Someone who believes God created even evil

[ahs]

First, I note that you have no reply to my point about the OT God killing innocent children and unborn.

Yes, I point out your circular reasoning by asking you to define “innocent” in an objective manner which also isn’t part of a belief system (sticking to the topic in the OP).

Not “fact” but belief. From my point of view, the “fact” is that we failed to attain enlightenment in our previous lives, and so have been born yet again. Everything that is born dies.

Then why do you have a problem with God taking life, if they will just be reborn again and have another chance of enlightenment? According to your view, God gave them another chance…which would be a good thing from where I am standing.

So, we are being punished for something we didn’t do. With Buddhist karma, we are only ever punished for something we did, not for something another person did. That seems fairer to me.

And “seems fairer to me” is subjective. It’s not objective truth. What seems fair to you won’t seem fair to someone else. And unless there is an objective Truth, then “what seems fair” is meaningless.

We just had that discussion. The OT God kills far too many people to be considered “merciful” IMHO.

Except that, according to your religion, God was actually doing them a favor by giving them another chance at enlightenment.

You may see the aborting of “innocents” as something bad, but you don’t actually know if this was to their demise or not. …

Does your argument look so good now?

As another member points out clearly above, abortion is wrong because WE don’t have the right to take a life of someone who is innocent…who has not committed a crime. But God is the Author of Life and has the right to take life, since He gives it in the first place. Infants are “innocent” in relation to us, as humans with a fallen nature. But in relation to God, ALL are born in iniquity…otherwise they’d be born in Paradise. Even your own religious view admits that “enlightenment” must be attained…that we are born without that and therefore are not “perfected”.
Since even infants must be “born anew of water and the Spirit” to be given the supernatural grace to live with God (what you might call “attain enlightenment”), it is wrong to kill them…it’s an offense against mercy (as well as usurping God’s Authority).

 

[rossum]

… as Buddhists believe, …

Shall we come to an agreement? You don’t tell me what I believe and I won’t tell you what you believe.

Most of the children who were killed in the flood and in the cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, and Jericho, therefore, were growing up in a corrupt and depraved culture

I hear a lot of Christians tell me that modern Western culture is corrupt and depraved: drugs, pornography, homosexuality and the rest. Are you now telling us that it is fine to kill the unborn and young children because of the state of the culture? If it was OK then, why is it not OK now? Is the Catholic Church going to withdraw all its objections to abortion and child-murder? Of course it isn’t. Your argument here is ludicrously bad. In effect your are justifying Andrea Yates’ killing of her five children. Is that really a position you want to support? Is that really a position you think that either your Church or your God supports?

rossum

 

[rossum]

Yes, I point out your circular reasoning by asking you to define “innocent” in an objective manner which also isn’t part of a belief system (sticking to the topic in the OP).

I was referring to the objective morality written in the Tripitaka. That is objective, since it is not dependent on my own subjective opinion.

Then why do you have a problem with God taking life, if they will just be reborn again and have another chance of enlightenment? According to your view, God gave them another chance…which would be a good thing from where I am standing.

I have a problem with any living thing taking life. God has apparently killed so many people that He is not destined for a good reincarnation; He will end up in one of the hells for a large number of lifetimes. All the gods die eventually.

Your argument here also applies to Christianity. If physical death is not “real” death, because the soul survives, then I can terminate as many people as I want and I won’t have “really” killed anyone because their souls are still alive. That is obviously rubbish, given “You shall not kill”, and its Buddhist equivalent.

And unless there is an objective Truth, then “what seems fair” is meaningless.

How can we tell an objective truth from a non-objective truth? Is it an objective truth that Odin’s horse has eight legs? What is your objectively true source for your answer? How do you know, objectively, that your source is actually objectively true?

You presumably believe that the Bible and the Church are sources of objective truth. Others do not hold that belief. They may look to the Tripitaka or to the Qur’an. How can we tell, objectively, which (if any) of the many scripture we have available contain objective truth?

rossum

 

[Good_Fella]

You do. They were all guilty of original sin, and so all deserved to be punished for Adam’s sin.

Catholics don’t see it that way.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**The consequences of Adam’s sin for humanity **

" All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: 'By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": “sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.'289.” (402)

“How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature.** By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice.** And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.” (404)

“Although it is proper to each individual,295** original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice**,** but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence”.** Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle." (405)

“The consequences of original sin and of all men’s personal sins put the world as a whole in the sinful condition aptly described in St. John’s expression, **“the sin of the world”.**300 This expression can also refer to the negative influence exerted on people by communal situations and social structures that are the fruit of men’s sins.301” (407)

“'We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, "by propagation, not by imitation” and that it is. . . ‘proper to each’" (Paul VI, CPG § 16). (419)

PAX
:heaven:

 

[SonOfMan]

Originally Posted by ahs
One question I posed to him was, “by what objective moral standard, that isn’t already part of a “belief system”, do you call something good or evil? Do you not see that, without a “belief system” or “religion”, you have absolutely no basis to call ANYTHING good or bad?”

This is false and even Catholicism teaches contrary to your statement regarding the Natural Law. All men, regardless of belief or un-belief, have the laws of God written on their hearts. This is how God will judge those who are ignorant of him, by how well they followed the Natural Law (their conscience).

 

[JoeT777]

You do. They were all guilty of original sin, and so all deserved to be punished for Adam’s sin.

God was not using bombs. God was specifically targeting individuals (first born sons) or whole cities and tribes. It is generally agreed that the Allied bombing campaign, particularly the area-bombing of cities was morally dubious. Is that the kind of action you want to support your God in?

I think you’re missing the point of the analogy. Point is the ‘enemy’ comes along and over seeds with cockle. Both are harvested and separated after the harvesting as in the parable of the sower. [Cf. Matthew 13:18 sqq.]

That is an incredibly dangerous sentiment. It leads to “Kill all Muslims” or to Abbot Amalric’s “Kill them all, God will know His own” at Béziers. You are doing a good job here of confirming that your God did create evil.

Only if you intend to play God.

Which is my point. How can the unborn child of a drowned or slaughtered mother have committed any “willful act”? What willful act did those dead Egyptian first-born babies do? Your case is weak here.

rossum

You’re conflating the guilt and punishment of sin with our human condition of suffering. Is it your contention then that the things we suffer, either from an act of mankind or an act of nature is ‘punishment,’ (whether it be the individual or the community)? If so, how do you contend with a ‘merciful God’ who mercilessly visits punishment on the innocent or those who simply act within the dictates of their nature? Do we fault our pet dogs for acting like animals, or blame sharks for acting like predator fish for eating people? If not then why would a merciful God blame humans for acting out his human nature of sin?

In some circles the thing you are advocating is called “sin nature” - there is no such thing; God did not create man evil.

Therefore, if we should consider this privation [punishment the original sin] so transmitted by physical descent to a particular human being insofar as the human being is an individual person, then such privation cannot have the nature of moral fault, for which voluntariness is prerequisite. [Aquinas, Thomas (2003-02-20). On Evil (pp. 196-197). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.]

JoeT

 

[ahs]

This is false and even Catholicism teaches contrary to your statement regarding the Natural Law. All men, regardless of belief or un-belief, have the laws of God written on their hearts. This is how God will judge those who are ignorant of him, by how well they followed the Natural Law (their conscience).

Right, I understand the moral law written in the heart of man. My point comes in where one man tells another man that what he is doing is “wrong” or “evil” or “sin”. The other man may not agree that his actions are wrong (otherwise he probably would not be doing them). How are you going to objectively teach him Truth? Enter: “Religion” or “a Belief System”.

 

[SonOfMan]

Right, I understand the moral law written in the heart of man. My point comes in where one man tells another man that what he is doing is “wrong” or “evil” or “sin”. The other man may not agree that his actions are wrong (otherwise he probably would not be doing them). How are you going to objectively teach him Truth? Enter: “Religion” or “a Belief System”.

You don’t need a religion or belief system to show that a man’s actions are wrong, you only need to demonstrate how they are wrong; that his actions are not in his neighbor’s (or his) best interest.

However, I think the arguement then shifts to what is ideal for man vs what a man can do to the best of his abilities in a situation where a lot of factors and stiupulations exist (for example, perhaps having to choose the lesser of two evils). Idealizations of what man ought to do aren’t so relevant, considering we don’t live in an ideal world, and this is perhaps where Catholicism loses a lot of people in trying to persuade people to follow its moral system of belief; it’s not realistic and very hard to apply in the real world of everyday living.

 

[Good_Fella]

Shall we come to an agreement? You don’t tell me what I believe and I won’t tell you what you believe.

Fine. Just don’t assume what Catholics actually don’t believe, that God punishes us for Adam’s sin. Further, it’s because you don’t believe in the existence of sin and fail to grasp the gravity of it in relation to God that you presume to judge Him as a murderer.

I hear a lot of Christians tell me that modern Western culture is corrupt and depraved: drugs, pornography, homosexuality and the rest. Are you now telling us that it is fine to kill the unborn and young children because of the state of the culture? If it was OK then, why is it not OK now?

If God wills to chastise the West for its sins, then so be it. Innocent children may have to share a temporal fate with wicked adults, but their eternal destiny will certainly differ.

Is the Catholic Church going to withdraw all its objections to abortion and child-murder? Of course it isn’t. Your argument here is ludicrously bad.

First of all, it isn’t for the Church or the state to decide who should live and who should die. Second, the Church has never accused God of child murder. You have. What happened to the children in the flood wasn’t an act of murder. I’m afraid you’re begging the question.

In effect your are justifying Andrea Yates’ killing of her five children. Is that really a position you want to support? Is that really a position you think that either your Church or your God supports?

How can I be justifying the act of someone who decided to play God and commit an act that God couldn’t ever possibly do - namely murder someone? May I remind you that murder is an unjustifiable killing because it involves taking something from someone that doesn’t belong to us.

What if God had never created us because of what He foresaw? Would that have been a preemptive act of murder?

"The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised.”
*Job 1, 21 *

PAX
:heaven:

 

[meltzerboy]

You don’t need a religion or belief system to show that a man’s actions are wrong, you only need to demonstrate how they are wrong; that his actions are not in his neighbor’s (or his) best interest.

However, I think the arguement then shifts to what is ideal for man vs what a man can do to the best of his abilities in a situation where a lot of factors and stiupulations exist (for example, perhaps having to choose the lesser of two evils). Idealizations of what man ought to do aren’t so relevant, considering we don’t live in an ideal world, and this is perhaps where Catholicism loses a lot of people in trying to persuade people to follow its moral system of belief; it’s not realistic and very hard to apply in the real world of everyday living.

Doesn’t Catholicism have an Oral Tradition, as does Judaism, that helps us apply our moral system of belief to everyday living?

 

[rossum]

I think you’re missing the point of the analogy. Point is the ‘enemy’ comes along and over seeds with cockle. Both are harvested and separated after the harvesting as in the parable of the sower. [Cf. Matthew 13:18 sqq.]

When the Argentine junta wanted to kill a pregnant woman, they held her in hospital until after she had given birth and only then killed the mother. Is your God less merciful that the Argentine Generals?

You’re conflating the guilt and punishment of sin with our human condition of suffering. Is it your contention then that the things we suffer, either from an act of mankind or an act of nature is ‘punishment,’ (whether it be the individual or the community)?

If there is “punishment” we inflict it on ourselves. If you throw a rock straight up in the air, whose fault is it when that rock hits you on the head?

Suffering is due to our own unskilful actions.

If so, how do you contend with a ‘merciful God’ who mercilessly visits punishment on the innocent or those who simply act within the dictates of their nature?

I do not think that your OT God is merciful, judging by His actions.

In some circles the thing you are advocating is called “sin nature” - there is no such thing; God did not create man evil.

Does evil exist? Yes or no. Did God create everything (except Himself)? Yes or no.

Are you positing two separate creators? God who created most things, and a separate creator to create evil? That does not seem to match what I have heard of Christian theology.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Further, it’s because you don’t believe in the existence of sin and fail to grasp the gravity of it in relation to God that you presume to judge Him as a murderer.

I do not judge God. He judges Himself by His own actions. There is no sin, but there wise actions and unwise actions. Many of God’s actions are unwise.

If God wills to chastise the West for its sins, then so be it. Innocent children may have to share a temporal fate with wicked adults, but their eternal destiny will certainly differ.

What an utterly appalling sentiment. Can your God, in His infinite power not devise a way to kill the sinners but to leave the innocent alive? You have an omnipotent god who has to resort to mass slaughter, rather than picking off those deserving of punishment with infinite precision. You are not doing a very good job of selling your God to me here.

What happened to the children in the flood wasn’t an act of murder.

If you say it wasn’t murder, then tell me what crime those unborn children had committed that was worthy of a death sentence. Please be specific.

rossum

 

[SonOfMan]

Doesn’t Catholicism have an Oral Tradition, as does Judaism, that helps us apply our moral system of belief to everyday living?

Are you implying that when Sacred Scripture or Catholic Doctrine is too rigid to follow or understand in ordinary life, that Oral Tradition may be more lax and consequently substituted to make easier choices?

As far as I understand, Catholicism gives no such liberty. A lot of the principles and teachings are based on what one ought to do in ideal circumstances, but as I mentioned earlier, we all live in such a world in which we’re dealing with the less than ideal.

I disagree with the notion that only religious people can recognize morality. Most people are aware of morality and most apply it because most people have functioning consciences. The nitpicks arise when people argue over what is in their, or others’, best interest.

If I misunderstood your question, I apologize, and perhaps you could explain more or give an example?

 

[Good_Fella]

I do not judge God. He judges Himself by His own actions. There is no sin, but there wise actions and unwise actions. Many of God’s actions are unwise.

You speak of God as someone who is finite and imperfect like ourselves. But God is omniscient and thus knows all things. So He can never err in His judgment and subsequently act in a wrong way. Nor is God in a position to ever have to judge Himself, since He is perfect and not striving for perfection as we are; or else He wouldn’t be God. Since you are a finite being and thus prone to err in your reasoning because of your limitations, you are in no position to measure the capacity of God’s infinite wisdom. Ontologically that’s impossible.

What an utterly appalling sentiment. Can your God, in His infinite power not devise a way to kill the sinners but to leave the innocent alive? You have an omnipotent god who has to resort to mass slaughter, rather than picking off those deserving of punishment with infinite precision. You are not doing a very good job of selling your God to me here.

It may be appalling to you, but that’s because you don’t believe in the existence of the imperishable human soul and the final judgment. God separates the wheat from the chaff and the sheep from the goats in the next world after death. The particular judgment of souls occurs immediately after death, then comes the general judgment when Christ returns in glory at the end of time. And as St. Paul has put it, the suffering in this world doesn’t compare with the glory that is to come for the adopted sons and daughters of God. Thus we should heed the One who has the power to destroy both the body and the soul.

If you say it wasn’t murder, then tell me what crime those unborn children had committed that was worthy of a death sentence. Please be specific.

As I already told you, the unborn and the young children weren’t punished at all. The guilt of their parents wasn’t applied to them. But unfortunately they were implicated in their parents’ transgressions, just as the entire world is implicated in the sin of Adam as his descendants. Death, or more precisely mortality, entered the world because of Adam’s sin. If death exists, it’s because of our sinful nature and tendency to sin. No human being has ever lived their life without ever having committed at least one grave transgression against their Creator. Thus death has dominion over us because we are deprived of the original state of holiness and justice that God had desired - not consequently willed - for us. We sin against God and often do just by entertaining and prolonging wicked thoughts because of our selfish nature. As a result, mankind (Adam) has pronounced a death sentence on himself by choosing to take the place of God. The truth is we are not conceived or born in the state of pure innocence. Every unborn child will gravely sin at least once in their life, either intentionally or unintentionally. We are autonomous beings who sin against God because we choose to, being prone to. We succumb to temptation because of an inordinate self-love. And so nobody can escape death unless God decides otherwise in His mercy.

Thankfully, Christ has freed us from the curse of the law and has regained new life for us by atoning for our sins. He alone makes eternal satisfaction for our sins to God, since the value of his merits in strict justice derive from his divine nature. The best we can do is make temporal satisfaction here on earth in the grace of God to help repair our relationship with Him. Accepting suffering and loss as an offering to God is required of us in order to make reparation for our sins. Without suffering and loss there can be no expiation. In His mercy, God is willing to give us another chance provided we are committed to amend our lives and be as righteous as Christ was in his humanity. In this way we should be like God - perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect, walking in His ways and not ours estranged from Him. God didn’t wipe out the entire human race in the flood because He wills to give us all another chance to strive for that divine perfection as relatively as we can.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[meltzerboy]

You speak of God as someone who is finite and imperfect like ourselves. But God is omniscient and thus knows all things. So He can never err in His judgment and subsequently act in a wrong way. Nor is God in a position to ever have to judge Himself, since He is perfect and not striving for perfection as we are; or else He wouldn’t be God. Since you are a finite being and thus prone to err in your reasoning because of your limitations, you are in no position to measure the capacity of God’s infinite wisdom. Ontologically that’s impossible.

It may be appalling to you, but that’s because you don’t believe in the existence of the imperishable human soul and the final judgment. God separates the wheat from the chaff and the sheep from the goats in the next world after death. The particular judgment of souls occurs immediately after death, then comes the general judgment when Christ returns in glory at the end of time. And as St. Paul has put it, the suffering in this world doesn’t compare with the glory that is to come for the adopted sons and daughters of God. Thus we should heed the One who has the power to destroy both the body and the soul.

As I already told you, the unborn and the young children weren’t punished at all. The guilt of their parents wasn’t applied to them. But unfortunately they were implicated in their parents’ transgressions, just as the entire world is implicated in the sin of Adam as his descendants. Death, or more precisely mortality, entered the world because of Adam’s sin. If death exists, it’s because of our sinful nature and tendency to sin. No human being has ever lived their life without ever having committed at least one grave transgression against their Creator. Thus death has dominion over us because we are deprived of the original state of holiness and justice that God had desired - not consequently willed - for us. We sin against God and often do just by entertaining and prolonging wicked thoughts because of our selfish nature. As a result, mankind (Adam) has pronounced a death sentence on himself by choosing to take the place of God. The truth is we are not conceived or born in the state of pure innocence. Every unborn child will gravely sin at least once in their life, either intentionally or unintentionally. We are autonomous beings who sin against God because we choose to, being prone to. We succumb to temptation because of an inordinate self-love. And so nobody can escape death unless God decides otherwise in His mercy.

Thankfully, Christ has freed us from the curse of the law and has regained new life for us by atoning for our sins. He alone makes eternal satisfaction for our sins to God, since the value of his merits in strict justice derive from his divine nature. The best we can do is make temporal satisfaction here on earth in the grace of God to help repair our relationship with Him. Accepting suffering and loss as an offering to God is required of us in order to make reparation for our sins. Without suffering and loss there can be no expiation. In His mercy, God is willing to give us another chance provided we are committed to amend our lives and be as righteous as Christ was in his humanity. In this way we should be like God - perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect, walking in His ways and not ours estranged from Him. God didn’t wipe out the entire human race in the flood because He wills to give us all another chance to strive for that divine perfection as relatively as we can.

PAX
:heaven:

Judaism does not believe that the Law is a curse but rather a sanctification or, as Psalms says, “sweeter than honey.”

 

[Good_Fella]

Judaism does not believe that the Law is a curse but rather a sanctification or, as Psalms says, “sweeter than honey.”

The law is a curse in the sense that we cannot live our entire lives without breaking at least one moral precept. And so the blood of the sacrificial lambs offered up by the High Priest in the Holy of Holies once a year on Yom Kippur was unable to make eternal satisfaction for the sins of the people. At best it brought temporal forgiveness and blessings from God in this life. Apart from the blood of Christ there can be no eternal forgiveness. Our only hope would be not ever breaking any moral precept of the law as long as we live. And since all human beings are naturally prone to be selfish, the initial grace of justification and forgiveness which we receive from God for our eternal benefit in the next life can be gained only through the merits of Christ. The blood of the sacrificial lambs in the Temple periods was insufficient to restore the equality of justice between God and his people. It held no eternal propitiatory value. The lamb’s innocence and purity could not equate with the holiness and goodness of God as did the Son of Man’s in his divine person, rendering its merits insufficient for making eternal and infinite restitution for our wrongdoing against God.

The moral law by itself is not a basis for being declared righteous by God. Rather it gives rise to penalties. The law is sweeter than honey insofar that it can direct our attention to our moral failures putting us back on the path towards sanctification, but it is not the way to find favor with God. Jesus claimed to be “the way”. Unfortunately the law functions in a reverse way, since we all far short of its demands at some point in our lives. So we mustn’t rely strictly on the law for our salvation. Apart from the blood of Christ and the grace he has merited for us, the law in itself provides no path towards that sanctification we need to enter into eternal life with God. If we place ourselves solely under the law, and believe that all we have to do is observe the Torah to find favor with God, we consign ourselves under its condemnation; since we cannot observe it perfectly.

We must primarily rely on the merits of Christ whose blood is sweeter than honey. Our righteous performances can never earn enough credit with God to be with Him eternally apart from Christ’s merits; since our human nature does not hold that much value deprived of the original state of sanctity and justification. Mortality is something we justly deserve on account of our selfish transgressions against God. There is no good we can do that should merit our justification, since we cannot observe the moral law with absolute perfection. We are too poor by nature to pay off our own debts to God. Only Christ can pay that eternal debt for us, not having ever sinned in his humanity. Temporally we still die, but because of our Lord and Savior, death has ‘lost its sting and victory’ (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:55). The gates of Heaven are now open for all the righteous doers who persevere in faith (cf. Habakkuk 2:4).

For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”
Galatians 3, 10

“‘Cursed be anyone who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’
**Deuteronomy 27, 26 **

PAX
:heaven:

 

[rossum]

You speak of God as someone who is finite and imperfect like ourselves.

Look at the top right of my posts. I am not Christian. I do not believe all the things that Christians believe.

All gods, YHWH included, are finite and, unless enlightened, are imperfect.

The OT killings we have been discussing are evidence that YHWH is imperfect.

It may be appalling to you, but that’s because you don’t believe in the existence of the imperishable human soul and the final judgment. God separates the wheat from the chaff and the sheep from the goats in the next world after death. The particular judgment of souls occurs immediately after death, then comes the general judgment when Christ returns in glory at the end of time. And as St. Paul has put it, the suffering in this world doesn’t compare with the glory that is to come for the adopted sons and daughters of God. Thus we should heed the One who has the power to destroy both the body and the soul.

So, why does human law make murder a serious crime? If the killing of the physical body is so fundamentally insignificant, then reduce murder to the level of a minor traffic violation. If the soul is what is really important, and murder does not affect the soul of the victim, then murder immediately drops in seriousness.

You need to think through your argument more carefully. As I pointed out, I am not Christian, so I will not approach them as a Christian would.

As I already told you, the unborn and the young children weren’t punished at all.

Then abortion is not a punishment either, is it? Are you saying that the Church’s position is incorrect here, and that the killing of the unborn is OK? You really need to think through these arguments more carefully. You are attempting to justify the killings by your God, and are inadvertently justifying killings by humans as well. You should be able to do better.

rossum

 

[meltzerboy]

The law is a curse in the sense that we cannot live our entire lives without breaking at least one moral precept. And so the blood of the sacrificial lambs offered up by the High Priest in the Holy of Holies once a year on Yom Kippur was unable to make eternal satisfaction for the sins of the people. At best it brought temporal forgiveness and blessings from God in this life. Apart from the blood of Christ there can be no eternal forgiveness. Our only hope would be not ever breaking any moral precept of the law as long as we live. And since all human beings are naturally prone to be selfish, the initial grace of justification and forgiveness which we receive from God for our eternal benefit in the next life can be gained only through the merits of Christ. The blood of the sacrificial lambs in the Temple periods was insufficient to restore the equality of justice between God and his people. It held no eternal propitiatory value. The lamb’s innocence and purity could not equate with the holiness and goodness of God as did the Son of Man’s in his divine person, rendering its merits insufficient for making eternal and infinite restitution for our wrongdoing against God.

The moral law by itself is not a basis for being declared righteous by God. Rather it gives rise to penalties. The law is sweeter than honey insofar that it can direct our attention to our moral failures putting us back on the path towards sanctification, but it is not the way to find favor with God. Jesus claimed to be “the way”. Unfortunately the law functions in a reverse way, since we all far short of its demands at some point in our lives. So we mustn’t rely strictly on the law for our salvation. Apart from the blood of Christ and the grace he has merited for us, the law in itself provides no path towards that sanctification we need to enter into eternal life with God. If we place ourselves solely under the law, and believe that all we have to do is observe the Torah to find favor with God, we consign ourselves under its condemnation; since we cannot observe it perfectly.

We must primarily rely on the merits of Christ whose blood is sweeter than honey. Our righteous performances can never earn enough credit with God to be with Him eternally apart from Christ’s merits; since our human nature does not hold that much value deprived of the original state of sanctity and justification. Mortality is something we justly deserve on account of our selfish transgressions against God. There is no good we can do that should merit our justification, since we cannot observe the moral law with absolute perfection. We are too poor by nature to pay off our own debts to God. Only Christ can pay that eternal debt for us, not having ever sinned in his humanity. Temporally we still die, but because of our Lord and Savior, death has ‘lost its sting and victory’ (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:55). The gates of Heaven are now open for all the righteous doers who persevere in faith (cf. Habakkuk 2:4).

For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”
Galatians 3, 10

“‘Cursed be anyone who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’
**Deuteronomy 27, 26 **

PAX
:heaven:

I don’t wish to digress too much from the topic of the thread, so all I will say is that the Law, according to Judaism, is not meant to achieve salvation in the Christian sense, that is, eternal life. The Law is followed because G-d commanded it and, therefore, it is for our own good in being a guide toward living in the present, which Judaism focuses on, by leading a life of meaning. This life consists of growing in holiness in our relation to G-d and to our fellow man, animals, and the Earth. Moses points out in Deuteronomy that the Law is not so difficult to follow as some believe; however, if and when we err, as we are all bound to do since we are human, G-d in His infinite mercy is always ready to forgive us when we repent (and even when we do not) and attempt to improve our moral behavior, as Isaiah affirms: “our sins shall be as white as snow.” Prayer followed by a sincere effort to change our behavior–rather than blood sacrifice–has always been the major means of atonement in Judaism.

 

[Good_Fella]

Look at the top right of my posts. I am not Christian.

Obviously, just by what you’ve been saying, I can tell you’re not a Christian. :bigyikes:

I do not believe all the things that Christians believe.

If the God of the Old Testament does in fact exist, then one can only know Him from a Judeo-Christian perspective. God did not reveal Himself to Buddha, but to Abraham, Moses, and the prophets of ancient Jewish time. So as long as you adhere to Buddhist beliefs and impose Buddhist principles on the beliefs of Jews and Christians, you’ll continue to see God as a murderer. The honest thing for you to do is just not believe in God’s existence. To claim that our Creator is a murderer is a contradiction in terms.

All gods, YHWH included, are finite and, unless enlightened, are imperfect.

I’m certainly having a tough time trying to enlighten you ; even though until now you’ve given our “god” a capital G.

The OT killings we have been discussing are evidence that YHWH is imperfect.

God is either perfect, or He doesn’t exist. It’s that simple.

So, why does human law make murder a serious crime? If the killing of the physical body is so fundamentally insignificant, then reduce murder to the level of a minor traffic violation. If the soul is what is really important, and murder does not affect the soul of the victim, then murder immediately drops in seriousness.

In the Judaic-Christian tradition man is defined as a composite of soul and body. His life in this world rightfully belongs to him, and so nobody has the moral right to take it without just cause. However, this physical world isn’t our final or permanent place of existence. God has created us to exist here only temporarily to test our love for Him. Our final and permanent destination is either Heaven or Hell. The Jews differ in their opinions on whether Hell is a permanent place of consignment, but they also hold as Christians do that our life here is essentially a test. When we die, God shall judge the condition of our souls. He won’t be concerned about how overweight we are, but whether we have been gluttons. The Christian martyrs knew very well that their physical bodies were perishable while their souls were not, so they had no cause to fear the Roman emperors, confident that Christ had ransomed them from death. But they didn’t consider their bodies insignificant either. They offered up their bodies to the Lord as an oblation in union with Christ so that their souls would be judged worthy to inherit eternal life. ‘Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood’ (Rev. 22:14-15). ‘For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad’ (2 Cor. 5:10).

Since the soul is imperishable and its condition shall be judged, it is more significant than the body. Yet how we use our bodies does have an affect on the state of our souls. Thus if our souls are found worthy to enter Heaven, they shall be reunited with our bodies at the last day together with the martyrs who sacrificed their lives out of love for Christ. The apostle Paul himself was beheaded by the Romans after her wrote this passage. ‘Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory"’ (1 Cor. 15, 51-54).

Then abortion is not a punishment either, is it? Are you saying that the Church’s position is incorrect here, and that the killing of the unborn is OK? …You are attempting to justify the killings by your God, and are inadvertently justifying killings by humans as well.

Abortion is unjust, for the lives of the victims don’t belong to us or their parents, but to God who created them. Nor are these infants indebted to us as we are to our Creator. Moreover, these infants are being directly targeted. They are not merely implicated in anyone else’s deeds save the decision of the mother who is more concerned about the quality of her own life than she is of her offspring’s life. And whether they are being punished or not really makes no difference. Killing someone doesn’t have to take the form of punishment in order to be just. If I kill someone in self-defense, I’m not punishing the person, but acting out of self-preservation. I have the moral right to defend myself by doing nothing more than what is necessary to save my own life which is mine. I suppose now you’ll argue that God’s killing was unjust, since His existence wasn’t being threatened by the children who had perished in the flood. You’ll have to do better than comparing God with human creatures. You’re comparing apples with oranges. :juggle:

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

I don’t wish to digress too much from the topic of the thread, so all I will say is that the Law, according to Judaism, is not meant to achieve salvation in the Christian ]sense, that is, eternal life.** The Law is followed because G-d commanded it and, therefore, it is for our own good in being a guide toward living in the present, which Judaism focuses on, by leading a life of meaning. This life consists of growing in holiness in our relation to G-d and to our fellow man, animals, and the Earth. Moses points out in Deuteronomy that the Law is not so difficult to follow as some believe; however, if and when we err, as we are all bound to do since we are human, G-d in His infinite mercy is always ready to forgive us when we repent (and even when we do not) and attempt to improve our moral behavior, as Isaiah affirms: “our sins shall be as white as snow.” Prayer followed by a sincere effort to change our behavior–rather than blood sacrifice–has always been the major means of atonement in Judaism**.

We Catholics concur that we should follow the law because God has commanded us. To obey God’s law is to love Him. Love of God is our primary spiritual motive for observing the law. And if we are concerned about getting to Heaven, it’s ultimately for the joy of being with God. I just wanted to explain what we mean by the curse of the law according to our theology. Thanks for sharing. You can’t imagine how much I admire the beauty of your faith which I feel very much part of in spirit.

You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.
My sacrifice, O God, is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart you, God, will not despise.
Psalm 51, 16-17

It is in the same spirit that we Catholics should approach the altar at Holy Mass.

Shalom
:heaven: