Why is God so mean?

[jkiernan56]

Okay, let’s say you’re right. I’m standing before God facing my judgment after I’ve died. I’m begging him to not let me be damned and proclaiming that I love him, all the while soiling myself. Will any of this matter? He would know that I’m lying, as I cannot force myself to love, especially if the goal is to love a being that would otherwise damn me.

Seriously, Pascal’s Wager has been reasoned to be impractical. You can’t will yourself to love or believe. And perhaps you’ll be whistling a different tune if you feel that Allah is the true god while on your death bed.

I wouldn’t wait until judgment day. I’m sure you wouldn’t show up to run a marathon without having practiced long before. Showing up at judgement day without having any prior contrition would be analogous to showing up to run a marathon with no prior practice. You can’t just “turn it on” then.

 

[jkiernan56]

I’m not denying that guilt often leads to good results, I’m just saying that it does not “give” as Detales’ quote suggested (I’m still not sure what (s)he means.).

I do want to say that all you’re doing is labeling the results of guilt, not the nature of guilt. You’re saying that if guilt produces good results, it is healthy, and the opposite of course for unhealthy guilt. That doesn’t, however, mean that there exists two kinds of guilt, but merely that there exists two or more reactions to guilt.

A person SHOULD feel guilty if the wrong they have done is based in reality.
A person who feels guilty when they SHOULDNT (have not done wrong when think they have, or overexaggerate the wrong they have done) has guilt not based in reality.

It is reality that should define whether the level of guilt is appropriate or not.

 

[jkiernan56]

I’d love to hear of these experiences, perhaps upon hearing them I’ll see the light. I’d be facinated to hear how these experiences are different from those of the muslims and Hindus that reinforce their personal beliefs.

p.s I was serious about the book thing. You read my book and I’ll read yours. Deal?

I will send you the link to where I have written about my experience. It was in another thread and I don’t want to type it out again here.

I am reading about 4 books at the moment - but will make a deal to read the 1st chapter of your book ONLY if you read the 1st chapter of the book “Theology for Beginners” by Frank Sheed. If you and I are able to have a respectful dialogue on the 1st chapter of each other’s respective books, then we can go from there. Deal?

 

[4Horsemen]

Evidently I didn’t even need to “tell my story” for someone to come along and pigeonhole me, slapping a bunch of labels without even taking the time to understand completely. Nice.

Gosh, 4, ever hear of sarcasm? It’s usually denoted by one of these – – which, if I’m not mistaken, I included in my statement on beliefs. Didn’t take much for you to run with that one, though, did it? And most of your response (although I admit that I gave it only a cursory glance, as I just returned home from work and am pressed for time) misses the point entirely.

*“Do I contradict myself?
Very well, then, I contradict myself…
I am large. I contain multitudes.” * Walt Whitman

You spoke from a staunch conviction in your beliefs.

That’s fine and laudable… I wholeheartedly give a big bow of affection in your direction for having and holding the beliefs that you hold. But it doesn’t really further the conversation, does it?, to slap labels of -ism on the few words I’ve written. It only shows a certain amount of narrow-mindedness on your part.

Otherwise stated, I respect and honor your beliefs, and indeed include them in my own worldview. Please afford me the same courtesy, would you? You know nothing of me.

Moving along, do you have anything constructive to contribute? Or would you rather just tag anyone you don’t seem to agree with?
.

One,

FYI, I was slapping -isms around, not because I was directly referring to your previous posts, but I was writing in the general sense concerning the modern philosophies. Actually, I s’pose I should be pointing the finger at Decartes. So I’m not sure how I appear “narrow-minded.”

Your smilie (wink) came after you digressed about whether truth is on a continuum. Maybe I missed the implication of your smilie. A more than adequate response was posted by jkiernan on the absoluteness of truth. A statement is either true or false, not a little bit of each. It can be said that we’re getting closer to the truth, so in that sense we are still seeking the objective truth of a situation. It is relativists who would say, “Truth is in the eye of the beholder.”

Question: How are my beliefs included in your world view? With just a few posts from you, I certainly didn’t mean to nail you (so quickly). I really just don’t quite see where you are coming from? If you believe as Detales, then I have an idea.

I certainly mean to be courteous. I hope to learn more about your thinking and where you are on the pathway to God as you continue to engage us here at CAF. (no sarcasm intended)

Many blessings,
4

 

[Detales]

Severn and '56, I wish you guys luck. Those two books and your trade-off read will only fuel your own fires of resistance to the other’s thinking. On the thought grounds you are on, I’m quite sure you will never be grounded in agreement. Your argumentative sweat is just resulting in the mud you are throwing at each other, and “mud thrown is ground lost.” It will be thus until you wake up and see you were never different from each other at ALL. And Severn, do take ‘56’ experience seriously. And '56, don’t take it so seriously; it is, after all, a great treasure for you, so don’t waste it as fuel for an argument.

Oreo, you don’t get what “he” means because you are an “agnostic theist,” not someone who has, I would guess, been in the (s)mothering embrace of the Church for some decades. It’s a Catholic joke, and at least Erma’s privileged readers got it. Mostly.

 

[4Horsemen]

4, I’m quite aware of the nature of each of your positions.One’s includes yours, yours misunderstands his, as evidenced byt the string of “ism’s” of which none apply.

~~“theists and non-theists interact and sometimes even discuss and share their ideas, hopes and dreams. Dialogue leads to a greater understanding of our “neighbor.”” ~~4. This is indeed the hoped for end, Understanding, but the theist/non-theist paramater doesnt’t describe the dynamic in this case, as far as I see.

As for Aquinas, I am greatly curious as to why at the end of his career his final revelation yielded the statement that all his works were “as straw.” My suspicion is that he exhausted the part of his mind that prevented, by faith, the direct perception of TRUTH as you claim God IS. Had he continued to write, and were he still around, he and One, I also suspect, would have an excellent agreement and a good laugh.

Detales,

Maybe you can explain how One’s position includes the Church’s position (mine)???

As for Thomas Aquinas, he realized at the end of his life how small we creatures are compared to the Almighty, how unknowing we are compared to the Omniscient, how transitory we are compared to the Eternal. He evidently had an experience granted to him by God of the vastness of His Being. So, naturally, Thomas understood that all we humans can do is produce “straw” in light of God’s glory.

Blessings,
4

 

[severntofall]

I will send you the link to where I have written about my experience. It was in another thread and I don’t want to type it out again here.

I am reading about 4 books at the moment - but will make a deal to read the 1st chapter of your book ONLY if you read the 1st chapter of the book “Theology for Beginners” by Frank Sheed. If you and I are able to have a respectful dialogue on the 1st chapter of each other’s respective books, then we can go from there. Deal?

Deal. Though I doubt I’ll read anything that I didn’t learn in seminary.

 

[Oreoracle]

Oreo, you don’t get what “he” means because you are an “agnostic theist,” not someone who has, I would guess, been in the (s)mothering embrace of the Church for some decades. It’s a Catholic joke, and at least Erma’s privileged readers got it. Mostly.

Okay. Gotcha. I didn’t know Catholics had jokes (pertaining to faith, anyway).

 

[severntofall]

Detales,

Maybe you can explain how One’s position includes the Church’s position (mine)???

As for Thomas Aquinas, he realized at the end of his life how small we creatures are compared to the Almighty, how unknowing we are compared to the Omniscient, how transitory we are compared to the Eternal. He evidently had an experience granted to him by God of the vastness of His Being. So, naturally, Thomas understood that all we humans can do is produce “straw” in light of God’s glory.

Blessings,
4

He also hovered in the air on a regular basis.

 

[jkiernan56]

I’d love to hear of these experiences, perhaps upon hearing them I’ll see the light. I’d be facinated to hear how these experiences are different from those of the muslims and Hindus that reinforce their personal beliefs.

p.s I was serious about the book thing. You read my book and I’ll read yours. Deal?

Here is the link I referred to earlier about my experience -

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthrea…00#post5029400

It is in my bones the understanding that only God HAS TO EXIST and God did not need to create anything. God could have continued in BEING for all eternity without ever creating anything.

Seminarian huh? Very interesting. I almost entered but chose the path of marriage. How many years were you in?

 

[jkiernan56]

As for Thomas Aquinas, he realized at the end of his life how small we creatures are compared to the Almighty, how unknowing we are compared to the Omniscient, how transitory we are compared to the Eternal. He evidently had an experience granted to him by God of the vastness of His Being. So, naturally, Thomas understood that all we humans can do is produce “straw” in light of God’s glory.

Yes, and even the “straw” that we produce is Grace - a gift that was given to us and completely undeserved.

 

[Detales]

Very, very cool, 4! Now understand who “His” properly refers to in your sentence about Augustin’s realization, and you will understand why One’s standpoint includes yours, but not the other way around, as you stand now. The answer is closer than you know. Take the straw and spin, Christina,* spin! Where/What is the Center? You don’t need a Rumplestiltskin to tell you His name, though you will not be able to say it. Now you think you know it, but then you will understand, and graciously and involuntarily already include christainists, atheists, et al. Far fetched? Not at ALL.

*Isn’t that name a blessed coincidence?!?!?!

 

[One]

Detales,

Maybe you can explain how One’s position includes the Church’s position (mine)???

Why not go to the source? All else is hearsay.

The simplest answer is because my credo is “transcend and include.” That can be applied to almost any discipline or thought process but, being that we’re in CAF, we’re talking about religion and spirituality in this instance.

Notice that I didn’t say “transcend and exclude”, or “transcend and throw away”, or “transcend and tell others that they’re misguided and will burn in hell for eternity if they don’t hold to my particular belief system.”

I think the main difference in our positions is that I respect your belief system and honor whatever path you’re on, having been there myself. Your belief system is included in whatever belief system I might hold at the time; I don’t exclude it. I’ve learned other things in other disciplines that have been rolled up in a similar way.

Can you honestly say the same? From what I’ve seen, you believe in one thing, and in one way only, with one and only one absolute authority, and all others are wrong, misguided, evil… or whatever you may choose to judge about them at the time. It is fine and well for you to hold your beliefs and to think as you choose to think, but I wouldn’t suggest that your position is inclusive of other peoples’ belief systems; it’s rather exclusive. If you disagree, then I’d love to hear how you think my statement is contrary to how you conduct your life.

I may well be wrong. I don’t know you very well… just the structure, with which I’m rather intimately familiar.

I hope that this answers your question.

 

[One]

I will send you the link to where I have written about my experience. It was in another thread and I don’t want to type it out again here.

Good morning, jk.

I was wondering something about your experience…

We, as humans, are creatures crafted by many forces. Sure, it all came from God/Spirit/IS/Void of course, but from the moment we’re born (and certainly even before), we are shaped by all manner of influences and pressures, from mothers boozing while we’re in the womb, to the precise circumstances of our birth, family influences and interactions, schooling, church, social influences, environmental pressures… well, the list is quite long, right?. Each influence or experience leaves some sort of a trace in us, and each of us could be said to be the sum total of our experiences (with no two totals identical, which leads to the myriad type of people we encounter.)

Do you think it’s possible for someone to have a peak experience – an epiphany if you’d prefer – and then to translate that experience through the lens of their personal perspective?

I feel that not only is is possible, it is what occurs. I wonder if you’d agree?

I gather that you had a significant and profound peak experience, and that is not to be taken lightly. These experiences, if we’re graced to have them, guide and shape the rest of our lives. Once seen, they are never forgotten. I understand this quite well.

What might happen if someone had one of these peak experiences, but they were raised in India? If they were raised Hindu, they might (and probably will) translate this experience as a comm/union with Lord Krishna. A Buddhist might see and conjoin with a mental image of Shakyamuni himself. A Zen practitioner will likely experience a vast, empty, yet full, Awareness. A Sufi might suggest that he experienced oneness with the Prophet Mohammed. Perhaps a ‘primitive’ living in the jungle had a peak experience and relates his experience by telling his friends about the Great Monkey God. All of them, I’m absolutely sure, were graced by a sudden revelation that is deep, profound, meaningful,and vitally, vitally important.

We cannot avoid our conditioning, and we cannot help but translate our experiences using whatever framework with which we see the world and our reality. (That is, if we say anything about it at all! )

At the heart of it all, I sense that these ‘personal experiences’ all point to or reveal the same thing (/no-thing); what differs is the clothing that we put on the experience, what it means to us individually, and how we tell the story of that experience. I am quite delighted that you’ve incorporated your experience so strongly into your life, letting it guide you as it will. You’re very strong in your convictions, which I find refreshing in light of the number of other people who, having not had a similar experience, follow with blind faith what someone else has said. I think it would be a good thing to understand what we do with these experiences once we have them.

And here’s to the next one… and the next one…

 

[jkiernan56]

Why not go to the source? All else is hearsay.

The simplest answer is because my credo is “transcend and include.” That can be applied to almost any discipline or thought process but, being that we’re in CAF, we’re talking about religion and spirituality in this instance.

Notice that I didn’t say “transcend and exclude”, or “transcend and throw away”, or “transcend and tell others that they’re misguided and will burn in hell for eternity if they don’t hold to my particular belief system.”

I think the main difference in our positions is that I respect your belief system and honor whatever path you’re on, having been there myself. Your belief system is included in whatever belief system I might hold at the time; I don’t exclude it. I’ve learned other things in other disciplines that have been rolled up in a similar way.

Can you honestly say the same? From what I’ve seen, you believe in one thing, and in one way only, with one and only one absolute authority, and all others are wrong, misguided, evil… or whatever you may choose to judge about them at the time. It is fine and well for you to hold your beliefs and to think as you choose to think, but I wouldn’t suggest that your position is inclusive of other peoples’ belief systems; it’s rather exclusive. If you disagree, then I’d love to hear how you think my statement is contrary to how you conduct your life.

I may well be wrong. I don’t know you very well… just the structure, with which I’m rather intimately familiar.

I hope that this answers your question.

Piaget in the realm of child psychology and development used the words “accommodate and assimulate” … similar to your expression “transcend and include”.

 

[One]

Piaget in the realm of child psychology and development used the words “accommodate and assimulate” … similar to your expression “transcend and include”.

How appropriate!

Actually, the term and its various forms can be used to describe any educational process, no? Algebra II transcends and includes Algebra I.

Holons and turtles…

 

[jkiernan56]

Good morning, jk.

I was wondering something about your experience…

We, as humans, are creatures crafted by many forces. Sure, it all came from God/Spirit/IS/Void of course, but from the moment we’re born (and certainly even before), we are shaped by all manner of influences and pressures, from mothers boozing while we’re in the womb, to the precise circumstances of our birth, family influences and interactions, schooling, church, social influences, environmental pressures… well, the list is quite long, right?. Each influence or experience leaves some sort of a trace in us, and each of us could be said to be the sum total of our experiences (with no two totals identical, which leads to the myriad type of people we encounter.)

Do you think it’s possible for someone to have a peak experience – an epiphany if you’d prefer – and then to translate that experience through the lens of their personal perspective?

I feel that not only is is possible, it is what occurs. I wonder if you’d agree?

I gather that you had a significant and profound peak experience, and that is not to be taken lightly. These experiences, if we’re graced to have them, guide and shape the rest of our lives. Once seen, they are never forgotten. I understand this quite well.

What might happen if someone had one of these peak experiences, but they were raised in India? If they were raised Hindu, they might (and probably will) translate this experience as a comm/union with Lord Krishna. A Buddhist might see and conjoin with a mental image of Shakyamuni himself. A Zen practitioner will likely experience a vast, empty, yet full, Awareness. A Sufi might suggest that he experienced oneness with the Prophet Mohammed. Perhaps a ‘primitive’ living in the jungle had a peak experience and relates his experience by telling his friends about the Great Monkey God. All of them, I’m absolutely sure, were graced by a sudden revelation that is deep, profound, meaningful,and vitally, vitally important.

We cannot avoid our conditioning, and we cannot help but translate our experiences using whatever framework with which we see the world and our reality. (That is, if we say anything about it at all! )

At the heart of it all, I sense that these ‘personal experiences’ all point to or reveal the same thing (/no-thing); what differs is the clothing that we put on the experience, what it means to us individually, and how we tell the story of that experience. I am quite delighted that you’ve incorporated your experience so strongly into your life, letting it guide you as it will. You’re very strong in your convictions, which I find refreshing in light of the number of other people who, having not had a similar experience, follow with blind faith what someone else has said. I think it would be a good thing to understand what we do with these experiences once we have them.

And here’s to the next one… and the next one…

You are right that experience(s) are very subjective and personal. But subject experience does not change objective reality. My subjective experience was a result of an objective reality that will never change. Only God has to exist and need not have created the universe. I know that truth is real - not because of my subjective experience.

Faith must be based on what is true and not conversely think something is true because we believe it. Belief does not change objective reality. Belief requires an understanding of objective reality and doesn’t define it. Faith is not a blind leap into the darkness. It must be based on objective truth that a person has subjectively internalized.

Experience(s) are worthless in my opinion if they do NOT lead a person to genuine love and respect of their neighbor and oneself, a sense of gratefulness and humility. There is only ONE God regardless of a person’s religious affiliation or persuasion. Christ said you will know them “by their fruits”. If a person does not have the fruit of love and humility, I could care less about the God they believe in. I know there are people who are not Christian that are much closer to God than those who are Christian and go to Church each Sunday. Being a Christian and going to Church does not automatically make a person closer to God than those who are not Christian.

St. Augustine around 330 AD said that “there are many in the Church that God DOES NOT have and there are many NOT in the Church that God DOES HAVE”. Being a Christian does not made a person superior or holier than those without faith. I’d rather have a beer with an honest athiest than with a self-righteous Christian any day of the week.

Back to the point of this thread - God is not mean because He allows Evil to exist. God allowing evil to exist as a consequence of free-will is also a sign of God’s love. God could have chosen to NOT create the universe and allow evil to exist. Or God could have created the world without giving free-will and thus evil would never have existed. God chose to create us with the ability to know and choose … and to genuinely love God freely. Evil is the result of God respecting our free-will. He could stop thinking of His creation and it would cease to exist. The universe including you and I need not exist.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I know it’s not a new argument. I just don’t think it’s ever been satisfactorily resolved. Even when I read top modern theologians, their answers seem incomplete.

Here, at last, we agree.

Where we don’t agree is that in not being able to find all the answers as to why God created the world as it is, we dismiss God. The Catholic faith is full of mysteries, and if you don’t like not being able to reduce every mystery to a logical solution, you should probably not only stay away from the Catholic Church, but you should stay away from science too. Yet you have faith in science, don’t you? You have faith that Reason is the be-all and end-all of our existence. Catholics are also believers in rationality, and from Roger Bacon to Louis Pasteur, Gregor Mendel and George LeMaitre, to name just a few, Catholics have championed the use of reason to solve scientific problems. But science is not the only avenue to knowledge.

This is where so many moderns are locked in and cannot seem to break out. There is something beyond science. That something is approachable in every way: through music, painting, sculpture, architecture, poetry, and most of all … through holiness. Scientism, however, is locked up inside its own little box and cannot see what is outside the box. Even Darwin, in his last years, said he wished he had read more poetry and listened to more music. This is an admission that science at last had left him dry and thirsting for more.

 

[Oreoracle]

Yes Charlemagne, but Catholics believe this mysterious “other” must be the Catholic god. I have faith that there’s something more. However, I am not arrogant enough to say that I know what this “something more” is. In fact (and I think One would agree), this “something more” can more accurately be described from our relative perspective as “something less”.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Oreoracle

*Seriously, Pascal’s Wager has been reasoned to be impractical. You can’t will yourself to love or believe. *

Who said so? You? Why would anyone take your word for it, when they have their own experience to go by?