Essay Review

[Vincent]

Good questions, David.

Your first question is a paradox. That God wants everybody to be saved seems to makes sense only if everybody suffers a condition to be saved from. This universal salvific will is clear after Original Sin; I’m not sure if it could be clear before it.

The universal tendency to sin is a defect all right. But God’s universal salvific will indicates that this defect is met with the means of overcoming it. Initially it looks like our chances our hurt, but when God’s universal salvific will is taken into account, it looks like a greater good is drawn from a negative condition. That might not be satisfying, but we can’t see much from our present perspective.

When I wrote “self” I was referring to Adam and Eve. They inflicted a grievous wound on the human nature that they possessed and since we all descend from them we inherit a humanity that bears their self-inflicted wound.

Mary’s preservation from this wound is connected to her role as the New Eve. Her maternal relationship to the New Adam makes it fitting that she be redeemed by her son from the moment of her conception.

Why did God give her the privilege and not you or me? It’s a gift and gifts are freely given. And not everyone can be the New Eve.

I don’t know the answer to whether your kids would be more likely to sin if you sin. And I don’t know how Adam and Eve altered human nature, although the doctrine of Original Sin asserts that they did.

The Redemption did re-order human nature: Mary’s is the first example. However, I don’t know why the Redemption didn’t re-order human nature in the way we would think, which is why your speculation is so interesting. If we had instead descended from Jesus, as we descend from Adam, then it seems plausible that we would possess human nature in its full integrity. So the solution is to find a way to descend from Jesus-- to be “re-born”.

 

[Idisto]

Grolsch:

The effects are cancelled when we are baptized in Jesus.

I don’t think the Church teaches that. Baptized Catholics still have the tendency to sin, don’t they?

 

[Idisto]

AlanFromWichita:

I was thinking more of His ability to see through the rigid rules of behavior to the essence of right and wrong. He applied scriptures in a way that had apparently never been done before. Clearly he was anything but a lemming.

That is true, he didn’t fit the mold of typical Jewish thought at the time. I’m not sure though whether any of his doctrines were truly original.

AlanFromWichita:

How many Christians do you know that seem to take delight in telling everyone else they are wrong for highly technical reasons, while at the same time have not love?

Far too many, it seems. People in general are like that, including many professed Christians.

AlanFromWichita:

In fact, I’d be interested in hearing more of your philosophy as it stands now, in terms of what is right or wrong in your mind, what sort of things make sense, etc. I’ve known people who look for their own philosophies of life and end up with an ideal that matches Jesus fairly closely.

I don’t have anything very specific yet since I’ve only been thinking for myself for less than three months. The golden rule is certainly an excellent place to start when dealing with ethics.

AlanFromWichita:

Even if you don’t believe Jesus was God, He is someone from whom we can learn a great deal – at least as much as the objects of other religions. Maybe if I grew up in Japan I’d feel differently.

Yes, there are definitely things to be learned, from Jesus and many other thinkers throughout the ages.

 

[Idisto]

Vincent:

That God wants everybody to be saved seems to makes sense only if everybody suffers a condition to be saved from. This universal salvific will is clear after Original Sin; I’m not sure if it could be clear before it.

Perhaps if we re-word it to say that God wills that everyone freely choose to love Him and enjoy His presence in paradise? That would eliminate that issue, I think.

Vincent:

Initially it looks like our chances our hurt, but when God’s universal salvific will is taken into account, it looks like a greater good is drawn from a negative condition. That might not be satisfying, but we can’t see much from our present perspective.

I would not be willing to sacrifice some (or many) souls to eternal torment for the greater good for the whole of humanity. I don’t know why God would do that either.

Vincent:

When I wrote “self” I was referring to Adam and Eve. They inflicted a grievous wound on the human nature that they possessed and since we all descend from them we inherit a humanity that bears their self-inflicted wound.

Right, but I don’t understand how this makes any sense.

Vincent:

Why did God give her the privilege and not you or me? It’s a gift and gifts are freely given. And not everyone can be the New Eve.

But is there an actual reason God could not do the same for us just because He loves us and knows not having Original Sin would help us avoid damnation?

Vincent:

I don’t know the answer to whether your kids would be more likely to sin if you sin. And I don’t know how Adam and Eve altered human nature, although the doctrine of Original Sin asserts that they did.

I understand your position. It was the same as mine when I was a Catholic. But the fact that the Church teaches it as a doctrine does nothing to convince someone who isn’t already (or is no longer, in this case) convinced the Church has divine authority.

Vincent:

If we had instead descended from Jesus, as we descend from Adam, then it seems plausible that we would possess human nature in its full integrity. So the solution is to find a way to descend from Jesus-- to be “re-born”.

But I thought the effects of Original Sin remain in that we still have the tendency to sin? I could be wrong, but I’m not sure.

 

[Mijoy2]

Idisto:

The point is that it’s not self-inflicted. It was inflicted by someone who lived at least 5,000 years ago.

Everyone except Mary. Why is she treated special before she was even born? Why can’t we all have immaculate conceptions?

Also, if I commit many sins, then would my children be more likely to sin? How did Adam and Eve alter human nature? And why didn’t the Redemption fix it? Is it because we’re not descended from Jesus?

David

Allow me first, to qualify my answer with: “IMO, which may very well be theologically in error”.

Now that I have lost your interest… , I’ll continue. Idisto, Adam and Eve are representative of our sinful nature, not necassarily by passing down some mutant gene, the cause. The literal take on Adam and Eve, to me, is somewhat beside the point of it’s moral. The moral represents that we are born with the tendency to sin. A tendency so great there are no exceptions and all will sucuum.

Before I give my 2 cents of why Mary was born immaculate, I must first address why we are born with sinful natures. I think one must consider Heaven to find the answer. To understand this one must first disallow non-sensical remarks such as “if God is omniscient, can He create a rock so heavy He can’t lift it”?

God created man. God created man in His own image. Man is a free thinking individual capable of making his own decisions. If we were created any other way we would not be free thinking individuals. This only leaves manipulated robotic creatures. If we are to feel and experience love and feel an experience joy, we must also feel and experience hate and feel and experience sorrow. Why? So that in Heaven we can know love and know joy.

Yet in order to fulfill Gods plan for us “free-thinkers”, to live an everlasting life of happiness glorifying Him which is all good, all loving, all joyful for eternity in Heaven we must desire Him. We must desire an eternity of everlasting love and joy. Not all will. This IMO is why we are here. It is the reason for this period of time, this trial, this (as St. Augustine puts it) excile.

He could not make us perfect, hence we wouldn’t be free. (back to my heavy rock analogy). Yet we (some) imperfect creatures desire a perfect paradise. How can He simply deposit us there? We would impurify it.

He will purify those who die in sanctifying grace. Those, will be made worthy of this paradise. But not without trial (earth). Not without a contrite desire for Him.

Mary’s Immacualte Conception did not come from Mary. She was not somehow immune to the sin of Adam and Eve (our inherent tendency to sin). Mary’s Immacuate Conception was a gift of God to us. Mary was born excused of the sin of our nature. Following she lived a sinless life thus enabling her to be the ark of our new covenant. our Savior, the one who makes our desire to be with Him possible. The one who, without, our unworthiness would not be made worthy through His very own sacrifice.

Mary’s Immacualte Conception is a gift from God, the Father to us.

Apologies for theological mistakes, as of now this is my understanding.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Idisto:

I don’t have anything very specific yet since I’ve only been thinking for myself for less than three months. The golden rule is certainly an excellent place to start when dealing with ethics.

I completely understand what you mean by “thinking for myself” and I clearly remember the freedom I felt when I finally decided that I could no longer subject my own salvation, the way I thought and believed, etc. to any human being including the Pope. I will take what they say under consideration and be guided, blessed, or warned accordingly and if I’m wrong I will pay the price.

Right here on this forum there are discussed so many examples of bishops who disagree and according to many more learned than I they even teach heresy. It is absurd that I should either glom onto the teachings of one of these church leaders or try to arbitrate between them as a condition of my salvation. To speak within the paradigm of an intelligent God, I believe I was put here to do more than follow the teachings of some modern man or group of men. If I look to the entire life and attitude of Christ, I just might, as He did, say things that religious leaders don’t necessarily agree with.

Congratulations for your psychological emancipation! I sense you are still a bit antagonistic toward Christianity, particularly after reading the end of your essay. That, too, shall pass (I hope). I’ve sent you email with some information; please keep in touch.

Alan

 

[Idisto]

Mijoy2:

The literal take on Adam and Eve, to me, is somewhat beside the point of it’s moral. The moral represents that we are born with the tendency to sin. A tendency so great there are no exceptions and all will sucuum.

I suppose if you interpret it figuratively, that solves some problems. The Church does place limitations on what can be interpreted that in that fashion. It’s complicated.

Mijoy2:

If we are to feel and experience love and feel an experience joy, we must also feel and experience hate and feel and experience sorrow. Why? So that in Heaven we can know love and know joy.

Does this apply as well to God?

Mijoy2:

We must desire an eternity of everlasting love and joy. Not all will.

Everyone always seeks their own happiness, even if it means sacrificing something smaller for the larger satisfaction of sacrifice or keeping themselves glum. No one would turn down eternal happiness if they believed it could be had.

Mijoy2:

Yet we (some) imperfect creatures desire a perfect paradise. How can He simply deposit us there? We would impurify it.

What about baptized children who die before the age of reason? They haven’t exercised their free will but they are accepted into heaven according to the Church.

It doesn’t appear you have read my whole essay, which is understandable. Section III.B.2 (Arbitrary Salvation) addresses some of these issues in ways you have not considered.

Mijoy2:

Mary’s Immacualte Conception is a gift from God, the Father to us.

Why didn’t God grant the same gift to everyone? Wouldn’t a lot more souls have been saved?

 

[Idisto]

AlanFromWichita:

Congratulations for your psychological emancipation! I sense you are still a bit antagonistic toward Christianity, particularly after reading the end of your essay. That, too, shall pass (I hope). I’ve sent you email with some information; please keep in touch.

Thank you. Yes, I am antagonistic toward Christianity. It has been the source of spiritual, mental, social, and even physical anguish in my life. I resent anyone who teaches, “Believe me or fry!!!” It is the most hideous doctrine ever conceived.

I recieved your e-mails. I will respond very soon.

 

[Mijoy2]

Idisto:

Does this apply as well to God?

Yes. I believe so. God knows sorrow and anguish.

Idisto:

Everyone always seeks their own happiness, even if it means sacrificing something smaller for the larger satisfaction of sacrifice or keeping themselves glum. No one would turn down eternal happiness if they believed it could be had.

Of course everyone wants to be happy. However that is not my point. I know of individuals who desire to be happy but do not desire to love one and all. We could site some examples. Certain radio personalities, certain Goverment officials, people of all walks of life seem to fall into this catagory unfortunately. I wasn’t speaking of happiness, I was speaking of love.

Idisto:

What about baptized children who die before the age of reason? They haven’t exercised their free will but they are accepted into heaven according to the Church.

I have to say with all due respect “so what”? One of my favorite parables is “The men in the field”. I can only look at those who died prior to the age of reason with sorrow that they didn’t get to live life on earth, and with joy that via Gods infinate mercy they are now with Him.

Idisto:

It doesn’t appear you have read my whole essay, which is understandable. Section III.B.2 (Arbitrary Salvation) addresses some of these issues in ways you have not considered.

No, I haven’t, I appologize. However I can relate to your thoughts and issues since I have experienced them all myself. I wish you peace.

Idisto:

Why didn’t God grant the same gift to everyone? Wouldn’t a lot more souls have been saved?

I believe it goes counter to the cause. Counter to the redemptive story.

Sorry I don’t how to put quotes within quotes.

 

[Benadam]

Hi David,

I finished reading the intoduction and a few lines into the essay I decided to give you my first impressions. In my dealings with various people who have either doubts about or loss of their faith a common theme amongst them as a cause is the existence of evil. You mentioned it in your introduction as well. Reading it brought to mind the possibility that it may be true for you too. I quote:

the problem of evil even suggests that such a being most certainly does not exist.

This sentence attempts to cover what it reveals about how you feel I think. It seems that something defined as a suggestion of has morphed into a certainty. This pattern reminded me of how you described doubts of your faith that progressed into a loss thereof.

I would say that the concept of evil implies the existence of good.
Conversely the concept of good does not imply the concept of that which lacks it, which is the definition of evil.

Could the existence of evil be a primary reason for your gradual decrease and loss of faith?

 

[Gunner]

You cannot out-think God. Certainly some parts of life are mysterious, but we have a God revealed religion backed up with Scripture, Sacred tradition, the Blood of martyrs, Numerous Saints, Early Church Fathers and numerous miracles and incorrupt saints.

As an example, please check out the miracle of Fatima and kindly disprove the following facts.

1. The sun danced in the Sky as promised in front of 70,000 witnesses, seen over a 600 mile radius on Oct 13,1917. many of the witnesses were Atheist. The Atheist press in Portuagal affirmed it the next day. I have even spoken to and met with witnesses to this event.
2. One of the seers, Sr Lucia is still alive today as predicted.
3. The other two seers are now saints, one of whom St Jacinta (Died 1919) was found to be incorrupt in both 1935 and 1951.
4. At fatima, the evil of Communism and its spread by Russia was predicted and unfolded.
5. At Fatima, WWII was predicted and occurred.
6. Fatima affirms all that is Catholic, the seers were even shown HELL, where the poor sinners go.
7. Pius XII has stated has stated that it is worthy of Belief.

I attach relevant resources. If what you believe is true, you can easily disprove these events? As miracles cannot happen!!!

ewtn.com/fatima/

A Good book on the subject is

tanbooks.com/index.php/page/shop:flypage/product_id/1/

God loves you, be sincere and look at ALL the evidence, not just the bits that suit. Fatima must be disproved by you as it affirms all you are in denial about.

God Loves You

 

[Idisto]

[T]he problem of evil even suggests that such a being most certainly does not exist.

I understand what you’re saying, but it seems you have missed the important point: suggests. It is not conclusive, but it’s an argument for a positive belief in the absence of an omnimax deity.

Benadam:

Could the existence of evil be a primary reason for your gradual decrease and loss of faith?

A primary reason? No. I didn’t consider until I was an agnostic.

 

[Idisto]

Gunner:

As an example, please check out the miracle of Fatima and kindly disprove the following facts.

Ah, not so fast. It’s your responsibility to prove something, not for me to disprove it. Otherwise I could ask you to disprove that Mohammed ascended into heaven as described in the Koran.

Gunner:

If what you believe is true, you can easily disprove these events?

No, I never claimed such a thing. But I can address some things

Gunner:

1. The sun danced in the Sky as promised in front of 70,000 witnesses, seen over a 600 mile radius on Oct 13,1917.

Many at the site did not claim to have seen it. Almost no two reports are identical. Staring at the sun and mass hysteria can explain at a lot. The phenomenon has supposedly occurred without the Church approving that.

Gunner:

many of the witnesses were Atheist. The Atheist press in Portuagal affirmed it the next day.

Atheists can make mistakes. And not everything the press prints is true.

Gunner:

I have even spoken to and met with witnesses to this event.

And there are people who claimed to have seen Elvis alive. So what?

Gunner:

1. One of the seers, Sr Lucia is still alive today as predicted.

Unless she is 150 years old, that’s not much a prophecy.

Gunner:

1. The other two seers are now saints, one of whom St Jacinta (Died 1919) was found to be incorrupt in both 1935 and 1951.

I don’t believe the Church recognizes incorruptibility as a miracle anymore since there are natural explanations.

Gunner:

1. At fatima, the evil of Communism and its spread by Russia was predicted and unfolded.

I’m sure there were people in the press who predicted the same thing. Are they prophets, too?

Gunner:

1. At Fatima, WWII was predicted and occurred.

I don’t have enough information to comment on this.

Gunner:

1. Fatima affirms all that is Catholic, the seers were even shown HELL, where the poor sinners go.

That, in itself, proves absolutely nothing.

Gunner:

1. Pius XII has stated has stated that it is worthy of Belief.

That is totally worthless if you’re using it to establish the authority of the Church.

Gunner:

As miracles cannot happen!!!

I have never said that. I only said that you know whether a miracle happened, at least if you don’t see it yourself. Even then, how do you know a demon didn’t perform the miracle? There’s no way of knowing without using circular logic.

%between%

tanbooks.com/index.php/page/shop:flypage/product_id/1/

I own the book and have read it. I used about 5 years ago it to argue the point you are arguing here.

Gunner:

God loves you, be sincere and look at ALL the evidence, not just the bits that suit. Fatima must be disproved by you as it affirms all you are in denial about.

No, it doesn’t. Unless you want to disprove the miracles of Islam, Hinduism, Paganism, Buddhism, Jainism, Mithraism, Zoraostrianism, Satanism, etc.

I recommend you read what I wrote about miracles in my essay. Also check out:
amoratheism.freeservers.com/amoratheism2.html
especially
angelfire.com/ego2/fatimafraud/index.html

 

[RSiscoe]

The doctrine of original sin teaches that all of humanity has been punished for the sin of our earliest ancestors. Punishing an innocent party for the transgressions of another party is clearly unjust. The association we have with the other party was even made without our consent.

I am not sure if I understand what you are saying: do you mean to say that you reject the teaching of original sins because it is unjust? Are you saying “I cannot believe in original sin because it is not just. It would be unjust of God to punish one person for the sins of another, therefore I reject the teaching”?

If that is what you are saying I have a question for you: Do you deny that there are babies born addicted to crack? Based on your reasoning you would have to. After all, the baby did not do anything wrong, it was the mother used crack. The innocent baby suffered from the sin of its mother. Therefore, just as original sin is unjust, so too is the baby born addicted to crack unjust. Therefore, if you deny original sin because innocent people suffer, you will also have to deny that any baby is ever born addicted to crack, for the same reason.

Unfortunately there is a certain law God has placed in nature: Innocent people suffer from the sins of others: a mother smokes crack and the baby is born addicted. I’m sure you can think of many similar examples.

So, it may seem unjust for God to punish the innocent for the sins of others, but the fact is, He does. So, you cannot reject original sin on the bases of it being unjust unless you are also willing to deny that an innocent baby can be born addicted to crack, because of the actions of its mother.

 

[Idisto]

RSiscoe,

You make a good point, but there is an important distinction to be made. Babies suffering from crack isn’t specifically inflicted as a punishment any more than the pain someone feels when someone else hits them is punishment. It depends partially on whether someone can go to hell with only Original Sin, I suppose.

I guess I could say a God who lets children suffer because of their mother’s crack addiction is unjust, but most would disagree.

 

[Benadam]

[T]
he problem of evil even suggests that such a being most certainly does not exist.

I understand what you’re saying, but it seems you have missed the important point: suggests. It is not conclusive, but it’s an argument for a positive belief in the absence of an omnimax deity.

A primary reason? No. I didn’t consider until I was an agnostic.

I find that hard to believe because something must have lacked what you defined as good in order to motivate a change. Yet the logical conclusion to the atheistic journey is that there is no good or evil.

 

[JMJ_Pinoy]

bringyou.to/apologetics/
marianland.com/apolo018.html

 

[Northwind]

I’ll read your essay eventually, but first I need to put in my 2¢ about “The Skeptics Bible”

It didn’t take long to see that this person has issues. Just browsing through 2Tim I see a lot of misconception and misunderstanding of the context as well as it’s plain and simple reading. But then I started reading the ‘contradictions’ and ran across this.

Did Asa remove the high places? And he crossreferences 2Chr 14:3-5, 2Chr 15:17 and 1Kings 15:14

I’m sure the “contradiction” here is that one verse says the high places were removed and another says they weren’t…yada yada…

This is a classic case of not knowing the Bible or its history. This could be a much longer discussion going into the history of Israel after Solomon’s death. Saul, David and Solomon are the only Kings of Israel to rule the entire unified country. After Solomon’s death Israel was split into two. Judah in the south and Israel in the north. Asa was King of Judah, not Israel. So when the text says that the high places were removed from Judah, it is absolutely correct. When the text says they were not removed from Israel this too is correct. Asa wasn’t King of Israel and therefore had no jurisdiction to have the high places removed. Just like President Bush has no right to say what Canada can or cannot do. This is essentially the same thing.

Please do not put ANY stock in this “bible”. There is nothing good in it!!

 

[Northwind]

If you would like to read more about the poor scholarship of The Skeptics Bible read here:

tektonics.org/sab/sab.html

 

[Gunner]

Idisto:

Ah, not so fast. It’s your responsibility to prove something, not for me to disprove it. Otherwise I could ask you to disprove that Mohammed ascended into heaven as described in the Koran.

Slightly different, this miracle was seen by 70,000 people less than 100 years ago. I have spoken with eye witnesses.

No, I never claimed such a thing. But I can address some things

Many at the site did not claim to have seen it. Almost no two reports are identical. Staring at the sun and mass hysteria can explain at a lot. The phenomenon has supposedly occurred without the Church approving that.

Where is your evidence for people who claim not to have seen it?
How do you know that they are not lying?

Atheists can make mistakes. And not everything the press prints is true.

Yes this is true, but how often do sceptics affirm miracles? Never!

And there are people who claimed to have seen Elvis alive. So what?

Not 70,000, all in the same place for an event that was predicted to occur many months in advance.

Unless she is 150 years old, that’s not much a prophecy.

It is, as the average life expectancy is 80 years. Again this is one piece of many pieces of evidence. On its own it can be argued but together only a fool ignores the WEIGHT of evidence. People get convicted for murder on the evidence of two reliable witnesses.

I don’t believe the Church recognizes incorruptibility as a miracle anymore since there are natural explanations.

Please read the incorrupt Saints by Joan Cruz Carrol, and explain how come so many Catholic Saints are in this state for differing periods. It goes agianst nature. Please give me your repeatable scientific explanations for all cases of incorruptability? To save you time, you cannot, as these are miracles (Outside of nature).

I’m sure there were people in the press who predicted the same thing. Are they prophets, too?

Please let me know these people, did they also predicct a great miracle that happened, affirm all the Church teaches, live holy lives, predict world wars in the reign of certain Popes etc etc and if still alive, have lived an impeccable HOLY life under obedience to the Church?

I don’t have enough information to comment on this.

That, in itself, proves absolutely nothing.

No, it is not full proof, but it is evidence, again you need to look at ALL the evidence. This by you answers, you refuse to do.

That is totally worthless if you’re using it to establish the authority of the Church.

I have never said that. I only said that you know whether a miracle happened, at least if you don’t see it yourself. Even then, how do you know a demon didn’t perform the miracle? There’s no way of knowing without using circular logic.

Miracles can be performed by demons, of course. Scripture tells us though - By their fruits you shall know them. Look at the Fruits of Fatima - Hardly demonic.

I own the book and have read it. I used about 5 years ago it to argue the point you are arguing here.

I suggest you read it again, as you are ignoring lots of factual evidence from a man who took great care to gather many witness statements whilst people were still alive.

No, it doesn’t. Unless you want to disprove the miracles of Islam, Hinduism, Paganism, Buddhism, Jainism, Mithraism, Zoraostrianism, Satanism, etc.

I accept miracles, so I do not need to disprove them. All I need to do is find the True Church of Christ. I have done this, it is the Catholic Church. The only church which has consistenly taught truth and is easy to verify via its Apostolic succession. No other man-made religion in the world has this!

I recommend you read what I wrote about miracles in my essay. Also check out:
amoratheism.freeservers.com/amoratheism2.html
especially
angelfire.com/ego2/fatimafraud/index.html

I read your essays, subjective and flawed. See above, you cannot simply ignore a whole weight of evidence with one liners such as a few people say they did not see something when 70,000 people did and it was predicted months in advance. Please let me know of any other miracle seen by so many, predicted to the day in advance. This has not happened since Old Testament times.