| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
MartiW |
#21 | |||
|
No, I would not feel cheated.
DEUS meus, ex toto corde amo Te super omnia, quia es infinite bonus et infinite amabilis; et ob amorem Tui proximum meum
diligo sicut meipsum, eique, si quid in me offendit, ignosco.
|
||||
|
|
||||
Argy Lacedom |
#22 | |||
|
Fair enough.
Do you think it's important to make up your mind about which god to follow in this life rather than waiting until we get to the afterlife? If so, why?
If the universe is "everything that exists" then God is part of it. If the universe needs a creator so does God.
|
||||
|
|
||||
Burke |
#23 | |||
|
Hi Gary,
> So where does the blood sacrifice come into this? And if salvation was the default before the crucifixion, as well as after, it is hard to see the significance of it. As I have stated before God doesn't need anything, but as human beings we need examples and sometimes violent reminders to keep us on track. A soldier fights for his or her country and sometimes dies. From these examples of courage and fortitude we learn some of life's lessons. In the gospels Jesus taught a message of love and forgiveness. He taught us to love one another. In John's gospel he said, "This is my commandment: love one another as I have loved you. A man has no greater love than to lay down his life for his friends." John 15:12-13. How much did he love his friends, us? The cross is the answer. How does that save us? We look at the cross and say, wow, he meant it. As for salvation being the default, it is not quite that simple. God's revelation is universal, but he did not sit down with us and spell it out. Finally, after setting up a people, the Jews, to cultivate the message and when the rest of the world was ready he came down, took on human nature and spoke to us directly, face to face. For us it is not good enough to have something, we want to know the whys and hows of that something, it is human nature, our natural curiosity. For example, the moon orbits the earth, but we are not content to just know it does, we ask why does it and then proceed to solve the puzzle. > What if you get to heaven and find out the Muslims were right? Wouldn't you feel cheated if you were thrown into hell without a chance to reconsider? First, if the Muslims are right the rest of us will not be thrown into Hell because we didn't get the message dead on. Secondly, maybe we do get a chance to reconsider. Peace, |
||||
|
|
||||
Argy Lacedom |
#24 | |||
|
Hi Bob,
I do understand your ideas on this. They seem reasonable at face value, too. However, they don't sit comfortably with the Christian idea of redemption for original sin and especially in that context seem to me to be quite different to the traditional Catholic view. As for salvation being the default, it is not quite that simple. God's revelation is universal, but he did not sit down with us and spell it out. Finally, after setting up a people, the Jews, to cultivate the message and when the rest of the world was ready he came down, took on human nature and spoke to us directly, face to face.At a global level that sounds reasonable, but as I have said before, it treats the human race as a conglomerate and neglects the individual. In reality if one person is capable of understanding revelation then all members are also capable, providing the message is presented properly. I know you believe that there is some sort of tribal accumulation of knowledge from generation to generation. However, any individual only has their own particular lifetime in which to learn. Given a properly formulated revelation it should be possible for all people to understand it no matter when they lived. A dribs-and-drabs revelation doesn't make much sense on an indiidual level - and that is one of the main thrusts of Jesus' ministry - the importance of individual salvation. First, if the Muslims are right the rest of us will not be thrown into Hell because we didn't get the message dead on.If the Muslims are right ALL of us infidels go to hell!!! Secondly, maybe we do get a chance to reconsider.It would seem only reasonable. And given the wide diversity of religious beliefs it makes one question the relevance of following church doctrine.
If the universe is "everything that exists" then God is part of it. If the universe needs a creator so does God.
|
||||
|
|
||||
Burke |
#25 | |||
|
Hi Gary,
> I do understand your ideas on this. They seem reasonable at face value, too. However, they don't sit comfortably with the Christian idea of redemption for original sin and especially in that context seem to me to be quite different to the traditional Catholic view. It is in direct line with Catholic teaching. I consider myself to be ultra-orthodox when it comes down to it, but that means studying the teachings and reading everything I can get my hands on. I am presently wading through Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's (Pope Benedict) Eschatology, Death and Eternal life to try to glean the inner meaning of those teachings on eternal life. > At a global level that sounds reasonable, but as I have said before, it treats the human race as a conglomerate and neglects the individual. But we are a conglomerate. We are a tribal species who look to wiser members of our society for guidance. Not everyone has the time or talent to learn all aspects of a given topic. People look to you as an engineer for advice on building dams, bridges etc. When I have an historical question in my research I seek an expert on that particular topic to enlighten me. If I read a particular passage of scripture (God's revelation) that I am not sure of I seek out an individual who has studied theology be it a priest or biblical scholar. > However, any individual only has their own particular lifetime in which to learn. Yes, but each generation does not start from scratch, they look to the generation that came before as at the very least a starting point. When you studied engineering you did not go back and recalculate the different formulae handed down. You may have questioned why in some instances, but in the end you accepted the answer. > A dribs-and-drabs revelation doesn't make much sense on an indiidual level - and that is one of the main thrusts of Jesus' ministry - the importance of individual salvation. No, Jesus' message was one of community within which the individual was saved. In other words, it is about individual salvation, but within a community. "I tell you solemnly once again, if two of you on earth agree to ask anything at all, it will be granted by my Father in heaven. For where two or three meet in my name, I shall be there with them." Matthew 18:19-20 > If the Muslims are right ALL of us infidels go to hell!!! > And given the wide diversity of religious beliefs it makes one question the relevance of following church doctrine. As human beings truth matters. One could argue that as long as a bridge stays up does it really matter if it was built to code or using the accepted materials and specifications. Even you as an engineer might concede that perhaps it doesn't, but you would I am sure point out that proper specs and standards are important and do matter. Peace, |
||||
|
|
||||
Argy Lacedom |
#26 | |||
I am presently [trying] to try to glean the inner meaning of those teachings on eternal life.That's one of my difficulties with the various teachings. They take on different meanings - sometimes opposite. And it also seems that they require deep study and introspection - they do not come naturally. That is a pretty vague criticism, but I would have thought that a revelation that is uniform and universal would be capable of being understood at the same level by all individuals, regardless of intelligence or academic prowess. To me it smacks of someone "cooking the books". But we are a conglomerate.We are not saved as a conglomerate but as individuals according to our individual commitments, understandings and beliefs. If Jesus' message was that cities, countries or civilisations would be judged then I might accept your rationalisation. But his notion is of a very personal salvation. Therefore personal understanding of revelation is the important thing, not communal. If I read a particular passage of scripture (God's revelation) that I am not sure of I seek out an individual who has studied theology be it a priest or biblical scholar.That simply means the revelation is unclear. Going to another person is simply doubling the doubt! each generation does not start from scratch, they look to the generation that came before as at the very least a starting point.If god's requirements for salvation have been consistent over time there has never been any more or less information available for any individual to understand. If it is capable of being understood by an individual it is capable of being understood at any time in history, providing it was revealed properly. > And given the wide diversity of religious beliefs it makes one question the relevance of following church doctrine.All you are really saying is that those who are exposed to the "correct" culture have an easier way to heaven. I don't think that's just. People have no say into which culture they will be born and neither do they have a say in what their personalities will be. I am an atheist not by choice, but because it is the only thing that seems reasonable to me.
If the universe is "everything that exists" then God is part of it. If the universe needs a creator so does God.
|
||||
|
|
||||
Burke |
#27 | |||
|
Hi Gary,
> That's one of my difficulties with the various teachings. They take on different meanings - sometimes opposite. I am not looking for different meanings, but a deeper understanding behind the meaning. For example, engineers design bridges and the truth is the bridge built to spec will be safe. For me that truth is all that interests me, but some, while accepting the truth, may have a desire to know why it is safe, so they read engineering specs and books to learn more. If they run across something they have a problem understanding they might come to you and ask you to explain it. I happen to have a desire to explore how we got to the truth of God's revelation to better understand that truth. > And it also seems that they require deep study and introspection - they do not come naturally. That is a pretty vague criticism, but I would have thought that a revelation that is uniform and universal would be capable of being understood at the same level by all individuals, regardless of intelligence or academic prowess. To me it smacks of someone "cooking the books". The kernel of God's revelation is always simple so that even the person with Downs Syndrome can grasp the essentials. In the case of eternal life that kernel is, "live your life doing good to the best of your ability and you will spend eternity with God." That is all one needs to know and that is always good enough. I know very intelligent people who have no interest in anything beyond the bare facts, that being I follow God's commandments and I go to heaven. > We are not saved as a conglomerate But we are saved within a conglomerate. > But his notion is of a very personal salvation. Therefore personal understanding of revelation is the important thing, not communal. Then you have misread the scriptures, thus misinterpreting the message. > That simply means the revelation is unclear. Going to another person is simply doubling the doubt! Going back to my engineering analogy, I might understand most of what I read, but I have not studied engineering, so I come to you who I know has the right answer and get you to clarify the meaning of a given spec. True the disciplines are different, but the anaolgy holds. > If God's requirements for salvation have been consistent over time there has never been any more or less information available for any individual to understand. Very true, but as human beings we come to understand over time. While the truth remains the same our understanding evolves. For example, the teaching that one only gets to the Father through Jesus Christ. So initially, unless you professed belief in Jesus you are not saved. There are sects within Christianity today that teach that. But the question comes up, as it did in my elementary school days, what about the native in Africa who never heard of Jesus? How could God, who is infinitely just and infinitely merciful, condemn a person in their ignorance? The answer is he wouldn't, so the Church said we need to re-examine the text because there has to be a different angle within it. So, the teaching evolved. Since God's revelation is universal the native in Africa that lives his life within the context of that revelation to the best of his ability is saved. > All you are really saying is that those who are exposed to the "correct" culture have an easier way to heaven. I am not saying that at all. Salvation is a free gift from God that you cannot earn by being in the right club. The faithful Jew, Muslim or Hindu has the same shot as the pope. As I have said, the truth matters and I would suggest that it is the rejection of the truth that is a problem. In other words, if one come to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, but reject it for whatever reason: culture, business et al one will have to answer to God for it. Peace, |
||||
|
|
||||
Argy Lacedom |
#28 | |||
In the case of eternal life that kernel is, "live your life doing good to the best of your ability and you will spend eternity with God."But that's just where it begins to go off the rails. Religions define goodness in various ways. To be a good Jew (according to Russ) all you have to do is observe the law. That law is often at odds with what we believe to be good - killing homosexuals for being homosexuals, for example. It is then that the rationalisations begin;- "Oh, that's not what it REALLY means", etc., etc., etc.. Goodness is nearly always defined as observing some sort of religious rules of behaviour and these are open to debate amongst adherents of different religions. But we are saved within a conglomerate.How? The Jewish message is certainly a communal one - God's chosen people, etc.. But the Christian message is very much a personal one - salvation is granted to individuals, not civilisations. Then you have misread the scriptures, thus misinterpreting the message.You make my point for me. I don't think I'm so unintelligent that I have severe comprehension problems, yet you say I do not understand God's simple revelation. > If God's requirements for salvation have been consistent over time there has never been any more or less information available for any individual to understand.We all only have a lifetime to understand, at most. That's the limit. That's how long we have to evolve our thoughts. Period. If God's requirements for salvation have been unchanging then it was equally within each person's ability 10,000 years ago to understand those rules as it is today. Perhaps it is a case of religion over-complicating things. Too much thought and introspection about things that cannot possibly be verified, observed or tested. For example, the teaching that one only gets to the Father through Jesus Christ. So initially, unless you professed belief in Jesus you are not saved. There are sects within Christianity today that teach that. But the question comes up, as it did in my elementary school days, what about the native in Africa who never heard of Jesus? How could God, who is infinitely just and infinitely merciful, condemn a person in their ignorance? The answer is he wouldn't, so the Church said we need to re-examine the text because there has to be a different angle within it.Well, to be fair to the sects you mention, there is no reason, other than the human desire for a just God, that anyone should suppose that the people in Africa who have never heard of Jesus will not be saved. God could very well be as capricious as that! So, the teaching evolved.It wasn't just the teaching, was it? It was the belief system behind the teaching. Despite your claims that the rules for salvation are simple and easily understood, they were not understood (and remain misunderstood) by many people at a pretty fundamental level. In other words, if one come to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, but reject it for whatever reason: culture, business et al one will have to answer to God for it.I can remember a conversation I had standing next to my post-grad professor while we were dissecting the brain of a cat to discover the "wiring diagram" of the auditory cortex. He made the comment that if we new for sure that Jesus was real we would crawl on hands and knees across broken glass from Melbourne to London. It struck me at the time that this was an admission from him that he had some reservations. Most people don't really have the sort of faith that allows them to do such things; however small, there is always a bit of unbelief hiding in everyone that holds them back.
If the universe is "everything that exists" then God is part of it. If the universe needs a creator so does God.
|
||||
|
|
||||
tonydev |
#29 | |||
|
Going back to the basics. One can create all the reasons imaginable to justify the belief that the crucifixion was necessary, either from a literal view, or
from a exemplary view (man needs a visual example). In the end, a god who needs to kill, is something less than one might think of as a god.
Second, that this death was a reversal of some wrong doing of a primal couple that engenered mankind is equally impossible. Man was not created perfect. Quite the opposite. Man is the result of a gradual transition, evolution, that has been moving us away from the more primal self centered creature bent on personal survival to a being that is at least aware, to some limited extent, of the realm of the "other". None of the Christian theological elements has any sound foundation. The chief point is that some two thousand years ago, some local teacher in Palestine , called Jesus , gave us a different view of the world that contradicted the Greco-Roman notions of the importance of the self. |
||||
|
|
||||
CursilloRooster |
#30 | |||
tonydev wrote:Which explains why child sacrifice is such an acceptable thing in our "New Age" modern secular society. God bless you, |
||||
|
|
||||
Burke |
#31 | |||
|
Hi Gary,
> But the Christian message is very much a personal one - salvation is granted to individuals, not civilisations. The early Church was communal in every way, If you read Acts all property was held in common. It was only with the Reformation 1,500 years later that the idea of a totally individual concept of salvation came into vogue. Before that time, while individual, it was seen in the context of community. We gather weekly to worship together as a community of believers. In the Catholic sense it is not alright for things to be good between God and me, they must be good between God and us. > I don't think I'm so unintelligent that I have severe comprehension problems, yet you say I do not understand God's simple revelation. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. Did you, as an engineering student, pick up the text book, read it through once and then take the exam? Of course not. Today most of the concepts of those text books are simple for you, but back in the day you read it, you asked questions of your profs and probably asked some of them a number of times to fully grasp their meaning. It was not enough to know what the text said, but you needed to know why it said it. It took you four years to get there and a life time to absorb it all. I venture to guess you are still learning. > We all only have a lifetime to understand, at most. Understanding is irrelevant. My mother is 97 years old and has been a faithful Catholic all her life. She has a abiding faith in Jesus Christ, but if you asked her why she believes she would tell you that she just does. She is a fairly intelligent woman, but she has never felt the need to delve into the theology of that faith. > If God's requirements for salvation have been unchanging then it was equally within each person's ability 10,000 years ago to understand those rules as it is today. First of all, you continue to speak of rules as if God is sitting with a ledger keeping score. God's commandments are simple. Take the Decalogue for example, I believe you will find that most religions and societies follow the concept of at least the temporal ones. Murder, theft, bearing false witness and stealing another persons spouse are frowned upon in every community that I can think of. > It wasn't just the teaching, was it? It was the belief system behind the teaching. No, the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches have maintained the same beliefs for 2,000 years. They have kept the continuity of the Traditions handed down from the apostles. Even as an Atheist you would have to admit that within Christianity the Protestant Reformation went off the rails pretty quickly. > He made the comment that if we new for sure that Jesus was real we would crawl on hands and knees across broken glass from Melbourne to London. It struck me at the time that this was an admission from him that he had some reservations. Doubt is part of the journey. Any Christian who claims to have never doubted is fooling himself. You have rightly pointed out that the existence of God cannot be scientifically proven, so naturally I occasionally say to myself can this be too fantastic to be true? Doubt is part of the process. If God came down and made everything plain to everyone on this earth for every generation we would soon toss it aside because it is in our nature to seek out truth. No prize is worth anything if it is just handed to us with no effort. If everyone who went to the Olympics got a gold medal soon nobody would go to the Olympics. Peace, |
||||
|
|
||||
Argy Lacedom |
#32 | |||
|
Hi Bob,
Hey, wait a minute. Every Christian I've met tells me that we are responsible for our own salvation - accept Jesus and be saved, do good and be saved, do bad and be damned. None has ever said "I know you are a Satanist, but be a member of this particular community and be saved (ie., regardless of your individual actions or beliefs)." If I follow you to a logical conclusion you are you suggesting that god collectively punishes us and and rewards us according to what our community does, rather than what we do as individuals - a devout, honest and hard working catholic living in the Nazi regime would be damned because he lived with them. Somehow I don't think you really believe this. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. Did you, as an engineering student, pick up the text book, read it through once and then take the exam? Of course notThere is a fundamental difference between knowing the requirements for salvation and the accumulated knowledge of science. The former is revealed knowledge that has not changed since the first man existed and is meant to be known and understood by all men within their lifetime (otherwise what is the point?). The latter is knowledge accumulated by trial, experiment observation and error over millennia - there is no guarantee that anyone should be able to understand it. Understanding is irrelevant. My mother is 97 years old and has been a faithful Catholic all her life. She has a abiding faith in Jesus Christ, but if you asked her why she believes she would tell you that she just does. She is a fairly intelligent woman, but she has never felt the need to delve into the theology of that faith.Wow! My father is 81 and I thought that was good! I disagree with your premise though. If it is unnecessary to understand what the requirements for salvation are then, by definition, there is no need for revelation or to do anything other than "what comes naturally". First of all, you continue to speak of rules as if God is sitting with a ledger keeping score. God's commandments are simple. Take the Decalogue for example, I believe you will find that most religions and societies follow the concept of at least the temporal ones. Murder, theft, bearing false witness and stealing another persons spouse are frowned upon in every community that I can think of.God sits in judgement. In order to do so he measures us against criteria/rules that he has set up. Murder, theft, sexual norms, etc., might be frowned on by most societies but they can also be different from one society to another. For example, you mentioned in your post that property was held in common in the time of Acts. Theft would be much more difficult then compared to now because of our different concept of ownership. No, the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches have maintained the same beliefs for 2,000 years.That merely reinforces my point. Two thousand years is a relatively recent time frame - what of the hundreds of thousands of years before that? Even as an Atheist you would have to admit that within Christianity the Protestant Reformation went off the rails pretty quickly.Well, that's just another way of saying the idea of one church went off the rils pretty quickly - let's not forget the first schism started within the catholic chuch! If God came down and made everything plain to everyone on this earth for every generation we would soon toss it aside because it is in our nature to seek out truth.Not so. You do not take gravity for granted or assume it doesn't exist simply because it is with us all the time!! A god who made everything plain is EXACTLY what we need to be certain of what is needed for salvation.
If the universe is "everything that exists" then God is part of it. If the universe needs a creator so does God.
|
||||
|
|
||||
Burke |
#33 | |||
|
Hi Gary,
> Hey, wait a minute. Every Christian I've met tells me that we are responsible for our own salvation - accept Jesus and be saved, do good and be saved, do bad and be damned. Then you haven't met any knowledgeable Catholics. What you are describing here is an Evangelical/Pentecostal doctrine except they usually leave out the do good part. > If I follow you to a logical conclusion you are you suggesting that god collectively punishes us and and rewards us according to what our community does, You have come to the wrong conclusion. As an engineer I assume you belong to a professional society of engineers. Your work is individual, but you go to conferences where you are able to network with other engineers and find out the latest advances in the field. You may share something that solves a problem for someone else. You may be a good engineer, but you are a better engineer if you interact with your peers. You stand or fall on your own merits, but the community of engineers is a part of your success. While I have a personal relationship with God my community is a large part of my journey of faith. In any human enterprise if one wishes tot succeed one does not start out in isolation, one would seek out expertise and help along the way. > There is a fundamental difference between knowing the requirements for salvation and the accumulated knowledge of science. Not really. Scientific knowledge has been there since God created it ( > there is no guarantee that anyone should be able to understand it. But to the Catholic there is a guarantee. > If it is unnecessary to understand what the requirements for salvation are then, by definition, there is no need for revelation or to do anything other than "what comes naturally". I did not say that she did not understand the requirement, but the fact of the requirement is good enough for her. If you design a bridge and tell me that it is safe I don't feel a need to to examine the specs and study the physics of stress and load. Now, I might study those specs, but not because I do not trust your engineering ability, but because I am curious as to how it works. Salvation works the same way. Here are the commandments and specs for salvation, follow them to the best of your ability and you will spent eternity with God. My mother said okay and that was good enough, I said okay (eventually), but have a curiosity to learn more about the how and why. It is probably my love of history and my obsession with accuracy in that discipline that drives me on the religion side. > God sits in judgment. True, but it is not like a court room drama. Remember, salvation is God's free gift to us. We cannot earn it, so it comes down to whether we accepted the gift or not. That is what God is judging. > That merely reinforces my point. Two thousand years is a relatively recent time frame - what of the hundreds of thousands of years before that? God's revelation is ongoing from the beginning of time. Our understanding has evolved over millennia. Stephen Hawking wasn't born a physicist he first learned that 1+1=2. Salvation history is the same except it has taken millennia. > Well, that's just another way of saying the idea of one church went off the rils pretty quickly No, the idea of one Church is alive and well and we pray constantly for the day when we will be one again. > let's not forget the first schism started within the catholic church! True, but that was political rather than doctrinal. The teachings of Eastern and Western Churches have remained constant for the 1,000 years we have been separated. > A God who made everything plain is EXACTLY what we need to be certain of what is needed for salvation. But I am certain of what is needed for salvation. Peace, |
||||
|
|
||||
Argy Lacedom |
#34 | |||
|
Hi Bob,
Then you haven't met any knowledgeable Catholics. What you are describing here is an Evangelical/Pentecostal doctrine except they usually leave out the do good part.Then I suspect I need an education in Catholicism. Are we, or are we not, individually saved? Are my deeds (good or bad) ascribed to someone else and are other's deeds ascribed to me? In short, does god judge me by my actions or by the company I keep? You have come to the wrong conclusion. As an engineer I assume you belong to a professional society of engineers. Your work is individual, but you go to conferences where you are able to network with other engineers and find out the latest advances in the field. You may share something that solves a problem for someone else. You may be a good engineer, but you are a better engineer if you interact with your peers. You stand or fall on your own merits, but the community of engineers is a part of your success. While I have a personal relationship with God my community is a large part of my journey of faith. In any human enterprise if one wishes tot succeed one does not start out in isolation, one would seek out expertise and help along the way.A post or two back you said that the evolution of religious belief lead to the realisation that god would not condemn remote tribesmen because they had not heard of him. This commentary of yours flies in the face of that. You are now saying that being in a Catholic community makes it easier to succeed in your relationship with god. If that is the case there are people in the world who, simply by virtue of the fact that they are born into the "wrong" community, will fail in their relationship with god. Let me ask you this. Does being a Catholic matter to God? Does he give preference to them over others in any way? Not really. Scientific knowledge has been there since God created it (That, however, is irrelevant in the context of salvation. Increased scientific knowledge gives us the power to do new things - like go to the moon. Has the religious knowledge the human race has gained over the last few millennia given us the ability to do new things; increased our chances of eternal life, for example? > there is no guarantee that anyone should be able to understand it.What? Remember, salvation is God's free gift to us. We cannot earn it, so it comes down to whether we accepted the gift or not. That is what God is judging.So salvation is an individual thing? Are people who are supported by Catholic communities more likely to accept the gift? Is so, doesn't that disadvantage African tribesmen who have never heard of the Christian god, let alone Catholicism? And surely a gift of salvation would only be rejected in error or in madness. Would a just God condemn a person who, for one reason or other, did not understand what the choice was about? Would he condemn a person who is so mentally deranged that they would reject this gift? God's revelation is ongoing from the beginning of time. Our understanding has evolved over millennia.I have not so much been discussing God's revelation as a whole, but his requirements for salvation. Have these evolved over millennia? But I am certain of what is needed for salvation.Ok, I'll bight. What is needed?
If the universe is "everything that exists" then God is part of it. If the universe needs a creator so does God.
|
||||
|
|
||||
Burke |
#35 | |||
|
Hi Gary,
> Then I suspect I need an education in Catholicism. I suspect you do. > Are we, or are we not, individually saved? Yes. > Are my deeds (good or bad) ascribed to someone else and are other's deeds ascribed to me? No. > In short, does God judge me by my actions or by the company I keep? By your actions, but you have missed the point. Part of your actions is to interact with a community and by extension the world. Read Matthew 25:31-46, it will give you an idea of what I mean. > You are now saying that being in a Catholic community makes it easier to succeed in your relationship with God. No, being in a community makes it easier to succeed. A devout Baptist or Presbyterian has an easier time than an individual who tries to go it alone. While truth is found in every Christian church the fullness of truth is found in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The problem comes when the message is so distorted as to be against God's will. For example, a devout Muslim who follows the Koran as it was intended has a relationship with God. But the extremist who sends out suicide bombers and kills people because they are infidels or of the wrong sect of Islam will answer for the blood of his victims. In the other words, the cleric who incites such behaviour will answer. Read Matthew 18:5-10 for a Christian perspective on the question. > Let me ask you this. Does being a Catholic matter to God? It depends. If one were to come to the realization that the Catholic Church was the true Church in the sense that all the truths were there and turned their back on it for whatever reason, I would say that God would care. I don't suppose that person would be condemned for that, but there it is. > Does he give preference to them over others in any way? No. > Has the religious knowledge the human race has gained over the last few millennia given us the ability to do new things; Yes it has. As Catholics we have gone from being intolerant and bigoted to being compassionate and respectful of our fellow human beings. Besides, there are many disciplines that we pursue that do not produce new things other than knowledge; history and literature being among many. > What? What, what? Is there a question there? > Are people who are supported by Catholic communities more likely to accept the gift? Anyone who worships God in a community, even the African tribesman, is more likely to accept the gift. > And surely a gift of salvation would only be rejected in error or in madness. Not necessarily. Pride, ambition or numerous other things could make a person reject the gift. Why do perfectly sane people who have lost their larynx to cancer continue to smoke through their breathing tubes? God only knows. Would a just God condemn a person who, for one reason or other, did not understand what the choice was about? Would he condemn a person who is so mentally deranged that they would reject this gift? No and no. The rejection would have to be a conscious act knowing full well what was offered. > Have these evolved over millennia? Our understanding has evolved. With God ignorance is an excuse. > Ok, I'll bight. What is needed? Read my post, it is all there. Peace, |
||||
|
|
||||
tonydev |
#36 | |||
|
But the extremist who sends out suicide bombers and kills people because they are infidels or of the wrong sect of Islam will answer for the blood of
his victims. In the other words, the cleric who incites such behaviour will answer. Read Matthew 18:5-10 for a Christian perspective on the question.
Like the popes who incited the Crusades, or who destroyed synagogues and put the Jews in isolation? But all these things are beyond my original point. A god who uses death and blood as a means for satisfaction, rather real or as an example, is certainly less than a rational god that even my fleshly mind can describe. The cross makes no sense. It's the teachings that changed the world. |
||||
|
|
||||
Burke |
#37 | |||
|
Hi Tony,
> Like the popes who incited the Crusades, or who destroyed synagogues and put the Jews in isolation? Yes, they answered for that. Peace, |
||||
|
|
||||
Argy Lacedom |
#38 | |||
> Like the popes who incited the Crusades, or who destroyed synagogues and put the Jews in isolation?I wonder how the AIDS record of current hierarchy will be judged?
If distribution of condoms increases promiscuity then forgiving sin leads to sinfulness.
|
||||
|
|
||||
Burke |
#39 | |||
|
Hi Gary,
> I wonder how the AIDS record of current hierarchy will be judged? What is there to judge? The Church has a teaching, from God, regarding sexuality. Casual sex is forbidden and in the case of HIV within a marriage the Church is reviewing that and as I have suggested I am willing to wager that the African bishops have already implemented it for pastoral reasons. Peace, |
||||
|
|
||||
tonydev |
#40 | |||
|
Yes, they answered for that.
Whether or not they did, I have no way of knowing. What remains unanswered is the central notion that blood and death and satisfaction from suffering makes no sense. And that notion, I think we can answer. |
||||
|
|
||||