(June 25, 2015 at 1:31 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 25, 2015 at 1:18 pm)Metis Wrote: Original Sin officially, "Natural evil" found in the environment like flesh eating insects and tsunamis are punishment for human actions.

Yeah... that's not Church doctrine and not what I believe in. I can't speak for the people who do believe this.

I don't know if you believe it Catholic_Lady but I can assure you it most certainly is. It's a hard topic to explore but this is a good introduction

 http://catholicexchange.com/the-problem-of-natural-evil

Quote:We’ve answered one question only to immediately raise another: Why would God create a world in which it is possible for good things to accidentally cause evil things? The answer is that it is one good thing in particular—mankind—that went astray, throwing the rest of creation askew. What changed it all, according to Scripture, is the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden—an event so catastrophic that it not only estranged us from God, but also wounded the whole of creation in the process. As Genesis 3:17-18 says, “Cursed is the ground because of you! In toil you shall eat its yield all the days of your life. Thorns and thistles it shall bear for you, and you shall eat the grass of the field.”
This idea of the whole of creation as suffering from the sin of man—its steward and vital link to its Creator—is echoed in Romans 8:22, where St. Paul writes of a universal expectation of redemption: “We know that all creation is groaning in labor pains even until now.”

CL, do you think a belief is simply a choice, that you can just 'turn on' or 'turn off' a belief?

(June 25, 2015 at 1:34 pm)Metis Wrote:

(June 25, 2015 at 1:31 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Yeah... that's not Church doctrine and not what I believe in. I can't speak for the people who do believe this.

I don't know if you believe it Catholic_Lady but I can assure you it most certainly is. It's a hard topic to explore but this is a good introduction

 http://catholicexchange.com/the-problem-of-natural-evil

This is a person's opinion and interpretation of Genesis, not Church doctrine. I assure you, the Church does not teach that natural disasters and insects are God's punishment.

(June 25, 2015 at 1:37 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 25, 2015 at 1:34 pm)Metis Wrote: I don't know if you believe it Catholic_Lady but I can assure you it most certainly is. It's a hard topic to explore but this is a good introduction

 http://catholicexchange.com/the-problem-of-natural-evil

This is a person's opinion and interpretation of Genesis, not Church doctrine. I assure you, the Church does not teach that natural disasters and insects are God's punishment.

It teaches they are the result of human actions, an affliction caused by sin http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1049.htm . Thomas Aquinas is a Doctor of the Catholic Church and a Saint right? You don't get any higher up in the hierarchy other than being a Pope Saint or the Virgin Mary.

I'm guessing in a created world flesh eating bugs didn't create themselves.

(June 25, 2015 at 1:33 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 25, 2015 at 1:22 pm)Tonus Wrote: If the only benefit of free will is that it gives me the option to condemn myself to hell for an eternity, then it's not very useful.  If "me being me" can only result in eternal damnation, what good is free will?

You have the choice not to.

That doesn't really answer my question. Having the choice seems like a losing proposition. Letting god do the choosing works perfectly, letting me do the choosing has a chance of failing with tragic consequences.

Is there a way in which having free will is a benefit for me? You say it's what makes me who I am. If who I am is a person who will spend eternity away from god, isn't it better for me to be whoever god decides I am? Pretend that I have no free will. Aside from my decision to serve or reject Jesus, how would my life be different? In what other ways can I use free will, that would make it worthwhile to risk offending god?

I'm being serious here, this isn't a trick question. Frankly, this whole idea came about from a different topic here and I'm curious as to how Christians approach the question. I think it's a legitimate concern with the issue of free will, and am wondering if there's something I'm missing.

(June 25, 2015 at 1:35 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: CL, do you think a belief is simply a choice, that you can just 'turn on' or 'turn off' a belief?

No. I think sometimes you can't help but believe/disbelieve in certain things.

---

(June 25, 2015 at 1:39 pm)Metis Wrote:

(June 25, 2015 at 1:37 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: This is a person's opinion and interpretation of Genesis, not Church doctrine. I assure you, the Church does not teach that natural disasters and insects are God's punishment.

It teaches they are the result of human actions, an affliction caused by sin http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1049.htm . Thomas Aquinas is a Doctor of the Catholic Church and a Saint right? You don't get any higher up in the hierarchy other than being a Pope Saint or the Virgin Mary.

I'm guessing in a created world flesh eating bugs didn't create themselves.

Thomas Aquinas was a Saint and a great theologian, but his work is not infallible Church teaching. It is not doctrine.

(June 25, 2015 at 1:41 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 25, 2015 at 1:35 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: CL, do you think a belief is simply a choice, that you can just 'turn on' or 'turn off' a belief?

No. I think sometimes you can't help but believe/disbelieve in certain things.

Good. So if I lack a belief in God, it's not because I've 'chosen' to disbelieve in God, it's because I can't believe in God. I can't believe in God until I've become convinced; just like I can't suddenly choose to believe that up is down and down is up, I can't choose to believe in God.

Lacking that belief is a part of me over which I have no control. Yet I will still end up in hell/not entering heaven/being destroyed after death/etc based on that?

Ad Hoc Rationalization

In this fallacy, an explanatory factor, condition, or reason is set forth without validity to counter a specific objection or argument in order to defend one's original assertion, hypothesis, findings, or conclusion.

Example: In the following example, Dr. A uses ad hoc rationalization when questioned by Dr. B:

Dr. A: My paper and pencil test of intelligence is better than any of the others.

Dr. B: But in that recent study, it showed no reliability or validity.

Dr. A: I'm sure they scored it incorrectly.

Dr. B: They brought in 2 other teams to make sure the scoring was done correctly.

Dr. A: The researcher was probably one of my rivals, someone who wanted to do me in.

Dr. B: Actually, it's your best friend who has been your biggest supporter for decades.

Dr. A: Well, no wonder!  He had to lean over backwards to make my test look bad so that he wouldn't be accused of favoritism!

(June 25, 2015 at 2:18 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Hello everyone, I have another question for all you fine folks of AF.

Do you wish there was a God?

It doesn't have to be the God of Abraham. But just A God. Some supernatural supreme being out there who created us and loves us.... Do you wish that was real or do you prefer the idea of nothing like that existing?

Please explain why or why not.

You would really have to unpack and define the word 'god' before I was able to make a judgement.

But for the most part, I would not wish any god that has extreme power and knowledge and that has the ability to manipulate our reality, cause miracles, answer prayers, etc to exist. I just cannot imagine how living in a universe with such a god, would not be a totalitarian regime. No matter how much said god is supposed to love us.

Just because a being created us, does not mean that it is moral for it to have sovereignty over us.


As far as the existence of a deistic type of god (created the universe, let it run on its own), I could care less if that type of god existed.  


But since I do not base my beliefs on what I wish were true, only what is actually true, I do not play such 'wishing games'.

(June 25, 2015 at 1:14 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 25, 2015 at 1:12 pm)Tonus Wrote: I agree, because it makes sense.  Don't you think it's better, then, for god to have made that decision for us?  Centuries of mankind thinking for itself have led us down a road of hardship, misery and suffering and possibly billions of lost souls.  Had god made the decision for us, we would all be saved.  Isn't that the better outcome for everyone?  Given a choice of making my own decision and letting god (the greatest intellect in existence, a loving and generous being who wants what is best for me) do it instead, I'd let god take over every time.  Doesn't it seem mean of him to leave such a momentous decision in our hands, knowing that a very large percentage of us will get it wrong?

But we wouldn't be US if we didn't have free will. We wouldn't be human beings. We would just be puppets without a mind of our own or control over our bodies or minds. I would not be me, and you would not be you.

As Robvalue pointed out, that opens up a can of worms regarding Heaven. There is supposed to be no sin there. That means the people who go to Heaven either:

1. Have their free will taken away so they can't sin and become robots,

or

2. God somehow makes it possible for them to retain free-will and still insure that they never sin. If he can do that, why not do it here?