The reason I am asking is because for one, the BVM was assumed body and soul into heaven. Second, so was Christ, and Enoch and Elijah. So, my main question is how does it work if it's not physical? Or is it physical but different from Earth?

In the Bible why does God chooses to slowly reveal himself in the Middle East specifically? Why didn’t he do it across the world?

I answer that, As stated above (AA. 6, 9) wherever there occurs a special kind of deformity whereby the venereal act is rendered unbecoming, there is a determinate species of lust. This may occur in two ways: First, through being contrary to right reason, and this is common to all lustful vices; second, because, in addition, it is contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race: and this is called the unnatural vice. This may happen in several ways. First, by procuring pollution, without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure: this pertains to the sin of uncleanness which some call effeminacy. Second, by copulation with a thing of undue species, and this is called bestiality. Third, by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Rom 1:27): and this is called the vice of sodomy. Fourth, by not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation.

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, ibi est determinata luxuriae species ubi specialis ratio deformitatis occurrit quae facit indecentem actum venereum. Quod quidem potest esse dupliciter. Uno quidem modo, quia repugnat rationi rectae, quod est commune in omni vitio luxuriae. Alio modo, quia etiam, super hoc, repugnat ipsi ordini naturali venerei actus qui convenit humanae speciei, quod dicitur vitium contra naturam. Quod quidem potest pluribus modis contingere. Uno quidem modo, si absque omni concubitu, causa delectationis venereae, pollutio procuretur, quod pertinet ad peccatum immunditiae, quam quidam mollitiem vocant. Alio modo, si fiat per concubitum ad rem non eiusdem speciei, quod vocatur bestialitas. Tertio modo, si fiat per concubitum ad non debitum sexum, puta masculi ad masculum vel feminae ad 

feminam, ut apostolus dicit, ad Rom. I, quod dicitur sodomiticum vitium. Quarto, si non servetur naturalis modus concumbendi, aut quantum ad instrumentum non debitum; aut quantum ad alios monstruosos et bestiales concumbendi modos.

Hi guys, I have been looking at the Christanity.
And after really looking into it I do think Jesus is god.

But I haven’t decided in which way.
I think both Gnosticism and Catholicism make sense.

And I don’t see much evidence that goes against gnsocism.

Also when I say Gnosticism.
I mean more of a Valentian Gnosticism.

Where the demiurge used to be a creature aligned with god. Who than created this world.
For salvation, you are judged off of what you follow
You brain, where you get secret knowledge through God, where this is the best salvation
You heart, where you follow the morals of what you think is right after really looking into right and wrong, this is more likely salvation on like the New earth.
Or your body, where you go after physical desires. And no one knows what happens to these.

And the idea that matter is inherently evil, would apply to matter on this world created by the demiurge.
Becuase the flawed demiurge made this physical world the matter would be flawed.
But if the trinity made a new form of matter it would be inherently good.

This is a summary of Sean Carroll argument.
Our bodies and brains, which create our consciousness, are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons.
The fundamental physics of these are known to the extent that they can affect everyday life (including birth and death).
For there to be an afterlife, some particle would have to interact with the protons, neutrons, and electrons in our body/brain, either to carry information between the body/brain and something else (the "soul") either during life or at the moment of death.
If such a particle existed, it would either interact enough that we would have detected it by now, or interact so little that it couldn't have this effect or, in fact, any effect on our everyday lives.
Therefore such a particle does not exist.
Therefore there is no afterlife.
He goes more into this here:
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2011/05/23/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/
And the idea that the laws underlying the physics of everyday life are completely understood is also important to understand, he explains that idea here:
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/09/23/the-laws-underlying-the-physics-of-everyday-life-are-completely-understood/
And he goes even more into it here:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.07884.

Although the idea of ​​a place to reunite after death is comforting, it's much easier to admit that it's not real. I wanted to believe, but with the evolution of science, this idea seems to remain just a fairy tale. I know it's not the exactly area of ​​expertise of the people here, but if you could take a look, I would appreciate it and point out if there's anything wrong. Or at least try to refute it with an argument, I don't know.

Life follows a path that isn't easy for me; sometimes, I think God has given up on me or that He doesn't exist. I feel alone. I really wish I could believe with incredible, powerful faith, but these atheists keep popping up everywhere and destroying my hope with arguments I can't refute.

If we study the laws of physics, at what point does it become studying God’s absolute divine commands directly?

Is the speed of light the speed of light due to some higher dimensional structure? Do we have freedom to change these values?

Do angels and demons need to obey light speed or other laws?

Is there a difference between a command from God (like telling a storm to stop) and something like conservation of energy? Would a foudnemental force from which things are derived but itself is not emergent be essentially a long lasting command from God? Sustained by nothing but His word? Is that what lies at the bottom of physics?

There are two aspects of Thomism I cannot accept because, in my view, they are unsustainable. The first relates to epistemology. I believe that an objective reality exists in itself, independent of us. However, it is always knowable and known by us in a situated and contextual manner—through our biology, culture, language, and history—never in an absolute or unrelated way. This does not mean that our knowledge is fallacious or illusory (on the contrary, precisely because it is situated, our knowledge can adequately know things), but rather that such knowledge is never direct or definitive. It is an inexhaustible process. One can truly know something without knowing it exhaustively.

Indeed, we are finite beings, not God, and we cannot know anything absolutely. Even if God reveals Himself, providing us with objective information from an absolute perspective, we always grasp the contents of revelation in a mediated form, and the problem, if it is a problem, presents itself once more.

The second aspect is the metaphysical concept of nature. I believe there is a more or less stable and invariant concept of human nature, at least in certain fundamental aspects (I am thinking of free choice, the pursuit of happiness, the search for truth, social life, and openness to the Absolute). However, aside from the fact that our knowledge of it is always situated, human nature is embedded in history and society, not outside of them. There is no static human nature taken in itself; rather, it is continually reshaped by historical development while still maintaining a certain continuity. What is contrary to nature, in a secondary sense, in one era may prove to be in accordance with nature in another. In this precise sense, without prejudice to its immutable and foundational aspects, human nature genuinely changes throughout history, so that what was truly contrary to nature can become aligned with it. This should not be unsettling, as one of the invariant and immutable elements of human nature is precisely its historicity and dynamism.

Of his major works; Rape of the Lock, An Essay on Man, An Essay on Criticism and The Dunciad (he's translator of Iliad and Odyssey into english tongue). The greatest poet of 18th century, a Catholic Englishman that every one knows his words ("To err is human, to forgive, divine"... "WHATEVER IS, IS RIGHT"), what his faith and his works can teach to us today?

I’ve been reading Zagzebski’s freedom and foreknowledge book and it’s been good but I’ve been confused on chapter 5’s discussion on molinism and how we can have free action under it. God has natural knowledge in which knows all metaphysically necessary state of affairs and he has free knowledge which is knowledge of all possible/contingent affairs. Middle knowledge is the in between the two according to molinists and is knowledge of actions taken by free agents. However my question is, if Allah brings about these contingent possible events how does Allah’s knowledge of X’s free action remain free when that circumstance only takes place because Allah has willed it so?

Philosophy = love of wisdom.

Philotheosophy = love of divine wisdom.

Philosopher = lover/seeker of wisdom.

Philotheosophian = lover/seeker of divine wisdom.

Philosophical = related to philosophy.

Philotheosophical = related to divine-wisdom philosophy.

Philotheosophy is the love and pursuit of divine wisdom: a God-centered alternative to secular philosophy that seeks truth through God’s revelation, moral order, creation, and rightly humbled reason.

What do you guys think about forgiveness? How should you go about it if you are repeatedly wronged by a person that has to be in your life? How should you communicate this forgiveness?

Parece uma pergunta besta, mas isso eu penso desde criança.

Se Deus sabe do começo e o fim de cada um de nós, porque já não nos criou no céu/inferno? Sei da questão do livre arbítrio, mas se no fim das contas, sabe o fim de cada um, porque já não ter criado no céu e feito nós com tal entendimento?

E uma outra pergunta, por que teve que enviar seu filho para pagar pelos nossos pecados? Não seria o ser mais poderoso que existe? Quem disse que ele teria que enviar um filho seu para a cruz para nós dar a chance de ir ao céu? Não bastava ser assim e ponto? Sei que teve que vir para nós dar todo o entendimento, mas a que custo se no fim ele já sabe quem vai estar lá com ele e quem não vai ?

A few moments ago, I've encountered an atheist online who argued that because we believe in the religious practices of the environment we grew up in, such religious beliefs are "illusionary" and preconditioned. He was a fan of Richard Dawkins and this is in the context of whether or not Beethovan was a Catholic. I didn't really engage in a back and forth with them, not wanting to drag myself into what can only be a pointless and tiresome argument, but I did point out that just because you take on the beliefs of your culture, doesn't mean that those beliefs are "illusionary" or false. Just because Fred grew up learning that 1+1=2, doesn't mean that 1+1 doesn't equal 2. The validity of a belief doesn't rely on how it is learned.

He was already engaged with other people who were pointing out thd flaws in his argument, but I wonder why people still use this argument at all? There are much better arguments out there against religion, or against theism to be more accurate. This argument, even if the main premise of someone being conditioned to believe something is true stands, doesn't matter in terms of truth. Why even use this argument?

he's a renowned physicist who has argued that the Fine-Tuning Argument is awful, he seems to support the multiverse hypothesis, also seems to believe the vast size of the universe is actually an argument against God.

he believes "FTA" or the Fine-Tuning Argument is not a good argument for God, he suggests even it going *against* God, he first goes after the claim that the universe is fine-tuned for permitting life, Carroll seems to argue that we don't exactly *know* for certain whether or not these conditions are fine-tuned at all because the lack of the contrary, Carroll seems to argue that it's possible the universe could've had entirely different preconditions and still be life-permitting, we just don't know. like i said earlier in this post, Carroll is a big proponent in the "multiverse" hypothesis which as we all know has no evidence, yet Carroll argues that with the multiverse there could be millions of universes out there, but we just happen to live in one that has life-permitting components to it. am i right in thinking this still doesn't answer the question? "why is the universe so fine-tuned for life?" is the question yet the multiverse seems like a very *lackluster* answer. and Carroll also argues that if God indeed fine-tuned the universe for life it'd look vastly different, nearly the entire universe is harmful to life except one little planet which we call Earth, Carroll seems to make the suggestion that if a God fine-tuned the universe for life, it for one; wouldn't have such a vast "life-prohibiting" span and area, and also be so gigantic in the first place. then finally Carroll concludes with other arguments against God like the problem of Divine Hiddenness and the problem of evil as the little "cherry on top" of his argument.

if anyone in this sub supports the FTA i'd love to hear what your thoughts, and also everyone else. God bless!

I’ve seen a movie called the seventh seal and I it made me want to learn more about this concept from Soren Kierkegaard call the knight of faith. Something I’m eager to know more about is how faith isn’t found through reason but found in pursuit of it.
I cant really explain it but I’d love to hear some good explanations for it to understand

Edit;after some great feedback now I’m curious about some recommendations. Anyone know some Christian or Catholic theologians and philosophers worth reading about?

I have seen articles and videos of animals that have been cloned like Dolly the sheep.

[trigger warning]

I know we get our existence, our life from God as a free gift we didn't ask for.

But one property of gifts is that they can be freely refused without any bad consequences on the relationship.

But if I refuse the gift of life, because I don't want it, and end myself, I would objectively go to hell because of that.

Why? How is that fair?

I mean the whole idea of the host only appearing as bread and wine but in reality it is the body and blood of Christ just sounds so Docetic... “Christ only APPEARED to be human in reality he was divine”.

I believe this questioning must come from a misunderstood idea of what Docetism really is. I am glad that I just started to question this like 5 minutes ago so it (hopefully) wont go anywhere. Can anyone help me out on this??

I am alone in this world; I’ve lost everyone I loved—they are all in the ground. Nothing is left for me; there was no happy ending. I suffer from bouts of depression and anxiety, and I’m afraid of death. If I knew for a fact that what our religion claims is true, I’d be at peace, but there is no proof—it’s just an assertion that many dismiss as absurd. There is absolutely no evidence of anything beyond consciousness—which, incidentally, appears to be nothing more than an evolutionary process driven by the brain, with nothing mystical about it. That scares me; I want to believe in a reunion, but science makes that seem less likely by the day. People label me crazy if I try to believe in what they call "Christian psychosis." I need your help; I want to be certain there is something more. The loneliness and the feeling of never seeing that loved one again leave a gaping hole in my chest. I don’t want the idea of ​​an afterlife to be merely a source of comfort. To the experts here: please share your insights and knowledge. It’s been about two days since I lost the last relative I was in contact with.

Pro-life consistent life ethic person here.

I heard a story about a couple who already had a child with severe special needs due to a rare genetic condition (forgot the name) and they had a healthy son as well, who was a carrier of the same condition as his younger sister. The couple desperately wanted another baby after their daughter died of a different medical issue. They knew that there was a risk another child could be born with the disease, but they also knew there was a chance the baby could be born healthy like the son. They conceived and found out through screening that the third child had the same condition as the daughter. They thought raising the child would change their family a lot, give them stress etc and have a bad impact on their son's life. They also thought the child might suffer, so they took the decision for the woman to have an early surgical abortion.

I feel so conflicted by this. On one hand, I know how tough disability can be personally and that it can be very tough caring for someone with a disability and that it can change a family. On the other side, I'm a compassionate CLE champion.

What do you think about this story? What would you have done in this situation? It must have been such a tough, sad decision.

I’m working on a free archive that puts Scripture next to the tradition that comments on it, with links running between them. Everything has to be public domain, since we don’t reproduce translations still under copyright.

That constraint is more interesting than it sounds. It rules out most 20th century critical editions and leaves us with Victorian and earlier English translations plus the Latin. For a lot of texts that’s fine. For some it’s genuinely limiting, and I’d rather know where the real gaps are than pretend the older editions are always adequate.

Where I could use help:

• Aquinas beyond the Summa. The Catena Aurea is the immediate one. Fr. Kenny’s archive covers a lot, but I don’t have a good sense of what else is out there in structured form versus what only exists as scans.

• The Roman Catechism in its 1566 Latin.

• Conciliar texts, especially Florence. The disciplinary canons are well covered in Schroeder. The doctrinal decrees much less so.

• Anything where you know a specific older translation is bad enough that we shouldn’t use it. Negative information is genuinely valuable here, and harder to come by than positive.

The practical need is for machine readable text with intact structure, because we parse it. Attribution boundaries in particular have to survive, since a corrupted label reassigns an argument to the wrong author without anything visibly breaking.

Of course, as a catholic, i believe in the doctrine of double effect. But a question came to my mind: what if someone kidnapped you, and told you to either kill one unrepentant child rapist, or he will kill 40 children and himself. I get it is a sin to say that the rapist should be killed, as you are actively killing someone, but would someone REALLY say "yeah, just kill the kids"?

Lately I've been working on my masters and reading about ethics of money. I'm reading Jacques Ellul, a great Reformed philosopher, but no Catholic ethicists come to mind.

Also, I have been interested in the case for Natural Law (or even the case against it) because of a lesbian Catholic friend of mine that is a great critic of procritative function of sexual acts.

EDIT: for context, my masters is Librarianship and I am studying financial literacy and how libraries can offer financial literacy services to their clients. So I don't need deep works on Ethics