W
whatistrue
Guest
Not necessarily. If it were impossible to not believe, then faith would not be a thing, and faith is important (apparently).
- Status
W
whatistrue
Guest
Maybe I’m dense or too tired, but I don’t really understand how that relates to the post it is a reply to.
W
whatistrue
Guest
Again, above my pay grade. And I did insert “apparently”.
It is not at all obvious to me and the reasons make perfect sense to me, but your mileage obviously varies and I do not intend to rehash that whole argument yet again.
W
whatistrue
Guest
I can’t say. I don’t know what you think the differences are between what you consider faith and what you consider true belief.
W
whatistrue
Guest
I’ll have to let that percolate for a bit. I have (for unrelated reasons) a bit of a headache and am about to sign off for the day.
W
whatistrue
Guest
So if I can graduate from MIT, why not be born with a degree?
G
Gorgias
Guest
Many places. Pitre’s book does a good job of discussing them. To give just a couple examples:
- He forgave sins, which is an exclusively divine act. His audience recognized this point.
- In his trial, the high priest recognized that Jesus was claiming to be God (hence his charge of ‘blasphemy’).
He’s God. Neither jan10000 nor I am. He gets to make those decisions; we don’t. He decided that Jesus should teach these principles to his apostles, and those apostles would be granted divine authority to teach them to humanity.
Stomping your feet, crossing your arms, and exclaiming “but I don’t wannnnnnna hafta do things that way!” is really nothing more than a puerile tantrum.
Says you. The guys who originated that “late Gospel” theory did so because they refused to believe that Jesus could predict the razing of the temple in Jerusalem, and therefore, the Synoptics could not have been written prior to 70AD. It’s a weak argument, and its claims get repeated as if they were gospel. So to speak.
No – we reject them because they were written outside the Church.
First half of the second century is the dating on the earliest fragment. I would dispute the accuracy of the characterization that they’re only “small fragments”.
It’s called “textual analysis.” Scholars compare various documents, and are able to deduce facts about a source’s provenance.
They’re eyewitness accounts. Of course they’ll have different perspectives! If they were word-for-word verbatim and exact, you’d call them out for be prefabricated, planned lies!
G
Gorgias
Guest
He wants you to form your conscience properly before attempting to use it. Then He’d reward you for your efforts.
I’d disagree. You simply don’t assent to the proposition. It’s been shown. You continue to reject it. (That’s free will for ya, eh?)
“There is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.” H.L. Mencken
Your answer meets at least two of those criteria.
Because they’re not errors. We can, if you wish, acknowledge that you think they’re errors, and then move on.
N
njlisa
Guest
@aitapyh: You make a good point here.
I found an interesting piece from Christian Index about Pharoah’s heart.
Pharoah hardened his own heart 10 times. In his refusal to bend to God’s will, God removed Pharoah’s ability to repent.
I don’t understand what happened with Saul.
What are you thoughts?
G
Gorgias
Guest
Not a post – the whole thread, I’m afraid.
You don’t change it; you do what you will. God merely knows what that would be. He doesn’t force it; He doesn’t lead you to it. You get to make that choice on your own.
Yeah. Molinism doesn’t do it for me.
Not seeing the circularity there. God merely knows, outside of time. We act, inside of time. No circularity.
F
Freddy
Guest
Absolutely impossible. I’m not sure that you appreciate how species are nominated.
If you had those 200 fossils and the last one was significantly different to the first then you might decide to nominate them as different species. Or you might not. You might decide that the difference was an acceptable diversion from the usual characteristics that define the first fossil’s species. Maybe a tusk became longer.
Would that make it convenient to make a new species name? Or maybe a new sub species? This point has been brought up before in an attempt to discredit the very concept of naming species but it’s a fact: It’s entirely arbitrary. Especially with fossil remains because we only have the morphology as evidence.
Someone could give a new species name to each of the 200 fossils. Someone might decide they’re all the same. Maybe someone will divide them into 4 groups. Or 12. It only matters to those who need to differentiate between them.
So however you name them, however many species groups you divide them into, or whether you don’t, the fact is that any changes you see between fossil 1 and fossil 2 will be incredibly small. Maybe zero. You could swap a few around and no-one would be able to tell the difference. So there is never a point where there is a significant difference between fossils quite often with an age difference of even thousands of years. Even tens of thousand or even millions of years.
To even suggest that there would be such a difference as to nominate a new species in one single generation is…galactically wrong.
Once you have accepted that then we can talk about the gradual evolution of certain mammalian characteristics.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
Gee, I haven’t seen that one for a while…They’re eyewitness accounts. Of course they’ll have different perspectives! If they were word-for-word verbatim and exact, you’d call them out for be prefabricated, planned lies!
The gospels accounts all match with each other. There are no contradictions. That shows they are genuine!
The gospel accounts don’t match with each other. There are contradictions. That shows they are genuine!
You’d make a great defence lawyer, Georgias:
Georgias: ‘Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have been shown the inconsistencies and contradictions in the accounts of the matters in hand by the two accused. That, I put to you, shows that they are not preplanned and prefabricated lies! I move to dismiss’.
Judge: ‘I would please ask the jury not to snigger when learned council is making his remarks’.
Last edited:
L
Latin
Guest
There are two types of free will, Libertarian free will and Aided free will.
.
LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL
Libertarian free will is basically the concept that, metaphysically and morally, man is an autonomous being, one who operates independently, not controlled by others or by outside forces. – Only God has Libertarian free will, no one else.
.
AIDED FREE WILL. – God has given us Aided free will.
For every salutary act internal supernatural grace of God (gratia elevans) is absolutely necessary, (De fide dogma).
.
The three Divine or Theological Virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity are infused with Sanctifying grace. (De fide dogma.)
.
CCCS 1990-1991; "In this gift, faith, hope, charity, and OBEDIENCE TO GOD’S WILL are given to us.”
.
As we see above Aitapyh, God infused faith, hope, charity, and OBEDIENCE TO HIS WILL into us.
.
De gratia et libero arbitrio 16, 32: “It is certain that we act when we act, but He brings it about that we act, providing most effective powers to the will.”
.
With His gift of our Aided free will, God ENLIGHTENS our mind and we all FREELY WILL to perform every act what God wills and causes us to perform.
.
The Divine will is cause of all things that happen, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii, 1 seqq.).
The same is true for events in our lives. Relative to us they often appear to be by chance.
But relative to God, who directs everything according to his divine plan, nothing occurs by chance.
Hence if this divine influence stopped, every operation would stop.
Every operation, therefore, of anything is traced back to Him as its cause. (Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III.)
.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Divine Providence explains.
Life everlasting promised to us, (Romans 5:21); but unaided we can do nothing to gain it (Rom.7:18-24).
His wisdom He so orders all events within the universe that the end for which it was created may be realized.
God is the sole ruler of the world. His will governs all things. He loves all men, desires the salvation of all, and His providence extends to all nation.
Again, from the fact that God has created the universe, it shows that He must also govern it; for just as the contrivances of man demand attention and guidance, so God, as a good workman, must care for His work.
That end is that all creatures should manifest the glory of God, and in particular that man should glorify Him, recognizing in nature the work of His hand, serving Him in obedience and love, and thereby attaining to the full development of his nature and to eternal happiness in God.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12510a.htm
.
As we see above Aitapyh, God is the sole ruler of the world and we are not.
If God would give us Libertarian free will, would be seven billion rulers of this world and we would want to rule the world seven billion different ways.
.
God bless
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Fine. So, with one broad stroke, you’ve just shrugged and said “we cannot tell one species from another.” Why, then, does it bother you that, from a theological perspective, we can tell what makes a human “human”? (That is, an immaterial, immortal soul.)
This doesn’t mean that it cannot be done, but only that we are not at a point where we have consensus on the question. The two notions are not the same thing.
And yet… there is a difference that can be discussed. And when we agree on this difference, we can say that “this fossil has that characteristic” and “that fossil does not.” Pretty cut-and-dried.
You misunderstand what I’m saying: when two accounts match, word-for-word, one suspects collusion, not eyewitness testimony. But hey… snark is more fun than actual conversation, eh?
When you have two accounts that are in concord in the bulk of their assertions, but there are a few (non-essential) details that don’t match up, then that’s believable as eyewitness testimony! It requires some analysis and discernment, of course, but at least it has the ring of truth!
F
Freddy
Guest
If you continue to misrepresent what I say, even to the point of putting quotes around the misrepresentation, then there will be no point in continuing. So how about we stop from this point in.Freddy:
Fine. So, with one broad stroke, you’ve just shrugged and said “we cannot tell one species from another.” Why, then, does it bother you that, from a theological perspective, we can tell what makes a human “human”? (That is, an immaterial, immortal soul.)
I didn’t say, I don’t say and I will not ever say that one cannot tell one species from another. The very fact that something has a different species name means that there is a difference. Giving something a new species name is the result of it being perceived in having a difference. By definition, if something has a different species name from another organism then one has nominated a difference between that organism and all others. So to suggest that anyone could say that we can’t tell one species from another is abject nonsense.
What we cannot do is draw a neat, bright line at any given generation and declare ‘From this point onwards it’s not species X, it’s species Y!’
Now this is about as common as common knowledge gets regarding the evolutionary process. Feel free to browse the web to have it confirmed to your satisfaction by any reputable source whatsoever. When you understand the concept then let me know and we can continue. If you don’t understand it (hardly likely) or you refuse to accept it (a small possibility) then there will be nothing else worth discussing along these lines of inquiry.
And again, with your comment about souls, you are suggesting I hold a position which I have never claimed. Which is that I am bothered about the fact that you can tell the difference between a human and non human because the human will have a soul.
I disagree with the concept, but I have no problem in you holding to it. That God gave a specific person a soul at some time is a theological position and I have no interest in challenging it. What we are discussing is rationality. But again, if you say that rationality was given at the same time as the soul or is integral to the posession of a soul (or however you want to put it) then we have nothing more to talk about.
I have a similar problem with yec people. What is the point of me spending post after post explaining time frames and evolutionary processes and the validity of dinosaur to bird evolution etc if the other guy thinks the planet is 6,000 years old…
So you either accept a gradual evolutionary process or you don’t. If you don’t, it’s a dead end my friend.
L
Latin
Guest
THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLE EXPLAINS THE TRUTH
Please Aitapyh consider, you are the best Architect and decided to build the greatest building.
You designed the building, you designed every event down to its minutest details which need to take place to complete your building.
You give your builders the building design, which contains every event down to its minutest details.
You causes every event/ act, which events/ acts tailor made to each of your builders to complete your building.
You and your building design creates/causes the builders their AIDED FREE WILL/ DETERMINED FREE WILL.
If you would give your builders Libertarian free will to act according to their whim, instead of your building they would build a turmoil.
All your builders acting according to your Designed, Decreed and Foreordained plan.
.
IN THE SAME WAY WE ARE GOD’S BUILDERS
God designed the universe includes this world, He Designed, Decreed, Foreordained and He causes every event/ act according to His tailor made design for each of us , which acts each of us need to perform to complete His creation.
.
Without even knowing, we are God’s builders, every act we perform, Designed, Decreed, Foreordained by God from all eternity and He causes us to do in order to complete the work of creation.
God’s creation is STILL IN PROGRESS and we are all God’s builders, acting according to God’s Decreed and Preordained Building Design.
.
CCC 308 The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator.
God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes:
"For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
Far from diminishing the creature’s dignity, this truth enhances it.
CCC 307 God thus enables men to be intelligent and free, causes in order to complete the work of creation, … Though often unconscious collaborators with God’s will, they can also enter deliberately into the divine plan by their actions.
.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Divine Providence explains.
“His wisdom He so orders all events within the universe that the end for which it was created may be realized.
God preserves the universe in being; He acts in and with every creature in each and all its activities.”
.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Free Will explains;
“God is the author of all causes and effects. God’s omnipotent providence exercises a complete and perfect control over all events that happen, or will happen, in the universe.”
.
St. Thomas teaches that all movements of will and choice must be traced to the divine will: and not to any other cause, because Gad alone is the cause of our willing and choosing. CG, 3.91.
.
With libertarian free will by acting according to our whims we would build a turmoil.
.
God bless
Last edited:
A
Abrosz
Guest
I will give you a much better example. You are writer and director of a commedia dell’ Arte play. You give the players a synopsis of what should l happen in the play, but allow them to improvise during the performance.
Contrary to your assertion, the performance will not degenerate into chaos, but since the players are free to improvise, the end is unpredictable to everyone, even the writer/director. No one will know the end, UNTIL it happens.
Moreover, the time of the play is sometime in the Middle Age Italy, so there is difference between “time” of the director, and the “time” within the play. IOW, the director is outside the time of the performance, and yet he is unable to see it from beginning to end, he must wait until the play is concluded.
As soon as you introduce freedom into the process, the end will become unpredictable.
W
whatistrue
Guest
That’s not how “outside time” works WRT God. The time of the play is not Middle Ages, the setting of the play is Middle Ages. Both the play itself and the director are inside the same time.
It is unpredictable to us. But God doesn’t predict, He knows. The thing(s) that He knows is what we decide and do on our own using our free will. It’s really very simple as long as you don’t try to shoehorn God into our temporal framework.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Nope. Not what I was asking for. Rather, if we can tell one species from another, then we can look at two individuals and say either “species X”, “species Y”, or “an X with some features of Y”. That’s all I’m looking for. Can you agree to that?
I’m not claiming that I have an empirical method to do so. (That would actually be silly, since there is nothing physical – and therefore, nothing empirically measurable – about a soul.). However, I can say that the difference between a human and a non-human hominin is that the former has an immortal soul.
Can you disprove the claim, though, or are you merely personally opposed to it?
I do! And, I’d hope you agree that “evolutionary processes” deal with physical characteristics! A soul is not one of them.
A
Abrosz
Guest
Correct. The example I provided was an analogy, not an equivalence.
The question is: “HOW does God know anything”?
As I presented before, there are only four possibilities:
- Our actions are primary, and God knows because we perform them. (Open theism)
- God’s knowledge is primary, and we just play out what he knows (No free will).
- Some unknown causative agent causes both God’s knowledge and our actions.
- There is no causative relationship, our actions are God’s knowledge about them just happen to be the same - due to some cosmic sized coincidence.
- Status