Catholics and free will

[Sophia]

This is a good analogy.

When people say “folks freely choose hell”, please remember your analogy, and recognize that what they’re saying is shorthand for “folks freely choose courses of action for which the consequence is eternal damnation.”

Glad we could clear that up for you. Sorry it wasn’t obvious from the beginning.

It is and it was obvious from the beginning. You would be better off if you directed your condescending remarks to those whose command of the English language is so poor, that they do not understand the difference between the natural consequences of an action and the artificial consequences described in the law-books. And who are not aware of the difference between choosing an action and choosing the consequences of the action.

The problem is much worse. Not just the incorrect phraseology, but what is behind it. There is no information which would enlighten us about what are the actions for which is the PUNISHMENT is eternal torture and damnantion. For the temporal punishment there is the law-book, which is available for everyone. If you think that the bible or the church or the magisterium form an equivalent for the law-book, then you are seriously mistaken. For the temporal consequences there is the actual jail, the buildings where the sentences are dispensed. Everyone can explore the consequences of the illegal actions.

None of that is available for the alleged “crimes” against the supernatural. There is no “law-book”, there is no judicial branch, there is no visitation of the equivalent of the jail - namely the hell. And, of course there is no eternal punishment. There are two huge stumbling blocks for the apologists, the problem of evil and the problem of hell. So far no apologist was able to present an argument to explain how to reconcile God’s alleged “love” for us with the idea of “eternal punishment” and the “problem of evil”.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Final rejection of God is hell. Final embracing of God is heaven. Hell is not a punishment, but rather a by-product of rejecting God.

 

[Sophia]

Final rejection of God is hell. Final embracing of God is heaven. Hell is not a punishment, but rather a by-product of rejecting God.

To reject God one would have to experience God. Here, in this Earthly existence we do NOT experience God, therefore we cannot reject God. Why would anyone “reject” God, if one had experienced the beatific vision? Only a complete imbecile would reject the beatific vision, and such people do not deserve the eternal torture and damnation. As Jesus (allegedly) said: “They don’t know what they are doing”.

Some apologists assert that hell is a separation from God. Of course that idea is contradicted by the concept of “omnipresence”, but more importantly, in this existence we ARE separated from God.

If you ask ten apologists to talk about hell, you will get eleven (or more) contradictory answers.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Here, in this Earthly existence we do NOT experience God…

This is false. God is experienced in the Church, in the Eucharist, in prayer, and in His creations. We don’t see the entirety of God, but we can still experience Him.

 

[Gorgias]

Well thankfully since you have to fully know that something is a sin, and since you can’t fully know God. (You know the whole faith thing) then no one can be in hell I guess.

What does “fully knowing God” have to do with “fully knowing what sin is”? God is unknowable. What a sin is – since it’s clearly defined and taught by the Church – is fully knowable.

Sorry… your logic just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

 

[Sophia]

This is false. God is experienced in the Church, in the Eucharist, in prayer, and in His creations. We don’t see the entirety of God, but we can still experience Him.

Nonsense. God cannot be seen, cannot be heard, cannot be touched, cannot be smelled, cannot be tasted. None of our (five) senses are equipped to experience him. God is not a “physical” being. Try to ask two contradictory questions from God, and the “answer” will be identical: total silence.

What a sin is – since it’s clearly defined and taught by the Church – is fully knowable.

Only if one accepts the church as authority. Actually, not even then. The church changes its teachings quite frequently. And why should anyone, who is not a Catholic accept the authority of the church? The church is unable to keep its stranglehold on Catholics either. Just look at the Irish referendum on abortion. The majority of the Irish Catholics spoke loud and clear: “We disagree with the church”.

You commit the same error as the other ones. You assume that the church is an authority for everyone. Wake up. Those times are gone.

 

[Gorgias]

Nonsense. God cannot be seen, cannot be heard, cannot be touched, cannot be smelled, cannot be tasted. None of our (five) senses are equipped to experience him. God is not a “physical” being.

Jesus is, though.

Only if one accepts the church as authority.

Of course. And, since your profile IDs you as ‘Catholic’, then that implies you should accept church authority.

Actually, not even then. The church changes its teachings quite frequently.

Actually, it doesn’t. But hey… keep telling yourself that and maybe, one day, you’ll see the error in that proposition!

The church is unable to keep its stranglehold on Catholics either.

The Church doesn’t attempt to ‘strangle’ anyone. Any person is free to walk away, any time they wish.

Of course, many try “not walking away” but nevertheless “not following”. It’s an odd path.

You commit the same error as the other ones. You assume that the church is an authority for everyone. Wake up.

The Church is an authority for Catholics. Some choose not to follow, but that doesn’t make the Church any less authoritative. Wake up … there’s a big difference there.

 

[Reuben_J]

Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman:

This is false. God is experienced in the Church, in the Eucharist, in prayer, and in His creations. We don’t see the entirety of God, but we can still experience Him.

Nonsense. God cannot be seen, cannot be heard, cannot be touched, cannot be smelled, cannot be tasted. None of our (five) senses are equipped to experience him. God is not a “physical” being. Try to ask two contradictory questions from God, and the “answer” will be identical: total silence.

I don’t think this answer the statement that we can experience God.

Nobody says God is physical. He is not. God is spirit. That is why we say we can experience Him in the physical things because He is not.

And before you call that nonsense, there are people indeed who experience God. Just because you say we can’t, it does not mean that people do not experience God.

Again it is a matter of choice, which should be the fundamental of this argument.

 

[Sophia]

Jesus is, though.

Can I physically experience Jesus, then? Hear him? Touch him? Especially the stigmata? Have a conversation with him? I have many questions - not demands for miracles… just some questions. And you can safely forget the Eucharist. The Eucharist does not answer questions either.

Actually, it doesn’t.

Sure it does. Just look at the history, and you will find thousands of “teachings” that have been changed. Are the Muslims still “heathens” to be exterminated in crusades? Should the infidels be burned at the stakes? Are the Jews still the despicable “murderers” of Christ? Is the theory of evolution still an anathema? The examples are too numerous to mention. You really should familiarize yourself with the history of your church.

Of course. And, since your profile IDs you as ‘Catholic’, then that implies you should accept church authority.

In some cases, I do. In others, I don’t. Maybe I am not a “good” Catholic… but once baptized as a Catholic, you are always a Catholic. You know. That “indelible” mark on your soul…

The Church is an authority for Catholics. Some choose not to follow, but that doesn’t make the Church any less authoritative. Wake up … there’s a big difference there.

An unaccepted authority is NOT an authority. But I was also talking about the zillions of people who have never been baptized as Catholics, or never been baptized at all. Why would the church be considered an authority for them? The church “claims” it, but it is not respected.

There is no list of “sins”, personally proscribed by God, bearing the imprimatur of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Sophia]

Nobody says God is physical. He is not. God is spirit. That is why we say we can experience Him in the physical things because He is not.

Huh? By the way… I could never experience God in my whisky bottle either, even though a good single malt whisky (Laphroiag comes to mind) is the best “spirit” I have ever encountered.

And before you call that nonsense, there are people indeed who experience God. Just because you say we can’t, it does not mean that people do not experience God.

I am sure there are people who claim that they experience God, who cannot be experienced, but that only shows their irrationality.

 

[Reuben_J]

Jesus says bless are you because this mystery is hidden from the wise and the learned. How they long to see and know what you see but they can’t because of the hardness of their hearts. (Paraphrased).

 

[Reuben_J]

Reuben_J:

Nobody says God is physical. He is not. God is spirit. That is why we say we can experience Him in the physical things because He is not.

Huh? By the way… I could never experience God in my whisky bottle either, even though a good single malt whisky (Laphroiag comes to mind) is the best “spirit” I have ever encountered.

And before you call that nonsense, there are people indeed who experience God. Just because you say we can’t, it does not mean that people do not experience God.

I am sure there are people who claim that they experience God, who cannot be experienced, but that only shows their irrationality.

Look like you have run out of things to say. Not sure what you are trying to say there.

 

[Sophia]

Jesus says bless are you because this mystery is hidden from the wise and the learned. How they long to see and know what you see but they can’t because of the hardness of their hearts. (Paraphrased).

My heart is still busy pumping blood. I am ready and willing to have a conversation with God, or Jesus, whichever of them is not too busy… but they never show up when I ask them. The “ball” is in their court, not mine. By the way, Jesus has nothing to fear from the wise and learned. There is no need for such inferiority complex. Though I am very curious about his answer about the problem of evil, and the question of hell.

 

[Reuben_J]

Reuben_J:

Jesus says bless are you because this mystery is hidden from the wise and the learned. How they long to see and know what you see but they can’t because of the hardness of their hearts. (Paraphrased).

My heart is still busy pumping blood. I am ready and willing to have a conversation with God, or Jesus, whichever of them is not too busy… but they never show up when I ask them. The “ball” is in their court, not mine. By the way, Jesus has nothing to fear from the wise and learned. There is no need for such inferiority complex. Though I am very curious about his answer about the problem of evil, and the question of hell.

Irrelevant actually. Don’t know why you say that Jesus has anything to fear or anything. I have made it clear. It is a choice.

Jesus said shake off the dust from your feet from those who reject you and move on to other towns.

 

[margaret42]

Would this be similar to how Adam and Eve knew God, before free will was given?

 

[laylow]

I am ready and willing to have a conversation with God, or Jesus, whichever of them is not too busy… but they never show up when I ask them. The “ball” is in their court, not mine.

I have a feeling you will be waiting for quite a while.

 

[Gorgias]

Can I physically experience Jesus, then? Hear him? Touch him? Especially the stigmata? Have a conversation with him? I have many questions - not demands for miracles… just some questions. And you can safely forget the Eucharist. The Eucharist does not answer questions either.

Ahh, but the Eucharist meets your other criteria (‘physically experience’, ‘touch’)…

Sure it does. Just look at the history, and you will find thousands of “teachings” that have been changed. Are the Muslims still “heathens” to be exterminated in crusades? Should the infidels be burned at the stakes? Are the Jews still the despicable “murderers” of Christ? Is the theory of evolution still an anathema?

Are these teachings on faith and morals? Were they taught as such? If they were items of secular political leadership, then they don’t count. Sorry.

Was evolution ever ‘anathema’? Or was it merely what it is today – some theories (which do not contradict theological truth) are ok to pursue, and the other ones (which attempt to do theology under the sheep’s clothing of ‘science’) are not.

An unaccepted authority is NOT an authority.

Oh, yeah? Try telling that to the nice police officer the next time he pulls you over for speeding.

 

[Sophia]

I have a feeling you will be waiting for quite a while.

I am sure. But the important point is that I am WILLING. The lack of the communication is not my fault.

Ahh, but the Eucharist meets your other criteria (‘physically experience’, ‘touch’)…

Except the Eucharist is not Jesus. And not God. It is just a piece of unleavened bread and a sip of wine. Ask any chemist. And when it comes to this physical reality, the chemist (but not the alchemist or the theologian) is the authority.

Are these teachings on faith and morals?

Absolutely. Heresy, declarations about infidels, schisms all fall under the label of “faith and morals”. And the point is that the teachings changed. At some point they were required to accept them on the pain of excommunication. And some dissent was punished by being burned at the stakes. The crusades were organized by the church. Just read the declarations of the Council of Nicaea and you will find a cute list of things, that were changed since then. Vatican I and Vatican II are further examples.

Was evolution ever ‘anathema’?

The concept that we did not come from a “first couple” IS still an anathema. What about the “rib-theory”? Is it abandoned now? Just look at:

Oh, yeah? Try telling that to the nice police officer the next time he pulls you over for speeding.

The police officer is an authority in several matters - because he or she has a GUN and the support of the whole legal system. But I do not accept that an officer is an authority in the matters of faith and morals. I already stated that I accept the church’s teachings in SOME cases. And I do NOT accept it in others. Why would I? I am using my God-given mind and rationality to separate the wheat from the chaff. I accept the rational teachings, and discard the irrational ones.

The church says that we are supposed to follow our conscience. But not unconditionally. Only if our conscience is “well-formed”. And what constitutes a “well-formed” conscience? Simple. If the conscience is in perfect synch what the church teaches (in that moment!) then it is a well formed conscience. So why bother with that pesky “conscience”? It would be simpler to say that “everyone must follow what the church says in that specific moment”.

 

[Agathon]

Except the Eucharist is not Jesus. And not God. It is just a piece of unleavened bread and a sip of wine. Ask any chemist. And when it comes to this physical reality, the chemist (but not the alchemist or the theologian) is the authority.

The miracle of Lanciano would say otherwise. But if Christ’s own words won’t convince you, miracles won’t either.

 

[laylow]

I am sure. But the important point is that I am WILLING. The lack of the communication is not my fault.

Totally agree.

…