The argument of free will and suffering

[laylow]

In fairness, Laylow, this is a pretty loaded question. First, it could be assuming that you interpret scripture the same as other people and that your interpretation should be given priority.

I think you are correct, when the question is not taken in context. I feel a simplistic assumption was made about my statement so I countered with a general simplistic question.

If you don’t believe in the concept of “corporate justice”, then some parts of the OT do paint God as being unfair. However, if one does believe in corporate justice, then those same passages become exemplary of the concept. It might be worth noting that it appears God does believe in the concept, if He exists.

Honest question: Is corporate justice in the catechism or is that “your” term so to speak?

So it may not be a question of belief but rather a question of interpretation. Sorry to “muddy the waters”.

Possibly, but can they not answer for themselves?

Note: Corporate justice - We sin as a body of people and are punished as a body of people.

I feel it is a questionable concept. Therefore, since, I have done much research into the Bible and Early Christianity. The history leaves much to be desired for me in terms of some of the validity. Therefore in my mind, that uncertainly validates my questioning of it.

 

[laylow]

Maybe.

Yes. Job says so himself.
Therefore I disown what I have said,
And repent in dust and ashes
Did you read the book or just scan Ehrman’s commentary?

I have read it on more than one occasion, it has been awhile since I read it all. I do agree with Ehrman that it was most likely written by 2 different authors. It does seem to have 2 totally different answers to suffering in one book, or at least 2 different reactions at the very least. Possibly purposely. So he wails in the poetry and is a completely different person in the beginning and end. So I guess i depends on which author you side with.

No, he was given the opportunity to listen to God.

He was given everything back by God ON EARTH. Implying that applies to the Afterlife is a stretch interpretation based on how I read it. I haven’t been given anything back in my life. I have been waiting quite a long time, longer than Job.

When was the last time you prayed?

This morning.

When did you stop?

When I came to work.

 

[Vonsalza]

Honest question: Is corporate justice in the catechism or is that “your” term so to speak?

Honest reply: No idea. It was a term I learned at a seminary in my younger days, so I’d say it was “their term”, ascribed (I’m sure) to a collection of reformed and other protestant theologians.

Possibly, but can they not answer for themselves?

I’m sure they could, but I’m deeply concerned about the legitimacy of interpretation as it transcends mere opinion. I hold the not-so-surprising view that only the Church sits authoritatively in the chair of interpretation.

I feel it is a questionable concept.

Oh, good heavens, anyone with a modern individualist paradigm of the world would, no question. In the modern consumerist west, that’s 99.9999% of people.

 

[Vonsalza]

two second search, here’s something suggesting the concept (in a different context, albeit).

CCC 56 After the unity of the human race was shattered by sin God at once sought to save humanity part by part. The covenant with Noah after the flood gives expression to the principle of the divine economy toward the “nations”, in other words, towards men grouped “in their lands, each with [its] own language, by their families, in their nations”.9

From scripture, they would argue that Israel sinned as a nation, thus they were punished as a nation by repeated scourges like famine and the Babylonian captivity. The high priest would sacrifice on behalf of the nation.

It’s not an idea totally void of merit.

 

[laylow]

two second search, here’s something suggesting the concept (in a different context, albeit).

CCC 56 After the unity of the human race was shattered by sin God at once sought to save humanity part by part. The covenant with Noah after the flood gives expression to the principle of the divine economy toward the “nations”, in other words, towards men grouped “in their lands, each with [its] own language, by their families, in their nations”.9

From scripture, they would argue that Israel sinned as a nation, thus they were punished as a nation by repeated scourges like famine and the Babylonian captivity. The high priest would sacrifice on behalf of the nation.

It’s not an idea totally void of merit.

I meant the term, I have never heard of it before.

 

[tonyrey]

So you pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe?

On the contrary it is evident that not all the books in the Old Testament are historical whereas the New contains works which are based on eye-witness accounts of events (apart from Revelation). The teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father is the fundamental criterion of what is true or misguided.

 

[laylow]

Honest reply: No idea. It was a term I learned at a seminary in my younger days, so I’d say it was “their term”, ascribed (I’m sure) to a collection of reformed and other protestant theologians.

Interesting. Were you studying to be a priest?

I’m sure they could, but I’m deeply concerned about the legitimacy of interpretation as it transcends mere opinion. I hold the not-so-surprising view that only the Church sits authoritatively in the chair of interpretation.

No I am not surprised.

Oh, good heavens, anyone with a modern individualist paradigm of the world would, no question. In the modern consumerist west, that’s 99.9999% of people.

Not sure what this has to do with modern times. It’s been questioned throughout history. The big thing that has changed in modern times is the availability of information. I respect people like Bart, because he brings up some of the teachings that Pastors do not. This “releases” the information into the public and allows them to think for themselves. I think churches appear to be scared of free thought.

 

[laylow]

On the contrary it is evident that not all the books in the Old Testament are historical whereas the New contains works which are based on eye-witness accounts of events (apart from Revelation). The teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father is the fundamental criterion of what is true or misguided.

Yeah, but the question I asked was which parts you believe?

 

[Vonsalza]

I meant the term, I have never heard of it before.

No, I didn’t create “corporate justice”; if that’s what you’re asking.

“God Bless America”

“God will take his guiding hand off of us if we don’t stop doing ‘X’”

“God will punish Israel if we don’t cease our iniquities (for the umpteeth time)”

These all appeal to the concept. It pertains to the economy of grace and justice. I’ll readily admit to hearing it tossed around protestant (particularly reformed) environs more than I hear it discussed in Catholic contexts. Not sure what the Church’s exact stance on it is (if there is one).

 

[laylow]

No, I didn’t create “corporate justice”; if that’s what you’re asking.

“God Bless America”

“God will take his guiding hand off of us if we don’t stop doing ‘X’”

“God will punish Israel if we don’t cease our iniquities (for the umpteeth time)”

These all appeal to the concept. It pertains to the economy of grace and justice. I’ll readily admit to hearing it tossed around protestant (particularly reformed) environs more than I hear it discussed in Catholic contexts. Not sure what the Church’s exact stance on it is (if there is one).

Makes sense.

Surprising, I disagree that is true justice unless it is “Eye for an eye…” Matthew 5:38.

 

[Vonsalza]

Interesting. Were you studying to be a priest?

I have no idea what I was really doing there. But not a priest, it was a protestant seminary. “Minister” at best.

Not sure what this has to do with modern times.

Oh I certainly think so. The rise of consumerism and the advent of social media have promoted an egocentrism in western humanity the likes of which has never been seen, at least on a cultural scale.

I think churches appear to be scared of free thought.

Not me. I think the Church loves free thought. But the Church has also authoritatively ruled on several things. As such, they would distinguish another layer between “free thought” and “heresy” as it pertains to the dogmatic.

 

[Vonsalza]

Makes sense.

Surprising, I disagree that is true justice unless it is “Eye for an eye…” Matthew 5:38.

Perhaps, but “Vengeance is Mine; I will repay, saith the Lord”. Rom. 12:19

The Lord, not Laylow or Vonsalza.

 

[laylow]

Perhaps, but “Vengeance is Mine; I will repay, saith the Lord”. Rom. 12:19

The Lord, not Laylow or Vonsalza.

Is why I believe he will do it in the afterlife. It’s quite scary really.

 

[laylow]

I have no idea what I was really doing there. But not a priest, it was a protestant seminary. “Minister” at best.

Why change of mind? (unless that is too personal which I understand)

Oh I certainly think so. The rise of consumerism and the advent of social media have promoted an egocentrism in western humanity the likes of which has never been seen, at least on a cultural scale.

Yeah it makes it more pronounced. But Christianity is still strong, but may not be for long. Atheism is predicted to be the majority by 2038.

Not me. I think the Church loves free thought. But the Church has also authoritatively ruled on several things. As such, they would distinguish another layer between “free thought” and “heresy” as it pertains to the dogmatic.

But the history of which ideas won as being orthodoxy and which ones lost and became heresy have some interesting tendencies to being based on the time and the environment they were decided.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I think the Church loves free thought.

The “love of free thought by the Church” was perfectly demonstrated by the example of Giordano Bruno. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno)
On Ash Wednesday, 17 February 1600, in the Campo de’ Fiori (a central Roman market square), with his “tongue imprisoned because of his wicked words”. He was hung upside down naked before he was finally burned at the stake.[33][34] His ashes were thrown into the Tiber river. All of Bruno’s works were placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum in 1603. Inquisition cardinals who judged Giordano Bruno were: Cardinal Bellarmino (Bellarmine), Cardinal Madruzzo (Madruzzi), Cardinal Camillo Borghese (later Pope Paul V), Domenico Cardinal Pinelli, Pompeio Cardinal Arrigoni, Cardinal Sfondrati, Pedro Cardinal De Deza Manuel, Cardinal Santorio (Archbishop of Santa Severina, Cardinal-Bishop of Palestrina).

 

[laylow]

The “love of free thought by the Church” was perfectly demonstrated by the example of Giordano Bruno. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno)
On Ash Wednesday, 17 February 1600, in the Campo de’ Fiori (a central Roman market square), with his “tongue imprisoned because of his wicked words”. He was hung upside down naked before he was finally burned at the stake.[33][34] His ashes were thrown into the Tiber river. All of Bruno’s works were placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum in 1603. Inquisition cardinals who judged Giordano Bruno were: Cardinal Bellarmino (Bellarmine), Cardinal Madruzzo (Madruzzi), Cardinal Camillo Borghese (later Pope Paul V), Domenico Cardinal Pinelli, Pompeio Cardinal Arrigoni, Cardinal Sfondrati, Pedro Cardinal De Deza Manuel, Cardinal Santorio (Archbishop of Santa Severina, Cardinal-Bishop of Palestrina).

That’s a rough one.

 

[o_mlly]

This morning.

When I came to work.

I will pray for you and hope that you will pray for me.

 

[Vonsalza]

The “love of free thought by the Church” was perfectly demonstrated by the example of Giordano Bruno.

An anecdote, as I’m sure you understand fully the faults of anecdotal evidence.

I also appreciate the Church’s treatment of minds like Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

An anecdote, as I’m sure you understand fully the faults of anecdotal evidence.

Maybe you heard of a guy, called Karol J. Wojtyla (aka. John Paul II), who actually apologized for the acts of the Inquisition. It came late, but eventually it did come. looks like that he accepted the “anecdote” as real.

 

[tonyrey]

The “love of free thought by the Church” was perfectly demonstrated by the example of Giordano Bruno. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno)
On Ash Wednesday, 17 February 1600, in the Campo de’ Fiori (a central Roman market square), with his “tongue imprisoned because of his wicked words”. He was hung upside down naked before he was finally burned at the stake.[33][34] His ashes were thrown into the Tiber river. All of Bruno’s works were placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum in 1603. Inquisition cardinals who judged Giordano Bruno were: Cardinal Bellarmino (Bellarmine), Cardinal Madruzzo (Madruzzi), Cardinal Camillo Borghese (later Pope Paul V), Domenico Cardinal Pinelli, Pompeio Cardinal Arrigoni, Cardinal Sfondrati, Pedro Cardinal De Deza Manuel, Cardinal Santorio (Archbishop of Santa Severina, Cardinal-Bishop of Palestrina).

How about the “love of free thought” by atheist regimes which are persecuting, imprisoning, torturing and executing dissidents right now?