Is our free choice real

[BobCatholic]

You wrote: “How is it charitable to not eat from a tree?”
A. Disobedience to God is uncharitible.

Yes, it was a mortal sin, but how is it charitable to punish the children for the sins of the parents? Deuteronomy 24 says it is not.

You wrote: “It does count as a double standard. Before and after Eden God treated humanity in two different ways and held them to different standards.”
A. No, it is not the definition of double standard is: a rule or principle that is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups.

How is it fair to punish the children for the sins of their parents?

You wrote: “Why is there temporal punishment for “attachment to creatures” in purgatory. Is it a sin?”
A. Temporal punishment is for actual sin.

Premise: temporal punishment is for actual sin
Premise: purgatory is only for punishment of actual sin
Premise: One is sent to purgatory for attachment to creatures.
Conclusion: attachment to creatures is an actual sin

You wrote: "How, without knowledge? [to choose the greater good?] and “That choice makes no difference, the bomb explodes either which way. Free will = 0.”
A. That is illogical since free will does not imply that use of it will have the desired effect.

it is perfectly logical. Ability to make correct decisions is a hallmark of free will. When one cannot make correct decisions, their free will = 0.

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: “Yes, it was a mortal sin, but how is it charitable to punish the children for the sins of the parents? Deuteronomy 24 says it is not.”
A. The children are not punished, as posted before. Definition of punishment is: the act of making a wrongdoer suffer. Not the case here.

Purgatory is to satisfy any debt of Divine Justice that remains after death. The debt is created by the commission of actual sins and is not an actual sin itself. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote:“That a guilty person (a sinner) be brought back within the order of justice, it is necessary that the will suffer privation of what he desires; this is done by being punished whether by being made to forego the good things which it would wish to have, or by the infliction of the evil things which it shrinks from enduring” (Op.3, c.7, Ed. Rom.).
This suffering removes attachment to sin that may remain.

You wrote: “it is perfectly logical. Ability to make correct decisions is a hallmark of free will. When one cannot make correct decisions, their free will = 0.”
A. That is incorrect. For example, one can make a free will (deliberate) choice to commit mortal sin (either by act or omission) or the do good. Catechism:1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; …
1872 Sin is an act contrary to reason. It wounds man’s nature and injures human solidarity.

 

[BobCatholic]

A. The children are not punished, as posted before. Definition of punishment is: the act of making a wrongdoer suffer. Not the case here.

Hello? We’re in the jail cell! How is this NOT punishment? You have to really stretch to avoid calling it a punishment.

Purgatory is to satisfy any debt of Divine Justice that remains after death. The debt is created by the commission of actual sins and is not an actual sin itself.

Precisely. And because of that, therefore in conclusion, attachment to creatures is a venial sin (since mortal sin can’t be dealt with in purgatory).

You wrote: “it is perfectly logical. Ability to make correct decisions is a hallmark of free will. When one cannot make correct decisions, their free will = 0.”
A. That is incorrect. For example, one can make a free will (deliberate) choice to commit mortal sin (either by act or omission) or the do good.

Yes, one can deliberately make a decision to commit mortal sin, and this requires sufficient knowledge.

Without sufficient knowledge, there is no way for someone NOT to commit a venial sin at the least. free will = 0

And because people can fool themselves, there is no way of knowing if the good deed contains merit or just going to be rejected and burned off as dross at the end.

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: “You have to really stretch to avoid calling it a punishment.”
A. Two different meanings, and for the descendants (no actual sin), it is a consequence:

• Punishment: the act of making a wrongdoer suffer.
• Consequence: a result or effect of an action or condition.

You wrote: “… attachment to creatures is a venial sin (since mortal sin can’t be dealt with in purgatory).”
A. No. Mortal sin also results in temporal punishment, and the temporal punishment is a debt not a sin.

“Yes, one can deliberately make a decision to commit mortal sin, and this requires sufficient knowledge.”
A. Grave matter, sufficient reflection to make it deliberate (full consent) and complete knowledge. Knowledge is not necessary to act with free will.

You wrote: “Without sufficient knowledge, there is no way for someone NOT to commit a venial sin at the least. free will = 0”
A. No, knowledge is not necessary to act with free will. The knowledge in involved with the determination of culpability.

With regard to the exercise of free will there is either full consent or partial consent or no consent, but without consent there can be no culpability, no formal sin. For knowledge there are four cases:

• Complete knowledge,
• Partial knowledge,
• Vincible ignorance,
• Invincible ignorance.

 

[BobCatholic]

You wrote: “You have to really stretch to avoid calling it a punishment.”
A. Two different meanings, and for the descendants (no actual sin), it is a consequence:

• Punishment: the act of making a wrongdoer suffer.
• Consequence: a result or effect of an action or condition.

If we are treated the same as criminals, how is this not a punishment?
The TREATMENT is identical!

You wrote: “… attachment to creatures is a venial sin (since mortal sin can’t be dealt with in purgatory).”
A. No. Mortal sin also results in temporal punishment, and the temporal punishment is a debt not a sin.

The context of my statement is about purgatory, which excludes Mortal Sin. If one has a mortal sin that is unforgiven at death, elevator down. Purgatory is not an option.

“Yes, one can deliberately make a decision to commit mortal sin, and this requires sufficient knowledge.”
A. Grave matter, sufficient reflection to make it deliberate (full consent) and complete knowledge. Knowledge is not necessary to act with free will.

Hello? You just contradicted yourself in that statement. The definition REQUIRES knowledge, yet you say it is not necessary to act with free will.

You wrote: “Without sufficient knowledge, there is no way for someone NOT to commit a venial sin at the least. free will = 0”
A. No, knowledge is not necessary to act with free will. The knowledge in involved with the determination of culpability.

If one does not have sufficient knowledge, a mortal sin becomes venial. Thus, having insufficient knowledge (an imperfection) means one has no choice but to commit venial sin.

Imperfection → free will = 0

With regard to the exercise of free will there is either full consent or partial consent or no consent, but without consent there can be no culpability, no formal sin.

“no consent” = no free will. That is one obvious contradiction in your statement.

“partial consent” = no free will in some part of the consent. Knowledge was missing.

“full consent” without knowledge = no free will.

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: “If we are treated the same as criminals, how is this not a punishment?”
A. Per the definition punishment if for wrongdoers. The descendants are born without any guilt of personal sin. That is how.

You wrote: “The context of my statement is about purgatory, which excludes Mortal Sin. If one has a mortal sin that is unforgiven at death, elevator down. Purgatory is not an option.”
A. No it does not exclude mortal sin because there it temporal punishment for mortal sin. Catechism
1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.83

You wrote: “Hello? You just contradicted yourself in that statement. The definition REQUIRES knowledge, yet you say it is not necessary to act with free will.”
A. No, I wrote this: Grave matter, sufficient reflection to make it deliberate (full consent) and complete knowledge. Knowledge is not necessary to act with free will.

You wrote: “If one does not have sufficient knowledge, a mortal sin becomes venial.”
A. Yes.

You wrote: "Thus, having insufficient knowledge (an imperfection) means one has no choice but to commit venial sin.
A. No, venial sin must be voluntary.

You wrote: “no consent” = no free will."
A. No exercise of free will means no formal sin.

You wrote: “partial consent” = no free will in some part of the consent."
A. No, partial free will means there may be venial sin.

You wrote: “Knowledge was missing.”
A. That is a different issue than free will, it has to do with culpability.

You wrote ““full consent” without knowledge = no free will.”
A. No, all formal sin must be voluntary.

consent|knowledge|grave matter|not grave matter
full|complete|mortal sin|venial sin
full|partial|venial sin|venial sin
full|invincible ignorance|no sin|no sin
partial *|complete|venial sin|venial sin
partial *|partial|venial sin|venial sin
partial *|invincible ignorance|no sin|no sin
involuntary|complete|no sin|no sin
involuntary|partial|no sin|no sin
involuntary|invincible ignorance|no sin|no sin

• or willful negligence

 

[BobCatholic]

You wrote: “If we are treated the same as criminals, how is this not a punishment?”
A. Per the definition punishment if for wrongdoers. The descendants are born without any guilt of personal sin. That is how.

If we are treated the same as those punished, then we are punished as well.

Can’t tap dance around that. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck…its a duck. And this is quacking very loudly!

You wrote: “Hello? You just contradicted yourself in that statement. The definition REQUIRES knowledge, yet you say it is not necessary to act with free will.”
A. No, I wrote this: Grave matter, sufficient reflection to make it deliberate (full consent) and complete knowledge. Knowledge is not necessary to act with free will.

If one is missing namely knowledge, then game over, it cannot be a mortal sin.

You wrote: "Thus, having insufficient knowledge (an imperfection) means one has no choice but to commit venial sin.
A. No, venial sin must be voluntary.

An involuntary mortal sin or a mortal sin done without full choice, is venial.

You wrote: “no consent” = no free will."
A. No exercise of free will means no formal sin.

But we are still here in this jail cell and treated the same as criminals.

You wrote: “Knowledge was missing.”
A. That is a different issue than free will, it has to do with culpability.

Culpability is irrelevant. We are still here in this jail cell and treated the same as criminals.

You wrote ““full consent” without knowledge = no free will.”
A. No, all formal sin must be voluntary.

Again, We are still here in this jail cell and treated the same as criminals. Involuntarily. Voluntary is irrelevant.

consent|knowledge|grave matter|not grave matter
full|invincible ignorance|no sin|no sin
partial *|invincible ignorance|no sin|no sin
involuntary|complete|no sin|no sin
involuntary|partial|no sin|no sin
involuntary|invincible ignorance|no sin|no sin

• or willful negligence

These 5 I disagree with. If there is no sin, therefore there is no temporal punishment for sin, and no negative consequences.

We are still here in this jail cell and treated the same as criminals. We are here through an INVOLUNTARY (on our part) sin committed by Adam and Eve and we are still punished through the involuntary (on our part) sins committed by our ancestors since Adam and Eve.

I cannot tell the difference - temporally held responsible for the sins of our ancestors and how it is not punishment. If there is no original sin, then we’d be in Eden.

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: “If we are treated the same as those punished, then we are punished as well.” and “… treated the same as criminals.”
A. No. there is a difference in the cause, so they have different names: punishment vs consequences. The Catechism is using different names. Note your use of “as” meaning similarly.

You wrote: “These 5 I disagree with. If there is no sin, therefore there is no temporal punishment for sin, and no negative consequences.”
A. There is no temporal punishment for sin in those cases. Temporal punishment for sin is the result of personal sin. The consequences or original sin are not due to personal sin. You call the temporal consequences being held temporally responsible – as we discussed before consequences has a different meaning than temporal punishment for sin (which is personal).

Catechism 404 … It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

Council of Trent Session V - Celebrated on the seventeenth day of June, 1546 under Pope Paul III, Decree Concerning Original Sin

1. If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam, which in its origin is one, and by propagation, not by imitation, transfused into all, which is in each one as something that is his own, is taken away either by the forces of human nature or by a remedy other than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ,[9] who has reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification and redemption;[10] or if he denies that that merit of Jesus Christ is applied both to adults and to infants by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the Church, let him be anathema; for there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.[11]

Whence that declaration:

Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sins of the world;

[12] and that other:
As many of you as have been baptized, have put on Christ.[13]​

 

[BobCatholic]

You wrote: “If we are treated the same as those punished, then we are punished as well.” and “… treated the same as criminals.”
A. No. there is a difference in the cause, so they have different names: punishment vs consequences. The Catechism is using different names. Note your use of “as” meaning similarly.

I don’t understand this.

We are treated as criminals. Why does Adam and Eve do the crime and we must serve the time? The catechism cite does not answer this question, just says that it must be this way. No “why” explanation.

I’ve seen no answer to why

• old Adam screws up and everyone else gets punished for it YET
• new Adam makes it all right yet we are still stuck in this jail cell.

Why does the first seem to be more powerful than the second one?

I want to step on the transporter pad and be beamed into heaven. But I’m not even allowed on the starship.

You wrote: “These 5 I disagree with. If there is no sin, therefore there is no temporal punishment for sin, and no negative consequences.”
A. There is no temporal punishment for sin in those cases. Temporal punishment for sin is the result of personal sin. The consequences or original sin are not due to personal sin. You call the temporal consequences being held temporally responsible – as we discussed before consequences has a different meaning than temporal punishment for sin (which is personal).

Despite “no sin” on our part, we are held temporally responsible for the sins of our ancestors.

Catechism 404 … It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

A disease caught but not healed by God.
A wound obtained but not healed by God.

Not healed as proven by the fact we are still here in this jail cell.

Whence that declaration:
Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sins of the world;

[12] and that other:
As many of you as have been baptized, have put on Christ.[13]​

[/INDENT]

Christ has not released us from this jail cell. Romans 8:23. He held back.

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: “Why does Adam and Eve do the crime and we must serve the time?” and “I’ve seen no answer to why …”
A. Adam and Eve and descendants must overcome temptations, through our cooperation with the grace of God, in order to receive a crown or glory if we attain heaven. The preternatural gifts were only given to Adam and Eve and they lost them, so of course, they had to deal with concupiscence after that, just as we do.

Catechism 1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, “the tinder for sin” (fomes peccati); since concupiscence "is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ."66 Indeed, "an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules."67

Why does the first seem to be more powerful than the second one?

 

[fbl9]

Time does not go back it. If it did the act would be against the very nature of time. Therefore since we are born into time we can not go back to Eden.

 

[BobCatholic]

You wrote: “Why does Adam and Eve do the crime and we must serve the time?” and “I’ve seen no answer to why …”
A. Adam and Eve and descendants must overcome temptations, through our cooperation with the grace of God, in order to receive a crown or glory if we attain heaven. The preternatural gifts were only given to Adam and Eve and they lost them, so of course, they had to deal with concupiscence after that, just as we do.

And I’m talking about why we cannot go back to Eden and have only one rule? We are less able to follow 613 rules versus one rule. It is 613 times harder to overcome temptation outside of the Garden.

Why does the first seem to be more powerful than the second one?

Christ defeated death and conquered sin, but here we are still in this jail cell and not in Eden. At least he chopped the number of rules from 613 to 17.

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: “Christ defeated death and conquered sin, but here we are still in this jail cell and not in Eden.”
A. The divine plan revealed is that we will be perfected at the end time, soul and body reunited and glorified. That is when our bodies will become immortal. Also, descendants cannot return to where descendants never were.

Catechism1042 At the end of time, the Kingdom of God will come in its fullness. After the universal judgment, the righteous will reign for ever with Christ, glorified in body and soul. The universe itself will be renewed:

The Church . . . will receive her perfection only in the glory of heaven, when will come the time of the renewal of all things. At that time, together with the human race, the universe itself, which is so closely related to man and which attains its destiny through him, will be perfectly re-established in Christ.631

1052 “We believe that the souls of all who die in Christ’s grace . . . are the People of God beyond death. On the day of resurrection, death will be definitively conquered, when these souls will be reunited with their bodies” (Paul VI, CPG § 28).​

 

[BobCatholic]

Time does not go back it. If it did the act would be against the very nature of time. Therefore since we are born into time we can not go back to Eden.

Of course, time does not go back, but Christ can heal all wounds, right? If someone could see, became blind and then was healed, they did not need to go back in time to be healed?

In the same way, why can’t we be healed and go back to Eden and only have one rule? That way, the test is easier.

 

[BobCatholic]

You wrote: “Christ defeated death and conquered sin, but here we are still in this jail cell and not in Eden.”
A. The divine plan revealed is that we will be perfected at the end time, soul and body reunited and glorified. That is when our bodies will become immortal.

Until then, we are in this jail cell being punished for the sins of our ancestors.

SOMEHOW we must survive until that glorious time.

Also, descendants cannot return to where descendants never were.

With God all things are possible, except when you say so.

So, this is the conclusion I’m getting.

• We are imperfect and can never be perfect. But we are required to be perfect to enter heaven, so by default, we have no choice until God lets us in.
• We are held temporally responsible for the sins of our ancestors. No explanation why, just that we are. We have no choice about this.
• We are weaker and less capable than Adam and Eve but the test we are given is 613x harder (at the least) prior to Christ and it was reduced to 17x harder after Christ’s incarnation. The remainder is God holding back, and we have no choice in this.
• We are not given help to pass the test because God does not want to heal imperfections. We have no choice but to be imperfect.
• There is no way for us to pass the test on our own. We need God’s help and if he says no, game over, no choice. Free will = 0.
• Culpability is irrelevant to whether we are temporally punished, we are still here in the jail cell and purgatory is our lot if we are lucky. We have no choice in this.

Free will is a cruel joke at best or nonexistent at worst. But we are treated as if we have it.

Life here in this jail cell is like a man with two broken legs being castigated for not running a marathon.

 

[Vico]

…

Basically you just repeat months worth or comments over again, without any change, even though you read what the Church teaches which is contrary to what you posted.

 

[fbl9]

And I’m talking about why we cannot go back to Eden and have only one rule? We are less able to follow 613 rules versus one rule. It is 613 times harder to overcome temptation outside of the Garden.

.

No Bob there are only two rules to follow. Christ himself said so.
The 613 number is there for us to recognize our failings to follow two simple rules and through the sacraments and God we strive to better ourselves.

Of course, time does not go back, but Christ can heal all wounds, right? If someone could see, became blind and then was healed, they did not need to go back in time to be healed?

In the same way, why can’t we be healed and go back to Eden and only have one rule? That way, the test is easier.

Thing is Bob you still would not be able to follow that one rule. Because you won’t know the difference between good and evil.

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: “With God all things are possible, except when you say so.”
A. God will not do everything possible but has a providential plan.

You wrote: “we are still here in the jail cell and purgatory is our lot if we are lucky. We have no choice in this.”
A. Luck does not exist but providence.

You wrote: “We are imperfect and can never be perfect. But we are required to be perfect to enter heaven, so by default, we have no choice until God lets us in.”
A. Perfection is at resurrection not at heaven before resurrection.

You wrote: “We are not given help to pass the test because God does not want to heal imperfections. We have no choice but to be imperfect.”
and “There is no way for us to pass the test on our own. We need God’s help and if he says no, game over, no choice. Free will = 0.”
A. God gives us actual grace for conversion and sanctifying grace with conversion. God makes the first move.

You wrote: “We are held temporally responsible for the sins of our ancestors. No explanation why, just that we are. We have no choice about this.”
A. Reason was given for consequences for human nature.

You wrote: “Until then, we are in this jail cell being punished for the sins of our ancestors.” and “Culpability is irrelevant to whether we are temporally punished”.
A. Not punishment for sin of Adam and Eve, rather consequences for human nature.

You wrote: “Free will is a cruel joke at best or nonexistent at worst. But we are treated as if we have it.” and “Life here in this jail cell is like a man with two broken legs being castigated for not running a marathon.”
A. No, God is just and merciful.

 

[BobCatholic]

No Bob there are only two rules to follow. Christ himself said so.
The 613 number is there for us to recognize our failings to follow two simple rules and through the sacraments and God we strive to better ourselves.

Actually He said there were 10. Add the Church’s 7 and there are 17.

He summarized the 10 with 2. Doesn’t mean there are 2.

Even IF what you say is true, in the Garden we only had one rule, and we had preternatural gifts. Outside of the garden, we are thousands of times more imperfect and have 17 rules.

In other words, now its is far more difficult to follow God’s way than it was before, and it is due to increased imperfections which God does not want to fix.

Thing is Bob you still would not be able to follow that one rule. Because you won’t know the difference between good and evil.

The Church teaches that ignorance is a factor that turns a sin into a non-sin. But this is the exception. Adam and Eve didn’t know between good and evil and got punished as if they had free will.

So what you are saying is what I’ve been saying: We were set up to fail, there was no free will.

Free will is at best a cruel joke, and at worst, nonexistent.

 

[BobCatholic]

Basically you just repeat months worth or comments over again, without any change, even though you read what the Church teaches which is contrary to what you posted.

More like the Church has not addressed much of what I’ve posted, and you interpret that as “yes, the Church has done so.”

The Church does not say anything about

• WHY we are held temporally responsible for the sins of our ancestors
• Why God refuses to fix imperfections
• Why we cannot have a personal relationship with God when prayer is a monologue.
• Why we are treated like criminals.
• Why does God make it horrifically difficult to go to heaven while making it ridiculously easy to go to hell.

You wrote: “With God all things are possible, except when you say so.”
A. God will not do everything possible but has a providential plan.

A plan he refuses to disclose.

You wrote: “we are still here in the jail cell and purgatory is our lot if we are lucky. We have no choice in this.”
A. Luck does not exist but providence.

I don’t believe in “luck” - meaning random chance - just using it as a rhetorical device.

I define “luck” as “God wills to make something pleasant happen.”

You wrote: “We are imperfect and can never be perfect. But we are required to be perfect to enter heaven, so by default, we have no choice until God lets us in.”
A. Perfection is at resurrection not at heaven before resurrection.

And there is no resurrection or perfection here on earth.

You wrote: “We are not given help to pass the test because God does not want to heal imperfections. We have no choice but to be imperfect.”
and “There is no way for us to pass the test on our own. We need God’s help and if he says no, game over, no choice. Free will = 0.”
A. God gives us actual grace for conversion and sanctifying grace with conversion. God makes the first move.

But actual grace and sanctifying grace does not remove imperfections. We still fall over and over and over and over and over and over…

You wrote: “We are held temporally responsible for the sins of our ancestors. No explanation why, just that we are. We have no choice about this.”
A. Reason was given for consequences for human nature.

No reason was given by the Church. The Church just says “it is what it is.”

You wrote: “Until then, we are in this jail cell being punished for the sins of our ancestors.” and “Culpability is irrelevant to whether we are temporally punished”.
A. Not punishment for sin of Adam and Eve, rather consequences for human nature.

I can’t tell the difference.

You wrote: “Free will is a cruel joke at best or nonexistent at worst. But we are treated as if we have it.” and “Life here in this jail cell is like a man with two broken legs being castigated for not running a marathon.”
A. No, God is just and merciful.

Well, I want to go home now. Beam me up please.

If God really loves me, He wants to be with me, so beam me up please.