L
laylow
Guest
Does it look like one?
- Status
L
laylow
Guest
No you are. You have deflected my question in favor of asking your own. God can’t be blamed if he is perfect. He doesn’t have feelings, because he’s not human. None of that makes any sense.
So tell us, a simple yes or no.
Are you blaming God for the actions of the murderer?
L
laylow
Guest
His actions are essentially irrelevant. God has determined that free will is more important than the actions done with it.
Certainly sounds like you are blaming God for the actions of another.
But without clarification, there is not much further discussion to be had here.
L
laylow
Guest
Personally, yes, if an all-loving, all-powerful being can stop an evil act from occurring but does not, then there needs to be an explanation. If the explanation is free will, then all free will must be honored, or you need another explanation.
L
laylow
Guest
Of course I would expect an explanation, unless there is something to hide? Why would someone all-loving act in a way that is not transparent?
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
It’s like a child with their parent. Even if the parent is acting in a clear, concise, and transparent way, the child doesn’t always understand it, and even less often agrees with it, especially when it hinders them from doing what they want.
My son understands it’s bad to hit. He knows that hitting gets him time out. He still hits, and as such suffers the consequences. We sin in the same way my son will hit. He understands it gets him in trouble, but chooses to do it anyways. It is no more my fault that I have to punish him than it is God’s fault that our own actions carry real consequences.
My son understands it’s bad to hit. He knows that hitting gets him time out. He still hits, and as such suffers the consequences. We sin in the same way my son will hit. He understands it gets him in trouble, but chooses to do it anyways. It is no more my fault that I have to punish him than it is God’s fault that our own actions carry real consequences.
V
Vico
Guest
I am staying with the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic church. It is clear that Adam and Eve committed mortal sin.
The meaning of culpable is given in the Catechism and is the way I am using it, for actual personal sin rather than for analogical sin:
- not responsible means not imputable, so with regard to mortal sin, no mortal sin, no loss of justice occurs,
- responsible means imputed, therefore culpable, so with regard to mortal sin, a mortal sin, that is loss of justice occurs.
Modern Catholic Dictionary
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Fair enough. Yet, we can still think about it, even if we don’t have any experience of ‘eternity’ in the here and now.
OK. And, knowing that your conclusion is using the wrong frame of reference, you would conclude that you’re invalidly extrapolating… right?
Except that ‘eternity’ isn’t ‘lots of time’. If you want to think of it as such, then you know you’re mischaracterizing, right?
O
OneSheep
Guest
Yes, but the idea did not originate with me. Jesus, from the cross, forgave the unrepentant.
That is your judgment. We are called not to judge.
Vico, it doesn’t matter what source you pull up on this. We all choose our actions, we are all responsible for our actions. We are not puppets, period.
All actions people do are deliberate. They are chosen by the individual.
You already know that I contest this with “no one knows what they are doing when they sin.” We have different anthropologies, Vico, we know ourselves and mankind in different ways. Might as well accept it, you aren’t going people’s minds with stuff from books. Jesus “stood among” those crucifying Him and saw that they did not know what they were doing.
For the definition, is there a difference between “imputable” and “blameworthy”? We are called to forgive, not blame.
Does “full imputability” mean fully blameworthy? Again, we are called to understand and forgive, not blame. We can follow the example of Jesus (he who sees Him sees the Father) as an image of understanding and unconditional love/forgiveness.
Your image of God is obviously different. That’s okay, Vico.
Last edited:
O
OneSheep
Guest
This is based on the image of God as being a judge. One can instead have an image of God such that He always understands and forgives.
I’d have to see that in context in order to reply. A person can indeed love God, but continue to sin. However, their love of God is diminished through sin, there is a disharmony.
Yes, this is our calling. This is different.
Exactly. You loved God, but you were still sinning. It’s not sustainable.
This is a great starting point for self-reflection. 1. Did you deliberately put God in the back of your mind, or instead did it happen inadvertently? 2. If you did put God in the back of your mind deliberately, what relevant thing did you not know, such that if you did know, you would not have chosen to put God in the back of your mind? If you regretted the action later, there was indeed something you were not considering at the moment of the sin.
Yes, absolutely. And if we fail, we are to understand and forgive.
S
sudy
Guest
I do see where you’re coming from with this. Yet we also have
Matthew 25:31-46
John 15:22
Mark 16:16
to contemplate.
L
laylow
Guest
Of course. I generally advise thinking. It’s when someone claims they KNOW is when I am baffled. A claim requires an explanation. I find all of the explanations I have heard, unsatisfactory.
No, I would argue it’s the other way around. For us and our conscientiousness, things have a beginning and an end. Any attempt to reference it in another way is science fiction according to our current understanding.
G
Gorgias
Guest
No he didn’t. I’m assuming you’re referring to “Father, forgive them…”.
If so, then you have to ask yourself what, exactly, He was talking about. Keep in mind that the sin of deicide is, quite literally, the worst of all possible sins. Jesus is pointing out that it’s not mortal in their case, because, “they know not what they do.” In other words, since they do not know they’re killing God Himself, there’s no mortal sin that attaches. That’s the whole point.
Of course there is! All grave sin is worthy of blame! However, blame only attaches when the sin is imputable to the person – that is, when they are deemed culpable of the sin.
You’re getting it backward: all grave sin is blameworthy; not all grave sin is imputable.
“Revelation from God Himself”.
That one’s on you, then…
It’s not “science” if it’s referring to the transcendent. So, it’s only ‘fiction’ if you think this is a discussion of ‘science’ – which it ain’t!
L
laylow
Guest
This is were the evidence is sorely lacking.
The transcendent is relative, for which it can never be spoken as fact or truth, except from the perspective of the one speaking of it.
G
Gorgias
Guest
That’s your opinion.
(Yes, you are responsible for your own personal opinions, and therefore, are welcome to hold them as you see fit. But… there’s a certain responsibility we bear for the conclusions we reach on our own. So… “good luck with that”…?)
I tend to agree with Newman in this context: you’re not talking about pure ‘relativity’, per se; you’re talking about the operation of the illative sense.
V
Vico
Guest
Q. That is your judgment. We are called not to judge.
A. Actually no. The Catholic Church has defined that Adam and Eve mortally sinned at the Fall.
Q. To “A person is accountable to God only for his or her deliberate actions” you responed: We all choose our actions, we are all responsible for our actions.
A. Per the teaching of the Catholic church – Catechism:
Q. For the definition, is there a difference between “imputable” and “blameworthy”?
A. I gave the definition of imputability, the noun for the character of being imputable. Imputability is the moral responsibility for one’s human actions. Blameworthy means responsible, which is different, because impute may be something ascribed. For example reatus poena and reatus culpae are different forms of liability, one without guilt and the other with.
- Status