Theology IV

[Willow Oran]

Thank you, Rian, that's a good analogy for what I was going for. It's the type of 'cannot' that comes about through a choice, though it may not seem like any choice at all.

[Rían]

Exactly!

[Lief Erikson]

It's an interesting interpretation. I guess I have yet to come to a position on which I think is true . . . you two have shaken my confidence. I'll get back to you later, I guess, about it.

[Willow Oran]

Take your time. It took me years of wavering belief and mulling over and trying to reconcile conflicting beliefs to come to that interpretation so I look forward to hearing your response when you've had a chance to think about it.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

But I am still right; lighning, brimstone and fire won't tickle.

I'm willing to chance it.

If you told me I HAD to go to heaven and be there with most of the people packing for the trip?

No amount of Abraham and Issac could persuade me.

Fortunately, I don't believe it.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Willow Oran

Yet in that insistence the Bible diminishes God, for it is a much greater deity that can and has chosen to reject evil within Himself before rejecting it in others. Is that not what His mortal incarnation did in the desert and is it not what we are supposed to do in seeking forgiveness?
:
:

The one caution I would make about this line of thinking - is that it evaluates God from a human perspective, with the same line of reasoning by which we would evaluate other people.

If God is far above us - if He is far beyond our ability to grasp or understand on our own (without His Help), this type of evaluation may be worthless.

[Willow Oran]

The one caution I would make about this line of thinking - is that it evaluates God from a human perspective, with the same line of reasoning by which we would evaluate other people.

If God is far above us - if He is far beyond our ability to grasp or understand on our own (without His Help), this type of evaluation may be worthless.

Clearly, and I would extend that caution to any theological argument. God is ineffable. But as we are human we do the best we can with the perspective we have.

[katya]

I agree, Valandil. Even just looking at different human ways of thinking, from culture to culture and person to person, it seems strange to try to understand something like God from any one of those perspectives. Human philosophy tends to be centered on humans, in a way.

Could this be another argument against mysticism?

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Willow Oran

Clearly, and I would extend that caution to any theological argument. God is ineffable. But as we are human we do the best we can with the perspective we have.

And then we have to decide whether we believe that there is divine revelation to people or not. Then it's not a matter of us 'figuring things out' - but about believing.

In Christianity, that is both God revealing Himself through His Word, and through His Son.

[Willow Oran]

But even divine revelation ends up being filtered through humanity, however unintentionally.

It is never just about believing or just about figuring things out. Reason and belief are never exclusive of the other. Rather they form the basis of and feed off each other as the individual continues to grow.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Valandil

The one caution I would make about this line of thinking - is that it evaluates God from a human perspective, with the same line of reasoning by which we would evaluate other people.

If God is far above us - if He is far beyond our ability to grasp or understand on our own (without His Help), this type of evaluation may be worthless.

Originally Posted by Valandil

And then we have to decide whether we believe that there is divine revelation to people or not. Then it's not a matter of us 'figuring things out' - but about believing.

In Christianity, that is both God revealing Himself through His Word, and through His Son.

Varily, I could not have said it better myself.

[Rían]

And God also reveals Himself through creation, and esp. that part of creation made in His image.

The one bit I'd disagree with in Willow's statement is "evil within Himself" - I think it's clear in Scripture that there is no evil in God, but what we were talking about was the "physical" possibility of evil.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Willow Oran

But even divine revelation ends up being filtered through humanity, however unintentionally.

Not when you have an infallible mechanism provided for the clarification of that original revelation . If you have someone standing next to you, telling you what he meant by what he wrote, you have no excuse for misinterpreting him. He can answer your questions and it's obvious what he means.

[Willow Oran]

Does this infallible mechanism stand over the shoulder of every scribe and translator the message goes through over thousands of years?
And will he answer our questions, or just smile and leave us knowing we have to work at finding the answers for ourselves?

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Willow Oran

Does this infallible mechanism stand over the shoulder of every scribe and translator the message goes through over thousands of years?
And will he answer our questions, or just smile and leave us knowing we have to work at finding the answers for ourselves?

You can't understand him without reading his word. before you make any assumptions or any theories, you have to know as much about the subject as possible before you can comment on said subject; if you have never studied the bible you have no business talking about the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Willow Oran

Does this infallible mechanism stand over the shoulder of every scribe and translator the message goes through over thousands of years?
And will he answer our questions, or just smile and leave us knowing we have to work at finding the answers for ourselves?

He does stand over the shoulders of the scribes and translators, and he answers our questions. This "mechanism" is the Holy Spirit, when He speaks through the infallible Magesterium of the Catholic Church. Through the Magesterium, He gives the world the true interpretations of Christian truth. The Magesterium, when assembled and delivering dogma, Catholics (over half the Christians in the world) believe, makes infallible declarations of the will of God on matters of faith.

[Willow Oran]

Speaking as a catholic who was brought up to believe just that... The Magesterium's infallibilty has been on shaky ground for a very long time.

You cannot ignore that the disconnect between its corrupt actions and the dogma it preaches is an established problem and has been raising questions among christians for centuries. Nor should you ignore historical record which shows that many of those interpretations were arrived at through human debate.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Willow Oran

Speaking as a catholic who was brought up to believe just that... The Magesterium's infallibilty has been on shaky ground for a very long time.

You cannot ignore that the disconnect between its corrupt actions and the dogma it preaches is an established problem and has been raising questions among christians for centuries.

There have been corrupt actions and magnificently loving and generous actions. Humans are involved, so of course this is the case. It would be terribly faulty (and an enduring Enlightenment-produced stereotype) to characterize its social or political actions as generally "corrupt." The Church has made many wise political decisions and has always been a source of great generosity to the poor and inspiration to saints. Its teachings have strengthened the moral lives of millions of people throughout Western history, and its path to power in the West came principally through peaceful evangelism. Its priests give up wives and personal households for the sake of their flocks, and its monks give up their belongings for the poor. It tended the sick, financed education and science, and provided civilization in an era troubled by the turbulent aftermath of the fall of the Roman Empire. It ended the gladiator battles, reduced the hardship endured by slaves, and battled racism from racism's very beginning.

The Church has had failings too, some very serious and some minor. Many have been widely publicized and falsely inflated by the Church's enemies, to create negative stereotypes of the Church. But its triumphant beauty is often ignored and the failings alone seen and attacked in our modern society, which still has in its mouth the mocking disdain of Enlightenment philosophers.

But the moral failings of some Church leaders do not in any way bring challenge the capacity of God to declare infallible truths through them, in spite of their weakness. I don't know how much the Bible's authority means to you, but if it means much, consider Caiaphas, the High Priest in Israel, and probably among Israel's most wicked leaders. He killed the Messiah! Yet in spite of his evil ways, God prophesied through his mouth, because of his office, that Jesus would die for Israel and the "scattered children of God," or the Gentiles, to make them "one" (John 11:47-53). No matter how terrible a failure a man is, morally, God can still speak through him! Consider also the story of Balaam, one of Israel's most wicked and conniving opponents on its way to Canaan. He tried three times to curse Israel, and three times his curses were turned to blessings because the Lord spoke through him instead. He found himself unable to help himself, and so blessed Israel because God spoke through him.

God is in charge . Human moral failings cannot trump His authority, so the Magesterium's dogma cannot be challenged by humanity's corruption without saying, "God is not omnipotent." He has the power to speak infallibly through corrupt people, if He wants to.

Originally Posted by Willow Oran

Nor should you ignore historical record which shows that many of those interpretations were arrived at through human debate.

Of course they were, starting with the first such council in Acts 15, which describes a great debate ended by Peter's declaration of his position. Then there are closing comments and then conclusion. They declared at the end of the council that it was their will and that of the Holy Spirit, and that it was to be "imposed" upon the whole Church. Jesus had breathed the Spirit into the bishops, thus issuing unto them infallibility (John 20:19-23). Consider the fact that one of the passages most used to assert the Scripture's infallibility, 2 Timothy 3:16, uses exactly the same language as that used in the Gospel of John to discuss the special imparting of the Spirit to the first bishops (the Spirit was gifted to the whole Church at a separate event later on, Pentecost). 2 Timothy says Scripture is "God-breathed," a verse Christians often see as referring to infallibility. In the same language, the Gospel of John says Jesus "breathed" on the apostles, and then said, "receive the Holy Spirit."

The apostles still argued with one another, as we can see from the Book of Galatians (Paul vs. Peter), but at the end of the debate, their councils nevertheless were considered to express the will of the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28), which is of course infallible.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Willow Oran

Speaking as a catholic who was brought up to believe just that... The Magesterium's infallibilty has been on shaky ground for a very long time.

You cannot ignore that the disconnect between its corrupt actions and the dogma it preaches is an established problem and has been raising questions among christians for centuries. Nor should you ignore historical record which shows that many of those interpretations were arrived at through human debate.

Well I do believe the catholic church is a wicked institution and promotes paganism more than anything else; more dogma than truth.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Well I do believe the catholic church is a wicked institution and promotes paganism more than anything else; more dogma than truth.

*Slaps head.* Oh, gosh.