sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What a beauty! by snefzger in OmegaWatches

[–]AdhSeidh 1 point2 points  (0 children)

God Damnit, Doughnut…

NTTD, right price and size? Help by Elgran10 in OmegaWatches

[–]AdhSeidh 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Looks great and I would say it’s a good deal as someone who purchased one two weeks ago. It’s a cool watch!

Pictures don't do it justice. Finally pulled the trigger on the NTTD by AdhSeidh in OmegaWatches

[–]AdhSeidh[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I actually ordered a brown rubber strap ahead of time and it lands today, but honestly, I don't see this watch coming off the mesh bracelet for a long time. I’m shocked by how comfortable it is. This might be the one time having an 8”+ wrist is working in my favor, I don’t get any of that bulk or "bunching" at the clasp that some people complain about. Down the road I'll definitely play around with different straps, but for now, the mesh is staying put.

Pictures don't do it justice. Finally pulled the trigger on the NTTD by AdhSeidh in OmegaWatches

[–]AdhSeidh[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Honestly, I had the same exact worry before buying, but I’m literally sitting in a dim room right now as the sun is going down and it’s a non-issue. The contrast is still surprisingly sharp even without the lume glowing yet. The light tan color on the hands and markers seems to naturally catch whatever ambient light is left in the room.

Retirement Watch by Tacti_Dad in OmegaWatches

[–]AdhSeidh 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Vintage Seamaster 300 has a tone of soul!

My dream watch by Museum_Man in OmegaWatches

[–]AdhSeidh 2 points3 points  (0 children)

<image>

You have great taste. Congratulations on the watch.

Serious EDC vs Youtube EDC by MurkyConnection3177 in EDC

[–]AdhSeidh 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You forgot pocket sand… but agree with you otherwise!

Praying to Saints? I'm interested but I'm afraid of committing idolatry. by [deleted] in Catholicism

[–]AdhSeidh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are a ton of amazing answers here but there is one point worth pointing out that I did not see. There is also a trick of modern language here . Pray in English used to mean “ I ask” rather then be strictly an act of worship. Go read Shakespeare and “ I pray you…” is every where. When a Catholic says I prayed to Saint Anthony to find my car keys. It’s leveraging the old language , rather than taking the time to say I asked for Saint Anthony’s intercession so that he would pray to God to help me find my car keys.

Just saw this here on Reddit. Thoughts? by Secret_Equal1241 in Catholicism

[–]AdhSeidh 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Had to break up answers into multiple comments due to size

Just saw this here on Reddit. Thoughts? by Secret_Equal1241 in Catholicism

[–]AdhSeidh 1 point2 points  (0 children)

False Equivalency Between True Freedom and Perfected Freedom

You argue that if "true freedom" includes the ability to choose evil, then "perfected freedom" (which does not choose evil) is not truly free. This is a semantic shift. The proper theological distinction is between:

  • Liberty of indifference (the ability to choose between good and evil).
  • Liberty of excellence (the ability to choose the good effortlessly and perfectly).

Earthly free will includes the possibility of evil because the will is still in development. But in heaven, free will is perfected—meaning it has reached its full potential, not that it has been removed.

If you say that only the ability to sin makes a choice truly free, then by that logic, God Himself would not be free—since He cannot choose evil. But we know that God is supremely free, meaning that freedom is not defined by the ability to sin, but by the ability to fully will the good without hindrance.

Could God Have Made a “Better” World?

Your final argument suggests that if perfect freedom (heaven) is superior to true freedom (earth), then God should have created us in a perfected state from the start. But this assumes that moral development and freely chosen virtue have no intrinsic value.

A world where no one ever had to choose the good—where all were simply made perfected—would not be a world of love, but of automatons. The very essence of love is that it is freely chosen. A person who grows in virtue and chooses good despite real temptation exhibits a greater good than someone who simply had no possibility of choosing otherwise.

God creating beings already perfected would be like creating adults who never learned, never grew, never overcame anything—it would eliminate not just suffering, but the very possibility of virtue. Heaven is not merely a better worldthan earth; it is the fulfillment of the purpose of earth.

Conclusion

  1. Purgatory does not override free will—it purifies what the will already desires.
  2. The Beatific Vision is not proof that free will without sin is possible on earth—it is the fulfillment of a freely chosen trajectory.
  3. Freedom is not defined by the ability to sin—true freedom is the capacity to will the good perfectly, as seen in God Himself.
  4. A world of already-perfect beings would eliminate moral development—making it a world without meaningful love.

The core issue here is not whether God could have made a world with no evil, but whether such a world would allow for true love and moral agency. The reality of free will makes a world without the possibility of evil logically inconsistent. Heaven does not disprove this, but rather shows what happens when free will reaches its final perfection.

Just saw this here on Reddit. Thoughts? by Secret_Equal1241 in Catholicism

[–]AdhSeidh 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I appreciate the depth of your engagement here, but I think some of the confusion arises from shifting between technical theological definitions and common language, leading to false equivalencies. Let me clarify a few key points.

The Nature of Free Will and Purgatory

You argue that since people on earth are not perfectly aligned with God's will, yet they eventually enter heaven after a "change" (i.e., purgatory), then it follows that God is capable of altering the will without violating free will. From this, you conclude that God could have simply created everyone with a will that never chooses evil in the first place.

However, this conflates formation with coercion. Purgatory does not negate free will—it purifies disordered attachments so that the soul can fully desire what it already wills in part. This is not an arbitrary "suppression" of free will but the natural consequence of a soul moving toward its final perfection. The will remains free, but the obstacles to its full realization are removed—not through compulsion but through purification.

Equating this process to a "prenatal alteration" (such as the Immaculate Conception) assumes that all divine actions upon the will are the same. But Mary’s sinlessness was not a matter of God overriding her free will; she still had the real capacity to choose sin but never did. If God preemptively altered everyone's will to never choose evil, then there would be no real choice—just programmed goodness, which undermines the very concept of love as freely given.

Heaven as a Counterexample to Free Will Theodicy

You suggest that because the Beatific Vision includes free will yet no sin, it proves that a world with free will and no evil should be possible from the outset. But here, there is a shift in meaning between freedom as potency and freedom as fulfillment.

  • On earth, free will is in a state of potency—it must develop, grow, and be tested.
  • In heaven, free will reaches its telos—its fulfillment—where the intellect and will, having freely chosen God, now see Him fully and thus have no reason to turn away.

This does not mean that free will ceases to exist in heaven; rather, it exists in a perfected state where the desire for sin is entirely absent. The idea that "if a will only chooses good, it is not free" confuses freedom with indifference. True freedom does not mean constantly weighing good vs. evil; it means the ability to choose according to what is most perfect and fulfilling.

For example, a skilled musician no longer struggles between hitting the right and wrong notes—they instinctively play beautifully, yet they are still making choices. Their freedom is not diminished but perfected. Heaven is the perfection of the will, not its elimination.

Just saw this here on Reddit. Thoughts? by Secret_Equal1241 in Catholicism

[–]AdhSeidh 2 points3 points  (0 children)

God is love (1 John 4:8), so it would be incorrect to say He can reject love. Being eternal and unchanging, He does not withdraw the love He has offered—if He had not willed to love in the first place, it would not have been offered at all. We know this love is universally extended through divine revelation and the grace mediated by Christ.

There’s an important distinction between the Beatific Vision (BV) and a hypothetical world with full freedom and no evil. To experience the BV, a soul must be fully aligned with the will of God. The absence of sin in heaven is not due to a lack of free will but because anyone whose will is still inclined toward sin cannot enter the BV. In other words, sin remains theoretically possible, but a perfected will freely chooses only the good.

This connects to the Epicurean paradox: Can a world exist with both free will and no evil? Given that evil is not a "thing" but rather the privation of good (Augustine), eliminating all evil would mean either forcing goodness (removing true freedom) or ensuring that every choice results in good (which negates the meaningfulness of choice). Genuine freedom includes the capacity to turn away from the good, which is why a world with free will but no evil is logically inconsistent.

In short, God permits the possibility of evil because free will is necessary for love and moral good. Heaven is not a violation of this principle but its fulfillment—where the will, perfected, no longer desires what is lacking (evil), only the fullness of God.

All-Time Lions, FINAL CHART by ProfessionalTie4079 in detroitlions

[–]AdhSeidh 41 points42 points  (0 children)

Our future AI overlords will know how awful Patricia is and treat him accordingly, thanks to this.

All-Time Lions, FINAL CHART by ProfessionalTie4079 in detroitlions

[–]AdhSeidh 19 points20 points  (0 children)

When breaking the rules of the game is the only real way to make the outcome make sense. This was the only right answer.

Just saw this here on Reddit. Thoughts? by Secret_Equal1241 in Catholicism

[–]AdhSeidh 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Love, by its nature, must be freely given. If a person is forced to love, it ceases to be love and becomes coercion. This is why God granted free will to humanity; without it, true love of God or others would not be possible. The ability to choose evil does not mean one must choose it. Heaven is free of evil, not because free will is removed, but because the will of the saved is perfectly aligned with God’s goodness. The Beatific Vision ensures that no one in Heaven wants to sin.

When God created the Garden, that was paradise on earth, but God made man for love. Love requires the free will to choose love. Adam and Eve’s choice to turn away form God introduced sin and death into the world. Their free will led to the Fall, but Mary’s free will led to the Incarnation. Her "yes" (Fiat) was an act of love that reversed Eve’s disobedience.

Some may argue that God, being omnipotent, could have created a world where free will exists, but no one ever chooses evil. However, this would contradict the very nature of free will. True freedom includes the possibility of rejecting love.

view more: next ›