u/Organic-Education261

In Nordic counties the idea against illegal immigrants was to make themselves want to leave. As in they can’t have a job buy a house or even groceries online.

So illegal immigrants worked in underground groups.

But the Nordic countries made their counties nearly cashless. Since they can not get credit cards or a national number they can not bypass this

But they can trade for goods.
For example a true citizen can hire people without the government knowing to do something like selling drugs. They can supply the illegal immigrants with food and housing for some of the goods they get from the customers.

Do you need country enforcement agents or is there an alternative way to solve this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am moderately new to philosophy so sorry if anything I say is wrong.

To my knowledge the church belives

1. A soul of a infant or fetus killed before consiousness will (hopefully) be saved by gods grace
2. Once the new earth is formed a soul can only be in the new earth or in hell.
3. On the new earth there is no sin
4. Adam and Eve sinned
5. Adam and Eve saw God

So
If the baby can see god and never want to sin on the new earth,
And Adam and Eve can see god but they have the potential to sin.

Why is there a difference.
Why is seeing god enough to make one never sin again in one but not the other.

The only difference I can think of is
Their nature

1. Adam and Eve have a perfect human nature (before original sin)
2. The baby inherits original sin
   But in my opinion this seems to be working backwards
   Adam and Eve with the perfect human nature are the ones vulnerable to sin even if they see god
   And the ones with the nature that is selfish, and sinful they are the ones who will never want to sin

Mabey God decided to not show himself comepltly to Adam and Eve, but why would he do that.

Why would he need to test Adam and Eve but not the infant, and any reason I don’t see why their can be the difference between the infant or Adam and Eve
It could be if he did he removed their free will,
But I don’t see how him showing himself to Adam and Eve removes their free wil but not the infants

Animal Soul - Non eternal, can’t grasp immaterial thoughts and intellect
Rational soul - Eternal in nature can understand immaterial thoughts and intellect

Does a disabled homosapien (after Adam and related to Adam) have a rational soul -Yes 
Since thomistics think animal souls exist on earth, there must be a first rational soul. That title goes to Adam (or Eve), if it was purely based off of biology, it could only be by Adam being the first human by a time cutoff or the first ready DNA, it is a time cutoff it must be a fraction of a second that matters. But that must mean it also can change something in every part of the universe. Even if we go to one of the fastest and most defining moments of your life, conception when the sperm meets the egg. It still would take more time than an instance switch. That certain time must always mean something, but if we move a thousand years ahead or backwards that instant means nothing. But an instant still doesn't answer why a homosapien would have it over a bird or fish, it also must not be related to Adam as imagine a mother and dad before Adam who have a son after. The son is not related but still after the time cutoff. If it is pure biology then it must not be about being related to Adam as the same example provided before. The son could have the same DNA genetics, species and time of birth and still not have a rational soul.
This proves it must be a divine choice as the reasoning behind Adam being the first human.

Animals suffer extremely, first what is the punishment of hell - eternal suffering with no hope of change. Since animals can not comprehend time when they suffer they can not comprehend a different future. Because of that they are not saying this is forever, but they are in an absence of hope for change as well. Their suffering is the entire universe, and eternal. 
The only difference is the intellectual suffering, as in the suffering of not choosing god. 
But a rational/eternal soul is NOT equivalent to choosing or not choosing god. 
A disabled homosapien has a rational soul, and can never choose god. Any animal could function exactly like a disabled homo-saponer where they go to heaven, but still can't comprehend the ideas of god. So it is not a valid argument unless you are going to then say that disabled humans either do not have a rational soul or have it better.

The idea that being related to Adam can give eternal soul, even if you are not rational.
The argument is in theory if they were not disabled they would be rational, but how can you say a human who was broken since a fetus. Could never be disabled. Disabled is now part of their entire earthly life. 
Now if it is purely a divine choice, why would there be a divine choice to Adam and not every non rational animal. There were millions of years before Adam, meaning millions of years of suffering and no possible compensation. Animals experience the pain of a disabled human but not the reward. 

1. Life is only a gift if it is a positive experience, an animal that its first day alive watches its mom get brutally killed by a bird, then its second day falling out of its nest to be crushed by the tree. To starve for the next 3 days so a lion can find it. At no point was it ever wanting to live. I think if i said you would turn into a animal you would kill yourself before i had the chance to.
2. A total positive experience is still not making up for an individual negative experience - Even if we assume that when the dog gets to eat the meat , overall the universe has had a positive experience for animals (still very debatable). If God is willing to say every animal does not have an after life, he must look at the individual experience. Or else he is not just. Imagine a king watching all the peasants starve, they all have 1 bread. He takes the 1 bread and multiplies it and spreads it to every other peasant. But even if he had every way to feed the peasant he still didn't. You can make the peasants dogs, cats or any other animals.
3. Non eternal souls are not necessary for the universe, while you can argue you need non rational beings. We can absolutely find a connection between the brain and rationality. Even if the soul needs to be at the level, the brain does too. If I damage your brain you will not be rational. Therefore a being to be eternal has nothing to do about its rationality. If it's about the base of the structure. Then he could have made the structure of all souls related to rational. If we wanted to, the world starts with a rational bird, frog and homosapien. 
4. God has the right to withhold any gift. While its true god can, if god is a good fair and just god. Who is related to all that? He must always act fair, if it is him that decides what is fair or he is bended to the universe's laws of good. Imagine a king who has infinite food, he loses nothing by simply feeding his dogs and cats. He is the creator of them, and truly owns them. He still has an inherent right to give them justice, a gift can not be extended to one but not to others (if you have infinite resources). Imagine a father with every toy possible. His daughter gets a million dollar house and his son a rusty beyblade even if it is a gift. It still is not just.
5. An animal is content being an animal, but so would Adam being an animal. He decided to make his soul rational. By no means did Adam HAVE to be rational (if he did then something must make him special). An animal is only content being an animal because they were not given any way to understand. If an animal could understand even the concept of just staying alive forever, not dying like everyone they see. And you said there was no pain. They would all take it. This is exactly what heaven was like. 
6. Animals don’t have to risk hell, imagine your 2 sons identical in every way. They go to a casino. You decide to give 1, 100 dollars and the other absence of the idea of money. They will be judged based on how much money they have and the others will not be judged. Even if the son can still go into negatives it would easily be worth the pure chance at goodness.

 

In thomistic ideologies, animals suffering is not wrong as it is physical pain not moral pain.
He says humans should not harm animals because

1. Humans do not own animals
2. The humans character may become more likely to harm humans

But neither apply to God.
God does own the animals and his character can’t change, or atleast change to evil.

So if God came down and did some unthinking action to an animal. Other than the reason God can’t do wrong (because you must first prove this is wrong). This would be morally permissible.

While it stands philosophically it seems not many people who believe in thomistic ideas belives God could and would not do these awful things and still remain all loving, powerful and knowing.

Hello, I’ve been thinking about Christianity a lot so ima give it my best shot.
For sake of argument assume these as true.
Animals have mortal souls
Humans have eternal souls
Humans are rational, animals are not.

Would a brain made in a lab or in supercomputer have a rational soul - no
Would a disabled human have a rational soul - yes
Would Adam’s parents have a rational soul - no

If we combine these it can not be about genetics, when you lived, or your species.
If adam is only chosen because he is the first ready human, that first says that human could not make anything living rational which is not true and somehow everyone who is not related to Adam is non ready.
So it was completely a divine choice.
Adam is the first human, but imagine that a mom and dad where born before Adam, but the son was born after Adam, the son has the same biology, species and date of birth.

But why would this divine choice now not apply to this son.

First is a rational soul even better?
Imagine God as a father and giving money to each of his sons, when they leave the casino they will be judged based on how much money they have. He gives his son Thomas 100 dollars (rational soul) and his son Travis 0 dollars (animal soul), even though Thomas can go into negates (hell) it still is by far worth the opportunity to gain money (heaven)

Do non rational creatures need to exist.
Maybe to show his true beauty he needs to show everything both rational and non rational.
But now this leaves out non rational creatures even more, when a non rational creature is in pain all they understand is pain they can not imagine a future pain free. Because pain and suffering is a large amount of animals lives.
But earth has non rational creatures, for millions of years before rational creatures. Was that just for God to admire his own beauty. Singular celled organisms can not understand the beauty that comes with the universe.

Is god entitled to give rational souls too his creations.
Well no, but if god is fair and just than maybe.

Is it fair to not give creatures rational souls?
Imagine a king with infinite food, reasorces and space, he is in a kingdom full of his creations. They are starving peasants. Is it fair and just if god only gives 1 food and the title of a prince. Obviously not.

So if rationality was a divine choice, and rationality is better than non rationality, and non rationality is not neccecaey, if the gift of life is not a excuse to cause suffering to your creations, and every living creature can be rational, and god is just.
God must give all of his creations rationality.

Even if it coild just be human logic and god is more advanced. It still is a logical argument to atleast have reasonable doubt the Christian god does not exist.

Gods judgment can’t be off pure belief of his existence because the devil belives in him.
Christian’s deny it is about being a good person.
If it is about putting your trust in Jesus, even a gnostic who belives the creator of the physical world is evil, still puts their trust in Jesus.
So if it is about being honest and open, an atheist who puts all their effort into finding the correct answer, but can’t find it because of gods hideness.

Many Christian’s like “if someone proved to me that Christ is outside the truth, and if the truth really did exclude Christ, I should prefer to remain with Christ rather than with the truth” - Dostoevsky
Let’s assume he really means this, and still and will
Till his death believes this.

This is not being honest and open to finding the truth. If god heard this, and an atheist said the exact opposite, If I was proved to god is real I would stil not belive in him. God would condemn them for not wanting a relationship. But now a Christian wanting to be comforted by a god is not condemnable.
That is a double standards.
Would a Christian who said something like Dostoevsky still make it to heaven under a fair and just god.