Is Christian faith necessary for Selfless Love?

[atheistgirl]

Well, atheists are certainly free to make their own definition of agape. I have no problem with that.

Agape had it’s meaning long before the Church came along.

The Church then took this word and made it mean something to suit it’s agenda.

Sarah x

 

[PRmerger]

How many times do you think the Church Cardinals read the books of the Bible, over hundreds of years of Church Synods and Councils, before deciding what books were inspired and what books weren’t?

The books of the Bible, Sarah, were the books that were read at the Divine Liturgy, from the first days of Christianity.

They were transmitted through Sacred Tradition, which, as you know, Catholic believe is a channel of the Word of God that existed before the Sacred Scriptures.

IOW: the Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

Those early Christian texts (of which there were over 400) that proclaimed that which was already orally taught were discerned to be* theopneustos.* Those which contradicted the Oral Tradition were rejected.

And since there was no split between the Catholic and Orthodox Church in those early days of the Councils, how did the Catholic Bible end up with 73 inspired books but the Orthodox Bible ended up with 81 inspired Books?

Because the Eastern churches were never a cohesive group, IMHO, and rejected that which the Latin Church had defined.

My understanding is that their canon was a rather recent innovation: “until recent times, when, under the dominant influence of its Russian offshoot, it is shifting its attitude towards the deuterocanonical Scriptures.”

Why did it take the Holy Spirit hundreds of years before finally allowing the Cardinals to close the canon?

The canon was formally defined at a council when questions arose as to its validity.

Just like the Trinity—even though it was a belief proclaimed from the first days of Christianity, it was not formally defined until the 4th century, when heretical views became promulgated and the Church, in her wisdom, saw it necessary to make a formal definition.

Was the Spirit talking to them on some days, but not others? Were there gaps of decades and centuries where He wasn’t talking to them?

Nope. Never any gaps.

How come the Catholic cardinals didn’t declare one book inspired in 170 AD but said it was definately inspired in 360 AD?

Sarah x

Again, you are under the misapprehension that it wasn’t inspired until it was defined.

 

[PRmerger]

Agape had it’s meaning long before the Church came along.

The Church then took this word and made it mean something to suit it’s agenda.

Sarah x

And I don’t have a problem with the Church making her own definitions.

I can’t imagine why you would see that as a problem, Sarah.

 

[atheistgirl]

Semantics, Sarah. Semantics.

Yeah, pretty much.

It seems to be vitally important to some that Christianity is able to lay claim to certain human behavior to the exclusion of all others

If that means redefining words, hey, they’ll do it

But that’s like everyone in the world knowing what a dog is.

Then meeting a person of faith that says, well, no, in my belief system, that’s a dorg

And while you guys can have dogs, only people in my faith can have a dorg.

If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Again, you are under the misapprehension that it wasn’t inspired until it was defined.

Maybe. I’m not expert in Catholicism.

It’s the Chuch that decided what was inspired and what wasn’t.

A decision that took quite a few hundred years before the canon was finally closed.

Inocente’s two day window seems quite reasonable by comparison

Sarah x

 

[PRmerger]

Inocente’s two day window seems quite reasonable by comparison

Sarah x

I don’t understand what the connection is with inocente’s belief that the Spirit tells him what’s inspired and what’s not.

 

[atheistgirl]

And there you’d have it.

Nope.

The original meaning of the word is unconditional love.

No need to add faith to it at all.

Except of course, by not doing so, Christianity would have to recognize others laying down their lives for their fellow man as equal to any sacrifice a Christian might make.

The definition does not distinguish.

Can’t have that!

So, let’s add - faith, so we can exclude everyone not of the faith, and thereby claim some fictional status and diminish the sacrifice of others, because thought it might be brave, hey, it’s not Agape, because we just redefined that!

As if the word belonged to the Church

And there you have it!

Sarah x

 

[PRmerger]

Agape had it’s meaning long before the Church came along.

The Church then took this word and made it mean something to suit it’s agenda.

Sarah x

You do know, Sarah, that the Church is in the habit of doing this, right?

It took Jewish baptisms and changed it into “something to suit its agenda”.

It took pagan birthdays and changed it into “something to suit its agenda”.

It took sex and changed it into “something to suit its agenda”.

It’s in the habit of taking things and sanctifying it.

That’s part of the job of the Church.

 

[PRmerger]

Except of course, by not doing so, Christianity would have to recognize others laying down their lives for their fellow man as equal to any sacrifice a Christian might make.

So where is he? I’ve been wanting to know where this atheist is!

I want names, eyewitnesses, first-person accounts, corroborating reports, of someone who’s done the equivalent of what Kolbe did.

You want to say that an atheist who helps a little old lady cross the street is doing the same thing, qualitatively and quantitatively, as Kolbe.

That’s the ONLY way you’re going to find this atheistic equivalent.

 

[atheistgirl]

You want to say that an atheist who helps a little old lady cross the street is doing the same thing, qualitatively and quantitatively, as Kolbe.

Where did I say that?

Have you been reading what I’ve been posting?

It’s completely irrelevant anyhow.

If one of the guys on MAAFgets killed (and I hope that never happens) jumping on a granade for his buddies, where there is no dispute about their atheism and it’s on the internet for all to see - I know already two things are going to happen:

certain types of people are going to say hey, that wasn’t agape, sure he was brave, but only a christian could do such a thing out of agape

Or

certain types of people are going to say hey, that must have been God working through him anyhow even though he’s an atheist



Thankfully, for the most part, atheism is not central to an atheists life, like religion is to a believer.

We just get on and do the right thing, because it’s the right thing to do

Sarah x

 

[PRmerger]

Maybe. I’m not expert in Catholicism. :shrug

Yeah, well, I guarantee you that you’re much more knowledgeable than about 1/2 of the Catholics that sit in the pews in my parish.

At any rate, perhaps this analogy will help you correct this misapprehension you seem to have that something is only believed when a council declares it to be so.

What was solemnly pronounced, declared and defined a certain point of time is not an indication that it only came to be believed at that point.

It has been the “constant teaching” in our house that when the kids come home from school they are to do certain things: hang up their backpacks, put their shoes away, wash their hands, take off their uniforms, eat their snack, finish their chores, practice their piano, etc etc etc.

Despite the fact that they have been doing this every school day for 4-14 years, every once in a while we need to have a “family meeting” to pronounce, declare and define exactly who should be doing which job and how it is to be done. (Note: I try to ignore their incredulous looks that say, “What? We’re supposed to hang up our backpacks again this year?” or “What? You’ve never said that we had to take off our uniforms* and *hang them up!” )

At this council we recall what’s been done in the past, review the current norms and define again exactly what’s the expectation. Sometimes the kids complain that we are “making up new rules”, claiming we’ve “never done it this way before” when in actuality we are just pronouncing, declaring and defining a standard norm of our family.

Thus, at the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was affirmed by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546). The canon of Scripture, however, was not newly formed in 382. It was a constant belief held and spoken of for many years, sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly. Perhaps in order to alleviate any doubt and to correct any wrong information, God chose 382 as the time to initiate the process, and closed the process in 1546.

 

[PRmerger]

Where did I say that?

Have you been reading what I’ve been posting?

Sarah x

It was hyperbole, Sarah.

 

[atheistgirl]

“What? You’ve never said that we had to take off our uniforms* and *hang them up!” ).

You too huh

My current favorite is: ‘‘But I did that last week’’!!!

Well yeah, and you’re going to do it this week too buddy

Sarah x

 

[inocente]

Agape love is as “rose-colored” glasses. You see the same reality, the same people, the same struggles and even wars, but suddenly it is all as a beautiful garden that has some mischievous imps (how precious they are) playing rough at times. Doesn’t mean that destruction and killing and sneaking raisins into the cookies are suddenly all OK things to do; just that they don’t cause anxiety for the agape observer.

Well said. Being born again.

 

[inocente]

Yeah. It’s not unlike the Mormons’ “burning in the bosom”.

And, I’m curious, whether it’s NOT a feeling you get, but some other method you use to discern that the Spirit has told you something is *theopneustos *, does it have to occur each and every time you read the verse, or is the Spirit talking to you, once, on each verse sufficient?

And, if you didn’t hear the Spirit talking to you the first 10 times you read, say Numbers 31, but then on June 14, 2012 you read it and suddenly the Spirit tells you that it is inspired, you can believe that it is inspired on that day, but it wasn’t on June 13, 2012?

How does that work?

Your disrespect for the Spirit says more about you than anyone else, as does your patronizing condescension.

On this forum you don’t get to answer a question with a question, it’s in the stickies. So I ask again - do you think Numbers 31 (kill all the men, boys and women but keep the remaining 32,000 virgins as plunder, all in the name of the Lord) is inspired by an unchanging Almighty God, and how do you know, what super-duper surefire process do you use?

And I’ll add, if you think it’s inspired by God what does the passage tell you about God?

I live in perpetual hope that one day you’ll give a straight answer, but am not holding my breath.

 

[inocente]

You take the parts that make you feel good: God is love. (That’s nice. I like that verse, too. It gives me warm fuzzies. )
And reject the parts that make you feel icky: Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.
And you decide that God just happens to have created a theology that completely agrees with everything you just happen to believe. How conveeeeeeenienttt, eh?

Where did you get that nonsense from? Substantiate that fiction please.

Just a few weeks back you PM’d me to ask my help and now you obsessively return to an 18-month old thread, make up stuff about me out of thin air, and disrespect my religion and the Holy Spirit.

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. - John 14:16-17

If you’re too worldly to accept the Spirit of truth then pray to be changed. But enough already, this friend one day and condescending enemy the next is scary, seriously I’m glad you don’t know my address.

Make up your mind, I’m a friend if that’s what you want. But either way get off the personal stuff, and if you can’t get off the personal stuff then stop posting to me and about me.

 

[PRmerger]

Just a few weeks back you PM’d me to ask my help and now you obsessively return to an 18-month old thread, make up stuff about me out of thin air, and disrespect my religion and the Holy Spirit.

Look, friend, I have learned that you are a sensitive guy, and I try to get that and be respectful that you get your feelings hurt easily, depending upon your mood.

We are having a discussion here–there is no malice in my questions.

We can discuss issues and disagree and I will still like you. I see your heart and I love it!

But, when you disagree with me (that’s fine, of course), I will challenge you and substantiate my beliefs.

Not to mention, you cannot be snarky and then not expect some snarkiness back. I have a great arsenal of wit and wisdom in my repertoire, so if you dish it out, be prepared to take it.

I have met lots of folks here who like to toe the line with the snark, and then when someone gives it back they turn all, “How dare you! I thought you were a Christian!”

Depending upon who it is I may ignore. Or give it back. Or if they’re a lost soul I may be ever so gentle and patient, like a I’m talking to a little baby.

So, yeah, I’m going to keep chatting with you and I may even PM you for more “help” (thank you very much, BTW!) and you can be an adult and get that we’re sitting around a patio drinking some cocktails and eating something deliciously unhealthy and discussing religion…or you can be huffy and ignore me. I hope you’re the former and not the latter.

 

[PRmerger]

Your disrespect for the Spirit says more about you than anyone else, as does your patronizing condescension.

I wasn’t being condescending at all. Maybe a little patronizing.

But if you could please explain how the Spirit tells you what’s an inspired verse and what’s not.

It’s simply a question that needs to be answered in light of your position that you don’t believe that everything in the Bible is inspired, and that the Spirit assists you in discerning what is and what isn’t.

How do you know? What message do you get and how is that relayed to you?

Does that seem to be reasonable questions?

 

[atheistgirl]

That’s the ONLY way you’re going to find this atheistic equivalent.

Lol.

I don’t get why you’re getting so hung up on this.

If I send you my information, or if one of the brave men and women who got sick of the no atheists in foxhole stuff and actually posted pictures of themselves on their website, with banners saying they are atheists, were to die for their fellow soldiers, I’ve already said I firmly believe you, or I should say certain Christians, would just say one of two things:

It’s not agape because only people of faith can have that, even though the Church took the word and redefined it. The Church does not own the word, or the language.

Or, as has been said to me here in a thread, God was working through them even though they don’t believe in God.

It seems critical to some that this plank of their belief must never be threatened or removed, hence why the word was commandered, to give believers an out.

It seems some have a vested interest in ensuring no atheist could demonstrate this agape, almost as if their very faith would be threatened.

It’s pretty transparent.

And sad in a way.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Because the Eastern churches were never a cohesive group, IMHO, and rejected that which the Latin Church had defined.

Not when the books were being agreed on in the very beginning, they were all one.

As the Orthodox, and Catholics all believe in the same God, and Holy Spirit, and Jesus, and have valid apostolic succession and the same sacraments, and claim miracles that neither Church denies of the other, why would the Holy Spirit inspire the Orthodox to have Machabees 3 as an inspired book, and not Catholics

Sarah x