Cranky Young Catholic : Answers Questions about God 002

[jamesms4]

Why should the happiness of the souls of the Blessed be held hostage to the wicked choices made by their wicked relatives? God's justice is such if your Loved One goes to Hell their is no reason why you should suffer too because of their sin. That's my answer to infidel guy.

[TrentonZero]

@jamesms4 Rather than state "there is no reason" (when intuitively, at least, there is a reason: we love our loved ones and wish the best for them), you ought to explain why the intuitive reason doesn't apply to the exceptional circumstances in Heaven/Hell. Otherwise you create scandal and do more harm than good (by phrasing things in such a way that you appear to not understand why a person may be unhappy to see friends and family suffer horribly.)

[jamesms4]

There are only 500 characters I can use my Brother to explain:-) In short I was using an argument from CS Lewis' THE GREAT DIVORCE. That book deals fictionally with that very situation & I would recommend it as good reading on the subject(I.e Saved Person's encountering their relatives in Hell). Y'sua be with you.

[TrentonZero]

One of my favorite Lewis books. I do wish comments were allowed to be longer. The 500 character limit is no obstacle to trolls, but is an obstacle to real discussion. I knew what you meant...but an atheist would not (would indeed bend over backwards so as to not know what you meant).

[jamesms4]

Of course in Heaven since we behold the Beatific Vision no suffering(like having one's loved ones unjustly rejecting the free gift of God) can diminish that supreme joy. Most Atheists can't think beyond the concept of mere natural happiness.

[TrentonZero]

To be fair to atheists, most people period can't get beyond a concept of mere natural happiness.

[Truthseeker1961]

You seem like a decent person, but why aren't catholics screaming from the rooftops, thereby being seemingly complicit in the big lie millions of christians are subscibing to...the RAPTURE theory?

By not publicly refuting these charlatans like John Hagee, Hal Lindsey, Grant Jeffrey, and Jack Van Impe whose messages reach the world with this false doctrine, Catholics seem to sit idly by and don't IMITATE Jesus by calling them 'Hypocrites' or whatever would be a better term for these people..WHY?

[TrentonZero]

Actually, I heard Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin on EWTN's Catholic radio station, refuting some wild Evangelical end-of-world ideas just the other day. That makes sense, since he is a former Evangelical. I'm not. I'm a former atheist, so that's what I talk about.

[TrentonZero]

So you have two contrary verses. I would suggest that Hebrews really does state a literal truth, whereas both Jesus and Gabriel are obviously referring to things we would not consider intrinsically impossible.

But of deeper significance to me is the overarching impression of God's personality we receive from the Bible. There is a reason why Western religion has traditionally spoken in creeds while Eastern religion has spoken in koans.

[johntbelias]

"With God, all things shall be possible." Apparently, you deem it appropriate to quote C. S. Lewis in his misunderstanding of "intrinsically impossible". For man and men there is the "intrinsically impossible", but not for God.

[TrentonZero]

I respect your position. I once answered an atheist friend who gave me the old chestnut about God and the unliftable rock, that maybe God could make it. Then lift it. And still not be able to lift it. And have never made it at all. All at the same time.

Amusing as that was, it holds the secret to why I don't accept your position. To say that even the law of noncontradiction does not bind God is to reduce any serious talk about God to that sort of talk.

[TrentonZero]

It's possible that is true, but then we don't seem to be describing the God of the Bible, but rather of Eastern religions. The God of the Bible very definitely wills some things and very definitely does not will some other things. There is no indication given anywhere I know of that God exists but doesn't exist, will but does not will, Loves but does not love, is omnipotent but impotent. You can read more on the omnipotence entry in the catholic encyclopedia at newadvent.

[catholicboy69]

well brother i saw a few of your other videos you seem to get almost short with some people but what about turning the other cheek? if you are strong faith as you say you are then wouldnt you do that? i know its hard and i also find trouble doing this but you must try

[EGMAG]

?:":

[EGMAG]

TrentonZero <<Good questions that remind me of logical searching for understanding. Same as me. I have found that no matter who you ask or what answers you receive, you cannot change the truth, [WHATEVER IT TRULY IS]! Many religions exists, you seem to be focused on the bible AS IF it is the supreme truth; "I don't know". The best answer to faith without lying, is; "I truly don't know!" I believe this or that. The final truthful answer is "no one really knows"; rather one believes! Do good.

[cloydhen]

sweet beard

[ignatiusofantioch2]

Literally, the word "Catholic" (Greek, katholike) means "general" or "universal." The title was first used in A.D.. 107, by St. Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrneans, "Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." By the end of the second century, it had acquired the two meanings now mainly associated with the term: "universal" in the sense of extended throughout the world, and "orthodox" or faithful to the teachings of Christ. The two concepts are closely related.

[TrentonZero]

It's been so long since I posted this that I'm not sure what you are getting at. :)

[migo53333]

why would an all loving God allow an insane child molester to procreate and have children so he can sexually molest them..I dont see any free will situation in this query....

[TrentonZero]

That one was almost designed to be easy to answer. Because life is in and of itself good.

If its a crime, and not a charity, to murder even abused children, then that means that life as an abused child is better than death. And that means better the children were created than not.

If you attempted to really apply the axiom that some people (molested children for example) are better off not existing, you would be thrown in prison as something almost as evil as the molester: mass murderer.

[migo53333]

that answer is very lacking in reality..it is better for the child to live in these conditions because GOD created them to have a GOOD life? believe me, a life of that scenario, which exists as we speak for many children, can in no way have a goodness to it and it would deffintely be better off if the child did not exist... why would a Catholic not accept this, because you would be with Jesus and all the saints in heaven...wouldnt you......

[TrentonZero]

Go implement that philosophy. If abused children are better of dead, go be their knight in shining armor and execute them.

I suspect you won't, because you know as well as I do that even the wretched are better off alive than dead.

You say it's okay because the children are assured an eternal afterlife. But everyone is assured an eternal afterlife. To say its okay to murder a child because of Heaven is a bit like saying it's okay to rob a man, because he has another paycheck coming.

[EGMAG]

My reader is spelling out the symbols ???