The Catholic Perspective

by sabastious 139 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • sabastious
    sabastious
    BTS: Please explain, perhaps it would help if you read some context. Trust is an integral component in a loving relationship. We either trust in God's goodness, or we do not. If we choose not to, we can set our own limits, and deal with whatever consequences arise from these.

    You are right, trust goes hand in hand with love, but you miss the point.

    Trust and love are both strawmen here. They are tools of control (started by people long before us). Questions like "don't you trust/love God?" Should never be inquired of another. If it is inquired about the asker is undoubtedly either manipulating their subjects advertently or inadvertently.

    The issue from my vantage point is the the issue of free will. This question must be answered for me (and is not yet): Do we have free will or not?

    If not, then I would need to figure out what is required of me to make the best of my existence. If I do have free will then I will continue trying to grow, progress and make the best life for myself and my family.

    Christians alike want to tell me I have both, which is confusing and sometimes irritating. I can't have free will and have requirements from God.

    I know we could endlessly debate free will or not, and I would guess that no matter how much we talk about it we will not come to conclusion usable by the masses.

    So that makes me think that this is a personal journey, which would imply free will, no?

    -Sab

  • sabastious
    sabastious

    BTS: The message is that we can do as we choose in opposition to goodness and truth; that we can choose falsehood and evil and be just fine. From the previous cited source:

    1711 Endowed with a spiritual soul, with intellect and with free will, the human person is from his very conception ordered to God and destined for eternal beatitude. He pursues his perfection in "seeking and loving what is true and good"

    1713 Man is obliged to follow the moral law, which urges him "to do what is good and avoid what is evil" (cf. GS 16). This law makes itself heard in his conscience.

    1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one's own responsibility. By free will one shapes one's own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

    It is WE that choose to seek and love what is true and good. The apex of goodness and truth is God.

    Ughhh. Those references are hard to read for me. Just a bunch of logical impossibilities. To write something like that in a official way is kind of makes my stomach turn.

    It's one thing for you or I to speak in an absolute way, because we both know each of us could be talking out of our asses at any moment. When it happens though I expect this communtiy, including you, to call me out on it. That's humanity to me, community, real community.

    Problem is once you and I come to "concrete" conclusion we might put it in an "official stance" almost like a scientific theory. Thing is, what you quoted is not substantial at all, it's merely a way of looking at it. It just so happens that this particular way of looking at it I completely disagree with.

    But that doesn't matter, it's been "put into stone" within an organized religion. So now those words come with more "strength" because there are a lot of people who suscribe to the ideals mentioned.

    A major problem though is that maybe all those people were manipulated, we'll never know for sure but it's not beyond the stretch of our imaginations and frankly, it's happened many times before.

    We have this logical fallacy brewing in our heads that if lots of people agree with a position that somehow it makes the position stronger. This is a snare, and quite possibly one of the most dangerous ones out there.

    -Sab

  • tec
    tec
    Problem is who does the defining of what hurts us?

    Well, I think we know the basics, and experience is a good teacher for the rest. I think it hurts us just as much when we hurt someone out of ignorance, also... just for the fact that someone was hurt because of our actions.

    Ok you and I agree that Jesus didn't die for the sins of Adam, but do you believe that Jesus died because of the sins of Adam?

    Ahh, ok, in a sense, yes (and I see a little clearer what you mean about the difference between literal and allegory)... because if no sin had been passed on/taught/inherited to Adam and Eve's children, then perhaps no one would ever have sinned? That point seems kinda moot to me though :)

    Tammy, if you are going to make such statements please tell me how it isn't different from a pure allegorical standpoint :)
    The story is about the first sin. If the "first sin" is allegorical then it changes a great deal for you and I. In the stream of all Christianity, many have made claim to doctrine hinged on Adam and Eve being literal (including JWs of course). This is not a whacky idea, it is quite accepted most Christian communities, no?

    Allegory (simple version) - Adam and Eve represent mankind's disobedience and turning away from God, followed by being cast out... a sort of 'go and learn it all the hard way then'. It explains why we -their children- are where we are today, instead of with God in the Garden of Eden, with life. We inherit death from them, being born outside the Garden because of their act.

    Literal (simple version) - Adam and Eve disobey, wanting to be like God, and are cast out - where it is harder. Their children (us) are born outside the Garden of Eden, so their children die as they do. We inherit death from them for the same reasons as above.

    In an allegory, you use symbols to represent real things, right? So the ultimate meaning should be the same, shouldn't it? That does not mean that a person finds the real meaning, mind you... regardless of whether it is taken as literal or allegory.

    Also... I get that you are mainly interested in debating this with someone who believes that doctrine hinges on Adam/Eve being literal and Christ as ransom sacrifice for their sins. But I don't believe that... so perhaps I am a wasted audience.

    Tammy, I am extremely remorseful for those things. Every time I do something unhelpful to society by neglecting something or hurting someone I regognize it and make a serious attempt to remedy it.

    See, now here I am going to apologize to you. I did not mean to single you out or make you feel bad. I just meant to point out that we ALL have done wrongdoing. But I would not condemn or judge or even think badly of you (or anyone else) for it... that would make me a hypocrite. If you didn't care that you had ever hurt anyone, then I might be worried about you ;) But you obviously do care, and I knew that about you even before you wrote your answer above.

    As for the nature of your relationship with Christ... that is between you and Him. I have no right nor ability to cast judgment on it or you. It has little do what I can to show kindness, compassion and love to you... because as someone I love once said to me, this brings glory to God.

    I did accept him by immitatinghis actions in the gospel.

    This is an example of deeds, Sab. So your integrity (as you said above) is manifesting itself in imitation of His actions. :)

    Again Tammy, I do not wish to single you out or attack you. I have deep respect for you and your beliefs but as you can see, I have some strong ones of my own :)

    I think 'ditto' sums up my feelings here nicely :) I love your passion for your beliefs, btw. I look forward to reading your project when it is finished. You are making me think a little deeper about the concept of inherited sin.

    Tammy

  • sabastious
    sabastious
    Well, I think we know the basics, and experience is a good teacher for the rest. I think it hurts us just as much when we hurt someone out of ignorance, also... just for the fact that someone was hurt because of our actions.

    I understand, and agree with, your point, but it is very idealistic. We all hope that ourselves and our peers will learn from experience, but from my experience, a lot of people just don't learn from their mistakes, what then? Someone has to define the boundries, you know?

    -Sab

  • sabastious
    sabastious
    Ahh, ok, in a sense, yes (and I see a little clearer what you mean about the difference between literal and allegory)... because if no sin had been passed on/taught/inherited to Adam and Eve's children, then perhaps no one would ever have sinned? That point seems kinda moot to me though :)

    Well, for the record, I don't believe in Sin. I believe in things helpful and unhelpful to ourselves and society. I believe that everything can be sorted out by paying close attention to the natural laws of Cause and Effect.

    -Sab

  • sabastious
    sabastious
    Allegory (simple version) - Adam and Eve represent mankind's disobedience and turning away from God, followed by being cast out... a sort of 'go and learn it all the hard way then'. It explains why we -their children- are where we are today, instead of with God in the Garden of Eden, with life. We inherit death from them, being born outside the Garden because of their act.

    Ok, so where does Jesus fit into that assessment? Your conclusion in regards to Adam and Eve cannot rightly be applied to our lives. It's a benign explanation that affects nothing outside of the story, which isn't necessary a bad thing.

    Personally I feel that explanation contradicts the Gospel. Does Genesis, in your opinion, need to synergize with the Gospel?

    -Sab

  • sabastious
    sabastious
    Literal (simple version) - Adam and Eve disobey, wanting to be like God, and are cast out - where it is harder. Their children (us) are born outside the Garden of Eden, so their children die as they do. We inherit death from them for the same reasons as above.

    The literal version is more about punishment/redemption than cause and effect, the allegorical version is nothing but cause and effect.

    -Sab

  • sabastious
    sabastious

    In an allegory, you use symbols to represent real things, right? So the ultimate meaning should be the same, shouldn't it? That does not mean that a person finds the real meaning, mind you... regardless of whether it is taken as literal or allegory.

    Also... I get that you are mainly interested in debating this with someone who believes that doctrine hinges on Adam/Eve being literal and Christ as ransom sacrifice for their sins. But I don't believe that... so perhaps I am a wasted audience.

    I believe the story of Adam and Eve is grossly misapplied, in the latter parts of the Bible and in many modern Christian Theologies.

    The definition of an allegory is quite complex, since there can by hybrid allegories as well. If the creation account is fully allegorical then Adam and Eve arn't even supposed to represent two people but the entirity of the human species in our inception.

    Tammy, you are never a wasted audience. I love speaking with you, and you have really made me think with your replies.

    -Sab

  • sabastious
    sabastious

    See, now here I am going to apologize to you. I did not mean to single you out or make you feel bad. I just meant to point out that we ALL have done wrongdoing. But I would not condemn or judge or even think badly of you (or anyone else) for it... that would make me a hypocrite. If you didn't care that you had ever hurt anyone, then I might be worried about you ;) But you obviously do care, and I knew that about you even before you wrote your answer above.

    As for the nature of your relationship with Christ... that is between you and Him. I have no right nor ability to cast judgment on it or you. It has little do what I can to show kindness, compassion and love to you... because as someone I love once said to me, this brings glory to God.

    No harm done. I wasn't offended at all.

    That said, you did judge me, not for my deeds but your position requires me to take some sort of action because of my sins (that we all have, according to you). What you said was not a jab, but a statement from a position you take and believe strongly: that we need forgiveness, we being you and I and everyone else.

    I don't have a relationship with Christ, he died 2,000 years ago. My relationship with him is what was passed down and ended up being in the Gospel. I understand that he may have not, and probably didn't, say many of the things "recorded" within the Gospel. But that doesn't turn me off to the books. When I read the gospel I feel empowered because Jesus was a great man. His words are timeless at times.

    My relationship with Jesus is on the same lines as my relationship with any great historical philosopher or scholar. Even if Jesus is a complete fictional character he still affects my life with his words just as many characters in TV shows/movies/books/plays I have grown to love affect me and help me grow.

    -Sab

  • sabastious
    sabastious
    This is an example of deeds, Sab. So your integrity (as you said above) is manifesting itself in imitation of His actions. :)

    Will I be judged because I never baptised myself in his name? Are my deeds washed away because I never officially told him that I give him my life?

    I aint giving him my life because it is already owned by my creator, which may or may not be Jesus. When I look in the mirror I see a machine with tools capable of doing great things and not so great things. I believe that "accepting" your creator is not through words but through your actions as a human on this planet. The tools are there within our amazing minds, if you use them to the best of your ability you are accepting God's invitation to be human.

    -Sab

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit