site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   2503 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for March 8, 2024

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

But Paul isn't talking about that. What Paul is referring to is specifically that having one's sins forgiven, covered, not counted against oneself suffices to make one blessed. The focus is not on how that is attained, but upon how the blessing (and, per verse 6 and verse 9, righteousness) consists in the forgiveness of sins.

Catholics believe in the forgiveness of sins. What are you arguing against?

The proposition that there will neither be sin nor attachment to sin in Heaven?

The proposition that at some point, (in this life or in the next) sinful people lose their attachment to sin through the graces of Jesus' death and Resurrection?

That this purification requires some assent of the sinner's will, some kind of cooperation with Jesus?

Can you go to Heaven without loving God and Neighbor?

Can you love God without keeping His commandments and repenting if you fail?

Can you keep God's commandments without doing good works?

Do good works happen automatically, or does the Christian need to accept Jesus's graces? In other words, can a Christian reject Jesus' graces and refuse to do good works?

I'll begin by addressing the specific propositions:

The proposition that there will neither be sin nor attachment to sin in Heaven?

I affirm the proposition.

The proposition that at some point, (in this life or in the next) sinful people lose their attachment to sin through the graces of Jesus' death and Resurrection?

I affirm the proposition.

That this purification requires some assent of the sinner's will, some kind of cooperation with Jesus?

I affirm the proposition. (Though I don't know if I'd qualify that in different ways that you do.)

Can you go to Heaven without loving God and Neighbor?

Yes, and no. No, you cannot go to heaven without loving God and neighbor to some extent. At the same time, we do not go by the fulfilling of Christ's commandment there. But when we are there, we will follow the commandment properly.

Can you love God without keeping His commandments and repenting if you fail?

Loving God will lead naturally to a life of repentance. To quote the first of the 95 theses, "Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance"

Can you keep God's commandments without doing good works?

No.

Do good works happen automatically, or does the Christian need to accept Jesus's graces? In other words, can a Christian reject Jesus' graces and refuse to do good works?

I don't see how those are synonymous. In any case, I would say that good works do involve human action and assent, but that that is itself wrought by the work of the Holy Spirit in us.

Okay, so I could affirm with almost every proposition you submitted, but I don't agree with the overall argument that you are making.

Yes, I agree that our lives are increasingly conformed, until ultimately we are perfected, in the life to come.

And I think this is necessary, that the lives of Christians cannot be otherwise. But because I do not think that we will meet the standard of God's law in this life, I do not think that our conformity to the commandment can be the basis of our acceptance. And as Paul writes, "For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”"

We do not enter heaven by loving God and our neighbor, except by the forgiveness of the faults in those very acts of love, and in those works. In a very real sense, we enter despite even our best works, best affections, best desires.

So then back to my original quote. Yes, of course catholics believe in the forgiveness of sins. But my point is that the forgiveness of sins is inherently dealing in matters relating to imputation: is the sin counted or not counted to you, and that it is that, the being gratuitously counted as righteous in spite of our merits, that Paul is highlighting in the passage there. What Paul is saying is not that David had some kind of repentance and so inner righteousness and so was forgiven and considered blessed. Rather, his focus is solely on how David is blessed and righteous because he is forgiven, rather than because of works done. Note the direction of how righteousness relates to forgiveness of sins and being blessed in the last two sentences.

But because I do not think that we will meet the standard of God's law in this life

I think you are correct for many, if not most Christians. But I also genuinely believe that many of the saints were able to completely cease all inclination to sin in this life. And I believe that for the the rest it happens during Purgation after death.

We do not enter heaven by loving God and our neighbor

100% agreed here, we can only enter heaven by Jesus's sacrifice.

When a sin is forgiven it is forgiven because God forgives it. God does not count the sin on you, yes. Jesus has told visionaries that He can't even remember the sins they've confessed. (Obviously a bit of a metaphor, as God knows everything.)

I think the radical thing Catholics believe, that you disagree with, is that the forgiveness of sins is not itself sufficient for Heaven. (The forgiveness of sins means that a Christian is going to Heaven, but it doesn't mean by itself that the Christian is ready for Heaven.) In order for Heaven to not be a tyranny, the people in it need to have willingly let go of attachments to sin as well. We lose this attachment in this life, little by little, by willfully forming the habit of conforming to God's will. And if there is any attachment to sin left over at the moment of death, it needs to be removed by the cooperation of God and the sinner. (Put out of your head any specific idea of a place of Purgatory. I'm referencing just the idea of purgation, whether that's an instantaneous change or a difficult trial.)

But I also genuinely believe that many of the saints were able to completely cease all inclination to sin in this life.

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

I think the radical thing Catholics believe, that you disagree with, is that the forgiveness of sins is not itself sufficient for Heaven. (The forgiveness of sins means that a Christian is going to Heaven, but it doesn't mean by itself that the Christian is ready for Heaven.)

I agree.

In order for Heaven to not be a tyranny, the people in it need to have willingly let go of attachments to sin as well. We lose this attachment in this life, little by little, by willfully forming the habit of conforming to God's will. And if there is any attachment to sin left over at the moment of death, it needs to be removed by the cooperation of God and the sinner. (Put out of your head any specific idea of a place of Purgatory. I'm referencing just the idea of purgation, whether that's an instantaneous change or a difficult trial.)

I of course agree that our will needs to be transformed and conformed to God's.

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

The saints are very disgusted with their faults, more so than the average sinner. But that verse also does not exclude the possibility of a saint having sinned in the past, but over time has shed the habit of sin. After all, the next verse is "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

You know you guys are splitting hairs over something that to people looking in from a rational outside perspective is all just make-believe. You're arguing over fantasy stories like they are real.

Rationally, you should be seeking out infinites to optimize around, for Pascal's wager-ish reasons, and Christianity seems as likely a one as any.

Anyway, if you have an argument, feel free to make it (once the ban's over), but mere assertions that others are talking about nonsense is unproductive.

Since you got temp banned I’d like to say that I very much enjoy a lot of your posts and strongly encourage you to limit this kind of thing. I’m an atheist too but it’s impolite to drive by with this kind of comment.

Look, you weren't part of this conversation, but you felt a need to drop a shit in the middle of it why?

In a very short period of time, you've established that you're an antagonistic jerk who shits on conversations like it's your hobby.

You're getting a 3-day timeout for this. If you want to continue participating here, stop treating this place like somewhere you go to drunkpost and sneer.

If people can argue over games and Marvel movies, and it is legitimate demand to ask for Representation in fantasy TV shows so as to match up with the real world, then we can argue over religion. Nobody is tying you to a chair and forcing you to read these comments.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats