The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Leroy42 · 07-01-2016 08:01PM

looksee wrote: »

I would even go so far as to say that, if there is a god, formal religion is his main enemy. Any thinking person looking at the fear based, vindictive, narrow minded nonsense that is promoted by the leaders of religion (all religions) has nothing to do with a loving god. Indeed it is hard to see why a god should be loving, why not just totally pragmatic?

This is the bit that I am struggling with. Even with all the scientific breakthroughs of the last 400+ years, we are still left with the gap as to where it all came from.

But even if you accept that God did it, it does not lead to accepting that he is at all concerned with what we do. If you accept that the universe is 14b years old, and humans are on the earth some 1-2 hundred thousand its seems somewhat overkill for him to design such a universe just that we could live in a tiny portion of it, for such a relatively small amount of the time.

now even if you accept that time & space are irrelevant to god and therefore the above doesn't matter, it still begs the question as to why god would care whether I am gay or not.Or whether I go to mass, or even whether I pray to him, to others or not at all.

For a god that seems to happily remain obtuse when people are suffering, he seems very determined to ensure that you follow his rules. If I completely ignore my kids I can't very well expect that when I do bother to turn up they will actually listen to me.

TL:DR : I can accept that God created the universe but struggle to see that he takes any action or cares for our lives

EirWatcher · 08-01-2016 02:22AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

TL:DR : I can accept that God created the universe but struggle to see that he takes any action or cares for our lives

If God created the universe, then He cares about each of us enough to give us life.
It also follows that He created us with free will to action.
Abrogating that will back to Him opens the space for His will to take action.

Leroy42 wrote: »

For a god that seems to happily remain obtuse when people are suffering, he seems very determined to ensure that you follow his rules. If I completely ignore my kids I can't very well expect that when I do bother to turn up they will actually listen to me.

A parent has an understanding that their child doesn't. A parent understands the need to limit and correct a child's behavior at times - to keep them safe, healthy, and ultimately grow as a person, though the child does not yet understand why the parent has rules.
Parents know. Jesus introduced us to God as "Our Father" - one inference of which is that God's ways are as unfathomable to us as a father's ways are to a child, but no less loving than a parent, and demanding of some trust and obedience on our part, for our ultimate good.

Leroy42 · 08-01-2016 10:46AM

EirWatcher wrote: »

If God created the universe, then He cares about each of us enough to give us life.
It also follows that He created us with free will to action.
Abrogating that will back to Him opens the space for His will to take action.

But if he cares enough to give us life, why allow us to have such horrible ones (not me, or people in the west generally, but look at all the sick people in the world). And why would he choose to make some people disabled, blind, etc from birth? As Stephen Fry says it seems evil and doesn't appear even remotely fair.

On the point of free will, it really is just the appearance of free will. God must know what the future holds, therefore he must know what each of us will do in the future. I raised the issue of Pontius Pilot in an earlier post. What he if had decided not to condemn Jesus to death. Merely imprison him? Or let him go? I don't believe God send Jesus down to earth to rot away in prison? So was that really free will?

EirWatcher wrote: »

A parent has an understanding that their child doesn't. A parent understands the need to limit and correct a child's behavior at times - to keep them safe, healthy, and ultimately grow as a person, though the child does not yet understand why the parent has rules.
Parents know. Jesus introduced us to God as "Our Father" - one inference of which is that God's ways are as unfathomable to us as a father's ways are to a child, but no less loving than a parent, and demanding of some trust and obedience on our part, for our ultimate good.

God doesn't correct anybody's behaviour. He simply gave us rules and then seems to have closed the door and let everyone get on with it. So God allows people to rape and kill others and does nothing to stop them? What sort of parent is that?

Also, using parents goes completely against your view of free will. Children don't have free will when their parents take control. Bedtime, dinner time, what to eat, when to play, what to watch etc is all controlled, to a greater or lessor extent by the parent. As any parent will know, there are times that kids try to push these rules, question them, and in certain cases action must be taken by the parent to enforce the rules, both for the good of the child, but also for the others children or people. God seems to allow us to do anything we want, which is fine if it only effects you, but why would he allow others to carry out such heinous acts on others?

antiskeptic · 08-01-2016 11:38AM

looksee wrote: »

And I was demonstrating that I had been through a long period of not only not resisting, but actively seeking, but nothing in terms of belief had happened. And eventually the reverse happened, my unbelief was confirmed.

One wonders: how does a person figure out the correct approach to seeking God. Such as to suppose themselves actually meeting the criteria for actively seeking set by God (assuming he set's such criteria at all)?

At this stage I do not wish to pursue something that I have concluded is pretty much fantasy. Certainly I have zero interest in doing it through formal religion, about which I am totally disillusioned. I would even go so far as to say that, if there is a god, formal religion is his main enemy.

I can't help but tend to agree with you. Much of it has the same odour about it that the religion of Jesus' day had - against which he railed so much

Any thinking person looking at the fear based, vindictive, narrow minded nonsense that is promoted by the leaders of religion (all religions) has nothing to do with a loving god.

The biblical God is many things: holy is one of them. Holiness, at it's simplest, is everything that is pure, good, considerate, relational, selfless, creative, kind, tolerant, patient. And the nature of holiness abhors unholiness like nature abhors a vacuum. This because unholiness destroys and seeks to pevert that which is holy.

God's wrath against unholiness isn't vindictive. It is the the correct, right, logical but most importantly, natural reaction of holiness seeking to protect what is holy.

So, whilst God is loving, even towards us who are infected with unholiness, there is wrath to be faced should we not avail of the opportunity given us to rid ourselves of this unholy infection.

We might not be to blame for getting infected, but we become culpable for failing to rid ourselves of it when offered the chance.

As to narrow-mindedness. There is a divide between that which is holy and that which is not. It is not narrow minded to recognize that God is as he. Although that recognition can swiftly and easily turn into religiousity and condemnation of those who operate outside God's boundaries (all the while forgetting that we all operate outside those boudaries)

Indeed it is hard to see why a god should be loving, why not just totally pragmatic?

Because love is greater than pragmatism?

ABC101 · 08-01-2016 02:29PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

And why would he choose to make some people disabled, blind, etc from birth? As Stephen Fry says it seems evil and doesn't appear even remotely fair.

Leroy42.... that is not my understanding.

Yes I do agree that the world seems a strange place, if there is a God... why is there so much 'going wrong'?

WRT your point about some people being born disabled / blind etc.

In any production run.... there will be rejects / defective items produced. That is just the way statistical anomalies occur. Its a fact of life etc.

Biological molecular factories contained in cells using the DNA code as instructions. Sometimes things go wrong and the child is Down syndrome etc.

It's not a case that God determines somebody to be Down or blind or whatever.

It's just nature at work. I am saying it is not correct to blame God for these events / anomalies which occur.

But I do agree with your observation, if there is a God (& I personally believe there is) he must be looking down on planet Earth with pity. Because there is a lot going wrong down here! I do wonder why does he put up with all the nonsense going on and just call a halt to it all.

However that would stop the current sequence of events, it would also derail future generations of the choice to do good or bad, to harm or protect the environment, or to be kind or cruel.

Leroy42 · 08-01-2016 02:39PM

ABC101 wrote: »

WRT your point about some people being born disabled / blind etc.

In any production run.... there will be rejects / defective items produced. That is just the way statistical anomalies occur. Its a fact of life etc.

Biological molecular factories contained in cells using the DNA code as instructions. Sometimes things go wrong and the child is Down syndrome etc.

It's not a case that God determines somebody to be Down or blind or whatever.

It's just nature at work. I am saying it is not correct to blame God for these events / anomalies which occur.

But this is God, not some industrial (man made) machine. He is by definition perfect. He is all powerful. He can design and build earth and the entire universe, he can create man from nothing, he can resurrect his own son, but he can't work out the defects in his own design?

You can't accept that god created man and then blame nature for the errors.

ABC101 wrote: »

But I do agree with your observation, if there is a God (& I personally believe there is) he must be looking down on planet Earth with pity. Because there is a lot going wrong down here! I do wonder why does he put up with all the nonsense going on and just call a halt to it all.

However that would stop the current sequence of events, it would also derail future generations of the choice to do good or bad, to harm or protect the environment, or to be kind or cruel.

Again, you are putting limitations on a supposedly all powerful God. You are placing the human constraints on him that are not required due to him being god. Why would god be looking down with pity. This is what he designed. If he is unhappy with the way things are going then he surely must accept that he has made mistakes and therefore not infallible or all powerful.

So either he is happy to let us suffer, or he is incapable of doing anything about it. Either way is not my understanding of god

Apologies to everyone, my responses/questions seem long. I'm just recently starting to question all of this and just having a hard time with it.

antiskeptic · 08-01-2016 02:52PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

But this is God..

You're familiar with the notion of The Fall. Where man and nature fell from a position of order and perfection to one of disorder and imperfection. All produced in such an environment is tainted by disorder and imperfection to one or other degree.

God isn't making the child blind. The mechanism through which we are produced (even if ultimately enabled and sustained by God in it's imperfect state - his role being to power the path man choses to go down) makes blind children.

looksee · 08-01-2016 03:43PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

One wonders: how does a person figure out the correct approach to seeking God. Such as to suppose themselves actually meeting the criteria for actively seeking set by God (assuming he set's such criteria at all)?

Oh right, that must have been the problem, I didn't realise there were correct approaches and criteria to meet, I thought it was just a matter of trying to communicate and listening. Silly me.

The biblical God is many things: holy is one of them. Holiness, at it's simplest, is everything that is pure, good, considerate, relational, selfless, creative, kind, tolerant, patient. And the nature of holiness abhors unholiness like nature abhors a vacuum. This because unholiness destroys and seeks to pevert that which is holy.

God's wrath against unholiness isn't vindictive. It is the the correct, right, logical but most importantly, natural reaction of holiness seeking to protect what is holy.

So, whilst God is loving, even towards us who are infected with unholiness, there is wrath to be faced should we not avail of the opportunity given us to rid ourselves of this unholy infection.

We might not be to blame for getting infected, but we become culpable for failing to rid ourselves of it when offered the chance.

As to narrow-mindedness. There is a divide between that which is holy and that which is not. It is not narrow minded to recognize that God is as he. Although that recognition can swiftly and easily turn into religiousity and condemnation of those who operate outside God's boundaries (all the while forgetting that we all operate outside those boudaries)

You will note that I said

Any thinking person looking at the fear based, vindictive, narrow minded nonsense that is promoted by the leaders of religion (all religions) has nothing to do with a loving god.

I specifically referred to people - religious leaders - not god. Either way, there appears to be no end to the impenetrable discourse that cannot be argued with, as no-one other than the author understands it.

EirWatcher · 08-01-2016 06:38PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Apologies to everyone, my responses/questions seem long. I'm just recently starting to question all of this and just having a hard time with it.

Questioning is good - a sign of a healthy mind seeking understanding. It can be hard alone without access to a spiritual director.

If you've so many point-by-point questions, you could also consider looking at apologetics websites, which already have detailed responses to all the popular questions & objections.

There are great books out there too - non scriptural - which assist with theological enquiry. "Theology & Sanity" by Sheed is one I found particularly useful and reasonable.

indioblack · 08-01-2016 09:15PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

You're familiar with the notion of The Fall. Where man and nature fell from a position of order and perfection to one of disorder and imperfection. All produced in such an environment is tainted by disorder and imperfection to one or other degree.

God isn't making the child blind. The mechanism through which we are produced (even if ultimately enabled and sustained by God in it's imperfect state - his role being to power the path man choses to go down) makes blind children.

An interesting description - "his role being to power the path man chooses to go down."
To me this means man and god both make the child blind.
But who has the ultimate responsibility, and the ability, to prevent the child being blind in the first place?
Empowering man along the route he has chosen, a just response to man's sin, or allowing mankind's growth.
In any of these scenarios, god is tolerating the consequences - and making them possible in the first place.

antiskeptic · 08-01-2016 09:36PM

indioblack wrote: »

An interesting description - "his role being to power the path man chooses to go down."

Indeed. Without a canvas to paint it on and something to provide a powersource for it's expression, there is no will.

God stepping back in order to be the AAA batteries powering mans' will-expression removes God from primacy of responsibility for mans actions. He is responsible for setting up a canvas and empowering the will but these are neutral actions - his setting things for us to chose didn't set the direction chosen.

To me this means man and god both make the child blind.

God as the bullet. Man pointing it in the direction of harm and pulling the trigger. The bullet itself is a neutral thing until a will uses it's power

But who has the ultimate responsibility, and the ability, to prevent the child being blind in the first place?

God, in an ultimate sense. But removed from moral culpability since it wasn't his will that people be harmed. Once deciding to create free will then the rest is, to a degree, beyond his control.

Empowering man along the route he has chosen, a just response to man's sin, or allowing mankind's growth.

A holy response to mans sin (unholiness banished from holiness' presence).

And a response which had had the effect of setting all men (including Adam) for a moral tug of war. Because, on sinning, Adam obtained a conscience (a knowledge - and I stress the word know - of what good is and what evil is). And so too have all men since.

Which sets, conveniently, all men up for a decision on a most fundamental issue: their stance wrt to a key characteristic, if not the key characteristic, of God - his holiness.

Those who come to despair of their sinfulness will be (it would seem) be saved from it and it's consequences. Those who go on with it, perhaps cursing it occasionally for it's downsides and pain, but ultimately rowing along with it will (it would seem) spend eternity with it expressed in them in fullest form. Full, but imprisoned so that it is denied the expression allowed it in this world. Can you imagine it: brimming with the desire to express the most abominable things yet being fully contained and imprisoned so as not to be able to express it emotionally, physically or even in the mind by wayof fantasy.

The picture of hell as fire isn't, I think, there to indicate the actual temperature of the experience. Rather it's to express the torment of the depraved denied any way of expression.

In any of these scenarios, god is tolerating the consequences - and making them possible in the first place.

I think he is tolerating it. And making it possible in the abstract and one step removed way outlined earlier. But this is a temporary affair. A precursor sifting out stage for the main even. The eternal show.

antiskeptic · 08-01-2016 09:48PM

looksee wrote: »

Oh right, that must have been the problem, I didn't realise there were correct approaches and criteria to meet, I thought it was just a matter of trying to communicate and listening. Silly me.

It's a thoroughly rational consideration to begin with.

And your response a revealing one perhaps. You decide whichever way you figure is the way to approach it (and that includes deciding to follow the lead of whoever happens to cross your path saying that this is the way to do it). And if it doesn't work then "stuff you - I've done what needed to be done an you haven't coughed up".

If there's a grain of truth in here (that is, if your response to God is similar to your response to me) then you might begin to see the nature of the problem.

I'm not in any way condemning here - I wag my finger at God as a believer in him. It's a human condition, believer or no. But lack of humility (in my case I was brought to my knees by events - I didn't cheerfully decide to assume a humble position one morning) is the major obstacle between God and a man who doesn't know God.

I specifically referred to people - religious leaders - not god. Either way, there appears to be no end to the impenetrable discourse that cannot be argued with, as no-one other than the author understands it.

I was referring to the fear-based aspect of these peoples teaching. That it has good foundation in a God who is not only loving, but wrathful. And I was attempting to explain why wrath, and a fear of wrath, isn't a wrong thing to be pointing out to people. It's not the full story though, wrath. It has a context in love and holiness (you'd hate the actions of a paedo because of a love of a child I'd warrant) and is joined in these things.

Folk who concentrate only on the wrath of God are indeed doing a disservice to God. But aren't speaking total crap either.

Leroy42 · 08-01-2016 09:50PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

God as the bullet. Man pointing it in the direction of harm and pulling the trigger. The bullet itself is a neutral thing until a will uses it's power
God, in an ultimate sense. But removed from moral culpability since it wasn't his will that people be harmed. Once deciding to create free will then the rest is, to a degree, beyond his control.

What does this mean? How has man pulled any trigger. The child did nothing and the parents did nothing?

Or are you implying that the blindness (or any illness) is punishment for sin?

tommy2bad · 08-01-2016 09:58PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

What does this mean? How has man pulled any trigger. The child did nothing and the parents did nothing?

Or are you implying that the blindness (or any illness) is punishment for sin?

Yeah it's a bad analogy, try to see a blind child as a consequence of events rather than the direct result of any particular action.
Not exactly the fault of the parents or the child or anyone in particular but the result of the situation created by a million and one small choices made over time. And if that sounds exactly like evolution and nature in action and adding god to the equation add nothing at all ? .

antiskeptic · 08-01-2016 11:36PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

What does this mean? How has man pulled any trigger. The child did nothing and the parents did nothing?

Adam had dominion over creation (goes the biblical case). He fell, and all under his dominion fell. Nature became corrupt. The child is born blind because of corrupt Nature.

Adam pulled the trigger in that case.

Man sinning generally is mans will pulling the trigger. God enabling the results of mans sin is the bullet doing what the trigger finger wills. God, sets his power and ability at our disposal, as it were.

But our sinful will being done isn't his desire. But in giving us will, he has no option but to grant our will be done.

Within limits of course. You can come to the end of the tether allowed. And will, in any event, die one day.

Or are you implying that the blindness (or any illness) is punishment for sin?

Not a child being born blind, no.

Although God can take action directly against a sinner because of his sin I'd warrant most explained by the fall and mans own propensity to do what isn't good for him.

EirWatcher · 09-01-2016 03:16AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

On the point of free will, it really is just the appearance of free will.

If that were true, then your own assertion further down that God does not (or can not) influence a persons behavior wouldn't hold true.

Leroy42 wrote: »

God must know what the future holds, therefore he must know what each of us will do in the future.

Yes, but it doesn't logically follow that we don't decide the choice.

Leroy42 wrote: »

I raised the issue of Pontius Pilot in an earlier post. What he if had decided not to condemn Jesus to death. Merely imprison him? Or let him go? I don't believe God send Jesus down to earth to rot away in prison? So was that really free will?

The choice was Pilate's to make and that's the one he made. As you stated above God knew before time (before Pilate even was) what way he would choose.
This is evident partly because Jesus knew he came into the world to be put to death. He sent Jesus into the world knowing Pilate would had him over
to be crucified.

Leroy42 wrote: »

God doesn't correct anybody's behaviour.

How do you know? Would Mother Theresa's life have been as it was if she didn't believe in and pray for God's influence in her life?
He can (and does) in fact, but only with the individual's assent - that is the freedom of will we have.
Behaviour is the effect of our will. If God set our behaviour (our actions) without any cooperation from us, we would therefore
not have free will in that action, would not be human, and that's not how he created us.
He created us with the ability to choose to align our will with His. Our conscience informs our will, but the decision is ultimately ours.
The Gospel is repleat with His corrections of worldly thinking and attitudes which helps inform our conscience further.
And that continues in contemporary times too under the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the Magisterium of the Church he established through Peter.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Also, using parents goes completely against your view of free will.

It does not. It might be more apt than you think. (The analogy is not mine, it is Christ's - "our Father".)

Leroy42 wrote: »

Children don't have free will when their parents take control.

There's many a parent that must wish that were so!

A parent cannot directly control a child's actions, can not make their internal choices for them. If we could, that's not a child, not a human, that's a puppet.
The child's growing will governs how it responds to any circumstances, including the limits a parent puts in its way.
The good parent can seek to gradually train the child's will, subject to the limits of its growing understanding at the time (but with no certainty of outcome, of course).
The child, through its own will, can either submit to the parent's authority or reject it ("push the rules" as you say).
We too have free will to either submit to the authority of the Father or to reject it, and consequently go forward only on our self-will,
untrained, uncorrected, unenlightened by higher guidance available, and rejecting any implusion of God's will.
(and worse - our will can then be subject to the guidance and promptings of the one who doesn't have good intentions for us.)
And - like the rebellious child - we can always return to the Father too (and frequently do), asking why he didn't stop us, or why he didn't intervene
if he must have know what we'd choose to do, or will he clear up the mess. The child too can even express sorrow to the parent for their willful rebellion
and seek reconcilation. But, it is the child's *choice* whether to do so.

Leroy42 wrote: »

But if he cares enough to give us life, why allow us to have such horrible ones (not me, or people in the west generally, but look at all the sick people in the world). And why would he choose to make some people disabled, blind, etc from birth?

What are your alternatives? There's two I can think of:

1. Do not create those people in the first place and give them no life at all?

This would not be consistent with a God who is Love. Proof again He loves us; He loves our being.

2. Nothing bad should be permitted to happen to someone in their life?

What can we say is bad?
You mention sickness, so I presume you mean pain and suffering is bad and God should remove it from people's lives.
Ok, look at the source of suffering.
Firstly, there is suffering from evil inflicted on people by other people. This evil behavior (as above) is an effect of their free will;
again, if God were to remove the capacity for open choice (even temporarily) from any of his loved ones, to avoid us hurting another,
then we would not be human, not as he created us.
So he can't. Yes, he sets that limit on his creation. But if the limitation of creation allows you and I to have a free will to do what we choose
- would you really want that limit removed?

Secondly, (and probably what you meant) are natural evils like diseases, catastrophes, etc.

I admit I'm still developing an understanding of the concept of natural evil myself. Here's where I've gotten so far with it:
We live in a fallen world. In this world, God *permits* evil in the world, but he did *intend* it in the world.
Christ promises restoration of Creation. Christ invites us to participate in that with Him (the Kingdom of Heaven).

The Book of Job gives a revealing insight into Man's rebellion against a God who permits suffering. At he end of his tether,
Job got angry and rebuked God. The response was twofold.
Firstly God challenged Job: what do you know? Where you there when I put the Universe in motion and so what do you know of it.
The rebelious child was reminded of his limits in comparison to the parent.
Secondly (and more pertinently) it *moved* God. Job turned to God, even in anger (anger is a good prayer), and God heard him
and did make things better for Job from them on. Suffering, without purpose, is senseless. But suffering, directed to God, can come good.

But talk of what we would have God's nature be (i.e. His capacity to permit suffering) is largely moot. We can not change God's nature. As Pope John II said condemnation of God because he permits suffering is based not on truth but on arrogance. I know better than God. Putting self above God. It is a sin against God. Idolatry - of self.

And on that topic...

Leroy42 wrote: »

As Stephen Fry says it seems evil and doesn't appear even remotely fair.

For an understanding of God's nature, I prefer to seek it from those have studied God.
(A person's claim to knowledge of the nature of any entity they deny exists is a spurious one and so any such knowledge is - at best - more limited than others', but - at worst - misleading)

The real head scratcher when you get to is not just why an Almighty Being permits suffering, but why He would voluntarily take suffering on himself, coming as a human when he knew it would end in vilification, rejection, humiliation, laceration and impalement on a tree, in humble obediance to the Father, a model of the human will in total unity with the Father's will.

Would we have taken on a gig like that? God's ways are not our ways; God is love.

He showed us the outcome of obedience to the Father, of total acceptance of the Father's will: that suffering God ultimately turned to good, and a good that was beyond the imagination or understanding of even His closest disciples - a man who rose Himself from death. The ultimate natural evil defeated - death. A restored order of Creation begun.

If there were no suffering on this Earth, as you dream of, what would that world be like?
Only good things happening. Everyone happy. No conflict. Peace reigns. Pure love.

Sounds like Heaven to me

And we're all invited.

"Thy Kingdom come ...
Thy will be done ...
On earth, as it is ... in Heaven."

Good discussing with you. The challenging questions really help deepen my understanding of faith. Thanks for that.

indioblack · 09-01-2016 02:03PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Indeed. Without a canvas to paint it on and something to provide a powersource for it's expression, there is no will.

God stepping back in order to be the AAA batteries powering mans' will-expression removes God from primacy of responsibility for mans actions. He is responsible for setting up a canvas and empowering the will but these are neutral actions - his setting things for us to chose didn't set the direction chosen.

God as the bullet. Man pointing it in the direction of harm and pulling the trigger. The bullet itself is a neutral thing until a will uses it's power

God, in an ultimate sense. But removed from moral culpability since it wasn't his will that people be harmed. Once deciding to create free will then the rest is, to a degree, beyond his control.

A holy response to mans sin (unholiness banished from holiness' presence).

And a response which had had the effect of setting all men (including Adam) for a moral tug of war. Because, on sinning, Adam obtained a conscience (a knowledge - and I stress the word know - of what good is and what evil is). And so too have all men since.

Which sets, conveniently, all men up for a decision on a most fundamental issue: their stance wrt to a key characteristic, if not the key characteristic, of God - his holiness.

Those who come to despair of their sinfulness will be (it would seem) be saved from it and it's consequences. Those who go on with it, perhaps cursing it occasionally for it's downsides and pain, but ultimately rowing along with it will (it would seem) spend eternity with it expressed in them in fullest form. Full, but imprisoned so that it is denied the expression allowed it in this world. Can you imagine it: brimming with the desire to express the most abominable things yet being fully contained and imprisoned so as not to be able to express it emotionally, physically or even in the mind by wayof fantasy.

The picture of hell as fire isn't, I think, there to indicate the actual temperature of the experience. Rather it's to express the torment of the depraved denied any way of expression.

I think he is tolerating it. And making it possible in the abstract and one step removed way outlined earlier. But this is a temporary affair. A precursor sifting out stage for the main even. The eternal show.

As long as it's understood that as well as tolerating this hypothetical blind child's condition he is also tolerating the whole history of human existence - positive and negative.
It seems to me that god needs this existence - our existence - to achieve a purpose.
You used the description of the blank canvas and I think it is a useful image. In this story, that canvas may have been ourselves, spiritually or physically, a long time ago. Think of it as a black and white photograph.
It only becomes a recognisable image when black and white shapes give features, edges, contrast.
Such contrast exists all around us - in nature, in behaviour etc.
Without this contrast, it could be argued, we might not recognise our existence - we might not even exist as we do.
In this story I would say the toleration was necessary - as was the bullet, the will behind the trigger, and the enabler of the bullet, [god].
What we may perceive as the negative in existence could be regarded as a requirement - to begin a journey.

J C · 22-01-2016 09:55PM

MrPudding wrote: »

The extensive, and inappropriate, use of ellipsis and liberal spraying of full stops makes your posts difficult to read.
MrP

Funny thing ... I find his posts very easy to read !!!:D:)

Belated Happy New Year Mr P BTW

J C · 22-01-2016 10:32PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Not exactly the fault of the parents or the child or anyone in particular but the result of the situation created by a million and one small choices made over time.

Blindness is caused by one great accident or a number of (uncorrected) smaller accidents / transcription errors AKA mutations.
God isn't required to explain such accidents ... indeed, the opposite is the case, ... as a perfect omnipotent entity, accidents can't be caused by God.

Accidents are caused by the imperfection/evil introduced at the Fall of man by rejecting God's warning to them and wilfully introducing evil into a perfect Universe.

tommy2bad wrote: »

And if that sounds exactly like evolution and nature in action and adding god to the equation add nothing at all ?

I agree that adding God to evolution/natural selection isn't required ... something for the Theistic Evolutionists to note.

looksee · 22-01-2016 10:44PM

Quote; JC
Accidents are caused by the imperfection/evil introduced at the Fall of man by rejecting God's warning to them and wilfully introducing evil into a perfect Universe.

I am sure that every parent who has had a child born with health issues will be grateful that they were chosen, like Christ, to pay for the sins of the world.

J C · 22-01-2016 10:57PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

But this is God, not some industrial (man made) machine. He is by definition perfect. He is all powerful. He can design and build earth and the entire universe, he can create man from nothing, he can resurrect his own son, but he can't work out the defects in his own design?

You can't accept that god created man and then blame nature for the errors.

The scale (almost infinite) and perfection (almost perfect) of Creation would indicate an omnipotent and infinitely intelligent source for it. We can certainly blame mankind for many errors ... which intuitively points the finger at Mankind as the ultimate reason for the observed errors.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Again, you are putting limitations on a supposedly all powerful God. You are placing the human constraints on him that are not required due to him being god. Why would god be looking down with pity. This is what he designed. If he is unhappy with the way things are going then he surely must accept that he has made mistakes and therefore not infallible or all powerful.

So either he is happy to let us suffer, or he is incapable of doing anything about it. Either way is not my understanding of god

... there is a third option ... that He has created a Universe operating under immutable (physical) laws and free-willed creatures in it ... and in order for them to remain free-willed, God cannot use His omnipotence to interfere with their free-will ... and in order for the Universe to remain stable and predictable, He cannot mess with the immutable laws.
We live with the positives of free-will ... love, goodness and freedom
... and the negatives of free-will ... hate, evil and enslavement to sin.
The love, goodness and freedom benefits generally vastly outweigh the downsides of free-will IMO.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Apologies to everyone, my responses/questions seem long. I'm just recently starting to question all of this and just having a hard time with it.

No need to apologise ... your questions go to the heart of the meaning of our existence.

J C · 22-01-2016 11:02PM

looksee wrote: »

I am sure that every parent who has had a child born with health issues will be grateful that they were chosen, like Christ, to pay for the sins of the world.

We're all suffering from the introduction of sin ... as we are all imperfect to varying degrees ... and we will all die ... after a (relatively) short physical life ... even those lucky enough to live to 100 describe the time as going very fast ... and their lives as 'short'.

Leroy42 · 22-01-2016 11:31PM

It seems very unfair for a newborn baby to have to pay something of a price for the sins of man. Blindness is indeed due to many hundreds if not multiples of hundreds, or small modifications in the DNA (blindness at birth I mean) and as such the baby or parents cannot have had any bearing on the changes yet are forced to suffer the consequences. If God has designed the system then he is, by extension, happy for said baby to pay the price. This is on top of the price the 'original' sinner paid which I assume was not be allowed into heaven.

So now God has multiple payments for the same sin, many of them paid for by people not even around at the time.

To say that God needs to stay out of it to allow the universe to function is another way of saying that God has no power. God needs to allow man to make his mistakes, and others may have to suffer for those mistakes as to do otherwise is to take away mans free will. That seems a cogent arguement but it leads to the question of how can we then believe in miracles? How can we accept that God can make the impossible possible yet is not able to interfere in unfairness for fear of running free will?

The Bible itself tells us that far from remaining aloof and removed God has intervened on numerous occasions. He enabled the Red sea to be parted to help the Jews escape Egypt, he flooded the earth to drown all living things, and even if we take the view the the old testament is not entirely true, he sent his own Son down to start the revolution of his church. He provided a virgin birth, a resurrection, miracles, he healed some sick, but left many others. It seems that God can intervene when it is in his interest to do so, but a blind baby, well sure thats not really important and sure they will have eternity in heaven (which they could get regardless of the blindness).

If you accept that God is powerless (not be dint of having no power but rather he is not allowing himself to act to secure free will) then what is the point of prayer? Why pray to something which cannot make a difference. Isn't it that we are really praying to ourselves, praying that we make the right choice? Nothing wrong in that, but it seems somewhat of a reach to then thank God for any favourable outcome.

Leroy42 · 22-01-2016 11:31PM

It seems very unfair for a newborn baby to have to pay something of a price for the sins of man. Blindness is indeed due to many hundreds if not multiples of hundreds, or small modifications in the DNA (blindness at birth I mean) and as such the baby or parents cannot have had any bearing on the changes yet are forced to suffer the consequences. If God has designed the system then he is, by extension, happy for said baby to pay the price. This is on top of the price the 'original' sinner paid which I assume was not be allowed into heaven.

So now God has multiple payments for the same sin, many of them paid for by people not even around at the time.

To say that God needs to stay out of it to allow the universe to function is another way of saying that God has no power. God needs to allow man to make his mistakes, and others may have to suffer for those mistakes as to do otherwise is to take away mans free will. That seems a cogent arguement but it leads to the question of how can we then believe in miracles? How can we accept that God can make the impossible possible yet is not able to interfere in unfairness for fear of running free will?

The Bible itself tells us that far from remaining aloof and removed God has intervened on numerous occasions. He enabled the Red sea to be parted to help the Jews escape Egypt, he flooded the earth to drown all living things, and even if we take the view the the old testament is not entirely true, he sent his own Son down to start the revolution of his church. He provided a virgin birth, a resurrection, miracles, he healed some sick, but left many others. It seems that God can intervene when it is in his interest to do so, but a blind baby, well sure thats not really important and sure they will have eternity in heaven (which they could get regardless of the blindness).

If you accept that God is powerless (not be dint of having no power but rather he is not allowing himself to act to secure free will) then what is the point of prayer? Why pray to something which cannot make a difference. Isn't it that we are really praying to ourselves, praying that we make the right choice? Nothing wrong in that, but it seems somewhat of a reach to then thank God for any favourable outcome.

looksee · 22-01-2016 11:35PM

J C wrote: »

We're all suffering from the introduction of sin ... as we are all imperfect to varying degrees ... and we will all die ... after a (relatively) short physical life ... even those lucky enough to live to 100 describe the time as going very fast ... and their lives as 'short'.

Well, yes, a person who has led a healthy, active, interesting life till they reach old age and die peacefully is just as unfortunate as a child born with a disease that will give it pain and a distressed, short life, and cause its parents grief, guilt, anguish and exhaustion.

J C · 22-01-2016 11:44PM

looksee wrote: »

Well, yes, a person who has led a healthy, active, interesting life till they reach old age and die peacefully is just as unfortunate as a child born with a disease that will give it pain and a distressed, short life, and cause its parents grief, guilt, anguish and exhaustion.

... we all face the imminent possibility of disease and death every day of our lives ... there are hundreds of people dead tonight ... who were alive (and perfectly healthy) yesterday.

J C · 23-01-2016 12:05AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

It seems very unfair for a newborn baby to have to pay something of a price for the sins of man. Blindness is indeed due to many hundreds if not multiples of hundreds, or small modifications in the DNA (blindness at birth I mean) and as such the baby or parents cannot have had any bearing on the changes yet are forced to suffer the consequences.

Disease and death don't spare anybody ... it is more distressing, at an emotional level, to see a young child suffer ... but you can logically argue that it should be equally distressing to see anybody, of any age, suffer.

Leroy42 wrote: »

If God has designed the system then he is, by extension, happy for said baby to pay the price. This is on top of the price the 'original' sinner paid which I assume was not be allowed into heaven.

The price of sin (and we are all sinners) is (physical) death ... whether we suffer damnation afterwords, is entirely due to whether we accept Salvation ... or not.
There is no reason therefore that Adam isn't allowed into Heaven.
God isn't happy that anybody suffers ... but He will not compromise our free-will by using His omnipotence ... to preclude the self-imposed suffering of Mankind.

Leroy42 wrote: »

So now God has multiple payments for the same sin, many of them paid for by people not even around at the time.

The only satisfactory payment for sin is God's own death ... and Jesus Christ paid this price.

Leroy42 wrote: »

To say that God needs to stay out of it to allow the universe to function is another way of saying that God has no power.

... its actually the opposite ... God's power is so awesome ... that He cannot use it freely ... and still leave Manking with free-will.

Leroy42 wrote: »

God needs to allow man to make his mistakes, and others may have to suffer for those mistakes as to do otherwise is to take away mans free will. That seems a cogent arguement but it leads to the question of how can we then believe in miracles? How can we accept that God can make the impossible possible yet is not able to interfere in unfairness for fear of running free will?
The Bible itself tells us that far from remaining aloof and removed God has intervened on numerous occasions. He enabled the Red sea to be parted to help the Jews escape Egypt, he flooded the earth to drown all living things, and even if we take the view the the old testament is not entirely true, he sent his own Son down to start the revolution of his church. He provided a virgin birth, a resurrection, miracles, he healed some sick, but left many others.

It may be possible, that for some extremely compelling reason, known unto God, that a local temporary removal of free-will/suspension of the physical laws is required ... and thus a miracle happens.
... its the exception that proves the rule.

Leroy42 wrote: »

It seems that God can intervene when it is in his interest to do so, but a blind baby, well sure thats not really important and sure they will have eternity in heaven (which they could get regardless of the blindness).

Such are the dilemmas of an omnipotent God ... trying to balance non-interference/free-will with His omnipotence.

Leroy42 wrote: »

If you accept that God is powerless (not be dint of having no power but rather he is not allowing himself to act to secure free will) then what is the point of prayer? Why pray to something which cannot make a difference. Isn't it that we are really praying to ourselves, praying that we make the right choice? Nothing wrong in that, but it seems somewhat of a reach to then thank God for any favourable outcome.

Prayer may inspire us to do the right thing. It may also protect us from malevolent forces and connect us (using our free-willed prayer) to the forces of good ... with better outcomes in all kinds of areas of our (and other people's) lives, as a result.

looksee · 23-01-2016 01:52AM

I have typed, and removed a number of responses. I will leave you to your arguments.

EirWatcher · 01-02-2016 11:14PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

If you accept that God is powerless (not be dint of having no power but rather he is not allowing himself to act to secure free will) then what is the point of prayer? Why pray to something which cannot make a difference.

Why indeed. You only pray to a Being that can.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Isn't it that we are really praying to ourselves, praying that we make the right choice?

If there is only you present in prayer, then you are not praying. Prayer, like any conversation, involves putting yourself in the presence of the Other, not just being present to yourself. (In fact, that is exactly the first step of Ignatian prayer technique)

Leroy42 wrote: »

Nothing wrong in that, but it seems somewhat of a reach to then thank God for any favourable outcome.

But not a reach to blame Him when you get what you perceive to be the unfavourable outcome from your prayer to yourself?

Yet, had you not prayed for it, not entered into that conversation with God, you would not even have had the eventual correlation between what you sought and God's ultimate response to that prayer. Unless we listen (albeit only to the eventual response to what we petition for), then no conversation takes place. Perhaps the outcome itself (even if unfavourable in our eyes), or some future result of it as yet unseen, is the answer to the prayer, if we remain open to hear and understand it.

We make the same mistake with God as we do with our friends. We do all the talking. As St. Paul said, faith comes from listening.

Prayer is as much (if not more) about changing oneself as it about changing God - after all, in such a conversation, which side needs to change more? Which side could have more to gain from the other?

Leroy42 wrote: »

To say that God needs to stay out of it to allow the universe to function is another way of saying that God has no power.

No, it isn't. It says he does not exercise power, at least not in the way we want or expect.
Does an Almighty "need" to do anything? I would suggest that when he does do something, it is out of choice, rather than need. (Unless of course a need that arises from His nature of Love - Christ never worked a miracle on His own behalf, for example)

As to His power, or lack of: some might say that a God who chose to rest in the seventh day of creation, a God who humbles Himself and loves enough to cede some of the work of Creation in that 7th day over to his created beings, a God who cedeeded his power on Calvary to become powerless at the mercy of men just to show his love for us, exhibits a truly Divine use of power beyond understanding of mere human "power".

"He saved others; He cannot save Himself. let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe in Him"

He didn't exercise power then, in the way and at the time the mocking bystanders demanded - but how He exercised it three days later!

Leroy42 wrote: »

The Bible itself tells us that far from remaining aloof and removed God has intervened on numerous occasions.
He enabled the Red sea to be parted to help the Jews escape Egypt, he flooded the earth to drown all living things, and even if we take the view the the old testament is not entirely true, he sent his own Son down to start the revolution of his church.
He provided a virgin birth, a resurrection, miracles, he healed some sick, but left many others.

And yet we live in a time when miracles are happening all the time, making them almost mundane. Now we can perform virgin births in a lab, heal the sick, restore sight to the blind,
and perform an increasing number of medical miracles every day.
Were it not for the presence of these natural evils, would men not have been spurred to strive to help and heal one another, to express our own powers in nature?
What need of Godly miracles have we now anyway: we have our own miraculous powers that people of Biblical times would scarcely have dreamed man could ever develop? In our times, would we believe these now to be from a Divine source anyway?
"they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead" Lk:31
Even men of faith in science alone would hold that the inexplicable is only so because we do not yet know enough about the cause.
But the wonder of the miracle is due not only to the fact that its cause is hidden, but also that an effect is expected other than what actually takes place. A miracle is seen in the light of faith - faith in the cause as being Divine. The miracles Jesus performed took place in the sight of his disciples, and mainly when he was petitioned to do so by those who sought his intervention.
Despite their reduction in number, Divinely attributed miracles do still happen in the sight of the faithful today (dozens arising from Lourdes, for example).

Leroy42 wrote: »

If God has designed the system then he is, by extension, happy for said baby to pay the price. It seems that God can intervene when it is in his interest to do so, but a blind baby, well sure thats not really important

What are His interests in this Universe but us? I would argue that it is never in His - but *our* best - interests when He does intervene.

The example of the blind baby as punishment seems to be a thoroughly reprehensible situation to you. Just so, if it were true.
Original sin does not imply us paying a price (in the sense of punishment), but rather it means we are born with an ability and inclination to sin.
There is also a risk in us declaring, in our fallen gaze, what are and are not natural evils, their purpose as yet unseen.

An example: There were once parents expecting a blind child. Doctors predicted based on studies that the child would be born with a disability and advised to abort before birth. The parents declined and gave birth anyway. The child suffered sight problems early on and did, eventually, develop total blindness. His mother noticed that music was the only thing that would comfort him and the child developed a great passion for it.
(Heightened acuity of other senses is frequently the outcome of loss of one sense.)
As the child grew older and practiced music he eventually became a world-famous tenor, and after a concert, one audience member remarked: "My mind, my soul were transported by his beauty, his voice, his inner being. God has kissed this man and I thank God for it."

The child's name was Andrea Bocelli.

Would he be making pizza somewhere now instead, with his full sight?

We are so willing to attribute to God the evil, and yet not the more abundant and ultimately victorious good?

Nor the miracles, not as a result of science, but of Divine petition, that do happen still today. For another example, look to the recent miracle attributed to José Luis Sánchez del Río - a baby rescued from more than blindness.

The glass is truly half empty.

Today - thanks to the wisdom of human sciences - we can analyze the DNA as you say and know if that child is to be blind and even intervene as we feel God should have. Do we exercise our power as he would exercise His? Do we see it as "our" power ... or "His", in our hands.

Life is the great mystery. As Fulton Sheen said every mystery has two elements: one visible, the other invisible. Our knowledge of DNA and the genetic system that "God has designed" is just the visible element of the mystery we see.
Science holds faith that, even the miracles it can not explain, will one day be explained - a "faith" ironically inconsistent with its own claim to a purely "rational" tenet? We are created with a propensity for both faith and reason ... and the ability, and inclination, to reduce ourselves to faith or reason.

Leroy42 wrote: »

and sure they will have eternity in heaven (which they could get regardless of the blindness).

Is that so?

I have my full sight, mostly, thank God, but am not yet even aware of the things that I am presently blind to, that lie beyond my sight. While it is reassuring to think that I will have eternity in heaven regardless of my blindness, for myself, I would never presume it.

MrPudding · 02-02-2016 03:01AM

EirWatcher wrote: »

Why indeed. You only pray to a Being that can.

If there is only you present in prayer, then you are not praying. Prayer, like any conversation, involves putting yourself in the presence of the Other, not just being present to yourself. (In fact, that is exactly the first step of Ignatian prayer technique)

But not a reach to blame Him when you get what you perceive to be the unfavourable outcome from your prayer to yourself?

Yet, had you not prayed for it, not entered into that conversation with God, you would not even have had the eventual correlation between what you sought and God's ultimate response to that prayer. Unless we listen (albeit only to the eventual response to what we petition for), then no conversation takes place. Perhaps the outcome itself (even if unfavourable in our eyes), or some future result of it as yet unseen, is the answer to the prayer, if we remain open to hear and understand it.

We make the same mistake with God as we do with our friends. We do all the talking. As St. Paul said, faith comes from listening.

Prayer is as much (if not more) about changing oneself as it about changing God - after all, in such a conversation, which side needs to change more? Which side could have more to gain from the other?

No, it isn't. It says he does not exercise power, at least not in the way we want or expect.
Does an Almighty "need" to do anything? I would suggest that when he does do something, it is out of choice, rather than need. (Unless of course a need that arises from His nature of Love - Christ never worked a miracle on His own behalf, for example)

As to His power, or lack of: some might say that a God who chose to rest in the seventh day of creation, a God who humbles Himself and loves enough to cede some of the work of Creation in that 7th day over to his created beings, a God who cedeeded his power on Calvary to become powerless at the mercy of men just to show his love for us, exhibits a truly Divine use of power beyond understanding of mere human "power".

"He saved others; He cannot save Himself. let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe in Him"

He didn't exercise power then, in the way and at the time the mocking bystanders demanded - but how He exercised it three days later!

And yet we live in a time when miracles are happening all the time, making them almost mundane. Now we can perform virgin births in a lab, heal the sick, restore sight to the blind,
and perform an increasing number of medical miracles every day.
Were it not for the presence of these natural evils, would men not have been spurred to strive to help and heal one another, to express our own powers in nature?
What need of Godly miracles have we now anyway: we have our own miraculous powers that people of Biblical times would scarcely have dreamed man could ever develop? In our times, would we believe these now to be from a Divine source anyway?
"they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead" Lk:31
Even men of faith in science alone would hold that the inexplicable is only so because we do not yet know enough about the cause.
But the wonder of the miracle is due not only to the fact that its cause is hidden, but also that an effect is expected other than what actually takes place. A miracle is seen in the light of faith - faith in the cause as being Divine. The miracles Jesus performed took place in the sight of his disciples, and mainly when he was petitioned to do so by those who sought his intervention.
Despite their reduction in number, Divinely attributed miracles do still happen in the sight of the faithful today (dozens arising from Lourdes, for example).

What are His interests in this Universe but us? I would argue that it is never in His - but *our* best - interests when He does intervene.

The example of the blind baby as punishment seems to be a thoroughly reprehensible situation to you. Just so, if it were true.
Original sin does not imply us paying a price (in the sense of punishment), but rather it means we are born with an ability and inclination to sin.
There is also a risk in us declaring, in our fallen gaze, what are and are not natural evils, their purpose as yet unseen.

An example: There were once parents expecting a blind child. Doctors predicted based on studies that the child would be born with a disability and advised to abort before birth. The parents declined and gave birth anyway. The child suffered sight problems early on and did, eventually, develop total blindness. His mother noticed that music was the only thing that would comfort him and the child developed a great passion for it.
(Heightened acuity of other senses is frequently the outcome of loss of one sense.)
As the child grew older and practiced music he eventually became a world-famous tenor, and after a concert, one audience member remarked: "My mind, my soul were transported by his beauty, his voice, his inner being. God has kissed this man and I thank God for it."

The child's name was Andrea Bocelli.

Would he be making pizza somewhere now instead, with his full sight?

We are so willing to attribute to God the evil, and yet not the more abundant and ultimately victorious good?

Nor the miracles, not as a result of science, but of Divine petition, that do happen still today. For another example, look to the recent miracle attributed to José Luis Sánchez del Río - a baby rescued from more than blindness.

The glass is truly half empty.

Today - thanks to the wisdom of human sciences - we can analyze the DNA as you say and know if that child is to be blind and even intervene as we feel God should have. Do we exercise our power as he would exercise His? Do we see it as "our" power ... or "His", in our hands.

Life is the great mystery. As Fulton Sheen said every mystery has two elements: one visible, the other invisible. Our knowledge of DNA and the genetic system that "God has designed" is just the visible element of the mystery we see.
Science holds faith that, even the miracles it can not explain, will one day be explained - a "faith" ironically inconsistent with its own claim to a purely "rational" tenet? We are created with a propensity for both faith and reason ... and the ability, and inclination, to reduce ourselves to faith or reason.

Is that so?

I have my full sight, mostly, thank God, but am not yet even aware of the things that I am presently blind to, that lie beyond my sight. While it is reassuring to think that I will have eternity in heaven regardless of my blindness, for myself, I would never presume it.

Ok, the thing is... Actually, forget it, no point. A person that posts what you have just posted has no truck with the rational.

MrP

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments