There is only one common factor that unites every religion that has ever existed into one group

  • Thread starter Thread starter TEPO
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oreoracle said:
The difference is that religion merely promises it and has never been proven to actually give the rewards.
Click to expand...
I think it’s been proven quite well.

When the human person does good, he is rewarded with a sense of peace and joy.

When he does bad, he is rewarded with a crummy life.

That’s pretty clear.

For example: if you see a person who commits serial adultery, do you think his/her life ends up pretty happy?

When you see a monogamous couple, who have lived out the tenets of their faith, what I see is a happy couple. They are rewarded for their good behavior, IOW.
 
PRmerger said:
I think it’s been proven quite well.

When the human person does good, he is rewarded with a sense of peace and joy.

When he does bad, he is rewarded with a crummy life.

That’s pretty clear.

For example: if you see a person who commits serial adultery, do you think his/her life ends up pretty happy?

When you see a monogamous couple, who have lived out the tenets of their faith, what I see is a happy couple. They are rewarded for their good behavior, IOW.
Click to expand...
“Rewarded with a crummy life.” I love that! But of course sometimes the good are not so happy on earth due to misfortune, but I think what you mean is an inner contentment, peace, and serenity that comes with living one’s faith.
 
meltzerboy said:
I’m not arguing against life after death; I’m refuting your statement that all religions have this belief in common. According to Genesis, Enoch was taken by G-d, so presumably he went to heaven. Later interpretation has it that he simply died before his time and before he could commit evil deeds since he was such a pious man. The Pharisees, as distinct from the Sadducees (there were other differences as well), did believe in life after death and modern Judaism is mainly in the Pharasaic tradition. However, as I stated previously, Judaism’s emphasis is not on the World to Come but on the present world, how to make it better, and in so doing conform to G-d’s Will.
Click to expand...
Just wondering if you could help me understand something here. If the Sadducees didn’t believe in life after death, then why would they even care to do what G-d wants? Why not just do what they want? They knew G-d wouldn’t intervene on earth. :confused:
 
PRmerger said:
However, there are indeed truths that are immutable.

Otherwise, they are merely opinions
Click to expand...
I agree. But there is a difference between asserting the existence of truths and claiming to know them. The point is that, while we are interested in the truth, we should never claim to know it fully. The Catholic Church has made infallible declarations in the past that it recanted later, for example. Yet they haven’t learned from these experiences–the Church still claims infallibility.
 
TEPO said:
Just wondering if you could help me understand something here. If the Sadducees didn’t believe in life after death, then why would they even care to do what G-d wants? Why not just do what they want? They knew G-d wouldn’t intervene on earth. :confused:
Click to expand...
I’m not so sure they knew G-d wouldn’t intervene. But that is irrelevant. The purpose of life according to Judaism is to do G-d’s Will without concern for what may happen to us in the future afterlife. What is G-d’s Will? It is spelled out by Hillel the Elder and Jesus: Love the Lord thy G-d with all thy heart, mind, and soul (that is why the tefillin or phylacteries are wrapped on the arm closest to the heart and on the head) and love thy neighbor as well as thine enemy, which Jesus taught and which the Talmud states: “Rejoice not when thine enemy falls.” By loving others in our daily lives by concrete means, we also show our love of G-d since G-d loves us all. This is the teaching of the Law, which is too often misinterpreted in the sense of earning points by obeying the commandments for the purpose of reaping rewards on earth and in heaven. That should not be the reason why one follows the Law.
 
meltzerboy said:
“Rewarded with a crummy life.” I love that!
Click to expand...
😃
But of course sometimes the good are not so happy on earth due to misfortune, but I think what you mean is an inner contentment, peace, and serenity that comes with living one’s faith.
Click to expand...
True, dat. Some people who are very, very good people suffer greatly with misfortune. However, it certainly cannot be said that these misfortunes of which we speak are a result of their bad decisions, right?
 
Oreoracle said:
I agree. But there is a difference between asserting the existence of truths and claiming to know them.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
The point is that, while we are interested in the truth, we should never claim to know it fully
Click to expand...
This is very Catholic.

As the Scriptures say, “At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known”
The Catholic Church has made infallible declarations in the past that it recanted later, for example.
Click to expand...
Source?

(And, again, for the source of a pope claiming, infallibly, a call to the Inquisition).
 
Oreoracle said:
I agree. But there is a difference between asserting the existence of truths and claiming to know them. The point is that, while we are interested in the truth, we should never claim to know it fully. The Catholic Church has made infallible declarations in the past that it recanted later, for example. Yet they haven’t learned from these experiences–the Church still claims infallibility.
Click to expand...
You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that infallibility = “claim to know the truth fully”.
 
PRmerger said:
Source?

(And, again, for the source of a pope claiming, infallibly, a call to the Inquisition).
Click to expand...
An example of a specific declaration would be the ad extirpanda. There is a Wikipedia article of the same name if you wish to see it.
 
Oreoracle said:
An example of a specific declaration would be the ad extirpanda. There is a Wikipedia article of the same name if you wish to see it.
Click to expand...
Could you cite the infallible part?

Where does it declare the call to arms to be infallible?

Also, if you could cite the text here that would be helpful. Thanks.
 
PRmerger said:
You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that infallibility = “claim to know the truth fully”.
Click to expand...
In order to be infallible in any given subject, you must understand the subject fully. I suppose you could avoid subjects of which you’re ignorant. I took it that that would be understood.

As I showed in my previous post, Pope Innocent IV clearly thought he was knowledgeable enough to recommend how “heretics” ought to be tortured, so much so that he used his authority to pass legislation on the matter.
 
PRmerger said:
Could you cite the infallible part?

Where does it declare the call to arms to be infallible?
Click to expand...
A Pope doesn’t have to declare what they say to be infallible for infallibility to apply. If they are speaking on behalf of the Church on moral or faith-based matters, that is sufficient.

From the “First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church”: The Pope is infallible “when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church”.

He used his authority to pass legislation favoring the Inquisition. Clearly a doctrine supporting the Inquisition was implicit in the act. If not, you will have to attribute his actions to schizophrenia or the like. You can use the No True Scotsman fallacy all you like and say he wasn’t “really” infallible at the time, but clearly Church members of the day thought he was and he didn’t correct them.
Also, if you could cite the text here that would be helpful. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Type in “ad extirpanda” in Wikipedia. It’s all right there. Copying and pasting different sections is tedious.
 
Oreoracle said:
A Pope doesn’t have to declare what they say to be infallible for infallibility to apply. If they are speaking on behalf of the Church on moral or faith-based matters, that is sufficient.
Click to expand...
Actually, this is another incorrect assertion you have made, Oreoracle.

Now, 'tis true that there are times when a teaching is infallible, as proclaimed by the ordinary magisterium, even if it has not been declared ex cathedra.

However, that is quite different from what you are proposing above.

[sign1]No pope has ever infallibly declared the Inquisition to be a just cause[/sign1]
 
PRmerger said:
Actually, this is another incorrect assertion you have made, Oreoracle.
Click to expand...
I gave you a quote from the First Vatican Council to support my post. Again, you can ignore this and use No True Scotsman to say they weren’t “truly” infallible at the time. But this still proves that the notion of infallibility is dangerous, because the Church apparently has kept redefining what “infallible” means throughout history (assuming you are right about the First Vatican Council being wrong). They screw up, and then they move the goalposts later.
 
Oreoracle said:
I gave you a quote from the First Vatican Council to support my post. Aagin, you can ignore this and use No True Scotsman to say they weren’t “truly” infallible at the time.
Click to expand...
Except it is indeed true that it’s not an infallible proclamation.

If we apply your reasoning, what Pope (emeritus) B16 wrote in Jesus of Nazareth would be an exercise of infallibility

It clearly is not.

Do you have any other examples of the CC declaring something infallibly and then rescinding?
 
Oreoracle said:
There’s no point in using other examples. Your ability to invent excuses appears endless.
Click to expand...
Please! I beg you to give another example of the Church defining something infallibly and then rescinding!
 
Oreoracle said:
Type in “ad extirpanda” in Wikipedia. It’s all right there. Copying and pasting different sections is tedious.
Click to expand...
Ad extirpanda was a papal bull that did not address the entire Church, Oreoracle.

It is not an infallible declaration. It is not even a teaching of the ordinary magisterium.

It was a letter addressed to a specific group of people at a specific time. All it did, from what I can glean, was allow the state to prosecute political prisoners.

If what you are proposing is correct, everything that is written here would be an infallible declaration: papalencyclicals.net/

This is an absolute, manifestly FALSE understanding of infallibility.
 
Everyone knows the encynicals and such are not infallible doctrine. It’s common knowledge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top