Sadism or masochism is deriving pleasure from inflicting or experiencing pain. Redemptive suffering is accepting whatever circumstances cause you pain, and letting it shape your character in a positive way, and offering/joining with the suffering of Jesus in hopes that it can also have a redemptive meaning for the sins of others
Can you answer the question, and define what you mean by access?Abrosz:
Define access
Of course you don’t know. Nobody does. But to believe something for which there is no explanation - is the quintessential case of “blind faith”. And Catholics fight tooth and nail against being described to have blind faith.
This would require a much longer answer than the available space. But let’s have a short one. You said: “He did not have to. He chose to.” And that describes self-afflicted or self-imposed suffering. Which is his business. He could have forgiven our trespasses without the self-imposed suffering, so it was useless.
Straw man. Christians wouldn’t make this claim.
He “could have”? In your opinion, but apparently, not God’s. Why should we accept your opinion over God’s?
You’ve moved the goalposts. Did you think no one would notice? On one hand, you discuss “self-imposed suffering”, and then you arbitrarily change it to “unnecessary suffering”. Not cool. Not only is the shift unwarranted, but also, you can’t claim the perspective necessary in order to demonstrate “unnecessary”. At best, you might claim “I personally don’t see how it’s necessary.” That would be a true and defensible statement. But that’s about the extent of the kind of valid claim you might make.
Was it?
There is this thing called “reason and logic”. And whatever God’s mind would be, it MUST follow reason and logic. Do you have a problem with the assertion that God COULD forgive any of our trespasses without the alleged “self-sacrifice”? If and when someone misbehaves, can you just forgive them without some sacrifice? Why do you think that God cannot do what you can do?
Sure… but only an irrational and illogical “intellect” could find unnecessary pain and suffering a “good” solution.
Again, you’re baldly asserting “unnecessary” suffering. You haven’t demonstrated that this is the case, and to Scarlett’s point, you don’t have sufficient perspective to make that claim. (It’s ok, though: none of us creatures do.)
You realize that you’re an ‘apologist’ yourself, right? And yeah, I’d agree with your claim about apologists in that context.
I have no problem with the idea that God could simply hand-wave our forgiveness.
I think that’s precisely the way that the Church describes it, isn’t it? “Not necessary, per se, but fitting”… right?
I’m not actually sure.
This, I think, would be how St. Thomas Aquinas would put it. Having read some of the Summa for a class, this verbiage sounds like something he would write: “God could have done this some other way, but the way He did it was fitting.” Not sure if it applies in this particular situation but it sounds familiar.0Scarlett_nidiyilii:
I think that’s precisely the way that the Church describes it, isn’t it? “Not necessary, per se, but fitting”… right?
I second that. Unfortunately, it is typical for atheists to be prideful, to think they know better than God and to subject God to their terms. It reminds me of the bad thief on the cross, he wanted to be saved but on HIS terms.
Mmm. I often think I know better than someone I don’t believe exists.0Scarlett_nidiyilii:
I second that. Unfortunately, it is typical for atheists to be prideful, to think they know better than God and to subject God to their terms. It reminds me of the bad thief on the cross, he wanted to be saved but on HIS terms.
Logic and reason based on which axioms?
You are playing with words. The axioms must be self-evident, and that has nothing to do with faith.
It is not self-evident, so it is not an axiom.
You are mistaken. I merely contemplate on a possible, different sapient/sentient being - based upon the existing beings we all can observe. The members of the flora and fauna have a bunch of excellent features, which would excellent to combine into a hypothetical sentient/sapient beings.
I am only talking about observable, existing features in the flora and fauna. Not fiction, even though it is also fun.
If you’re going to pooh-pooh every valid contribution we have to this thread, and we’re going to pooh-pooh every time you bash Catholic teaching, this is not going to be a happy relationship.Anesti33:
I am only talking about observable, existing features in the flora and fauna. Not fiction, even though it is also fun.
It is not mandatory to participate.
Self-evident you say?
The whole is greater than a part;'' A thing can not, at the same time, be and not be.’’ 2. An established principle in some art or science, which, though not a necessary truth, is universally received; as, the axioms of political economy.wishful'' sense (wishful in that by calling an established principle an axiom’’ one is generally trying to convince the listener that it is indeed a ``self-evident and necessary truth’’).Nope. They are both valid, and they lead to different systems. Actually there are three, the Euclidean, the Riemann (spherical) and the Gauss-Bolyai-Lobatchevsky (hyperbolic) geometries.