I am baffled, please explain

[tonyrey]

No more rational arguments from me on this thread. I think we’ve collectively proven to each other that it just doesn’t work. Whether the angel in my story speaks Catholic teachings is up to the judgment of the reader. To inform that judgment it may make sense to read the writings of saints, popes, doctors, and councils prior to the mid 20th century.

You’re assuming your arguments are rational! How would you justify that opinion?

Tonyrey, I still haven’t finished a thread on the gratuitous evil of hell. I hope it will be a whopper though! I am trying to make it as absolutely clear, concise, and question-provoking as possible. This is much more difficult than spilling a great many words. Perhaps another thread debating what constitutes “church teaching” is also in order?

As always, PC, I look forward to a friendly chat on the subject. Having specialised in evil for many years (in one way or another!) it will be right up my street.:clapping: It takes a thief to understand a thief…

 

[tonyrey]

Hi again! I’m back from vacation, and I see we’re both on another thread with the same subject.

Show me in some Church document that it is an article of faith that I have to believe in miracles (other than Jesus & Apostles), and I will recant. Keep in mind that I believe miracles are possible, but I don’t believe they actually happen.

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/10783125/The-miracle-that-earned-John-Paul-II-his-sainthood.html

If you reject miracles you reject the Church’s process of canonisation…:tsktsk:

And no, I’m afraid no miracles appeared while I was on vacation.

**You **appeared!

 

[Gorgias]

Whether the angel in my story speaks Catholic teachings is up to the judgment of the reader.

No – it should be pretty straightforward to demonstrate that your story does (or does not) fit Catholic teaching. To be fair, if you’ve put it out there as an allegory of Catholic teaching, then it’s really your project to demonstrate that it validly expresses what the Church teaches. However, giving you the benefit of the doubt, it should be sufficient to provide a counter-example to show you that you’ve either misunderstood or mischaracterized the teaching of the Church. Fair enough?

In your poem, you stated:

“You have rejected the Son of Man.”
“I never knew him, how could I have rejected him?”
"You rejected him by being a sinner.

In other words, you’re making the claim that those who do not know Jesus are necessarily damned because they sin. This, clearly, is not what the Church teaches. Allow me to direct your attention to Lumen gentium, paragraph 16:

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.

So, clearly, it is not true that those who do not know Christ, even if they’re sinners, are a priori damned to hell, as your poem claims. In other words, here’s an example that demonstrates that your poem – however well-intentioned it is – does not do a good job of representing what the Church really teaches. If you’d like to show that it does actually represent Church teaching, we’re listening.

 

[Gorgias]

Well, you fell into the trap. HOW MANY people could have the property of freely exercising their will, and NOT sin, even if they COULD sin? There is one example… Mary.

Trap? Hardly.

Your line of reasoning here really does fail to help. Your assertion requires that all humans in your assertion of a ‘potential’ world must always choose not to sin. The question isn’t ‘how many’, but rather, ‘can everyone’? There is nothing that says that this is possible; even if it’s possible for one.

I was hoping to see you start pondering along these lines: One was possible. But… wait. Is it possible to have two? Or maybe even three? Two billion? Is there an upper limit of such people?

You’re taking it from the wrong side, I think. It’s not “one? two? a billion?”, but rather, “will even one person sin?”, since that would disprove your assertion.

A limit, that even God’s omnipotence cannot overcome. If you would be a mathematician, you would be familiar with the method called “mathematical induction”, where you start with one actual example, and then propagate it from any “N” to the next “N+1”…

Induction doesn’t work here; if you were a mathematician, you would recognize this. Induction only works when there’s a relationship between the n’th item in the sequence and the (n+1)'th member, such that it can be demonstrated that the presence of the n’th implies the presence of the (n+1)'th. You haven’t even attempted to show that this is true in this case. And, in fact, it’s not: the presence of one non-sinner does not prove that there must be another non-sinner. In other words, induction is incapable of proving your conjecture.

Sure, because she was deliberately created to “cooperate”.

No – Mary was created with the potential to cooperate. Her cooperation was the result of her free will choices. You’re still not seeing that ‘free will’ logically precludes the possibility of a creator ‘forcing’ a particular outcome.

Was God unable to bestow that “singular grace” on others?

Notice that God created Adam and Eve without original sin. The ‘singular grace’ is in the context of post-fall humanity.

But “Steve and Susie” would have demonstrated the opposite.

‘Steve and Susie’ are a conjecture you’ve created without support. They ‘demonstrate’ nothing.

You say that it is impossible to deliberately create someone who will freely choose the correct option. This is the foundation you used. This foundation is incorrect as the Mary example shows.

God deliberately created Mary who had the potential to freely choose not to sin. Mary did, in fact, not sin. God did not create a “Mary would will not sin”; Mary made that choice herself. That is what the foundation is correct – it wasn’t God as creator that made Mary not sin; it was Mary as human endowed with free will that made Mary not sin. God just facilitated the outcome that Mary chose.

Then you started to argue that from one example it is impossible to extrapolate, to make sure that there will be no “counter examples”. That is only true if there is “random creation”.

Again, an unsubstantiated assertion. Doesn’t it occur to you that it would be a good thing to back up your assertions, rather than just making wild claims? Truly, it boggles the imagination…

 

[Gorgias]

It is quite telling that there was no rebuttal, only an assertion that “this is not what the church teaches”. But, yes, that is exactly what the church teaches, albeit it uses different, more politically correct words.

It is quite telling that you do not offer a rebuttal, only an assertion that “this is exactly what the church teaches.”

If you contend that Cookie has, in fact, accurately represented Church teaching, perhaps you’d be willing to demonstrate that it does? I’ve shown that it does not, quoting a document from Vatican II to support my claim. Can you support your claim?

It is also telling that the church does not have information about the fate of the unborn, who were not baptized. Not too long ago the teaching was that all the unbaptized went directly to hell (do not pass “GO”, do not collect 200 dollars).

‘Theological opinion’, not ‘teaching’. Big difference.

That teaching was amply demonstrated by the conquistadores, who took away the newborns of native people, baptized them and then immediately crushed their skulls against the next, conveniently placed rock.

Please cite this claim. (At best, you’re going to be able to quote de las Casas’ “Destruction of the Indies”, in which he makes the claim of infant murder… but not the additional claim of baptism. Please – prove me wrong; you cannot do so. :nope

Whenever something inconvenient or unpalatable argument is presented, the only rebuttal is: “but that is NOT what the church teaches”.

Right; 'cause calling out untruths as such is worse form than putting out untruths in the first place?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Since you wish to talk about God using human terms, then you are not in the position to chastise me for doing the same.

The exact circumstances are not important. Why is it unforgivable to try and imitate the “creator”? Since they were doomed to fail, why was God jealous to see them trying? You just demonstrated that the basic tenet of Christianity is not “love”, but blind “obedience”.

Yes, excellent question, for which no apologist was ever able to give a logical and rational answer. But we can make some educated guesses. Maybe God was bored and wanted to have some “variety” (ask tonyrey, he is a self-professed expert on the principle of “varietas delectat”… ) After all he played a game with Lucifer, and the human pieces on the chessboard were Job and is family. Maybe the stench of the burnt offering was pleasing to his nostrils?

I said, multiple times, we CANNOT talk about God in human terms. The example I gave clearly indicated that.

God was not “jealous.” God does not get “jealous.” That is a human emotion. God does not get bored. He does not play games. He doesn’t even think. He doesn’t have to think. You know that. God is utterly simple. He just is.

Your view of God is like the view of someone who was asked to judge a beauty contest, say Miss USA (if they don’t have that anymore, doesn’t matter). He sees seven girls out of fifty, and doesn’t like the way they look, their personality, etc. Then, he likes the looks and personality of the eighth, so he declares her the winner, without even bothering to see the rest. He is really in no position to judge. He hasn’t seen the whole picture, i.e. all the girls. You are in the same position when you try to judge God’s actions.

It would be the same if I went to a movie, watched the first ten minutes, then walked out, knowing nothing more then those first ten minutes. Someone asks me about the movie, and I say, “The ending is terrible!” The ending might be terrible, it might be mediocre, it might be great. The point is, with my ten minutes of limited knowledge, I am in no position to judge. We have very limited knowledge of God and his plans for the end of human history. We are in no position to judge.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

While you were away, what proportion of your day was spent in prayer and in contemplation of the Churches teachings? And, what about the mass and the Eucharist? Charitable works?

To the first question - a little more than one hour.

To the second - Same, a little more than one hour.

To the third - About three hours.

And this was a light day for me regarding prayer and charitable works. I had a full day of classes.

 

[mamlukman]

Your very existence, your capacity to perceive, feel and understand seems pretty miraculous. But, you weren’t speaking about something so utterly awesome. Miracles are everywhere. I suppose cynicism and doubt can shoot down just about anything, leaving behind only the skeletal remnants of vibrant reality.
Not wanting an answer but to stimulate thought: While you were away, what proportion of your day was spent in prayer and in contemplation of the Churches teachings? And, what about the mass and the Eucharist? Charitable works?

Well, if you use “miracle” in a general sense = “wonder,” then that’s great. Every time I read about various discoveries in science I have a sense of awe and wonder. But in the sense that God deliberately breaks His own physical laws that He created at the beginning of the universe in order to…I don’t know, let’s say find Fluffy the cat, or your car keys, or the hiding place of Aunt Martha’s cookie recipe, than, nope, I don’t buy it. Even if it’s to cure Aunt Emma’s cancer. Nope. It’s simply not logical–and not necessary.

I’ll answer your other question just for fun: Sunday we left Corfu on a ferry early in the morning. I had checked Mass schedules on Corfu before I left for vacation, and I couldn’t see any schedules–they didn’t seem to list times, and I couldn’t easily tell where the church(es) was/were. Since my only option was a Sat. Mass (because of the ferry), and the hotel was a couple miles from the center of the city, and I didn’t know where the churches were anyway, I gave it a miss. I’m sure that will horrify the scrupulous, but my conscience is clear: I gave it a shot and took a reasonable amount of time.

As for prayer, etc., let’s try this on for size (I’m using this example because it ties in with other stories I have used on that other thread): I was in a crowded square in Athens, and a big black African refugee was struggling with a girl, trying to force her to put one of his bracelets on her wrist. She was obviously not enjoying the experience, but was too politically correct to protest. I smacked the guy on the back a couple times and told him to clear off. The girl thanked me and went on her way. One might ask, why didn’t any of the other people in the square lift a finger? The story of the Good Samaritan springs to mind…. And I’m sure there were numerous pious Catholics at Goldman Sachs who prayed daily as they destroyed the world economy in 2007-08. If I were God, I would have a very special place in Hell reserved for them. As I’ve pointed out several times in several places, it appalls me that on the one hand some Catholics on this site get all excited about missing Mass or eating meat at a friend’s house during a Friday in Lent, or any manner of trivia, and yet they seem oblivious to the real evils in the world. Go off, tilt against some windmills and slay some dragons, then we’ll talk.

 

[mamlukman]

If you reject miracles you reject the Church’s process of canonisation…:tsktsk:

Tsk tsk indeed! Piety is not the same as faith. I am not pious; but I do have faith. Piety is not an essential quality of a Catholic; faith is.

Sainthood is simply the Church’s way of certifying that it believes a certain person is in Heaven and that that person is a suitable example to follow and even a possible intermediary with God. Fine with me. Let’s take the aneurysm in your article: the Church used it as a “miracle” in the canonization process. Good for them. It may even have been a miracle rather than random chance. But I don’t think Pope Francis is going to excommunicate all the people who don’t believe in that particular miracle!

 

[tonyrey]

Tsk tsk indeed! Piety is not the same as faith. I am not pious; but I do have faith. Piety is not an essential quality of a Catholic; faith is.

Sainthood is simply the Church’s way of certifying that it believes a certain person is in Heaven and that that person is a suitable example to follow and even a possible intermediary with God. Fine with me. Let’s take the aneurysm in your article: the Church used it as a “miracle” in the canonization process. Good for them. It may even have been a miracle rather than random chance. But I don’t think Pope Francis is going to excommunicate all the people who don’t believe in that particular miracle!

The issue is quite simply whether **any **miracles have occurred since the time of the Apostles. It is not just this particular miracle but all the miracles attributed to the saints during the last two thousand years and to many other non-Catholics throughout the world. To rule out miracles on principle is unreasonable because Jesus would be misleading us when He said:

**

If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.”

**Matthew 21:14-22

There is no valid reason why a loving Father in heaven would ignore heart-felt pleas from all those in desperate need of help.** It implies that God is either indifferent to our needs or powerless to intervene.

**

 

[mamlukman]

The issue is quite simply whether **any **miracles have occurred since the time of the Apostles. It is not just this particular miracle but all the miracles attributed to the saints during the last two thousand years and to many other non-Catholics throughout the world. To rule out miracles on principle is unreasonable because Jesus would be misleading us when He said:

****Matthew 21:14-22

There is no valid reason why a loving Father in heaven would ignore heart-felt pleas from all those in desperate need of help.** It implies that God is either indifferent to our needs or powerless to intervene.
**

We’ve had this conversation before, but I’ll bite again.

I don’t think ruling out miracles is “unreasonable” – in fact, I think you’ll agree that miracles are “unreasonable” in the sense they are against reason. They are a matter of belief, not reason. As for “you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer,” surely you need a lot of footnotes and qualifications for that to be true. I’ve actually read what I could find on that passage, and all I’ve come up with are platitudes about being unselfish, having faith, etc. etc. (Enlighten me if you can.) Clearly the passage does not mean what it literally says; if it was meant in purely a spiritual sense (anything your soul wants…) or a metaphorical sense (God is looking out for you and likes you), then OK. But an actual response to my wishes? I could only wish that were true!!!

As for God ignoring our “pleas for help,” I think you’re forgetting the other thread where they discussed free will and God’s foreknowledge. If God has perfect knowledge of the future, He would know before the universe was created that you were going to pray for such-and-such, and there would be no need to “intervene” in space-time. God’s not indifferent nor is He unable to respond. He’s just factored it all in before creation began. To think otherwise is to limit God’s foreknowledge or his ability to factor it in–right? So by taking that position, it seems to me that–I’ve made this argument several times before–what you are doing is limiting the power of God. So instead of exalting God, you are diminishing Him. An interesting paradox, I think.

To give an example, you (and countless others, of course) are saying: 1) There is a sequence in time: God creates universe. You are born. You pray that Aunt Tillie doesn’t die. God hears your prayer. God swoops down to earth and saves Aunt Tillie by suspending/reversing natural laws and/or the chance mechanisms that were going to kill Aunt Tillie. 2) Note that this scenario implies–or even depends on–God’s ignorance of your future prayer and His own actions in response: You pray. God is jolted awake–“Billie’s praying!!! Alert!!” God decides to answer your prayer. God intervenes. I’m sorry, that just seems bizarre beyond words–it’s more suitable to the gods of ancient Greece and Rome.

Note that I’m not denying the efficacy of prayer. I just have absolutely no idea how it works. But if Jesus said “Pray,” I’ll pray. But for me that is an extreme test of faith.

 

[Aloysium]

Some random thoughts on posts above:

I understand the complaint about the pious who focus more on eternity than this world so filled with man-made misery.
That is one of the downsides to eastern mysticism.
Missionaries of Charity are in the news but I would say that one does tend to see among NGO’s, more of a protestant than Catholic presence.
I am sorry to be unknowledgeable about so much good work being done by people who will never be recognized in the media.

I cannot conceive of faith without action. In helping one another, a miracle occurs.

As geeky as I am, I’ve seen too many scientific revolutions for them to have much of an emotional impact. There are no scientific miracles.

What is miraculous is witnessing the faith of people in dire situations and the outpouring of generosity that follows some great tragedy.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Your line of reasoning here really does fail to help. Your assertion requires that all humans in your assertion of a ‘potential’ world must always choose not to sin. The question isn’t ‘how many’, but rather, ‘can everyone’? There is nothing that says that this is possible; even if it’s possible for one.

From “one” you can get to “everyone”, taking one step at a time. That is the reason I insist on examining the “how many”.

Induction doesn’t work here; if you were a mathematician, you would recognize this. Induction only works when there’s a relationship between the n’th item in the sequence and the (n+1)'th member, such that it can be demonstrated that the presence of the n’th implies the presence of the (n+1)'th. You haven’t even attempted to show that this is true in this case.

Since we do not deal with a mathematical formula, we deal with the principle of induction: namely: "can we get LOGICALLY from “n” to “n+1”? And that is why the question of “how many” is pertinent. The question is this: "is there a logical reason so that God can create “n” Mary-type people, but unable to create “n+1” Mary “clones”? God can do anything and everything if it does not entail a logical contradiction. To have “one” Mary is already established. The question is: “can there be two Mary-s”?

And, in fact, it’s not: the presence of one non-sinner does not prove that there must be another non-sinner. In other words, induction is incapable of proving your conjecture.

The inductive step appeals to God’s omnipotence and omniscience. I explain below.

No – Mary was created with the potential to cooperate. Her cooperation was the result of her free will choices. You’re still not seeing that ‘free will’ logically precludes the possibility of a creator ‘forcing’ a particular outcome.

Where is the “force”? I will explain the method how God could achieve this “trick”.

Step 1: God creates a Mary-type of free and sinless person.
Loop starts:
Step 2: God contemplates the creation of Susie (or Joe, or Paul…).
Step 3: Using omniscience, God sees that Susie (or Joe, or Paul…) will fail and sin.
Step 4: Using his discretion, God decides AGAINST creating Susie (or Joe, or Paul…).
Step 5: God contemplates the creation of Steve (or Angie, or Julie…).
Step 6: Using omniscience, God sees that Steve (or Angie, or Julie…) will NOT fail and NOT sin.
Step 7: Using his discretion, God decides to create Steve (or Angie, or Julie…).
Step 8: God restarts the loop.

Every time God sees that a potential person WILL sin, he bypasses that person.
Every time God sees that another potential person will NOT sin, he creates that person.

Since there is no particular “n” where this process cannot be continued, God can create as many “Mary-clones” as he wishes. Just because God decides to create a specific person, that does not constitute a “force”. The person uses his or her free will not to sin.

‘Steve and Susie’ are a conjecture you’ve created without support. They ‘demonstrate’ nothing.

The support is God’s omnipotence.

God deliberately created Mary who had the potential to freely choose not to sin. Mary did, in fact, not sin. God did not create a “Mary would will not sin”; Mary made that choice herself. That is what the foundation is correct – it wasn’t God as creator that made Mary not sin; it was Mary as human endowed with free will that made Mary not sin. God just facilitated the outcome that Mary chose.

That is almost exactly what I was saying. The difference is that you forgot to include that God knew in advance that Mary will not fail. Using the same method God could fill up the world with Mary-clones. There is no “force” involved, only giving the opportunity to some, and withholding the opportunity from others…

Please cite this claim. (At best, you’re going to be able to quote de las Casas’ “Destruction of the Indies”, in which he makes the claim of infant murder… but not the additional claim of baptism. Please – prove me wrong; you cannot do so. :nope

It is the same teaching today as it always has been. To die in the state of grace assures that one WILL get into heaven. To be in the state of grace it is necessary to be baptized. To stay in the state of grace it is necessary that one would not commit any sinful acts.

The result: all those infants who are baptized and unable to commit sins, WILL go into heaven, if they die in the state of grace. This teaching has never changed. Today people do not follow this teaching to its logical conclusion.

The conquistadores simply acted on this teaching, put this teaching into practice… or in other words, they did not only talk the talk, they also walked the walk. Today the talk is loud, but the walking is missing. Fortunately for the rest of us.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I said, multiple times, we CANNOT talk about God in human terms. The example I gave clearly indicated that.

In that case why do you say that God is 'love"?

God was not “jealous.” God does not get “jealous.” That is a human emotion. God does not get bored. He does not play games. He doesn’t even think. He doesn’t have to think. You know that. God is utterly simple. He just is.

“I am a jealous God” - said God.

Your view of God is like the view of someone who was asked to judge a beauty contest, say Miss USA (if they don’t have that anymore, doesn’t matter). He sees seven girls out of fifty, and doesn’t like the way they look, their personality, etc. Then, he likes the looks and personality of the eighth, so he declares her the winner, without even bothering to see the rest. He is really in no position to judge. He hasn’t seen the whole picture, i.e. all the girls. You are in the same position when you try to judge God’s actions.

It would be the same if I went to a movie, watched the first ten minutes, then walked out, knowing nothing more then those first ten minutes. Someone asks me about the movie, and I say, “The ending is terrible!” The ending might be terrible, it might be mediocre, it might be great. The point is, with my ten minutes of limited knowledge, I am in no position to judge. We have very limited knowledge of God and his plans for the end of human history. We are in no position to judge.

We always make judgments based upon the available information. When we see a “loving” parent who just beat his kid to a bloody pulp, we do not stop and say: “Hmmmm, we have only partial information, do let’s not make a hasty call, MAYBE that parent is a LOVING parent…”. No we do not do that. To paraphrase Forrest Gump: “loving is as loving does”, and “evil is as evil does”.

Now, if God wishes to come and take a stand in his own defense, he is welcome. But if I am not in the position to make an accusation, then you are not in the position to conduct the defense.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It is the same teaching today as it always has been. To die in the state of grace assures that one WILL get into heaven. To be in the state of grace it is necessary to be baptized. To stay in the state of grace it is necessary that one would not commit any sinful acts.

The result: all those infants who are baptized and unable to commit sins, WILL go into heaven, if they die in the state of grace. This teaching has never changed. Today people do not follow this teaching to its logical conclusion.

The conquistadores simply acted on this teaching, put this teaching into practice… or in other words, they did not only talk the talk, they also walked the walk. Today the talk is loud, but the walking is missing. Fortunately for the rest of us.

Well, no, the “walk” isn’t missing; what is missing is the number of people who follow your line of reasoning and also believe God is omniscient. Obviously, there are many quite reasonable individuals alive today and in the past who subscribe to the notion that God is omniscient but that there is something unique and profoundly true about human free will. They would see your supposed “argument” as a shallow and unconvincing one precisely because you do not and have not provided a very convincing argument against human free will and how that capacity - as they understand and fully appreciate it - can be reconciled with your notion of God being able to mass produce morally impeccable free agents on a whim.

Your view requires that those endorsing it simply chuck out the meaning, significance and value of individual personal growth and experiences through time as unnecessary and uninteresting since God could simply create impeccable moral agents out of whole cloth, like children of Abraham out of stones.

Your suggestion ranks right up there - as far as persuasiveness goes - with the young earth creationist argument that God, being omnipotent, could simply manufacture all past events and inject them into the collective human psyche to make cosmic origins appear to have taken place over a span of 13.7 billion years, when really creation occurred only 6000 years ago.

Well, to be consistent, if your account that God’s omniscience permits him to manufacture good moral agents at will amounts to “plausible,” then the young earth creationists are quite correct in insisting their account, too, is consistent with omnipotence. It wouldn’t be impossible for the omnipotent God to bring about their “thing,” under the same token as it wouldn’t impossible for the omniscient God to bring about yours.

I find both your account and that of the young earthers to be seriously wanting, shallow and uninteresting, perhaps because both accounts are seriously wanting, shallow and uninteresting.

 

[Aloysium]

God does not deal in hypothetical people.
We imagine what could be because we are in a state of ignorance. He knows all.
God creates a person who participates in his own creation.
There are no potential persons, only real ones.
Once that person is created, God sees him and everything he choses to do (including all of God’s own interventions to guide him and allow him a free choice in becoming who he is), in every moment of his life.
What is hard to understand about this?

Look, we are dealing with a Being who is in everything that exists in time and space.
He encompasses the entire universe, bringing into existence every Planck length and the time it takes for a photon to travel that infinitesimally small distance.
All this comes together in the creation of plant life, animals, and we ourselves, the height of physical creation, having spiritual souls.
How can He do this? Because He is outside of time and has eternity to accomplish it all.

 

[Peter_Plato]

God does not deal in hypothetical people.
We imagine what could be because we are in a state of ignorance. He knows all.
God creates a person who participates in his own creation.
There are no potential persons, only real ones.
Once that person is created, God sees him and everything he choses to do (including all of God’s own interventions to guide him and allow him a free choice in becoming who he is), in every moment of his life.
What is hard to understand about this?

It isn’t hard to understand, just that some prefer easy, shallow and simplistic accounts because those don’t require any real thought, depth or effort to grasp.

 

[Aloysium]

I feel a political tirade coming on.
The current economic crisis is simply the top of the iceberg, which we desparately do not wish to see.
Most of what makes for hell on earth is the result of human choices.
The disparity in the world is man-made.
Were we to behave as we did in Bethsaida when we followed Christ without any preparation, we would all be fed and there would be more.
But, in this world in which pride and greed rule, the opposite comes true.
Blame God for giving us a choice, but it will come right back.
The responsibility lies in the person who makes the decision, who is in charge of their own behaviour. It stops with ourselves.
This secular society breeds buck-passing cowards adept at rationalizing away their wrong-doing and negligence toward their fellow man.
Gimme a break!
End of rant.

 

[DCNBILL]

We’ve had this conversation before, but I’ll bite again.

I don’t think ruling out miracles is “unreasonable” – in fact, I think you’ll agree that miracles are “unreasonable” in the sense they are against reason. They are a matter of belief, not reason. As for “you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer,” surely you need a lot of footnotes and qualifications for that to be true. I’ve actually read what I could find on that passage, and all I’ve come up with are platitudes about being unselfish, having faith, etc. etc. (Enlighten me if you can.) Clearly the passage does not mean what it literally says; if it was meant in purely a spiritual sense (anything your soul wants…) or a metaphorical sense (God is looking out for you and likes you), then OK. But an actual response to my wishes? I could only wish that were true!!!

As for God ignoring our “pleas for help,” I think you’re forgetting the other thread where they discussed free will and God’s foreknowledge. If God has perfect knowledge of the future, He would know before the universe was created that you were going to pray for such-and-such, and there would be no need to “intervene” in space-time. God’s not indifferent nor is He unable to respond. He’s just factored it all in before creation began. To think otherwise is to limit God’s foreknowledge or his ability to factor it in–right? So by taking that position, it seems to me that–I’ve made this argument several times before–what you are doing is limiting the power of God. So instead of exalting God, you are diminishing Him. An interesting paradox, I think.

To give an example, you (and countless others, of course) are saying: 1) There is a sequence in time: God creates universe. You are born. You pray that Aunt Tillie doesn’t die. God hears your prayer. God swoops down to earth and saves Aunt Tillie by suspending/reversing natural laws and/or the chance mechanisms that were going to kill Aunt Tillie. 2) Note that this scenario implies–or even depends on–God’s ignorance of your future prayer and His own actions in response: You pray. God is jolted awake–“Billie’s praying!!! Alert!!” God decides to answer your prayer. God intervenes. I’m sorry, that just seems bizarre beyond words–it’s more suitable to the gods of ancient Greece and Rome.

Note that I’m not denying the efficacy of prayer. I just have absolutely no idea how it works. But if Jesus said “Pray,” I’ll pray. But for me that is an extreme test of faith.

I can give you an example of real life miracle, the Church ordained me. Trust me, that was a true miracle, you can ask my wife!

 

[Gorgias]

And that is why the question of “how many” is pertinent. The question is this: "is there a logical reason so that God can create “n” Mary-type people, but unable to create “n+1” Mary “clones”?

Two problems, though: first, the question isn’t whether there’s a logical difference between n and n+1 one persons with free will; after all, we already know that this is possible, given the existence of humans on earth!

Secondly, though – and I hate to repeat it, but you keep not hearing this objection (or, at least, you keep ignoring it): the question isn’t one of creation alone – it’s the question of creation plus the person’s lifelong avoidance of sin. There are actually two beings in consideration here: the creator and the created person. It is the juxtaposition of both that you are considering – and that’s critical to this thought experiment. The fact that the person, once created, must exercise his free will in order never to sin, is what makes this less about God’s act of creation and more about a human’s ability never to sin.

The inductive step appeals to God’s omnipotence and omniscience. I explain below.

Step 2: God contemplates the creation of Susie (or Joe, or Paul…).
Step 3: Using omniscience, God sees that Susie (or Joe, or Paul…) will fail and sin.
Step 4: Using his discretion, God decides AGAINST creating Susie (or Joe, or Paul…).

Aah – I see where you’re coming from! You’re a Molinist!

However, there are a couple very serious problems with your algorithm:

First, there’s the question of middle knowledge – most importantly, the question of God’s knowledge of counterfactuals. It is not clear that this is necessary for omniscience to be tenable. That is, it is not necessary that God know all things that might have been but which in fact, do not exist. For your claims here to hold true, you’ll have to demonstrate that God must, in fact, have middle knowledge.

Second, there’s the classic objection to Molinism: if God creates a certain situation (which implies that He chooses not to create a contrary situation), then determinism sets in. By creating a world in which only those who will not sin are allowed to be born, God has, de facto, eliminated free will: He has deterministically removed sin from the world. However, the goal of your thought experiment was to create a world with both free will and no sin. Therefore, your construction contains a paradox. In other words, your assertion that this is not logically impossible is false, and therefore, your thought experiment must be rejected.

Just because God decides to create a specific person, that does not constitute a “force”. The person uses his or her free will not to sin.

Read up on Molinism and on objections to it. If God forces a situation in which a particular outcome must occur, He has just deterministically created that outcome.

The support is God’s omnipotence.

It’s God’s omnipotence that puts your thought experiment in the weeds. I get what you’re saying, though: but it’s just the case that it’s not logically tenable.

There is no “force” involved, only giving the opportunity to some, and withholding the opportunity from others…

That’s pretty much the definition of ‘determinism’.

It is the same teaching today as it always has been. To die in the state of grace assures that one WILL get into heaven. To be in the state of grace it is necessary to be baptized. To stay in the state of grace it is necessary that one would not commit any sinful acts.

The result: all those infants who are baptized and unable to commit sins, WILL go into heaven, if they die in the state of grace. This teaching has never changed. Today people do not follow this teaching to its logical conclusion.

You’re completely missing the point. I’m asking you to demonstrate that it was baptized babies that were murdered.

The conquistadores simply acted on this teaching, put this teaching into practice… or in other words, they did not only talk the talk, they also walked the walk.

Murdering people in order that they may go to heaven is not ‘walking the walk’: rather, it’s committing a mortal sin.