Why is God so mean?

[Detales]

4, the trogs are “doomed” only until they go out of the cave. But were they ever out of what holds the “cave” and holds “outside?” When they left the cave, did they enter what already held both? What changed? There is yet at least one more step to the cave analogy, my friend.

Bindar

 

[alacoque]

Let’s say you have a son that doesn’t believe in God. He’s an atheist that becomes a doctor and saves lives, donates a good percentage of his paycheck to charities, etc. In other words, he’s a great guy by any reasonable person’s standards. Now, you’re dead and you know that it’s your son’s time to be judged. If you could tell me that you would stand by God on your little cloud as your son is cast down to Hell and say “Good job God! You did the right thing as always!” then I will be convinced. Until then, put up or shut up.

Hi O: I’m not picking on you - honest!..it’s just that your response/post here is such a perfect and typical example of what is seen so often in many, many of these discussions - it hardly seems to matter the topic. The example I refer to is the argument from emotion and sentiment! It’s striking (and somewhat surprising, actually) how many people posting here and in other fora use emotion, almost exclusively, to make their point(s).

This form of argument is notoriously ineffective and doesn’t ever address, rationally and without emotional involvement, the issue at hand. In your response here, you took the argument to the level of the “yeah, but what if it were you!” scenario. This is a cathartic response (for the one responding) - it feels good and it temporarily shuts the other person up because, approached that way, any rational discussion is over, because the whole thing is boiled down, at that point, to how much it would hurt person A if person A held firm in their belief and then was affected by that belief.

This technique is used over and over again, and I can never decide if it’s intentional (i.e. to shut the opposition down with a false premise) or if people really don’t know what they’re doing when they do this. It’s like the whole embryonic stem cell research bit…people are discussing their respective views and things are going along well and then one person (usually the side that favors the research) will start painting pictures of the other side having a relative diagnosed with and dying of some horrible, painful, inescapable disease, the only possible treatment for which is to eliminate already existing human life.

The implications are really devious. One is that the other arguer does not actually, and in a serious fashion, hold the position they claim to hold, but only because they are so far removed from any consequences that they don’t really give a hang about anyone else.

Another implication is that the opponent has not thought the argument through far enough to realize that if things moved from a theoretical stance to a personal one, they would have to ‘put up or shut up’, as you so politely said.

The bottom line is that it’s always the person arguing from the position of utilitarian good - the position of ‘using’ our fellow man for our own gain, comfort, health, life or the like, that ends up pulling the old emotional button out of the bag, as if that automatically and finally invalidates the other person’s position. All it does is betray the inability of the emotion-tweaking individual to make any cogent, logical, rational objective arguments. And, the reasons for this, I believe, is because these people are utilitarian at heart…they believe none of us has any intrinsic value. We are worth only what we can contribute (hopefully, to YOU); and when we can no longer contribute, we’re outta here.

I hope one day you will learn to argue in a more rational and logical fashion. Your arguments will be better for it and the rest of us will enjoy them much more.

 

[Oreoracle]

“…all of our consciousnesses stem from the same no-thing.” I would say “awarenesses stem,” but Wow! Oreo! Blessings on you. I do admire your self-labeling as an “agnostic theist.” It is in fact a very functional and fruitful stance. You are joyfully, I would say, free from the chemicalized attachments most religonists have to their mentations.

If I may be so bold, that last post from which that statement is lifted makes me wish I could hand you a book through the screen. I’m convinced that you you could make profit of it as few could. Maybe one in 100K or more? Few, anyway. It is The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object by Franklin Merrell-Wolff. It is a job to read, but I don’t think that if you start you will easily put it down. And you might even absorb it more easily than I did.

My guess is that you are just clever enough to “get” F. M-W. It would be a hoot to be able to talk with someone who understands his insight, even if they don’t agree.

Q’plah, Oreo!

Thank you, Detales. I’ll remember to get that book when I finish the others I’m supposed to be reading (I have yet to make any real progress in my summer reading for school. ). I’m also reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance which serves the purpose of helping one to weave Western and Eastern thought into everyday life.

Hi O: I’m not picking on you - honest!..it’s just that your response/post here is such a perfect and typical example of what is seen so often in many, many of these discussions - it hardly seems to matter the topic. The example I refer to is the argument from emotion and sentiment! It’s striking (and somewhat surprising, actually) how many people posting here and in other fora use emotion, almost exclusively, to make their point(s).

It’s not an argument. In fact, I find it quite difficult to use arguments against people who claim that inflicting needless suffering is permissible as long as it is “deserved.” It was meant to persuade, but it was not an argument, thus it could not be fallacious, irrational, or the like. By claiming that it was an argument, you are, in fact, attempting to psychoanalyze me, which is “such a perfect and typical example” of most Christian responses.

 

[One]

I’m catching up on what must be four pages of replies since I last checked in. There are a lot of great thoughts in here, from all. What strikes me as I take it all in… is that we’re all talking about or around the same thing (/no-thing.) The only difference is how we say it. As I regard the sum of these posts, there is a great deal of commonality in our positions!

One line that caught me was by 4, who said, “ We can find the trinitarian God, the Three in One, in GOODNESS, TRUTH and BEAUTY”

That is an excellent idea to consider!

Goodness, Truth, Beauty

Art, Morals, Science

Father, Son, Holy Spirit

I, We, It

These are the three perspectives – 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person – that one can take. There are others, but these are the big three. What they all point to is that there is only IS (again, call IS what you choose…), and all else is a perspective that we can take regarding IS. We are not one or the other; all three arise simultaneously, with no exception and no exclusion. And we are a part of that arising. (Didn’t JK say that God could will us away?)

~

As for the comment of science “being in a box”, that is quite true, but also, in another box are fundamental religious concepts, and the two boxes don’t tend to agree with one another, putting it mildly. We all know that there is a huge schism between religion and science (although some people seem to like to conflate the two through wild and inaccurate methods.)

The ‘problem’ with science (speaking generally) is that it takes the perspective of 3rd person, where all manifestation is seen as “IT’S”, physical phenomena that must be measured and quantified. There is no place in this view for interiority, or the “I” perspective, which is dismissed as being too subjective to have any real value. In this way, science guts any sort of interior transcendental experience, relegating these incredible insights to the result of misfiring neurons or imbalance of brain chemicals. (Again, speaking generally…)

There is a ‘problem’ with religion, as well, although I doubt that this is the best venue to delve deeply into that idea. Really, I don’t want to be misunderstood. Let’s just say that the interior experiences that some have had are not to be dismissed. And we can join together to compare our direct experiences – taking the “we” perspective, which is truly a miracle – in order to support and celebrate those experiences. But these experiences are often cloaked in traditional, mythic terms, which clearly grates those who are ensconced in a modern world.

There are many points of friction, but nowhere do we see the heat building more than if we look at the trouble in the Middle East. The pressure cooker is created when a post-modern world says, “There is no room in our scientific, material-based worldview for your myth-based religion”, and the religious say, “Well, if there’s no room in your world for my religious belief, then I will destroy your world.”

I’m sure I digress a bit. The point is that the problems can be reconciled by taking a multiperspectival point of view, where we consider all of the natural perspectives as arising simultaneously, with no distinction other than what we focus on at a given moment. Though we humans can only abide in one perspective at a time, we can hold each of them lovingly and carefully, and realize that all we see is just a part of a seamless whole - “God”, by any other name.

~~

Detales wrote in #293, “Since these assertions of a fundamental substrate of Reality include another dimension of awareness that is usually non-linear and exclusive of the usual subject/object mode of perception that most people claim is the only way we can be, …that this other mode might have something to do with that.”

I like the way you put that. It points to a deep truth, if not The Truth. (“Points”, I said.)

~~

Detales wrote in #295, ”… That “pride” is something that you did with your mind regarding inaccurate and personalized conclusions made from the experience. This is why there is a disparity in having a realization and in maintaining it. … These experiences refer to, and are part of, growth in awarenss to the trans-personal. That is why pride entered in. you made it a matter of personal acheivement instead of taking it for an insight into Being as such. Speaking from experience, it seems so to me.”

I’d agree with this as well. Just as quickly: There ain’t no shame in that. It’s very common and understandable. The experiences that so many here refer to are glimpses into the transpersonal, the very nature of God. But the experiences are just as quickly hijacked by the ego – our sense of a personal “I” – and it’s a dangerous trap that requires careful steps in order to avoid. This is exactly why there are so many false gurus and fallen clerics, megalomaniacs and New Age authors.

One who has truly seen and has transcended the ego (I did not say “kill the ego”), shines like a crystal chandelier, endlessly reflecting the inherent beauty contained in all-that-is.

~~

To round out the matter of perspectives, I’d like to leave this post with what Cookie-puss said:

In #317, Oreoracle wrote: *I…I don’t believe what constitutes “us” (God included) can be described. “I” cannot be differentiated from what’s around me; I contain the essence of the whole. All beings–and yes, even God–are essentially inseparable from the collective pool of Consciousness. We are all waves in the same pond.”

As you can see, this doesn’t lead to a “God and I” perspective, but rather an “I-I” or an “I am God” perspective.”*

Perhaps it would also be good to consider all three natural perspectives, moving among them in order to gain understanding, transcending and including what we think we know as ‘I’ (and “We”, and “It” and “I-I”), as we march on the path to Godhead?

That, if anything, is my practice.

 

[One]

The following is a list of assumptions that have been made on my behalf:

So your “religion”, or lack thereof, transcends all known faiths from what I ascertain.

It’s seems like my idea in college that my belief system was a higher morality on a higher plane than the ordinary plebians.

So what you are saying is that all religious beliefs are interchangeable, in other words, one is no more the truth than another.

Those who understand that, though, have reached Nirvana.

All of the above are false assumptions. So the answers are “No”, “not likely”, “no”, and “that’s not what I said”, in that order.

BTW, do you believe in reincarnation?

I don’t know. I haven’t died… yet.

Besides the examples of Hitler and Stalin, no one seems to mention the fierce…

…Crusades?

Also, I’m just wondering why you categorized me as “sir”?

See what happens when One assumes?

Perhaps it was because “men” is a part of your s/n. My mistake then, ma’am. I’ll be more cautious in the future.

 

[alacoque]

O: you wrote: *It’s not an argument. In fact, I find it quite difficult to use arguments against people who claim that inflicting needless suffering is permissible as long as it is “deserved.” It was meant to persuade, but it was not an argument, thus it could not be fallacious, irrational, or the like. By claiming that it was an argument, you are, in fact, attempting to psychoanalyze me, which is “such a perfect and typical example” of most Christian responses. *

That’s it? it’s that simple is it? Just bury yourself in semantics and maybe no one will notice your philosophy’s weaknesses. “I wasn’t’ arguing, I was discussing - or persuading - or talking at someone or …” Do you know what sophistry is? Is the response above the best you could come up with? I think you know just enough to be dangerous (and believable to those who don’t know better).

Let’s try some facts, just for refreshment’s sake: This is a Catholic forum. You are self-designated as an “agnostic theist” (I’m certain that you, in your unequaled philosophical depth, know what that means.) Then again, it means only what it means to you, right? Do you really think you’re the first student to embrace this philosophy? More often than not, you’re so lost in the concepts, labels, words and non-words, objective truth has committed suicide. But that’s what you’re all about, of course. Whether you call yourself a Zen Buddhist or a theist or an agnostic or a sweet potato - it’s all so transparent and ‘been there, done that’, it’s not worth the time (except maybe for another ‘someone’ who thinks they also have discovered the meaning of life (it’s 42, you know)

So I’ve understood you correctly - because I can easily see your Zen popping out all over - your ‘intuitive’ understanding. For you, words and sentences have no objective meaning at all; for you, logic is irrelevant. What you (or others) say - i.e. words - have meaning only in relation to the person using those words! Lord, save us! (since this is a Catholic forum that happily acknowledges and honors God, I can say that with utter safety)

Oh, I know, I know…much of what you post / say may indeed be nonsense; but then other things you post or say APPEAR to be nonsense a first but that’s because the meaning is all between the lines (and between your ears). I don’t know what else we could expect from a 20-something prince who’s really upset with the suffering all around him, and so goes on to renounce his lofty “prince-life” in order to seek understanding (finding only a really handy philosophy that doesn’t mean anything so he can apply it to anything and mess with peoples’ heads and it’s all the same to him!)

It’d be a great scam if someone (yon prince) hadn’t thought of it already. I wish I had a dollar for everyone I knew (back in the day) who read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and thought they really “found” something. I’d be worth gazillions! Oh, wait a minute…what does ‘gazillions’ mean? Oh yeah, whatever I want it to mean…ok, carry on -

Don’t try to sidetrack the point I raised with you by changing words and meanings…you know better and so do I. (and if you don’t know better, start reading some real books!) And…now I AM picking on ya…furshur

 

[One]

~
…the love of Jesus in action.

 

[alacoque]

~
…the love of Jesus in action.

That meant for me?

What, exactly, do you know about the love of Jesus?

judge not!

But, seriously, if it was meant for me, I forgive you…because many persons of indiscriminate philosophy who don’t know much about objective truth, tend to confuse forceful disagreement and rejection of a position as not being loving. That’s why I don’t think you know much about Jesus’ love…just enough to throw the term around, trying to intimidate people.

A good thing to remember is that ALL persons are worthy of respect. All IDEAS are NOT!

All persons have intrinsic dignity and goodness. Ideas do not. Some ideas are nonsense and should definitely NOT be accepted or respected. I know you probably either don’t get that or don’t agree with it, but that’s not important - the point is made and it’s valid. The idea that one idea is as good or valid as any other idea is an example of why all ideas are not equal and that all concepts/philosophies are not relative.

So…it’s ok…Jesus loves you and so do I. I don’t have to agree with you, however, (or the others); I don’t have to appreciate your philosophy; I don’t have to give your philosophy much weight - or any weight…and I can still love you as Jesus does (and what that means, by the way, is not ‘liking’ and not anything emotional at all. It means desiring your salvation and doing what is in my power - in this case, praying for you and remembering you to God for your welfare and intentions - to bring you along with me to heaven. See ya there…

 

[Detales]

Thank you, One, for an even handed and sane assesment of what is transpiring on this thread, and likely elsewhere. It does seem that we forsake a similar, if not same, meaning to indulge our preference for particular words. That makes a good case for reading between the lines. Carefully and with good intent.

In that wise I would hasten to make a distinction that may be important in the interpretation of a usage on here that could be unnecessarily controversial. I sense it is so, having encountered it in “live” conversatons numerous times. My reference is to the use of “I” in the following passage:

"In  #317, Oreoracle wrote: *I...I don't believe what constitutes "us" (God included) can be described. "I" cannot be differentiated from what's around me; I contain the essence of the whole. All beings--and yes, even God--are essentially inseparable from the collective pool of Consciousness. We are all waves in the same pond.”

As you can see, this doesn't lead to a "God and I" perspective, but rather an "I-I" or an "I am God" perspective.”*

Perhaps it would also be good to consider all three natural perspectives, moving among them in order to gain understanding, transcending and including what we think we know as ‘I’ (and “We”, and “It” and “I-I”), as we march on the path to Godhead?"

Before accusations of blasphemy might be hurled, as has happend in some unfortunate cases, here’s a clue about the use of “I” in some of the Non-dualist ways of phrasing things. “I” when used in reference to IS, God, or any of the synonyms that serve to name Supreme Being, does emphatically not refer to personal self. It is an unfortunate trick of English that this possibility of mistaken identity occurs. My Mentor used to get around it by using “I” in quotes to distinguish the Divine reference from personal “i”, or the “I-dot” refering to personal sense/mind. (or “idiot,” because of our habitual inability to percieve Wholeness, meant of course in the kindest endearing way.)

This is a difficult and subtle point to deal with in English, in which only the first person singular of the verb “to be” is true to fact. So we tend to misassociate our “me” as personality, with “I” which is the link called Soul. That link is a localization of Consciousness we can call “awareness” to distinguish it from the greater “I” of God/IS/AM. It is in the way of clarifying this distinction to Westen minds (though it is not strictly an Eastern Idea, save as Atman IS Brahman) that I have recommended certain books as source material. In any case, this distinction, whether or not agreed with, is of great importance in understanding any non-dualist in their statements. Again, agree or not, but if you don’t “get” the terms, we have some of the misunderstandings found on these threads and elsewhere. I therefore invoke the prefatory material of a certain series of books that admonishes going past an unclear word lest all the following material is distorted. Copies on request.

Clarifying this usage of “I” also adresses the usual polarity of theist/atheist in that the non-dualist might be seen as atheistic in respect to an anthropomorphic or christianist deliniation fo God, but theistic in the face of the materialist. That more “three cornered” dynamic also projects a greater plane in which perceptions and dilineations might happen as pointers distinct from an either/or evaluation. Please let us thank One for reminding us that our statements are but pointers, and remember Ogden and Richards’ invaluable dictum “The map is not the territory!” Perhaps on those grounds we might have a more producitve dialog, as all parties here clearly have much to contribute from their rich experience.

 

[One]

Detales -

Thanks for fleshing that out. I hope that makes it more clear for others, as well.

In my own usage, I generally use “I” to connote the personal, individual sense of I… you know, everyday people. I tend to use “I-I” to point to the larger sense of identity, that of the divine. This is the same term that was used by Ramana Maharshi; I just picked it up.

 

[One]

That meant for me?

Yes, of course.

What, exactly, do you know about the love of Jesus?

Plenty! I practice every day… even now. Perhaps especially now.

judge not!

Oh, please… stop with the projection. Your post to Oreo was nothing but your judgments.

Besides, I did not judge you. It was a sarcastic comment intended to find your points of attachment. (It worked.)

But, seriously, if it was meant for me, I forgive you…

My day just got a little brighter…

Where do you come up with this stuff?

“Indiscriminate philosophy”, “don’t know much about objective truth”, “confuse”, “not loving”, “I don’t think you know”, “intimidate people”… all are judgments on your part, and they are judgements from a perspective that knows so very little about what I (or I-I) believe.

A good thing to remember is that ALL persons are worthy of respect.

Then do us a favor and use some of that respect you claim to hold.

If people are worthy of your respect, then their ideas should be respected as being right for them, even if you don’t agree with them. Everyone is doing the best they can, but evidently you deem yourself worthy to judge what is, or is not, a respectable idea. Now you’re taking ethereal thoughts and ideas and claiming what is or is not “objective truth.” (<-- Talk about yer oxymorons!)

So…it’s ok…Jesus loves you and so do I.

Wonderfully condescending…

And hypocritical. You claim to know the love of Jesus, dispute that someone else could as well, then proceed to judge a person’s ideas as being “right” or “wrong”, all while you suggest that you hold respect for all people.

Is the air up there where you are too rarified for you to process the cognitive dissonance that your position must create for you?

If Jesus loves you, and me, and you do too, then you’ll read these words without much reaction, for love is acceptance, with no bounds. In that respect, I love you, too. (Quite seriously.)

 

[Detales]

Right on, One. And I like the Ramana reference. Thanks.

Ala, perhaps you might like to post the PM I sent you? Maybe you have reason to listen to One, eh? Maybe a bit less “fides” and a tad more “intellectum.” Or hey! Refigure “Fides.”

 

[One]

I’m not sure what happened to my question. It seems to have disappeared, so I’ll ask again.

Al - In all sincerity, I’d like to know what you intend when you speak of an “objective truth?” What was the context of that statement? What is “objective truth?” What is an example of what you would consider an objective truth? How is it distinguished from, say, a “subjective truth?” Are there objective un-truths?

Being fond of language, I found the words interesting.

Thanks.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

LISTEN UP! :knight1:

Thought experiment for atheists and agnostics:

Suppose it was conceded to you that God was not only good, but that from time to time He could be cruel (as you call it) as in eternal hell for disbelief. What reason would you have not to believe? Wouldn’t you have even more reason to believe, so as not to get on God’s wrong side. Wouldn’t it be rather stupid to say, “I could never worship such a cruel god!” since this objection would surely put you in poor standing with such a god?

Moreover, can you be entirely sure that if the Christian God does not exist, some other god might exist who can be ***really ***mean, especially to those who don’t bow down, worship him, and do his bidding?

So it seems to me that the objection to the Christian God or any other god on the basis of cruelty is absurd and dangerous, no matter how you look at it.

Now it might be objected that if one picked the wrong god to worship, there would be hell to pay anyway. Yes, but who in his right mind would throw away his only chance to save himself?

And if you think compassion is the sign of a true God, which god has shown more compassion than the One who came to Earth to show us the way?

What say you?

 

[One]

With that big, red tag of “Listen Up”, I was beginning to look forward to an actual thought experiment.

What do you mean by “conceded to you?” Do you mean that the subject (reporter) of this thought experiment “conceded” (to and by him/herself) that God was not only good, but also bad? In other words, how can something be “conceded to you?” In my understanding, that’s very much like “willing myself to love”, to use an expression I’ve seen here recently.

I’m confused, but maybe I’m putting too much thought into the words you’ve used. (By the way, I’m addressing the question, although I don’t identify with being atheist, nor agnostic.)

In the end, this question is a very simple variation of the classic, “What if you’re wrong?” question. And my answer to that question would be a shrug, followed by, “What if you’re wrong?”

Further, “Christian God” is a term that is hubristic. Can you just say “God” and leave it at that?

This entire question falls apart in many places, and is therefore not really worth considering, or, if it is to be considered, it wouldn’t be much of a “thought experiment.” It would be more of a “Let’s measure how much you fear the unknown” experiment.

My $0.02.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

LISTEN UP!

Thought experiment for atheists and agnostics:

Suppose it was conceded to you that God was not only good, but that from time to time He could be cruel (as you call it) as in eternal hell for disbelief. What reason would you have not to believe?

I agree. If God could not be good, that would not mean that we shouldn’t believe in God, but it would prove that religions such as Catholicism which assert that God is omnibenevolent are false.

Wouldn’t you have even more reason to believe, so as not to get on God’s wrong side. Wouldn’t it be rather stupid to say, “I could never worship such a cruel god!” since this objection would surely put you in poor standing with such a god?

I guess it depends how you define worship. I you mean something like love and devotion, then it isn’t stupid at all. I could not worship a God whose morality was similar to Hitler’s. I could go through the motions, but I could not feel genuine love and devotion for a God like that.

Moreover, can you be entirely sure that if the Christian God does not exist, some other god might exist who can be really mean, especially to those who don’t bow down, worship him, and do his bidding?

That’s certainly possible. Given our limited knowledge, I see pretty much any conception of God as possible.

So it seems to me that the objection to the Christian God or any other god on the basis of cruelty is absurd and dangerous, no matter how you look at it.

I think the problem of evil is a valid objection to religions that see God as omnibenevolent, but it certainly isn’t evidence against all conceivable gods.

Now it might be objected that if one picked the wrong god to worship, there would be hell to pay anyway. Yes, but who in his right mind would throw away his only chance to save himself?

This only makes sense if there is good evidence for Catholicism. There could just as easily be a god who gave no evidence of himself and sends everyone to heaven except those who worship false manmade religions. Or there could be a god who sends only serial murderers to heaven. Without evidence that there is a good chance that the Catholic conception of God is correct, living your life as if the Catholic conception of God is correct is no more logical than living your life as if one of these other two conceptions of God is correct.

And if you think compassion is the sign of a true God, which god has shown more compassion than the One who came to Earth to show us the way?

What say you?

I obviously don’t agree that the Catholic God came to earth to show us the way. The world seems exactly like it would if there were no God.

 

[Detales]

Charlie, please, it is not necessary to shout.

Thought experiement? What are you thinking? That one is just a re-hash of Pascal’s wager, and is in another feild of interest than what you think you are addressing in at least three cases on here. An actually useful thought experiment would be to demonstrate a working knowldege of the ideas presented here by those who you are conversing with. On my part I have done that at least by dint of my decades of ardent Catholicism and of continued considerations these many years. My stance is at least due the respect of having honestly come by it, agree with it or not. Do you seriously think it was a simple off-handed decision for me to leave what I had thought to be the means of my salvation? Do you not think that it had to be a thing of overwhelming significance that would make me even consider leaving the Church? I can’t and won’t speak for the others, but I can equally loudly shout that I know that I know what I am talking about and pointing thereby to.

It is rude and insulting, if your red letters are addressed to me, that given my Catholic credentials, the transformation in my perceptions and understanding are not taken at face value. It speaks to me of faith as your habit, and not as your conviction, to the degree that you can doubt my sincerity and conviction. I certainly honor yours, and have repeatedly said so, and know on what experiential grounds I give that honor.

As for your last line, There is neither a greater compassion, nor a more greatly misunderstood one, ever.

On the other hand, being neither an atheist nor an agnostic, maybe you weren’t talking to me. But the Pascal’s wager thing? You can do better than that.

 

[One]

My stance is at least due the respect of having honestly come by it, agree with it or not. Do you seriously think it was a simple off-handed decision for me to leave what I had thought to be the means of my salvation? Do you not think that it had to be a thing of overwhelming significance that would make me even consider leaving the Church? I can’t and won’t speak for the others, but I can equally loudly shout that I know that I know what I am talking about and pointing thereby to.

I just thought that bore repeating…

 

[jkiernan56]

As he said so often I hear my Mentor saying, “Man is a Song” I have no doubt that when you do hear your name called that last time, your story will be one “Given to Praise.”

Detales, I love it when people are so real and honest with each other. Your words to Charlie were a blessing to me … so genuine … I think your saying that “Man is a Song” is so similar about how each person’s life is a story … a song being composed … a work of art … I wholeheartedly agree with you about Charlie …

 

[jkiernan56]

Didn’t JK say that God could will us away?

Yes, I did say that. I know from experience that it is absolutely true. God’s existence is not contingent. Your’s and my existence and all of creation IS CONTINGENT on God’s sheer will. You and I and all of creation would not exist if God was not thinking of it … and willing it in existence. God does not need anything or anyone. He could have continued in BEING (Three Persons in One Nature) for all eternity without ever creating anything.

It is in the realm of what is possible to God that should He will it … all of creation would no longer exist. But we know from scripture and the teaching of the Church that God is Faithful … and He has made a Promise … and is true to Himself … once more … the very God who holds all of creation in being/existence … joined Himself to a human nature … God became fully human in Jesus … one Person in two natures … this Person is the 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity … fully God … and fully human … the Incarnation …

Now if God chose to join Himself to us by becoming fully human as we are … how could God will His creation to cease to exist? I don’t know how to reconcile these two … but I do know from an experience of Grace … that all that exists is because of His sheer will … and that it need not exist … you and I need not exist … you and I are contingent beings … deriving our existence from the hand of God moment by moment … the very fact that you and I exist … is proof enough that God is present … a painting is not the Painter … but a painting reflects something of the Painter … the painting is only because of the Painter … which the Painter need not have even painted

I don’t know where you stand on all of this … but I know in my bones that what I am saying to you is true from my experience of Grace