A
Answersplease
Guest
- Status
R
R_Daneel
Guest
Just an advice. Don’t put your text into a quote box. Makes it awkward to quote it back. Of course, you do whatever you prefer. No, you did not answer anything. You stated that God is love, which is a meaningless statement. That is not an answer, no matter how hard you think it is, and no matter what the Bible might say. The Bible is not relevant when talking to an atheist.
C
crazzeto
Guest
He, of course, was quoting him self from an earlier post… The purpose is to indicate that his earlier comment is still true
R
rwillenborg
Guest
You’ve clearly already made your decision. I find this unfortunate, because it seems like your understanding of Catholic doctrine is incomplete. I am always in favor of people using all available information before making up their minds. So, again, I find this simply unfortunate.
Your post goes in many directions, none of which seem to relate to your OP, and I would like to chat with you in depth about each one, and I suggest you start a thread on each of them. I think you will get better responses, but I can respond in general I hope without derailing your thread. I don’t know why you have elected not to stay on your topic, I found it to be a good one, but so be it.
You stated that it seems to be that the church does not admit that she does not know anything. This is false. Church documents talk very often about what is unknown. The church is very explicit in saying what they don’t know. We don’t know the state of your soul, we don’t know the mind of God, we don’t know who is in hell, we don’t know how the mystery of the incarnation works, we don’t know exactly what heaven will be like, we don’t know how exactly the universe was created (only that it was created ex nihilo and entirely by God), we don’t know when the end will come. My word, I could go on and on. You call this wishy-washy. I call it being honest.
The church is ALWAYS stressing exactly how MUCH she does not know. I’m surprised that you seem to think the church takes a position that they seem to know so much, when, upon reading church documents, I think it’s quite obvious that the church very much limits herself on exactly what she does, and what she can ever know. You say you doubt such an admission would come forth any time soon, but such an admission already has come from the church, and it has been that way since the beginning. I provided for you as an example the items listed above (which is really all just from top of mind, there’s much more) of the many, many things on which the church says ‘We haven’t a clue’.
And the church does know SOMETHING. They are also very clear on that. Which takes me to your second point. You state that the cathechism is supposed to be the final word. Again, I’m afraid your understanding is incomplete. Though the Cathechism reflects authentic catholic teaching, it does not include ALL Catholic teaching, nor does it include proofs, nor the stories of the saints, nor ffull Church history, nor a recipe for fruitcake. Do you wonder why the phone book doesn’t have Shakespeare in it? My point is, you are trying to glean information from a source which never claimed to have that information. That must be very frustrating for you.
The Catholic Church is TWO THOUSAND YEARS OLD and over that time many Catholic theologians and saints have provided their proofs for God. Certainly you don’t expect the Catholic Church to bind that, and all of their other proofs for everything else, into one volume? My goodness, I don’t think a TRUCK could lift that book! You could probably trust that, by reading the proofs provided by the doctors of the church, and Thomas Aquinas specifically, you will have an understanding of the reasoning by which the church comes to understand the existence of God. In other words, the information is there. You can probably get at least Aquinas at your local library. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle all argued for the existence of a primary god (though not necessariliy with all of the same qualities of the Abrahamic god) and they did it all through reason alone. Should the cathechism list all of their works, too? Many philosophers have argued the existence of god (or gods) from reason alone, many non-christian. The church trusts that you can go do the legwork yourself and read the proofs without them feeding it to you.
In addition, the church does not present these proofs as their own nor do they present them as being infallable, so why should they include them in the cathechism? I think it’s safe to conclude that, since people HAVE used reason to conclude that God exists, that it’s not such a stretch to state that God’s existence can be known through rational means only, since it’s already happened time and time again.cont
R
rwillenborg
Guest
You bring up the question of no salvation outside the church. This is a very involved doctrine. What is meant by the church? What is meant by salvation? Indeed, that is not only its own topic, but its own tome. I’m afraid I couldn’t do it any justice. I have some resources for you from people much smarter than me. though I understand the church’s position, I’m afraid your conclusion is, again, erronious. You might want to start your own new thread on this. This is a very nuanced teaching, and there is alot of ground to cover there. here, though, are a few places to get you started.
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512fea3.asp
catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0403sbs.asp
(There’s TONS more where that came from. Just google no salvation outside the church on this site. At the end of the articles, too, they often have source documents, and you can find those and look at the real source of the information.)
And lastly you state that there is a ‘priveldged status’ to being Catholic. If Catholics are priveldged, you might want to clue them in on it. The ones I know don’t consider themselves to be so and neither would I. And, who, exactly, is living under the Catholic theocracy you mention? Where is this Catholic theocracy?
I’m afraid I’m not quite sure what you are talking about.Are you concerned about the 800 people who live at vatican city? Is that the theocracy you are talking about? You understand that citizenship there is granted only to those who have received an appointment to work there, so I would think if one did not want to live under the theocracy of vatican city, one simply would not apply for a job there. Aside from the papal swiss guard, actually, I’m not sure how many lay people live there. Maybe a few dozen? Are you really so concerned about their welfare? A quick bus ride will get them to Rome.
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512fea3.asp
catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0403sbs.asp
(There’s TONS more where that came from. Just google no salvation outside the church on this site. At the end of the articles, too, they often have source documents, and you can find those and look at the real source of the information.)
And lastly you state that there is a ‘priveldged status’ to being Catholic. If Catholics are priveldged, you might want to clue them in on it. The ones I know don’t consider themselves to be so and neither would I. And, who, exactly, is living under the Catholic theocracy you mention? Where is this Catholic theocracy?
I’m afraid I’m not quite sure what you are talking about.Are you concerned about the 800 people who live at vatican city? Is that the theocracy you are talking about? You understand that citizenship there is granted only to those who have received an appointment to work there, so I would think if one did not want to live under the theocracy of vatican city, one simply would not apply for a job there. Aside from the papal swiss guard, actually, I’m not sure how many lay people live there. Maybe a few dozen? Are you really so concerned about their welfare? A quick bus ride will get them to Rome.
E
Eklecktika
Guest
S
slywakka250
Guest
I haven’t read through the whole thread yet.
R Daneel, your first post brings up some important issues.
I for one, do wish I had died before reaching an age of reason, and perhaps abortion would have been one of the easier ways for me to die, especially if it was quite early, I might not have felt much at all, and the Church would be giving me lots of prayers, and hoping earnestly for my salvation. I would happily take the “low-level” heaven if thats what I would have gotten.
I think those who are aborted or killed right after baptism or confession, etc. are getting a good deal, if this means they avoid hell.
I don’t think however that this makes abortion or murder right because if the Catholic Church is right about the existence of God and heaven and hell, then the Catholic Church is likely also right about the evil of abortion. you can’t really pick and choose here, but I do see the inconsistency of Church teaching, when it comes to killing one in the state of Grace. If the pain could be minimized, and I could somehow have it happen to me without any guilt being attributed to me for the murder, I’d very much wish it to happen so I can avoid hell…
R Daneel, your first post brings up some important issues.
I for one, do wish I had died before reaching an age of reason, and perhaps abortion would have been one of the easier ways for me to die, especially if it was quite early, I might not have felt much at all, and the Church would be giving me lots of prayers, and hoping earnestly for my salvation. I would happily take the “low-level” heaven if thats what I would have gotten.
I think those who are aborted or killed right after baptism or confession, etc. are getting a good deal, if this means they avoid hell.
I don’t think however that this makes abortion or murder right because if the Catholic Church is right about the existence of God and heaven and hell, then the Catholic Church is likely also right about the evil of abortion. you can’t really pick and choose here, but I do see the inconsistency of Church teaching, when it comes to killing one in the state of Grace. If the pain could be minimized, and I could somehow have it happen to me without any guilt being attributed to me for the murder, I’d very much wish it to happen so I can avoid hell…
E
EphelDuath
Guest
The Spanish Inquisition, the one known for its killings, was entirely under the control of the Spanish monarchy; the Pope even requested that they be less violent in their means, but was promptly ignored.
The Church does not make an infallible statement on this one matter, because it is entirely irrelevant to morality. As I said, you could never know the answer to this and it wouldn’t affect your salvation either way.
Already answered this.
You don’t know the meaning of the phrase “no salvation outside the Church.” Look it up in the Catechism.
The concept of invincible ignorance has existed much longer than you think it has.
Once more: I ask again why you selectively respond to posts you can easily nitpick and not the ones that actually logically refute your positions – and then you continue to claim that Catholic beliefs are logically fallacious and you’ve simply demonstrated it.
God bless.
N
NoAvailableName
Guest
I’ve never made that claim and while others might have, you’re way off topic from your original post.
Let’s say we grant your assumptions that the Church must have a teaching on where the souls of the unborn go and that the teaching should be they go to some lesser heaven. Now I agree with others that you haven’t shown either of those two premises to be true, but I’ll assume for the moment they are true.
Now lets look at a specific example. 100 fetuses are killed. 99 of them would have gone to hell. The 100th would have been a great person with rich rewards in heaven. Instead, all 100 of them are now going to some lesser heaven. So the 99 who would have rightly deserved punishment no longer received what they deserved, and the 100th who should have received great rewards no longer received those rewards. So explain how this is considered a good thing? I would rather let the 100 live out life and receive what they actually deserve rather than what you or someone else would like to force upon them (granting your assumption that you can force God to send them to heaven if you kill them).
B
Betterave
Guest
I think Eklecktica did a very nice job of presenting what the argument is about and your reply showed that you don’t understand Pascal’s argument and didn’t read E’s post very carefully - so the fact that you don’t think the reasoning is sound seems to be pretty baseless. We should all try to understand others’ arguments, before thinking we have any right to dismiss them.
That said, I do think it is an argument that is very much worth considering, especially in conjunction with James’ “Will to Believe.” Would you like to discuss it in a new thread? You could start with telling us what the argument is and why the reasoning is unsound.
S
slywakka250
Guest
Do you doubt these premises? Do you think the souls of the unborn actually go to hell? If that were the case then I’ll give up the Catholic faith completely right now, as that is supremely unjust and arbitrary for God to send these poor souls to hell before they are even close to making moral choices.
really?, if you knew beforehand that 99 would have gone to hell, and knew this with certainty as this example claims (though in reality we can not know with certainty), you would let hell happen to these poor 99?
Let’s they lived and I knew about this little experiment. and I went and visited all 99 during their lifetimes, telling them of their certain damnation, and clearly demonstrating the certainty of this damnation beyond all doubt.
Surely these 99 would beg me for some way that their fate could have been avoided, and then I will tell them what you did by letting them live, and damning them to hell as you have done by allowing those certain to go to hell, to live out their lives, instead of jumping into heaven had they been killed right away.
btw, this is close to what God actually does, though he does give us free will to make the choice ourselves, he does know the final outcome, and allow us to live it out anyway. if only someone would kill us in the state of Grace…
C
crazzeto
Guest
I My answer to you is, can you prove otherwise? Moreover, even if the assuption that they make it to heaven is correct, in what way would this fact change the intrinsically evil nature of murder?
If we accept this logic, then anyone who murders in cold blood a person who was in a state of grace should be found not guilty of murder. Should we be interviewing priests and relitives to make our best determination as to whether someone was in a state of grace when they were brutally murdered by the perpetrator? And if they were, declare the murderer innocent even if the facts of the case say otherwise?
N
NoAvailableName
Guest
Maybe some go to heaven and some go to hell. Maybe all go to heaven. Maybe all go to hell. Maybe some or all cease to exist entirely. I don’t know and neither do you.
God is much smarter and more just than either of us. I have no idea what God does with them, but I’m sure it is just. I’m sure if you watched a grandmaster play chess you would find many of their moves irrational, not because they are wrong but because you don’t understand them. God need not conform to your sense if justice anymore than a grandmaster should defer to you in deciding what moves to play.
Yes, I trust God. And why are you calling them poor? Could they not have chosen to live like the other one? So yes let them live out their life and receive the fate they deserve.
So basically you find fault with God, that he should dare punish those deserving punishment. Their fate is their own fault, not mine or God’s.
You are likely far from the kingdom. Rather than wishing for death, why don’t you instead seek to serve and do the will of God? You have been given a gift, not a burden.
S
slywakka250
Guest
What is there to prove? you seem to be saying you think they could go to hell. how would you feel if you had been aborted, and found yourself in hell?? would you praise God for his divine providence and his just judgement in hell for all eternity? you might want to but the Church clearly teaches there is no worshiping of God whatsoever in hell, only pure suffering and torture, you get nothing of God. I think a God who allows for this situation is not worthy of worship, and I will go to hell to prove my point and protest his unjust ways in hope I can someday overthrow God, as this unjust way of doing things is a flaw in his perfection no doubt.
Which is worse, hell of being killed by a murderer??
The person murdered can’t live out his earthly life, but what does that matter when the “true live” is in heaven with God, the loss of earthly life pales tremendously in comparison to the loss of eternal life if there was any chance whatsoever this soul may have gone to hell.
yes I would think so, the problem is this just doesn’t work cause we can’t determine beyond reasonable doubt if someone really is in the state of Grace, or if God even exists to begin with, so this would not really work in our legal system. But if we could determine with certainty then yes the murderer is a hero.
So we should probably play it safe and not allow murder, and allow each person to live their full life and work out their salvation on their own terms.
C
crazzeto
Guest
@slywakka250,
Murder is always wrong regardless of whether or not the individual is in a state of grace. Beleive me, when that murderer is judged by God the question as to whether the victem was in a state of grace just isn’t going to come up. Thou shalt not kill… Pretty simple.
Murder is always wrong regardless of whether or not the individual is in a state of grace. Beleive me, when that murderer is judged by God the question as to whether the victem was in a state of grace just isn’t going to come up. Thou shalt not kill… Pretty simple.
N
NoAvailableName
Guest
slywakka250, instead of hoping for death at an opportune time, why don’t you get on with the business that God calls us to? Otherwise, death at any time will be inopportune.
Matthew 25
24 Then the one who had received the one talent came and said, ‘Sir, I knew that you were a hard man, harvesting where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed, 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.’ 26 But his master answered, ‘Evil and lazy slave! So you knew that I harvest where I didn’t sow and gather where I didn’t scatter? 27 Then you should have deposited my money with the bankers, and on my return I would have received my money back with interest!
Matthew 25
24 Then the one who had received the one talent came and said, ‘Sir, I knew that you were a hard man, harvesting where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed, 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.’ 26 But his master answered, ‘Evil and lazy slave! So you knew that I harvest where I didn’t sow and gather where I didn’t scatter? 27 Then you should have deposited my money with the bankers, and on my return I would have received my money back with interest!
B
Betterave
Guest
“Which is worse…”? In what sense? You’re trying to compare apples and oranges here, it seems.
Please note that if ‘hell’ is just being used as a catch-all term for ‘exclusion from the beatific vision’ (to me that seems to be the appropriate reading for the way you’re using it), it need not be “pure suffering and torture” - unless that’s what you think life on earth is.
And there is nothing unjust about excluding someone who has not done anything (good or bad) from the beatific vision.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
No, it wasn’t.
You completely misunderstand the concept of original sin. You’ve been arguing with a strawman this entire thread.Looks like you don’t take the concept of “original sin” seriously.
Furthermore, that’s really irrelevant because a newborn child could be baptised before sinning anyway and then would be completely sinless. So you’re just flat out wrong.
S
Sarpedon
Guest
Would you mind addressing my “voice,” for whatever it is worth, in posts 117, 120 and 123? I’m not sure I completely understand your position.
B
Betterave
Guest
Is is possible you don’t understand RD’s position because it’s a profoundly ill-informed and illogical position (i.e., it’s not inherently understandable)? That might be why RD never acknowledges when his claims have been clearly refuted and instead just changes the subject, perhaps without even realizing it.
- Status