I
ILoveYeshua
Guest
It seems that snippet from Wikipedia is from a page devoted to an argument against the existence of God, so it isn’t necessarily partial to one side
- Status
A
AlNg
Guest
Yes. That is a question. If it was known, even before you were born and even before you had a chance to think about it, that you would choose strawberry ice cream, then what happens when the time comes that you have to decide what kind of ice cream you want. Suppose that you want now to have pistachio ice cream. Well, that’s too bad. Even though you want to order pistachio ice cream and you don’t really want strawberry ice cream, you have to choose strawberry ice cream because that was known already 4000 years ago. So how can you have a choice or how can you have free will, if you must choose strawberry ice cream and you can’t choose any other flavor? It seems like if you had free will, you could say that even though it was written down that I would choose strawberry ice cream, I won’t do it, and I will choose pistachio instead.
No. Because if you tell these kids that you know that they will eat M&M’s and not broccoli, it is entirely possible that they will want to prove you wrong and will eat the broccoli to prove that you do not know what you are talking about. However, with the strawberry ice cream it is different, you have no choice and must choose strawberry, There is no alternative possible because this was foreknown by God who is omniscient. Assuming of course that the future exists. One way out is to assume that the future does not
Last edited:
I
ILoveYeshua
Guest
When has God told someone of a choice that they’ll make?
Edit: Like is there an instance where God has told someone of a choice they’ll make in the future?
Edit: Like is there an instance where God has told someone of a choice they’ll make in the future?
Last edited:
S
Scowler
Guest
Actually it is an incorrect reply. Omniscience cannot be “modeled”, because this “model” is incorrect. What it calls “knowledge” is at best an educated guess. What did not happen YET, cannot be known, unless the universe is fully deterministic - in other words if there is no freedom. And that cannot be resolved by saying that God is outside of time, and everything is “now” for him. That would create the problem that an event did not happen from human standpoint, but it already happened from the divine standpoint. And that is nonsense. Existence is not contingent on the observer.ILoveYeshua:
It’s not a platitude. I’m still trying to fully wrap my head around this response, but thank you for it nonetheless. I think it will be extremely helpful when my mind isn’t so tired
If an event already occurred, then it can be known, but it is not free any more. There IS no freedom in the past (even if there WAS freedom). If something did not happen, it cannot be known. Knowledge is information about something, or using the old definition: “knowledge is justified true belief”. To say that something is knowable, even if it did not happen will lead to this kind of question: “Is the number of pages knowable in the book, which has not been written, because the author was never born - due to the fact that her parents never met”?
You can see that this is simply nonsense.
- Just think about this: “it is impossible to travel into the past, because we could change it, so the present would never actualize”.
- And then think about this: "The future cannot be known, because such a knowledge would allow us to act on that knowledge, so the “foreknown” future would never happen.
And that is the reason that God never foretold the future… because it leads to a logical contradiction. (Or because God does not exist.
)
R
redbetta
Guest
When Jesus told Peter he will deny him three times.
H
Hope_Philomena
Guest
Didn’t Jesus tell Judas that Judas would betray him?
Then again I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. As in, I don’t understand why it’s relevant whether God tells us we are going to do something or not. Even if he did tell us, we wouldn’t be able to alter that because God is omniscient. Whereas in the child scenario, we are not omniscient so the child could very well make the choice to choose otherwise. Pardon me if I misunderstood.
Then again I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. As in, I don’t understand why it’s relevant whether God tells us we are going to do something or not. Even if he did tell us, we wouldn’t be able to alter that because God is omniscient. Whereas in the child scenario, we are not omniscient so the child could very well make the choice to choose otherwise. Pardon me if I misunderstood.
I
ILoveYeshua
Guest
Wait, what if temptation overrides your will to do good? Like in the Peter example. Peter probably didn’t want to deny Jesus but his peer pressure made him do it thrice
G
Greenfields
Guest
Probably only that it’s not obvious to every one 
S
Shakuhachi
Guest
I find the hierarchy confusing. It is all supposed to be about service, not honor and privilege. Pope Francis seems to understand that. Bless him.
D
dann
Guest
If you utube John Paul Jackson testimony. You will see a prophecy regarding his calling
P
PJM
Guest
Because we ARE Family [The Communion of saints]
FROM FATHER HARDON’S CATHOLIC DICTIONARY
COMMUNION OF SAINTS. The unity and co-operation of the members of the Church on earth with those in heaven and in purgatory. They are united as being one Mystical Body of Christ. The faithful on earth are in communion with each other by professing the same faith, obeying the same authority, and assisting each other with their prayers and good works. They are in communion with the saints in heaven by honoring them as glorified members of the Church, invoking their prayers and aid, and striving to imitate their virtues. They are in communion with the souls in purgatory by helping them with their prayers and good works.
TRY it, you’ll like it
God Bless
PJM
FROM FATHER HARDON’S CATHOLIC DICTIONARY
COMMUNION OF SAINTS. The unity and co-operation of the members of the Church on earth with those in heaven and in purgatory. They are united as being one Mystical Body of Christ. The faithful on earth are in communion with each other by professing the same faith, obeying the same authority, and assisting each other with their prayers and good works. They are in communion with the saints in heaven by honoring them as glorified members of the Church, invoking their prayers and aid, and striving to imitate their virtues. They are in communion with the souls in purgatory by helping them with their prayers and good works.
TRY it, you’ll like it
God Bless
PJM
E
ErraticFaith
Guest
Nothing about God ( or the denominations after studying them) has ever confused me at all. But mankind is a different story all together.
On the one hand I understand life from the viewing glass of enough experiences, friends and attempts to ‘walk in the shoes of others’ to understand and reconcile those confusions philosophically.
Doesn’t make it easier to live with. Some people have a narcissism, spite and bigotry (seemingly based on little but their own pride and nastiness) that makes it almost intolerable.
I realise ‘man’ seldom changes. But I still find it difficult. Some people just seem dark from day one.
On the one hand I understand life from the viewing glass of enough experiences, friends and attempts to ‘walk in the shoes of others’ to understand and reconcile those confusions philosophically.
Doesn’t make it easier to live with. Some people have a narcissism, spite and bigotry (seemingly based on little but their own pride and nastiness) that makes it almost intolerable.
I realise ‘man’ seldom changes. But I still find it difficult. Some people just seem dark from day one.
Last edited:
R
Reuben_J
Guest
What do you think about the parable of the persistent woman and the bad judge? Or the neighbor that asked for a bread? In both parables, Jesus said they were able to persuade their benefactors by their persistence. God can be persuaded in certain issues, not all but certain issues that do not jeopardize his justice but which can demonstrate his love, just like a loving father can be persuaded by his children.
N
notforgotten
Guest
I do not understand why the Church requires approvals of personal revelations. The early Christians did not need any approval. If someone received a personal revelation from Christ on an issue where the Church is wrong, they would discard it as heresy and shun the idea and or the person.
Last edited:
H
Hope_Philomena
Guest
But God knows what he is going to do, in the end, as he is omniscient. So what difference does it make, asking for intercession, when God already decided long ago what he is and isn’t going to be persuaded by, which really defeats the whole purpose of the concept of persuasion?
H
Hope_Philomena
Guest
I could be wrong, but I think getting approval from the Church just keeps everything running as a well-oiled Godly machine. Without this process I think there would be a lot of differing revelations popping up, and people don’t know what and what not to believe. It could cause a schism, perhaps? I’m not sure if this is right, though.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Of coure, but we don’t. We are governed by space and time. IOW, he already saw our life and destiny, which includes our prayers.
W
Wannabe_Monk_16
Guest
I find it confusing that Catholic school tuition are too high for my family.
M
Mintaka
Guest
Nobody has to have approvals of private revelations, but they have to have them to promulgate them as My Private Revelation: The Book, or to have anything done formally in church on account of your revelation (“Mary said our parish should hold a procession of sheep every year in honor of Our Lady the Immaculate Ewe-Lamb”.)
If everything is just private stuff, or you’re not affecting many people, it all falls under private piety and you can do pretty much what you want (within reason). Likewise, if you just told the priest, “I’ve got this great idea! Let’s hold a sheep procession in honor of Our Lady the Immaculate Ewe-Lamb,” it would not require any approval process, except your pastor saying he thought that was a good idea too. (It’s actually fairly common for people having visions or seeing apparitions to have prayer suggestions okayed by their priest and implemented, long years before anybody knows about the visions or the bishop approves.)
Of course, Catholic laypeople also are supposed to get approval from their bishops for certain kinds of religious books (like books of new prayers), promulgation of new devotions, etc. If I want to teach religion class in my parish, I’m supposed to take classes from the diocese and get approved. The only people I can legitimately teach without some kind of approval is my own family, and street-level informal evangelism.
Bishops are successors of the apostles, and all the Christian teaching in a diocese flows from them. The early Christians were going to church with their bishop every Sunday (at least), and he knew all about what they were up to.
My bishop doesn’t know me from Adam (well, probably he does know me from Adam, but maybe not from Eve!) My local pastor might know me, but not be enough of a theologian to be able to tell if something is wrong with whatever I’m promulgating. At some point, somebody has to be responsible for saying, “Mintaka is a knowledgeable Catholic who won’t steer you wrong,” or “Mintaka knows nothing/is a creepy criminal who wants to send you to Hell.”
If everything is just private stuff, or you’re not affecting many people, it all falls under private piety and you can do pretty much what you want (within reason). Likewise, if you just told the priest, “I’ve got this great idea! Let’s hold a sheep procession in honor of Our Lady the Immaculate Ewe-Lamb,” it would not require any approval process, except your pastor saying he thought that was a good idea too. (It’s actually fairly common for people having visions or seeing apparitions to have prayer suggestions okayed by their priest and implemented, long years before anybody knows about the visions or the bishop approves.)
Of course, Catholic laypeople also are supposed to get approval from their bishops for certain kinds of religious books (like books of new prayers), promulgation of new devotions, etc. If I want to teach religion class in my parish, I’m supposed to take classes from the diocese and get approved. The only people I can legitimately teach without some kind of approval is my own family, and street-level informal evangelism.
Bishops are successors of the apostles, and all the Christian teaching in a diocese flows from them. The early Christians were going to church with their bishop every Sunday (at least), and he knew all about what they were up to.
My bishop doesn’t know me from Adam (well, probably he does know me from Adam, but maybe not from Eve!) My local pastor might know me, but not be enough of a theologian to be able to tell if something is wrong with whatever I’m promulgating. At some point, somebody has to be responsible for saying, “Mintaka is a knowledgeable Catholic who won’t steer you wrong,” or “Mintaka knows nothing/is a creepy criminal who wants to send you to Hell.”
Last edited:
M
Mintaka
Guest
(continuing my long post!)
When you get into private revelation, you get into the realm of being a prophet. In early Judaism, if you told everybody about a private revelation from God and it turned out to be false, you could be executed. People would call you a false prophet. Even real prophets of God often got mistreated as being fakes. (Look at St. Jeremiah, who got thrown down a cistern full of mud!)
Early Christians also had a BIG problem with false prophets. You could get driven out of the Church. You could have to do penance for the rest of your life. Occasionally you had people for and against the local prophet forming mobs, and beating each other up, or doing their best to make somebody a martyr. Best case, they just thought you were gullible and an easy prey for the devil. Worst case, your false prophets got followers and dragged people out of the Church. (Look up Montanism, for instance.)
Having an official process for investigating and approving revelations, that is controlled by the local bishop and by the Vatican, is a way of protecting people from trial by neighbor. If it’s approved, people can use the info without fear. If it’s not approved, very few people have had the chance to be fooled by it. Meanwhile, the person who got the revelation is protected by anonymity and the bishop.
Informality feels friendlier… until you think about what it can mean. I’m the kind of person who got informally pounded on at school, so I’m all in favor of the formal apparatus of canon law.
When you get into private revelation, you get into the realm of being a prophet. In early Judaism, if you told everybody about a private revelation from God and it turned out to be false, you could be executed. People would call you a false prophet. Even real prophets of God often got mistreated as being fakes. (Look at St. Jeremiah, who got thrown down a cistern full of mud!)
Early Christians also had a BIG problem with false prophets. You could get driven out of the Church. You could have to do penance for the rest of your life. Occasionally you had people for and against the local prophet forming mobs, and beating each other up, or doing their best to make somebody a martyr. Best case, they just thought you were gullible and an easy prey for the devil. Worst case, your false prophets got followers and dragged people out of the Church. (Look up Montanism, for instance.)
Having an official process for investigating and approving revelations, that is controlled by the local bishop and by the Vatican, is a way of protecting people from trial by neighbor. If it’s approved, people can use the info without fear. If it’s not approved, very few people have had the chance to be fooled by it. Meanwhile, the person who got the revelation is protected by anonymity and the bishop.
Informality feels friendlier… until you think about what it can mean. I’m the kind of person who got informally pounded on at school, so I’m all in favor of the formal apparatus of canon law.
Last edited:
- Status