Post Reply
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
Switch to Forum Live View Irreconcilable differences?
5 years ago  ::  Jun 18, 2009 - 8:01AM #11
angpuppy
Posts: 520

Wavering,


You made the claim that the Catholic Church did not condemn slavery until the 1960's and that prior to that she had defended it.  You need to read

IN SUPREMO APOSTOLATUS
Pope Gregory XVI


It came out in 1839, before slavery had ended in our country.  There are other documents that came out from the Church when this was an issue of debate amoung other countries on later dates as well.  If you would like me to reference them just ask.


www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/g16sup.htm


It adequately addresses the mention of slavery in the New Testament without denying history and answers it.  How can a Christian be against slavery when slavery is mentioned in the bible?  It then sites even earlier documents of the Church condemning enslaving people.


I would also like to mention that Anne Rice in "Out of Egypt" gives us a different vision of another type of slavery - that is of a woman who was raped, had absolutely nothing.  In the book, the Holy Family take her in as a slave in order to provide for her basic needs since she cannot provide for them herself, as well as to allow her to repay her debt.  When the set time of repaying this debt has been made, she is offered freedom from her slavery, and yet she loves the holy family so much, she doesn't want to leave.


My fiance even pointed out that in Latin there is little distinction between the word for servitude and slavery.  To be a politician is to be a servant.   I need to go so I can't give a greater defense, but it does seem to me that there was a historical practice of allowing people to work off their debts through slavery and being freed after a time period which is distinct from invading a people's land, conquering them, separating them from their family and reducing them to cattle.  As such, the Church rightly defines what they are condemning.


I will have to research everything else you claimed the Church used to teach because it all sounds incorrect to me.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 18, 2009 - 9:57PM #12
bigbear6161
Posts: 3,885

This is a very good thread because it points to a common problem and struggle for we post-modernist people who for whatever reason find ourselves in the Catholic Church or even in Christianity at all today.  I like you have questioned whether or not I can still claim to be a Catholic given the scope of my beliefs and their rather admitted heterodoxy.  On other forums I have been accused of not being a Catholic because I attempt to understand the faith in a way that makes sense for me.  This is crucial.  No longer can we rely on old formulations even the Creed.  Each generation can and must understand themselves and God and the People of God in the context of their own time and of necessity the dominant philosophical and scientific paradigms that exist for them.  For us, in the 21st century we are post-modernists, embracing multiple narratives and understanding reality as dynamic systems where the dynamic flux of energy is represented both externally and internally as processesd information with subsequent emergent properties.  Given this necessity that we act like early 21st century people, we must consider our faith in such a context.  To do otherwise would do violence to ourselves and our God.  For instance, the old formulation of the eucharist as transubstantiation whereby the substance changes but the accidents do not is meaningless to us because it belongs to the world of Thomistic philosophy derived from Aristotelian thought.  Such categories make no sense for us today.  Yet, we can still retain the notion of the real presence when we consider that the host is an external representation of the dynamic liturgical activity of the church living out it's joy in the experience of the resurrected Christ, and that our interaction with the host in the liturgy is processed as interior representations in our various neural circuits with the emergent properties of experiencing communion with Jesus, God and the community of faithful, as well as behavioral and emotional responses like good works, love and joy.  Jesus' energy carries through to our present reality through such liturgical and neurological representations.  In such a way we can understand the real presence without sacrificing our brains or integrity.  We are neither hypocrites nor idiots parroting back what others have formulated.  It should be noted as it was by several of the previous posters that the Church has reformulated doctrines throughout its history e.g Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, etc.  So this is nothing new.  The problem is that those who want everyone to hold onto the old formulations as if they were frozen once and for all often fight hard to keep us from our modern paradigms.  But take heart, the church is the people of God, not the institutional structures or heirarchy.  No one can take that away from us.  Dave

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 19, 2009 - 8:31AM #13
samuelbb7
Posts: 427

But you see I have a problem with postmodernism. The belief there is  no such thing as absolute truth.  You see in nature I see a lot of absolute truth.  As a bat once said Gravity works.  If you jump off a building with no parachute you will go down to the ground. No matter what you think.


In nature GOD designed laws. So also in the  spiritual GOD has laws.  You break the laws of man you pay a penalty no matter what you think. You break the laws of GOD. You will pay the penalty no matter what you think.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 22, 2009 - 11:34PM #14
angpuppy
Posts: 520

Jun 18, 2009 -- 9:57PM, bigbear6161 wrote:


This is a very good thread because it points to a common problem and struggle for we post-modernist people who for whatever reason find ourselves in the Catholic Church or even in Christianity at all today.  I like you have questioned whether or not I can still claim to be a Catholic given the scope of my beliefs and their rather admitted heterodoxy.  On other forums I have been accused of not being a Catholic because I attempt to understand the faith in a way that makes sense for me.  This is crucial.  No longer can we rely on old formulations even the Creed.  Each generation can and must understand themselves and God and the People of God in the context of their own time and of necessity the dominant philosophical and scientific paradigms that exist for them. 


Each individual ought to be in search for the truth.  We will often come to different conclusions as to what is true and what isn't.  We should be tolerant of those who hold different beliefs as to what is contained in truth.  What urks me is people who seek to destroy a set of religious beliefs, insist on calling people who protest this destruction as intolerant people all because for whatever bizzarre reason they are attached to the name "Catholic."


 For us, in the 21st century we are post-modernists, embracing multiple narratives and understanding reality as dynamic systems where the dynamic flux of energy is represented both externally and internally as processesd information with subsequent emergent properties. 



Or simply put "We're just so much better and smarter than those people centuries ago, that we surely can't believe anything they taught."  Gosh this is reminding me of Peter Kreeft's "Socrates meets Jesus."  Too bad the book is at my fiance's house.  I'd love to quote it.


 For instance, the old formulation of the eucharist as transubstantiation whereby the substance changes but the accidents do not is meaningless to us because it belongs to the world of Thomistic philosophy derived from Aristotelian thought.  Such categories make no sense for us today. 



Actually they make great sense to us today as they did for they help us understand the true presense as the true presense.  One doesn't have to have the vocabulary and definitions to know this truth in their hearts, but the definitions help us to articulate the truth from heresy.


Do you honestly think it is anything new to consider the Eucharist merely symbolic, as there being no change in substance?  Do you honestly believe that your lack of faith in what we call the real presense (no matter how you wish to deny your heresy by redefining real presense) is in any way progress?


  In such a way we can understand the real presence without sacrificing our brains or integrity.  We are neither hypocrites nor idiots parroting back what others have formulated.



Parrotting back the formula of "the substance changing while the accidents staying the same" is only parrotting it back if you fail to grasp the concent of substance and accidents.   It is a materialistic philosophy, probably only influenced by the advent of computers and technology that disposes us to think of ourselves as mere accidents, that a thing is merely a sum of its accidents or parts.


  It should be noted as it was by several of the previous posters that the Church has reformulated doctrines throughout its history e.g Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, etc.  So this is nothing new.



There is development of doctrine that builds on itself.  There is using one philosophy to explore the same truth from another angle, such as JP II diving into the field of phenominology  to explore human sexuality in light of Divine Revelation, thus giving the keys to reach us today by appealing to our common experiences and how we are disposed to think.  But this does not mean we ought to throw out Thomistic philosophy.  One does not throw out prose because one has discovered poetry or visa versa. 


  The problem is that those who want everyone to hold onto the old formulations as if they were frozen once and for all often fight hard to keep us from our modern paradigms.  But take heart, the church is the people of God, not the institutional structures or heirarchy.  No one can take that away from us.  Dave



So you're insisting a dichotomy.  The Church is either the people of God or institutional structures and a hierachy?  Can you not fathom that it is both, that God actually gave His Church some structure and order?

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 22, 2009 - 11:50PM #15
angpuppy
Posts: 520

Jun 17, 2009 -- 8:38AM, samuelbb7 wrote:


Dear angpuppy


I wish to compliment you on your responce.  YOu did an excellent job and wrote many wonderful true points.


I am a Protestant and while I agree with the Catholic church on a number of point. The teaching that hell lasts for all eternity is not one of them. You are right GOD is looking to catch in good and turn to Him.


But if we choose not to as you pointed then in my understanding we stand before judgement and GOD puts us to sleep in a death.  This is to eliminate suffering from the Universe. Which is part of the goal of GOD. To bring an end to sin.


Agape




You say that Hell does not exist, but rather that he puts us to sleep in a death for the purpose of eliminating suffering which is the goal of God.  You then equate eliminating suffering as bringing an end to sin.


What is your basis for equating sin with suffering?  Certainly the result of sin is suffering, but you seem to indicate that suffering is the graver evil than sin.  Would it not be the suffering is the symptom of that which God is trying to address?  Then His issue would be with freeing us from sin.  Considering that he speaks of the way to Heaven as carrying our cross, and considering that Christ saves us from sin by embracing suffering and death, it would seem that suffering is a part of God's plan, a treatment. 


What evidence do you have to testify that God is primarily concerned with suffering?  How do you refute centuries of Christians who have taught and beleived in Hell?  How do you refute or interpret the passages of the bible that seem to point to the reality of Hell?  By what argument can you give that God has revealed that those who do not end up in Heaven are merely "put to sleep?"  Or do you not believe in Heaven either?


How can you argue against the claim that you merely do not believe in Hell because it does not suite your taste, because it makes you uncomfortable?  How can you argue that this is not based upon personal bias and preferences much like the difference between the fantasy you have of "the perfect lover" and actually loving and knowing a real person?  It sounds to me very much like the young girl believing false things about the nature of a man being in love with her and the reality of that situation.  When the man is a fantasy, he makes no demands.  Is she to judge whether a real man loves her based upon what her fantasy man would do?

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 23, 2009 - 10:32PM #16
bigbear6161
Posts: 3,885

angpuppy,


You seem to misunderstand my point.  You are so desirous of holding onto the fantasy (to use your word addressed to another poster) of an unchangeable, infallible magisterium, that you can't see that I am talking about finding appropriate and meaningful language to describe our experience of faith so that it doesn't die, that it doesnt become so removed from the way people actually think and interpret the world that it becomes, simply put, ridiculous and absurd.  It's not about how the people of the past were "dumber" than we are today.  I never said and would never say that great thinkers like Augustine and Aquinas were stupid.  Both men were exceptional Christians and scholars.  However, neither would present the faith today in the same way they presented it then.  Augustine presents a very neo-platonist viewpoint, heavily influenced by the Manichaens.  Thomas is a reinterpreter of Aristotle after his rediscovery via the Moslem world.  Aquinas was condemend by several Church bodies before becoming associated by later Catholics with a sort of Catholic golden age orthodoxy.  No, neither Augustine or Aquinas would present the faith like that today.  I assert that Jesus can be seen as really present both in the Church and in the holy eucharist because that very same dynamic flux that was Jesus has been transformed and processed as a series of internal and external representations both liturgically and neurologicaly which when active result in our transformation as emergent properties of such a system's connectivity.  To quote the Jesus of the Gospels:  God is the God of the living, not the God of the dead."  Dave

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 24, 2009 - 12:19AM #17
angpuppy
Posts: 520

Jun 23, 2009 -- 10:32PM, bigbear6161 wrote:


angpuppy,


You seem to misunderstand my point.  You are so desirous of holding onto the fantasy (to use your word addressed to another poster) of an unchangeable, infallible magisterium, that you can't see that I am talking about finding appropriate and meaningful language to describe our experience of faith so that it doesn't die, that it doesnt become so removed from the way people actually think and interpret the world that it becomes, simply put, ridiculous and absurd.  It's not about how the people of the past were "dumber" than we are today.  I never said and would never say that great thinkers like Augustine and Aquinas were stupid.  Both men were exceptional Christians and scholars.  However, neither would present the faith today in the same way they presented it then.  Augustine presents a very neo-platonist viewpoint, heavily influenced by the Manichaens.  Thomas is a reinterpreter of Aristotle after his rediscovery via the Moslem world.  Aquinas was condemend by several Church bodies before becoming associated by later Catholics with a sort of Catholic golden age orthodoxy.  No, neither Augustine or Aquinas would present the faith like that today.  I assert that Jesus can be seen as really present both in the Church and in the holy eucharist because that very same dynamic flux that was Jesus has been transformed and processed as a series of internal and external representations both liturgically and neurologicaly which when active result in our transformation as emergent properties of such a system's connectivity.  To quote the Jesus of the Gospels:  God is the God of the living, not the God of the dead."  Dave




There are more people who speak the language of Augustine than Derrida, and there are more people who speak the language of Aquinas than Habbermas -- myself included as my fiance had had to mention to me the very existance of Derrida and Habbermas.  Excuse me, but does any average person on this board know who these people are?  Am I the only one who actually finds the traditional explanation of transubstantion more understandable than  "dynamic flux that was Jesus?"  (Please define Dynamtic flux) and all the rest of that definition?  Honestly I can't even begin to refute it because I have no clue what it is saying, but considering your rejection of the Magistrium and your seemingly rejection of the of the doctrine of transubstanciation, I would assume this is not merely a debate of semantics or how the same truth is being represented.  You seem to infer that you are rejecting at least some or part of the accepted doctrine, and at this point I can only infer what parts you are rejecting.


But at the very least my lack of comprehension does seem to refute your claim that post modernist ideas somehow speak in terminology better understood by people of our day and age. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 24, 2009 - 6:29PM #18
atkegar
Posts: 80

Jun 24, 2009 -- 12:19AM, angpuppy wrote:


Jun 23, 2009 -- 10:32PM, bigbear6161 wrote:


angpuppy,


You seem to misunderstand my point.  You are so desirous of holding onto the fantasy (to use your word addressed to another poster) of an unchangeable, infallible magisterium, that you can't see that I am talking about finding appropriate and meaningful language to describe our experience of faith so that it doesn't die, that it doesnt become so removed from the way people actually think and interpret the world that it becomes, simply put, ridiculous and absurd.  It's not about how the people of the past were "dumber" than we are today.  I never said and would never say that great thinkers like Augustine and Aquinas were stupid.  Both men were exceptional Christians and scholars.  However, neither would present the faith today in the same way they presented it then.  Augustine presents a very neo-platonist viewpoint, heavily influenced by the Manichaens.  Thomas is a reinterpreter of Aristotle after his rediscovery via the Moslem world.  Aquinas was condemend by several Church bodies before becoming associated by later Catholics with a sort of Catholic golden age orthodoxy.  No, neither Augustine or Aquinas would present the faith like that today.  I assert that Jesus can be seen as really present both in the Church and in the holy eucharist because that very same dynamic flux that was Jesus has been transformed and processed as a series of internal and external representations both liturgically and neurologicaly which when active result in our transformation as emergent properties of such a system's connectivity.  To quote the Jesus of the Gospels:  God is the God of the living, not the God of the dead."  Dave




There are more people who speak the language of Augustine than Derrida, and there are more people who speak the language of Aquinas than Habbermas -- myself included as my fiance had had to mention to me the very existance of Derrida and Habbermas.  Excuse me, but does any average person on this board know who these people are?  Am I the only one who actually finds the traditional explanation of transubstantion more understandable than  "dynamic flux that was Jesus?"


No, angpuppy, you are not the only one.  It is because I now somewhat understand transubstantion, and have come to accept it that I am very close to starting the process to formally convert to the Catholic Church.  I actually find Modernism to be cold, and inadequate, as I do American Evangelical Protestantism.  I like that the Magisterium does date back to Apostolic times. 


Thanks,


atkegar


  (Please define Dynamtic flux) and all the rest of that definition?  Honestly I can't even begin to refute it because I have no clue what it is saying, but considering your rejection of the Magistrium and your seemingly rejection of the of the doctrine of transubstanciation, I would assume this is not merely a debate of semantics or how the same truth is being represented.  You seem to infer that you are rejecting at least some or part of the accepted doctrine, and at this point I can only infer what parts you are rejecting.


But at the very least my lack of comprehension does seem to refute your claim that post modernist ideas somehow speak in terminology better understood by people of our day and age.




Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 27, 2009 - 3:51PM #19
samuelbb7
Posts: 427

Jun 22, 2009 -- 11:50PM, angpuppy wrote:

You say that Hell does not exist, but rather that he puts us to sleep in a death for the purpose of eliminating suffering which is the goal of God.  You then equate eliminating suffering as bringing an end to sin.


What is your basis for equating sin with suffering?  Certainly the result of sin is suffering, but you seem to indicate that suffering is the graver evil than sin.  Would it not be the suffering is the symptom of that which God is trying to address?  Then His issue would be with freeing us from sin.  Considering that he speaks of the way to Heaven as carrying our cross, and considering that Christ saves us from sin by embracing suffering and death, it would seem that suffering is a part of God's plan, a treatment. 


What evidence do you have to testify that God is primarily concerned with suffering?  How do you refute centuries of Christians who have taught and beleived in Hell?  How do you refute or interpret the passages of the bible that seem to point to the reality of Hell?  By what argument can you give that God has revealed that those who do not end up in Heaven are merely "put to sleep?"  Or do you not believe in Heaven either?


How can you argue against the claim that you merely do not believe in Hell because it does not suite your taste, because it makes you uncomfortable?  How can you argue that this is not based upon personal bias and preferences much like the difference between the fantasy you have of "the perfect lover" and actually loving and knowing a real person?  It sounds to me very much like the young girl believing false things about the nature of a man being in love with her and the reality of that situation.  When the man is a fantasy, he makes no demands.  Is she to judge whether a real man loves her based upon what her fantasy man would do?




First I said is not currently existing but Gehenna the lake of fire will exist.  But not yet and not for all eternity. 


First I can say this because it is not a new doctrine.  The Doctrine that hell will destroy the wicked is called conditionalism.  It has been around since the early church.  It is based on the statements in the bible that call death being asleep and that we are according to scripture a soul.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.


 The doctrine if eternal torment is based upon humans having an immortal soul.  A doctrine not found in the Bible.  Yes many in history have believed and followed this doctrine. But since those words and the thought is not found in the bible then I believe it to be false. Man is mortal.

Job 4:17 Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker?


As you state suffering is the result of sin.  I did not mean to make one sound worse. Both sin and suffering will not exist in the New Earth after the judgement day. So it is not my personal bias but the considered belief of many down through Church history that eternal life is the gift of GOD given only to those who follow GOD.

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.


 That death is the result of sin. Not eternal life in hell.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook