1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Godly Omission?

Discussion in 'Catholic DIR' started by wmjbyatt, Feb 16, 2012.

  1. wmjbyatt

    wmjbyatt Lunatic from birth

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    427
    Ratings:
    +59
    What is the doctrinal position on Sins of Omission as they pertain to God? That is, why is it that God is not guilty of Sins of Omission in allowing, with foreknowledge and power to stop, suffering to exist?

    In the sake of honesty, I'll go ahead and say that I am not Catholic--or even frankly Christian--but I nevertheless am not here to start debate: I leave that to the turd throwers on the Religious Debates forums. I'm genuinely interested in the doctrinal position. I was raised Roman Catholic and to this day I am deeply influenced by and in awe of Roman Catholic theology. My personal conception of the Divine has been deeply influence by St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas, and I consider Catholic theology to be among the only really tenable Christian philosophical bodies.

    Feel free to respond in detail and at length if necessary. I will read it.

    Thank you all.
     
  2. Me Myself

    Me Myself Back to my username

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Messages:
    18,858
    Ratings:
    +961
    It is viewed as incorrect for God to intervene, because the catholic stance is that he doesn´t and shouldn´t "go against free will".

    In other words: it is important that people can choose to do wrong, because otherwise "they wouldn´t have real freedom".

    So with this freedom God permits one decides by his actions and faith in him/Jesus (if he was able to hear of them in his life, if not it becomes blury to know God´s exact judgemen, but generaly it goes with "judging him to what he did for the best of his capabilities with the info s/he had") to go to heaven.

    No suffering is that big when you contrast it with hell, so don´t be a bad guy, cause yuare choosing to give your back to God and God is the only happiness and well being, hence, you end up in hell. Now, you follow the commands because of your free will and willfully go to God and you´ll end up in heaven, where all the sufferings of your life will become nothing in comparison to infinite bliss, peace and happiness.

    (Or that´s my undertanding, and I may very well be corrected)
     
  3. Gjallarhorn

    Gjallarhorn N'yog-Sothep

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,779
    Ratings:
    +970
    I misread the title and thought it was about the immaculate conception.
     
  4. wmjbyatt

    wmjbyatt Lunatic from birth

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    427
    Ratings:
    +59
    I guess the way the question was falling in my mind should have been clarified.

    If I remember my catechism, sin is conceived as a blemish upon the soul, an actual quality of darkness on the substance which is the sinner's being. What is the relationship, then, between my soul and God's Divine Substance? If my soul is of the same substance as God's Divinity (which I've heard theologians say, thus positing a Platonic structure to the premise that "the Kingdom of Heaven is within you"), why do those blemishes not appear on God's Substance upon omission? That is, most specifically, what is it about the character of the Divine Substance that places it in that position where non-Interventionism is desirable?
     
  5. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,626
    Ratings:
    +1,275
    Religion:
    Catholic
    If by substance you mean the stuff that it's made of, then yes, it does derive it from God. The soul is made of spirit if you will. The human person consists of body and soul. It derives the entirety of it's substances (form and matter) from God. With that in mind, why doesn't God get cut, when I get cut? All substances essentially come from Him so there is a seperation from all things and God if you will. It's also incorrect to say God is pure spirit; Angels/Demons are known to be that.

    Can you reword your last sentence please?

     
  6. wmjbyatt

    wmjbyatt Lunatic from birth

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    427
    Ratings:
    +59
     
  7. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,626
    Ratings:
    +1,275
    Religion:
    Catholic
    I'm familiar more with Plato then Spinoza. I'm really not sure what connections Plato and Spinoza had in light of the fact that Plato is known to be more of an extreme realist. I don't think I'd categorize Spinoza (who leaned toward pantheism) that way (but I'm open to being wrong about this).

    When you ask whether this is doctrinal or not, I assume you speak of what I previously wrote? If so, [and at risk of sounding pendant] I'd be inclined to say yes. But we make a distinction between pious belief, doctrine, and dogma and there lies a hirerachy within them as well but it's mostly we catholics discuss.
    From a Platonic sense it's much easier to explain then an Aristolian-Thomistic sense. Plato argued that universals exist independent of individuals, in a world of ideas. There was a disconnect here. For Aristotle, it's more complicated and it's akin to synergy. It's God working through man, but the man still has free will. That whole dilema is still being argued about to this day even amongst us.
     
  8. Renji

    Renji Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    Messages:
    8,202
    Ratings:
    +579
    It is not necessarily true. Catholics don't view that way. The reason why God (sometimes) does not seem to intervene is because of many reasons. Probably because there are "better things" for you or because it's part of a natural order that God himself has set, like weather disturbances and so on (and he won't change it).

    "Real freedom", if your going to ask the Church fathers is the ability to do something that is good/ an action that bears good fruit, without someone telling/forcing you to do it. Therefore, if you sin, there's no "freedom" that's in there. Why? Let's say you killed someone, there's no freedom in that scenario since you yourself has denied the "right"/"freedom" of the person to live. So if you do something wrong, that's not "real freedom" but "abused freedom".

    Or more appropriately, one's desire to carry his own cross and his determination to follow the footsteps of Christ.

    The "real suffering" of hell isn't actually the "fire" in it (though it's part of it) but the separation from God, which makes one's soul "ugly" and impure, therefore, the happiness that you are referring would be, the loving relationship with God.
     
    #8 Renji, Feb 21, 2012
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2012
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...