Post Praetorian

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

If God knew it would be passed, wherein may have existed the need for the test? Equally, is it more or less likely that one might gain greater trust in a father who might, at a random moment of time, demand a blood offering made up of a member that one might hold dear?

Further, is it not likely that the ordeal may have at the very least caused Isaac repeated nightmares as well as a certain reluctance to join his father on any further wilderness excursions?

Finally, how might an accurate assessment be made as to God's true concern regarding this particular father-son relationship while later actions seemingly show Him holding little regard for the numerous father-son relationships brought to a bloody end during the invasion of Canaan?

 I already answered your first question as I anticipated it in advance.

Yes, I apologize for the duplication.

The answer is that it was for our benefit, showing that if we trust God we will not come to harm. I can answer your questions based on my personal experience, but that may not have been applicable in that situation. I wasn't there, so I don't know what exactly happened. I think that if I had been in Isaac's position, based only on what we know from the story, I think I would my relationship with my father would have been shaken. However, it also depends on whether or not Isaac saw God/the angel who stopped Abraham from completing the sacrifice. If Isaac saw that, then he likely would have forgiven his father because he would have known that his father was doing God's will. If I were in the same situation and I saw the angel I believe I would have been able to do the same.

Fair enough.

I don't know all of God's reasons for allowing genocide in the invasion of Canaan, but I trust that he knew what he was doing and did not cause more harm than would have been caused if he hadn't allowed that.

Ah, but would it not have been far more indicative that a loving deity of omnipotent might and infinite patience had been involved in the episode had all supporting evidence been equally consistent? Was it not Jesus who made claim that a tree might be determined by its fruits?

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

I think everything should be done for the glory of God (unless it has no moral consequence), so that doesn't leave much room for too much worship.

 Might the slaying of one's own son have a moral consequence?

 Since God told Abraham to do it, it would not, theoretically, have had moral consequence. It was, however, God's intention to stop Abraham from the beginning, and he knew the result beforehand. God would not have allowed Abraham to carry through with the sacrifice because of its immorality (just because he tested Abraham in that way doesn't mean that he was contradicting his own laws because of the fact that there was no intention to allow Abraham to follow through).

As to why God bothered if he knew the result beforehand: the test was for our benefit, to show that if we trust God then things will work out in the end.

Might then the butchering of women and male children and the enslavement of young female virgins for the purpose of forced sex cease to have a moral consequence if purportedly commanded by God (as evidenced in Numbers 31)?

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

 1) Is it then your view that God chose to align Himself with Abraham because Abraham demonstrated a willingness to murder for God?

To clarify, was it not Abraham who appeared willing to murder Jacob in order to show obedience? If so, is such a level of obedience key to God later deciding which of his people might murder which other people (as in, who might possess the promised land by force and who might die in its defense)?

The reason God instructed the Israelites to kill the inhabitants of Canaan was because the Israelites had proven they weren't capable of living alongside other nations without falling into idolatry. God allowed it for Israel's benefit, not because those nations were evil (that was not the main reason, anyway).

 Is it possible that life might hold so little value to a loving god? If one's fate might fall to the disposition of one's neighbors is this likely to be a sign that justice is held in particularly high regard?

Further, if the Canaanite people might have proven to be the more faithful (as in, their religion appears to have been more persuasive to the Israelites than vice-versa), why might a loving god have chosen to reward them with destruction? In essence, why offer a promised land to a people of lesser devotion at the expense of a people of greater devotion?

I can't claim to know what God's logic was, but if those people ended up in heaven, then their lifespan on earth doesn't matter. If they ended up in hell, it's a different story, but they doubtlessly were headed that way anyway if that was the case.

Canaanite worship involved ritual prostitution and child sacrifice in many cases. God didn't want his people going down that path. The Canaanite religions were religions of pleasure for the most part (especially the sex worship part) and therefore it seemed very attractive compared to the strict Mosaic law.

How likely might one expect the arrival of any among the Canaanites into Heaven given the seemingly strong judgment upon them while still alive? Alternately, how pleased may have been expected the reactions among any of said Canaanites were they to have discovered themselves confronted by the possibility of a forced eternal existence with the same god who slew their families in such dramatic fashion?

Further, is it not somewhat difficult to comprehend the rationale that might cause a god of love to first command Abraham to sacrifice a child, while later exterminating an entire nation for allegedly following through with the same act?

To clarify, if the purpose of God's initial command to Abraham seemingly was to test him by determining his willingness to sacrificing that which he might hold most dear, would it not equally be considered that the sacrifices endured by the Canaanites might be of equal value in their apparent difficulty to carry out (hence the concept of sacrifice)? If so, could not a god of love have more simply resolved the error of their understandings by encouraging them to abandon the practice through a great act of love rather than one of unimaginable terror?

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

 I believe that God rewarded Abraham for his faithfulness to him, but that preceded Abraham's test of faith. God had already promised that Abraham would get an heir and that a great nation would come of him. Also, the key point in Abraham's test of faith was the test, not the willingness to kill. God would not have let Abraham kill his son, but wanted to give an example of faith to the world (not the contemporary world). Abraham loved God more than anything else, including his only son which God had given him and his wife as a gift.

If God had already rewarded Abraham's faith with the gift of a son, why might He have chosen to administer this further test?

How might one's image of one's father change should he make such an equal example of his faith?

I think God administered a further test so Abraham would continue to trust God and not be satisfied with his earthly blessings.

I highly doubt God would have done this if it would have ruined the father-son relationship between Abraham and Isaac. Isaac went along with it, demonstrating that he also had great faith in God, so it was a test for him as well which God knew they would both pass.

If God knew it would be passed, wherein may have existed the need for the test? Equally, is it more or less likely that one might gain greater trust in a father who might, at a random moment of time, demand a blood offering made up of a member that one might hold dear?

Further, is it not likely that the ordeal may have at the very least caused Isaac repeated nightmares as well as a certain reluctance to join his father on any further wilderness excursions?

Finally, how might an accurate assessment be made as to God's true concern regarding this particular father-son relationship while later actions seemingly show Him holding little regard for the numerous father-son relationships brought to a bloody end during the invasion of Canaan?

TV's Frink said:

Someone once called me a weak atheist.

Ah, quite likely considered the loneliest of stances...

Were you always of the same mind as now?

RicOlie_2 said:

I think everything should be done for the glory of God (unless it has no moral consequence), so that doesn't leave much room for too much worship.

 Might the slaying of one's own son have a moral consequence?

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

 I believe that God has, and always will love everyone equally, no matter what. That is why I believe that non-Catholics who are searching for the truth can get to heaven. I don't believe God changes because God is in every point of time at once, so he can't change over time.

 May I pose 3 somewhat related questions?

1) If God is considered to love all equally, and is unchanging in this regard, how might you explain His alleged aligning with a "chosen race" during portions of antiquity? Further, could He have equally chosen to have aligned against them and still been considered "good" by their prophets?

2) If God is to be considered to love all with equality, may it be considered acceptable that He might, at some period in future, determine you and your loved ones to be worthy of a treatment similar to that which he bestowed upon the Canaanites for reasons equally obscure?

3) Finally, is it possible that the term "loves all equally" might merely suggest His love might not be particularly strong or that the concept hold a markedly different consideration for such a being than it might for ourselves?

 1) Abraham and others' fidelity to God caused God to bless their descendants, and that certainly appears to be favouratism. When God judged those people after they died, I'm sure he accounted for the way they had been raised, so I don't think he condemned anyone to hell simply for not being one of his chosen people. I think his equal love for everyone is less apparent in this world, but I am sure that he judges everyone fairly and mercifully in the afterlife.

 1) Is it then your view that God chose to align Himself with Abraham because Abraham demonstrated a willingness to murder for God?

To clarify, was it not Abraham who appeared willing to murder Jacob in order to show obedience? If so, is such a level of obedience key to God later deciding which of his people might murder which other people (as in, who might possess the promised land by force and who might die in its defense)?

The reason God instructed the Israelites to kill the inhabitants of Canaan was because the Israelites had proven they weren't capable of living alongside other nations without falling into idolatry. God allowed it for Israel's benefit, not because those nations were evil (that was not the main reason, anyway).

 Is it possible that life might hold so little value to a loving god? If one's fate might fall to the disposition of one's neighbors is this likely to be a sign that justice is held in particularly high regard?

Further, if the Canaanite people might have proven to be the more faithful (as in, their religion appears to have been more persuasive to the Israelites than vice-versa), why might a loving god have chosen to reward them with destruction? In essence, why offer a promised land to a people of lesser devotion at the expense of a people of greater devotion?

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

 I believe that God has, and always will love everyone equally, no matter what. That is why I believe that non-Catholics who are searching for the truth can get to heaven. I don't believe God changes because God is in every point of time at once, so he can't change over time.

 May I pose 3 somewhat related questions?

1) If God is considered to love all equally, and is unchanging in this regard, how might you explain His alleged aligning with a "chosen race" during portions of antiquity? Further, could He have equally chosen to have aligned against them and still been considered "good" by their prophets?

 1) Abraham and others' fidelity to God caused God to bless their descendants, and that certainly appears to be favouratism. When God judged those people after they died, I'm sure he accounted for the way they had been raised, so I don't think he condemned anyone to hell simply for not being one of his chosen people. I think his equal love for everyone is less apparent in this world, but I am sure that he judges everyone fairly and mercifully in the afterlife.

 1) Is it then your view that God chose to align Himself with Abraham because Abraham demonstrated a willingness to murder for God?

To clarify, was it not Abraham who appeared willing to murder Jacob in order to show obedience? If so, is such a level of obedience key to God later deciding which of his people might murder which other people (as in, who might possess the promised land by force and who might die in its defense)?

 I believe that God rewarded Abraham for his faithfulness to him, but that preceded Abraham's test of faith. God had already promised that Abraham would get an heir and that a great nation would come of him. Also, the key point in Abraham's test of faith was the test, not the willingness to kill. God would not have let Abraham kill his son, but wanted to give an example of faith to the world (not the contemporary world). Abraham loved God more than anything else, including his only son which God had given him and his wife as a gift.

If God had already rewarded Abraham's faith with the gift of a son, why might He have chosen to administer this further test?

How might one's image of one's father change should he make such an equal example of his faith?

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

 Do you believe that God is unchanging in this love for all persons? To clarify: do you believe there might come a time when God might no longer love all living persons equally?

Additionally, is it your belief that God's love for an individual might change upon said individual's death? Or would it remain consistent regardless of physical state?

 I believe that God has, and always will love everyone equally, no matter what. That is why I believe that non-Catholics who are searching for the truth can get to heaven. I don't believe God changes because God is in every point of time at once, so he can't change over time.

 May I pose 3 somewhat related questions?

1) If God is considered to love all equally, and is unchanging in this regard, how might you explain His alleged aligning with a "chosen race" during portions of antiquity? Further, could He have equally chosen to have aligned against them and still been considered "good" by their prophets?

2) If God is to be considered to love all with equality, may it be considered acceptable that He might, at some period in future, determine you and your loved ones to be worthy of a treatment similar to that which he bestowed upon the Canaanites for reasons equally obscure?

3) Finally, is it possible that the term "loves all equally" might merely suggest His love might not be particularly strong or that the concept hold a markedly different consideration for such a being than it might for ourselves?

3) On its own, yes, it could be taken that way. However, since we are taught that God loves everyone more than we could possibly love him or anyone, I don't believe that either of those is the case. We may not understand his love, but I still believe he has love for us.

Understood.

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

 Do you believe that God is unchanging in this love for all persons? To clarify: do you believe there might come a time when God might no longer love all living persons equally?

Additionally, is it your belief that God's love for an individual might change upon said individual's death? Or would it remain consistent regardless of physical state?

 I believe that God has, and always will love everyone equally, no matter what. That is why I believe that non-Catholics who are searching for the truth can get to heaven. I don't believe God changes because God is in every point of time at once, so he can't change over time.

 May I pose 3 somewhat related questions?

1) If God is considered to love all equally, and is unchanging in this regard, how might you explain His alleged aligning with a "chosen race" during portions of antiquity? Further, could He have equally chosen to have aligned against them and still been considered "good" by their prophets?

2) If God is to be considered to love all with equality, may it be considered acceptable that He might, at some period in future, determine you and your loved ones to be worthy of a treatment similar to that which he bestowed upon the Canaanites for reasons equally obscure?

3) Finally, is it possible that the term "loves all equally" might merely suggest His love might not be particularly strong or that the concept hold a markedly different consideration for such a being than it might for ourselves?

2) I can't really say for sure what I think about this. I mean, perhaps it would be acceptable, but since he gave a universal and inclusive law to fulfill the more exclusive one, I don't think it will happen. It might be considered unacceptable because God has promised with the Christological law that he won't do that, so if he did, he would be breaking promises.

 Fair enough.

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

 I believe that God has, and always will love everyone equally, no matter what. That is why I believe that non-Catholics who are searching for the truth can get to heaven. I don't believe God changes because God is in every point of time at once, so he can't change over time.

 May I pose 3 somewhat related questions?

1) If God is considered to love all equally, and is unchanging in this regard, how might you explain His alleged aligning with a "chosen race" during portions of antiquity? Further, could He have equally chosen to have aligned against them and still been considered "good" by their prophets?

2) If God is to be considered to love all with equality, may it be considered acceptable that He might, at some period in future, determine you and your loved ones to be worthy of a treatment similar to that which he bestowed upon the Canaanites for reasons equally obscure?

3) Finally, is it possible that the term "loves all equally" might merely suggest His love might not be particularly strong or that the concept hold a markedly different consideration for such a being than it might for ourselves?

 1) Abraham and others' fidelity to God caused God to bless their descendants, and that certainly appears to be favouratism. When God judged those people after they died, I'm sure he accounted for the way they had been raised, so I don't think he condemned anyone to hell simply for not being one of his chosen people. I think his equal love for everyone is less apparent in this world, but I am sure that he judges everyone fairly and mercifully in the afterlife.

 1) Is it then your view that God chose to align Himself with Abraham because Abraham demonstrated a willingness to murder for God?

To clarify, was it not Abraham who appeared willing to murder Jacob in order to show obedience? If so, is such a level of obedience key to God later deciding which of his people might murder which other people (as in, who might possess the promised land by force and who might die in its defense)?

 I acknowledge your intent and perhaps should hold put myself in others' shoes more often.

More than this could not be truly asked. Thank you, most sincerely!

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

DominicCobb said:

When I was a Catholic one of things that always confused me was how much we worship God. Like there's some sort of mindset that you absolutely must worship him and if you don't, you'll be punished. And I just feel this is at odds with how God is portrayed as a benevolent figure. If he loves everyone why should he care if they worship him or not. Narcissists usually aren't very nice. So how do you explain this?

 I would have to look that up...I know there's an explanation, but I can't think of it off the top of my head. Timdiggerm's answer is part of it though.

 If God were infinite love, would anything cause Him to reject a soul into an eternity of suffering?

Alternately, if God were a fact, should anything stop one from worshipping Him fully? For what might be more important than the worship of a being of infinite might?

 The first question is one I can't answer myself, because it's one of mine too. ;)

The second is basically what we believe as Catholics, though most of us do a pretty bad job at making worship such a priority. We believe that our sins can be forgiven in confession if we repent of them, so that is probably part of what causes us to slack off. The other part would be due to a lack of faith in God I guess.

Would worshiping a being of infinite might to the fullest extent possible necessarily allow one any respite from the task? Would not such worship fairly be required to be equally infinite in duration?

 We believe we can worship God with our actions. Every good thing we do can be for the glory of God, so that is considered a form of worship. Working cheerfully and productively can be worship. Satisfying our bodily needs is sort of like that too because it is a good thing that God wants us to do in order to stay healthy. Since we are supposed to take care of ourselves physically as well as spiritually we cannot be expected to pray 24/7. Recreational time can, if used properly also be used to glorify God. It is also part of taking care of ourselves. Hopefully that answers your question.

 Ah, fairly answered--however, to what degree might one expect adherents to truly exist in such a manner? To clarify, how often might one offer up one's enjoyment of a stick of gum to a deity of infinite might?

 Chewing a stick of gum is neither good nor evil, and God does not disprove of things that have a neutral level of morality. If someone is given/purchases a stick of gum they can glorify God in a small way by giving it to someone else. It doesn't do much, but even the small things count.

 Fair enough.

Might there be such a thing, then, as too much worship?

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Bingowings said:

RicOlie_2 said:

The chances of sentient life existing elsewhere in the universe are pretty low. Even the universe has limits.

http://voices.yahoo.com/what-chances-intelligent-life-elsewhere-2295217.html

If the universe has limits the only ones we know about are the ones we can detect (the visible universe is almost certainly not all of it and it's accelerating away from us).

Organic material is everywhere. It coats comets, it's found inside meteors, it drifts between Galaxies in clouds bigger than our solar system it can be made very easily on any world where the conditions are right ("Billions and Billions" so sayeth the St Sagan).

Life elsewhere is almost a certainty.

The Church you belong to entertains this high probability.

Add deep time and the scale of the universe the chances of sentient life existing only on Earth are so low as to be barely worth considering. Though the chances of it existing on Earth are pretty low when I'm not here.

The word from Geneva is that distances between planets with advanced civilisations (digital watches etc) are so vaste that meeting them would be unlikely.

 My Church does not entertain a high probability of intelligent, extra-terrestrial life, but rather a possibility of such life existing. More recently, the scientific community seems to be leaning in favour of an only 0.01% chance of sentient extra-terrestrial life existing (as far as I am aware, anyway and I linked to an article earlier which stated that).

 Kindly note only that said article, having been written in 2008, was initiated prior to a time when the scientific community was to witness the wholesale cache of worlds latently discovered over the course of the past 4 years: a spectacle that has proven far more optomistic than most had previously considered possible.

I thought the position was unchanged, but I have largely outdated sources. :P

 Ah, fair enough!

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

 Consider only a contrast that might assist in clarifying the tone derived by others on this subject:

Should you, as a good and loving Catholic, encounter an entity that might suggest you to be neither good, nor loving--based solely on the evidence of your Catholic leanings (teachings which have been with you since your earliest memory)--would you be capable of agreeing with said entity regardless of its kind rationale?

In essence, would not the suggestion that homosexuality might be considered aberrant to an infinite being (punishable by an eternal torment) while at the same time considering said being to be one's own personal protector and comfort create any response other than that of antipathy?

To clarify, were one here to call out a belief that all Catholics necessarily must be ashamed and expect an infinitude of just torment in a future realm--while at the same time seemingly showing little concern for such necessary eventualities--could one such as yourself resist the temptation to clarify your own position on the matter? Would not a silence on your part serve as an affirmation of the statement?

Kindly do not take offense at my interjection as it is my purpose to learn your thoughts and not to belittle them. It is merely my hope that an understanding and a peace might be brokered on this issue that might better reflect the seemingly kind intentions of the majority here on both sides. Rarely have such opposing philosophies been debated so respectfully on an internet forum. I appreciate the effort this takes and hope that it may remain such.

 I take no offense.

Arguably, I have encountered such "entities" in the form of some people (this isn't directed at anyone on this forum) who believe that I am a bad person or have mental issues on the basis of my religion alone. I did argue with these people, and admittedly rarely let hostile attacks on my religion go unanswered.

I think I see what you are getting at, and I'm fine with people voicing their disagreement, as long as they don't get repetitive or insulting. To clarify my beliefs about homosexuality, I don't believe that those people who engage in homosexual sex acts are going to hell necessarily. There are many factors which come into play in determining whether someone goes to heaven or hell, so just because someone does something that is considered a serious sin by the Catholic Church doesn't mean that they will go to hell.

Hopefully I didn't miss the point of your question as I'm pretty tired right now and am finding it difficult to think coherent thoughts. :)

 Thank you for your candor. Kindly understand that while your beliefs regarding homosexuality may appear liberal in your eyes, they may yet cause offense in the same manner as:

"I don't believe that Catholics should be tortured and burned alive for as long as possible necessarily as there are many factors which come into play..."

In admiring your courage displayed in hosting this thread, it is not my wish to cause offense: simply the placing of one's self in the position of others prior to allowing one's convictions to solidify is my keen intent.

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

DominicCobb said:

When I was a Catholic one of things that always confused me was how much we worship God. Like there's some sort of mindset that you absolutely must worship him and if you don't, you'll be punished. And I just feel this is at odds with how God is portrayed as a benevolent figure. If he loves everyone why should he care if they worship him or not. Narcissists usually aren't very nice. So how do you explain this?

 I would have to look that up...I know there's an explanation, but I can't think of it off the top of my head. Timdiggerm's answer is part of it though.

 If God were infinite love, would anything cause Him to reject a soul into an eternity of suffering?

Alternately, if God were a fact, should anything stop one from worshipping Him fully? For what might be more important than the worship of a being of infinite might?

 The first question is one I can't answer myself, because it's one of mine too. ;)

The second is basically what we believe as Catholics, though most of us do a pretty bad job at making worship such a priority. We believe that our sins can be forgiven in confession if we repent of them, so that is probably part of what causes us to slack off. The other part would be due to a lack of faith in God I guess.

Would worshiping a being of infinite might to the fullest extent possible necessarily allow one any respite from the task? Would not such worship fairly be required to be equally infinite in duration?

 We believe we can worship God with our actions. Every good thing we do can be for the glory of God, so that is considered a form of worship. Working cheerfully and productively can be worship. Satisfying our bodily needs is sort of like that too because it is a good thing that God wants us to do in order to stay healthy. Since we are supposed to take care of ourselves physically as well as spiritually we cannot be expected to pray 24/7. Recreational time can, if used properly also be used to glorify God. It is also part of taking care of ourselves. Hopefully that answers your question.

 Ah, fairly answered--however, to what degree might one expect adherents to truly exist in such a manner? To clarify, how often might one offer up one's enjoyment of a stick of gum to a deity of infinite might?

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

Do you consider that God might love every person equally?

 That is what I believe, yes. I don't claim to know how he judges us after we die or how strict he is or how many allowances he makes for those who didn't believe in him on earth.

Catholics do believe in something called a "Baptism of Desire" in which someone who is genuinely searching for the truth can get to heaven, even if they don't believe in God.

 Do you believe that God is unchanging in this love for all persons? To clarify: do you believe there might come a time when God might no longer love all living persons equally?

Additionally, is it your belief that God's love for an individual might change upon said individual's death? Or would it remain consistent regardless of physical state?

 I believe that God has, and always will love everyone equally, no matter what. That is why I believe that non-Catholics who are searching for the truth can get to heaven. I don't believe God changes because God is in every point of time at once, so he can't change over time.

 May I pose 3 somewhat related questions?

1) If God is considered to love all equally, and is unchanging in this regard, how might you explain His alleged aligning with a "chosen race" during portions of antiquity? Further, could He have equally chosen to have aligned against them and still been considered "good" by their prophets?

2) If God is to be considered to love all with equality, may it be considered acceptable that He might, at some period in future, determine you and your loved ones to be worthy of a treatment similar to that which he bestowed upon the Canaanites for reasons equally obscure?

3) Finally, is it possible that the term "loves all equally" might merely suggest His love might not be particularly strong or that the concept hold a markedly different consideration for such a being than it might for ourselves?

TV's Frink said:

Post Praetorian said:

TV's Frink said:

So God makes people homosexual and then says, oh you can't have sex by the way.

Ludicrous.

 Why might you consider so?

Is it not purportedly the same god that might allow an individual to be born without sight or hearing? Would such a being necessarily consider foremost the frustrations such limitations might impose upon an individual who might prefer a less tortured existence?

Further, are there not still others born who might be unable to engage in sex of any sort? Might it not be considered that sex might be less important to a god than to a man?

 I do not believe that there is a god that does these things.  I am challenging the beliefs of others.

 Ah, well that can certainly be a challenge.

Is it your position that there is a god that does "other" things apart from these? Or is there no god at all to be considered in your view?

RicOlie_2 said:

Bingowings said:

RicOlie_2 said:

The chances of sentient life existing elsewhere in the universe are pretty low. Even the universe has limits.

http://voices.yahoo.com/what-chances-intelligent-life-elsewhere-2295217.html

If the universe has limits the only ones we know about are the ones we can detect (the visible universe is almost certainly not all of it and it's accelerating away from us).

Organic material is everywhere. It coats comets, it's found inside meteors, it drifts between Galaxies in clouds bigger than our solar system it can be made very easily on any world where the conditions are right ("Billions and Billions" so sayeth the St Sagan).

Life elsewhere is almost a certainty.

The Church you belong to entertains this high probability.

Add deep time and the scale of the universe the chances of sentient life existing only on Earth are so low as to be barely worth considering. Though the chances of it existing on Earth are pretty low when I'm not here.

The word from Geneva is that distances between planets with advanced civilisations (digital watches etc) are so vaste that meeting them would be unlikely.

 My Church does not entertain a high probability of intelligent, extra-terrestrial life, but rather a possibility of such life existing. More recently, the scientific community seems to be leaning in favour of an only 0.01% chance of sentient extra-terrestrial life existing (as far as I am aware, anyway and I linked to an article earlier which stated that).

 Kindly note only that said article, having been written in 2008, was initiated prior to a time when the scientific community was to witness the wholesale cache of worlds latently discovered over the course of the past 4 years: a spectacle that has proven far more optomistic than most had previously considered possible.

TV's Frink said:

So God makes people homosexual and then says, oh you can't have sex by the way.

Ludicrous.

 Why might you consider so?

Is it not purportedly the same god that might allow an individual to be born without sight or hearing? Would such a being necessarily consider foremost the frustrations such limitations might impose upon an individual who might prefer a less tortured existence?

Further, are there not still others born who might be unable to engage in sex of any sort? Might it not be considered that sex might be less important to a god than to a man?

Bingowings said:

Secret origin.

Satan is an angel. He is the court prosecutor in heaven. He knows when you have been naughty and nice. He brings man to book and shows God our failings.

Michael is an angel. He is the court defense attorney in heaven. He brings man's virtues to God and they are weighed in the balance.

God has no adversary, he is all powerful.

These things were retconned over time to explain why bad things happen in medieval times.

Jews don't need such explanations.

God is all powerful if bad things happen God wants the bad things to happen.

They are only bad from our perspective not from God's.

All the other beings associated with Satan were never originally Satan.

Lucifer for example is literally the Morning Star (the Planet Venus) the light of which is banished by the Sun. It was a Roman pagan religious ornament woven into the early Christian church like the whole Osiris worship bag you guys have over Mary/Diana/Ishtar.

It's mashed up and recombined space opera.

It's Paganism the special edition.

The Devil isn't in the Bible. Totally separate things are labelled Devil which is a word that doesn't exist in the original text.

 Clearly you have well researched this topic. Might I inquire after your own (present or former) religious convictions?

RicOlie_2 said:

I apologize for being a bit irritable in this thread today, but please understand that I face the same criticisms all over the internet and in person, and all people seem to be able to do is repeat themselves, ignore the point of the analogies I make, impress on me the idea that they know so much better than me and I am just an intolerant, self-righteous, stupid jerk. Maybe there's something in that, but do you really think I am going to ever see your point of view in a different light if the people who support homosexuality are so condescending, insulting, and spiteful in their tone? Even if I am doing the same (which I don't intend to if that is the case), don't you think you should prove to me how much better you are instead of degrading yourselves with the use of insults, condescension, and profanity?

Sorry for the rant and I apologize for my behaviour if I sound like a grump today.

 Consider only a contrast that might assist in clarifying the tone derived by others on this subject:

Should you, as a good and loving Catholic, encounter an entity that might suggest you to be neither good, nor loving--based solely on the evidence of your Catholic leanings (teachings which have been with you since your earliest memory)--would you be capable of agreeing with said entity regardless of its kind rationale?

In essence, would not the suggestion that homosexuality might be considered aberrant to an infinite being (punishable by an eternal torment) while at the same time considering said being to be one's own personal protector and comfort create any response other than that of antipathy?

To clarify, were one here to call out a belief that all Catholics necessarily must be ashamed and expect an infinitude of just torment in a future realm--while at the same time seemingly showing little concern for such necessary eventualities--could one such as yourself resist the temptation to clarify your own position on the matter? Would not a silence on your part serve as an affirmation of the statement?

Kindly do not take offense at my interjection as it is my purpose to learn your thoughts and not to belittle them. It is merely my hope that an understanding and a peace might be brokered on this issue that might better reflect the seemingly kind intentions of the majority here on both sides. Rarely have such opposing philosophies been debated so respectfully on an internet forum. I appreciate the effort this takes and hope that it may remain such.

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

DominicCobb said:

When I was a Catholic one of things that always confused me was how much we worship God. Like there's some sort of mindset that you absolutely must worship him and if you don't, you'll be punished. And I just feel this is at odds with how God is portrayed as a benevolent figure. If he loves everyone why should he care if they worship him or not. Narcissists usually aren't very nice. So how do you explain this?

 I would have to look that up...I know there's an explanation, but I can't think of it off the top of my head. Timdiggerm's answer is part of it though.

 If God were infinite love, would anything cause Him to reject a soul into an eternity of suffering?

Alternately, if God were a fact, should anything stop one from worshipping Him fully? For what might be more important than the worship of a being of infinite might?

 The first question is one I can't answer myself, because it's one of mine too. ;)

The second is basically what we believe as Catholics, though most of us do a pretty bad job at making worship such a priority. We believe that our sins can be forgiven in confession if we repent of them, so that is probably part of what causes us to slack off. The other part would be due to a lack of faith in God I guess.

Would worshipping a being of infinite might to the fullest extent possible necessarily allow one any respite from the task? Would not such worship fairly be required to be equally infinite in duration?

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

Do you consider that God might love every person equally?

 That is what I believe, yes. I don't claim to know how he judges us after we die or how strict he is or how many allowances he makes for those who didn't believe in him on earth.

Catholics do believe in something called a "Baptism of Desire" in which someone who is genuinely searching for the truth can get to heaven, even if they don't believe in God.

 Do you believe that God is unchanging in this love for all persons? To clarify: do you believe there might come a time when God might no longer love all living persons equally?

Additionally, is it your belief that God's love for an individual might change upon said individual's death? Or would it remain consistent regardless of physical state?

Do you consider that God might love every person equally?