So it is your contention that he was really asking to be released from hell when he asked for some water?So you would like to argue that he was enjoying himself there. I think you are being literalistic in your reading. If he receives relief from his suffering he is no longer in Hell. Hell is defined by eternal suffering. There is nothing in this passage that suggests that he wants to be there. Nothing that suggests that he chooses to be there.
Well I have argued several times that a person with full knowledge and full capacity will choose what is best for him. If God is best for him, he will choose God.Would you have God inflict himself upon someone that does not want any part of him?
We are not talking about the sins you describe.
We are talking about an eternal rejection of the love and mercy of God.
Again you are being literal. Let us remember you are arguing that he chose to be there although you have provided no biblical proof for your position. And my angel quote demonstrates you are wrong. You have not addressed that quote but continue to nitpick on this quote not realising that if you are correct on this one then you show it contradicts the other, making God a liar. That , of course, is a possibility but not a position I would expect an ardent Catholic to be arguing. Still I am constantly surprised.So it is your contention that he was really asking to be released from hell when he asked for some water?
Sorry, but that does not stand scrutiny either.
He does not ask that his suffering be completely removed.
He simply asks for a wet finger on his tongue.
This is far from the complete removal of suffering you would have us believe.
It is also substantially different from asking for removal from hell.
I am uncertain.So let me ask you a question.
According to the Bible do the angels put men into hell? Answer, yes or no?
OK, if I am on fire, and someone puts my foot out but leaves the rest burning my suffering has not been relieved.Is it my contention that the richman is asking to be released from hell when he asked for some water - I would ask you to read my reply again. if you feel my answer does not stand scrutiny, please explain why. This you have not done. Further I would like you to tell me what makes hell a hell?
Again I assert the moment he experiences relief from his suffering, he is no longer in hell. Why? Because hell is eternal suffering and not intermittent suffering.
He isn’t asking for temporary relief.Mark 9:48
where “‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.’
Also you need to demonstrate why just asking for temporary relief means he wants to stay where he is?
Actually, I do not know the angel quote you are speaking of.I would say it is more like the prisoner asking for some food. The fact he asks for some food and not release is not because he does not want his freedom but because he knows it will not be granted. The food , however, he may get. Remember the angel quote.
That logic is blown away by the first person we find that is drunk.Well I have argued several times that a person with full knowledge and full capacity will choose what is best for him. If God is best for him, he will choose God.
Or he simply is exercising his free will to effect what feels good at the time and not exercising his free will to act towards God.The only way he can choose what is not best for him is if he is deluded, ignorant or acting under compulsion. i.e temptation, fear, weakness etc. etc. In which case he is not free to choose but a slave. Romans 7:14-21
That people sin and it leads them to hell?Therefore, I consider your position an impossibility.
OK, with the next sin either of us commits, we need to sit back and figure out what specific delusion it was that caused our behavior.Your statement that God is inflicting himself on someone is also absurd. If the person is deluded, God’s “infliction” will get rid of his delusion and allow him to experience bliss. In society we sometimes have to commit the insane. They may not appreciate it at the time but when they recover their sanity they do. If they experience bliss as a result I am sure they will be doubly grateful.
But you haven’t shown that they do so with full knowledge and full capacity, so you’re just begging the question here.That logic is blown away by the first person we find that is drunk.
Or the smoker, or the one driving drunk, or the student not doing his homework, etc.
People make choices freely every day that are not the best for them.
If you wish to argue that the student not doing his homework is unaware that it will cause a failing grade, that is your business.But you haven’t shown that they do so with full knowledge and full capacity, so you’re just begging the question here.
Two points:If you wish to argue that the student not doing his homework is unaware that it will cause a failing grade, that is your business.
From my POV, it stretches credulity beyond the breaking point to argue that.
Well certainly you’re not arguing that God is unjust “by definition.” What you are doing, as I pointed out originally, is assuming that it is not the case that God is just by definition. But please understand, when we understand the Catholic concept ‘God,’ we understand a being who cannot possibly act unjustly.Well, I do not believe I am assuming that he is unjust in order to prove that God is unjust by definition.
Yes, but your description of God’s actions is 1) counterfactual and counter to Catholic principles, properly understood, and so proves nothing and 2) necessarily based on incomplete information, since you are not omniscient, and so again proves nothing.That would be begging the question. Instead I argue from the stance of “Look at his actions”, if an ordinary human did this would it be considered just or unjust?
I don’t recall reading that, but if that is so then that other contributor is mistaken. The situation you described is at most a venial sin, certainly not mortal, and probably not a sin at all. Please refer to the three elements that go into the moral evaluation of an act if you don’t understand this (this was mentioned in one of the links you posted).You yourself argued that the hypothetical example of your daughter being jealous was not deserving of hell. I would agree with you. However, another contributor has said that such behaviour is deserving of hell. And according to this list jealousy is one of the mortal sins.
That’s a good question, but not a telling argument. Right?I seem to have missed this. I understand the distinction you have made between legal and moral. Obviously to free Onesimus is an act of compassion and Paul appeals to Love and that is a positive aspect to morality. He also speaks of Onesimus’s usefulness and seems to be arguing that he deserves his freedom rather than arguing that human ownership is wrong per se . His response to the legal issue seems to encourage this view. For example why Paul did not criticise it from a negative moral perspective.
You make a good argument, but the question is whether your analogy is really apt, and I think it is not. For one, women often don’t care about morality when they are considering abortion, so a Catholic counsellor who understands this actually might not bother bringing morality up. That’s not really relevant here, but in any case, the case of Onesimus is probably morally more like counselling a business owner not to lay off an employee in order to maximize profit, even though this is legally permitted. There is certainly a tacit understanding about immoral social structures, but at the same time a recognition that the conditions obtaining in the world - under the emperor’s jurisdiction, so to speak - are only ever approximations to true justice. This argument isn’t a decisive one either, but I think it does help to show why yours also isn’t (in case you thought it was).Let me give you an example that I think a Catholic would understand. A woman is considering an abortion. It is in a country where it is legal. You point out that the child is healthy and ask that she allows the child to live and enjoy life. This is pointing out to her a positive better option. You acknowledge that she has a legal right but would you not also point out that her action was morally wrong, causing suffering to the child and endangering her own soul.
I have given the exact Biblical reference to you quite recently but it is interesting to note that that you did not see it but still feel in a position to give your opinion on it - without checking out the context first. To be quite honest I feel that I am going around in circles with you. And if you do not read half of what I have written what is the point of me spending time looking up quotes.Actually, I do not know the angel quote you are speaking of.
I had one in mind, but am at a loss how it applies in the situation. So please clarify for me.
With regard to the first point. I do understand the Catholic definition but one can still question whether the conclusion they draw is correct. The third point we do not need to persue as you do not believe you are in disagreement with God here.Well certainly you’re not arguing that God is unjust “by definition.” What you are doing, as I pointed out originally, is assuming that it is not the case that God is just by definition. But please understand, when we understand the Catholic concept ‘God,’ we understand a being who cannot possibly act unjustly.
Yes, but your description of God’s actions is 1) counterfactual and counter to Catholic principles, properly understood, and so proves nothing and 2) necessarily based on incomplete information, since you are not omniscient, and so again proves nothing.
I don’t recall reading that, but if that is so then that other contributor is mistaken. The situation you described is at most a venial sin, certainly not mortal, and probably not a sin at all. Please refer to the three elements that go into the moral evaluation of an act if you don’t understand this (this was mentioned in one of the links you posted).
With your first point. I agree it is not conclusive. With regard to the second point we do not know what was in Paul’s mind. So I will not persue whether the analogy is apt. The whole point of a debate being to find some common ground. Anyway, I like your style.That’s a good question, but not a telling argument. Right?
You make a good argument, but the question is whether your analogy is really apt, and I think it is not. For one, women often don’t care about morality when they are considering abortion, so a Catholic counsellor who understands this actually might not bother bringing morality up. That’s not really relevant here, but in any case, the case of Onesimus is probably morally more like counselling a business owner not to lay off an employee in order to maximize profit, even though this is legally permitted. There is certainly a tacit understanding about immoral social structures, but at the same time a recognition that the conditions obtaining in the world - under the emperor’s jurisdiction, so to speak - are only ever approximations to true justice. This argument isn’t a decisive one either, but I think it does help to show why yours also isn’t (in case you thought it was).
IActually, I do not know the angel quote you are speaking of.
I had one in mind, but am at a loss how it applies in the situation. So please clarify for me.
No, what you gave me was a very generalized “remember the angel quote.”I have given the exact Biblical reference to you quite recently but it is interesting to note that that you did not see it but still feel in a position to give your opinion on it - without checking out the context first. To be quite honest I feel that I am going around in circles with you. And if you do not read half of what I have written what is the point of me spending time looking up quotes.
Right.Two points:
- A claim for full knowledge is always a claim for full knowledge in respect of something.
So it is your contention that people should be excused from hell not because they had no idea the consequence of their action (sin) but because they did not have full capacity?
- Assuming that the student’s full knowledge is in respect of something relevant to your purposes here, that still does not prove full capacity.
I would accept your apology but for the fact that is is insincere and ironic… It is not a burden for me to clarify with a full citation. It is, however, a burden to have to repeat myself because you are too lazy to refer to recent messages between us. I refer you to message #158 directed to yourself where I both quote the passage and give the full citation. Now when I was in the wrong with you I apologised for my error, now let us see what stuff you are made of.No, what you gave me was a very generalized “remember the angel quote.”
My apologies if you feel it is too heavy a burden to actually clarify your comments with an actual bible citation.
I submit that the weight of this burden has more to do with the weight of your argument then to do with the inconvenience of clarifying a reference to the bible.
That would be a very good thing for you to do. Self reflection is an excellent way of dissolving delusion. Unfortunately not enough people ask, “Why did I do that? What was my state of mind before I committed that offence? How could I avoid those conditions in the future”That people sin and it leads them to hell?
I can assure you there is nothing impossible about it.
OK, with the next sin either of us commits, we need to sit back and figure out what specific delusion it was that caused our behavior.
If I understand you right, you claim that all sin is really a mental disorder.
If you don’t have free will you can’t choose what to think! So why should we attach any importance to what you think? Your thoughts would be just like instincts - and we know how often instincts lead us astray…I do not see any reason to believe that free will exists.
Then why does He tell us to pray “Forgive us** as** we forgive those who trespass against us”? It doesn’t make sense if we cannot choose to forgive - or not to forgive…You are not in this world to exercise free will but to demonstrate God’s power. He does with you as he wishes. There is nothing you can do about it.
Comment 1. I would say that your thoughts are conditioned though instincts play a large part in it, But if you want to test how much control you have on your thoughts, set a time 24 hours from now . Decide at 6.30 pm that you will think “God is just”** this thought and no other** for the next five minutes. If you can do that I will be very impressed. If you cannot stop other thoughts coming into your mind, what does that say to you?If you don’t have free will you can’t choose what to think! So why should we attach any importance to what you think? Your thoughts would be just like instincts - and we know how often instincts lead us astray…
Then why does He tell us to pray “Forgive us** as** we forgive those who trespass against us”? It doesn’t make sense if we cannot choose to forgive - or not to forgive…
Done and done.Decide at 6.30 pm that you will think “God is just”** this thought and no other** for the next five minutes. If you can do that I will be very impressed. If you cannot stop other thoughts coming into your mind, what does that say to you?