What politicians need to understand about the Crucifixion

realitykeeper

Obviously the crucifixion happened as a consequence of sin. After all, if there was no sin in the world, how could the crucifixion have happened. So, why did God not intervene to save Christ?

This is an important question, so important in fact that Christ used his dying breath to ask it. Crucially however, I believe the reason Christ asked this question was so that humanity would ponder the answer. Having pondered it myself, it is obvious why Christ had to die on the cross. If God had intervened, it would have seemed like nepotism to humanity. It would have seemed like nepotism to me so in order to prevent that perception, Christ had to suffer as he did.

So, even though I was born nearly 2000 years after the event, I was the cause of Christ`s suffering, as was all of humanity. Did God want to save his son from crucifixion? Of course. But the prize of love and the necessity of the lesson was so important, it had to happen.

That kind of sacrifice is what real leadership is about and nepotism is corrosive to authority. The king of kings demonstrated this. Humanity (not least politicians) needs to devote more time to the understanding of the Christian message.

banie01

realitykeeper wrote: »

Obviously the crucifixion happened as a consequence of sin. After all, if there was no sin in the world, how could the crucifixion have happened. So, why did God not intervene to save Christ?

This is an important question, so important in fact that Christ used his dying breath to ask it. Crucially however, I believe the reason Christ asked this question was so that humanity would ponder the answer. Having pondered it myself, it is obvious why Christ had to die on the cross. If God had intervened, it would have seemed like nepotism to humanity. It would have seemed like nepotism to me so in order to prevent that perception, Christ had to suffer as he did.

So, even though I was born nearly 2000 years after the event, I was the cause of Christ`s suffering, as was all of humanity. Did God want to save his son from crucifixion? Of course. But the prize of love and the necessity of the lesson was so important, it had to happen.

That kind of sacrifice is what real leadership is about and nepotism is corrosive to authority. The king of kings demonstrated this. Humanity (not least politicians) needs to devote more time to the understanding of the Christian message.

Should we seek to understand the Christian message exclusively?
Should we seek to emulate Christ in his Essene approach to Judaism and all convert to the faith of Abraham?
Or should we just choose whichever of the messianic interpretations espoused by every single branch of Christianity and often at odds with one another best suits or specific need at any given time?

To the detriment of all other prophets or religious sects?
If the path to salvation is exclusively Christian only?
How do we choose the correct interpretation of that path? Or are we all predestined regardless of our choices?

Or, should we as a race regardless of creed aim more towards treating people that little bit better each time we interact?
Should we hope that morality and choice are a better path than Dogma and scripture?

NIMAN

Fairly tenuous link to politicians there!

Sorry but most of what you say is balls to me, and probably most others in general society.

realitykeeper

banie01 wrote: »

Should we seek to understand the Christian message exclusively?
Should we seek to emulate Christ in his Essene approach to Judaism and all convert to the faith of Abraham?
Or should we just choose whichever of the messianic interpretations espoused by every single branch of Christianity and often at odds with one another best suits or specific need at any given time?

To the detriment of all other prophets or religious sects?
If the path to salvation is exclusively Christian only?
How do we choose the correct interpretation of that path? Or are we all predestined regardless of our choices?

Or, should we as a race regardless of creed aim more towards treating people that little bit better each time we interact?
Should we hope that morality and choice are a better path than Dogma and scripture?

I am not a Protestant even though I agree with a lot of what Protestants say about Christianity, sometimes more than what the Catholic Church says. Surely that does make me a Protestant I hear you assert. Absolutely not! God founded the Catholic Church not Henry VIII. One thing I would be very critical of the Catholic Church for is that it does not participate in the World Council of Churches. The Catholic Church probably has its own version of this though but in any case I think Christians should try to reunite all of Christianity in a single Church even if the scope of agreement is very basic. Integrating the churches as one should be an ongoing effort with all churches willing to compromise as opposed to being dogmatic.

When people try making up their own morality it often ends badly. The Communist revolution in Russia had a lot of youthful enthusiastic supporters but by 1990, the new youth completely rejected what their great grand parents fought for in their youth. By then, the young of 1917 were old and dying. Today, having gone through a few decades of post Communist madness, Russia is becoming more conservative and religious which is wonderful to see.

smacl

realitykeeper wrote: »

If unborn Irish children have no right to life, why should stone throwing Palestinians?

For the very simple reason that most Christians in this country do not consider the unborn to be people in the same sense as those that have been born.

Or do choice and morality belong to some and are they imposed on others?

Clearly not. The Catholic church and some (but not all) other Christian churches have attempted to impose their morality on others and this is increasingly being emphatically rejected. We live in a democracy, not a theocracy.

banie01

Smacl has pretty much answered the question you asked regarding comparing a fetus and stone throwing Palestinians.

There is to my mind, and to mind of the plebiscite a difference of an order of magnitude between an Embryo and an a person.

Is this where you want to lead the discussion?
I'd rather discuss the notion you raised initially than go on off on a tangent.
You seem to equate morality with Catholicism and even more that that you seem to espouse all branches and creeds of Christianity come together in a singular church and faith.
The very origin of what Catholic means.

Your introduction of Communist atheism as an example of what can go wrong when People try to "create" their own morality is a red herring.
Surely the same could be said of every excess of faith?
Particularly with regard to Papal excess.
Or does that not count because of infallibility?

Morality to my mind at least, is a framework of social norms and accepted common practice.
It is a guide to what society as a whole feels is acceptable and what is not. It is a parent teaching their child the difference between right and wrong and hoping that their child will choose right when pressed.

Morality does not need to stem from a Godhead and any moral code that relies on fear of punishment or damnation in the afterlife fails in providing any incentive to actually make the here and now better.
We have grown out of the days of enduring suffering as a penance and hoping for our reward in the hereafter.

I would revert however to my original point, given your hope for a Universal Christian church.
Is this to mean that all those not subscribing to Catholicism in its form espoused by you are to be denied "salvation"?

unfortunately

realitykeeper wrote: »

Obviously the crucifixion happened as a consequence of sin. After all, if there was no sin in the world, how could the crucifixion have happened. So, why did God not intervene to save Christ?

This is an important question, so important in fact that Christ used his dying breath to ask it. Crucially however, I believe the reason Christ asked this question was so that humanity would ponder the answer. Having pondered it myself, it is obvious why Christ had to die on the cross. If God had intervened, it would have seemed like nepotism to humanity. It would have seemed like nepotism to me so in order to prevent that perception, Christ had to suffer as he did.

So, even though I was born nearly 2000 years after the event, I was the cause of Christ`s suffering, as was all of humanity. Did God want to save his son from crucifixion? Of course. But the prize of love and the necessity of the lesson was so important, it had to happen.

That kind of sacrifice is what real leadership is about and nepotism is corrosive to authority. The king of kings demonstrated this. Humanity (not least politicians) needs to devote more time to the understanding of the Christian message.

I still don't understand the crucifixion of Jesus. I don't believe in human sacrifice, I don't see how sacrificing a human being can wipe out "sin". What even is "sin"?

People do bad things, if they themselves truly feel bad and try to make up for it then the people they wronged can decide to forgive them.

It doesn't matter how many animals or humans you sacrifice (even willing ones like the Aztecs had) I don't see how killing counteracts other unconnected people's wrongs.

Why couldn't God just say I forgive you humanity? If someone wronged me and I wanted to forgive them I would without demanding human sacrifice.

realitykeeper

unfortunately wrote: »

I still don't understand the crucifixion of Jesus. I don't believe in human sacrifice, I don't see how sacrificing a human being can wipe out "sin". What even is "sin"?

People do bad things, if they themselves truly feel bad and try to make up for it then the people they wronged can decide to forgive them.

It doesn't matter how many animals or humans you sacrifice (even willing ones like the Aztecs had) I don't see how killing counteracts other unconnected people's wrongs.

Why couldn't God just say I forgive you humanity? If someone wronged me and I wanted to forgive them I would without demanding human sacrifice.

On your first point, I see the crucifixion as a lesson to the world. By applying the lesson i.e. being selfless, loving unconditionally etc, people can follow the path of righteousness and thereby find salvation.

God did not demand or want Christ sacrificed. It was God and Christ who made the sacrifice to humanity, not the other way around. Had God not done so, humanity would not have had the lesson that is the crucifixion.

antiskeptic

Morality to my mind at least, is a framework of social norms and accepted common practice.
It is a guide to what society as a whole feels is acceptable and what is not.

So when a society has social norms and practices which your society finds abhorrent (fgm, child sacrifice, slavery, viewing others as sub human and exterminating them) is it the case that they are both right?

Is it case that if society flows in a particular direction what was once wrong is now right.

Is it the case that its the majority who's norms and practices are right - since social norms and practices aren't uniform.


Or is it (as we heard post modernist-think out itself recently) a case of " whats right for me is right for me / whats right for you is right for you"? Society then, merely sets out laws to reflect what the largest number of "rights" on a subject think about the matter?

Its right to consider abortion, for instance right. And right to consider it wrong. As the recent campaign shows, people don't actually believe the view you espouse. Likely, not even yourself.

antiskeptic

realitykeeper wrote: »

Obviously the crucifixion happened as a consequence of sin. After all, if there was no sin in the world, how could the crucifixion have happened. So, why did God not intervene to save Christ?

This is an important question, so important in fact that Christ used his dying breath to ask it. Crucially however, I believe the reason Christ asked this question was so that humanity would ponder the answer. Having pondered it myself, it is obvious why Christ had to die on the cross. If God had intervened, it would have seemed like nepotism to humanity. It would have seemed like nepotism to me so in order to prevent that perception, Christ had to suffer as he did.

So, even though I was born nearly 2000 years after the event, I was the cause of Christ`s suffering, as was all of humanity. Did God want to save his son from crucifixion? Of course. But the prize of love and the necessity of the lesson was so important, it had to happen.

That kind of sacrifice is what real leadership is about and nepotism is corrosive to authority. The king of kings demonstrated this. Humanity (not least politicians) needs to devote more time to the understanding of the Christian message.

That Christian message is engraved into the hearts of men anyway - even if in abridged form. Its called conscience.

Even though my post modern friend, responded to above, thinks otherwise, there are universal truths writ deep in us all. Prof. Dawkins demonstrates this in his book 'The God Delusion - it not mattering that he ascribes it to a different common ancestor than we do. Time, society, age, religion, education ... won't overwrite it. They'll just fiddle around at the fringes of it.

Its not that men have to attend more to the Christian message (although it would help restore tattered fringes). It's that God ensures they attend. And in the measure they resist and make up their own way, they suffer. Suffering and guilt (and their opposites, joy, peace and commended conscience) form The Great Steering Wheel. Whether through minor correction or wholesale wrenching, society is kept on track. Even if bashing off walls on either side, along the way.

Its always been this way and always will be. There is no need to worry or exhort as such.

Nick Park

realitykeeper wrote: »

I think Christians should try to reunite all of Christianity in a single Church even if the scope of agreement is very basic. Integrating the churches as one should be an ongoing effort with all churches willing to compromise as opposed to being dogmatic.

Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

Peatys

realitykeeper wrote: »

.
That kind of sacrifice is what real leadership is about

Not much of a sacrifice of he knew he was coming back in 3 days

uck51js9zml2yt

Nick Park wrote: »

Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

Isn't that what the EA has tried doing along with a certain Pentecostal denomination.

Recipe for disaster is an understatement!

Nick Park

Jamie Some Badminton wrote: »

Isn't that what the EA has tried doing along with a certain Pentecostal denomination.

Recipe for disaster is an understatement!

Trying to make one Christian church through compromise? Absolutely not! As someone who has been involved with leading Evangelical Alliance for several years, I'm shocked that we have communicated our mission so poorly that anyone would ever have such an impression.

The whole point of an organisation like Evangelical Alliance is to resource different churches and organisations with their various emphases and passions to continue to do what they can do well, and to encourage cooperation where we can do certain things better together.

So, the Salvation Army has it's own distinctive characteristics and strengths. As do Presbyterians, Pentecostals and others. Each group demonstrates different aspects of the Gospel particularly well, much better than if they were to amalgamate into one blended homogeneous ecclesiastical soup.

antiskeptic

Nick Park wrote: »

Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

Like salad dressing. You can mix oil and water all you like, it'll separate back out in no time

steamsey

Peatys wrote: »

Not much of a sacrifice of he knew he was coming back in 3 days

God has a Mars bar. He love this Mars bar dearly. It is his only Mars bar – because he does not want to make any more but he could make an infinite number of Mars bars if he wanted – but he doesn’t. A bunch of people hate this Mars bar. God, who created both the Mars bar and the people is responsible for the behaviour of both, and he loves them both a lot. He decides that the best way forward is to give up the Mars bar to the people to make them happy (and free them from a thing called sin which God also invented and cursed all people with from birth).

As God hands over the holy Mars bar, the people hang it on a cross, putting it through agony and when it’s dead, it goes into a cave and no one can see what’s happening inside. God obviously has magic powers. He could stop all this from happening but then the people would have to live with the aforementioned sin that God invented and presumably, would all burn in hell because of the rules that God also invented. So – about 3 days after the Mars bar dies, some friends go inside the cave and the Mars bar is gone – but it left its wrapper behind. They put in in a place where lots of people can go and have a look at it and to this day it’s still a big draw.

So while it might seem like God has sacrificed something dear to him (Mars bar) to save another thing dear to him (people) – in fact through magic, when the Mars bar disappeared from the cave, it actually got beamed straight to heaven, in perfect nick but also now immortal – like an everlasting gobstopper. So God has pulled an incredible PR stunt here – it looks like he gave up his beloved Mars bar for people but in fact at worst he had to go without it for 3 days and for an infinite being, that’s not too shabby. He gets all the credit with minimal hassle.

It’s a beautiful story that has inspired millennia of tolerance and love.

realitykeeper

Peatys wrote: »

Not much of a sacrifice of he knew he was coming back in 3 days

That makes the sacrifice greater. The agony in the garden would not be most people`s understanding of a good time.

realitykeeper

steamsey wrote: »

It’s a beautiful story that has inspired millennia of tolerance and love.

People tend to ignore the part Satan plays in all this. God works in mysterious ways for a reason(s). For example, God most likely wants people to do what is right because it is right and not just for reward.

Also, divine intervention may open a portal through which forces of good and evil can pass through. After all, in order to have light, there must be darkness. This scenario (and the necessity of faith over knowledge) would be a reason why we do not see God`s miracles each and every day.

Cabaal

realitykeeper wrote: »

People tend to ignore the part Satan plays in all this. God works in mysterious ways for a reason(s). For example, God most likely wants people to do what is right because it is right and not just for reward.

Also, divine intervention may open a portal through which forces of good and evil can pass through. After all, in order to have light, there must be darkness. This scenario (and the necessity of faith over knowledge) would be a reason why we do not see God`s miracles each and every day.

I'm afraid God doesn't sound very powerful if he opens a portal but then can't stop the devil using it.

Seems like Irish rail have more control over their trains then god has over evil

smacl

realitykeeper wrote: »

God most likely wants people to do what is right because it is right and not just for reward.

If God could want something that He did not get it would imply he was neither omnipotent nor omniscient. Similarly, if the above were true, how exactly can a mortal second guess what God might or might not want. Surely this would require you to comprehend God's mind, which would in turn require you to be omniscient?

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

If God could want something that He did not get it would imply he was neither omnipotent nor omniscient.

That's where you have to consider free will. If free will is a gift worth giving, then it means God voluntarily choosing not to exercise power to control us. I see no logical reason why an omnipotent omniscient being cannot choose to give free will, or why He cannot choose to voluntarily refrain from acting in a particular way.

Omnipotence does not mean that God does everything. It means He can do anything, but can also choose not to.

Similarly, if the above were true, how exactly can a mortal second guess what God might or might not want. Surely this would require you to comprehend God's mind, which would in turn require you to be omniscient?

Bad logic again. Another alternative is that God could choose to communicate His will to a mortal. Hardly a deal breaker for an omniscient being.

indioblack

Nick Park wrote: »

That's where you have to consider free will. If free will is a gift worth giving, then it means God voluntarily choosing not to exercise power to control us. I see no logical reason why an omnipotent omniscient being cannot choose to give free will, or why He cannot choose to voluntarily refrain from acting in a particular way.

Omnipotence does not mean that God does everything. It means He can do anything, but can also choose not to.

Christians presumably accept that God has made choices and continues to do so.
These choices would be made within the framework of existence created by God.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

That's where you have to consider free will. If free will is a gift worth giving, then it means God voluntarily choosing not to exercise power to control us. I see no logical reason why an omnipotent omniscient being cannot choose to give free will, or why He cannot choose to voluntarily refrain from acting in a particular way.

Omnipotence does not mean that God does everything. It means He can do anything, but can also choose not to.

Man's free will has little to do with it. If you want something to happen in the full knowledge that in won't happen, you're not omnipotent. Similarly if you want something to happen, and don't know whether or not it will happen, you're not omniscient. Words like want/wish/desire etc.. express a preferred outcome for an unknown future event. If you already know the future, these words are meaningless, regardless of how you slice or dice your theological determinism.

Bad logic again. Another alternative is that God could choose to communicate His will to a mortal. Hardly a deal breaker for an omniscient being.

Your inference here is that realitykeeper's speculation on God's motives are Divinely inspired. The problem here is that anyone can equally make any claim about their understanding of God's motives, but if you allow that a person might have an imagination (difficult to have free will without one), how do we separate divine inspiration from mere imagination?

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

Man's free will has little to do with it. If you want something to happen in the full knowledge that in won't happen, you're not omnipotent. Similarly if you want something to happen, and don't know whether or not it will happen, you're not omniscient. Words like want/wish/desire etc.. express a preferred outcome for an unknown future event. If you already know the future, these words are meaningless, regardless of how you slice or dice your theological determinism.

I think you're committing a fairly basic error by interpreting 'omniscient' and 'omnipotent' in a rather simplistic way, ignoring the fact that in philosophy and theology there is a lot of discussion over how such terms should be defined. (In a way, it's similar to how Creationists sometimes bandy scientific jargon around without understanding it).

As I've already pointed out, omnipotence is perfectly compatible with choosing not to do something that one can do (ie not forcing someone to do something, but giving them free will instead). Omnipotence does not include doing things that are inherently logically impossible (eg creating a square circle, or giving free will while simultaneously exercising complete control over our actions)

Omniscience, by many philosophers' definition, does not necessarily mean knowing the future. Rather it can mean knowing all possible outcomes dependent upon the decisions that free moral agents make. (Think of a chess player who can see all the future permutations depending on his opponent's next move). The reasoning here is that omniscience only includes knowing things that are true. If someone possesses genuine free will, and has not made their choices yet, then the outcome of those choices are not yet 'true'. Therefore, it is argued, it is inherently logically impossible to know in advance what a free moral agent will choose in any given situation.

There are plenty of good philosophy resources online if you want to read up on it a bit more.

However, even if we assume that an omniscient being can know the future, that does not make it unreasonable to speak of that being's will as regards future events. In this scenario, God gives us free will. He would want us to use that free will for good in every situation, but knows that sometimes we won't. Nevertheless, the gift of free will (without which you cannot have love) is a morally good thing, and outweighs the harm that our wrong choices might create.

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

Your inference here is that realitykeeper's speculation on God's motives are Divinely inspired. The problem here is that anyone can equally make any claim about their understanding of God's motives, but if you allow that a person might have an imagination (difficult to have free will without one), how do we separate divine inspiration from mere imagination?

No, my inference is that realitykeeper's speculation on God's motives are a religious person's speculations - which was once the kind of thing that this forum existed for.

I was simply pointing out the poor logic in your claim that guessing God's motives somehow involves claiming omniscience for ourselves.

realitykeeper

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm afraid God doesn't sound very powerful if he opens a portal but then can't stop the devil using it.

Seems like Irish rail have more control over their trains then god has over evil

That is because your choice is your own and God allows that.

realitykeeper

smacl wrote: »

If God could want something that He did not get it would imply he was neither omnipotent nor omniscient. Similarly, if the above were true, how exactly can a mortal second guess what God might or might not want. Surely this would require you to comprehend God's mind, which would in turn require you to be omniscient?

I would have thought God`s will was obvious. Love one another. In others words, take time to help the elderly or vulnerable. Volunteer in the community. Don`t be selfish like people who demand high pay. Be generous. Be conscientious in environmental matters even if it means discomfort, inconvenience or effort. Be courteous and thoughtful toward others and above all, be self sacrificing.

smacl

realitykeeper wrote: »

I would have thought God`s will was obvious. Love one another. In others words, take time to help the elderly or vulnerable. Volunteer in the community. Don`t be selfish like people who demand high pay. Be generous. Be conscientious in environmental matters even if it means discomfort, inconvenience or effort. Be courteous and thoughtful toward others and above all, be self sacrificing.

At what point in the history of Christianity did this understanding of God's will become obvious, was it before or after the crusades or when Christians were burning heretics for example? While I take you're point about wealth, I rather doubt the Vatican holds the same opinion given the amount of it they've hoarded.

The behaviours you describe above are basically what many people would consider aspects of being a decent human being and member of society. If your religious beliefs inspire you to behave as you describe, more power to your elbow. That said, people of other religions and no religion are as likely to behave this way too, and similarly Christians are as likely as anyone else to behave poorly.

realitykeeper

smacl wrote: »

At what point in the history of Christianity did this understanding of God's will become obvious, was it before or after the crusades or when Christians were burning heretics for example?

Before

Cabaal

realitykeeper wrote: »

That is because your choice is your own and God allows that.

Except that's not the case, as God does not exist. Hence why it would not be all powerful.

Of course if you take the line that God exists, which out of the many thousands of God's is the God somebody chooses to believe in? Thor?

realitykeeper

Cabaal wrote: »

Except that's not the case, as God does not exist. Hence why it would not be all powerful.

Of course if you take the line that God exists, which out of the many thousands of God's is the God somebody chooses to believe in? Thor?

Evidence of God is subtle because it has to be. If it was abundant there would be no need for faith in which case being a good soul worthy of salvation would be motivated purely by self interest like saving to buy a car or a house as opposed to doing what is right because it is right.

Yet in order to be aware of the existence of God, some evidence is necessary. There is every reason to believe Christ existed but the miracles of Christ require faith. The new testament was predicted in the old testament, so there are fact based clues to support faith in one Christian God.

It amuses me when people try to disprove the existence of God because even when they present evidence, the faithful simply increase their faith for higher salvation. Final point, faith in a general sense is extremely important in the struggle for survival on earth. A priest once told a story of a guy in Africa with a pile of salvaged bricks which he had collected to build his house. The priest said that man had more faith than he had because he saw his future house in what most people would regard as a pile of rubble.

Cabaal

So no testable, verifiable evidence then. That's grand, you just need to say that 😊

As I said, which God, there's thousands.

indioblack

realitykeeper wrote: »

Evidence of God is subtle because it has to be. If it was abundant there would be no need for faith in which case being a good soul worthy of salvation would be motivated purely by self interest like saving to buy a car or a house as opposed to doing what is right because it is right.

Yet in order to be aware of the existence of God, some evidence is necessary. There is every reason to believe Christ existed but the miracles of Christ require faith. The new testament was predicted in the old testament, so there are fact based clues to support faith in one Christian God.

It amuses me when people try to disprove the existence of God because even when they present evidence, the faithful simply increase their faith for higher salvation. Final point, faith in a general sense is extremely important in the struggle for survival on earth. A priest once told a story of a guy in Africa with a pile of salvaged bricks which he had collected to build his house. The priest said that man had more faith than he had because he saw his future house in what most people would regard as a pile of rubble.

That "subtlety" causes negativity - disbelief or alternate beliefs. Human history demonstrates this. This subtlety may induce faith, bit it also allows the creation of negative behaviour - inconsistent with the Christian god.

smacl

realitykeeper wrote: »

Before

That's reasonable, but there does seem to be a stark contrast between the Christianity that espouses the virtues you've described and the actions of the larger monolithic Christian churches. I suspect that many Irish people identify with the former and have little time or respect with the latter.

smacl

realitykeeper wrote: »

Evidence of God is subtle because it has to be. If it was abundant there would be no need for faith in which case being a good soul worthy of salvation would be motivated purely by self interest like saving to buy a car or a house as opposed to doing what is right because it is right.

Yet if your good behaviour is motivated primarily out of a desire to be saved, surely that amounts to avarice. While I accept this still has positive social value, surely we should be doing good for its own sake. As an atheist, I can and do donate to charity and help out with elderly neighbours and community efforts without ever considering being saved or having faith. Doing right for the sake of doing right doesn't need faith, it is its own reward.

realitykeeper

Cabaal wrote: »

So no testable, verifiable evidence then. That's grand, you just need to say that ��

As I said, which God, there's thousands.

If there were evidence, how could there be faith? The more faith we have, the more we gravitate toward God. Faith helps us to see beyond the machinations of Satan but also, when Christians behave in an un-Christian way like you alluded to earlier, that helps Satan to obfuscate the truth. In other words, Christians need to practice what they preach.

As individuals, we cannot hide behind the sins of priests as an excuse for the abandonment of faith. The priests have their souls as do lay people and everyone is responsible for their own behaviour. By their deeds, you will know them. It should also be noted that the priests gave up everything in order to devote their lives to God. That would be an incredibly difficult thing to do.

realitykeeper

smacl wrote: »

That's reasonable, but there does seem to be a stark contrast between the Christianity that espouses the virtues you've described and the actions of the larger monolithic Christian churches. I suspect that many Irish people identify with the former and have little time or respect with the latter.

Agreed, but as Catholics we try to focus on our own individual sinfulness and not on the sinfulness of priests or other people generally. Just as there are pedophile priests (who the Church must accept responsibility for), there are also inspirational examples of priests like Fr Damien, the leper priest.

smacl

realitykeeper wrote: »

Agreed, but as Catholics we try to focus on our own individual sinfulness and not on the sinfulness of priests or other people generally. Just as there are pedophile priests (who the Church must accept responsibility for), there are also inspirational examples of priests like Fr Damien, the leper priest.

Given the above, where does that leave an individual Catholic who strongly disagrees with the moral position taken by the Vatican? Thinking of the outcomes of the last couple of referenda as examples, where in both cases the majority of Catholics in this country voted against the Vatican position.

Cabaal

smacl wrote: »

Given the above, where does that leave an individual Catholic who strongly disagrees with the moral position taken by the Vatican? Thinking of the outcomes of the last couple of referenda as examples, where in both cases the majority of Catholics in this country voted against the Vatican position.

Based in prev comments made on this forum by countless posters, in such a situation they are not actually Catholics.

Or so the more extreme Catholics will claim

realitykeeper

smacl wrote: »

Given the above, where does that leave an individual Catholic who strongly disagrees with the moral position taken by the Vatican? Thinking of the outcomes of the last couple of referenda as examples, where in both cases the majority of Catholics in this country voted against the Vatican position.

That is not a dilemma I fully share given that I agree with the Church on the previous referendums. I disagree with the Church on other things, e.g. I think the Catholic Church in particular but also other churches should try harder achieve consensus and put aside their differences.

Also, I think some Protestant perspectives are more likely to be correct than some of the Catholic interpretations. The fact that Christ founded the Catholic Church is not a reason to assume other churches cannot offer valuable perspectives to the Catholic Church.

The Papacy does not claim a monopoly on the truth because if it did, Pope John Paul II would not have apologized to Muslims and Jews for the crusades.

smacl

realitykeeper wrote: »

That is not a dilemma I fully share given that I agree with the Church on the previous referendums. I disagree with the Church on other things, e.g. I think the Catholic Church in particular but also other churches should try harder achieve consensus and put aside their differences.

Also, I think some Protestant perspectives are more likely to be correct than some of the Catholic interpretations. The fact that Christ founded the Catholic Church is not a reason to assume other churches cannot offer valuable perspectives to the Catholic Church.

The Papacy does not claim a monopoly on the truth because if it did, Pope John Paul II would not have apologized to Muslims and Jews for the crusades.

I think the key word here is consensus, which if you think about it is both dynamic and contextual. Referenda reflect these values, i.e. how a society as a whole considers a moral dilemma in the context of that society. In my opinion, if that society broadly identifies as Catholic or Christian, that is a reflection of what it means to be Catholic or Christian in that society. This is true regardless of the position of the Church hierarchy, which doesn't seek consensus and tends to prefer moral absolutes independent of context. The former position tends to be egalitarian and left leaning, where the latter tends towards conservatism. Which would you say better describes the core Christian values you listed earlier?

realitykeeper

smacl wrote: »

I think the key word here is consensus, which if you think about it is both dynamic and contextual. Referenda reflect these values, i.e. how a society as a whole considers a moral dilemma in the context of that society. In my opinion, if that society broadly identifies as Catholic or Christian, that is a reflection of what it means to be Catholic or Christian in that society. This is true regardless of the position of the Church hierarchy, which doesn't seek consensus and tends to prefer moral absolutes independent of context. The former position tends to be egalitarian and left leaning, where the latter tends towards conservatism. Which would you say better describes the core Christian values you listed earlier?

I agree with you to a point. That said, I think the Church is absolutely right to stick with what it says if and when it is a matter of siding with God vs society. On the other hand, Christ explained that the reason Moses said divorce was ok was because the people were ignorant back in the times of the Pharaohs. This implies Christ makes allowances for unenlightened societies.

So, are contemporary people ignorant? And should we be, given that we have had the benefit of the gospels and the example of unconditional love as exemplified by the crucifixion?

The story of Noah`s Arc is presumably fiction but may have been based loosely on fact. A decadent society brought to heel and forced to reflect as a result of some natural calamity. This would suggest that while God is slow to anger, his patience is not unlimited.

Contemporary societies sometimes use Churches as discos, pubs, etc. So there are plenty of people to use the church, they just don`t want to use the church as a church. This situation does not please God I suspect.

smacl

realitykeeper wrote: »

I agree with you to a point. That said, I think the Church is absolutely right to stick with what it says if and when it is a matter of siding with God vs society. On the other hand, Christ explained that the reason Moses said divorce was ok was because the people were ignorant back in the times of the Pharaohs. This implies Christ makes allowances for unenlightened societies.

It's an interesting dichotomy, in that you have the church on one side not acting in the interests of society, and Christ on the other hand whose actions could be described as socialist and egalitarian. When you look at the lengths the papacy went to to wipe out other less hierarchical Christian traditions such as the Cathars and Bogomils, you have to question whether their motives were more self serving than altruistic. While you denigrate our politicians at the start of this thread, and no doubt deservedly so in certain cases, it would seem reasonable that you could paint the entirety of the Vatican and much of the Catholic hierarchy with the same brush.

realitykeeper

smacl wrote: »

It's an interesting dichotomy, in that you have the church on one side not acting in the interests of society, and Christ on the other hand whose actions could be described as socialist and egalitarian. When you look at the lengths the papacy went to to wipe out other less hierarchical Christian traditions such as the Cathars and Bogomils, you have to question whether their motives were more self serving than altruistic. While you denigrate our politicians at the start of this thread, and no doubt deservedly so in certain cases, it would seem reasonable that you could paint the entirety of the Vatican and much of the Catholic hierarchy with the same brush.

Attempting to wipe out other churches was not exclusive to Catholicism. Here, Protestants applied penal laws whereby priests had to operate incognito, disguised as labourers and hedgerow masses were held in secret for the starving and dispossessed population. Several waves of genocide were perpetrated on the Irish over the centuries because they were Catholic.

Catholic clergy do not have sons or daughters who they appoint to nice cushy jobs as lavishly paid personal assistants/secretaries etc at the tax payers expense. Priests give up starting a family in order to serve everyone else. I would not be prepared to make that sacrifice and neither would most other people.

smacl

realitykeeper wrote: »

Attempting to wipe out other churches was not exclusive to Catholicism. Here, Protestants applied penal laws whereby priests had to operate incognito, disguised as labourers and hedgerow masses were held in secret for the starving and dispossessed population. Several waves of genocide were perpetrated on the Irish over the centuries because they were Catholic.

Catholic clergy do not have sons or daughters who they appoint to nice cushy jobs as lavishly paid personal assistants/secretaries etc at the tax payers expense. Priests give up starting a family in order to serve everyone else. I would not be prepared to make that sacrifice and neither would most other people.

No doubt, I picked Catholicism as the most obvious example, but the point remains that large Christian churches of various denominations have in the past acted against society to serve their own interests and arguably still do. As for the family thing, nepotism aside, I suspect that priests of either gender with families are better equipped to meet the needs of their parishioners, who largely comprise of families. For example, you really have to question the value of an organisation run by single celibate men when it comes to advocating against contraception. This results in a huge disconnect between the Catholic church and Catholic society, where the former advocates against the likes of same sex marriage, contraception and abortion, where majority of the latter is demonstrably in favour of the same.

I don't think you can blame our politicians for any of the above, as their job is to serve society, not the church.

Nick Park

realitykeeper wrote: »

Catholic clergy do not have sons or daughters who they appoint to nice cushy jobs as lavishly paid personal assistants/secretaries etc at the tax payers expense.

Not today, they don't. But there is a considerable history of such clerical appointments. Of course, the sons and daughters of senior clergy were illegitimate, and were officially called 'nieces' and 'nephews'. Hence our English word 'nepotism' (nepos being Latin for 'nephew').

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

realitykeeper wrote: »

I was the cause of Christ`s suffering, as was all of humanity.

Speak for yourself.

realitykeeper wrote: »

One thing I would be very critical of the Catholic Church for is that it does not participate in the World Council of Churches.

What an odd thing to be critical about. The one thing, as you put it, that people should be critical of, from any religion is how that religion/church treats humanity. One thing that people should be very critical of the CC would be the treatment of women throughout the ages, the prisons they ran, the thousands of dead babies buried around the country and the cover up of child sex abuse....

Cabaal

Nick Park wrote: »

Not today, they don't. But there is a considerable history of such clerical appointments. Of course, the sons and daughters of senior clergy were illegitimate, and were officially called 'nieces' and 'nephews'. Hence our English word 'nepotism' (nepos being Latin for 'nephew').

Listening to a stuff you should know podcast on nepotism a few weeks back and they explained this, learn something new every day

realitykeeper

Nick Park wrote: »

Not today, they don't. But there is a considerable history of such clerical appointments. Of course, the sons and daughters of senior clergy were illegitimate, and were officially called 'nieces' and 'nephews'. Hence our English word 'nepotism' (nepos being Latin for 'nephew').

Correct. There were outlandish practices in the past but these are remembered to because they were the exception and not the norm.

realitykeeper

Freya Damp Commando wrote: »

Speak for yourself.



What an odd thing to be critical about. The one thing, as you put it, that people should be critical of, from any religion is how that religion/church treats humanity. One thing that people should be very critical of the CC would be the treatment of women throughout the ages, the prisons they ran, the thousands of dead babies buried around the country and the cover up of child sex abuse....

Today`s hype was yesterday`s benevolence. It may take a hundred years but I would not be at all surprised if future generations were to pour scorn on today`s society and return to Catholicism with greater passion than ever before. Just look at what is happening in Orthodox Russia:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghmvuzvqd6Y

realitykeeper

smacl wrote: »

This results in a huge disconnect between the Catholic church and Catholic society, where the former advocates against the likes of same sex marriage, contraception and abortion, where majority of the latter is demonstrably in favour of the same.

I don't think you can blame our politicians for any of the above, as their job is to serve society, not the church.

It is the job of politicians to serve society but of course they don`t do that. They serve themselves. In recent times it has become popular to criticize the church so they do. In the past it wasn`t so they didn`t.

The disconnect between society and the church is not really the issue. The connection between God and mankind is what matters. The church is right not to bend to the will of a society that would rather use a church as a night club than a place of prayer.