gotcwlpq

gotcwlpq

Christianity teaches we are made in the image and likeness of God.
Crossanity teaches you to make God into an image you like.
Crossanity...Just perfect Tim J.

Patrick: Jesus didn't "believe" anything; He's God; He knows.

Let's all pray for Realist. This meeting of the Communion of Saints is now called to order!

Bear: Me, too. Tim J: You got it exactly right; he wants a belief system he can fit inside his head. That's not much of a god. Arius and Nestorius suffered from the same disease. There's evidence that Nestorius repented and returned to orthodoxy; there's hope for Realist, too.

Since Jesus' crucifixion however was an act of free will not by Jesus but of Pontius Pilate
Wrong. To take a passive role is an act of will. Therefore, by refusing to use supernatural or natural means in preventing his crucifixion, Christ's act was one of free will.

one, IMHO, must be a bit cautious about making it The Event in Jesus' life.
Thank you Realist, for stating plainly your beliefs. Like Tim says, I doubt there is much anyone can say to you at this point. But you do really need to get a handle on the fact that this is not some "minor" disagreement. It is, in fact, a denial of the very basis of the Christian Faith. Whether or not you think it true, you must at least realize that it is in no way Christianity, and you are not anywhere near our faith.
As for me, I agree with what St. Paul said: "I preach Christ, and Him crucified."
As before, I'll be praying for you.

Realist-
I will be praying to Our Lord through his Blessed Mother to free your mind from that nonsense.
I will not try to reason with you any longer, because your problem is not intellectual, but spiritual.
You want a belief system that you can fit into your head... and you have one. Congratulations. But what a shriveled and anemic thing it is.
You talk glibly about free will, as if what we do with it doesn't matter. As if we will not be called to account about how we use it during our lives.
I pray that someday soon you will be converted to Christianity, and will leave behind the cramped and tepid Crossanity that now claims your allegiance.
It's never too late.

Realist,
If you and I disagree on a matter of faith and morals who is the final authority?
The Bible says if you have a dispute "take it to the Church" (Matt. 18:17) because "the Church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth" (1 Tim 3:15) with the authority to "bind and loose" (Matt 18:18) it even makes God's wisdom known to the angels! (Eph. 3:10)
When Our Blessed Lord sent the seventy out He sent them out with His authority. (Luke 10:16)
On the road to Damascus Saul heard Lord's voice ask him "Saul why do you persecute Me?" (Acts 9:4). Saul was laying waste the Church (Acts 8:3) the Mystical Body of Christ (Eph. 5:29-32).
Our Blessed Lord said to "seek first His kingdom" (Matt. 6:33) and then gave the keys of the kingdom to Peter alone and promised nothing would prevail against His Church (Matt. 16:18-19)
The Church founded by Our Blessed Lord has His authority and guarantee. Yes free will is a great gift from the Lord. You can and have chosen to reject Him and His Bride, the Church, at the risk of your immortal soul.
J+M+J

Dear Bear,
The Crucifixion is a bit off-thread but since you asked:
As per JD Crossan, of all the historical events in the Bible, the crucifixion of Jesus has the most attestations and definitely occurred.
5+. Crucifixion of Jesus:(1) 1 Cor 15:3b; (2a) Gos. Pet. 4:10-5:16,18-20; 6:22; (2b) Mark 15:22-38 = Matt 27:33-51a = Luke 23:32-46; (2c) John 19:17b-25a,28-36; (3) Barn. 7:3-5; (4a) 1 Clem. 16:3-4 (=Isaiah 53:1-12); (4b) 1 Clem. 16.15-16 (=Psalm 22:6-8); (5a) Ign. Mag. 11; (5b) Ign. Trall. 9:1b; (5c) Ign. Smyrn. 1.2.
Since Jesus' crucifixion however was an act of free will not by Jesus but of Pontius Pilate, one, IMHO, must be a bit cautious about making it The Event in Jesus' life. As noted previously, Pilate could just have easily banished Jesus to Crete. Should we then thank Pilate for our religion?
It is the sayings and examples of Jesus, IMHO, that are the basis of our Catholicism. I am sure you disagree but that is the beauty of God's gifts of free will and future.

Realist,
Looking at the O.T., N.T. and Sacred Tradition is EXACTLY how the commission dealing with the question of limbo will seek the answer and present their suggestion to the Pope.
It is the Pope who has the FINAL word and not "usa catholic in name only" college teachers or you or me.

"Why not just say that everyone's going to heaven. That's where JPII's thought was headed"
Please read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 1033 through 1037 for it's current teaching on hell, Jeb. (Hint: it's the same as it's been for nearly 2000 years!) It's too much to copy into this thread but it's available online. (For free, even!) It was under JPII's pontificate that the CCC was revised & he approved of it. So, respectfully Jeb, you're mistaken. And that's only one proof I can give to show that your are.

Hmm..let's think, THE FALL?!?!?!
Um...
Duh.
Realist, as others have said, you have now denied original sin and genesis. I ask you this.
What part of Christianity DO you agree with? What HASN'T been subverted by your sweet modern views? Church too ancient for ya?

Bear's question still stands; where did this "tendency to sin" come from?
Out of a hat?

Sorry! Post to Patrick was from me. Trying to do too many things at once.

oops! non serviam...correcting my misspelling.

Realist and Patrick,
You're welcome, I suppose. I will give credit where it is due, and if it makes you feel any better to know that there are others who agree with you, so be it. But those others do not hold the teaching of the Church, and are in fact in dissent, so I don't know why that pleases you.
Neither of you have answered my questions, however: how can you remain Catholic while denying the most fundamental doctrines of the faith? Namely, Christ. Why not call a spade a spade and say you don't believe in it anymore?
Please, just answer me this: what, to you, is the meaning of the Crucifixion? If it is not to save us from our sins, you do not believe in Christianity.

Realist,
And if those "modern theologians" keep agreeing with you and deny the DOCTRINE of Orignal Sin you will all end up together exactly where YOU want...University of NON SERVUM, but the only laughing will be from Dean Lu Cifer and staff.
I hope for the sake of your immortal soul that you are as smart as you think you are and discover the Truth.
J+M+J

Dear Realist,
Viewing "original sin" as man's common tendency (a/k/a evil impulse) to sin is in keeping with the common Jewish view at the time of Jesus and is probably what Jesus believed. It is also in agreement with many modern Catholic theologians.

Dear Bear,
"Some agree with you(Realist), yes, but perhaps not as many as you'd like to think."
Danke Schoen!!!!

Realist, because you deny the very foundation of Christanity -- Christ the Savior -- what do you think the essence of Christianity is?
And since you do admit that man has a "tendency to sin"... where does that tendency come from? Do you contend that a perfect God made man imperfect?
Catholicism teaches that man was made perfect (little-p perfect) but free. He abused his freedom, and thence came his "tendency to sin."
You remind me of the preacher in Flannery O'Connor's "Wise Blood" who wanted to teach "Christianity Without Christ". Because that's exactly what "Christianity Without Original Sin" is.
Also, please look to your unwarranted generalizations. I attended (very recently) a "major US Catholic University" that even has a reputation for being liberal, and most of our teachers there still taught about original sin, etc. Some agree with you, yes, but perhaps not as many as you'd like to think.

Who taught you religion Realist ?

Hey, Inocencio, he did it again! He has a real talent for proving you right!

Dear Inocenio,
If the "limbo-original sin dilemma" could be solved by simply quoting from the OT, NT and the CC, there would be no need to have 30 theologians headed by B16 to address the problem.
And to reiterate what is being taught in major Catholic universities:
"The story of Adam and Eve is only symbolic.
Yes, this story was composed in the 900s BCE and functions as an etiology
(explanatory myth) . In the 900s Israel was self ruling, under King David
and Solomon. The people were no longer at war and the question" Why are we
not happy?" may have risen. The short answer is sin. (Look at 1 Kings 11 for
some clues into why the story depicts Eve sinning first and then tempting
Adam [Solomon]).
7. Original sin is therefore only symbolic of man's tendencies to sin.
Yes, I teach Original Sin as symbolic of the sins of our origins -- in our
families and in the broader society, both of which affect each person
profoundly. The "sins of our origins" approach helps to account for certain
patters of sin in particular families and societies.
8. Baptism does not erase original sin since the sin does not exist. Yes, the old "laundry of the soul," approach to Baptism is no longeraccepted.
9. Infant Baptism is only a rite of initiation and commits parents and godparents to bringing up the child in a Christian home.
Yes, but, since baptism is now celebrated at Sunday Eucharist, all the
members of the parish family are encouraged to pledge their support and care
for the faith life of the newly baptized. (A manifestation of this is
persons volunteering to teach other people's kids the basics of
Catholicism.)"

Keep feeding em and more will show up.
Just tell em the cafeteria is closed.

Realist,
I already pointed to the writings of St. Irenaeus showing the understanding of Original Sin, if not using that term, in 180 A.D. Our Blessed Lord came because all men need a savior.
The teaching of course goes back even before that. St. Paul confirms what David wrote in Psalm LI 5:
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Romans V 18: Then as one man's (Adam) trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's (Christ) act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.
I posted from the Catechism that Original Sin is a DOCTRINE of the Church (CCC 389) not St. Augustine who gave us the term Original Sin as the Church clarified its teachings. Because it is a DOCTRINE Pope Benedict XVI can only confirm it not deny it.
and from the Catechism again:
CCC 1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
Your concern for unbaptized children is to be commended, especially for those who are murdered by abortion.
Entrust them to the mercy of God. Do not choose hell because you can't comprehend the mystery of God's justice and mercy. None of us can comprehend it. That is why we have the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ (Eph V 29), the pillar and bulwark of the Truth (1 Tim III 15)to guide us. But to deny a DOCTRINE of the Church (Matt. XVIII 17) is heresy. Do not risk eternal damnation because of pride.
I am glad you have your baptismal certificate to remind you to live out the grace you received from the Sacrament.
Good night it is late and I want to get up early so I can get my children ready to attend Mass tomorrow for the Feast of the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION of the Virgin Mary.
O Mary conceived without sin pray for us who have recourse to thee. Amen. J+M+J

Augustine's original sin doctrine has eternally condemned/isolated millions upon millions of aborted and stillborn global brothers and sisters to some phantom/border spirit state called limbo. How can one rationalize such a doctrine?
Not true, Realist. It has led some to speculate on limbo. It has never been held dogmatically by the Church.
What the doctrine of Original Sin has done, however, is lead us to recognize the fact that we need salvation through Christ.
Your denial of Original Sin means you deny that you need Christ, and that the Crucifixion was a mistake. How shall we rationalize that, and still call ourselves Christian?

Dear Inocencio,
Augustine's original sin doctrine has eternally condemned/isolated millions upon millions of aborted and stillborn global brothers and sisters to some phantom/border spirit state called limbo. How can one rationalize such a doctrine???? Hopefully, we shall see what B16 has concluded.
And I did find my Baptismal certificate.

Bill912,
Yes and I can only thank him. Thank you Realist!
As for having a memory of Baptism. The Church gives us a certificate that also has a place to list the rest of the Sacraments we receive. See how wonderfully the Church provides for us!
I read theologians who understand their work, as Pope Benedict said they should.
The work of Catholic theologians "must be carried out in communion with, and under the authority of, the living magisterium of the Church"
"To consider theology as a private concern," the Pope said, "is to misunderstand its very nature."
Benedict XVI, himself among the world's most accomplished theologians, explained that the study requires "the spirit of faith and humility," which fosters the understanding that the full revelation of God's truth comes through the Catholic Church, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.-Pope Benedict Thursday, December 01, 2005
As for the "mythical stain" as you call Original Sin it is a DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH. If you are a Catholic you become a heretic by denying this teaching. I hope for your sake you can grasp that fact. If you are not a Catholic admit that.
Happy Feast of St. Ambrose everyone!
J+M+J

Inocencio: He probably doesn't even realize that he just made your point.

Dear Inocenio,
It is impossible for me to reproduce on Jimmy's blog or any blog all the evidence provided by today's Catholic and non-Catholic biblical scholars and theologians. Considering that JDC has 14 publications alone, you will have to read these and the other 100 or so books on the Historical Jesus to view the evidence in detail. I am sure you can put the book titles on your Jolly St. Nick wish list. In the most of my postings, I do give the references for the evidence.
I have no memory of being baptized but who does? I did have Godparents but who doesn't? Well those kids in "limbo" for sure.
B16's ruling on limbo hopefully will remove their earthly, mythical stain and this limbo nonsense will end once and for all times.

Oh come on, Vatican documents are no more complicated then the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, just not as well written! They are as readable as the old Soviet ideological proclamations.

I suspect that though Realist claims to have been "born Catholic" he has not received the Sacrament of Baptism.
He also never responds to the evidence presented that contradicts his claims, he just keeps repeating himself and trolling.

Two things:
[Why not just say that everyone's going to heaven. That's where JPII's thought was headed.]
No. It wasn't. NEVER has been.
Realist...what is it with you and the Vatican? I'm a teenager, the documents aren't that hard to understand. True, they have to use alot of jargon, but that is ONLY so that they can clarly define things so that there is NO ambiguity (one hopes).
Also...
[A fair and just God does not blacken the souls of any children, born or unborn with the sins of myths or dated Augustine "reasoning". These poor Vatican theologians are between a "rock and hard" place with respect to limbo, "hope of eternal salvation" and original sin. They can't rid us of original sin because of the consequences with respect to the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth. Catholic theologians in other venues don't have these "rocks" to deal with, Thank God!!!]
There is SO much in that post that I disagree with.
These are NOT 'sins of myth' and Agustine merely clearly defined it.
The church is not going to abolish original sin. Forget it. Heck, they won't even abolish their teaching on contraceptives though nearly every other christian church has. Or abortion, for that matter. Or gay marrige. So what on earth makes you think they would abolish a fundamental teaching? Very wishful thinking on your part.
What other "Catholic" theologians do you have in mind??? Oh yeah...like those "Catholic" Women Priests and those "Catholic" Femenists and that "Catholic" John Kerry. Nice.
Sorry if this post comes of as being mean...I'm just sooo tired....

Dear Et Al,
Let us see what Friday brings. Let us hope it is eradication of limbo without the normal Vatican "speak".

What the Pope is doing away with Salad. What will the vegetarians do? I didn't think the Pope could rule on the food pyramid, what is he thinking. I want a Caesar Salad and I won't let somebody in Rome tell me I can't have one. Oh the injustice of this. I could understand if he was ruling on Romaine Lettuce but all Salads? What about Jell-O Salad? I love those little marshmellows. When will it stop?
What's that? it's Slaad and not Salad?
Never mind....
Bob

Realist,
From the Catechism
CCC 389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the "reverse side" of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.
If someone denies this Doctrine they are a heretic. I encourge everyone like Bear to pray for Realist.
St. Nicholas pray for us!

Realist,
You seem to often hijack threads to push your "unique" view of theology, and I am reluctant to goad you on yet again. Nevertheless, I think we and you are missing a major point here. It is all well and good to point out to you the evidence for original sin, as many have done. I can even respect your denial of it. What I cannot fathom is your attempt to pass it off as a valid Catholic view.
A Christian who denies original sin is like a vegetarian who eats meet. The positions are mutually exclusive. The denial of original sin has implications far beyond the Immaculate Conception. It means a denial of Christ, the Redeemer. What good is a Redeemer if no one needs be redeemed? Do you think that Christ's death on the Cross was just an unfortunate mistake?
If so, what you believe is not in any way Christianity. Like I said, I can respect you if you disbelieve in Original Sin and in the Redeeming Christ. However, to deny the most fundamental doctrines of any religion (Christian or otherwise) and then say that you still believe in that religion is intellectually dishonest at the least.
Perhaps you haven't yet realized the implications of your ideas, and that is the sole reason I post this. Hopefully you can take the time to try and make some logical connections between the scattered ideas you hold.
I'll be praying for you.

Sorry, last post was from me.

Come on, Jeb. You're trolling, now.
What is your position on unbaptized infants?

Why not just say that everyone's going to heaven. That's where JPII's thought was headed.

D&D, Catholicism, and Arizona all in one blog post.
You are getting better at this, Jimmy.
And for everyone who may not know what a Slaad looks like ...
Death Slaad and Blue Slaad
There are also Red, Green, and Gray varieties.

Its all good. Wizards of the Coast owns the franchise now. And they don't really seem to care too much for consistency.

Okay. I know that people in certain circles like to use words like "ban" and "abolish" in connection with Catholicism because it allows them to feel superior to 'those authoritarians in Rome,' but can/will the Pope really ABOLISH limbo?
1. It's never been officially taught. How can something be "abolished" that was never really instituted in the first place?
2. I suppose if there's an official teacher coming out that ALL souls wind up in either in God's presence in Heaven, or without Him in Hell, then there's no room left for Limbo. But this rumored document isn't even supposed to be dealing with that kind of thing, is it?
So despite all the eye-catching headlines, wouldn't it be more accurate to say something like "Pope to Cast Doubt on Limbo"?
P.S. Unfortunately, it would seem that "Realist" regards much of Catholic cosmology as no more real than the D&D version. So, although I'm pretty sure he got the joke, I can see why he didn't think it was funny.

I don't find the Vatican documents that hard to understand, Realist. They take a little effort, but the encyclicals and council documents are essential for an understanding of authentic Catholic faith.
Of course, if your mind is made up, it wouldn't surprise me if you find the documents somewhat opaque.
You should read Veritatis Splendor.
Take it slow if you have to. It is a beautiful document.

"Humor...it is a difficult concept."--Lt. Saavik, Star Trek 2.
OT: What in the galaxy were they thinking when they decided to cast Kirsty Ally as a Vulcan?

"Humor...it is a difficult concept."--Lt. Saavik, Star Trek 2.

And now for the humor impaired:
Read the whole thing Realist! It's a joke! Parody! You know, ha ha funny!
--arthur

"Vatican sources said yesterday that the commission would recommend that Limbo be replaced by the more "compassionate" doctrine that all children who die do so "in the hope of eternal salvation."
A fair and just God does not blacken the souls of any children, born or unborn with the sins of myths or dated Augustine "reasoning". These poor Vatican theologians are between a "rock and hard" place with respect to limbo, "hope of eternal salvation" and original sin. They can't rid us of original sin because of the consequences with respect to the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth. Catholic theologians in other venues don't have these "rocks" to deal with, Thank God!!!
B16 knows the problem. It will be interesting to see his "take". It unfortunately will probably be the normal Vatican gobbledygook that no one understands.

Is it true that there's an indulgence for playing a lawful-good paladin?