S
Samuel1991
Guest
What would have you do if you were the Creator God? Would you have different ideas? Would you create an Eternal Hell for mortal sinners? Would you punish Adam and Eve? Would you create a religion to worship you?
So essentially enslave people and turn them into robots? NiceAbolish suffering and make everyone happy, and this is not only limited to humans, so don’t get started with the free will thing, babies and innocents of all beings suffer regardless of the human limited free will or whether humans exist or not.
I feel like the robots/free will debate is already raging in half a dozen active topics on this board, but to your particular question… Adam and Eve were not prevented from sinning, no? So in both thought and action, certainly they had free will.Well, Were Adam and Eve robots or did they have free will to commit crimes that happen in this world?
Abolish suffering and make everyone happy, and this is not only limited to humans, so don’t get started with the free will thing, babies and innocents of all beings suffer regardless of the human limited free will or whether humans exist or not.
Well, if not limited to humans, how do you deal with predation?Abolish suffering and make everyone happy, and this is not only limited to humans, so don’t get started with the free will thing, babies and innocents of all beings suffer regardless of the human limited free will or whether humans exist or not.
I don’t believe Adam and Even sinned by eating a forbidden literal fruit. I believe Adam and Eve are historical, I believe that Adam and Eve sinned, but I think the eating of the fruit in the story just symbolizes their disordered act that broke union with God.Wesrock , are you saying that Adam and Eve were free to commit serious crimes or only to reject Eden eating the forbidden fruit?
True, but is there room to accomodate the questions that simply flow naturally from conclusions in truth?. We see this in little children in grade school religion. Their questions are never loaded. Some form a regulation may be in order, but I think the Church gives it low priority except in cases of hostile intent. Nihil Obstat considered, I wonder what the limits are to the lay community for fire side chat eschatological and ontological discussion?.The premise behind this topic is that goodness and justice are subjective and arbitrary, and God is just another subjective being
And the Catholic position on religion is that nothing adds to God. Not worship. Not anything. Religion wasn’t established by God so he could be worshipped, it was established to help men and women achieve their fulfillment, their ends (according to their nature, not as in whatever their personal goal may be).
Sorry for not directly answering the question, but it’s… well, the question itself isn’t consistent with classical theist or Catholic thoughts on God’s nature. It makes as much sense to a Catholic like me as asking, “if you were a square, would you still choose to be a plane figure with four equal straight sides and four right angles?” When someone answers “no, I’d rather be _____”, it loses all meaning, because you are supposedly now a square that’s not a square.
![]()
I’m not going to tell people they can’t discuss something, and I can see this line of inquiry bearing fruit for Catholics if done in the manner of a Socratic discussion. But that assumes there’s someone sound enough in the faith to play Socrates.True, but is there room to accomodate the questions that simply flow naturally from conclusions in truth?. We see this in little children in grade school religion. Their questions are never loaded. Some form a regulation may be in order, but I think the Church gives it low priority except in cases of hostile intent. Nihil Obstat considered, I wonder what the limits are to the lay community for fire side chat eschatological and ontological discussion?.
But as all participants in beauty pageants know, the objectively correct answer is world peace.The premise behind this topic is that goodness and justice are subjective and arbitrary, and God is just another subjective being
It helps us to remember that God does not condemn anyone to hell. When they meet Him at their death, it is they that turn away and go into hell. God honors our choices. He does not force us to love Him, although He deserves all our love.What would I do if I were a “god” just like “God”? Answer: nothing. God is supposed to sovereign, self-sufficient, lacking nothing, someone who is already “perfect” in every respect, so there is no way to add anything to that perfection. From the top, all roads lead downhill. (Of course the question also arises: if God is perfect in every respect, is he also perfect in cruelty? The idea of hell certainly suggest that he is.)
That is called baloney. No one has ever been reported to bang on the doors of hell (which are alleged to be closed from inside) demanding admittance.It helps us to remember that God does not condemn anyone to hell. When they meet Him at their death, it is they that turn away and go into hell. God honors our choices. He does not force us to love Him, although He deserves all our love.
The soul makes a choice about what it loves at death. It is a voluntary choice.That is called baloney. No one has ever been reported to bang on the doors of hell (which are alleged to be closed from inside) demanding admittance.