P
phil3
Guest
yes it does, that is exactly what it mean
- Status
G
goout
Guest
Love can’t exist without responsibility. However anyone wants to describe the relationship between God’s nature and human free will, and there are endless ways, human beings must take full responsibility for our destiny. We are given life by God, and we must live life and take our own destiny in hand. The fact that God’s will and action are mysterious does not remove one bit of our human responsibility.
We can attempt to describe this relationship as we comprehend it, but if we can’t acknowledge and exercise our own responsibility to freely reciprocate, we can’t love God or others. And that is the heart of the question of free will: that it be directed toward love. Relationships are full of mystery.
We can attempt to describe this relationship as we comprehend it, but if we can’t acknowledge and exercise our own responsibility to freely reciprocate, we can’t love God or others. And that is the heart of the question of free will: that it be directed toward love. Relationships are full of mystery.
Last edited:
As I said, I don’t believe that and I don’t believe that the idea of a God outside of time and free will are mutually exclusive. Also a lot of other aspects of human experience that have meaning when we have free will do not make sense if we don’t. Love, morality, crime…etc.
I can see why you have your thought process, but I think it is an issue of time and the nature of God rather than whether free will exists.
G
Gorgias
Guest
It wasn’t written by a “native speaker of modern American English.”
Then again, neither was Shakespeare, and folks make the effort to understand him in the original.
When a police officer gives you a ticket and the judge lets you off the hook, what do you call it? “Clearly, the officer lied!”…???
No… that’s pretty much the textbook definition of a “merciful judge.” Same thing here. Even if they don’t spell it out for you in painstaking language…
Who says that God ‘provides universal salvation’? Certainly not the Catholic Church!
Aww, c’mon – let’s do go to the catechism, so that no one can accuse us of merely stating personal opinion!
catechism:
So, in three sentences in plain English, there’s your “yes”.
Last edited:
W
whatistrue
Guest
@Latin posted that; whether it was his/her own words I cannot say, but that is what was posted and what I quoted.
I agree that that is what the Church teaches, as I have said all along. What I want to know is whether that is what @Latin thinks, not you or anyone else.
Did you somehow miss the part where I said God has more mercy that I can imagine? I most certainly know that God can do what He wants. I am only responding to what the sentence actually stated, not what looking at the sentence sideways in just the right light could reveal to one who is specifically looking for it.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Yeah, that rings a bell. He’s mistaken on that account.
Boy, one sure hopes that he believes what the Church teaches!
That’s called “interpretation”, and it’s not as tenuous as you make it out to be. You do that all day long, every day, with every statement that you hear people make.
W
whatistrue
Guest
This seems to go beyond interpretation. If some of the statements that I mentioned having issues with actually do say what you say they say (sounds convoluted, but…) then I can see where some anti-Catholics get some of their ammunition. And that is what I hope to avoid if and when I ever have to defend the Faith from attack; clear unambiguous language helps with that.
B
BT3241
Guest
I understand what phil3 is saying if the past present and future all exist then your pretty much going through it acting out a role rather than free will its already been written and happened what you will do and its not going to change - if it is bad I cannot change it because its destiny God already know who is worthy and who is not so why go through it at all. Much like the hologram theory its just playing out your role with no free will because the future is already written. How would we ever know though its not possible.
I have struggled with this same question. Am I just playing out a role this is certainly not how I wanted things to turn out to be.
But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
Thats a hard one to wrap your mind around.
I have struggled with this same question. Am I just playing out a role this is certainly not how I wanted things to turn out to be.
But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
Thats a hard one to wrap your mind around.
L
Latin
Guest
W
whatistrue
Guest
But that’s not how it is. The future does not exist within the Universe; we make our own futures to the extent that our futures are controlled by our decisions. The thing is that God isn’t inside the Universe but outside.
B
BT3241
Guest
That would be presentism.
In the philosophy of time, presentism is the belief that neither the future nor the past exists. The opposite of presentism is ‘eternalism’, which is a belief in things that are past and things that are yet to come exist eternally.
Augustus of Hippo spoke about it
Augustine of Hippo proposed that the present is analogous to a knife edge placed exactly between the perceived past and the imaginary future and does not include the concept of time. … According to early philosophers, time cannot be simultaneously past and present and hence not extended.
In the philosophy of time, presentism is the belief that neither the future nor the past exists. The opposite of presentism is ‘eternalism’, which is a belief in things that are past and things that are yet to come exist eternally.
Augustus of Hippo spoke about it
Augustine of Hippo proposed that the present is analogous to a knife edge placed exactly between the perceived past and the imaginary future and does not include the concept of time. … According to early philosophers, time cannot be simultaneously past and present and hence not extended.
L
lelinator
Guest
I do believe that both relativity and quantum mechanics would respectfully disagree with you. You’re welcome to your opinion of course, but just remember, that the more one commits themselves unequivocally to one, and only one possibility, then the more prone they are to being completely, emphatically, and ridiculously wrong.BT3241:
But that’s not how it is. The future does not exist within the Universe;
Unfortunately, faith tends to make people assume just such positions. I myself find such irrationality puzzling.
P.S one could substitute a number of other words for “faith” in the prior remark…like arrogance.
Last edited:
W
whatistrue
Guest
I am perfectly willing to eat, and have in the past eaten crow with the best of them. How about you?
Are you absolutely sure that relativity and quantum mechanics disagree (as if a field of study could either agree or disagree with a person rather than a person agreeing or disagreeing with established science, but let’s not split semantic hairs)? I am not “in the game” so don’t have insight into current knowledge in either field, but I cannot recall offhand any generally accepted evidence of such. Citations?
Are you absolutely sure that relativity and quantum mechanics disagree (as if a field of study could either agree or disagree with a person rather than a person agreeing or disagreeing with established science, but let’s not split semantic hairs)? I am not “in the game” so don’t have insight into current knowledge in either field, but I cannot recall offhand any generally accepted evidence of such. Citations?
L
lelinator
Guest
Have you heard of relativity? It was in all the papers…I do believe that you could even Google it.
Sorry, but like Bradski, I do sometimes get snarky.
Last edited:
W
whatistrue
Guest
That’s not snarky. That’s outright insulting, and I won’t put up with it from anyone. Welcome to the Ignore bucket.
L
lelinator
Guest
Hmmmm…interesting…I like interesting.
G
goout
Guest
This is patent nonsense.
B
BT3241
Guest
Actually we are still at the spooky physics stage that wave function requires an observer to collapse - it doesn’t work for them because you can’t explain the creation of the universe without an observer being present which would have to be God.
The are currently working a model that requires no observer but are far from solving it. Or at least it not widely accepted yet.
The are currently working a model that requires no observer but are far from solving it. Or at least it not widely accepted yet.
Last edited:
L
lelinator
Guest
Not really, faith, like arrogance, or bias, tends to make people rigidly commit themselves to one particular point of view to the exclusion of many, if not all others.lelinator:
This is patent nonsense.
I can understand however, why you would vehemently reject that fact.
Interestingly though, in keeping with the theme of this thread, is it free will that causes you to object so vehemently…or something else?
Last edited:
S
SeekSalvation
Guest
My friend, do not get wrongly trapped about God’s mysteries. You may find yourself believing in the heresy of double predestination. I pray you are able to talk with your Priest or Spiritual Director regarding this question.
- Status