So, who is responsible?

[Spock]

The notion you are missing Spock is of “entity” (or soul). Even if God sustains our neurons and everything in our body, the choice is not made by the neurons, it is made by our “entity”, our soul, which is independent from our brain but is always maintaining our personhood through it.

Sorry, I don’t accept the notion of the “independent” soul. But it does not matter. Even if there is a “soul”, which makes the decision, it is still God who transmits the decision into the physical body, and maintains the body (and the bullet, etc.) during its destructive path.

 

[Spock]

So how is it resolved? If there is a God, then man’s not responsible-“God made me do it”?

Sure. According to the dogmas, this whole “world” is just a dream of God. Whatever happens is just the reflection of God’s thoughts. Effectively we are just God’s puppets.

But if there’s no God then man magically *does *become responsible? What difference should the two scenarios make?

Why magically? Even if God does exist, but if the universe is independent from God, if there really are “laws of nature”, then we are responsible for our actions. We are not “puppets”. Much more so, if there is no God at all. Where is the “magic” here?

 

[dskysmine]

Sorry, I don’t accept the notion of the “independent” soul. But it does not matter. Even if there is a “soul”, which makes the decision, it is still God who transmits the decision into the physical body, and maintains the body (and the bullet, etc.) during its destructive path.

God doesn’t transmit the decision… consider a relay that acts when a current passes through it. The relay has a sensor. Everything is maintained in your lab except for the sensor’s sensitivity which is controlled by your neighbour. If the relay fails to act on a situation because your neighbour messed around with it are you to blame?

 

[fhansen]

Sure. According to the dogmas, this whole “world” is just a dream of God. Whatever happens is just the reflection of God’s thoughts. Effectively we are just God’s puppets.

Why magically? Even if God does exist, but if the universe is independent from God, if there really are “laws of nature”, then we are responsible for our actions. We are not “puppets”. Much more so, if there is no God at all. Where is the “magic” here?

The Catholic position is simply that the natural universe cannot sustain itself, cannot “operate”, without God’s sustaining it. IOW, there is no possibility of a universe independent of God. Either God creates a universe dependent on Him or He doesn’t create at all, and after creating the universe, He either creates beings with free will, who likewise depend on Him for every move they make, etc, or He doesn’t-no other options. God=existence.

 

[Heliotropium]

Ok, let’s analyze your proposition. There are two possibilities:

1. This world is not what God intended.
2. This world works as intended.

If you say that 1) is true, then the question arises, why did God create something he did not intend? Makes no sense, does it?
If you say that 2) is true, then there come two more possibilities:

A) This world is the best of possible worlds.
B) This wolrd is not the best of possible worlds.

The proposition A) is nonsense. The “best possible world” cannot be dynamic, it must be static. A “changing” world cannot be the best possible one.
If B) is true, then the same question comes up: Why would God (or anyone) not create the best possible world, if it is possible to create the best one?

All permutations lead to nonsense.

Ok say to sum up all of your arguments your basically saying this could not be the best possible world because you dont view it as such? Say spock are your opinions facts? What is missing behind your conclusions? Hmmm how about knowing Gods REASONS! Your like a cop that takes a look at a crime scene and creates an X amount of possible outcomes without talking to witnesses, suspects, and other leads. Basically spock you cliam to have the only conculsion without all the facts. Its like Detective Greenly from Boondock Saints. Your reasoning is interesting that for sure Spock.

Also I wanted to know what you thoughts were on my responce to another comment you made. Here it is. God bless.

**Spock: Excellent. This is what I was arguing for, and I am delighted that we agree. Besides the Book of Job, there is an explicit reference to God “directly” creating evil, see Isiah 45:7 “I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.” **

What God is saying is that all things come from Him (except sin). In all sin there are two things to be considered,–the guilt and the punishment. Now God is the author of the punishment which is attached to sin but is not the author of the guilt. So if you take away the guilt there is no evil belonging to the punishment which is not caused by God, or is not pleasing to Him. What this means is the evils of punishment, like the “evils” of nature, originate in the Divine Will. What is meant by the "evils’ of nature are things like hunger, thirst, disease, grief, natural disasters, and etc which are the things that very often have no connection with sin at all. This is why it is said that God truly wills the evils of punishment and nature for reasons of perfect justice, but only permits sin or guilt.

As we can see above since God is not the author of the guilt that is attached to sin then the punishments He permits and ordains that come from it are always a Perfect Judgement and therefore are always GOOD. Now what this leaves us with is the guilt of sin which we can see God did not create and is therefore not responcible for. The guilt from sin is a product of your intentions which are another thing God does not control in order that you can have free will. This therefore concludes that the evil that is in your intentions is not created by God and that the evil in your intentions is therefore the product of the incorrect use of your free will and the absence of the love of God in your heart. Logical examples of this can be seen all around us…for example based on the laws of physics cold does not exist! What we call cold is in reality the absense of heat. Same goes for darkness which does not exist but is in reality the absence of light. The Evil your talking about my friend does not exist and is in reality the absese of God in the hearts of man. This was a conclusion made by Albert Einstein

God Bless you my friend

 

[You]

There are several lists.

The Continuous Preservation and Governing of the World

1. God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.)
2. God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures. (Sent. communis.)
3. God through His providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De fide.)

As I said, I have no information about the existence of an officially endorsed list. But it does not really matter. The “second” one is a logical corollary of the first.

De Fide is dogma.
Sent. communis." (“Common Teaching”) = doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of the free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally."

There are at least two questions I can think of;
Does it mean He approves of the deed?
Does it mean He allows it temporally in order to produce something good, with the deed itself being subjected to His justice in due course.

 

[mellestad]

No, I don’t debate many atheists, but I listen to lots of them between eminent apologists from both sides (atheists and theists). Yes, there are a lot of arguments against the existance of God based on the scientific findings and what have you. But what I hear more than any other argument is “If there was a God then why this, or why does he allow that to happen” or “If God exists then he’s not a very nice/logical/omnipotent God.” This particular debate may be couched in different terms but it seems to boil down to the second statement.

If someone is arguing against the existence of God based on science, they are wrong, or the particular theist has an odd definition of God.

You can use science to argue against claims made about a particular deity.
You can use science to argue against the necessity for a particular deity.
You can use science to investigate the a particular god belief.

You can’t use science to prove the non-existence of the typical Abrahamic capital “G” God though, because that concept is non-falsifiable unless someone is using a novel definition. If an atheist debater made that mistake I would criticize them for the error. Sometimes people are sloppy with their language though, and if you mostly listen to sound bites it can certainly sound like that’s what they are saying.

Now, some people try to use logic to prove the non-existence of God, but logic isn’t science.

 

[mellestad]

1. They are not concepts.
2. The “concepts” you are rferring to are not incoherent.
3. What is “navel gazing”? Why would we enjoy the notion that we could be going to hell? (I am basing this off my assumption that “navel gazing” means "wishful thinking. Correct me if I am wrong.)
4. If you think if it just something people made up or lied about, then that is completely wrong. The picture is too good to be true, except that it is true.

1. Of course they are concepts. They might be true or they might be false, but they are still concepts since we’re not talking about a physical, measurable thing.
2. This whole thread has been about them. I wasn’t trying to make a specific argument with that statement, rather I was ‘gesturing’ at the thread.
3. Navel gazing means thinking for the sake of thinking without practical purpose. fhansen appropriately pointed out that probably isn’t a valid statement on my part, at least in a technical sense. In reality though it is probably true since none of this is central to your God concepts. Even if I could somehow argue convincingly that this particular part of doctrine is incorrect, it wouldn’t change anyone’s belief. This stuff is all secondary for a believer.
4. I’m not sure what this is in reference to?

GreggAlvarez:

I have seen the “liberal and secular approaches”. It is not impressive. Are you one of those who think “believers” are illogical, irrational, unreasonable and have “blind faith”? If not, then good. Stop assuming that in your arguments. Saying “this is debate is show [what is] incoherent [in your belief].” That, my friend, is saying we have “blind faith”.

Well, I don’t think liberal approaches are intellectually impressive, but I think they fit into my ideal societal model better than more fundamental or orthodox approaches, so I take what I can get

The degree to which an individual is illogical, irrational, unreasonable or has blind faith is not something I am specifically addressing. Certainly I think my beliefs have more explanatory power and more basis in reality and rational thought. If I didn’t, I’d be a theist.

GreggAlvarez:

If yes, then have a legitimate argument with me and I guarantee you will change your mind. All I do is think logic, reason and rational. My objectivity kills my spirituality sometimes. And NOT because they are at odds as one might falsely assume… It is because my brain never shuts the heck up! Haha… Anyway, is this prideful? Perhaps, but I defend what I believe because my faith is what makes me who I am. My faith-illumined reason let’s me see the flaws in all my former arguments as a former militant atheist. Boy… I miss those days of having copious amounts of arguments ready against a belief and its components. Now I see the holes and have arguments FOR something.

The tables sure turned on me in almost every respect. Minus the all-do-is-think-logic-reason-rationally part of it.

Take care buddy!

Again, I hope you don’t think I’m taking some sort of ad-hominem approach to this. I’d like to think I use a reasonable tone and approach which does not involve attacking the individual, but rather attacking the belief.

If you think I’m doing that, please let me know so I can self-moderate.

As a current ‘militant atheist’ I don’t miss the days of my theism, but I do find the perspective of this forum enlightening since most of my discussions are with Protestants or the offshoot branches of Christianity.

I enjoy your tone of debate though, so I would enjoy more focused discussion with you if that is what you had in mind!

 

[vz71]

I am not “interpreting” the dogmas, I am quoting them.

Perhaps I missed it.

Can you please quote the part that places God as an active participant in sin?

 

[seagal]

If someone is arguing against the existence of God based on science, they are wrong, or the particular theist has an odd definition of God.

Not to run this thread too far off the rails, but what I meant was that many atheists will argue that science has already uncovered many hows and whys and therefore God didn’t do it (i.e. the origin of the universe). And if science hasn’t figured something out yet, it will sooner or later. Christopher Hitchens is especially fond of this argument.

And now back to our regularly scheduled program…

 

[Warrenton]

I’m thinking of Romans 1
I think that fits with your pointing to revelation, but isn’t Paul pointing to God’s immanence as the revelation that leaves all without excuse, rather than the shenanigans recorded in scripture, at least in Rom 1:20?
-TS

It does, and I pondered that as I wrote my post.

Frankly, I do not know the answer.

However, taken to a logical extreme, those words would seem to obviate the Old Testament. Thus, I surmise that the position St. Paul is staking out in Romans I must be qualified somehow.

But great point.

 

[PAboy57]

Apologists assert that God gave us free will, and therefore God is not responsible for our free actions. As usual, they stay on the surface of the question, and this proposition sounds plausible. Of course it is totally wrong. One example will prove that they are wrong.

Suppose you have a psychopath in your custody. You know that this person has already committed some serious atrocities (murders, rapes, etc…). You also know that this person will commit more atrocities, if given half a chance. (Omniscience) You have the option to release him or not. (Creating that person) If you release him knowing full well what he will do, then you cannot “hide” behind the defense that you, personally did not do those acts, he did them out of his own volition, and you just wash your hands Pilate-style.

All his acts are the result of you opening his prison cell and setting him free. You are responsible for what he did. Can you deny it?

Why he is in my custody I don’t know but I’ll assume I am a prison guard. He doesn’t get released and remains behind bars the rest of his life getting therapy. If he is sentenced to death then that will be his release.

We cannot compare the releasing of a psychopath to God who is love, mercy and justice.

We believe that God is very active in all that happens resulting in greater good and glory for God. We pray for the psychopath and those harmed.

We need another thread with a different example. God Bless

 

[mellestad]

Not to run this thread too far off the rails, but what I meant was that many atheists will argue that science has already uncovered many hows and whys and therefore God didn’t do it (i.e. the origin of the universe). And if science hasn’t figured something out yet, it will sooner or later. Christopher Hitchens is especially fond of this argument.

And now back to our regularly scheduled program…

Oh, OK, I’d agree with that. That’s what I meant by, “You can use science to argue against the necessity for a particular deity.”

 

[Touchstone]

It does, and I pondered that as I wrote my post.

Frankly, I do not know the answer.

However, taken to a logical extreme, those words would seem to obviate the Old Testament. Thus, I surmise that the position St. Paul is staking out in Romans I must be qualified somehow.

But great point.

My comment was a tangent, and I know it. Recalling my, uh, Christian studies in years past, I think the resolution would be that Paul is not obviating the OT with his reliance on natural theology, but just making the implicit (immanence as natural theology) explicit. God as owner/judge/jury gets promoted from intuitive to propositional: what you know already intuitive is now proclaimed, what was sensed is now explicitly covenantal.

Maybe those are opposed somehow, but that strikes me from Paul as “God has us all on circumstantial grounds (natural theology), but with his giving of the Law, we are all ‘caught red-handed’”. The Law as Smoking Gun, rather than subliminal intuition provides dramatic contrast, then for the Gospel. Law is made draconian and overt so that the grace and mercy of the cross stand in stark, glorious relief.

Good News! etc.

My $.02…

-TS

 

[ignatius777]

Here is another link, maybe you can access that (theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm). I cannot judge how authentic these links are. It would be nice if the Vatican actually provided some official lists. If there is any, I have no information about its existence.

The Vatican has a website and all documents are there

 

[4Horsemen]

Hi 4,

You might find this website interesting. It has the Haydock commentary on what many of the versus mean according to Catholic teaching. Not necessarily each line but you will get a fuller picture of what’s going on. I love it and it is great for helping those trying to use just 1 verse to make an incorrect point.

veritasbible.com/commentary/haydock

Take care.

Hi PAboy57,

Great website! St. Paul’s letter to the Romans was well addressed. Putting context around the questionable sentence certainly helps.

One thing about CAF is that posters have great resources to share.

Many blessings,
4

 

[4Horsemen]

when God gave sthe commandments He saw that the Hebrews couldnt keep it.Over and over they disobeyed.When Jesus came man was free from the law otherwise otherwize they would die in sin.Now Jesus didnt abolish the law(I havve not come to abolish the law (or the prophets ) but to fulfill.St.Paul I believe it was that said Im not under the law meaning that by sinning he would nnot be condemned.But by faith in Jesus Christ he was justified.IN otherwords only Jesus can save us .without HIs help we will sin and surely go to Hell.We are not saved by works or condemned by sin.

Welcome to the Forum!

Some of what you said sounds dogmatically correct IMO, but some doesn’t ring true unless I’m misunderstanding. You are right in that Jesus didn’t come to “abolish the law” and the prophets but to fulfill them. But the part in bold requires some explanation. St. Paul referred to the “law” of the Old Testament, but he means that it is understood now through the “law of love” (and mercy) in the New Testament due to the sacrifice of Jesus. You’re correct in saying that by faith in Jesus we are justified and not saved by works alone but by faith. But we still can be “condemned by sin.” All in all, it seems you have the right idea. It’s just difficult to express St. Paul’s dissertation on the subject.

 

[valentino]

sin puts one in hell but with faith in Jesus Christ and His help believing we can overcome our sins we are freed from sin.

 

[Spock]

Ok say to sum up all of your arguments your basically saying this could not be the best possible world because you dont view it as such?

No, this is not what I said. This cannot be the “best” possible world, because it changes. Something that is “best” (or “worst”) is static. There is no “better” than the “best”, there is no “worse” than the “worst”.

 

[Spock]

De Fide is dogma.
Sent. communis." (“Common Teaching”) = doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of the free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally."

Since the second one says the same thing, with slighty different wording, it does not matter. If they contradicted each other, that would be a different issue. If you don’t like the second one, feel free to disregard it.

There are at least two questions I can think of;
Does it mean He approves of the deed?
Does it mean He allows it temporally in order to produce something good, with the deed itself being subjected to His justice in due course.

It does not really matter. God personally maintained the gas chambers during the Holocaust. That comes from the dogma.

But to answer your question explictly, he must have “approved”. From the other dogma about God’s immutability, it follows that nothing we do can “sway” God’s mind. If we tried to do something that God does not “approve”, he would simply not maintain the pertinent parts of the universe and the act would not happen. Of course we would never “know” that, but that is beside the point.