B
BornInMarch
Guest
I’ve heard people claim it is wrong to presume that God will be merciful.
People who argue that, while you can hope God will let suicides and unbaptized babies into Heaven, to assert that he will is presumptive.
The problem I have with this logic is that faith itself requires some form of presumption.
Scientists today have reached the conclusions that 98% of the universe is made of Dark Matter and Dark Energy (the workings of which they don’t even begin to understand, and the evidence of which consists of math equations), that the particles that make up matter can be in multiple places at once (and that they can exist and not exist at the same time, and that even observing them has an effect on whether or not they do), and that motion is controlled by something called Gravity (something they still haven’t fully figured out).
There are philosophers who spend their whole lives arguing back and forth as to whether or not humans have free will, or even if reality itself truly exists exists.
So to believe anything with surety -anything at all- requires some level of presumption. That’s what “faith” means: you don’t know something is real or not, but it makes sense to you and you have hope that it does. It might still be wrong; while I believe in a real and loving God, it is technically possible for him cruel. Maybe he really does send all Unbaptized Babies and Suicides and Non-Christians strait to Hell. But when the Catechism - the culmination of all of the best Thinkers in The Church coming together and very carefully pondering the ramifications of her teachings - calls it reasonable to hope that God might save them in ways known only to him, why would anyone ever choose NOT to believe in that hope?
If you (like me) already work under the presumptions that God exists and that he is loving and that The Catholic Church has the best interpetation of him, why not presume further that he won’t bar people from Heaven for things they had no control over?
People who argue that, while you can hope God will let suicides and unbaptized babies into Heaven, to assert that he will is presumptive.
The problem I have with this logic is that faith itself requires some form of presumption.
Scientists today have reached the conclusions that 98% of the universe is made of Dark Matter and Dark Energy (the workings of which they don’t even begin to understand, and the evidence of which consists of math equations), that the particles that make up matter can be in multiple places at once (and that they can exist and not exist at the same time, and that even observing them has an effect on whether or not they do), and that motion is controlled by something called Gravity (something they still haven’t fully figured out).
There are philosophers who spend their whole lives arguing back and forth as to whether or not humans have free will, or even if reality itself truly exists exists.
So to believe anything with surety -anything at all- requires some level of presumption. That’s what “faith” means: you don’t know something is real or not, but it makes sense to you and you have hope that it does. It might still be wrong; while I believe in a real and loving God, it is technically possible for him cruel. Maybe he really does send all Unbaptized Babies and Suicides and Non-Christians strait to Hell. But when the Catechism - the culmination of all of the best Thinkers in The Church coming together and very carefully pondering the ramifications of her teachings - calls it reasonable to hope that God might save them in ways known only to him, why would anyone ever choose NOT to believe in that hope?
If you (like me) already work under the presumptions that God exists and that he is loving and that The Catholic Church has the best interpetation of him, why not presume further that he won’t bar people from Heaven for things they had no control over?