"Obedience"

[guiltyofdoubt]

Free will is the ability to do what you ought, not the ability to do what you want. Actions have consequences.

How so? I don’t think that’s the case with real “free will”.

Yes, I agree that actions have consequences. But not all actions have the same consequences, i.e. the WORST consequences. Yet that’s what we see with mortal sins.

Now another question I have is, What IS Natural Law?

It is said that we all have Natural Law written on our hearts.

I agree that there are some Natural Laws…for instance against killing, taking another’s property, lying, being nice and civil to others (i.e. “love thy neighbor”), that homosexuality is clearly wrong as the parts are not used for their intended purposes.

But as for monogamy, or being against masturbation, or “premarital” sex, I’m not so certain those are “Natural laws”. It seems a man’s sex drive, and the very fact that 50% of marriages end in divorce, indicate that. It seems that prostitution being “the oldest profession” indicates that. I know what the Church says about it. But I would argue that sexual restrictions between man and woman are more constructs of control by Man, than Natural Law.

Men are driven sexually. Some do have the admirable ability to control it, but it seems that they are a great minority, which would seem to me to indicate that Natural Law points in the other direction.

 

[St_Francis]

How so? I don’t think that’s the case with real “free will”.

Yes, I agree that actions have consequences. But not all actions have the same consequences, i.e. the WORST consequences. Yet that’s what we see with mortal sins.

Now another question I have is, What IS Natural Law?

It is said that we all have Natural Law written on our hearts.

I agree that there are some Natural Laws…for instance against killing, taking another’s property, lying, being nice and civil to others (i.e. “love thy neighbor”), that homosexuality is clearly wrong as the parts are not used for their intended purposes.

But as for monogamy, or being against masturbation, or “premarital” sex, I’m not so certain those are “Natural laws”. It seems a man’s sex drive, and the very fact that 50% of marriages end in divorce, indicate that. It seems that prostitution being “the oldest profession” indicates that. I know what the Church says about it. But I would argue that sexual restrictions between man and woman are more constructs of control by Man, than Natural Law.

Men are driven sexually. Some do have the admirable ability to control it, but it seems that they are a great minority, which would seem to me to indicate that Natural Law points in the other direction.

Wow…

Issues of life and death are most certainly an important aspect of Natural Law. You can see this in the fact that most every society has quite strict rules about sex, marriage, child-bearing…

The only reason we can relegate sexual activity to a leisure activity and unleash our sexual desires is that we think we have reliable birth control. Sexual activitt is thus completely separated from the end or goal of the act.

But when you think about sexual activity and babies together, the way they should be, then you can start to understand all those previous societies which heavily regulated relations between the sexes.

 

[Amandil]

How so? I don’t think that’s the case with real “free will”.

Yes, I agree that actions have consequences. But not all actions have the same consequences, i.e. the WORST consequences. Yet that’s what we see with mortal sins.

Modern society has a false concept of “fee will” as being able to choose to do what you will independent of outside influence. That definition is not based upon Christian morality but on modern “enlightenment” thinking.

“Free will” necessarily presupposes adherence to the good.

Now another question I have is, What IS Natural Law?

“Natural law” says that we are required to act at all time according to the ends or purposes for which we are created.

Natural law is not positive law, for which you are also commonly accustomed to.

Example: “Positive law” says that if you drink and drive, and if you’re caught, you’ll lose your drivers license for a year or so, you’ll have to pay a fine, and you may or may not end up in jail.

“Natural law” says that if you drink and drive you may kill yourself and possibly someone else with your car.

Positive law has arbitrary punishments for getting caught breaking arbitrary laws; the punishment “fits” the crime.

Natural law says that the punishment IS crime. The commission of sin has natural consequences not only on our bodies but on our souls, because by nature we are a psycho-sematic(body-soul) unity. What we do in our bodies effects our souls.

See the difference?

I agree that there are some Natural Laws…for instance against killing, taking another’s property, lying, being nice and civil to others (i.e. “love thy neighbor”), that homosexuality is clearly wrong as the parts are not used for their intended purposes.

But as for monogamy, or being against masturbation, or “premarital” sex, I’m not so certain those are “Natural laws”.

Masturbation is a violation of natural law because the purpose and end of any act related to sex is directed to the conjugal act of a married couple.

The same goes for “premarital sex”(fornication); you are playing at marriage without actually being married.

It seems a man’s sex drive, and the very fact that 50% of marriages end in divorce, indicate that. It seems that prostitution being “the oldest profession” indicates that. I know what the Church says about it. But I would argue that sexual restrictions between man and woman are more constructs of control by Man, than Natural Law.

The existence of the structures of sin cannot be a statement of evidence in regards of their morality. Natural law dictates that we act in accord to how God purposed us to act, and even marriage between a man and a women doesn’t make acts that are objectively immoral morally licit.

I can’t rape or sexually abuse my wife just because she’s my wife, nor can I permit such acts even if she finds “pleasure” in them.

We do not own our bodies, so we can use them how we please, nor can we use others however we please.

Men are driven sexually. Some do have the admirable ability to control it, but it seems that they are a great minority, which would seem to me to indicate that Natural Law points in the other direction.

Men are not “driven sexually” by natural law. Men who think that they are “driven sexually” are allowing their wills to be driven by their passions rather than by reason, as is how we are purposed to be.

Men who are “driven sexually” must pray for the grace of chastity and practice it as well.

 

[TimothyH]

I have read it over and over again on these forums…that God created us to love Him, and to be Obedient. That we must “serve” Him.

Then its said we have free will.

That we can “choose” not to serve Him or be obedient.

But then we are punished. So its not really free will. We didn’t have free will in whether we wanted to exist in the first place. So we are thrust into this situation without choice, created pawns in a game of “Do what I say, or Burn eternally”.

There are good people who sin…but there is such rigidity in Catholicism and what it teaches, that if you don’t follow the prescribed steps exactly, then you are doomed to Hell.

We are essentially dogs. We either heel, or get slapped by the Master with a newspaper, only that slapping goes on forever.

Holiness is supposedly what brings us “true happiness”. If that were so, then why isn’t it so obvious to everyone that they’d want to pursue it?

What about grace? …God dwelling within us, enabling us, helping us and giving us the joy and peace of his presence in our life. Where does grace fit into all this?

I don’t feel like a dog.

-Tim-

 

[ynotzap]

Natural law is the law imprinted by God in our minds and hearts It teaches the most important rules of morality, homage due to God, treatment of others as we expect them to treat us , the evil of willful injury to others, and to ourselves. Natural law is a definite expression of God’s will, requiring obedience if we desire to achieve our spiritual and physical well-being. Even our constitution makes reference to Nature, and the God of Nature, our inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Monsig. Fulton J. Sheen made the statement that :…nature has a way of expressing Gods’ thoughts…
We have freedom of will to choose our course of action, right or wrong. We don’t have the right to choose actions that are knowingly wrong. If we choose actions that are knowingly wrong we will not experience true freedom. Can a bird fly by flapping it’s feet? When we choose wrong we are not acting according to our nature, which is a rational nature. If our feelings are dictating our actions which are morally wrong our feeling are in control, and not our minds. This is called the consequence of original sin. A doctrine of our Faith. I wouldn’t expect anyone outside of the faith to understand it, you can’t give what you don’t have. You can see what happens to people that follow their feelings instead of their right reason.

 

[ricmat]

The thing about predetermination is that it’s independent of time. If I was predetermined to do something (that is, if a being can be certain that it will occur beforehand) 5 years ago, then I was also predetermined to do it 10 years ago. Indeed, I was predetermined to do it before I was born, and even before Earth existed. How am I responsible for something that was determined before my birth?

It seems that you are assuming predestination from the start. Because if God knows something in advance, or even well in advance, then it must be God who causes it to happen.

If I see a man jump off a tall building, I know for a fact that he will go splat in 10 seconds. The fact that I know this does not actually cause it to happen. I have not predestined the man to go splat because I know it is going to happen.

My issue is mostly with the intent of a statement like “God wants what’s best for us”. It attempts to cast God as a sort of father figure who’s sympathetic to your aspirations. But in fact he needn’t be sympathetic to your aspirations at all. His ends are quite different from ours, it seems. So from the average human’s perspective, God wants us to lead very difficult lives.

God wants us to have a very easy life. An eternal life in Heaven. That is our purpose. That is why God created us. Because love, by it’s nature wants to share itself and include more “persons”.

The reason we have difficult lives is that we live in a now imperfect world. And we continue to choose (free will) material things rather than God. We put our trust in material things rather than God. This is the original sin of Adam and Eve. They chose to trust in a created thing - the fruit - rather than trusting in God.

Accepting FULL trust in God is the key to Heaven. After all, he provides everything there, in abundance. Being in Heaven is accepting the fact that we rely on God for everything. If you insist on relying on other things, well, that’s not Heaven, it’s the other place.

I know this all sounds strange to you. We’re a weird bunch

 

[mikekle]

It seems that you are assuming predestination from the start. Because if God knows something in advance, or even well in advance, then it must be God who causes it to happen.

If I see a man jump off a tall building, I know for a fact that he will go splat in 10 seconds. The fact that I know this does not actually cause it to happen. I have not predestined the man to go splat because I know it is going to happen.

God wants us to have a very easy life. An eternal life in Heaven. That is our purpose. That is why God created us. Because love, by it’s nature wants to share itself and include more “persons”.

The reason we have difficult lives is that we live in a now imperfect world. And we continue to choose (free will) material things rather than God. We put our trust in material things rather than God. This is the original sin of Adam and Eve. They chose to trust in a created thing - the fruit - rather than trusting in God.

Accepting FULL trust in God is the key to Heaven. After all, he provides everything there, in abundance. Being in Heaven is accepting the fact that we rely on God for everything. If you insist on relying on other things, well, that’s not Heaven, it’s the other place.

I know this all sounds strange to you. We’re a weird bunch

What else are we expected to do, this life and all things in the world IS our life, no matter how we may dislike it, its what we know, from the time we are born to our death, we dont KNOW the spiritual realm, we dont SEE God and the angels, and whenever someone does, it is usually a MAJOR experience in their lives, showing that it is ‘the norm’, so of course people are going to drawn to things in the world…thats all we know!

Ive debated this topic before that the OP brought up, and if you think about what he says in the 1st post, it makes good sense…we are supposed to have true free will, but if we choose the ‘wrong’ thing/ path, then we are punished for that…?

Im sorry, but that is not TRUE free will, that is ‘OBEY ME OR ELSE SUFFER FOR ANY OTHER CHOICE YOU MAKE’.

True free will for us would be us being able to make ANY choices and being able to choose what is right and wrong for us personally, with no consequences either way, after all, when there is free will…there is NO wrong choice, it all depends on what that particular person considers ‘wrong’ or ‘right’.

What we were given by God is limited, conditional free will.

 

[guiltyofdoubt]

I can’t rape or sexually abuse my wife just because she’s my wife, nor can I permit such acts even if she finds “pleasure” in them.

We do not own our bodies, so we can use them how we please, nor can we use others however we please.

Of course we can’t. Rape or Abuse of that form is against Natural law. Consent is mandatory.

But now we’ve come to the crux of the matter, and where I guess we differ…

I believe we DO own our bodies, and can do with them as we see fit barring harm to another individual, or blatant violation of Natural law (homosexuality). Maybe Church, or Divine Law, says otherwise in your opinion. That is a minority opinion in this world.

I suppose it comes down to Authority. Who is your Authority. Clearly the Catholic Church, and by way of the Church, God, are your Authority. Yet I can’t help but question certain tenets of doctrine that simply seem illogical to me. perhaps my heart is hardened by years of living outside of the Church, but my recent learning in this matter has not convinced me, or given me Faith.

 

[Amandil]

True free will for us would be us being able to make ANY choices and being able to choose what is right and wrong for us personally, with no consequences either way, after all, when there is free will…there is NO wrong choice, it all depends on what that particular person considers ‘wrong’ or ‘right’.

This is how absurd this definition of “free will” is.

A train is designed to run on a track. The train can run as long as it remains on the track for which it was purposed to run. It can follow that track to any number of destinations for which the track runs, thus the train is “free” to go to those destinations.

Now, according to your false definition of “free will”, instead of the track being the freeing principle of the train, your version of “freedom” and “free will”, you would give some impassioned speech about how the track is “oppressive” and “denying” train of its ability to decide for itself what its full potential should be apart from the track. That the train should “break the shackles” that the track represents and find its own destiny apart from any outside influence.

So what will you say when the train jumps the track, derails, and utterly destroys itself and perverts what it was originally made for?

Better yet, what happens when you’re the train?

What we were given by God is limited, conditional free will.

 

[Amandil]

Of course we can’t. Rape or Abuse of that form is against Natural law. Consent is mandatory.

But now we’ve come to the crux of the matter, and where I guess we differ…

I believe we DO own our bodies, and can do with them as we see fit barring harm to another individual, or blatant violation of Natural law (homosexuality).

Scripture says otherwise. I would expect you to know this:

1 Corinthians 6:
[19] Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own;
[20] you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

Maybe Church, or Divine Law, says otherwise in your opinion. That is a minority opinion in this world.

It wouldn’t matter if the above was true and it wasn’t in Scripture because the objective truth is that we did not create ourselves.

Secondly truth is not told by a clock, a calendar, or by popular opinion. The truth is true, objectively, even if everyone believes a lie. The same goes for objective morality.

We have our bodies as a pure gift, not by any act of our own. You did not cause your body to go into being, and there is nothing that you can do or say to keep your body when you die, for “you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

They are only “ours” in relation to that we have them as a gift for the express purpose of doing the good and avoiding evil.

 

[guiltyofdoubt]

Scripture says otherwise. I would expect you to know this:

1 Corinthians 6:
[19] Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own;
[20] you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

It wouldn’t matter if the above was true and it wasn’t in Scripture because the objective truth is that we did not create ourselves.

Secondly truth is not told by a clock, a calendar, or by popular opinion. The truth is true, objectively, even if everyone believes a lie. The same goes for objective morality.

We have our bodies as a pure gift, not by any act of our own. You did not cause your body to go into being, and there is nothing that you can do or say to keep your body when you die, for “you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

They are only “ours” in relation to that we have them as a gift for the express purpose of doing the good and avoiding evil.

But that’s kind of my point…our bodies ARE dust. Our bodies are mortal. Now perhaps by some mystery of God they will be raised up and rejoined with our souls, even those cremated, but they are mortal, as we are reminded on Ash Wednesday.

We are born with minds of self-determination. We are given minds that can reason and question. While many choose to voluntarily have Faith in scripture, there are a great many who don’t or find they can’t. Maybe part of it has to do with the fact that there may be some lingering doubts as to the authenticity of certain scripture, as canon was assembled. So the Church defines it with its Authority.

But as one who has spent 40 some odd years of my life not living under that Authority, some of the logic of it is very difficult to grasp, let alone live by.

Secondly, as to the fact that we did not create ourselves…this has been part of my viewpoint from the beginning in that we had NO CHOICE to be put into the situation we find ourselves in where we are given bodies that experience pleasure, and yet are expected to somehow refrain from this under penalty of eternal damnation, though we never had the free will to choose whether or not we wanted to take part on this “game”. It seems for that reason, we would be given more leeway in certain things that only affect our own bodies.

 

[Amandil]

We are born with minds of self-determination.

“Self-determination” is not free will. It in fact can lead to the abuse of free will.

We are given minds that can reason and question. While many choose to voluntarily have Faith in scripture, there are a great many who don’t or find they can’t.

That simply doesn’t make sense. That “there are a great many who don’t or find that they can’t” have faith in Scripture has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of Scripture.

Truth is not subjective, its not based on personal feelings or opinions about it. Neither are religious truths dependent upon ay such criteria.

Your problem I don’t think that you find faith or Scripture difficult, but that you’ve bought into the demonic philosophy called “subjectivism”, that religious truth, or any truth, is “in us”, rather than that it exists independent of us and our consciousness.

Maybe part of it has to do with the fact that there may be some lingering doubts as to the authenticity of certain scripture, as canon was assembled. So the Church defines it with its Authority.

This is no problem with me. Jesus gave the authority to the Church, the Scripture not only explicitly testifies to this, but you can see it exercised throughout the New Testament.

You don’t even need to believe that the Scripture is inspired, just reliable. And there is really no reason not to believe, that is if you judge the authenticity of the Bible according to the same criteria that you judge other works of that same time in history(and without any prejudice or bias towards the content therein), that the books contained in the Bible would be considered some of the most reliable works to come from antiquity that ever existed.

That said, if the Scriptures are to be considered reliable, then you have to come to the conclusion that the Church is authoritative. At that point the assent to faith should be rather simple.

But as one who has spent 40 some odd years of my life not living under that Authority, some of the logic of it is very difficult to grasp, let alone live by.

I understand, I was a protestant as well.

Secondly, as to the fact that we did not create ourselves…this has been part of my viewpoint from the beginning in that we had NO CHOICE to be put into the situation we find ourselves in where we are given bodies that experience pleasure, and yet are expected to somehow refrain from this under penalty of eternal damnation…

This is simply not true. We are not banned from experiencing pleasure “under penalty of eternal damnation.” We are required by natural law to discern the proper pleasures which are in the bounds of Natural Law and then give thanks to God for the enjoyment of them. The end of any pleasure is God and our relationship with Him, not purely for our own ego-centric gratification.

To seek out disordered pleasures, or even to seek out pleasure for its own sake while ignoring the One who gave us those pleasures to enjoy, are what is illicit and an abuse of our free will.

…though we never had the free will to choose whether or not we wanted to take part on this “game”. It seems for that reason, we would be given more leeway in certain things that only affect our own bodies.

I’m sorry but this seems a rather absurd statement. We don’t have the right to complain to God because of the way He made us.

If you’re a parent you’d be just as offended if your child repeated these same words to you.

 

[ricmat]

What else are we expected to do, this life and all things in the world IS our life, no matter how we may dislike it, its what we know, from the time we are born to our death, we dont KNOW the spiritual realm, we dont SEE God and the angels, and whenever someone does, it is usually a MAJOR experience in their lives, showing that it is ‘the norm’, so of course people are going to drawn to things in the world…thats all we know!

Ive debated this topic before that the OP brought up, and if you think about what he says in the 1st post, it makes good sense…we are supposed to have true free will, but if we choose the ‘wrong’ thing/ path, then we are punished for that…?

Im sorry, but that is not TRUE free will, that is ‘OBEY ME OR ELSE SUFFER FOR ANY OTHER CHOICE YOU MAKE’.

True free will for us would be us being able to make ANY choices and being able to choose what is right and wrong for us personally, with no consequences either way, after all, when there is free will…there is NO wrong choice, it all depends on what that particular person considers ‘wrong’ or ‘right’.

What we were given by God is limited, conditional free will.

I can tell that you’re frustrated that God doesn’t make himself more visible. I don’t have a quick answer for that in general (there are others who do).

If you are arguing that “free will” is not really “free” (because there can be dire consequences), I think there is just confusion about what free will actually means. I know it has been said before, but when we talk about “free will”, it’s more in the sense of “not being robots”. Rather than “no dire consequences.”

One way to look at this is to look at those things in creation that do NOT have free will. For example, the planets cannot just decide not to orbit the sun, and go off in another direction. Gravity cannot just decide to be repulsive rather than attractive. Dogs cannot just decide never to bark at cats. For these examples, these creatures have a “nature” that they cannot change. They do not have free will. They are like robots which are programmed always to do “the right thing.”

Among all creatures (that is, all created things), only man has free will. (The angels did initially, but that’s another story). Man does have a “nature”, but unlike anything else in creation, man can choose NOT to follow his nature. Our nature is to trust in God, and to love God.

But for there to be trust and love, there must be a possibility of not-trust and not-love. Love must be chosen, it cannot be forced.

You can’t choose “not God” and then expect the benefits that God provides. You can’t choose not-God and expect a heavenly existence when God IS the heavenly existence.

Out of love, God allows us to love him back. It is not forced. We have “free will” to choose against our own nature, and our own interests. And it is only in the presence of a choice (temptation) against these things that a choice for these things is meaningful.

There is absolutely, positively no way we can “know” God on earth. God is too complicated for us to even begin to comprehend, or analyze. So yes, we must choose with less information than we might like…

uh-oh. I’m rambling again. Sorry.

 

[Oreoracle]

If I see a man jump off a tall building, I know for a fact that he will go splat in 10 seconds. The fact that I know this does not actually cause it to happen.

But this is a bad analogy. In fact, any analogy using a human will be unsatisfactory, because we humans aren’t creators.

In Christian metaphysics, God is the only necessary being. All else is contingent on his existence and his decisions. That is the difference between you and he; the falling man wasn’t contingent on you, but he was contingent on God.

So it’s not simply God’s foreknowledge of events that makes him responsible. It’s the fact that he knows what would happen, and still chooses to enact his plans anyway.

 

[ricmat]

But this is a bad analogy. In fact, any analogy using a human will be unsatisfactory, because we humans aren’t creators.

In Christian metaphysics, God is the only necessary being. All else is contingent on his existence and his decisions. That is the difference between you and he; the falling man wasn’t contingent on you, but he was contingent on God.

So it’s not simply God’s foreknowledge of events that makes him responsible. It’s the fact that he knows what would happen, and still chooses to enact his plans anyway.

So you think that God should not create anybody (and thereby deny all of a heavenly existence), because there would be some that opt out of it voluntarily?

 

[Oreoracle]

So you think that God should not create anybody (and thereby deny all of a heavenly existence), because there would be some that opt out of it voluntarily?

I don’t see why he simply couldn’t create everyone so they’ll enjoy their lives. It shouldn’t be too hard for an omniscient, omnipotent being to do.

 

[ricmat]

I don’t see why he simply couldn’t create everyone so they’ll enjoy their lives. It shouldn’t be too hard for an omniscient, omnipotent being to do.

So should they have a choice to enjoy their lives, or not?

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

How so? I don’t think that’s the case with real “free will”.

Free will was given to you, so you could obey the law. It was not given to you so you could do whatever you wanted willy-nilly without consequences. But do laws take away your freedom? No, they do not! The laws in mathematics do not remove my freedom to do math. The laws do however, take away my freedom to do math incorrectly without consequences! If I so choose to ignore the laws of mathematics then the laws expose my error and I will be subject to the natural consequences which will follow. You advocate that people should have the right to say 2+2=5 without any consequences simply because they have the ability to do so. I disagree.

Yes, I agree that actions have consequences. But not all actions have the same consequences, i.e. the WORST consequences. Yet that’s what we see with mortal sins.

I guess I am confused at what you’re getting at with this. There are venial and mortal sins. Both do not have the same consequences, but within these categories there are different sins which will share the same consequence; hell. Yet, I fail to see how this is unfair. Within the category of terminal illnesses there are many different types of diseases, all of which lead to the same end result; death. I don’t go around saying this is unfair.

 

[Oreoracle]

So should they have a choice to enjoy their lives, or not?

Choice doesn’t even come into play because they aren’t created yet. This where free will breaks down: In order to have a being choose, you need to create the being, but in creating the being you will create him in a manner he didn’t choose.

 

[ricmat]

Choice doesn’t even come into play because they aren’t created yet. This where free will breaks down: In order to have a being choose, you need to create the being, but in creating the being you will create him in a manner he didn’t choose.

So you’re saying that it’s better not to be created at all, rather than be created “with conditions?”