Our Freewills

[EricH]

Gang, lets leave the accusations of heresy at home please. Discuss the text and your opinions. If what you believe is true it will stand on its own without the need for labeling

[Openly Curious]

EricH

will you please speak in the moderator mode to st. worm on this as well

OC

[EricH]

This analogy is I dunnnnoo crazy maybe in my mind when I try to process it and break it on down. I see that you are comparing yourself to God if you yourself had foreknowledge of an event that was going to happen before it actually did happen. So in this regards I'll give my thoughts. If you did have foreknowledge someone was going to slip or fall off a cliff and just let them fall without any intervention on your part even when you knew it was going to happen. How in the world can you say you are preserving anything especially their freedom when you left them to just fall? It really had nothing to do with their freedom in which to preserve. It had to do with saving the person life that was falling off the cliff plain and simple.

That was my point exactly. People on both sides of the argument attempt to use analogies to show that the God presented by the other side is cruel. Both are open to such criticism if the correct analogy is used. That is why they are not helpful. The real question is what does the text teach? If the text teaches something that creates some discomfort for us we should work through the issue.

[EricH]

EricH

will you please speak in the moderator mode to st. worm on this as well

OC

See my post above directed at the entire topic. I read John's them posted. After-ward I read worm's and posted the general statement. All please refrain from using labels when you get frustrated

[chrismarc]

Marnie said,

Chris, that was magnificient. Very well written.

Direct from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

[chrismarc]

Eric said,

I am assuming you are Catholic and view the church as the arbiter of truth.

As Scriptures tell us.

[chrismarc]

Marnie said,

No, while "trinity" as a word is not found in the Bible, the concept is implicit from Genesis to Revelation. So, in a way I am advocating the notion that "if it's not in the Bible, it's not Biblical."

What about doctrine that is in Bible, but not believed by all?

I believe the Bible is what it is: G-d's revealed Word to His children,

written for all men to understand.

If all understand, why don't we all believe the same?

[Openly Curious]

'EricH'

That was my point exactly. People on both sides of the argument attempt to use analogies to show that the God presented by the other side is cruel. Both are open to such criticism if the correct analogy is used. That is why they are not helpful. The real question is what does the text teach? If the text teaches something that creates some discomfort for us we should work through the issue.

I haven't been talking at all myself any where within this thread about God being cruel to my knowledge for I don't think he is a cruel God. I have been responding to others analogies when presented to me. I've been trying to learn what the text teach. But demonizing me because some cannot persuaded me of their thinking is kinda crazy as well. And I have been trying to work through the issue the best i know how.

OC

[EricH]

Eric said,

I am assuming you are Catholic and view the church as the arbiter of truth.

As Scriptures tell us.

No actually they do not. But lets not morph this thread into a Catholic apologetic. There are numerous threads here regarding the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church and their scriptural correctness. Do a search for them and add to them if you wish. My point in asking if you were a Catholic was your statement about the role of the church in regards to the interpretation of scripture. I wanted to make sure my hunch was correct. I should have read your sig. That would have told me

[Openly Curious]

Marnie said,

Chris, that was magnificient. Very well written.

Direct from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.