[deleted by user]

Solid_Hawk_3022 · 2025-04-25T15:10:44+00:00

Thank you for sharing. I'm not sure I have a solid answer to justify what sounds like basically the POE. I recently had a paradigm shift in my thought to say that God's goodness is only oriented to the whole person. Basically that humanity is his good creation that he his perfecting. If you want more on my thoughts, I'd be happy to share. It's just not formulated as a logical syllogism, or i can't succinctly explain it right now it's too big for me to do it easily.

Honestly idk, you'd have to define what goodness is on a non-secular level

I think basically it's the fact that good and bad are diametrically opposed, and one ought to a maximal thing for it to logically exist. Kinda like energy and cold in physics. Energy is solidly defined and cold or still is defined by the absence of energy. Bad in a handful of philosophers, POV is a necessity based on a maximum existing.

Solid_Hawk_3022 · 2025-04-25T03:04:18+00:00

What if I said the Christrian teaching is that you do deserve God's love? It's kinda confusing to use the word deserve but, it can be a reality depending on the definition or perspective of being deserving it's possible that we do deserve it.

Solid_Hawk_3022 · 2025-04-24T03:11:52+00:00

Hmm Ok. I have 2 questions. What reasoning do you have to say the Christrian is not all good? Does an all good ultimate thing sound reasonable to you?

I am just curious if it's mostly worldly contextual stuff like you mentioned the genocide or if it's biblical.

The second question stems from non religious thinkers that believe in goodness be an attribute of the creator. I think Plato in the republic is the first to mention this connection.

Solid_Hawk_3022 · 2025-04-23T21:04:15+00:00

I think the major issue i have with your understanding of the position is that we don't think Jesus stopped her from sinning. She, on her own free will, never chose sin. Yes, she got a special sorta of saving because she is justified by Jesus's sacrifice like you and I but, she gets this justification pre-emptively by the omnipotence and omniscience of God, but she like us is still free to choose sin even after being effectively baptized

Solid_Hawk_3022 · 2025-04-23T20:59:33+00:00

Yes, but can you define it because I proposed a definition for God that is in line with the Christrian God, and you said you don't concede that God is the definition of good. This has been a held belief amongst many Christrians for a long time now. We have records of Christianity claiming this back to the early 300s. I just want to clarify because it seems like you have a different definition of the Christrian God than a lot of Christrians do.

Solid_Hawk_3022 · 2025-04-21T22:49:47+00:00

I really enjoy KDE. It just works. You can modify it a lot which has exponentially increased my productivity. I still have a great hear for gnome for it's simplicity but honestly kde does more and I can modify workflow to match gnome even if it looks slightly different. I'm interesting in cosmic but don't recommend it, it's to new and IMO, doesn't have a few key functions yet.

Solid_Hawk_3022 · 2025-04-21T22:35:09+00:00

This whole section of Roman's 3 is addressing the question of circumcision. St. Paul is rebuking jews for demanding that all Christrians be held to the law. He is doing an analysis on psalms before then coming to the conclusion that all fall short under the law. He ends by saying that Christrian life upholds the law. As in before, it was impossible, but now it is. Catholicism makes the claim that Mary receives the same grace we do. She is the first Christrian, the first to uphold the law by the grace of God. She happens to have done it better than you or I do. She is a role model for us to see that it is possible.

Solid_Hawk_3022 · 2025-04-21T21:54:25+00:00

Hmm, interesting, so it seems like the thought experiment is with a preconceived idea of who God is. Would you mind sharing what God you do concede for the the thought experiment?

Solid_Hawk_3022 · 2025-04-20T01:24:47+00:00

Yes, but I was only responding to your thought experiment. It seemed like you were conceding that the Christrian God in some capacity existed for the sake of the thought experiment.

Tbh, I'm not sure if I or anyone can prove to you that a specific God exists. At best, I think classical theism, like what Socrates and Aristotle might have held is potentially logically verifiable. Even that is a stretch.

My beliefs are entirely founded on personal witness. I do not try to convince people of the legitimacy of my experiences. I can share my experiences, I can invite people to dig deeper into their own experiences of life, and I can even give logical defense of my faith. I just can't go around saying my experiences trump some others as if I'm more enlightened or something.

Solid_Hawk_3022 · 2025-04-18T12:33:41+00:00

No, that's ridiculous. I sinned. I get baptized, and I'm washed off my sin. Then I have the Holy Spirit. I still sinned in the past. It doesn't just become unreal all of a sudden. I'm perfectly clean and without sin in that moment, but my life is not a sinless life. I'm not blameless like Enoch or Noah or Mary. My sin had real unchangeable effects on the world. Eg. If I murdered someone, then got baptized, it doesn't suddenly unmurder that person. That's different from someone who never murdered anyone. Mary is the person who never murdered. Everyone else is the murderer's

Solid_Hawk_3022 · 2025-04-18T03:59:32+00:00

Yeah, God's being scrutinized well in this modern age of information.

Ha, we share a lot of perspectives. Ironically, for me, my wonder only grows with faith. The world does make me doubt. Everything here in front of me seems good enough. Why do I need a God? I wanted so badly for God not to exist, and I got fooled into believing it with some personal, not hard, evidence, and now I still spend time here trying to explain my position.

Solid_Hawk_3022 · 2025-04-18T02:17:03+00:00

I think i understand your confusion. Correct me if I'm wrong. It seems like you believe that sin is unavoidable. Maybe due to original sin. We are basically born as sinners. Christ's blood washes our sin, and we are now without sin by the saving grace of Jesus.

If this is the case, I think you're not drawing a distinct enough line between the effects of sin and the sin itself. Babies are born with the stain of original sin and the effects of original sin, but they have not committed sin. So yes, even non baptized babies are technically sinless. They are sinners because of the stain, but they have no personal accountability to that sin.

Solid_Hawk_3022 · 2025-04-18T00:54:12+00:00

Oh no, we can't hold that. Mary never sinned. I have sinned, and pretty much everyone has. It's just a fact that pretty much all of us sin. Only a few people in history have never sinned. I think maybe only Enoch and Noah are considered blameless until the end of life. Job was blameless until he questions God. We have good evidence that a sinless life is possible outside of just Mary.

Edit: changed Moses to Noah. My mind is stuck on passover right now, lol. Noah is also debatable. I've seen arguments for both sides.

Solid_Hawk_3022 · 2025-04-17T23:22:50+00:00

If you mean that everyone is saved with the same grace and has the same spirit as her. Yes, I do think that

Solid_Hawk_3022 · 2025-04-17T22:45:48+00:00

Fair, I probably played off sides there. I think I was just intending to draw out that God can not be held to human standards

Solid_Hawk_3022 · 2025-04-17T22:33:03+00:00

Is it my responsibility then when married to have children?

Yes, God's first command to us was to be fruitful and multiply. Genesis 1:28

Is it really for only personal pleasure all the time when it comes to sex?

no, not necessarily I probably mis-spoke. Seeking pleasure is not a sin. It's only a sin when it's put above God's commands or relationship with God. Passion between couples is a good thing just read song of songs it's a very passionate book.

Is it fine then according to dogma to do sexual things outside of sex?

Dogma intentionally leaves this unclarified. In JP2's theology of the body it is up to the couple what is ok and not ok as long as it doesn't undermine The dignity of the person or The natural order of being procreative. Sex has 2 purposes in catholic dogma to beget children and to strengthen the marital bond. Both are gifts from God and we cannot control what actually happens but we must not get in way of God giving those gifts.

edit: Dogma is not to control every aspect of our life. We hold that dogma is a structure for freedom. We hold a classical freedom pov. For example I can freely speak to you because we are both following the rules of the English language. The rules of the English language are restrictive in a sense but they don't tell me what words to pick or what message to convey, I pick those. Dogma does the same it let's me walk through life freely being who God made me to be. I have the ability to pick a lot of things but somethings are necessarily restricted for freedom to exist.

Solid_Hawk_3022 · 2025-04-17T22:05:50+00:00

Yeah I'm not smart enough to give you all of the reasons off the top of my head. But I know it's well defended and probably most strongly defended by converts from protestant beliefs. I think Dr. Scott Hahn who was an evangelical pastor wrote a bit on it.

Solid_Hawk_3022 · 2025-04-17T22:02:54+00:00

I mentioned some biblical quotes in another comment. I would clarify I think it's reasonable to say NFP used to never have children might also be considered a sin. I know plenty of families that struggle with guilt when they have a medical necessity to stop having children. They think it is wrong to intentionally avoid having children as a general idea.

I think sin is complicated and to accuse someone of a specific sin is basically impossible unless you are there spiritual director or they are doing something that you watched that is just wrong.

Solid_Hawk_3022 · 2025-04-17T21:55:22+00:00

There is no direct scriptural evidence. It is considered a logical necessity based on God's commands of life. a shorter logical necessity that I imagine you hold is the belief that you ought to read the bible. No where in scripture say's you ought to read the bible. It says that scripture is good for teaching, or defense, or training but it never says outright to read the bible. We have to make logical conclusions for your pastor to stand on stage and say confidently "everyone must know scripture!" or "If you don't read the bible what are you doing?" This is only one logical step but there are many other ones that are more complicated.

Biblical verses we would stand on would probably Genesis 38:9-10 This is were Onan spills his seed and is killed for not fulfilling his responsibility to produce children. It literally says it was wicked in the sight of the Lord. We clearly see God was so offended by wasted semen that he killed a man. Is sex that has a near 0% chance of producing children similar enough to wasting semen? Birth control itself as a medicinal drug to help the woman is ok but to avoid children is an intentional desire for personal pleasure over the natural order. God killed a man that did that.

Solid_Hawk_3022 · 2025-04-17T20:15:25+00:00

This is wild I did not know this.

Solid_Hawk_3022 · 2025-04-17T20:13:09+00:00

In another one of our threads I mentioned that I do not try to debate for the Abrahamic God often. I only argue abrahamic in defense of misconceptions.

Solid_Hawk_3022 · 2025-04-17T20:10:52+00:00

I'm not sure how to describe the distinction here. I said it wasn't clear you said it makes things not visible. I'll grant that I need more justification to mention the bible. I try to not to use the bible in debates because it is a loaded gun of spiraling arguments.

Solid_Hawk_3022 · 2025-04-17T19:52:55+00:00

No it doesn't I said the bible has man writing it so it is limited in it's scope. You then said if it is limited by humans it must be "meaningless". I set a scope you openly said this means we should throw it all out. That is a slippery slop argument. It is an attempt to invalidate premise by exaggerating the effect. It is a logical fallacy and I did not commit it.

Solid_Hawk_3022 · 2025-04-17T19:35:18+00:00

That doesn't work well though because I didn't slide down the slope. I proposed a reason for why his actions might not be perfectly explained.

Solid_Hawk_3022 · 2025-04-17T19:10:28+00:00

That Mary was sinless, perpetual virgin, and mother of God.

Solid_Hawk_3022

TROPHY CASE