So, who is responsible?

[4Horsemen]

We know that our will is sufficiently free to subject us to judgment because God has told us so, as recorded in scripture.

If the events that are recorded in scripture had never occurred, I do not think we would be able to infer that we would be judged by God for our acts. St. Paul explains in Romans why the knowledge of God is attributable to all men, but he does not suggest that the knowledge exists in a vacuum. It exists in light of revelation,which is how St. Paul knew what he knew and passed on in Romans.

I always found Romans 7 rather hard to understand. If anyone wants to enlighten these passages, I’d like to understand them better.

7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? May it never be! However, I wouldn’t have known sin, except through the law. For I wouldn’t have known coveting, unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”

7:8 But sin, finding occasion through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of coveting. For apart from the law, sin is dead.

7:9 I was alive apart from the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

7:10 The commandment, which was for life, this I found to be for death;

7:11 for sin, finding occasion through the commandment, deceived me, and through it killed me.

7:12 Therefore the law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy, and righteous, and good.

7:13 Did then that which is good become death to me? May it never be! But sin, that it might be shown to be sin, by working death to me through that which is good; that through the commandment sin might become exceeding sinful.

7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am fleshly, sold under sin.

7:15 For I don’t know what I am doing. For I don’t practice what I desire to do; but what I hate, that I do.

7:16 But if what I don’t desire, that I do, I consent to the law that it is good.

7:17 So now it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwells in me.

7:18 For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwells no good thing. For desire is present with me, but I don’t find it doing that which is good.

7:19 For the good which I desire, I don’t do; but the evil which I don’t desire, that I practice.

St. Paul seems to be saying that if it weren’t for the law, he wouldn’t know sin. But other passages such as Romans 2 seem to express his intentions better . . . I think.

 

[Heliotropium]

4Horsemen:
I always found Romans 7 rather hard to understand. If anyone wants to enlighten these passages, I’d like to understand them better.

7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? May it never be! However, I wouldn’t have known sin, except through the law. For I wouldn’t have known coveting, unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”

7:8 But sin, finding occasion through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of coveting. For apart from the law, sin is dead.

7:9 I was alive apart from the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

7:10 The commandment, which was for life, this I found to be for death;

7:11 for sin, finding occasion through the commandment, deceived me, and through it killed me.

7:12 Therefore the law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy, and righteous, and good.

7:13 Did then that which is good become death to me? May it never be! But sin, that it might be shown to be sin, by working death to me through that which is good; that through the commandment sin might become exceeding sinful.

7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am fleshly, sold under sin.

7:15 For I don’t know what I am doing. For I don’t practice what I desire to do; but what I hate, that I do.

7:16 But if what I don’t desire, that I do, I consent to the law that it is good.

7:17 So now it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwells in me.

7:18 For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwells no good thing. For desire is present with me, but I don’t find it doing that which is good.

7:19 For the good which I desire, I don’t do; but the evil which I don’t desire, that I practice.

St. Paul seems to be saying that if it weren’t for the law, he wouldn’t know sin. But other passages such as Romans 2 seem to express his intentions better . . . I think.

What Paul is talking about is his fallen nature and that no good can come from him unless by the grace of God. He admits that he is powerless since being of a corrupt nature all he can do of himself and the only power he has is to corrupt what is good. Yet his ability to only corrupt what is good does not render what is good as being bad. He knows that to do the good he desires but does not do he needs the grace of God who is goodness itself. Paul is confessing that if there is any good in us it cannot he attributed to our nature but Gods grace working through us. Paul is also confessing what every addict has to confess and that is only a higher power can save us from ourselves.

God bless

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Technically this is true. There are lots of things which are not known or understood. Just a few examples:

1. It is not understood how large the diameter of the ice-ball in the middle of the Sun can be?
2. It is unknown what was the final result of the latest leprechaun-goblin soccer match, and who scored the winning touch-down?
3. We don’t know when you stopped beating your spouse.
4. What resides to the north from the North Pole?

These are all “unknown”. Are these “legitimate” mysteries? I accept, “technically” you are correct. But you are still guilty of obfuscation.

I believe the poster said “not understood” and not “unknown”.

No, they are not legitimate mysteries. A mystery is something real that is not understood. Murder mysteries, the mystery of having to sneeze but it going away, etc…

As usual, you are obfuscating the definition of the word. And as usual, I am here to clarify a word.

And “Trinity” and “Incarnation” are not abstract. To make such a claim, you have to back it up. These are classified in what you would call “legitimate mysteries”.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

This debate is, at most, about showing that a particular deity concept is incoherent. That’s all. More realistically it is simply about navel gazing, which apparently we all enjoy.

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.

Potentially it is also about moving believers towards more liberal and secular approaches to problem solving.

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”.

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!

 

[4Horsemen]

What Paul is talking about is his fallen nature and that no good can come from him unless by the grace of God. He admits that he is powerless since being of a corrupt nature all he can do of himself and the only power he has is to corrupt what is good. Yet his ability to only corrupt what is good does not render what is good as being bad. He knows that to do the good he desires but does not do he needs the grace of God who is goodness itself. Paul is confessing that if there is any good in us it cannot he attributed to our nature but Gods grace working through us. Paul is also confessing what every addict has to confess and that is only a higher power can save us from ourselves.

 

[PAboy57]

4Horsemen:
Original post by 4Horsemen:
I always found Romans 7 rather hard to understand. If anyone wants to enlighten these passages, I’d like to understand them better.

7:7 through 7:19

St. Paul seems to be saying that if it weren’t for the law, he wouldn’t know sin. But other passages such as Romans 2 seem to express his intentions better . . . I think.

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.

 

[Spock]

How do you know that Gods creation is not working as He intended? My friend your position is flawed based on a couple of things. Frist you make conclusions based on what you don’t know instead of what you do know. You presume that God has failed and is thus responsible for making a mistake without giving any evidence that the current situation that humanity is in is because a mistake was made in the Divine Plan. You propose that you have the only logical conclusion and are basically saying **“my way is the only way things could possibly be therefore God is wrong and made a mistake.” **You my friend would be the disciple during the crucifixion saying ** “why is God doing this to His Son? No Father would do this to their only Son! God must have made a mistake!”" **Then you would leave searching for a new thing and maybe a new “god” that you could comprehend and then by doing so miss out on the Resurrection. Gods atributes exempt him from making mistakes. In fact what it basically boils down to is your opinion. You think God made a mistake but you neither know it or can prove it. Basically what you say is a mistake is in reality Divine Providence.

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.

 

[Spock]

How many scientiests have tried to solve these mysteries? Have you read any theses on the mystery of the leprechaun or the goblin? There are no philosophers arguing their point of view on these topics. There has never been any serious writings about any of these things that generations of people have pored over to find the truth. No theologian has ever claimed that these “mysteries” have been revealed to him/her. In short, these are not things that people wonder about (except for atheists who like to create straw men).

Contrast that with what Catholics regard as religious mysteries. If you can’t see the difference here then you are either being disingenuous or deliberately perverse.

Oh, gimme a break. Not the argument from numbers again? So boring.

 

[Spock]

Is it your contention that God “created” evil thereby He is responsible for it wherever it occurs? Does that about sum it up?

Close, but not quite. Read the dogmas 69 and 70 (jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm)

1. God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.)
2. God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures. (Sent. communis.)

For any event to occur God maintains and co-operates in every participant in that act. God is not a passive observer, but an active particiant in the events, be they “good” or “evil”. Remember, this is not “my” argument, it is an “infallible” dogma of the catholic church.

We’ve been through this havent we? Why isnt a representative of Smith and Wesson imprisoned for murder everytime someone uses one of their guns to kill someone one? If you propose that because God “created” evil therefore He is responisble for it everywhere it happens then you must be a proponent of making the “creators” of guns responsible for murders. I’m not sure that makes sense to anyone but you.

Just read it above. Smith and Wesson do not “actively participate” in every act of violance. They merely supplied the “hardware”.

 

[valentino]

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.

 

[vz71]

Remember, this is not “my” argument, it is an “infallible” dogma of the catholic church.

I would suggest your interpretation of the dogmas to be flawed.

Since sin is an action against God’s will, it is not possible for God to actively participate in it.

 

[ignatius777]

Close, but not quite. Read the dogmas 69 and 70 (jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm)

1. God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.)
2. God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures. (Sent. communis.)

For any event to occur God maintains and co-operates in every participant in that act. God is not a passive observer, but an active particiant in the events, be they “good” or “evil”. Remember, this is not “my” argument, it is an “infallible” dogma of the catholic church.

Just read it above. Smith and Wesson do not “actively participate” in every act of violance. They merely supplied the “hardware”.

I am not able to access that link right now but could you summarize what it is and who is repsonsible for making it availabe. Is it a church document, posted by the church?

 

[Spock]

I would suggest your interpretation of the dogmas to be flawed.

Since sin is an action against God’s will, it is not possible for God to actively participate in it.

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

1. God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.)
2. God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures. (Sent. communis.)

They are simple, they are crystal clear. It is not my fault that they say what they say.

 

[Spock]

I am not able to access that link right now but could you summarize what it is and who is repsonsible for making it availabe. Is it a church document, posted by the church?

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.

 

[fhansen]

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

1. God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.)
2. God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures. (Sent. communis.)

They are simple, they are crystal clear. It is not my fault that they say what they say.

Yes, this is basic Catholic dogma, and if we think about it, the situation couldn’t be otherwise-God is God, after all, and creation necessarily depends on Him moment by moment for life and sustenance. “Through Him we live, and move, and have our being.” It means that Spock couldn’t be moving his fingers at the keyboard without God being right there as part of it, enabling it even if He disagrees with every word typed. This is the genesis or essence of our free will.

But this changes nothing-He allows us to deviate from His rules while enabling the game to be played in the first place. The question remains whether or not our wills are free from His and to what extent each is responsible for man’s actions.

 

[You]

Close, but not quite. Read the dogmas 69 and 70 (jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm)

1. God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.)
2. God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures. (Sent. communis.)

For any event to occur God maintains and co-operates in every participant in that act. God is not a passive observer, but an active particiant in the events, be they “good” or “evil”. Remember, this is not “my” argument, it is an “infallible” dogma of the catholic church.

…]

1. God alone created the World.
2. God keeps all created things in existence.
3. God through His providence protects and guides all that He has created.
   holyjoe.org/dogmas.doc

But I did not see your second dogma.

 

[Spock]

Yes, this is basic Catholic dogma, and if we think about it, the situation couldn’t be otherwise-God is God, after all, and creation necessarily depends on Him moment by moment for life and sustenance. “Through Him we live, and move, and have our being.” But this changes nothing-He allows us to deviate from His rules while enabling the game to be played in the first place. The question remains whether or not our wills are free from His and to what extent each is responsible for man’s actions.

Very well. So let’s analyze a hypothetical situation in detail.

Suppose someone fires a gun at someone else. The shooter makes the decision to pull the trigger. But it is God, who sends the impulse down his arm via his nerves. It is God who maintains the muscles to contract and pull the trigger. The bullet is maintained in existence by God, all the way through its trajectory. If God would not keep it in existence, the ball would simply cease to exist. The only thing the shooter does on his own, is to make the decision. God does the rest.

But, wait. Is it true that the decision is “independent” from God’s activity? The decision is also just a bunch of neurons firing, and as such those firings are “kept in existence” by God. So it is not clear, how can the decision be attributed only to the person.

Let’s go on. There is another dogma, number 25, which says: “God is absolutely immutable. (De fide.)” So even if the decision is made by the shooter, it is in accordance with God’s will, since God cannot be “changed” - God is immutable. It is impossible that the “maintenance of that bullet” would be contradictory to God’s will, since in this case the shooter would “force” God to change his mind - which is absurd.

Just for the fun of it, we can analyze a bit longer. Essentially, the dogma, which says that God keeps everything in existence denies the validity of the “laws of nature”. There is no such thing as “gravity”. It is God who accelerates the bodies, not some nebulous “gravity”. There is no law, which would freeze the water at zero Celsius. All those laws of nature actually describe God’s activity. Very peculiar, indeed. We are all “duped” into thinking that “nature” can be analyzed. Oh, well. If the dogma says so…

 

[Spock]

1. God alone created the World.
2. God keeps all created things in existence.
3. God through His providence protects and guides all that He has created.
   holyjoe.org/dogmas.doc

But I did not see your second dogma.

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.

 

[dskysmine]

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.

 

[fhansen]

Very well. So let’s analyze a hypothetical situation in detail.

Suppose someone fires a gun at someone else. The shooter makes the decision to pull the trigger. But it is God, who sends the impulse down his arm via his nerves. It is God who maintains the muscles to contract and pull the trigger. The bullet is maintained in existence by God, all the way through its trajectory. If God would not keep it in existence, the ball would simply cease to exist. The only thing the shooter does on his own, is to make the decision. God does the rest.

But, wait. Is it true that the decision is “independent” from God’s activity? The decision is also just a bunch of neurons firing, and as such those firings are “kept in existence” by God. So it is not clear, how can the decision be attributed only to the person.

Let’s go on. There is another dogma, number 25, which says: “God is absolutely immutable. (De fide.)” So even if the decision is made by the shooter, it is in accordance with God’s will, since God cannot be “changed” - God is immutable. It is impossible that the “maintenance of that bullet” would be contradictory to God’s will, since in this case the shooter would “force” God to change his mind - which is absurd.

Just for the fun of it, we can analyze a bit longer. Essentially, the dogma, which says that God keeps everything in existence denies the validity of the “laws of nature”. There is no such thing as “gravity”. It is God who accelerates the bodies, not some nebulous “gravity”. There is no law, which would freeze the water at zero Celsius. All those laws of nature actually describe God’s activity. Very peculiar, indeed. We are all “duped” into thinking that “nature” can be analyzed. Oh, well. If the dogma says so…

So how is it resolved? If there is a God, then man’s not responsible-“God made me do it”? But if there’s no God then man magically *does *become responsible? What difference should the two scenarios make?