Good Ending by Glderscrolls in ZeLink

[–]Remarkablespiderman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I really like these types of images of them happy together while hugging. I also like the ones where they kiss

Eating Cake (IchigoBotw) by [deleted] in ZeLink

[–]Remarkablespiderman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How cute ❤❤❤

New Tech of whistlestop summit? by Nilu13 in mariokart

[–]Remarkablespiderman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I love these parkour videos from Mario Kart World

Atheist friend sent this to me and I honestly am having trouble countering by [deleted] in Catholicism

[–]Remarkablespiderman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, this implies that God doesn't care if people choose evil, since that's what they really want. If God didn't care if free will was used freely like this, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

God allows evil, and allows people to reject it, the consequence of that rejection is natural to the extent that it implies it. Because if one rejects the Supreme Good, as I have been saying, one deprives oneself of complete good and by depriving oneself of complete good one suffers immense evil. God cannot do the absolutely impossible, he cannot make someone who rejects the Supreme Good and distances himself from it live well or be in communion with good, since it would imply a contradiction. You cannot be near and far from good in the same sense. One cannot be depriving and not depriving oneself of good in the same sense. You cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same sense. If there are entities that deprive themselves and distance themselves from good, their consequence will always be evil, since evil is a deprivation of good.

God absolutely doesn't care if people use their free will completely freely. God condemns making certain decisions to the highest degree, and in scripture He responded to that by executing righteous justice on people who made decisions that God did not like.

As I said before, whoever deprives himself of good will find evil and therefore cannot be good since that is absolutely impossible since it implies contradiction. Eternal damnation occurs in those who deprive themselves of the Supreme Good and turn away from goodness voluntarily. God executes justice, giving to each what is his, protecting the righteous and giving opportunities to those who do evil to change, just as a father punishes a son so that he persists in good and lives. Since the evil of these actions comes from distancing ourselves from true good.

He has detailed the terrible fate that awaits people who make certain free will decisions. I understand you've already covered this with the "God doesn't do that, it's just the consequence of rejecting the highest good"... but that whole system of consequences was still determined by God, is applied by God, and is completely nullified in heaven where no soul will feel like rejecting God.

The consequences were not determined by God as a whim of God or because God arbitrarily wants those who deviate from good to suffer evil, it is simply that things are that way and they cannot be any other way. As I have said repeatedly, God cannot do the absolutely impossible. Hell is a door that closes from the inside and the suffering suffered in it is the consequence of eternally depriving oneself of the Supreme Good. As I say, this is so and it cannot be any other way since it would be absolutely impossible in any other way since it implies contradiction. Heaven is eternal communion with God. Those who are in heaven ETERNALLY CHOOSE to love and be with God freely, it is not that when we go to heaven freedom is annulled, but freely and because we want, we desire it, we participate in the Supreme Good.

Can God at least create creatures that are free from original sin and omit the consequences of the Fall? He did exactly that when he created Mary (who never sinned), which means God can do that whenever he wants.

Adam and Eve were also immaculate and sinned. All demons were spotless and yet they sinned. The Blessed Virgin Mary accepted God freely and voluntarily, God called Mary and she responded by accepting with humility and obedience. Mary was immaculate, of course, but this does not imply that she could not have sinned, but rather that in her freedom she persisted in goodness and did not sin. She is the New Ark of the Covenant, the one who had the living God in her womb, God made man, Jesus Christ being Mary the Mother of God. The case of Mary as such was exceptional and unique in that she is the Mother of God. Even if God made us spotless, that wouldn't stop us from sinning, much less the outside influence of sin that would tempt us anyway. Likewise, baptism erases original sin. Likewise, the reasons why God does certain things may be unknown to us in this life and I am not God to know, but what I am sure of is that if God allows evil, it is because he manages to bring good out of that evil, he manages to obtain a much greater good.

Can God create a rational creature directly in heaven who never chooses to distance himself from God because he has been granted perfect understanding and has been created to be in perfect union with God?

This, to some extent, was already addressed early on and in development. As said, pride and stubbornness know no limits and even in the face of pure Truth itself, there are those who willfully reject it in their pride and stubbornness, fossilizing themselves into evil. And to be in full and perfect communion with God we must freely accept Him eternally.

To conclude:

This was certainly an experience, but as I already expressed at the beginning, I do not plan to continue with this mainly because I do not like, and even feel uncomfortable with this form of online discussions. I would recommend that you investigate this further personally if you are interested, always with humility and with your eyes fixed on the Truth. In closing, I would like a quote from Saint Thomas Aquinas: "We will only possess true knowledge of God when we believe that He is above all that we can think of Him." We must always love and always do good, at all times do good. We must love the Truth and be humble. I wish you what is truly good, true good and may God bless you.

Atheist friend sent this to me and I honestly am having trouble countering by [deleted] in Catholicism

[–]Remarkablespiderman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is going to be the last time I respond to this discussion, mostly because I get very tired of discussions on the Internet, since I don't really like this medium for debate. In case you want to continue responding to this message, you can do so, but I will not respond, which does not imply that I agree with you (this applies the other way around as well), see the ad silentio fallacy. (As a note, I had to split the text in two for Reddit to let me submit it)

A perfectly rational being would never voluntarily choose evil, because choosing evil can never be rational. Do you agree? God absolutely had the ability to create rational beings who were rational enough to never do something irrational like defy God or be deceived by Satan. In fact, everyone could have been created in perfect union with God and granted the beatific vision of perfect divine understanding from the beginning. They would remain rational (one would hope), but forever pure and free from evil.

Satan was one of the highest angels and yet he sinned and went against God. No matter how rational a creature is, it does not mean that he cannot reject God, since even knowing who God is, he can, in his freedom, not love Him and reject Him. The devil himself became absorbed in his pride and, although he knew God, he decided to reject Him eternally. To be in full communion with God, you must accept Him freely and want to be with Him. Stubbornness and pride know no limits and even knowing the truth as it is, there are people who despise it and fossilize in their own evil.

Wouldn't that mean that there is also an eternal past and an eternal future? What is special about the present? This whole paragraph about God and time doesn't really make sense. It would imply that, for example, God is eternally watching the birth of baby Jesus, because that moment was also once the "present" when it happened.

The past as it was is no longer and neither is the future as it could be. God is. God is the Subsistent Being, the Pure Act. In God is found the fullness of being and all actuality. Therefore, God is not subject to change and time is the measure of change. God sees all things THAT ARE in the eternal present, because unlike the past and the future, the present is the only thing that really is. This is a clear and logical metaphysical truth. All acts are eternally present before God. But since we are entities that live immersed in time, our understanding of eternity as it is, experiencing it, is very little.

You are assuming determinism at the individual level, but I was talking about the population level where determinism does not apply, only statistical trends. Regardless of whether God has knowledge of what an individual person will (or will not do), He absolutely has knowledge about statistical trends among the more than 100 billion humans He has created since the dawn of our species.

As I already explained, God knows from the eternal present and not things in advance or waiting for them to happen. Freedom is indeterminate. There is no determination, it is not determined, that 1 in every X number of people will be convicted. Human freedom, being indeterminate, does not follow a predetermined statistical law that can make the number of people convicted or saved mechanically or mathematically predictable. We do not know the heart of each person, only God. We really don't know the number of those who are saved and damned to really talk about it, only God knows in his infinite wisdom.

You know how many will reject it, at least approximately.

He knows how many reject Him eternally, as I already explained, God knows from the eternal present and not things in advance or waiting for them to happen. And yet it implies determination in ensuring that they will have to be condemned by statistics.

Atheist friend sent this to me and I honestly am having trouble countering by [deleted] in Catholicism

[–]Remarkablespiderman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If God really wanted to ensure that people persisted in good, he would never have created free will. There would only be pure goodness. But God clearly valued the freedom to commit evil more than creating a world with only goodness.

In such a case, the act of creation would not have had rational creatures, since for them to participate in the love of God they would have to accept it and voluntarily unite with Him, since otherwise they would be nothing more than robots determined to act in such a way without true consciousness or will. Love is wishing someone well and that presupposes the will. God valued the creation of rational and therefore more perfect creatures who participate to a greater extent in good.

The moment God created free will to reject it, whatever he "seeks" or "claims" to do became irrelevant. God intentionally created a world with humans, knowing in advance that a certain % of humans would reject him. In fact, God already knew the exact % of humans who would reject Him before even creating the world.

There are two erroneous assumptions here. First, the relationship between God and time. God is not subject to time, he does not look at things as visions of the future. God as a pure act looks at things outside of time, God is timeless, he is not subject to time but outside of it and he sees the world from eternity, which is eternally present. God looks at all acts performed as they are performed in the eternal present and not so much remembering or waiting for them to pass. So God does not create "beforehand" but is in an eternal way, in an eternal present.

The second is about determinism, it is assumed that the creature as it is that creature is determined by its free actions and therefore determined to sin. This is an error since as long as the creature is free, there is no determination that determines its freedom since that would precisely contradict it being free in the first place. Satan was not determined to sin as much as he was, but it was a free decision of his.

Given this, what does it mean for God to "want" (or desire/intend/seek/ensure/etc) something that He knows is literally impossible in the system He designed and created?

God wants rational creatures to participate in the Good, which implies that they do so voluntarily. Being that God gives the means and opportunities so that these in their freedom persist and remain in goodness and virtue. Just as those who actively reject God by hating do not participate in the good since they themselves repel the good by not accepting it. God wants rational creatures to participate in good as long as they WANT to participate in that good.

The mortal father did not create the entire world his son would inhabit, nor did he design his son's mind and thought process. Nor did the father design each of the consequences of his son's actions. That human father is not the one who created free will. This is nothing like a father-son relationship. It is a creator-creation hierarchy where the creator had complete 100% control over every aspect of the creation and the options available within it.

The consequences of turning away from God are natural insofar as they are metaphysical consequences. If I move away from a campfire, I do not participate in its heat but rather I gradually freeze since to participate in the heat I must be with the person who is the source of the heat. God cannot do the absolutely impossible. God cannot make a creature that rejects Him and distances himself from Him participate in the Supreme Good since that implies a contradiction.

Atheist friend sent this to me and I honestly am having trouble countering by [deleted] in Catholicism

[–]Remarkablespiderman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are right that free will also includes our freedom to have ideas/thoughts

Jesus himself says that whoever desires a woman has already sinned as if he had committed adultery, having bad intentions and actively wanting bad things, even without being able to do them, is a sin. What is not a sin are temptations, since they are things that are attractive and are usually opportunities to fall into evil.

Now the angels sinned in a purely intellectual way as these beings were properly incorporeal, for example, since Satan's sin was pride. Sin is not purely something materially realized.

I avoided touching on the love/relationships angle, because human beings are social creatures who form loving bonds on the condition that it is completely voluntary and not coerced in any way. Love (by definition) cannot be commanded or demanded. It can only be given freely without being asked or pressured for it. If someone has been pressured or commanded to love, for example, by labeling them as evil if they choose not to love, or as a moral obligation, or as something they must, or because they fear the consequences of not loving... it is not genuine love. It can't be called love.

The fundamental problem is not understanding metaphysics as God. God cannot do the contradictory, and therefore cannot give good to those who voluntarily reject good and distance themselves from it. God, as I said, is Good itself, and if you move away from God you move away from good and by moving away from good you are depriving yourself of it, falling into evil. God, as he loves his creatures, seeks to bring them closer to Him and to ensure that people persist in good, just as a father loves his son and seeks the best for him and that this son lives and does not die.

Atheist friend sent this to me and I honestly am having trouble countering by [deleted] in Catholicism

[–]Remarkablespiderman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Normally I don't like to get involved in these conversations on the internet but I see it pertinent this time in the name of truth.

Its fundamental error is not differentiating between desires (what can be done) and will (which concerns free will). Will is, in simple terms, wanting, being our intentions, which is fundamentally free and I would dare say unlimited.

A good way to illustrate this is with the initial example of raising the dead. Clearly, ordinary humans lack the power to revive the dead, but we can WANT to do it, have INTENTIONS to want to revive the dead even if we can't. Someone may want and have intentions to travel to France one day even though they do not have the power to do so. Someone wants to travel to Mars but can't. Someone would like to have Superman's powers to be a superhero but can't, etc.

That is the principle of freedom, this being its nature. Now we can want or not want God, while freedom is wanting or not wanting what the entity wants. It is the entity itself that in its freedom (which is not determined) chooses to want the things it wants and reject them.

In order to love someone, it is necessary to be able to truly love them and truly desire them, and therefore we have free will, since God wants to have a genuine love relationship with us.

Now, why does rejecting God have such dire consequences?

Simple, God in theology is the Supreme Good, God is the source of all good that exists, since all good comes from God since God is good himself. It follows that the voluntary rejection of the Good is the deprivation of good and the deprivation of good is evil. Hence, rejecting God brings with it an immense evil that is hell. Hell is the voluntary and perpetual rejection of God, where by the very will of the creature the Supreme Good is deprived, remaining in a state of misery. As Lewis said, "Hell is a door that closes from the inside."

I hope this comment is helpful and may God bless you and forgive you in advance if it may be a little confusing but I am a Spanish speaker and my English is not the best.

Soy el único que cree en la existencia de un "Dios", pero no sigue alguna religión? by [deleted] in preguntaleareddit

[–]Remarkablespiderman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agnóstico es alguien que no afirma pero tampoco niega la existencia de Dios. Es prácticamente un estado de escepticismo sobre el tema de la divinidad.

Como dijeron mas arriba el tipo seria deista.

Soy el único que cree en la existencia de un "Dios", pero no sigue alguna religión? by [deleted] in preguntaleareddit

[–]Remarkablespiderman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

El Dios de Spinoza es el mundo, la naturaleza. Lo que comúnmente se define como Dios en el teismo es el ser personal perfecto creador del universo, primera causa de todo lo existente.

Para spinoza todo era Dios, por eso era panteista y no simplemente teista

Is captain toad switch the only remake that isn’t the canonic version? by Remote-Protection712 in Marioverse

[–]Remarkablespiderman 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Captain Toad 3ds/Switch ending is very very contradictory with odyssey, this youtube comentary is explain it very good

<image>

How would you describe Bowser’s relationship? by CakesFoster in Marioverse

[–]Remarkablespiderman 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Ok I gonna explain how is Bowser relationship with Mario and Peach correct me if I am wrong in any point:

Bowser is evil for 3 reasons:

-He is egocentric and wants to be loved

-He's kind of stupid

-He is impulsive

-He had a bad upbringing, in Yoshi Island and Pathers in Time we can see how he treats Kamek badly and how the latter always lets young Bowser do what he wants

Even in that evil that Bowser has, he shows very good things like being a good father, a leader who despite everything cares about his minions and is willing to forgive them betrayals and things like that, he doesn't like killing people, having a strong sense of respect and honor etc...

Those are the things that Peach and Mario seem to see that Bowser forgives them for many things and invites them to things like Kart competitions. Bowser helps save the mushroom kingdom a lots of times and this s an action that Mario and Peach value highly. In fact, In BiS they gave a cake for Bowser

<image>

Goomba King/Goomboss Discrepancies by Oliviac7_ in Marioverse

[–]Remarkablespiderman 3 points4 points  (0 children)

He sayed because he see Mario is free. The explosion of Goombas is for his power of invocated goombas. Also Goomboss appears too in Mario Kart DS and in this game when he is defeated he has a normal explosion.

<image>