Liberal Catholicism & the Falsification of the Magisterium

[KW]

If God is omnipotent omniscient perfect then theologically humans can have no free will. They can only act exactly as God has always perfectly known and intended they would act.

If science is correct in asserting that the brain is a biochemical / biocelectrical organ then humans are unable to make choices independently of their evolved decision-making processes, hence there is no manner in which will might be absolutely free, but instead arises from one's genetics, upbringing, culture and experience.

An omnipotent God can give us free will. Love is only possible to those with free will and God wants us to love him and each other.

I agree that without God there is no free will.

 

[blü 2]

An omnipotent God can give us free will. Love is only possible to those with free will and God wants us to love him and each other.

I agree that without God there is no free will.

Please explain to me how it's possible for the human brain to make a decision independently of its evolved decision-making processes, which represent its genetics, its experience and its environment.

 

[KW]

Please explain to me how it's possible for the human brain to make a decision independently of its evolved decision-making processes, which represent its genetics, its experience and its environment.

We do it every day. We make moral decisions often after carefully weighing two or more options. Sometimes we make choices that are not in our best interests but that we believe are the right thing to do.At other times we choose short term pleasures that violate our moral codes.

Free will is built in to us. We are unpredictable.

 

[blü 2]

We do it every day. We make moral decisions often after carefully weighing two or more options. Sometimes we make choices that are not in our best interests but that we believe are the right thing to do.At other times we choose short term pleasures that violate our moral codes.

Free will is built in to us. We are unpredictable.

Indeed we do. But we do it with a complex mechanism, not "free" at all.

The only sense in which our will is free is when it's not influenced by external compulsion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Like what? What doctrine has been proven wrong?

Monogenism, and by extension Original Sin.

 

[KW]

Indeed we do. But we do it with a complex mechanism, not "free" at all.

The only sense in which our will is free is when it's not influenced by external compulsion.

All our decisions are influenced by external and internal factors, but not mandated. Compare a free decision to forced obedience when a person is constrained against their will.

How do you explain a person risking their life for a stranger, or a person resisting temptation, or changing a decision at the very last moment?

 

[blü 2]

All our decisions are influenced by external and internal factors, but not mandated. Compare a free decision to forced obedience when a person is constrained against their will.

Yes, of course. In that case, "free" simply means "uncoerced by external factors".

Machines are free in exactly the same way ─ uncoerced to the contrary, they just function as normal.

I was asking how any decision can be independent of the brain's evolved decision-making processes, its own mechanisms, as it were.

How do you explain a person risking their life for a stranger

Most people don't, of course. But we've evolved as gregarious primates, who prosper through cooperation and teamwork, and when this comes to defending the tribe, for the males to be prepared to risk their lives in warfare (as parents may do for their particular family).

Equally, our evolved moral instincts include dislike of the one who harms, and a sense of self-worth ("virtue") through self-denial.

All these are evolved factors in the brain's decision-making processes.

 

[KW]

Yes, of course. In that case, "free" simply means "uncoerced by external factors".

Machines are free in exactly the same way ─ uncoerced to the contrary, they just function as normal.

I was asking how any decision can be independent of the brain's evolved decision-making processes, its own mechanisms, as it were.
Most people don't, of course. But we've evolved as gregarious primates, who prosper through cooperation and teamwork, and when this comes to defending the tribe, for the males to be prepared to risk their lives in warfare (as parents may do for their particular family).

Equally, our evolved moral instincts include dislike of the one who harms, and a sense of self-worth ("virtue") through self-denial.

All these are evolved factors in the brain's decision-making processes.

I think free will makes more sense and better explains my life experiences.

Without free will you don’t really exist as an independent being.

 

[Ella S.]

This is not about papal infallibility specifically. It is about the teaching authority of the Church in general which claims to be infallible on matters of faith and morals. Divine revelation is meaningless without some mechanism to guarantee its integrity from human error. The Catholic Church claims to be that mechanism.

I think people both within and without the Church probably don't agree with the Church's claimed guarantee for its integrity from human error.

That might be a better starting place for discussion.

 

[Ella S.]

That the Church has a fallible human element is denied by no one. But to claim the Catholic Church is a mere human institution is to deny the very basis of Catholicism itself. The claim of the Catholic Church and the very basis of its claimed authority is that it is a divine institution founded by Christ. That God Himself has guaranteed the Church immunity from error in regards to divine truths.

If it has erred in faith and morals then the Church has defected. If the Church has defected then the entire edifice of the Catholic religion crumbles.

I guess the entire Catholic religion has crumbled, then, since evolution disproves the physical existence of Adam and Eve which is Church doctrine.

ETA: And, more damning, Trinitarianism violates the Law of Identity and is literally, logically impossible.

Since Catholicism is the only true Christianity to you, I have finally completely disproven Christianity. Cool.

 

[KW]

Monogenism, and by extension Original Sin.

I guess the entire Catholic religion has crumbled, then, since evolution disproves the physical existence of Adam and Eve which is Church doctrine.

ETA: And, more damning, Trinitarianism violates the Law of Identity and is literally, logically impossible.

Since Catholicism is the only true Christianity to you, I have finally completely disproven Christianity. Cool.

What Church doctrine are you referring to regarding Adam and Eve? i

You can’t prove or disprove the doctrine of the Trinity,

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What Church doctrine are you referring to?

Monogenism: the belief that all of humanity descended from one original lone pair of humans.

The doctrine of Original Sin depends on every "true human" being the descendant of one original pair who committed, and then passed down, Original Sin. The only problem is that this just isn't how things work:

How many humans would it take to keep our species alive? One scientist's surprising answer

 

[KW]

Monogenism, and by extension Original Sin.

How is that Catholic doctrine?

Adam and Eve are the first beings with souls made in God’s image.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How is that Catholic doctrine?

How is Original Sin Catholic doctrine?

 

[KW]

How is Original Sin Catholic doctrine?

Monogenesis

 

[KW]

How is Original Sin Catholic doctrine?

This is interesting:

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 1 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 1 ARTICLE 1 PARAGRAPH 4

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Monogenesis

"37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]"

Humani Generis (August 12, 1950) | PIUS XII

 

[KW]

"37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]"

Humani Generis (August 12, 1950) | PIUS XII

Read this part again:


Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church

 

[rational experiences]

The human basic life teachings. A human only argument. You can't argue unless you're a human.

The bible never ever owned a stated thesis how a human existed.

OT said science already proven wrong. Earth was not in any state fission. Pretty basic don't let a human scientist coerce you. Words coerce.

Human err if I implement new machine conditions in theme jesus it was Stonehenge then it will work. It didn't you lied it blew up too. You scientists lying egotism behaviour.

Natural life advice to a human is very basic. In use of words.

2012 unnatural ground mass upper atmosphere attack was meant to end.

New science was based exactly on earths current premise. Warning was written to scientists why you dont.
theory nor infer to the evil UFO. Yet you did.

You didn't own causes natural did yet you scientist caused it yet hadn't and didn't control it.

You therefore did not know if the new theme cooling power plant would blow up. You learnt nature changes its atmospheric cooling pressures are no machine constant hence several blew up as power plants.

You say man's mistake..mistake was to build and use it. It claim ground fission was safe when natural laws weren't causing it...you were.

The preaching teaching human to as a human.

Adam wasn't Jesus so man did not Inherit stigmata body has in fact conjured Inherited para normal attack only.

Very different terms as earth is always different.

If one human says O earth base and it's heavens supports every reason why I exist a human...the human is saying it.

If I change either says thinking I lose myself as bio life human itself was proven the warning. Never did it claim how those bio bodies owned life.

Life said if those bodies change I bio bodily change too.

Life said as I know the ice saviour was evolving the status earth planet heavens my life DNA body was redeveloping bio non aging. Yet it always owned natural death.

As it was living owning aging. Hence our human Advice advised us that once a higher form of biological human body once owned living on earth. Answered before giant dinosaurs life had.

Actually.

2012 inheritance now gone. You chose nuclear life destruction already.

As it was your human organisations position to heed our spiritual father's warning. You failed already.

No bible ever said how life lived its billions of variations ever.

To coerce humans uses words. With or without book reading a human using words coerced and lies. A man is first not science the chosen practice. Was taught

Human man then thesis womb space mother maths zero wrong. The teaching you liar

Science does not exist until human chosen themes are applied. Created creation had always existed.

If you continue use to support human lying you'll Inherit human destruction pretty basic just a human advised.

The bible said and stated the man human man existed first.

Then he theoried woman mother womb space zero maths. You even ignore what you self advised.

 

[metis]

A problem with some Catholics as they've allowed right-wing partisan [or left wing as the case may be] and secular propaganda to dictate what they claim, often falsely, what the Catholic Church supposedly teaches. A quick example deals with climate change that's an encyclical Pope Frances gave based on scientific research, which thus becomes a doctrine of the Church. And yet some claim that such proposals are just the result of "leftist" propaganda, which simply is not even close to being true, both from the Church's and also science's perspective.