I'm not a Catholic, but I can see that they have done a lot of good in the world. A lot of charities, hospitals, etc. I remember when I was 19 I got stranded in Lafayette, La. broke and homeless. A Catholic group there fed me and got me a bus ticket home. Do you think the JW's would have done that for someone, especially if they were a stranger and weren't a JW? I don't think so. The JW's and others like them would rather argue doctrine all day instead of displaying the fruits of the Spirit. Organized religion has its place but it's about having faith in Jesus Christ and walking in the Spirit. Based on what I've seen, JW's deny the Holy Spirit.
The Catholic Perspective
by sabastious 139 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Mad Dawg
I find it interesting that atheists complain that creationists don't have a proper science background and shouldn't be comenting on science. Yet, they feel they are qualified to comment on theology even though they are unable to display any understanding of actual theology. The OP is a tirade about God, yet it displays no attempt to get answers from any source that actually has an understanding of theology.
It is nonsensical to use creationism as the yardstick for evolution - and vice versa. It is equal nonsense to use secular humanism as a yardstick for theology. For those actually looking for answers to the question of original sin, here is an excellent link.
Here is it's introduction:
Good question…Why didn't God stop the process before it started, if He knew of the massive amounts of suffering that would befall many of His creatures??
Draft June 3, 2000 // Last update: July 17/2000 (part one)
Index to the pieces in this response:
Part One: Statement of the Problem, Methodological observations/reservations, and Creating the Criteria for an acceptable "Go Ahead" decision. [this document]
Part Two : Criterion One
Part Three : Pushback about cases of extensive suffering
Part Four : Criterion Two and Three
Part Five : Criterion Four and Summary
Part Six: Additional Pushbacks
Part Seven : Reflection on what this means
....................................................................................................
In the first (related) part of this question [ gutripper.html ], we dealt with the issue of the character of God, and more specifically with how one 'builds' a theological understanding of His heart, when starting from the bible. In this piece, we move to one of the more emotionally-laden issues in the Christian worldview, and one that gets attention in the technical (i.e., philosophical) literature, but little in the popular works. [One work that includes a discussion of the topic is Immortality: the Other Side of Death, Habermas and Moreland, Thomas Nelson:1992.]
To try to re-state this issue as succinctly (and starkly) as possible, I need to 'unpack' it a little and lay out the propositions and assumptions which are often stated/implicit in it, or at least seem to be included in it. As far as I can tell, the objection goes something like this:
1. The world is characterized by vast amounts of intensive and extensive suffering and evil.
2. After enduring a life of hardship and pervasive suffering, many (if not most) humans will end up in hell, where they will be actively tortured forever and ever.
3. All of this was known ahead of time by God, before He had even created ANYTHING or ANYONE.
4. For some reason or motive , He "went ahead" with the plan anyway, but could have chosen to not implement it (or to start a different one altogether) or to interrupt it before it "went bad".
-
PSacramento
I wish the act of choosing a different doctrine or no doctrine at all was met with such acceptance.
Indeed.
Catholics are universalists, literally actually and there are more then just RC too and not all the doctrines are the same.
The vast majority of Christians get along fine because we know that Our Saviour is the same, even if the path to his door my be different for Groub A compared to Groub B.
The real issue tends to be when extremists on both sides try to dicate the "argument".
Fact is, even the doctrine of the Trinity is not a "mandatory" doctrine that one has to accept, the vast Majority of RC do not subscribe to the doctrine of Papal Infallibility either.
-
tec
I think that in every 'religion' there is a big difference between what's written on paper, and what's actually written (or believed upon) in the hearts of the people.
Tammy
-
sabastious
I find it interesting that atheists complain that creationists don't have a proper science background and shouldn't be comenting on science.
Are you assuming I am an athiest?
-Sab
-
Mad Dawg
Yes, that was my assumption. Feel free to correct me if the assumption is wrong. I stand by my statement in reference to atheists in general.
-
sabastious
Yes, that was my assumption. Feel free to correct me if the assumption is wrong. I stand by my statement in reference to atheists in general.
I'm not an atheist I am a deist. The reason I feel so strongly about these topics is because I feel explanations given for the Adam and Eve story, like this one, are disrepsectful to the truth of how we actually came to be (which is still a complete mystery).
If we can't explain our existence without consulting to legend and myth then we shouldn't be explaining it.
-Sab
-
BurnTheShips
I don't believe you can be a subject of another entity while at the same time being in "friendship." To me, friendship is an equality whereas Adam's relationship with God was not equal so I would not call them "in friendship".
To you, then, friendship can only be among equals. I don't think that is necessarily the case. In Christianity, God is the only noncontingent, infinite/eternal being.
We are like God, but we are not infinite, like God is
We can never be equal, because we are limited, contingent beings.
This is why friendship with God is often described in parent/child terms.
^ Free submission? That is a very loaded term. So God creates me with free will since I can "freely" choose to be in submission to him or choose independence. Then he withholds friendship, and all benefits that come with that, for notchoosing to live in submission.
God never withholds his friendship, which is love. We can choose to accept that love and dwell in it, or we can choose to reject it and dwell outside of it. It is not that God ever withholds friendship, it is that we choose acceptance or rejection. Either way, we get what we want. God will not violate our wills in these matters. A love not freely chosen is not love at all.
^ Why must we "recognize" that we are dependent on God? We either are free to do as we wish or we are not. This reminds me of a father telling his son to respect him because of the position and not his actions. I would never expect my son to respect me if my actions didn't merrit respect. But that is what you say God expects. According to your "perfect scanario" we would have just accpeted the fact that we have limits. That we will only progress as a species when God allows for it, which of course defeats the purpose of progress when it intravenously injected into us by our Creator.
We must recognize our limited natures in order to dwell in God. We are not the transcendent God. In our lives, over which we have freedom to choose, we can make our choices without consideration for what is good. Our choices are made with love to the good and true, or towards the opposite polarity, which is the absence of it.
^ Trust is not the issue here, that's a strawman.
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, and many other people in Organized Religion, have bought into the Bible's message: that we cannot direct our own step. Your reasoning for this is that we make mistakes, that we are flawed therefore all plans we make will ultimately fail. The "Devil's" message is the exact opposite: we can direct our own step. When it comes to "who ended up being correct" history would lean towards the Devil's position... because we are still here and progressing as a species.
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.
^ Oh poor God, he got rejected by his own creations! The nerve of those humans to exercise the free will imparted upon them when created. And God got pretty mad according to the Genesis account:
Do you mean the metaphorical account, Sabastious? Because you are now treating it as literal, which I do not.
All for what? Because man preferred himself? Of course we prefer ourselves. The better we are as individuals the better we are as a collective.
False dichotomy. We do not lose our individuality. Regarding moral law, would you like to drive on roads where we "prefer ourselves" as opposed to traffic signs, speed limits, drinking laws and red lights? What kind of collective transportation system would this be? Look what happens when people "prefer themselves" to the exclusion of laws. Do you stop being an individual when you choose to follow the law on our roads? Do you start being an individual when you do not?
. I find it interesting how God created the human "parent/child" relationship. We have a child and that child is dependent on us for a time. But eventually our child becomes an adult... andequal. We put people behind bars for raising a child to be a subject, or slave. We have created a code of conduct and call them Human Rights, because many people on this planet wish to enchroach upon those rights for self interest.
But that's not how God works, according to the Genesis account. We are designed to be perpetual children, which is thepolar opposite of how EVERYTHING works in the fleshly universe.
Can you stand there and tell me that God created everything to have a child phase except the relationship he has with hisgreatest creations? What a mind f*ck! Here we are surrounded by things growing into eventual autonomous entities including our own children.
This is where the analogy of God to a father starts to break down. No human father is an infinite being. God is. We will always grow and progress. There will always be more to learn, more to develop, more to grow. In relationship to God, we are always like children.
But we don't get the satisfaction of knowing that WE found a way to keep ourselves alive with food and shelter. That WE developed technology to better ourselves, that WE created systems of Law and Government to try to keep peace?
Do we deserve no credit? Does God deserve all the credit?
Where we have sought what is good and true as human beings, there has been progress, as you note. And yes! We do share the credit!
No he does not. He deserves a LOT of credit for designing us, but HE WANTS US TO HAVE THE CREDIT for what WE create! That's what He enjoys, just as you or I love seeing our children succeed and create something from nothing.
Of course he does! Where have I indicated otherwise? Your comment is not against Catholic teaching. Catholic teaching emphasizes the cooperation of Man and God.
Original Sin is a scam, a means to control. Humans are doing the best they can with the tools allotted and Original Sin discredits all accomplishment in the past 6000 years because we are all being "disobedient" and "only concerned with ourselves."
No it does not. Our fallen natures impede us, but they do not stop us, if we choose truth and good.
Well, who else is going to make an attempt to save this planet? Should we all be like Witnesses and lie down into the fetal position and wait for Papa God to come save us all?
Papa God works with us, and we with Him. God's grace means he helps us. God works through us. In doing good, we are working with God. In doing evil, we are working against Him. To be responsible stewards of the planet and those who live on it is to do good.
You are criticizing JW teaching in these comments, not Catholic teaching. JWism teaches you to sit back and do nothing. Catholicism does not. It teaches us to work to improve the world, while teaching us that, despite setbacks, we should trust that good will triumph over evil in the end.
This isn't just Catholic, of course.
From the comments:
I'm not a Catholic, but I can see that they have done a lot of good in the world. A lot of charities, hospitals, etc. I remember when I was 19 I got stranded in Lafayette, La. broke and homeless. A Catholic group there fed me and got me a bus ticket home. Do you think the JW's would have done that for someone, especially if they were a stranger and weren't a JW? I don't think so. The JW's and others like them would rather argue doctrine all day instead of displaying the fruits of the Spirit. Organized religion has its place but it's about having faith in Jesus Christ and walking in the Spirit. Based on what I've seen, JW's deny the Holy Spirit.
Here is a holiday article I read.
Both of these are small things, but they are great at the same time.
BTS
-
Mad Dawg
Sabastious said:
The reason I feel so strongly about these topics is because I feel explanations given for the Adam and Eve story, like this one, are disrepsectful to the truth of how we actually came to be (which is still a complete mystery).
How can one say it is disrepsectful to the truth if the truth is a complete mystery? Even though I don't understand what you mean by disrespecting truth, if it is truly a complete mystery, then wouldn't Adam and Eve or some other account lie within the possibility of truth? If the truth of how we came to be is a total mystery, how do you eliminate something as a possibility?
If we can't explain our existence without consulting to legend and myth then we shouldn't be explaining it.
If the account of Adam and Eve is true; then, by definition, it is not a legend or myth.
-
sabastious
How can one say it is disrepsectful to the truth if the truth is a complete mystery? Even though I don't understand what you mean by disrespecting truth, if it is truly a complete mystery, then wouldn't Adam and Eve or some other account lie within the possibility of truth? If the truth of how we came to be is a total mystery, how do you eliminate something as a possibility?
Adam and Eve is an obvious myth. It was designed to be an allegory representing the beginning of humankind. The beginning of humankind was unknown to the writer's of Adam and Eve just as it is to us. The writers of Adam and Eve were smart in the fact that they described the beginning of human existence in symbols, because they knew they didn't have the true account.
The fact that so many believe that Adam and Eve is a historical account is disrespectful to how it actually went down. That's the reason why the writers of Adam and Eve chose to write it in symbolism.
I hope that makes sense, I am having a hard time articulating my point on this.
-Sab