sanctus:
Well Sanctus, hello to you and all. It's been a while since I was here and I see you are just has persistent in inspiring your readers. This topic an excellent choice :smile:. Your opponents seem to be the same group as well, that's interesting.
I have a problem in that I can't get around some aspects of this scene that beg questioning. I don't fault you in conveying the "word".
Firstly, even in God's omni-whatever, he would not have comparable examples of how a god should relate to his subjects since he is the only God. His absolute knowledge is still knowledge limited by his realm of existence. There would be no
way of knowing what is typical. For instanceif there were many god/subjects with their respective realms, then for example the event of not giving the choice of aware beings to exist may prove not to be the norm. Perhaps he would know that the concensus was that man is given a first choice.
Secondly, we come into this world immediately coerced. This fact is conveniently swept under the rug, and there is a rush to get past this judicial glitch to get on with issues involving our attitudes. All discussions of religion and our behaviour are after this fact. An analogy would be the 16th century practice of pressed Naval service. What I mean is a Captain may not like the bosn's attitude and wonder why he is not a "happy" camper since he's being fed properly and should know of course that the hell of whipping is his own choice. Raising an inquisitive finger hoping to be heard, he just might mention that he shouldn't be there in the first place. Not a chance, he is struck down for being ........ ungrateful. The remaining sailors in fear don't want to take up his cause. "Yes" men abound, self preservation has us agreeing to everything in a coerced environment.
Thirdly, there doesn't seem to be a time out with God. Everything is measured for correctness. Nothing can ever be "off the record". Totally out of character with a real "father".
Fourthly, it is curious that no human being has ever become perfect, and according to the Church it is possible. It seems reasonable that there is a serious issue to be resolved at the moment they know all the risk is ours. Since the celestial court set the rules, then it would seem it behooves them to show us that it is possible. I don't mean a God/man who knows he is God and doesn't need to hope or struggle with Faith to it's maturity. I mean one who has had his beatific state placed in reserve, gets born has a human being, doesn't know his true state, and struggles along with the usual allotment of graces as we all do. A monitor without conflict of interest could be assigned to recording who's soul belongs to who's temporary earthly soul. If he is able to attain graces or miracles, he gets them through prayer has a recognized human. If he makes it through life without sinning, then we do indeed deserve much of what we are told. If he sins then a mistrial is granted for every person past judged. This earthly failure rate has a bonus. What better test bed for all beings, angels included, than to have their soul assigned only if they have attained perfection here.
Fifth, I feel there is an intrinsic wrong of hell's existence in a world created with aware beings who have not had the first choice of existence. (Don't ask me to prove it, I sincerely feel there is a wrong here, discernment properly exercised even.) The same reasoning used in Baptism applies. Our conceptual soul needed a representative to ensure our well being. If the representative actually knew his charge was destined for a world of risk, then his (Universal Precept)obliged him to ensure the soul had a choice to be there. I think this would be the ultimate example of charity. Now, let it also be understood that God is also allowed to have aware beings has subjects and scripture states this and I agree, but not at the expense of this said rule. In fact allowing choice does nothing in the chance of failure in populating earth. It does put principles to the test in the microsecond prior to existence, instead of dealing with the effects of ignoring it later. If the allowance works or doesn't, it does so on it's own merits and no one can be assigned culpability. However, it could be that too many souls wanting to remain with the unintrusive,conceptually peaceful, and conceptually content state of non existence, may produce a statistical nightmare leaving a handful of humans out of trillions of souls who want to take on the odds living with the possibility of hell and reward of heaven with it's..... unintrusive,peaceful, and content world.
So these are a few Opinio Tolerata issues I have a problem with as a Catholic.
It's great to be back. ;-)
Andy
