and figuratively) the Church. Morality without natural law is pure contingency and any design of provisional morality finally ended in totalitarianism. As atheism in theory teaches and atheism in practice enforces.
But, what about Gandhi? Wasn’t he a good guy? I mentioned earlier Buddha as an example of “decent” atheism (“who at least realized the pain of existence, the tremendous misery of human condition, and futility of present life”), but this is certainly not your case. You pretend to command God, and if God obeys you, you’ll be ready to believe in Him! And you call yourself a “logical” guy? Again Psalm 14, 1: “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God”.
You don’t want at all what you call “Christian” morality. At least know that the lives of saints represent the sum of all ever imaginable human goodness. But, are the infinite saints of the Church example because they behaved “correctly”? Not at all. They are example because they loved Truth above anything else.

 

[Hitetlen]

hurst:

I also made a distinction between selfish and selfless glory.

Yes, you did, but I don’t buy it. As I pointed out, John 3:16 makes it abundantly clear that God’s “gift” is not free, it is not selfless. Maybe you and others consider it a “good deal”, eternal living for a little humiliation, self-flagellation (figuratively speaking - maybe), declaring yourselves unworthy, degrading yourselves every day etc. That is your prerogative, for sure. But that does not change the fact that it is NOT a free gift.

hurst:

God is not seeking it in such a manner that He needs in order to be enriched. It is rather the opposite - He is seeking to give, and to see proof of what He has given to be made manifest.

If God is self-sufficient, he needs no “glory” from others, and could give those gifts without expecting “glorification”.

hurst:

If any light bulb refuses “to give glory” to the electricity, how is it any different from a broken bulb that deserves to be thrown in the trash? And the trash is the “refuse” of glory…

Looking better and better. First I was called a hypocrite and a liar by Thal59, now I am simply trash. Looks like I am making good progress. But don’t worry. I will not reciprocate.

 

[Hitetlen]

doomhammer:

Are you referring to Abraham’s sacrifice of his son Isaac (Genesis, chapter 22)?

Not at all, even though that is one of the cruelest “stories” in the “good” book. No, I am talking about those passages, where God orders the total annihilation of whole tribes and towns, because he got angry at them. He even orders all the animals to be slaughtered, and orders that the virgins be kept as sex-slaves.

Are you ready to follow those “glorious” commands, so filled with love and caring? All in the name of “absolute morality” and “natural law”, of course. Come clean, buddy! Would you follow God’s orders in such a case?

doomhammer:

Perhaps you find funny or intelligent the link
but it is really stupid, sad and pathetic.

Perhaps your sense of humor is taking a vacation? Of course it is side-splittingly funny. It is a distorting mirror, but the picture it gives is accurate enough, so that even you will discover the similarities, though I am not surprised that you cannot see the joke.

 

[Hitetlen]

Thal59:

Master/Servant - Teacher/Student - Parent/Child - Leader/Follower - General/Soldier - King/Subject - Employer/Employee, take your choice. The terminology may differ but the relationship is the same; namely, the relationship of one who has power or authority over another. They are ancient categories, and they are modern. There is nothing to get past.

How telling that you forgot the friend-friend relationship. I never respected those people, who need to assert their power all the time. They are the ones who cannot get friends as equals, they need to dominate others.

 

[hurst]

Thal59:

Originally Posted by Hitetlen
It is not a poor analogy at all. Every reasonable creator has some purpose in mind, and directs his activities toward that goal. God’s goal was to seek glory, you and others repeatedly said so.

Whoever told you that God’s **goal **is to seek glory?

In post #324 I said

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.

And
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.

Hitetlen replies in post #329

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?

I clarified it further in #333 in a reply to cynic, making the distinction between selfless and selfish glory.

Then in #338 I reply to Hitetlen’s question “Prove to whom?”

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.

And further, his assertion “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.

And further in #338, I said

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.

After all this, Hitetlen should know what we mean when we say God wishes to be glorified in His creation. The whole reason God created anything was to show forth His power and glory.

Hitetlen should know that we do not think God is selfishly seeking something He does not have. It is only in a virtual sense that He does not have glory from those who refuse to honor Him - for they are simply not giving back what they have received. But God is not mocked. He will simply show the glory of His justice in that case, as He gives to them according to as they have done.

Let me conclude with this comment. As a programmer, Hitetlen, don’t you seek to manifest your knowledge and skill? It “glorifies” your own capabilities when a program works like it should. It proves you know what you are doing. It also glorifies anyone else who gave something to help it. In fact, some companies have award ceremonies to honor the participants in a successful project. Some people don’t care about those ceremonies, but what everyone cares about is whether the program works. In the same way, God doesn’t care so much about us praising Him with our lips as He does about us letting His grace work in us…

hurst