God's purpose

[Magrat]

well then let us first define what we are talking about:



Council of Florence

Okay given that definition, what we are saying is that purgatory is neither heaven nor hell. Not punishment nor reward, more like a waiting room. Correct?

My understanding is this is where unbaptized babies go, and where people who were neither good nor bad would end up to serve time before moving to heaven.

It kinda reminds me of Beetlejuice.

 

[jimbob]

Okay given that definition, what we are saying is that purgatory is neither heaven nor hell. Not punishment nor reward, more like a waiting room. Correct?

My understanding is this is where unbaptized babies go, and where people who were neither good nor bad would end up to serve time before moving to heaven.

It kinda reminds me of Beetlejuice.

[qimg]http://i.giphy.com/SSPcZamlXGuWY.gif[/qimg]

And as you stated, it is not a concept accepted by the vast majority of Protestant sects. Not even the one that does sometimes talk about joining with Roman Catholicism (albeit not very seriously).

16.5, it's not just the Baptist Church and it's not in the bible.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I will say I find the idea of Apostolic Succession far more appealing than unerring scripture as the basis for a faith, for the simple reason that it can still advance in understanding and policy. Not that it will or must, but can. In that restricted sense, I find Catholicism less bothersome, with some potential to evolve.

Most forms of Protestantism have two fatal flaws, a final prophet, and an unerring text, both of which allow someone to believe all has been said, and all that is left is enforcement, potentially violent. Hardly any room for growth. These traits are shared with Islam, but Catholicism at least has wiggle room on the text. After all, it was a council of men/humans that decided which books went into the Bible and which did not, one key to opening up discussion again someday, and something it seems only Catholicism is mindful of.

Then again, who needs religion in the first place?

 

[JayUtah]

I asked you to provide proof purgatory is biblical and not invented by catholics.

Again, I think that unmasking sectarian differences among Abrahamites is a good thing, even if it gives rise to tangential topics. It's a way of being inclusive to atheists who point to the ongoing confusion, contradiction, and illogic in such sectarianism as reasons not to believe there is any distinct purpose that can be rightly attributed to god.

Roman Catholics undoubtedly rely upon the Bible as a source of doctrine, as do most Christians and even some pseudo-Christians. But Catholicism also relies upon decisions by its committees and ex cathedra statements from its popes to define and refine its attribution of purpose to god. This opens the door to other non-biblical sources such as the Qu'ran or the declarations of Mormon prophets, also held by some to be doctrinally valid. In short, part of the problem is that there is no universal ultimate authority for Abrahamic belief.

To be clear: I don't require the Judeo-Christian canon to be cited as the source of doctrine in all applicable cases. Naturally if one claims biblical authority, then one should be putatively held to give evidence for that case. But I don't hold the Bible up as an inherently requisite authority. I'm more interested in the logical differences between claims that, under the scope of the OP, ought to exhibit congruence: Why Muhammed but not Joseph Smith? Why Pope Pius X but not Mary Baker Eddy? Why the Bible but not the Book of Mormon? Why the Council of Trent, but not the Mormon apostles? When authorities are randomly selected willy-nilly from putatively similar classes of authority, and arbitrarily given or denied the ability to attribute motives to god and "make it stick," this strikes me as eminently illogical.

Then one wonders whether a choice of religious belief -- which obviously isn't based on a logical, informed analysis -- depends on whether the attribution of purpose to god conforms to the social, cultural, and political leanings of the believer. Need justification for your hatred of wealthy foreigners? Why not try Radical Islam? Its god frowns on that sort of thing. Down on your self-esteem? Need an emotional lift? Why not try Mormonism? Its god promises to promote you to management. Terrified of people who are different than you? Try Christian Fundamentalism; its god says those are demons in disguise.

 

[Magrat]

I will say I find the idea of Apostolic Succession far more appealing than unerring scripture as the basis for a faith, for the simple reason that it can still advance in understanding and policy. Not that it will or must, but can. In that restricted sense, I find Catholicism less bothersome, with some potential to evolve.

Most forms of Protestantism have two fatal flaws, a final prophet, and an unerring text, both of which allow someone to believe all has been said, and all that is left is enforcement, potentially violent. Hardly any room for growth. These traits are shared with Islam, but Catholicism at least has wiggle room on the text. After all, it was a council of men/humans that decided which books went into the Bible and which did not, one key to opening up discussion again someday, and something it seems only Catholicism is mindful of.

Then again, who needs religion in the first place?

Catholicism seems mindful of that now, maybe, but for centuries anyone who attempted to advance knowledge beyond Aristotle received the death penalty. Today in fact, the catholic church teaches that Aids isn't sexually transmitted (thus preventable by use of condoms) but rather punishment from God.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Catholicism seems mindful of that now, maybe, but for centuries anyone who attempted to advance knowledge beyond Aristotle received the death penalty. Today in fact, the catholic church teaches that Aids isn't sexually transmitted (thus preventable by use of condoms) but rather punishment from God.

I was going to preface my remarks with some caveats, but anyway, sure, you are right. Are you sure about that last part being an official teaching? Kind of weird, especially with several recent big moves to adapt to scientific cosmology. Then again, there are many groups that are still drooling over the Inquisition, such as the Opus Dei. Gosh I dislike those people, as I've had many a bad experience.

I had lots of fun here pre- and post-Franco, and still do, so I know the down side. Plenty of Catholic fascism alive and well in these parts. Makes me want to engage in an involuntary personal digestive protein spill.

 

[JayUtah]

I will say I find the idea of Apostolic Succession far more appealing than unerring scripture as the basis for a faith, for the simple reason that it can still advance in understanding and policy.

I remember reading something along those lines by a Catholic commenting on Mormonism. I can't quote it precisely, or find it right now, but the gist of it was either Mormons or Catholics were right because both purported to have living oracles.

But that controversy exists only within the sphere of Christianity and is premised on the notion that Jesus existed and was and did all the things attributed to him. If you're Jewish or Muslim, it's not a going concern because they don't cast Jesus in the same role.

These traits are shared with Islam...

As written above and as I alluded to, I think Islam and Judaism suffer from the same flaw of having little if any central doctrinal authority. Mullahs, imams, rabbis, and other clerics issue statements that are variously held or rejected by competing factions. But yes, the dead line of prophecy and the fixed canon are part of that whole landscape.

...and something it seems only Catholicism is mindful of.

Rancor with the resident Catholic notwithstanding, I see Catholicism as a religion that's at least trying to be sensible about history and logic, even if those things don't really give them a solid footing from which to compel nonbelievers to ignore the flaws.

Then again, who needs religion in the first place?

Obviously those who need to believe someone omnipotent and omniscient endorses their purpose and is inexplicably interested in their personal welfare.

 

[JayUtah]

Catholicism seems mindful of that now, maybe, but for centuries anyone who attempted to advance knowledge beyond Aristotle received the death penalty.

As I've mentioned in other threads, I lived in Italy and spent a lot of time among rural Italians. The fanciful and highly superstitious variations on Roman Catholic beliefs never ceased to amuse me. Now there are provincial folk in all areas of the world, so this is not a denunciation of provincialism. But your point brings home that while there are highly polished and sanitized corporate faces of all these religions, there is nevertheless a variety of belief that far outstrips any effort to enumerate. It is no more valid to restrict the discussion of attributing motives to god to the official statements of corporate religion than to restrict it to believers or non-believers only.

Everyone loves the new pope. I do, because he seems to be leading by example and teaching his followers to embody all that is practically good about the Christian tradition. Anything that makes people better people, as measured by how they treat their neighbors, deserves praise. But the 21st century image of Roman Catholicism isn't all we should pay attention to.

 

[The Big Dog]

And as you stated, it is not a concept accepted by the vast majority of Protestant sects. Not even the one that does sometimes talk about joining with Roman Catholicism (albeit not very seriously).

16.5, it's not just the Baptist Church and it's not in the bible.

Oh hell, the Concept of Purgatory was well ingrained in Christianity long before Satan met his first Protestant.

Now lets us take a look at the Good Book.

Let us begin in the Old Testament!

He sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead). And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. (2 Maccabees 12:43-46)

 

[The Big Dog]

Catholicism seems mindful of that now, maybe, but for centuries anyone who attempted to advance knowledge beyond Aristotle received the death penalty. Today in fact, the catholic church teaches that Aids isn't sexually transmitted (thus preventable by use of condoms) but rather punishment from God.

You copy that off the Westboro Baptist Web site?

 

[Magrat]

Oh hell, the Concept of Purgatory was well ingrained in Christianity long before Satan met his first Protestant.

Now lets us take a look at the Good Book.

Let us begin in the Old Testament!

That doesn't say anything about purgatory.

You copy that off the Westboro Baptist Web site?

Which part? I mean, I didn't copy anything off any website, but which part are you specifically objecting to?

Eta pope francis has been the very first pope to say it could be morally reasonable to use condoms if you know you have aids, but that it is still wrong to prevent pregnancy.

That is very different from what needs to be done, which is free condom distribution, education about the spread of disease (Ie, no, raping a virgin doesn't make you immune to aids), and preventing pregnancy when you live in crowded tenements is the best possible thing you can do for the people who are already alive.

he has barely made condom use permissible in some instances, not permitted and encouraged use across the board, although 70% of aids infections are in sub Saharan Africa.


Not to even mention that he lives in splendor while African school girls walk barefoot to school carrying sub machine guns to avoid being raped, but that's probably another thread.

 

[Rincewind]

It seems that God's purpose encompasses the suffering that RK has to endure - to act as an object lesson to others, perhaps?

My mother was a good, kind, caring wife, mother and person, a believer and a regular church-goer, who had to suffer Alzheimer's for the last eight years of her life. Was this to teach her family a lesson?

I also notice that above Free Will was mentioned - are we supposed to believe that it was the operation of Free Will that gave RogueKitten and my mother all their suffering?

 

[The Big Dog]

That doesn't say anything about purgatory.

Patience.

Jesus Christ said (Matthew 12:32): "And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come."

 

[Magrat]

Patience.

(I'm trying...why not just post it all in one post?)

That one doesn't mention it either.

 

[The Big Dog]

(I'm trying...why not just post it all in one post?)

That one doesn't mention it either.

Wait, are you looking for the word "purgatory"?

No the Bible does not use that word.

Oh well, here is a decent place if you want to dip your toes in on Catholic's understanding of Purgatory and its place in God's Holy Purpose.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm

 

[Magrat]

Wait, are you looking for the word "purgatory"?

No the Bible does not use that word.

Oh well, here is a decent place if you want to dip your toes in on Catholic's understanding of Purgatory and its place in God's Holy Purpose.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm

I was looking at least for a description that sounded kinda like it.

I'll look at it. Don't promise to understand it. Religious stuff sounds like doublespeak sometimes.

 

[jimbob]

Oh hell, the Concept of Purgatory was well ingrained in Christianity long before Satan met his first Protestant.

Now lets us take a look at the Good Book.

Let us begin in the Old Testament!

Where does that refute my statement that it's rejected by most virtually every other Christian sect?

What groups do you consider to be Christian?

Orthodox?
Anglican?
Protestant?
Anabaptists?
Quakers?
Jehovah's Witnesses?
Mormons?

 

[Magrat]

Where does that refute my statement that it's rejected by most virtually every other Christian sect?

What groups do you consider to be Christian?

Orthodox?
Anglican?
Protestant?
Anabaptists?
Quakers?
Jehovah's Witnesses?
Mormons?

So you're aware, a lot of protestant Christians don't consider Catholics, quakers, witnesses, or Mormons to be Christians.

 

[jimbob]

So you're aware, a lot of protestant Christians don't consider Catholics, quakers, witnesses, or Mormons to be Christians.

Oh yes. I would be interested (for a small value of interest) to know whether 16.5 and logger would consider each other to be Christians. The comment by 16.5 about Satan meeting his first Protestant implies a certain dogmatic view.

 

[The Big Dog]

Where does that refute my statement that it's rejected by most virtually every other Christian sect?

What groups do you consider to be Christian?

Orthodox?
Anglican?
Protestant?
Anabaptists?
Quakers?
Jehovah's Witnesses?
Mormons?

I think that St. Reg of Judea said it best:

God's Purpose