http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=82821
Pius IX proposed again a conviction consolidated for centuries in Christian theology: There are men and women who, for various reasons, whether because of cultural conditionings, or because of an experience or a negative contact with the Christian faith, are unable to consent to the faith.
Although it might seem that these people consciously reject Christ, one cannot make an unquestionable judgment on this rejection.
Invincible ignorance indicates precisely a condition of lack of knowledge in regard to Christ, the Church, the faith, a lack of knowledge that, for the time being, cannot be overcome with an act of will.
The person is blocked, as though unable to express a "yes" to faith.
As we see every day among our acquaintances, the reasons why many people say no to Christ are many: disappointment, betrayal, poor catechesis, cultural and social conditioning.
Pius IX himself admitted the difficulty of delimiting the cases of invincible ignorance, stating: "Who will arrogate to himself the power to determine the limits of that ignorance according to the character and variety of peoples, of regions, of spirits and of so many other elements?"
Pius IX taught us therefore a great prudence and great respect for those who do not have the gift of faith in Christ.
We are not able to understand altogether the reasons for a rejection of faith, nor can we know with certainty that someone who seems to have no faith, in fact has a very imperfect form of faith.
Originally posted by lucifershammerMy view has always been about differentiating between "being assured of your salvation"... and leaving it up to God. I don't think one can ever reach the position of "unquestionable judgement" on anybody.
http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=82821Pius IX proposed again a conviction consolidated for centuries in Christian theology: There are men and women who, for various reasons, whether because of cultural conditionings, or because of an experience or a negative contact with the Christian faith, are unable to consent to the faith ...[text shortened]... that someone who seems to have no faith, in fact has a very imperfect form of faith.
Originally posted by lucifershammerAs far as i see, all faith is developed through conditioning which can inclulcate christian theology. It's not a very obscure idea that other people receive another type of conditioning which causes them to reject Christianity. Different conditioning would causes different faiths. I suppose one is just more likely then the other.
http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=82821Pius IX proposed again a conviction consolidated for centuries in Christian theology: There are men and women who, for various reasons, whether because of cultural conditionings, or because of an experience or a negative contact with the Christian faith, are unable to consent to the faith ...[text shortened]... that someone who seems to have no faith, in fact has a very imperfect form of faith.
Originally posted by lucifershammerAs we see every day among our acquaintances, the reasons why many people say no to Christ are many: disappointment, betrayal, poor catechesis, cultural and social conditioning.
http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=82821Pius IX proposed again a conviction consolidated for centuries in Christian theology: There are men and women who, for various reasons, whether because of cultural conditionings, or because of an experience or a negative contact with the Christian faith, are unable to consent to the faith ...[text shortened]... that someone who seems to have no faith, in fact has a very imperfect form of faith.
Oh, I see. So it is necessarily some sort of disillusionment process and/or unfavorable 'conditioning' that leads to disbelief. It couldn't simply be that the theist has failed miserably in making his case.
Who will arrogate to himself the power to determine the limits of that ignorance according to the character and variety of peoples, of regions, of spirits and of so many other elements?
If God does not exist, then there is definitely no problem here. If He does exist, then I guess He will just have to make time in His busy schedule to deal with these "ignorant" persons. Maybe He should reapportion some of the time He currently uses to cause earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, plagues, and other natural evils that lead to logically unnecessary suffering.
Pius IX taught us therefore a great prudence and great respect for those who do not have the gift of faith in Christ.
I must remember Pius IX's compassion and tolerance whenever I encounter those who lack belief in the tiny magical green (and yet invisible) elves who live in our nostrils. In such cases, I have always found it difficult for me to keep my composure in the face of such rampant, unchecked ignorance. So the next time some ignoramus tries to convince me that there is no such thing as tiny magical green elves (and further that it is not possible to be simultaneously green and invisible), I will just remind myself that I should not arrogate to myself the power to estimate just how deep their ignorance really goes: it's good enough to just conclude that they are in fact ignorant (to at least some degree), and let the magical elvish deal with the rest.
Of course, this tolerance is a step in the right direction. After all, in the realm of arbitrary beliefs, intolerance cannot be justified.
Originally posted by LemonJelloOh, I see. So it is necessarily some sort of disillusionment process and/or unfavorable 'conditioning' that leads to disbelief. It couldn't simply be that the theist has failed miserably in making his case.
As we see every day among our acquaintances, the reasons why many people say no to Christ are many: disappointment, betrayal, poor catechesis, cultural and social conditioning.
Oh, I see. So it is necessarily some sort of disillusionment process and/or unfavorable 'conditioning' that leads to disbelief. It couldn't simply be that the theist has f ...[text shortened]... n. After all, in the realm of arbitrary beliefs, intolerance cannot be justified.[/b]
In practice, that is more often the case than not. Look at the way many atheists respond to religion (especially Christianity) on this site - the response is extremely vituperating and betrays some underlying emotional issue, not a philosophical one.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerDr Lucy, I find the comments you mention are often directed at individuals whose perceived stupidity, narrow-mindedness, arrogance, condescension or bigotry angers the vituperative poster. Those known theists who seldom if ever display the above qualities attract far less vitriol their way.
Look at the way many atheists respond to religion (especially Christianity) on this site - the response is extremely vituperating and betrays some underlying emotional issue, not a philosophical one.
As a matter of interest, do you think Bertrand Russell's rejection of Christianity was emotionally or philosophically motivated?
Are STANG's vocal detractors emotionally deficient or are they simply very annoyed?
Originally posted by lucifershammerIs hysteria an emotion?
[b]Oh, I see. So it is necessarily some sort of disillusionment process and/or unfavorable 'conditioning' that leads to disbelief. It couldn't simply be that the theist has failed miserably in making his case.
In practice, that is more often the case than not. Look at the way many atheists respond to religion (especially Christianity) on this ...[text shortened]... ely vituperating and betrays some underlying emotional issue, not a philosophical one.[/b]
Some words on salvation that actually make sense:
"According to Valentinus, Jesus is indeed Saviour, but the term needs to be understood in the meaning of the original Greek word, used by orthodox and Gnostic Christian alike. This word is soter, meaning healer, or bestower of health. From this is derived the word today translated as salvation, i.e., soteria, which originally meant healthiness, deliverance from imperfection, becoming whole, and preserving one's wholeness." (http://www.gnosis.org/valentinus.htm)
Originally posted by Bosse de Nagei]Originally posted by Bosse de Nage[/i]
Some words on salvation that actually make sense:
"According to Valentinus, Jesus is indeed Saviour, but the term needs to be understood in the meaning of the original Greek word, used by orthodox and Gnostic Christian alike. This word is soter, meaning healer, or bestower of health. From this is derived the word today translated as salvation, i.e., ...[text shortened]... tion, becoming whole, and preserving one's wholeness." (http://www.gnosis.org/valentinus.htm)
"According to Valentinus, Jesus is indeed Saviour,..."
Gospel of Truth:
"Oh, such great teaching! He abases himself even unto death, though he is clothed in eternal life. Having divested himself of these perishable rags, he clothed himself in incorruptibility, which no one could possibly take from him. Having entered into the empty territory of fears, he passed before those who were stripped by forgetfulness, being both knowledge and perfection, proclaiming the things that are in the heart of the Father, so that he became the wisdom of those who have received instruction. "
Originally posted by JadeMantisWhat do you make of that?
"Oh, such great teaching! He abases himself even unto death, though he is clothed in eternal life. Having divested himself of these perishable rags, he clothed himself in incorruptibility, which no one could possibly take from him. Having entered into the empty territory of fears, he passed before those who were stripped by forgetfulness, being both knowl ...[text shortened]... he heart of the Father, so that he became the wisdom of those who have received instruction. "
I threw some soapy water on a tomato bush the other day and an albino mantis came out. Wonder what the San would make of that.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOriginally posted by Bosse de Nage
Dr Lucy, I find the comments you mention are often directed at individuals whose perceived stupidity, narrow-mindedness, arrogance, condescension or bigotry angers the vituperative poster. Those known theists who seldom if ever display the above qualities attract far less vitriol their way.
As a matter of interest, do you think Bertrand Russell's ...[text shortened]... ivated?
Are STANG's vocal detractors emotionally deficient or are they simply very annoyed?
Dr Lucy, I find the comments you mention are often directed at individuals whose perceived stupidity, narrow-mindedness, arrogance, condescension or bigotry angers the vituperative poster. Those known theists who seldom if ever display the above qualities attract far less vitriol their way.
This is a common defence on this forum - but I find it does not really work out that way in practice. Look at this very thread, for instance - I see nothing incendiary that merits the derisive responses of DavidC and LJ.
As a matter of interest, do you think Bertrand Russell's rejection of Christianity was emotionally or philosophically motivated?
Both. Although, judging from his brother Frank's reaction, I'd say the emotional came before the philosophical.
Originally posted by lucifershammer"Incendiary"? I think the word you're looking for is "ridiculous" (in the eyes of David C and LJ).
This is a common defence on this forum - but I find it does not really work out that way in practice. Look at this very thread, for instance - I see nothing incendiary that merits the derisive responses of DavidC and LJ.