More fun with Catholicism

[Dominic]

Do you want to take free will away ?  So who should lose it and who should keep it ?  Do you want to give up your own free will for instance ?

Isn't the best scenario that people use their free will for good rather than evil - instead of having free will taken away ?

Do you advocate freedom ?  Would you rather be a robot ?

I have a question; is there free will in heaven?  If so, do people sin in heaven?  If they do sin, then heaven doesn't sound much better than life on earth.  If they don't, then god has no excuse for not setting up things on earth like it is in heaven.

Aaron,

Good questions.

In this physical life, free will can be understood as a choice between God's will (the perfectly right decision) and something else (usually the individual's will).

In Heaven, the individual has realised and accepted the perfection of God's will and therefore completely and freely united his own individual will with God's.

In this physical life we are still learning how to do that, and why we should.

[plethora]

A child (or anyone) being raped has their free will significantly restricted by the offender.

Thank you. So your claim that god allows this sort of thing to happen to give people free will is FALSE.

That is one example of how removing free will is not a good thing - yet you appear to be suggesting that a good God should remove free will.

You believe in god and that god is good. You believe he allows evil to exist so that free will exists. This cannot be correct because, as you have already conceded, anyone can be deprived of their free will by anyone else.

Here's something for you...

Is there evil in heaven?
No?

Ok. Is there free will in heaven?
Aaaaaah.

So evil is not necessary for free will to exist and, as proven already, the existence of evil does not mean everyone has free will anyway (.i.e. the victim).

[changeling]

this is so relevant

http://www.theonion.com/articles/pope-forgives-molested-children,101/

That can't be a true story.
It is so repulsive that it defies logic to blame the young boys for
tempting the priests.

[Dominic]

this is so relevant

http://www.theonion.com/articles/pope-forgives-molested-children,101/

That can't be a true story.
It is so repulsive that it defies logic to blame the young boys for
tempting the priests.

All articles by 'The Onion' are satire written as if they were real stories.

[plethora]

In this physical life, free will can be understood as a choice between God's will (the perfectly right decision) and something else (usually the individual's will).

You are redefining free will. Free will is not a choice between god's will and one's own.

We've already concluded that a child being raped has no free will.
Free will has nothing to do with whether one's will matches that of a supernatural being.

In Heaven, the individual has realised and accepted the perfection of God's will and therefore completely and freely united his own individual will with God's.

... and that means there will be no free will in heaven. Only your god's will... and everyone in heaven will be robots.

In this physical life we are still learning how to do that, and why we should.

Baseless claim.

[Omen]

All articles by 'The Onion' are satire written as if they were real stories.

Not fiction:

1. The catholic church forces those who settle out of court to sign a non-disclosure agreement.
2. Many advocates both wtihin and in exclusion to the catholic church publically attacked victims of abuse.
3. The catholic church as a body protected priest who engaged in child rape from legal consequences.
4. The catholic church hid financial records and documents, during investigations and legally worked to silence all findings.
5. The catholic church shipped some pedophile priest to remote locations where they continued to rape children at their leisure, such as the recent revelation of the Native American cases in Alaska.  Where not only pedophile priest were sent, but advocates of charity used the idea of promoting evangelizing to native americans in order to generate a cash flow that far surpassed the funding of the actual Alaskan effort.

Satire is only really funny.. when the implications are actually true.

An even better 'satire' would be an onion article that applauded the actions of the church to take responsibility, work to prevent it happening in the future, and generally be outwardly sorrowful for the actions rather then being caught.

The satire of course is that the church has never done this; the most obvious and most simple thing that any human being would expect an organization that claims to be the divine authority in godliness ( read: goodliness )

[plethora]

@ Dominic

A good god, if he existed and were to have created anything at all, would have created a utopia where all its individuals already understand his 'good' will and live in harmony. Their will would be free to the point where it doesn't limit the next person's will.

I don't see the point of an omnigod, knowing the results before hand, creating a world where there is evil and suffering and where people don't understand him. It's a flawed creation, made up by imperfect human minds.

Luckily, there is no god, there are laws and we take people's freedom (free will) away from them when they commit crimes by sending them to jail.

No gods... no purpose other than our own.

[Woland]

@ Dominic

A good god, if he existed and were to have created anything at all, would have created a utopia where all its individuals already understand his 'good' will and live in harmony. Their will would be free to the point where it doesn't limit the next person's will.

Exactly, especially considering that Dominic has no problem admitting that there is free will AND no evil in heaven. Note: free will and omnimax Biblegod are still logically irreconciliable, but Dominic is swimming in his own self-contradictions.

I don't see the point of an omnigod, knowing the results before hand, creating a world where there is evil and suffering and where people don't understand him. It's a flawed creation, made up by imperfect human minds.

Worse than that, God made a world where most of his own creation doesn't even know he exist (his fault, not ours) and that he has an "offer" (believe or suffer eternally) on the table. How cruel can you get?

Woland

[Omen]

Dominic.  The Catholic church has been proven to:
1) contain a high number of pedophiles who prey on those in their care.
2) protect those pedophiles from any punishment
3) brings pressure to bear on those who make allegations
4) and all of the above is known about, and supported, by the whole hierarchy right to the very top.

Now.  Maybe the above does make me "biased" against that organisation.  I sincerely hope I would carry the same bias against any organisation that did the same things.  Or are you arguing that none of the above happened?

Pedophiles are attracted to positions where they can get access to children eg scouts, teachers, social work, charities, health care, religious organisations.

You don't actually have the statistics or research to demonstrate this to be true, you are simply making this statement in a manner to excuse yourself from having to accept the possibility that the sexual probation inherent in catholicism promotes sexual deviancy.  Which we already have a wide range of psychological studies to suggest that natural behaviors that are oppressed are often expressed outwardly in different ways.

To change the attack to the organisations instead of attacking the pedophiles is to completely miss the point.

Complete and totally dishonest red herring; Anfauglir JUST listed a series of actions taken by an organization that makes that organization criminally negligent.  

Yes, if members of the organisation cover up crimes then they should be charged and punished by law-

Great! Arrest the pope!

Oh wait.. a powerful organization lead by those who are criminally negligent uses its influence to avoid criminal responsibility.

but not by media -

Yes, demonize the whistle blower, discard the very voice that speaks to defend the indefensible or those who do not have a voice for which to be heard.  It is certainly not the fault of the church, they were simply 'caught', if only they hid it better.

Do you have any competent thought in your pea brain?

The ability for free speech is also the ability to defend ones own rights, to defend the rule of law, and to hold the law accountable to itself.  Meaning our ability to speak out and to hold our peer groups responsible, is directly in relationship to the ability of the law to govern and to work.  Otherwise, in any organization that lacks any internal self analysis, ( such as the catholic church or any religious body ) then corruption becomes pervasive.

The only reason to condemn the 'media' is to prefer to silence/censure that what you do not like to admit.

and certainly not by bigoted armchair atheists.

The classic Dominic boogey man of atheist.. its all some giant conspiracy of evil atheist just trying to test your faith, its not really because you're a babbling moron trying to justify the indefensible.  As you obfuscate, make baseless assertions, dismiss people, and generally avoid any uncomfortable admissions.


[/quote]

[Omen]

Worse than that, God made a world where most of his own creation doesn't even know he exist (his fault, not ours) and that he has an "offer" (believe or suffer eternally) on the table. How cruel can you get?

Woland

An offer not based on the ability to 'know', completely void of any knowledge that can be reasonably claimed.  Yet, insisted that upon the complete lack of any 'knowledge', that something else be believed.

I particular love when christians argue it as a 'choice', as if my ability to claim to know things relies on my ability choose.  I can't remember the last time I walked out my front door and 'chose' to believe my sub compact death trap is actually a mighty dragon that ferries me to work and back.

No matter how hard I try, it is still a subcompact silver coffin on wheels and shockingly never a black riding dragon.

[Aaron123]

In this physical life, free will can be understood as a choice between God's will (the perfectly right decision) and something else (usually the individual's will).

In Heaven, the individual has realised and accepted the perfection of God's will and therefore completely and freely united his own individual will with God's.

In this physical life we are still learning how to do that, and why we should.

See, as soon as you admit this, your entire free will/sin arguement falls apart.  You just said that:

1) There is free will, but no sin in heaven

2) This is because we now understand, and completely agree with god's will.

If god can get people to understand him in heaven, then why would he not do so on earth?  Is he unable to? (not omnipotent)  Or is he unwilling to? (not benevolent)  Or is he imaginary? (which resolves the paradox)


Also; under this view, what of hell?  Sounds like those who go to hell will do so because they are ignorant of god's will.  This seems incredibly unjust, and not something an all-loving being would do.  An all-loving being would want everyone to go to heaven and be happy, and would want to make sure this happens.  Now, you just said that in one place, he can do this.  So, why is he unable or unwilling to do this on earth?

[Dominic]

In this physical life, free will can be understood as a choice between God's will (the perfectly right decision) and something else (usually the individual's will).

In Heaven, the individual has realised and accepted the perfection of God's will and therefore completely and freely united his own individual will with God's.

In this physical life we are still learning how to do that, and why we should.

See, as soon as you admit this, your entire free will/sin arguement falls apart.  You just said that:

1) There is free will, but no sin in heaven

2) This is because we now understand, and completely agree with god's will.

If god can get people to understand him in heaven, then why would he not do so on earth?  Is he unable to? (not omnipotent)  Or is he unwilling to? (not benevolent)  Or is he imaginary? (which resolves the paradox)

This physical existence is the process by which God's will is understood and accepted.

Why not just force acceptance on everyone ?  Because if it is not chosen then it is not appreciated.  When people say to us they know what's best for us, how do we react ?  Most of us say that we would prefer to discover it and choose it for ourselves, thanks very much!

So what does a benevolent God do ?  He says so be it.

Also; under this view, what of hell?  Sounds like those who go to hell will do so because they are ignorant of god's will.  This seems incredibly unjust, and not something an all-loving being would do.  An all-loving being would want everyone to go to heaven and be happy, and would want to make sure this happens.  Now, you just said that in one place, he can do this.  So, why is he unable or unwilling to do this on earth?

First understand what Hell is.  There is God's will which is perfect (Heaven) and there is human individual will which is imperfect.  The extent that the individual will is preferred to God's is the degree of Hell.

Note importantly that this degree is freely chosen by the individual, never coerced.

How, you might ask, is my individual will equivalent to Hell when it differs to God's will ?  I'll give an example.  The individual will attaches importance to the body.  The body however ages and dies.  It is just a passing form.  On the other hand, when the individual will recognises and submits to God's will, it attaches importance to the soul (consciousness) which never ages or dies.

So the selfish individual will freely chooses an experience of separation, suffering and death.   While the selfless individual will freely chooses an experience of unity and eternal life.

This discovery/realisation is the main lesson and purpose of human existence.

[Omen]

This physical existence is the process by which God's will is understood and accepted...

So let's be amazingly clear here.. again Dominic.  You are not addressing a single thing that Aaron pointed as necessitated logically by your own contradictory statements.

Now, lets move on to the delusional myth making.

Why not just force acceptance on everyone ?

Strawman, force is not necessary nor being argued in favor of.

God, omnipotent and omniscient, has the ultimate/absolute ability to give everyone the knowledge required and explanatory reasoning to understand his existence, purpose, and how they should act.

Are you saying that reason and logic do not play into being able to understand or know anything at all?

Because if it is not chosen then it is not appreciated.

Special pleading, it is irrelevant whether it is appreciated vs not appreciated.  Just as the appreciate is irrelevant to its acceptance and the only thing claiming this does is allow you to offer another non-explanatory pleading argument which you then follow up with more absurd nonsense.

Do you have an appeal or counter argument that doesn't use special pleading and make believe?

  When people say to us they know what's best for us, how do we react ?

  Most of us say that we would prefer to discover it and choose it for ourselves, thanks very much!

I ask what, why, and how.  Just like I would ask my doctor who suggests advice upon a condition I've been dealing, at no point do I 'prefer to discover it and choose it myself." I instead, want to make the best informed and knowledgeable decision I could possibly make.

The only other viable option here is the deference to blindly siding with an authoritarian position that lacks any reasonably, logical, and informative basis for not only its own 'authority' but the reasons it would be believed with or without its place as an authority.

Unless, you're admitting that 'faith', 'the bible', and your idiotic myth making requires people to make claims about reality without being informed accurately?

Plus, my ability to be informed never changes my ability to choose what I eventually do.  I could simply refuse treatment, I could seek more information, I could accept treatment, or I could flip over the table and piss on the walls.  The only thing 'god' would change in making you informed, is giving you accurate information from which to work with.,

Again, the scenario you describe paints your 'god' as an imbecile who expects statements of 'belief' based on a complete lack of any foreknowledge of what the truth might be or 'else'.  It makes you appear even more ludicrously stupid as you desperately try to build one pleading strawman after another in a vain attempt to justify what you claim.

First understand what Hell is.

Based on?

Oh wait.. nothing, not even an informed basis for which to claim knowledge of anything at all.  Totally inseparable from make believe, fantasy, your imagination, and not even internally logically consistent with your own assertions of pretend.

[Aaron123]

This physical existence is the process by which God's will is understood and accepted.

So you need to live a "physical existence" to understand and accept god's will?

In that case, all those that dies in infancy go to hell, since they never got a chance to learn and understand god's will in this existence.

For that matter, what of those that lived a full life, but never once heard of your god or Jesus?  Apparently, they're hellbound due to their ignorance of god's will, no matter how good they were or what contributions they made to their society.

First understand what Hell is.  There is God's will which is perfect (Heaven) and there is human individual will which is imperfect.  The extent that the individual will is preferred to God's is the degree of Hell.

Note importantly that this degree is freely chosen by the individual, never coerced.

How, you might ask, is my individual will equivalent to Hell when it differs to God's will ?  I'll give an example.  The individual will attaches importance to the body.  The body however ages and dies.  It is just a passing form.  On the other hand, when the individual will recognises and submits to God's will, it attaches importance to the soul (consciousness) which never ages or dies.

So the selfish individual will freely chooses an experience of separation, suffering and death.   While the selfless individual will freely chooses an experience of unity and eternal life.

This discovery/realisation is the main lesson and purpose of human existence.

Wow, that was nothing more than a lot of woo.  This doesn't address my point at all.  I asked about the implications of sending people to hell just because they were ignorant of god's will.  I'm arguing that it is unjust for someone to condemn someone else to eternal suffering because they didn't understand something.  Can you address this position without resorting to woo?

[plethora]

Can you address this position without resorting to woo?

No, he can't... unless he admits he is making shit up to defend an indefensible theistic position.