Total posts: 168
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
It is crucial to distinguish between the ancient Roman Empire and the subsequent Roman Catholic Church. The empire was a political entity responsible for the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in A.D. 70. This was a tragic historical act that occurred decades before “Catholic Christianity” would even become legal (under Emperor Constantine in the fourth century) and centuries before it developed stable institutions. The Church traces her founding back to Christ’s commission of the apostles at Pentecost (cf. Acts 2), not to the imperial powers that once persecuted Christians.
Regarding Judaism, God’s covenant with the Jewish people remains in force: “the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29). Far from “stealing” Judaism, Christianity was born from within the Jewish tradition. Jesus was Jewish, as were the apostles and the earliest disciples. There is a shared spiritual heritage with the Jewish people and, particularly since the Second Vatican Council (Nostra Aetate), the Church has repeatedly condemned antisemitism and sought reconciliation. As for the Holocaust, it remains a tragic stain on human history. The Catholic Church has acknowledged its members’ failures at different points in history and has formally repudiated all forms of antisemitism. While some Catholics sadly were complicit, others heroically risked their lives to shelter and protect Jewish communities (e.g., in convents, monasteries, and the Vatican itself).
Regarding Judaism, God’s covenant with the Jewish people remains in force: “the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29). Far from “stealing” Judaism, Christianity was born from within the Jewish tradition. Jesus was Jewish, as were the apostles and the earliest disciples. There is a shared spiritual heritage with the Jewish people and, particularly since the Second Vatican Council (Nostra Aetate), the Church has repeatedly condemned antisemitism and sought reconciliation. As for the Holocaust, it remains a tragic stain on human history. The Catholic Church has acknowledged its members’ failures at different points in history and has formally repudiated all forms of antisemitism. While some Catholics sadly were complicit, others heroically risked their lives to shelter and protect Jewish communities (e.g., in convents, monasteries, and the Vatican itself).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
John did indeed have divine authority as a prophet, commissioned to prepare the way of the Lord (Is 40:3; Lk 3:2–3). His beheading resulted from condemning King Herod’s immoral relationship (Mk 6:17–18), not from baptizing. Christ’s fulfillment of the Law (Mt 5:17) did not “pervert” or “abolish” it. He brought its underlying reality to completion, offering Himself as the once-for-all sacrificial Lamb (Heb 9:12–14). In this view, both John’s baptism of repentance and Jesus’ self-offering were God-ordained developments of what the Old Testament foreshadowed, not human intrusions upon it.
Does this clear things up?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You can still challenge and be challenged on your thoughts, ideas, comments and opinions in a formalized debate. A formalized debate compel both parties to be respectful and engage with a superior level of conduct (otherwise voters will penalize your side).
As for your questions, I'm sensing some hostility. It seems to me that you have a bad attitude towards God and the Bible. If you engage the topic in a calm and open-minded state, I'd be more than happy to answer your questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
John’s authority to baptize came ultimately from God, in fulfillment of his prophetic mission as “the voice of one crying in the wilderness” (Is 40:3; Lk 3:2–3). While John was indeed of priestly lineage (his father, Zechariah, was a Temple priest), the New Testament depicts his baptism primarily as a divine calling for repentance and preparation for the Messiah, rather than as a continuation of Old Testament priestly rites. Although the Old Covenant does not feature baptism as a formal sacrament, it does foreshadow purifying washings (see Lev 16:4, Num 19), which John’s ministry brought to a new stage by pointing to Christ. Finally, Jesus’ crucifixion by no means nullified His authority or any symbolic baptism He received; His Passion and Resurrection are what give true meaning and saving power to all Christian baptism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Adam and Eve’s expulsion from Eden was a direct consequence of their own disobedience, which fractured the perfect communion they initially had with God. While God did banish them from the Garden and impose certain penalties (labor, pain in childbirth, etc.), it was ultimately humanity’s choice to sin that led to this rupture. God’s actions—barring access to the Tree of Life—reflect His justice and mercy: by preventing fallen humanity from living forever in a state of sin, He also set the stage for redemption (Genesis 3:15), pointing to the promise of salvation that would be fulfilled in Christ.
Consider Genesis 3:15, "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." This is a crucial verse in Genesis, which some think is an etiology that explains the origin of man's instinctive fear of snakes. More likely, the proverbial antagonism between men and snakes was evoked for the purpose of symbolizing man's ongoing struggle against sin and evil, which is personified by the serpent (cf. 4:7; Sir 21:2). In any case, neither interpretation captures the full meaning of the text, which foretells the eventual triumph of the women and her offspring over Satan after a protracted period of hostility. In a spiritual and prophetic sense, the "woman" is Mary, the Mother of God, whose "seed" (Jesus, the Redeemer) will ultimately destroy sin and death by His passion, death, and resurrection.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Jesus’s original mission was more limited. t is recorded in Matthew 15: 24 “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” Remember, God chose the Israelite's as his own and He was their God. If you were drawn to God, you didn't remain a Gentile and worship God, you were circumcised as a male and became Jewish.
Jesus expanded his mission after his resurrection. After he was rejected by the Jews and crucified. So the Jews should be credited for changing Jesus’s mind and not the Romans who crucified him. Mark 16:15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.
Jesus’ initial focus on “the lost sheep of Israel” (Mt 15:24) did not exclude His larger mission to all peoples; rather, it honored God’s longstanding covenant with the Jewish people and fulfilled prophecy by first bringing salvation to Israel. The universal scope was always implicit (see Isaiah 49:6), and Christ Himself hints at it throughout His ministry (e.g., Jn 10:16). The rejection by many in Israel and Jesus’ subsequent command to “go into all the world” (Mk 16:15) does not imply He changed His mind under human influence. It demonstrates the divine plan unfolding in stages—first announced to Israel, then proclaimed to the nations, fulfilling God’s will that all might be saved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
In fact, some scholars point to the Pauline letters for evidence that early Christians were baptized in the name of Jesus, not the Trinity. The Catholic Encyclopedia, for example, states that "The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."
The Church has always recognized Christ’s instruction in Matthew 28:19—“baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”—as foundational. References in Acts to baptism “in the name of Jesus” indicate baptism by Christ’s authority rather than a competing formula. Early Christian writings such as the Didache (late first or early second century) likewise attest to Trinitarian baptismal practice. Scholarly consensus supports that the Church did not “change” the baptismal formula in the second century; rather, it continued the command given by Jesus, even if early Scripture passages described baptism in the context of His name alone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I'm waiting to receive the debate invite. Let's make it three rounds and rated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
From a Catholic perspective, “spiritual death” refers to the loss of sanctifying grace and the original state of holiness—an interior rupture in one’s relationship with God—rather than a complete cessation of religious devotion or inability to worship. Adam and Eve, while they continued to believe in and teach their children about God, no longer enjoyed the fullness of communion with Him as they did in Eden. Their eventual physical death, along with the trials their descendants faced, flowed from this initial spiritual rupture. Thus, “dying on that day” should be understood in its deeper theological sense, where the immediate effect was the forfeiture of intimate friendship with God and the beginning of mortal existence apart from Eden’s privileges.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You can interpret these posts as sermons if you wish. Many people hold incorrect misconceptions about Catholic teachings. The purpose of these posts is to clarify any misunderstandings and share the Catholic Church’s beliefs on specific topics. Even if you disagree with this approach, you should nonetheless show respect to others. Open dialogue thrives in an environment of civility and understanding, and such an approach benefits all involved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You're not forced to participate in these posts. I've offered to debate (which still stands if you're interested) but you've declined it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Are you of the same mind as Augustine whom you quoted above in relation to original sin? And if you are, how is it then that you say people are born with a free will - while maintaining their sinful nature? Isn't it true that the Catholic Church teaches that such original sin is negated or washed away with baptism? If that is your position, would you hold that people who are not baptised, do not have such free will?
St. Augustine taught that humanity is wounded by original sin but not utterly deprived of free will; we still have the God-given capacity to choose, though our inclination toward evil (concupiscence) clouds our judgment. The Catholic Church continues this teaching: our will remains free even in our fallen condition, but we are profoundly in need of God’s grace to choose the good consistently, especially in a supernatural or salvific sense.
At Baptism, the guilt of original sin is indeed washed away and sanctifying grace is imparted, making us adopted children of God. However, concupiscence (the inclination to sin) remains, so we still struggle with temptation. This does not mean the unbaptized lack free will; all human beings retain the natural capacity to make moral decisions. Baptism restores us to a state of grace that empowers our will in a deeper, supernatural way but does not create free will where it did not exist before.
At Baptism, the guilt of original sin is indeed washed away and sanctifying grace is imparted, making us adopted children of God. However, concupiscence (the inclination to sin) remains, so we still struggle with temptation. This does not mean the unbaptized lack free will; all human beings retain the natural capacity to make moral decisions. Baptism restores us to a state of grace that empowers our will in a deeper, supernatural way but does not create free will where it did not exist before.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I apologize for not responding to your previous question! I had read your comment but decided to wait for a better time to answer. Regrettably, it slipped my mind, but I’ll search and answer it immediately after sending this message.
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.
Before the Fall, the nakedness of Adam and Eve signified total innocence and a harmony with God, themselves, and creation. After they sinned, although Genesis does not explicitly say they felt “shame,” Adam’s hiding from God and his fear because of being naked reveal a profound loss of that original innocence. Genesis 3:7, "Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons." Key words: sewed fig leaves. The couple, awakened to the disorder of sin, attempt to cover their shame and guilt (thought the effort proves unsatisfactory, for God reclothes them with animal skins in 3:21—perhaps a faint intimation that sin must be dealt with by blood sacrifice).
if is he ashamed of his sin, why did he immediately blame Eve and God - rather than confessing his sin and asking for forgiveness?
Genesis 3:9 says, "But the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, 'Where are you?'" God's question ("Where are you?") was not a literal inquiry of Adam's whereabouts, but an invitation for Adam to confess his wrongdoing and seek forgiveness. God questions the sinner in order to draw forth contrition and give him an opportunity for confession (which He also does in Genesis 4:9), but Adam’s first impulse was to evade responsibility by blaming Eve and, indirectly, God (“The woman whom You gave me”). This is because the Fall introduced not only guilt but also a wounded human nature inclined to fear and pride, instead of humble repentance. This behavior reveals how sin disrupts our relationship with God and with one another, weakening our will to do good and prompting self-preservation tactics rather than contrition and honest confession.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
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!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@Shila
@DavidAZZ
And how does washing away "repentance" work then. ? Do babies "repent" before they are christened or baptised?
I was mentioned so I thought I'd reply and give some insights. Catholic theology distinguishes between two interrelated but separate realities when it comes to sin and baptism: personal sin and original sin. Repentance properly applies to personal sin—those deliberate acts that each individual commits of their own free will. Infants, of course, have not yet reached the age of reason and thus are not personally culpable of sin in the same way an adult or older child would be. Consequently, they do not undergo “repentance” in the sense of consciously turning away from personal wrongdoing. Yet, the Catholic Church still baptizes infants because of the doctrinal teaching on original sin and the Church’s desire that all be incorporated into Christ’s Mystical Body from the earliest possible moment.
From a Catholic point of view, baptism is both a sacrament of faith and of initiation. When an adult receives baptism, that individual repents of personal sin, professes faith in Christ, and undergoes sacramental washing that signifies and effectuates the forgiveness of sins and incorporation into the Church. The sacrament’s efficacy rests on Christ’s redemptive work, not on the baptized person’s achievements. In the case of infants, since they cannot make a personal profession of faith or consciously repent, the Church relies on the faith of the parents and godparents (and the whole Christian community), who promise to raise the child in the Catholic faith. In effect, the Church “lends” faith to the infant, trusting that as the child matures, he or she will freely embrace the faith for themselves. The notion of baptism “washing away sin” for infants is generally understood to remove the effects of original sin and to infuse sanctifying grace. Original sin is not a personal fault on the child’s part but the inherited deprivation of sanctifying grace resulting from humanity’s first parents and the fall. Through baptism, even though the child has no personal sins to repent of, the stain of original sin is cleansed, and the soul is filled with the divine life of grace. This sacrament is understood as the most profound rebirth in Christ (cf. John 3:5) and a necessary gateway to the other sacraments. Baptism for infants, then, is a gift freely given by God, offering the grace of rebirth into His life, with the expectation and hope that the child, when he or she reaches the age of reason, will affirm this grace by living a life of personal faith and repentance as needed.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Yes, Jesus did say that He came to save the world, not to condemn it. In John 3:16–18, He proclaims that God the Father sent Him out of love for all humanity, extending a universal invitation to salvation. He assures us that “whoever believes in Him” will gain eternal life. This demonstrates that salvation in Christ is broadly offered to everyone, not restricted by ethnicity, social standing, or any other human classification. At the same time, Jesus’ words call for a response: to believe in Him as Savior and to follow His teachings. The emphasis is not on excluding people, but on affirming that God’s grace and truth come specifically through His only-begotten Son. Far from being closed-off, the Church sees this teaching as “catholic,” meaning universal, because it is meant for all. It is an invitation open to every human person—yet an invitation that must be freely accepted. Hence, while Christ alone is the way of salvation, His arms are stretched wide for the entire world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@Shila
@DavidAZZ
In Luke 7:18-23, why did John the Baptist ask Jesus if he was the Messiah since he baptized Jesus and heard God speak about Jesus? Did John not trust his own baptism of Jesus with water or John began to doubt Jesus?
John’s question in Luke 7:18–23 does not necessarily stem from a personal crisis of faith or distrust in the baptismal event he had administered. Rather, it reflects John’s pastoral concern and the shifting expectations surrounding the Messiah. By that point, John was imprisoned and could not witness Jesus’ ministry firsthand. He sent his disciples to question Jesus so they might see and hear the truth directly from Him. In doing so, John set the stage for his own followers to transfer their allegiance to Christ. Moreover, John’s call for confirmation highlights the mystery of God’s plan for salvation. Even though John recognized Jesus at His baptism and heard the Father’s voice, he may have struggled to reconcile the prophesied Messianic reign with the harsh realities he was experiencing in prison. This does not indicate loss of faith so much as a longing to grasp more fully the divine plan. Thus, John’s query provided Jesus the opportunity to proclaim His identity and mission more plainly, fulfilling the prophet’s role to “prepare the way of the Lord.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Christ’s sacrifice wasn’t meant to vanish sin instantly but to free us from its eternal penalty while honoring our free will. From a Christian perspective, sin’s “solution” is not forced upon anyone, because God desires love that is chosen, not coerced. Through the Cross, Christ paid sin’s debt and reopened the path to God, yet we remain free to accept or reject this gift, which is why sin persists. His death is thus a victory, not a failure, because it conquers sin’s ultimate power—eternal separation from God—while offering all who choose it the chance for real transformation and communion with Him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Thank you for your appreciation. When I mentioned “my aim is to address a significant topic within the Catholic Church,” I meant that these Sunday School or classes would cover any topic I consider “significant” in relation to the faith. For instance, an example of a significant topic could be the belief that watching pornography is morally permissible, which I might address. Alternatively, it could be a question posed by a person, as seen in today’s post.
Regarding the specific topic of whether the atonement of Jesus was necessary and why God doesn’t remove free will, I believe the general consensus aligns with my response. In the past, I’ve personally researched this topic and sought guidance from spiritual mentors regarding related questions. It seems that this is a widely held belief. Of course, it’s unlikely that everyone will share the same ideas and beliefs, but from an apologetic perspective, I would approach the question as I did today.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
@borz_kriffle
I will try to keep the language very simple and make it easy to understand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@borz_kriffle
That's a very good question that I'd love to answer. However, I don't want to clutter the comments with questions that aren't related to the post's topic. If this is a pressing issue, feel free to send me a DM privately. If not, it is my top question for next week's post.
Created:
Posted in:
I also created a new hashtag called Sunday School. At the very top of this post, you can click on it and see all the posts under the hashtag "Sunday School." Hopefully, this will make it accessible to see all past Sunday Schools.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Thanks for your question. There are others I'd like to answer so I might not address yours in the next week Sunday School.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Thanks! Let me know if you have any questions.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
INTRODUCTION.
I would like to welcome everyone to the first "Sunday Class" session. What exactly is this? Simply put, it’s a modern Sunday School—an initiative I felt called to start after encouragement from a few DART members. Each Sunday, my aim is to address a significant topic within the Catholic Church or an ethical question relevant to today’s world. These may include challenges such as homosexuality or transgenderism. As Christians, we are called not to shy away from such matters but to engage them boldly and faithfully.
Let me preface this: I am not perfect. Like all of us, I am flawed and in need of God’s grace. This is a journey, and I ask for your patience as I learn alongside you. Think of this as a pilot episode or a beta test. I am bound to make mistakes, but my imperfections do not diminish the truth I hope to share. I encourage you to correct me charitably if I err and to pose genuine questions in the comments. However, understand I may not respond to argumentative comments. These posts are not meant to debate.
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.
TOPIC.
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.
ANSWER.
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.
Even if you do not understand the Trinity, the one thing to remember while answering this question is that Jesus is God. The reason He came down to die for our sins is quite simple: He did that out of His boundless love for us, desiring to restore the broken relationship between humanity and God, to free us from the bondage of sin and death, and to offer us the gift of eternal communion with Him, reflecting the infinite depth of God’s mercy and the value He places on each soul.
SUMMARY.
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.
CLOSING REMARKS.
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
That's not a bad topic. It delves into many profound Christian truths revolving the atonement of Jesus. I'll consider addressing this one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Christian God exists while a world filled with evil also exists. The topic is an extend of your mention of all-good God being able to exist while Hell also exists.We can easily conclude that Earth is "Hell" for many, and that Christian God has power to stop all evil before it even happens, yet doesnt. Christian God also created Earth and helped greatly in filling it with evil.So the question merely asks if free will can be used as a justification for such a situation.
After rereading your clarification (in preparation for tomorrow’s Sunday School), I noticed that you’re asking multiple questions in one. Here are the questions I’ve identified:
- How can an all-good, all-powerful Christian God exist while there is evil in the world?
- Is free will a sufficient justification for the existence of evil?
- Why doesn’t God prevent evil if He has the power to do so?
- Did God contribute to the existence of evil by creating the world and humanity as we are?
In a Sunday School post, I'd address one question. So, I wouldn't answer all of these questions in one post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZZ
keep in mind it will be challenged/ questioned in one way or another
I'll try to engage only with genuine questions while dismissing attempts to argue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Thank you for clarifying! When you mentioned the site was dying, how bad are we talking?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
For your first topic (Can free will justify Christian God?), could you elaborate on what exactly you mean?
Created:
Posted in:
A few weeks ago, I came across a post created by Mall titled “Sunday School.” This post inspired me to consider creating a more literal online version of a traditional Sunday School. The concept is quite straightforward. Every Sunday, I intend to publish a new post that delves into a Catholic belief or a topic that troubles many, such as reconciling the concept of Hell with the notion of an all-good God. The purpose would not be to debate on the forum but only to explain Catholic beliefs. Before implementing this idea, I would like to gauge the community’s opinion on its potential. Would you guys appreciate this?
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
-->
@Stephen
the words Christian nor Christianity appear nowhere in any of the four gospels .
Oh, I understand what you are saying now. I thought you were referring outside of the Gospel. I apologize for the misunderstanding. The term "Christian" does not appear in any of the Gospels. The Gospels primarily recount His teachings and actions, which occurred before the term "Christian" was coined. Since the term "Christian" refers to followers of Christ and emerged after His death and resurrection, it wouldn't have been relevant during His lifetime or in the narrative of the Gospels. The term "Christian" first appears in Acts 11:26 to describe Jesus' followers in Antioch. This makes sense because Acts documents the growth of the early Church after Jesus' ascension.
Jesus either identified himself the night of his arrest or Judas identified Jesus with a kiss. Which is it?
Judas identified Jesus with a kiss (Matthew 26:47-49; Mark 14:43-45; Luke 22:47-48). The passage I think you are reffering to in John 18:3-5 does not deny Judas kissing Jesus. It does not logically conflict with the passages that mentioned Judas kissing Jesus. While John 18:3-5 doesn’t explicitly mention Judas kissing Jesus, it’s important to remember that silence in a Biblical passage or witness’s account doesn’t imply denial of a particular detail. This is especially true when other passages and witnesses corroborate the veracity of the event. As the saying goes, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
The women spread the word of the empty tomb or they didn't. Which is it?
Mark 16:8 captures their initial fear and silence, reflecting a genuine and immediate response to an overwhelming and supernatural occurrence. However, the other Gospels provide additional context, revealing that after the initial shock subsided, the women did share the news with the disciples. This transition from fear to joy and courage demonstrates the emotional progression of the women as they grappled with the reality of the resurrection. These accounts complement each other, showcasing the women’s journey from apprehension to triumph, ultimately leading to the proclamation of Jesus’ victory over death.
Created:
-->
@Mall
The Holy Spirit is a distinct Person distinct from the Father and the Son. This is evident from the Trinitarian Formula of Baptism, the manifestation of the Holy Spirit at Jesus’ baptism under a unique symbol, and particularly in the parting discourses of Jesus, where the Holy Ghost is distinguished as a gift or messenger from the Father and the Son who send Him (John 14:16, 26; 15:26).
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I appreciate your insights. They gave me new ideas to consider debating (i.e., "was Jesus' intention to start a 'new' religion?").
Not to start a debate, but to ensure misinformation is not shared, the term Christian actually does appear. I think you'll find this revelation interesting: Tacitus, a Roman historian who reported on the fire which Emperor Nero started, says "Nero fastened the guilt ... on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of ... Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome...."
You also said it is full of contradicitons, but I'm unaware of any "apparent" contradictions that the Church hasn't had explenations for for centuries.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
I didn’t mean this to be a trick question or anything profound. It’s exactly what it sounds like: if Christianity were true, would you convert to Christianity? It’s a straightforward question. When I say “Christianity were proven true,” I’m essentially asking that if all the claims in the Bible (let’s just consider the NRSV version), regardless of their interpretation, allegory, metaphor, or historical nature, were accurate, would you accept them and embrace the faith (at which point you wouldn’t be able to call it faith anymore)?
You’d be surprised at the number of people who would still reject Christianity, often expressing sentiments like, “I wouldn’t follow a God who is so cruel to commit mass genocide.” I believe this question can gauge someone’s level of open-mindedness or willingness to explore new ideas. People generally prefer routines and are resistant to significant changes (with exceptions, of course). If they’re content with their lives, I think they’d be less likely to embrace an entirely new set of beliefs.
Created:
If Christianity was true, would you become a Christian?
Created:
This is just a fun topic to consider. Hopefully it promotes open conversation for athiests and theists alike. What role should the Catholic Church play in modern secular societies?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
i still dont think you are responding to most of my points in the opening two points.
That's because I have not read over them. If I have time I will consider reading through and responding. Sorry for the confusion.
but if the pope is the 'root and matrix' of catholic (and orthodox) as cyprian said (who as i previously mentioned fought against the pope exerting his will over other bishops) and has a primacy of honor as the orthodox teach, then it should call into question about who should be listened to when there's disagreements. i think all bishops have equal authority, but rome's authority is greater, it has higher persuasive power and where the pope goes is where the church goes. at least if the west and the east were to one day be reunited. i'm kind of a liberal catholic or maybe non denonminational or 'orthodox curious', so i have very unique views. but the orthodox churches teachings are more historical than catholocisms other than to say the pope did and should have a special role.
The Catholic view holds that the Pope’s primacy is essential for unity, rooted in Christ’s commission to Peter as the rock (Matthew 16:18-19) and supported by the early Church's recognition of Rome’s unique authority. St. Cyprian acknowledged Rome as the "matrix and root" of unity, even amid disagreements. The "first among equals" model, while appealing, risks deadlock in doctrinal disputes. History shows that without a definitive authority, unity can fragment — as seen in the divisions among some Orthodox jurisdictions. How would the Church preserve universal doctrinal consistency without a clear, binding authority?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
Sorry for the confusion, my comment wasn't meant to respond to all of your posts, just the one where you said: "I think you should look into arguments from the orthodox church about the bishop of romes claims. The early church is orthodox, not catholic." If I have time I will consider looking over your initial arguments.
As for your most recent claims, your point about all apostles receiving the power to bind and loose is valid, but the Catholic position emphasizes that Peter’s role is distinct and foundational. While authority was shared among the apostles, Peter was explicitly singled out as the rock upon which the Church would be built (Matthew 16:18). His name change to “Peter” (rock) and Christ’s personal entrusting of the keys signify a unique responsibility to lead and unify. This primacy is further reflected in Peter's prominent role in the New Testament — he speaks for the apostles at Pentecost (Acts 2), leads in crucial decisions (Acts 15), and is often mentioned first among the Twelve. The papacy is understood as the continuation of this Petrine office.
As for infallibility, it serves as a safeguard for preserving the Church's unity in truth, not as a personal privilege of the pope. The doctrine is rarely invoked and only pertains to teachings on faith and morals, ensuring that the Church remains free from doctrinal error. Would unity be more secure if each bishop retained equal authority, risking potential doctrinal fractures, as seen historically?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
The Catholic position firmly asserts that the Bishop of Rome, as the successor of St. Peter, holds a unique and divinely instituted authority within the Church. This is grounded in scriptural evidence, such as Matthew 16:18-19, where Christ explicitly grants Peter the keys to the Kingdom, signifying supreme authority. Historically, the primacy of the Roman bishop is attested in early Church writings, including those of St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Irenaeus, who referred to Rome as the church with preeminent authority. While the Orthodox Church emphasizes conciliarity, the Catholic view argues that this does not negate the special role of the Petrine office, which has served as a unifying factor for the global Church from its earliest days.
Created:
Posted in:
Out of curiosity, what reasons are stopping you from adopting religion? Specifically, what is it about Christianity that deters you away?
Created:
Posted in:
I had already addressed your speculation with my post at #19 or was it a sermon based on your speculation.? Its a bit of a blurred line. To address further your speculation at post 20 would be a pointless exercise and just as pointless as it would be to address your conjecture and speculation presented as fact above at post #27
This dismissal of discussion as “speculation” overlooks the depth of Catholic exegesis. Engaging with these passages through the lens of Catholic theology isn’t conjecture but rather an exploration rooted in centuries of Church teaching. The narrative in Luke 2:41-52, like all Scripture, benefits from thorough analysis informed by tradition and Church Fathers. Catholic theology does not view such exegesis as a "pointless exercise" but as essential for deeper understanding.
The child was perfect wasn't he? He was holy, immaculately conceived, special and a child that was to be a king that by the promise of his father god himself would inherit the throne of king David? Which among other promises made to his mother by god never came to fruition.”
While it is true that Jesus was perfect and holy, being divine and sinless, the assertion that the promises “never came to fruition” misinterprets the nature of His kingship. Catholic teaching holds that Jesus did indeed inherit the throne of David, but not in the temporal sense that some expected. His kingdom is spiritual and universal, transcending the earthly notion of kingship. This fulfillment is affirmed in His declaration that His kingdom is “not of this world” (John 18:36) and is foundational to Catholic understanding.
And Mary wasn't at all like you or I, was she? She was chosen by god himself to bear his child. Sound pretty special to me. It's a shame that god didn't tell his mother the whole story of her son's cruel torturous demise instead of the one he actually did give her, i.e., that he was only here on earth as a sacrifice!”
Mary’s uniqueness as the Mother of God (Theotokos) is undisputed in Catholic teaching. However, the argument that she should have known every detail of Jesus' future disregards the nature of divine revelation. Mary received what was necessary to fulfill her role, and while she was aware of Jesus’ divine mission (Luke 1:32-35), she, like any human, experienced the progressive unfolding of God’s plan. The prophecy of Simeon (Luke 2:34-35) alludes to the sorrow she would face, indicating that while Mary knew of the Messiah’s role, the full extent of His suffering was not revealed to her in detail.
Are you telling us that neither of his parents had never held a conversation of their own with their ‘divine’ child? Are you telling us that the child himself never once before their visit to Jerusalem had discussed or explained anything about his origins or indeed his very existence?
This presumption overlooks the mystery of the hypostatic union — the belief that Jesus is fully God and fully human. While Jesus' divine nature was inherent, His human nature followed a natural development process (Luke 2:52). Catholic theology supports that He grew in wisdom in a way appropriate for His human experience. Conversations between Jesus and His parents may have occurred, but expecting them to have fully grasped or discussed all aspects of His divine nature undermines the gradual revelation inherent in the Gospels.
Didn’t the very fact of her immaculate conception give her the slightest clue as to what she was to expect from her holy charge from god?
The Immaculate Conception refers to Mary’s preservation from original sin, not her omniscience regarding Jesus’ entire future. Her sinless nature prepared her to be a worthy mother of Christ but did not imply she had complete foreknowledge of all events. The Gospels depict Mary as learning and deepening her understanding of Jesus’ mission over time, aligning with the Catholic teaching that her faith and acceptance were acts of trust in God’s plan.
As I stated above, you are expecting all reading here to believe that in the 12 years Jesus had been on earth, and after all the signs and warnings Mary and Joseph heard from angels of god no less about this heavenly child and would be king, that nothing before his speaking at the temple had astonished them before that day.
It is not that nothing astonished them before this event; it is that this event, specifically, was remarkable due to Jesus’ self-awareness and expression of His divine mission. Mary and Joseph witnessed signs and had angelic revelations, but their understanding of Jesus’ full identity and mission developed over time. This astonishment does not reflect ignorance but the profound realization that, even in their role as parents, they were witnessing the divine mystery of God’s plan unfolding through their son.
Created: