Why the negativity?

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

My apology for barging in.

Never make this statement! All are welcome to offer sincere opinions on the topic. Not just those who agree with me (the OP) either.

 

[Hereiam]

You don’t have to agree Teek. Theology is not for the faint of heart. However, because you do not agree is no reason to discredit it.

Scotus was the second most brilliant Franciscan theologian of the High Middle Ages, and his theology is in high regard within the Church.

You are right, the Fall did happen, and Christ did come, but to Scotus would contend he did not just come to save, but he came out of love, and salvation just happened to be needed.

Scotus claims since the second person of the Trinity always existed, with him from the beginning the plan for the incarnation. The Fall was a choice that God left to man, so when it occurred means of salvation was already assured because of the predestined incarnation.

No discussion on this social media site will do theology justice. I recommend you read Blessed John Duns Scotus’ “The Absolute Primacy of Christ”.

You are in good company though, because even the brilliant Thomas Aquinas disagreed.

Theological thought is not always, nor does it have to be dogmatic. I’m sure you are not in agreement with what all the saints, Doctors, or Church Fathers have to say…nor need you. But theology is an academic pursuit, and not just spiritual, requiring deeper thought, reason, research, and consideration before labeling it as “wrong”

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

I’m afraid the evidence is massively against you and i’d urge you to reconsider your position. So it’s not Jesus and his trip to earth that is the foundation, it’s the existence of absolute truth which has to be grounded in something that is not man-made. It doesn’t matter if it’s the torah or the bible for that purpose. What we know is that the human brain is basically capable of convincing itself of anything, it is morally neutral in that sense, like all of science and nature. i think the best examples of how this is achieved is George Orwell’s classic ‘1984’. The Nazi regime could convince a fairly large part of a well educated population that genocide was ok and there was a logic to their arguement (often forgotten or dumbed down). It’s certainly not a logic I agree with but we shouldn’t pretend that the people were just stupid or gullible. Ultimately, the non-human authority is the eventual source of morality. Religion can be manipulated to an extent but certainly not as far as the worst events of the twentieth century because ultimately “thou shall not murder”.

The second point about offering something to the poor is also way off i’m afraid. I’m going to use what i fear is a dirty term on here but honestly, God invented science - he doesn’t fear it. So here goes “evolutionary psychology” what’s beyond reasonable doubt is that humans are a tribal species and societies are an unnatural state of being for us. Ultimately, most tribes were fairly stable when they were based on kinship groups but that’s a self limiting method of organisation. So the question becomes, how to get two tribes with no kinship bonds to trust each other? The must find point of agreement that are as or more powerful that blood lines. The answer to that problem was religion. You can take that as far back as your understanding of physics and biology allows for.

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

Where is here - Australia?

 

[Shakuhachi]

No doubt we have a “fallen nature”. The Genesis narrative tells us that in symbolic language. Does that mean the death of Jesus was required to placate an angry God who could only be satisfied by violent blood shed and agonizing death? Jesus did far MORE than just die on a cross. What about his teachings? What about his moral example? He showed us how to live and expand our love. Without the “fall” would we still need instruction, example, and encouragement? Would God still come in the flesh if only to experience our life situation right next to us as one of us? I think so. But it is only a speculative question. Still, to appreciate the full meaning of the incarnation, it is worth the thought.

 

[guanophore]

Negative subjects always get more attention because there is much, much more conversation involved in picking things apart and destructively analyzing them.

Does that mean you think there is no such thing as constructive analysis?

 

[NiceIsAsNiceDoes]

I can’t imagine for a moment that is the way God wants us to live. I do not believe he would want us for 1 minute to tremble in fear of his judgment. I would encourage you to Instead try to be joyful about all of the good things God has given us. Leave the trembling and fear by the wayside. It will help improve your disposition.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The Lord does not want us to lack trust in him or to have dread (what you describe).

“Holy Fear” is an altogether different thing and is something we should have.

Holy Fear

I believe Our Lady in her apparitions, and many saints throughout the ages, have made comments about the wrath of God and how it is indeed fearsome. Although the Lord does not want us to live in fear, he doesn’t want us completely losing all awe of his ability to judge us, either.

 

[RandomAlias]

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy.

Not really, it is what it is.

Perhaps you don’t understand the original meaning of ad hominem. (Hint: he said “logical fallacy,” not “attack” or “argument.”) Ad hominem literally means “to the person.” Your response to the the Jung quotation was to the man Jung, not to the quotation.

That quotation is so good, let’s take another look at it:

“Modern people don’t see god because they don’t look low enough.”

I can think of many Catholic interpretations of it. One could study that statement for a semester. This is not even an exhaustive list:

We don’t see God when:

• We think God is far away in heaven
• We think God in not actively engaged in our personal lives here on earth
• We think God is not in control of earthly events
• We don’t see the beauty and order of the physical universe at every level

We don’t see God in Jesus when:

• We don’t understand that God became man and lived among us
• We don’t think that Jesus was fully human and fully divine
• We don’t see the significance of Jesus’ suffering, death, and resurrection
• We don’t appreciate the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist
• We neglect to participate in the Sacraments
• We don’t seek a personal relationship with Jesus

We don’t see God in others when:

• We don’t see the image and likeness of God in each human person
• We don’t see Jesus in those around us (Matthew 25:31-46)
• We don’t help those in need (either physical or spiritual needs)
• We don’t love our enemies and pray for them
• We do not safeguard human life at all stages from conception to natural death

We don’t see God in ourselves when:

• We don’t see the God’s image and likeness in ourselves
• We despair or doubt that we can become holy and be saved
• We don’t develop, educate, and use our conscience
• We don’t recognize the need for prayer in many circumstances
• We are spiritually lazy, holy when it is convenient
• We are dishonest, unchaste, greedy, self-absorbed
• We don’t help others to grow in faith and virtue
• We don’t do our small part to make the world better

It is certainly possible to gain spiritual insights from people of all faiths and even from atheists.

As another example, one of the best writings I’ve seen on the morality of lying is Lying, by Sam Harris, an atheist. Without mentioning either atheism or religion, he argues persuasively for telling the truth at all times.

Jesus told us not to lie, but it is a hard teaching for many good Catholics. Many find it impossible to accept. But an atheist thought about the virtue of honesty, understood it, lived it, and now shares it with the world. I don’t believe everything Sam Harris has to say, but I respect and understand it, and take from it what is good.

 

[Teek]

However, because you do not agree is no reason to discredit it.

Isn’t that the only reason to offer evidence to the contrary, or discredit something? I didn’t attempt to discredit anything. I offered my honest reaction. In response, because you disagree, you are here discrediting my response. I have no problem with that, however, I should be offered the same courtesy, should I disagree with you.

You are in good company though, because even the brilliant Thomas Aquinas disagreed.

It makes sense that I struggle with the idea that the Fall was irrelevant because I have a deep respect for Thomistic Theology. He is a Doctor of the Church.

But theology is an academic pursuit, and not just spiritual, requiring deeper thought, reason, research, and consideration before labeling it as “wrong”

Yes, true. However, Jesus is the one true revelation of God. Jesus the Savior. The Paschal Mystery. These would not make sense without the Fall. Theologically, reasonably, rationally. As an actor of spirituality or if intellect: Jesus the Savior makes zero sense without a Fall.

My main question is this: Adam and Eve walked with God in the cool of the evening. This only changed because of the Fall. Why then, would God come again, if He had never left?

 

[Teek]

Does that mean the death of Jesus was required to placate an angry God who could only be satisfied by violent blood shed and agonizing death?

I think this is a different question, although very important. Of course it wasn’t necessary, which makes it even more important that He chose to do it in this way. What did He intend to reveal by choosing this “violent blood shed and agonizing death,” rather than some gentler way? That is of paramount importance.

I was responding to an assertion that the Fall wasn’t necessary, Jesus would have come anyway. (Which was a response to someone saying that the Fall should not be underestimated in importance because Jesus the Savior does not make sense if He wasn’t saving us.)

Jesus did far MORE than just die on a cross. What about his teachings? What about his moral example? He showed us how to live and expand our love. Without the “fall” would we still need instruction, example, and encouragement? Would God still come in the flesh if only to experience our life situation right next to us as one of us? I think so.

I agree. Everything about what the Christ said and did is important.

Before the Fall, Adam and Eve walked with God in the cool of the evening. (Gen3:8) They already had “instruction, example, and encouragement.” Because of the Fall, man’s intellect was darkened. That is why we needed to be restored to God, and needed a teacher, an example, and encouragment to save us. Why would we have need of this if we still had it?

But it is only a speculative question. Still, to appreciate the full meaning of the incarnation, it is worth the thought.

It is totally worth the thought! That is why I grappled with it. I just ended up somewhere else after doing so than the person I replied to.

 

[Teek]

Throw in the mix concepts like self-sacrifice and some other guy to carry the burden of anything you do wrong, and you have a winner.

So yes, I may say as well Christianity has been a pilar for morality. But in a rather accidental way. The primary goal was to control people and offer them a reason to still stay alive, being exploited.

If Christianity was created by man to achieve those ends, this could be true.

If the Salvation History Christianity professes is actually true, those ideas are inherently flawed—backwards. Morality was created to control man, or man was created to be moral. One of the two.

 

[ChunkMonk]

I can’t imagine for a moment that is the way God wants us to live. I do not believe he would want us for 1 minute to tremble in fear of his judgment. I would encourage you to Instead try to be joyful about all of the good things God has given us. Leave the trembling and fear by the wayside. It will help improve your disposition.

He told us to be afraid. The Saints told us to be afraid. The Prophets told us to be afraid.

I prefer to be realistic about my sins and my chances. Hence, my fear.

 

[2towers]

I overwhelmingly agree with what you have posted on both sides of the proverbial fence, but there is a small margin of people who don’t fit either category, and I am going to try and do it justice, but if the past is any measure, I won’t do a good job of it.

Our faith as you describe it in it’s best sense should be uplifting, and I include myself in that overall. For those of us who lived such a hedonistic life for so long, considering the old axiom that old habits die hard, those I describe need additional discipline. We need the structure. We need to frequently, not always, but frequently mortify our senses as described by the Saints of old. Do I whip myself or sleep on a board like Mother Therese of Calcutta? No.

Think of some of our Ladies Apparitions. “Penance, penance, penance!” St. Michael cried in one of them! No it is not doctrine, nor are we required to believe in them, and nor are we required NOT to believe in them. Some of us do so of our own choosing. Does this make me more holier than others? Certainly not. It is just that I feel like I came so close to the abyss, that I am not taking any chances. Am I being a bit scrupulous? Probably, but it takes this level of focus, to keep me from falling into sin as often, and by and large it is working.

So while many of those who appear to others as being sanctimonious, might very well be just that, there are those who are just simply be what I call “white knuckling.” it. Again, I agree with your post, but I felt that I needed to share that.

 

[Cruciferi]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[BornInMarch]

But the bible ceases to make sense at the very highest level to me if you believe that Christ conquered death through an incredible act of selflessness all for the benefit of a handful of people he could have just done a Noah with if he wished.

You said it better than I could have.

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

But it’s the middle of the day in New York…

So yeah we do agree on a lot more than it looked but point 3 starts to sound like Utilitarianism which i doubt you believe in?

 

[ChunkMonk]

It must be very hard to walk through life, seeing all the good-hearted people trying the best they can with what they know, and thinking “they’re all gonna be tortured forever!”.

It is hard to think that many will end up in Hell. As for any specific person, I never make any claim of judgement.

Actually I bet you like thinking this way because it boosts your ego to think that you’ll be part of an exclusive club of saved. I bet it gives you a sense of glee to think fo so many people suffering.

That is incredibly uncharitable of you, but also very stupid. What could possibly make you think I count myself among the saved? I live every day in fear of my own damnation. Among those I love dearly, there are many who are living sinful lives with no seeming intention to reform or confess. The thought that they might suffer is a constant sorrow for me. Though, perhaps in your extreme lack of charity you might disbelieve poor creatures like myself can even know love.

If I thought everyone was going to to Hell then I wouldn’t be able to muster the will to get out of bed, but you seem to enjoy believing this!

It is not about what I enjoy or don’t enjoy.

I’m not going to argue this with you. On other occasions where I debated theology with you you refused to believe other priests or even the vatican itself when I quoted them. If you won’t believe Priests and Popes then there’s no possible starting point for a reasoned discussion.

You already are arguing this with me. I seem to recall one specific argument with you where you accused me of the same viciousness you do now when I merely quoted a Pope on the subject of passionate kissing. Since you pick and choose which Popes to believe and which not, your criticism here is as empty as your charity.

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

Ok good, but i don’t think it’s true that pain is wrong by its essence. Suffering can be for the good, to take a pretty simple example so that everything isn’t about Nazi’s (my bad); when a new mother repeatedly wakes up throughout the night to feed her baby, it’s a a form of pain and suffering. Yet she does it for the good of the baby and by doing so they form a beautiful bond. I’m sure you’ve considered this anyway so how can that fit with what you said in point 3?

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

Ok but then i’m afraid i have to come back to Nazi’s. The Nazi’s didn’t believe murder of certain blood groups was wrong, they had a perversion of nietzsche to justify this so we can’t say it was just an excuse that everyone went along with. There was a quasi-logical framework to explain their actions. Mein Kampf is an incredibly badly written book or really doesn’t translate to English well, or both - but it does spell out a framework which murder of some people is accepted. If you want a non-Nazi example, i would make the case that even our progressive secular governments of today sanction the murder of certain people as long as they are unborn and particularly if they are unborn and have downs syndrome. So what i’m saying is that unless you can come back to an absolute command from a non-human authority then what behaviour cannot be justified?