"Only Jesus can fix this" (1 Viewer)

[SystemShock]

There was a thread on the Mother Board discussing the shooting at the Chiefs' victory parade. The discussion was going as expected, with pro-gun vs anti-gun, until someone posted the title of this thread: "only Jesus can fix this", which was my cue to get into the fray . I replied to that post with "why do you think it's taking this long"? 2 different posters replied with basically the same comment, one even providing the Bible quotes; that time for Jesus is different fom time for us... that what's years and years to us, it's but mere moments to Jesus.

Unfortunately the thread was prematurely locked before I could reply to that...

The replies I received don't really satisfy the question I posed. If you believe god created the universe and humans, it follows he created our timelines, and therefore should be aware of the timeline he created for us. He knows it all, right? Time doesn't go so fast for us and so slow for him that he can't hear prayers, no?

So, if he's aware of our timeline, and knows everything that happens to everyone everywhere, then it is evident that either he can't fix it, or that he's not willing to fix it and our loving father is content with our suffering, even if once in a while he gets the credit for a lottery win or a cancer remission here and there.

 

[JLL]

I think Jesus is asking the same question, ie "Why are y'all so dumb?"


SERMON XV. FIRST SUNDAY OF LENT. - ON THE NUMBER OF SINS BEYOND WHICH GOD PARDONS NO MORE.

Page 112-Sermons for For Sunday (St Alphonsus Liguori)
“Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” MATT. iv. 7.


IN this days gospel we read that, having gone into the desert, Jesus Christ permitted the devil to”set him upon the pinnacle of the temple,” and say to him: “If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down ;” for the angels shall preserve thee from all injury. But the Lord answered that, in the Sacred Scriptures it is written: “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” The sinner who abandons himself to sin without striving to resist temptations, or without at least asking God’s help to conquer them, and hopes that the Lord will one day draw him from the precipice, tempts God to work miracles, or rather to show to him an extraordinary mercy not extended to the generality of Christians. God, as the Apostle says, ”will have all men to be saved,” (1 Tim. ii. 4); but he also wishes us all to labour for our own salvation, at least by adopting the means of overcoming our enemies, and of obeying him when he calls us to repentance. Sinners hear the calls of God, but they forget them, and continue to offend him.

Mark 4:36–41
36 And leaving the crowd, they took him with them in the boat, just as he was. And other boats were with him. 37 And a great windstorm arose, and the waves were breaking into the boat, so that the boat was already filling. 38 But he was in the stern,asleep on the cushion. And they woke him and said to him, “Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?” 39 And he awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, “Peace! Be still!” And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. 40 He said to them, “Why are you so afraid? Have you still no faith?” 41 And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?”


CALAMITIES, CHASTISEMENT, AND THE LOVE OF GOD By ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI
Return to me, I await you with open arms, ready to receive and pardon you. Doubt not of this, O sinner, continues the Lord. Learn
to do well. . . And then come and accuse Me, says the Lord : if your sins be as scarlet, they shall be made white as snow.4 Take courage, says the Lord, change your life, come to me, and if I do not pardon you, accuse me. As if he were
to say, Accuse me of lying and bad faith; but, no, I shall not be unfaithful: your conscience now so black, shall by my grace become as white as snow. No; I will not chastise you if you reform, says the Lord, because I am God, not man. I will not execute the fierceness of My wrath, . . . because I am God, and not man.

Here's a whole library that may lead to further discussions.

https://www.fisheaters.com/catholiclibrary.html

 

[bird]

Interesting.

The first problem lies in dogma that states the Christ died for all sins. In addition, dogma says that the church can forgive sins or not forgive sins which runs contrary to the doctrine of one sacrifice for the forgiveness of all sins for all. Then, of course, we have the problem of the Nicean Creed which states that the Christ shall return to judge the living and the dead. Those who have died and were believers are already in heaven and thus not subject to judgement. This then brings up the concept of purgatory which is based upon, iirc, one line of scripture stating that a debtor would be put into prison until he pays back the debt. Purgatory runs contrary to one sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins.

The problem lies in attempting to “bash to fit” Jewish scripture with the NT. That does not include “fulfillment of the law”. The law was written as a set of boundaries which were created to delineate one Semitic group from other groups. In essence, to delineate humans from “the other”.

 

[SystemShock]

I think Jesus is asking the same question, ie "Why are y'all so dumb?"


SERMON XV. FIRST SUNDAY OF LENT. - ON THE NUMBER OF SINS BEYOND WHICH GOD PARDONS NO MORE.

That sermon says a lot, but doesn't really address the OP. The title of the sermon doesn't even seem to be pertinent to the text.

The children who were shot at the Chiefs' parade, are they dumb? What sins do you think they committed in their short lives that they didn't deserve protection from their heavenly father who allegedly can protect them?

I love my children. If I see they are doing something dumb that can cause them great harm, even if they sometimes misbehave, I intervene. I don't let post-it notes around the house with cryptic messages, which may contradict themselves, that they could or could not read, and let them severely harm themselves.

It goes without saying that if I see someone or something attacks them, I will do my best to stop that attack.

And if I see my child attempting to harm someone, I will stop him.

 

[Booker]

It goes without saying that if I see someone or something attacks them, I will do my best to stop that attack.

And if I see my child attempting to harm someone, I will stop him.

If God were all loving he would want to stop the attack, and if he were all powerful he could stop the attack. But he didn't, so we're left with the following conclusion: God is either not all loving or not all powerful, or...wait for it...simply doesn't exist.

 

[SystemShock]

If God were all loving he would want to stop the attack, and if he were all powerful he could stop the attack. But he didn't, so we're left with the following conclusion: God is either not all loving or not all powerful, or...wait for it...simply doesn't exist.

I'm sitting here waiting for the "free will" reply.


.

 

[JLL]

That sermon says a lot, but doesn't really address the OP. The title of the sermon doesn't even seem to be pertinent to the text.

The children who were shot at the Chiefs' parade, are they dumb? What sins do you think they committed in their short lives that they didn't deserve protection from their heavenly father who allegedly can protect them?

I love my children. If I see they are doing something dumb that can cause them great harm, even if they sometimes misbehave, I intervene. I don't let post-it notes around the house with cryptic messages, which may contradict themselves, that they could or could not read, and let them severely harm themselves.

It goes without saying that if I see someone or something attacks them, I will do my best to stop that attack.

And if I see my child attempting to harm someone, I will stop him.

That’s the point. It’s forking hard, and usually it comes down to the question why would God allow innocent to suffer for the sins of others. Why doesn’t he stop it? That’s what I would do!!!! We need a proof he loves us now!! Satan tempts us with that reasoning.

My second point was God could fix anything with a command.

My third point, being how long will we be willing to endure our own arrogance? “Only Jesus can fix this” no matter how much we fork up, he loves us.. and is merciful beyond the bounds of our understanding . But he still allows suffering, which is a price for love. In suffering we receive graces and virtues. , pennys in heaven. We offer our suffering to Jesus, and receive more.

There will still be a judgement, and justice. Which is goes into judging the living and the dead.

But no one wants to hear all that. It’s all just ignorant psycho babbling control methods. So we go on till the brain ceases……

I like when you post questions like this. I always ask myself, is it worth trying to answer? I myself am not smart enough know everything, just a simple Catholic. And if you’ve paid attention to the current state of the hierarchy, it’s quite embarrassing. I don’t even know if the pope is Catholic. My faith of the Church is firm, but there is a spiritual war going on.

FREE WILL

 

[SystemShock]

That’s the point. It’s forking hard, and usually it comes down to the question why would God allow innocent to suffer for the sins of others. Why doesn’t he stop it? That’s what I would do!!!! We need a proof he loves us now!! Satan tempts us with that reasoning.

So now it is Satan who tempt us with reasoning? LOL I don't need Satan to think. And it is not really that hard, it's not hard at all.

My second point was God could fix anything with a command.

There are many commands in the Bible, something like 600+. They don't seem to fix anything.

My third point, being how long will we be willing to endure our own arrogance?

What arrogance?

“Only Jesus can fix this” no matter how much we fork up, he loves us..

You have to tell what's your definition of love, then.

and is merciful beyond the bounds of our understanding .

Where's the mercy?

But he still allows suffering, which is a price for love. In suffering we receive graces and virtues. , pennys in heaven. We offer our suffering to Jesus, and receive more.

So you suffer here, and you get heaven credit. What if you don't suffer but you are righteous? No pennies for you? Not very fair.

It’s all just ignorant psycho babbling control methods.

So far, yes.

I like when you post questions like this. I always ask myself, is it worth trying to answer? I myself am not smart enough know everything, just a simple Catholic. And if you’ve paid attention to the current state of the hierarchy, it’s quite embarrassing. I don’t even know if the pope is Catholic. My faith of the Church is firm, but there is a spiritual war going on.

Looks to me it is a very, physical human war going on.

 

[bird]

That’s the point. It’s forking hard, and usually it comes down to the question why would God allow innocent to suffer for the sins of others. Why doesn’t he stop it? That’s what I would do!!!! We need a proof he loves us now!! Satan tempts us with that reasoning.

My second point was God could fix anything with a command.

My third point, being how long will we be willing to endure our own arrogance? “Only Jesus can fix this” no matter how much we fork up, he loves us.. and is merciful beyond the bounds of our understanding . But he still allows suffering, which is a price for love. In suffering we receive graces and virtues. , pennys in heaven. We offer our suffering to Jesus, and receive more.

There will still be a judgement, and justice. Which is goes into judging the living and the dead.

But no one wants to hear all that. It’s all just ignorant psycho babbling control methods. So we go on till the brain ceases……

I like when you post questions like this. I always ask myself, is it worth trying to answer? I myself am not smart enough know everything, just a simple Catholic. And if you’ve paid attention to the current state of the hierarchy, it’s quite embarrassing. I don’t even know if the pope is Catholic. My faith of the Church is firm, but there is a spiritual war going on.

FREE WILL

Stopping suffering is not demanding proof right now. Did not The Christ say he would grant what was asked in His name? Is it not The Adversary planting seeds in the Church’s dogma?

What arrogance? Again, asking in his name is specifically stated in scripture. Perhaps it is “God’s plan”? So, we must assume that God’s Plan includes a child dying of cancer at 5 years old so that her parents can suffer and get pennies in Heaven? Is it God’s Plan that a woman should suffer mental and physical abuse at the hands of her spouse? If the spouse kills her then it must be God’s Plan.

Or maybe, just maybe, certain things creep out from behind the dogma and the “scripture”. Maybe treating others as we wish to be treated is far more critical than many believe. Here is where the Roman Church and the Protestant sects have a tendency to divide. Treating others well is necessary in the eyes of the Roman Church. Protestants say, in some cases, works are a fruit of faith. Who has said that? The Christ said we MUST treat others well, period. If you do not then you don’t get the reward.

As for the rest of the Roman Church’s dogma? It is an invention of man. The Immaculatre Conception and Assumption of Mary are completely made up. The same applies to the phrase “ever virgin”. You mentioned the hierarchy ands the Pope. Well, Paul completely supported the concept of the hierarchy. It appears that the laity are, well, too simple to understand what the so-called Church Fathers were thinking and writing. Except that that isn’t true. The Church Fathers sought to codify certain man-created belief structures. That is a lust for power. This lust was shown openly after Nicaea.

Finally, free will is a plot device. God’s Plan overrides free will except when it doesn’t.

The bottom line is that humans cannot resist tribalism and the attendant damage it causes because the baseline theology from which the so-called Abrahamic faiths arise IS tribalism writ large. As for those not exposed to the Abrahamic faiths? Well, they have their own tribalistic issues to deal with compounded with the labels of savage and pagan.

 

[JLL]

Stopping suffering is not demanding proof right now. Did not The Christ say he would grant what was asked in His name? Is it not The Adversary planting seeds in the Church’s dogma?

What arrogance? Again, asking in his name is specifically stated in scripture. Perhaps it is “God’s plan”? So, we must assume that God’s Plan includes a child dying of cancer at 5 years old so that her parents can suffer and get pennies in Heaven? Is it God’s Plan that a woman should suffer mental and physical abuse at the hands of her spouse? If the spouse kills her then it must be God’s Plan.

Or maybe, just maybe, certain things creep out from behind the dogma and the “scripture”. Maybe treating others as we wish to be treated is far more critical than many believe. Here is where the Roman Church and the Protestant sects have a tendency to divide. Treating others well is necessary in the eyes of the Roman Church. Protestants say, in some cases, works are a fruit of faith. Who has said that? The Christ said we MUST treat others well, period. If you do not then you don’t get the reward.

As for the rest of the Roman Church’s dogma? It is an invention of man. The Immaculatre Conception and Assumption of Mary are completely made up. The same applies to the phrase “ever virgin”. You mentioned the hierarchy ands the Pope. Well, Paul completely supported the concept of the hierarchy. It appears that the laity are, well, too simple to understand what the so-called Church Fathers were thinking and writing. Except that that isn’t true. The Church Fathers sought to codify certain man-created belief structures. That is a lust for power. This lust was shown openly after Nicaea.

Finally, free will is a plot device. God’s Plan overrides free will except when it doesn’t.

The bottom line is that humans cannot resist tribalism and the attendant damage it causes because the baseline theology from which the so-called Abrahamic faiths arise IS tribalism writ large. As for those not exposed to the Abrahamic faiths? Well, they have their own tribalistic issues to deal with compounded with the labels of savage and pagan.

There’s some truth in your last paragraph, but I think it’s too simple.

 

[Booker]

This paper was published recently, seems relevant to this discussion...

God and Horrendous Suffering » Internet Infidels

The evidential problem of horrendous suffering is one of the most powerful refutations of the theistic God as can be found: if there's an omni-everything God, one who is omnibenevolent (or perfectly good), omniscient (or all-knowing), and omnipotent (or all-powerful), then the issue of why there...

infidels.org

If you name any specific example of horrendous suffering in this world, I can show you how an omni-God could have eliminated it, which would still leave plenty of suffering for an omni-God to test us in this world (if that’s important to a God who can predict what we will do anyway).

In order to evade my challenge, I have found Christian apologists to be experts at cherry-picking God’s supposed divine attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, depending on the problem to be solved.

When it comes to God’s omnipotence, apologists embrace this attribute when it comes to believing he created an unfathomable and mysterious universe that continually surprises us. But when it comes to horrendous suffering, apologists conveniently negate it by saying God cannot create a better world than he did. One apologist, Thomas Oord, has stated this forthrightly, saying God cannot interfere in the world he created, or with free-willed choices intent on doing harm. According to him, God simply doesn’t intervene in the world.[9] How do apologists like Oord know this? They don’t. They just affirm it because of the need to believe. So in order to save their faith from refutation, they must allow God’s omnipotence to only go so far, and no farther. This is where God’s power arbitrarily ends, where the apologist needs it to end to solve a problem for faith.

When it comes to God’s omniscience, apologists embrace this attribute when it comes to God reading our minds, hearing billions of prayers at the same time, and knowing everything that can be known, including minute details into the distant future billions of years from now. But when it comes to horrendous suffering, apologists negate it by claiming God didn’t know how to create a good world without animals, or without natural disasters, or one in which free-willed creatures do no harm. Many apologists, such as William Hasker and Greg Boyd, have come to embrace open theism, which denies that God can foreknow free-willed human actions, so their God isn’t to be blamed for what we do know. How do apologists know this? They don’t. They just affirm it because of the need to believe. So in order to save their faith from refutation they must allow God’s omniscience to only go so far, and no farther. This is where God’s knowledge arbitrarily ends, where the apologist needs it to end, to solve a problem for faith.

When it comes to God’s omnibenevolence, apologists embrace this attribute when it comes to God’s love in sending his son Jesus to pay the ultimate price by dying a horrible death for our sins. But when it comes to suffering, apologists like Michael Peterson and Bruce Little appear to negate it by claiming God does not care that much about our daily lives. In their view, God does not care enough to “micromanage” the world. So they claim that God is off the hook for much of the suffering we experience in the world.

How do apologists know this? They don’t. They just affirm it because of the need to believe. So in order to save their faith from refutation, they must only allow God’s omnibenevolence to only go so far, and no farther. This is where God’s omnibenevolence arbitrarily ends, where the apologist needs it to end, to solve a problem for faith. If this is not their point, then what is it? Certainly an omniscient God knows how to intervene. Certainly an omnipotent God has the ability to do so. Shouldn’t an omnibenevolent God have the motivation to do so?[10]

So the evidential problem of horrendous suffering is one of the most powerful refutations of the theistic God as can be found.

 

[SystemShock]

This paper was published recently, seems relevant to this discussion...

God and Horrendous Suffering » Internet Infidels

The evidential problem of horrendous suffering is one of the most powerful refutations of the theistic God as can be found: if there's an omni-everything God, one who is omnibenevolent (or perfectly good), omniscient (or all-knowing), and omnipotent (or all-powerful), then the issue of why there...

infidels.org

I do have a couple of issues with that paper, like I'd have used Abrahamic god or Christian god instead of theistic god, as there are 1000's of other gods who are established jerks. But overall,

 

[JLL]

The paper that was referenced in previous post, read like, the writer in his opinion preferred we should all be rocks, and all would be perfect.

 

[SystemShock]

The paper that was referenced in previous post, read like, the writer in his opinion preferred we should all be rocks, and all would be perfect.

That's an hour and a half of apologetics' saveur d'jour, probably reiterating the same logical fallacies and rationalizations he utters in much smaller clips: making assumptions about atheists, how a god (and not just any god but the Christian god specifically) is necessary, how there's no love without suffering, you can't taste colors, moral compass, free will, etc. etc. etc. If you have one in particular you'd like to bring up...

If that's what you got from the paper @Booker referenced, you didn't understand it. And like I said, I had some issues with the paper myself, but the overall theme still holds, that the Christian god either can't fix things, or he's unwilling to fix things.

To me, it is Christianity's self-inflicted wound. If it weren't for narratives about god's infinite love and infinite power, god's intervention in anything and everything from health to war, I don't think the questions would be asked. But then, I don't think Christianity would've survived the enlightenment.