I Knew That I Was Going To Like This Guy

[Andrew D]

Passive?

Christ hath redeemed us ....

(Galatians 3:13.)

That sounds pretty active to me. How has Christ "passively" redeemed anyone?

Jesus said that "there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars [etc.]" And he said that "when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh."

So what "draweth nigh" is "a mechanism for the removal [of] sin"? How can that be, if Christ has already redeemed (some of) us? For that matter, what does it even mean?

Anyway, Christian doctrine is a hopeless muddle of irreconcilable inconsistencies. Raising them was not my point.

My point is simply that

(a) according to the Roman Catholic Church (whose opinions do not constrain my own), redemption is, inter alia, "deliverance from the slavery of sin"; and

(b) the Pope says that even atheists have been redeemed;

(c) therefore, even atheists have been delivered from the slavery of sin.

Which is a far cry from what the RCC has said about atheists in the past.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I may eventually have to bow to Andrew's superior knowledge given his doctorate in Agnosticism ("not knowing") which apparently enables him to declare that he does know that Christian doctrine is a hopeless muddle However, probably not this time.

God so loved mankind (not Christians alone, of whom there were none at the time) that He sent His only Son as a sacrifice for all. Christ's redemptive act was . .er . . "active". That redemption is available to all and therefore is both "universal" and "passive". Those who choose to accept it will be saved from their eternal separation from God.

Christians and non-believers alike are "redeemed" - that is, their sins have been paid for by Christ's death. That's what redemption means - the payment of a debt, the satisfaction of an obligation and so forth - very passive. It does not mean "you have been saved". Salvation comes when the individual accepts the truth of it and believes. (In light of that other thread, it's when the person in the image of Adam is reborn in the likeness of the Lord and grows to maturity in that likeness).

Jesus' parable of the wicked servant (Matt 18:22-35) is the example of a person whose debts have been forgiven (redeemed) and who then proceeds to not act upon that redemption but instead rejects the entire premise and carries on his own selfish ways. I'm sure the wicked servant had some good in him - loved dogs perhaps

The Pope's pronouncement is another example of dangerously facile commentary in a worthy cause

Meade

[Crackpot]

Should I be happy that Meade answered my post thus saving me from taking time during work to do so?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Merely expanding upon your excellent and cogent response to Andrew

[Crackpot]

The Pope's pronouncement is another example of dangerously facile commentary in a worthy cause

Meade

I'm not so sure what he said is facile much less dangerously so. People like to pick enemies and like it even more if they can justify it in a cause they see higher than themselves. So it is worthwhile to point out that Jesus paid for all therefore they are not worthy of scorn by merely being a member of another group. If they do good let them do good why not even work together to do good.

I know I find atheists to be generally annoying. The stunning hypocracy of those who decry those that tie themselves to unthinking Dogma while actively lashing themselves to thier own just makes me shake my head in bewilderment. However. returning in kind does nothing to help the situation. Instead I choose to engage and at least try to help them see these all too human errors that we all in one form or another fall victim to. The human need to feel superior is a deeply ingrained human fault.

Don't know if I got off track ther but I frittered needed to be said

[dgs49]

"The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! "Father, the atheists?" Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. "But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!" But do good: we will meet one another there."

In other words,

(1) God created and loves everybody,
(2) Jesus atoned for the sins of humanity and "redeemed" everybody, making "salvation" available through his sacrifice,
(3) Even atheists can do good works, and
(4) Christians and atheists can cooperate in doing good works, and that's a good thing.

"So," he means, "don't bust my Pontifical balls if the Church under my leadership cooperates with secular [read, atheist] organizations to do good things."

[oldr_n_wsr]

I have found the mind set of "do the next right thing" serves me quite well (and others too). If that means "doing good" so be it.

I have found (mostly in the AA rooms but in other places also) that the most peaceful/calm people are those who have some kind of higher power. Be them Catholics, Christians, Jews or non-religious but spiritual. Those that take offense to the word God or Higher Power seem to be the most easily agitated.

I was brought up Catholic and my "image" of God is an old man on a mountain in robes carrying a staff ready to strike one down for the slightest infraction. So I have shunned that image and organised religion. I have found peace in being spiritual and recognising there can be a Higher Power out there. Heck, for mush of my life alcohol was a "higher power".

As far as salvation (if there is any), if my actions warrant my salvation, then so be it. If not, so be it too. Actions speak louder than words so I shouldn't have to ask nor beg my fate will already have been determined.

[dgs49]

Religion provides a tangible justification and incentive for social good works. Sometimes it works (as an incentive) and sometimes not. And this is true even if it is total bullshit.

If all that is is what we can see, hear, taste, and touch, then why be altruistic - especially where there is no hope of any forseeable reward? Fend for yourself and fuck everyone else. Get "Government" to take care of people and try to make yourself feel good by saying you pay your taxes to pay for it.

Stupid atheists like to point out historical atrocities done in the name of religion, but they pale in comparison to the genocides and other atrocities of atheists. And one does not have to go back even one day in history to see how well state-atheism works in places like North Korea, Cuba, and China. No need to mention the Soviet Union, and what great citizens those people are turning out to be when they come to live here in the U.S. A bigger gang of thieves, cheaters, and manipulators was never hatched.

[oldr_n_wsr]

If all that is is what we can see, hear, taste, and touch, then why be altruistic - especially where there is no hope of any forseeable reward?

I don't need a "reward" to do the next right thing or a good deed for someone else. Seeing them smile or happier than they were before I did the deed is "reward" enough for me. It makes me feel better. Some may say that the "real" reason I do it is to make "me" feel better. Well then so be it. Just as they say in AA, helping another alcoholic helps oneself stay sober.

Fend for yourself and fuck everyone else. Get "Government" to take care of people and try to make yourself feel good by saying you pay your taxes to pay for it.

I don't subscribe to that theorum.

[Joe Guy]

I don't need a "reward" to do the next right thing or a good deed for someone else. Seeing them smile or happier than they were before I did the deed is "reward" enough for me. It makes me feel better. Some may say that the "real" reason I do it is to make "me" feel better...

Unfortunately there are people who think that nobody can do something good without a selfish motive. Those people ought to look inward and try to figure out why that think that way.

You think a lot like I do about many things, oldr. Maybe the experience early in our lives of having the ground smack us upside the head knocked some uncommon and insightful sense into us that makes us unique...

[dales]

Isaiah 64:6


New International Version (©2011)
All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.

One can never do enough good works to justify themselves before a perfect God.

[MajGenl.Meade]

[quote="Crackpot] I'm not so sure what he said is facile much less dangerously so. [/quote]


I wasn't referring to the overall tenor of the message with which I agreed. All people can do good things etc. Peace, harmony all that.

Facile = the shallow application of "in God's image and likeness" which exactly empowers popular and erroneous non-thinking. That's shown by Andrew's sillyjizm that therefore all atheists have been delivered from the slavery of sin and don't need to believe or do anything. The Pope's overly simplistic theology (in that part of his statement) is dangerous because it leads to dumb misunderstandings.

It's not dangerous like a lion or a crazed Nigerian with a meat cleaver

Meade

[Gob]

God so loved mankind (not Christians alone, of whom there were none at the time) that He sent His only Son as a sacrifice for all. Christ's redemptive act was . .er . . "active". That redemption is available to all and therefore is both "universal" and "passive". Those who choose to accept it will be saved from their eternal separation from God.

I'll ask again; why would an omnipotent deity, one capable of creating the universe and all in it, need to do such a silly thing?

[Andrew D]

Hey!

My jizm is not at all silly!

[Gob]

[Andrew D]

My agnosticism does not qualify me to make any assertions about Christian (or Buddhist or whatever) doctrine. On the contrary, the readily observable fact that Christian doctrine contains contradictory assertions and poses insurmountable difficulties is one of the reasons that I am agnostic.

One of said contradictions has already appeared in this thread:

"Christ hath redeemed us" means that the redemption has already occurred.

"[W]hen these things begin to come to pass ... your redemption draweth nigh" means that the redemption will happen in the future.

And then there is the free-will problem. (1) God is omniscient. (2) God is omnipotent. (3) God created everything. (4) Human beings have free will. No one has ever logically reconciled those four propositions for the straightforward reason that no such reconciliation is logically possible.

I am fully familiar with the doctrinal framework which finds expression in Crackpot's and MajGenl. Meade's postings. Whatever relationship that framework may bear to RCC doctrine is potentially interesting but not especially germane.

It bears noting, however, that I would bet money that neither Crackpot nor MajGenl. Meade accepts the proposition that the Pope speaks infallibly on matters of faith or morals. And I rather doubt that either of them accepts the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist -- that the bread and wine really, rather than symbolically, become the body and blood of Jesus.

Considering that those propositions are dogmatic assertions of the RCC, it seems clear that what the Pope believes and what Crackpot and MajGenl. Meade believe are, to put it mildly, not entirely consistent. Which suggests that what the Pope had in mind may not be what Crackpot and MajGenl. Meade take from the papal pronouncement.

[RayThom]

... in the other parallel thread.

AndrewD, forgive me; for I did not know what you were doing. Luke 23:34:19:49... hike!

[MajGenl.Meade]

One of said contradictions has already appeared in this thread:

"Christ hath redeemed us" means that the redemption has already occurred.

"[W]hen these things begin to come to pass ... your redemption draweth nigh" means that the redemption will happen in the future

That is not so. Trivial example: you pawn grandpa's watch. You can never get enough cash to redeem it. Your best friend pays the price to the pawnbroker but can't take the watch because you have the pawn ticket. He brings back a receipt to show you (the watch is redeemed). You must take the pawn ticket and go get the watch yourself. You must decide whether or not to take advantage of your friend's generosity (the redemption is complete). The pawn-price has been paid but you must go complete what was begun - or not. Analogies are always perilous but the sense is conveyed I think.

And then there is the free-will problem. (1) God is omniscient. (2) God is omnipotent. (3) God created everything. (4) Human beings have free will. No one has ever logically reconciled those four propositions for the straightforward reason that no such reconciliation is logically possible.

An interesting thing is that the first three statements have no connection to the third - three truths about God followed by one debatable statement about humans. It's possible that Humans do not have Free Will. It's possible that Humans do. In the great scheme of things, this is only relevant to obscure Christian scholastics and people who deny that the first three are true anyway. Since you Andrew are definitely not the former and will probably deny being the latter, what's your point? Why does your "not knowing" something mean that Christians are the confused ones?

I would bet money that neither Crackpot nor MajGenl. Meade accepts the proposition that the Pope speaks infallibly on matters of faith or morals. And I rather doubt that either of them accepts the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist -- that the bread and wine really, rather than symbolically, become the body and blood of Jesus.

You'd win that bet as far as I'm concerned.

Which suggests that what the Pope had in mind may not be what Crackpot and MajGenl. Meade take from the papal pronouncement.

Naturally. All statements made by any person may have in mind something that any of us reading them do not "take" from them. The Pope may indeed have in mind something other than what he said. You think he had in mind that "atheists have been delivered from slavery to sin". Since that is contrary to Christianity, even the Roman kind, the errant "taking" seems more likely to rest with you.

Meade

[MajGenl.Meade]

God so loved mankind (not Christians alone, of whom there were none at the time) that He sent His only Son as a sacrifice for all. Christ's redemptive act was . .er . . "active". That redemption is available to all and therefore is both "universal" and "passive". Those who choose to accept it will be saved from their eternal separation from God.

I'll ask again; why would an omnipotent deity, one capable of creating the universe and all in it, need to do such a silly thing?

A bit unclear there Gob. Is the "silly thing" the saving of humans from eternal separation/death/hell/whatever-the-bad-thing is? Is it "loving mankind" (because that does seem rather a difficult thing to do)? Is it paying the price on our behalf? Or what?

I would be happy to engage you in discussion about that but am afraid that having thrown your rock you may not want to discuss the ripples. I will try not say something in such a way as to distract from the point.

Do you think that morally good acts are good in themselves or are they "good" just because some (or even all) people think they are good at this moment in time?

Love
Meade

[Joe Guy]

Okay, I have a couple simple questions.

If God created us, why did he need to send his son to die and redeem us?

If he didn't want to just say, "Let there be Harmony" and get it done with, and for some reason wanted to send his son to get the job done, why didn't Jesus go to China first? He could have influenced a lot more people there. From there he could have made a world tour and united everyone.

But no. Jesus hung out in the Middle East and now it is still one of the most hostile and backward areas in the world.

What's God's real plan?

Does he like war games?