MaryJehanne

You're welcome! I'm happy to do it. Let me know if I can help you with anything else! Good luck and God bless!

Hello, Sunday21! Is there anyway you could use electrical or masking tape as labels, writing on them with sharpies? If you’re willing to buy new materials, gaffer tape supposedly won’t leave a residue, and a silver or gold metallic sharpie should show up on it! That way the labels will be clear without damaging the furniture when you take them off later.

I’m not LDS, but I can offer you some advice! From my Catholic background, there are some things that everyone believes so as to be faithful to the magisterium, such as the doctrines of three persons in one God and Mary being conceived immaculately. But even secular society does this! Most people, for instance, believe the earth is round and that fire is a chemical reaction. This isn’t foolish, but rather logical and efficient. If we had to prove everything out on our own, creating and running our own experiments to determine Earth's roundness and fire's nature, we’d spend a lifetime discerning only a very few truths. We rely on the collected branches of knowledge (sciences, which in this definition would include theology and philosophy) to provide us with accumulated, vetted knowledge. Groupthink is a danger, though, when this trust is placed in an unreliable source. The key is to make sure to discern the trustworthiness and authority of the source of the body of knowledge (such as a religion) before accepting it. You trust astronomy because you trust astronomers and their methods; you presumably don’t trust astrology because astrologists and their methods aren’t reliable, logical sources of truth. (Groupthink, conforming to the group's consensus, is a problem of relying on a group of individual people instead of truth. It involves overestimating the group, close-mindedness, and pressure for uniformity. It becomes a problem especially when the group is unreliable, which, with fallible humans, is pretty much always! Really, groupthink seems to come from a human desire to fit in and be accepted. If you're believing something because you've determined it's true, however, that's not groupthink, such as believing in things like biology and chemistry. Even in religions, where people follow a body of truth that is (and naturally only one is!) objectively true, individual people can still teach just plain wrongs ideas. Conforming to these because they're in vogue in a particular community or time and not questioning them because of that would be nearer psychology's concept of groupthink, but just believing in a branch of accumulated truth is not!) On the smaller level, however, again from an experience of Catholicism, there are areas that haven’t been definitively defined as true that Catholics can reasonably have differences of opinion on, such as the age of the world and whether prayers for things in the past can be heard. This doesn’t mean there’s not an objectively true answer for these things; it just means we don’t know for sure, so everyone can form their own opinions in these areas, different from other Catholics. Religion is the same idea: an organized branch of knowledge about the supernatural, ultimate construction of life. The problem then lies in picking which branch is the true one, just as you accept astronomy and toss out astrology. You've narrowed it down to Christianity, which is good, but now there are multiple branches that believe in Christ! Just like it's preferable to choose between Buddhism, Judaism, Jehovah Witnesses, Hinduism, and Christianity (etc.), it's preferable to now determine which branch has the fullest form of Christianity. And, beyond the fact that it's always preferable to know as much truth as you're able, rather than just a partial truth or a truth mixed with untruth, if I love God, which I'm sure you do as well, I'd want to know Him as He really is and know Him better, just as I would any one I love. Another reason you should seek a specific denomination (Although, similar to what some members have been saying about the LDS Church, Catholics wouldn't consider Catholicism a denomination! We'd consider the Catholic Church the orthodox Christianity, with other Christian denominations as belonging to the One, Catholic Church through baptism, but only acknowledging part of the truth.) over another is that God has set up advantages in His Church to bring a soul closer to Him. It is possible to be saved (through the Church) without ever knowingly being a member, but it is much easier to do it by participating in the fullness of the graces the Church has to offer on earth. This includes not only gaining a new branch of knowledge (rather then spending a lifetime learning only a few objective truths about reality), but also because of the consolations and help He’s able to give you on your path towards holiness in everyday life and the defenses He can give you against evils, such as those of the world and demons, that are trying to cause you to lose your soul and separate you from Him. In short, God loves you and He established the Church for you on earth, so that He can care for you and lead you to Him. He can't do that as effectively for a soul if she remains on the sidelines. Towards the "how" question, I'd suggest approaching your discernment like you would most any other body of truth! Of course, measure your findings against reality (If someone tells you the sky is green when it's clearly blue, don't believe them and all that! Don't abandon logic; God's given your intellect to you and intends you to use it!), but first figure out which authority is reliable and then prove which branch can demonstrates it truly comes from the authority it claims, investigate it by finding orthodox resources. You've already determined the authority you trust is Christ, so now the next step would be to find which branch claiming to originate from Him really does. I know that may seem to be an insurmountable task, but it's certainly possible to do, and there are resources for those investigating! For instance, if I was scrutinizing Eastern Orthodoxy, I could trace the turning point to the Great Schism, a few decades into the 11th century, and investigate key differences, which in this case is really one, the rejection of the authority of the Pope (Eastern Orthodoxy isn't heretical, it's only schismatic, which means it believes the same doctrines as Catholicism, but has broken from the Church by rejecting the Pope's authority). For Lutheranism and other Protestant denominations, I might trace the turning point back to figures like Luther or Zwingli. Are they reliable authorities? Are they changing or rejecting anything that comes from the reliable authority, Christ? A key foundation when setting out on your investigation would be reading the Early Church Fathers to familiarize yourself with what orthodox Christianity looked like before the splinters arose, so that you're able to recognize it in the modern day. I'm so sorry I wrote you a book there. I hope that helped a little at least! Please let me know if you want me to give you the cliffnotes notes version and I can distill it for you!

Ah, I see! Thank you very much, Vort. God bless!

Hello, Vort. I’m sorry if I’ve aggravated you in some way. I understand if you disagree with my beliefs — I expect that —but to belittle them using pejorative vocabulary and mocking examples isn’t very respectful or kind. I apologize if you don’t see value in my perspective, but far from “hairsplitting”, the idea I shared is speaking about the intrinsic nature of God. Whether God is Ultimate or simply very powerful is a signifcant distinction indeed. Many religions would agree. Judaism doesn’t declare God to be man, nor do Muslims or other Christian communities such as Protestants or Eastern Orthodox. I don’t say that to be offensive, but merely to reply to your point. As to it being Biblical, the Bible does talk about God having existed forever and speaks of God as being of a separate nature and status from humans, such as in Job 33:12. It does not talk about God as having the status of a created being (angel/human/animal), nor that He is instrinsically man, the two distinctions between our concepts that I cited. (I may also add that Catholics hold our Bible as part of our Tradition, not the only component) Again, I don’t mean to be offensive, only to adequately reply to your accusation.

Okay! I understand your disagreement, but I'd propose that it's more than talking about different personalities, such as in the example of Zeus and Apollo. Zeus and Apollo are of the same nature. It's clear even just from our discussion that we're talking about very different sorts of beings. The God you've been describing is contingent (not existence itself), and is essentially of the same nature as man. The God I've been describing is non-contingent (existence itself), is an entirely different being than man and not made of matter in His Divine nature, composed of no parts. If these definitions really are true, they're mutually exclusive. The name we're discussing is either truthfully attached to one or the other; it can't truly be both at once. Once the essence of a being has been redefined, it's no longer that being. For instance, if I you had a friend named Sarah, and I claimed to know Sarah too, but described, for instance, a plant, even though I'd used Sarah's name, I wouldn't really be talking about her. (By saying they're different gods, of course I'm not proposing that there are actually two who are existing at the same time; I'm only saying that one is an entirely different concept than the other!) I think that again takes us to our fundamental divergence in our concepts of God! I believe justice manifests in human reason, and you believe that God has the same nature, and so naturally he must have a human reason as well, where justice manifests. I differ in that I am defining the origin of justice, not stopping at its manifestation inside a created being. God is the origin of Justice, and so it does not merely manifest within Him, but is a part of Him. Thank you! That's still a definition, though! I'm looking for more of answer to the "why" part, not just the identity of something. For instance, if you asked me why human beings experience hope, something I might say is that it's because we have both a physical and spiritual nature, the spiritual nature being able to comprehend non-physical realities such as hope via reason and intellect. That's more of what I'm pressing for when I ask "why are there fundamental truths"! I see! On that point, I might just press that I would perceive commanding nature to do something other than what it is able to do naturally is, inherently, unnatural. What would you say to someone who asked what natural forces would be leveraged to walk through walls? To know what is in someone's mind? To forgive sin? Even moving molecules, like you mentioned before, would require a supernatural movement, since molecules don't just rearrange themselves into entirely different objects in the natural world. Yes, to me God is supernatural, and He can work within nature or outside of it, not being dependent on nature, His creation, which is entirely subject to Him in every way. Yes, that's true! I never said mercy would cause injustice. Unless I've messed up somewhere, my stance was that mercy and justice aren't opposites, so mercy can be enacted without causing injustice, etc. There are also might be multiple definitions of justice I've been using at once, I believe, which is confusing. There's one definition of justice which is just-deserts (he hit me so I hit him) and there's another justice that is what is owed to something in its nature (it is just for God to be Merciful, since that is His right). I've also mixed up guilt and debt, including them in one package. The debt always must be paid, through penance, indulgences, other people, etc. The guilt, to the extent of my knowledge, can be removed. Thus Adam and Eve were forgiven their guilt and were not sent to Hell, but had to wait for the debt until Paradise had been opened. I don't know if that was really helpful, but this is talking about God's Nature, something that I don't fully understand! I apologize if I've erred at all in what I've said on that account! I think the point I was probably trying to make is that we don't really merit anything, and that everything we gain is given to us by God. I wouldn't say by the same experience (exterior encounters) they'd gain the same outcome, but if you combine it with the same decisions (interior realities), then probably! A person is a very complex thing though, so I wouldn't feel confident in that answer unless they were exactly the same in every way. Which would mean they are the same person! Although not completely to the point, I'd like to clear up my concept of God's being "unchanging"! I do believe He is unchanging in His nature, and I do believe if He promises something, He will keep that promise, by I do not believe that there is no "superficial" change! For instance, He can change his decisions (such as saying He'd destroy Nineveh, and then deciding not to). I can't say that I agree that that version of justice is good. A "vile criminal" may have done something terrible, but he's still a human being. The "justice" on this earth is not the ultimate justice; only God can give that. Mercy is much more important. Punishment exists in our legal system to train individuals not to repeat a bad behavior and to dissuade the general populace from following that same path. It's not about exacting revenge. If the people facilitating the punishment are attempting to inflict pain for retribution, that's hateful and has become sinful. For instance, I'd say capital punishment is wrong where it can be avoided, even if the perpetrator committed murder. Eye-for-an-eye justice would demand that that criminal be executed, so as to match his crimes. But that's not the way of mercy. Unless the criminal can't be contained and is dangerous to others, the proper action is to contain him, giving him the natural life God has given him in the hopes that the soul will choose to return to God's love. The interactions of God's justice and mercy are highly conceptual and far above my study so far (I'm wading in too deep here!), but I do know that in Catholicism, His Mercy is His greatest attribute. How does justice play in there? I could speculate, but I'm afraid of falling into too many errors and I don't want to simply be confusing. In what He did during the Redemption, justice clearly plays a role, but as to what He could have done, I can't say for sure! It may just have been because of your word choice! Since you said he'd choose mercy and justice, that intimates that there was a point in time where he decided to declare himself merciful and just, which would mean that there was a time (the time before) where he was not merciful and just. And if He was at one point not intrinsically merciful and just, and then at another point was intrinsically merciful and just, he would have changed. That's all I was asking about! I'm not very well versed in this area, so excuse me if I make mistakes! I'd cautiously say that God is mercy and mercy is His greatest attribute. Although justice is part of Him as well and is always involved, as far as I know, Mercy is greater. I don't know if there's an issue in what I've said about mercy and justice, but insofar as there being no logical reason why He should not grant unlimited mercy, I'd say there is one: His Will. He has made His mercy contingent on repentance and love. He doesn't want to indiscriminately dispense mercy. (As a side note, to be separated from God is to be in pain! That's how He's made it. We're are ordered towards Love, and to reject Him is to fall into agony. I know of the tradition in Catholicism, that the "flames" of Hell are a mercy to distract from the true pain of knowing you'd divorced yourself from ever being with God.) He has set up the way to gain mercy: to repent and to love Him. That's His choice, which is the opposite of "respecting" persons. The main reason to trust Him is because of His infallible, inexhaustible love. He's not some strange chaotic being that is sometimes hateful, sometimes loving. He is always loving and never hateful. The way to forgiven is to trust Him, the way to not be is to not trust Him. That's not very unpredictable. And since He's so merciful, really the scales are weighted in your favor. He desires that everyone chooses to come to Him and will help you along the way!

I understand where you're coming from! So the reason you don't believe justice finds its origin in God is because you've already determined it's impossible for God to be The Origin? As with the LDS scripture you quoted, maintaining the foundational bias is important to keep this ideology. I see how that works, it just makes it harder to understand when you're assuming something I'm not. Pardon my saying so, but it would seem if something is and cannot be avoided, that's the definition of necessary. In the LDS theology, then, that must be where my God is, not in Heavenly Father. Does that make my perspective easier to understand? It seems we've being discussing two different gods, which is the source of a lot of the disconnect, as I think we already mentioned! I would say that justice manifests itself in human reason, since God oriented us for that, but does not exist because human reason exists. It's like we're TV monitors for the actual "machine" that is justice (probably a poor analogy, but it'll have to do! ). I'm not trying to split hairs on definitions. I wasn't challenging whether a principle is a fundamental truth; I'm asking a question about existence. I'm asking what makes a principle a principle? Why is a fundamental truth a fundamental truth? Nothing that is not existence exists "just because," otherwise there's no reason for something instead of nothing, which means there should be nothing. Again, pardon my saying so, but there's only one sort of supernatural... it means something above (super) what is natural! I think that's another assumption... I don't think that knowledge and understanding can make what's impossible possible. There's is nothing on this planet that can do something of its own volition beyond its nature. Every animal that flies needs apparatuses to do so, and they either have them and can fly, or they don't and they can't. If something is occurring that's beyond what is natural, it must be supernatural (or preternatural, in the case beings such as demons). Mine would be "a violation of another's strict right against his reasonable will," i.e. the right to live, the right to Liberty, and on a higher level, the right to pursue love of God. Injustice, in my current understanding, must always be a detriment blocking what is good. In my perspective, He won't love a person more, but He does have individual missions for people that won't be equal. (And of course, He'll grant some people more grace than others if they ask for it versus not, but I'm assuming you're including that in experience?) If I was under the exact same conditions as St. Faustina (which obviously wouldn't happen, because that wasn't His will!), would He have made me His Secretary of Divine Mercy? Probably not. She has a certain relationship with Him that I will never have, simply because she is she as He made her. And I have a relationship with Him no one else will have, because I am me as He made me. Ah. I'd see. I'd answer with a variation on what I've probably been saying, but mercy is not mercy if it is required. The second instance is MORE merciful than the first. If justice were required for mercy to be enacted, there would be no true mercy. I'm confused by this... didn't you say He had to be just and merciful as part of His nature? How are these limitations He's imposed on Himself? If He could never change, how was he able to become a God of mercy and justice in the first place? That seems to be a change I do think there's another disconnect in our approach to this to do with our different definitions of God. You're saying God is a God of Mercy, that mercy is a part of Him, but I am holding that my God is Mercy. His Mercy is limitless because it is Him. To limit His Mercy would be to limit Him, which would make him at best God with a lowercase "g", which is why I'm having trouble with much of what you're saying. It's probably, again, just that I'm thinking of a different sort of Being, one that's not human in His Divine Nature. Okay. Christ is able to be merciful when the Father is not? Or are you just saying Christ's mercy is still coming from His (then) future Atonement?

How come it's not possible for justice not to exist when intelligent beings do? I would agree that "where did Justice come from" equals "where did God come from," because I believe Justice finds it source in God. From what you've said, though, you don't believe that, so why is Justice necessary if it's not found only through God? If there was a moment when nothing existed, yet God existed, then something could certainly come into being! Things that do exist, but are not existence in itself, must be held in existence by whatever is the source of existence. I don’t believe in just a mighty being as eternal. I'd still say that's ridiculous: who made him? I profess that God is only eternal because He is existence. He is simply He Who Is. If he were not, He would not be God. A magnetic field, though, isn't an abstract concept. It consists of charges, of particles. That's matter! I'm asking about the supernatural. What made a principle a fundamental truth? Why does it have to be a fundamental truth? If you're imagining something, though, and giving it a picture, you're operating within the natural. If we're considering nothingness, this begins to touch on the supernatural, which we cannot picture, since picturing something is inherently corporeal. Using our preternatural faculties, without using the senses, we can conceive of nothingness. Ah! I see. I'd still say that's an assumption, but I understand that's your scripture, so to believe it you have to maintain that assumption! Yes, I do believe there was a moment when nothing existed but God, although spiritual Big Bang wouldn't be quite the term for my belief! God is continually creating to keep things in existence, and each time a child is conceived, a new soul is made. Yes, that makes sense you'd use them as preparatory statements, I just couldn't grasp them and use them as support for your idea, because the last statement doesn't follow the first two! Justice and Mercy are intertwined in God. In examples of God's Mercy, you will find justice, and vice versa. His mercy is just because mercy belongs to Him. In the first Matthew quotation, He did what he wished with what he pleases. For Mercy, it is His to give out. It's incomplete as far as reading the whole parable; it's not incomplete as far as the action of mercy is concerned. It is just as within His right to withdraw His gifts as it is to grant them! This doesn't nullify His ability to give mercy, simply because He has the power to take it away. I never said Mercy would be forced! I've emphasized that it is within cooperation with our free will. If the child is sorry, that is not unjust. If the child is not sorry, however, it is, and will probably damage the child later on. If we are sorry for our sins (which per the law, should ban us from heaven), God forgives us of His own power. If we are not, in justice we go to Hell. I think we're operating under different definitions of injustice! "Injustice (Lat. in, privative, and jus, right), in the large sense, is a contradiction in any way of the virtue of justice. Here, however, it is taken to mean the violation of another's strict right against his reasonable will, and the value of the word right is determined to be the moral power of having or doing or exacting something in support or furtherance of one's own advantage." No, that parable is centered on God's mercy. He is not required to treat everyone the same, as Matthew 20:9-16 demonstrated. He did not treat the workers equally. Some did more work, and more difficult work, and some did less, easier work, and receive more proportionally than the first ones did. If the King were required to forgive all his servants their debts, there was no need for the servant to be so worried. He'd know the King would have to forgive him. The second example? Do you mean the Bible verses I quoted? Those weren't part of St. Thomas's statement... I picked out those. (Is that what you meant?) Whoever has dominion over Mercy, it is within His right to do whatever He pleases with it. This is just, if we're defining justice as fairness, momentarily. It is just for Him to distribute His Mercy as He sees fit; it is unjust to propose that He must limit what is His right. He can set up stipulations and make demands, and that is within His right. He owns it. He can also throw away His stipulations and demands, giving out His "property" to whomever He wishes. That's His right. No, I'd reject that premise! I said He was perfectly capable of forgiving whomever He pleases. Turning on an uncontrollable spout of forgiveness is in direct opposition to this statement. That means He can't distribute forgiveness as wishes, but is required to give it to everyone. That's not the case. He will not grant mercy to everyone. Only those He chooses. He extends His Mercy to everyone, but He does not choose to give His mercy to those who reject it. In justice, even with Christ's sacrifice, we still should pay the price. God taking it on himself was Mercy, God accepting the Passion was Mercy. Just justice would want to see the punishment inflicted on the perpetrators, not anyone else.

@ProDeo Ha ha! Thank you. God bless!

Yes, I know you're assuming there's only one love, but I'm trying to discuss why! What I mean is that there is the Supernatural Love and the natural loves, which are good, but lesser. In the Bible, these different loves are referenced, such as in Matthew when Jesus tells Peter He loves him, but uses Agape. Christ loves Peter with His entire heart. Peter replies with Philia. We're friends. Christ continues to ask him if he loves Him, intimating that Philia is not enough, it is not equal. This nuance is missed in the English translation because of the one word for love. In the Gospels, Christ also demands a higher degree, more love. In Matthew 10:37: "He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me." And in Luke 14:26: "If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brother and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." Oops! I'm sorry, I should have defined what I meant by Love, not a sentiment or an emotion, but an act of the will! I entirely agree with these verses! (What denomination are you? Where I'm from, most of the denominations are Sola Fide.) I only meant that, though service follows love, service does not necessary equal love. Someone can perform actions without really loving. That's all I meant. Sorry for making that more complicated than it needed to be!

Thank you! I do think I understand it better. It's not very foreign, more like a deconstruction and reorganization of similar aspects of reality. I'm just trying to figure out where you're placing the building blocks, versus where I am! Where did Justice come from, then? Why does it exist instead of nothing? Okay! I see. If it's not made of matter, what is it? What is a principle? What is the intellect? Yes, but what made those principles the default? My perspective would hold that if they were not made the default, yet have no will of their own, there is not reason for them to exist at all. While I agree the rock question is illogical, I'd add that the assumption being made is that we know of all that is possible. Simply because I can't conceive of something being possible, doesn't mean it is impossible to God. I'd also propose that the belief in ex-nihilo being impossible is an assumption as well! It is entirely possible to conceive of matter not existing. There is no reason why a tree must exist. There is nothing in its nature that is necessary to reality. There could just be nothing. And if nothing moved it into being, there should be nothing. Even nature acts on this rule within itself: nothing does anything unless it is acted upon by something else. Atheists have to fudge around this question, because they can only trace matter back so far (around the Big Bang) before it's necessary for it to have a first cause. I would agree with their definition of omnipotence as well! My point is only that in the definition that has been proposed, additional restrictions have been added to the realm of the possible that do not belong there, since some of the things that have been declared as impossible are in fact entirely possible! I'm sorry, I'm having some difficulty following your proof! The problem seems to be a missing step or two before statement 3. How did you get from statement 1 and statement 2 to statement 3? Thank you for explaining for me! It is within your ability to do whatever you choose with what belongs to you! (As long as it does not violate the rights of that person!) Forgiveness and Mercy belong ultimately to God and Him alone. Is Matthew 20:9-16 unjust? "When those who had started about five o’clock came, each received the usual daily wage. So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more, but each of them also got the usual wage. And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner, saying, ‘These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day’s burden and the heat.’ He said to one of them in reply, ‘My friend, I am not cheating you. Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you? [Or] am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?’ Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last.” Is Matthew 18:23-27 unjust? "That is why the kingdom of heaven may be likened to a king who decided to settle accounts with his servants. When he began the accounting, a debtor was brought before him who owed him a huge amount. Since he had no way of paying it back, his master ordered him to be sold, along with his wife, his children, and all his property, in payment of the debt. At that, the servant fell down, did him homage, and said, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back in full.' Moved with compassion the master of that servant let him go and forgave him the loan." I'd bring the quote I used earlier from St. Thomas Aquinas back again: “God acts mercifully, not indeed by going against His justice, but by doing something more than justice; thus a man who pays another two hundred pieces of money, though owing him only one hundred, does nothing against justice, buts acts liberally or mercifully. The case is the same with one who pardons an offence committed against him, for in remitting it he may be said to bestow a gift. Hence the Apostle calls remission a forgiving; Forgive one another, as Christ has forgiven you (Eph 4:31). Hence it is clear that mercy does not destroy justice, but in a sense is the fullness thereof. And thus it is said: Mercy exalteth [triumphs] itself about judgment (Jas 2:13).” You're perfectly all right! I dropped off the map for Easter too.

Yeah, there's a good amount of posts here! Sounds good! I will say the two basic differences you are bringing up here have been mentioned, but they're always worth another look! At first glance, yes, it does seem nuanced, but at the heart of it, the concepts are radically different, which makes sharing perspectives difficult, because in using the same term, we mean completely different things! 1) Specifically that, in LDS theology, god's will is what makes god himself is something I haven't heard before (unless I forgot something :P)! You're saying that a perfect will is what characterizes his divinity? 2) Yes, I think this second point came up pretty quickly! (I would just add that for something to be a heresy, it has to come out of members of the Catholic Church! Arianism, for instance, would be a heresy, since it came out of members of the Church who declared it as true. The Buddhist denial of a permanent, eternal soul, however, is not, because, even though it's gravely inaccurate, it does not stem from a direct perversion of Catholicism. The LDS Church was founded by people, such as Joseph Smith, who were not coming out of the Church, so on its own, this would not be considered a formal heresy, but just the belief of another religion.) My goodness, anatess, that's a bunch of stuff! I'lll try to unpack it as best I can. (As you noticed, I numbered them to make answering easier!) 1. My perspective has been that Mercy is an ultimate, overflowing fulfillment of Justice, and that God is limitless in his Love (Mercy). There seems to be an assumption here I'm not familiar with! What law is Justice and Mercy acting upon? I'm a little confused by this! Can you help me understand what you mean? 2. His Will makes Him God? How so? 3. From my perspective, ff He's being forced to do these things, He's not actually just or merciful! If these don't stem from Him, but He has to abide by them or cease to exist, He's being controlled. 4. I don't understand how you've arrived at this first conclusion! Without evil there is no good? This would make God reliant on evil. I'd turn it around and say without Good, there is no evil. In Catholic theology, evil is only the absence of Good (God), not a yin and yang philosophy. 5. I'd cordially reject the idea that we need evil to know good. If we did, that would mean I should research the grittiest of human sins and watch and listen to the worst of salacious media, so as to know good better. That seems more than a little counter-intuitive. Are you saying Adam's fall was orchestrated? 6. Yes, no unclean thing will dwell in the Beatific Vision! But, of course, on Earth God loves to come to poor sinners. God even took on the body of a man and dwelt with sinners. Yes, the result of sin is the detriment of being without God's presence, what I would call Hell. Adam was not completely abandoned by God, though. He was turned out of the garden, but He was not banned from experiencing God. Are you saying sin is necessary? That means God must have sinned to become good. I would rather be innocent than knowledgable! Besides, in the beatific vision we could share in the knowledge of God, no fall necessary. 7. Jesus did not undergo spiritual death, sin! That is a state of being, not a neutral suffering. A soul in Hell is in a permanent state of rejection. Christ could not do that, because that would be a contrary to His nature, and such action, if anyone were to do it, would have no merit whatsoever, being far from honorable. 8. As you can understand, from my perspective, complete spiritual separation from God would be impossible for Christ, since He is God and that would mean He was completely separate from Himself. Is what you mean a complete emotional separation? God did not and could not suffer spiritual death; spiritual death belongs only to creatures who reject Him! 9. Again, I'd emphasize spiritual death is not a sacrifice, it is an evil! Christ offered Himself to die? But this was the Father's plan... Christ Himself asked that, if it be His Father's Will, that the cup pass from Him. Matthew 26:39, Matthew 26:42. I hope I understood your point of view in my responses!

@Carborendum Thank you for the suggestion! Yeah, the live action Speed Racer was great fun and pretty true to the original! The candy-colored motif fit perfectly. @Vort I grew up on Speed Racer! I need to re-watch the series again!

@NeuroTypical @person0 Thank you guys so much! I’ve started looking into those!

I know this is an old thread, but I was wondering if anyone's found any clean Anime to recommend, besides, of course, Studio Ghibli? (I haven't read through this whole thread, so excuse me if this has been addressed! ) I'm really interested in animation and love the beauty in the Japanese styles, but most of them are more than a little racy (in my experience anyway).

Oh, okay! I’m glad we’re both learning about the other’s religion, then! ☺️

Oh, okay! Yes, it certainly is. Is there a reason you linked the Dummies page? Is there something that’s bothering you?

The difference would be that a mortal sin is a depravation of grace in the soul, and that excommunication is an exclusion from some aspects of membership as a last resort. It is not an expression of distaste at any grave sin, but an exclamation mark to emphasize how terrible a sin really is for the sake of a soul. Cold-blooded murder under ordinary circumstance (or as ordinary as murderous circumstances can be) are not automatically worthy of excommunication. Abortion, however, would be. The woman, and "all formal conspirators", would fall under automatic excommunication. This is because the purpose of excommunication in the Catholic Church is to highlight something as evil. Most people know cold-blooded murder is wrong. There's no need to pile anything extra on there. Sadly, however, abortion is being accepted as ethically permissible and has become legal in many countries. Because of this, it's necessary to emphasize that, no, this is wrong! (NOTE: "To actually incur the excommunication one must know that it is an excommunicable offense at the time of the abortion. Canon 1323 provides that the following do not incur a sanction, those who are not yet 16, are unaware of a law, do not advert to it or are in error about its scope, were forced or had an unforeseeable accident, acted out of grave fear, or who lacked the use of reason (except culpably, as by drunkenness). Thus a woman forced by an abusive husband to have an abortion would not incur an excommunication, for instance, whereas someone culpably under the influence of drugs or alcohol would (canon 1325). In any case, whether one has been excommunicated or not, the sin of abortion must be confessed as the taking of innocent human life (5th Commandment). If the penitent did not know about this law at the time of the abortion then he or she was NOT excommunicated. If the person knew about the law but there were extenuating circumstances (such as mentioned above concerning c. 1323) then these factors should be mentioned to the confessor. He will say whether he has the faculty from the bishop to absolve from this excommunication or whether he even needs to. If he does not, he will privately and secretly obtain absolution from the bishop or send the person to a confessor who has that power." (italic emphasis added)) As mentioned in the note, if the excommunication was automatic, an individual simply needs to confess what happened to any Bishop (rather than an ordinary priest) in the sacrament of confession to lift it. ______ Yes, that is very true. ______ I believe that's correct! Just the proper form, with the proper intent and understanding, needs to be used.

Yes, I'd agree with that to a degree (I'd say the laws grouped under the natural sciences of physics, chemistry, biology, etc. are all created, though I would add that they are designed to reflect truths of God), but that's actually the opposite of what I'm trying to get at. I didn't really mean anything by fairness itself, but thank you for going deeper into that; I was just selecting an abstract term, so no worries! What I'm trying to express is, some things are not matter, refined or otherwise. Where anatess mentioned that love is an action, I'd completely agree with her as well! Scripture is often times very clear, but people can try to twist it to fit different ideas (especially when withdrawn from Biblical, historical, theological, and philosophical contexts), and without a shared deference to an authority who can define the meaning, it's difficult to use certain passages as a foundational argument! I was mostly commenting, though, on the fact that there were no passages cited to support the idea, so it was more that it was an unfounded statement, rather than that it was the Bible. No, I don't mean postponed, I mean excused (if I understand what you're referring to correctly!)! If all mercy was was allotting payment for a debt, it would be merely a baseline justice, not actual mercy. Mercy is bestowed as a gift; it should flow as an abundance, giving where something is not attainable. For instance, if you had a small child (we'll say age 8, past the age of reason, to make things clearer) and she rebelliously hit you, what payment do you need to receive to forgive her? In justice, you could punish her. In mercy, you could limit the punishment, not being cruel, but still giving some so she learns her lesson: it's not good to hit Dad. But if you were to limit it, who pays the extra due? Does another child have to stand in for her so that her debt may be payed in full? If God is less capable that you or I in giving mercy, what kind of God would He be? Yes, I've heard of that a bit! In the Catholic perspective, the garden is part of His Passion as well as the Crucifixion. It's probably more proper for me to say "Passion" than just Crucifixion when talking about the fullness of the Atonement! I don't know about "simply" dying on the cross, though! I think My Lord could have cut His finger and that's more than He ever should have suffered. You're completely fine! It just takes me a while to write out my answers, so amongst my other day-to-day things, it's slow going. As long as you're okay with waiting, I'm perfectly all right!

Happy Easter! Christ is risen! Oh, no! What I'm discussing is a much more ancient concept. I'm not familiar with a list of loves according to Freud, but most of what he would discuss would probably be of exclusively carnal nature. (Before diving any deeper into an explanation, I should clarify that insofar as we're discussing ultimate Love, there is only one, true, complete form of love, namely Charity (coming from a Catholic perspective of Charity not being exclusively giving money and objects to the poor, but rather selfless love).) I would not condone Freudian ideas, many of which are in direct opposition to Charity and the Church. What I was referring to was the ancient Greek language's specific words for specific types of love, where English has only one. For instance, if someone were to say "I love ice-cream," "I love my pet," "I love my sister," "I love my spouse," and "I love my God," they would be talking about different sorts of love in each instance, using one word with varying definitions (You do not love ice-cream in the same way you love God). These Greek words would be Agápe ("'love: esp. charity; the love of God for man and of man for God.'"), Éros ("'love, mostly of the sexual passion.'"), Philia ("'affectionate regard, friendship,' usually 'between equals.'" - brotherly love), and Storge ("'love, affection' and 'especially of parents and children' It is the common or natural empathy, like that felt by parents for offspring"). The word "love" in our language is used to refer to liking someone or something, being infatuated with someone, being attracted to someone, familial affection, total selflessness (Charity), and complete adoration and worship. Yes, I would agree with you that that is not true love, because that act intrinsically says that one person is giving all they are to the other (selflessness). When they're not married, that's a lie, because they haven't totally given of themselves (there are "no strings attached"). Yes, that can be an expression of Charity (and desirably so!), but not necessarily, even among married couples. If you're referring to True Love, Charity, yes, that would be present in each instance. But love between spouses have different aspects than love of children and neighbors. I owe more honor and respect to my parents than I do to the person across the street. In another context, I would not worship (give total adoration to) my parents or my neighbors. I would, however, worship God. Yes, it is our desire to bring these people to God, which would be an element of Charity in that Charity wills the good of another. But that can't be the only type of love, since you couldn't apply that to God without turning the statement in on itself. I agree, mercy killing would not be loving and is anything but merciful in nature. Yes, He created us because He loves us and wants us to be happy with Him forever! I'm not exactly sure what you mean by goodness not being separate from will and knowledge, but I do agree that they would not be in God, since all those are intrinsic to His Nature! Goodness, knowledge, and will, however, aren't necessarily tied to each other in application to us, since someone can be good without having knowledge, and someone can have knowledge and a will, such as a demon, without goodness. Yes, I'd agree with God's will being good. His Will is His Love. Ah, yes, I noticed you used to be Catholic. The Roman rite is beautiful. A Ukrainian Catholic priest I know described the stylistic difference between the Western and Eastern Catholic rites being that the Eastern "is looking into heaven" and the Western "is kneeling at the foot of the cross". (Not that that's exclusive or anything! Just a way to express the different charisms.) Poor mom. That's rough on parents. For the Divine Mercy Novena (I've been receiving it by email), I just got something about this today for day 5 from St. Faustina's diary! "Today bring to Me the souls of those who have separated themselves from My Church, and immerse them in the ocean of My mercy. During My bitter Passion they tore at My Body and Heart, that is, My Church. As they return to unity with the Church, My wounds heal and in this way they alleviate My Passion (Diary, 1218)". Why ever did you leave? @ProDeo Hello! I'd mostly agree, but maybe refine the one-liner to "willing the good of another"! (Thinking of Love as an action of the will rather than simply a physical action!)

Hello, The Traveler. Thank you for sharing your thoughts! Yes, I do know about a restoration being an essential part of LDS theology. Okay, that's an interesting perspective! So they are more interacting with the symbolic, versus the Catholic view of receiving the supernatural? So, if I'm understanding your point correctly, you're proposing that the LDS ordinances are ancient Jewish rituals that were restored later on (But what do you mean by Everlasting Covenant? At first glance, I'd say it can't really be everlasting if it was broken)? Thank you for elaborating! Yes, but I don't believe that's viable evidence, since Isaiah 24 is talking about the Israelites turning on their relationship with God, not future Christendom. It also doesn't speak to a total, but rather partial apostasy, as is shown in other Old Testament selections, such as Amos 9:8: "Behold the eyes of the Lord God are upon the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from the face of the earth: but yet I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith the Lord" (emphasis added). I'm not entirely sure what part of Daniel you're speaking to, but that still seems like it's in reference to Judaism and not a complete apostasy of Christ's Church. God bless!

Yes, that's good to know! We also think someone must be sinless to enter the Beatific Vision, but that's why we have confession and purgatory! I suppose we might be able to agree that grave sins (what we'd call mortal sins) are harder to repent of, simply because that's a definite refusal of God's Love, depriving a soul of sanctifying grace. Adultery is more serious? Do you mean in contrast to murder or the Catholic Church's concept? Ah, okay! I think I understand. Marriage is a saving ordinance?

Ah, okay! (Yeah, for us that would be even graver offenses. To the extent of my knowledge, you're not excommunicated for murder; there would have to be some other qualifications to make it an automatic excommunication, which "impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts".) Yes, the LDS and the Catholic perspective of Baptism is a little different! For us, It's not a matter of a visual expression of accepting Christ, but a conferring of grace upon an individual. One of the main aspects of Baptism is the remission of both actual and original sin. It's not a membership contract as much as an adoption, letting the children draw near to Him. Through mortal sin, you can leave God, but you will always have the mark on your soul that shows you were once His in grace. Once you turn back to God, you re-enter a State of Grace. Good to know! Yes, I've seen that in most religions! From our perspective, we believe sin is sin as well, and no sin is ever worth committing, but venial sin causes damage to your relationship with God, whereas mortal sin severs it completely, putting your soul in grave peril (and this would have be a knowing, purposeful rejection, not a mistake!). Yes, I'd agree that it may be called a sub-section of serving God, because God is our primary love, not the other way around! We don't love God because it's a sub-section of serving our family. I'm also wondering if there's a distinction between "loving" and "serving" in the LDS faith? As an observation, I've noticed (if I remember rightly!) that in discussing love, service seems to be used somewhat interchangeably... Service would of course follow love, and love of God without some sort of discipleship wouldn't be true love, but there still seems to be a distinction (love does not equal service, and someone can serve without loving), and I'm wondering if that's something you recognize in your faith? Yes, you're right, any member of the Church can baptize when ministers aren't available or are lacking (all Catholic laity have a baptismal priesthood)! Yes, that second point is what I noticed most clearly as the similarity! Without the opportunity to be baptized? Do you mean that they want to be and aren't able to be or that they never knew they should get baptized at all? Those who know they should be baptize and choose not to, or those who do not know about it in any sense, but refuse good as they know it and choose hatred, aren't in a good spot. For those who know of baptism into Christianity, and wish to receive it but can't (for instance, on their way to being baptized, they have a fatal car accident), there is the baptism of desire (God is not limited by human action in His ability to grant His Love and grace). For those who die for Christ, but have not been baptized, their martyrdom would be baptism of blood. For those who have never been properly exposed to Truth, by not fault of their own, or live in a place or time that keeps them from hearing the Good News, what is necessary is that they desire to good, accepting God as they know Him. It is possible to know some aspects of God and objective goodness through natural reasoning. I was discussing this with Person0 on the Atonement thread, and I brought up one of the later scenes in The Last Battle by C.S. Lewis, a perfect illustration of this idea. Happy Easter! He is risen!

Oh! Okay, I think I get it now! It's kind of like justice is a material He's made from, in a sense? Or an ingredient? Justice exists outside of God as an eternal principle that was used to make God? Ah, okay! I see. What I was trying to get at by asking that question is the nature of the thing "love". From my perspective, I'd sat the natural world is only one plane of existence, with the spiritual being something entirely different and supernatural. What I'm asking is, from your perspective, what you believe about love if everything's refined matter? What material structures make up love? Yes! (Yeah, the ancient Greco-Roman gods were awful! It makes me sad to think that's all those poor people knew about as far as God goes ) Yes, I see your point. I think that's a part of it, but I'd still propose that perhaps omnipotence isn't the most direct term for what's being defined, since omni simply means all? If omnipotence is having all power, but god lacks power in several circumstances and ways, that seems to be less than all power... It seems that the eternal principles have all the power, since they've defined everything, even god. Yeah, I think that's probably true, except my perspective would still hold back on the not circumventing justice part! You're right; I didn't mean we'd actually deserve more intrinsically. No, sorry, that's what I meant in my first part. I just phrased it really confusingly, I guess. For true opposites, my perspective would be based on the foundational principle that one thing cannot be both itself and its opposite at the same time and in the same respect. In the magnet example, one end is the south pole and one end is the north pole. One side is only ever the north pole and one side is only ever the south pole. One side is not both the north and the south pole. There are two places for the opposites to reside, at the end of the left and the right (or top and bottom), and the opposites never enter one part together. God is not a magnet, with half of Himself being only Justice and half being only Mercy! He is both, at the same time. From that, I'd surmise that they must not be intrinsic, true opposites. Another proof to explain my perspective would be this. The opposite of justice is injustice. The opposite of mercy is mercilessness. If justice is the opposite of mercy, mercy must be unjust, and if mercy is the opposite of justice, justice must be merciless. But if God is Mercy and Justice, being merciless is a contradiction to His nature and being unjust is contrary to His nature. St. Thomas Aquinas addressed this issue, saying: “God acts mercifully, not indeed by going against his justice, but by doing something more than justice; thus a man who pays another two hundred pieces of money, though owing him only one hundred, does nothing against justice, but acts liberally or mercifully." And: “The case is the same with one who pardons an offense committed against him, for in remitting it he may be said to bestow a gift. Hence the apostle [Paul] calls remission a forgiving: "Forgive one another, as Christ has forgiven you" (Eph 4:32). Hence it is clear that mercy does not destroy justice, but in a sense is the fullness thereof. Thus it is said, "Mercy exalts itself above judgment" (Jas 2:13).”

Hm... Okay, thank you for explain that! Perhaps I'm not understand correctly, but isn't that the same as what I said? Did I miss something? Let me try again... So he's not self-defined, he's intrinsically defined by righteousness, which is an Ultimate Principle that exists outside of all the rest of reality? For that last part, I never meant to say that God randomly decided what was right and wrong; I mean that He is righteousness itself and the only reason there is a right is because it is Him! Sorry, I was looking more for anatess2's answer! You know, love as an act of the will? Infatuation and some affection are emotions, but true love isn't an emotion... God died for love of us, but He probably wasn't getting many positive feelings when he was being nailed to the cross! Since we kind of missed each other on that one (it's hard because the English language doesn't have many distinct words to express the different types of love!); I can try another! What is fairness? What material structures make up fairness? Do you get where I'm trying to go with this? (Sorry I wasn't clear enough earlier!) Sorry, this may sound silly, but I'm not familiar with the term Creedal Christians! It vaguely rings a bell, but I can't put my figure on it's exact definition! How come they get deflated? Thank you for saying you didn't mean any disrespect! To the "is God described in scripture somehow not good enough for you?", you'd have to understand, though, as you pointed out to a degree, that from my perspective I could validly just turn that statement back to you, like we were in a game of ping-pong! I appreciate that you wanted to give me your opinion, and I certainly accept it as that, but do you see how that wouldn't be able to make much more of an impact than a little bit of pain, since it's a claim that's more subjective than objective in the way you've presented it? There wasn't really anything added after it to support it, but I have evidence from the source you're suggesting (the Bible) to the contrary (such as Colossians 1:16-17, Jeremiah 4:23, Isaiah 45:7, Job 26:7) and none to its defense. So, although I know you did preface and close this with an expression of your good intentions, do you see how it's still hard for it to be fruitful, even as just a sharing of perspective? Thank you all the same, though! I think I understand what you're saying! But I would add, from my Catholic perspective, that if justice were required to run its course, the Atonement would never have happened in the first place, since in pure justice, the Crucifixion would never have happen. The Atonement itself was an act of mercy, so if He needed the Atonement to offer mercy, the reasoning would become circular and the Atonement could never have happened. Likewise, the merit from the Crucifixion doesn't automatically apply to our sins in its nature. It was infinitely valuable by the suffering Christ endured, which He then chose to offer for our sins. By offering Himself, He excused us from His justice, since in justice we did not deserve even for Him to pay our debt for us. And, as I think I mentioned somewhere before in this thread, He was actively merciful in the Old Testament, before the Atonement! Some Bible passages I'd point to would be James 2:13, Roman 9:15, Romans 9:18, and Romans 5:8. I don't believe there are different forms of opposites! 'Opposite' means opposing, conflicting, irreconcilable, clashing, contrary, contradictory, to take synonyms from a dictionary. From my perspective, I'd say there's a difference between opposites and complements! Opposites are contrary, like goodness and evil. Complements are different enough to be a separate principle, but at the heart of it have a fundamental basis so that they can work together. So life and death are opposites; they cancel each other out. But the human brain and the human heart are complements; together they can keep the body alive. They are different "principles", one is the central nervous system, which, for one thing, allows the heart to beat, the other is the an organ that pumps blood throughout the body which, in turn, allows the brain to work. While different, they share common ground: being made of flesh, oriented towards the life and function of the body, working together to allow it to thrive. Do you see what I'm trying to express from my perspective? Again, God bless! I certainly agree with love being a decision! The emotion, in its true form, not infatuation or anything, is an expression of it, but I'd add that it's not necessary to signal love, since someone who is depressed, for example, may love God, but feel no emotion in doing so! I'm not sure if the last to parts were directed towards me, so please excuse me if they weren't! I would say goodness is a separate quality from will and knowledge! I'm not sure what you mean exactly by the last sentence (I'm sorry!), but I'd be happy to try to share my perspective on it if you were able to break it down some more for me! Thank you for adding your perspective to the pool! @person0 I'm so sorry, but I think I'm going to have to try to write my reply to you tomorrow! Thank you and God bless!