Originally posted by ThinkOfOneBut He also told us to pray to the Father saying "forgive us". Paul said "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God", and "If we say we have not sinned, we deceive ourselves." Jesus said "He who is without sin cast the first stone" 'cuz He knoew no one was perfect and without sin. As I see it, there seems to be a verse/counterverse for almost all these arguments.
I don't know why people believe "we will all ultimately fall short".
Jesus certainly didn't seem to think so. Otherwise why would He say things like this?:
John 8:31-32
So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you f ...[text shortened]... shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it."
5 edits
Originally posted by PinkFloydThere's a distinction to be made between "having sinned" and "continuing to sin". I believe that Jesus was saying that there is forgiveness for "having sinned". But Jesus also clearly states that one must overcome sin to gain salvation/eternal life/heaven or however you want to put it. I discount verses that contradict Jesus, because I believe that Jesus had it right. I believe that Jesus was really consistent within His own words. The problems seem to occur with those who have extrapolated on what Jesus taught. Then you have to deal with problems like having Jesus as your 'Lord', but not following His commandments, having been "saved from sin", yet continuing to sin, etc.
But He also told us to pray to the Father saying "forgive us". Paul said "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God", and "If we say we have not sinned, we deceive ourselves." Jesus said "He who is without sin cast the first stone" 'cuz He knoew no one was perfect and without sin. As I see it, there seems to be a verse/counterverse for almost all these arguments.
What I also find disturbing is that it's been my experience that "Christians" are no more moral than the general population. You'd think that there'd be a noticable difference if people were actually following Jesus.
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneMe too!!! I don't have you tube access--and it's NOT work related ('cause I ain't got a job). I should clarify--I can SEE, but not hear anything on youtube or any other of those thingies that show videos. As it is frustrating (for me) to watch silent movies, and I don't like computers anyway--certainly not enough to figger out why there's no audio; ergo I don't watch 'em.
I'd watch it, but I don't have access to youtube videos. I saw it some years ago. Care to describe it?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI didn't think Ayn Rand ever wrote about anything related to religion.
I am applying to a Jesuit school and I suddenly I need to be familiar with this particular topic. Let's have a thread about it. That will be a nice change from reading lots of abstract, airy stuff like this and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Social_Teaching
http://www.lmu.edu/Asset8869.aspx?method=1
The biggest theme I'm picking ...[text shortened]... he Man.
It doesn't help me absorb this material that I've been reading Ayn Rand lately.
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloydFirst of all, Ayn Rand's theme in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged is the opposite of "Catholic Social Teaching" not primarily because it's Catholic but because it's Social Teaching.
I didn't think Ayn Rand ever wrote about anything related to religion.
Secondly, she did write about religion. For example,
"Religion's monopoly in the field of ethics has made it extremely difficult to communicate the emotional meaning and coonotations of a rational view of life. Just as religion has preempted the field of ethics, turning morality against man, so it has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language, placing them outside this earth and beyond man's reach. "Exaltation" is usually taken to mean an emotional state evoked by contemplating the supernatural. "Worship" means the emotional experience of loyalty and dedication to something higher than man. "Reverence" means...
...But such concepts do name actual emotions, even though no supernatural dimension exists; and these emotions are experienced as uplifiting or ennobling, without the self-abasement required by religious definitions. What, then, is their source or referent in reality? It is the entire emotional realm of man's dedication to a moral ideal. Yet apart from the man-degrading aspects introduced by religion, that emotional realm is left unidentified, without concepts, words or recognition.
Is is this highest level of man's emotions that has to be redeemed from the murk of mysticism and redirected at it's proper object: man."
Ayn Rand, Introduction to the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Edition [of The Fountainhead]
For more examples,
http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/religion.html
The Jesuit teaching tradition is such an obvious example of what she villianized in her writings that I can't imagine anyone who's both read her books and looked into "Catholic Social Teaching" can have possibly missed it.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungFirstly, the Jesuits do not have any specific social teaching. They are not a church with unique dogma, separate from the Catholic Church. There are a number of Jesuits who have personal views on social teaching; there are policies established by the Superior General, although these are not themselbes social teachings. There is, however, no such thing as "the Jesuit teaching."
The Jesuit teaching tradition is such an obvious example of what she villianized in her writings that I can't imagine anyone who's both read her books and looked into "Catholic Social Teaching" can have possibly missed it.
That said, however, the Jesuits have often been at odds with the Church because of a moral culture. For example, Jesuits were for some time associated with the school of casuistry, which emphasised that sin was an immoral act relative to the circumstances of the fact and person. In recent times, the Jesuits have been criticised for their primarily social justice concerns, which closely allied with liberation theology, placed greater importance on secular ethics rather than moral theology. Hence why Jesuits are amongth the most liberal Catholics. An interesting article presents this issue:
http://www.cwnews.com/offtherecord/offtherecord.cfm?task=singledisplay&recnum=2627
I expect many Jesuits would agree with Ayn Rand on a number of points.
8 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KThe World Union of Jesuit Alumni refers to "Jesuit education", so I don't think I'm being unreasonable with my terms.
Firstly, the Jesuits do not have any specific social teaching. They are not a church with unique dogma, separate from the Catholic Church. There are a number of Jesuits who have personal views on social teaching; there are policies established by the Superior General, although these are not themselbes social teachings. There is, however, no such thing as "t edisplay&recnum=2627
I expect many Jesuits would agree with Ayn Rand on a number of points.
http://www.jesuitalumni.org/est/doc/chara-en.pdf
If you want to call it the Catholic teaching tradition it doesn't make any difference to me. It might make a difference to the Jesuits though. From the above website:
During the days of discussion, it became evident that a renewed effectiveness depended in part on a clearer and more explicit understanding of the distinctive nature of Jesuit education. Without intending to minimize the problems, the group asserted that Jesuit schools can face a challenging future with confidence if they will be true to their particularly Jesuit heritage...
Father Pedro Arrupe, who was then Superior General of the Society of Jesus, reaffirmed this conclusion when he spoke at the closing session of the meeting. He said that a Jesuit school "should be easily identifiable as such."
I suppose it depends how you intepret the things the Jesuits write. I don't want to argue this detail; it makes no difference to what I'm trying to say.
Originally posted by Conrau KI expect many Jesuits would agree with Ayn Rand on a number of points.
Firstly, the Jesuits do not have any specific social teaching. They are not a church with unique dogma, separate from the Catholic Church. There are a number of Jesuits who have personal views on social teaching; there are policies established by the Superior General, although these are not themselbes social teachings. There is, however, no such thing as "t ...[text shortened]... edisplay&recnum=2627
I expect many Jesuits would agree with Ayn Rand on a number of points.
Well, sure, because people are different. Some professed Jesuits might not agree with the party line in certain details.
If you mean that Jesuit official positions are consistent with Rand's philosophy on a number of points, I'd like some examples.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSure. The Jesuits have a distinctive brand of education. Both in priestly formation and secondary and tertiary education, they differ in a number of ways from other Catholic orders. They are amongst the only religious orders to have their own tertiary institutes - many in Europe and America. Education, however, is different to social teaching.
The World Union of Jesuit Alumni refers to "Jesuit education", so I don't think I'm being unreasonable with my terms.
http://www.jesuitalumni.org/est/doc/chara-en.pdf
If you want to call it the Catholic teaching tradition it doesn't make any difference to me. It might make a difference to the Jesuits though. From the above website:
Durin ...[text shortened]... I don't want to argue this detail; it makes no difference to what I'm trying to say.
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KPlease elaborate on that last sentence. I don't grok the difference.
Sure. The Jesuits have a distinctive brand of education. Both in priestly formation and secondary and tertiary education, they differ in a number of ways from other Catholic orders. They are amongst the only religious orders to have their own tertiary institutes - many in Europe and America. Education, however, is different to social teaching.
Do you mean that education refers to how schools are organized, while teaching refers to how the teacher imparts information to the student, sort of how strategy and tactics are different but related?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI have disavowed that the Jesuits have any official philosophy of social teaching. That was my first point. What I did say is that many Jesuits have views which are shared with Rand's philosophy.
[b]I expect many Jesuits would agree with Ayn Rand on a number of points.
Well, sure, because people are different. Some professed Jesuits might not agree with the party line in certain details.
If you mean that Jesuit official positions are consistent with Rand's philosophy on a number of points, I'd like some examples.[/b]