Original Sin and Concupiscence

[Bahman]

Not pure slave: “The Human Will remains free under the influence of efficacious grace, which is not irresistible.” – this means that efficacious grace is resistible.

So human can fall again if they have free will.

Each creature does not have an unavoidable fate no matter how hard s/he or it tries.

That is how do you define relatively perfect: when a thing attains perfectly the exact end for which it is intended. God must make the world do that. Hence any being has a fate since the end is defined.

See A Brief Text-book of Logic and Mental Philosophy By Charles Coppens to read about relatively perfect. It is valid contrary to your opinion.

Unfortunately I have no time to read a text-book on this subject so I would appreciate the opinion an expert on subject matter.

God is beyond the limits of time. The knowledge of what the outcome is within His creation is due to omniscience of the infinite.

You unfortunately didn’t pay any attention to the argument. SO I repeat again: Foreknowledge in the case of God means that his knowledge is constant. Lets consider the state of creation as a series of snapshots. The state of creation is subjected to change at the moment so called now. God however sustains the creation hence it must exist a reference point in God’s mind which changes over time. The knowledge of the reference point is necessary since otherwise God cannot sustain the creation. This means that the knowledge of God is subjected to time which is contradictory to the concept of changeless knowledge. Hence, the concept of foreknowledge is wrong.

 

[Vico]

So human can fall again if they have free will.

That is how do you define relatively perfect: when a thing attains perfectly the exact end for which it is intended. God must make the world do that. Hence any being has a fate since the end is defined.

Unfortunately I have no time to read a text-book on this subject so I would appreciate the opinion an expert on subject matter.

You unfortunately didn’t pay any attention to the argument. SO I repeat again: Foreknowledge in the case of God means that his knowledge is constant. Lets consider the state of creation as a series of snapshots. The state of creation is subjected to change at the moment so called now. God however sustains the creation hence it must exist a reference point in God’s mind which changes over time. The knowledge of the reference point is necessary since otherwise God cannot sustain the creation. This means that the knowledge of God is subjected to time which is contradictory to the concept of changeless knowledge. Hence, the concept of foreknowledge is wrong.

I read it, and do not agree that God is limited to snapshot concept that you present.

 

[Bahman]

No, it isn’t fallacious. If anything is fallacious, it is your whole notion of perfection. Perfection = static, you say? I assume that by this you mean that perfection has no potentiality. Perhaps Aristotle and Aquinas would agree with you. But that all depends on the notion of time in order to measure change. Aristotle and Aquinas both thought of time as absolute. We shall call their notion of time Classical Time. However, Einstein proved that Classical Time doesn’t exist. Time is completely relative. Therefore, change is relative. In which case, we have to jettison the old notion of perfection unless we want to say that perfection itself is relative too. If perfection truly is relative, then there is no point in even discussing the matter. Aristotle and Aquinas were wrong. And so we toss out their ideas on this point, and with it goes your whole argument.

Time my friend is an invented concept to facilitate the formulation of reality. What we experience are simply forms and motion. What is perfect has no tendency to go anywhere hence it is static meaning that it cannot have any motion but only a form.

So what does it mean to be perfect? I would wager that in our theological discussion, perfection is nothing more than the quality of being the creator of all creation, the highest being, the highest authority. In which case, God adequately fulfills that criteria. So yes, I would agree that creation, under this rubric of understanding, is imperfect. However, none of your conclusions follow from this concept of perfection.

That we can agree upon.

The biggest problem, however, with your argument is that you fail to distinguish between what is plausible or possible and what is determined. Evil was never determined. Nor was evil some random result. Humans have agency, are autonomous, and are creative. Therefore, their actions defy both our categorical notions of randomness and determinism. We were never destined to be evil. Nor was it some sort of accident. We merely chose it. God created humanity and gave it free will. From whence forth, NONE of the human actions were caused. All human actions are autonomous, not caused. The actions might be appropriate to their circumstances, but they are NOT caused by their circumstances. This is something philosophers going back to Descartes have long understood. The link provided supplies perhaps a better explanation than I do. youtube.com/watch?v=py-PJQKzQIw

Any finite being (imperfect) has potential toward wrong action. So fall is unavoidable hence God is responsible for the fall of Angels and Human and all following disasters.

 

[Bahman]

I read it, and do not agree that God is limited to snapshot concept that you present.

Unfortunately I think you need to provide an argument that why you don’t agree with the snapshots argument. It is very simple: God sees everything without motion so states of creation can be arranged in a set of states. States in the set are arranged in the order manner. SO snapshots picture is correct.

 

[Vico]

Unfortunately I think you need to provide an argument that why you don’t agree with the snapshots argument. It is very simple: God sees everything without motion so states of creation can be arranged in a set of states. States in the set are arranged in the order manner. SO snapshots picture is correct.

God is not a creature but the author of creation. God is not subject to the laws of creation.

 

[Bahman]

God is not a creature but the author of creation. God is not subject to the laws of creation.

Unfortunately, I have to say that you are trying to evade the argument. I didn’t say that whether or not God is subjected to laws of creation. I just tried to explain how things look like from God’s perspective. Do you believe that God is timeless? If so, have you ever tried to imagine how things look likes from his point of view?

 

[Vico]

Unfortunately, I have to say that you are trying to evade the argument. I didn’t say that whether or not God is subjected to laws of creation. I just tried to explain how things look like from God’s perspective. Do you believe that God is timeless? If so, have you ever tried to imagine how things look likes from his point of view?

You said God was subject to the laws of creation with this, and then drew the conclusion that the concept of foreknowledge is wrong:

Foreknowledge in the case of God means that his knowledge is constant. Lets consider the state of creation as a series of snapshots. The state of creation is subjected to change at the moment so called now. God however sustains the creation hence it must exist a reference point in God’s mind which changes over time. The knowledge of the reference point is necessary since otherwise God cannot sustain the creation. This means that the knowledge of God is subjected to time which is contradictory to the concept of changeless knowledge. Hence, the concept of foreknowledge is wrong.

 

[Rohzek]

Time my friend is an invented concept to facilitate the formulation of reality. What we experience are simply forms and motion. What is perfect has no tendency to go anywhere hence it is static meaning that it cannot have any motion but only a form.

You didn’t understand a word I said apparently. In short, your whole concept of motion or change is basically relative. It speaks nothing of absolutes. Therefore, your whole concept of “static = perfection” is completely untenable.

Any finite being (imperfect) has potential toward wrong action. So fall is unavoidable hence God is responsible for the fall of Angels and Human and all following disasters.

No, the Fall was avoidable. What don’t you understand about the difference between capability and determination? There is an obvious difference. I could go out and murder a kitten right now, but if I so choose to do so it does not mean that I HAD to kill it. You’re not even addressing my arguments. I keep telling you about free will and agency, and all you do is ignore the point, and then treat people as though they are just cogs in a machine with no will of their own. Either address the arguments, or be upfront with the matter that you don’t believe in free will.

 

[Bahman]

You said God was subject to the laws of creation with this, and then drew the conclusion that the concept of foreknowledge is wrong:

Foreknowledge in the case of God means that his knowledge is constant. Lets consider the state of creation as a series of snapshots. The state of creation is subjected to change at the moment so called now. God however sustains the creation hence it must exist a reference point in God’s mind which changes over time. The knowledge of the reference point is necessary since otherwise God cannot sustain the creation. This means that the knowledge of God is subjected to time which is contradictory to the concept of changeless knowledge. Hence, the concept of foreknowledge is wrong.

How a God with foreknowledge capability could sustain a changing creation otherwise if there is no reference point? You need to use your imagination to see that this is logically impossible for a timeless God to sustain a changing creation otherwise,

 

[Bahman]

You didn’t understand a word I said apparently. In short, your whole concept of motion or change is basically relative. It speaks nothing of absolutes. Therefore, your whole concept of “static = perfection” is completely untenable.

Well, lets put this aside since it is not very related to our discussion.

No, the Fall was avoidable. What don’t you understand about the difference between capability and determination? There is an obvious difference. I could go out and murder a kitten right now, but if I so choose to do so it does not mean that I HAD to kill it. You’re not even addressing my arguments. I keep telling you about free will and agency, and all you do is ignore the point, and then treat people as though they are just cogs in a machine with no will of their own. Either address the arguments, or be upfront with the matter that you don’t believe in free will.

Have you ever had a single sin in your life? Having a sinless life is very hard and it become impossible when the life span become very large. It is that simple. Hence, the fall of Angels and Human was unavoidable knowing the fact that they were immortal.

 

[fhansen]

Well, lets put this aside since it is not very related to our discussion.

Have you ever had a single sin in your life? Having a sinless life is very hard and it become impossible when the life span become very large. It is that simple. Hence, the fall of Angels and Human was unavoidable knowing the fact that they were immortal.

But they were not immortal if they sinned.

The Fall would always be possible and perhaps even likely or probable, but never inevitable. The Fall happened solely due to a wrong choice freely made by man. And even if it were inevitable it may not even matter, because the Fall happened in any case. The main question we’re faced with now is, if God knew man would fall, was He right in creating man anyway? Is our existence, even in a fallen world such as this one, worth it?

 

[Bahman]

But they were not immortal if they sinned.

That is not the point. The point is that you eventually fall in trap of sin when you are immortal. You can imagine how hard was the situation of Adam and Eve that they accept death over life in Paradise for avoiding a sin. They eventually failed. SO anyone with the capacity to perform sin eventually fail.

The Fall would always be possible and perhaps even likely or probable, but never inevitable.

It is unavoidable if you have ever lasting life. Have you ever perform a simple sin in your short life? Have you seen any person who could claim that s/he has a sinless life.

The Fall happened solely due to a wrong choice freely made by man. And even if it were inevitable it may not even matter, because the Fall happened in any case. The main question we’re faced with now is,** if God knew man would fall, was He right in creating man anyway? **

This question is related to origin of evil which put responsibility of fall on shoulder of God.

Is our existence, even in a fallen world such as this one, worth it?

I don’t think so considering all disasters humanity were responsible for.

 

[frangiuliano115]

What a conundrum!

Not for those who remember English grammar, including adjectives, in grade school.
Evil can be used as a descriptive word for a noun or an action or it can describe the result of a choice or action. Google has a list of adjectives. There could be an evil dictator…doing evil things such as genocide.

Gosh grannymh, english was my best subject.

But we’re not discussing english here. Sometimes from my quick thought process, I even leave some participels dangling!! I think posters are forgiving me. OR I think I am being forgiven by the posters. Take your pick.

A dictator is evil. Okay. Where did that evil come from?

That’s what we’re discussing. In religion evil just means everything that’s not good.
What word would you use?

God bless
seems like there’s so much more going on here than english!

 

[frangiuliano115]

Ooops. That’s not what we’re discussing anymore.

Take a day off and look what happens!

Lata…

Oops. Later.

God bless

 

[Vico]

How a God with foreknowledge capability could sustain a changing creation otherwise if there is no reference point? You need to use your imagination to see that this is logically impossible for a timeless God to sustain a changing creation otherwise,

There are two conception of God’s relation to time. One is that God is temporal and the other is that God is Timeless (beyond time). For Timeless: eternity can be seen as a non-temporal location and God does not experience temporal succession. St. Thomas Aquinas argued for a timeless God.

 

[frangiuliano115]

There are two conception of God’s relation to time. One is that God is temporal and the other is that God is Timeless (beyond time). For Timeless: eternity can be seen as a non-temporal location and God does not experience temporal succession. St. Thomas Aquinas argued for a timeless God.

The catholic church clearly states that God is outside of time - timeless.

At mass when the sacrifice is offered it’s not like how protestants think - that we offer up Jesus again every week. It’s that being timeless, it’s like we are there at the crucifixtion.

God does not experience temporal succession, he sees all and all at once. Not a concept we can fully grasp, I think. Maybe we could…

Just a thought as I work on my bible lesson.

God bless

 

[Bahman]

There are two conception of God’s relation to time. One is that God is temporal and the other is that God is Timeless (beyond time). For Timeless: eternity can be seen as a non-temporal location and God does not experience temporal succession. St. Thomas Aquinas argued for a timeless God.

Is your God timeless or not? If it is timeless I have to unfortunately say that all people including St. Thomas Aquinas didn’t notice the error within his theory of God with the ability to know Future. The God with foreknowledge ability is fallacious concept.

 

[fhansen]

This question is related to origin of evil which put responsibility of fall on shoulder of God.

It puts the responsibilty for giving man free will on God’s shoulders.

I don’t think so considering all disasters humanity were responsible for.

So, if you were somehow given the opportunity to cease existing altogether, at this moment, I can assume you would take it. Is that correct?

 

[Vico]

Is your God timeless or not? If it is timeless I have to unfortunately say that all people including St. Thomas Aquinas didn’t notice the error within his theory of God with the ability to know Future. The God with foreknowledge ability is fallacious concept.

I favor timeless. It works when now is a feature of our experience of reality rather than an objective feature of reality.

 

[frangiuliano115]

What a conundrum!

Not for those who remember English grammar, including adjectives, in grade school.
Evil can be used as a descriptive word for a noun or an action or it can describe the result of a choice or action. Google has a list of adjectives. There could be an evil dictator…doing evil things such as genocide.

You could check out my post no. 242. Way before your reprimand. Maybe I’ll get a star.

God bless
Just to let you know that we did discuss this; maybe before you showed up.