Sixty Second Gospel

Embedded image permalink

There is so much more to the story than “God Loves You.”

Kristeen N Gillooly

About Brother Burrito

A sinner who hopes in God's Mercy, and who cannot stop smiling since realizing that Christ IS the Way , the Truth and the Life. Alleluia!
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Sixty Second Gospel

  1. “And just by accepting this gift…your sins will be forgiven and forgotten.” Well, yes, but that sounds like something “merciful” that’s going to come out of the October 2016 Synod in a few weeks. As with a lot of other things that the Church has taught for 2,000 years, the synod will almost certainly ignore the fact that you “accept this gift” and “your sins will be forgiven and forgotten” when you go to sacramental confession. The 60-second Gospel sounds a bit too Protestant for my tastes, and somewhat “Church of Nice-y,” as Michael Voris might put it. But then, “who am I to judge?”


  2. Michael says:

    As with a lot of other things that the Church has taught for 2,000 years, the synod will almost certainly ignore the fact that you “accept this gift” and “your sins will be forgiven and forgotten” when you go to sacramental confession.

    Robert, may I ask why it is that you seem so confident the Synod will overturn Church teaching? Personally I really don’t think those who seek such a result have as much influence as they, or others, imagine they do.


  3. mithriluna says:

    Love this! Thank you BB!


  4. toadspittle says:

    “But God hates your sins.”
    What a wonderful Catholic word, “hate” is, isn’t it? Even God hates things. No wonder we all do. But if it wasn’t for God, there wouldn’t be any sins in the first place. Very odd.


  5. Robert says:

    “But if it wasn’t for God, there wouldn’t be any sins in the first place”?
    What nonsense are you saying?
    You have Free Will.
    God is Love! Love!
    Self and self love that is your enemy, and this is blinding this generation to the point that they Blame God and guess what side with His enemies. So the Faith is turned upside down and Man will choose Hell because they blame God ?


  6. toadspittle says:

    It’s not nonsense, Rogert. God created Satan knowing that he would provide him with opposition. You know that. God then created us, knowing from the get-go that we would sin.
    He needn’t have done so. I suspect watching us leading our absurd lives amuses Him. Without sin, there’d be no drama or interest on earth. God would get bored watching us all being good all the time. We need sin in order to be able to repent. Otherwise it’s pointless.
    I could say the trouble with God is – he’s only human. He makes plans, gets sad, gets cross. But I won’t say that. As it might be offensive to some.


  7. Michael says:

    He needn’t have done so

    I know you haven’t actually said as much (at least not explicitly), but the question of whether or not it would be better for God not to have created (i.e.; whether or not it would be better for nothing to exist at all) is not only a question that creatures could never possibly hope to answer, given we will never have the sort of knowledge necessary to weigh up the ‘pros and cons’, but the ability to ask such a question actually presupposes that we, and a world, doexist. It seems that, on that front at least, a bit nonsensical to ask whether it would have been ‘better’ not to be.


  8. toadspittle says:

    “It seems that, on that front at least, a bit nonsensical to ask whether it would have been ‘better’ not to be.”
    Yes, Michael. That’s why I didn’t ask it.


  9. toadspittle says:

    …but I don’t think it’s nonsensical to speculate on what form an alternative world might take. (Futile, maybe, but we do all manner of futile things.)
    A world, say, where humans could live without danger from molten lava, and falling sown sudden fissures in the ground, perhaps? Is that so unthinkable, Michael? Were there volcanoes in Eden? Dopey question.


  10. Michael says:

    Nevermind then. I know you didn’t say so explicitly (I mentioned that above), but you’ve made that point many times before, and it seemed heavily implied here. Nevertheless, I have clearly assumed too much. In time honoured phraseology therefore, I can only say ‘oops’.


  11. kathleen says:

    Roger (or Robert) has given you the only answer possible for your question in a nutshell: “God is Love”. It says it all, though you do not appear to understand it. (Well, no one does, not fully.)

    What is the first attribute of Love, true love? Is it not that it grows and expands infinitum? Therefore, although we have to live within the framework of our human limitations (and our very existence is a most wondrous mystery, and always will be to us whilst we are here ‘down below’) we can fathom that the All-Good, All-Powerful, All-Loving transcendental “I Am”, has wanted* to share His Love with us, His creatures whom He made in His Image and Likeness, so that we should also experience a tiny fraction of that indescribable joy.

    Like all loving fathers, God would be loved because we choose to love Him, freely and with conviction, not because we have been programmed to do so (like robots) or because we simply follow instincts (like animals). That is why He gave us Free Will.
    The angels had already been created before Man came ‘on stage’. Some of these superior beings had already fallen (that we now call ‘devils’) having made their own choice, “non serviam”. Why should we be spared having to make a choice for or against God if not even the angels had been exempt from having to do so?

    And those who choose to love God in return for His first immense love for us, are given “life in abundance” (eternal life) to live in that Love.

    Our first parents chose badly, but God did not abandon us, so great was His Love. After centuries of preparation He sent His Only Begotten Son to save us from our sinfulness and open the gates of Heaven for all who repent of their sins.
    Now it’s up to each one of us, and we are given millions of opportunities in a lifetime to make these choices.
    Never too late, old buddy… until one day when our ‘time’ on Earth runs out, it will be!

    P.S. *Yes, I know, I know… we use human qualities: want, wish, like, etc. to describe God’s Plan for us; but as we’ve said before, human language is so limited to describe such sublime Divine workings, and yet it is all we have to try to explain these great and wondrous mysteries.


  12. toadspittle says:

    “….and yet (human qualities) are all we have to try to explain these great and wondrous mysteries.”
    Then possibly we should take Wittgenstein’s (not a Catholic, alas) advice, Kathleen ; ” Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent. “ Yea, right. That would put all religion out of business, toot sweet, would it not? And it’s big business.
    And, unless instructed otherwise, I will assume Catholics regard volcanoes as a direct result of Original Sin.
    It would make some vague kind of sense if God was supposed to say, “OK, if you don’t choose me, you will cease to exist.” But what he does say is “If you don’t choose me, you will burn in hell forever.” Apparently. That’s what I don’t get.


  13. toadspittle says:

    “After centuries of preparation He sent His Only Begotten Son…”
    Why did He take 200,000 years to prepare? Why didn’t it take Him five minutes?


  14. Michael says:

    Sorry, I didn’t see this reply until now. The question of what an alternative world might look like (i.e.; particularly one where we are free from all harm, etc) is not a ‘dopey’ one no, but it does rather blur the boundaries between what possible worlds might exist and what plausibleones might. We can imagine all sorts of things – a world without gravity, for example, or where things change shape at random – but a world where these things actually occurred would lack integrity and regularity.

    To put it another way, when we are asked what other sorts of world God might have created, we have to remind ourselves that this would still have to be a material world, as material existence precisely is the only kind of existence we know, or can really conceive of. Given this, one would also expect a coherent world to have regular laws, according to which change occurs in a largely predictable fashion – the alternative would either be a world with no change at all, or an utterly chaotic one.

    The results of a material world involving processes of change, and governed by regular natural laws, is that a.) two things cannot occupy the same space at the same time (or we lose any sense of individuation, everything collapsing into one homogenous mass), and therefore b.) sometimes things (processes, people, animals, inanimate objects) will come into conflict with one another. As I’ve said before fairly recently, for God to then step in and move things about every time such conflicts occur would defeat the point of creating an independent world that operates freely according to certain principles in the first place – and this just brings us back to the point that we cannot possibly weigh up the pros and cons of whether it was better to have created or not.

    You could legitimately argue at this point that the world could have been left like this, but without creatures such as ourselves – that is, who are self-aware, able to intuit meaning, apprehend concepts, and have free will – as with us comes the further category of moral evil. There are good arguments as to why God did not leave it at this point (one being that He wished to create something that could actually freely respond to, and know and love Him) but I think this will do for now.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s