Can God truly understand the human condition?

[prodigalson2011]

The purpose of the incarnation was to die for our sins. A perfect sinless sacrifice was needed to die for us. People just assumed God did it to understand man, no He did it to die for our sins, and His incarnation can be taken as a symbol to help us understand that God truly understands us. But God did not walk as man in human flesh to understand what it’s like to be human, He did it to die for our sins.

I think you’ve misunderstood me. I know that His purpose in the Incarnation was to make propitiation for our sins. I’m not suggesting that He came down just to see what it was like to be human. I am just asking whether, even though He became human, he can experience the kind of psychological/spiritual suffering that we do.

I don’t know, you’re working hard at trying to dumb Him down in order to make this assumption of yours work. This whole question does not work unless you dumb God down to the intellect of humans who have to experience something in order to understand it. You have to dumb God down in order to even ponder this question. I can’t get past that.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the term “understand” was probably a poor choice on my part. My question is whether God can empathize with our condition. In other words, is it logically possible for God to somehow experience the kinds of spiritual darkness that we do for Himself?

Understanding something and experiencing it are, as I doubt many would argue, two entirely different things. I hope that makes my intentions clearer.

 

[prodigalson2011]

The very reason I left the church is that I find such sentiments are no longer tenable, if not outright dishonest. And I can find nothing ‘demonstrated’ by the catholic church to change my mind. The purpose and Promise of the Incarnation, to overcome evil has not happened.

Actually, the purpose and promise of the Incarnation was to overcome death, i.e. eternal separation from God. Christ came to open the gates of Heaven to those who would follow Him, not to relieve men of the burden of free will.

Evil finds expression through man. So any insight to overthrow evil must also be moral insight into the human condition. And the church offers no such insight with the potential to realize the Promise.

Umm, the Church offers plenty of moral insight into the human condition. Have you ever read the Catechism? Aquinas? Augustine? If the Church didn’t offer insight into the path to holiness, we wouldn’t have so many Saints! St. Francis, St. Maximilian Kolbe, thousands upon thousands of holy men and women.

So long the potential for evil, self evidently remains a part of human nature, I find it implausible that we are ‘created’ in the image of God.

Saying that we are created in the image of God means simply that we have been endowed with rational souls (intellect) and free will. It does not mean that we are perfect. As Aquinas teaches, there can only be one thing that is truly perfect and that is God. If there were other perfect things, they would be indistiguishable from God and thus not really other things at all.

Now, all other things being imperfect, they are necessarily corruptible–whether physically, mentally or morally. Nevertheless, having rational souls, we can choose whether to pursue perfection (and thus union with God) or degradation (sin and, ultimately, separation from God [Hell]),

And so long as the ‘church’ or any religious claim is unable to offer the means to realize the Promise of the Incarnation, I must doubt that church or claim is of God. ‘Creatures’ we are, of God, not likely!

As indicated earlier in my reply, your concept of “the Promise of the Incarnation” is not the true promise at all. Perhaps that is what you would like it to be, but it is a sentiment that is refuted by Christ Himself when he said, “In this life you will have trials and tribulations…”

Your version of Christianity renders incomprehensible such things as Christ’s promised return and judgment upon the world, the separating of the sheep (the elect) and the goats (the damned.) Or His promise to His disciples that they would be persecuted and even killed for preaching His gospel.

Remember, Christ said that He (and thus His Church) would bring division, not peace, into the world, because “men prefer darkness to light.” All of this language indicates that Christ was well aware that sin and evil would persist long after He died.

Anyway, this is getting way off the topic of the thread. But I hope the information I have provided will be enough to make you reconsider your abandonment of the Church Christ founded for you.

Peace be with you.

 

[grannymh]

Actually, the purpose and promise of the Incarnation was to overcome death, i.e. eternal separation from God. Christ came to open the gates of Heaven to those who would follow Him, not to relieve men of the burden of free will.

Umm, the Church offers plenty of moral insight into the human condition. Have you ever read the Catechism? Aquinas? Augustine? If the Church didn’t offer insight into the path to holiness, we wouldn’t have so many Saints! St. Francis, St. Maximilian Kolbe, thousands upon thousands of holy men and women.

Saying that we are created in the image of God means simply that we have been endowed with rational souls (intellect) and free will. It does not mean that we are perfect. As Aquinas teaches, there can only be one thing that is truly perfect and that is God. If there were other perfect things, they would be indistiguishable from God and thus not really other things at all.

** snip**

As indicated earlier in my reply, your concept of “the Promise of the Incarnation” is not the true promise at all. Perhaps that is what you would like it to be, but it is a sentiment that is refuted by Christ Himself when he said, “In this life you will have trials and tribulations…”

Your version of Christianity renders incomprehensible such things as Christ’s promised return and judgment upon the world, the separating of the sheep (the elect) and the goats (the damned.) Or His promise to His disciples that they would be persecuted and even killed for preaching His gospel.

Remember, Christ said that He (and thus His Church) would bring division, not peace, into the world, because “men prefer darkness to light.” All of this language indicates that Christ was well aware that sin and evil would persist long after He died.

Anyway, this is getting way off the topic of the thread. But I hope the information I have provided will be enough to make you reconsider your abandonment of the Church Christ founded for you.

Peace be with you.

Thank you. You have done a far better job answering RCCB than I would have done. You deserve this! :yeah_me:

 

[Aloysium]

. . . My question is whether God can empathize with our condition. In other words, is it logically possible for God to somehow experience the kinds of spiritual darkness that we do for Himself? . . .

Mat 27:46
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Psalm 22

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?
O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer,
and by night, but I find no rest.

Yet you are holy,
enthroned on the praisesa of Israel.
In you our fathers trusted;
they trusted, and you delivered them.
To you they cried and were rescued;
in you they trusted and were not put to shame.

But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by mankind and despised by the people.
All who see me mock me;
they make mouths at me; they wag their heads;
“He trusts in the LORD; let him deliver him;
let him rescue him, for he delights in him!”

Yet you are he who took me from the womb;
you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts.
On you was I cast from my birth,
and from my mother’s womb you have been my God.
Be not far from me,
for trouble is near,
and there is none to help. . . .

 

[fhansen]

The very reason I left the church is that I find such sentiments are no longer tenable, if not outright dishonest. And I can find nothing ‘demonstrated’ by the catholic church to change my mind. The purpose and Promise of the Incarnation, to overcome evil has not happened. Evil finds expression through man. So any insight to overthrow evil must also be moral insight into the human condition. And the church offers no such insight with the potential to realize the Promise.

The Church is the solution to overcoming evil-because the Church has the message-the only message-that can possibly work. The answer is that man must be reconciled with God so that the two may* commune*-as was originally intended, and as is the right and just order of the universe. When man and God commune, man willingly subjugated to God, united in will with Him, loving Him with his whole heart, soul, mind, and strength, then evil/sin is excluded; there’s no room for it. We must reverse, in ourselves, the decision Adam made, to extricate himself from obedience to, and therefore communion with, God, as we grow in knowledge of Him. That’s what we’re here for. And that knowledge is what Jesus came to give us, together with the grace to believe and be empowered by it.

 

[wmw]

Assuming that God was incarnated as human being BUT could not do sin shows that he could not understand human being since he could not understand the mental condition in which we perform sin for an advantage or pleasure. Tell a lie and save a life or avoid serious pain, such a pleasure!

I Bolded the word “could” in this the above quote because I think it’s being streched into something that isn’t true. Jesus was a human that could sin, but also could and did choose not to sin. Did Jesus experience every form of mental condition? No, but why should He have to?

 

[wmw]

More on Love being God. We do have to be careful about the understanding of what is true love and what is not. Here is a quote from Pope Benedict’s first Encyclical on God is Love after he has carefully made the definitions and types of love clear.

By contemplating the pierced side of Christ (cf. 19:37), we can understand the starting-point of this Encyclical Letter: “God is love” (1 Jn 4:8). It is there that this truth can be contemplated. It is from there that our definition of love must begin. …Jesus gave this act of oblation an enduring presence through his institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. He anticipated his death and resurrection by giving his disciples, in the bread and wine, his very self, his body and blood as the new manna (cf. Jn 6:31-33). The ancient world had dimly perceived that man’s real food—what truly nourishes him as man—is ultimately the Logos, eternal wisdom: this same Logos now truly becomes food for us—as love.

The food we need is Love; the Love that is Christ in the Eucharist.

 

[RCCB]

I do hope you are not considering human’s rationality a sentiment that is no longer tenable. I had hoped that readers would recognize one of human capabilities, that is, self-reflection which is needed to explore the human condition.

My apology for starting with what being in the “image of God” is not. However, that issue is important to this thread.

As far as the purpose of the Incarnation… Somehow, modern folks have some difficulties with multiple reasons. For example “evil”. The basic “evil so to speak” in relationship to the Incarnation was left in the dust years ago.

Because I am on my way out the door, may I suggest we continue our discussion later?

Self reflection is of course a prerequisite for any critical self scrutiny. And while ‘reason’ is often able to recognize problems, solutions demand an intellectual change of gear. And the limitations of reason are self evident everywhere. For example: 30 years on, 100 million dollars, 60 million infections and growing again and there is still no resolution to the AIDs virus

As for ‘evil’, debates on what is usually referred as the ‘Theodicy’ question speak for themselves and remain the religious Achilies heel. Even many christians cannot comprehend the failure of faith to effect that problem and offer only ‘apologies’ in defense. And the church itself, in the world wide sexual abuse scandals, are learning the hard way, the moral corruptions that ‘natural law’ are heir to.

And if our species, defined by a wanton materialism, cannot even muster the wisdom to defend the environment that sustains it, what does that say of reason or rationality? And if religion is supposed to provide the divine wisdom to be ‘stewards’ of our planet, something has obviously gone horribly wrong, not with God but with men!

If there was ever an ‘original’ spiritual state of man, in the image and likeness of God, that state must have been ‘created’ upon moral and spiritual insight yet unknown, yet to be revealed and which an all too human theology was/is unable to comprehend. And when it is, that should be the basis for a restoration, a judgement, a creation and true religion.

 

[RCCB]

Actually, the purpose and promise of the Incarnation was to overcome death, i.e. eternal separation from God. Christ came to open the gates of Heaven to those who would follow Him, not to relieve men of the burden of free will.

Umm, the Church offers plenty of moral insight into the human condition. Have you ever read the Catechism? Aquinas? Augustine? If the Church didn’t offer insight into the path to holiness, we wouldn’t have so many Saints! St. Francis, St. Maximilian Kolbe, thousands upon thousands of holy men and women.

Saying that we are created in the image of God means simply that we have been endowed with rational souls (intellect) and free will. It does not mean that we are perfect. As Aquinas teaches, there can only be one thing that is truly perfect and that is God. If there were other perfect things, they would be indistiguishable from God and thus not really other things at all.

Now, all other things being imperfect, they are necessarily corruptible–whether physically, mentally or morally. Nevertheless, having rational souls, we can choose whether to pursue perfection (and thus union with God) or degradation (sin and, ultimately, separation from God [Hell]),

As indicated earlier in my reply, your concept of “the Promise of the Incarnation” is not the true promise at all. Perhaps that is what you would like it to be, but it is a sentiment that is refuted by Christ Himself when he said, “In this life you will have trials and tribulations…”

Your version of Christianity renders incomprehensible such things as Christ’s promised return and judgment upon the world, the separating of the sheep (the elect) and the goats (the damned.) Or His promise to His disciples that they would be persecuted and even killed for preaching His gospel.

Remember, Christ said that He (and thus His Church) would bring division, not peace, into the world, because “men prefer darkness to light.” All of this language indicates that Christ was well aware that sin and evil would persist long after He died.

Anyway, this is getting way off the topic of the thread. But I hope the information I have provided will be enough to make you reconsider your abandonment of the Church Christ founded for you.

Peace be with you.

At a time in human history when the imperative for progresive change is self evident or should be, when the limitations of our knowledge and value base are proving inadequate to the demands of any future, every element of your reply does nothing but seek to sustain the existing status quo. And that status quo is what’s eroding to breaking point. I abandoned the church because it does not represent a solution to any of the threats facing humanity and the earth itself. It’s moral authority, if it ever had any, corrupted to near nothing by worldwide sexual abuse scandals and subservient to whatever poliical system will allow it to exist. I am thus unable to imagine that this all too human theological, institutional borg, preying on the hopes and aspirations of so many, has anything to do with God. And I’ll wait for His judgement!

 

[grannymh]

Self reflection is of course a prerequisite for any critical self scrutiny. And while ‘reason’ is often able to recognize problems, solutions demand an intellectual change of gear. And the limitations of reason are self evident everywhere. For example: 30 years on, 100 million dollars, 60 million infections and growing again and there is still no resolution to the AIDs virus

As for ‘evil’, debates on what is usually referred as the ‘Theodicy’ question speak for themselves and remain the religious Achilies heel. Even many christians cannot comprehend the failure of faith to effect that problem and offer only ‘apologies’ in defense. And the church itself, in the world wide sexual abuse scandals, are learning the hard way, the moral corruptions that ‘natural law’ are heir to.

And if our species, defined by a wanton materialism, cannot even muster the wisdom to defend the environment that sustains it, what does that say of reason or rationality? And if religion is supposed to provide the divine wisdom to be ‘stewards’ of our planet, something has obviously gone horribly wrong, not with God but with men!

If there was ever an ‘original’ spiritual state of man, in the image and likeness of God, that state must have been ‘created’ upon moral and spiritual insight yet unknown, yet to be revealed and which an all too human theology was/is unable to comprehend. And when it is, that should be the basis for a restoration, a judgement, a creation and true religion.

First, I have been out of the philosophical loop ever since I dismissed the philosopher who could not figure out if he existed and/or why he existed. Plus, being older than dirt, this cranky (feminine of snarky) granny is a bit on the slow side. Thus, I hope you will understand that I am a tad overwhelmed by all the non sequiturs in post 107.

It looks to me that there is not a reasonable definition of the human species. Could it be that there is a conflation of human condition and human nature? That certainly could be the cause of non sequiturs. How could one, human or divine, be expected to understand the human condition if one does not have a sound explanation for human nature?

Personally, whether or not one accepts the Catholic Church is not my point of discussion. I simply prefer that one becomes aware of the actual teachings of the Catholic Church. When one is aware of the nitty-gritty of Catholicism, then one is capable of making an informed choice.

My apology for shifting away from the content of post 107. If possible, could you choose one item for discussion? And I shall do my best to respond since you now know what is my base for analytical thinking.

 

[prodigalson2011]

At a time in human history when the imperative for progresive change is self evident or should be,

Define “progressive change.” This is usually a code word for “the acceptance of secular hedonistic social policies.” What is so imperative? The acceptance of gay marriage? Contraception?

I can only imagine it’s something in such a realm, as the Church’s teachings on true social justice are incredibly balanced, with a “preferential option for the poor,” as our current pope is fond of saying. In other words, it’s ultimate goal is the best possible society for everybody. Hillaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterton actually developed a political system based on Catholic social teaching which they dubbed “Distributism,” which has never been tried.

But again, I have no idea what you’re really talking about because you won’t come out and say it.

when the limitations of our knowledge and value base are proving inadequate to the demands of any future, every element of your reply does nothing but seek to sustain the existing status quo. And that status quo is what’s eroding to breaking point.

That’s a nice ad hominem, but that aside, Catholic doctrine is hardly the “status quo” any more, nor has it been for some time. In fact, the vast majority of the quandaries facing humanity today have come about precisely as a result of the secular revolution.

I abandoned the church because it does not represent a solution to any of the threats facing humanity and the earth itself.

Such as, what? Nuclear war? Poverty? You speak in vague generalities. Your tirade has all the markings of having an ulterior motive. What are you REALLY angry at the Church about?

It’s moral authority, if it ever had any, corrupted to near nothing by worldwide sexual abuse scandals and subservient to whatever poliical system will allow it to exist.

The moral authority of the Church does not stem from its individual members, even priests and clergy. Its moral authority comes from its founder whose teachings it propounds. Not to diminish the gravity of the abuse scandal, but speaking in terms of percentages, the number of priests implicated in said scandal accounted for about 1% of the clergy. Of course, even one is one too many, but priests are human, and abuse is a human problem, not a Church problem. Nevertheless, again, the moral authority of the Church does not derive from the moral perfection of its members, but of its founder.

As to your second remark, it’s (pardon the pun) remarkably ignorant. The Vatican, which is the geographical “heart” of the Catholic Church, is a sovereign nation. While the institutional Church in any given country may or may not be subservient to the political system in which it finds itself, the fact of the matter remains that the teachings of the Church have always been and will remain unaltered.

Furthermore, the Catholic Church has resisted many oppressive political systems. Even today, many Church leaders in America are risking much in opposition to the HHS Mandate. Look at the Catholic Church in Poland during WWII; look at the many brave priests and bishops who stood up against Hitler in Germany (and many of whom died in concentration camps as a result.)

I am thus unable to imagine that this all too human theological, institutional borg, preying on the hopes and aspirations of so many, has anything to do with God. And I’ll wait for His judgement!

More ad hominems without any data to back them up. If you have an ax to grind, let’s see the blade.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

At a time in human history when the imperative for progresive change is self evident or should be, when the limitations of our knowledge and value base are proving inadequate to the demands of any future, every element of your reply does nothing but seek to sustain the existing status quo. And that status quo is what’s eroding to breaking point. I abandoned the church because it does not represent a solution to any of the threats facing humanity and the earth itself. It’s moral authority, if it ever had any, corrupted to near nothing by worldwide sexual abuse scandals and subservient to whatever poliical system will allow it to exist. I am thus unable to imagine that this all too human theological, institutional borg, preying on the hopes and aspirations of so many, has anything to do with God. And I’ll wait for His judgement!

If you left the Church for reasons stated above, then you left for the wrong reasons. Christ never promised us a " Rose Garden " in which we would sit around and sing Kumbya all day. He warned that we would suffer. He warned that the Wolves would remain in our midst. He came to save the sheep not the Wolves.

Your hope that " progressivism " is the savior of mankind is a vain hope indeed. Christ laid out the plan of salvation, but he warned our battle would be with Principalities and Powers, a spiritual combat that can be won only through the power of His grace.

But not many have responded. If there is to be some material redemption for the world it will not be through " progressivism " or any other " …ism…" It will only be achieved through the action of a critical mass of souls living in the State of Grace.

Sin darkens the intellect and weakens the will. As long as the critical mass remains in darkness there will never be a material redemption for the world. And even were it otherwise Christ knew that too much material redemption would be bad for mankind, so, even then. only a moderate degree of material redemption will ever be possible - there will always be suffering of some sort to be born by all.

You see Christ knows all about us and our natures. He knows what is good for us and what is bad for us. He created us in His image, but that image is only a reflection. Everything He has made is good, in so far as it fulfills the possible perfections of its nature. In so far as it falls short it is bad, and in the case of man, evil.

This week we celebrate the feast of the English martyrs. It is upon these men and women and the thousand upon thousands like them that the possible enlightenment of mankind depends. Not only spiritual enlightenment but the intellectual as well. For upon the one depends on the other. So instead of cursing the darkness, we need to stand in the light. Those who give up have no one but themselves to blame for the condition of the world.

Linus2nd

 

[fhansen]

It’s moral authority, if it ever had any, corrupted to near nothing by worldwide sexual abuse scandals and subservient to whatever poliical system will allow it to exist. I am thus unable to imagine that this all too human theological, institutional borg, preying on the hopes and aspirations of so many, has anything to do with God. And I’ll wait for His judgement!

What’s ironic about this statement is that sexual abuse by priests, or anyone else for that matter, come about precisely because they disregard the moral authority of the Church, adopting secular or personal moralities instead. When we take Church teachings on Original Sin seriously, the doctrine provides a sound explanation for what plagues man- the sin/moral evil that continues to rear its ugly head. And without addressing the “problem” of death, the specter that works behind the scenes to undermine and mock hope and the thought of any real purpose to life, then any other philosophical system is pretty much futile anyway. And the Church, of course, just happens to have the answer for that problem as well. Sin and death are the enemies that confront us. Oh well.

 

[cheezey]

That was only one moment of His life. But His overall experience of the human condition was fundamentally different from ours. He didn’t have to worry about life after death and was able to live His 33 years in calm with the knowledge that it was all worth it. There was no existential angst, identity issues, or psychological strain which defines the human condition. In fact, His life and death trivialised these things.

Calm?

He sweated blood in His terror and anguish and begged not to have to go through His passion for crying out loud - you can’t get more agonised or uncertain than that.

I am just starting to read this thread, but calm?

As for the rest, I’ll leave it to those who are better versed to debate.
Carry on.

 

[fhansen]

That was only one moment of His life. But His overall experience of the human condition was fundamentally different from ours. He didn’t have to worry about life after death and was able to live His 33 years in calm with the knowledge that it was all worth it. There was no existential angst, identity issues, or psychological strain which defines the human condition. In fact, His life and death trivialised these things.

Far from trivializing those things, Jesus gave reason and the means to overcome and/or gain insight into the truth regarding the human condition. But His words apply here as in many cases:
’We played the pipe for you, and you didn’t dance; we sang a dirge, and you didn’t mourn.’ Matt 11:17

God doesn’t need to dance to our tune-we don’t need to constantly second-guess what He should or shouldn’t have done; He has things well in hand as they are.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Far from trivializing those things, Jesus gave reason and the means to overcome and/or gain insight into the truth regarding the human condition. But His words apply here as in many cases:
’We played the pipe for you, and you didn’t dance; we sang a dirge, and you didn’t mourn.’ Matt 11:17

God doesn’t need to dance to our tune-we don’t need to constantly second-guess what He should or shouldn’t have done; He has things well in hand as they are.

Precisely, those who " jump ship " just have not danced, nor have they sang. In short they have plugged their ears.

Linus2nd

 

[simpleas]

I read some of the replies to this question, not all.

We are talking about an all knowing creator are we not? The very one who knew all that would happen to our earth and the human creatures and animals that God created?
So why would God not truly understand his creation?
God is beyond our human understanding.
I believe we can’t ever fully understand anothers life experience unless we have gone through something similar, but we can empathise. We can grow in knowledge if we allow ourselves to.
To me God already knows everything about what we are, its us that can refuse to understand the human condition, and then in turn think that God might not be able to either…

 

[grannymh]

Saying that we are created in the image of God means simply that we have been endowed with rational souls (intellect) and free will. It does not mean that we are perfect. As Aquinas teaches, there can only be one thing that is truly perfect and that is God. If there were other perfect things, they would be indistiguishable from God and thus not really other things at all.

Now, all other things being imperfect, they are necessarily corruptible–whether physically, mentally or morally. Nevertheless, having rational souls, we can choose whether to pursue perfection (and thus union with God) or degradation (sin and, ultimately, separation from God [Hell]),

In my old neighborhood, there was this saying. “If at first, you don’t succeed, try second base.”

Granted, God alone is true perfection. Yet, we cannot ignore the fact that the term “perfect” is often applied to earthly items. God is first. Yet, we can still learn something about God from earthly creation. “Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through His works, by the light of human reason, even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error.” (CCC, 286)

God is the first level of being. Yet, we should explore the second level, or base, which consists of creatures. The human creature is rather complicated so let’s start with the animal kingdom.

Here is a question for you to consider. What makes a Border Collie a perfect dog?

 

[RCCB]

If you left the Church for reasons stated above, then you left for the wrong reasons. Christ never promised us a " Rose Garden " in which we would sit around and sing Kumbya all day. He warned that we would suffer. He warned that the Wolves would remain in our midst. He came to save the sheep not the Wolves.

Your hope that " progressivism " is the savior of mankind is a vain hope indeed. Christ laid out the plan of salvation, but he warned our battle would be with Principalities and Powers, a spiritual combat that can be won only through the power of His grace.

But not many have responded. If there is to be some material redemption for the world it will not be through " progressivism " or any other " …ism…" It will only be achieved through the action of a critical mass of souls living in the State of Grace.

Sin darkens the intellect and weakens the will. As long as the critical mass remains in darkness there will never be a material redemption for the world. And even were it otherwise Christ knew that too much material redemption would be bad for mankind, so, even then. only a moderate degree of material redemption will ever be possible - there will always be suffering of some sort to be born by all.

You see Christ knows all about us and our natures. He knows what is good for us and what is bad for us. He created us in His image, but that image is only a reflection. Everything He has made is good, in so far as it fulfills the possible perfections of its nature. In so far as it falls short it is bad, and in the case of man, evil.

Linus2nd

1. "Christ never promised us a Rose Garden " But he did Promise a Kingdom of justice and that Kingdom has yet to be established by any teaching of the ‘church’. Nor has the church the authority to see any of its social teachings realized on their own merit, nor by the will of God. Christianity exists subservient to secular political realities, so it must play politics where ever it can get away with it to affirm it’s self proclaimed role.
2. “He created us in His image” Probably the most comforting illusion religion has yet contrived but still an illusion non the less.
3. “Material redemption” must be the strangest idea I have yet to hear from anyone.
4. While " progressivism " is an easy catch phrase, my meaning is that the church is without the authority to either define or act as the catalyst for any progressive moral change; mIred in it’s own corruption of pedophile priests and banking scandal. If Christ came to establish a Kingdom of justice on earth, that has yet to happen. What God would leave His true servants without the means to realize his Will?
5. “You see Christ knows all about us and our natures. He knows what is good for us and what is bad for us.” I am counting on that very fact to be well and true, but existing religious traditions, claiming to speak in that name, do not!

 

[Jafar]

Ofcourse he does

read this

Psalm 94:9

but he understands things not the way we do

Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;