Why Does God Hide Himself?

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Semalsia' post='1935166' date='Jul 29 2009, 10:15 PM']So your saying that God decided it was better for the majority of people to end up in Hell so that a few could feel inspired? Why would a relationship with someone be more important than the eternal fate of all human beings? This is where all that God is love stuff falls apart. I just don't understand how you can say all these things fully knowing what the Church also teaches about Heaven and Hell.[/quote]

No, I'm saying [i]we[/i] decided it was better to reject God in favor of taking for ourselves what we believe is best. Look at the major events of salvation history: after Adam and Eve eat from the Tree of Knowledge, does God not desire to be with them? In the Great Flood, was God not striving to help us see that following His commandments is good and makes our lives happier? Did not God pull Israel out of Egypt and give them a land all their own? Wasn't it God who came to earth as a fellow human being in order to die so that sinners could be reconciled with God as we were created to be?

Love is a freely given sacrifice. Nobody can command another person to love them. That's why God cannot violate our free will: if God is Love, he allows us to love Him freely, or love something else instead. We all love something though, and that's part of the image of God that can never be erased from our being.

Edited July 30, 2009 by LouisvilleFan

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1935641' date='Jul 30 2009, 01:36 PM']No, I'm saying [i]we[/i] decided it was better to reject God in favor of taking for ourselves what we believe is best. Look at the major events of salvation history: after Adam and Eve eat from the Tree of Knowledge, does God not desire to be with them? In the Great Flood, was God not striving to help us see that following His commandments is good and makes our lives happier? Did not God pull Israel out of Egypt and give them a land all their own? Wasn't it God who came to earth as a fellow human being in order to die so that sinners could be reconciled with God as we were created to be?

Love is a freely given sacrifice. Nobody can command another person to love them. That's why God cannot violate our free will: if God is Love, he allows us to love Him freely, or love something else instead. We all love something though, and that's part of the image of God that can never be erased from our being.[/quote]

dang another divinely inspired post by L.

"Love is a freely given sacrifice." - definitely worthy of critical acclaim as a great quote.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1935665' date='Jul 30 2009, 03:26 PM']dang another divinely inspired post by L.

"Love is a freely given sacrifice." - definitely worthy of critical acclaim as a great quote.[/quote]

Hmm... I wouldn't go that far... at least not on my part. Just a little Theology of the Body spillin' out the brain: "Love is free, total, faithful, and fruitful." And it's all imaged on the crucifix.

Edited July 30, 2009 by LouisvilleFan

[Semalsia]

[quote name='zunshynn' post='1935545' date='Jul 30 2009, 03:10 PM']The chief suffering in Hell is not being with God.

I know a few people who seem perfectly sane to me that have told me point blank that they want to go to Hell...

Now, I don't think they really understand what the ultimate loss of God would mean... nor, honestly, do I, really. But they are making decisions to make it perfectly clear to anyone that they don't want to love God. Now I'm not judging their souls, I'm just saying this is the message they're sending, and seem to want to send.

Honestly, the way they are now... I really think they would be miserable in Heaven... I hope that someday will change... I think it can, if they start to be open to it... But God is not going to force someone to be with Him, to love Him, if they don't want to.

There was a point in my own life where I really honestly can say I hated God. I would not have been happy in heaven if I had died with the sentiments towards God that I had then. Not that you can be 'happy' in hell... but that was what I was choosing at the time.

That's why he gives us free will. He doesn't want to be loved by robots that didn't freely choose to love, because that isn't genuine love, and free will was a gift he gave to his creation, and he wants them to be able to use it.[/quote]

But here's the problem I have with this: how can anyone make a truly free choice if they do not understand what they are choosing? Giving factual information so that people could make a choice based on it isn't disrupting their exercise of free will or forcing them, but making it possible for them to do the choice in the first place. Without it they'll only have prejudice, misconceptions and lies to work with. And so by "hiding" God is only promoting poor judgement and confusion.

You said that you can't really understand what the ultimate loss of God would mean and yet you also said that's exactly what you wanted. That makes absolutely no sense at all.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1935641' date='Jul 30 2009, 05:36 PM']No, I'm saying we decided it was better to reject God in favor of taking for ourselves what we believe is best. Look at the major events of salvation history: after Adam and Eve eat from the Tree of Knowledge, does God not desire to be with them? In the Great Flood, was God not striving to help us see that following His commandments is good and makes our lives happier? Did not God pull Israel out of Egypt and give them a land all their own? Wasn't it God who came to earth as a fellow human being in order to die so that sinners could be reconciled with God as we were created to be?

Love is a freely given sacrifice. Nobody can command another person to love them. That's why God cannot violate our free will: if God is Love, he allows us to love Him freely, or love something else instead. We all love something though, and that's part of the image of God that can never be erased from our being.[/quote]

What if we're only rejecting God because we're confused and don't understand him? What if we do love God, but don't know that we do?

You say God can't reveal himself, but how can we love the unknown?

[Hassan]

[quote name='Semalsia' post='1937087' date='Jul 31 2009, 06:36 PM']You said that you can't really understand what the ultimate loss of God would mean and yet you also said that's exactly what you wanted. That makes absolutely no sense at all.[/quote]


Bingo

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Semalsia' post='1937087' date='Jul 31 2009, 07:36 PM']But here's the problem I have with this: how can anyone make a truly free choice if they do not understand what they are choosing? Giving factual information so that people could make a choice based on it isn't disrupting their exercise of free will or forcing them, but making it possible for them to do the choice in the first place. Without it they'll only have prejudice, misconceptions and lies to work with. And so by "hiding" God is only promoting poor judgement and confusion.[/quote]

God reveals enough of Himself in this world for us to choose to believe in Him or reject Him. If He were to reveal Himself fully, we would have no choice to believe in His existence, and love Him, because He is the pure meaning of love, love itself.

[zunshynn]

[quote name='Semalsia' post='1937087' date='Jul 31 2009, 05:36 PM']But here's the problem I have with this: how can anyone make a truly free choice if they do not understand what they are choosing? Giving factual information so that people could make a choice based on it isn't disrupting their exercise of free will or forcing them, but making it possible for them to do the choice in the first place. Without it they'll only have prejudice, misconceptions and lies to work with. And so by "hiding" God is only promoting poor judgement and confusion.[/quote]

[quote]You say God can't reveal himself, but how can we love the unknown?[/quote]

Can you willfully, truly marry someone without knowing absolutely everything about them? Yes. In fact, the mystery of marrying someone without knowing them completely is an testimony of the beauty of the love they are committing too... That too, is in a sense, a matter of faith. It's the same with God.

God "can" reveal Himself. He does. But on the one hand, we do not have the capacity to fully grasp that revelation. And on the other, He chooses to "hide" some of His glory and His power because He doesn't want to be loved because of that. God does not ask us to comprehend him beyond our capacity to do so.

But love is an act of the will. He wants to be loved on faith... not because we're dazzled by his glory or the miracles that he can work, but because we're choosing to trust Him, because we acknowledge, in humility, that our minds are too finite to grasp Him in His entirety, but that we want to love Him anyway. Just like a couple marrying each other chooses, as an act of the will to love another person, to love even the things that they don't know about the other person. Because they are choosing to marry the PERSON... not what the person has. (And I don't mean marrying someone about false pretenses... I just mean that any couple does not know each other entirely, but that doesn't prevent them from making a committment, and an act of the will, to love the other.)

Should someone only love you because you're always willing to give them what you want? Would that mean they truly love you? And just because someone loves you doesn't mean that they will always give you what you want. Parents refuse to give their children what they want sometimes, because it isn't good for them. Precisely because they love them.

[quote]What if we're only rejecting God because we're confused and don't understand him? What if we do love God, but don't know that we do?[/quote]

[quote]You said that you can't really understand what the ultimate loss of God would mean and yet you also said that's exactly what you wanted. That makes absolutely no sense at all.[/quote]

God knows with what fervor anyone desires/desired to know Him. And he will take that into consideration with complete justice and mercy... LIke I said, He doesn't ask us to comprehend him beyond our capacity to do so. And He knows the circumstances that may have prevented someone from assenting to truth, to accepting him and loving him. But we still must strive for the truth and to love him to the degree that we're able.

He knows, better than I do even, exactly how much my rejection of him was based on confusion, and how much was a lack of desire to know him. I can say that I think... I didn't fully understand what the ultimate loss of God would mean, but I don't think I wanted to know. I didn't care if He existed or not, and if He did, I felt like I still really didn't want anything to do with Him.

To carry that into my analogy about marriage... It would be like rejecting a proposal from a wonderful man because I didn't even want to get to know him... Am I free to reject the proposal? Of course. Would the consequence of that decision be that I might lose out on a relationship with someone that wanted to love me very much, and who I could have loved very much, had I given him the chance? Most likely. But for him to force me to marry him because he knows that would be best for me, would not work... It wouldn't be a loving relationship if I was forced into it.

[Hassan]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1937797' date='Aug 1 2009, 05:20 AM']God reveals enough of Himself in this world for us to choose to believe in Him or reject Him. If He were to reveal Himself fully, we would have no choice to believe in His existence, and love Him, because He is the pure meaning of love, love itself.[/quote]


So?

In heaven don't the saved have no choice but to believe and love him?

[Hassan]

[quote name='zunshynn' post='1938076' date='Aug 1 2009, 01:59 PM']Can you willfully, truly marry someone without knowing absolutely everything about them? Yes. In fact, the mystery of marrying someone without knowing them completely is an testimony of the beauty of the love they are committing too... That too, is in a sense, a matter of faith. It's the same with God.[/quote]

Not even close. In marriage you know the other individual actually exists, and there is no threat of eternal, unending punishment if one turns down the proposal.

[quote]God "can" reveal Himself. He does. But on the one hand, we do not have the capacity to fully grasp that revelation. And on the other, He chooses to "hide" some of His glory and His power because He doesn't want to be loved because of that. God does not ask us to comprehend him beyond our capacity to do so.

But love is an act of the will. He wants to be loved on faith... not because we're dazzled by his glory or the miracles that he can work, but because we're choosing to trust Him, because we acknowledge, in humility, that our minds are too finite to grasp Him in His entirety, but that we want to love Him anyway. Just like a couple marrying each other chooses, as an act of the will to love another person, to love even the things that they don't know about the other person. Because they are choosing to marry the PERSON... not what the person has. (And I don't mean marrying someone about false pretenses... I just mean that any couple does not know each other entirely, but that doesn't prevent them from making a committment, and an act of the will, to love the other.)

Should someone only love you because you're always willing to give them what you want? Would that mean they truly love you? And just because someone loves you doesn't mean that they will always give you what you want. Parents refuse to give their children what they want sometimes, because it isn't good for them. Precisely because they love them.





God knows with what fervor anyone desires/desired to know Him. And he will take that into consideration with complete justice and mercy... LIke I said, He doesn't ask us to comprehend him beyond our capacity to do so. And He knows the circumstances that may have prevented someone from assenting to truth, to accepting him and loving him. But we still must strive for the truth and to love him to the degree that we're able.

He knows, better than I do even, exactly how much my rejection of him was based on confusion, and how much was a lack of desire to know him. I can say that I think... I didn't fully understand what the ultimate loss of God would mean, but I don't think I wanted to know. I didn't care if He existed or not, and if He did, I felt like I still really didn't want anything to do with Him.[/quote]

You don't seem to ever directly deny her point. God does not choose to fully reveal himself to us and we cannot fully understand what existence without God is, therefore the rejection is not made with a full understanding of the consequences.

[quote]To carry that into my analogy about marriage... It would be like rejecting a proposal from a wonderful man because I didn't even want to get to know him... Am I free to reject the proposal? Of course. Would the consequence of that decision be that I might lose out on a relationship with someone that wanted to love me very much, and who I could have loved very much, had I given him the chance? Most likely. But for him to force me to marry him because he knows that would be best for me, would not work... It wouldn't be a loving relationship if I was forced into it.[/quote]

No, it would be like rejecting a vague proposal from a man's whose very existence is very much in doubt. And if one answers incorrectly they are then subjected to an eternity of torment, both spiritual and physical. That's not love, it's sadism. Worship God forever, love him more than the tangible beings in your own life or else. That is the deal. It's a sickening proposal which sounds more like something constructed by a neurotic, abusive

[Apotheoun]

In the Eastern Christian tradition God is both hidden and revealed; for He is, and always will be, utterly transcendent and unknowable in His essence, while He simultaneously reveals Himself in His energies, which flow out from Him into the world, and most especially into the Church and her holy mysteries, manifesting His presence to those who have passed by all that is intelligible in creation, and who have given up every finite mode of intellection, in order to live by faith.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1938108' date='Aug 1 2009, 03:41 PM']In the Eastern Christian tradition God is both hidden and revealed; for He is, and always will be, utterly transcendent and unknowable in His essence, while He simultaneously reveals Himself in His energies, which flow out from Him into the world, and most especially into the Church and her holy mysteries, manifesting His presence to those who have passed by all that is intelligible in creation, and who have given up every finite mode of intellection, in order to live by faith.[/quote]


what do you mean by energies?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1938109' date='Aug 1 2009, 01:43 PM']what do you mean by energies?[/quote]
The divine energies are what Westerners mistakenly call "attributes."

[zunshynn]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1938089' date='Aug 1 2009, 01:17 PM']Not even close. In marriage you know the other individual actually exists, and there is no threat of eternal, unending punishment if one turns down the proposal.[/quote]

You seem to think that the secular perception of hell, burning in a fire with a little man with red horns stabbing you with tongs is what we're talking about. That's not what Catholics believe hell isRead the CC on Hell paragraphs 1033-1037.

[quote]From the Catechism 1033-1035

We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren. [i]To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."
[/i]
Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost. Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire," and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"

The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." [i]The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.[/i][/quote]

The fire which scripture speaks about is not necessarily a literal fire... but rather a way of attempting to explain something beyond what we have experience of... that of being apart from God, of being enveloped in anger and hatred, but without repentence.

[quote]You don't seem to ever directly deny her point. God does not choose to fully reveal himself to us and we cannot fully understand what existence without God is, therefore the rejection is not made with a full understanding of the consequences.[/quote]

Can you explain why you're so insistent that you must know absolutely, completely what the consequences of a decision will be to make the decision? People make decisions all the time without knowing the complete outcome. I mean, if I decide to smoke knowing that I could get emphysema, which could kill me, do I really have to know exactly how painful, or costly, emphysema would be, or whatever other consequences that would have, to be responsible for the decision that led to those consequences? I don't think so. Personally I don't think I need to know exactly what it will feel like to not be with God to make the decision that I do want to be with him. I can understand that marrying someone will have the consequence of not being free to have other relationships without first dating every other guy to make sure I knew what all of my options were. It seems a little immature to think that you can't make a reasonable decision without trying every one of your options out.

[quote]No, it would be like rejecting a vague proposal from a man's whose very existence is very much in doubt.[/quote]

I disagree. I think the fact that all throughout history, people have sought to explain the world through the existence of some higher powers that created it, would lead one to believe that the average, rational person would come to the conclusion that we have some kind of creator, before coming to the conclusion that we do not. And with all that we have come to learn about the universe through science, and understanding how intricately and perfectly it operates, suggests even more that it was designed, and created and is being maintained by someone, even if they did not hold the Catholic or Christian faith.

[quote]And if one answers incorrectly they are then subjected to an eternity of torment, both spiritual and physical. That's not love, it's sadism. Worship God forever, love him more than the tangible beings in your own life or else. That is the deal. It's a sickening proposal which sounds more like something constructed by a neurotic, abusive[/quote]

If God is who He says He is, who He has revealed to It is not unjust for the Creator of something to insist that he be loved by his creatures more than other creatures. If someone does not like that, they are deciding they don't want to be with their Creator. That's choosing hell. Which he allows... it doesn't mean that pleases him. Once again, the "state of definitive [u]self-exclusion from communion with God[/u] and the blessed is called "hell.""

Sadism is taking pleasure in inflicting someone with pain. God does not "desire the death of the wicked, but that they would turn back and be converted." Say I chose to leave home and became a drug addict. I might not have completely been aware of the misery that would cause me, and my parents tried to persuade me not to, but I didn't listen. Does the fact that they still allow me to do it mean that they're sadistic? That they take pleasure in my suffering? No... it would cause them tremendous pain. But they would still be allowing me to make my own decisions... They might continually offer for me to come back, to choose something better, but not making me doesn't mean they enjoy watching it.

[Hassan]

[quote name='zunshynn' post='1938140' date='Aug 1 2009, 03:53 PM']You seem to think that the secular perception of hell, burning in a fire with a little man with red horns stabbing you with tongs is what we're talking about. That's not what Catholics believe hell isRead the CC on Hell paragraphs 1033-1037.[/quote]

I don't think you can just assign this as the secular perception of hell.

As I recall St. Thomas Aquinas did state that the damned's torments were both spiritual and corporal. Furthermore I believe there are a few ecumenical councils affirming that different souls recieve different levels of physical torment based on their personal wickedness.

[i]According to theologians the pain of loss and the pain of sense constitute the very essence of hell, the former being by far the most dreadful part of eternal punishment. But the damned also suffer various "accidental" punishments.

Just as the blessed in heaven are free from all pain, so, on the other hand, the damned never experience even the least real pleasure. In hell separation from the blissful influence of Divine love has reached its consummation.
The reprobate must live in the midst of the damned; and their outbursts of hatred or of reproach as they gloat over his sufferings, and their hideous presence, are an ever fresh source of torment.
The reunion of soul and body after the Resurrection will be a special punishment for the reprobate, although there will be no essential change in the pain of sense which they are already suffering.
As to the punishments visited upon the damned for their venial sins, cf. Francisco Suárez, "De peccatis", disp. vii, s. 4.

Characteristics of the pains of hell
(1) The pains of hell differ in degree according to demerit. This holds true not only of the pain of sense, but also of the pain of loss. A more intense hatred of God, a more vivid consciousness of utter abandonment by Divine goodness, a more restless craving to satisfy the natural desire for beatitude with things external to God, a more acute sense of shame and confusion at the folly of having sought happiness in earthly enjoyment -- all this implies as its correlation a more complete and more painful separation from God.

(2) The pains of hell are essentially immutable; there are no temporary intermissions or passing alleviations. A few Fathers and theologians, in particular the poet Prudentius, expressed the opinion that on stated days God grants the damned a certain respite, and that besides this the prayers of the faithful obtain for them other occasional intervals of rest. The Church has never condemned this opinion in express terms. But now theologians are justly unanimous in rejecting it. St. Thomas condemns it severely (In IV Sent., dist. xlv, Q. xxix, cl. 1). [Cf. Merkle, "Die Sabbatruhe in der Hölle" in "Romische Quartalschrift" (1895), 489 sqq.; see also Prudentius.]

However, accidental changes in the pains of hell are not excluded. Thus it may be that the reprobate is sometimes more and sometimes less tormented by his surroundings. Especially after the last judgment there will be an accidental increase in punishment; for then the demons will never again be permitted to leave the confines of hell, but will be finally imprisoned for all eternity; and the reprobate souls of men will be tormented by union with their hideous bodies.

(3) Hell is a state of the greatest and most complete misfortune, as is evident from all that has been said. The damned have no joy whatever, and it were better for them if they had not been born (Matthew 26:24). Not long ago Mivart (The Nineteenth Century, Dec., 1892, Febr. and Apr., 1893) advocated the opinion that the pains of the damned would decrease with time and that in the end their lot would not be so extremely sad; that they would finally reach a certain kind of happiness and would prefer existence to annihilation; and although they would still continue to suffer a punishment symbolically described as a fire by the Bible, yet they would hate God no longer, and the most unfortunate among them be happier than many a pauper in this life. It is quite obvious that all this is opposed to Scripture and the teaching of the Church. The articles cited were condemned by the Congregation of the Index and the Holy Office on 14 and 19 July, 1893 (cf. "Civiltà Cattolica", I, 1893, 672). [/i]


From the Catholic Encyclopedia


The fire which scripture speaks about is not necessarily a literal fire... but rather a way of attempting to explain something beyond what we have experience of... that of being apart from God, of being enveloped in anger and hatred, but without repentence.



[quote]Can you explain why you're so insistent that you must know absolutely, completely what the consequences of a decision will be to make the decision? People make decisions all the time without knowing the complete outcome. I mean, if I decide to smoke knowing that I could get emphysema, which could kill me, do I really have to know exactly how painful, or costly, emphysema would be, or whatever other consequences that would have, to be responsible for the decision that led to those consequences? I don't think so. Personally I don't think I need to know exactly what it will feel like to not be with God to make the decision that I do want to be with him. I can understand that marrying someone will have the consequence of not being free to have other relationships without first dating every other guy to make sure I knew what all of my options were. It seems a little immature to think that you can't make a reasonable decision without trying every one of your options out.[/quote]

You don't have to try all the options out, but surely when a decision is imposed on an individual, when the outcome is of such tremendous magnitude as this one, an individual must have a clear understanding of what they are accepting or rejecting in order for the decision to be truely free, for it to be a genuinely free choice.


[quote]I disagree. I think the fact that all throughout history, people have sought to explain the world through the existence of some higher powers that created it, would lead one to believe that the average, rational person would come to the conclusion that we have some kind of creator, before coming to the conclusion that we do not.[/quote]

But that is not a fact. In far eastern and pre Abrahamic religions we do not consistently see dogmas that the powers to be created the world ex nihilo

[quote]And with all that we have come to learn about the universe through science, and understanding how intricately and perfectly it operates, suggests even more that it was designed, and created and is being maintained by someone, even if they did not hold the Catholic or Christian faith[/quote]

Evolution is based on the idea of imperfections in genetic replications.



[quote]If God is who He says He is, who He has revealed to It is not unjust for the Creator of something to insist that he be loved by his creatures more than other creatures. If someone does not like that, they are deciding they don't want to be with their Creator. That's choosing hell. Which he allows... it doesn't mean that pleases him. Once again, the "state of definitive [u]self-exclusion from communion with God[/u] and the blessed is called "hell.""[/quote]


And yet that dichotomy is one he has created. Either eternal paradise or eternal torment is a pretty extreme dichotomy.

[quote]Sadism is taking pleasure in inflicting someone with pain. God does not "desire the death of the wicked, but that they would turn back and be converted." Say I chose to leave home and became a drug addict. I might not have completely been aware of the misery that would cause me, and my parents tried to persuade me not to, but I didn't listen. Does the fact that they still allow me to do it mean that they're sadistic? That they take pleasure in my suffering? No... it would cause them tremendous pain. But they would still be allowing me to make my own decisions... They might continually offer for me to come back, to choose something better, but not making me doesn't mean they enjoy watching it.[/quote]

You are right, that was not a fair word to use on my part.