Do Religious People Really Believe in Their Religion?

[sinnerdexter]

Two centuries ago, Kant presented a solidly-founded, well-derived non-theistic morality. His first premise is that morality itself can only make sense if there is free will, since if there is not, we would have no reason to praise or blame people, which is contrary to the basic idea of moral rules. But since the basic premise of science is that all action is caused, freedom seems impossible. However, even though the basic posit of science is that everything is caused, we cannot always see clear evidence that everything is in fact caused. Thus if the wind pushes a rock down a hill, that is a clear case of the rock being caused to move by something external to it. But if a human decides to race into a burning building to save a friend, we could argue that that is also caused by external factors, such as his hormones, his instincts, his education, his culture, etc., we cannot trace the causal network so densely as to exclude the possibility that there is a residuum of free self-determination in the person’s decision to go into the burning building.

But how can we know ourselves as free? Freedom depends on our elevating ourselves above the realm of causal conditioning, and we can do this by determining our actions not be physical influences around us, but by giving ourselves ideal rules as commands. Since these are intellectual rather than material causes, they no longer belong to the causal realm. However, if we just give ourselves rules for action which support our material, instinctive drives, then these rules hardly make us free. Rather, the basis of those rules we give ourselves also has to lie in our respect for freedom. But what can we imagine to be free in the causally conditioned universe described by science? Obviously, other humans like ourselves, who can also in principle give themselves ideal, moral rules as the non-physical, and thus non-causal, bases for their action. So we make ourselves free by giving ourselves ideal rules to respect in our actions the equal freedom of others, since we are all equally human, and only humanness seems complex enough in its actions that we can imagine it not to be conditioned by external causes, like the rock being blown down the hill by the wind.

So in one single act of respecting the equal freedom of other people in the ideal laws we give ourselves to obey, we not only provide ourselves with a basis for conceiving ourselves as conditioned by our own intellect which gives us these rules rather than by physical causes, but we also make ourselves moral, since the rule of respecting the equal freedom of other people is just the Golden Rule of the Bible: Love thy neighbor as thyself, or Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

So here we have a well-founded morality based on humans respecting humans, and at no point in the derivation have we been forced to have resort to the God hypothesis.

 

[Vico]

That is easy. Free will has two aspects: 1) the locus of control is with the agent and 2) the principle of alternate possibilities. In simple form, it is the agent who makes the decision, without external force and the agent could act “otherwise”, which means that the agent has at least two options to choose from. I hope you will not say that the victim’s free will is untouched, since she has two “options” 1) resisting (in vain) or 2) “laying back and enjoying the act”. Sounds incredible, but I heard that before. Obviously, the rules of conduct prevented me from answering as I wanted to.

V: “I want to interject that the rapist does not have a God given right to rape.”
RD: “The problem is that the consequences of an “explicit right” and an “implicit allow” are the same. For the victim it does not matter if the rape was explicitly or implicitly allowed.”

But, it is important in my remark that the rapist does not have a right to rape, that is, it is not just to rape, and that is a significant difference between right and allow. A practical example: law enforcement processes crimes after they occur, the specific crimes that occur are not prevented, and the criminals have no right to commit them.

V: We have God given liberty (the power of choice) to act but all acts are not just (lawful). Rape is contrary to God’s law.
RD: An unenforced law is worthless.

Merriam-Webster enforce 3. To give force to; reinforce: “enforces its plea with a description of the pains of hell” (Albert C. Baugh).

V: “Yet, we have no God given expectation of being unmolested in this life.”
RD: “Which is exactly the problem. Why not? … Since God could interfere, but does not, it seems like that God “values” the freedom of the attacker higher than the freedom of the victim. … Why does God always take the attacker’s side?”

God does not prevent sin directly but indirectly through grace and the free will of the indivdual, but does enforce the law. Free will is that without which all would be predetermined. Why God appears to take the attacker’s side is not revealed, but I think it is because there is no other way to demonstrate love and hate without free will. This is where the definition of free will comes in. (See bottom.)*

V: “A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next.”
RD: “First of all, a quote from the Cathecism is not an acceptable explanation for an atheist. And second, even if it would be, this is not an explanation. It has nothing to do with the question.”

But it does have to do with the question. It means that we have our end as happiness later, not now, so God is not attempting to produce paridise in this world by favoring the victim over the victimizer.

V: “The fundamental problem in discussing this is that we do not have a commonly agreed upon definition of free will. Without that there will be no understanding between us.”
RD: "Free will has two aspects:

1. the locus of control is with the agent and
2. the principle of alternate possibilities. In simple form, it is the agent who makes the decision, without external force and the agent could act “otherwise”, which means that the agent has at least two options to choose from."

** Locus of control is subjective, the perception of control in one’s life (Rotter).*
I believe you are using the deterministic model and that in Catholicism free will is that of metaphysical libertarianism.
So please explain what you mean by “locus of control” or present a different idea instead.

 

[R_Daneel]

V: “I want to interject that the rapist does not have a God given right to rape.”
RD: “The problem is that the consequences of an “explicit right” and an “implicit allow” are the same. For the victim it does not matter if the rape was explicitly or implicitly allowed.”

But, it is important in my remark that the rapist does not have a right to rape, that is, it is not just to rape, and that is a significant difference between right and allow. A practical example: law enforcement processes crimes after they occur, the specific crimes that occur are not prevented, and the criminals have no right to commit them.

Certainly there is no “explicit” right to rape. But the point is that the lack of prevention and/or interference (on God’s part) “implicitly” allows it to happen. The human law-enforcement agencies usually do not have the foresight or ability to prevent such actions. But, if and when they do, it is their job to prevent or interfere with it. If someone happens to have knowledge of a crime which is planned (but not committed yet) it is their duty to notify the proper agency. Failing to do so makes them accessory to the crime, with appropriate punishment.

V: We have God given liberty (the power of choice) to act but all acts are not just (lawful). Rape is contrary to God’s law.
RD: An unenforced law is worthless.

Merriam-Webster enforce 3. To give force to; reinforce: “enforces its plea with a description of the pains of hell” (Albert C. Baugh).

Why didn’t you also quote number 5: "to carry out effectively "? When an unlawful act happens, and the law-enforcement agency gains knowledge about it, they must go and do the proper steps to punish it. They cannot just postpone it and say: “oh well, we just let God do the punishing”.

V: “Yet, we have no God given expectation of being unmolested in this life.”
RD: “Which is exactly the problem. Why not? … Since God could interfere, but does not, it seems like that God “values” the freedom of the attacker higher than the freedom of the victim. … Why does God always take the attacker’s side?”

God does not prevent sin directly but indirectly through grace and the free will of the indivdual, but does enforce the law. Free will is that without which all would be predetermined. Why God appears to take the attacker’s side is not revealed, but I think it is because there is no other way to demonstrate love and hate without free will. This is where the definition of free will comes in. (See bottom.)*

Good grief! If that is the demonstration of “love”, then who needs “hate”? How does allowing a rape show “love”? Preveting a rape would show love for the victim. Allowing the rape shows indifference (or worse) for the victim, and maybe even love for the rapist.

V: “A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next.”
RD: “First of all, a quote from the Cathecism is not an acceptable explanation for an atheist. And second, even if it would be, this is not an explanation. It has nothing to do with the question.”

But it does have to do with the question. It means that we have our end as happiness later, not now, so God is not attempting to produce paridise in this world by favoring the victim over the victimizer.

What is wrong with a bit of Earthly “paradise”? Not that preventing a rape would be “paradise”, but it would make this world a little bit better.

V: “The fundamental problem in discussing this is that we do not have a commonly agreed upon definition of free will. Without that there will be no understanding between us.”
RD: "Free will has two aspects:

1. the locus of control is with the agent and
2. the principle of alternate possibilities. In simple form, it is the agent who makes the decision, without external force and the agent could act “otherwise”, which means that the agent has at least two options to choose from."

** Locus of control is subjective, the perception of control in one’s life (Rotter).*
I believe you are using the deterministic model and that in Catholicism free will is that of metaphysical libertarianism.
So please explain what you mean by “locus of control” or present a different idea instead.

I use the libertarian version. The locus of control means exactly what it says: “the agent is the one who makes the decision, and not some outside force”.

 

[LilyM]

My argument was that there is suffering that is not necesary. If it serves a good and worthwhile purpose, then it is not the type of suffering I was arguing against.

No, your parents didn’t want you to suffer, it was due to their lack of omnipitance that they could not prevent you from suffering

No.

If they had the power to make your teeth perfect and not rot, then they would have kept you out of the dentist because it would be unnecesary. If they had the power to prevent you from getting sick, then you would never have had to go to the doctors.

It is because your parents are finite, limited beings that they have to use what power they have (the power of the doctors and dentists) to prevent greater suffering from occuring to you.

ceAs God created sickness, and could prevent our teeth from decaying (by not creating the bacteria that cause tooth decay - or creating a material that does not decay and having our teeth made from that), then He could have prevented this kind of suffering if He wnated to.

Hang on a minute - the vast majority of those vaccinations have been totally unnecessary, and some doubtless ineffective (there’s always a percentage that are).There are parents who argue that very point and refuse to have their children vaccinated, with no harm at all resulting to the children.

So it’s entirely possible that the suffering my parents made me undergo WAS totally unnecessary, and that they just couldn’t be bothered accurately assessing the risks and pain vs the benefits of vaccinations. Does that make them inhumanly cruel monsters? Must do by your logic.

At one stage as an adult I didn’t darken the doorstep of a dentist for several years. When I did go back I was told that my teeth were in excellent condition, as I have been at every dentist’s visit thereafter. Again, we can conclude that that the childhood dentist’s visits quite likely weren’t necessary either.

Assuming some parents at least know their kid’s teeth are perfectly fine, and knowing as I know (and many adults do) that one can skip the odd dentist’s visit with absolutely no harm resulting, are those parents in such a situation who make their kids go edvery 6 months inhuman monsters? Certainly they’re causing unnecessary suffering to the child, are they not?

Also, about Adam and Even, God knew that the serpent was lieing to them and He could have stepped in at any point and told Adam and Eve that the serpent was doing this. Adam and Even would still have been free to eat the fruit of the tree and commit sin, but God CHOSE to allow them to act with imperfect information (which is a way of removing free will) and so they sinned (the inevitable result of being lied to). Not only that, the serpent was only made to “crawl on his belly”, where as Adam and Eve were cast out of eden and made to suffer, but even more so, the decendents of Adam and Eve, who never had the choice to comit that sin were then also made to suffer the same punishment as Adam and Eve.

Punishing those that are not guilty of a crime is wrong and unethical. Haivng that punishment as unnecesary suffering is also crule. So God now is immoral and cruel. Your arguments are just getting you in deeper and deeper here. They are not actually addressing the issue (that unnecesary suffering is cruel and one who causes that unncessary suffering is also cruel) and not only that, they are just providing more evidence that God really is cruel (ie: You are saying that God is the one that makes the decision to cause unsesary suffering and that He could have chosen otherwise).

You seem to be saying here that perfect or at least a very high level of knowledge and control of one’s circumstances and actions are required for one to be guilty. And that to convict or punish people when any less rigorous levels are attained is cruel.

Not so. We lock up many a criminal who had less-than-perfect knowledge and less-than-perfect self-control. And rightly. We do it because the level of knowledge and self-control required for culpability - be it for crime or sin - doesn’t have to be absolute, nor anywhere near absolute. Nor especially high, for that matter.

One simply has to have ENOUGH knowledge to distinguish the right from the wrong or the legal from the illegal course of action in a given situation (even if one doesn’t understand ALL the whys and wherefores of the one being right and the other wrong) and ENOUGH self-control that the act is voluntary on your part.

Even incredibly young children have sufficient capacity and self-control, at least in some circumstances, to be culpable. And so their parents punish them when they do wrong. Adam and Eve had at least as much knowledge and self-control as a child, surely.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

The title of this thread is Do Religious People Really Believe in Their Religion?

The true answer is, yes. Many of us do.

Yet the thread has devolved into, “I’m Catholic/atheist/whatever, and let me use all my wiles to convince you why I DON’T!”

The problem with these ‘wiles’ is that they seem, well, soohomoric, adolescent, knee-jerk rebellion, utterly lacking in humility, very much lacking common sense, and very much designed to lure away those teetering in doubt.

No matter who is spouting off about how smart they are that they ‘know’ God doesn’t exist… Dawkins. Hitchens. Even Stephen Hawking…

You are leading others astray. Especially those who claim to be Catholic. Are we not to counsel the doubtful and avoid such scandal?

It’s one thing to entertain doubt. Even Mother Theresa did. It’s quite another to play Pied Piper to Satan.

 

[Vico]

Certainly there is no “explicit” right to rape. But the point is that the lack of prevention and/or interference (on God’s part) “implicitly” allows it to happen. The human law-enforcement agencies usually do not have the foresight or ability to prevent such actions. But, if and when they do, it is their job to prevent or interfere with it. If someone happens to have knowledge of a crime which is planned (but not committed yet) it is their duty to notify the proper agency. Failing to do so makes them accessory to the crime, with appropriate punishment.

Why didn’t you also quote number 5: "to carry out effectively "? When an unlawful act happens, and the law-enforcement agency gains knowledge about it, they must go and do the proper steps to punish it. They cannot just postpone it and say: “oh well, we just let God do the punishing”.

Good grief! If that is the demonstration of “love”, then who needs “hate”? How does allowing a rape show “love”? Preveting a rape would show love for the victim. Allowing the rape shows indifference (or worse) for the victim, and maybe even love for the rapist.

What is wrong with a bit of Earthly “paradise”? Not that preventing a rape would be “paradise”, but it would make this world a little bit better.

I use the libertarian version. The locus of control means exactly what it says: “the agent is the one who makes the decision, and not some outside force”.

I am answering your question that you asked about God, which you said nobody could answer, so I do use religious teaching to answer that of course.

As the creator of all laws, God is not subject to his laws, as creatures we are. We do not comprehend God, which is why I originally said we infer rights.

In law a person charged as an accessory to a crime can be:

1. before the fact – one who incites, abets, or aids a person in the commission of a criminal act,
2. after the fact – one who receives, shelters, comforts, relieves, or assists a felon after the crime has been committed.

God is not an accessory before the fact as aid has been given by God (as the Word and the Holy Spirit) to prevent comission of all criminal acts, and not after the fact as temporal suffering (or even Hell) results from the crimes.

Definiton number 5: "to carry out effectively " also works, God has Divine Laws which are carried out.

I believe you are suggesting that God should miraculously override Mankind’s will to create a paradise, to show Love. Does that not remind you of the original paradise Eden, which was rejected for the knowledge of good and evil? Preventing sin is Mankind’s work through the grace of the Holy Spirit, and the Truth (brought by the Word) whereby individuals can demonstrate love of God and each other.

Thank you for clarifying your meaning of locus of control. Note that “locus of control” has specific meanings in social psychology that are different than what you are using. (Which is why I listed Rotter.)

RD: "Free will has two aspects:

1. the locus of control is with the agent and
2. the principle of alternate possibilities. In simple form, it is the agent who makes the decision, without external force and the agent could act “otherwise”, which means that the agent has at least two options to choose from."

You said “I use the libertarian version” and “the agent is the one who makes the decision”. So we are rejecting determinism and both the victimizer and the victim make decisions in the example, so are they not both agents?

You also said previously “I hope you will not say that the victim’s free will is untouched”.

Some say there is no free will, rather choice. The Merriam Webster defintions of free will are:

1 : voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>
2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

I think you can argue based upon these definitions and the context, that a victim has no free will or that they retain free will. I don’t want to argue over the choice of words though. Rather I want to answer your original question about God, which I believe I have done.

 

[R_Daneel]

As the creator of all laws, God is not subject to his laws, as creatures we are. We do not comprehend God, which is why I originally said we infer rights.

Unfortunately this does not wash. There are plenty of instances where the lawmakers consider themselves “exempt” from the laws they create for the “ordinary citizens”. Just consider “speeding laws” which do not apply to members of the legislature, if they claim that the must get to a meeting in time, and the police is obliged to let them go. Maybe you say that this is OK. I certainly do not. If a law has exemptions, if a law only applies to a specific class of citizens, then it is not much a law. By the same token, the legislature could create a “law”, which forbids citizens to commit murder, but allows the lawmakers themselves to commit murder, if they so choose.

If you happen to say that God is a special case, then you would be “guilty” of special pleading. So no, I do not accept that we (humans) are acting immorally and unlawfully if we happen to engage in a genocide (for example) but it is perfectly all right to commit a genocide for God.

In law a person charged as an accessory to a crime can be:

1. before the fact – one who incites, abets, or aids a person in the commission of a criminal act,
2. after the fact – one who receives, shelters, comforts, relieves, or assists a felon after the crime has been committed.

And knowing about the crime to be committed, but failing to notify the authorities would be “aiding and abetting” that crime.

I believe you are suggesting that God should miraculously override Mankind’s will to create a paradise, to show Love. Does that not remind you of the original paradise Eden, which was rejected for the knowledge of good and evil? Preventing sin is Mankind’s work through the grace of the Holy Spirit, and the Truth (brought by the Word) whereby individuals can demonstrate love of God and each other.

Not in my eyes. An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure - and that is a very wise proverb.

Thank you for clarifying your meaning of locus of control. Note that “locus of control” has specific meanings in social psychology that are different than what you are using. (Which is why I listed Rotter.)

Well, I am using it as it is being used in philosophy. As long as we all know the actual meaning, there is no problem, I suppose.

You said “I use the libertarian version” and the agent is the one who makes the decision". So we are rejecting determinism and both the victimizer and the victim make decisions in the example, so are they not both agents?

Sure, both of them are moral agents, and the “will” of the stronger one will prevail.

Some say there is no free will, rather choice. The Merriam Webster defintions of free will are:

1 : voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>
2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

I think you can argue based upon these definitions and the context, that a victim has no free will or that they retain free will. I don’t want to argue over the choice of words though. Rather I want to answer your original question about God, which I believe I have done.

There is no problem with the definitions, except they only imply that the ability to carry out one’s will (or choice) is a requirement to consider it a “free choice”. We can always “will” to jump off from a high cliff, and gently float down to the ground, but since we are unable to carry out our “will”, that does not count.

A side remark: I am off to have a vacation tomorrow, so I might not be able to reflect on your response immediately. But I will do so, when I return. In the meantime, thank you for your contribution.

 

[JohnDamian]

If you happen to say that God is a special case, then you would be “guilty” of special pleading. So no, I do not accept that we (humans) are acting immorally and unlawfully if we happen to engage in a genocide (for example) but it is perfectly all right to commit a genocide for God.

Well there are two main understandings of why God is allowed to slay human beings; without giving into special pleading per se.

The first way; which is Thomistic; is to argue that Goodness is predicated of a subject analagorically and not univocally; in which case God’s actions cannot be fully understood in the same way as humans actions;- which tacitly admits that the “moral law” per se only applies to people. This is generally accepted; as no one applies “moral law” to animals, for example - and there is no reason to apply it to God either.

The second way; which is Scotistic; is to argue that Goodness is predicated of the subject man and God univocally; but is still distinct in modality enough so as to allow that the qualitative distinction between the finite and the infinite allows a surpassion of the “Moral Law”.

In either case; the Moral Law applies differently to man and God.

 

[Vico]

Unfortunately this does not wash. There are plenty of instances where the lawmakers consider themselves “exempt” from the laws they create for the “ordinary citizens”. Just consider “speeding laws” which do not apply to members of the legislature, if they claim that the must get to a meeting in time, and the police is obliged to let them go. Maybe you say that this is OK. I certainly do not. If a law has exemptions, if a law only applies to a specific class of citizens, then it is not much a law. By the same token, the legislature could create a “law”, which forbids citizens to commit murder, but allows the lawmakers themselves to commit murder, if they so choose.

If you happen to say that God is a special case, then you would be “guilty” of special pleading. So no, I do not accept that we (humans) are acting immorally and unlawfully if we happen to engage in a genocide (for example) but it is perfectly all right to commit a genocide for God.

And knowing about the crime to be committed, but failing to notify the authorities would be “aiding and abetting” that crime.

Not in my eyes. An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure - and that is a very wise proverb.

Well, I am using it as it is being used in philosophy. As long as we all know the actual meaning, there is no problem, I suppose.

Sure, both of them are moral agents, and the “will” of the stronger one will prevail.

There is no problem with the definitions, except they only imply that the ability to carry out one’s will (or choice) is a requirement to consider it a “free choice”. We can always “will” to jump off from a high cliff, and gently float down to the ground, but since we are unable to carry out our “will”, that does not count.

A side remark: I am off to have a vacation tomorrow, so I might not be able to reflect on your response immediately. But I will do so, when I return. In the meantime, thank you for your contribution.

You wrote: “And knowing about the crime to be committed, but failing to notify the authorities would be “aiding and abetting” that crime.”

There is no lack of notification, the authority is God, and God repays. See Hebrews 10:30 and Matt 10:28 for example.

The Creator and creatures are in different orders, we are not discussing in context of pantheism where God is the laws of nature, rather God is as described in Vatican I * “in reality and in essence distinct from the world”.

It is by analogy that we try to hold God to our human standards, but we do not comprehend God, so we project human-ness onto God, loosing the proper order.

• Vatican I: On God the creator of all things

1. The holy, catholic, apostolic and Roman church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, creator and lord of heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection.
2. Since he is one, singular, completely simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, he must be declared to be in reality and in essence, distinct from the world, supremely happy in himself and from himself, and inexpressibly loftier than anything besides himself which either exists or can be imagined.
3. This one true God, by his goodness and almighty power, not with the intention of increasing his happiness, nor indeed of obtaining happiness, but in order to manifest his perfection by the good things which he bestows on what he creates, by an absolutely free plan, together from the beginning of time brought into being from nothing the twofold created order, that is the spiritual and the bodily, the angelic and the earthly, and thereafter the human which is, in a way, common to both since it is composed of spirit and body [10].
4. Everything that God has brought into being he protects and governs by his providence, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well [11] . All things are open and laid bare to his eyes [12] , even those which will be brought about by the free activity of creatures.

[10] See Lateran council IV, const. 1
[11] Wis 8, 1.
[12] Heb 4, 13.

 

[Moonstruck888]

How is it “overplayed”? Please explain yourself.

I don’t really understand why faith is something that one would have to fervently assert. When people do, it makes me think they don’t actually have a lot of faith.

Please don’t speak for others.

I did not speak for anyone other than myself. I stated an opinion, that I believe everyone knows deep down that we are not supernatural and that we are not eternal nor immortal.

What your evidence for such a condescending assertion?

Actually, it was stated as an opinion, not an assertion. An opinion that is based on life experience.

What is wrong with doubt? Do you ever doubt? Christians have to deal with doubt just as much as a non-christian.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with doubt, but then I don’t set stalk by faith as an axiom.

 

[Moonstruck888]

So was the Devil. And he does not want us to believe it either.

This is the one thing I envy you. When I act like an ***, I have to take responsibility for my actions. You lot either blame it on the Devil or just say a few Hail Marys. A life devoid of personal responsibility.

 

[Vico]

This is the one thing I envy you. When I act like an ***, I have to take responsibility for my actions. You lot either blame it on the Devil or just say a few Hail Marys. A life devoid of personal responsibility.

I had to laugh when I read this. If only we (“your lot”) were personally not responsible there would be no need for personal confessions and there would be no reparation for sins needed either. There are consequences for the disorder we cause by our sinful conduct, including unhealthy attachment to creatures, so we suffer from that.

 

[Holly3278]

It is human nature to be tempted to sin and even to give in to sin. We can’t help it. We inherited this weakness from Adam and Eve.

 

[YAHWEH76]

I used to be a catholic, until 5 years that God showed me that the Catholic Church is in complete error regarding our Relationship with God.

As John 14:6 says .
Jesus says ;

I AM THE WAY THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE NO MAN COMES TO THE FATHER BUT BY ME.

People please go and read your holy bible for yourselves , this bible that catholic popes have
burned over the years, and in it is show how we SINNERs Can be made righteous before God,not by our own works but through what Jesus Christ the Lamb of God did at Calvary.

Heres a revelation Mary was a sinner who needed her sins forgiving!!

Jesus says unless a man isbecome BORN Again ,he cannot inherit the kingom of God, And we are to call one Father and it isnt the pope who is a sinner and he needs to repent of his sins,

 

[fhansen]

I used to be a catholic, until 5 years that God showed me that the Catholic Church is in complete error regarding our Relationship with God.

As John 14:6 says .
Jesus says ;

I AM THE WAY THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE NO MAN COMES TO THE FATHER BUT BY ME.

People please go and read your holy bible for yourselves , this bible that catholic popes have
burned over the years, and in it is show how we SINNERs Can be made righteous before God,not by our own works but through what Jesus Christ the Lamb of God did at Calvary.

Heres a revelation Mary was a sinner who needed her sins forgiving!!

Jesus says unless a man isbecome BORN Again ,he cannot inherit the kingom of God, And we are to call one Father and it isnt the pope who is a sinner and he needs to repent of his sins,

I was raised Catholic, read the bible and found out the CC was in error, became a born-again Christian until God showed me that I lacked understanding and that the CC had it right all along. Non-Catholic “Christianity” is missing huge amounts of insight into the nature of God, man, and our right relationship with Him. Most popes repent more than the rest of us, acutely aware of their unholiness compared to our model, Jesus Christ.

 

[sinnerdexter]

Hang on a minute - the vast majority of those vaccinations have been totally unnecessary, and some doubtless ineffective (there’s always a percentage that are).There are parents who argue that very point and refuse to have their children vaccinated, with no harm at all resulting to the children.

So it’s entirely possible that the suffering my parents made me undergo WAS totally unnecessary, and that they just couldn’t be bothered accurately assessing the risks and pain vs the benefits of vaccinations. Does that make them inhumanly cruel monsters? Must do by your logic.

Two words: Herd Immunity.

With vaccinations, the suffering of the child is typically quite small. Also, there has to be enough of the population with immunity (vaccination) for the desease to be prevented. If there is less than this requiered number, then the desease can continue to exist in the population and with evolution can develop resistance to the immunisation and break out rendering the immmunisations worthless.

This is along what I was saying of necesary suffering to prevent greater suffering.

Now, God, created these deseases, to He would ultimately be responsible for the suffering of these who either get the desease or have to suffer vaccinations. In this case, God has causes suffeing on both fronts, but if God had just not created deseases in the fiorst place, then neither of these sufferings would ahve occured. Again, this points to unnecesary cruelty as God would have taken an action that lead to suffering of desease or from vaccination.

And again, your arguments are not addressing the issue and are actually supporting my position of: God is cruel.

At one stage as an adult I didn’t darken the doorstep of a dentist for several years. When I did go back I was told that my teeth were in excellent condition, as I have been at every dentist’s visit thereafter. Again, we can conclude that that the childhood dentist’s visits quite likely weren’t necessary either.

Assuming some parents at least know their kid’s teeth are perfectly fine, and knowing as I know (and many adults do) that one can skip the odd dentist’s visit with absolutely no harm resulting, are those parents in such a situation who make their kids go edvery 6 months inhuman monsters? Certainly they’re causing unnecessary suffering to the child, are they not?

As we are not all knowing and all powerful, we can not know what the future will hold. Because we are finite and limited, we have to live with the fact that we can not know the future. Thus we need to work to prevernt suffering that might occur. Thus, we go to the dentist and such to prevent greater suffering that might occur. In this case it is a necesary suffering as we are limited.

Now, as I have argued, God could have created us with teeth that are so tough that we never needed preventitive care for our teeth and not created the bacteria that cause tooth decay. But as these were the actions God chose, and He could have chose differently, then God chose to cause suffering. This is the actions of a cruel God, one that activly chosses to cause suffering when there is a valid option that does not cause suffering exists.

 

[sinnerdexter]

You seem to be saying here that perfect or at least a very high level of knowledge and control of one’s circumstances and actions are required for one to be guilty. And that to convict or punish people when any less rigorous levels are attained is cruel.

God made Adam and eve free of sin and evil. It was only when they ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil did they aquire the ability to sin and comit evil acts. But, who put the tree there (God could have put it somewhere that Adam and Eve could not have got to - or just not created it in the first place). God also created the serpent (the serpent is never reveald as the devil), and He could have crated it as a more moral creature who would not have lied to Adam and Eve.

As God is all knowing, He would have know that these events would have occurred. As He knew that these events would ahve occured and lead to suffering, and that there are valid action that God could have taken to prevent them and chose not to do so, then He can be seen as cruel in that He knew ahead of time and had the power and opertunity to prevent the suffering and did not.

As an asside, Adam and Even prove that having the ability to sin is not necesary for free will as God created them without sin and it was only by eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil were they able to get the ability to Sin and the capacity to suffer (as punishment form God). But, Adam and Eve were given free will right from the start, so they had free will and did not have to have the ability to sin to have it.

This proves my earlier argument that God could eliminate sin and suffering from the world and still allow us to have free will. This means that all suffering is by Gods choice, and that He could have chosen differently. This is proof of God’s cruelty (as it is written in the bible none the less - so if you believe in the bible then you have to believe in God’s cruelty too).

Not so. We lock up many a criminal who had less-than-perfect knowledge and less-than-perfect self-control. And rightly. We do it because the level of knowledge and self-control required for culpability - be it for crime or sin - doesn’t have to be absolute, nor anywhere near absolute. Nor especially high, for that matter.

Yes, we are no all knowing, so we have to work within a finite limit of knowledge. This means we will make mistakes and errors, but God has perfect knowledge (that is what all knowing means) of everything, so He does not have to work within these limits and thus He can not make mistakes like we are forced.

One simply has to have ENOUGH knowledge to distinguish the right from the wrong or the legal from the illegal course of action in a given situation (even if one doesn’t understand ALL the whys and wherefores of the one being right and the other wrong) and ENOUGH self-control that the act is voluntary on your part.

Even incredibly young children have sufficient capacity and self-control, at least in some circumstances, to be culpable. And so their parents punish them when they do wrong. Adam and Eve had at least as much knowledge and self-control as a child, surely.

Yes, and God has far more knowledge (infinitly more) and far mroe self control (infinitly more). So this means that God is infinitly more culpable for His actions than we are.

So by your arguemnts, God has voluntarily given us suffering that is unnecesary. This is what makes God cruel.

 

[PAboy57]

Man is not capable of living a sinless life. We are born with sin on our soul requiring purification.

Rather than going into a long disertation on how we are incapable of leading a sinless life I ask how many perfect people you have known?

I have never met anyone, regardless of how pious they are, who hasn’t sinned in this life.

Jesus was the only perfect man. We believe in our faith and that is why we have the Sacraments to help us through. But we all are going to make mistakes.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I had to laugh when I read this. If only we (“your lot”) were personally not responsible there would be no need for personal confessions and there would be no reparation for sins needed either. There are consequences for the disorder we cause by our sinful conduct, including unhealthy attachment to creatures, so we suffer from that.

To rape children and then be sheltered from the law by saying a few hail marys?

That isn’t confession. It’s hypocrisy.

 

[Vico]

To rape children and then be sheltered from the law by saying a few hail marys?

That isn’t confession. It’s hypocrisy.

Clearly they are not sheltered from the law by saying a few hail marys. You have quite an imagination.