[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Doubt is sin.[/quote]
No it’s not. Though, it is a sin to not do his will even if we do have doubts.
The reason I say doubt is not a sin is because the Virgin Mary had doubts about what the Angel Gabriel told her, and as St. Augustine said, “No one, can do good, except he shew the method…except the holy Virgin, concerning whom, for the honour of the Lord, I would have no question at all, in treating of sins” (St. Augustine, de Nat. et Grat. contra Pelag. xxxvii. 44.).
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Chris, you’re wise to recognize the limits of what we can actually know, wiser in fact than Tiribulus, twice your age, who refuses to entertain even the smallest doubt that his current beliefs may not reflect reality.
When I mentioned your interpretation, I was referring more to your personal appraisal of the correctness of Catholic beliefs. I agree that Jesus was probably a real person, although many biblical scholars believe some of the most pivotal claims of what actually happened during his lifetime (like the nativity and resurrection) are historically suspect. If the resurrection never happened, Christianity as a whole (not just Catholicism and Calvanism) is based on an incorrect belief.
It’s more comfortable psychologically and emotionally to disregard doubts; even a false security can provide hope and direction in a person’s life. But that doesn’t mean his beliefs actually reflect reality.[/quote]
True, but I do find the resurrection to be true on several accounts (William Craig makes a good argument on this). That is another time and place, though.[/quote]
In fact I think this would make a great thread as well.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Chris, you’re wise to recognize the limits of what we can actually know, wiser in fact than Tiribulus, twice your age, who refuses to entertain even the smallest doubt that his current beliefs may not reflect reality.
When I mentioned your interpretation, I was referring more to your personal appraisal of the correctness of Catholic beliefs. I agree that Jesus was probably a real person, although many biblical scholars believe some of the most pivotal claims of what actually happened during his lifetime (like the nativity and resurrection) are historically suspect. If the resurrection never happened, Christianity as a whole (not just Catholicism and Calvanism) is based on an incorrect belief.
It’s more comfortable psychologically and emotionally to disregard doubts; even a false security can provide hope and direction in a person’s life. But that doesn’t mean his beliefs actually reflect reality.[/quote]
True, but I do find the resurrection to be true on several accounts (William Craig makes a good argument on this). That is another time and place, though.[/quote]
In fact I think this would make a great thread as well.[/quote]
Yes it would.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Doubt is sin.[/quote]
<<< No it’s not. >>>[/quote]Oh yeah, because a double minded man who is unstable in all his ways is full of the fruit of the Spirit. Nice trick with the quote from Augustine on Mary. I know how he was on Mary Chris. I haven’t been able to digest this particualr quote yet though. Augustine became more “Calvinistic” the older he got BTW. =]
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Doubt is sin.[/quote]
<<< No it’s not. >>>[/quote]Oh yeah, because a double minded man who is unstable in all his ways if full of the fruit of the Spirit. Nice trick with the quote from Augustine on Mary. I know how he was on Mary Chris.[/quote]
It wasn’t a trick. Maybe if you read the ECFs you’d realise that it was unthinkable to say that Satan had a moment’ dominion over the Mother of God, only a blasphemer would even conider it.
[quote]I haven’t been able to digest this particualr quote yet though. Augustine became more “Calvinistic” the older he got BTW. =]
[/quote]
You mean favorable of murdering those he thought were heretics. I don’t think, so.
Not just Mary, but Jesus himself had doubts as evidenced in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross.
Eli , Eli, Lama Sabachthani?
There’s nothing wrong with doubts, as long as you do the right thing anyway.
I would argue, in fact, that doubts help you know what the right thing is in the first place.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Not just Mary, but Jesus himself had doubts as evidenced in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross.
Eli , Eli, Lama Sabachthani?
There’s nothing wrong with doubts, as long as you do the right thing anyway.
I would argue, in fact, that doubts help you know what the right thing is in the first place.[/quote]Eli , Eli, Lama Sabachthani (My God My God, why have you forsaken me!!!) was the cry of the agonizing Son of God on the cross. I think you were groping for “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will”. Which He spoke in the Garden of Gethsemane while NOT looking forward to being whipped to shreds, nailed to a cross and most of all becoming sin though He knew none of His own, so that a corrupted filthy sinner like me could become the righteousness of God in Him.
You may argue at will elder forlife. Everybody does. I WILL say though that God uses sin and doubt in the life of a believer both as chastisement and a teacher. That without in any way inducing sin in His creatures or being remotely responsible for it. His pulling back His restraining grace and allowing me to fall headlong into backslidden misery taught me lessons I never would have learned any other way.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Not just Mary, but Jesus himself had doubts as evidenced in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross.
Eli , Eli, Lama Sabachthani?
There’s nothing wrong with doubts, as long as you do the right thing anyway.
I would argue, in fact, that doubts help you know what the right thing is in the first place.[/quote]Eli , Eli, Lama Sabachthani (My God My God, why have you forsaken me!!!) was the cry of the agonizing Son of God on the cross.
[/quote]
He said “on the cross” directly above his quote there, Tirib.
Given that we have no free will whatsoever, how is this even remotely possible?
How in the world are you people still debating in this thread? Religion is human nature. We need parades and flags, not debate.
My mistake Elder Forlife. I stand corrected. I am in a terrible hurry all the time lately. Didn’t see that. Thank you Cortes. Neither one of those demonstrates doubt though.
[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< Given that we have no free will whatsoever, how is this even remotely possible?
[/quote]Once freed from autonomous Aristotelian logic this question takes care of itself in it’s resolution in the mind of God.
Please, it’ll only take a few minutes read CHAPTER V, “Of Providence” here: 301 redirect and CHAPTER IX “Of Free Will” here: 301 redirect I cannot improve upon what those giants of the Gospel and biblical scholarship set forth 365 years ago from the Westminster assembly. EVERYBODY in the world in general and in this forum in particualr is at this very moment taking their every breath based on contradictions of their own sinful contrivance far more grievous than this appears to be. It really isn’t though at all because that IS what God says about me, you and most importantly Himself. To Him it simply is. To me as well because by faith I trust Him and not my own pathetic finite 3 pound brain and corrupted nature.
WHAT!!! God is in control of everything AND man is free and responsible you ask?
YES YES YES!!!
HOW CAN THIS POSSIBLY BE??!?!?!?
I dunno LOL!!! He’s God and I ain’t. This is called faith which according the to 11th of Hebrews is the “substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things NOT SEEN.” You have no problem believing (I hope) that God created absolutely everything save for Himself alone OUT OF NOTHING. An utter absolute no questions asked impossibility under the same logic that declares absurd the notion that that God is also comprehensively sovereign over it while His highest creatures are alone morally responsible for their sin. Both are clearly taught in the bible which is why the Westminster divines also concluded both.
You believe God brought forth the vast cosmos from nothing by some version of fiat command and defend it vigorously, I’ve seen you do it, but you will not defend His absolute kingship and governance over that same creation even though it is spelled out in kindergarten terms all over the bible. Why not? I’ll tell you why not. Because you do not like the idea of ANYTHING, EVEN GOD having more control of you than you do. That my friend is the remaining stiffnecked independence inherited from father Adam. Ohhhhh yes it is. Allow me to hasten to clarify that there are multitudes of men and women I embrace as true Christian brethren who profess this same error in the form of protestant Arminianism.
I’ve never heard them pray that way though as the great Charles Haddon Spurgeon so eloquently pointed out. No one dare approach the throne of grace crowing about their free will and volition by which they have chosen well while others have not. The heart wherein dwells the Spirit of the living God would never allow such a thing. No, they to a man cry out for mercy and extol the wonders of His unsearchable grace in saving miserable criminals such as themselves. They proclaim their inability to righteousness in themselves and thank Him for making them whole. How well I know. I have prayed, nodding and sweetly smiling with many myself =] .
On top of, or actually before all this there is the command to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ (2nd Corinthians 10:5). As I have gone into many times, a God who is contingent upon His creatures wills is subject to the same deadly philosophical criticisms as man Himself. No again. The bible makes God Himself the first thought governing all others or no God at all. I will repost some of those if you would like me to.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
How in the world are you people still debating in this thread? Religion is human nature. We need parades and flags, not debate.[/quote]
Lol it’s not.
Look how most religions and their specific cultural and temporal interpretation aren’t even remotely similar.
Hundreds of millions of people are completely content without certain key features most would deem essential. (heaven & hell, afterlife, sin, a single superpotent god, etcetc)
The need for structure is natural. The desire for dominance and balance.
Play is natural.
Religion is are just a ritualistc byproduct of our eternal searches.
Many religions are just perceived by us as religions, while the aboriginals never bothered to expand their ideas about half-gods & demons, dynasties and philosophy into a single construct.
The funniest thing is that most colourful, disneyesque attributes the monotheisms and today’s pop culture uses so successfully, were more or less all slowly self-engineered as a means to control the masses.
Nearly every bigger religion has more complex mysteries or roots or sects.
At the end, however, Hollywood and your government always wins.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
How in the world are you people still debating in this thread? Religion is human nature. We need parades and flags, not debate.[/quote]
Lol it’s not.
Look how most religions and their specific cultural and temporal interpretation aren’t even remotely similar.
Hundreds of millions of people are completely content without certain key features most would deem essential. (heaven & hell, afterlife, sin, a single superpotent god, etcetc)
The need for structure is natural. The desire for dominance and balance.
Play is natural.
Religion is are just a ritualistc byproduct of our eternal searches.
Many religions are just perceived by us as religions, while the aboriginals never bothered to expand their ideas about half-gods & demons, dynasties and philosophy into a single construct.
The funniest thing is that most colourful, disneyesque attributes the monotheisms and today’s pop culture uses so successfully, were more or less all slowly self-engineered as a means to control the masses.
Nearly every bigger religion has more complex mysteries or roots or sects.
At the end, however, Hollywood and your government always wins.
[/quote]
And yet your core beliefs are somehow immune to being shaped by your upbringing, genetic disposition, culture, desires, needs, fears, insecurities, wishes, the media, your family, friends, your own government, society at large, and the experiences you’ve had.
Right?
Good to know you’ve got it all figured out.
That I did not proclaim.
It’s the essence of enlightment to cultivate a taste for freeing oneself from these shackles.
Still, let me dispute that the very definition of religion is too flimsy to make such strong assertions like the OP.
With regard to this thread’s title, I do agree that it is in our nature to seek answers to the great existential questions, and that from that search comes religion. Does anyone know of any example of a pre-Modern society/civilization without some sort of mythological or religious bent?
I have sometimes heard pre-Hindu Samkhya philosophy referred to as atheistic. It certainly falls closer to Godlessness than most other early schools of thought–it flat-out rejected the existence of a traditionally-understood “God.” But it postulates the existence of both a first cause and an immaterial self. I take true atheism to mean pure materialism, which Samkhya clearly isn’t.
It does seem that, as we distanced ourselves over the centuries from our simian ancestors, we universally began talking about Gods or spirits.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Doubt is sin.[/quote]
We are both right and wrong.
Obstinate doubt is voluntary doubtâ??doubt may be defined as either voluntary or involuntary. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains,
Involuntary doubt is not, in itself, sinful and may be experienced by any sincere believer. Voluntary doubt, on the other hand, as a willful refusal to assent to Godâ??s revelation, is a grave issue.