I was short om time when I wrote that and I meant no offense. I did not have time to elaborate. I was merely suggesting that free will and OUR exercising of that free will is directly related to how much love and mercy we recieve from God.Sorry - evidently I just came a cropper on that fence. I’m just mentally blocked on it.
It’s probably beside the main point anyway. I’ll go into observe mode.
Apply it to this specific problem, please. Is the father’s defense of “but I told him…” constitute a valid excuse? Can he “wash his hands” for allowing the child to have access to the gun?
It was a reply to this post: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7546636&postcount=90 , in which GloriousOrder presented his argument. Read it in that context.
In catholic teaching a sin is the result of a willful thought or behavior which disregards whats right or wrong. A very simplified explanation for our discussion here
Jokes are most welcome.
No, I cannot agree. The loaded gun would be the allegorical equivalent of the “tree” in the garden of Eden, as described in Genesis. Please do read the post #90 (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7546636&postcount=90), to which I replied.
Not just “simplified”, it is generic. Apply it to the specific question, plase.
Each requires an action by another person for them to be “deadly”. A gun and a tree are only as dangerous as those who use them not those who create themJokes are most welcome.
No, I cannot agree. The loaded gun would be the allegorical equivalent of the “tree” in the garden of Eden, as described in Genesis. Please do read the post #90 (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7546636&postcount=90), to which I replied.
So its your contention that the presence of the candy jar DEMANDS that the child go after it just as the presence of a gun DEMANDS that it be fired.
Close. If the father “knows” that the child will go to the candy jar, and if the father “knows” that the child will grab the gun and fire it at someone, then the responsibilty lies with the father. Don’t forget, that GloriousOrder presented it as such. He said that the father “knows” what will happen, and he said that the father’s foreknowledge does not “force” the child’s actions. All I wanted to show that this difference does not make the father blameless for allowing the child to do something he should not be allowed to do.
There is no sin in leaving the gun unattended because that act is in and of itself not a willful act in opposition to whats right ot wrong. Even if the law says a gun must be kept locked up if the owner legitimately did not know that then no sin can exist. If the owner did know that and wilfully left it out then yes you could say thats a sin.
Someones knowing something will happen is not the same as making it happen. At any point a child could NOT go to the candy jar in spite of the fathers KNOWING. No matter how improbable the mere fact thats it possible the chold NOT go for the jar then your theory losses steam. My knowing something can not make it happen
I am not talking about sin. Sin is a religious concept. I am talking about responsibility - which is a secular concept. If someone has positive knowledge about a “wrong” deed to be committed, and that someone has the power to prevent that deed, and fails to do it, then he will be guilty by omission. There is a little difference between committing and act, and failing to prevent an act, but both are equally reprehensible.
I am not talking about sin. Sin is a religious concept. I am talking about responsibility - which is a secular concept. If someone has positive knowledge about a “wrong” deed to be committed, and that someone has the power to prevent that deed, and fails to do it, then he will be guilty by omission. There is a little difference between committing and act, and failing to prevent an act, but both are equally reprehensible.
Thats the point…sin IS responsibility. The sin can ONLY occur if the act itself actually takes place. In order for your statement to be true if a gun is left unattended and no one gets hurt then the person who left it should be charged with murder even if no one is killed because the possibility existed that someone COULD have picked it up to kill someone.
Of course the father in this example should be held responsible-whether by God or a court of law. But it seems you’re assuming Adam & Eve were like children in the face of a commandment they couldn’t possibly comprehend or live up to and no where in Catholic teaching is one held accountable on such terms.
Oh good, I like jokes, they seem to lighten the mood sometimes. Maybe it is the power God used to create light. Maybe we were created out of the laughter of the Trinity.Jokes are most welcome.
No, I cannot agree. The loaded gun would be the allegorical equivalent of the “tree” in the garden of Eden, as described in Genesis. Please do read the post #90 (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7546636&postcount=90), to which I replied.
Hmm…I’m trying to think of how else to put it, without just copying Spock.Yes, I didn’t phrase that very well!
What I meant was that I could not imagine a world with free will but without evil.
Maybe the best analogy is to imagininag a two dimensional world, complete insofar as the good dimension goes, just lacking evil.
Still, thanks for your help on the question.
So you mean to tell me you dont believe its possible right now for me to make a choice to believe in the Loch Ness Monster?
Yeeesh! One more time, slowly. (This is also in response to Mellestad’s post #136) In this world God created us with free will, which is the freedom to choose to love and obey him or not. In the world you postulate, God would create only people who love and obey him…or what? There is no other option, therefore no free will.
What if He wanted to be surprised, and see what happens?
