Catholicism reverts (again)

[rusmeister]

C.S. Lewis; "Mere Christianity" ...

Hey, I remember you, rus.

Hi, F+F!
I'll cheerfully admit that MC, while being a good book, is not Lewis's best or deepest work. It was originally radio broadcasts on BBC to the public during the war and talks to RAF pilots that were going to fly and die, so I would describe it as a popular work, rather than a serious philosophical one. If you want something deeper, try "Miracles" or "The Problem of Pain". If you're ready to deal with facing death, try his autobiographical diary "A Grief Observed", written on the death of his wife of cancer.

I'll get to you, danlo!
(Aside, in Yoda's gravelly voice: "I cannot teach him. The boy has no patience.")

[Lord Mhoram]

russ,

You can only better yourself, and Christianity has performed astounding feats along these lines.

But again, all faiths do this. What makes Christianity the best at it?

For me, sin is a first principle. Its existence is beyond question and to question its existence is as brainless as to question reason. That is not being open-minded. It is denying that which has already been established (a nice way of saying 'foolish').

In other words, alternatives to your perspective simply aren't worth considering. This is why I'm not a Christian.

I said agnosticism as a philosophy. The idea that truth really cannot be reached.

As I said, that isn't what agnosticism is.

That is why God HAS removed Himself from the equation.

But we're only playing by His rules. He created the equation in the first place.

If a philosophical system is not viable, then it does not matter 'when'. It is never viable. The 12th century or 20th century makes no difference.

I can't think of very many philosophical systems that have no viability at all. The vast majority of them have something constructive to offer. They're all worth serious consideration.

With this I must disagree. They are merely the most vocal. I am not surprised that secular intellectuals are able to out-reason anti-intellectual Christians. Unless you are able to defeat the best champions, you are merely defeating straw men.

Who could possibly be a better champion of Christianity than, say, Joseph Ratzinger? I disagree with him on practically everything, but I have to admit, he's absolutely brilliant. One of the best thinkers the Church has had on its side in the past century at least.

But it is not - if it happens to actually be true.

But this is not provable.

Thanks for your thoughtful replies! [/quote
Likewise.

[Menolly]

A central tenet of Christianity that distinguishes it from most other major faiths is that all men are sinners.

I would say that is a central tenet of all the Abrahamic faiths. Buddhism also acknowledges this ("There is a cause of suffering.."). I don't see it as exclusively Christian at all.

LM...

I think I disagree here. At least, from a rabbinical, and not kabbalistic, Judaic POV.

Or, at least from what I think y'all mean as sinners.

...man, I so wish I knew where my TANACH was...translation differences between an Orthodox Jewish TANACH and what is called "The Old Testament" are so often the reasons for misunderstandings...

My understanding is that non-Jews who wish to be considered "rightious" only need follow the seven Noahide Laws. That's it. And even those who do not live such lives are not considered "sinners" in a general sense. The commandments are something we Jews take on by our acceptance of the covenant, not something we are doomed forever by.

...again, unsure if I'm stating this right...

[Lord Mhoram]

Hm, well doesn't Judaism say that an inherent part of being a human entails being unable to always follow God's will and laws?

[Menolly]

*nod*

But that still doesn't mean one is a sinner. At least, I don't think so.

For instance, say a severe diabetic is at the point where they should no longer fast (we only do complete fasts, meaning nothing into our bodies, including water, for the proscribed period) on fast days for medical reasons. Are they sinning when they request and receive dispensation from their rav to forego fasting (although it also must be done in a proscribed manner) for doing so? HaShem has dictated that we must fast at those times.

[Lord Mhoram]

I might be wrong, but isn't sin defined as disobeying God? If so, we're all sinners, because it's impossible for us to follow all of his rules. That's all I'm saying.

[Menolly]

You probably know better than I. But...I have just always known that I am doing a mitzvah by taking on a commandment, not sinning for not following one.

Uhm...positive reinforcement versus punishment perhaps?

Even asking for forgiveness for our sins on Yom Kippur...the sages say Shlach Lanu was written in such a way that the those chanting it knew they didn't commit most of what they are seeking forgiveness for in that prayer. The real repentance is when asking forgiveness from those here on Earth you offended over the past year before the fast even begins. If that isn't done, all of the fasting and prayer is moot anyway...

[Menolly]

*double post, sorry*

I really felt I wasn't expressing myself clearly in regards to Judaism's view on sin, so I went to IM with LM to discuss it further. He actually found the site that helped me express my thoughts.

From: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_Christianity

"The rabbis recognize a positive value to the yetzer hara: one tradition identifies it with God's observation on the last day of creation that His accomplishment was "very good" (God's work on the preceding days was just described as "good") and explain that without the yetzer ha'ra there would be no marriage, children, commerce or other fruits of human labor; the implication is that yetzer ha'tov and yetzer ha'ra are best understood not as moral categories of good and evil but as selfless versus selfish orientations, either of which used rightly can serve God's will."

"Another explanation is, without the existence of the yetzer ha'ra, there would be no merit earned in following God's commandments; choice is only meaningful if there has indeed been a choice made. So whereas creation was "good" before, it became "very good" when the evil inclination was added, for then it became possible to truly say that man could make a true choice to obey God's "mitzvot" (wishes or commandments). This is because Judaism views the following of God's ways as a desirable end in and of itself rather than a means to an end."

"The liturgy of the Days of Awe (the High Holy Days; i.e. Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur) states that prayer, repentance and tzedakah (the dutiful giving of charity) atone for sin. But prayer cannot atone for wrongs done, without an honest sincere attempt to rectify any wrong done to the best of one's ability, and the sincere intention to avoid repetition. Atonement to Jews means to repent and set aside, and the word "T'shuvah" used for atonement actually means "to return". Judaism is optimistic in that it always sees a way that a determined person may return to what is good, and that God waits for that day too."

"Thus fundamentally in Judaism, one is enjoined to bring holiness into life (with the guidance of Gods laws), rather than removing oneself from life to be holy."

The purpose of the 613 mitzvot is to make life Holy, not to be cast in Judgment.

If I am still not clear, I'm sorry. I tried.

[rusmeister]

I've found that the podcasts that can be found on this site gives a good overall view of the Orthodox Church perspective and doctrine.

That is a totally rocking site! I love those guys!

[emotional leper]

*Cries* I wish there were other places to turn for information on my religion than the Classics and History Books.

[rusmeister]

Again, my apologies. This stuff takes a long time, something that may eventually force me to abandon this.

To Danlo:

Are you familiar with Father Valdimir and Valaam?

I am familiar with the Valaam monastary. Not sure on your ref. to Fr. Vladimir.

But again, all faiths do this. What makes Christianity the best at it?

I will say rather, unique, rather than best, in pointing out that (sticking to Orthodox Christianity here) while effort is required from us, we cannot do it on our own. We must make the effort, but it is God who saves us. We cannot improve our nature, but with God’s help to our efforts, living a holy life is possible. A holy life, put in non-Christian layman terms, might be better understood as a life in harmony with what we were actually designed to be; sin being use of our bodies and minds in ways that are actually damaging on one plane or another – physical, mental, spiritual. But the fact is we need supernatural help to do this.

In other words, alternatives to your perspective simply aren't worth considering. This is why I'm not a Christian.

Perhaps the key is other words. Maybe you recognize sin under another term.
But if you object to a mind that has come to a definite conclusion, well, all I’ll say is that is the purpose of reason, to strive to come to conclusions.

As I said, that isn't what agnosticism is.

Again, different definitions. I’m saying that there is a difference between not having come to a conclusion yet and holding a philosophy that one cannot come to a definite conclusion. If you are in the former state, then you just haven’t been able to form your conclusion yet (and you cannot deny the possibility that I may really have come to a (the) correct conclusion). If the latter, then we have a fundamental disagreement that shuts the discussion down.

But we're only playing by His rules.

This seems to imply that there may be different rules. What if they are the only rules?

Re: Ratzinger – If the foundations of one’s reasoning are wrong, then he still hasn’t been beaten, except in one’s own mind.

But this is not provable.

This is where faith comes in, assuming you are speaking about empirical proof. If we set that aside, your own experience of your own soul and your own life can offer sufficient proof of the non-scientific kind.

I might be wrong, but isn't sin defined as disobeying God? If so, we're all sinners, because it's impossible for us to follow all of his rules. That's all I'm saying.

What is the Orthodox definition of sin?


ANSWER:

In Greek -- the language in which the New Testament was written -- the word for "sin" is "amartia," which literally means "to miss the mark." For Christians, the "mark" for which we strive is to live in communion with God, basing our lives and actions on the life and actions of Jesus Christ; hence, when we "miss this mark" we sin.

The Church Fathers further acknowledge that sin is a personal power or force that has usurped the government of the world as created by God and has tainted creation after the Fall of Adam. Jesus Christ took on our nature and entered into the world in order to deliver mankind, through His death and resurrection, from this force and its consequences, the chief of which is death.

Orthodox Christians believe that sin may be voluntary or involuntary and conscious or unconscious and that sin is always personal in nature, leaving each person to account for what he or she has done or left undone.

www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=148&SID=3

You are absolutely correct. We are all sinners and cannot obey the Law in all points. There was only one Man who ever did.

Judaism views the following of God's ways as a desirable end in and of itself rather than a means to an end."

"Thus fundamentally in Judaism, one is enjoined to bring holiness into life (with the guidance of Gods laws), rather than removing oneself from life to be holy."

These comments, seemingly presenting the ideas as unique to Judaism, vis-a-vis Christianity, are actually common to orthodox Christianity. Following God’s ways means not sinning (see above), and in bringing holiness into our lives.

I realize that you may fully disagree with all of this. Have I at least made a case that Christianity has a rational basis?

[Menolly]

I might be wrong, but isn't sin defined as disobeying God? If so, we're all sinners, because it's impossible for us to follow all of his rules. That's all I'm saying.

What is the Orthodox definition of sin?


ANSWER:

In Greek -- the language in which the New Testament was written -- the word for "sin" is "amartia," which literally means "to miss the mark." For Christians, the "mark" for which we strive is to live in communion with God, basing our lives and actions on the life and actions of Jesus Christ; hence, when we "miss this mark" we sin.

The Church Fathers further acknowledge that sin is a personal power or force that has usurped the government of the world as created by God and has tainted creation after the Fall of Adam. Jesus Christ took on our nature and entered into the world in order to deliver mankind, through His death and resurrection, from this force and its consequences, the chief of which is death.

Orthodox Christians believe that sin may be voluntary or involuntary and conscious or unconscious and that sin is always personal in nature, leaving each person to account for what he or she has done or left undone.

www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=148&SID=3

You are absolutely correct. We are all sinners and cannot obey the Law in all points. There was only one Man who ever did.

Judaism views the following of God's ways as a desirable end in and of itself rather than a means to an end."

"Thus fundamentally in Judaism, one is enjoined to bring holiness into life (with the guidance of Gods laws), rather than removing oneself from life to be holy."

These comments, seemingly presenting the ideas as unique to Judaism, vis-a-vis Christianity, are actually common to orthodox Christianity. Following God’s ways means not sinning (see above), and in bringing holiness into our lives.

I realize that you may fully disagree with all of this. Have I at least made a case that Christianity has a rational basis?

I am not adept at expressing my thoughts well. I was not saying these ideas were unique to Judaism, but saying that LM's statement that all of the Abrahamic faiths hold that Man is a sinner as a central tenant is not true to Judaism. While the Orthodox Chr-stian Church may also feel that following HaShem's laws also brings holiness into our lives, it also believes that Man is fundamentally a sinner, hence the need for JC taking on the sins of the world. I was trying to point out that Judaism does not believe that. That should we not follow a mitzvot, we still are not sinners. We are not Judged for not doing so. Our lives simply do not gain the benefits of the holiness keeping the mitzvot would bring to it.

[rusmeister]

I am not adept at expressing my thoughts well. I was not saying these ideas were unique to Judaism, but saying that LM's statement that all of the Abrahamic faiths hold that Man is a sinner as a central tenant is not true to Judaism. While the Orthodox Chr-stian Church may also feel that following HaShem's laws also brings holiness into our lives, it also believes that Man is fundamentally a sinner, hence the need for JC taking on the sins of the world. I was trying to point out that Judaism does not believe that. That should we not follow a mitzvot, we still are not sinners. We are not Judged for not doing so. Our lives simply do not gain the benefits of the holiness keeping the mitzvot would bring to it.

We all suffer from expression failures from time to time. For me that time seems to be every day (the more so given that the dominant language where I am is Russian!).

I just wonder if the definitions of words like sin are really the same. It seems impossible to me to not see that the natural tendency of man is to take action for self, and that it requires effort of a supranatural sort (from a moral voice, or conscience, if you prefer) to overcome it. Sinning is easy and natural. A baby is not capable of loving; it must learn to love - and even then it starts from a need-love, which is still selfish (although not sin at all, in the understanding above). Put another way, righteousness was always something that needed to be attained. It was not natural -it required that effort. And it was still something ultimately imputed by God.

But I guess if our definitions are the same, then there's nothing to discuss.

Courtesy is like a drink from a mountain stream!

[Menolly]

But I guess if our definitions are the same, then there's nothing to discuss.

Courtesy is like a drink from a mountain stream!

*soft smile*

That it is.

I get frustrated with my own lack of being able to express myself clearly, but I hope never to snipe back at a fellow poster. While I find myself developing friendships and feelings for many here I post with, I try to keep in mind that anything I may find objectionable are merely words on a computer screen, and I need not react in kind.

[Avatar]

But they have always agreed that you
ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired.

Very true. In fact, over at the Hangar, Duchess posted an interesting article about the major social commonalities encountered in all societies, and that exact point, selfish being shunned, is among them.

But is selfishness shunned because people are naturally unselfish? Or is it shunned because selfishness is counter-productive to the continuance of that specific society?

--A

[rusmeister]

But they have always agreed that you
ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired.

Very true. In fact, over at the Hangar, Duchess posted an interesting article about the major social commonalities encountered in all societies, and that exact point, selfish being shunned, is among them.

But is selfishness shunned because people are naturally unselfish? Or is it shunned because selfishness is counter-productive to the continuance of that specific society?

--A

The first answer is obviously not the case. The second is closer to the truth, but I would say that it is much broader than merely c-p to the continuance of a society. The Christian posit is that the individual is infinitely more important than the society, more specifically, in terms of his eternal fate ('its' sounds too impersonal). So selfishness (not speaking of mere desire, but any act of placing the self above others) is counter-productive to the spiritual state of the individual; the one person who we can truly strive to improve. That's why Christ's saying

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and all thy souls, and all thy mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like unto it. Love thy neighbor as thyself."

reveals the proper relationship of man to both God and society, and the self must be put in the back seat. So the true purpose of Christianity is not that of bettering the world, but rather the self - by striving to live in the way that He designed us for. (This can have the side effect of improving the world, but the world is temporal in any event, and so one's eternal fate is far more important. I would say this is why Christianity tends to stick out for having martyrs. Events and worldly concerns -such as politics - tend to dramatically decrease in importance to nil in the face of eternity.)

[Avatar]

Haha, we're looking at this from two completely different perspectives.

What I'm effectively saying is that, since selfishness is a fairly "natural" condition, the opposite is not "natural" but rather inculcated. In other words, society creates its own morality/standards based on the needs of that society.

In other words, that we do not, in and of ourselves, automatically know what is "good" and what is not. We're taught it, that's all.

--A

[emotional leper]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall reading that the word in the Bible that is translated as 'Sin,' in the original Hebrew, means something more along the lines of 'Missing the Mark,' or 'Falling Short.'

[Avatar]

The only sin is to limit the Is. Don't.

--A

[Menolly]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall reading that the word in the Bible that is translated as 'Sin,' in the original Hebrew, means something more along the lines of 'Missing the Mark,' or 'Falling Short.'

I believe rus said something similar earlier, regarding Greek instead of Hebrew.

The only sin is to limit the Is. Don't.

I like that one too, Av. I'm thinking maybe I should read some Richard Bach...