Mortal and venial sin

Originally posted by bbarr
It makes him morally responsible in the same way you are morally responsible for your actions. ....

The same way? And what way is that? You have not said what makes even me morally responsible.

Originally posted by Coletti
The same way? And what way is that? You have not said what makes even me morally responsible.

Why do I need to? Either you believe in moral responsibility or you don't. If you do, then think that moral responsibility is compatible with predetermination and you will be committed to the claim that God is morally responsible for our wickedness (if we are, indeed, essentially wicked). If you don't, then you cannot make sense of people deserving to be damned, because if the notion of moral responsibility doesn't make any sense, then neither does the notion of desert.

In short, I don't care if compatibilism about free will is consistent with some notion of moral responsibility or other, because the views I was attacking in my post above (in the post that was a response to Acolyte's post) are incoherent regardless of the answer to that question.

Originally posted by chinking58
If I invite you into my home bb, but then inform you that you must leave your shoes at the door, but you don't wanna take your shoes off because they are so near and dear to your heart, then you can't come in.

Simple rule, simple choice, simple effect.

I guess the bad news that you can't comply with is that there are conditions. You can't mak ...[text shortened]... ules, especially in someone else's house (or Kingdom).

So.....where is the 'self-worship'?

Do you let people into your house because the say "I love you, now let me in?"

Originally posted by frogstomp
Do you let people into your house because the say "I love you, now let me in?"

If I be like God, then I say, 'I love you, come on in!'. And if you say, 'no thanks,' then I say. 'Ok'. But if you say to God, 'I love you and want to be by you', He says 'You certainly may, as long as your sinfullness is removed by my Son (which is free and can be readily done since He already paid the price ((the wages of sin is death))!

If you then say 'no thanks, I'd rather and take my chances and be out here on my own', He says 'Ok', but I hope you change your mind before the door is closed.

If you say, 'no problem, I'll take the gift (the invitation) and come in when you call me.' then all of heaven rejoices!

Originally posted by chinking58

Such an analogy is very tempting, for it paints God in a more passive, gentle light. He is merely the genial host of a big house party who ignores those who don't wish to participate.

The bible, however, claims a more active role for God. Jesus warns to "...fear Him who has the power to cast body and soul into hell" - the capital "H" denotes God, not Satan.

The parable of the Wedding Feast (Matt. 22) ends as follows:
11 But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment. 12 So he said to him, "Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?' And he was speechless. 13 Then the king said to the servants, "Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and g nashing of teeth.'

In other words, your 'polite host' is now commanding his cronies to tie the guy up and kick him out of the house.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
In other words, your 'polite host' is now commanding his cronies to tie the guy up and kick him out of the house.

Not quite. His polite host is commanding his cronies to tie the guy up and throw him into the furnace.

How charming!

Originally posted by bbarr
I have no problem with these conditions, if your analogy is apt and my refusing to worship your megalomaniacal God results merely in my eternal seperation from Him. I'm perfectly fine, in fact I would prefer, not to associate with an entity that thinks homosexuality is evil and that genocide is morally permissible. If, however, your analogy is flawed, and i ...[text shortened]... ntasy merely because you are afraid of freedom and death and you hope for some future reward.

christ if this comment doesn't hit the dead center of the bullseye -- the ineffable become effable.

Originally posted by chinking58
Ok, so God is not unjust to not drag someone in who doesn't want to be in with Him. We have that part settled. My analogy was meant only to make that much of a point.

As far as the 'other place'...

I don't believe there exists a village of places one might choose to hang out at if not with God. I think there is either with God, or in hell. A ...[text shortened]... t out of her mind' if she ended up in hell. If it weren't so serious it would be hilarious.

i think the view that you are either with god or in hell (nothing else) is ludicrous. especially considering that he really doesn't even give us much laser-guided reason to come 'into his house' as it were -- just look at all the scores of people who are utterly confused by the bible and by how little sense the words make.

if you're right and that's the way it works, then i choose hell -- no such god as the one you have described will ever get my praise. and if you're right, then shame on god.

Originally posted by Coletti
The idea that one must have free will to be held responsible is widely assumed, but I don't think it has been shown to be true. It must be something more the "common sense" because common sense tells us that false things like heavy objects can't fly and man will never go to the moon, and time and matter are constants. So aside from the "common sense" ...[text shortened]... understand responsibility - I'd like someone to logically tie responsibility with free will.

i simply fail to see how one could ascribe to the notion that free will is NOT a necessary condition for moral responsibility. if we don't have free will, then our actions are forced. by any reasonable definition of 'morally responsible', i just don't see how one can be morally responsible for committing forced actions.

Originally posted by LemonJello
i think the view that you are either with god or in hell (nothing else) is ludicrous. especially considering that he really doesn't even give us much laser-guided reason to come 'into his house' as it were -- just look at all the scores of people who are utterly confused by the bible and by how little sense the words make.

if you're right and that ...[text shortened]... one you have described will ever get my praise. and if you're right, then shame on god.

Hey, c'mon; the whole Creation was a rush job he had to get it done in six days - you can't even get a decent kitchen done in that time! So he screwed up; don't take it personal although I would not recommend his work to the anybody interested in a new universe.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Hey, c'mon; the whole Creation was a rush job he had to get it done in six days - you can't even get a decent kitchen done in that time! So he screwed up; don't take it personal although I would not recommend his work to the anybody interested in a new universe.

lol.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I don't understand this; Catholics believe in a literal Judgment Day don't they?

Not in the same way Fundamentalists do. To a Fundamentalist, a person is worthy of Heaven because God judges/declares it so. To a Catholic, God judges/declares that a person is worthy of Heaven because it is so. Ditto for Hell.

If so, then God is sending someone to Hell, a place of punishment He created after judging them deserving of such punishment. He is definitely an "intervening entity" on Judgment Day, isn't He?

To a Catholic, Hell and Heaven are not primarily places, but states of soul. Hell is defined as the state of a soul that is eternally separated from God, Heaven is defined as the state of a soul that is in eternal communion with God. That is why Catholics believe that the souls of saints are already in Heaven.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
So, God doesn't punish people, people punish themselves?







[/b]

Exactly.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b] I don't understand this; Catholics believe in a literal Judgment Day don't they?

Not in the same way Fundamentalists do. To a Fundamentalist, a person is worthy of Heaven because God judges/declares it so. To a Catholic, God judges/declares that a person is worthy of Heaven because it is so ...[text shortened]... ommunion with God. That is why Catholics believe that the souls of saints are already in Heaven.[/b]

I am still having problems with these concepts; could you cite me to something that gives a fuller explanation? I know it can be extremely difficult to explain such things in a short post in the forums. Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by LemonJello
i simply fail to see how one could ascribe to the notion that free will is NOT a necessary condition for moral responsibility. if we don't have free will, then our actions are forced. by any reasonable definition of 'morally responsible', i just don't see how one can be morally responsible for committing forced actions.

"if we don't have free will, then our actions are forced."

Free will entails being about to choice between to incompatible actions - between good and evil. If you think about it, one will not do anything against their will unless they a physically forced or coerced. A person who's will is to do only evil - is not then forced to do evil. And a person is will is to do good, is not forced to do good.

So how can it be forced is one does what one wills. If a person is placed in a position where one actions is good and the other is evil, and the choose good - it is their will acting in accordance with itself. The only way they could do otherwise would be if their will itself was changed by force.

So free will is an oxymoron. Will is not free to change.