A Serious Problem

For those deep thinkers out there.

Moderator: tuttle

Post Reply
User avatar
Rooster
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 1217
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Kansas City, MO
Contact:

Re: A Serious Problem

Post by Rooster » Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:27 pm

One factor that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is the internet. As the cliche goes "The internet is where religion goes to die".

User avatar
Rooster
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 1217
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Kansas City, MO
Contact:

Re: A Serious Problem

Post by Rooster » Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:30 pm

TNLawPiper wrote:
Rooster wrote:
Del wrote:
Thunktank wrote:Funny or not, it was informative of how Del imagines things to be.

I imagine that belief in God/gods or anything else could be fun and inspirational. But once dogma comes along demanding belief, shutting off honest inquiry, turning everything into a black and white issues it becomes ugly. We talk about hell and how God actually puts people there to punish them for unbelief. It's not healthy. It's the imaginations of people not very well grounded or emotionally mature who come up with ideas like that. Good loving Christians don't generally like to talk about hell, I've noticed that. But they still like to talk about heaven a lot.
It is a notably immature belief system which says that God "puts people" into Hell.
Yep. Your all-powerful god, full of infinite justice and love, watches with his celestial arms crossed, while his loving creation suffers for all eternity because they got it wrong on this temporal plain. Makes sense.
Who taught you someone can simply mistake their way into an eternity of separation from God?
Who told you that if you make the BIG BIG mistake of rejecting Jesus you don't go to hell? We need to talk to whoever catechized you.

TNLawPiper
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
Posts: 17026
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: A Serious Problem

Post by TNLawPiper » Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:36 pm

Rooster wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:
Rooster wrote:
Del wrote:
Thunktank wrote:Funny or not, it was informative of how Del imagines things to be.

I imagine that belief in God/gods or anything else could be fun and inspirational. But once dogma comes along demanding belief, shutting off honest inquiry, turning everything into a black and white issues it becomes ugly. We talk about hell and how God actually puts people there to punish them for unbelief. It's not healthy. It's the imaginations of people not very well grounded or emotionally mature who come up with ideas like that. Good loving Christians don't generally like to talk about hell, I've noticed that. But they still like to talk about heaven a lot.
It is a notably immature belief system which says that God "puts people" into Hell.
Yep. Your all-powerful god, full of infinite justice and love, watches with his celestial arms crossed, while his loving creation suffers for all eternity because they got it wrong on this temporal plain. Makes sense.
Who taught you someone can simply mistake their way into an eternity of separation from God?
Who told you that if you make the BIG BIG mistake of rejecting Jesus you don't go to hell? We need to talk to whoever catechized you.
One may only break his covenant with God with full knowledge and complete consent, right? Perhaps we need to talk to your catechist.

User avatar
Rooster
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 1217
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Kansas City, MO
Contact:

Re: A Serious Problem

Post by Rooster » Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:41 pm

TNLawPiper wrote:
Rooster wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:
Rooster wrote:
Del wrote:
Thunktank wrote:Funny or not, it was informative of how Del imagines things to be.

I imagine that belief in God/gods or anything else could be fun and inspirational. But once dogma comes along demanding belief, shutting off honest inquiry, turning everything into a black and white issues it becomes ugly. We talk about hell and how God actually puts people there to punish them for unbelief. It's not healthy. It's the imaginations of people not very well grounded or emotionally mature who come up with ideas like that. Good loving Christians don't generally like to talk about hell, I've noticed that. But they still like to talk about heaven a lot.
It is a notably immature belief system which says that God "puts people" into Hell.
Yep. Your all-powerful god, full of infinite justice and love, watches with his celestial arms crossed, while his loving creation suffers for all eternity because they got it wrong on this temporal plain. Makes sense.
Who taught you someone can simply mistake their way into an eternity of separation from God?
Who told you that if you make the BIG BIG mistake of rejecting Jesus you don't go to hell? We need to talk to whoever catechized you.
One may only break his covenant with God with full knowledge and complete consent, right? Perhaps we need to talk to your catechist.
This sounds like some wishy-washy "spirit of the council" type language . What does "full" and "complete" mean?

User avatar
Rooster
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 1217
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Kansas City, MO
Contact:

Re: A Serious Problem

Post by Rooster » Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:42 pm

Where's Wosbald when you need him.

TNLawPiper
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
Posts: 17026
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: A Serious Problem

Post by TNLawPiper » Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:44 pm

Rooster wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:
Rooster wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:
Rooster wrote:
Del wrote:
Thunktank wrote:Funny or not, it was informative of how Del imagines things to be.

I imagine that belief in God/gods or anything else could be fun and inspirational. But once dogma comes along demanding belief, shutting off honest inquiry, turning everything into a black and white issues it becomes ugly. We talk about hell and how God actually puts people there to punish them for unbelief. It's not healthy. It's the imaginations of people not very well grounded or emotionally mature who come up with ideas like that. Good loving Christians don't generally like to talk about hell, I've noticed that. But they still like to talk about heaven a lot.
It is a notably immature belief system which says that God "puts people" into Hell.
Yep. Your all-powerful god, full of infinite justice and love, watches with his celestial arms crossed, while his loving creation suffers for all eternity because they got it wrong on this temporal plain. Makes sense.
Who taught you someone can simply mistake their way into an eternity of separation from God?
Who told you that if you make the BIG BIG mistake of rejecting Jesus you don't go to hell? We need to talk to whoever catechized you.
One may only break his covenant with God with full knowledge and complete consent, right? Perhaps we need to talk to your catechist.
This sounds like some wishy-washy "spirit of the council" type language . What does "full" and "complete" mean?
It's right there in the Catechism for your examination. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... s1c1a8.htm

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 18459
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: A Serious Problem

Post by wosbald » Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:45 pm

+JMJ+
Rooster wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:One may only break his covenant with God with full knowledge and complete consent, right? Perhaps we need to talk to your catechist.
This sounds like some wishy-washy "spirit of the council" type language . What does "full" and "complete" mean?
Now, there may well be your problem. It seems like you can't handle undecidability in theological formulation.

I thought that you were all about seeing in "color" against that of "black & white".




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
Rusty
In Memoriam
Posts: 25059
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Re: A Serious Problem

Post by Rusty » Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:48 pm

Onyx wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:
Do you and your doubting compatriots enjoy being told you're wrong about matters of faith? Otherwise, why spend a great deal of time on a forum geared toward a lifestyle you don't share?
A lot of times I'm asking myself this question. But on this thread in particular, it would seem that (for once) those few unbelievers who regularly post on CPS might have a relevant perspective. The OP "serious problem" is not new, and it won't surprise you that I think there's a whole lot of echo-chamber stuff going on every time the issue is discussed. You could fill in a bingo card with every time someone says, "we need to do thing same thing we've been doing, only more so." Or, "people leave because they don't want to be humble or change for God's will..." Of the notorious four who have commented on this thread, we each have different answers, I'm sure. Three of us have come through a fairly substantial faith journey, and one of us has (I think) more of an observer perspective.

Anyway, there's not one answer regarding the OP "problem". Personally, I don't even think it's a problem. I literally think that Christians and the Christian church will be better off unburdened by cultural dominance and all the tangential politics that comes with rich and unwieldy institutions.

EDIT: and yes, I like being told I'm wrong. 8)
Being told we're wrong is often interpreted as "we're being overbearing" rather than actually wrong. That's not to suggest that we're right either. We're not trying to convert you even when we're astonished at some of things you (collectively) say. Also some (you, TNLP, in particular) have progressive views that are closer to some of us on some issues. So it's not like it's a total divide. And it's also interesting because we have very different points of view on many things. 1/2 of us are not American either. So there are other contrasts too. So we do challenge but it's not intended to do battle over your faith. Please, keep your faith. The first time that someone questions the big bang and ten people drag out their favourite metric solutions to the field equations I'm not going to be happy. That's not hard to find. This is different.
Last edited by Rusty on Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light

User avatar
Rooster
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 1217
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Kansas City, MO
Contact:

Re: A Serious Problem

Post by Rooster » Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:51 pm

TNLawPiper wrote:
Rooster wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:
Rooster wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:
Rooster wrote:
Del wrote:
Thunktank wrote:Funny or not, it was informative of how Del imagines things to be.

I imagine that belief in God/gods or anything else could be fun and inspirational. But once dogma comes along demanding belief, shutting off honest inquiry, turning everything into a black and white issues it becomes ugly. We talk about hell and how God actually puts people there to punish them for unbelief. It's not healthy. It's the imaginations of people not very well grounded or emotionally mature who come up with ideas like that. Good loving Christians don't generally like to talk about hell, I've noticed that. But they still like to talk about heaven a lot.
It is a notably immature belief system which says that God "puts people" into Hell.
Yep. Your all-powerful god, full of infinite justice and love, watches with his celestial arms crossed, while his loving creation suffers for all eternity because they got it wrong on this temporal plain. Makes sense.
Who taught you someone can simply mistake their way into an eternity of separation from God?
Who told you that if you make the BIG BIG mistake of rejecting Jesus you don't go to hell? We need to talk to whoever catechized you.
One may only break his covenant with God with full knowledge and complete consent, right? Perhaps we need to talk to your catechist.
This sounds like some wishy-washy "spirit of the council" type language . What does "full" and "complete" mean?
It's right there in the Catechism for your examination. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... s1c1a8.htm
What do those words mean?

User avatar
Rooster
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 1217
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Kansas City, MO
Contact:

Re: A Serious Problem

Post by Rooster » Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:51 pm

wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
Rooster wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:One may only break his covenant with God with full knowledge and complete consent, right? Perhaps we need to talk to your catechist.
This sounds like some wishy-washy "spirit of the council" type language . What does "full" and "complete" mean?
Now, there may well be your problem. It seems like you can't handle undecidability in theological formulation.

I thought that you were all about seeing in "color" against that of "black & white".
Define those terms for me.

User avatar
Rooster
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 1217
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Kansas City, MO
Contact:

Re: A Serious Problem

Post by Rooster » Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:54 pm

When it comes to eternity you better believe I want that stuff in BLACK and WHITE.

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 18459
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: A Serious Problem

Post by wosbald » Tue Aug 30, 2016 7:16 pm

+JMJ+
Rooster wrote:
wosbald wrote:
Rooster wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:One may only break his covenant with God with full knowledge and complete consent, right? Perhaps we need to talk to your catechist.
This sounds like some wishy-washy "spirit of the council" type language . What does "full" and "complete" mean?
Now, there may well be your problem. It seems like you can't handle undecidability in theological formulation.

I thought that you were all about seeing in "color" against that of "black & white".
Define those terms for me.

[…]

When it comes to eternity you better believe I want that stuff in BLACK and WHITE.
It means that, when it comes to theological syntheses, one eventually reaches a point of indeterminacy/undecidability (color) where one can only hold two determinate truths (black & white) in dynamic tension. To choose one over the other would be to break the fulness of truth.




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 33236
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: A Serious Problem

Post by UncleBob » Tue Aug 30, 2016 7:22 pm

wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
Rooster wrote:
wosbald wrote:
Rooster wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:One may only break his covenant with God with full knowledge and complete consent, right? Perhaps we need to talk to your catechist.
This sounds like some wishy-washy "spirit of the council" type language . What does "full" and "complete" mean?
Now, there may well be your problem. It seems like you can't handle undecidability in theological formulation.

I thought that you were all about seeing in "color" against that of "black & white".
Define those terms for me.

[…]

When it comes to eternity you better believe I want that stuff in BLACK and WHITE.
It means that, when it comes to theological syntheses, one eventually reaches a point of indeterminacy/undecidability (color) where one can only hold two determinate truths (black & white) in dynamic tension. To choose one over the other would be to break the fulness of truth.
Paradox at confinium.
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

"You guys are weird." - Mrs. FredS

User avatar
Rooster
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 1217
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Kansas City, MO
Contact:

Re: A Serious Problem

Post by Rooster » Tue Aug 30, 2016 7:43 pm

wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
Rooster wrote:
wosbald wrote:
Rooster wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:One may only break his covenant with God with full knowledge and complete consent, right? Perhaps we need to talk to your catechist.
This sounds like some wishy-washy "spirit of the council" type language . What does "full" and "complete" mean?
Now, there may well be your problem. It seems like you can't handle undecidability in theological formulation.

I thought that you were all about seeing in "color" against that of "black & white".
Define those terms for me.

[…]

When it comes to eternity you better believe I want that stuff in BLACK and WHITE.
It means that, when it comes to theological syntheses, one eventually reaches a point of indeterminacy/undecidability (color) where one can only hold two determinate truths (black & white) in dynamic tension. To choose one over the other would be to break the fulness of truth.
How, then, given this indeterminacy/undecidability on such an apparently important doctrinal claim, can a priest be so urgent and dogmatic in his preachments? It would seem that any nuancing of the great possibility of eternal suffering in this way would necessarily undermine the redemptive necessity of Christ.

User avatar
Del
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Posts: 36292
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: A Serious Problem

Post by Del » Tue Aug 30, 2016 8:13 pm

Rooster wrote:
wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
Rooster wrote:
wosbald wrote:
Rooster wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:One may only break his covenant with God with full knowledge and complete consent, right? Perhaps we need to talk to your catechist.
This sounds like some wishy-washy "spirit of the council" type language . What does "full" and "complete" mean?
Now, there may well be your problem. It seems like you can't handle undecidability in theological formulation.

I thought that you were all about seeing in "color" against that of "black & white".
Define those terms for me.

[…]

When it comes to eternity you better believe I want that stuff in BLACK and WHITE.
It means that, when it comes to theological syntheses, one eventually reaches a point of indeterminacy/undecidability (color) where one can only hold two determinate truths (black & white) in dynamic tension. To choose one over the other would be to break the fulness of truth.
How, then, given this indeterminacy/undecidability on such an apparently important doctrinal claim, can a priest be so urgent and dogmatic in his preachments? It would seem that any nuancing of the great possibility of eternal suffering in this way would necessarily undermine the redemptive necessity of Christ.
"Full knowledge" and "complete assent," as requirements for a damning rejection of God -- that is how we "nuance" the "black & white" dogma of LOVE & OBEY, or PERISH.

A noble Moslem or Hindu, seeking God as well as they can, do not fully know Christ enough of accept or reject Him. God can extend great mercy to these... they have done the best that they can with what they have been given..

But, as Jesus taught, much more will be expected of us who have received so much more of the truth. We will each be asked to give an account of our lives -- why we didn't follow the good, or why we refused to believe the truth. If our pride is such that we continue to reject the Love before us, then we will get the separation that we desire.

Now, if you demand absolute, black & white assurance of your salvation -- you will find the theology of John Calvin more agreeable to your mood.

Meanwhile Pascal can tell you something about your odds for eternal happiness if you would rather reject God altogether.
"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you." - Eph 4

User avatar
Rooster
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 1217
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Kansas City, MO
Contact:

Re: A Serious Problem

Post by Rooster » Tue Aug 30, 2016 8:32 pm

Del wrote:
Rooster wrote:
wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
Rooster wrote:
wosbald wrote:
Rooster wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:One may only break his covenant with God with full knowledge and complete consent, right? Perhaps we need to talk to your catechist.
This sounds like some wishy-washy "spirit of the council" type language . What does "full" and "complete" mean?
Now, there may well be your problem. It seems like you can't handle undecidability in theological formulation.

I thought that you were all about seeing in "color" against that of "black & white".
Define those terms for me.

[…]

When it comes to eternity you better believe I want that stuff in BLACK and WHITE.
It means that, when it comes to theological syntheses, one eventually reaches a point of indeterminacy/undecidability (color) where one can only hold two determinate truths (black & white) in dynamic tension. To choose one over the other would be to break the fulness of truth.
How, then, given this indeterminacy/undecidability on such an apparently important doctrinal claim, can a priest be so urgent and dogmatic in his preachments? It would seem that any nuancing of the great possibility of eternal suffering in this way would necessarily undermine the redemptive necessity of Christ.
"Full knowledge" and "complete assent," as requirements for a damning rejection of God -- that is how we "nuance" the "black & white" dogma of LOVE & OBEY, or PERISH.

A noble Moslem or Hindu, seeking God as well as they can, do not fully know Christ enough of accept or reject Him. God can extend great mercy to these... they have done the best that they can with what they have been given..

But, as Jesus taught, much more will be expected of us who have received so much more of the truth. We will each be asked to give an account of our lives -- why we didn't follow the good, or why we refused to believe the truth. If our pride is such that we continue to reject the Love before us, then we will get the separation that we desire.

Now, if you demand absolute, black & white assurance of your salvation -- you will find the theology of John Calvin more agreeable to your mood.

Meanwhile Pascal can tell you something about your odds for eternal happiness if you would rather reject God altogether.
You have a fairly modernist view of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I think if you view the linked list below that you will see that you and the current Church are mostly out of step with the Church down through the ages. I don't want to hear about "development" in doctrine. Let's just call it what it is: A change in doctrine. :oops: :P

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecc ... ulla_salus

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 33236
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: A Serious Problem

Post by UncleBob » Tue Aug 30, 2016 8:43 pm

Rooster wrote:
Del wrote:
Rooster wrote:
wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
Rooster wrote:
wosbald wrote:
Rooster wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:One may only break his covenant with God with full knowledge and complete consent, right? Perhaps we need to talk to your catechist.
This sounds like some wishy-washy "spirit of the council" type language . What does "full" and "complete" mean?
Now, there may well be your problem. It seems like you can't handle undecidability in theological formulation.

I thought that you were all about seeing in "color" against that of "black & white".
Define those terms for me.

[…]

When it comes to eternity you better believe I want that stuff in BLACK and WHITE.
It means that, when it comes to theological syntheses, one eventually reaches a point of indeterminacy/undecidability (color) where one can only hold two determinate truths (black & white) in dynamic tension. To choose one over the other would be to break the fulness of truth.
How, then, given this indeterminacy/undecidability on such an apparently important doctrinal claim, can a priest be so urgent and dogmatic in his preachments? It would seem that any nuancing of the great possibility of eternal suffering in this way would necessarily undermine the redemptive necessity of Christ.
"Full knowledge" and "complete assent," as requirements for a damning rejection of God -- that is how we "nuance" the "black & white" dogma of LOVE & OBEY, or PERISH.

A noble Moslem or Hindu, seeking God as well as they can, do not fully know Christ enough of accept or reject Him. God can extend great mercy to these... they have done the best that they can with what they have been given..

But, as Jesus taught, much more will be expected of us who have received so much more of the truth. We will each be asked to give an account of our lives -- why we didn't follow the good, or why we refused to believe the truth. If our pride is such that we continue to reject the Love before us, then we will get the separation that we desire.

Now, if you demand absolute, black & white assurance of your salvation -- you will find the theology of John Calvin more agreeable to your mood.

Meanwhile Pascal can tell you something about your odds for eternal happiness if you would rather reject God altogether.
You have a fairly modernist view of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I think if you view the linked list below that you will see that you and the current Church are mostly out of step with the Church down through the ages. I don't want to hear about "development" in doctrine. Let's just call it what it is: A change in doctrine. :oops: :P

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecc ... ulla_salus
One time hugodrax helped me with Del by reminding me that he does not actually speak for the Catholic Church.

Just sayin'.
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

"You guys are weird." - Mrs. FredS

User avatar
Thunktank
Terminal Lance. Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Terminal Lance.  Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Posts: 21017
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Ad Orientem

Re: A Serious Problem

Post by Thunktank » Tue Aug 30, 2016 8:44 pm

A small interuption:

I'm so glad to be an atheist. This thread is reminding me of that. The nastiness of theology. What a useless waste of time! The hours I would spend on such unhelpful topics. :x

There is very little about church that is attractive that can't be had or done elsewhere without the scum of theology and social distortion it causes over a make believe God who throws people who don't follow him into this theological zoo of his into a lake of fire. :egor:
Image

User avatar
Rusty
In Memoriam
Posts: 25059
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Re: A Serious Problem

Post by Rusty » Tue Aug 30, 2016 8:45 pm

Rooster wrote:When it comes to eternity you better believe I want that stuff in BLACK and WHITE.
What does this mean? Eternity is irrelevant for us. We're dead. You have to return all that you are. Gone. Kaput. Sayonara.
I think they're engaging you because they detect an angry Christian faith.
You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light

User avatar
Rooster
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 1217
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Kansas City, MO
Contact:

Re: A Serious Problem

Post by Rooster » Tue Aug 30, 2016 8:48 pm

UncleBob wrote:
Rooster wrote:
Del wrote:
Rooster wrote:
wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
Rooster wrote:
wosbald wrote:
Rooster wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:One may only break his covenant with God with full knowledge and complete consent, right? Perhaps we need to talk to your catechist.
This sounds like some wishy-washy "spirit of the council" type language . What does "full" and "complete" mean?
Now, there may well be your problem. It seems like you can't handle undecidability in theological formulation.

I thought that you were all about seeing in "color" against that of "black & white".
Define those terms for me.

[…]

When it comes to eternity you better believe I want that stuff in BLACK and WHITE.
It means that, when it comes to theological syntheses, one eventually reaches a point of indeterminacy/undecidability (color) where one can only hold two determinate truths (black & white) in dynamic tension. To choose one over the other would be to break the fulness of truth.
How, then, given this indeterminacy/undecidability on such an apparently important doctrinal claim, can a priest be so urgent and dogmatic in his preachments? It would seem that any nuancing of the great possibility of eternal suffering in this way would necessarily undermine the redemptive necessity of Christ.
"Full knowledge" and "complete assent," as requirements for a damning rejection of God -- that is how we "nuance" the "black & white" dogma of LOVE & OBEY, or PERISH.

A noble Moslem or Hindu, seeking God as well as they can, do not fully know Christ enough of accept or reject Him. God can extend great mercy to these... they have done the best that they can with what they have been given..

But, as Jesus taught, much more will be expected of us who have received so much more of the truth. We will each be asked to give an account of our lives -- why we didn't follow the good, or why we refused to believe the truth. If our pride is such that we continue to reject the Love before us, then we will get the separation that we desire.

Now, if you demand absolute, black & white assurance of your salvation -- you will find the theology of John Calvin more agreeable to your mood.

Meanwhile Pascal can tell you something about your odds for eternal happiness if you would rather reject God altogether.
You have a fairly modernist view of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I think if you view the linked list below that you will see that you and the current Church are mostly out of step with the Church down through the ages. I don't want to hear about "development" in doctrine. Let's just call it what it is: A change in doctrine. :oops: :P

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecc ... ulla_salus
One time hugodrax helped me with Del by reminding me that he does not actually speak for the Catholic Church.

Just sayin'.
Yeah, Del has fairly American, neo-Catholic/EWTN version of the faith that's heavily influenced by evangelicalism. His brand of Catholicism might not be recognized in many places outside the states.

Post Reply