Why is God so mean?

[jkiernan56]

Being essentially dualistic and dependent on subject/object perception, it fails both to prepare the potential realizer as to what might happen, and fails also therefore to have ready a Knowledgeable Guide. Thus the self *assesment *of what happens as a Realization may not be entirely accurate, despite the irrefutalbly genuine nature of the happening. In my case it took years to become stable again, relative to the world of commonality. But I had to go outside the Church to gain it. I dismissed the Church, but now have come to see it differently.

Yes, that is right, One, I-I said it, sort of.

You see, if it was me (you know what I mean) talking about it, instead of “objective” as '56 uses it, I wold use the word “Absolute byitself.” I AM is an Absolute Truth. By itself. And though it might be the “object” of self inquiry to discover that Truth, its realization as I AM is subjective/Subjective. That is the terror and horror of it, and why it is rarely accepted in a right dynamic of language/thought. It really is atonement/at-Onement. No wonder '56 clearly sees that God cannot condemn anyone to hell. Impossible. Why? Because in that state the Risen Christ is known. What changed?

I was doing a little reading up about “spiritual experience” and one thing that stands out is very clear … it is in no way any indication of a person’s state or level of holiness (how close they are to God). A person who has not had any “burning bush” experience can love God a hundred times more than one who has had spiritual experience … remember the story of the widow’s penny (mite) in the collection basket. Second, if God gives spiritual experience, it is usually not meant just for that individual alone - but for the building up of others and the community.

Imagine sitting on the branch of a large oak tree. The branch requires and needs the main part of the tree (roots, trunk) and cannot be supported by itself. Imagine sitting on the branch and thinking that I wish I could cut the branch that I am sitting on so that I would no longer be connected to the tree. But if you cut the branch, it will fall - because it depends on the tree. It is only because of the tree that the branch can even exist. This is similar to the “vine and the branches” in the Gospel of John. The branch cannot exist without the vine. It is the tree or vine that gives life to the branch.

For me, it is “The Catholic Church” Christ founded upon Peter that is THE TREE. Any and all spiritual experience should be always connected to the The Church (the tree). The Church has the final say over all spiritual experience, it’s authenticity, it’s meaning for the whole Body of Christ. Like you Detales, you saw your need for the Church. You are connected to the Church. You cannot live without the Church. You are not meant to be a lone ranger. That is a very VERY healthy sign to me you are on the right road.

The one scripture that I hold before my eyes (so that I make sure I have not lost sight of the forest) is the passage “If I have not love, I am nothing at all”. If spiritual experience and knowledge do not lead to love of God, love of neighbor, healthy love of self, I would seriously question that experience and knowledge. In fact, love is the tell tale sign of it’s authenticity as well … and love is what I mean by holiness. Spiritual experience by itself does not indicate holiness - but rather should lead to it … to the Magisterium of the Church … who has the final say over it’s interpretation.

 

[jkiernan56]

When I mentioned awhile back in another post that God is completely OTHER, that is what I mean by Objective. If I did not exist, that OTHER would exist - and cannot NOT exist. But I get the point you are trying to make about objective/subjective.

Do you think God in His understanding of Himself is both completely objective and subjective at the same time in His total act of BEING? What you wrote on this subject has made me pause and ask the question from God’s point of view about Himself … rather than my point of view of what I experience.

The name “I AM WHO AM” is both a objective/subjective absolute reality to God - that would exist and always exist … even if you and I never did.

My experience brought me into a direct knowing of WHO was holding the branch I was sitting on. I need God - God does not need me.

 

[One]

I was doing a little reading up about “spiritual experience” and one thing that stands out is very clear …

That works for you, it seems. One might advise a bit more reading if you’d like to round out your knowledge of the many flavors of “spiritual experiences” and “revelation.”

If you’d like, there is a list of titles that you might find very interesting. OTOH, it seems as though you’re so deeply ensconced in your beliefs that you may not want to challenge those beliefs by doing the research.

Let’s just say that in the views of many, your understanding is true, but partial. It seems to suit you, though.

 

[jkiernan56]

That works for you, it seems. One might advise a bit more reading if you’d like to round out your knowledge of the many flavors of “spiritual experiences” and “revelation.”

If you’d like, there is a list of titles that you might find very interesting. OTOH, it seems as though you’re so deeply ensconced in your beliefs that you may not want to challenge those beliefs by doing the research.

Let’s just say that in the views of many, your understanding is true, but partial. It seems to suit you, though.

Yes, quite well. I have found the “pearl in the field” that Christ spoke about. If you know what I mean by this, you will understand that there isn’t ANOTHER pearl to be found once you have found the real thing.

I have been reading a pamplet by St. Francis de Sales titled “Wise and Loving Counsels” given to me a long time ago by a Carmelite Priest who at the time was my spiritual director. I am at the place where when I read this pamplet, I am deeply moved. I have a sense that I am in the right place. Trust is the most important thing a person can have. It is the foundation of Love. I am beginning to grow in Trust, something I am sad to say I have not really had for the past 52 years (even with the spiritual experience I have spoken about). I have been floundering around like a fish out of water afraid of my own shadow. I am beginning to Trust and it feels strange - but very good at the same time. I love the Church with all it’s faults and wrinkles as I think I heard Fulton Sheen say once.

 

[One]

JK –

I would appreciate it if you’d actually consider the question I posed a short while ago. Suppose you were in a room with 20 people…

When I mentioned awhile back in another post that God is completely OTHER, that is what I mean by Objective. If I did not exist, that OTHER would exist - and cannot NOT exist. But I get the point you are trying to make about objective/subjective.

I don’t see how you’ve demonstrated that understanding.

Do you think God in His understanding of Himself is both completely objective and subjective at the same time in His total act of BEING?

That could be pointed to, yes. It’s called “nonduality.” But we have to use dualisms in order to discern that, in order to describe nonduality, and with that, the point is easily lost. That’s why there are so few truly realized beings.

The same, subjective “I Am” that we consistently refer to is the indisputable truth that we all intuit. That “I Am-ness” is nothing less than the same, pure Subjectivity that is God. Try to wrap your mind around that. One-in-the-same, yet seemingly quite different (which serves to explain the gap in our respective understanding.)

Can your eyeball see itself? Certainly not. Oh, you could try, and your eyeball could whip around in your head, hoping to be fast enough to catch a glimpse of itself, but it would never happen. That is what pure Subjectivity is. Subjectivity is the Witness that sees, but cannot know itself except via objectivity, for anything that can be used as a pointer to pure Subjectivity is simply another object, and thus cannot be the Subject.

That which is seeking is that which is sought. Or, as Meister Eckhart said, “The eye with which I see God is the same eye with which God sees me.”

The name “I AM WHO AM” is both a objective/subjective absolute reality to God - that would exist and always exist … even if you and I never did.

True that. From the perspective of God (if I may be so bold), “I am” is the reality. But, “what am I?” Pure Subjectivity cannot see it (for any “it” is only another object in consciousness), it can only be it. “What am I?” Look around at these objects, and realize that that is what “I am”, if anything.

My experience brought me into a direct knowing of WHO was holding the branch I was sitting on. I need God - God does not need me.

And once again, you’ve conflated subject and object. By conceptualizing God as an other, you make God an object in your awareness. In fact – and by virtue of your realization that God could simply will you away – there is no separation. Again, that’s the nondual realization.

Sorry if this seems confusing to you, but as I’ve said many times, there is nothing you can say about this nondual realization… including this statement. It gets dizzying to think about it, and all thinking does is to confuse the issue.

Instead, perhaps we should “Be still, and know.”

~

 

[jkiernan56]

Can your eyeball see itself? Certainly not. Oh, you could try, and your eyeball could whip around in your head, hoping to be fast enough to catch a glimpse of itself, but it would never happen. That is what pure Subjectivity is. Subjectivity is the Witness that sees, but cannot know itself except via objectivity, for anything that can be used as a pointer to pure Subjectivity is simply another object, and thus cannot be the Subject.

That which is seeking is that which is sought. Or, as Meister Eckhart said, “The eye with which I see God is the same eye with which God sees me.”

Regarding your comment about the “eye seeing itself” … I found that extremely interesting. In the case of God, yes God does “see Himself” TOTALLY … “eyeball and all”. This totality of God KNOWING Himself (Objectively, Subjectively … or whatever) … is His Eternal Begotten Son. The Eternal Begotten Son is ALL that the Unbegotten Father KNOWS and LOVES. God the Father “sees” and knows HImself completely - this is the Son … the “eye” that God both sees and is seen by.

All that God KNOWS is “THE WORD” … the Eternal Begotten Son. He is “THE WORD” … this WORD expresses ALL that God the Father Knows and Loves … again this generation of the Father is the Eternal Son … the Beloved … ALL that the Father LOVES … All that the Father KNOWS and LOVES is a distinct Person … is “generated” by the Father. This generation always existed with the Father … since God the Father always and completely knows Himself. In other words, the Son has ALWAYS existed with the Father and is Himself ALL that the Father is. “He who has seen me has seen the Father” Christ tells us.

The Father is the Lover and the Son is the Beloved. The Beloved in return LOVES the Father. This LOVE between the Father and the Son PROCEEDS the a 3rd Person - the Holy Spirit … who is a distinct from the Father and the Son … Coeternal and Coequal with the Father and Son.

Father generates (begets) a Son (begotten).
The begotten Son who is distinct from the Father in turn Loves the Father.
In this exchange of total love is another Person - the Holy Spirit.

What I find so utterly amazing is that when I am looking at the human family … Husband, Wife, and Child … I am really looking at an image of the Holy Trinity - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. When God created the human family, in a sense He painted a portrait of Himself. John Paul 2nd says in the book “Theology of the Body” that Christian Marriage and Family is the most perfect image we have of God the Holy Trinity. Not perfect, but the most perfect we have. So when I see a family of husband, wife, and child - it automatically makes me think of the Holy Trinity … the most awesome REALITY there is … at least for me … subjectively, objectively, or anything in between.

“A rose by any other name is still as sweet” Shakespeare

All this subjectivity/objectivity discussion honestly is not important to me. “O God how many are your thoughts … more than grains of sand … and even if I could count them … YOU WOULD STILL BE WITH ME” … Psalm 139

 

[jkiernan56]

That which is seeking is that which is sought. Or, as Meister Eckhart said, “The eye with which I see God is the same eye with which God sees me.”

I have to respectfully disagree with Meister Echart. I am not God and God is not me. Whatever means have to “see God with” is a gift that God is giving me … and that gift God is giving me to see Him, is not the same “eye” that God sees me with.
If I did not exist, God would still be “seeing” at that there is to KNOW and LOVE … and that is a Person - “THE WORD”. This eye is the only eye that has to exist.

I hope that when I respond to your comments with such conviction … that you do not mistake that as a sign of being condescending or arrogant … or even above you. That is certainly not the case. Without going into any personal details, I can honestly say that the scripture is true that says God “lifts up the poor and lowly” … and “chooses the weak” … that is a huge understatement in my case … I should be dead right now if God hadn’t touched me personally with His love …

 

[anEvilAtheist]

A multiplication of natural laws to cater for every harmful contingency would lead to an exponential number of coincidences and make a rational existence impossible because of its sheer complexity. The unimaginable complexity of a living cell has been investigated by scientists for decades and there are still many unsolved problems. To alter any of its components would lead to malfunction or death. If that occurs at the microscopic level we can imagine what would happen at the macroscopic level…

I agree with you that the world is incredibly complex. Our knowledge is so limited that if we were to try to alter cells, we very well might make things worse. However, this is no barrier for God. Think about it: you believe in a God that can perform magic! I don’t mean magic in the sense of anything occult; I mean that he can do anything that is not logically contradictory. You are still thinking of it from the perspective of our universe, though I assume you believe that as an all-powerful being, God could create any logically non-contradictory universe. You have done nothing to show a logical contradiction with a world in which God prevents hurricanes from forming.

Writing a computer program is vastly different from creating a world.

In both cases the creator sets up a large set of laws for how it will react to the actions of the humans who interact with it. Do you think that God could create such a program or not?

Coincidences are conjunctions of physical events, e.g. an avalanche moves down a mountain and engulfs mountaineers climbing towards the peak, people living in Chernobyl were exposed to radiation produced by the explosion of a nuclear reactor.
Coincidences can also be conjunctions of mental events, e.g. several people have the same idea at the same time.

Collisions are coincidences of moving objects in time and space which generally cause damage. Most collisions and coincidences are unplanned and inexplicable. They are what we describe as chance events.

You have not given any reason to think that adding additional natural laws of the type I described would have any undesirable coincidences. If God added a natural law which applied only to situations in which the seas needed to be calmed in order to prevent a natural disaster, there is no logical reason why he would be required to make this cause a disaster somewhere else (or an undesirable coincidence, or collision, or whatever you want to call it).

 

[anEvilAtheist]

My argument is not theological but scientific. I maintain that interference with the existing laws of nature like gravitation would lead to innumerable repercussions which would lead to other natural evils. That is why a precise description is essential if we are to make any headway. All attempts to describe this world with less natural evil have to made in the context of evolution not in isolation from what has happened already. Otherwise the entire world process has to be explained from start to finish - which is an impossibly difficult task…

I have given you two good explanations for why God could reduce the amount of natural evil, and you have not identified a problem with either. The first is that God is omnipotent, and so there can be no constraints on what states of the world he can actualize (barring logical contradictions like making something that is a rock and not a rock at the same time). He could create a world in which all the atoms were in whatever configuration he wanted, at every single fraction of a second. Certainly, there may be reasons such as free will and justice that God may wish to allow natural evil, but it is clear that there is some natural evil that he could prevent if he wanted to.

The second is a specific example of one natural evil God could prevent. I explained this in my earlier posts:

God could have made water behave identically to water in our universe, except without it ever rising up to cause hurricanes, floods, or tsunamis. God can make water behave however he likes, just look at the passage of the Red Sea. He is clearly not limited in the number of times he can do things like this. So he could constantly be performing miracles behind the scenes to prevent these three types of natural disasters. But if God is omnipotent, he could make this the natural state, so he would not have to constantly intervene. But in actuality, it doesn’t really matter, since there would be no substantive difference between a perpetual miracle and making it behave that way naturally. Since God has one eternal will, and is omnipotent and so can do everything with no effort, these two would not be appreciably different, from either God’s perspective or our perspective.

You didn’t really explain why it would cause harmful coincidences, you merely asserted it. I assume that you think that God was able to part the waters without causing a natural disaster. He could similarly establish a perpetual miracle or additional natural law that keeps hurricanes and other things from happening. This would obviously contradict our existing natural laws, but we would create a new law/theory to correct for this discrepancy in the data, as we have done with dark matter. And any God that was able to create the Garden of Eden is able to create a world with less natural evil.

You never really identified any problems with my logic. This is an important point that I would like for you to respond to. Also, I am curious about whether you think that God was unable to part the Red Sea without creating a natural disaster somewhere else in the world.

Looking back at my old messages, there are a lot of my points that you’ve ignored. If you think my reasoning for why God could reduce the amount of natural evil is wrong, I’d like to know why.

 

[One]

I have to respectfully disagree with Meister Echart.

Looks as though it’s time for a little education about Meister Eckhart:

"Meister Eckhart (1260-1328) is one of history’s great mystics. His religious writings were so eloquent that they helped evolve the German language. He was a Catholic monk and scholar who often presented his faith and spiritual understandings in sermons of stunning clarity, though the Catholic church apparently feared Eckhart’s brilliance and was on the verge of bringing him before a kind of inquisition when he died. The works of Meister Eckhart are a theological treasure. They are perhaps, at times, even divine revelation.

"… in 1302, he was given the degree of Master of Sacred Theology by his order. When he returned to Erfurt he was appointed vicar general for Bohemia, and was asked to reform the demoralized monasteries there.

"In 1320 he was made first professor of his order at Cologne, and he was considered by many to be the ideal priest and scholar.

"It was life itself that Eckhart loved to talk about; the life of the fields and the life of the sky, and the wonders of the human heart. It is easy to see how he raised many a brow when he spoke out like this: “Is this not a Holy Trinity; the firmament, the earth, our bodies. And is it not an act of worship to hold a child, and till the soil and lift a cup. And Communion, first seek that from your lover’s soul before anything offered from a priest.”

“His deep and radical insights and his great popularity with his countrymen led to accusations of heresy. Eckhart publicly defended himself in February of 1327, stating that he had always believed God was as God said: He was – Indivisible. And that sincere contemplation of God’s own description of Himself turned into the sublime experiences and compassionate understanding that he (Eckhart) preached and wrote.”

“Eckhart died the following year. The Church condemned and suppressed his work, and probably destroyed a lot of it. In the 1880s, two Latin manuscripts of Eckhart’s were found. Since 1980, the Dominican Order has sought to reveal that Eckhart was an exemplary Christian mystic and priest.”

– Reference available upon request.

 

[One]

In the case of God, yes God does “see Himself” TOTALLY … “eyeball and all”. This totality of God KNOWING Himself (Objectively, Subjectively … or whatever) God the Father “sees” and knows HImself completely - this is the Son … the “eye” that God both sees and is seen by.

And on and on and on and on and on and on and on…

Let me ask you a very serious question, JK, and I hope you actually address this one:

If, as you testify, you are not God, and God is not you, then how are you possibly able to occupy the mind of God to the extent that you can speak for God? (That is, speaking beyond the belief system that you seem to be regurgitating in a manner that borders on the utterly incomprehensible.)

Since you’re so fond of quoting the words of others – including God – then I offer this, from St. Thomas Aquinas, who many here at CAF seem to like and appreciate:

Near the end of St. Thomas’ life he had a divine revelation while celebrating mass in the chapel of St. Nicholas in Naples that cause him to state, “I can no longer write, for God has given me such glorious knowledge that all contained in my works are as straw – barely fit to absorb the holy wonders that fall in a stable.” Three months later, he died.

If St. Thomas Aquinas, a prolific and insightful writer, could no longer write a word due to his divine revelation, then who are you to speak for the Mind of God?

The important point is that even St. Thomas Aquinas, who had many insights and divine revelation, realized with deepening insight that all of what he thought knew wasn’t worthy of wiping up horseshit.

All this subjectivity/objectivity discussion honestly is not important to me.

You were the one who was pursuing the topic with your questions. Exactly why, then, is it not important to you?

One more from St. Thomas Aquinas, just to round out your day:

*"Does God understand himself? Not in the form of creation.

For creation simultaneously exists and does not exist.
How could that not be in a mind that is not infinite?
Thus God holds no one accountable.
Especially Himself – at All.

If you had a dream in which someone broke into
Your house and stole a certain object,

Would you, upon waking and finding that item,
Call the constable?

Not if you were in your right mind.
And whenever God wakes in us

His/our thinking becomes clear –
Nothing is missing.

And how could he not forgive, then,
What never really
Happened,

And/or – what He
caused?*

 

[PJM]

=jkiernan56;5360863]I have to respectfully disagree with Meister Echart. I am not God and God is not me. Whatever means have to “see God with” is a gift that God is giving me … and that gift God is giving me to see Him, is not the same “eye” that God sees me with.
If I did not exist, God would still be “seeing” at that there is to KNOW and LOVE … and that is a Person - “THE WORD”. This eye is the only eye that has to exist.

I hope that when I respond to your comments with such conviction … that you do not mistake that as a sign of being condescending or arrogant … or even above you. That is certainly not the case. Without going into any personal details, I can honestly say that the scripture is true that says God “lifts up the poor and lowly” … and “chooses the weak” … that is a huge understatement in my case … I should be dead right now if God hadn’t touched me personally with His love …

***I agree completely.

God sees as as we are and as we should be. Perfectly.

Our vision and understanding, as varied as it is, is at best incomplete and imperfect.

1 Cor. 13: says it well: “12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.”***

 

[One]

---

Our vision and understanding, as varied as it is, is at best incomplete and imperfect.

---

Hi, PJM…

Isn’t that exactly what St. Thomas of Aquinas is saying?

 

[tonyrey]

I have given you two good explanations for why God could reduce the amount of natural evil, and you have not identified a problem with either. The first is that God is omnipotent, and so there can be no constraints on what states of the world he can actualize (barring logical contradictions like making something that is a rock and not a rock at the same time).

God could prevent all natural evil but the universe would be completely different. The question is whether it would fulfil the purpose for which it is created, i.e. be an environment which sustains the existence of living organisms and rational beings who are free to choose for themselves what to believe, how to live and to shape their own destiny. Rather than attempt the impossible task of designing an alternative universe it is simpler to suggest improvements to this one and examine whether they are feasible.

Let us take a specific example: a natural disaster in which a village is engulfed by an avalanche which kills all the inhabitants. The obvious way is for God to intervene by suspending the laws of nature. We cannot rule out the possibility that this does happen because there have been many reports of miraculous escapes from death. Yet there must be a limit to the number of miracles for two reasons:

1. The world will become disorderly if a miracle occurs every time an accident or disaster is going to occur. A rational existence will become impossible if there are too many exceptions to the law of gravitation.
2. People will become aware there is a supernatural cause for these events. They will no longer be free to choose what to believe if there is coercive evidence for a benevolent power.

So there must be a limit to divine intervention but the problem is to determine where that limit lies. God can prevent all major disasters but what constitutes a major disaster? The death of five million people, five thousand, five hundred or fifty? Whatever number we choose is arbitrary because the death of even one person is a tragedy that could have been averted. So how do we discriminate between individuals? Should all the good people be spared and all the evil ones be allowed to die? Again it would become obvious that honesty is the best policy! To be virtuous would be the best way to survive. Morality would be reduced to expediency and to be a criminal would be as unwise as smoking tobacco or taking addictive drugs.

How would you deal with these problems? (It’s better to restrict our attention to a specific example. Otherwise the subject becomes too unwieldy.)

 

[anEvilAtheist]

God could prevent all natural evil but the universe would be completely different. The question is whether it would fulfil the purpose for which it is created, i.e. be an environment which sustains the existence of living organisms and rational beings who are free to choose for themselves what to believe, how to live and to shape their own destiny. Rather than attempt the impossible task of designing an alternative universe it is simpler to suggest improvements to this one and examine whether they are feasible.

Let us take a specific example: a natural disaster in which a village is engulfed by an avalanche which kills all the inhabitants. The obvious way is for God to intervene by suspending the laws of nature. We cannot rule out the possibility that this does happen because there have been many reports of miraculous escapes from death. Yet there must be a limit to the number of miracles for two reasons:

1. The world will become disorderly if a miracle occurs every time an accident or disaster is going to occur. A rational existence will become impossible if there are too many exceptions to the law of gravitation.

Not true! As long as the same things happen in every single circumstance, it would be completely orderly. In fact, a single miracle is less orderly because it leaves people unable to know what will happen in the future. However, I do not see the need for you to use an example different than the one I am arguing for. Why couldn’t God calm the seas if they were ever on the verge of causing a hurricane or tsunami?

1. People will become aware there is a supernatural cause for these events. They will no longer be free to choose what to believe if there is coercive evidence for a benevolent power.

Not true. If something happens every single time, people do not assume that it has a supernatural cause. When there is something that happens consistently but has no known cause, scientists typically conclude that there is a natural explanation and that it is just not yet know. While some did see the sun moving across the sky, or the development of humans as miraculous before cosmology and evolution were understood, they could not be universally accepted as miraculous merely because the cause was unknown. So this is not even slightly coercive. In fact, if the Catholic accounts of Fatima are correct, that event would be far far more coercive.

So there must be a limit to divine intervention but the problem is to determine where that limit lies. God can prevent all major disasters but what constitutes a major disaster? The death of five million people, five thousand, five hundred or fifty? Whatever number we choose is arbitrary because the death of even one person is a tragedy that could have been averted. So how do we discriminate between individuals? Should all the good people be spared and all the evil ones be allowed to die? Again it would become obvious that honesty is the best policy! To be virtuous would be the best way to survive. Morality would be reduced to expediency and to be a criminal would be as unwise as smoking tobacco or taking addictive drugs.

This has nothing to do with the point I am making. I am making the simple point that there are some natural evils in the world that God could prevent. Once you accept that, we can discuss whether there are morally sufficient reasons for permitting those natural evils.

How would you deal with these problems? (It’s better to restrict our attention to a specific example. Otherwise the subject becomes too unwieldy.)

I agree. Although I think that any supernatural being with magical powers could prevent all natural evil (and have the atoms of the universe be laid out in whatever arrangement he wanted at every single second), and I think that this is self-evident from God’s omnipotence, you do not accept this (and I am still waiting to hear why). However, I agree that it might be easier to stick to a specific example of a natural evil that God could prevent. This is why I have repeatedly proposed the example of the seas. I hope we can stick to this instead of veering off into discussions of avalanches.

I Hope this post doesn’t come off as too aggressive, but when my points aren’t getting across, I try to make them clearer.

 

[Detales]

'56, you have posted some remarkable and vitally important statements. In many ways I could not agree with you more. I also believe that yo may be sidestepping a point made by One, and another that I can’t address right now because it is very late and I had a too protracted evening of meetings and other things. I hope to do you the courtesy of a more competent reply in the morning, if you wish to hear it. My experience is that the precision of thought required in parsing this matter need to be rather acute. I’m not up to that right now, in all fairness. BFN

BD, FZPC

 

[jkiernan56]

'56, you have posted some remarkable and vitally important statements. In many ways I could not agree with you more. I also believe that yo may be sidestepping a point made by One, and another that I can’t address right now because it is very late and I had a too protracted evening of meetings and other things. I hope to do you the courtesy of a more competent reply in the morning, if you wish to hear it. My experience is that the precision of thought required in parsing this matter need to be rather acute. I’m not up to that right now, in all fairness. BFN

BD, FZPC

In all fairness, the only reason I have not adequately addressed One, is that I can very lazy and sometimes don’t want to think anymore. Sometimes I need to just step back and enjoy a beer and baseball … and forget the world … give my brain a break … no disrespect to anyone intended … when the brain cells have recharged - I will try to revisit … sometimes I just feel like the story in the Gospels about the man who was born blind was healed by Jesus … and afterwards he was questioned by the religious authorities … and the previously blind man responds to them “I don’t know how He did it … all I know is that I was born blind, and now I see” … no matter which way I hold up my experience to examine it or change the perspective angle, the validity of what I experienced will never change or the truth my experience put me in touch with … God who is “I AM” … it has turned my life upside down … I am not an accident of nature … but directly wanted and willed by the CEO of the universe … as is each and every person.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

And on and on and on and on and on and on and on…

Let me ask you a very serious question, JK, and I hope you actually address this one:

If, as you testify, you are not God, and God is not you, then how are you possibly able to occupy the mind of God to the extent that you can speak for God? (That is, speaking beyond the belief system that you seem to be regurgitating in a manner that borders on the utterly incomprehensible.)

Since you’re so fond of quoting the words of others – including God – then I offer this, from St. Thomas Aquinas, who many here at CAF seem to like and appreciate:

Near the end of St. Thomas’ life he had a divine revelation while celebrating mass in the chapel of St. Nicholas in Naples that cause him to state, “I can no longer write, for God has given me such glorious knowledge that all contained in my works are as straw – barely fit to absorb the holy wonders that fall in a stable.” Three months later, he died.

If St. Thomas Aquinas, a prolific and insightful writer, could no longer write a word due to his divine revelation, then who are you to speak for the Mind of God?

The important point is that even St. Thomas Aquinas, who had many insights and divine revelation, realized with deepening insight that all of what he thought knew wasn’t worthy of wiping up horseshit.

You were the one who was pursuing the topic with your questions. Exactly why, then, is it not important to you?

One more from St. Thomas Aquinas, just to round out your day:

*"Does God understand himself? Not in the form of creation.

For creation simultaneously exists and does not exist.
How could that not be in a mind that is not infinite?
Thus God holds no one accountable.
Especially Himself – at All.

If you had a dream in which someone broke into
Your house and stole a certain object,

Would you, upon waking and finding that item,
Call the constable?

Not if you were in your right mind.
And whenever God wakes in us

His/our thinking becomes clear –
Nothing is missing.

And how could he not forgive, then,
What never really
Happened,

And/or – what He
caused?*

Even straw has value.

If not,
Words are empty,
And interpretations of statements
Are susceptible to various suggestions,
Disregarding the value of verbal critique.

 

[Oreoracle]

In all fairness, the only reason I have not adequately addressed One, is that I can very lazy and sometimes don’t want to think anymore.

Don’t want to think?! Why would you need to think? You either refute One’s statements or you don’t. If this perfect axiom of “I AM” is so close to your heart, surely One’s violations of it would be apparent, and such refutations would come easily. That is, unless you’re making it up as you go along…

Sometimes I need to just step back and enjoy a beer and baseball … and forget the world … give my brain a break … no disrespect to anyone intended … when the brain cells have recharged - I will try to revisit … sometimes I just feel like the story in the Gospels about the man who was born blind was healed by Jesus … and afterwards he was questioned by the religious authorities … and the previously blind man responds to them “I don’t know how He did it … all I know is that I was born blind, and now I see” … no matter which way I hold up my experience to examine it or change the perspective angle, the validity of what I experienced will never change or the truth my experience put me in touch with … God who is “I AM” … it has turned my life upside down … I am not an accident of nature … but directly wanted and willed by the CEO of the universe … as is each and every person.

Congratulations. It takes a special kind of person to step away from the argument AND get the last word simultaneously.

Sorry, but you can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can either refute (or rebuke, in your case) or concede, but not both.

 

[tonyrey]

Why couldn’t God calm the seas if they were ever on the verge of causing a hurricane or tsunami?

There would have to be strict limits to the force of the wind, astronomical conditions, underground earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and other climatic causes wherever there is going to be a tsunami or hurricane. Not only the level and force of the waves but many other factors would have to be altered which would certainly have repercussions leading to other disasters elsewhere.

When there is something that happens consistently but has no known cause, scientists typically conclude that there is a natural explanation and that it is just not yet know.
If people were never killed in hurricanes or tsunamis but killed by earthquakes and other disasters it would be obvious that something strange is happening. So it is necessary for every single disaster on this planet to be prevented by a colossal number of new physical laws which lead to a staggering amount of complexity and an immense number of further coincidences.

*God can prevent all major disasters but what constitutes a major disaster? The death of five million people, five thousand, five hundred or fifty? Whatever number we choose is arbitrary because the death of even one person is a tragedy that could have been averted. *
This has nothing to do with the point I am making.

It has everything to do with the point because it is necessary to specify what constitutes a disaster. It is also necessary to specify whether every single accident which leads to serious injury or death is to be prevented. If not, when does an accident become a disaster?

Although I think that any supernatural being with magical powers could prevent all natural evil (and have the atoms of the universe be laid out in whatever arrangement he wanted at every single second), and I think that this is self-evident from God’s omnipotence, you do not accept this (and I am still waiting to hear why).

If all the atoms of the universe be laid out in whatever arrangement God wanted at every single second what would happen to the order and regularity in nature?