C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
That is a valid answer.
Exactly 0 people will discuss things with you if you just become a rigid contrarian.No way.
That is a valid answer.
Exactly 0 people will discuss things with you if you just become a rigid contrarian.No way.
What if there is no God.There is a big difference there. Buddha and Mohamed were not God incarnate.
Mohamad and his family suffered a lot.They did not suffer horribly as Jesus did in His Passion.
We all rise from dead at the end of time.They did not rise from the dead.
Buddha performed miracles Miracles of Gautama Buddha - Wikipedia. Koran is Mohamad’s miracle.They did not perform miracles and minister to announce the Kingdom of God.
So you give them the medal to convince them to run the race? Nope.What they need is the Vision. All problems are solved.
Why? He said that Beatific Vision is just a hallucinations. Are you saying that a all powerful and all knowledgeable being, God, cannot convince His creatures?Exactly 0 people will discuss things with you if you just become a rigid contrarian.
If Moses and the Prophets are not enough for them, neither will they be convinced by the rising of the dead.Are you saying that a all powerful and all knowledgeable being, God, cannot convince His creatures?
No I give them vision to prove that I am God. All problem are solved.So you give them the medal to convince them to run the race? Nope.
So you are saying that God cannot convince His creature that He is God?If Moses and the Prophets are not enough for them, neither will they be convinced by the rising of the dead.
I’m saying God has done everything sufficient for them to know, and their not believing is their own choice and not that of God.So you are saying that God cannot convince His creature that He is God?
You cannot choose to not believe when there are sufficient reasons.I’m saying God has done everything sufficient for them to know, and their not believing is their own choice and not that of God.
circular argument , a person will repeat that statement and another will repeat there is God.What if there is no God.
Nothing like being nailed to a Cross. The man also married, Jesus did not.Mohamad and his family suffered a lot.
No, Buddha is reported to have done supernatural feats by gaining that power. Power not attributed to another.Buddha performed miracles
Well, your post got derailed as often happens online and I often suspect on purpose. You ask a good question, but from experience in this life you are not going to find any answers online. Which is why I recommend you pray, read the Bible, and read books by authorized Saints to answer questions like yours. It’s all been asked and investigate before.Finally a lucid voice.
The question is essentially this. God could’ve chosen to infuse creation with so much grace that everyone would’ve chosen to love Him. But the existence of free will is so invaluable that it would’ve been outside of God’s nature to do that, to create a world with no free will.
But how did God reconcile the fact that infusing the world with less of His grace would mean that some people would inevitably end up in hell?
How many…is too many? If just one person chooses Heaven, is that enough to justify a billion people in Hell?
THIS IS AS FOLLOWS THE TEACHINGS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON OUR SO CALLED FREE WILL… we have free will, …
False. You cannot recognize the Truth if you are not willing to accept the Truth. God has give us sufficient elements to know His existence, His infinite love and goodness, but if you are not willing to accept the Truth, you will never be convinced and nothing will be sufficient for you. As I said, you would be unable to prove that a beatific vision is not an hallucination, therefore also a beatific vision has to be accepted by faith as a vision of the true God.Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman:
You cannot choose to not believe when there are sufficient reasons.I’m saying God has done everything sufficient for them to know, and their not believing is their own choice and not that of God.
Indeed it did, and I thought that it started out with such promise. But as you say, that often happens online. However, I don’t necessarily consider it to be a bad thing. After all, if all something teaches you is patience, then surely it wasn’t for nought.Well, your post got derailed
That’s what I appreciate more than anything. So thank you. People often misunderstand, that I value their responses not for the certitude with which they’re held, but for the sincerity and humility with which they’re offered.I will write that what I learned from life is when presented with a highly theoretical “What if,” come in with experience, which is what I was trying to share with my response.
Indeed it was framed that way, and indeed your answer did make sense. But to me, the question doesn’t go away even if one frames it in the sense of moral good. Is it morally right that so many should suffer, even if one cloaks that suffering in the veil of justice? Is there a point where even if something is morally justified, it can still fail the test of being morally good, because the greater moral good is forgiveness?That is because your framing of the question assumes Utilitarianism, which is atheist, in that what is the GOOD, the highest Good, is the most benefit for the most people with minimum cost to the fewest. OK, I reject Utilitarianism from experience in life and as a religious person and instead favor a moral Good in that what is Good is the individual dignity, sovereignty and respect for each individual person whose value cannot be weighed or numbered. I hope that makes sense.
And didn’t Christ also suffer? And yet He forgave. Is it because forgiveness, and not justice, is the greater moral good?So, relooking at the question if Six Billion people ended up in Heaven while Ten Billion ended up In Hell, what I would understand was happening (from my own life experience not a theoretical model) is that, that Six Billion largely lived painful lives of injustice and oppression at the hands of that Ten Billion.
But if this is the case, then who among us shall get there?Evil cannot reside in Heaven no matter how great their numbers.
God gave grace to Adam and Eve, and free will. They made a choice that resulted in spiritual and physical death.fhansen:
Adam disobey God. He didn’t reject God. No intellectual person choose Hell over Heaven.Hell is simply the rejection of God-and the consequence of living totally apart from Him. From the big picture Adam rejected God in Eden but was given a reprieve, so to speak, with which to sort of work this thing out, his choice, having the possibility of “wising up” here on earth which is sort of half way between heaven and hell, where we experience life apart from God-and the evil that prevails when goodness does not totally overwhelm and exclude it. Here we decide by our choices and actions which one we want.
397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.
398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.279