Did God Have Control over the Effects of Original Sin?

[Mystophilus]

clarkal:

It’s in Luke 19, and it’s referred to as the parable of the Ten Minas: “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.” Yes, it’s a parable, and knowing this, I said even doing something “comparable” would seem tyrannical.

It’s an interesting reading, but it forces me to ask whether writing Lolita made Vladimir Nabokov a pedophile, or writing Dracula made Bram Stoker a vampire. I would suggest that the story is a story, and that the author is not one of the characters, nor does s/he validate their actions merely by narrating them. Jesus was a determined pacifist who even admonished Peter when the disciple used a sword to defend his teacher (John 18:10-11; Matthew 26:51-2).

(Jesus on social reform) If he had said something – which could’ve been done very easily – imagine all the oppression he would have probably eliminated. It’s a major mistake, I think.

That is one way of reading it, but there are some other things which, I think, might be worth considering.

Could Jesus, acting as a human, have done more to eliminate oppression at the time? He certainly gave the believers all that they needed to reach the necessary conclusions, and they already had the OT, which is replete with injunctions against oppression, and Jesus took those upon himself (see, e.g., Luke 4:18-9). In so doing, he created a slow, peaceful cultural movement rather than a more rapid, bloody political one: just consider what happened when the US government decided to abolish slavery among the people already under its own power, and also the Jewish Revolt in 66-70 CE, which was put down in a typically final Roman fashion, or the Roman Senate’s immense hostility towards Constantine’s conversion more than two hundred years later. Personally, I can think of no better method of social reform than the one which he employed.

Eventually, it was the Christians (especially the Quakers and Evangelicals) who were instrumental in banning the British slave trade, which then led to the reform in the US, the mishandled application of which resulted in so many deaths. It worked; the humans involved just took a long time about it.

(Paul as an instrument of God) There goes my orthodoxy alarm! But that’s cool. I understand and respect your beliefs very much. I think they are highly rational and enlightened.

What will it do for your orthodoxy alarm when you hear that I regard you as an instrument of God? Believing in an omnipotent God, I am monistic: everything descends from One.

(Doctrine as source of salvation)
I’m not sure I understand what you mean here. Mind explainin’?

The apparent obscurity of some of Jesus’ comments is only a relevant issue for the saving of a soul if doctrinal orthodoxy is the basis of salvation. I cannot imagine that God cares what name we give God. Instead, I think that it is far more important what we do with what we have. Again, I can support this from the text, but most churches will disagree with me, and I suppose that this is only natural because they want to keep their members.

Regarding clarity of expression, I think that we should also consider the idea of koan, e.g., “What is the sound of one hand clapping?” Rather than necessarily making a point only in the literal understanding of the words themselves, they make a point by rearranging the audience’s understanding. Having done that, any disciple who was sufficiently confused need only return to the basis of the Two Greatest Commandments: Love.

I’m sure if I gave reasons to support my conclusion, some people would more than enjoy disagreeing with lil o’ me.

Allow me to assure you right now that I shall certainly disagree with everything that I ever hear you (or anyone) ever say which does not make perfect sense to me, but also that I do this simply in order to find out what is right. I have questioned quite a few of the things that you have said here, because I am not sure that they are necessarily the only or the best reading of the data. I am not going to say that you are wrong, because my epistemology does not allow me to claim that I am right, but I do have a strong tendency towards doubt.

 

[clarkal]

Mystophilus:

I didn’t, but I have now read it and it was quite interesting, especially his reaction to Daoism.

Where the DDJ affects the OP is that it presents a monistic system without a god per se. Thus, there is the Dao (the way/path/pattern; it does not translate well), from which all else is derived, and which is ineffable. There is no sin, and there is the Dao which “controls”(not an accurate explanation) everything inasmuch as it is the “Principle”(not an accurate explanation): a very different take on the idea of Original Sin. However, I cannot explain this adequately, and neither can anyone else. From the beginning, the DDJ refutes the accuracy of mere words, and so either you get it, or you don’t, but it is definitely worth reading.

Interesting…

Mystophilus:

Why, may I ask?

Sure, you may. I have a respect for the truth. I think that it is precious in this world, and if you find it, then you must hang on to it with all one’s might, regardless of whether it is uncomfortable or inconvenient. If I didn’t do this, I would feel lost at sea. It helps me stay sane in an insane world. If I were dishonest with my self, I think that this could have a bad effect on who I am. I would be living a lie and not experiencing the world as it truly is – or how I think it is. And it certainly wouldn’t make me feel good about myself at the end of the day. It makes me sick to my stomach even to imagine myself living like this.

But untruths or ignorance of the truth in general are damaging to people and society in countless ways. I think people suffer more from untruths and ignorance than for any one truth – medically, financially, spiritually, intellectually, on and on.

Of course, I hate pious fraud with a passion. Is one’s religion’s foundation so thin that one must *lie and deceive *people in to believing it? That’s really sad. And the end does not justify the means in Catholicism, so I do not know how these people justify
lying.

If Pauline Martin, sister of St. Therese of Lisieux, can lie and obscure the truth like she did with Therese’s manuscripts and photos, I don’t know whom to trust. I mean, if you can’t trust a nun, whom can you trust?

 

[clarkal]

Mystophilus:

It’s an interesting reading, but it forces me to ask whether writing Lolita made Vladimir Nabokov a pedophile, or writing Dracula made Bram Stoker a vampire. I would suggest that the story is a story, and that the author is not one of the characters, nor does s/he validate their actions merely by narrating them. Jesus was a determined pacifist who even admonished Peter when the disciple used a sword to defend his teacher (John 18:10-11; Matthew 26:51-2).

I have to disagree with you here. The reason for this particular parable of Jesus was to explain how the Kingdom of Heaven operated and it’s coming.

Luke says:

“11While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once.”

And then after this statement, Jesus comes out with the parable.

I think this is different than authoring a novel like Lolita. Jesus was trying to explain spiritual truths, not simply tell a story that had meaning for our world. This was part of his purpose on Earth. I mean, if not, who is the king in the parable and how does he relate to the Kingdom of Heaven? I think the king in the parable is obviously meant to be taken as God and his judgment on rebellious souls. He’s not going to literally slay people before his feet for being rebellious, but he is going to do something comparable: pass them on to the second death.
Mysto:

That is one way of reading it, but there are some other things which, I think, might be worth considering.

Could Jesus, acting as a human, have done more to eliminate oppression at the time? He certainly gave the believers all that they needed to reach the necessary conclusions, and they already had the OT, which is replete with injunctions against oppression, and Jesus took those upon himself (see, e.g., Luke 4:18-9). In so doing, he created a slow, peaceful cultural movement rather than a more rapid, bloody political one: just consider what happened when the US government decided to abolish slavery among the people already under its own power, and also the Jewish Revolt in 66-70 CE, which was put down in a typically final Roman fashion, or the Roman Senate’s immense hostility towards Constantine’s conversion more than two hundred years later. Personally, I can think of no better method of social reform than the one which he employed.

Eventually, it was the Christians (especially the Quakers and Evangelicals) who were instrumental in banning the British slave trade, which then led to the reform in the US, the mishandled application of which resulted in so many deaths. It worked; the humans involved just took a long time about it.

Too long, methinks.

Your points are very good here, though. I admit that I did not consider it for too long and am ashamed, but if I had, I would’ve come to the same considerations. So, I honestly do not know now whether he could have done better or said something to at least ease the oppression of slavery. In my gut, I think he could have, but I will have to work out these feelings and think about it some more. Thank you.

One question, though: What about the oppression of women? St. Paul certainly didn’t help things.
Mysto:

What will it do for your orthodoxy alarm when you hear that I regard you as an instrument of God? Believing in an omnipotent God, I am monistic: everything descends from One.

It wouldn’t make my alarm go off at all. I think if God exists, then everyone would be an instrument of God in some form or another. It’s perfectly logical.

(continued in next post for space reasons)

 

[clarkal]

(continued)

…
Mystos:

The apparent obscurity of some of Jesus’ comments is only a relevant issue for the saving of a soul if doctrinal orthodoxy is the basis of salvation. I cannot imagine that God cares what name we give God. Instead, I think that it is far more important what we do with what we have…

Of course, my alarm went off here. But I think your position is more logical than that of the orthodox.
Mystos:

Regarding clarity of expression, I think that we should also consider the idea of koan, e.g., “What is the sound of one hand clapping?” Rather than necessarily making a point only in the literal understanding of the words themselves, they make a point by rearranging the audience’s understanding. Having done that, any disciple who was sufficiently confused need only return to the basis of the Two Greatest Commandments: Love.

This is true. If Jesus exists, love is the basis for all his actions, even his justice, and if one is confused, all one need do is consider what love would do.

But what about the confusion surrounding the debate about *how *one is saved, which church or persons have authority, when his second coming is?

I mean, the confusion is such that there are thousands of different sects all differing on some aspect. If you believe in orthodoxy, their souls are at risk, especially if they commit a Mortal Sin.

And, as you know, in the early Church (and even now), people altered their whole lives around the idea that Jesus’ return was imminent. Even St. Paul thought this when he said that those who are married should behave as if they weren’t because the Lord’s coming was at hand. The confusion was so high that Peter wrote about it in one of his letters, making, in my mind, one of the saddest, ad hoc excuses ever: a day for the Lord is like a thousand years. I think Jesus could have saved everyone a lot of trouble and stress if he was clearer.
Mystos:

Allow me to assure you right now that I shall certainly disagree with everything that I ever hear you (or anyone) ever say which does not make perfect sense to me, but also that I do this simply in order to find out what is right. I have questioned quite a few of the things that you have said here, because I am not sure that they are necessarily the only or the best reading of the data. I am not going to say that you are wrong, because my epistemology does not allow me to claim that I am right, but I do have a strong tendency toward doubt.

And I would not expect anything less or want anything different from you. In fact, I desire disagreement. I know and admit that I am fallible, and that’s part of the reason why I am hear discussing these issues: I want to get closer to the truth. And I’m sure you do also.

 

[Mystophilus]

(I joined them up again, sorry)

clarkal:

I think the king in the parable is obviously meant to be taken as God and his judgment on rebellious souls. He’s not going to literally slay people before his feet for being rebellious, but he is going to do something comparable: pass them on to the second death.

That is certainly a possible reading of the text, but there is an aspect of the story which I find peculiar. As you noted, the people thought that the Kingdom of God was going to appear at once. Accepting for a moment the text’s internal logic, Jesus knew that it was not going to be so imminent. Then he tells them a story. In this story, a nobleman “went to a distant country to have himself appointed king” (v. 12). This is an extremely unusual event. How many kings do such a thing? Certainly, Jesus’ audience had heard of it, because it was required of the Herods, the vassals of Imperial Rome. The king in that story could well be more directly a figure for Herod, with the whole being a metaphor for the Kingdom of God. Herod Antipas had, after all, done away with John the Baptist for the speaking out against him, much like the poor unfortunates in the story. I think that Jesus may have been telling the people what the Kingdom of God is not, and showing them instead the reality of the world in which they had to live.

One question, though: What about the oppression of women? St. Paul certainly didn’t help things.

I agree absolutely, as do a large number of more liberal Protestants. Although I dare not say it too loudly here, “misogynist” is a word often used. Again, I think that Jesus gave the disciples what they needed, largely by example. However, if you look back at my previous post, you will see that I talked exclusively about him, and did not mention Paul at all. I think that Paul had some good ideas, but others, especially regarding slaves, women, heterodoxy, orthodoxy and sex, I am not so sure about.

But what about the confusion surrounding the debate about *how *one is saved, which church or persons have authority, when his second coming is?

I mean, the confusion is such that there are thousands of different sects all differing on some aspect. If you believe in orthodoxy, their souls are at risk, especially if they commit a Mortal Sin.

The question, then, would be whether or not God is orthodox. Again, going by the text, I would have to opt for “not”. One of my favourite things about both the Old and New Testaments is the fact that God’s anger is directed not at the fallen, but at the religious hierarchy (okay, so I have a teeny, tiny self-serving bias here). The OT includes a number of points at which God flouts his own rules to help the people, and just as many where he rebukes the priesthood for not doing so (e.g., 2 Chron 30:18-20, Psalm 50, Isaiah 58).

I think Jesus could have saved everyone a lot of trouble and stress if he was clearer.

I cannot help but read this in the light of your other post about truth and lies, and also in relation to your own experience. This is another reason for suggesting the Dao De Jing, actually, because it begins with a refutation of the ability of mere language to express transcendent truth (not meaning God, in its case, but a valid parallel nonetheless). As for the clarity of the message, I think that Jesus could have stopped at the Two Greatest, which encapsulate all the others, or he could have talked much more (and remember that John (21:25) says that he did), and the Church would still have made a mess of it.

We are human: failing is what we are good at!

However, I am seriously beginning to think that, if you are interested in views of God, you could benefit a lot from talking with the Jews. They were the original People of God, after all, and they have a far more open, honest and questioning attitude towards G_d than most Christians seem capable of, in my heretical opinion.

 

[Mystophilus]

clarkal:

I have a respect for the truth. I think that it is precious in this world, and if you find it, then you must hang on to it with all one’s might, regardless of whether it is uncomfortable or inconvenient. If I didn’t do this, I would feel lost at sea. It helps me stay sane in an insane world. If I were dishonest with my self, I think that this could have a bad effect on who I am. I would be living a lie and not experiencing the world as it truly is – or how I think it is. And it certainly wouldn’t make me feel good about myself at the end of the day. It makes me sick to my stomach even to imagine myself living like this.

Whereas I have abandoned the rock and embraced the churning waters themselves. Again influenced by Daoism, I have a profoundly sceptical epistemology: I doubt the very ability to know. This means that I doubt even what I am saying. Thus, I am not so worried about ignorance in particular, because I think that we all are, and always will be, at least partially wrong. As for deliberate dishonesty, see below.

But untruths or ignorance of the truth in general are damaging to people and society in countless ways. I think people suffer more from untruths and ignorance than for any one truth – medically, financially, spiritually, intellectually, on and on.

Does this not depend on the untruth? Does telling very young children about Santa Claus actually harm them? I work as a teacher, and I frequently lie to my lower-level students because they need to believe in a generalised truth in order to build their conceptual framework. Later, I tell them how, and why, I misled them earlier and explain to them a truth too complex for them to be able to handle without the established framework.

Of course, I hate pious fraud with a passion. Is one’s religion’s foundation so thin that one must *lie and deceive *people in to believing it? That’s really sad. And the end does not justify the means in Catholicism, so I do not know how these people justify lying.

I agree with you, as does the Bible, but see the other post for that.

If Pauline Martin, sister of St. Therese of Lisieux, can lie and obscure the truth like she did with Therese’s manuscripts and photos, I don’t know whom to trust. I mean, if you can’t trust a nun, whom can you trust?

I’m sorry; I don’t know any nuns. On the other hand, I trust my Beloved with my life and my soul.

 

[clarkal]

(I joined them up again, sorry)
That is certainly a possible reading of the text, but there is an aspect of the story which I find peculiar. As you noted, the people thought that the Kingdom of God was going to appear at once. Accepting for a moment the text’s internal logic, Jesus knew that it was not going to be so imminent.

Does the text imply that he knew it wouldn’t be imminent? I mean, there are passages that can also be interpreted as saying that he did think the second coming was imminent. I personally do not know what to make of it all.
Mysto:

Then he tells them a story. In this story, a nobleman “went to a distant country to have himself appointed king” (v. 12). This is an extremely unusual event. How many kings do such a thing? Certainly, Jesus’ audience had heard of it, because it was required of the Herods, the vassals of Imperial Rome. The king in that story could well be more directly a figure for Herod, with the whole being a metaphor for the Kingdom of God. Herod Antipas had, after all, done away with John the Baptist for the speaking out against him, much like the poor unfortunates in the story. I think that Jesus may have been telling the people what the Kingdom of God is not, and showing them instead the reality of the world in which they had to live.

Interesting take. I think I still disagree, though. I will think more about it and read some commentaries and try to figure out what the consensus view is and then decide what I can think or think about it.
Mysto:

I agree absolutely, as do a large number of more liberal Protestants. Although I dare not say it too loudly here, “misogynist” is a word often used. Again, I think that Jesus gave the disciples what they needed, largely by example. However, if you look back at my previous post, you will see that I talked exclusively about him, and did not mention Paul at all. I think that Paul had some good ideas, but others, especially regarding slaves, women, heterodoxy, orthodoxy and sex, I am not so sure about.

Understood.
Mystos:

The question, then, would be whether or not God is orthodox. Again, going by the text, I would have to opt for “not”. One of my favourite things about both the Old and New Testaments is the fact that God’s anger is directed not at the fallen, but at the religious hierarchy (okay, so I have a teeny, tiny self-serving bias here). The OT includes a number of points at which God flouts his own rules to help the people, and just as many where he rebukes the priesthood for not doing so (e.g., 2 Chron 30:18-20, Psalm 50, Isaiah 58).

That is the question, but I don’t know the answer.
Mysto:

I cannot help but read this in the light of your other post about truth and lies, and also in relation to your own experience. This is another reason for suggesting the Dao De Jing, actually, because it begins with a refutation of the ability of mere language to express transcendent truth (not meaning God, in its case, but a valid parallel nonetheless). As for the clarity of the message, I think that Jesus could have stopped at the Two Greatest, which encapsulate all the others, or he could have talked much more (and remember that John (21:25) says that he did), and the Church would still have made a mess of it.

I see. I will definitely seek out this text and give it my honest consideration. Thanks.
Mysto:

We are human: failing is what we are good at!

However, I am seriously beginning to think that, if you are interested in views of God, you could benefit a lot from talking with the Jews. They were the original People of God, after all, and they have a far more open, honest and questioning attitude towards G_d than most Christians seem capable of, in my heretical opinion.

Yes, that is a great suggestion. The only real encounter with Jewish writings I have had are counter-missionary writings, as I wanted to get the Jewish perspective on Jesus and Christianity. But, yes, I think some more research into Judaistic thought would be a good idea.

 

[clarkal]

Mystophilus:

Whereas I have abandoned the rock and embraced the churning waters themselves. Again influenced by Daoism, I have a profoundly sceptical epistemology: I doubt the very ability to know. This means that I doubt even what I am saying. Thus, I am not so worried about ignorance in particular, because I think that we all are, and always will be, at least partially wrong. As for deliberate dishonesty, see below.

I am very doubtful about many things also. Some, for natural reasons, but others because I have OCD, which was, in the past, termed “the doubting disease”, but it’s still a perfectly accurate view of the OCD condition.

For me, doubt isn’t a fun thing. I dislike it. It is my personality to want to know and now and with certainty. Maybe it isn’t fun for you either. It is difficult for me, because a lot of my doubt is based upon my OCD and irrational emotions that can be fought almost exclusively with medication. It causes me a lot of pain. So how do you deal with it? Maybe I can learn something from you here.
Mysto:

Does this not depend on the untruth? Does telling very young children about Santa Claus actually harm them? I work as a teacher, and I frequently lie to my lower-level students because they need to believe in a generalised truth in order to build their conceptual framework. Later, I tell them how, and why, I misled them earlier and explain to them a truth too complex for them to be able to handle without the established framework.

If I have kids, I will tell them the truth about Santa Claus. This seems harsh, I know, but I think in the end, it would be better for them, helping them to form their skills of critical thinking at an earlier age. And I don’t want to see the pain on their faces when they learn that Santa is mythological being and that I lied to them. I have seen this pain first hand, and it’s not worth it, I think.

There is lying to kids about Santa Claus, and then there are lies that affect our lives in major ways. I am mainly talking about the latter – untruths that affect a person in major ways.
Mysto:

I agree with you, as does the Bible, but see the other post for that.

k…
mysto:

I’m sorry; I don’t know any nuns. On the other hand, I trust my Beloved with my life and my soul.

 

[clarkal]

So, yeah, this thread is running out of steam here – and space? I didn’t know there was a space limit. Oh, well. Anyway, maybe we could take a little break and then start a new one, perhaps on a different topic? I’ve long wanted to start a thread on the Book of Tobit, which is considered by RCatholicism to be inspired and inerrant. I think that the Angel Raphael, if it’s history, which scholars seem to agree on, completely lied, mislead, and deceived in this book. I’ve read the apologetics defending his actions, but they are, in my opinion, very desperate explanations. See the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on the Book of Tobias and Raphael’s alleged lying. What a sad apologetic from these scholars!

Anyhow!

You know what, Mysto? I would very much like to hear your story, from the beginning, of how you came to believe in what you believe. Yes, I would be all ears for that one.

 

[barsapp]

clarkal:

I do not hate Jesus. On the contrary, I think he’s a cool dude, but I don’t think he was divine.

Again the Greeks, as always! You do not trespass the field of “doxa”. There are all “opinions”. And nothing more than opinions. Not a criterion of truth, certainly. “Episteme” is the knowledge of truth. Above and beyond “doxa”. Absolutely independent. God, Christ, does not need us. The existence of God, the incarnation and resurrection of Christ, is independent, absolute, autonomous. It is truth complete in itself. You can recognize it. You can reject it. Free will. And again: “Nothing is new under the sun.” (Ecc. 1, 9): St John 1, 10-13: “He was in the world, and the world came to be through him, but the world did not know him. He came to what was his own, but his own people did not accept him. But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name, who were born not by natural generation nor by human choice nor by a man’s decision but of God”. You are free to reject truth. You are free to ask with Pilate St John 18, 38: “What is truth?” You are free to simply discuss opinions till the end of the world… You are also free to embrace the truth, as the apostles, the saints, the martyrs, and as many, many others, did.

 

[clarkal]

barsapp:

Again the Greeks, as always! You do not trespass the field of “doxa”. There are all “opinions”. And nothing more than opinions. Not a criterion of truth, certainly. “Episteme” is the knowledge of truth. Above and beyond “doxa”. Absolutely independent. God, Christ, does not need us. The existence of God, the incarnation and resurrection of Christ, is independent, absolute, autonomous. It is truth complete in itself. You can recognize it. You can reject it. Free will. And again: “Nothing is new under the sun.” (Ecc. 1, 9): St John 1, 10-13: “He was in the world, and the world came to be through him, but the world did not know him. He came to what was his own, but his own people did not accept him. But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name, who were born not by natural generation nor by human choice nor by a man’s decision but of God”. You are free to reject truth. You are free to ask with Pilate St John 18, 38: “What is truth?” You are free to simply discuss opinions till the end of the world… You are also free to embrace the truth, as the apostles, the saints, the martyrs, and as many, many others, did.

Yes, I admit that everything I have said is my own opinion. But does this somehow lessen the validity of what I have said? No.
You claim that Christ is the truth, but how is this not also simply your own personal opinion? How do you know for certain that it is the truth? You don’t. You have weighed the evidence and formed an opinion. If you’re going to say that Christ is the truth and make religious claims, at least back it up, but don’t do it with Scripture – that would be circular logic.

 

[barsapp]

clarkal:

Yes, I admit that everything I have said is my own opinion. But does this somehow lessen the validity of what I have said? No.
You claim that Christ is the truth, but how is this not also simply your own personal opinion? How do you know for certain that it is the truth? You don’t. You have weighed the evidence and formed an opinion. If you’re going to say that Christ is the truth and make religious claims, at least back it up, but don’t do it with Scripture – that would be circular logic.

Well, let me put it this way. Suppose that your mother told you about something you used to do during your very first years of your life. Those facts that is impossible for you to know by yourself. For example, she says to you: “You used to disorder the books of the library”. This is not an opinion. It is a fact. Are you going to believe her? Certainly. Any reason for her to lie to you? I don’t think so. She is not a liar. She loves you. You believe her. The same thing when you tell something to your son, or to a friend of yours: “Yesterday I ate pizza at the Metropolitan Museum”, it is not an opinion. It is a fact. You could say: But it is possible for me to lie to him (or her). Yes, if you were evil, you could lie. Of course. But, does God have any good reason to lie to us? First: He does not need us. Second: Satan is the liar and the father of lies (John 8, 44).

When I say: “Christ is the Truth”, this is not my opinion: this is what He said (John 14, 6). Who told me that Christ said that? The Apostles (1 John, 1, 1-3): “What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we looked upon and touched with our hands concerns the Word of life -for the life was made visible; we have seen it and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was made visible to us -what we have seen and heard we proclaim now to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; for our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.” Do I accept this word? Yes. I do. This is faith. Is it contrary to reason? Not at all. Because of your reason you know that you can rely on who does not lie. You can still say: “Just words”. But when you consider the lives of those Apostles, Martyrs and Saints of Christ, when you consider their lives, teachings, examples, and deaths… may be then you too recognize there more than “just words” and, humbly and joyfully, embrace the cross of Our Lord…

(I know you asked me not to quote the Scripture, but I think that it is more valuable than my own “opinions”).

 

[clarkal]

barsapp:

Well, let me put it this way. Suppose that your mother told you about something you used to do during your very first years of your life. Those facts that is impossible for you to know by yourself. For example, she says to you: “You used to disorder the books of the library”. This is not an opinion. It is a fact. Are you going to believe her? Certainly. Any reason for her to lie to you? I don’t think so. She is not a liar. She loves you. You believe her. The same thing when you tell something to your son, or to a friend of yours: “Yesterday I ate pizza at the Metropolitan Museum”, it is not an opinion. It is a fact. You could say: But it is possible for me to lie to him (or her). Yes, if you were evil, you could lie. Of course. But, does God have any good reason to lie to us? First: He does not need us. Second: Satan is the liar and the father of lies (John 8, 44).

This all rests under the assumption that God exists and that the Bible is God’s true revelation. How do you know for certain that this is true? I’d say that you don’t, that it is merely your opinion of what you believe is evidence in favor of God’s existence and the Bible’s validity.

barsapp:

When I say: “Christ is the Truth”, this is not my opinion: this is what He said (John 14, 6). Who told me that Christ said that? The Apostles (1 John, 1, 1-3): “What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we looked upon and touched with our hands concerns the Word of life -for the life was made visible; we have seen it and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was made visible to us -what we have seen and heard we proclaim now to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; for our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.” Do I accept this word? Yes. I do. This is faith. Is it contrary to reason? Not at all. Because of your reason you know that you can rely on who does not lie. You can still say: “Just words”. But when you consider the lives of those Apostles, Martyrs and Saints of Christ, when you consider their lives, teachings, examples, and deaths… may be then you too recognize there more than “just words” and, humbly and joyfully, embrace the cross of Our Lord…

This is still all your opinion based on the belief that the Apostles would not lie, that they were reliable people, and that they even existed, which a lot of skeptics doubt (search for the Apostles lives and deaths on infidels.org) But people do lie, even religious people, (search Google.com for pious fraud), even nuns (see my post about Pauline Martin, sister of St. Therese). I know from experience not to trust people who spout extraordinary religious claims.

There are saints in all religions, martyrs in all religions, who have given great examples mainly in the context of their religious beliefs, so the Martyrs, the Apostles, (if they existed), and the saints of the Catholic Church could be nothing more than an expression of the religious piety of Christianity, most of which took place as Christianity was the dominant religious force in the world.

At the end of the post, you finally admit that it is faith. It is not for certain. If it were, there would be no faith. It is your opinion of the evidence.

Not everyone believes that the Bible is God’s actual word and is the truth like you do. Quoting the Bible to people who don’t believe in it as evidence for your faith would therefore be unwise.

(I know you asked me not to quote the Scripture, but I think that it is more valuable than my own “opinions”).

To you, yes.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thanks to all who have participated in this discussion.
This thread is now closed.