About christ paying for our sins to save us from hell.

[warpus]

Ah yes, but then, I never bothered memorizing how to elucidate it, and since the Church has so kindly done the work for me...

So you don't have to think for yourself? Try it sometime

And if the other question be about purgatorio, it would seem that we see it as a logical extension of our beliefs. If God cannot tolerate unjust people, but those people have shown themselves to be willing to do penance, and if God is merciful, then purgatory, as a process of purification must exist.

Ahh, using logic to try to understand God; Christians always tell me that this is impossible

And my question was regarding your state of morality if you learned that God does not exist - this was a response to your statement that "God is my witness, and my judge, and he shall grant me justice".

Would you have a reason to be moral if God did not exist, is my question.

 

[Bill3000]

Please provide scripture that backs up the existence of this 'purgatory'.

You seemed to have completely forgotten that Catholics do not have sola scriptura. Talking about where a particular belief is actually in the bible or not is irrelevant.

 

[warpus]

You seemed to have completely forgotten that Catholics do not have sola scriptura. Talking about where a particular belief is actually in the bible or not is irrelevant.

I used to be one of them Catholics, and I disagree

 

[Bill3000]

I used to be one of them Catholics, and I disagree

But sola scriptura is a Protestant belief, not a Catholic one. It's one of the fundamental differences between the two sects. It's a dogma that purgatory of some form exists, so it would be better to argue about it and other stuff rather than denying that it exists for the sake of arguing with a catholic - kind of unproductive otherwise.

 

[warpus]

But sola scriptura is a Protestant belief, not a Catholic one. It's one of the fundamental differences between the two sects.

Maybe that's why I was never a very good Catholic

"It's not in the Bible - so we'll just make it up" doesn't sound like a very convincing argument that something is true. (and forget for a second that "it's in the Bible - so it must be true" isn't a very good argument either)

 

[Bill3000]

Maybe that's why I was never a very good Catholic

"It's not in the Bible - so we'll just make it up" doesn't sound like a very convincing argument that something is true. (and forget for a second that "it's in the Bible - so it must be true" isn't a very good argument either)

From what I remember from listening to Plotinus, the idea that the bible is meant to be the center of the faith, (basically, fundamentalism) of which everything of the religion must come from, as opposed to a supplement to the fundamental teachings themselves, is a relatively new (and heretodox) phenomenon. It isn't a matter of "making it up", but a matter of passing down tradition that has existed (and perhaps, gradually changed into) for a long time.

 

[warpus]

Ahh, tradition.

I wish more religiousites understood this; most religious types always assume that their point of view has backing in the Bible - whereas it was actually derived through tradition.

 

[Bill3000]

Ahh, tradition.

I wish more religiousites understood this; most religious types always assume that their point of view has backing in the Bible - whereas it was actually derived through tradition.

Well, the bible is still used to back the belief up.

 

[warpus]

Yeah, they take a belief derived from tradition, and then look through the Bible to find backing for it.

Which is silly, because you could back up almost anything you want with quotes from the Bible.

 

[Bill3000]

Yeah, they take a belief derived from tradition, and then look through the Bible to find backing for it.

Which is silly, because you could back up almost anything you want with quotes from the Bible.

Which is precisely why there are thousands of Protestant denominations.

 

[The Lombard]

It's a buyer's market! That salvation ain't gonna sell itself. The customers need choice.

 

[MayNilad Man]

So you don't have to think for yourself? Try it sometime

I'd like to think I do. Besides, it's more a matter of the texts being able to explain it better. Me, I've got the concept, but I find it a bit hard to put it to words. That and I feel that sometimes I might miss something out.

Ahh, using logic to try to understand God; Christians always tell me that this is impossible

It is impossible to fully understand God. But we can use logic to understand him, albeit imperfectly.

And my question was regarding your state of morality if you learned that God does not exist - this was a response to your statement that "God is my witness, and my judge, and he shall grant me justice".

Would you have a reason to be moral if God did not exist, is my question.

If Ogd did not exist, I would continue being moral bec. I formed the habit of being so. And also because society supports me in this endeavour. BUt society is a capricious thing, and how many injustices have been put upon the disenfranchised, and how many from them? Religion, in my opinion, gives these disenfranchised a means of integration with society.

 

[MayNilad Man]

Ahh, tradition.

I wish more religiousites understood this; most religious types always assume that their point of view has backing in the Bible - whereas it was actually derived through tradition.

Likewise
How many Catholics have left the faith bec. they did not understand this!

 

[bigfatron]

Seems like it's saying that grace was not taken away from us by God, but that we rejected it. And that part on Original Sin and concupiscence, if I have read this http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch5.htm right, then concupiscence is our ability to sin, while Original sin is about our predilection to sin.

'We' can't have rejected it, as we have made no conscious choice - my reading of the textis that God has withdrawn it as a consequence of Adam's actions.

Yet again, the sheer opacity and convolutedness of the argument leads me to doubt its value.

It is an allegory because it acts as a representation for the different origins of diff. sins.
Adam could be some caveman who found out about alcohol, liked what he tasted (same way they liked the taste of the Forbidden Fruit), and had more, eventually leading to the development of the gene that causes alcoholics to become addicted to alcohol.

But this makes no sense at all - one the one hand the argument is that, as the father of mankind, there is a 'natural law' that Adam's misdemeanours carry consequences for his children. On the other, the same people argue that both Adam and his misdemeanour are myths!

Not only is the core argument for Original Sin itself extremely weak IMHO, but the proponents of that argument then cheerfully remove a critical part of it and act as if it still flies - it's extraordinary!

And bear in mind that they say on the site that many theologians believe that Original Sin is necessary to resolve the problem of evil - i.e. without Original Sin the notion of the Abrahamaic God is indefensible.

So, to summarise the theological views we have so far:
1. Solving the problem of evil is a necessary condition for God (= Allah, Yaweh or the Christian God for this purpose)
2. The doctrine of Original Sin is a necessary condition to solve the problem of evil
3. The Withdrawal of Grace as a result of the disobedience of a father of all humanity is a necessary condition for the concept of Original Sin
4. The act that is directly responsible for the Withdrawal of Grace is mythical and did not take place.

By linking various logical statements from within the Catholic Church's own text together it appears that the direct implication of the Catholic Church's creed is that God, as defined by the Church, cannot exist.

Which makes this whole dicsussion more bizarre by the minute...
BFR

 

[MayNilad Man]

'We' can't have rejected it, as we have made no conscious choice - my reading of the textis that God has withdrawn it as a consequence of Adam's actions.

"Adam" made the choice for us. Which then carried to us through his seed in the form of genes. And also through the formation of societies that were built under the influence of sin.

Yet again, the sheer opacity and convolutedness of the argument leads me to doubt its value.

I can understand it. But then, I have had previous contact with the entire concept.

But this makes no sense at all - one the one hand the argument is that, as the father of mankind, there is a 'natural law' that Adam's misdemeanours carry consequences for his children. On the other, the same people argue that both Adam and his misdemeanour are myths!

The story, the character are myths. But they represent someone and something. Just because we call it a myth does not detract from the message.

Not only is the core argument for Original Sin itself extremely weak IMHO, but the proponents of that argument then cheerfully remove a critical part of it and act as if it still flies - it's extraordinary!

It's a myth that contains a truth about the human condition within it.

And bear in mind that they say on the site that many theologians believe that Original Sin is necessary to resolve the problem of evil - i.e. without Original Sin the notion of the Abrahamaic God is indefensible.

Many Protestants and Jansenists and some Catholics hold the doctrine of original sin to be necessary in philosophy, and the only means of solving the problem of the existence of evil.

Did you mean this text which says that it is Protestants, Jansenists and some Catholics that support that notion?

So, to summarise the theological views we have so far:
1. Solving the problem of evil is a necessary condition for God (= Allah, Yaweh or the Christian God for this purpose)

We never said that.

2. The doctrine of Original Sin is a necessary condition to solve the problem of evil

The problem of evil comes about from our free will. We choose to bring evil into this world.

3. The Withdrawal of Grace as a result of the disobedience of a father of all humanity is a necessary condition for the concept of Original Sin

No. We chose to turn away from grace. And that is the message of Original Sin.

4. The act that is directly responsible for the Withdrawal of Grace is mythical and did not take place.

Just because a story is a myth doesn't mean that the plot did not happen in real life, i.e. a man abusing his freedom and bringing harm upon his children. In fact, it is a hallmark of myths to contain the truth within it.

 

[bigfatron]

On your first statement, two points:
- saying 'Adam made the choice for us' is different from saying 'we chose'. You need to settle on one or the other, rather than flitting beteween them as your argument demands.
- second, again if Adam and his choice are myths then the whole structure falls to the ground. A myth or story may explain or deliver a message, I fully agree, but we are not dealing with a message here. If it is real, Original Sin is a fact, a reality which is one of the most important to affect every living human. And if it is not real then it is the perhaps the most vile deceit ever perpetrated on humanity, driving hundreds of millions of decent people into guilt, fear and obedience on the strength of a fairy story.

On the problem of evil, I think you misunderstand the issue.
Abrahamaic religions stipulate a God who is:
- benevolent
- all-powerful
- all-knowing
The problem of evil relates to how to resolve the contradiction that bad things happen if God is omniscient so knows about every bad thing, is all powerful and therefore can stop all bad things, and is benevolent and therefore wants to stop all bad things. How can evil exist in a world alongside God?
In order to release this contradiction the Christian religions require a reason why God permits evil to happen which does not compromise His benevolent nature. Original Sin is necessary, because it's key component, Adam's fall, requires God to allow evil to occur.

It is true that free will allows Adam to act wrongly, but it is the act of wrongdoing itself that unknots the contradiction posed by the Problem of Evil. It explains why God acts in an apparently unbenevolent way - Adam's action forces God to do so.

Without Original Sin we need some other explanation of why a benevolent and all-powerful God allows evil to exist. Whether there is such a thing I don't know, but I am not aware of it.

Some theologians (as I understand it) believe there is no other viable explanation for evil, hence Original Sin is necessary, and therefore (in a leap of reverse logic) it must be true!

As regards the statements I made that you have some problem with:
1. Solving the problem of evil is a necessary condition for God (= Allah, Yaweh or the Christian God for this purpose)
You may have never said this, but the Church acknowledges it as true - to theorise a God that meets the all-powerful, all-loving definition there must be a satisfactory explanation of why evil exists. That is the definition of the problem of evil.

2.The doctrine of Original Sin is a necessary condition to solve the problem of evil.
A I have demonstrated above, free will is a necessary condition of the doctrine of Original Sin, but it is not the thing which 'solves' the problem of evil - the key is that with the free will Adam received he acted to remove himself and humanity from God's grace. This is the key statement that 'solves' the problem of evil.

3. The Withdrawal of Grace as a result of the disobedience of a father of all humanity is a necessary condition for the concept of Original Sin.
The Catholic Church itself, on thelink you sent, refers to the Withdrawal of Grace. However, whether you describe it as withdrawal by God or refusal by Adam, the argument remains unaffected.

4. The act that is directly responsible for the Withdrawal of Grace is mythical and did not take place.
I think you have to make up your mind here. Did someone (call him Adam for teh sake of argument) actually do something so heinous that every descendant is removed from God's Grace, becomes subject to death, accident and illness, etc.? If so, what did they do that was so unbelievably wrong? What about all the people who aren't descended from that individual?

Alternatively, if it is a myth or allegory, how can we be totally physically altered (subject to death, etc) by a myth? And why should millions of people base their lives on this myth, and not so many others? Is it healthy to biuold your moral framework on a myth?

Neither explanation makes sense IMHO, but - please - choose which way you are jumping so we can debate properly!

BFR

 

[warpus]

"Adam" made the choice for us. Which then carried to us through his seed in the form of genes.

That's not how it works; this isn't possible.

 

[Smidlee]

-Why does paying for someone else sins redeem them even though they didn’t pay the price?

I am living in ease in freedom in America because men in the past (and present) shed their blood on the battlefield. They paid the price so I could reap the reward. With this in mind then the answer to this should easier to grasp.

 

[MayNilad Man]

That's not how it works; this isn't possible.

Example: Alcoholism, the predilection to addiction to alcohol.

Excessive alcoholism is a sin, but unfortunately, due to the excessive alcoholism of one of our forebears, the gene for the addiction developed and is now with us.

 

[El_Machinae]

unfortunately, due to the excessive alcoholism of one of our forebears, the gene for the addiction developed and is now with us.

Um, this is entirely false.

Even if there are 'sin genes' (which, I can kinda understand), you don't get the gene by sinning and then passing it on to your kids!

Anyway, if Original Sin exists then commanding people to 'be fruitful and multiply' is basically commanding people to increase the quantity of sin in the world.