08 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionIf you've followed my previous discussions with Bbarr, you'll know that I've never argued that God was 'omnipotent' in the way that term is normally defined.
My my. All these rules that tie your god's hands. I didn't realize he was such a wuss. "Oh, I would jump into the lake, but you see I wrote this rule that says I cannot. Oh, I would let some more souls into heaven, but I wrote this rule that says . . ."
I always thought god was ance, cuz you Catholics know that nobody deserves crap, especially not wee little babies.
Is it a "rule" that you cannot flap your wings and fly? No.
All beings (including God) have constraints in the way they can and cannot operate. Those constraints are a function of their metaphysical natures. So, for instance, God simply cannot do evil.
The rest of your post is just a re-hashing of what Bbarr has expressed in about two sentences. I've answered them in my replies to his post(s).
08 Mar 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerHow would providing zygotes with the reason and volition necessary to make this decision (that is, making them into autonomous human beings) violate the moral autonomy of human beings in general? I'm assuming that making zygotes into autonomous persons does not entail that they would not be free to not choose salvation. God would merely be turning zygotes into the same sort of entities we are.
That He can and does so are what some of the afore-mentioned theologians are arguing.
EDIT: The question I would wonder about is whether such an action on God's part violates the moral autonomy of the human race (e.g. with original sin). If that is the case, then I would think that God cannot do so (even if He wanted to).
08 Mar 06
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrI'm distinguishing the autonomy of the 'human race' (as a whole) from that of individual human beings. This goes back to the question of Original Sin - why did the actions of our first parents 'taint' all of us (and indeed, as I think, all of the natural order)?
How would providing zygotes with the reason and volition necessary to make this decision (that is, making them into autonomous human beings) violate the moral autonomy of human beings in general? I'm assuming that making zygotes into autonomous persons does not entail that they would not be free to not choose salvation. God would merely be turning zygotes into the same sort of entities we are.
By 'moral autonomy of the human race' I mean that the human race (as a whole) reaps both the rewards for its good works and suffers for its sins. This is like karma, but as it applies to the totality of humans. In that case, the untimely death in original sin of the unborn (even due to natural causes) would be a consequence of human sins. So, that's where my question is coming from.
EDIT: IIRC, it was Aquinas who argued, from the utter simplicity of God's essence, that all his attributes were equal. So, if it was His Goodness (which would be the same as His Mercy and Justice, in the Thomistic view) that established the moral autonomy of the human race as I've defined it above, then would not the same Goodness/Mercy/Justice preclude His interfering with the effects of that autonomy (including the soul-states of the unborn)? Further, if that is the case, then it would actually be impossible for Him to bring about the situation we are discussing here (because His Power is the same as His Goodness/Justice/Mercy); i.e. it would be logically impossible for God to bring it about.
EDIT2: All of this roughly follows the classical viewpoint. As mentioned earlier, most Catholic theologians today seem to disagree (though I haven't seen their arguments) so, if the Pope were to teach otherwise, I'd have to change my views. That's what happens when you're not infallible... 🙂
08 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerWouldn't this argument concerning the potential impossibility of God's intervention also apply to His interfering with our moral autonomy by virtue of bringing Christ onto the scene? Was this a different sort of intervention than the type under consideration regarding zygotes?
I'm distinguishing the autonomy of the 'human race' (as a whole) from that of individual human beings. This goes back to the question of Original Sin - why did the actions of our first parents 'taint' all of us (and indeed, as I think, all of the natural order)?
By 'moral autonomy of the human race' I mean that the human race (as a whole) reaps bot I'd have to change my views. That's what happens when you're not infallible... 🙂
08 Mar 06
Originally posted by bbarrQualitatively, yes.
Wouldn't this argument concerning the potential impossibility of God's intervention also apply to His interfering with our moral autonomy by virtue of bringing Christ onto the scene? Was this a different sort of intervention than the type under consideration regarding zygotes?
Remember, Christ was human. His actions, particularly His Crucifixion, were primarily from the human camp (in a manner of speaking). So I would say that our moral autonomy was preserved here.
08 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI'm not sure it makes sense to say that Christ's crucifixion was an action of his, but O.K. In any case, it isn't as though there is some direct causal link between Christ's crucifixion and the possibility of our salvation. That the crucifixion provides enables us to have the opportunity to be saved is something that God wrought, not Christ as man. So, I think the cases here are actually analogous, and that there would be no threat to our moral autonomy in the zygote case.
Qualitatively, yes.
Remember, Christ was human. His actions, particularly His Crucifixion, were primarily from the human camp (in a manner of speaking). So I would say that our moral autonomy was preserved here.
08 Mar 06
Is it a "rule" that you cannot flap your wings and fly? No.
From the perspective of the Creator? Damn straight it is.
All beings (including God) have constraints in the way they can and cannot operate. Those constraints are a function of their metaphysical natures.
Fascinating. I wonder then who created God and the support over which his "metaphysical nature" has meaning.
08 Mar 06
Originally posted by no1marauderGood thread topic.
In a discussion in Debates, Ivanhoe and Halitose take the position that human beings exist from conception (i.e. fertilization of the egg by sperm). According to this paper from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists on page 5: "60% of fertilizations don't survive long enough to cause a missed menstrual period".http://www.acog.org/from_h ...[text shortened]... or), what's the point of this whole excursion on planet Earth for the minority like us?
I am assuming that it is the 'soul' that is either damned, shipped off to heaven, or placed in 'Limbo'. If the Christian holds the view that the 'souls' of these departed human beings are being dispersed in such a manner, then how is it that the 'soul' can exist without even so much as a mind? Many of the super-short-lived human organisms being discussed here do not even possess brains, let alone the capacity for consciousness or cognitive faculties. How does a newly formed zygote have a soul (and not merely a potential soul)?
08 Mar 06
Originally posted by LemonJelloThey aren't discussing what Christians in general believe, they are discussing LH's take on some Catholic beliefs, orthodox or otherwise.
Good thread topic.
I am assuming that it is the 'soul' that is either damned, shipped off to heaven, or placed in 'Limbo'. If the Christian holds the view that the 'souls' of these departed human beings are being dispersed in such a manner, then how is it that the 'soul' can exist without even so much as a mind? Many of the super-short-lived human or ...[text shortened]... aculties. How does a newly formed zygote have a soul (and not merely a potential soul)?
08 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI know that. That's not what I meant by "If the Christian holds..."
They aren't discussing what Christians in general believe, they are discussing LH's take on some Catholic beliefs, orthodox or otherwise.
I am talking about the person (whomever it may be) who holds that...
08 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThat is incorrect. I was referring to Right to Lifers in general, the majority of which are not Catholics (in the US anyway). Halitose is not a Catholic and he was consistently arguing that human beings exist from conception. I was expecting some input from other Christian denominations, but it's been veryyyyyyyyy quiet except for LH.
They aren't discussing what Christians in general believe, they are discussing LH's take on some Catholic beliefs, orthodox or otherwise.
08 Mar 06
Originally posted by no1marauderMaybe the Evangelicals don't understand the question. You're not dealing with Jesuits here, don't presume too much.
That is incorrect. I was referring to Right to Lifers in general, the majority of which are not Catholics (in the US anyway). Halitose is not a Catholic and he was consistently arguing that human beings exist from conception. I was expecting some input from other Christian denominations, but it's been veryyyyyyyyy quiet except for LH.
