Posts

Total: 64
CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 120
0
2
8
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
2
8
INTRODUCTION.

Hello, everybody, Welcome to the second Sunday School post. I think last week's post was a success, spurring lots of conversation and questions. Today, we will be examining a question posed by @borz_kriffle. For those unware, these Sunday School posts are an initiative I was drawn to begin. Each Sunday (or Saturday, depending on the occasion), it is my hope to answer a question or address a teaching related to the Catholic faith. 

I like to preface these posts with a quick warning: I am not perfect. Like all of us, I am flawed and in need of God’s grace. I am bound to make mistakes, so I ask for your patience as I learn throughout this journey. Yet, I would like to remind everybody that the imperfections I have do not take away from the truth I hope to convey. For example, if I misrepresent a Church teaching, it is a direct consequence of my actions, not the teaching itself being false. I encourage you to correct me charitably if I err and to pose genuine questions in the comments, but keep in mind these posts are not meant to debate and I may not respond to argumentative comments.

Lastly, I urge everyone to approach this with an open mind and heart. As C.S. Lewis said: "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance." If these discussions help resolve obstacles to faith, they could lead you to the most significant decision of your life.

QUESTION.

Today's question is the following: "Do animals have free will? If not, what is free will defined as? If so, can they sin, and did Jesus die for them as well?" Before answering the question, it's important to understand what free will actually entails. Free will is the God-given ability of human beings to choose freely between good and evil, enabling them to act voluntarily according to their reason and conscience.

ANSWER.

Animals do not have free will the way humans do; they lack the capacity for moral reasoning, which are necessary for true free will. Just because animals are unable to make moral decisions does not mean they are not intelligent. Some animals are remarkably intelligent, exhibiting problem-solving, communication, and even emotional behaviors. However, their intelligence is fundamentally different from the rationality of humans. Animals operate according to instinct and learned behaviors, which can sometimes appear highly sophisticated. Yet, they do not possess the spiritual, immortal soul that allows humans to engage in moral reasoning or to know and love God in a conscious, voluntary way. Consequently, sin requires moral responsibility, which comes from the exercise of free will and rational intellect. Sin is a deliberate offense against God, requiring knowledge of the act's moral character and the freedom to choose it. Since animals lack rational souls, they are incapable of making such moral judgments or deliberately disobeying God. Their actions, even when they might cause harm, are not morally imputable.

So, we know they are unable to sin, but did Jesus still die for them? Jesus died specifically to redeem humanity from sin and reconcile us with God, as only humans, made in God's image, are capable of sin and moral responsibility. However, His sacrifice also has cosmic significance, as all creation, affected by sin's disorder, awaits renewal. Through Christ's death and resurrection, not only humanity but all creation will one day be restored to its original harmony and freed from corruption. In this sense, animals and the rest of creation are included in the redemptive plan of God—not because they sin or need salvation in the same way humans do, but because they are part of the created order that will one day be restored to its original harmony.

Animals cannot sin, but Jesus still died for them (in a sense). It seems these truths are converging to one essential question: Will we see animals in heaven? Or more specifically, will we see our pets in heaven? This question is not definitively answered by Church teaching, but there are theological reflections that provide hope and insight. Animals, as part of God's creation, reflect His glory and goodness (Genesis 1:25, Psalm 104). While they do not have immortal souls like humans, who are destined for eternal union with God, the renewal of all creation in the new heavens and new earth (Revelation 21:1, Romans 8:21) suggests that animals may share in this restored order. This is not because they require salvation but because they are part of the beauty and harmony of God's plan. For those who have beloved pets (including myself), it is reasonable to hope that God's infinite love and the joy of heaven might include a way for that love to be fulfilled. Heaven is the perfect fulfillment of all good desires aligned with God's will, and if our pets are part of what would contribute to that joy in God's perfect design, we can trust in His generosity and providence. While we cannot say with certainty that we will see our pets in heaven, we trust in God's goodness, knowing that all things will be made new and complete in Him.

SUMMARY.

Animals do not have free will or the ability to make moral decisions as humans do, since they lack rational souls and the capacity for moral reasoning. While some animals display intelligence and emotional behaviors, their actions are driven by instinct, not deliberate moral choices, making them incapable of sin. Sin, which requires free will and rationality, is unique to humans. Jesus died specifically to redeem humanity from sin, but His sacrifice also has cosmic significance, promising the restoration of all creation, including animals, which suffer under the disorder caused by sin. Though animals do not require salvation in the same way as humans, they are part of God's redemptive plan. The Church does not definitively teach whether we will see our pets in heaven, but the renewal of creation in the new heavens and new earth offers hope that animals, as part of God’s glorious design, may share in this restored order. Trusting in God's infinite love and providence, we can reasonably hope that heaven will fulfill all good desires in perfect harmony with His will, possibly including our cherished relationships with beloved pets.

CLOSING REMARKS.

Thank you to everybody who has read this week's Sunday School. I have formulated this post in a rather tired state, so I apologize if anything is unclear or confusing. If this is the case, please address me in the comments. Regardless, I hope it was an interesting read, and I encourouge all readers to continue their persuit of truth!

CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 120
0
2
8
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
2
8
-->
@borz_kriffle
Your question from last week has been answered above. I’m mentioning you in this comment so that you receive a notification and are aware that it has been answered.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,298
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@CatholicApologetics
Unfortunately, the premise is necessary and caring, and cannot be verified. 

Namely GOD.

Which to say the least, is something of a hurdle.


Though in simple terms, actions are derived.

Something cannot be done without physiological predetermination.

Human or otherwise.


Questions without answers are certainly interesting

But should be taught as such.

Rather than as an assumed fact.

Because this is misleading.

In my opinion.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 372
Posts: 11,432
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@zedvictor4
@CatholicApologetics
When we are explaining things to others and teaching others, it makes us understand better as well.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,735
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
@Best.Korea
@CatholicApologetics
I like to preface these posts with a quick warning: I am not perfect. Like all of us, I am flawed and in need of God’s grace. I am bound to make mistakes, so I ask for your patience as I learn throughout this journey. Yet, I would like to remind everybody that the imperfections I have do not take away from the truth I hope to convey. For example, if I misrepresent a Church teaching, it is a direct consequence of my actions, not the teaching itself being false. I encourage you to correct me charitably if I err and to pose genuine questions in the comments, but keep in mind these posts are not meant to debate and I may not respond to argumentative comments.



Well that is your arse well and truly covered , then.

Regardless.

What do you consider a "genuine question"?
If your posts "are no meant for debate" , what is the reason form them?
Give me an example of an "argumentative comment"? 

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,298
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
@Best.Korea
Yep.

Good morning to BK and Stephen from wonderful Mid Wales.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 372
Posts: 11,432
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Morning.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 372
Posts: 11,432
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Stephen
@CatholicApologetics
I feel like telling that topic is not debatable usually tempts people to debate and attack it knowing that poster wont respond.

So while there are ways to make topics on forum non-debatable, I kinda doubt that putting a "no debate" rule does anything to achieve it. I doubt mods would enforce it, and there is no way for poster to enforce it by simply stating it.

Maybe a better way would be for anyone who makes an argument to just ask him to convert it into question, or ask "So what is your question?"
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,177
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@CatholicApologetics
Some points to pick on.

1 Animals don’t have free will but can choose to do whatever they want without consequences. Humans have free will but have to face consequences for their actions. We forgive our pets when they do something wrong. But hold our neighbours fully responsible for their actions.
2 Animals go to heaven because Jesus died for their sins. But humans are not guaranteed to go to heaven unless they accept Jesus died for their sins too.
3 Jesus like animals had no free will He had to follow Gods instructions. Therefore like animals he was not held accountable for his actions.
4 By accepting Jesus we become like animals. We give up our free will and follow his instructions.
5 But once in heaven we will still control our animals.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 372
Posts: 11,432
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Shila
By accepting Jesus we become like animals
Animals are much more humane than humans.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,177
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Best.Korea
By accepting Jesus we become like animals
Animals are much more humane than humans.

Animals do not have free will or the ability to make moral decisions as humans do, since they lack rational souls and the capacity for moral reasoning. While some animals display intelligence and emotional behaviors, their actions are driven by instinct, not deliberate moral choices, making them incapable of sin. Sin, which requires free will and rationality, is unique to humans. Jesus died specifically to redeem humanity from sin, but His sacrifice also has cosmic significance, promising the restoration of all creation, including animals, which suffer under the disorder caused by sin. Though animals do not require salvation in the same way as humans, they are part of God's redemptive plan. The Church does not definitively teach whether we will see our pets in heaven, but the renewal of creation in the new heavens and new earth offers hope that animals, as part of God’s glorious design, may share in this restored order. Trusting in God's infinite love and providence, we can reasonably hope that heaven will fulfill all good desires in perfect harmony with His will, possibly including our cherished relationships with beloved pets.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,735
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Best.Korea
@CatholicApologetics


I feel like telling that topic is not debatable usually tempts people to debate and attack it knowing that poster wont respond.

Exactly,  BK. He's telling us that he has no intention of discussing his own comments. reply's or answers.  And won't be challenged on them, or any answer he offers. 


So while there are ways to make topics on forum non-debatable, I kinda doubt that putting a "no debate" rule does anything to achieve it. I doubt mods would enforce it, and there is no way for poster to enforce it by simply stating it.
Well the way he enforces it is  to simply ignore anything that only he deems as he says "argumentative" or not a "genuine question". as he clearly states above in his  OP,  it was part of his  warning,  a proviso of specific stipulations, conditions, and limitations. Also known as a caveat.  He thinks we are all  stupid and cannot see through his bullshit. As I said, he was simply covering is arse.


Maybe a better way would be for anyone who makes an argument to just ask him to convert it into question, or ask "So what is your question?"

But that wouldn't apply to CatholicApologetics the OP. He's already laid down his rules and dictates for how he  intends (hopes) this thread to go. As I said, his dictates are in place to stop you/ us questioning him himself - the OP.   i.e. he won't be questioned and he won't be argued with. 

 He's an arse that doesn't know he's an arse.  Just like that other arse the Reverend Traedesecret that used to  try to pull   exactly the same bullshit. He must have forgot that not all of us have short memories.


Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 402
Posts: 2,109
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
The scriptures teaches to go out into all nations and preach the gospel to every creature.

Do those creatures include animals, non persons?

Even though, Jesus came for the lost sheep of the house of Israel, God made it clear in scripture that he calls all men everywhere to repent.

Christ came for sinners in which the bible details through one man's sin all have sinned and died through but in turn all (sheep) can be made alive, sins washed away.

It's interesting talking about the will in animals and in people. The animals as a whole maintain the command of replenishing the earth while the people in their will fail at it. As the scripture teaches, the will of man is to serve himself, not God. Please and yield to his flesh, not hate it all.
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 311
2
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
2
2
6
-->
@Shila
1 Animals don’t have free will but can choose to do whatever they want without consequences. Humans have free will but have to face consequences for their actions. We forgive our pets when they do something wrong. But hold our neighbours fully responsible for their actions.
2 Animals go to heaven because Jesus died for their sins. But humans are not guaranteed to go to heaven unless they accept Jesus died for their sins too.
3 Jesus like animals had no free will He had to follow Gods instructions. Therefore like animals he was not held accountable for his actions.
4 By accepting Jesus we become like animals. We give up our free will and follow his instructions.
5 But once in heaven we will still control our animals.

You should change your profile to pseudo-catholic.

Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,735
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mall
The scriptures teaches to go out into all nations and preach the gospel to every creature.

Well that is  a massive twist of the Great Commission if ever I read it. 

Lets have a look.
Matthew 28:16-20 KJV

All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Not a peep about all creatures is there, you liar"?  Did they to baptise these "creatures", too? 








Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 372
Posts: 11,432
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Stephen
@CatholicApologetics
I am just saying, people will debate this anyway, and ignoring answers wont really make them go away.

A better way to discourage debate is to make 10,000 character forum post which contains plenty of short points, so people have a hard time reading it let alone debating it. However, that then discourages people from reading it as well as debating it.

You can also discourage debate by making short answers and weakest point rebuttal only. Simply, by having one very short comment pointing out just one worst mistake in opponent's argument and ignoring all else opponent said, it really crushes people's will to debate.

So there are strategies to prevent people from debating. I am just not sure how moral is it to do them when the point of debate is to debate and exchange truth.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,177
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@MAV99
1 Animals don’t have free will but can choose to do whatever they want without consequences. Humans have free will but have to face consequences for their actions. We forgive our pets when they do something wrong. But hold our neighbours fully responsible for their actions.
2 Animals go to heaven because Jesus died for their sins. But humans are not guaranteed to go to heaven unless they accept Jesus died for their sins too.
3 Jesus like animals had no free will He had to follow Gods instructions. Therefore like animals he was not held accountable for his actions.
4 By accepting Jesus we become like animals. We give up our free will and follow his instructions.
5 But once in heaven we will still control our animals.

You should change your profile to pseudo-catholic.
It is a paraphrased summary of Catholic Apologetics response to the question , "Do animals have free will? If not, what is free will defined as? If so, can they sin, and did Jesus die for them as well?" 
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,275
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@CatholicApologetics
Free will is the God-given ability of human beings to choose freely between good and evil, enabling them to act voluntarily according to their reason and conscience.
Is it really God-given when, according to the Bible, God did not give us knowledge of good and evil? We had to take it, against his wishes, and were misled into doing so by a bad actor.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,298
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mall
Men made it clear in scripture.


Well, not so clear.


But.


It was men what did it.


A GOD has never verifiably written or said a sausage.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,177
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Castin
Free will is the God-given ability of human beings to choose freely between good and evil, enabling them to act voluntarily according to their reason and conscience.
Is it really God-given when, according to the Bible, God did not give us knowledge of good and evil? We had to take it, against his wishes, and were misled into doing so by a bad actor.
God wanted humans to be more like animals with no free will but free to choose, instead humans turned out knowledgeable like God knowing our choices but being limited by what we can choose. Even Jesus complained about this limited choice options.
Matthew 26:39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,735
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Best.Korea


I am just saying, people will debate this anyway, and ignoring answers wont really make them go away.

I agree. My point is that the OP HIMSELF! - CatholicApologetics who's thread this is has no intention HISELF of answering any question that ONLY HE deems "argumentative"  or deems NOT to be a "genuine question".  He made that very clear in his warning that I have reposted HERE> #5 Hence my simple enquiries HERE..#5 for clarification of some of the dictates he has laid down.

What he really means is that he won't take on any questions that challenges his comments, opinions or claims. He's a coward.  He's afraid of any awkward  questions that challenge that pea brain of his that only he believes is a theological intellectual brain. 

He failed to adress my question in his first Sunday school Day 1 sermon. maybe he deemed it "argumentative " or NOT to be a "genuine question". Or it was just too fkn awkward for him to address. I will go with the latter, BK

Put simply, he just wants to be let free to sermonise to us all and go unchallenged. Just like that clown Reverend Tradesecret always used to do and was famous for.  In fact the Reverend has all his DNA over that OP if you were to ask me.

Here's a thought. Let's see if you can help the clown out,BK. Tell me , what would be a  "genuine question" concerning his Answer and the Conclusion  that he gives in his OP HERE > #1









Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,735
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila
Even Jesus complained about this limited choice options.
Matthew 26:39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

Yet he supposed to be god too and should have known the script.  He didn't want to go through with such a pointless maniacal plot. And still not a single soul has ever been able to tell my why  it had to be a blood sacrifice ending in death!
And another "genuine" question I put to the OP CatholicApologetics at his Sunday School Day  (1 Sermon 1) thread  that he failed (ignored and refused) to answer:

HERE> Instead of any story about miraculous conception, virgins,  exiles, , arrests , trial, torture, blood scourging, crowns of thorns, and crucifixion, and rising from once being dead why couldn't god simply have waved his hand and tell the people of all  nations of all the world that their sins have been forgiven and that he has banished and scourged all sin and evil from the earth for eternity and never shall it return.?


Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 372
Posts: 11,432
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Stephen
what would be a  "genuine question" concerning his Answer
I have no idea, but if he doesnt want to debate, then he doesnt want to debate. Nothing to be done about it, but he will need to be persistent with "no debate" rule if he wants it to succeed.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,177
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
It is more than freewill or lack of that separates us from animals.

What are 5 ways humans are different from animals?
Self-analysis, mental time travel, imagination, abstract thinking, cultural establishment, and morality are all capabilities of human beings. These higher-level abilities distinguish us from the creatures and serve as the foundation for our species' global culture.

Jesus dwells among animals as a sign of humility and of connectedness with God's creation. He was born in a stable and sleeps in a feeding trough. His outlook on life was totally different from your normal human being.

Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 402
Posts: 2,109
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Stephen
Once you can confess that Jesus is in the old testament, I can teach you these other things of the scripture.
CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 120
0
2
8
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
2
8
-->
@Castin
Is it really God-given when, according to the Bible, God did not give us knowledge of good and evil? We had to take it, against his wishes, and were misled into doing so by a bad actor.
Catholic teaching holds that God gifted humanity with free will from the very beginning, as shown by Adam and Eve’s capacity to make a real choice—obey or disobey God’s command. While the tree represented an experiential knowledge of good and evil that God wished to protect them from, it did not negate their pre-existing moral freedom. By succumbing to the serpent’s deception, Adam and Eve misused the very free will God bestowed on them—proving that the faculty to choose, for good or ill, was already theirs by divine design.

I hope this was clear. Let me know if you have any more questions!

CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 120
0
2
8
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
2
8
-->
@Stephen
What do you consider a "genuine question"?
If your posts "are no meant for debate" , what is the reason form them?
Give me an example of an "argumentative comment"? 
I "genuine question" is a question that seems genuine. It's very plain and simple. If I think it's a genuine question, I will entertain it. These posts are meant to clarify Church teaching, not argue their validity.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,177
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@CatholicApologetics
Catholic teaching holds that God gifted humanity with free will from the very beginning, as shown by Adam and Eve’s capacity to make a real choice—obey or disobey God’s command. While the tree represented an experiential knowledge of good and evil that God wished to protect them from, it did not negate their pre-existing moral freedom. By succumbing to the serpent’s deception, Adam and Eve misused the very free will God bestowed on them—proving that the faculty to choose, for good or ill, was already theirs by divine design.
God lied to Adam and Eve when he told them.
Genesis 2:17
But you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will certainly

Because they ate the fruit and did not die. But became like Gods knowing good and evil.

Then God brought death into the world by denying them access to the tree of life.
Genesis 3:22
The LORD God said, “Since man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil, he must not reach out, take from the tree of life, eat, and live forever.”




CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 120
0
2
8
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
2
8
-->
@Shila
From a Catholic perspective, the “death” God warned of was both spiritual and eventual physical death. Though Adam and Eve remained physically alive that day, they immediately lost the original holiness and communion with God (spiritual death). This separation inevitably led to their mortal condition (physical death). God did not lie; rather, His warning encompassed the deeper reality that sin ruptures our relationship with Him and brings lasting consequences, culminating in the loss of access to the Tree of Life, which symbolized eternal union with God.
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,474
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@CatholicApologetics
I would add covenantal death. 

God created humanity with a moral compass. They already knew the distinction between good and evil. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, may well have been more experimental, but the bible doesn't indicate it. 

I know you are not in the habit of responding to me, but do you think it is significant that whereas before the fall, man was naked and not ashamed, that after the fall, knowing he was naked, it doesn't actually say he was ashamed.   I know many people suggest it is the case, after all he hid in the garden, and he said, he was afraid because he was naked. 

But do you think there might have been another reason for why he covered himself - or do you think it is basically that he felt shame for his sin? And the reason I ask that is because if is he ashamed of his sin, why did he immediately blame Eve and God - rather than confessing his sin and asking for forgiveness?

I know it is a long way from animals having free will. But it directly on the topic you raised above.