Saved by faith and more

[Lucy107]

If they (those sins listed #33 ) are easy to commit , then unless there is figuratively speaking, a gun to one’s head, they are committed, by definition, with someone’s deliberate consent.

Not at all. They are easy to commit because the person is under the influence of the “promptings of feelings and passions.”

Therefore, Issue 1 (consent) is solved. Full explanation on consent follows

My point is that you downplay the role of being under the influence of the “promptings of feelings and passions.”

What about knowledge, The 2nd condition?

By their hearing or their reading, ( the sins and their consequences #33 that have been there for 1000’s of years) the issue of “knowledge” is then solved.

Again, no.

I once witnessed a preacher rattle down the message of the Gospel in 60 seconds and then say “So, now you have heard the Gospel. You know what it is about. You now have no excuse anymore that you didn’t hear it. If you don’t comply with it, you are guilty and will burn in hell for all eternity.”

From the essay “Can Outsiders Be Insiders?” by Fr. Peter Stravinskas:
/…/
Around the time of Constantine, a new moment arrived in Christian history: the Roman persecutions ceased and Christianity found itself the favored religion of the Empire. What also changed was the presumption that some peoples hadn’t heard the Gospel preached. No longer could non-Catholics claim ignorance of the requirements for salvation; the Good News, it was believed, was known throughout the world. And so, we find a Father like St. Ambrose of Milan grounding his negative judgment on their salvation in the fact that “the faith has been spread to all peoples.” Similarly, the Eastern Father, St. Gregory of Nyssa, argued that since “the call has gone out to all, how can we deem some to be invincibly ignorant of the Gospel message?”

St. John Chrysostom used similar logic. His denial of salvation to non-Catholics rested on an important assumption. He believed firmly that anyone who rejected Christ did so with full understanding and intent. In other words, since Jews and Gentiles alike had now ample opportunity to hear the proclamation of the Gospel, their refusal to enter the Church could only be judged as obstinacy or hardness of heart. In short, damnation was their fault.
/…/

catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/can-outsiders-be-insiders.html

You argue the same point as the people mentioned above; taking for granted that everyone who has in any way heard of the Gospel, has the necessary and sufficient knowlegde necessary for Salvation.

Arguably, even the majority of Catholics are not particularly proficient in their knowledge of the Bible and the Cathecism, what to speak of outsiders.

However, from the same essay above:
/…/
The patristic position on extra ecclesiam continued into the middle ages, with St. Thomas Aquinas. For the Angelic Doctor, only the Church provided both faith and the sacraments, and hence, salvation. Like the early Fathers, Aquinas held that non-Christians were so because of obstinacy to the Gospel message. This was the case even for those in non-Christian areas, for God, in His power, could provide such individuals with some type of extraordinary revelation, thus giving them the opportunity to respond. If they refused, they rejected the direct appeal of God.

While Aquinas stressed the necessity of Church membership for entrance into eternal life, he also envisioned some people, unable to be baptized into the Faith, who nonetheless had a desire either to be baptized or at least to be saved and were essentially willing to do whatever God wanted them to do for salvation. The reason he gives for what we have come to term “baptism of desire” is quite instructive. He says that such a one “can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of the person’s desire for baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith that works through charity, whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies a person inwardly” (Summa Theologiae III, q.68, a.2). This insight must be deeply appreciated: God is not bound to the sacraments. What does Aquinas mean? That the Lord Who established the Church and instituted the sacraments as the ordinary means of salvation remains sovereign in His judgments and actions. He Who made sacraments is likewise free to bestow His grace in other ways.
/…/

 

[Lucy107]

Continued from above:

and
/…/
Surely, it would never have dawned upon a medieval Christian that the way Jews and Moslems were approached with the Gospel (all too often, under political and physical duress) did little to convince them of the truths of Christianity. At any rate, the conventional wisdom of the era presumed that the Christian message was indeed sufficiently known and that refusal to accept it constituted the sin of unbelief, deemed worthy of eternal damnation. Theology never develops in a vacuum, and that is clearly the case with the doctrine of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
/…/
Vitoria went even farther to suggest that if the native peoples were not converting of their own volition, one should not be surprised, given the maltreatment they received all too often at the hands of the conquistadors who were perceived, frankly, as the hands, the heart and the voice of Christ by the would-be converts.
/…/
With great insight and sensitivity, he went on to make a specific example of the followers of Islam: “I grant that the Moslems have heard the name of Christians. But they have been so educated that they think that our Faith is false and mistaken, while the faith in which they have been educated is the true faith . . . They do not know anything about divine revelation; they have not seen signs or miracles that would prove their religion false, nor have they heard of them in such a way that they would be truly obliged to believe those who told them of such things.” All this led him to this conclusion: “Therefore, erroneous faith does not condemn, provided the error has a reasonable excuse and that they are invincibly ignorant of the true Faith” (Ibid).
/…/

One’s objection or disagreement to those activities being grave sins and their grave consequences is not the issue. God established those sins to have those consequences, therefore end of story. That’s why I list the sins and their consequences just in case one is innocently ignorant of both.

And you think that you posting them here is sufficient for people to be convinced and convicted?

I say innocent, because people play games with what they “really know”, when it comes to suffering the consequences for committing said actions. All of a sudden people become totally oblivious of everything that makes them responsible for what they’ve done freely. iow people have been known to lie. or those who purposefully avoided knowing the truth because it’s inconvenient, 1791 they **all **are guilty of their actions

While I’m not disagreeing, your appraoch here seems to veer into scrupulosity.

]So If one takes that passage from the one who judges ALL seriously, then in perspective, given all humanity from beginning till the end of the world, those who go to hell FAR outnumber those who go to heaven.

To me, It makes it sound like (comparitively speaking) that hell is stuffed to the gills.

Great then, your fire-and-brimstone goal has been achieved.

However, in a rape case, the perpetrator IS giving their consent to the act,

Rape is a good example where the perpetrator is most likely under the influence of the “promptings of feelings and passions.”

Like I said, I think your approach here seems to veer into scrupulosity. It seems that you’re afraid that if you were to be more “liberal,” then your faith or your reason for preaching it would collapse. Or perhaps that if you wouldn’t hold yourself - and others - on an ultra tight leash of fire-and-brimstonery, your own damnation - and the damnation of others - would be certain. Or perhaps that if you wouldn’t hold yourself - and others - on an ultra tight leash of fire-and-brimstonery, you wouldn’t obey God’s commandments.
As if it would be inherently impossible to appreciate God’s commandments and carry them out gladly.

 

[Lucy107]

Steve -

What do you think Jesus meant when he said:

Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
Matt. 11: 29-30 ESV

 

[steve_b]

Not at all. They are easy to commit because the person is under the influence of the “promptings of feelings and passions.”

Under the influence? You mean temptation?

People have personal choices that they either voluntarily consent to or voluntarily don’t consent to all day long
L:

My point is that you downplay the role of being under the influence of the “promptings of feelings and passions.”

Some people only quote the beginning of what a mortal sin requires.

"Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent"

Often those same people think they find some massive mystey here that is unassailable for the average person to comprehend. What’s so hard to understand about the sins and consequences listed in #33 ? Scripture says those sins on a person’s soul are massive if they remain on one’s soul at death. Nothing is hidden there from us. Full disclosure by God is given.

Just like Adam and Eve were given a simple command and corresponding consequence if they disobey the command… iow, Dont do …] or you will die. Clear command, clear consequence…agreed? Just like the sins mentioned in #33. And what happened IMMEDIATELY after A & E committed the first sin? The excuses started, the blame game started. It’s Not my fault. He did it, she did it, the serpant made me do it… Did all that slip and slide drama change the outcome? Nope

Continuing with the CCC definition of mortal sin, here’s the part of the definition some leave out

“It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.”

**1859 **Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

Notice, It presupposes one already has knowledge of the sinful character of the act i.e. the kind and the gravity of those sins mentioned in #33

So once a person has been informed of an act’s grave sinful character,

• They can’t plead ignorance. They know a sins gravity and consequences to their soul.
• consent only has to be sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. That’s it. There’s no big mystery there.
• If one feigns ignorance about grave sin, or exhibits hardness of heart in either accepting the gravity of certain sins, or lack interest in avoiding them, that only increases their voluntary character of commiting a grave sin.

NOTE: this is all from the CCC and scripture, it’s NOT my opinion.
L:

Again, no.

I once witnessed a preacher rattle down the message of the Gospel in 60 seconds and then say “So, now you have heard the Gospel. You know what it is about. You now have no excuse anymore that you didn’t hear it. If you don’t comply with it, you are guilty and will burn in hell for all eternity.”

From the essay “Can Outsiders Be Insiders?” by Fr. Peter Stravinskas:

Around the time of Constantine, a new moment arrived in Christian history: the Roman persecutions ceased and Christianity found itself the favored religion of the Empire. What also changed was the presumption that some peoples hadn’t heard the Gospel preached. No longer could non-Catholics claim ignorance of the requirements for salvation; the Good News, it was believed, was known throughout the world. And so, we find a Father like St. Ambrose of Milan grounding his negative judgment on their salvation in the fact that “the faith has been spread to all peoples.” Similarly, the Eastern Father, St. Gregory of Nyssa, argued that since “the call has gone out to all, how can we deem some to be invincibly ignorant of the Gospel message?”

St. John Chrysostom used similar logic. His denial of salvation to non-Catholics rested on an important assumption. He believed firmly that anyone who rejected Christ did so with full understanding and intent. In other words, since Jews and Gentiles alike had now ample opportunity to hear the proclamation of the Gospel, their refusal to enter the Church could only be judged as obstinacy or hardness of heart. In short, damnation was their fault.
/…/

catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/can-outsiders-be-insiders.html

You argue the same point as the people mentioned above; taking for granted that everyone has the necessary and sufficient knowlegde necessary for Salvation.

Arguably, even the majority of Catholics are not particularly proficient in their knowledge of the Bible and the Cathecism, what to speak of outsiders.

[snip for space]

1859 & 1791 are clear.

 

[steve_b]

Continued from above:

and
/…/
Surely, it would never have dawned upon a medieval Christian that the way Jews and Moslems were approached with the Gospel (all too often, under political and physical duress) did little to convince them of the truths of Christianity.

Re: Jews

In the beginning, the Church was 100% Jews. So not** ALL** Jews had a problem with conversion. However most did have a problem. Paul was so frustrated with his own people, he ended up working with the gentiles instead.

Here’s another point

After Jesus fed the 5000, they followed Him accross the lake. They couldn’t get enough of Him. So Jesus gave them the bread of life discourse [Jn 6]. And what happened? All of them left Him except His apostles. Why did they leave? Was Jesus a bad teacher? Was His approach bad? Instead, they said to God’s face, who could listen to this and they left Him.

Here’s my question to you. Why didn’t Jesus keep trying? Why didn’t He go after them? Why did He just let them go?
L:

And you think that you posting them here is sufficient for people to be convinced and convicted?

Let’s say you really like mushrooms in your omlette. And you’re not an expert in mushrooms. I come to you and say you better not eat THESE mushrooms or THESE will kill you. Now I’m no expert in mushrooms either, and you know that, but I give you some reference materials supporting my warning to you about THESE. You eat the mushrooms anyway and die.

would I say to myself, gee, If only I was more convincing…or should I think I must not have been convincing enough. Or should I think, I did my part. I didn’t stay quiet knowing you needed this information for your own well being and I gave it to you. What you do with that information is your business.

Look at the example I raised in [JN 6] the bread of life discourse. It showed Jesus didn’t convince everyone He tried to teach. The question has to be asked. How could God almighty not be convincing …or convincing enough?

Free will is a HUGE power given to us by God. It’s really what makes us culpable for what we do.
L:

While I’m not disagreeing, your appraoch here seems to veer into scrupulosity.

Scrupulosity? Not even close.
L:

Great then, your fire-and-brimstone goal has been achieved.

good

The left thinks there is no hell. And if there is one, no one goes there.
L:

Rape is a good example where the perpetrator is most likely under the influence of the “promptings of feelings and passions.”

Okay but How are you using that point?
L:

Like I said, I think your approach here seems to veer into scrupulosity.

I gave a quote from the CCC. 1791 That’s not being scrupulous, that’s providing evidence for purposes of validating a point.
L:

It seems that you’re afraid that if you were to be more “liberal,” then your faith or your reason for preaching it would collapse.

I think you miss the point of the quote. It’s about correct thinking vs thinking like a fool.

Ecclesiastes 10:2A wise man’s heart inclines him toward the right,
but a fool’s heart toward the left.

I find it interesting, this idea of defining left vs right, in terms of wise v fool, is such an old way of describing this distinction, this way.

As an aside, I have a friend who brags he is not just left, but FAR left.
L:

Or perhaps that if you wouldn’t hold yourself - and others - on an ultra tight leash of fire-and-brimstonery, your own damnation - and the damnation of others - would be certain. Or perhaps that if you wouldn’t hold yourself - and others - on an ultra tight leash of fire-and-brimstonery, you wouldn’t obey God’s commandments.
As if it would be inherently impossible to appreciate God’s commandments and carry them out gladly.

Oh c’mon.

In this society people have very few leashes at all. Whatever ones are left, those are going too.

To prove that, Have the sins listed #33 been on the increase or decrease in this world?

 

[steve_b]

Steve -

What do you think Jesus meant when he said:

Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
Matt. 11: 29-30 ESV

Here’s what I think. Look around

Re: the sins we’ve been talking about #33. Let’s take just one example, fornication. Are the % of people living together today without marriage, less today or more, than say 50 years ago? 50 years ago there was still a stigma against doing that. Today it doesn’t raise an eyebrow.

I think some, maybe many, avoid His yoke even though He says it’s light . And I think they feel His burden isn’t light so they ignore it . I also think some, maybe many, refuse to learn from Him.

I say this because, one only has to try and correct a wrong they see in this area and see where it gets them, … a quick mind your own business, or at least the "look"that says the same thing or worse, or one responds who are you to judge ME, or, fill in the blank yourself. I think you see what I mean

 

[Lucy107]

Under the influence?

No, I mean influence. Like being drugged, except by anger, or sadness etc.

People have personal choices that they either voluntarily consent to or voluntarily don’t consent to all day long

That’s your interpretation. Some others would say that most people are on a kind of auto-pilot most of the time, hardly better than robots.

Clear command, clear consequence…agreed?

Uh. Where do you come from?
Have you ever been bullied? Mobbed against? Robbed? Assaulted?
A bully commands people to do things. Does that mean that the right thing to do is to give in to the bully? Seriously??

So once a person has been informed of an act’s grave sinful character,

No. This is not how it works.
All kinds of people will command all kinds of things. That something is being commanded doesn’t even remotely mean that it would be wise to obey the command.

Modern fashion commands all kinds of things, but you don’t obey those commandments, do you?

They know a sins gravity and consequences to their soul.

No they don’t. Especially since chances are they don’t even believe they have a soul to begin with.

What you’re talking about would apply for people who are Catholics, and perhaps for Christians at large, but not for others. Many people don’t even know what it is that you’re taking issue with or what you’re talking about.

NOTE: this is all from the CCC and scripture, it’s NOT my opinion.

Of course. But the CCC and scripture do not tell you what in particular you should quote in some particular situation.
Not all verses apply in just any situation.

I say this because, one only has to try and correct a wrong they see in this area and see where it gets them, … a quick mind your own business, or at least the "look"that says the same thing or worse, or one responds who are you to judge ME, or, fill in the blank yourself. I think you see what I mean

Do you think that these people’s rejection of your correction is evidence that they are committing the sin of fornication in full knowledge and complete consent?

I don’t think that is the case at all. For starters, there may be psychological reactance at work. The people you correct may actually be agreeing with you, but because they perceive the interaction with you as a powerplay that threatens their ego, they feign disagreement (and then act on it due to the internal pressure for consistency).

Chances are, also, theat they don’t listen to you at all, and simply write you off as just another moralizing busybody.
When a telemarketer calls, I put down the phone as soon as I realize it’s a telemarketer. I don’t even listen to what it is that they are offering.
And if you have the same kind of busybody approach as telemarketers, surely people ain’t gonna listen to you.

After Jesus fed the 5000, they followed Him accross the lake. They couldn’t get enough of Him. So Jesus gave them the bread of life discourse [Jn 6]. And what happened? All of them left Him except His apostles. Why did they leave? Was Jesus a bad teacher? Was His approach bad? Instead, they said to God’s face, who could listen to this and they left Him.

Here’s my question to you. Why didn’t Jesus keep trying? Why didn’t He go after them? Why did He just let them go?

I don’t know. That was a unique situation.

Let’s say you really like mushrooms in your omlette. And you’re not an expert in mushrooms. I come to you and say you better not eat THESE mushrooms or THESE will kill you. Now I’m no expert in mushrooms either, and you know that, but I give you some reference materials supporting my warning to you about THESE. You eat the mushrooms anyway and die.

This is not an adequate analogy.

You seem to be operating from a communal principle of mutual trust and respect that is typical for close-knit communities and necessary for them.

But when you talk to people in modern society, especially strangers, you are not in that kind of community, and in such a situation, to act by that principle is a mistake.

 

[Lucy107]

would I say to myself, gee, If only I was more convincing…or should I think I must not have been convincing enough. Or should I think, I did my part. I didn’t stay quiet knowing you needed this information for your own well being and I gave it to you. What you do with that information is your business.

To some extent, it comes down to didactic strategies. Didactic strategies that work well on some people are ineffective on some others.

Look at the example I raised in [JN 6] the bread of life discourse. It showed Jesus didn’t convince everyone He tried to teach. The question has to be asked. How could God almighty not be convincing …or convincing enough?

Free will is a HUGE power given to us by God. It’s really what makes us culpable for what we do.

Those people actually had Jesus in their midst. We don’t. We have to believe a third party, and so our belief in Jesus is only as good as that third party.

When those people back then disagreed with Jesus, the situation wasn’t automatically the same as when someone nowadays disagrees with someone who claims to be talking on behalf of Jesus.

Back then, Jesus spoke on his own behalf.
Nowadays, there’s all kinds of people claiming all kinds of things on Jesus’ behalf.

Back then, if someone disagreed with Jesus, they were sure to disagree with Jesus.
But nowadays, given that there’s all kinds of people claiming all kinds of things on Jesus’ behalf, this is not so. Nowadays, disagreeing with someone who claims to be speaking on Jesus’ behalf is not automatically the same as disagreeing with Jesus. It may be disagreeing with Jesus, or it may not.

The left thinks there is no hell.

Nonsense. Where we differ is in who in particular might end up there.
Hitler and Richard Dawkins might go to heaven; while a compulsive Christian do-gooder who knows all the rules and has a perfect score in keeping the Commandments, but who ends up secretly holding a grudge against God might go to hell.

Rape is a good example where the perpetrator is most likely under the influence of the “promptings of feelings and passions.”
Okay but How are you using that point?

Certainly not to excuse the behavior, but just to be realistic about it. Have you ever been in an actual fist fight? Have you ever witnessed a sexual assault? Have you ever been in the presence of a drunk person who is seething with anger? I have. I would say those things fall into the category of “promptings of feelings and passions.” As disturbing as such behaviors may be, they don’t have the element of free will in the spiritual or religious sense. Obviously, secular law has somewhat different standards for ascertaining free will than religious law, in that secular law has a cruder understanding of “promptings of feelings and passions.”

I think you miss the point of the quote. It’s about correct thinking vs thinking like a fool.

How would you like it if some stranger unilaterally imposed himself on you as your teacher and would expect that you obey him?

Oh c’mon.

In this society people have very few leashes at all. Whatever ones are left, those are going too.

To prove that, Have the sins listed #33 been on the increase or decrease in this world?

Sometimes, if you spare the rod, you spoil the child. Other times, if you don’t spare the rod, you spoil the child.
What’s your point?

 

[Abu]

Lucy107 #48
Back then, Jesus spoke on his own behalf.
Nowadays, there’s all kinds of people claiming all kinds of things on Jesus’ behalf.

Back then, if someone disagreed with Jesus, they were sure to disagree with Jesus.
But nowadays, given that there’s all kinds of people claiming all kinds of things on Jesus’ behalf, this is not so. Nowadays, disagreeing with someone who claims to be speaking on Jesus’ behalf is not automatically the same as disagreeing with Jesus. It may be disagreeing with Jesus, or it may not.

That is precisely why it is absolutely essential to know and to realise fully what Jesus actually came to do and what He established. No one can speak clearly for Jesus if they ignore or deny the Church which He so clearly founded to lead us to His Truth and to heaven.

So what did Jesus actually teach?

The first error is in disregarding the mandate of Jesus, the Son of God, in installing Peter as His Supreme Vicar:
**All four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." (Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) ; [Later, also to the Twelve]

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

The second error is in disregarding history.
Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

In the time of the Apostles there were “all kinds of people claiming all kinds of things on Jesus’ behalf”, so much so that there were strong admonitions against them:
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." (2 Thess 2:15).

“Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, with faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard this rich trust with the help of the Holy Spirit that dwells within us.” (2 Tim 1:13-14). Again St Paul writes: “And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.” (2 Tim 2:2).

In Colossians 2: 4-23, St Paul calls on his flock to follow Christ “as you were taught” and warns against merely “human precepts and teachings.”

1 Cor 1:10: I urge you brothers, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.

We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. (1Jn 4:6).

“That we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive.” (Eph 4:14). Further, “For there will come a time when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but having itching ears, will heap up to themselves teachers according to their lusts. And they will turn away their hearing from the truth and turn aside rather to fables.” (2 Tim 4:3).

The result of not following Christ and the Sacred Scriptures of His Church, of substituting personal preferences, is the many thousands of differing interpretations and loss of the priesthood, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and nearly all of the sacraments.

 

[steve_b]

That’s your interpretation. Some others would say that most people are on a kind of auto-pilot most of the time, hardly better than robots.

ALL human beings are made to the image and likeness of God. Yeah I know, seems like a stretch when we consider some but It doesn’t matter what anybody says to the contrary.

Therefore, what you describe doesn’t excuse bad/sinful behavior. Even the most secular court in the land will throw someone in jail or even prison, for breaking the laws of the land regardless of one’s lack of beliefs in the system or the laws of the system. How much more will it go against them in the supernatural relm.
L:

Uh. Where do you come from?
Have you ever been bullied? Mobbed against? Robbed? Assaulted?

Wait a minute!!!

I said
steve b:

Just like Adam and Eve were given a simple command and corresponding consequence if they disobey the command… iow, Dont do …] or you will die. Clear command, clear consequence…agreed?

And you respond to me with

Lucy107:

Uh. Where do you come from?
Have you ever been bullied? Mobbed against? Robbed? Assaulted?

A bully commands people to do things. Does that mean that the right thing to do is to give in to the bully? Seriously??

Where did THAT come from?

Give me the quote where I ever said what you accuse me of. Give me the quote, AND the specific post it was on.
L:

No. This is not how it works.
All kinds of people will command all kinds of things. That something is being commanded doesn’t even remotely mean that it would be wise to obey the command.

WOW!

So IOW, if I’m a cop, and I catch you doing a hollywood stop, (running a stop sign) and pull you over. I tell you that you went through a stop sign. You say well I slowed down before rounding the turn. To which I get out my billy club and start wacking you with it and you say stop, and I only slow down, is that okay with you? Afterall, according to you “that something is being commanded doesn’t even remotely mean that it would be wise to obey the command”

I think you need to rethink your answer.
L:

No they don’t. Especially since chances are they don’t even believe they have a soul to begin with.

that’s your answer? interesting .
L:

What you’re talking about would apply for people who are Catholics, and perhaps for Christians at large, but not for others. Many people don’t even know what it is that you’re taking issue with or what you’re talking about.

This is a Catholic website and Catholics have a responsibility to evangelize the world
L:

Of course. But the CCC and scripture do not tell you what in particular you should quote in some particular situation.
Not all verses apply in just any situation.

I didn’t say it was only scripture or the CCC. But let’s face it, both those sources are loaded with answers if one is willing to study and look for those answers.
L:

Do you think that these people’s rejection of your correction is evidence that they are committing the sin of fornication in full knowledge and complete consent?

Unless they are leading a chaste and celebate lifestyle, and let’s be honest, how many singles living together do you think live that way, then by their cohabitation, they are already presumed to be in sexual sin before I even say a word.
L:

I don’t think that is the case at all. For starters, there may be psychological reactance at work. The people you correct may actually be agreeing with you, but because they perceive the interaction with you as a powerplay that threatens their ego, they feign disagreement (and then act on it due to the internal pressure for consistency).

Then that nudge, might give them a reason to correct their situation.
L:

Chances are, also, theat they don’t listen to you at all, and simply write you off as just another moralizing busybody.

And that says a ton about them.
L:

This is not an adequate analogy.

why?

 

[steve_b]

Those people actually had Jesus in their midst. We don’t. We have to believe a third party, and so our belief in Jesus is only as good as that third party.

The authority always comes from Jesus. And He gave His authority to the apostles** He** chose, and then in extension their successors they chose, and on and on in that unbroken line of succession. What Jesus promised did and will happen. All His promises went to His Church that He said He will build. That’s the Catholic Church #34 the pillar and foudation of truth
L:

When those people back then disagreed with Jesus, the situation wasn’t automatically the same as when someone nowadays disagrees with someone who claims to be talking on behalf of Jesus.

That’s actually not true. There’s no expiration date to the following

Luke 10:16
L:

Back then, Jesus spoke on his own behalf.

Actually,

In Jesus own own words He talks about Himself. By incarnating, as the new Adam, His perfect obedience to the Father makes it possible to correct the sins and disobedience of Adam and all…

Jn 5:19 the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

Jn 6:37,38 “I have come from heaven not to do my own Will, but the Will of the One who sent Me.”

Jn 12:49 For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.

Jn 12:50whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."

Jn 14:10 The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

Jn 14:31I do exactly what my Father has commanded me.

Lk22:42 Not my will but yours be done
L:

Nowadays, there’s all kinds of people claiming all kinds of things on Jesus’ behalf.

They “claim”

So what’s your criteria for getting at the truth?
L:

Nowadays, disagreeing with someone who claims to be speaking on Jesus’ behalf is not automatically the same as disagreeing with Jesus. It may be disagreeing with Jesus, or it may not.

How are** you** going to determine which is true and which is false?
L:

Nonsense. Where we differ is in who in particular might end up there.
Hitler and Richard Dawkins might go to heaven; while a compulsive Christian do-gooder who knows all the rules and has a perfect score in keeping the Commandments, but who ends up secretly holding a grudge against God might go to hell.

Nonsense back to you

Did I name names? Nope!
L:

Certainly not to excuse the behavior, but just to be realistic about it. Have you ever been in an actual fist fight? Have you ever witnessed a sexual assault? Have you ever been in the presence of a drunk person who is seething with anger? I have. I would say those things fall into the category of “promptings of feelings and passions.” As disturbing as such behaviors may be, they don’t have the element of free will in the spiritual or religious sense.

Nothing you describe invalidates free will.
L:

Obviously, secular law has somewhat different standards for ascertaining free will than religious law, in that secular law has a cruder understanding of “promptings of feelings and passions.”

The point was, people are subject to laws. All kinds of them.
L:

How would you like it if some stranger unilaterally imposed himself on you as your teacher
and would expect that you obey him?

I actually had an incident like that back in the days when I was in college. Professors of a class got switched. I remember not being particularly thrilled at this at first but I ended up liking the replacement better.
L:

Sometimes, if you spare the rod, you spoil the child. Other times, if you don’t spare the rod, you spoil the child.
What’s your point?

I sense you like to take opposite positions no matter the position.

 

[Lucy107]

ALL human beings are made to the image and likeness of God. Yeah I know, seems like a stretch when we consider some but It doesn’t matter what anybody says to the contrary.

Therefore, what you describe doesn’t excuse bad/sinful behavior.

It’s not intended to excuse anything.

I was just hoping - and, apparently, in vain - that you could put yourself in the shoes of the people you preach to. As this may, among other things, direct what it is that you actually tell them, and be more effective in your preaching.

Where did THAT come from?

Chances are that many people that you preach to experience you as a bully.

I do, but I am used to it by now.

WOW!

So IOW, if I’m a cop, and I catch you doing a hollywood stop, (running a stop sign) and pull you over. I tell you that you went through a stop sign. You say well I slowed down before rounding the turn. To which I get out my billy club and start wacking you with it and you say stop, and I only slow down, is that okay with you? Afterall, according to you "

But you’re not a cop.

that something is being commanded doesn’t even remotely mean that it would be wise to obey the command"

Were you ever bullied at school?
If the bully demanded your lunch money, did you give it to him?
Whenever anyone tells you to do something, you do it?

Hey, people probably often tell you to bugger off - and you don’t heed that command, do you.

I think you need to rethink your answer.

Yeah. Hoping for empathy from a preacher is usually vain …

No they don’t. Especially since chances are they don’t even believe they have a soul to begin with.

that’s your answer? interesting .

It shouldn’t be “interesting.” As a preacher, you ought to get to know the people you talk to.

This is a Catholic website and Catholics have a responsibility to evangelize the world

They sure do. But does that mean they ought to perform a psychological version of what the Conquistadores did in the Americas?

I didn’t say it was only scripture or the CCC. But let’s face it, both those sources are loaded with answers if one is willing to study and look for those answers.

Of course they are. My point is that not every verse is suitable in just any situation.

In the scenario with the adulteress whom the people wanted to stone - why didn’t Jesus give the woman a fiery lesson about how wrong it is to fornicate, why did he tell the people that only those without sin should cast stones?

And that says a ton about them.

It says a ton about you too. In that you don’t really care about the people you talk to, and merely view them as objects of your preaching, not as people, much less as prospective Children of God.

why?

I already explained it in the following sentences:

"You seem to be operating from a communal principle of mutual trust and respect that is typical for close-knit communities and necessary for them.

But when you talk to people in modern society, especially strangers, you are not in that kind of community, and in such a situation, to act by that principle is a mistake."

 

[Lucy107]

The authority always comes from Jesus.

***This is your claim.

---

Lk22:42 Not my will but yours be done

I have to laugh here. Theists like to say this - and then they do their own thing.

They “claim”

So what’s your criteria for getting at the truth?

How are** you** going to determine which is true and which is false?

In the matters of Jesus? I don’t know.

Nonsense back to you

Did I name names? Nope!

I gave you those names as examples, not specifically as names. Surely you can understand that.

The point was, people are subject to laws. All kinds of them.

Nobody said otherwise. You do realize, though, that you are here presenting yourself as judge, jury, and sometimes even executioner, right?

I sense you like to take opposite positions no matter the position.

No. If I had the money and political influence, I would start a civil movement called “Citizens against abuse in the name of God.”
And the movement would popularize the conviction that people who claim to be preaching on behalf of God ought to get their act together.
This isn’t atheistic nor anti-theistic (although I am sure many theists would call it just that), it is decidedly theistic.

 

[Lucy107]

That is precisely why it is absolutely essential to know and to realise fully what Jesus actually came to do and what He established. No one can speak clearly for Jesus if they ignore or deny the Church which He so clearly founded to lead us to His Truth and to heaven.

This is a truism. Truisms don’t help us move ahead.

So what did Jesus actually teach?

That depends on whom you ask.

In the time of the Apostles there were “all kinds of people claiming all kinds of things on Jesus’ behalf”,

It’s the same today, even more so. The thousands of Christian denominations, each one of them claiming to be the right one.
And then the thousands of lone ranger Christians, doing their own thing, but nevertheless claiming to speak of behalf of Jesus.

1 Cor 1:10: I urge you brothers, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.

How nice. If only it would actually be the case!

41,000 and counting.

“That we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive.” (Eph 4:14). Further, “For there will come a time when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but having itching ears, will heap up to themselves teachers according to their lusts. And they will turn away their hearing from the truth and turn aside rather to fables.” (2 Tim 4:3).

The result of not following Christ and the Sacred Scriptures of His Church, of substituting personal preferences, is the many thousands of differing interpretations and loss of the priesthood, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and nearly all of the sacraments.

Ironically, the different Christian denominations sometimes use the above against eachother …

 

[Abu]

Lucy107 #52
In the scenario with the adulteress whom the people wanted to stone - why didn’t Jesus give the woman a fiery lesson about how wrong it is to fornicate, why did he tell the people that only those without sin should cast stones?

Apart from commanding the woman found in adultery to “go and sin no more” the Christ also commanded us to:
“Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly.” (Jn 7:24).
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them” (Mt 7:15, 16).
“Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them.” (Mt 7:19-20).

Further, among those sins which defile Jesus stresses: evil thoughts, fornication, malice, deceits, lust, envy, pride and foolishness (Mk 7:21).

 

[steve_b]

It’s not intended to excuse anything.

why did you use the following argument back at me for what I said to you?

.
Originally Posted by Lucy107 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif

That’s your interpretation. Some others would say that most people are on a kind of auto-pilot most of the time, hardly better than robots.

I said people are made to the image and likeness of God, You’re excusing people because they’re on autopilot, hardly better than robots.

See the difference
L:

I was just hoping - and, apparently, in vain - that you could put yourself in the shoes of the people you preach to. As this may, among other things, direct what it is that you actually tell them, and be more effective in your preaching.

Lucy

this is a Catholic apologetics discussion forum. That means faith issues are discussed here from the Catholic perspective.

I don’t preach, I discuss. And discussions are to follow the topic of the thread. The topic on this forum is not bullying and the trauma to people that follows that. If you want to start a new thread on bullying, I would suggest it highly. It maybe just what you need

As an aside, If you want to tell your story that’s fine. But it’s up to you to volunteer that.
L:

Chances are that many people that you preach to experience you as a bully.

I am used to it by now.

Lucy,

I’m sorry that in your life you’ve been the victim of bullying. If it was so severe that you now see a bully in every person that doesn’t agree with you, then that’s obviously also a big problem.

Again I’ll just say, if you want, start another thread on bullying.

But since this is an apologetic forum on all matters concerning faith, and apologetics can be lively. iow, people don’t always agree with each other, then that might not be your cup of tea. But I will just say lively disagreement and back and forth discussion, does NOT equate to bullying.
L:

But you’re not a cop.

That example is an old one. I heard it 1st in traffic school years ago. The guy teaching the class was a comedian. IMV that’s the best kind of traffic school teacher. And it so happened in this class everyone in the beginning of the class had to stand up and tell everyone what traffic rule they violated to put them into traffic school. And a woman told everyone how she was pulled over for a hollywood stop. She insisted to the teacher it was a bogus ticket and maintained her innocence regardless of what the teacher was saying in response to her. So he used that analogy that I used with you. Back when I heard that analogy, it got a huge laugh. And because the class was stuffed with people, (obviously the city needed the funds) and many were in school for hollywood stops, it shortened the time needed for stories that were told.
L:

Were you ever bullied at school?

Nope. I went to an all boys school. No guy was bullied which mean no guy was a bully either. I can’t speak for what girls did to each other in the all girls school. But I suspect they could say the same for their side
L:

If the bully demanded your lunch money, did you give it to him?
Whenever anyone tells you to do something, you do it?

What did **you **do about that? Did you report this to the principle? That’s serious stuff. Kids today get suspended or expelled for that stuff.
L:

Hey, people probably often tell you to bugger off - and you don’t heed that command, do you.

Look,

This is a Catholic forum. These forums are monitored for offensive activities. Then there is also the case where If one doesn’t want to talk to someone, they just say so, or ignore them. It’s simple.
L:

In the scenario with the adulteress whom the people wanted to stone - why didn’t Jesus give the woman a fiery lesson about how wrong it is to fornicate, why did he tell the people that only those without sin should cast stones?

While He was walking the earth, He made it clear He was not there to condemn.

however,

If no ONE EVER gets condemned then why is there a judgement? AND why did Jesus warn more of hell than anyone, if no one goes there?
L:

It says a ton about you too. In that you don’t really care about the people you talk to, and merely view them as objects of your preaching, not as people, much less as prospective Children of God.

Your issues are obviously serious… But don’t project your issues onto others.
L:

"You seem to be operating from a communal principle of mutual trust and respect that is typical for close-knit communities and necessary for them.

Wow.

Are you saying then that the group you come from is NOT trustworthy, NOT respectful, NOT close, because none of that is necessary for THEM?

Look,

This is WAY off topic. If you want to discuss the pathology of bullying and those peple who are effected by it, That would be a good topic, but I don’t think it should be on an apologetic forum

as a suggestion, start another thread

 

[steve_b]

This is your claim.

Nope! Not my claim
Matthew 28:18
L:

In the matters of Jesus? I don’t know.

Allow me to help

[1 Timothy 3:15](1 - - Bible Gateway Timothy+3:15&version=RSVCE)

Jesus established only ONE Church.
L:

Nobody said otherwise. You do realize, though, that you are here presenting yourself as judge, jury, and sometimes even executioner, right?

I never said any such thing. You OTOH are lightening quick to judge.

 

[Lucy107]

why did you use the following argument back at me for what I said to you?

To see how much empathy you have.

I said people are made to the image and likeness of God, You’re excusing people because they’re on autopilot, hardly better than robots.

You keep projecting into me that I am excusing them.

Can you not imagine that it is possible to place oneself in another person’s position, and still discern their guilt, in the extent and gradation as it may apply?

If no ONE EVER gets condemned then why is there a judgement? AND why did Jesus warn more of hell than anyone, if no one goes there?

Strawman. I never said there was no hell.
I’ve even given you examples of people that I think might go to hell.

And you are not disagreeing with me, you are caricaturing, strawmaning my stance and then argue against that caricature, and judge me based on that.

This is WAY off topic. If you want to discuss the pathology of bullying and those peple who are effected by it, That would be a good topic, but I don’t think it should be on an apologetic forum

as a suggestion, start another thread

When questioned directly on the matter of bullying, psychological or otherwise, most people will typically present a flawless self-image of utter innocence. So there’s no point in starting such a thread.

Anyway, given your line of reasoning - and projecting - here in this thread, I got a better understanding of how come there are so many interpretations out there on what it takes to be saved.

 

[Lucy107]

Usually, many people tend to think that people who are good in some worldly, humanist sense, are or should also be seen as good in God’s eyes (ie. deserving heaven); while the people who are bad in some worldly, humanist sense, are or should also be seen as bad in God’s eyes (ie. deserving hell).

Many atheist arguments against God or belief in God follow just this kind of reasoning.

“No Catholic is ever required, as a condition of his salvation, to perform good works” goes against this kind of reasoning.

The thought that the proverbial killing, raping, and pillaging could sometimes be no more than venial sins can be very challenging sometimes. As is the thought that someone who “would never hurt a fly” could nevertheless commit mortal sin and persist in it.

Inability to distinguish between venial and mortal sin is a key feature of scrupulosity.

But yeah, I know, I am an outsider, or a newbie at best, and with a past like mine, who am I to take on those who have more pedigree than I could ever have!

Carry on.

 

[steve_b]

Anyway, given your line of reasoning - and projecting - here in this thread, I got a better understanding of how come there are so many interpretations out there on what it takes to be saved.

You are the one who has done the projecting here. Go back and look at your posts. I think we’re just going in circles. Have a nice day