Why is God so mean?

[Charlemagne_II]

Is there evil in the world? Yes. What is evil? Natural or moral departures from the law of God. A moral evil is manifested in sin, and sin is allowed by God because of the gift of free will. An atheist might make the case, but a very unconvincing one, that God could always make the bullets of one man miss another man. What would be the point? To save the victim? Yes, but at the price of taking away the free will of man. Sin would be impossible under this regime. But so would virtue. We would all be mere robots designed to go through our programmed motions.

A natural evil is manifested in an earthquake or a flood. This, the atheist argues, is either proof that God does not exist, or that God is mean spirited because God could prevent all natural disasters if He chose to do so. Supposedly this would show both his benificence and his power. But it would also show that the laws of nature He created were created for nothing. Floods and earthquakes are evidence of natural laws being fulfilled. So also was the creation of the planet Earth, the rise and fall of species on it, and the evolution of man to his present state. Were these events good or evil, kind or cruel?

That nature produces events disastrous to the welfare of humanity is self evident. That God allows those events as a part of His mean spirited nature is not evident. There are too many other things in nature that are blessings to us all to conclude that God is mean spirited or powerless. We might as well argue that because we are all going to die, a law of our human nature, God was mean-spirited because He could have made us to live forever. (He does mean us to live forever.) The deduction atheists make is that God is either mean-spirited or God does not exist clearly shows that the atheist cannot believe in a mean-spirited God. Neither can we.

But it does not follow that God does not exist. What follows only is that we have not solved the mystery of evil entirely to our satisfaction. What the atheist is obliged to admit is that the problem of evil can only be rationally explained by a universe that is indifferent to our fate. How can that be when the universe created us and gave us the means by which to survive and to flourish? Ah, but the universe has no mind, the atheist replies. It is not capable of planning good or evil.

Then why should anything in the universe be capable of good or of evil, as even atheists will admit humans are capable? Exactly what are we talking about if not good and evil? And why did the universe create us if not to talk about good and evil, truth and lies, the beautiful and the ugly … even the birth and death of the universe?

If the universe cares not a fig for us because it cannot care for anything, why don’t we just follow the example of Schopenahuer and sleep with a pistol under our pillow waiting for the zenith of ennui or despair? The Catholic answer is to pray that God is good, all powerful, and able to answer our needs if we but cry out to Him, even as we are washed over by a flood or swallowed up by the earth.

 

[4Horsemen]

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?

I know your response was directed to someone else, but I just had to throw in my 2 cents. Your concern is that “a single miracle. . . leaves people unable to know what will happen in the future.” I wonder how you conclude this. You probably are familiar with the miracles Jesus performed int the NT as well as OT miracles. It seems that the people witnessing the miracles (let’s take the extreme case of Lazarus raising from the dead) knew it was a miracle and didn’t expect any changes in the natural order of things. Anyway, they would likely understand that they can’t predict the future under any circumstances.

As for calming the seas, Jesus did just that in the gospel:

Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Mark 4:35-41.

On that day, as evening drew on, he said to them, “Let us cross to the other side.” Leaving the crowd, they took him with them in the boat just as he was. And other boats were with him. A violent squall came up and waves were breaking over the boat, so that it was already filling up. Jesus was in the stern, asleep on a cushion. They woke him and said to him, “Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?” He woke up, rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, “Quiet! Be still!” The wind ceased and there was great calm. Then he asked them, “Why are you terrified? Do you not yet have faith?” They were filled with great awe and said to one another, “Who then is this whom even wind and sea obey?”

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.

 

[tonyrey]

I made a mistake with the quotes. It should read:

                                        *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?

 

[4Horsemen]

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…

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.

WOW! Aren’t you being a bit (understatement ) hard on JK? Don’t you ever take a break? You didn’t default Detales for needing to get some shuteye. In fact, I, too, need a vacation and will be traveling, but I hope to pick up this thread if I can or else in a couple of weeks if it’s still running.

“Where charity and love prevail, there God is ever found. . .” (Those are the words to a meaningful song). Let us all pray for each other

Oremus!
4

 

[jkiernan56]

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.

I am home for lunch from work and will try to take a few minutes to answer your question.
I completely stand behind that statement that “I am not God and God is not me”. I do not question my spiritual experience. As I have repeatedly said many times - it is in my bones the understanding that only God has to exist. I do not have to exist. There is only one reason I exist - because I am directly wanted and willed by God. God holds me and all of creation in existence moment by moment. God is holding me and all of creation in the palm of His hand. If He stopped thinking of His creation for one brief moment, it would no longer exist.

If God could express ALL that He knows and ALL that He loves in one “WORD” … this is the Eternal Begotten Son - a Person. (This reality has nothing to do with the Incarnation. This is a reality that has always existed and will always exist - whether you or I exist or not). GOD IS. God could have continued in BEING for all eternity without ever creating anything.

I start with what I know is reality. I do not define it or get to choose what it is. Reality is independant of you and me.

To answer your question - “how are you possibly able to occupy the mind of God to the extent that you can speak for God”?

I am a “thought” or “word” of God. He thinks of me and wills what He thinks into being. How? I have no clue and that is not a cop out. I simply do not know. That is like asking me how do protons and electrons stay together in an atom. I don’t know how. I don’t know how gravity works. I don’t know how the Republican party can look the American people in the face and say - “it is good for America that our jobs are going overseas”. (I am a Lou Dobbs Independant). I don’t know how a Democratic President can say that He is a Christian and cares about the poor on one hand - and then not recognize the most vulnerable of our society - the unborn. I could go on and on and on. I don’t pretend to understand everything. This I do know - whatever I have, I have as a gift from God. To the extent I occupy the mind of God and can speak for God - that too is a gift I am receiving from God as well.

You quoted the words of St. Augustine - "“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.”

St. Paul expressed this even better in my opinion - “What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ”. Phillipians 3:8

 

[jkiernan56]

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

Why is the discussion about objectivity/subjectivity not important for me? Because no matter how I slice and dice it, reality does not change. I experienced a reality that I know in my bones will never change. From now on I will only refer to my experience as “Absolute Truth” and try to avoid using the words subjective or objective.

 

[jkiernan56]

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?

Does God understand Himself? Absolutely YES. The Eternal Begotten Son is ALL that God the Father KNOWS and LOVES of Himself.

The St. Thomas Aquinas quote is about “dreams”. God does not judge us for our dreams. Whatever happens in our dreams “never really happened” in actuality. We don’t have to say we are sorry for whatever we have dreamed. But a prudent person will certainly take notice of them and try to discern their meaning.

"He who planted the ear, does He not hear? He who formed the eye, does He not see? "
Psalm 94:9

 

[anEvilAtheist]

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.

I have asked this before and you have repeatedly dodged the question. Do you think that God’s hands were tied and when he decided to part the Red Seas and that doing so inevitably led to other disasters? Did God need to alter astronomical conditions in order to do so? God can merely cause the water itself to change without any need to mess with all the things you talk about.

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?

I agree. But considering how long this discussion has already dragged on, I think it is best if we first agree on whether there is a preventable disaster before whether discussing whether every single one can be prevented. As long as you think that hurricanes and tsunamis cause some evil, than there are natural evils.

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?

The part of my post that you declined to respond to addresses this issue:

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.

It’s beginning to seem like you are more concerned with winning the argument than with genuinely exploring this topic. However, I hope I’m completely wrong.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I know your response was directed to someone else, but I just had to throw in my 2 cents. Your concern is that “a single miracle. . . leaves people unable to know what will happen in the future.” I wonder how you conclude this.

I wasn’t trying to say that if a single miracle takes place then people are constantly confused about what will happen. The post I was responding to said that a rational existence was possible if there were a lot of “miracles”. I was saying that if a miracle happens in the same situation every time, people incorporate it into their knowledge of how the world works, and it doesn’t interfere with rational existence at all. My point was that if there are occasional miracles, this actually leaves people more uncertain because they don’t know when one will come. I’m not saying that occasional miracles are wrong (far from it); I am saying that if you say things must always be orderly, it’s more orderly for the same thing to happen every single time.

You probably are familiar with the miracles Jesus performed int the NT as well as OT miracles. It seems that the people witnessing the miracles (let’s take the extreme case of Lazarus raising from the dead) knew it was a miracle and didn’t expect any changes in the natural order of things. Anyway, they would likely understand that they can’t predict the future under any circumstances.

As for calming the seas, Jesus did just that in the gospel:

Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Mark 4:35-41.

On that day, as evening drew on, he said to them, “Let us cross to the other side.” Leaving the crowd, they took him with them in the boat just as he was. And other boats were with him. A violent squall came up and waves were breaking over the boat, so that it was already filling up. Jesus was in the stern, asleep on a cushion. They woke him and said to him, “Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?” He woke up, rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, “Quiet! Be still!” The wind ceased and there was great calm. Then he asked them, “Why are you terrified? Do you not yet have faith?” They were filled with great awe and said to one another, “Who then is this whom even wind and sea obey?”

Good point. I didn’t know there was a specific example of this from the Bible. Obviously if God was trying to prevent all evil, he wouldn’t have to calm the seas in so obvious a way. He would instead know when they were about to get agitated and prevent that.

Referring to the great miracle of the sun on Oct. 13, 1917, the sun did not just MOVE across the sky, it whirled, changed colors, catapulted to the earth. People thought it was the end of the world. In case you think it a case of mass halucination (if that’s at all possible), God had arranged it so that people 10 miles away witnessed the miracle. The weather that day was rainy, and people were walking in mud. Their clothes were wet. But after the miracle, their clothes were dry. Many there, who were atheists, became believers.

I was actually referring to the sun moving across the sky every day to mark change from day to night. Looking back at it, I can see how including that in the same paragraph as Fatima would lead to confusion.

A mass hallucination would mean that all people saw the same thing. Different people saw different things, and some people saw nothing at all. I have a variety of objections to the use of Fatima as proof of God, but I think this would be better discussed in another thread (I plan to create one on how I view Fatima someday, once I have more time).

In His omnipotence, God could prevent or cause anything. However, He permits the natural law to continue functioning EXCEPT when He does something miraculous, which He still does in our day and age.

But he could have written the natural law such that the seas were naturally calmed without his intervention.

God created a PERFECT world. That was BEFORE the Fall. Previous to that time, there were no evils in nature. The Garden of Eden (probably earth before the Fall, or, someplace that existed for a time) was perfectly suited to God’s highest creation: man and woman. They didn’t even need clothing. It was when sin entered the world (through the evil one) that everything changed. Adam and Eve were aware of their sin, having “eaten from the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.” They were tricked by Satan into thinking they could be gods (like God Himself). They chose independence from Him rather than submission and set the scene for all the evil and disasters (manmade and “natural”) in the world.

Why would an omniscient and omnipotent God, knowing what Satan would do, have created the angels such that their free will extended to the earthly realm (instead of just the spiritual realm)? God could have done all the good that they do himself with none of the evil. Free will does not entail omnipotence, or else God would be out of a job, and there are always some limits on what we are physically capable of doing. No matter how much I want to, I cannot make Jupiter disappear. So there is no reason that an omniscient God would have made Satan so powerful, unless a greater good would come of it.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

You might enjoy reading C.S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters. It’s an interesting study in the psychology of how humans think themselves into sin with the help of the senior devils. (In the book Uncle Screwtape is writing to his nephew, "My dear Wormwood).

Seeing as I don’t believe in sin (in the religious sense), or devils, I don’t know if it would be worth it. I also didn’t think much of some of Lewis’ other apologetics work, such as the Problem of Pain, and Mere Christianity. His arguments are just too badly flawed for my taste.

Also, see if you can pick up Meet the Witnesses of the Miracle of the Sun by John M. Haffert. He wanted to get a bibliography of Fatima before there were no more witnesses around to tell of the miracle. BTW, the miracle was PREDICTED by the 3 children who are the visionaries.

Blessings,
4

I’ve looked into Fatima and found it very unconvincing, but maybe I’ll check that book out.

 

[4Horsemen]

**Seeing as I don’t believe in sin (in the religious sense), **or devils, I don’t know if it would be worth it. I also didn’t think much of some of Lewis’ other apologetics work, such as the Problem of Pain, and Mere Christianity. His arguments are just too badly flawed for my taste.

I’ve looked into Fatima and found it very unconvincing, but maybe I’ll check that book out.

Then, in what sense do you believe in “sin?” What do you consider a sin? If not in the religious sense, what sense? Your personal set or system of beliefs?

We all sin, rupturing the communion with God. Maybe the question should be, “Why are we so mean?”

Blessings,
4

 

[One]

Why is the discussion about objectivity/subjectivity not important for me? Because no matter how I slice and dice it, reality does not change.

Oh. Okay. Previously, I thought it was because you were tired.

My guess is that you haven’t quite picked up on the implications of what I’ve been trying to communicate. Since we both, evidently, are taking the time for this wonderful exchange of ideas, I’d like to see if we can navigate this to a good end.

Allow me to start by agreeing with you (always a good place to start, in my opinion): You are correct. Reality does not change. But one’s perspective of reality can change quite easily. This is why the subject/object/Subject discussion is so vitally important for each of “us.”

You have had a profound, peak experience of that reality – of that I’m sure – but I’m here to try to gently point out to you that your ego has co-opted the experience, cloaking it in mythic belief systems that only prevent you from cultivating this experience for the good of “you”, your kindred, and the world.

Why is this important to me? To communicate with you this way?

Because you can actually go further, believe it or not, and further is exactly where you should take this experience. You have had a glimpse of the Divine, indeed a very strong and lasting glimpse, would you not agree? From all you’ve said (once I separate the wheat from the irritating chaff), it seem so to me.

But you’re not home, yet. You’re not in the realm of saints and sages… yet. Likely you could be… sometime. As you yourself might say, God has graced you with a vision of this reality, but the view of reality is like looking through a glass shower door. You see, but not quite as clearly as you could if you remove the rumpled glass.

I care about you, and about what you’ve seen. That’s really why I-I am here. We are (again, as you might say) the breath of God having a conversation with his own bad Self.

Rob

PS: I’d like to ask you to please not split my posts into three or four different responses. It gets a bit confusing for my fuzzy ol’ brain. I’m sure you’d understand that.

 

[tonyrey]

I have asked this before and you have repeatedly dodged the question.

I am an artful dodger, am I? An argumentum ad hominem.
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.

Do you think that God’s hands were tied and when he decided to part the Red Seas and that doing so inevitably led to other disasters?

One miracle does not lead to other disasters.

Did God need to alter astronomical conditions in order to do so? God can merely cause the water itself to change without any need to mess with all the things you talk about.

Yes, in the case of **one **miracle but your supposition is that there is a **constant series **of miracles.

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?
I agree. But considering how long this discussion has already dragged on, I think it is best if we first agree on whether there is a preventable disaster before whether discussing whether every single one can be prevented.

In other words you foresee the insurmountable problems entailed by preventing every single accident.
You still have not defined a disaster.

As long as you think that hurricanes and tsunamis cause some evil then there are natural evils.

Am I alone in thinking that?

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? The part of my post that you declined to respond to addresses this issue.

I don’t know which post you are referring to. Please would you cut and paste it for me.

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.

“consistently” is the operative word. The events at Fatima hardly come into that category.

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.

You seem to be assuming that every single event has a scientific explanation…

It’s beginning to seem like you are more concerned with winning the argument than with genuinely exploring this topic.

That is the finest example of an argumentum ad hominem I have come across for a very long time.

 

[One]

The St. Thomas Aquinas quote is about “dreams”.

Ummm, actually, no. That’s not a correct interpretation. Well, any interpretation could be correct, but this view is partial.

St. Thomas Aquinas was talking about the dream that is you.

You did suggest that God could simply will you away, yes? We are God’s dream.

If you can manage to move perspectives a bit, then you would “see” this.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Then, in what sense do you believe in “sin?” What do you consider a sin? If not in the religious sense, what sense? Your personal set or system of beliefs?

We all sin, rupturing the communion with God. Maybe the question should be, “Why are we so mean?”

Blessings,
4

Well I don’t believe in sin at all, at least as I understand the concept. There may be definitions of the word ‘sin’ for which I would believe it exists, but I do not believe in it in the way it is normally used.

If there is no God, then I think the answer to why we are sometimes mean can be found in evolution. But if there is a God, I have no idea why he would want to make us so mean.

 

[One]

God holds me and all of creation in existence moment by moment. God is holding me and all of creation in the palm of His hand. If He stopped thinking of His creation for one brief moment, it would no longer exist.

Absolutely!

So I-I say to You: Wake up!! YOU’re dreaming!

~

 

[jkiernan56]

Reality does not change. But one’s perspective of reality can change quite easily. This is why the subject/object/Subject discussion is so vitally important for each of “us.”

I agree. The degree or level of “our sanity” is vitally dependant on “seeing and understanding” what is REAL and what is REALLY there.

One of my favorite books is Frank Sheed’s “Theology and Sanity”. Here is an excerpt from Part 1 - Religion and the Mind

"My concern in this book is not with the Will, but with the Intellect; not with Sanctity but with Sanity. The difference is too often overlooked in the practice of religion. The soul has two faculties and they should be clearly distinguished. There is the will; its work is to love - and so to choose, to decide, to act. There is the intellect; its work is to know, to understand, to see. To see what? To see what’s there.

I have said that my concern is with the intellect rather than with the will; this is not because the intellect matters more in religion than the will, but because it does matter and tends to be neglected, and the neglect is bad. I realize that salvation depends directly upon the will. We are saved or damned according to what we love. If we love God, we shall ultimately get God: we shall be saved. If we love self in preference to God, then we shall get self apart from God: we shall be damned. But though in relation to God the intellect does not matter as much as the will (and indeed depends upon the will for it’s health), it does matter as I have said and is too much neglected - to the great misfortune of the will - FOR WE CAN NEVER ATTAIN TO A MAXIMUM LOVE OF GOD WITH ONLY A MINIMUM KNOWLEDGE OF GOD.

… this means that when we look out upon the Universe, we see the same Universe that the Church sees; and the enormous advantage of this is that the Universe that the Church sees is the REAL Universe because she is the Church of God. Seeing what she sees means seeing what is there. And just as loving what is good is sanctity or the health of the will, so seeing what is there is SANITY, or the health of the intellect."

 

[jkiernan56]

I’d like to ask you to please not split my posts into three or four different responses. It gets a bit confusing for my fuzzy ol’ brain. I’m sure you’d understand that.

The reason I split up the posts is to make sure that I stay focused on what it is I am replying to and the reader knows exactly what I am responding to. I will try to help out “your fuzzy ol brain” by refraining from this with your posts.

 

[jkiernan56]

Ummm, actually, no. That’s not a correct interpretation. Well, any interpretation could be correct, but this view is partial.

St. Thomas Aquinas was talking about the dream that is you.

You did suggest that God could simply will you away, yes? We are God’s dream.

If you can manage to move perspectives a bit, then you would “see” this.

… excerpt …

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

And/or – what He
caused?

I think I am beginning how you interpret this and where you are going with all of this.
Yes, it is true that God is “causing” all of created reality to exist and hold’s it in existence. I think where you and I might part ways is in our understanding of HOW this “causing of our existence” relates to “what we do” and it’s consequences.

Here is my understanding of reality. God wills all of creation to exist. He sustains all of creation in existence. He could if He will cease to will creation and it would no longer exist. I think you and I may be on the same page here - maybe.

Where you and I part ways is that although God gives us existence, it is not God who is controlling and directly “causing” our actions like a marionette. We could not perform “free-will” actions if God was not giving us our existence. That “causing of our existence” is not what is directly “causing our actions”. That I wholeheartedly disagree with and reject. Why? Because that is not my experience of reality, nor is it my understanding of reality according to what great minds have written about in the Church. What they have written about confirms my own experience.

 

[jkiernan56]

Absolutely!

So I-I say to You: Wake up!! YOU’re dreaming!

~

I know that you think that I am dreaming … and maybe more importantly possibly think that God is dreaming … but again I wholeheartedly reject that understanding of reality.

God is not dreaming. God does not dream. Creation is not a dream. You and I are not a dream. God is directly thinking and willing the existence of the universe; is directly willing yours and my existence. That is at the heart of of my spiritual experience. I was allowed for about 10 minutes to touch this reality … like being in a dark room and not really seeing what was in the room. God flipped the switch on and allowed me to “see” what was in the room - and it devastated me. God was willing my existence. It is the only reason I existed. God did not have to will me. God did not have to will anything to exist. God could have continued in BEING for all eternity without ever thinking of you or me.

God is not dreaming. I am not dreaming. At the core of my being, I actually think I have a proper understanding of reality … and according to Frank Sheed - to the degree you are in touch with reality … is the degree of a person’s sanity.