Dilemma first cause and free will

[Bahman]

My friend, I stick to the Catholic faith and to the traditions of the Church, just as St. Paul exhorts us to do. I have already told you what love/charity is and isn’t, but you refuse to accept basic Catholic teaching. It is basic Catholic teaching that God is Love/Charity. And what is meant by love/charity is CHARITY (love rooted in God), not the love we have for ice-cream and music. I want to help you, but I can’t because you are not willing to accept Catholic teaching for what it is–true and reliable. You have your own ideas about God and other things, and you hold fast to them. What you need is grace to enlighten you and help you, so I definitely will pray for you. But you still will need to cooperate with grace. As I am my brother’s keeper, I care about you and your soul. So pease listen to me when I say that you must learn your Catholic faith. Please buy the Baltimore Catechism #3 and read it, and keep away from Eastern ideas and heretical ideas–they will send you to Hell, which neither of us wants. BTW, I think it would help you very much if you got rid of that little devil and substituted in a picture of Mary, our Mother and Queen. God bless you!

Hell sweet hell!

 

[ready]

Hell sweet hell!

I’m sorry, but we are through. May our Lord have mercy on your soul. God bless you.

 

[John_Martin]

No, that is the wrong definition. God is: consciousness, as a faculty which sits on the top. In the middle we have, feeling, mind and power. These are utility of consciousness. On the bottom we have the subconsciousness, as a faculty again.

…

Just one part of the post for now:
Consciousness
You are equating that with God.
Consciousness is one state of a being capable of being conscious. It is something even babies have, and even animals have. It is sensitive awareness of the self and of others.

A “faculty”, which you also equate with consciousness, by definition, belongs to something. As an example, a human being or a non-rational animal, has the “faculty” called sight for seeing, plus the “faculty” called smell for sensing odors, plus the “faculty” called consciousness for sensing intelligible information from the seeing, hearing, smelling, etc., faculties.

What you are calling “utilites” are actually other “faculties” alongside consciousness which is a “faculty”. And what you call “sub consciousness”, is actually the same faculty as “consciousness”, being part of the same faculty (just as a closed eye is the same faculty as an open eye, but only the open eye has an image at the back of the retina).

So, you can see that consciousness is not God, since it is a “faculty of some being with a purpose in support of that being”.

 

[ready]

Just because you don’t believe 100% percent of Catholic dogma does not mean that you will definitely go to hell. If that is the case, all babies who die and people who are unaware of Church teaching go to hell.

One needs supernatural faith in order to be pleasing to God, the Scriptures says so. Without supernatural faith in one’s soul there can not be supernatural hope and supernatural charity in it, as supernatural hope builds on supernatural faith and supernatural charity builds on supernatural hope, which, as I said, builds on supernatural faith: and supernatural charity in one’s soul is a requirement for salvation. Babies who are baptized have at their baptism the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity infused in their souls along with the 7 Gifts of the Holy Ghost and the Cardinal or Moral Virtues. Babies who die unbaptized or adults who die unbaptized with water or without Baptism of Desire or of Blood go to Hell, the babies to Limbo of the Infants and the adults to the Hell of the Damned. God bless you.

 

[blase6]

One needs supernatural faith in order to be pleasing to God, the Scriptures says so. Without supernatural faith in one’s soul there can not be supernatural hope and supernatural charity in it, as supernatural hope builds on supernatural faith and supernatural charity builds on supernatural hope, which, as I said, builds on supernatural faith: and supernatural charity in one’s soul is a requirement for salvation. Babies who are baptized have at their baptism the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity infused in their souls along with the 7 Gifts of the Holy Ghost and the Cardinal or Moral Virtues. Babies who die unbaptized or adults who die unbaptized with water or without Baptism of Desire or of Blood go to Hell, the babies to Limbo of the Infants and the adults to the Hell of the Damned. God bless you.

Oh brother. Theologians can make up tons of unnecessary descriptions of how salvation works, but in the end, what happens to babies who die and animals, mentally retarded people, etc. We really don’t know. The Church does not have definite dogma in these areas.

 

[blase6]

Hell sweet hell!

Why do you want to be tortured forever?

 

[ready]

Oh brother. Theologians can make up tons of unnecessary descriptions of how salvation works, but in the end, what happens to babies who die and animals, mentally retarded people, etc. We really don’t know. The Church does not have definite dogma in these areas.

Any Catholic who knows the Catholic Faith knows that it is SOLID Church teaching that those who die without supernatural faith, hope and charity and without sorrow for sins go to Hell. It is absolutely impossible for a soul without supernatural faith, hope and charity and sorrow for sins to be saved: and the Scriptures and Universal Ordinary Magisterium say so. Not only is the Solemn Extraordinary Magisterium infallible, but so is the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, in case you did not know. And the Universal Ordinary Magisterium teaches what I have said above WITHOUT error. Jesus said to his Apostles: He who hears you hears Me, so when Rome speaks the matter is settled. Rome has already spoken on this subject of salvation and we know that Rome speaks for Jesus Christ. Even the Scriptures speaks of necessity of supernatural faith, hope and charity and sorrow for one’s sins for salvation–what more proof do you want? The Scriptures, like the Universal Ordinary Magisterium is infallible, as it is the inspired Word of God. God bless you.

 

[blase6]

Any Catholic who knows the Catholic Faith knows that it is SOLID Church teaching that those who die without supernatural faith, hope and charity and without sorrow for sins go to Hell. It is absolutely impossible for a soul without supernatural faith, hope and charity and sorrow for sins to be saved: and the Scriptures and Universal Ordinary Magisterium say so. Not only is the Solemn Extraordinary Magisterium infallible, but so is the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, in case you did not know. And the Universal Ordinary Magisterium teaches what I have said above WITHOUT error. Jesus said to his Apostles: He who hears you hears Me, so when Rome speaks the matter is settled. Rome has already spoken on this subject of salvation and we know that Rome speaks for Jesus Christ. Even the Scriptures speaks of necessity of supernatural faith, hope and charity and sorrow for one’s sins for salvation–what more proof do you want? The Scriptures, like the Universal Ordinary Magisterium is infallible, as it is the inspired Word of God. God bless you.

I don’t know where you are getting this. Probably one of the many catechisms out there. As far as I know only the pope teaches infallibly in matters of faith and morals, and then only under certain conditions. According to your criteria those who are incapable of rational thought on God go to hell.

 

[davidv]

I don’t know where you are getting this. Probably one of the many catechisms out there. As far as I know only the pope teaches infallibly in matters of faith and morals, and then only under certain conditions. According to your criteria those who are incapable of rational thought on God go to hell.

Where the other poster got this was from the teachings of the Church. Don’t believe him/her? Please careful read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is available on the Vatican website.

 

[blase6]

Where the other poster got this was from the teachings of the Church. Don’t believe him/her? Please careful read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is available on the Vatican website.

I have a copy of the Catechism and I have read through a bit of it. I haven’t seen anything that directly defines how and when the Church speaks infallibly apart from the pope.

 

[oldcelt]

I have a copy of the Catechism and I have read through a bit of it. I haven’t seen anything that directly defines how and when the Church speaks infallibly apart from the pope.

And when the Pope truly speaks infallibly…a bit open for interpretation…encyclicals, etc.

John

 

[Bahman]

Just one part of the post for now:
Consciousness
You are equating that with God.
Consciousness is one state of a being capable of being conscious. It is something even babies have, and even animals have. It is sensitive awareness of the self and of others.

That is your definition (the bold part). Consciousness is a being with the ability to experience and affect mental states.

A “faculty”, which you also equate with consciousness, by definition, belongs to something.

No, that is incorrect. We could possibly make conscious decision if consciousness was a utility. We are responsible for our decision because we are consciousness. By the way, do you have another faculty which you can give a proper definition for it and consciousness is a utility of it.

As an example, a human being or a non-rational animal, has the “faculty” called sight for seeing, plus the “faculty” called smell for sensing odors, plus the “faculty” called consciousness for sensing intelligible information from the seeing, hearing, smelling, etc., faculties.

Consciousness as I defined is the only faculty and the rest of what you defined above are all utility of consciousness.

What you are calling “utilites” are actually other “faculties” alongside consciousness which is a “faculty”. And what you call “sub consciousness”, is actually the same faculty as “consciousness”, being part of the same faculty (just as a closed eye is the same faculty as an open eye, but only the open eye has an image at the back of the retina).

Well, do we experience sight? Yes. Hence this is a utility of consciousness. Can we experience consciousness directly as we do with sight, no, hence conspicuousness and only consciousness is a faculty.

So, you can see that consciousness is not God, since it is a “faculty of some being with a purpose in support of that being”.

Yes, if you stick to my definition. Consciousness is the being.

 

[John_Martin]

That is your definition (the bold part). Consciousness is a being with the ability to experience and affect mental states.

No, that is incorrect. We could possibly make conscious decision if consciousness was a utility. We are responsible for our decision because we are consciousness. By the way, do you have another faculty which you can give a proper definition for it and consciousness is a utility of it.

Consciousness as I defined is the only faculty and the rest of what you defined above are all utility of consciousness.

Well, do we experience sight? Yes. Hence this is a utility of consciousness. Can we experience consciousness directly as we do with sight, no, hence conspicuousness and only consciousness is a faculty.

Yes, if you stick to my definition. Consciousness is the being.

You have clearly shown here that you do not know the English language. And that is why we find all of what you say to be coming across as nonsense.

A faculty is not a being. Here is the English Language definition of Faculty, and if you wish to converse in English, you have to know its symbols, its words, in their English meaning:

Full Definition of FACULTY
1: ability, power: as
a : innate or acquired ability to act or do
b : an inherent capability, power, or function
c : any of the powers of the mind formerly held by psychologists to form a basis for the explanation of all mental phenomena
d : natural aptitude

In English, if there is an “ability or a power”, that ability or power is a property of some being that possesses that ability or power.

This means, in the English Language, that when Consciousness is called a faculty, then it is subordinate to a being but is not a being. It is a power or ability that a being has.

So, you will not force a whole language commonly known to change, but you must learn a people’s language if you wish to communicate in the symbols of that people, its language, its words.

 

[Bahman]

You have clearly shown here that you do not know the English language. And that is why we find all of what you say to be coming across as nonsense.

A faculty is not a being. Here is the English Language definition of Faculty, and if you wish to converse in English, you have to know its symbols, its words, in their English meaning:

In English, if there is an “ability or a power”, that ability or power is a property of some being that possesses that ability or power.

This means, in the English Language, that when Consciousness is called a faculty, then it is subordinate to a being but is not a being. It is a power or ability that a being has.

So, you will not force a whole language commonly known to change, but you must learn a people’s language if you wish to communicate in the symbols of that people, its language, its words.

Well, English is not my mother tongue and I don’t have any other word who could explain subject matter well. Do you know? Something which is opposite of utility. I can think of primary.

 

[davidv]

I have a copy of the Catechism and I have read through a bit of it. I haven’t seen anything that directly defines how and when the Church speaks infallibly apart from the pope.

See article 890.

 

[Bahman]

How much time did you spend to find that image? I am so sorry that you wasted your time since I am completely neutral to it. I was much happier if you could make a point but presenting a decent argument showing that I am wrong so I could learn from my mistake.

 

[ready]

I don’t know where you are getting this. Probably one of the many catechisms out there. As far as I know only the pope teaches infallibly in matters of faith and morals, and then only under certain conditions. According to your criteria those who are incapable of rational thought on God go to hell.

I’m afraid you don’t know your Catholic Faith, for what I say is sound Church teaching. God bless you.

 

[ready]

I have a copy of the Catechism and I have read through a bit of it. I haven’t seen anything that directly defines how and when the Church speaks infallibly apart from the pope.

I never said that the Church teaches infallibly apart from the Pope. You obviously do not have a clue about what the Universal Ordinary Magisterium is. Read up about it, and you will see that it is just as infallible as solemn definitions are, and it is infallible teaching in union with the Pope. God bless you.

 

[ready]

And when the Pope truly speaks infallibly…a bit open for interpretation…encyclicals, etc.

John

No, Vatican I teaches without error that there is only ONE true interpretation, and that is the interpretation that was INTENDED for the encyclical, etc. by the Pope who wrote it: and that interpretation can NOT change over time, says the Vatican I Council. God bless you.

 

[oldcelt]

No, Vatican I teaches without error that there is only ONE true interpretation, and that is the interpretation that was INTENDED for the encyclical, etc. by the Pope who wrote it: and that interpretation can NOT change over time, says the Vatican I Council. God bless you.

So all encyclicals ever written are essentially Catholic dogma? Interesting.

As for the binding force of these documents it is generally admitted that the mere fact that the pope should have given to any of his utterances the form of an encyclical does not necessarily constitute it an ex-cathedra pronouncement and invest it with infallible authority. The degree in which the infallible magisterium of the Holy See is committed must be judged from the circumstances, and from the language used in the particular case.

New Advent seems to disagree. newadvent.org/cathen/05413a.htm