Essay Review

[RSiscoe]

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.

I don’t think there is any distinction to be made. You can use the word punishment if you like (and I have no problem with that), or you can use the word “inheritance”, but in both circumstances we have a cause and effect sututation: The effect of the first sin was the loss of sanctifying grace, original justice, and infused knowledge; this also resluted in our having a strong inclination towards sin. We “inherited” this from our first parents. The effect of crack use was addiction to crack. The baby “inherited” that from its mother. You may not want to say that the crack baby is being punished, but they are certainly suffering.

What this shows is that people do indeed suffer from the sins of their parents, just as we all suffer from the sin of our first parents. Therefore, I think it is wrong for you to reject original sin on the basis of it being unjust, since there are many other examples of the same thing occurring in this world. Let’s take just a few more examples:

How often have we heard that an abusing father, usually has children that grow up to be abusing? Alcoholic parents have childrend with a tendency towards that same vice, etc. The Bible explains this to us when it says: “the sins of the parents will be passed on to their children to the third and fourth generations”.

And now science even has a way to explain how these sins, or “tendencies” are passed on: through the genes. So we even have scientific evidence that children suffer from the sins of their parents.

 

[CatholicMatthew]

Outside of theological errors or imprecision (in description of Catholic belief), non-authoritative wording, poorly constructed or shown logic, and rambling: I am almost fell asleep. Yes, I want to hear what you have discovered, but I want to hear why you were looking. What made you doubt. I was so dissapointed when I discovered you would not be including that in your essay. You are still a young man and have (God-willing) much time to develop your reasoning skills. I do hope that the logic and reasoning presented in this article are not representative of your skills and just a reflection of inaccurate writing. In the next few days I will try to post specific responses to each point in your article.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew

 

[bones_IV]

I’m saddened to hear this, how sad. The reason Mary was exempt from original sin was because Jesus would have to have been born from a pure breed. She therefore played an important role in our salvation.
The church is infallible and always has been in areas of faith and moral issues. We have never changed any of our teachings! I repeat, we never changed any of it. If you think you’ll find an arguement that proves otherwise, you’ll never find it.
The church has sacred tradition passed on from the apostles themselves given by Jesus Christ himself.
We never said anything about God being the cause of evil! Isreal was constantly going to war with other nations, it was to symbolize the battle between good and evil. God did not commit injustice towards anyone, the people brought injustice on themselves and God cannot sin!
Lastly, our Cathoilc religion is not man-made but founded by Christ himself. Faith is not rational but reasonable according to St. Thomas Aqiunas. Our faith is not a faith of debate but of action.

Padre Pio “Don’t worry, work and pray.”

 

[kliner]

Benadam:

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

Idisto:

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

would replacing “consider” with “realize” be helpful?

 

[Idisto]

Benadam:

Yet the logical conclusion to the atheistic journey is that there is no good or evil.

Absolute good and evil no. But I think almost everyone on the planet would agree that suffering should be considered an evil.

 

[Idisto]

Northwind:

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

Yes, I realize that the SAB has lots of imperfections. But the fact that J.P. Holding has to bend over backward thousands of times to defend what is supposed to be God’s message to mankind, it’s easy to grow suspicious.

What do you think of the SAB’s review of the Qu’ran or Book of Mormon?

 

[Idisto]

Gunner,

You are using miracles to prove that the Catholic Faith is true and then using the Catholic Faith to prove that the miracles are not performed by demons. That’s circular, so the rest of your argument isn’t worth anything.

 

[Idisto]

RSiscoe:

And now science even has a way to explain how these sins, or “tendencies” are passed on: through the genes. So we even have scientific evidence that children suffer from the sins of their parents.

That doesn’t make it just though.

 

[Idisto]

bones_IV:

I’m saddened to hear this, how sad. The reason Mary was exempt from original sin was because Jesus would have to have been born from a pure breed. She therefore played an important role in our salvation. The church is infallible and always has been in areas of faith and moral issues. We have never changed any of our teachings! I repeat, we never changed any of it. If you think you’ll find an arguement that proves otherwise, you’ll never find it.
The church has sacred tradition passed on from the apostles themselves given by Jesus Christ himself.
We never said anything about God being the cause of evil! Isreal was constantly going to war with other nations, it was to symbolize the battle between good and evil. God did not commit injustice towards anyone, the people brought injustice on themselves and God cannot sin!
Lastly, our Cathoilc religion is not man-made but founded by Christ himself. Faith is not rational but reasonable according to St. Thomas Aqiunas. Our faith is not a faith of debate but of action.

That really didn’t address any of the points I’ve made. It jus asserts things which are either unverifiable or irrelevant.

bones_IV:

Padre Pio “Don’t worry, work and pray.”

Translation: Don’t think, just do whatever the Church tells you, or your all-loving and merciful Creator will burn your soul for all eternity.

 

[Idisto]

NOTE TO ALL: I find it counter-productive to continue discussing my essay in a public forum because of the difficulty of keeping discussions separate and focused. I will more than happily continue discussions via PM or e-mail (available at the bottom of my essay). I will not respond directly in the forum to avoid the headache of keeping everything straight in my mind and the pressure I feel to respond quickly before someone else adds additional material to another person’s argument and confuses everything. Thank you.

 

[kliner]

Idisto:

Absolute good and evil no. But I think almost everyone on the planet would agree that suffering should be considered an evil.

i know you don’t want any more forum responses, but this is a small one.

suffering is our way of carrying our Cross. even though it is usually caused by wrong things, that doesn’t mean that suffering itself is evil. it seems to me that many saints were made so out of their sufferings (i would suppose offered up to God). remember that God is the best at pulling good things out of bad situations.

Peace of Christ be with you.

google: suffering @ vatican
google: catholic suffering

 

[CatholicMatthew]

Idisto:

Gunner,

You are using miracles to prove that the Catholic Faith is true and then using the Catholic Faith to prove that the miracles are not performed by demons. That’s circular, so the rest of your argument isn’t worth anything.

Miracles are not the only proof of Catholicism or God.

Matt

 

[Gunner]

Idisto:

Gunner,

You are using miracles to prove that the Catholic Faith is true and then using the Catholic Faith to prove that the miracles are not performed by demons. That’s circular, so the rest of your argument isn’t worth anything.

I am not using miracles, I am simply saying that they exist and affirm our faith. You cannot didprove the evidence of 70,000 witnesses at Fatima with a one or two liner.

I also acccept demons can perform preternatural events.
This is consistent. If you cannot win an argument with logic, it appears dismissive one liners is all you have.

God loves you, go with your objective conscience.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

This is a very sad thread.
You are “no longer Catholic” not because of the hodge podge of intellectual assertions you attempt, you are “no longer catholic” because you have lost your faith.

Looking at human existence we can look with eyes of faith or not; reasons can always accompany both, because we are fallible and limited.

If you would like your faith to return (and that is the biggest if), pray. I’d recomend the Rosary. I said a prayer for you. It’s your choice.

Peace and may God Bless You,

Michael

 

[Northwind]

Just a few thoughts. You may or may not be around to respond but, I just want the record cleared.

*Yes, I realize that the SAB has lots of imperfections. *

This much is true, but you didn’t say that in your essay. In your essay you said…I recommend The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible as an excellent reference to Biblical imperfections.

You obviously believe there is a lot of good scholarship in the SAB which cannot be further from the truth. It is the epitome of poor scholarship and blatant disregard for history, context and language.

But the fact that J.P. Holding has to bend over backward thousands of times to defend what is supposed to be God’s message to mankind, it’s easy to grow suspicious.

You have the cart before the horse here my friend. Holding is defending his faith which is being attacked by morons with a pen. He is merely responding to each allegation presented. And if this is bending over backwards then we are drawing the wrong conclusions regarding his motives. He is trying to clear up what SAB has so thoroughly muddied up. Its SAB who is bending over backwards trying to paint a false picture of the bible with his broad brush.

And I have to say that Holding has quite easily rendered each argument useless and meaningless in its true light.

thanks

---

---