Argument against Double Effect?

[Guest JeffCR07]

Hey everyone, I have a quick question concerning the legitimacy of the Principle of Double Effect, the problem of evil, and the best-possible-world debate. I think I have a solution, but I just wanted to run it by everyone first:

The typical arguments run as follows:

Atheist argument:

1.) God, being All powerful and All wise, could have made any number of worlds.
2.) God made this world.
3.) This world has evil in it.
4.) A world without evil would be better than a world with evil
5.) Therefore, there is a possible-world that God could have made which would be better than this world.
6.) Therefore, God made an unwise decision is creating this world, because he could have created a better world.
7.) But God is all-wise and cannot make an unwise decision.
8.) Therefore God does not exist.


The Best-Possible-World Argument:

1.) God, being All-powerful and All-wise, could have made any number of worlds.
2.) God made this world.
3.) If God made a world which is not the best possible world, then God would make an unfit decision.
4.) Therefore, if God makes a world, it is necessary (in accord with his infinite wisdom) that such a world be the best possible of all worlds.
5.) Therefore, this is the best possible of all worlds.


Now, many have argued that the Best-Possible-World Argument answers the Atheistic argument in the following way:

1.) God is All-Powerful and All-Wise, and could have made either this world, or a world without evil.
2.) God made this world, and this world contains evil
3.) In accord with his infinite wisdom, the world he makes is the best of all possible worlds.
4.) Therefore, the best of all possible worlds contains evil.
5.) Therefore, the existence of evil is necessary in order to achieve the best of all possible worlds.

Now, this is not far from Augustine, who argued that evil is permitted because God can turn it into Good.

However, this presents problems for the Principle of Double Effect. Double Effect holds that an evil event can be allowed if:

A.) The action in question is not itself evil
B.) The desired consequence of the action is not [i]causally[/i] dependent on the evil effect
C.) The evil effect is not desired, but is merely permitted.

But in the above discussion, evil is [i]necessary[/i] in order for the best-of-all-possible-worlds to exist. Moreover, it logically follows that this evil must be [i]logically[/i] necessary, rather than [i]contingently[/i] necessary, because if it were only contingent, then there is a possible world in which the good benefit exists without the evil effect.

But if evil is a [i]causal[/i] necessity of the goodness of the best-possible-world then it would seem that God Himself disproves Double Effect - for God permits an evil to occur that is the direct cause of a greater good (Utilitarian ends-justify-the-means anyone?)

************************


My rebuttle to this is that the whole premise of the discussion is flawed. Namely, one cannot speak of "possible worlds" in relation to the Divine, because a proper understanding of the Divine does not allow it, as the following shows:

1.) God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived
2.) I can conceive of two beings, one which can decide amongst a series of "possible worlds" and one before whom no possibilities exist.
3.) It is possible for the being who must choose from the set to err.
4.) It is better to not have the possibility of error than it is to have the possiblity of error and simply not err.
5.) Therefore, the being before whom no possiblities exist is the greater if the two
6.) Therefore, there are no "possible worlds" from which God selects one to create, but rather, there is only the singular action of creation.

From a more Thomistic perspective, this argument can be reformulated in the following way:

A being before whom a number of possible options exists is a being with the potentiality to effect one of those options. But there is no potentiality in God. Therefore, God is not a being before whom a number of possible options exists.

Therefore, God "could not" have created a better world, because such a statement takes God as a being with the potentiality to effect different actualizations.

Now, while I am sure that this response, if adequate, would effectively deal with the atheist argument and the best-possible-world discussion, I only [i]think[/i] it deals with the dilemma concerning Double Effect.

Any thoughts?

[Snowcatpa]

[color=purple]I think that your argument does deal with the atheist argument and the best-of-all-possible worlds argument, but I’m not convinced by it for the Double Effect dilemma. God’s potential or non-potential to enact different worlds doesn’t change the fact that God still made this one world that “permits an evil to occur that is a direct cause of a greater good”, in other words, allowing evil because the existence of evil directly causes the best world, thus not solving your dilemma.

Perhaps God doesn’t causally will a bad action, but permits it through our gift of free will. I think it might be pertinent to think about why evil exists in the first place, not just how God could allow it.

Going back to the trouble spots in what you defined as the Principle of Double Effect:

A.) The action in question is not itself evil.

Creating a world is not inherently evil. And the world that God created was not an evil world. In the beginning, there was no evil, no death and men and God lived in harmony.

B.) The desired consequence of the action is not causally dependent on the evil effect.

The perfect world (the consequence of God’s action) is not causally dependent on having an evil effect. The perfect world would have existed eternally if we had not chosen to disobey him. Why is there evil in the world? Because Man chose to depart from and disobey God. Evil is then not causally necessary; instead, it’s permitted because of our decisions. The indirect cause of the origin of evil is then not inconsistent with the Principle of Double effect.


But then that begs the question, why did God give us free will if that would allow the possibility of doing evil? Does giving us free will follow the Principle of Double Effect? Maybe.

A.)The action of giving us free will is not itself evil – it is a gift that potentially strengthens our love and dedication towards God even if we had never veered from His word.

B.)The desired consequence is not dependent on us doing evil. It’s our choice to commit evil. God desires that we choose Him always. Evil was never necessary.


Therefore, it almost seems like the Double Effect dilemma isn't as big of a deal as it seems, because God didn't permit any evil to occur as a direct result of anything (the greater good or whatnot). God didn’t make an evil world. He made a perfect world (completely consistent with your logic given) only he gave us the free will to choose to follow him or not – which is not inconsistent with the Principle of Double Effect because it is not dependent on our choosing evil in order to create the best world.

Evil is allowed to exist because we chose to have it and, while God lets us choose, our choice to choose evil is not necessary for this best of all possible worlds. The possible world in which "the good benefit exists without the evil effect" is not some different world. It is [i]our[/i] world before we chose to depart from it. Thus tying in your argument that God couldn't have created a better world with the potentiality to effect different actualizations, because that world [i]is[/i] our world...in all of it's glory.

Does this hold up logically?[/color]

[Guest JeffCR07]

Thanks for the response, it definately helps me flesh out my points, even if I don't entirely agree with your response. If you dont mind, I'd like to go through your post and offer my thoughts on individual points, so you can see how my mind is working in this question and offer corrections in any errors that you see:

Looking at your points, I think my theory does deal with the problem that is posed to Double Effect, here is why:

[quote] God’s potential or non-potential to enact different worlds doesn’t change the fact that God still made this one world that “permits an evil to occur that is a direct cause of a greater good”, in other words, allowing evil because the existence of evil directly causes the best world, thus not solving your dilemma.[/quote]

I think you have illustrated here precisely one of the strong points of my argument. your last sentence hinges upon the fact that God "allows evil because the existence of evil directly causes the best world." However, my theory maintains that you can't even [i]talk[/i] about a "best world" in relation to the Divine Creation.

A "best" world implies that there is, or was, the possibility of other worlds. But I have shown that isn't the case. So, this world isn't the "best" world, it is simple [i]the[/i] world, and it is the [i]only possible[/i] world. No other worlds are even possible.

If there is no "best world" then God clearly does not allow evil for the purpose of "directly causing" the best world. If evil is not a direct cause of the goodness of this world, then there is no problem for the Principle of Double Effect.

[quote]God doesn’t causally will a bad action, but permits it through our gift of free will. I think it might be pertinent to think about why evil exists in the first place, not just how God could allow it.[/quote]

I agree entirely. God never causes evil, nor does the current discussion ever imply such a thing. It is very clear that God merely [i]permits[/i] evil to occur, because mankind has the ability to sin. The discussion pertains, however, to the dilemma caused by thinking that god "could have" made a world in which everyone freely does not sin.

[quote]B.) The desired consequence of the action is not causally dependent on the evil effect.

The perfect world (the consequence of God’s action) is not causally dependent on having an evil effect. The perfect world would have existed eternally if we had not chosen to disobey him. Why is there evil in the world? Because Man chose to depart from and disobey God. Evil is then not causally necessary; instead, it’s permitted because of our decisions. The indirect cause of the origin of evil is then not inconsistent with the Principle of Double effect.[/quote]

It seems that you misunderstand the question at hand in my above discussion, and I will openly admit that it is very nuanced, let me try to explain it in a little more clarity:

[i]If[/i] we agree that there are "possible worlds" which God [i]could[/i] have made, then we must admit that it is [i]possible[/i] (as you explain above) that man might not have sinned. But if there is a "possible world" in which man never sinned, and thus evil never existed, we must wonder why God chose to make [i]this[/i] world, in which man [i]did[/i] sin and evil [i]does[/i] exist, rather than [i]that[/i] world in which no evil exists. Clearly, God did not make a "wrong" choice - He is God, and always makes the best choice. Thus it is argued that this world, with evil, [i]IS[/i] the best possible world, and is even better than that possible world in which no one ever sinned. The only way that such a thing can be argued is if it is admitted that the evil itself which exists in this world is turned by God into Good, and thus the Good of this world exceeds the Good of the world in which no one ever sinned.

This, however, is to argue that evil is the [i]necessary cause[/i] of the greater Good which makes this world the "best of all possible worlds" - and that is against the Principle of Double Effect, which holds that an evil thing cannot be the cause a good, even if that good be greater than the evil in question.

Put negatively, if the evil of this world is only contingent then it is not necessary. If it is not necessary, then there exists a possible world which is like this one in all things, accept it doesnt have evil. That possible world would be better than the actual world, and therefore God would have made a mistake.

Hopefully the above will clarify the fact that, if you grant the "possible worlds" premise, you must logically assert that evil is a [i]necessary[/i] cause of the greater good that makes this world the "best of all possible worlds."

However, if you see, as I do, the "possible worlds" premise as being false, then you reject the argument which leads to the necessity of evil as a cause of greater good.

[quote]Therefore, it almost seems like the Double Effect dilemma isn't as big of a deal as it seems, because God didn't permit any evil to occur as a direct result of anything (the greater good or whatnot). God didn’t make an evil world. He made a perfect world (completely consistent with your logic given) only he gave us the free will to choose to follow him or not – which is not inconsistent with the Principle of Double Effect because it is not dependent on our choosing evil in order to create the best world.[/quote]

Perhaps I have mislead you in my use of the term "world." When I say "world" I mean the entirety of a world throughout time.

God knew, at the moment of creation, everything that would happen in this world. It isn't like God made a perfect world, and then was like "Oh carp, i didn't see that one coming!" when Adam and Eve sinned. The foreknowledge of God is absolute.

Ultimately, it isn't just the perfection of the earth at the moment of creation that makes a possible world into the "best possible world," but rather, it takes into consideration everything that happens throughout the entire history of the "possible world" in question.

[quote]Evil is allowed to exist because we chose to have it and, while God lets us choose, our choice to choose evil is not necessary for this best of all possible worlds. The possible world in which "the good benefit exists without the evil effect" is not some different world. It is our world before we chose to depart from it. Thus tying in your argument that God couldn't have created a better world with the potentiality to effect different actualizations, because that world is our world...in all of it's glory.[/quote]

This bit appears not to hold together, I think because, as I just addressed, you are thinking of "world" as a world in a given moment of time rather than as a world throughout its entire history. If evil is not necessary for a world to be the best possible world, then we can conceive of two "possible worlds"

Possible World 1.) A world that God creates that remains perfect forever because human beings chose not to sin

Possible World 2.) A world that God creates that becomes fallen on account of human sin

Clearly our world is not W1 above, yet W1 above is the better of the two worlds...unless the evil of W2 somehow produces good that does not exist in W1.

So, while I am not confident in your argument that this world [i]is[/i] the best possible world, I do see a solution to the dilemma in my theory: namely, the rejection of any "possible worlds" at all.

Any comments would be great, and thanks a ton!

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[phatcatholic]

my first thought was this: can we say that evil is the [i]direct cause[/i] of the "best-world"? would it not be more accurate to say that grace is? w/o grace, evil (also sickness and suffering) would have no redeeming value. no good would come from it that would make this world the best possible one God could create. "evil" then would adopt a passive role, "grace" an active one.

[Guest JeffCR07]

two thoughts:

First, "evil" can be considered in two ways. First, in terms of ontological evil (such as pain, suffering, etc) and the second in terms of moral evil (such as sin, or doing what one ought not to do).

Second: While it is absolutely important to always discuss Grace in the context of any discussion about evil, I am not sure that the role of Grace as the force that causes Good comes out of evil will really change the nature of the question.

I think you are right to note the role of Grace as a direct and necessary cause of Good, but this does not negate the fact that, if one buys into the "possible worlds" discussion, then evil is either necessary as a cause of greater good, or it is unnecessary and therefore God could have made a better world.

[phatcatholic]

i see.........

[Snowcatpa]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 3 2005, 02:49 PM']1.) God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived
2.) I can conceive of two beings, one which can decide amongst a series of "possible worlds" and one before whom no possibilities exist.
3.) It is possible for the being who must choose from the set to err.
4.) It is better to not have the possibility of error than it is to have the possiblity of error and simply not err.
5.) Therefore, the being before whom no possiblities exist is the greater if the two
6.) Therefore, there are no "possible worlds" from which God selects one to create, but rather, there is only the singular action of creation.

From a more Thomistic perspective, this argument can be reformulated in the following way:

A being before whom a number of possible options exists is a being with the potentiality to effect one of those options. But there is no potentiality in God. Therefore, God is not a being before whom a number of possible options exists.

Therefore, God "could not" have created a better world, because such a statement takes God as a being with the potentiality to effect different actualizations.
[right][snapback]630675[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 4 2005, 07:49 PM']Thanks for the response, it definately helps me flesh out my points, even if I don't entirely agree with your response. If you dont mind, I'd like to go through your post and offer my thoughts on individual points, so you can see how my mind is working in this question and offer corrections in any errors that you see: [right][snapback]631678[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[color=purple]Of course my friend [/color]
[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 4 2005, 07:49 PM']A "best" world implies that there is, or was, the possibility of other worlds. But I have shown that isn't the case. So, this world isn't the "best" world, it is simple [i]the[/i] world, and it is the [i]only possible[/i] world. No other worlds are even possible.

If there is no "best world" then God clearly does not allow evil for the purpose of "directly causing" the best world. If evil is not a direct cause of the goodness of this world, then there is no problem for the Principle of Double Effect. [right][snapback]631678[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[color=purple] Ahh.. I get it now. I didn’t catch that link before. That connects your reasoning for me much better.

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 4 2005, 07:49 PM']I think you have illustrated here precisely one of the strong points of my argument. your last sentence hinges upon the fact that God "allows evil because the existence of evil directly causes the best world." However, my theory maintains that you can't even [i]talk[/i] about a "best world" in realtion to Divine Creation. [right][snapback]631678[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Are you saying that evil, then, is an inevitability? If you are, that still means that evil is necessary for this world, the only world. This answers the Atheist argument because a better would couldn't be made because there is only one actuality, but then, if I were an atheist, I'd ask "How is then that we can conceive of it?" Also, if evil is inevitable (as it would have to be if this was the only possible world, and evil exists in it), then this violates PDE in letter B.) "The desired consequenece of the action is not [i]causally[/i] dependent on the evil effect.

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 4 2005, 07:49 PM']If there is no "best world" then God clearly does not allow evil for the purpose of "directly causing" the best world[right][snapback]631678[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 3 2005, 02:49 PM']So, while I am not confident in your argument that this world [i]is[/i] the best possible world, I do see a solution to the dilemma in my theory: namely, the rejection of any "possible worlds" at all.
[right][snapback]631678[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I agree with you, but He still allows evil in this world as an inevitability in your argument. The existence of evil is then necessary to make this only world, still making the consequence (the creation of our world) causally dependent on the evil effect.

I’m still having trouble understanding, though, your reasoning behind why there can be no possible worlds. This is my main contention with your argument. If God is omniscient and knows everything and anything, beyond even what we can understand, it doesn’t seem logical to me to say that God doesn’t have the potential to enact a different world because no different worlds exist when we, with our pitiful minds, can conceive of thousands of possible realities.

Maybe I’m examining your argument from the wrong mindset, but it seems like you’re almost limiting God. You wrote that “there is no potentiality in God” which I took to mean, in addition to God having no possibilities to choose from, that God is only actuality…all that is, was, and ever will be…so God could never choose from anything. He is. He doesn’t choose this over that. That I understand… but then…if we can conceive of it….how is it not possible for God also to know it and not do it?

Along those same lines, can you explain a little more why a God who doesn’t have any possibilities is better than one with possibilities? I am not quite convinced by points 3 and 4 of your argument.
[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 3 2005, 02:49 PM']3.) It is possible for the being who must choose from the set to err.
4.) It is better to not have the possibility of error than it is to have the possiblity of error and simply not err.[right][snapback]630675[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Why must God automatically err if he chooses to do one thing over the other? Couldn’t it be possible that there is no “best” world, because any world God created even if it’s different than what we see now would be the “best” world? I know that seems odd…because God never makes mistakes…but something can be different and just as good; surely (sidestepping your argument about there not being possible worlds) the different worlds could all be the best world. If God never errs, then he wouldn’t err by ever having the possibility of making a bad world (which we can totally conceive of, and therefore God must be able to too). Therefore, any world he could have created would be a best one. For all we know, there could be infinite best worlds.

Skipping over to a different thought:[/color]
[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 3 2005, 02:49 PM'][i]If[/i] we agree that there are "possible worlds" which God [i]could[/i] have made, then we must admit that it is [i]possible[/i] (as you explain above) that man might not have sinned. But if there is a "possible world" in which man never sinned, and thus evil never existed, we must wonder why God chose to make [i]this[/i] world, in which man [i]did[/i] sin and evil [i]does[/i] exist, rather than [i]that[/i] world in which no evil exists.

Put negatively, if the evil of this world is only contingent then it is not necessary. If it is not necessary, then there exists a possible world which is like this one in all things, accept it doesnt have evil. That possible world would be better than the actual world, and therefore God would have made a mistake.

If evil is not necessary for a world to be the best possible world, then we can conceive of two "possible worlds" [right][snapback]631678[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 5 2005, 12:45 PM']if one buys into the "possible worlds" discussion, then evil is either necessary as a cause of greater good, or it is unnecessary and therefore God could have made a better world.
[right][snapback]632142[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[color=purple] Maybe God likes variety and enjoys making a world where we can grow in love with him in different ways. It could be possible that one world or the other is not the sole best world...There could be equally as good or as best ways to have the world…they were just different. Thank you for clarifying your definition of a world, by the way , as the entirety of a world throughout time. That changed my thinking a bit. In this world, where man did sin and evil exists, maybe I’m not fully understanding how my thinking is incorrect.

You wrote that people say the best possible world is the world with evil because God turns it into Good, thus justifying the evil. Further, “evil is the [i]necessary cause[/i] of the greater Good which makes this world the "best of all possible worlds". I don’t think my thoughts supported this conclusion that many others have drawn as the only one. Evil might not be the cause of the greater good…but an [i]equally[/i] as good a good. For instance,

A. God, all-knowing and all-powerful, can conceive of every possible world, including those most influenced by the ones that were to fall from his grace (Lucifer).

1. We know this because man, with capacities far lesser than God’s, can conceive of them (I feel that this will be your point of contention with me, so please elaborate how I’m wrong )

B. God, however, Is what Is and is not what can never be. Since He is all good he can only create the best worlds but that is not to say that there is only one best. (hmm… as I’m typing… I don’t think you’ll really like this one either )

C. God, foreseeing everything, creates our world, which is at first without evil. It is the best world.

D. However, because God has given us free will, he also sees that this will evolve into another best world in a completely different, yet equally valid way – through trial and tribulation instead of pure and uninhibited worship and praise.

E. At neither of these times in our one world is evil the necessary cause of the greater Good.

1.In the beginning, there was no evil – pure, uninhibited worship and praise was best that could possibly be
2.But, perhaps God forsaw a different way to bring humans to Christ which is why he gave them free will; in this way, they are drawing closer to him in another way – through the giving the trial and tribulation of having to chose to follow God, which would strengthen their convinction

i. It was not necessary that they choose evil, that evil should be in the world for it to be another best world…only that they would have the option to.
ii. This does not violate the PDE because God’ action was in line with his perfect and only potential actions, and the desired effect is not to have evil – it is to have good by us choosing good and not evil.

F. Therefore, everything that happens in this history of our world, makes the best world, in different forms. In neither does evil play a necessary role in making this the best world.


[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 5 2005, 12:45 PM']if one buys into the "possible worlds" discussion, then evil is either necessary as a cause of greater good, or it is unnecessary and therefore God could have made a better world.
[right][snapback]632142[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I would maintain that both the presence of evil, through our free will, that causes the best world and the same world without evil (both periods of time existing in our world) are both equally valid worlds that are the best at drawing us towards God.

What do you think? [/color]

[Didacus]

JeffCR07, I believe you have some very strong arguments there.

My thoughts turns around free will. As I see it, free will is what completes the love of humans towards God. It is this free will that allows us to choose to love Him. If not for free will, then we would be no better than God's robots, simply doing as we are told and never more.

Can you love your TV? Can your TV love you in return? Of course your television cannot love you in return. Had we not free will, would we be any better than a TV for God? Can love exist without there being a will to bring this love into existance? And should not this will be a free one?

God thus did not make a mistake in giving free will and opening humanity to the possibility of sin, he simply made humanity with the complete possibility of fullness of love.

Now here is the scary thought, if God can give free will, is it not logical that God has a free will of His own? Thus I cannot accept that God only had one option in creating this world. Having free will Himself, He was open to the possibility of making an evil world. Worst still, could God not choose to be evil? Could he not choose to be sinful in an aciton if He does have freewill? Scary little thought....

[Snowcatpa]

[color=purple] That [i]is[/i] a scary little thought Didacus ...luckily God is perfect [/color]

Edited July 6, 2005 by Snowcatpa

[Snowcatpa]

[quote name='Snowcatpa' date='Jul 5 2005, 04:07 PM'][color=purple] I would maintain that both the presence of evil, through our free will, that causes the best world and the same world without evil (both periods of time existing in our world) are both equally valid worlds that are the best at drawing us towards God. [/color]
[right][snapback]632311[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[color=purple] Clarifying - the presence of evil through our free will doesn't [i]cause[/i] the best world - but having a world with free will would be another best world. Evil is here because we chose it, not because it was necessary for the best world. Now I'm confusing myself [/color]

[Jake Huether]

Will only remains free when it doesn't perform evil. If one's will is to perform evil it is truly not free... In other words... By one's free will, they chose to give up their free will.

As humans, though, we can always freely will to have our free will back. And once we have our free will, we are free (the Truth shall set you free!). As long as we choose evil though we are really not free.





The difference between us, angels and God?

Let me know if this makes any sense... hope I'm not throwing us too far off topic - but I think to make these distinctions is relavant to the topic.

God is God, and is the source of will. He neither "has" will, nor is will by creation, but is the source of will - His very nature is will, not created as such, but being. As the source of will, His will is free. God, having a perfect free will, by his very nature cannot not have a free will. Otherwise God wouldn't be free. And if God wasn't free - the world wouldn't exist anyway. So God must have a free will, and in having a free will He cannot commit evil. He can't reject Himself. It's not that God "can't" do something. God can do everything. But it is precisely because of this that He is free - and doesn't do evil. I suppose it's easier to make the statement from the other direction. Those who do evil, cannot do something - because they've given up their free will. God can do all things.

Angels are will. God made them will. They are free - untill they will not to be. The angels, being pure spirits, are pure will. That is why once they choose to either accept God or reject Him, they cannot change back. And as long as they accept God, they are free willed and free. They do actually will to Love God. However, once they will not to be free, they are no longer free willed and they are no longer free. Satan is not a free will - he is forever chained to doing evil.

Humans are given will by God, since we are not pure spirits, but composite beings. We are not will, we only have will. And the will we've been given is free will. So we can freely choose to reject our will, and then what will do we have? The only will that is not of God is the spirit's (wills) that have rejected God. So if we don't have the will God gave us, we've decided to accept the wills of those that rejected God. If our will is not our own, the one God gave us, then the will we've chosen belongs to Satan. And his will is not free, but bound to reject God and His law. We don't have free will when we choose to reject the one that is geven us by God.

In sum: God is the source of free will. Angels are created will - and can will to accept or reject God. Humans are given will by God and not created will ourselves, but can reject this and accept Satan, accepting him as the "source" of will.

God's will, being Himself by nature, is different from the will that angels are, and we have. The will that angels are and we have is created will. It is creation. God is Creator. Creator cannot corrupt or be corrupt. Creation can - especially when it is free to chose to corrupt.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Jul 6 2005, 12:12 PM'][snip]
In sum:  God is the source of free will.  Angels are created will - and can will to accept or reject God.  Humans are given will by God and not created will ourselves, but can reject this and accept Satan, accepting him as the "source" of will.

God's will, being Himself by nature, is different from the will that angels are, and we have.  The will that angels are and we have is created will.  It is creation.  God is Creator.  Creator cannot corrupt or be corrupt.  Creation can - especially when it is free to chose to corrupt.
[right][snapback]633269[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I think you got something with God being the source of will rather than having will (I think your logic differentiating between humans and angels need a bit more work though). Could one picture the will of God as being the Holy spirit itself being shared within other beings - as the presence of God himself in my own soul? To 'willfullly' perfrom evil is to reject the freedom related to the will, and thus the will itself, and thus the presence of God in my own soul. thus to sin, perfrom evil, must be done by freedom of will and this loss of free will is in fact the materialisation of being seperated from God since the Holy Spirit is the denied free will and the presence of God in my own soul?

A question though, what basis do you have to ascertain that by choosing evil one is no longer free but chained to his/her sins? Could not someone turn this around and say as long as you do not choose evil you are chained to goodness? Wether you are a slave to evil, or a slave to goodness, are you not a slave none the less?

What is that little saying... hmmm... oh ya, "Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." What would you make of this statement?

[Jake Huether]

Great thoughts. Thanks!

Well, I was going to write a response. I have it copied in word right now... But the more I think about this, the more deep it gets and I'm starting to realize just how inadiquate my answer is, or even how inadiquate my brain is just to grasp this.

This really is the central theme to how Satan "chose" to reject God, and the fall of man. It's really really deep if you think abou it.

I'll respond as well as I can, but I'll let you know where I've stopped short to ponder these things more.

[quote name='Didacus' date='Jul 7 2005, 05:17 AM']Could one picture the will of God as being the Holy spirit itself being shared within other beings - as the presence of God himself in my own soul?[/quote]

I believe you are right. The will of God is His Spirit, and since God is spirit, yes, the will of God is the Holy Spirit. And when we are open to being totally and utterly possessed by the Holy Spirit, we will be doing His Will. Even Jesus said, "not my will, but yours be done". He's speaking of His human will. Jesus being God/man, had a spirit that was also hypostatically God/man. His Spirit was the same as the Holy Spirit - in Nature (God that is), but His spirit was also human in nature. As humans we share this union through Christ - being able to accept the will of the Holy Spirit as our own, yet not losing our own will, rather, uniting it to Him in the Sacraments.

[quote] To 'willfullly' perfrom evil is to reject the freedom related to the will, and thus the will itself, and thus the presence of God in my own soul.  thus to sin, perfrom evil, must be done by freedom of will and this loss of free will is in fact the materialisation of being seperated  from God since the Holy Spirit is the denied free will and the presence of God in my own soul?[/quote]

I like that. Yes, sinning is simply rejecting God in our soul. That fits quite well with not being free when we do evil. How can we be free without God? It's like asking how can we be free without breath. As air is the life of our body, Grace is the life of our soul. When we reject God, we reject the life of our soul. Until we are spiritually bed-ridden. One is not free when they reject God.

[quote]A question though, what basis do you have to ascertain that by choosing evil one is no longer free but chained to his/her sins?  Could not someone turn this around and say as long as you do not choose evil you are chained to goodness?  Wether you are a slave to evil, or a slave to goodness, are you not a slave none the less?

What is that little saying... hmmm... oh ya, "Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven."  What would you make of this statement?
[right][snapback]634128[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The definitions of freedom and license really helped me out. I never really did know the difference:

[quote]Main Entry: free·dom
Pronunciation: 'frE-d&m
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being free: as a : [b]the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action[/b] b : [b]liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another[/b] [/quote]

[quote]Main Entry: 1li·cense
Variant(s): or li·cence  /'lI-s&n(t)s/
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French licence, from Latin licentia, from licent-, licens, present participle of licEre to be permitted
1 a : permission to act b : freedom of action
2 a : [b]a permission granted [/b]by competent authority [b]to engage in [/b]a business or occupation or in an [b]activity otherwise unlawful [/b]b : a document, plate, or tag evidencing a license granted
3 a : [b]freedom that allows or is used with irresponsibility b : disregard for standards of personal conduct [/b][/quote]

And here is where I started to see the endless abyss of knowledge and the inadiquacy of my mind.

In God there is true freedom, because he allows us to chose how we will. There is no "necessity, coercion, or constraint". He has given us the rules, but he doesn't coerce us into doing them. We are not forced to do them. But we are free when we live by them. We are free to choose them, we are free to reject them. Alghout we are NOT coerced or forced into accepting them, we are coerced into rejecting them, so that although we freely reject them, in rejecting them we are really not free. Not sure that that made sense. It's at the tip of my mind, but I don't have it grasped fully yet.

We are free in God because the choices are before us. But when we reject God, there are no choices. Okay.. I'm starting to see the light a bit.

As long as we continue to accept God, the choice to reject Him is always before us. However, as long as we reject God, there is not choice to accept Him. The difference not being in the plain words that I've written, but in the way in which we are left to the choices. You see, while we accept God, He isn't forcing us to Him, but it is the Love for Him that forces us to accept Him. It is our Freedom then that draws us to Him, but not Himself that coerces us to do so. He Himself draws us to Him, but it isn't by His force, but by our will. Our spirit longs to be united to His, but not by force - by shere will. To reject him though, we are coerced. And as long as we reject Him, we are accepting Satan. And Satan and all the evil spirits do force us to accept them. They lie and coerce and force and chain us to them. They addict us. They are the reason for Purgatory, because even when we reject them and turn to God we are still drawn to them, but not for Love of them, but because they have grips in our soul.

So you could say then that in ourselves (as composite beings) there is freedom and bondage both. But in God there is only Freedom. We ourselves MUST be bound to God, because in God there is Freedom. So that when we aren't free (in flesh), we are free in spirit. But even while we are free to choose Satan, when we do, we bind our flesh to his addictions, but our spirit is also bound...

Here's where I started to go on a tangent, but a necessary one in order to understand where our freedom and bondage developed.

Before humanity there was Lucifer and all the angels.

There was no composite beings, just beings. And the angels were created will. They are pure will, pure spirits. They don't act as souls of bodies, they are simply will in spirit.

Now, God made them free wills, and so they were free to reject God, which Lucifer and his minions did. And since they are pure free will, they have no one to tempt them. They had no one, and they have no one to tempt them. They are not tempted toward evil (the rejection of God), nor are they tempted toward God - because God and His angels don't tempt - and they already chose.

Humans then were created. We are composite beings, a unity of body and spirit, where the spirit acts as the soul.

We were also created with a free will. Our spirits were given to us in this condition. They could reject God or accept Him. Now the difference with us is that because the angels were created first, there were then devils to tempt us away from God. And that is what happened in the Garden. Eve freely chose to eat the apple, but she was coerced into it. And because she was coerced into it, it wasn't in freedom that she ate it, but in license.

We are coerced into sin - by our flesh, Satan and the world.

When we commit sin, though we freely chose it (to reject God), we are not acting in freedom, but in license.


You can't say that one is chained to goodness - since "goodness" is simply living according to how we were created to live. Unless you define freedome as doing whatever you want, but that is license. It's like being in a narrow corridor, and so you have a long hall in front of you. If you choose to go back or forth you are totally free. You can choose to turn and attempt to go left to right but you are then trapped.

In being human we are "bound" to do certain things, and we are "bound" not to do certain things. Like flying for instance. We can build aircraft, etc., but we can't flap our arms and fly. We can't hold our breath forever. We are only free if we continue to breath. But no one would say that we aren't free not to breath. Yet, if we choose not to breath, we've lost a part of what it takes to keep us free.


In sum: In God we have the choice to accept Him or reject Him. But since we are coerced into rejecting Him, when we do, though our will is free to chose it, it chose not to act freely - but rather in licens.




I do think that humans and angels differ though, and here is why.

While angels are spirit, we have spirit. Again, we are composite beings.

One is bread, one is wheat. Bread has wheat, but it isn't wheat. Wheat is wheat.

And like I had explained earlier, angels, being free wills, and being the first of such, aren't tempted either way - they simply chose evil or not.

We on the other hand are like angels in that our spirits are free wills, but our spirits are also souls, and they are the life of a Body. So our wills contend with other peoples wills (the world), satanic wills (the devil), and our own flesh.

Man.. I have so many other thoughts and things I want to work out...

But I have a meeting to go to right now! Ahhh!

Post some of your thoughts and I'll catch back up.

Thanks again.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Jul 7 2005, 10:44 AM']Great thoughts.  Thanks! 

Well, I was going to write a response.  I have it copied in word right now... But the more I think about this, the more deep it gets and I'm starting to realize just how inadiquate my answer is, or even how inadiquate my brain is just to grasp this.  [/quote]

Thanks, the same can be said for you.

The more I think about God, the more there is to know about Him... it is truly impossible to grasp the Eternal within our human existance, but it is a good thing to try...




[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Jul 7 2005, 10:44 AM']This really is the central theme to how Satan "chose" to reject God, and the fall of man.  It's really really deep if you think abou it. [/quote]

I really don't have much time either, I will return to give your thoughts more justice later.



[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Jul 7 2005, 10:44 AM']The definitions of freedom and license really helped me out.  I never really did know the difference:

[/quote]

I think you might be right on the money with those. Excellent response.



[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Jul 7 2005, 10:44 AM']
Before humanity there was Lucifer and all the angels.

There was no composite beings, just beings.
[/quote]


I believe one of your lackings is the use of the term composite being. Following some of your logic, one might get the impression that the soul is good and the flesh is not, since the flesh is used to tempt us to sin.

The flesh is good, and the soul is as well. There are sins of the soul, and there are sins of the flesh. St.Francis of Aquinas can provide some enlightenment for that.

I believe you thoughts should highlight this difference more, and give proper precision.




[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Jul 7 2005, 10:44 AM']We are coerced into sin - by our flesh, Satan and the world.  [/quote]
Precisely the statement I feel should be corrected.

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Jul 7 2005, 10:44 AM']When we commit sin, though we freely chose it (to reject God), we are not acting in freedom, but in license.[/quote]

I would refer you to the CCC on the nature of sinning and mortal sin. There are some threads in the forum which explore these issues quite well, and I believe you should take the knowledge of the CCC into account within your thoughts. this will also give you proper vocabulary/terms to use as well.

I am certain you will find the CCC surprisingly close to your own thoughts.



[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Jul 7 2005, 10:44 AM']You can't say that one is chained to goodness - since "goodness" is simply living according to how we were created to live.  [/quote]
Excellent point



[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Jul 7 2005, 10:44 AM']I do think that humans and angels differ though, and here is why.

While angels are spirit, we have spirit.  Again, we are composite beings.

One is bread, one is wheat.  Bread has wheat, but it isn't wheat.  Wheat is wheat.  [snip]  [/quote]


I believe the fundamental differnce between angels and humans is that humans are born into a state of sin and must rise to a state of grace, where angels are born in a state of grace. Falling by sin from a state of grace means sinning with perfect enlightment and knowledge of your actions, which is impossibly the case for humans. Humans who sin remain essentially in their current sate, where angels fall from grace. Give consideration to this if it fits at all within your thoughts.





[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Jul 7 2005, 10:44 AM']But I have a meeting to go to right now!  Ahhh![/quote]


Believe it or not, so do I!

Post some of your thoughts and I'll catch back up.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts as well!

[Jake Huether]

Okay.. I'm back...

Wow. Thanks for pointing me to the CCC. It's full of great info.

Here are a few cuts that I thought were relavant (in terms of sin and how it effects freedom).

[QUOTE]407 The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man's situation and activity in the world. [b]By our first parents' sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free.[/b] [b]Original sin entails "captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil[/b]".298 Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action299 and morals. [/QUOTE]


[QUOTE]414 Satan or the devil and the other demons are fallen angels who have freely refused to serve God and his plan. Their choice against God is definitive. They try to associate man in their revolt against God. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]415 "Although set by God in a state of rectitude man, enticed by the evil one, abused his freedom at the very start of history. He lifted himself up against God, and sought to attain his goal apart from him" (GS 13 § 1). [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]1739 Freedom and sin. Man's freedom is limited and fallible. In fact, man failed. He freely sinned. By refusing God's plan of love, he deceived himself and became a slave to sin. This first alienation engendered a multitude of others. From its outset, human history attests the wretchedness and oppression born of the human heart in consequence of the abuse of freedom.[/QUOTE]

Good stuff.


[QUOTE]ARTICLE 3
MAN'S FREEDOM

1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be 'left in the hand of his own counsel,' so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."26


Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.27

I. FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY

1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one's own responsibility. By free will one shapes one's own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

1733 The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to "the slavery of sin."28

1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts.

1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

1736 Every act directly willed is imputable to its author:

Thus the Lord asked Eve after the sin in the garden: "What is this that you have done?"29 He asked Cain the same question.30 The prophet Nathan questioned David in the same way after he committed adultery with the wife of Uriah and had him murdered.31

An action can be indirectly voluntary when it results from negligence regarding something one should have known or done: for example, an accident arising from ignorance of traffic laws.

1737 An effect can be tolerated without being willed by its agent; for instance, a mother's exhaustion from tending her sick child. A bad effect is not imputable if it was not willed either as an end or as a means of an action, e.g., a death a person incurs in aiding someone in danger. For a bad effect to be imputable it must be foreseeable and the agent must have the possibility of avoiding it, as in the case of manslaughter caused by a drunken driver.

1738 Freedom is exercised in relationships between human beings. Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible being. All owe to each other this duty of respect. The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person. This right must be recognized and protected by civil authority within the limits of the common good and public order.32

II. HUMAN FREEDOM IN THE ECONOMY OF SALVATION

1739 Freedom and sin. Man's freedom is limited and fallible. In fact, man failed. He freely sinned. By refusing God's plan of love, he deceived himself and became a slave to sin. This first alienation engendered a multitude of others. From its outset, human history attests the wretchedness and oppression born of the human heart in consequence of the abuse of freedom.

1740 Threats to freedom. The exercise of freedom does not imply a right to say or do everything. It is false to maintain that man, "the subject of this freedom," is "an individual who is fully self-sufficient and whose finality is the satisfaction of his own interests in the enjoyment of earthly goods."33 Moreover, the economic, social, political, and cultural conditions that are needed for a just exercise of freedom are too often disregarded or violated. Such situations of blindness and injustice injure the moral life and involve the strong as well as the weak in the temptation to sin against charity. By deviating from the moral law man violates his own freedom, becomes imprisoned within himself, disrupts neighborly fellowship, and rebels against divine truth.

1741 Liberation and salvation. By his glorious Cross Christ has won salvation for all men. He redeemed them from the sin that held them in bondage. "For freedom Christ has set us free."34 In him we have communion with the "truth that makes us free."35 The Holy Spirit has been given to us and, as the Apostle teaches, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."36 Already we glory in the "liberty of the children of God."37

1742 Freedom and grace. The grace of Christ is not in the slightest way a rival of our freedom when this freedom accords with the sense of the true and the good that God has put in the human heart. On the contrary, as Christian experience attests especially in prayer, the more docile we are to the promptings of grace, the more we grow in inner freedom and confidence during trials, such as those we face in the pressures and constraints of the outer world. By the working of grace the Holy Spirit educates us in spiritual freedom in order to make us free collaborators in his work in the Church and in the world:


Almighty and merciful God,
in your goodness take away from us all that is harmful,
so that, made ready both in mind and body,
we may freely accomplish your will.38
IN BRIEF

1743 "God willed that man should be left in the hand of his own counsel (cf. Sir 15:14), so that he might of his own accord seek his creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him" (GS 17 § 1).

1744 Freedom is the power to act or not to act, and so to perform deliberate acts of one's own. Freedom attains perfection in its acts when directed toward God, the sovereign Good.

1745 Freedom characterizes properly human acts. It makes the human being responsible for acts of which he is the voluntary agent. His deliberate acts properly belong to him.

1746 The imputability or responsibility for an action can be diminished or nullified by ignorance, duress, fear, and other psychological or social factors.

1747 The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in religious and moral matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of man. But the exercise of freedom does not entail the putative right to say or do anything.

1748 "For freedom Christ has set us free" (Gal 5:1). [/QUOTE]

I pulled this from the above passage. I thought it had good insite:

[QUOTE]Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.27 [/QUOTE]

We are master over our acts, which makes us free. But this freedom doesn't necessitate the exploration of all the acts we are master over. Evil entices us and coerces us, so that if we freely choose evil, we are actually being mastered by our acts and not the other way around - and therefore aren't free.

[QUOTE]I believe one of your lackings is the use of the term composite being. Following some of your logic, one might get the impression that the soul is good and the flesh is not, since the flesh is used to tempt us to sin.

The flesh is good, and the soul is as well. There are sins of the soul, and there are sins of the flesh. St.Francis of Aquinas can provide some enlightenment for that.

I believe you thoughts should highlight this difference more, and give proper precision.[/QUOTE]

You're right. I need to be more careful. Both the soul and the body are good. But they both have the capacity to do damage - to themselves or one to the other. Conversly they also have the capacity to, and should, do good to themselves or one to the other.

Good point.

Actually, the Catechism has some good info on it too...

[QUOTE]2516 Because man is a composite being, spirit and body, there already exists a certain tension in him; a certain struggle of tendencies between "spirit" and "flesh" develops. But in fact this struggle belongs to the heritage of sin. It is a consequence of sin and at the same time a confirmation of it. It is part of the daily experience of the spiritual battle:


[b]For the Apostle it is not a matter of despising and condemning the body which with the spiritual soul constitutes man's nature and personal subjectivity.[/b] Rather, he is concerned with the morally good or bad works, or better, the permanent dispositions - virtues and vices - which are the fruit of submission (in the first case) or of resistance (in the second case) to the saving action of the Holy Spirit. For this reason the Apostle writes: "If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit."304[/QUOTE]

I emphisised the point that I think you were trying to make. And it is a great point.


[QUOTE]I believe the fundamental differnce between angels and humans is that humans are born into a state of sin and must rise to a state of grace, where angels are born in a state of grace. Falling by sin from a state of grace means sinning with perfect enlightment and [b]knowledge[/b] of your actions, which is impossibly the case for humans. Humans who sin remain essentially in their current sate, where angels fall from grace. Give consideration to this if it fits at all within your thoughts.[/QUOTE]

We should preface this with the fact that we aren't talking about the fundamental difference in the nature of the two: man and angel, but rather the fundamental difference in the will of either.

This is true, from the fall onward. But it wasn't this way always. Adam and Eve were born in a state of grace with God. They had original holiness! But I bolded what I noted was correct, and something I hadn't thought of. While man in the begining was in a state of grace, he wasn't in full knowledge.

So the fundamental difference in the will of either must be the fact that man had a tempter, angels didn't. And so while angels held full responsibility for their choice to reject God - they chose their fall in full will and full knowledge (they had the knowledge of good and evil, and chose evil), man was tempted into his fall - he chose the fall in full will, but not in full knowledge (remember, he had not the knowledge of good and evil), because the knowledge he recieved from the devil was a lie.

Both man and Satan sinned through pride.. But man was tempted into it, and Satan was not.



[QUOTE]397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God's command. This is what man's first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness. [/QUOTE]

In regards to free will and freedom, I clipped this from above:

[QUOTE]1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

1733 The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to "the slavery of sin."28 [/QUOTE]

I think it sums up pretty well how free will is not free in sin, but only in Christ - in the will of the Spirit (as you had pointed out earlier).

What do you think of this? Thanks again for the direction. There's just so much to learn.

Here are a few Councils that were referenced in the CCC.

[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5349"]http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5349[/url]

[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5391"]http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5391[/url]

Both had stated things similar to what you have.

Edited July 7, 2005 by Jake Huether

[Jake Huether]

Not sure why it wont quote the quotes.... The brackets look all right??

Oh, well.

[Jake Huether]

Not sure why it wont quote the quotes.... The brackets look all right??

Oh, well.

[Didacus]

I read those links of yours... and very good stuff.

I am learning so much of the church and its doctrine lately that I find sometimes I just can't stop reading!

Unfortunately I have to tell you I need a bit of time to gather everything here and to give a dignified response... a few things I want to check in the CCC myself.

Would it be worth while to try and recapitulate our 'thoughts'? Your last post ws a little hard to follow (ya I know, them quote things play tricks on me too).

By the way... how old are you?

May God bless and continue His inspiration for you on this day, and many more to come.

[Jake Huether]

[quote]I am learning so much of the church and its doctrine lately that I find sometimes I just can't stop reading![/quote]

I know what you mean. And the more you read the more you want to read because it just keeps getting better! LOL.

[quote]Unfortunately I have to tell you I need a bit of time to gather everything here and to give a dignified response... a few things I want to check in the CCC myself.[/quote]

No problem.


[quote]Would it be worth while to try and recapitulate our 'thoughts'?  Your last post ws a little hard to follow (ya I know, them quote things play tricks on me too).[/quote]

Yeah. I think it'd be worth while. Sometimes I respond as thoughts come into my mind, for fear that the thoughts I have will have come and gone and I won't remember what I was thinking about. LOL.

I will try to organize my thoughts better and post a more thorough and coherent response.


[quote]By the way... how old are you?[/quote]

I'm a few months shy of 26. I wish I had more knowledge for my age. I look at such great Saints, like Therese and Dominic, and I can't help but think that I wasted a lot of time with silly things that weren't necessarily focused on God! But on the other hand I thank God that He has blessed me with a desire to know Him more. There are so many people my age that aren't even aware of God, or His infinite Love.

Thank you so much for droppin knowledge. It's so helpful to have these Godly conversations. We're constantly bombarded with garbage all day. It's good to be able to converse with someone of similar convictions.

God bless you brother! Thanks again.

[phatcatholic]

this thread has been an amazing read..............thread of the year, for real.

jake, i knew you'd be all about a topic like this!