• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
S&G - I know it's not you making the remark, but instead suggesting what you'd think the Pope would say, but what do you think Catholics should think about things like war, which involve killing. How about the inquisition? What about mitigated killing, like in self defense? Car accidents? Etc.

I mean, do you think the Pope would have me going to hell if I'm driving down the road at the posted speed limit, and am otherwise observing all applicable laws, and a kid suddenly darts out in front of me, literally giving me NO opportunity to stop my car?
 
Upvote 0
From the Catechism

Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.

2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.
Click to expand...

...so, even IF you were to presuppose that the 19 who jumped actually committed suicide, there seems to be some wiggle room and definite hope for salvation. I personally feel that they would be (or are) considered victims of murder, and possibly considered martyrs, given the socio-religio implications of the attacks.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;948737; said:
S&G - I know it's not you making the remark, but instead suggesting what you'd think the Pope would say, but what do you think Catholics should think about things like war, which involve killing. How about the inquisition? What about mitigated killing, like in self defense? Car accidents? Etc.

I mean, do you think the Pope would have me going to hell if I'm driving down the road at the posted speed limit, and am otherwise observing all applicable laws, and a kid suddenly darts out in front of me, literally giving me NO opportunity to stop my car?
Click to expand...
Well, IMHO, Catholics should be against war, and against killing. The inquistion should be looked at with disgust, as the crusades should be.. killing in the name of God is totally fucked up, especially when the book they are killing in the name of quite simply says, the two greatest commandments of all are: 1.) Love God with all your heart, mind, and soul. 2.) Love everyone as yourself.

Self-defense, if you want to get down to the brass tacks.. you should turn the other cheek and place full faith in Christ. When Christ was hanging on the cross, he said "forgive them.." so I mean, its not very realistic.. but the proper thing to do according to Jesus' teachings would be to place full faith in the Father and become a martyr, and make no mistake, if you die thinking I'm going to turn the other cheek and forgive as I'm being struck down, you are dieing in the name of Christ.

If you truely believe in Jesus Christ, and dub yourself a Christian.. you should turn the other cheek. How realistic is that? Not very.. if someone goes a stabs/shoots my sister or brother, you better believe its gonna be damn hard to turn the other cheek and let it slide by..

Although we are taught to never retailiate, to forgive, and wish love upon your enemys and leave it to God and karma to do there thing.

Matthew 5:38-42: You have heard that it was said, ?Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.? But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

1 Peter 2:21-23: ?Christ suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow in his steps: ? When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.

I don't think Cathlioc view points align all that much with the teachings of Christ. For example, the sucide thing.. I don't think a God who is a just, would condemn those who leaped from the WTC buildings.. but I do think the "Church" would condemn them..

In your example, if you killed a little kid.. one, in that example I don't think you're guilty of sin and just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

But if one were to say, killing is killing and thats a sin.. if you were to repent of the action, you would not be going to "hell." IMO..
 
Upvote 0
Originally Posted by Thump
When have you ever known the Catholic Church to be rational?

Muck;949789; said:
Far more often that the average sodomite would like to give it credit for. :)
Click to expand...

C'mon, Muck, are you really saying Thump is just an "average" sodomite?

He seems really dedicated...:biggrin:
 
Upvote 0
This is more for my Christian brothers and sisters, but all are certainly welcome to give their perspective:

Other than teachings about the nature of the Holy Spirit, can you think of any principles/teachings in the New Testament that cannot be found in the Old Testament?
 
Upvote 0
buckeyegrad;957107; said:
This is more for my Christian brothers and sisters, but all are certainly welcome to give their perspective:

Other than teachings about the nature of the Holy Spirit, can you think of any principles/teachings in the New Testament that cannot be found in the Old Testament?
Click to expand...

The turn-the-other cheek "forgiveness" concept seems to be totally absent from the Old Testament.
 
Upvote 0
Much of the Law in the Old Testament is less about morality and more about jurisprudence whereas there is a prescribed offering to Yahweh to atone. Forgiveness isnt necesary when you can crack open a dove or two for a burnt offering.
 
Upvote 0
Gatorubet;957661; said:
The turn-the-other cheek "forgiveness" concept seems to be totally absent from the Old Testament.
Click to expand...

Actually, the principle of turn-the-other-cheek comes from the Old Testament:

Do not say, "I'll pay you back for this wrong!" Wait for the Lord, and he will deliver you. (Proverbs 20:22)

Do not say, "I'll do to him as he has done to me; I'll pay that man back for what he did" (Proverbs 24:29)

I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting (Isaiah 50:6)

And most directly:

Let him offer his cheek to one who would strike him, and let him be filled with disgrace (Lamentations 3:30)

Although forgiving others was certainly a teaching of Jesus (Matthew 18), which I will address in another post, the turn-the-other-cheek principle is not about forgiveness. Rather it was about correcting the incorrect application of eye-for-eye, which the Pharisees had interpreted as being justification for personal revenge. Once we see the Old Testament teachings on this principle that Jesus was drawing from, we can see that he was really teaching about putting one's faith in God to carry out justice when one is personally persecuted or assaulted.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
buckeyegrad;957107; said:
This is more for my Christian brothers and sisters, but all are certainly welcome to give their perspective:

Other than teachings about the nature of the Holy Spirit, can you think of any principles/teachings in the New Testament that cannot be found in the Old Testament?
Click to expand...
The fulfillment of the law and the complete forgiveness of sins, rather than just atonement or covering of sins.
 
Upvote 0
t_BuckeyeScott;961122; said:
I don't totally agree -- I believe it was taught in the OT just that it hadn't happened yet.
Click to expand...

I would also argue that it was taught in the OT, especially through the prophets. I don't have time for a full explanation right now, but what immediately jumped to mind was Jeremiah 31:31-34.

The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."
 
Upvote 0
GoBucks89;960228; said:
The fulfillment of the law and the complete forgiveness of sins, rather than just atonement or covering of sins.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, GB89; the language I have seen referenced in the OT is pretty vague and open to many different interpretations. Whereas it is very explicit and obvious in the Gospel; in fact, one might say that forgiveness of sins through faith, rather than by works, is the Gospel.
 
Upvote 0
buckeyegrad said:
I would also argue that it was taught in the OT, especially through the prophets. I don't have time for a full explanation right now, but what immediately jumped to mind was Jeremiah 31:31-34.

The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."
Click to expand...
Figures you would show me up with actual scripture, you're right. I should have I just got lazy.
 
Upvote 0
MaxBuck;961150; said:
I agree with you, GB89; the language I have seen referenced in the OT is pretty vague and open to many different interpretations. Whereas it is very explicit and obvious in the Gospel; in fact, one might say that forgiveness of sins through faith, rather than by works, is the Gospel.
Click to expand...

You say it is vague in the OT, but explicit in the Gospel (which I assume you mean is NT). However, Hebrews directly quotes Jeremiah 31 several times to demonstrate the idea of a final and perfect atoning sacrfice that would result in the "fulfillment of the law" and a "complete and final forgiveness of sins" is not a new concept, but something that had been promised all along.

Also, I would completely disagree with your understanding of the Gospel being about forgiveness through faith and not works--which by the way is an OT principle (read Psalm 51 for one example). What verses would you point to to show that this is what any of the NT authors meant when they referred to the Gospel (i.e. Good News)?
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top