#Jesus

Don’t you know… that belief is a doubt? It sounds paradoxical, yet it reminds us that to believe—whether in a deity, a cause, or even the reliability of science—requires an element of uncertainty. We embrace convictions based on evidence, experience, and intuition, but we cannot confirm every dimension of reality with absolute certainty. Even a commitment to not believing in a higher power rests on weighing available evidence and concluding that a deity is unlikely. This subtle admission of “I could be wrong” is what keeps us humble, curious, and open to growth.

Yet, uncertainty need not terrify us; in fact, it can unite us. Whether you define yourself as atheist, agnostic, or a believer, there’s a universal desire to seek the truth, understand our place in the world, and live meaningfully. It is through questioning—acknowledging the gap between what we know and what remains unknown—that we find common ground. Rather than set us apart, doubt can be the starting point for genuine conversations, encouraging cooperation, compassion, and a shared search for insight. In that search, we learn not only facts about the cosmos but also deeper truths about compassion, empathy, and the power of human connection. Faith communities sometimes speak of “faith seeking understanding,” but this concept isn’t exclusive to religion. In every sphere—science, philosophy, or daily life—our convictions emerge from a process of testing ideas, encountering challenges, and refining what we hold to be true. In that sense, the essence of belief, grounded in questioning, is something we all share. May this acknowledgment inspire us to reach across divides, learn from each other’s perspectives, and channel our uncertainties into building a more understanding, compassionate society.

Following from this guidance, I would like to dedicate today's post solely to answering questions. To all comfortable opening up, feel free to ask any questions about the Catholic faith. Though I may not be perfect, I will definitely try to answer your questions genuinely and wholeheartedly.

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.

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.

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!

Today's question is the following: "Why did God send Jesus to die for our sins which only continue to multiply when he could have removed sin once and for all?" This is a brilliant question asked by @Shila. Before addressing it, readers must understand the basic principles of Christianity. For those fairly versed in the faith, feel free to skip to the next section. However, for those who do not know much about Christianity, I encourage you to continue reading here.

God has given humans a "code of conduct" which we are called to follow, a set of rules. For example, He tells us not to murder or steal (Exodus 20:13-15). A sin is deviance from these laws and an offense against God. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) defines sin as the following: "Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."" (CCC 1849). Sin is not just breaking a rule—it is a rupture in our relationship with God, who is the source of life itself. This separation from God naturally results in death, both physical and spiritual. As St. Paul says: "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23).

As a general rule of thumb, everyone has sinned at one point or another. In Christian theology, Jesus Christ, who is God Himself, chose to take on the punishment  Himself to atone for the sins you and I have commited.

Now that we understand the basic framework of Christianity, we can begin to tackle the question more intimately. To remind all readers, the question posed was "Why did God send Jesus to die for our sins which only continue to multiply when he could have removed sin once and for all?"

There is a fundamental misunderstanding in the question above. We must understand the nature of God. God is infinitely just: "The Rock, his work is perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God, without deceit, just and upright is he" (Deuteronomy 32:4; cf. Psalm 7:11).  Because God is infinitely just, it is against His nature to simply "remove sin" without just consequences. Furthermore, in order to "remove sin once and for all," God would need to remove what makes us different: our free will. It is our free will that enables us to choose to sin or choose to uphold God's commandments. God gave us free will as a result of love. God created us for love, and love cannot exist without freedom. To love God, we must be free to choose Him rather than being forced. God knew that free will would allow for the possibility of sin because humans could misuse their freedom by choosing against Him. This is what happened with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. However, the alternative—creating beings incapable of moral choice—would negate the possibility of love and virtue. God deemed it better to create beings with the capacity for both great good and great evil than to create beings without the capacity for choice. St. Augustine addressed this when he wrote: "For God judged it better to bring good out of evil than not to permit any evil to exist" (Enchiridion, Chapter 8).

To answer the second part of the question ("Why did God send Jesus to die for our sins?"), we need to understand a crucial concept. The question is framed very ambiguously. Specifically when it states "Why did God send Jesus." I find that this presupposes that Jesus is not God Himself. A better phrasing would be, "Why did God the Father send God the Son to die for our sins?" This delves within the dogma of the Holy Trinity, the teaching that there are three distinct Persons within the Godhead: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, who are all God but not each other. In order to preemtively address confusion, allow me to give an analogy to visualize this concept. The Trinity is like the sun: God the Father is like the sun itself, Jesus is like the light that illuminates the sun and creation, and the Holy Spirit is like the heat from the sun which warms and affects creation. However, this analogy could be interpreted to be heretical (Arianism), as it could be said that the light and heat are bi-products or creations from the sun. In the end, all analogies, metaphors, and illustrations break down. There is no 1:1 comparison with a triune God. All analogies fall short because the Trinity is a divine mystery.

In summary, the question "Why did God send Jesus to die for our sins which only continue to multiply when he could have removed sin once and for all?" is ultimately a question about love. God gave us free will out of love, knowing it would make sin possible but also make true love achievable. In His infinite mercy and justice, God did not abandon us to the consequences of sin but entered into our brokenness through Jesus Christ. The Cross is the ultimate expression of divine love—a love so profound that Jesus bore the penalty of sin to restore our relationship with Him. Though sin still exists, God offers us the grace to overcome it, inviting each of us into a loving, eternal communion with Him. He desperately wants this love to be reciprocated, and I invite all readers to reflect on God's infinite love. Even if you were the only person to have ever sinned, He would still sacrifice Himself in order to free you from the penalty of sin.

This marks this end of the first Sunday School. Thanks to all readers for bearing with me until the end. I would appreciate feedback in the comments to understand what I could imrpove on next week. If there are any questions regarding the explenations, feel free to address me in the comments.

I have a few topic ideas I'd like to explore in a new debate and would love to hear your thoughts, as you'll likely be the ones reading it. I wouldn't want people to read a boring debate, so feel free to share your thoughts. Please feel free to comment below if you'd like to participate in any of these topics or if you have any suggestions for new ones.

I'll list the topics in order from "most common/least interesting" to "least common/most interesting," based on how familiar I think people might be with them. By "most common," I mean topics that are often debated and may feel overdone, like an overplayed song. I'd prefer to avoid familiar topics if everyone already knows them well.

Did Jesus approve of divorce between man + woman that otherwise result in adultery?

The real meaning of the Bible is very simple. It's about the vindication of Jehovah God's name through the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus. 

The Bible: Desktop / Mobile Device.

So, what do you think a christian should do before an agression? Defend himself or turn the other cheek?

Do you really think there is any benefit from turning the other cheek? For the christians, please, don't try to make fancy interpretations about it because we all know what Jesus tried to say. In fact, the last time Jesus turned the other cheek, he ended up being nailed to the cross.

I would ask all the forum posters to discuss this topic using carefully your words because the intention of this thread is not to mock or have fun of Jesus but to draw conclusions from such a controversial subject.

There are many naturalistic theories to explain why the disciples came to believe/claim the resurrection happened, like the conspiracy theory says they merely lied, or the hallucination theory says they hallucinated it, etc. I am unconvinced that these theories can explain the origin of the christian belief, so convince me.

I can get on board with believing in Jesus, with thinking he was raised from the dead. 

Why would I want to be forgiven?

1. It's fucked up that he would be sacrificed for my sins. The guy was perfect, he doesn't deserve that. Literally slaughtering an innocent person. I don't want that on my conscience and so I must reject forgiveness.

2. Why would I want forgiveness? Why would I want to get away with stuff? I would much prefer to pay for my sins. I rather just take some sort of punishment than allowing some filthy Jew to die for me, particularly one who is not only innocent but the most innocent a person ever has been.

What is with some people's urge to receive forgiveness rather than actually pay for their crimes? 

I have done wrong things. I deserve the consequences of those things and in fact so do you.

RELIGION POLL #1: What is the best argument for/against the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, and why?

Feel free to discuss below. I have been doing a lot of research into the matter recently. 

When we die are we reincarnated or does our body become immaculate and it goes up to heaven? In Mathew 17 Jesus took Peter James and John there he was transgendered  before them and his clothes changed and he was glowing. And that was like he was going to be reincarnated but he didn't anyway. He was just showing then what is going to happen when he dies. But when the time came that Jesus did die the rock in front of the cave moved and there was nothing inside. So that is proof that jesus was actually raised from the dead and his whole body raised up to heaven. But is there such a thing as reincarnation?

All in the title. I've decided that if Jesus existed, he most likely resurrected. 

But did Jesus exist at all? Is the whole thing myth, or is it history? Share.

Lucifer is Jesus, if you go back to my threads such as this:

This:

This: 

And This:

You will see the dates (especially of the latter 2) completely supercede his own. I have even evolved the theory far more, understanding that Lucifer/Jesus is also Allah and Samael as things progress, if Jesus and Lucifer really existed (so therefore, Islam wouldn't be entirely true but could be part of a true storyline). 

I also notice that Satan is actually God of the Old Testament, something which Stephen fails to do. My theory also explains why Jesus was the enemy of the Devil but God himself/herself/itself is never actually held as the enemy of the Devil, during the New Testament at least.

A recent Netflix series has mocked Jesus and made him about be a sinner, (gay, drug dealer, etc). This is absolutely horrendous ideology and depiction of Jesus Christ, yet if I made fun of Allah or Mohhamad, I would be attacked and banned for. The hypocrisy behind Liberals is maddening. All religions should be treated with respect or appropriated to same amount of mockery and Jesus is