Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   You Guys Need to Communicate! (thoughts from an ex evangelical Christian)
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4060 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 181 of 200 (388573)
03-06-2007 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Equinox
03-05-2007 2:23 PM


Re: Does this shed any light?
But doesn’t that view - the view that God guided the process of church and Bible formation- lead to all kinds of worse problems? For instance, first it seems to justify might makes right, since as the winner one can then claim to be the tool of God, and all that blood spilt was done under divine order.
The OP church was doing just fine, growing and outpacing all its competitors, before any blood was shed by any Christians.
A person who reads Eusebius' history, written in AD 325, and compares it with Sozomen's or Socrates', written in the 370's, is in for a shock. The difference between the two time periods is so vast that it is as though two completely different churches are being written about. The largest difference is that the pre-nicene church is non-violent and the post-nicene extremely violent. Very little else is the same, either, though.
I don't believe that post-nicene organization with governmentally appointed bishops and government backing was of God.
it seems to blame God for all kinds of ineptitude - since our Bible has been clearly changed and clearly miscopied in many places
Our Bible has little to do with the Pre-nicene church. Their canon varied from church to church, and converts agreed to a rule of faith, not to serve a book, but a God.
I heard it argued once that Justin Martyr didn't have the 4 Gospels that we have. I don't agree with that, but it does establish a point. When Justin defended Christianity, he spoke of Christ as a teacher who was not a sophist, but who gave concise and practical teaching on how to live. You'll find the other apologists speaking the same way. Their defense of the faith was a defense of the behavior and lifestyle of Christians, not a defense of a book.
So then did God plan to have Heb included in the Bible without any apostolic link?
I don't think God intended to create a Bible.
Or the PO church had God behind it, but the process of formation or the PO’s Bible didn’t have God behind it?
Yep. The formation of a set canon was done by political bishops in political conferences that had nothing whatsoever to do with the "faith once for all delivered to the saints."
Did God plan to have the RCC suppress, often bloodily, other churches for 1000 years?
Perhaps. The people I consider part of my spiritual heritage were oppressed, too. They're as hard to find as the gnostic groups in the middle ages and were stamped out as fast as they rose up. When the Reformation happened, both RCC and Protestants put those who held to the tenets of the PO church to death. The RCC chose much more gruesome methods, though.
To take that to today, if God planned and guided the early PO church, and history unfolded according to his plan, then is the current fractionization of Christianity also his plan?
I think there's a war going on. I think that was God's intention, that his people would always have to chose to flow against the world and have to war for his kingdom. I think the current fractionization of Christianity is the best attempt the enemy has made so far against the church. Probably better than that great judo move around AD 300, where there was a great attempt to shut the church down, followed by a full embrace of the church by the emperor. That was highly successful at corrupting it thoroughly.
Now I’m not saying that you are saying that - I’m just checking what you mean.
I'll help you with that. While Gandhi wasn't a Christian, he was familiar with and embraced Christ's teachings in the Sermon on the Mount. Even more so, Gandhi lived by a confidence that there is a power, indeed almost a personhood, to Truth, and Truth would lend its power to those who stand up for its precepts. I believe Truth most definitely is a person; I believe he lived on earth as the Christ, and I believe his followers have always had immense success at changing the world around them, especially when they get together.
Violence provides an immediate end to those powers. The Truth doesn't need a sword or a gun.
When you suppress the truth, it rises up again in another place, like a weed that can't be stopped. When you kill his followers, more arise. The blood of the martyrs really is seed.
Gandhi found the power of Truth--the real power of Christ--and he passed it on to Martin Luther King, Jr. Their power was incredible. Both changed the greatest nations of their day. Not too many are willing to follow in their footsteps, though, because the price of that power is your own blood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Equinox, posted 03-05-2007 2:23 PM Equinox has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Equinox, posted 03-07-2007 2:31 PM truthlover has replied

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 182 of 200 (388756)
03-07-2007 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by truthlover
03-06-2007 2:17 PM


Re: Does this shed any light?
Wow. I could quote all the things I agree with, but, I’ll skip that. From your post, I have to say there is a lot I like about your Christianity. Part of it comes down to which of the following is most important: 1. Believing the “right” things (being an "orthodox" Christian) or 2. Doing good in the world. By your examples and words, you’ve made it clear that #2 is more important in your Christianity. Most of Christianity, including the RCC, is firmly behind #1 as a first and necessary condition, with #2 being important only after #1 is met, if #2 is important at all (depends on the sect). In addition to doctrines and dogmas that say this, actions bear this out too. For instance, RCC candidates for sainthood are always closely checked via #1 first, as can be seen by the saints that were OK by #1, but not #2 (Augustine, who approved of violence against “heretic” Christians comes to mind). An even stronger sign are the people who shine on #2, but don’t pass #1 - they are never saints. Gandhi and King are great examples of that, and you clearly see them as a good examples (as I do).
Your Christianity is also generally immune to the charges of hurtful things being in the Bible.
Lastly, I had a couple minor quibbles/nuances wrt history - but you know, those really aren’t important. It’s interesting to learn about your spirituality. I wish you the best, especially with the inevitable conflicts you must have with other Christians over your view of the Bible. It’s easier, though not mentally stable, to hide who you are in that respect in the interest of peace. I’m sure you’ve already thought that through.
Enjoy this day-
Equinox

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by truthlover, posted 03-06-2007 2:17 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by anastasia, posted 03-08-2007 1:27 PM Equinox has replied
 Message 186 by truthlover, posted 03-08-2007 4:48 PM Equinox has not replied

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 183 of 200 (388759)
03-07-2007 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by anastasia
03-05-2007 6:19 PM


Re: Does this shed any light?
quote:
quote:
Equinox writes:
But doesn’t that view - the view that God guided the process of church and Bible formation- lead to all kinds of worse problems?
I don't think you need to take this concept so literally, Equinox.
It is similar to the idea of the Jewish people being God's Chosen people. . . There is no claim to any super-human perfection or divine hand governing every minute detail and every action of a Jewish person.
But, God would guide the entire society toward what He had planned, and use them to preserve what had been revealed.
“use them to preserve what had been revealed.”
OK, there’s a question. So God, through using people as his tool, has preserved his revelation? That raises a ton of problems, not the least of which is the poor “preservation” we see. You do know that there are thousands of copies of ancient manuscripts of the Bible, none of which (except for the littlest fragments) agree with each other word for word? Or, is that all part of “letting human imperfections occur”, which seems the opposite of “preserving”. I mean, is God preserving or not? If he is, then explain the poor preservation. If he isn’t, then why say he is? Or, if it’s halfway inbetween - where God is hoping some preservation happens, but not acting to make sure it does, despite his ability to do so, - then why? Why would God intentionally allow millions of people to potentially end up in Hell because God doesn’t want to do a complete job of presvation of his hell-saving word?
quote:
The idea is simply that God continued His process of revelation in the church that was most 'true' perhaps to what He intended.
And this is exactly the view that causes each church to think it is the right one, and thus opens the door to the bloody religious wars between 1500 and 1700, as well as authorizing “new revelation” in churches like the LDS.
quote:
but over-all, the message is what is being preserved, expanded, clarified, and 'perfected' in a core body of doctrines which will outlast the various conflicts.
And what message would that be? After so long it should be easy to see what it is, and yet we have literally thousands of different Christian messages, each one claiming to the correct one. History has shown that though each conflict comes to an end, the state of conflict itself is neverending, as long as anyone thinks revelation is important - because a private revelation is inherently divisive, since a private revelation can’t be tested or repeated. So while technologies to more effectively wage war will be perfected (and then often used), a state of conflict won’t be outlasted by anything, until private revelation is abandoned as a divine source of information. After looking at the sweep of history, do you really expect anything else?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by anastasia, posted 03-05-2007 6:19 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by anastasia, posted 03-08-2007 2:04 PM Equinox has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 184 of 200 (388876)
03-08-2007 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Equinox
03-07-2007 2:31 PM


Re: Does this shed any light?
Equniox writes:
2. Doing good in the world
Doing good in the world is the most 'orthodox' thing there is in Christianity. That should never be preceded by anything else. But the good has to be ulitmately based on something, because we all think we are doing good. Hitler did? But King and Ghandi did what we consider 'good' because of some moral code which we have come to recognize.
You mention saints. There is no reason to say that those outside of the faith are not residing in heaven. The RCC only canonizes Catholics. Let's say we are not qualified to canonize anyone else, because we can't judge them by our yard-stick. If the church checks out a member for 'orthodoxy' in the canonization period, they are primarily checking for hypocricy. Are they what they claim to be? But obviously orthodox adherence to a doctrine never got anyone canonized. It's still all about the good works. And needless to say, a person doesn't have to be perfect. Augustine wasn't perfect, regardless of his stance on heretics. But the efforts and the example are important.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Equinox, posted 03-07-2007 2:31 PM Equinox has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Equinox, posted 03-09-2007 2:12 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 185 of 200 (388879)
03-08-2007 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Equinox
03-07-2007 2:55 PM


Re: Does this shed any light?
Equinox writes:
Or, is that all part of “letting human imperfections occur”, which seems the opposite of “preserving”. I mean, is God preserving or not? If he is, then explain the poor preservation. If he isn’t, then why say he is? Or, if it’s halfway inbetween - where God is hoping some preservation happens, but not acting to make sure it does, despite his ability to do so, - then why? Why would God intentionally allow millions of people to potentially end up in Hell because God doesn’t want to do a complete job of presvation of his hell-saving word?
The revelations of God are recorded in the Bible. They don't end there. But if God has a continuing work in humanity, it is safe to say that all errors aside...and there are tons of them in and out of the Bible...whatever is necessary to preservation is provided for.
It is a tough question, truly. If we don't have Biblical inerrancy, how can we know that God wants? But it comes to be a matter of faith. If one good person believes the Bible to be important, God will show him what is needed, and so on.
It might seem that we have poor preservation, but we don't. In the OT, so much of the reading was dependant on tradition. What we continue to extrapolate from the Bible is dependent as well on tradition. For all the meany sects, there are major similarities. If someone did not know the traditional interpretations, what are the chances that they would get something from the Bible that nearly resembles what we have in Judaeism or Christianity? We would see a collection of disjointed books each with different stories, not a religion.
So, the Bible is preserved as best as possible. But beyond this there is tradition. This is why the RCC puts such a big emphasis on tradition. They believe that God continues His revelations through people, that what the body of the faithful agreed to is a sign sometimes even bigger in portent than the Bible.
And this is exactly the view that causes each church to think it is the right one, and thus opens the door to the bloody religious wars between 1500 and 1700, as well as authorizing “new revelation” in churches like the LDS.
This is the problem, yes. It is also the reason why the church saw unity as a primary goal, and why the popes campaign tirelessly for christian unity. But God can't exactly take away free-will, can He? He can't force all christians into agreement. There is no hope for it except to believe that God is still spreading His message, and to remember that it is a non-violent message.
And what message would that be? After so long it should be easy to see what it is, and yet we have literally thousands of different Christian messages, each one claiming to the correct one.
True, and logically, they can't all be correct. Therefore, one must be, or none. It is a belief that one message is correct, nothing more. Although this leads to contention, there is nothing to be done, because we can't really accept all the different views as being one truth. The violent methods of spreading an idea are not utilized anymore as far as open season for burning and torturing, or enslaving opposers. It is a shame that these things happened, but getting back to revelations, the whole process evolves to a better understanding. Men would say 'God want this' and 'God wants that' and feel justified in doing part of what the gosples say, by preaching, while forgetting all about the loving part. But not everyone forgot. There were many saints living during the periods of hate, who were living lives of love. They did the revealing and preserving.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Equinox, posted 03-07-2007 2:55 PM Equinox has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Equinox, posted 03-09-2007 2:14 PM anastasia has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4060 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 186 of 200 (388907)
03-08-2007 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Equinox
03-07-2007 2:31 PM


especially with the inevitable conflicts you must have with other Christians over your view of the Bible.
Plenty of those.
It’s easier, though not mentally stable, to hide who you are in that respect in the interest of peace. I’m sure you’ve already thought that through.
Thought that through a lot. My wife spent quite a bit of time in tears when we were first married. Then she got her dad, a part-time pastor and the most zealous Christian she knew, to come over and straighten me out one night. He turned out to be eminently reasonable and told my wife that if he saw things the way I did, he'd do all the same things I was doing. After that, she was very supportive through repeated rejections in various churches.
Eventually, though, we found people as committed as I believed Christ's disciples ought to be. Then there was a lot more fear about speaking up, because the rejection mattered a lot more. It wasn't just a club, but people who had become family.
I'm pleased to report that what I found is what I had always hoped would be true. The church--the real one (sorry for how terrible that sounds)--cares what's true, not what's popular. They were a mixture of shocked, miffed, and open, but in the end willing to look at what's true and real.
So I'm with about 250 people (and growing) who take pretty much the same approach to Christianity I do (and who have of course influenced me more than I've influenced them). The conflicts are inevitable, true, but they occur outside my family in Christ, not inside it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Equinox, posted 03-07-2007 2:31 PM Equinox has not replied

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 187 of 200 (388974)
03-09-2007 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by anastasia
03-08-2007 1:27 PM


Re: Does this shed any light?
Anastasia wrote
quote:
Doing good in the world is the most 'orthodox' thing there is in Christianity.
That doesn’t follow from Catholic Doctrine, from the actions of the RCC, and most of all, from the Bible itself. There are tons of groups that preach to do good in the world, and who also do good in the world - the many early Christianities, Hindus, Muslims, and probably even most humans. They aren’t even considered to be orthodox. A good example of this are the Jains, who are more focused on doing good in the world than any group I can think of - yet their being orthodox is silly to even suggest. If it were the case that doing good in the world was the main decider of orthodoxy, then wouldn’t Augustine have been considered instantly unorthodox for ordering torture, and excommunicated, instead of canonized?
I agree that doing good is considered a good thing in the RCC. But it is clearly neither sufficient (according to Catholic doctrine for those who know of the Catholic church are aren’t in it), nor is it necessary (see people like Augustine) for heaven, much less sainthood.
quote:
That should never be preceded by anything else.
Unless, of course, it is Jesus himself doing the preceding:
Mt 22:36
quote:
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
We also have tons of church history up to the present day showing the same thing - that orthodoxy is of prime importance, while good works are important only if the orthodoxy is OK - and often not even then. Some examples - were the crusades (which were blessed by pope after pope) motivated more by “good works” or by “orthodoxy”? Or the killing of thousands of people for being the wrong kind of Christian? Even today, if a priest were to preach unorthodox views (like Rev. Matthew Fox, who preached that people in other religions would go to Heaven and that the Earth itself is sacred) he would get excommunicated. Yet, when not a few, not 20, not 500, but over 5,000 cases of Catholic priests molesting children came to light a couple years ago, the church was shown by court evidence to have repeatedly worked to cover up the crimes instead of punishing the priests. Even today, numerous watchdog groups for the victims have publicly stated that the RCC’s final stance is little more than a further coverup. The RCC on the other hand is using the incident as an excuse to demonize homosexuals, and to purge “earth centered” religious views from it’s seminaries.
Another example is the many Catholic priests in Africa who preach that condoms are not to be used because condoms cause AIDS. In saying something scientifically wrong and socially devastating, they cause thousands of deaths a year. Yet, the Vatican not only doesn’t excommunicate them, but actually supports them - again because orthodoxy trumps “doing good in the world” in most cases.
Who did the RCC have a bigger issue with - Galileo, who wasn’t orthodox, or Hitler, who didn’t do good works? Of course we know that the RCC arrested, convicted, and punished Galileo, while it worked in cooperation with Hitler. In case you didn’t know, there was a huge book documenting the RCC-Hitler ties (Amazon.com). The Vatican did have an official objection to the book - it complained that in one photograph, one priest’s name was mislabeled. That’s it - that’s all it could find that was incorrect.
Anastasia wrote:
quote:
King and Ghandi did what we consider 'good' because of some moral code which we have come to recognize.
Yes. That good moral code is partially repeated in the Bible, and appears to have origins unrelated to RCC doctrine or the RCC church.
quote:
There is no reason to say that those outside of the faith are not residing in heaven.
Well, other than the RCC doctrine, which we’ve discussed. Those outside the faith can only be in heaven if they didn’t know of the Catholic church by when they died. As we saw, if one knows of the RCC and is not in it, then that person goes to Hell, no matter how good and nice they are, or how much they plead, since after death conversions are not allowed in the RCC (after death baptisms are allowed in the LDS church).
quote:
(how saints are chosen) It's still all about the good works.
Sort of. Here are the criteria, from (Frequently Asked Questions about Saints - Saints & Angels - Catholic Online):
quote:
How does the Church choose saints?
Canonization, the process the Church uses to name a saint, has only been used since the tenth century. For hundreds of years, starting with the first martyrs of the early Church, saints were chosen by public acclaim. . Gradually, the bishops and finally the Vatican took over authority for approving saints.
. The process begins after the death of a Catholic whom people regard as holy. . The local bishop investigates the candidate's life and writings for heroic virtue (or martyrdom) and orthodoxy of doctrine. Then a panel of theologians at the Vatican evaluates the candidate. After approval by the panel and cardinals of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, the pope proclaims the candidate "venerable."
The next step, beatification, requires evidence of one miracle .
Only after one more miracle will the pope canonize the saint
So in the past it was simply a popularity contest. Now, I guess “good works” may be part of “heroic virtue”, but that could also include things like refusing to recant under persecution or such. I suppose the two miracles could be considered “good works”, depending on what they were. But even with all that twisting, it’s hard to get “it’s all about the good works” from the canonization process.
Now I don’t mean this post to be aggressive, but there are so many points that we’ve discussed already, that I’m feeling frustrated. I know what it’s like to be Catholic - I was one for 20 years. Both sides of my family are mostly Catholic even today. I grew up with a nice rosy picture of absolute unquestionable truths. I was confirmed in the path of helping this church and the good Bible it was based on. It was only after I began to learn history on my own and think on my own that I saw things differently. It was only after a long process of looking into things myself that I found that “doing good in the world” meant that I had to stop giving my time, money, and support to a church that was very often a force against good in the world. Don't get me wrong - there is a lot of good things about the RCC. Many Catholics do good works, and I love all the incense and candles (which I just buy myself now). It's just that on balance, it seems that it has usually been, and still is today, a force against the solutions to the world's problems.
Take care-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by anastasia, posted 03-08-2007 1:27 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by anastasia, posted 03-09-2007 4:26 PM Equinox has replied

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 188 of 200 (388976)
03-09-2007 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by anastasia
03-08-2007 2:04 PM


Re: Does this shed any light?
Anastasia wrote:
quote:
It might seem that we have poor preservation, but we don't.
Um, have you read “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture”, by Ehrman? Or noticed how much is different between protestant Bibles, Catholic Bibles, Ethiopian Bibles, etc? If what we have isn’t “poor preservation”, I wonder what would be. Plus, if God is, ultimately, in charge of the preservation, then I’d expect a much better job. Wouldn’t you, from an all-powerful God? That’s why it sounds blasphemous to me to suggest that God is doing the preserving.
quote:
So, the Bible is preserved as best as possible.
But I thought that with God, all things were possible? See above - this view seems to greatly diminish God.
quote:
True, and logically, they can't all be correct. Therefore, one must be, or none. It is a belief that one message is correct, nothing more. Although this leads to contention, there is nothing to be done, because we can't really accept all the different views as being one truth.
Right, except that we could accept that NONE of them are known to be correct, in which case the cause for fighting evaporates. It seems to me that there is something that can be done - simply dropping the idea that one of them is correct, and drop the idea that Hell awaits those with the wrong dogma. Then we can each be wrong in whatever way we want, and we don’t have to worry about those evil heretics causing our children to lose their salvation and go to hell. But of course, that also removes the main selling point the RCC has (fire insurance) - so the church isn't going to drop the dogmas of hell and of infallibility, and so it’s up to us to move past those.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by anastasia, posted 03-08-2007 2:04 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by anastasia, posted 03-09-2007 3:58 PM Equinox has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 189 of 200 (388989)
03-09-2007 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Equinox
03-09-2007 2:14 PM


Re: Does this shed any light?
Preservation, inerrancy, and infallibilty are beliefs. Just beliefs. They are, like any other belief, not testable of empirically verifiable in any sense.
There is the belief that the scriptures were given as perfect models and accounts.
There is the belief that the integral is preserved.
We can't prove that, and we can't disprove it.
If we accept that none of the faiths we have are correct, there is little point in having one at all. Perhaps this is what is desired of us, but there is just as little proof that anything else we have is correct, and we are not able in good conscience to walk around without imposing some rules. Can we really each be wrong in whatever way we want? Can we allow nut-case end of the world cults storing up guns and ammo? Can we allow polygamy amoung families and under-age girls? Slavery? We can allow one God, two Gods, etc. Nowadays, we do. But we still can't claim that all of these things are true and equal. I mean, seriously, we can drop the doctrine of Hell all we want, but what the hell will we do if there is one? You make it sound too easy. It is not like the RCC just made up some hell story to keep people in line. Jesus 'made it up'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Equinox, posted 03-09-2007 2:14 PM Equinox has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Equinox, posted 03-12-2007 1:03 PM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 190 of 200 (388992)
03-09-2007 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Equinox
03-09-2007 2:12 PM


Re: Does this shed any light?
Equinox writes:
There are tons of groups that preach to do good in the world, and who also do good in the world
You are using the old Politician's Argument or whatever it is that Ravi Zacharias carries on about. If doing good is part of christainity, and Muslims do good, then Muslims are christian. What is true is that doing good is necessary to salvation. So people of all faiths who do good are 'saved'. But not christian. They still can't be canonized as christian saints. They can be revered, respected, preached, etc. The Catholic church for example promotes some of what Oscar Wilde said. We can believe he is in heaven. But we can't make him a Catholic saint. We also can't make 'perfection' a criteria for heaven. No one would be there. Augustine simply did the best he could with what was allowed in his time. There is every indication that he was trying to his utmost to be Christian even if he failed in some areas. You will not find a single saint who did not have issues.
I agree that doing good is considered a good thing in the RCC. But it is clearly neither sufficient (according to Catholic doctrine for those who know of the Catholic church are aren’t in it), nor is it necessary (see people like Augustine) for heaven, much less sainthood.
So, doing good IS necessary. But to be a Catholic saint you must be Catholic. Just because someone is 'smart' doesn't mean they will end up on the honor roll of a school they didn't go to. And again, you are confusing 'doing good' and being perfect.
There are many misconceptions in what you say. They are beyond me to 'fix' at once. I would like to know who said that condoms cause AIDS, for starters. But whether you support birth control or not, 'doing good' is subjective. In this case, the RCC feels that preserving the use of sex for its 'real' purpose, rather than being promiscuous, is actually doing good. It is not about being orthodox. It is a matter of differeing views of 'good'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Equinox, posted 03-09-2007 2:12 PM Equinox has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Equinox, posted 03-12-2007 2:36 PM anastasia has replied

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 191 of 200 (389290)
03-12-2007 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by anastasia
03-09-2007 3:58 PM


Re: Does this shed any light?
Anastasia wrote:
quote:
Preservation, inerrancy, and infallibilty are beliefs. Just beliefs. They are, like any other belief, not testable of empirically verifiable in any sense. . We can't prove that, and we can't disprove it.
I respectfully disagree. Any statement - whether it’s called a “belief”, “idea”, “thought” or “doctrine” may or may not be testable, based on what the statement says. For instance, if I were to say that “last night my dreams were recorded by the aliens near the star Vega, who use our dreams for entertainment”, then it indeed would be hard to test that (until we can travel to Vega or such). Similarly difficult to verify or test statements include “my dog has premonitions of the disasters that will happen in the 22nd century”, “Napoleon would have hated Rap music” or “after death our souls are trapped in crystals in the center of jupiter”.
On the other hand, many statements are easily testable. For instance “water boils near 100 C at 1 atm pressure”, “my God vaporized the moon last night”, or “New York city was hit by a 10 ton asteroid yesterday”. For any belief, we can see if it is testable, and if testable, test it. Now, let’s look at the ones you listed:
(my numbering)
quote:
1. There is the belief that the scriptures were given as perfect models and accounts.
2. There is the belief that the integral is preserved.
#1 is testable. It would be more testable if there were more historically verifiable accounts in the scriptures, but there are plenty that don’t fit with decently established history to show that the scriptures (I assume you mean those in the RCC Bible, not, say, the Hindu scriptures.) are not perfect accounts. Some examples where we have decent knowledge that the Biblical accounts are inaccurate include the destruction of Jericho, the origin of language at Babel, the Quirinian census, the Geneology of Jesus, the resurrection story (since the gospels contradict, they can’t all be right), the conquest of the holy land, etc.
#2 - I’m not sure what you mean here. Help me out, since I assume you aren’t talking about calculus.
Other testable religious beliefs include Mk 16:17-18, where Jesus says that Christians can safely drink poison, handle venomous snakes, and heal others by their touch (evidence shows that none of that is true), or that prayer to one God (say, Vishnu) heals others more than prayer to another God (say, Zeus).
So yes, some beliefs are testable, depending on the belief. Calling something a “belief” doesn’t make it immune to logical testing. For instance, many Christians believe that the Bible has been inerrrantly created and preserved with word for word accuracy by the holy spirit. That’s obviously false due to things like the historical problems mentioned above, the many different versions of the Bible, biblical contradictions, and so on. You and I agree that such inerrancy is a belief, and we agree that it’s testable, and that it’s incorrect.
quote:
If we accept that none of the faiths we have are correct, there is little point in having one at all.
I agree there is little point in having faith in something that is testable and hasn’t been shown to be correct. But I don’t think we have a requirement to believe at least one undemonstrated thing. What’s wrong with not believing anything without some evidence? I think you allude to that here:
quote:
we are not able in good conscience to walk around without imposing some rules.
I think you are suggesting that without religion, you can’t have morals (correct me if I’m wrong in reading that from your statement). If you are suggesting that, then I again respectfully disagree. There is plenty of evidence to answer that - for one, atheists aren’t immoral any more than anyone else. I know plenty of wonderful, loving people who are atheists. Studies have shown that atheists are not overreprented in prisons compared to Christians, etc. More than that, I really hope you and most Christians are good people because you see being good as worthwhile in itself, and are not people who would rather be evil if it weren’t for some cosmic threat from a big-brother type deity. I, for one, am good because I want to be good, regardless of what some god thinks of it. For instance, if I were magically transported to a universe ruled by an evil deity who would send me to hell for being good, I’d still be good, and go to hell for it. I hope you would too. If someone wouldn’t, then are they really a good person, or are they just an evil person who is being forced into being good?
There are plenty of non-biblical sources of ethics and morality. Many atheists I know base their ethics on logic, which we can get into if you want (start a thread on it). Most, it seems, haven’t done this, instead using the basic common sense morality all humans have, which we appear to have evolved in response to group living. That’s why it’s so common across humanity, regardless of creed (or lack of creed).
In the same way, many Christians I know disregard the Bible as a source of moral guidance, since it has so much nasty morality as well as being clearly historically influenced. Instead, they use the same non-biblical moral basis so many others use, and see it in a Christian framework - not in the sense of "God commands me to follow these rules", but more in the sense of "WWJD".
quote:
Can we really each be wrong in whatever way we want? Can we allow nut-case end of the world cults storing up guns and ammo? Can we allow polygamy amoung families and under-age girls? Slavery? We can allow one God, two Gods, etc.
Well, now let’s keep things in context. I was talking about the untestable theological beliefs, and about those, I don’t see any realistic threat of Hell for the wrong beliefs (contrary to Christian doctrine). I do think it’s fine to be believe in more than one God (or even to believe in 3 gods that equal 1 god), as long as one acts ethically. For the other stuff, of course there’s a problem there, since those violate basic ethics and morality. For those, acting unethically I don’t think will lead to an otherworldly hell, but will cause harm to both themselves and others in this world.
quote:
I mean, seriously, we can drop the doctrine of Hell all we want, but what the hell will we do if there is one? You make it sound too easy.
If there is a hell, then it’s likely that everyone is doomed. After all, there are literally thousands of religions, including (many) Protestant, Zoroastrian, Catholic, Muslim, and more that claim you go to Hell if you aren’t in their religion, and also state that you can’t be in the other religions at the same time. Your odds of getting the right one are worse than 1000 to one. So if any Hell exists, we are all hellbound many times over. Plus, the Bible makes it clear that those in heaven watch those in Hell. I wouldn’t be happy watching any human being endlessly tortured, or even knowing such was going on. I’m sure I’d have relatives and friends being tortured, since Jesus is clear that most people are going to Hell. Thus even if I somehow guessed right and ended up in Heaven, it would be hell for me after all. In fact, know that some of my loved ones were being tortured would probably make me prefer to be in the literal hell than heaven. Unless I were an immoral, selfish jerk, then I wouldn’t want to spend eternity in comfort worshiping a God who would torture anyone.
If anything, I don’t think the above makes it sound too easy. A path of integrity often isn’t the easiest path, and I don’t think it is in this case either.
quote:
It is not like the RCC just made up some hell story to keep people in line. Jesus 'made it up'.
No, the idea of hell predates the first century by centuries in Persia. The earliest writings about Hell that I’m aware of are Zoroastrian, and with the rise of Zoroastrianism in the middle of the 1st millennium BCE, the idea of Hell became very prominent in Persia. Though their “contact” (shall we say), with the Persians, the Jews were introduced to, and slowly incorporated the idea of Hell. That’s why Hell isn’t in the Old testament - it’s an idea that’s literally foreign to ancient Judaism. By the 1st century, the belief in Hell was very popular, for obvious reasons (as an idea, it is a strong motivator to get one in any religion that has that belief, so it is selected for). Growing up in lower class Palestine, of course Jesus and his disciples would all believe in Hell, as would the later Christians who wrote the Bible.
The fact that it works so well to keep people in line is much of why the RCC has it. That’s also why so many other religions today have it - religions that include the concept of hell have a selective advantage over time compared to those that don’t, and so over time those religions become more prevalent.
Have a fun day-
Equinox
P. S. I hope to reply to your other post yet today as well.
Edited by Equinox, : diversity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by anastasia, posted 03-09-2007 3:58 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 192 of 200 (389301)
03-12-2007 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by anastasia
03-09-2007 4:26 PM


Re: Does this shed any light?
quote:
If doing good is part of christainity, and Muslims do good, then Muslims are christian. What is true is that doing good is necessary to salvation. So people of all faiths who do good are 'saved'. But not christian.
I agree with you that doing good doesn’t make one Christian. Further, it’s simply in plain disagreement with both RCC and most Christian churches doctrines to say that “people of all faiths who do good are ”saved’.” That’s simply and easily shown to be false. I quoted RCC doctrine that if one knows about the RCC and isn’t in it, then they are not saved, no matter how good they are - it seems that re-quoting it from various sources isn’t going to help you. I’ve shown this over and over, and it’s also a main thrust of the new testament that being (the right kind of) Christian matters more than anything else in determining heaven vs. hell.
I understand what it is like to want to think that the church I’m in promises salvation to all who are good. I remember very well being taught that and other nice things as a child growing up Catholic, only to find out they were wrong. I even asked once what would happen if you had exactly equally as much bad as good (is that where ghosts come from?) - and was told that then “baby Jesus would give you another chance, and you would be given another life as a new person”. Of course, reincarnation isn’t RCC doctrine either. It became clear to me when I got old enough to look into things myself that the RCC functions best by keeping people in the fold - that way they keep those little envelopes (of which I’ve given many) coming.
It’s sometimes amazing how firmly moderate Catholics in the US will continue to support the RCC doing things that they wouldn’t think of supporting otherwise, but I know from my own experience how much more comfortable it is to pretend that the group one has supported for years is pure and good, and that they preach good doctrine - regardless of what the evidence shows.
quote:
You will not find a single saint who did not have issues.
That wasn’t my point. My point was that your statement that “doing good is what matters” in regard to sainthood was simply incorrect. I looked up and copied the saintmaking process to show that it was simply incorrect, and that many other statements would be close to the truth, including one’s like “it’s miracles that matter” or that “it’s virtue that matters”.
More that that, it fits the pattern I described above, where the RCC puts more emphasis on keeping members in the fold, even if that means allowing some errors to persist in some areas.
quote:
There are many misconceptions in what you say. They are beyond me to 'fix' at once.
I understand your frustration. I felt the same way when I came across things that didn’t fit my rosy picture of the church of my birth. But regardless of that, we are both committed to being a force for good in the world, and having a positive effect on the world is much more likely the more we understand about the world, and that includes facts that we’d prefer didn’t exist. In all cases, I’m sure we agree that looking at the evidence for both sides makes it more likely to make an informed decision.
quote:
I would like to know who said that condoms cause AIDS, for starters.
Here is one source, though the story isn’t rare, this should get you started: Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids | World news | The Guardian
From that article:
quote:
The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.
The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV.
And:
quote:
In Lwak, near Lake Victoria, the director of an Aids testing centre says he cannot distribute condoms because of church opposition. Gordon Wambi told the programme: "Some priests have even been saying that condoms are laced with HIV/Aids."
Anastasia wrote:
quote:
But whether you support birth control or not, 'doing good' is subjective. In this case, the RCC feels that preserving the use of sex for its 'real' purpose, rather than being promiscuous, is actually doing good. It is not about being orthodox. It is a matter of differeing views of 'good'.
Yep it is. It’s about what is “good” with a different worldview. If hell really exists (as the RCC maintains), then an eternity of torture is clearly worse than anything here on earth. If one really believes in Hell, and really thinks that the RCC offers even a slightly likely way to escape it, then it is the inescapable conclusion that nothing else is more important. So what if a policy causes millions of people to die, or takes mothers from their children, or anything else? If hell exists, and the other religions can’t offer safety, than how could any moral person be religiously tolerant? Wouldn’t lying, even about the efficacy of condoms (or their being laced with a deadly virus), be potentially virtuous if it saved even one person from eternal torture? What about the crusades? Of course it’s justified to slaughter whole cities if that’ll prevent the spread of Islam - if one sees Islam as a ticket to hell. Wouldn’t we then be morally obligated to kill/torture heretics? Of course. What difference would medical advances make (or the use of stem cells to better human existence) - if our time here is nothing compared to an eternal afterlife? This same type of logic has always shown up - when anesthesia for childbirth was developed, it was opposed by the RCC because it could prevent a woman from suffering the God-ordained punishment mentioned in Gen 3:16, and as such was “playing God”.
The bottom line is that I realized I can’t contribute to a better world for our next generation (and could easily be a force against improving our world), if I had a distorted worldview. Sure, no worldview is perfect, but some are a lot more distorted than others, and the concept of Hell changes so many priorities, that of course it can make “good” actions into evil ones, and vice versa.
But of course, the actions of African Bishops and the Vatican are rarely reported much in the US, and certainly not preached about by preists. They know that won't help the constant flow of millions of dollars from moderate US catholics, who are by and large good people with good intentions.
Take care-
Equinox
Edited by Equinox, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by anastasia, posted 03-09-2007 4:26 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by anastasia, posted 03-12-2007 8:54 PM Equinox has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 193 of 200 (389334)
03-12-2007 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Equinox
03-12-2007 2:36 PM


Re: Does this shed any light?
Equinox writes:
Further, it’s simply in plain disagreement with both RCC and most Christian churches doctrines to say that “people of all faiths who do good are ”saved’.” That’s simply and easily shown to be false.
I quoted from the same source as you did, and hopefully we don't have to go there again. I doubt that Pope JPII could contradict himself in one document and be unaware of his mistake, given the amount of proof reading and translating that goes on. Maybe the teachings are ambiguous, maybe you quote-mined, maybe neither of us get the real point. But I absolutely found as much evidence for my position as you did for yours.
I understand what it is like to want to think that the church I’m in promises salvation to all who are good. I remember very well being taught that and other nice things as a child growing up Catholic, only to find out they were wrong. I even asked once what would happen if you had exactly equally as much bad as good (is that where ghosts come from?) - and was told that then “baby Jesus would give you another chance, and you would be given another life as a new person”.
If someone gives you a nice little answer that is intended to satisfy your childhood curiousity, and yet contradicts the church teachings, maybe you should take it as a nice little answer for a child, find out what the church actually says, and not assume that the church is backing up every silly answer out there just to get more envelopes passing around. No church can promise salvation to anyone. What we need to do is find what a church says and then decide whether or not we agree with that teaching. We can hope our church promises this or that, but we can't manipulate the facts to make ourselves comfortable. (Please be advised that I don't mean 'facts' as typically thought of.) I read all materials with an open mind to what they actaully say, and I expect the unexpected. In other words, I am not going to go quote-mining to support a position. What the church says, it says. If we have found differing quotes about the same doctrine, then obviously we are lacking somewhere.
It’s sometimes amazing how firmly moderate Catholics in the US will continue to support the RCC doing things that they wouldn’t think of supporting otherwise, but I know from my own experience how much more comfortable it is to pretend that the group one has supported for years is pure and good, and that they preach good doctrine - regardless of what the evidence shows.
It is just not like that. It is not up to us to decide what is 'good' doctrine. We will all have different views about 'good' doctrine. The RCC, and all churches, have doctrines. They are Biblical mainly. They won't change for us. If you have to pretend that the group you support is pure and good, then maybe your ideas of 'pure and good' are not the same as the groups. That is a good sign to get out.
The bottom line is that I realized I can’t contribute to a better world for our next generation (and could easily be a force against improving our world), if I had a distorted worldview. Sure, no worldview is perfect, but some are a lot more distorted than others, and the concept of Hell changes so many priorities, that of course it can make “good” actions into evil ones, and vice versa.
It's a thin line Equinox, and hard to explain to someone who is 'outside', but I do understand that you feel a good action becomes bad. The way the church feels about condom usage is that a bad action can't become good. It's interesting, however. Murder is acceptable if it will save a life. It is not the most desirable outcome, and thus the person who murders for any reason is deeply scrutinized. I believe it must be clear that there is no other choice. If there are other choices, such as abstinance, which are more desireable from a religious view, we are bound to preach them as seriously as we preach against murder. This is a touchy topic, and I don't know enough details, but to be general, I don't think that Hell factors in too much on deciding what is good. If something is good, it must be upheld, regardless of what a person feels may be the punishment for an individual who fails. The purpose of every bishop and every Christian and every good person, is to do good because it is right and it is the only way to live, absolutely regardless of where it gets you. Non-christians are adamant that good is good regardless of punishment or reward. The thrust of all argument had been that doing good to others has immediate and long-term benefits to society. I can't tell you that there is no one quivering in fear of hell, but for me, my actions are not governed by fear, or by reward.
I notice that people say two things...we are doing good only to get to heaven, or we are doing good only to avoid hell. To be very realistic, heaven and hell are easily reachable just in this life.
But of course, the actions of African Bishops and the Vatican are rarely reported much in the US, and certainly not preached about by preists. They know that won't help the constant flow of millions of dollars from moderate US catholics, who are by and large good people with good intentions.
I don't know why anyone wants a moderate Catholic. You mean a non-believing Catholic who nonetheless supports the church? Why wouldn't we want to hear about the actions of the Vatican? And what use is such an uiniformed an unquestioning Catholic? They give money, you say? Seriously, anyone with an ounce of curiousity can subscribe to the Catholic papers or look online at this stuff, and there is not exactly any cover up going on. The church is not ashamed of its actions, and if some moderates are supporting the church without knowing what goes on, they are the only ones to blame. The info is out there.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Equinox, posted 03-12-2007 2:36 PM Equinox has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Equinox, posted 03-15-2007 5:03 PM anastasia has replied

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 194 of 200 (389816)
03-15-2007 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by anastasia
03-12-2007 8:54 PM


Re: Does this shed any light?
Anastasia wrote:
quote:
quote:
Equinox writes:
Further, it’s simply in plain disagreement with both RCC and most Christian churches doctrines to say that “people of all faiths who do good are ”saved’.” That’s simply and easily shown to be false.
I quoted from the same source as you did, and hopefully we don't have to go there again. I doubt that Pope JPII could contradict himself in one document and be unaware of his mistake, given the amount of proof reading and translating that goes on. . . But I absolutely found as much evidence for my position as you did for yours.
Your position - that anyone, regardless of their religion, who does good is saved, is simply incorrect based on either your or my quotations, including the one by JPII. The key is that both RCC doctrine as well as JPII’s statement require that those in other religions must be able to claim ignorance of the RCC, or they cannot avoid hell. Read them all, you’ll see they all agree with this and with each other.
Take, for example, someone who knows the RCC, and is a good person, and decides not to be in the RCC. That could be because he’s studied RCC history, or because he thinks that salvation shouldn’t be affected one way or the other by knowledge of the RCC, or because God speaks to him more clearly through another religion, or even because he simply decided that for no good reason. In all of those cases, he isn’t saved, no matter how good he is, or how sincerely he attains to God in his own religion. You can see that in all of the quotes we both put up. I’ve copied one from you and one from me here to make it easier than going back:
Anastasia wrote:
quote:
"For they who without their own fault do not know the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet seek God with sincere heart, and try,
under the influence of grace, to carry out His will in practice, known to
them through the dictate of conscience, can attain eternal salvation. Nor
does Divine Providence refuse the helps necessary for salvation to those
who without their own fault do not reach an express knowledge of God,
and who not without divine grace, try to live a right life."
(notice the start of JPII’s sentence - it only applies to those who don’t know the RCC - “His Church”.)
RCC doctrine:
quote:
while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847). . .
However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity.
Anastasia wrote:
quote:
Maybe the teachings are ambiguous, maybe you quote-mined, maybe neither of us get the real point.
First, the quote mining: Quote mining is taking a quote out of context to make it sound like it says something other than what is intended. I clearly haven’t quote mined, since my quote of the RCC doctrine matches what JPII says. As far as it being ambiguous (the doctrine), I think it is somewhat ambiguous, or at least significantly easy to distort one way or the other, for good reason - that’s what makes a most useful doctrine. I described that in post #148 here:
http://EvC Forum: You Guys Need to Communicate! (thoughts from an ex evangelical Christian) -->EvC Forum: You Guys Need to Communicate! (thoughts from an ex evangelical Christian)
quote:
No church can promise salvation to anyone.
Why not? Many churches do. The RCC does too - no matter what you’ve done, if you join the RCC are baptized and sincerely repent of your sins before death, you are saved, regardless of what horrible things you’ve done before that.
quote:
It is not up to us to decide what is 'good' doctrine. We will all have different views about 'good' doctrine. The RCC, and all churches, have doctrines. They are Biblical mainly. They won't change for us.
Well, that’s one place where it looks like we’ll have to agree to disagree. I *do* think it is up to us humans to decide what is good - or else how could we know how to live, even if we tried to start with the Bible? The practices of slavery, polygyny, torture, and killing have all been justified (including by the RCC in some cases) based on the Bible. Whether we use the Bible or not, we have to decide what is good doctrine. I would go farther, and say that the Bible is not a good moral compass, and that to decide good doctrine it’s better NOT to base it on the Bible, but that’s just me. But even aside from that, it is up to us humans to decide good doctrine, even if we start with the Bible. If that wasn’t the case, there wouldn’t be so many different churches.
quote:
If there are other choices, such as abstinance, which are more desireable from a religious view, we are bound to preach them as seriously as we preach against murder.
OK, please be clear here. Do you support the actions of the RCC in regards to condom policy in Africa, which is causing the deaths of literally millions of people and the orphaning of millions of children, and often uses lies and misinformation? Well, I’d guess you do financially, but I mean intellectually. Do you also support historical RCC positions on other topics?
quote:
Why wouldn't we want to hear about the actions of the Vatican? And what use is such an uiniformed an unquestioning Catholic? They give money, you say? Seriously, anyone with an ounce of curiousity can subscribe to the Catholic papers or look online at this stuff, and there is not exactly any cover up going on. The church is not ashamed of its actions, and if some moderates are supporting the church without knowing what goes on, they are the only ones to blame. The info is out there.
Many Catholics I know, both inside and outside my family, actually don’t seem to want to hear things that make them uncomfortable. Yes they give money - you know as well as I that Catholics are “suggested” to give a certain percentage of their income. When I was growing up, I think it was 5%, but I don’t know what it is now. So here's some math for a very rough estimate: around 75 million Catholics in the US, the US average income is around $30K/(household)yr, if only 3% is actually given, then assuming there are 4 per household that’s:
75000000*$30,000*1/4*0.03=17,000,000,000 = 17 billion dollars every year
Yep, that’s a lot of money. I agree with you that the moderates are significantly to blame - some don’t seem to want to know- at least that’s been my experience. But we can’t blame them too much, after all, things can be lost in the rush of daily life if you aren’t looking for them.
quote:
If you have to pretend that the group you support is pure and good, then maybe your ideas of 'pure and good' are not the same as the groups. That is a good sign to get out.
Yep, I agree. Have a fun day-
Equinox

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by anastasia, posted 03-12-2007 8:54 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by anastasia, posted 03-15-2007 8:49 PM Equinox has replied
 Message 198 by anastasia, posted 03-18-2007 6:10 PM Equinox has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 195 of 200 (389859)
03-15-2007 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Equinox
03-15-2007 5:03 PM


Re: Does this shed any light?
JPII writes:
For they who without their own fault do not know the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet seek God with sincere heart, and try,
under the influence of grace, to carry out His will in practice, known to
them through the dictate of conscience, can attain eternal salvation. Nor
does Divine Providence refuse the helps necessary for salvation to those
who without their own fault do not reach an express knowledge of God,
and who not without divine grace, try to live a right life."
The ambiguity for me comes in when JP says 'they who without their own fault do not know the gospel of Christ'.
Which can be taken to mean almost anyone. Knowing the gospel, and knowing about the gospel. If you don't believe the gospel, how can it be said you know it? What part is 'not your fault'?
(I will ask for your pardon in saying that you may have quote-mined. )
I sometimes feel that either very many will be saved, or almost no one. A church is in a sticky spot when it has to make a declaration on salvation. It can not be so loose as to make people feel that the church doesn't even value itself, nor so tight as to deny salvation to all who are not in the church. It is illogical in fact to do so. It is illogical to suppose that God has no care about anyone who has never heard of Christ. It is also illogical to suppose that God has no care for those who have heard of Jesus and have not 'heard' Jesus. Any of the statements by popes are going to be guesses and somewhat ambiguous, because in all honesty a pope can't judge or categorize all people. It is a lost cause trying to pre-determine the salvation of others. Therefore I feel that the RCC makes declarations unto its own followers, and everyone else is up to God.
Equinox writes:
Why not? Many churches do. The RCC does too - no matter what you’ve done, if you join the RCC are baptized and sincerely repent of your sins before death, you are saved, regardless of what horrible things you’ve done before that.
I don't mean to nit-pick, but the church doesn't claim to save anyone. It is Jesus Who claims to save. You aren't saved because you join a church, it is merely presumed that in joining you wish to follow God and repent of your sins.
You see, you had to include 'sincerely repent of your sins before death' and that proves you wrong. Anyone who sincerely repents of their sins can be saved regardless of what, if any, church they join.
Ultimately, if you repent, you are considered to have joined.
I will be back later to assess the rest of your post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Equinox, posted 03-15-2007 5:03 PM Equinox has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Equinox, posted 03-16-2007 3:02 PM anastasia has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024