Albert Cipriani

Dear Ecco,
You ask,


I do not know that the Catholic Church is the only path to life. Indeed, I exercise the theological virtue of hope in speculating to the contrary. I have no disagreement with you, Ecco, on this matter. Rather, you and I disagree with Southern Baptists, who sure as hell are going to hell!. (Just joking.)

The Catholic Church teaches infallibly that there is "no salvation outside of the Church." It has been officially promulgated at least three times. Protestants twist this teaching into its caricature: Catholics think that only Catholics can go to heaven.

Not true. The Church canonizes saints, not the damned. Even Hitler and Judas could be in heaven. Praying for them is pious.

Endemic to the Church's teaching that outside her there is no salvation is the assumption that invincible ignorance is not what's keeping you outside of her. In other words, only those who have volition, who know the Church is the one true Church and yet reject her, only those are outside of the Church and on the fast track to hell.

In truth, very few people qualify for exclusion from the Church. Most are invincibly ignorant.

Objectively, all who are saved are saved through the Church. Subjectively, all who are saved are saved by Faith via their free will whether they are in the Church or outside the Church. No doubt, there are Catholics, especially Bishops, who will go to hell and atheists who will go to heaven. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Albert Cipriani

Dear Keenavin,
You argue:


Your hidden assumption here is that a thought can be contradictory. A thought cannot be contradictory, no more than an orange can be contradictory. Rather, as it takes two to tango, it takes two thoughts to contradict.

As Immanuel Kant said (N.B. Ender!), "Thought is insipient action." Thoughts, even two contradictory thoughts, in and of themselves are merely potentialities. Ergo, a perfect being has the potential to become an imperfect being not by entertaining contradictory thoughts (being tempted) but by willing, expressing, acting out that contradiction.

Atheists tend to deflate man into a merely intellectual being, forgetting that we are also willful beings. Action is where man's intellect and will kiss. Action proves who we are. If Adam was perfect, only through action could he become imperfect. Not through mere thought, as you suggest, but through contradictory thought expressed by his will in the form of a contradictory action.

To argue that a perfect being is incapable of an imperfect thought is to argue that a perfect being is incapable of potential. BUT ONLY GOD HAS NO POTENTIAL. All things, by definition, necessarily have potential. Indeed, one of the best descriptions of creation is: things that have potential to be things that they are not. This describes the physical (Law of conservation of matter) and spiritual (the Fall) realms.

So the refutation of your argument distills as follows:
1) Every perfect thing must not think imperfect things.
2) But every thing has the potential to be that which it is not except God.
3) Ergo, you are arguing that every perfect thing is God or that every perfect thing is not a thing.

-- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

FarSeeker

Speaking of logic, Ernest, help me solve this:

Given A does not and cannot equal B
Given B does not and cannot equal A

How can it be logically true that:

A=C=B

FarSeeker

WEEEE, Nice Spin Doctor.
Felt like a force 4.

Sins against God are a lot different froom your minutia.
1. Albert isn't perfect, God is. That's a difference.
2. God has given Albert directions in dealing with his children. Murder for cookie filching is one of them.
3. We aren't bad for just one day.

4. Refusing the path that the sacrifice of Jesus offers means you keep all you failures and evil nature when you die. With that, you wouldn't let youself enter God's presence. It would be like going to your own formal wedding looking and smelling like a stereotypical homeless person - times an infinite amount. To put in a cartoon image: God can't let you in the gate looking like that.

Hey, I'm not a theologian, so my explainations aren't the best. I'm just trying the best I can.

FarSeeker

I think you might be misreading the meaning of "bad." You should read it as,
"When a perfect creature, like Adam or Lucifer, is act against God just once, they are no longer perfect.

Are you a criminal now? (for most people that answer would be no so I'll assume that here)
If you commit a crime, you become a criminal.

If you become an alcoholic, you remain one for life. You may stop drinking, but you're still an alcoholic.
If you break a bone, even if it heals perfectly normally, that bone will never be as strong as it was before. The flaw remains as a weakness, or so I have read.

It is absurd that particles form out of nothing, yet they do. The Quantum world doesn't hold to common logic
so why would the supernatural have to be as You want it?

When we deal with God's domain, we MUST be willing to accept and admit there are soomethings we won't fully understand. Paul Singer doesn't understand why infantcide is wrong, but I'm sure (or hoping) you do.

Beep, beep, my karma just ran over your dogma.

hinduwoman

He probably means that he regards Christ is a great spiritual teacher and so he tries to live up to Christian precepts as best he can. But he simply chooses to ignore that stuff about Christ being the only way.

Here is a quotation from a devout hindu which should clarify it:
___________________________________________
"It does not necessary mean that we agree with all the interpretions of non-Hindus (e.g. Chrsitians and Muslims) of there own faiths. We believe differences in religions occur, because the Divine message has always been given in the local cultural context at the time and place it was given. Differences also occur because of interpretation of the faiths.

But Hindus do believe the following:

1. That all religions have the ability to transform sincere seekers to a higher spiritual level, and also All religions teach the same fundamental values of Good human behavior, i.e. love compassion etc.

2. The Grace of God is available to people, irrespective of the religion they practice, and specific theological beliefs.

Hence since we believe that since all religions can achieve the two basic goals of spirituality (Given above) we simply say "all religions are true". "

__________________________________________________

hinduwoman

Albert, your God had told you He was the only way.

But Gita tells us that whoever worships any God is really worshipping Krishna by another name. So when you pray to Jehovah, you are really praying to Krishna.
It says so in our holy text and I can show you it in print too!
So there!

hinduwoman

I am afraid this is a common fantasy among Christians and Muslims. Muslims believe everyday millions of low castes are converting to Islam, but since Brahmins control Indian media and Jews the international media, they stop this news from getting out. I will leave it to the two Semitic faiths to fight out who is actually converting whom.
Actually when the untouchables do convert, they convert to Buddhism. That way they don't have to leave Hindu culture itself.

I am not defending caste. But it is another delusion of the Christians that Christianity means equality. Sure equality before god, but Christian states have always been remarkably class-conscious, with full doctrinal backing. I bet this is one item carefully kept away from Western Christians --- christinaity in India is castebased. The uppercastes are very conscious of their superiority. Untouchables who converted hoping for equality, are still untouchables. They have separate churches and no uppercaste would eat with them. Even in death the cleaner castes and the untouchables have separate graveyards. The church headquarters know all right --- but they won't do anything, because if they tried to put all that brotherhood into practice, then the uppercastes would walk away and along with them would go land, donations and political clout.
And now I suppose you will say these are not 'real' christians.

As for castesystem vs Christian system ---
The church supported feudalism and slavery. Let us also not forget the Church hierarchy. Official churches had hardly ever tried to set up equal society. Hinduism is simply more honest. It openly acknowledges that there is inequality in society instead of pretending to believe in equality while practicing discrimination.

If any justification is needed for the castesystem, just contrast how homosexuals and transversites are treated in Hinduism with how your religion treats them. They are killed and persecuted because the Bible says they are an offence against God. Well, the caste system gives them a place, acknowledges they have rights including the right to adopt children and worship any deity of their choice. It might put them at the bottom of the heap but it gives them a place in society and says they are not unnatural.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Sartre,
You wrote:


You act as if actions are a part of who you are. You forget that they are not an expression of you until they are performed.

You've constructed a static and circularly reasoned model of perfection: a perfect being is capable of only acting perfectly as a function of being perfect and therefore cannot become imperfect by acting imperfectly.

The correct, dynamic, and non-circular view of perfection is: action is the means whereby a free perfect being expresses itself. Each perfect act expresses its perfection. The first imperfect act expresses its imperfection as that action concurrently transforms it from a perfect to an imperfect being. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

hinduwoman

Liquidrage, Actually the caste system is more complicated than it appears on the surface. In theory society is divided into 4 Varnas. --- thinkers & priests, warriors, merchants and artisans, and workers and farmers. But that is the normative ideal. If we followed this, then ideally Stephen Jay Gould would be at the top and the President would not dream of formulating education policy without consulting him and a cardinal would rank lower in status than him. But alas, "between the ideal and the reality, falls thy shadow , for thine is the kingdom"!

The social reality is based on jati, or what you call caste. It is based on 7 factors --- birth, occupation (but occupations can vary within a certain range), blood and marriage alliances with other castes, class (rich or poor, sometimes becomes more important than birth), region (the washermen are untouchable in eastern India but not elsewhere), history (what they have done in the past ) and how other castes interact with them (depends also on how much political power a caste wields which makes their status more fluid.). I think that pretty well covers the factors. Sometimes language and religious sects and daily customs also play a role in determining their position. Sometimes a group would start practicing a particular occupation (like being priests without being Brahmin) until they are accepted by other castes as belonging to whatever castes whose traditional occupation this was; but castes in other regions wouldnot accept their status. Because of so many factors, there are thousands of jatis and subsets within jatis.

There is also mobility. Traditionally the ruling powers could promote or demote both entire castes and individuals. The caste councils could do the same. But rise of individuals directly due to exceptional merit is less common; but one's castestatus could improve if one gets married into higher caste or is adopted by someone of higher caste. Usually, a whole group would rise together, in two or three generations. They would gain great deal of wealth, own land or become militarily strong --- then naturally the other castes had to accept that they were no longer low. Then the caste would announce that they have discovered that they were actually the descendants of a higher caste which they had simply forgotten all these years; they would do penance and the Brahmins would confirm their new status with new names and appropriate marks. That way you accommodate both change and keep up the fiction that the system is eternal.

The caste system is very inclusive. Every caste is governed by a certain set of rules which they do change if pressurized enough. Other castes are not allowed to interfere in the affairs of one caste. That is why Jews were regarded as another jati, with a certain place in the system. At its worst it leads to inequality and untouchability and stifles the individual. At its best it gives one a sense of identity and security. That is why there is great reluctance to give up one's caste. The way it is set up, kings can come and go but society will continue on much the same.

Today many of the worst aspects of castesystem is disappearing, like food taboos and pollution rules. But many argue that the system is simply being flexible because originally these things were not there and it won't disappear for the simple reason it gives society stability.