Why Does God Hide Himself?

[zunshynn]

[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]

But why? Why do you think that is essentially necessary? That doesn't make sense. Why does the magnitude of a decision inherently change the nature of what it means to make a decision?

[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.
Evolution is based on the idea of imperfections in genetic replications.[/quote]

If you don't believe the world was created ex nihilo, what do you suggest it was created from? What materials were used, and how did they come to be? And how did it happen that the world came into existence at precisely the right moment... to such a degree that if it had been so much as 1/16th of a second off, it would have combusted? How did every species of animal come into being with a similar method of procreation? Why are there not "transitional" species on earth at the moment. How is it that the planet we live on is the only one in our solar system that has the capablility of fostering life forms? Why is it that

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

But why is that unjust, if he is the creator. We were created, according to Catholic theology, to know God and to love him and to be with him for all eternity. He's given us the freedom to reject him. But if God is what Catholics believe Him to be, namely the creator of all things who is goodness itself, then rejection of him is an extreme injustice... a much more extreme injustice than you could propose that a creator could have caused his creatures... We owe him honor and love because he created us and that's why he created us. If we choose not to cooperate with our very reason for existence than there is no reason why He should be obligated to lessen the consequences. We make an extreme choice to love God, or not to love God. The consequences simply correlate. Why should he be obligated to make the consequences less extreme when the difference between the choice we make is extreme? He is under no obligation to make a middle ground. He owes us nothing. On what grounds would he?

All of the suffering in hell is the result of being cut off from God, from love, because He is love, from joy, because he is joy, from life, because he is life. It would be like tearing off your skin. You are meant to have skin... If you tear it off, it is going to be painful, because it's supposed to remain intact. The punishment is self-inflicted, a direct consequence of tearing your skin off. In the same way, we are meant to be with God. When we are not, it is going to hurt. It's not that he selects all these arbitrary punishments to inflict on someone just to hurt them for doing something wrong. The quotes from Aquinas and the church fathers only reinforce that. Which ones suggest that God punishes people for the sake of just punishing them?

[quote]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.[/quote]

[quote]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.[/quote]

[quote](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.[/quote]

These punishments are the result of having not fulfilled one's reason for existence. Not something that God goes out of his way to make anyone feel. When you look back on any decision, you will naturally reflect on that. It is extreme because it was an extreme choice. Not fulfilling one's reason for existence is extreme, by its very nature. Even in something as simple as an object. If I have a pen, the purpose of my pen is to be able to write with it. If my pen is not able to write, it is useless as a pen. Throwing it out if it doesn't work, and keeping it if it does, are the extreme consequences of fulfilling, or not fulfilling, its purpose of being. I could keep it even if it doesn't work, but there's no purpose. It is technically unreasonable to keep it. (Obviously I'm not suggesting that God "throws out" a soul because it doesn't fulfill it's purpose, because in that case, it is a matter of free will... I'm just trying to point out why it's perfectly reasonable to have extreme ends in this situation, because it too, is a matter of cooperating with one's nature and purpose, which is always a situation of extremes in its very essence... one either fulfills ones' purpose, or does not... it isn't a matter with gray areas, so it wouldn't make sense for the consequences to be any less extreme than the choice itself.)

[quote](2) The pains of hell are essentially immutable; there are no temporary intermissions or passing alleviations.[/quote]

Once again, just a result of being separated from God. Permanent separation will mean permanent pain. That isn't God's fault.

[quote]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).[/quote]

Our bodies and our souls are a composite. They go together, and because of that God ordained that all men should be reunited with their bodies, regardless of eternal consequence. The point I was making about that was simply that corporal punishment is the least punishment of hell. Our bodies, like our souls, were created to glorify God, and we have a choice to correspond with that, or not. And insofar as our bodies have not corresponded, there will be pain. Again, that's a natural consequence, Again, that doesn't mean God is tormenting them. They're tormenting themselves.

Edited August 2, 2009 by zunshynn

[Era Might]

We see death all around us, and yet we live as though death did not exist. If God were to reveal himself more explicitly, would that make us believe? No. That is why Our Lord said, "If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead" (Luke 16:31). The poet Gerard Manley Hopkins wrote that "the world is charged with the grandeur of God." God reveals himself all around us, for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Semalsia' post='1937155' date='Jul 31 2009, 09:19 PM']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?[/quote]

That is between you and God. Regardless of what you understand, you could still be living in God's grace and seeking Him, especially in prayer. This is how you open yourself in a way that God can reveal Himself, so that you can know Him and properly love Him.

In saying God cannot reveal Himself, I mean He cannot reveal Himself in the fullness of his glory and power. In our sin, we prefer God at a distance. Of course, in Christ God has personally revealed Himself and touches us, and all people can know God through the Crucifixion. It was precisely because we reject holiness that Christ was crucified, and through the Crucifixion that we can receive the grace to become holy.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1938113' date='Aug 1 2009, 04:47 PM']The divine energies are what Westerners mistakenly call "attributes."[/quote]

You've only reasserted the thought that energies are roughly equivalent to attributes.

[Hassan]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1939645' date='Aug 3 2009, 10:32 AM']You've only reasserted the thought that energies are roughly equivalent to attributes.[/quote]


Isn't he a westerner?

[Sr Marianne]

God is visible in every aspect of our lives. That is why God chose the 'mundane' things like bread, wine, water, oil - all involved in our sacramental life. It is to show us the holiness of our world that God does not hide himself in this way, but rather reveals himself in this way!

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1939645' date='Aug 3 2009, 08:32 AM']You've only reasserted the thought that energies are roughly equivalent to attributes.[/quote]
Not really, because the energies are enhypostatic, which means that they are not merely mentally attributed to God by man, but really subsist within the persons of the Trinity as distinct properties of the divine nature.

[zunshynn]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1940056' date='Aug 3 2009, 06:16 PM']Not really, because the energies are enhypostatic, which means that they are not merely mentally attributed to God by man, but really subsist within the persons of the Trinity as distinct properties of the divine nature.[/quote]
Attributes are not necessarily just a mental attribution.

I have brown hair. That is not an "energy," it is an attribute. But it's not that someone mentally attributed that to me that my hair is brown... I really do have brown hair.

[zunshynn]

By the way, Hassan, did the cat get your tongue? You got quiet all the sudden.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='zunshynn' post='1940061' date='Aug 3 2009, 06:20 PM']Attributes are not necessarily just a mental attribution.

I have brown hair. That is not an "energy," it is an attribute. But it's not that someone mentally attributed that to me that my hair is brown... I really do have brown hair.[/quote]
The Western theological tradition reduces the energies to attributes, which it holds are only logically or formally distinct, while the Byzantine doctrinal tradition holds that the distinction between the divine essence and the divine energies (and the distinction among the many energies as well) is a real distinction.

[StGiannaismyhero!]

[color="#9932CC"]I was talking to one of my friends about the Eucharist and she had a very interesting point. She said if it was under the appearance of flesh and blood, how many of us would really eat it? I know I'm eating the flesh and blood, but it's a little bit easier when it's under the appearance of bread and wine.
I think that He did it to test our faith, because He gave us free will and would never push Himself on anyone, but I think He wanted to see if we would believe in Him. But of course this is all speculation because no one can know the mind of God. His ways are not our ways/

JMJ+
~Betsy

Totus tuus Maria![/color]

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1940056' date='Aug 3 2009, 09:16 PM']Not really, because the energies are enhypostatic, which means that they are not merely mentally attributed to God by man, but really subsist within the persons of the Trinity as distinct properties of the divine nature.[/quote]

My point is if you want to clarify what energies are, repeating the misconception only reinforces it. So the first word that we associate with "energies" is "attributes." I think I see what you're getting at... that energies are not man's attempt to describe God. Still, the words "properties" and "attributes" are synonyms. Sounds like a concept that needs to be explained no matter how good of a word you could find.

[Hassan]

[quote name='zunshynn' post='1940062' date='Aug 3 2009, 08:22 PM']By the way, Hassan, did the cat get your tongue? You got quiet all the sudden.[/quote]


No. I'll respond. This subject just makes me tired.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1940194' date='Aug 3 2009, 09:18 PM']My point is if you want to clarify what energies are, repeating the misconception only reinforces it. So the first word that we associate with "energies" is "attributes." I think I see what you're getting at... that energies are not man's attempt to describe God. Still, the words "properties" and "attributes" are synonyms. Sounds like a concept that needs to be explained no matter how good of a word you could find.[/quote]
The key word to focus on in my response is "enhypostatic," and not "attribute" or even "property." The term "enhypostatic" is used by the Fathers to speak of a thing that really subsists (i.e., exists) in a hypostasis.

Thus, the energies are really existing "things" in God from which we form concepts about Him, but our intellectual conceptions of God are necessarily distanciated from the actual experience of His energies, which is why St. Gregory of Nyssa said that ". . . every concept grasped by the mind becomes an obstacle in the quest to those who search." The knowledge of God is beyond man's created intellect, for there is no analogy of being between that which is contingent and that which verily is, which is why the vision of God entails a knowing that involves not knowing, and a seeing that involves not seeing.

Theology, in the proper sense of the word, is not discursive; rather, it is experiential.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Hassan]

ump. Sorry Zunshynn, I forgot about this thread. I'll respond tomorrow.