Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

She thinks that some Christians do awful things; Christ says we have His permission (and His standard test) to doubt that anybody who does is His at all.

Now, can a Christian sin? Of course. Can a Christian make a mistake? Of course. But can a Christian continue in sin, not just sinning once but adopting a pattern of toxic "bad fruit" behaviour, not being aware of her guilt, repenting and changing her ways?

Christ says "No." Paul agrees. (Romans 6:12-14)

I think that what is being said is that a Christian, in regard to specific sorts of sin, which are generally understood as immoral lusts, etc., should not sin, but not that the Christian under grace cannot sin.

But here is what I would go on to say: It would be unwise for any Christian, either one who believes himself to be fully committed, and also one who realizes he is not, to imagine that by having received grace that he could not sin further.

In my view that Catholic position is much more sound but those unfamiliar with the theological point may not get this.

If I understand Lacewing's point it is that in so many different instances Christians we can name have 'fallen down' in dramatic ways.

But I think the issue really goes further. I think it is not possible for any mortal being not to sin in the Christian sense but also in senses that are not seen necessarily as sinful in a Christian sense. My view goes back to what I said previously: the life that we have, our being and existence, takes place within a plane of reality where we are forced by the nature of the system to seek and get for ourselves. I said *to kill* and what I meant is that anything we do, any self-assertion, must take advantage of other living things. So if we clear a field to plant crops we must displace other life. When we cut down a tree we are doing what all creatures must do -- taking advantage of other forms of life.

I recognize sin in a Christian sense, and in the Pauline sense (he likely was referring to lust and desire of various sorts), but I also recognize 'the fallen condition of man'. That is one of the curses when the gates of eden were closed. They were thrust out into a difficult and in some senses an *impossible* world where crime and error and sin are more likely than not.

It is the madness of life that drives people crazy. It is a crazy world. It makes crazy demands.

So in this sense any given Christian -- even a fully committed one really trying to live well and properly and one under grace -- still lives in and participates in larger systems that are, beyond doubt, involved in layers of sin. This is part of our condition.

So it seems that a benevolent God -- let us say that the God who sees us, who looks down on us from a realm outside of cause & effect, could only have levels of compassion for creatures who must live in such conditions. Grace is offered to those who sincerely make the best effort. But even to those who fail or stumble.

12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.

13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

[Immanuel Can]

She thinks that some Christians do awful things; Christ says we have His permission (and His standard test) to doubt that anybody who does is His at all.

Now, can a Christian sin? Of course. Can a Christian make a mistake? Of course. But can a Christian continue in sin, not just sinning once but adopting a pattern of toxic "bad fruit" behaviour, not being aware of her guilt, repenting and changing her ways?

Christ says "No." Paul agrees. (Romans 6:12-14)

I think that what is being said is that a Christian, in regard to specific sorts of sin, which are generally understood as immoral lusts, etc., should not sin, but not that the Christian under grace cannot sin.

Right. And as I pointed out, a person isn't made sinless merely by believing something. And Christians have never claimed that was how it is. What they do say, though, is that being a Christian makes one a much better person than one otherwise would ever be. And that's a pretty good claim.

It's also the right sort of claim: because it doesn't let me arrogantly compare myself with you, or with anybody else. it obligates me to realize what I am by nature, and compare that to what I'm being asked to become, and judge myself accordingly. There's no room for pride in that; such an assessment is inevitably humbling.

In my view that Catholic position is much more sound but those unfamiliar with the theological point may not get this.

Truth be told, the Catholic position (the official "Church" one) is perfectly harmonious with the kind of belief that a person who doesn't know God at all is likely to have. That is, it (rather common-sensically) holds that people are saved by working hard at being good ("good" being defined by being Catholicly devout and Catholicly ethical, and with the sacraments and ceremonies of "the Church.")

Unfortunately for Catholicism, Christianity teaches something quite different from what ordinary sense suggests. Instead of teaching us simply to "work harder," (whether at ceremonies or ethics), it says, "The problem is deeper; you're the wrong kind of person for this task, and need a metanoia, a renovation of mind and action. You need to be born again."

That's a conflict. Catholicism essentially says, "You need not be born again." (And adds, the doctrine of "general grace" will take care of it all.) Christ says, "You must be born again...unless a man is born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God" at all.

If I understand Lacewing's point it is that in so many different instances Christians we can name have 'fallen down' in dramatic ways.

We should not be so glib as to "name them Christians." According to Christ and Paul, we have authority to doubt their word. And given their manifest character, even ordinary wisdom tells us to doubt them.

...anything we do, any self-assertion, must take advantage of other living things. So if we clear a field to plant crops we must displace other life. When we cut down a tree we are doing what all creatures must do -- taking advantage of other forms of life.

That is true. But I'm not clear why that matters.

From the beginning, even before the Fall, plants were given to man for food. After the Fall, man began to be omnivorous...but now we're talking about a fallen, sinful world, not some ideal one. So there's no part of that that is hard to imagine, nor any that is not entirely consonant with what the Bible says is the case in a fallen world.

But here's a serious problem for Atheism. If there's no God, then this world ISN'T fallen. It is both as real and as "ideal' as it's ever going to be. And the death of anything, far from being a regretable or deplorable fact, is just "how things are."

So to be regretful that things die, in an Atheist world, makes no rational sense at all. And there is no explanation for evil. The only conclusion to which an Atheist may come about that is that "evil" means "things many people don't like." But if they DO happen to like killing things or having a good steak, then there's nothing to say about that: their "liking," like everything else a person feels, is unrelated to any real or objective quality of what's going on in the world. Things are not objectively "evil," and the Atheist complainant should "grow up" and accept that nothing's wrong here: things die -- so what?

It is the madness of life that drives people crazy.

We drive ourselves crazy, too. We're crazy people sometimes.

So in this sense any given Christian -- even a fully committed one really trying to live well and properly and one under grace -- still lives in and participates in larger systems that are, beyond doubt, involved in layers of sin. This is part of our condition.

That is true. But Christians are obligated to strive not to be involved in such things. And the Christian life is a growth process whereby one progressively learns to walk with God, and to be less and less implicated in this evil world's systems and doings, and instead to be involved in God's program of salvation for the world.

So it seems that a benevolent God -- let us say that the God who sees us, who looks down on us from a realm outside of cause & effect, could only have levels of compassion for creatures who must live in such conditions.

Did you ever wonder what the cross was about?

Grace is offered to those who sincerely make the best effort.

The opposite is true. "Best effort" is an attempt at earned merit; "grace" is unmerited kindness. The first problem that has to be dealt with is our judicial state of sin. That is, you and I have already been sinners, and have a big tab running up...and that's true of the best of us, as well. That tab must be paid, or God is not just and righteous, because He lets sinners sin and turns a blind eye to it. So the first question is, "How can a sinner like me ever be made acceptable to God," never mind the question of how I'm going to continue to be acceptable, and not keep sinning.

That's the second question. When my judicial state, the tab for my existing sin, has been paid, what about the rest of my fallibilities and sins? So even those sins must be included in the grace God provides, or I won't stay acceptable to God for fifteen minutes before some sin, no matter how small, puts me in debt again.

The third question is what I'm going to actually do from here. And on that, the answer is twofold: first, submit to God for a metanoia, and then continue in growth and obedience, conscious of how much you've been forgiven and how much you really owe. And accept the help of God in that...the real, actual, dynamic help of God through His Spirit, so that you may become more the person you should be. And at the Lord's coming, you will be made everything you always should have been.

Or the other alternative, then non-Christian alternative, is to refuse some part of that. Obviously, one can refuse to acknowledge that one is a sinner or that one has any debt to God. Another thing one can refuse is to decide that all that's required is a collosal effort of "being good"; or even worse, just a "sincere effort," or a "trying harder" by oneself. But one is still the same powerless sinner one always was, so one is going to fail again and again; and with no forgiveness for that, what is one going to do?

Salvation is relief from this hopeless cycle of trying to make oneself "good enough" to please God..or even to satisfy oneself that one is inherently a "good person". It's a recognition of the cold, hard fact of one's sin and failure, and an appeal to God for His grace and help, not a renewing of one's own efforts in a vain attempt to come up to a standard one can never even dream of really hitting.

[Belinda]

Being a good person is known to the person who introspects and finds integrity at the deeper part of their thinking and feeling.

Have you ever visited a penal institution...minimum, medium or maximum security? You'll find that it's positively filled with people who "introspect and find integrity" in themselves. They''ll tell you, "I'm a good guy, really; I don't belong in here." Even the most honest will only say, "I made a mistake...one mistake...but really, I'm a good person."

So much for the "introspection" and judgment of human beings. Whenever we judge ourselves, we always put our fingers down firmly on our own side of the scales. We're always "good enough" to satisfy "The Judicial Court of Me."

Compare ourselves to the righteousness of God, and we know where we really are. But almost nobody does that.

If the criminal, however revolting his crimes, finds that core respect for his own integrity then he has it and it saves him from despair.

[Immanuel Can]

Being a good person is known to the person who introspects and finds integrity at the deeper part of their thinking and feeling.

Have you ever visited a penal institution...minimum, medium or maximum security? You'll find that it's positively filled with people who "introspect and find integrity" in themselves. They''ll tell you, "I'm a good guy, really; I don't belong in here." Even the most honest will only say, "I made a mistake...one mistake...but really, I'm a good person."

So much for the "introspection" and judgment of human beings. Whenever we judge ourselves, we always put our fingers down firmly on our own side of the scales. We're always "good enough" to satisfy "The Judicial Court of Me."

Compare ourselves to the righteousness of God, and we know where we really are. But almost nobody does that.

If the criminal, however revolting his crimes, finds that core respect for his own integrity then he has it and it saves him from despair.

His problem is not his self image. We all have lots of that. It's that he doesn't accept responsibility for anything the's done. His evaluation of the importance of all his "good" deeds is high, and his evalution of the evil he did, whether he merely embezzled or perjured himself or raped and murdered, is low: and he wrongly imagines that we can offset evil by appealing to those moments when we were "good."

It's like saying, "Yeah, sure, I raped and killed a girl; but I also worked for years in a children's charity, so let's call it a wash." Good luck making that appeal to any judge that has even a clue about justice or knows how the law works.

About his "integrity," he's wrong. And the "saving" of his self-image is the real problem: because it's the arrogance that keeps him from realizing how awful he's been, that he's a sinner, and of admitting to himself that nothing but the real help of God will get him out of the mess he is.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Truth be told, the Catholic position (the official "Church" one) is perfectly harmonious with the kind of belief that a person who doesn't know God at all is likely to have. That is, it (rather common-sensically) holds that people are saved by working hard at being good ("good" being defined by being Catholicly devout and Catholicly ethical, and with the sacraments and ceremonies of "the Church.")

It seems to me that the Catholic notion is similar to the notion that you hold -- Grace is received -- but the main difference, or one significant difference, is that one is obligated to live one's faith through undertaking tangible activities. So it is not that one's actions bring about Grace (forgiveness or salvation or the state of Grace) but rather that it is needful to work tangibly in directions recognized as positive, needed, necessary, etc.

Unfortunately for Catholicism, Christianity teaches something quite different from what ordinary sense suggests. Instead of teaching us simply to "work harder," (whether at ceremonies or ethics), it says, "The problem is deeper; you're the wrong kind of person for this task, and need a metanoia, a renovation of mind and action. You need to be born again."

I do not think that Catholicism says anything different in essence. But I will agree that Catholicism tends to create lazy, complacent persons who go through various motions of faith (as I might call them) and don't renew their faith everyday.

However, my experience of Catholic doctrine comes to me mostly through written material, and of the pre-Vatican ll sort, and I can definitely attest that all the admonitions of faith-renewal and of recommitment are all there.

One notable advantage in the Evangelical form is that it tends to focus on the individual and that individual's immediate relationship.

That's a conflict. Catholicism essentially says, "You need not be born again." (And adds, the doctrine of "general grace" will take care of it all.) Christ says, "You must be born again...unless a man is born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God" at all.

Many who are Protestant-Evangelical come to the religious mode because they desire to have a very active, energized spiritual and religious commitment. Many people leave Catholicism because they seek that renewal or re-energizing in the Protestant-Evangelical form. People who are born into a religious tradition, like Catholicism, tend to perform it like a tired ritual which does not affect them nor even involve them substantially. And it is definitely true that Catholic ritual in many churches is tired, worn-out, ritualistic, and all the rest.

But there is a newer movement within Catholicism (Catholic traditionalism) which seeks ways to revivify the entire connection. It sees Vatican ll as destructive to a faith-life. It is aware of the profound corruption in the Church and seeks to remediate it.

[Immanuel Can]

Truth be told, the Catholic position (the official "Church" one) is perfectly harmonious with the kind of belief that a person who doesn't know God at all is likely to have. That is, it (rather common-sensically) holds that people are saved by working hard at being good ("good" being defined by being Catholicly devout and Catholicly ethical, and with the sacraments and ceremonies of "the Church.")

It seems to me that the Catholic notion is similar to the notion that you hold

Worlds apart, actually.

...one significant difference, is that one is obligated to live one's faith through undertaking tangible activities.

No, both Catholics and Christians would say that one is obligated to live out one's faith through tangible activities. The difference really is that the Catholics believe those activities actually save you. Christians know they do not. God's grace saves you, through faith. Works are the "fruit" of faith; they are not the cause of salvation. They are evidence that salvation has already happened; they are not the dynamic of that salvation.

Unfortunately for Catholicism, Christianity teaches something quite different from what ordinary sense suggests. Instead of teaching us simply to "work harder," (whether at ceremonies or ethics), it says, "The problem is deeper; you're the wrong kind of person for this task, and need a metanoia, a renovation of mind and action. You need to be born again."

I do not think that Catholicism says anything different in essence.

It does. It says you are not saved by being "born again": you are saved, according to Cathoicism, by membership in "the Church," as evidenced by conformity to the sacraments, sacrifices and ceremonies demanded by the Cathlolic Church.

"Extra ecclesiam nulla salus" is the Catholic axiom. It reads, "Without the Church, no salvation."

But I will agree that Catholicism tends to create lazy, complacent persons who go through various motions of faith (as I might call them) and don't renew their faith everyday.

Okay, but I find some Catholics unbelievably hard working, serious about their beliefs and commmitted. However, casual observation suggests that maybe you are also right about some. That is a human fault, not specific to Catholics.

I try to confine my comments to the Catholic hierarchy and their declared doctrine. I have a great deal of respect for the individual Catholics I know, and number many as my friends. That we do not agree about doctrine is no reason for me to have contempt for them. Nor would I. But I do disagree with the formal pronouncements and dogma of the Catholic Church on many points. That much is so.

However, my experience of Catholic doctrine comes to me mostly through written material...

That's the right way to decide what you think of it.

...I can definitely attest that all the admonitions of faith-renewal and of recommitment are all there.

Then you must look closer at what they are actually saying, if you want to know what they really think. You will never find them saying that Christ alone, and faith in Him by the individual, is sufficent for salvation. You will find instead a long list of duties, confessions, practices and rituals that, if all performed, are intended to promise a salvation.

One notable advantage in the Evangelical form is that it tends to focus on the individual and that individual's immediate relationship.

That is the Christian view. It's also the Biblical one.

People who are born into a religious tradition, like Catholicism, tend to perform it like a tired ritual which does not affect them nor even involve them substantially. And it is definitely true that Catholic ritual in many churches is tired, worn-out, ritualistic, and all the rest.

Okay, maybe so.

But there is a newer movement within Catholicism (Catholic traditionalism) which seeks ways to revivify the entire connection. It sees Vatican ll as destructive to a faith-life. It is aware of the profound corruption in the Church and seeks to remediate it.

Yes. They want to return to an older practice of Catholicism. Some are mere traditionalists, it's true. Some even want to revert to the Latin Mass, which they see as more "holy" than the vernacular. But I think there is also an earnestness among them to return to more traditional, historical Catholic ethics, as well. And I don't doubt that some are quite sincere...though sincerely following the wrong doctrine.

[Lacewing]

though I understand the need for and the value of 'the story', the story is not sufficient for one who really thinks things through.

I agree. My focus has been (not just here, but for my own life -- and it was probably partly fueled by my Christian upbringing) to not hand myself over to anyone else's story about what I should believe or be connected to, but to intuit the truth of what I'm connected to. I've felt an innate connection to nature and life since my earliest memories as a child -- the adult humans (even then) seemed to be a bit out of their minds, but I felt a love and beauty beyond that without anyone telling me to do so, nor telling me how to do it.

Stories that tell me who I am, or how I must be -- and the people who foolishly present them -- deserve fiercely direct correction (or mocking). This is not because I am some lawless, thoughtless renegade of no morals or direction -- rather, this is EXACTLY BECAUSE I HAVE travelled a personal path focused on clarity and an open awareness, and with an innate sense of goodness and connectivity throughout all things which I have continually explored and nurtured. I not only see and accept that there is more truth than in stories, I live it.

Perhaps I am a spiritually-inclined person who has learned and continues to learn how to live a respectfully vibrant life in gratitude and harmony with that which is greater than myself (and that I'm a part of), and I do this without making up or subscribing to any story about an identity or hierarchy or purpose of what that is. Such ideas are unnecessary (for me, and I think that's interesting to recognize). I also sense no division or wrongness. Why anyone else would project that onto me is interesting to investigate.

Potential is wide-open... which is exactly why it's fascinating to explore why people choose all kinds of positive/negative paths whether or not they subscribe to theism. From my own experience and perspective, if a person can choose and follow a path as I've suggested above without any need for hierarchical theist stories, how much more truth is there than those theist stories? I think such ability/potential is as relevant and useful as any theistic claim of human potential associated with a god.

I recognize the value of theist beliefs at the level of the individual and their communities. I think it has grossly overreached and become terribly distorted and destructive beyond that. I'm not focused on dismantling it -- I'm focused on the truths behind the curtain (so to speak) and I'm focused on broader potential that is typically denied and condemned by theists. If my challenges focused on broader truth and greater potential somehow disrupt the theist model, that is simply a side-effect of looking beyond it and recognizing there is more... which countless people are doing.

The message I would like to offer is that the spiritual world is not flat, and one will not fall off the edge if one moves beyond theism. Rather, one will surely discover how much larger and grander one's belonging/part naturally is within ALL, and there is no fear when one's intentions are positively aligned. The power and significance of energy become more evident, it seems -- our intentions and thoughts are very creative -- and we no longer blame them (or the results) on good and bad figures/symbols, nor do we hide ourselves away in impenetrable robes of belief.

Contrary to Mr. Can's claims about the pitfalls of non-theists having no established moral direction, it is (from my perspective) infinitely better to have and master one's own ability and sight for choosing and creating direction aligned with one's own positive intentions, for every moment/situation/challenge. An established direction does not guarantee (or even inspire) anything for those whose intentions are not positively aligned. Being a theist does not control that. Neither is a lack determined by being a non-theist. We are amazing beings... capable of extraordinary things... and if there's a god, surely that god would be aiming us to discover and expand through that capability we've been given... rather than reading old books and following old stories and locking everything down into humanly-controllable and distorted notions that attend our egos and dance for our fears.

we can push open this conversation and move it toward realms of *truth-telling*

I think that's very valuable. It is not truthful to intentionally exclude/deny truth.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I try to confine my comments to the Catholic hierarchy and their declared doctrine. I have a great deal of respect for the individual Catholics I know, and number many as my friends. That we do not agree about doctrine is no reason for me to have contempt for them. Nor would I. But I do disagree with the formal pronouncements and dogma of the Catholic Church on many points. That much is so.

There is a Catholic Encyclopedia on-line which has been useful to me in my own researches.

There, the differences between Catholic and Protestant views are explored. I believe I read this at one time, or enough to grasp that: Catholics also see salvation and justification as a gift that man cannot attain through any specific act or action.

I do not have the time (right now) to read through this again. Except to quote this:

Since justification as an application of the Redemption to the individual presupposes the fall of the entire human race, the Council of Trent quite logically begins with the fundamental statement that original sin has weakened and deflected, but not entirely destroyed or extinguished the freedom of the human will (Trent, sess. VI, cap. i: "Liberum arbitrium minime extinctum, viribus licet attenuatum et inclinatum"). Nevertheless, as the children of Adam were really corrupted by original sin, they could not of themselves arise from their fall nor shake off the bonds of sin, death, and Satan. Neither the natural faculties left in man, nor the observance of the Jewish Law could achieve this. Since God alone was able to free us from this great misery, He sent in His infinite love His only begotten Son Jesus Christ, Who by His bitter passion and death on the cross redeemed fallen man and thus became the Mediator between God and man. But if the grace of Redemption merited by Christ is to be appropriated by the individual, he must be "regenerated by God", that is he must be justified. What then is meant by justification? Justification denotes that change or transformation in the soul by which man is transferred from the state of original sin, in which as a child of Adam he was born, to that of grace and Divine sonship through Jesus Christ, the second Adam, our Redeemer (l.c., cap.iv: "Justificatio impii. . . translatio ab eo statu, in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adae, in statum gratiae et adoptionis filiorum Dei per secundum Adam, Jesum Christum, Salvatorem nostrum"). In the New Law this justification cannot, according to Christ's precept, be effected except at the fountain of regeneration, that is, by the baptism of water. While in Baptism infants are forthwith cleansed of the stain of original sin without any preparation on their part, the adult must pass through a moral preparation, which consists essentially in turning from sin and towards God. This entire process receives its first impulse from the supernatural grace of vocation (absolutely independent of man's merits), and requires an intrinsic union of the Divine and human action, of grace and moral freedom of election, in such a manner, however, that the will can resist, and with full liberty reject the influence of grace (Trent, l.c., can.iv: "If any one should say that free will, moved and set in action by God, cannot cooperate by assenting to God's call, nor dissent if it wish. . . let him be anathema"). By this decree the Council not only condemned the Protestant view that the will in the reception of grace remains merely passive, but also forestalled the Jansenistic heresy regarding the impossibility of resisting actual grace. With what little right heretics in defence of their doctrine appeal to St. Augustine, may be seen from the following brief extract from his writings: "He who made you without your doing does not without your action justify you. Without your knowing He made you, with your willing He justifies you, but it is He who justifies, that the justice be not your own" (Serm. clxix, c. xi, n.13). Regarding St. Augustine's doctrine cf. J. Jausbach, "Die Ethik des hl. Augustinus", II, Freiburg, 1909, pp. 208-58.

I have a sense of where you might poke at or prod some points here (which you many not agree are 'true Christianity). Frankly I do not bother so much. I have my reasons.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Some even want to revert to the Latin Mass, which they see as more "holy" than the vernacular.

The Latin Mass, even when translated into the vernacular, is very very different from the modern mass. All one has to do is to read it through to prove it to oneself. You must remember: I am not a Catholic by birth. I have a spiritual life, and I have opted over 5-6 years to explore Christianity. And I have embraced Christianity to the degree that I can (and remain in integrity with myself).

I think the Christian tradition is superior (a dangerous, contentious word) because of its profundity into all dimensions of human life. It is philosophically far more ample than any tradition (Buddhism, Hinduism so-called) that I have encountered and it is deeply tied to who and what we are: our cultural traditions, our civic life, government, social welfare, social justice, ecology -- the list goes on and on and on. To study Christianity is . . . to study ourselves. I can provide many many examples to cement this point. (Consider how we conceive of love and marriage and the man-woman relationship for example: very infused with Christian values and valuation).

As I say I am an *intellectual Christian* in my external relations (the ideas I have and share, what I read, the way I order thought). But on the inner level all I can say is *I am what I am*. There is not really a way to share any of that in depth on a public forum and it would be rather vulgar to do so.

What I say (or what I would say to someone who asked) is do not abandon or give up on Christianity. It is far too wide, far too diverse, far to relevant, to justify abandonment. So, I think that there are ways in which can be explained. A way in means -- a way to appreciate, a way to receive something valuable, and possibly a way to come under the influence of something higher and metaphysical (or supernatural if you wish).

The Latin Mass is really just the tip of the iceberg as far as Traditional Catholicism goes. The liturgy, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, the philosophical and ethical writings, and also the historical prayers -- these open up into a world worth exploring in my opinion. It has been where I have gone to understand Christianity.

I have a feeling (it is a guess) that you might skip over most or all of this because of what looks to be classic Protestant bias! (But I do not suffer this issue. I am in so many ways "Protestant' in my frame of mind. And I was not raised in this conflict, which goes back centuries).

[Lacewing]

So in this sense any given Christian -- even a fully committed one really trying to live well and properly and one under grace -- still lives in and participates in larger systems that are, beyond doubt, involved in layers of sin. This is part of our condition.

So it seems that a benevolent God -- let us say that the God who sees us, who looks down on us from a realm outside of cause & effect, could only have levels of compassion for creatures who must live in such conditions. Grace is offered to those who sincerely make the best effort. But even to those who fail or stumble.

Yes! That makes sense. Compassion so much greater than the judgmental and controlling minds of story-telling men.

It is clearly mankind who continually and obsessively divides people into good and bad based on whether or not they meet/satisfy the conditions of a particular belief system, while theists claim it is not themselves who are judging... but a god.

If a theist cannot recognize this about their own beliefs, yet they are able to see it in another's belief system, why doesn't that 'truth-seeker' rigorously explore the over-arching implications of that which might shed light on the distortions and limitations that have been placed on their own god?

How much greater might a god be than the human limitations being imposed?

[owl of Minerva]

Belinda wrote:
Being a good person is not about believing some myth. Being a good person is known to the person who introspects and finds integrity at the deeper part of their thinking and feeling.

Lacewing wrote:
I agree, Belinda. And thank you.

Seeing beyond narratives seems appropriate for a philosophy forum such as this. I don't imagine we are here to insist and agree upon any one view... but rather, to explore multiple views, and question any single view. It does not seem difficult to notice how much more there is than any single view/belief. It seems especially valuable to question any belief/ideology that excludes/evaluates people based on what they don't believe.

…………………………………………

owl of Minerva:


The above makes sense and also passes the test of logic. To exclude any perspective or person in our quest for wisdom is neither common sense nor logic.

An empirical scientist tests his thought experiments against the physical and sensory world. A metaphysician tests her thought experiments against the abstract world which may include myths: the guiding forces of an entire era; the words of the prophets, and empirical science.

A dogmatist who is a secularist and fanatical about his point of view and defends it while inveigling against other faiths or unbelievers is neither a truth teller nor a seeker.

There has been a lot of the latter in some recent posts. The Catholic Church has come in for some bashing. Notwithstanding that it carried Christianity forward through the ascending arc of the Dark Age; the childhood of the race. It kept the dark Occult at bay during that vulnerable time. At times it was extreme in its mission, even St. Teresa was under threat at one point. It had room for those that were devotional as well as for those who were intellectual. It started some great universities and brought the Western portion of the human race to the Age of Reason. It is mostly in decline now and is mired in dogma.

Evangelical proselytizers have their own problems. They should quit proselytizing and criticizing and see in what way they can improve themselves. The rest of us will take care of ourselves without their input. They may feel they have a mission to convince us. They should remember that example speaks louder than words. Their example is not inviting.

[Immanuel Can]

In the New Law this justification cannot, according to Christ's precept, be effected except at the fountain of regeneration, that is, by the baptism of water.

This means that Catholicsm holds that water baptism is salvation. It's really only the first of what they call their "sacraments," all of which are necessary to keep the soul "in grace." Failure to follow up by continual "moral preparation" and continual "assent" by obedience to the Catholic practices has the result they explain below: complete loss of the purported "salvation."

While in Baptism infants

This means infants are "saved" this way. And since infants cannot believe, belief is not required and faith is not necessary. It's about external obedience, ceremony and "the Church," not what the individual chooses to believe independent of those.

...the adult must pass through a moral preparation, which consists essentially in turning from sin and towards God.[/quote]
This says that though infant baptism is salvific, the Catholic must later have this "confirmed" by "saving" actions.

...the will can resist, and with full liberty reject the influence of grace (Trent, l.c., can.iv: "If any one should say that free will, moved and set in action by God, cannot cooperate by assenting to God's call, nor dissent if it wish. . . let him be anathema").

In other words, a Catholic can be "saved" and still lost, if he decides to "dissent": and anybody who says otherwise is "anathema," which means "cursed."

By this decree the Council not only condemned the Protestant view ...

They're aware they're rejecting everything "Protestant," you see. So they know full well they're not just basically the same thing as Protestants do.

...that the will in the reception of grace remains merely passive,

This is what they imagine the Protestants must believe. They've got this wrong, of course. They think "sola gratia," or "only by grace" means passivity, rather than the active response of faith. They believe that unless they compel obedience by threat of Purgatory or damnation, people will just go crazy, and stop obeying the Catholic Church. So they think they must maintain salvation by works.

Here, they mention neither metanoia nor the work of God's indwelling Spirit in regenerating the believer, which are really key to understanding the Protestant view rightly.

That's what I mean by one having to pick through very carefully. What makes it really tricky is that the Catholic dogma uses much of the same vocabulary as Christians do ("grace," "reception," "baptism," "faith," "justification" and even "Jesus Christ, our Redeemer." But by all of these things, they mean something rather different. Catholic theology has its own unbiblical redefinitions of these terms.

So often, it takes a really knowledgeable theologian to detect the differences: but they are not insignificant, as you can even see from the Catholic side. They pronounce "accursed" anyone who disagrees, and name "Protestants" as chief among them.

[Age]

She thinks that some Christians do awful things; Christ says we have His permission (and His standard test) to doubt that anybody who does is His at all.

Now, can a Christian sin? Of course. Can a Christian make a mistake? Of course. But can a Christian continue in sin, not just sinning once but adopting a pattern of toxic "bad fruit" behaviour, not being aware of her guilt, repenting and changing her ways?

Christ says "No." Paul agrees. (Romans 6:12-14)

I think that what is being said is that a Christian, in regard to specific sorts of sin, which are generally understood as immoral lusts, etc., should not sin, but not that the Christian under grace cannot sin.

Right. And as I pointed out, a person isn't made sinless merely by believing something. And Christians have never claimed that was how it is. What they do say, though, is that being a Christian makes one a much better person than one otherwise would ever be. And that's a pretty good claim.

It is ACTUALLY a very RIDICULOUS claim.

And, just by making the claim PROVES that that one, which is a so-called "christian", is a much worse person than they otherwise could be.

It's also the right sort of claim: because it doesn't let me arrogantly compare myself with you, or with anybody else. it obligates me to realize what I am by nature, and compare that to what I'm being asked to become, and judge myself accordingly. There's no room for pride in that; such an assessment is inevitably humbling.

LOL

By naming and labeling "yourself" as a "christian" you are SEPARATING "yourself" from "others" while at the same time seeing "them" as "others" and as less than 'you'. This form of SEPARATING is making you the worst form of SEPARATIST there is. If you were born into and brought up in a "muslim" society, then we all KNOW what kind of "muslim separatist" you would be.

You are providing great examples here of just HOW DELUSIONAL 'you', adult human beings, were in the days when this was being written, as well as the reasons WHY. So, thank you AGAIN "immanuel can"

In my view that Catholic position is much more sound but those unfamiliar with the theological point may not get this.

Truth be told, the Catholic position (the official "Church" one) is perfectly harmonious with the kind of belief that a person who doesn't know God at all is likely to have. That is, it (rather common-sensically) holds that people are saved by working hard at being good ("good" being defined by being Catholicly devout and Catholicly ethical, and with the sacraments and ceremonies of "the Church.")

Unfortunately for Catholicism, Christianity teaches something quite different from what ordinary sense suggests. Instead of teaching us simply to "work harder," (whether at ceremonies or ethics), it says, "The problem is deeper; you're the wrong kind of person for this task, and need a metanoia, a renovation of mind and action. You need to be born again."

That's a conflict. Catholicism essentially says, "You need not be born again." (And adds, the doctrine of "general grace" will take care of it all.) Christ says, "You must be born again...unless a man is born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God" at all.

If I understand Lacewing's point it is that in so many different instances Christians we can name have 'fallen down' in dramatic ways.

We should not be so glib as to "name them Christians." According to Christ and Paul, we have authority to doubt their word. And given their manifest character, even ordinary wisdom tells us to doubt them.

...anything we do, any self-assertion, must take advantage of other living things. So if we clear a field to plant crops we must displace other life. When we cut down a tree we are doing what all creatures must do -- taking advantage of other forms of life.

That is true. But I'm not clear why that matters.

From the beginning, even before the Fall, plants were given to man for food. After the Fall, man began to be omnivorous...but now we're talking about a fallen, sinful world, not some ideal one. So there's no part of that that is hard to imagine, nor any that is not entirely consonant with what the Bible says is the case in a fallen world.

But here's a serious problem for Atheism. If there's no God, then this world ISN'T fallen. It is both as real and as "ideal' as it's ever going to be. And the death of anything, far from being a regretable or deplorable fact, is just "how things are."

So to be regretful that things die, in an Atheist world, makes no rational sense at all. And there is no explanation for evil. The only conclusion to which an Atheist may come about that is that "evil" means "things many people don't like." But if they DO happen to like killing things or having a good steak, then there's nothing to say about that: their "liking," like everything else a person feels, is unrelated to any real or objective quality of what's going on in the world. Things are not objectively "evil," and the Atheist complainant should "grow up" and accept that nothing's wrong here: things die -- so what?

It is the madness of life that drives people crazy.

We drive ourselves crazy, too. We're crazy people sometimes.

So in this sense any given Christian -- even a fully committed one really trying to live well and properly and one under grace -- still lives in and participates in larger systems that are, beyond doubt, involved in layers of sin. This is part of our condition.

That is true. But Christians are obligated to strive not to be involved in such things. And the Christian life is a growth process whereby one progressively learns to walk with God, and to be less and less implicated in this evil world's systems and doings, and instead to be involved in God's program of salvation for the world.

So it seems that a benevolent God -- let us say that the God who sees us, who looks down on us from a realm outside of cause & effect, could only have levels of compassion for creatures who must live in such conditions.

Did you ever wonder what the cross was about?

Grace is offered to those who sincerely make the best effort.

The opposite is true. "Best effort" is an attempt at earned merit; "grace" is unmerited kindness. The first problem that has to be dealt with is our judicial state of sin. That is, you and I have already been sinners, and have a big tab running up...and that's true of the best of us, as well. That tab must be paid, or God is not just and righteous, because He lets sinners sin and turns a blind eye to it. So the first question is, "How can a sinner like me ever be made acceptable to God," never mind the question of how I'm going to continue to be acceptable, and not keep sinning.

That's the second question. When my judicial state, the tab for my existing sin, has been paid, what about the rest of my fallibilities and sins? So even those sins must be included in the grace God provides, or I won't stay acceptable to God for fifteen minutes before some sin, no matter how small, puts me in debt again.

The third question is what I'm going to actually do from here. And on that, the answer is twofold: first, submit to God for a metanoia, and then continue in growth and obedience, conscious of how much you've been forgiven and how much you really owe. And accept the help of God in that...the real, actual, dynamic help of God through His Spirit, so that you may become more the person you should be. And at the Lord's coming, you will be made everything you always should have been.

Or the other alternative, then non-Christian alternative, is to refuse some part of that. Obviously, one can refuse to acknowledge that one is a sinner or that one has any debt to God. Another thing one can refuse is to decide that all that's required is a collosal effort of "being good"; or even worse, just a "sincere effort," or a "trying harder" by oneself. But one is still the same powerless sinner one always was, so one is going to fail again and again; and with no forgiveness for that, what is one going to do?

Salvation is relief from this hopeless cycle of trying to make oneself "good enough" to please God..or even to satisfy oneself that one is inherently a "good person". It's a recognition of the cold, hard fact of one's sin and failure, and an appeal to God for His grace and help, not a renewing of one's own efforts in a vain attempt to come up to a standard one can never even dream of really hitting.

[Immanuel Can]

I have embraced Christianity to the degree that I can (and remain in integrity with myself).

Nobody should be told to go beyond what they, in integrity, can believe. That's for sure.

At the same time, "Christian" is not just a term that can mean whatever I want it to mean. God has his own terms on which relationship with Him can be achieved; and those have to be respected at least as much -- and logically, more -- than any conditions a human may wish to impose from his or her side.

We come to God on God's terms, or not at all -- even if we think we have.

As I say I am an *intellectual Christian* in my external relations (the ideas I have and share, what I read, the way I order thought). But on the inner level all I can say is *I am what I am*. There is not really a way to share any of that in depth on a public forum and it would be rather vulgar to do so.

That's fair. And not everything is even suitable for sharing by private message. I'll let you set your own rules on that, of course, and not demand more.

Christianity is intellectual. It's intelligent, and capable of provoking deep philosophical insight, it's true. But it's never merely that. To be a Christian demands a commitment. Kierkegaard saw that. He despised the cold ritualism and shallow, uncommitted pseudo-Christianity of his Lutheran contemporaries, and called them out on their lack of a heart, over and over again.

And he was right.

What I say (or what I would say to someone who asked) is do not abandon or give up on Christianity.

I would say the only way somebody could do that is if he/she had never really known salvation or experienced being a Christian in the first place. Once one has really "been there," it's pretty clear that the last thing you would ever do is try to leave.

The Latin Mass is really just the tip of the iceberg as far as Traditional Catholicism goes. The liturgy, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, the philosophical and ethical writings, and also the historical prayers -- these open up into a world worth exploring in my opinion. It has been where I have gone to understand Christianity.

That's unfortunate. To be perfectly honest, I think you're looking for live bodies in a graveyard. There may be a few there, but they won't stay long. It's not a place for the living.

[Age]

If you people REALLY want to talk about and discuss "christianity" and 'sinning' here, then why do you NOT begin by coming together, peacefully, on agreement of what a "christian" and "christianity" is EXACTLY as well as what the word 'sin' means and refers to EXACTLY.

What will be found is that you can NOT YET even come to an agreement and an acceptance of what these words ACTUALLY MEAN and refer to, let alone even begin to have a Truly meaningful AND a logical discussion about those things.

"immanuel can" talks about "christians" and 'sinning' as though it KNOWS what it is talking about. But "immanuel can" CLEARLY does NOT.