Originally posted by lucifershammer
There are a couple of ambiguous (equivocal?) terms here. For instance, what does "substandard" mean? If you mean something like "not the best of all possible results", then I'd agree because it isn't simply in God's hands -- humans have their role to play as well and, if they do not cooperate with the right use of their freedom, a globally suboptimal result will obtain. OTOH, given the choices we make, I would not call the result substandard.
Substandard means less than ideal: a person who gets slaughtered for adultery is a substandard
system to a system that entails both justice and forgiveness. Jesus realized this, He imparted
this, and He dismissed the older, inferior system.
(Likewise with the Creation of Man).
A few days ago, I found a purse left in the pews. I opened it, took out the wallet (which had some
money in it), figured out to whom it belonged, looked up their number, called them and returned
the purse without taking the money. The lady was delighted.
A few weeks ago, my wife's wallet fell out of her purse as she got out of the car and walked inside.
The next morning, the wallet was found on our porch without the twenty dollars or so that was in it.
Did we both have free wills? Of course. Why did I decide to return all of it whereas the mystery
person took the money? Different dispositions. These differences are do not remove free
will, they form compelling and constraining influences upon the expression of free will. Similarly,
there is nothing to say that God would have 'created' people with different compelling/constraining
influences (all the while giving free will) such that people would be far more likely to act in particular
manners.
This was more an answer to your 2nd question. To go back to the "He tried but it didn't work" bit; with the Sinai covenant specifically, I believe the intention was to make the "end game" of the Levitical laws clear -- which is where Jesus returns to once they've run their course.
Let's review: Levitical Law (attributed to God) say that a person shall be put to death if they
commit adultery, and the person doing the 'putting to death' clearly is members of the community.
If it is a Law, and it is not obeyed, that is a violation of God's Law. That is, if a community
decided to show mercy, compassion, and forgiveness, they would be violating Levitical Law, God's
Law! They would be breaking an imperative -- the adulterer shall be put to death. A person
electing to show forgiveness would be sinning (or what meaning does a commandment have?).
Consequently, God was saying, at least for the time being, it was better to kill adulterers than it
was to demonstrate clemency. It's not only morally non-culpable and licit, it would be a violation
of Divine Imperative to disobey it. So the choice was slaughter a sinner or explicitly disobey God's
Divine Command (and thus become a sinner). It's hard to even discuss free will here, given two
horrible choices stated like this; either you are free to say to God 'No, I will not follow your Law
for I find it unjust,' or 'I will slaughter this person, as you command.'
This is the 'God' you worship? And it took Him 1000 years to provide clarification on the application
of mercy (and, consequently, to learn how to ignore His explicit command)?
I don't see how morally non-culpable actions necessarily imply COG. You're using the assumption that God is some all-powerful fairy who can just wave his magic wand and make all bad things disappear; I hold that there are constraints that human freedom and his own nature put on God's actions -- that if we're determined to muck things up the best God can do is try and minimise the long-term loss.
Well, if He's omnipotent, then, yes He could wave His magic wand. But given the tantamount
desire to maintain (at least a degree of) human freedom, the question is: Could God have given a
less barbaric command that would have achieved the same goals while minimizing the suffering
that took place? The answer is a most definite yes, for God sent Jesus to proclaim just that;
Jesus proclaimed a God of mercy and forgiveness, not violence and retribution. To suggest that
the delay of about a thousand years between Levitical Law and Jesus was salvifically ideal is to
maintain that to have sent Jesus a day sooner would have been less ideal. If not a day, then why
not a week? If not a week, then why not a year? If not a year, why not a century? Each day
earlier could have resulted in the saving of lives slaughtered while following the imperatives of
God's Levitical Law.
This is what I mean by COG; in suggesting that God had a larger salvific plan for people that He
wanted to obtain and, thus, gave Levitical Law (knowing how it would turn out) and waited 1000
years before clarifying/altering/repealing (whatever), requires that the deaths meted out during
that time were salvifically necessary, that Jesus' arriving earlier would have been 'too soon' with
respect to that salvific plan, that one fewer adulterer killed would have made the plan less than
perfect. More clearly, that God chose to impose Levitical Law (remember, they are imperative,
not suggestive) rather than New Covenant Theology (on this issue at least) shows a callousness
towards those who commit the sin of adultery.
Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammerYour Church allows annulments. An annulment is a public declaration that the Sacrament of
If the priest is Catholic, his is not a job.
Marriage did not take place; that is, even though vows were exchanged, even though the couple
professed before God and before witnesses that they would commit to each other wholly and
without reservation, the Church can review the documents and say 'You know what, the ontological
alteration did not take place.' When this happens, does the couple become post facto
adulterers? No. Do their children become post facto illegitimate? No. Everything is valid
after the recognition that the Sacrament was not 'effected.'
Similarly, a priest who is a child molester is providing some of the most tangible evidence that he
was not touched ontologically, not called (vocare) by God to provide spiritual guidance and comfort
to a flock. We can discern without difficulty that, even though a bishop laid hands on him and said
'Arise, a priest,' that no sacerdotal ontology was bestowed. That the Church can't recognize this is
astonishing.
That the Church would expect the laity to continue to be comfortable offering tithes and other gifts
to continue to pay for the housing and board for these so-called priests who have failed egregiously
in the most fundamental of their ministries (caring for the weak) and demonstrated that their
character belies any claim that they had to vocation is totally beyond me.
Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammerDoes the small child have responsibilities as well (say, to obey his/her parents' wishes where they are reasonable)?
Does the small child have responsibilities as well (say, to obey his/her parents' wishes where they are reasonable)?
What about elderly, senile parents being cared for by their children?
No. Part of being a child is disobeying. That's part of the bargain that parents accept when choosing to have children. An essential component of parenting is handling disobedience. I don't call for death for disobedient children; I don't find it to be an injustice at all.
What about elderly, senile parents being cared for by their children?
What about them? Am I effectively a slave to my parents? I can choose to take care of them out of good will, but they certainly wouldn't have a legitimate claim against me if I don't.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesNever mind a legal claim. Obviously, none can be made.
I can choose to take care of them out of good will, but they certainly wouldn't have a legitimate claim against me if I don't.
But don't you think that one can reason a moral claim out of it? That
is, in circumstances where parents have demonstrated unusual support
beyond the obligation of child-rearing, where that support was both
solicited and accepted, one has a certain duty for reciprocity?
I am obviously not talking about every situation -- situations where
parents abandon children, beat them, kick them out of the house and
so on -- but where parents (with the knowing consent of their kids)
extend their responsibilities to include support in the child's adult life?
While a verbal (much less written) contract may not be articulate, don't
you think that one could reasonably be expected to help out a person
who went out of their way to help you? (And again, I don't mean
expected in any legal sense.)
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioPerhaps in those circumstances, but that debt of reciprocity arises out of something other than the parent-son relationship being dicussed.
That is, in circumstances where parents have demonstrated unusual support beyond the obligation of child-rearing, where that support was both
solicited and accepted, one has a certain duty for reciprocity?
LH contends that a son has some responsibility to a parent merely in virtue of being a son, and I am denying that contention.
The circumstances you stipulate aren't endemic to the parent-child relationship. They could just as easily arise between siblings, or neighbors, or any other pair of people where one has continually solicited favors from another. I would indeed consider one a leech who simply chooses to not reciprocate when the table are turned, but I wouldn't appeal to the parent-son relationship in defending that finding.
And after all, that's what this tangent is about - some putative essential relationship itself between priest and church imposing irrevocable responsibilities upon each party.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesGotcha.
Perhaps in those circumstances, but that reciprocity arises out of something other than the parent-son relationship being dicussed.
LH contends that a son has responsibility to a parent merely in virtue of being a son, and I am denying that contention.
The circumstances you stipulate aren't endemic to the parent-child relationship. They coul ...[text shortened]... nship itself between priest and church imposing irrevocable responsibilities upon each party.
Originally posted by PalynkaThis is interesting because Christ spoke quite frequently about Hell wich is far more severe than mere execution.🙂
He never condemned the use of condoms either.
What happened to the rest of his message that contradicts such strong punishments?
Love in Christ,
Jeremy Burnett.