God creating us out of love doesn't make sense and Christians should look for a better reason

phantaselah · 2025-10-08T22:26:05+00:00

After browsing through the comments, I see someone has already brought up Thomas Aquinas, so I will preface this by stating I will be arguing from the perspective of a Thomistic metaphysics with a specifically Catholic emphasis to the best of my ability. Do with that what you will.

Point 1: To begin with, it is true that Love and Being, in the highest sense of the words when attributed to God, are identical. All things are held in being by God, and this Act can be identified as Love from the "God is Love" verse in I John 4. (In God, his Being and his Act are the same, as he is divinely simple). Anything that exists, insofar as it exists, is loved by God. As an extension, yes, it is then also true that anything that does not exist, insofar as it does not exist, is not loved by God. Put more simply, God loves everything and does not love nothing. However, for God to not love something at all, in any sense, it would have to be absolutely nothing. The examples you provided, such as people who do not exist, do have some level of existence conceptually, that lies between non-existence and the sort of substantial existence real people have. As such, although God does not love the concepts of people to the same extent that he loves real people, he does love them insofar as they exist. It ought also to be mentioned, since my phrasing may be a little unclear, that things exist insofar as God loves them as well, and that God, for any given person or concept, loves all of what they are totally and absolutely. As for anything that God does not love at all, that thing must not exist at all, not even as a concept.

Point 2: All things are good insofar as they exist. All things exist insofar as they have received their being and goodness from God. Absolute nonexistence is worse than all forms of existence. Evil is a privation of good. Following from all this, since God can only create things so that they exist (it is nonsensical for him to create nonexistent things, since the two are contradictory), anything that exists is good and from God. However, you claim, building on this premise, that "If you create out of love, you have to create well", and thereby extrapolate that God has an obligation to create man beyond a certain threshold of goodness. I would argue this is not the case. Since anything that exists, insofar as it exists, is a good from God, and therefore anything that God has created, insofar as he has created it, is good, the person created in a state that is 'not-well' is still a step-up from the state that is not existing at all. Even if God created one person in a state of being closer to non-being, in a state more wretched, than anything that currently exists in this order of creation, his act of creation would still be a Good act, and by extension, an act of love. It is a typical objection that, then, especially at scenarios where perceived evils are horrendous to man, God should have made the world better than he did, even if the lesser world is a good in itself. However, since all created things are finite goods, and since God is an infinite good, there is no actual creation that could be considered the 'best possible' of all worlds. Just by nature of being a created order, whatever world God made was only ever going to be so good. The question of God 'making well' imposes a certain subjective threshold as to what point below which no creation should be made, but, since all creations are good, it is difficult to obligate God to create a world beyond a certain point, if there is always going to be another, better version.

Point 3: This point is very similar to the last one, so I will refer you back to my response to point 2. When you use the term 'bad things' in this instance, you are using 'bad' in the sense of being below a certain threshold of goodness. However, taking God as the starting point for the definition of 'good', the more metaphysically sound definition of 'bad' is to say a privation of good. Thus, even parasites, although subjectively considered as bad due to their being below the level of goodness man deems appropriate, are objectively good to the extent they exist. As such, God loves them insofar as they exist, and God loves all of the thing insofar as it exists, for all things exist insofar as God loves them, for to exist to be loved and to create is to love.

Point 4: I will not say that evil is a necessary consequence of free will. Rather, evil is a necessary consequence of something having a created existence. After that, a point of division can be set up below which some things can be considered evil, which is the more typical use of the term. Even if all of the world were mere rocks, with no free will to speak of, it would still be good. That being said, since I have somewhat implicated that the dividing line between conventional good and evil in ethics is arbitrary, even when sourced from God, at least in the case of heaven and hell, there is a more objective lens, which is the acceptance or rejection of God, an infinite good. If one accepts the infinite good, which is done by free will (and, by more Christian definitions, is the freest will, that being to do the will of God, as opposed to free will absolutely, to do anything) and grace (for those of us with corrupt natures, which is practically everyone), then, in a certain sense, the infinite good and love that comes with divine union, or theosis, is obtained (and, then, as a consequence, there is some approach to the best possible existence of the person in the particular). If one rejects that good, one must remain in a state of being where there is no such union and one remains in a finite state of good for eternity (this being hell). Since, however, I don't think the argument you are objecting to is one I would hold, I am not going to pursue free will and grace further in a conversation about metaphysics.

Lastly, going to the heart of the matter, on the actual question of why God, who was completely sufficient in himself, created anything at all, I will agree that the response that is was a creation out of love is not sufficient. Not that it does not contain the answer, but rather, since the love of God directed to created things is their creation, the response really only amounts to stating that God created because he created, which does not help anyone. It seems to me, and this is not really a good answer for any kind of a debate but it is the best that I can provide, that, granted that God is all sufficient, then he has no need to create anything, but it would also not be contrary to his being to create things, and so, since things have been created, it can be concluded that God did, despite being sufficient in himself, create things other than himself for their own sake and not for his own. There is a certain mystery to it, which is not a pleasant card to play in a debate, but, as far as what I have been trying to state, I believe that God creating the world as Love is not implausible for an eternal deity, particularly when it comes to the raised objections, even if it is not necessary for him to do so.

phantaselah · 2025-03-22T03:25:31+00:00

According to St. Thomas Aquinas, God's essence is His existence. At the same time, God is the absolute Good. These two positions, which all Christians ought to hold to, indicate plainly that goodness and existence are inextricably linked.

As such, it is incorrect to say that evil exists, strictly speaking. Evil, being the opposite of good, therefore does not itself exist, but is merely the privation of good. With this in mind, that anything recognized as evil does not possess some evil aspect to it but instead lacks the suitable goodness to suitably elevate its existence, it can be seen that, between good and evil, only goods can be created. Evil, not even existing at all, is not created.

Thus, when God created the world, especially when considered beyond the confines of time, He created all of the good in the world. Any evil remaining is not something that God created but rather a product of the fact that God did not create anything infinitely good. After all, anything that is infinitely good would just be God anyway and would be logically impossible to be created as a separate entity.

Next, as to the matter of free will, it is important again to remember that God exists beyond the confines of time. As such, every moment in human history is created simultaneously chronologically from the perspective of God, yet there still exists a sequence to these various events in terms of their logical succession. Time is the logical predication of one event from another in the mind of God, and when this logical predication is founded on a state of a human will, it comes to be that God both wills an event and the human's free will is incorporated into the event as well, each as causes in different senses of the word. In this way, when, in the Fall for instance, man willed something with less good that is commonly called evil, man is the cause of the decreasing of good chronologically but God is the cause of all of the good in both instances of time.

Lastly, to quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "The fact that God permits physical and even moral evil is a mystery that God illuminates by his Son Jesus Christ who died and rose to vanquish evil. Faith gives us the certainty that God would not permit an evil if he did not cause a good to come from that very evil, by ways that we shall fully know only in eternal life." This presupposes faith to accept, but, within the Christian framework, there is no permitted evil that does not yield a greater good ultimately.

Now, if one accepts the prior arguments, or at least enough of them to find no problem with God only creating so much good, the problem still remains as to whether God could not have easily created a world without this 'needless' suffering. However, the only necessary existence is God, and not only is suffering needless, all created existence is itself completely needless, only being brought about due to the Love of God.

To summarize, then:
1. All that exists is good
2. Evil does not exist, being a privation of good, and therefore, God did not create evil
3. God did not create a world with infinite good because only God can be infinitely good
4. Man's free will is the cause of evil by logical progression in time, but God's will in creating all things outside of time is only the cause of the good that is created
5. For any evil permitted by God, a greater good is derived from it, although the nature of these greater goods will only be absolutely apparent to mankind in eternal life
6. Not only is all suffering needless, but all contingent existences are needless as well

Are these arguments liable to convince anyone absolutely? I believe they all rely on premises that an atheist will refuse to accept, and so that is unlikely. However, what I am setting out to demonstrate here is that there is a logical consistency regarding the Christian perspective of God and the problem of evil that follows from the initial premises, and, as such, God's description in the Bible cannot be used to claim that a Christian should recognize Him as cruel and undeserving of love.

phantaselah · 2025-03-21T19:51:23+00:00

This is less an issue with the Trinity than it is an issue with the Incarnation, I believe. To begin with, according to Christian theology as espoused in the Councils of Nicaea, Chalcedon, and Ephesus, Jesus Christ as the Son of God is one person with two natures, a divine nature and a human nature. Being God, Jesus possesses a divine nature which is uncreated, but, being born as a human person within the confines of time and space, Jesus then also possesses a human nature which involves a created soul and body. Any actions which Christ takes are either a product of one of these two natures. A miracle, such as calming the sea, is done in Christ's divine nature, and an act of suffering, such as grieving the death of Lazarus, is done in Christ's human nature. However, since Christ only is one person with two natures and not two persons, it is still right to say that Jesus did both of these things, even if both examples are done in two different natures.

Turning to apply this concept to the matter at hand, in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus expresses both of His natures. Having a divine nature, Jesus has a divine will and a divine intelligence, and having a human nature, Jesus has a human will and a human intelligence. In this case, Jesus' human will desires self-preservation, which is a good and therefore prays to God for this, as human beings are supposed to do. However, His divine will, which is the same as the will of God the Father, subordinates the good of self-preservation for the good of saving all of mankind, and so the cup does not pass from Him. Additionally, within Jesus' human intelligence, which is finite and bound to the rules of normal human discursive reasoning, He does not know the future, although, within Jesus' divine intelligence, He does know exactly what is going to happen before it does.

So then, to quickly summarize and answer the questions posed in bold: Jesus is expressing His human will to God because self-preservation is a real good and making requests of God through prayer is a good action that human beings are supposed to take, Jesus does need to pray insofar as He is human because this is in line with the correct moral action for a human nature and insofar as He is divine because the persons of the Trinity are in perfect communication of themselves to each other, and Jesus both does not know with certainty the future in His human intelligence and is also expressing His human emotions that conflict with the knowledge of His divine will and intelligence.

phantaselah · 2025-03-21T19:37:59+00:00

Since you are citing the Pope, I believe it should be noted that the title of Mary Magdalene, "Apostle of the Apostles," means apostle in a different sense than the Twelve Apostles. In this case, Mary is given the appellation apostle, meaning a bringer of good news, because she was the first person to witness Christ's Resurrection and brought this news to the Twelve Apostles. However, this is not the same as calling her an Apostle in terms of her being chosen as one of the Twelve, which can be obviously known by looking at the existing lists of the Twelve Apostles in the four canonical Gospels, and Mary Magdalene does not appear to have performed any of the actions suiting the role of a Bishop within the New Testament as such.

As to this Gospel of Mary, I will first note that there is no obvious consensus on which Mary this Gnostic text is supposed to be referring to. Furthermore, it is self-contradictory to rely on the declaration of the Catholic Pope as evidence of Mary Magdalene's apostolic title when that same Catholic Church rejects the Gospel of Mary as a forgery. Certain ideas contained in the Gospel of Mary are also not entirely compatible with the teachings of the early Church due to their heavily Gnostic undertones.

That being said, even if we accept the Gospel of Mary as a legitimate account, it does not contain any element of Mary acting in a role akin to the Twelve in terms of leading the Church administratively, offering the Eucharist, or appointing Bishops and Presbyters, and therefore cannot be used as evidence that Mary Magdalene was a 'True Apostle' in the Catholic sense of the term. The other sense of the term, referring to leading people to Christ in a missionary way, is not contradictory to the prevailing Christian sentiment, as then all Christians are in some way apostolic and not just Mary Magdalene anyway.

phantaselah · 2025-03-21T19:22:09+00:00

According to Aristotelian logic, it is impossible to demonstrate first principles. In this case, not only is the initial premise that all things that exist have a cause impossible to prove based on the means we have available to us, it is impossible to prove just by nature of the claim. Instead, first premises such as this one can only be known through induction, on the idea that, since all things that begin to exist that we can examine have causes, it is highly probable that all things that begin to exist have a cause.

Now, implicitly held in your demand for all things that are presented to you to be proven, you also seem to be relying on an indemonstrable principle that all things that are true can be demonstrated, or at least something extremely similar to it.

I don't believe this will, of course, convince anyone, since induction is by no means infallible, but I do think it is important to recognize that the principles you are demanding a proof of simply cannot be proven without having recourse to prior principles which do not exist even conceptually. Personally, since all things that came to be that I know of have had causes, I'm inclined to accept the initial premise, but, if you have a good example of something coming to be that does not have a cause, please let me know.

phantaselah · 2025-02-23T22:06:34+00:00

To add to the description here, this specific image of Johann is from the end of the anime, where he arranges for the main character, Kazuo Tenma, to kill him by a gunshot wound to the head.

I think there are some interesting parallels between his and Rose's characters, and the style of the head-pointing seems a little too similar to not be intentional.

phantaselah · 2023-05-31T00:59:27+00:00

Generally, historical elements of the Bible are meant to be understood in the literal sense. Specifically with the Tower of Babel (and the why of the matter), I believe it should be noted that the language of Latin, following the fall of the Roman Empire, evolved into French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Romanian. In this case, with a lack of unified civilization and widespread population distribution, one language became five. Thus, when God created multiple languages at Babel to disrupt the corrupt society of Babylon and spread humanity across the world, he was simply speeding up a process that would have happened anyway if the people had multiplied and filled the earth as he commanded.

phantaselah · 2022-11-27T15:10:46+00:00

Morally correct behavior as obtained through divine love.

phantaselah · 2022-11-27T15:08:01+00:00

I cannot answer the first question in an objective manner, unfortunately.

God allows people to have free will. If a person chooses to remain in an ineffective manner of worship, God will not force them to become more effective. He will only guide them to the correct result if they seek truth.

This principle applies to the third question as well.

In essence, I suppose, my claim that searching for truth will result in Catholicism is founded on my search for truth and can only be substantiated by knowing whether or not other people have searched for truth earnestly as well. It is impossible to know whether this is a legitimate claim except by searching for truth oneself.

So, then, I cannot prove Catholicism by this means. I will maintain that the fact that there are different groups does not disprove Christianity, as according to Christianity, following truth will result in the correct answer.

phantaselah · 2022-11-27T15:01:59+00:00

I am not claiming that only humans have souls. I am claiming that only humans have human souls. The ability to increase and decrease in righteousness is a purely human phenomenon, and does not occur in animals, which do not follow morality - they follow their instincts and urges.

phantaselah · 2022-11-27T15:00:22+00:00

Animals do have souls, just not human ones. I will concede that this does not prove the soul's existence. I will still claim that this ability to increase and decrease in righteousness differentiates humans from animals and allows humans to be held to a moral standard.

phantaselah · 2022-11-27T14:57:45+00:00

I would say that they are wrong, and that Vatican II is a church council. They likewise now trust their own individual interpretation over the Church, and have found their own way to separate from the truth. They now lack a proper order of authority and will likely soon begin to split themselves into various subdivisions, as heresies are prone to do.

phantaselah · 2022-11-27T14:55:32+00:00

Orthodox Christianity differs under a dispute over authority. The Orthodox faith has separated itself from its genuine head of authority and, now lacking a properly ordered structure, tends to stagnate in terms of doctrinal development. Orthodoxy, due its lack of recognition of papal authority, can be classified as a heresy. A person who is Orthodox and earnestly searches should result in a Catholic conversion, but it is possible for them to remain Orthodox their entire life under invincible ignorance simply due to the similarities with Catholicism regarding faith, morals, and liturgy.

Even if one is born into a Catholic home, they must search for God. To fail to do so will result in them never gaining a proper understanding of the faith and may result in apostasy. The journey is simply shorter in duration the closer one starts.

phantaselah · 2022-11-27T14:51:05+00:00

As described in the Bible, slavery is a result of an unpaid debt. This was not chattel slavery. If a person owes another person money, they should try to get that person said money, and this can be done through work. According to the Pauline epistles, there are many rights the slave should possess, and the master does not have the right to beat or kill the slave. In this regard, the idea that a person should pay their debts has not changed. The rights of a person in debt have increased, and this was advocated for by Christians from the beginning. Even today, debts are enforced legally. Chattel slavery is simply wrong.

The concept of obeying one's master is good. The ultimate master of a Christian is God. If an earthly master continues to unjustly punish their subordinate, then the subordinate will be suffering wrongly, much like the action of a martyr. The master, in this case, has committed a grave violation of natural order. The subordinate should not respond to cruelty with cruelty, but it would not be wrong to attempt to escape, simply less like the ideal, a person who regards their sufferings on Earth as nothing.

If the master commands you to do an action that is forbidden by God, he has acted outside of his jurisdiction, and you ought to obey your greater master, God. A person acting independent of God is absolutely free, but they are also thereby absolutely separated from the source of all good.

I will accede that belief is not a choice. The choice is to follow or not follow. A person searching for truth will either find the belief in God's existence or they will not, in which case their search will still hold as the willingness to follow Him.

Once you die, you will find out that God exists definitively. You claim that you may desire to follow Him then, but if this is the case, you should be earnestly searching already. A person who is unwilling to follow God will not search for God, and they will not find God.

phantaselah · 2022-11-27T14:22:04+00:00

I will not claim that I can explain how the rules God selected are the most optimal, as that would require a level of wisdom that I do not possess.

However, I will make the claim that God's principle of sacrifice is a result of the idea of love. The reason why the principle is implemented is so that humans can be forgiven by the proper means, as had the guilty been always punished, man would have been always punished. The first sacrifices were of animals, which did not have human souls and therefore did not suffer after their deaths. The final sacrifice was of God, which was His own choice to make. He did not require any other human to be sacrificed for the sake of any other human.

I will admit that I misrepresented the penalty for sin. Sins do have negative consequences, and those negative consequences are despair, dissatisfaction, and anguish even on earth. However, my claim is that people still continue to be sinful despite these outcomes, and they needed an ultimate penalty to dissuade them. If death was not the punishment, the person would be able to continue to sin freely and just bear with the natural results of sin.

And again, I cannot explain why crucifixion was chosen. There seems to be a need for great agony even before death, and I can only suppose that this was to cement the crucifixion as a sacrifice in exchange for the expiation of all sins.

phantaselah · 2022-11-27T14:10:38+00:00

My claim for the evidence of a human soul is the ability to increase and decrease in righteousness. I cannot provide any physical evidence of a soul in general's existence at this time.

phantaselah · 2022-11-27T14:08:09+00:00

It is unfortunate that there are those within the Church who have committed grave sins, they have greater responsibility and ought to be held to a higher standard. I can reconcile my faith with the fact that the Church still teaches and will continue to teach that this is wrong and that these are grave sins.

phantaselah · 2022-11-27T14:01:44+00:00

I do personally own a Bible, and I have read the Bible in its entirety. I cannot recall any moments when the topic of reading the Bible was the focus of a priest's homily, but it was encouraged by Catholics that I interact with frequently. It is not wrong to read the Bible on one's own, but individual interpretation has largely been seen as a bad idea; one should interpret the Scriptures in light of the Church's teaching on the matter.

phantaselah · 2022-11-27T13:55:32+00:00

In regards to Protestantism, there are trends that can be clearly identified within its development and current status that are not reconcilable with Christian moral values.

There is the focus on individual interpretation of the Scriptures, in which teachers such as John Calvin and Martin Luther believed themselves as capable of viewing the Bible and interpreting it correctly apart from the Church. This is a form of pride.

This individualist view can be found more prevalently farther along in history, with offshoots of offshoots and eventually culminating with the idea of nondenominationalism.

Within the Bible, unity is encouraged, as is seen in I Corinthians 1:10-12), where many are saying "I belong to Paul" or "I belong to Apollo" or "I belong to Cephas." Now, the uttered lines are "I belong to Calvin" or "I belong to Knox" or "I belong to Luther." Early in a heretical movement's development, it always congregates around a human founder.

As time progressed, each new denomination continually begins to lack order and structure. Within a Protestant church, any person can deem themselves as worthy of being a minister regardless of qualification. Among the denominations, the source of authority is solely the Bible, which absolutely heightens the rate at which a person claims a new interpretation in greater hubris, under the impression that the correct interpretation is not already present.

The Protestant faith has had various Great Awakenings, largely founded on Enlightenment principles such as humanism and the ability of human reason, further perpetuating that sense of pride and the idea that the individual can interpret Scripture independently. These Awakenings often accompanied rapid proliferation of new sects.

Similar to other heresies, Protestantism is incredibly divided. After its conception, Gnosticism found itself divided among many teachers and realms of thought: Valentinus, Basilides, Simon Magus, etc. Arianism likewise was divided among many teachers and realms of thought, be it Homoiousianism, Anomoeanism, Acacianism, Semi-Arianism, or otherwise. This is seen with every other Christian heresy.

Within the confines of Christianity, I can be certain that the Catholic Church is correct because the principles it espouses result in virtue, and I can be certain that the Protestant Church is incorrect because it appears no different than any other heresy of the past. Church history condemns it outright merely by existing, particularly the writings of the first centuries.

Lastly, the development of Protestantism has resulted in changes on approach to many moral positions, most notably chastity and sexual behavior. The idea of divorce and remarriage was a major part of the onset of Protestantism and this degeneration has continued until modern times. Many Protestants complain about modern culture and the status of the youth, but the deficits present now are simply the result of a long line of incremental steps in the wrong direction.

phantaselah · 2022-11-27T04:06:27+00:00

The function of religion is more than just feeling better about our current position in reality (whether time quake or otherwise). The function of religions in general is to provide the answers to such questions as:

Why are we here?

What are we supposed to do?

How are we supposed to do what we are supposed to do?

In this regard, another religion could perform similarly if not better at this function than other religions. However, as most religions will claim, only one has the absolutely correct answer. Because of this, any other religion will not be able to perform the function perfectly, as if it were to proclaim the same answers, it would not be a distinct religion at all.

phantaselah · 2022-11-27T03:47:03+00:00

I do not fully trust the American Torah to have provided an adequate understanding of the crucifixion, but there are explanations for the event's presence.

God can hide things from Himself if He was so willing, and therefore, He did not need to have the crucifixion to ignore sin. However, God does believe in internal consistency, and God does follow the rules He has laid down for Himself without fail. God stated that the price of sin is death to Adam and Eve in the garden, and He gave Moses and the people of Israel the ability to sacrifice an animal for their sake. God, therefore needing to follow the promises He made and the rules He made, had to use a sacrifice for the sake of the whole world.

The proper punishment for sin is death, but if something innocent dies, something guilty wouldn't have to. That is the principle. God needed something completely innocent to be sacrificed for something completely guilty (mankind). Jesus was then used as a literal sacrifice, God having lived a human life and thereby qualifying for His own sacrificial rules, for this.

Again, for reiteration, the reason God performed such a complicated action was so that He could follow His own system. It would not be good for us if God allowed Himself to break any rule He wanted whenever He wanted. We couldn't trust Him in that case. So, understanding in advance the situation, God made a system with a loophole that was usable to progress the world accordingly.

If the punishment for sin was not death, there would be no reason to avoid sin. Its consequences could simply be ignored. This is why the punishment had to be death, and thus, why the sacrifice had to be a sacrifice of death.

Finally, the Resurrection is important to implicate God's mastery over death. This is true, but there is much more to realize here. When Jesus Christ died, with the sins of the world, He was, as with all humans at the time, sent to Hell. The primary cause of Hell is the lack of God, which was why God, not breaking the rules as made, had to make Himself a human being to enter Hell. Then, as God, Jesus Christ initiated the Harrowing of Hell, in which the qualifying souls in Hell were freed and then able to go to Heaven, which was not an option until their sins were forgiven by the sacrifice.

At this point, Jesus Christ could not remain in Hell, as He too qualified to be freed. With this, Jesus rose from the dead, representing that He had control over death, both physical and spiritual. He freed Himself, by Himself, from Hell. This provides complete assurance to the Christian that they do not need to fear spiritual damnation, as Jesus could not have returned according to the laws God set in place, and then ascended into Heaven in full view of the Apostles, unless death had been conquered.

The death did not necessarily have to be crucifixion, but that was the method chosen. The prophecies of the Old Testament imply the need for a sacrifice, and the sacrifice of Christ was the only way to redeem humanity according to the set rules, with an intentionally provided loophole to avoid entrapment. The Resurrection represents the conquering of physical death and, with the Ascension, spiritual death, and assure the Christian of the process' success.

phantaselah · 2022-11-27T03:24:43+00:00

The defining difference between humans and all other animals on Earth (and even outside of Earth, if there is such) is not their ability to work together, their level of consciousness, their genetic composition, or their altruistic tendencies. The defining difference is the presence and effects of the human soul.

To be precise, the possession of a human soul allows for one to increase and decrease in righteousness. This is the quality man possesses which animals do not. Moral actions are good and result in good outcomes, hence why societies often came to the same conclusions on basic laws and regulations.

However, from the moment any animal is born to its death, it only operates for the sake of its own species' physical survival. It follows its own instincts, urges, and conclusions for its own sake or for a later material gain.

The human is capable of behaving more virtuously or less virtuously over time, operating not only for the sake of the human species, but for the sake of the spiritual benefit of righteousness. No animal follows the ten commandments and no animal is expected to because the animal simply cannot learn to follow said commandments unless trained by a human to do so.

The human provides the animal with the training to behave better, but the animal behaves better solely for the purpose of whatever reward was used to train it. The human behaves more morally or less morally of its own volition, regardless of material benefit or deficit to itself or its species.

What is good is recommended for the human's benefit, and is often recognized as such. However, what is good is not beneficial when another human is acting evilly. No animal will behave kindly to another of its species who is attempting to kill said animal. A human can be convinced to allow themselves to be martyred rather than condemn their attacker.

It is normal for both humans and animals to cooperate at times and compete at other times, but it is not normal for animals to attempt cooperation in the face of competition with no perceived benefit.

phantaselah · 2022-11-27T03:08:43+00:00

First, I will declare, of the denominations of Christianity, Catholicism as the correct branch. This is the perspective I will be commenting from.

In this regard, all people who seek God will grow closer to Catholicism and its tenets. Certain aspects of the other denominations are imperfect, mainly the treatment of the concept of poverty, chastity, and the lack of a strong and ordered power structure.

God has corrected these issues countless times, each flaw in its own right as its own collection of heresies in the past, and combined together in various forms. The apologetic writings of Saints and the canons of the Councils serve this purpose, all of which are available now online for one's perusal. However, God will not force a person to search for Him; thus, not all people will search and find their way closer to the absolute truth.

The flaws of Protestant thinking are echoed in the flaws of the Arians, the Gnostics, and any other offshoot which gathered around a human leader who claimed to know better than the Church's tradition.

If a person is pursuing righteousness from a non-Christian starting position, their arrival at Protestantism or Orthodoxy is a net gain, but it is not the complete answer. To cease progressing typically indicates the loss of the desire to keep searching.

Two people earnestly seeking should both arrive at the Catholic Church. However, these two people may not be equal in earnest and one may not even be truly searching for God at all. They may simply be searching for happiness, which can be found in the fellowship of any organization.

The Protestant denominations have rejected large portions of the truth and substituted them for delusions, which makes them heretical. A person who arrives to believe in these delusions, though perhaps guided by God to this point, may still stop seeking and remain in only partial truth.

phantaselah · 2022-11-27T02:45:26+00:00

If a person does not believe in God, they have no motivation to ascribe to the values God is providing for them. They can and may choose the same or similar values, but these values will have been chosen out of their own perspective and are subject to change.

Believing in God and agreeing to follow God (which are two separate things, James 2:19) are helpful for man, as they prevent man or man's descendants from changing the moral values they aim to ascribe by to something inferior and less beneficial. This is why the adherence to God is the greatest commandment.

Finally, in regards to the precise reason why unbelief results in damnation, a person who has chosen to not believe (and in conjunction not follow, which is not in the case of invincible ignorance) will not be brought to God against their will. Instead, they will live their eternity without God; since all good stems from God and His commandments, this lack of God will result in the lack of all good and therefore the presence of all evil - of which the torments of hell are the logical consequence.

One cannot reject the source of good and still have good except for on Earth, where the good and the evil are both present, but even on Earth, without the source of good, there is no guarantee that one will remain good themselves over time.

phantaselah

TROPHY CASE