Time runs out when you die, but not in purgatory?

[jonathan_hili]

There is an horrific story in the NY times about ISIS fighters who kidnap, rape, and sell women as sex slaves. One woman described the repeated ritualistic prayer/rape of a 12 year old girl. She is a victim of sin, that is what I mean. Would that those ISIS fighters had never been born at all! That girl would have escaped a painful, humiliating, and spirit shattering suffering. The ISIS fighter would have escaped the eternal torment surely awaiting those who perpetrate such crimes. It would have been an absolute net gain for goodness and happiness in the world. Think of all the victims of brutal, humiliating, savage, and disgusting crimes all throughout human history: and then consider the perpetrators, swirling and burning in an endless hell. It all could have been avoided if God chose to create only those who “are the kind of people who love God.”

I didn’t realise that is what you meant by a “victim of sin”; I thought you meant those who sin but do not know otherwise.

As I said, I don’t think we can reasonably guess at these things. If you know Craig’s work, then you must be aware of his and other’s attempts at addressing the logical problem of evil, which you are bringing up. I think their arguments are sound and I’d direct you to them.

As a couple of additional points. Firstly, for those who do commit grave evils knowingly and don’t seek repentance, they have free will (mitigating circumstances aside) and they cannot be forced to love what they hate. Secondly, God has created us out of love, to love Him and one another. This does not mean an easy life and certainly not always a happy one, and there are many who are suffering now, innocent though they are, who will one day know beatitude more than people who are living in luxury and ease.

I think it is telling that the “problem of evil” argument often comes from comfortable, well-off Westerners, and yet, when you speak to those who suffer most in this world, it is they who have the strongest faith in God. Our God suffered and died on a cross; He knows our suffering and shares it.

*Note: I do not believe this is actually possible. I am playing “devil’s advocate” by responding with a possible rejoinder to the idea that those in heaven will have free will and just so happen to always choose rightly. Personally, I believe that the people in the World to Come will be overwhelmed by knowledge of and love for God, such that they will be transformed into a different kind of human being. I do not think these transformed beings will have “free will” in any meaningful sense. I think the kind of “free will” we have is what remained after we ate from the tree of judgment without first eating from the tree of life.

Interesting point, but don’t you think this transformation begins now? Aristotle said that freedom is the movement of an object/being towards its end. Consequently, if God is our end, we are truly free when we are overwhelmed by His presence and love.

Some people do insist that heaven and/or hell are timeless and spaceless realities. If you don’t then you have no conflict with Catholic teaching. However, by agreeing with Catholic teaching you have many difficult things to explain, because human bodies can exist only within a narrow spectrum of space. We need very specific levels of heat, gravity, and pressure. We need a certain composition of air to breathe, nutrition, etc. We can withstand only so much suffering before we either go insane or become catatonic. In order for us to withstand endless torment in hell, it appears that God will have to miraculously restore and sustain us, or else surely we would be destroyed by such immense suffering over a long period of time. This implies that God is an active participant in hell. Even if he is not the torturer per se, he is the one who enables the torture to continue indefinitely. The argument that people “torture themselves” in hell is only a half-truth, if they have bodies that occupy time and space. Are there sandwiches in hell, or does God miraculously sustain the damned in order to preserve them for more self-torture? If there are sandwiches, are there farms? There are many more problems proceeding from the idea that human bodies exist in hell.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

This is only a contradiction if one is proposing that the space ime of this universe reality is required in an alternate reality.

How would you go about proving that proposition?

My proposition is that the space ime that you are experiencing is not required for a body to exist. All that is required are three spatial dimensions. There is not requirement for a temporal dimension.

The fact that those four are integrated in this universe by no means requires that they be integrated, or even present, in an different reality

No it does not make sense. What is human nature reliant upon a particular space ime reality?

Brendan, does this support what you are saying? I don’t really know because physics was my worst subject. I actually only took one course!

phys.org/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.html

 

[PumpkinCookie]

“Jesus said to [Peter], ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. … And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’” (Matthew 16:17-19)

Jesus Himself said it: Peter speaks as Jesus’ vicar; what he binds and looses on earth (i.e., in the Church), Jesus upholds in heaven. Peter himself created apostolic succession (see Acts 1:21-22; Peter says, “it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us, … become with us a witness to his resurrection.” And the apostles (who themselves were given authority by Christ) responded by praying, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away.”).

Jesus grants the Church authority through the office of Peter; Peter uses it to establish apostolic succession. Therefore, the Church speaks with God’s authority. QED. It doesn’t get any simpler than that.

In my view, Jesus of Nazareth is not God, nor is he the messiah. I do not believe the New Testament is a reliable reflection of reality, but rather reflective of the theological opinions of the early Christians. Therefore, I do not think the Catholic church, or any human being or groups of human beings speaks with the voice of God.

Yes, you’re correct: it does pique one’s interest! And yet, the Church proclaims that something singular has happened here – Mary’s assumption (body and soul) is something different than anything else that’s currently going on. However, it creates an enticing parallelism, doesn’t it? Mary was conceived without original sin by a singular grace of God; and, upon the end of her days on earth, was graced again by a singular grace: she, alone, is held to exist bodily in heaven. “How?”, you might ask? We don’t know; we haven’t been given that information. We know only the ‘what’, not the mechanics of the ‘how’…

(Edited to add: We know for sure that one other person exists in heaven in his glorified body: Jesus. We don’t ask ‘how?’, though, since the answer is trivial: “He’s God! Duh!”
So, if we’re able to accept that Jesus exists bodily in heaven, although humans in heaven do not exist bodily ‘in’ heaven, then it’s not really a stretch to say that Mary could, too, don’t you think? The only question remaining is “does she, really?”… and for a Catholic who believes in Jesus and the Church He founded, the answer is ‘of course’!)

Right, more of the same. What I’m trying to do is help discuss the OP by showing that there are many logical problems, and missing necessary explanations in Catholic eschatology. I am OK with someone saying “we really don’t know anything about the afterlife.” The problem is that the Church makes specific proclamations about it, and those proclamations of problematic because of their implications. If one accepts the Church’s authority, with radical unthinking obedience (ala Ignatius of Loyola), then whatever the Church proposes for belief is acceptable, even if the mind rages against contradictions, the mouth will proclaim assent. In that case, why discuss anything? I don’t believe this is a path to authentic human life and truth. But, that is just my opinion.

Special pleading, question begging, and the argument from ignorance abound on this board due to the accepted presupposition: “everything the Church teaches is true.” If that is really the case, why bother thinking at all? All of your thinking has been done for you, all of your truth has been packed down into a nice box and dropped into your hands. Why examine it if you aren’t looking for problems? “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Right?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

In my view, Jesus of Nazareth is not God, nor is he the messiah. I do not believe the New Testament is a reliable reflection of reality, but rather reflective of the theological opinions of the early Christians. Therefore, I do not think the Catholic church, or any human being or groups of human beings speaks with the voice of God.

Right, more of the same. What I’m trying to do is help discuss the OP by showing that there are many logical problems, and missing necessary explanations in Catholic eschatology. I am OK with someone saying “we really don’t know anything about the afterlife.” The problem is that the Church makes specific proclamations about it, and those proclamations of problematic because of their implications. If one accepts the Church’s authority, with radical unthinking obedience (ala Ignatius of Loyola), then whatever the Church proposes for belief is acceptable, even if the mind rages against contradictions, the mouth will proclaim assent. In that case, why discuss anything? I don’t believe this is a path to authentic human life and truth. But, that is just my opinion.

Special pleading, question begging, and the argument from ignorance abound on this board due to the accepted presupposition: “everything the Church teaches is true.” If that is really the case, why bother thinking at all? All of your thinking has been done for you, all of your truth has been packed down into a nice box and dropped into your hands. Why examine it if you aren’t looking for problems? “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Right?

I believe Jesus of Nazareth is God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, not because the Church says so, but because I have thought about it all my life (so far) and evidence has led me to that conclusion. (I tend to be skeptical of most things and most people at first.)

I don’t take everything the Church teaches at face value. They have reversed themselves on things. Not many, but some.

Theologians have not figured out all the Bible reveals. I believe in an afterlife, but I do not know where that afterlife will be, and I don’t mean heaven, hell, or purgatory. I mean, IF I can get to heaven, I don’t know what it will be like or all it will entail. I think a certain amount of questioning is a good thing since it helps us learn.

I am very interested as to why you don’t believe Jesus was God. If you care to tell me, fine, if not, that’s okay, too. I’m not looking for an argument or debate. I’m just interested.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I think it is telling that the “problem of evil” argument often comes from comfortable, well-off Westerners, and yet, when you speak to those who suffer most in this world, it is they who have the strongest faith in God.

I have a possible explanation for why comfortable and rich westerners are constantly exercised by the problem of evil: psychologically crushing guilt. We see that many human beings are suffering due to a lack of basic material and spiritual goods. We have a superabundance of material goods. Most of us are fat! We could share our goods…and yet we don’t share them to the extent necessary. We may give 10% of our incomes away, or volunteer, but we know it is never enough. So, we blame God and project our guilt on to him. We imagine that God is like an infinitely powerful and good version of us. If we were God, we would fix everything. So, if God is going to sit on his hands, it must mean we can too! Or, if God won’t do anything about it, then he is the evil one, not me!

Also, the popular trope that poor suffering people have the most faith is untrue, from my experience. Intense, prolonged suffering can obliterate faith. That is why Job is a hero! He clung to faith despite horrific suffering. He wasn’t strengthened by the suffering, but rather almost destroyed in both body and spirit. However, he stayed faithful and God rewarded him.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I have a possible explanation for why comfortable and rich westerners are constantly exercised by the problem of evil: psychologically crushing guilt. We see that many human beings are suffering due to a lack of basic material and spiritual goods. We have a superabundance of material goods. Most of us are fat! We could share our goods…and yet we don’t share them to the extent necessary. We may give 10% of our incomes away, or volunteer, but we know it is never enough. So, we blame God and project our guilt on to him. We imagine that God is like an infinitely powerful and good version of us. If we were God, we would fix everything. So, if God is going to sit on his hands, it must mean we can too! Or, if God won’t do anything about it, then he is the evil one, not me!

Also, the popular trope that poor suffering people have the most faith is untrue, from my experience. Intense, prolonged suffering can obliterate faith. That is why Job is a hero! He clung to faith despite horrific suffering. He wasn’t strengthened by the suffering, but rather almost destroyed in both body and spirit. However, he stayed faithful and God rewarded him.

I’m not part of this debate, but I agree with you that prolonged suffering usually causes a loss of faith, not an increase.

I am very interested as to why you don’t believe Jesus was God. If you care to tell me, fine, if not, that’s okay, too. I’m not looking for an argument or debate. I’m just interested.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I’m not part of this debate, but I agree with you that prolonged suffering usually causes a loss of faith, not an increase.

I am very interested as to why you don’t believe Jesus was God. If you care to tell me, fine, if not, that’s okay, too. I’m not looking for an argument or debate. I’m just interested.

Nope, not going to go there. Not here to proselytize or undermine people’s faith. Besides, if Jesus happens to be God, then I don’t want to add to my already assuredly substantial endless punishment. Also, I do not think God punishes or rewards people for what they believe, but rather what they do.

Ugh why even think about these things!!!??? It is a beautiful day here, praise God! I hope you have a good day . Seriously! I hope you have good weather wherever you are, and that you can enjoy your day today. In fact, I hope everyone on this thread has an amazing day and enjoys God’s beautiful gifts. We can all get back to our morbid fascination with endless torment/space-time/and contentious metaphysics later.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Nope, not going to go there. Not here to proselytize or undermine people’s faith. Besides, if Jesus happens to be God, then I don’t want to add to my already assuredly substantial endless punishment. Also, I do not think God punishes or rewards people for what they believe, but rather what they do.

Ugh why even think about these things!!!??? It is a beautiful day here, praise God! I hope you have a good day . Seriously! I hope you have good weather wherever you are, and that you can enjoy your day today. In fact, I hope everyone on this thread has an amazing day and enjoys God’s beautiful gifts. We can all get back to our morbid fascination with endless torment/space-time/and contentious metaphysics later.

Thank you! We do have beautiful weather here, too. Bright sun, blue sky, birds singing, cicadas humming. It’s gorgeous. I will take your good advice and just enjoy it. I hope you have a marvelous day, too.

 

[Gorgias]

In my view, Jesus of Nazareth is not God, nor is he the messiah. I do not believe the New Testament is a reliable reflection of reality, but rather reflective of the theological opinions of the early Christians.

Hmm… so, the OT is reliable? And it teaches a Messiah… who hasn’t yet arrived?

But yeah, I get what you’re saying: if you cannot bring yourself to belief that the Bible is the Word of God, then no, you’re not going to be able to come to faith in Christ. We could, perhaps, get into why you hold that opinion of the NT, but that might be too off-topic for this thread…

Therefore, I do not think the Catholic church, or any human being or groups of human beings speaks with the voice of God.

Logical conclusion. If you look at the NT and react “it’s not real”, then none of its claims (including, but not limited to, Jesus’ resurrection and His founding the Church) will hold for you.

Right, more of the same. … If one accepts the Church’s authority, with radical unthinking obedience (ala Ignatius of Loyola), then whatever the Church proposes for belief is acceptable, even if the mind rages against contradictions, the mouth will proclaim assent. In that case, why discuss anything?

Here’s the thing, though: in any faith system, there must be, well, an element of faith! For those outside that system – that is, those who cannot bring themselves to faith, even if through reason – the assertions of that system are going to seem ludicrous, and those who believe in the system will seem irrational. Fair enough?

The problem is that the Church makes specific proclamations about it, and those proclamations of problematic because of their implications.

Well, I think it might be more fair, in this case, to say that this particular proclamation is problematic for you… and not because of its ‘implications’, but because you already reject its premises.

I’ve given – I think – one way to think about the question of Mary’s assumption. If one believes the NT, and believes that Jesus rose from the dead and then ascended into heaven, then we’ve already got one human being in heaven in a bodily way (in a ‘glorified body’, in terms of Catholic doctrine). (If you don’t believe in heaven, then you’re already off the reservation and away from the discussion. If you believe in heaven and only believe in the OT, then you still have to ask “where’s Elijah? where’s Enoch?”) Now, if you can wrap your head around Jesus being ‘in’ heaven bodily, the question of Mary’s assumption is no longer a problem: she can be in heaven bodily just as Jesus is, but only through the power of God and not her own power.

Special pleading, question begging, and the argument from ignorance abound on this board due to the accepted presupposition: “everything the Church teaches is true.”

If you’re calling this argument ‘special pleading’, then I think you either misunderstand or are misusing that term. It’s not that we’re saying that there’s no way to justify or explain it; rather, you simply disagree with the explanation. That’s fair enough – but it’s unfair to claim (since you disagree with the explanation) that there’s no explanation being offered (which, of course, is what a ‘special pleading’ is – an assertion of an exception without an explanation)… :sad_yes:

If that is really the case, why bother thinking at all? All of your thinking has been done for you, all of your truth has been packed down into a nice box and dropped into your hands. Why examine it if you aren’t looking for problems? “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Right?

Nope. We 21st-century-humans have had tons of “thinking done for us” – we stand on the shoulders of giants, remember? And, of course, we can go through the exercise of recapitulating the thought of others, and re-tracing the steps they took that have landed us where we are today. What we’re suggesting here isn’t that we put our brains on autopilot and let someone else do the thinking for us! However, since we reach different conclusions than you do, it’s unfair for you to claim that “you guys are unthinking drones”. No, we’re not: we’ve simply reached different conclusions than you have. If we wanted to, we could point out those who, in earlier times in history, have made the claims that you are making, and then accuse you of simply swallowing their assertions without rational thought; but that would be unfair, too…

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Hmm… so, the OT is reliable? And it teaches a Messiah… who hasn’t yet arrived?

Yes, I do believe the Torah tells us about God. I have many reasons for this belief. Definitely off-topic for this thread. Regarding the messiah: also too off topic. Suffice it to say, it seems abundantly clear to me that we’re not living in a redeemed world.

Here’s the thing, though: in any faith system, there must be, well, an element of faith! For those outside that system – that is, those who cannot bring themselves to faith, even if through reason – the assertions of that system are going to seem ludicrous, and those who believe in the system will seem irrational. Fair enough?

I don’ think that is necessarily true. I’m not sure faith is that which requires us to believe things that are contradictory or intrinsically impossible. I think faith is what allows us to believe things we don’t have direct experience of. I don’t have direct knowledge of whether Moses parted the Red Sea. I believe this on faith. However, it isn’t intrinsically contradictory like God being simultaneously bread and three persons, but also perfectly simple. There seems to be a difference between miracles and utter impossibilities.

Well, I think it might be more fair, in this case, to say that this particular proclamation is problematic for you… and not because of its ‘implications’, but because you already reject its premises.

I don’t think so. The idea that heaven contains bodies, that hell is relentless physical torment, and that both are “timeless” are in tension, because of the implications of the physicality of bodies. There is some required explanation, and I am not willing to accept the premise “The RCC is always right about everything” as the justification because that defeats the purpose of thought itself! If I were to accept that premise, then I should just accept whatever they say as absolutely true, whether there is an explanation that makes sense or not.

This line of thinking also justifies: Mormonism, The Watchtower, North Korea, and every fraud and charlatan in human history claiming to be a prophet, oracle, or divine authority. Don’t mean to imply that the religions mentioned above are fraudulent, not trying to be offensive, just trying to show that there is no good reason to choose Catholicism over Mormonism or The Watchtower if authority is the ground of truth

I’ve given – I think – one way to think about the question of Mary’s assumption. If one believes the NT, and believes that Jesus rose from the dead and then ascended into heaven, then we’ve already got one human being in heaven in a bodily way (in a ‘glorified body’, in terms of Catholic doctrine). (If you don’t believe in heaven, then you’re already off the reservation and away from the discussion. If you believe in heaven and only believe in the OT, then you still have to ask “where’s Elijah? where’s Enoch?”) Now, if you can wrap your head around Jesus being ‘in’ heaven bodily, the question of Mary’s assumption is no longer a problem: she can be in heaven bodily just as Jesus is, but only through the power of God and not her own power.

I’m not sure where Elijah or Enoch are. Fortunately, I am not required to believe anything specific about them on pain of mortal sin.

If you’re calling this argument ‘special pleading’, then I think you either misunderstand or are misusing that term. It’s not that we’re saying that there’s no way to justify or explain it; rather, you simply disagree with the explanation. That’s fair enough – but it’s unfair to claim (since you disagree with the explanation) that there’s no explanation being offered (which, of course, is what a ‘special pleading’ is – an assertion of an exception without an explanation)… :sad_yes:

I’m not saying your specific argument is special pleading, but the idea that the divine authority of the RCC is acceptable, but the other claimants to divine authority are fraudulent, is a case of special pleading. Why believe in the RCC’s authority? Miracles? Other religions have them too. Age? Other religions are older, or nearly as old. Adherents? Other religions have more. Good works? Good people are everywhere. Because they got to you first as a baby? Purely accidental.

What we’re suggesting here isn’t that we put our brains on autopilot and let someone else do the thinking for us! However, since we reach different conclusions than you do, it’s unfair for you to claim that “you guys are unthinking drones”. No, we’re not: we’ve simply reached different conclusions than you have. If we wanted to, we could point out those who, in earlier times in history, have made the claims that you are making, and then accuse you of simply swallowing their assertions without rational thought; but that would be unfair, too…

You are suggesting we put our brains on autopilot and let someone else do the thinking. IF you accept, without reservation or qualification, the authority of the RCC, then you should follow in Ignatius of Loyola’s footsteps and become an “unthinking drone.” If the Pope makes an ex cathedra statement saying “up” is now “down” or “black” is now officially “white,” you should uncritically assent. No, I am not advocating ultramontanism, but rather strict adherence to the magisterial authority. No need to think, no need to question, just mouth “yes” and do what you’re told, and you’re good to go. If the RCC is incapable of teaching anything but pure, unadulterated truth, then why worry about it?

 

[Gorgias]

PumpkinCookie,

Some of the assertions you made in your most recent post lead me to believe that you do not understand Catholic doctrines (with which you disagree) as well or as fully as you might think you do. Of course, it’s possible that you were just being glib and off-the-cuff with your references, and that makes it come across as a mischaracterization of what the Church teaches. Perhaps you can make it more clear…

Yes, I do believe the Torah tells us about God. I have many reasons for this belief. Definitely off-topic for this thread. Regarding the messiah: also too off topic.

Fair enough. Yet, on the surface, with what you’ve given us to think about, we’ve got two statements that are in conflict: the New Testament is unworthy of belief and was made to self-justify Christian belief; the Old Testament is worthy of belief and was not made to self-justify Jewish belief. On the face of it, it sure looks like ‘special pleading’ on your part…

I don’ think that is necessarily true. I’m not sure faith is that which requires us to believe things that are contradictory or intrinsically impossible.

Likewise, that’s fair. However, we’re running up against something that, again, is a judgment call: we Catholics wouldn’t say that these things we believe in (and in which you don’t believe) are ‘contradictory’ or ‘intrinsically impossible’. Therefore, it still comes down to a statement of faith: you believe that Catholic doctrine fails the test of rationality, and we do not. So, it’s still a matter of personal judgment and belief.

I think faith is what allows us to believe things we don’t have direct experience of. I don’t have direct knowledge of whether Moses parted the Red Sea. I believe this on faith. However, it isn’t intrinsically contradictory like God being simultaneously bread and three persons, but also perfectly simple. There seems to be a difference between miracles and utter impossibilities.

Here is the first example where I started scratching my head and wondering whether you understand what the Church is teaching (or whether you were simply being casual in your description of certain Church doctrines). After all, if you believe in the OT, then you believe that God is without physical extension while simultaneously the “Spirit of God hovered over the waters”. How is that any less an “utter impossibility” than that God is one being in three persons? You believe that God, who is not physical, “walk[ed] in the Garden in the cool of the day”. Is that not “utter impossibility”?

You also give a nod to the teaching on the Eucharist, and your dismissal of that teaching. Are you familiar with the philosophical notion of ‘transubstantiation’, and the difference between ‘form’ and ‘substance’? Are you arguing for limitations on God – that He cannot cause His substance to be present in creation, but in a way that does not happen naturally? That would seem to be a matter of ‘faith’, not ‘impossibility’…

I don’t think so. The idea that heaven contains bodies, that hell is relentless physical torment, and that both are “timeless” are in tension, because of the implications of the physicality of bodies.

I think that the standard explanation is that, in the eschaton, heaven and hell will have beings with physical extension, but that is not the normative situation now. (In other words, there is no tension here: until the eschaton, the normative situation is ‘state of being’ that is ‘populated’ by beings without physical extension – just like Sheol… which is something you’d believe in from the OT, right? After the eschaton, the normative situation is that humans have glorified bodies, and experience their eternal destiny in an embodied way.)

 

[Gorgias]

PumpkinCookie:

There is some required explanation, and I am not willing to accept the premise “The RCC is always right about everything” as the justification because that defeats the purpose of thought itself!

You’re mischaracterizing the premise, then. It’s not just “the Church is right, so shut up and accept it”. There is always a rational explanation that attends to Church teaching. You might personally disagree with the explanation, but you’re still mischaracterizing the situation, painting a picture that is not true. I’m challenging you, here, to be honest: “I disagree with the Church’s explanation” is different from “the Church offers no explanation”. You claim it’s the latter, when really, it’s the former.

If I were to accept that premise, then I should just accept whatever they say as absolutely true, whether there is an explanation that makes sense or not.

That’s right; and that’s not what the situation is.

This line of thinking also justifies: Mormonism, The Watchtower, North Korea, and every fraud and charlatan in human history claiming to be a prophet, oracle, or divine authority.

No, it doesn’t. If each of these were equally plausible… or, if each of these were God-breathed, then you’d have a point. Frauds and charlatans are rejected because… well… they’re frauds and charlatans! God is not rejected, because He’s God! The difference, which you’re blithely glossing over, is that the grounds of our belief are God and His self-revelation to mankind.

I’m not saying your specific argument is special pleading, but the idea that the divine authority of the RCC is acceptable, but the other claimants to divine authority are fraudulent, is a case of special pleading.

I still think you’re using that term inaccurately. Not every ‘special case’ is ‘special pleading’, and that seems to be what you’re asserting. Other claimants to divine authority have the right to believe what they believe. That doesn’t mean, though, that they have an inherent right to a claim to truth. Moreover, claims that are difficult to substantiate to the satisfaction of all are likewise not ‘special pleading.’ On the other hand, an example of special pleading would be, “theophanies, by definition, are impossible; however, the theophany of God found in the OT is truth itself.” This would be ‘special pleading’ since it sets up a general case, and then asserts an exception without any justification. I don’t think that’s what you mean here; you’re just using that term to mean “ya’ll believe this stuff and I don’t believe it, and I don’t agree with your explanations.” :sad_yes:

Why believe in the RCC’s authority? Miracles? Other religions have them too. Age? Other religions are older, or nearly as old. Adherents? Other religions have more. Good works? Good people are everywhere. Because they got to you first as a baby? Purely accidental.

By the standard that you set here, your religious beliefs are likewise untenable: there are miracles in the OT, and lots of folks believe in the OT, and there are lots of mitzvot in the OT. Therefore, you shouldn’t believe in your beliefs, either. (In other words, stop building up straw men: none of these are the reasons to believe in Christ and His Church.)

You are suggesting we put our brains on autopilot and let someone else do the thinking.

Sadly, no; and I’m surprised that this is the conclusion you’ve reached.

IF you accept, without reservation or qualification, the authority of the RCC

Do you accept the authority of the President? If so, then you’re an ‘unthinking drone’, aren’t you? If, on the other hand, you accept his authority, but reserve the right to judge him, then you’re merely accepting that he’s human and may make mistakes. On the other hand, the reason to accept the authority of the Church is that it proceeds from the authority of God. Do you judge God? (If so, then you might want to re-read the Book of Job, and see his reflections on why passing such judgment is illogical.)

If the Pope makes an ex cathedra statement saying “up” is now “down” or “black” is now officially “white,” you should uncritically assent. No, I am not advocating ultramontanism, but rather strict adherence to the magisterial authority.

This is the other place where I was left scratching my head. Do you really think that the authority of the magisterium to teach infallibly extends beyond matters of faith and morals? If so, then you grossly understand what the Church teaches. If not, then you’re building up straw men again.

If the RCC is incapable of teaching anything but pure, unadulterated truth, then why worry about it?

Because God gave us the capacity for both faith and reason, and bids us to use both. Confidence in God doesn’t make us ‘drones’ any more than your confidence in the OT makes you a drone.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

PumpkinCookie,Some of the assertions you made in your most recent post lead me to believe that you do not understand Catholic doctrines (with which you disagree) as well or as fully as you might think you do. Of course, it’s possible that you were just being glib and off-the-cuff with your references, and that makes it come across as a mischaracterization of what the Church teaches. Perhaps you can make it more clear…

Yes I am being glib. I can give lengthy, pedantic responses if you want, but I don’t care to put in the effort right now.

Fair enough. Yet, on the surface, with what you’ve given us to think about, we’ve got two statements that are in conflict: the New Testament is unworthy of belief and was made to self-justify Christian belief; the Old Testament is worthy of belief and was not made to self-justify Jewish belief. On the face of it, it sure looks like ‘special pleading’ on your part…

No, no, no. Not all modes of religious belief are analogous to Catholicism. This is very difficult to understand from inside the Catholic faith. Are you a cradle Catholic? If not, I would be interested to know how you converted. You don’t have to share, but I think it is difficult for those raised Catholic to understand the differing qualities of religious belief among other religious traditions. I do not believe the Torah is “self-justifying.” I believe it is worthy of belief because it describes a God that is in harmony with reason (in my view).

Likewise, that’s fair. However, we’re running up against something that, again, is a judgment call: we Catholics wouldn’t say that these things we believe in (and in which you don’t believe) are ‘contradictory’ or ‘intrinsically impossible’. Therefore, it still comes down to a statement of faith: you believe that Catholic doctrine fails the test of rationality, and we do not. So, it’s still a matter of personal judgment and belief.

Right, but if a belief appears to be self-contradictory or intrinsically impossible, you can’t justify belief in that thing by saying that the one who commanded your belief is always right about this kind of thing. You must show that the belief isn’t really self-contradictory, or your belief isn’t warranted, in my opinion.

Here is the first example where I started scratching my head and wondering whether you understand what the Church is teaching (or whether you were simply being casual in your description of certain Church doctrines). After all, if you believe in the OT, then you believe that God is without physical extension while simultaneously the “Spirit of God hovered over the waters”. How is that any less an “utter impossibility” than that God is one being in three persons? You believe that God, who is not physical, “walk[ed] in the Garden in the cool of the day”. Is that not “utter impossibility”?

Yes, it is utterly impossible, that is why I understand those passages in Genesis to be metaphorical. God does not have a body. One thing can’t be three things at the same time in the same way. We can’t go into an extensive discussion about the trinity on this forum, but suffice it to say, after extensive reading on the subject, I am unable to believe it, and find it totally incoherent and contradictory.

You also give a nod to the teaching on the Eucharist, and your dismissal of that teaching. Are you familiar with the philosophical notion of ‘transubstantiation’, and the difference between ‘form’ and ‘substance’? Are you arguing for limitations on God – that He cannot cause His substance to be present in creation, but in a way that does not happen naturally? That would seem to be a matter of ‘faith’, not ‘impossibility’…

I believe God does not have a body. The Church teaches that the bread and wine literally change substance into the body of Jesus, who is also God. Reason, sense, and intuition tell me otherwise. God make appear to us (as in the burning bush) but the burning bush is not identical to God. Catholics teach that what looks like bread is actually the living second person of the trinity who is 100% human and 100% God. The contradictions are too much for me.

I think that the standard explanation is that, in the eschaton, heaven and hell will have beings with physical extension, but that is not the normative situation now. (In other words, there is no tension here: until the eschaton, the normative situation is ‘state of being’ that is ‘populated’ by beings without physical extension – just like Sheol… which is something you’d believe in from the OT, right? After the eschaton, the normative situation is that humans have glorified bodies, and experience their eternal destiny in an embodied way.)

OK that is fine. The problem is that the Church makes a very specific claim about Mary having a body in heaven right now. They make this claim, but don’t appear to offer an explanation for the numerous difficulties which are implied by this assertion. Your offered justification, as I understand it, is “The Church is always right about this sort of thing so we should believe it.” Is that not what you meant?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

You’re mischaracterizing the premise, then. It’s not just “the Church is right, so shut up and accept it”. There is always a rational explanation that attends to Church teaching. You might personally disagree with the explanation, but you’re still mischaracterizing the situation, painting a picture that is not true. I’m challenging you, here, to be honest: “I disagree with the Church’s explanation” is different from “the Church offers no explanation”. You claim it’s the latter, when really, it’s the former.

Fair enough, I will agree that my position is more like “the Church’s explanations are insufficient to warrant belief.”

No, it doesn’t. If each of these were equally plausible… or, if each of these were God-breathed, then you’d have a point. Frauds and charlatans are rejected because… well… they’re frauds and charlatans! God is not rejected, because He’s God! The difference, which you’re blithely glossing over, is that the grounds of our belief are God and His self-revelation to mankind.

It isn’t that they’re equally plausibly true religions, but rather that their claims to authoritative belief have equal merit. The Roman Catholic Church is not God. Neither is the Mormon Church, or The Watchtower. All of their claims to divine authority are equally bogus, in my opinion. Your insistence that the RCC is “God-breathed” is the special pleading. You accept all other religions as the work of frauds and charlatans because they aren’t “revealed by God” but fail to see that your belief that the RCC is “revealed by God” comes from within that religious tradition. “All religions are false…except mine because God says so” is, it seems to me, a straightforward case of special pleading. If you said, all religions are false, except mine, because only mine aligns with reason or the available evidence, that would be different. Is that what you mean?

By the standard that you set here, your religious beliefs are likewise untenable: there are miracles in the OT, and lots of folks believe in the OT, and there are lots of mitzvot in the OT. Therefore, you shouldn’t believe in your beliefs, either. (In other words, stop building up straw men: none of these are the reasons to believe in Christ and His Church.)

What? Whether I believe in each and every miracle doesn’t matter. Specific beliefs aren’t analogously important in Judaism.

Do you accept the authority of the President? If so, then you’re an ‘unthinking drone’, aren’t you? If, on the other hand, you accept his authority, but reserve the right to judge him, then you’re merely accepting that he’s human and may make mistakes. On the other hand, the reason to accept the authority of the Church is that it proceeds from the authority of God. Do you judge God? (If so, then you might want to re-read the Book of Job, and see his reflections on why passing such judgment is illogical.)

The President doesn’t require that I believe specific things that are contradictory or impossible to verify. I obviously cannot judge God, but the RCC is not God, and does not have God’s authority, just like the Watchtower doesn’t have God’s authority. I do not suppose the RCC has any more justification of it’s claim to divine authority than any other religious tradition.

This is the other place where I was left scratching my head. Do you really think that the authority of the magisterium to teach infallibly extends beyond matters of faith and morals? If so, then you grossly understand what the Church teaches. If not, then you’re building up straw men again.

No, I was merely alluding to Ignatius of Loyola’s statement regarding “black” and “white.” Google it. Faith and morals only, yes I know. Mary’s assumption is a matter of faith, as is the “real presence” and the “trinity.”

Because God gave us the capacity for both faith and reason, and bids us to use both. Confidence in God doesn’t make us ‘drones’ any more than your confidence in the OT makes you a drone.

My beliefs are not analogous to yours. Catholicism is a mode of belief as well as a set of beliefs. Again, the Torah is not God. The Catholic church is not God. The Bible is not God. My faith in the one God is prior to my belief in the Torah.

What I’m saying, is that if you have full confidence in the truthfulness and authority of the Catholic church, then you should fall in line and ask no questions. You don’t need to pursue truth, it has been handed to you. You already have all the answers, and you don’t need any more questions.

 

[Elizium23]

If you really understood the Old Testament, you would accept Christ’s claims as true, and by extension, the Catholic Church.

I have a question for you. Do you consider Jesus to be a Liar, or a Lunatic?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

If you really understood the Old Testament, you would accept Christ’s claims as true, and by extension, the Catholic Church.

I have a question for you. Do you consider Jesus to be a Liar, or a Lunatic?

I’m not here to contradict your faith. I am not going to present an anti-Christian apology. I do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a luntatic, or a liar, or God, but to explain my reasons would cross into proselytism and I think it is against forum rules.

 

[eazyduzit]

It all depends on what you mean when you say “forgiveness.”

More like, Jesus died for mankind’s redemption, to sanctify our sins, and to regain our right to be children of God. Each individual has free will to accept or reject that gift, which we could never earn on strength of our own merits. The acceptance of that gift involves action on our part. Our job as creatures is to know, serve, and love God. When we sin, we cut ourselves off from God, and from his grace. When we perform good works freely and for the love of God, we earn merit. When we sin mortally, we lose the merits of our good works. We are no longer able to accumulate merit after death, but during our life, we have the opportunity to increase our heavenly merit indefinitely through prayer, work, fasting, Sacraments, etc.

You seem to be trying to avoid answering the question. Your said “the acceptance of the gift involves action.” Do you mean “meritorious action” ? Or something else?

If you want treasure in heaven, the best way is to win souls.

 

[eazyduzit]

If it is possible for there to be “the kind of people who love God” who also retain free will and full humanity, then why didn’t he exclusively create those people in the first place? It would have saved everyone a lot of trouble, especially the victims of sin, and those suffering endless torment.

Must remember: the Catholic Church insists that there will be bodies in both heaven and hell. Bodies take up space. Space doesn’t exist without time, and time doesn’t exist without space (according to my understanding of our latest scientific theories, please correct me if I’m wrong).

By insisting that bodies exist in hell and heaven, the Catholic Church has put themselves in a precarious philosophical position, and have adopted a baggage-laden metaphysics with many difficult implications.

https://jorgeschulz.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/1010672-bigthumbnail.jpg

Actually, the greatest freedom is the freedom to not sin. Adam and Eve originally had this freedom but of course it was lost due to the lies of Satan. We no longer have the ability to not sin, but now by faith in Christ we can have perfect righteousness as if we had never sinned. That’s why the Gospel is almost too good to be true news.

 

[eazyduzit]

If it is possible for there to be “the kind of people who love God” who also retain free will and full humanity, then why didn’t he exclusively create those people in the first place? It would have saved everyone a lot of trouble, especially the victims of sin, and those suffering endless torment.

Must remember: the Catholic Church insists that there will be bodies in both heaven and hell. Bodies take up space. Space doesn’t exist without time, and time doesn’t exist without space (according to my understanding of our latest scientific theories, please correct me if I’m wrong).

By insisting that bodies exist in hell and heaven, the Catholic Church has put themselves in a precarious philosophical position, and have adopted a baggage-laden metaphysics with many difficult implications.

https://jorgeschulz.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/1010672-bigthumbnail.jpg

Actually, the greatest freedom is the freedom to not sin. Adam and Eve originally had this freedom but of course it was lost due to the lies of Satan. We no longer have the ability to not sin, but now by faith in Christ we can have perfect righteousness as if we had never sinned. That’s why the Gospel is almost too good to be true news.

 

[ChibiViolet]

If it is possible for there to be “the kind of people who love God” who also retain free will and full humanity, then why didn’t he exclusively create those people in the first place? It would have saved everyone a lot of trouble, especially the victims of sin, and those suffering endless torment.

Must remember: the Catholic Church insists that there will be bodies in both heaven and hell. Bodies take up space. Space doesn’t exist without time, and time doesn’t exist without space (according to my understanding of our latest scientific theories, please correct me if I’m wrong).

By insisting that bodies exist in hell and heaven, the Catholic Church has put themselves in a precarious philosophical position, and have adopted a baggage-laden metaphysics with many difficult implications.

https://jorgeschulz.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/1010672-bigthumbnail.jpg

Catholics do NOT believe that people (aside from Jesus and the Blessed Virgin Mary who are physically in Heaven) have their bodies still in Heaven and and Hell. We believe there is going to be a new world at this world’s end and then the people in both Heaven and Hell will get their bodies back–the people in Heaven to be whole again with living bodies on the new earth and those in Hell getting back their bodies back as corpses, which will add to their perpetual suffering. I’m not sure how that would work in the case of Hell, but I think it’s because instead of Hell being timeless, it has greatly intensified time–meaning that time goes agonizingly slow. There is no actual teaching as to time in Hell and I’m not sure if there even is one about Heaven, however if time is required for space than Heaven must have some form of time because physically, Jesus and the Blessed Mother are there. However, I do not believe that time is required for space. If time is defined simply by change than no, there is no time in Heaven or Hell. People who die cannot change.