Purgatory

[Kendall K. Down]

A conversation between Sir George of Capelburgh and his chaplain, Father
Nicholas, in the year of our Lord 1357.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

All Hallows Eve - better known in the Twenty-second Century as Halloween
- was the evening before All Saints Day, which fell on November 1. The
following day - November 2 - was All Souls Day. On All Saints Day we
remember all those who have attained the Beatific Vision - that is, who
are now in God's presence, for the church teaches that before we can
reach that state we must undergo a period of purification. I remember
once asking Father Nicholas about that, because I had learned enough in
my exploration of Christianity back in the Twenty-second Century to know
that most Protestants rejected the idea of Purgatory.

"My lord," Father Nicholas said, "In the fifth of St Matthew, in the
Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells us, 'Therefore be ye perfect, as your
heavenly Father is perfect.' That is indeed a high mark at which to
shoot and I know that I, poor sinner that I am, fail of reaching it."

"You mean, being as good as God is?" I asked. "Yes, I know what you
mean. I mean, I reckon I'm a pretty good chap, but I certainly can't
claim to be perfect like God. I get annoyed at times, I'm impatient if
things don't happen as quickly as I think they should, all that sort of
thing."

Father Nicholas nodded and grinned. "Then, my lord, before you can
appear before God's majesty, it is meet and right that you should be
made perfect, for Isaiah saith, 'who of you may dwell with fire
devouring? who of you shall dwell with everlasting burnings?' Therefore,
lest you taste the pains of hell by coming unworthy before God, it is
right that you should taste the pains of Purgatory, that you may be led
to rightly repent of your sins."

"So Purgatory is a sort of mini-hell?" I asked - and regretted it
immediately, because "mini" had not entered the mediaeval vocabulary.

Once the idea had been explained to him, Father Nicholas looked solemn.
"My lord, there is some dispute about the exact nature of Purgatory. For
myself, I know that when a child is schooled, he is beaten or otherwise
punished for his errors, that he may learn aright. I think, therefore,
that Purgatory is more like a school, where those who play the fool
instead of applying themselves to their books are punished."

"By hell fire?" I persisted.

Father Nicholas shrugged. "Bethink you, my lord, that it is souls, not
corporeal bodies, which are in Purgatory. Blows and buffets touch not
the soul, my lord, but hell fire, which is fire suitable for a soul,
will play the part and may thus be said to 'burn away' our sins from us."

"And how long must I spend in Purgatory?" I demanded.

Father Nicholas looked at me for a moment, as if judging my humour, and
then replied, "Why, such an one as your lordship must expect many years
in Purgatory, except you pay some worthy priest - such as myself - to
pray for you."

He grinned as he said it and we both laughed, but further conversation
revealed that no one knew how long any individual would stay in
Purgatory, therefore we could not tell who was now enjoying the Beatific
Vision - hence the festival of All Saints, which honoured saints without
defining who held that status. The feast of All Souls was where we
honoured and prayed for all who had died, whether they enjoyed the
Beatific Vision or not.

[Mike Davis]

On 29/08/2021 11:19, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> A conversation between Sir George of Capelburgh and his chaplain, Father
> Nicholas, in the year of our Lord 1357.
>
> God bless,
> Kendall K. Down

Nicely framed, Kendall!

I'm not really going to advance or defend any comments that arise...
other than to ensure that the 'final purification of the elect' is
totally different from the punishment of the damned.

I haven't tried very hard, but the tradition of praying for the dead
goes back a long way, the earliest official pronouncement I can find
seems to be the Council of Lyons II 1274 making reference to Matt 12:31-32
"And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but
blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a
word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks
against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in
the age to come."

..Which seems to imply that *some* offences will be forgiven in 'the
age to come'.

We pray for those who are still with us, why shouldn't we continue to
pray for those we love when they are gone? (They may be outside time, we
are not.)

Mike

--
Mike Davis

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Kendall K. Down]

On 30/08/2021 17:45, Mike Davis wrote:

> Nicely framed, Kendall!

Thanks. I was afraid that it might not truly reflect Catholic doctrine.

> I haven't tried very hard, but the tradition of praying for the dead
> goes back a long way, the earliest official pronouncement I can find
> seems to be the Council of Lyons II 1274

Hmmmm. 1274 is a long way back, I suppose, but very far from being
"early" or "apostolic". Considering that many Protestants believe that
the papacy began to fall away from true Christianity once it achieved
political power under Justinian - in other words, around AD 530/538 -
that was fairly late in the process of corruption!

> making reference to Matt 12:31-32

Which says nothing whatsoever about prayers to or for the dead.

> "And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but
> blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a
> word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks
> against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in
> the age to come."
> ..Which seems to imply that *some* offences will be forgiven in 'the age
> to come'.

Other interpretations are possible which do not involve such a
theologically suspect notion.

> We pray for those who are still with us, why shouldn't we continue to
> pray for those we love when they are gone? (They may be outside time, we
> are not.)

Actually, I wouldn't entirely reject the notion of prayers for the dead.
In just the same way as "before they call I will answer", I may pray now
for protection for my son only to find that he was miraculously saved
from a car crash several hours previously, so I may pray now for my dead
son, only to find that God was working to answer that prayer before my
son died.

What I would reject is the idea that a prayer offered after a person's
death will be answered after that person's death.

[Mike Davis]

I would say that's a reasonable point of view, and not inconsistent with
the RC doctrine.

>
> What I would reject is the idea that a prayer offered after a person's
> death will be answered after that person's death.

You may reject it, but the fact is that we really don't know, in what
way God deals with it. (You may disagree with RC Doctrine, but it's
usually _your_ interpretation of that doctrine that you are disagreeing
with!)

But there's still that passage I've quoted before in Maccabees. And
possibly it's consistent with the Jewish Kaddish, which, although
basically praise, is said in memory of the dead.

Mike

[Kendall K. Down]

On 31/08/2021 22:02, Mike Davis wrote:

>> What I would reject is the idea that a prayer offered after a person's
>> death will be answered after that person's death.
>
> You may reject it, but the fact is that we really don't know, in what
> way God deals with it. (You may disagree with RC Doctrine, but it's
> usually _your_ interpretation of that doctrine that you are disagreeing
> with!)

I agree that we don't really know and of course I would not wish to
trespass on God's prerogative, but the idea that someone can live this
life in a state of rebellion against God (but not quite bad enough to
merit hell) then turn to God after death seems to me contrary to
Scripture which always speaks of this present life as the time for
repentance, contrition and turning to God.

> But there's still that passage I've quoted before in Maccabees.

As we know, many dubious ideas and practices crept into Judaism in the
later period - and Jesus spent a lot of time rejecting and correcting
them. In this respent, don't you find it significant that no opportunity
for post-mortem repentance is offered to Dives?

> And
> possibly it's consistent with the Jewish Kaddish, which, although
> basically praise, is said in memory of the dead.

In memory of the dead, fine. In aid of the dead, hmmmm.

[Mike Davis]

On 01/09/2021 07:31, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 31/08/2021 22:02, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>>> What I would reject is the idea that a prayer offered after a
>>> person's death will be answered after that person's death.
>>
>> You may reject it, but the fact is that we really don't know, in what
>> way God deals with it. (You may disagree with RC Doctrine, but it's
>> usually _your_ interpretation of that doctrine that you are
>> disagreeing with!)
>
> I agree that we don't really know and of course I would not wish to
> trespass on God's prerogative, but the idea that someone can live this
> life in a state of rebellion against God (but not quite bad enough to
> merit hell) then turn to God after death seems to me contrary to
> Scripture which always speaks of this present life as the time for
> repentance, contrition and turning to God.

What does "not quite bad enough to merit hell" mean? "Living one's life
in a state of rebellion against God" seems pretty final. One has to
assume that God has given such people every chance to understand the
issue. (i.e. Of knowing right & wrong).

>
>> But there's still that passage I've quoted before in Maccabees.
>
> As we know, many dubious ideas and practices crept into Judaism in the
> later period - and Jesus spent a lot of time rejecting and correcting
> them. In this respent, don't you find it significant that no opportunity
> for post-mortem repentance is offered to Dives?

I've shared my idiosyncratic opinion before:- That we are 'designed' to
become perfect and so take our righteous place in heaven because we have
stood 'under the cross'. However, for those who "wish to retain some
sin" will find that they enter heaven with those sinful 'bits' missing
(I don't mean physically!), and therefore survive at a 'lower level',
but those who have lived totally self-giving lives will enjoy the
fullness of paradise. But those who are bent on rejecting what is right
in their relationship with God will not qualify - it would be hell for
them to be forced to live eternally in the presence of the One they have
tried to get away from all their earthly life. I see 'purgatory' as the
'hospital' where the redeemed souls have the 'dirty bits' removed to
free them into God's presence. Again we have discussed this in the theme
of Gerontius.

(Again i've mentioned before that I get the above impression reinforced
by some to the deliverance ministry in which I have been involved. If
'demons' are 'fallen angels' I would expect them to have some 'majesty',
but some seem like minor parasites, cowering and only too ready to give
up their 'prize'.)

>> And possibly it's consistent with the Jewish Kaddish, which, although
>> basically praise, is said in memory of the dead.
>
> In memory of the dead, fine. In aid of the dead, hmmmm.

The Church is a 'communion of Saints' in which we are all here to help
and support and ask God's help for one another. Not all have been able
to fully express their desire to reach God in this earthly life, so I
have no problem using my 'role as a Christian' to put their case before
the heavenly throne. Why should when they lived matter? God is not time
bound, even though we are!

[Kendall K. Down]

On 01/09/2021 16:51, Mike Davis wrote:

> What does "not quite bad enough to merit hell" mean?

The thought, if not the exact words, comes from Catholic literature
about purgatory.

> I've shared my idiosyncratic opinion before:- That we are 'designed' to
> become perfect and so take our righteous place in heaven because we have
> stood 'under the cross'. However, for those who "wish to retain some
> sin" will find that they enter heaven with those sinful 'bits' missing
> (I don't mean physically!), and therefore survive at a 'lower level',
> but those who have lived totally self-giving lives will enjoy the
> fullness of paradise. But those who are bent on rejecting what is right
> in their relationship with God will not qualify - it would be hell for
> them to be forced to live eternally in the presence of the One they have
> tried to get away from all their earthly life. I see 'purgatory' as the
> 'hospital' where the redeemed souls have the 'dirty bits' removed to
> free them into God's presence. Again we have discussed this in the theme
> of Gerontius.

ie. those not bad enough to merit hell!

> The Church is a 'communion of Saints' in which we are all here to help
> and support and ask God's help for one another. Not all have been able
> to fully express their desire to reach God in this earthly life, so I
> have no problem using my 'role as a Christian' to put their case before
> the heavenly throne. Why should when they lived matter? God is not time
> bound, even though we are!

You don't feel that they, in the presence of God, might not be able to
put their own case even more forcefully than you can? Your claim only
really makes sense if the dead are not yet in God's presence.

[Mike Davis]

Clearly - I don't know! But the difference is between our spiritual
existence and our rising again on the 'last day' (& final Judgement).

I don't 'claim' anything, I'm only trying to express what I can
understand through both the Bible and Church teaching.

[Jason]

On Wed, 01 Sep 2021 21:29:30 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 01/09/2021 16:51, Mike Davis wrote:

>> The Church is a 'communion of Saints' in which we are all here to help
>> and support and ask God's help for one another. Not all have been able
>> to fully express their desire to reach God in this earthly life, so I
>> have no problem using my 'role as a Christian' to put their case before
>> the heavenly throne. Why should when they lived matter? God is not time
>> bound, even though we are!

For me, that is the key part, that God is not time bound. I'd go further
in fact: I think I mentioned in an earlier thread, that suppose I
intended to pray for a particular thing at a particular time, but somehow
was distracted or forgot. I see no problem in praying later, when I did
remember, even if this is "after the fact". I will trust God to put it
all in the correct order. I see it like when they make a film, where
they shoot all the footage in the sequence most suited to production
(e.g. all the 'riverside' scenes in one go) and then the editor puts them
all in the right order.

> You don't feel that they, in the presence of God, might not be able to
> put their own case even more forcefully than you can? Your claim only
> really makes sense if the dead are not yet in God's presence.

If it was true that we can all put our own cases more forcefully than any
one else can, why bother praying for other people at all!!??

[Kendall K. Down]

On 02/09/2021 13:04, Jason wrote:

> If it was true that we can all put our own cases more forcefully than any
> one else can, why bother praying for other people at all!!??

The scenario concerned the dead who - according to Mike - are in heaven
and in the presence of God. Mind you, perhaps purgatory is not strictly
speaking "heaven" and it may be debated how much access those in
purgatory have to God - but at least it isn't hell.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 02/09/2021 18:27, Mike Davis wrote:

> I don't 'claim' anything, I'm only trying to express what I can
> understand through both the Bible and Church teaching.

Well, if you're going by the Bible, you can forget about purgatory.
Church teaching on the matter is non-Biblical and in my opinion,
un-Biblical.

[Jason]

But whether the individual concerned is in heaven, hell, purgatory or
somewhere else doesn't alter that fact of people "putting their own case
more forcefully than anyone else". If that's true when they are dead,
why isn't it equally true when they are alive?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 03/09/2021 12:20, Jason wrote:

> But whether the individual concerned is in heaven, hell, purgatory or
> somewhere else doesn't alter that fact of people "putting their own case
> more forcefully than anyone else". If that's true when they are dead,
> why isn't it equally true when they are alive?

The point is that the dead are believed to have closer and more
immediate access to God than do the living. So no matter how passionate
your prayers, they cannot match someone who bumps into God down in the
corner shop as they buy their daily newspapers.

[Mike Davis]

Surely, 'we' believe that we have 'free-will' while we are alive, but
this is not available to us after death, and outside time awaiting the
resurrection. You, after all, believe in soul-sleep!

But I still see no reason why we should not pray for their salvation,
even if we hope that God applies it 'retrospectively'.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 04/09/2021 21:57, Mike Davis wrote:

> Surely, 'we' believe that we have 'free-will' while we are alive, but
> this is not available to us after death, and outside time awaiting the
> resurrection. You, after all, believe in soul-sleep!

Sorry, I don't understand your point. If we are asleep/unconscious, the
question of freewill doesn't arise. How much freewill do you exercise
while you are asleep? If you were knocked unconscious in an accident,
how much freewill could you exercise over which hospital you go to?

> But I still see no reason why we should not pray for their salvation,
> even if we hope that God applies it 'retrospectively'.

No, nor do I - so long as it is clearly understood that the answer will
be retrospective. In which case it is usually pretty clear what that
answer was!

If I pray for X's conversion but I am then a witness to the fact that he
died unconverted and railing and blaspheming against God, there seems
little point in continuing to pray after his death for it is obvious
that whether the prayers were offered pre- or post-mortem, they did not
effect his conversion!

[Mike Davis]

On 05/09/2021 06:49, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 04/09/2021 21:57, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> Surely, 'we' believe that we have 'free-will' while we are alive, but
>> this is not available to us after death, and outside time awaiting the
>> resurrection. You, after all, believe in soul-sleep!
>
> Sorry, I don't understand your point. If we are asleep/unconscious, the
> question of freewill doesn't arise. How much freewill do you exercise
> while you are asleep? If you were knocked unconscious in an accident,
> how much freewill could you exercise over which hospital you go to?

Which is why I'd welcome someone praying for me.

>
>> But I still see no reason why we should not pray for their salvation,
>> even if we hope that God applies it 'retrospectively'.
>
> No, nor do I - so long as it is clearly understood that the answer will
> be retrospective. In which case it is usually pretty clear what that
> answer was!
>
> If I pray for X's conversion but I am then a witness to the fact that he
> died unconverted and railing and blaspheming against God, there seems
> little point in continuing to pray after his death for it is obvious
> that whether the prayers were offered pre- or post-mortem, they did not
> effect his conversion!

You seem to think *you* re the judge, the premise assumes that God is
the Judge, we are the petitioners and that God will listen! (Luke 18:1-8)

[Jason]

On Sun, 05 Sep 2021 06:49:08 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> If I pray for X's conversion but I am then a witness to the fact that he
> died unconverted and railing and blaspheming against God, there seems
> little point in continuing to pray after his death for it is obvious
> that whether the prayers were offered pre- or post-mortem, they did not
> effect his conversion!

As an aside, how many people have your really encountered who "rail and
blaspheme against God" right up to their death bed? Unless the people in
your part of the world are particularly heathen, I don't suspect it will
be a large fraction of the total number of non-Christians you have known.

[Jason]

I don't think access to God works that way. I have no reason to suspect
that if I bumped into him at the shops he would pay more heed to me than
if I prayed to him in silence. Why do you think our prayers would carry
more weight if we were face to face? It didn't help Adam and Eve's case
much at any rate, and they bumped in to him regularly.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 05/09/2021 12:49, Jason wrote:

> As an aside, how many people have your really encountered who "rail and
> blaspheme against God" right up to their death bed? Unless the people in
> your part of the world are particularly heathen, I don't suspect it will
> be a large fraction of the total number of non-Christians you have known.

I can't say that I have tracked any right up to their death beds.
However I have encountered several who I suspect would fit my
description. I agree that they are a small proportion of the heathen who
surround us.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 05/09/2021 17:08, Mike Davis wrote:

>> Sorry, I don't understand your point. If we are asleep/unconscious,
>> the question of freewill doesn't arise. How much freewill do you
>> exercise while you are asleep? If you were knocked unconscious in an
>> accident, how much freewill could you exercise over which hospital you
>> go to?

> Which is why I'd welcome someone praying for me.

Indeed - though after your death, I don't suppose it would matter
terribly which hospital you were taken to.

> You seem to think *you* re the judge, the premise assumes that God is
> the Judge, we are the petitioners and that God will listen! (Luke 18:1-8)

Yes, it is always possible that in the final nanosecond of life the
railing and blaspheming hater of God had an abrupt change of heart, of
such short duration that no one at the bedside was aware of it.

I haven't seen many flying pigs lately, but I can imagine that it is not
completely impossible, given suitable meterological conditions, for pigs
to become airborne.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 05/09/2021 12:46, Jason wrote:

>> The point is that the dead are believed to have closer and more
>> immediate access to God than do the living. So no matter how passionate
>> your prayers, they cannot match someone who bumps into God down in the
>> corner shop as they buy their daily newspapers.

> I don't think access to God works that way. I have no reason to suspect
> that if I bumped into him at the shops he would pay more heed to me than
> if I prayed to him in silence.

I hoped it would be understood that I was referring to the newsagent on
the corner of two of the golden streets with pearly gates at their far ends.

[Jason]

I accept that there may not be Biblical support for the position, but
(and perhaps it's wishful thinking) that there may be "more" that can be
done for someone after someone has died. Perhaps God does take that view
that "Well, he had his chance, and that's that" or perhaps He will listen
to prayers and petitions, I don't know. I know that God wills all to be
saved, and was prepared to sacrifice his own son to achieve it. Perhaps
given half a chance, God will find a way, and I don't see any harm in
asking.

[Jason]

Indeed, so I guess my point is that these edge cases perhaps are not the
best to use when working out how we feel / interpret particular general
situations.

[Jason]

I don't think that distinction make a ha'porth of difference. The veil
of the temple has been ripped in two, I don't believe God will pay more
heed to us whether we bump into him in the Garden of Eden, in Heaven, or
on Clapham High Street, if we pray God will listen.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 07/09/2021 12:42, Jason wrote:

> Indeed, so I guess my point is that these edge cases perhaps are not the
> best to use when working out how we feel / interpret particular general
> situations.

I'm not sure. If X Y Z happens in the easy cases then, unless there are
particular reasons why not, I would expect X Y Z to apply in all cases.

If there are certain cases where X Y Z does not apply, then either there
is an identifiable circumstance as the reason why not, or X Y Z is mistaken.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 07/09/2021 12:50, Jason wrote:

> I don't think that distinction make a ha'porth of difference. The veil
> of the temple has been ripped in two, I don't believe God will pay more
> heed to us whether we bump into him in the Garden of Eden, in Heaven, or
> on Clapham High Street, if we pray God will listen.

Oh, I agree - but I was voicing the Catholic rationale for praying to
the saints. St Christopher has an interest in travellers and he is in
the presence of God and can pester Him, so pray to St Christopher
instead of directly to God.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 07/09/2021 12:46, Jason wrote:

> I accept that there may not be Biblical support for the position, but
> (and perhaps it's wishful thinking) that there may be "more" that can be
> done for someone after someone has died. Perhaps God does take that view
> that "Well, he had his chance, and that's that" or perhaps He will listen
> to prayers and petitions, I don't know. I know that God wills all to be
> saved, and was prepared to sacrifice his own son to achieve it. Perhaps
> given half a chance, God will find a way, and I don't see any harm in
> asking.

Well, there's no harm in asking, but I think we are agreed that God
respects the freewill of the living. I see no reason to think that He
would ride roughshod over that freewill just because the person is dead.

There is also the problem, rife in the mediaeval church, that people
felt they could live as they pleased in this life, but so long as they
endowed sufficient masses and prayers for after death they would still
come out all right.

[Jason]

On Tue, 07 Sep 2021 20:43:26 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 07/09/2021 12:42, Jason wrote:
>
>> Indeed, so I guess my point is that these edge cases perhaps are not
>> the best to use when working out how we feel / interpret particular
>> general situations.
>
> I'm not sure. If X Y Z happens in the easy cases then, unless there are
> particular reasons why not, I would expect X Y Z to apply in all cases.

Well, there's an old maxim that "hard cases make bad law": you don't want
to base the law on what happens in 0.001% of cases, if your rules
otherwise provide good guidance for the rest. It's like with traffic
lights, just because they occasionally have a blown bulb, doesn't make
them all completely useless and untrustworthy.

> If there are certain cases where X Y Z does not apply, then either there
> is an identifiable circumstance as the reason why not, or X Y Z is
> mistaken.

There will always be a reason, to be sure, why something does not follow
the rule. Like with the current coronavirus vaccines, there is obviously
a reason why a small percentage of the population has a bad reaction,
though the vast majority do not and the reasons at first were opaque. It
goes without saying that things don't happen for no reason, but the
reason may be complex or obscure.

[Jason]

On Tue, 07 Sep 2021 20:45:55 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 07/09/2021 12:46, Jason wrote:
>
>> I accept that there may not be Biblical support for the position, but
>> (and perhaps it's wishful thinking) that there may be "more" that can
>> be done for someone after someone has died. Perhaps God does take that
>> view that "Well, he had his chance, and that's that" or perhaps He will
>> listen to prayers and petitions, I don't know. I know that God wills
>> all to be saved, and was prepared to sacrifice his own son to achieve
>> it. Perhaps given half a chance, God will find a way, and I don't see
>> any harm in asking.
>
> Well, there's no harm in asking, but I think we are agreed that God
> respects the freewill of the living. I see no reason to think that He
> would ride roughshod over that freewill just because the person is dead.

Yes, I think we are in agreement, that God respects the freewill of the
living. However, whether, after death, faced full on with the living
God, whether there is any opportunity for further exercise of free will
is what I'm talking about, though as I say, I'm aware this isn't a
Biblical concept. Suppose death were akin to entering through a shop
doorway. I might use my free will to desire to buy something, and go
through the door. Then, faced with the exorbitantly high prices, further
exercise my free will to change my mind and go straight back out again.
No-one has trampled on my free will and stopped me shopping....

> There is also the problem, rife in the mediaeval church, that people
> felt they could live as they pleased in this life, but so long as they
> endowed sufficient masses and prayers for after death they would still
> come out all right.

Well, you can see how that would not be desirable, any more than grace
allows us to act in any sinful way we like. At best, it will all be
burned away and squeak through as if through fire. The Olympics would
look very different if the athletes took the view that squeaking over the
finish line is good enough.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 08/09/2021 10:03, Jason wrote:

> Yes, I think we are in agreement, that God respects the freewill of the
> living. However, whether, after death, faced full on with the living
> God, whether there is any opportunity for further exercise of free will
> is what I'm talking about, though as I say, I'm aware this isn't a
> Biblical concept.

But that is precisely when freewill would cease to operate. *Everyone*
keeps the speed limit when there is a police car behind them, even
though their freewill choice would be to push it a bit.

Faced with the terrible majesty of God "every knee will bow", willingly
or unwillingly, because they dare not do otherwise - but if they were
allowed into heaven and God took His eye off them, it must be a very
high probability that the freewill they exercised during earthy life
would kick back in and they would start to disobey once more.

> Suppose death were akin to entering through a shop
> doorway. I might use my free will to desire to buy something, and go
> through the door. Then, faced with the exorbitantly high prices, further
> exercise my free will to change my mind and go straight back out again.
> No-one has trampled on my free will and stopped me shopping....

A better illustration might be if you went into the shop intending to
steal something, but then noticed that a camera was pointing directly at
that particular shelf and the store detective was loitering beside it.

> Well, you can see how that would not be desirable, any more than grace
> allows us to act in any sinful way we like.

Of course, but nonetheless that is what people did - and indulgences for
sale only made things worse.

[Mike Davis]

Your continuing comments about 'praying to saints' still show that you
haven't understood the concept of the 'Communion of Saints' - that those
redeemed by the life, death & resurrection of Jesus are a 'family'.

In this life, it is deemed fit and just that we should pray for (and
with) one another (and it seems that those believer who only know one
another via this group, for instance, are still promising and offering
prayers. For the redeemed in God's presence*, it is reasonable &
understandable that those who had suffered similar problems as those we
are undergoing, will be 'sympathetic' to praying for such needs.

Meanwhile, those who are still being 'cleansed' may not yet be free to
pray for others (indeed the whole concept of our praying for those in
that state assumes that), so we can pray and invite the 'saints' to pray
for them. That is, we are not asking the saints to do the 'work' but in
their unity with God are part of the whole family.

Sure, it's easy to make fun of it (and indeed to abuse it, as in the
'sale of indulgences') - but for the redeemed we are not separated by
Death - because we are united in Jesus' death and resurrection. In
short, we are 'family' as we will fully discover at our resurrection.


*They may not yet be risen but their spirits are 'free'

[Jason]

On Wed, 08 Sep 2021 20:48:41 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 08/09/2021 10:03, Jason wrote:
>
>> Yes, I think we are in agreement, that God respects the freewill of the
>> living. However, whether, after death, faced full on with the living
>> God, whether there is any opportunity for further exercise of free will
>> is what I'm talking about, though as I say, I'm aware this isn't a
>> Biblical concept.
>
> But that is precisely when freewill would cease to operate. *Everyone*
> keeps the speed limit when there is a police car behind them, even
> though their freewill choice would be to push it a bit.
>
> Faced with the terrible majesty of God "every knee will bow", willingly
> or unwillingly, because they dare not do otherwise - but if they were
> allowed into heaven and God took His eye off them, it must be a very
> high probability that the freewill they exercised during earthy life
> would kick back in and they would start to disobey once more.

Well, again, for the avoidance of doubt, I concede at the outset that I'm
on Biblically dubious ground. That said, I think the point I disagree
with is the second part of your second paragraph, that 'as soon as God
takes his eyes off them they would go straight back to their old ways'.
Whether they would or whether they wouldn't, I can't comment as
*everything* would be different: new body, no devil, no 'bad influences'
etc, so they'd be better off even than in the Garden of Evil where the
serpent liked to spend time. You mention police cars, but the vast
majority of speed measures (signs, cameras, bumps, chicanes etc etc) rely
on the signs being a reminder and you are expected to keep to that speed
even if there isn't a sign every 2 yards to remind you.

>> Suppose death were akin to entering through a shop doorway. I might
>> use my free will to desire to buy something, and go through the door.
>> Then, faced with the exorbitantly high prices, further exercise my free
>> will to change my mind and go straight back out again. No-one has
>> trampled on my free will and stopped me shopping....
>
> A better illustration might be if you went into the shop intending to
> steal something, but then noticed that a camera was pointing directly at
> that particular shelf and the store detective was loitering beside it.

Yes, that would also work. I suspect most non-Christians are so (at
least in this country at this time) because they don't have room for God
in their lives; they don't give him a seconds thought. And not because
they are dragged through life 'railing and blaspheming against God'. So
whether a full-on encounter with God following death would change their
lives, I would suspect so.

>
>> Well, you can see how that would not be desirable, any more than grace
>> allows us to act in any sinful way we like.
>
> Of course, but nonetheless that is what people did - and indulgences for
> sale only made things worse.

I don't think many people alive today would think that the sale of
indulgences were the church's finest hour.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 09/09/2021 10:28, Jason wrote:

> Well, again, for the avoidance of doubt, I concede at the outset that I'm
> on Biblically dubious ground. That said, I think the point I disagree
> with is the second part of your second paragraph, that 'as soon as God
> takes his eyes off them they would go straight back to their old ways'.
> Whether they would or whether they wouldn't, I can't comment as
> *everything* would be different: new body, no devil, no 'bad influences'
> etc, so they'd be better off even than in the Garden of Evil where the
> serpent liked to spend time.

A lot depends on your concept of sin. If you view sin as specific acts -
sin is what you do - that is one thing; if you take what I believe to be
the more accurate view, that sin is attitudes and motives - sin is what
you are - that is another thing.

You, I think, are positing based on sin being what people do. If sin is
what you are, then there are a couple of proverbs that apply: A man
convinced against his will is of the same opinion still, and You can
lead a horse to water ...

> You mention police cars, but the vast
> majority of speed measures (signs, cameras, bumps, chicanes etc etc) rely
> on the signs being a reminder and you are expected to keep to that speed
> even if there isn't a sign every 2 yards to remind you.

Of course you are *expected* to; my point is that the vast majority of
us have been guilty at one time or another of ignoring those signs or
doing 32 in a 30 zone (or even more!), whereas none of us would do that
if there was a police car behind us.

> Yes, that would also work. I suspect most non-Christians are so (at
> least in this country at this time) because they don't have room for God
> in their lives; they don't give him a seconds thought. And not because
> they are dragged through life 'railing and blaspheming against God'. So
> whether a full-on encounter with God following death would change their
> lives, I would suspect so.

I gravely doubt it. There would be a temporary change in behaviour, but
the underlying attitudes - sin is what you are - would not be changed;
the people don't *want* to change!

That is the difference between Christians and non-Christians. It is not
that we behave better - often times we even behave worse - but that we
*want* to be better, we *aim* to be better, we *desire* to be better.

I remember years ago going to Beaumaris and parking the car while my
wife went on a cruise around Puffin Island to see the birds. I was in a
bit of a dubious spot, but at least I was in the car and could leave in
a hurry if a warden came by or some other reason cropped up.

Ahead of me a man came up to a car parked across someone's drive and
started to get something out of his car. The homeowner appeared and
demanded that he move his car as he - the homeowner - wanted to go out.
The man refused, there was an exchange of words, and the man went off
shouting, "I have never been sorry for anything I have done!"

That, it seems to me, epitomises the non-Christian attitude:
selfishness, lack of consideration for others, plus an absence of remorse.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 09/09/2021 18:57, Mike Davis wrote:

> Your continuing comments about 'praying to saints' still show that you
> haven't understood the concept of the 'Communion of Saints' - that those
> redeemed by the life, death & resurrection of Jesus are a 'family'.

There are two points: the first is that I firmly believe that the dead
are unconscious, which makes praying to them (or asking them to pray for
us) is a complete waste of time. The second is that despite your
quibbles, an awful lot of Catholics do pray *to* saints - note the
phraseology here:
https://www.ourcatholicprayers.com/prayers-to-saints.html
and here:
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-bible-supports-praying-to-the-saints

Particularly in less well-educated parts of the world, the distinction
you make is simply not understood.

In any case, why go through saints when we have direct access to God
Himself?

[Mike Davis]

On 09/09/2021 20:29, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 09/09/2021 18:57, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> Your continuing comments about 'praying to saints' still show that you
>> haven't understood the concept of the 'Communion of Saints' - that
>> those redeemed by the life, death & resurrection of Jesus are a 'family'.
>
> There are two points: the first is that I firmly believe that the dead
> are unconscious, which makes praying to them (or asking them to pray for
> us) is a complete waste of time. The second is that despite your
> quibbles, an awful lot of Catholics do pray *to* saints - note the
> phraseology here:
> https://www.ourcatholicprayers.com/prayers-to-saints.html

> and here:
> https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-bible-supports-praying-to-the-saints

*I* make the distinction because of the misunderstanding that causes you
to make the points you do!

I wasn't aware of that last article - but it seems to me to be an
excellent analysis of the issues and gives valid answers. Did you read it?

One example:-
The reason we pray to the saints is that they are still members of the
Body of Christ. Remember, the life which Christ gives is eternal life;
therefore, every Christian who has died in Christ is forever a member of
the Body of Christ. This is the doctrine which we call the Communion of
the Saints. Everyone in Christ, whether living or dead, belongs to the
Body of Christ.

From this it follows that a saint in heaven may intercede for other
people because he still is a member of the Body of Christ. Because of
this membership in Christ, under his headship, the intercession of the
saints cannot be a rival to Christ’s mediation; it is one with the
mediation of Christ, to whom and in whom the saints form one body.

Some Christians–most Protestants, in fact–deny that the Bible gives
support for devotion to the saints, but they are incorrect. The Bible
encourages Christians to approach the saints in heaven, just as they
approach God the Father and Jesus Christ the Lord: “But you have
approached Mount Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly
Jerusalem, and myriads of angels, and the assembly and church of the
firstborn who have been enrolled in heaven, and God the judge of all,
and spirits of righteous ones who have been made perfect, and Jesus, the
mediator of a new covenant, and the sprinkled blood which speaks better
than that of Abel” (Heb. 12:22-24).

> Particularly in less well-educated parts of the world, the distinction
> you make is simply not understood.
>
> In any case, why go through saints when we have direct access to God
> Himself?

Why ask one another to pray for us when we have direct access to God
Himself?

Thanks for the reference.

[Jason]

On Thu, 09 Sep 2021 20:24:29 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 09/09/2021 10:28, Jason wrote:
>
>> Well, again, for the avoidance of doubt, I concede at the outset that
>> I'm on Biblically dubious ground. That said, I think the point I
>> disagree with is the second part of your second paragraph, that 'as
>> soon as God takes his eyes off them they would go straight back to
>> their old ways'. Whether they would or whether they wouldn't, I can't
>> comment as *everything* would be different: new body, no devil, no 'bad
>> influences' etc, so they'd be better off even than in the Garden of
>> Evil where the serpent liked to spend time.

[Sorry, it should of course have been 'Garden of Eden'!!! :-) ]

> A lot depends on your concept of sin. If you view sin as specific acts -
> sin is what you do - that is one thing; if you take what I believe to be
> the more accurate view, that sin is attitudes and motives - sin is what
> you are - that is another thing.
>
> You, I think, are positing based on sin being what people do. If sin is
> what you are, then there are a couple of proverbs that apply: A man
> convinced against his will is of the same opinion still, and You can
> lead a horse to water ...

Yes, I think sin is largely what you do, not what you are. Unless I'm
misunderstanding you, I don't see how we can be held responsible for
"what we are". Suppose my background, upbringing, people I hang around
with leads me to end up with the tag 'thief'. If I am very strongly
encouraged or predisposed to steal something, unless I actually give in
to the temptation, I'm not a thief. I would say most (all?) examples in
the Bible where someone is accused of sin is because they have *done*
something wrong....

>> You mention police cars, but the vast majority of speed measures
>> (signs, cameras, bumps, chicanes etc etc) rely on the signs being a
>> reminder and you are expected to keep to that speed even if there isn't
>> a sign every 2 yards to remind you.
>
> Of course you are *expected* to; my point is that the vast majority of
> us have been guilty at one time or another of ignoring those signs or
> doing 32 in a 30 zone (or even more!), whereas none of us would do that
> if there was a police car behind us.

For most of us, I suggest we follow the speed limits more-or-less for the
bulk of the time without having someone continually watching us. Most
speeding people would slow down given a sign and the occasional reminder.

>> Yes, that would also work. I suspect most non-Christians are so (at
>> least in this country at this time) because they don't have room for
>> God in their lives; they don't give him a seconds thought. And not
>> because they are dragged through life 'railing and blaspheming against
>> God'. So whether a full-on encounter with God following death would
>> change their lives, I would suspect so.
>
> I gravely doubt it. There would be a temporary change in behaviour, but
> the underlying attitudes - sin is what you are - would not be changed;
> the people don't *want* to change!

Since I disagree with your "sin is what you are", I also disagree with
everything you build on that foundation. It's a thought experiment, not
a reality, but you and I clearly have different views of our fellow man.

> That is the difference between Christians and non-Christians. It is not
> that we behave better - often times we even behave worse - but that we
> *want* to be better, we *aim* to be better, we *desire* to be better.

I don't think anyone alive *wants* or *aims* or *desires* to be worse, so
I think both Christians and non-Christians are alike in this. Most
people want to be better themselves, and have a better life for their
children (extreme Daily Mail fodder cases usually involving unemployed
single teenage mothers aside).

> I remember years ago going to Beaumaris and parking the car while my
> wife went on a cruise around Puffin Island to see the birds. I was in a
> bit of a dubious spot, but at least I was in the car and could leave in
> a hurry if a warden came by or some other reason cropped up.
>
> Ahead of me a man came up to a car parked across someone's drive and
> started to get something out of his car. The homeowner appeared and
> demanded that he move his car as he - the homeowner - wanted to go out.
> The man refused, there was an exchange of words, and the man went off
> shouting, "I have never been sorry for anything I have done!"

Well, I can't comment on the gentleman involved in your specific case,
and people can say strange and over-exaggerated things in the heat of the
moment but I've never, ever, in my entire life come across someone who
would honestly say that they have never been sorry for anything they have
done.

> That, it seems to me, epitomises the non-Christian attitude:
> selfishness, lack of consideration for others, plus an absence of
> remorse.

As I said, I have *never* come across this attitude for anyone of any
religion or none.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 11/09/2021 17:45, Jason wrote:

> Yes, I think sin is largely what you do, not what you are. Unless I'm
> misunderstanding you, I don't see how we can be held responsible for
> "what we are".

Are you perfect?

I will assume that your answer is "No". That means, of course, that you
are imperfect - not that you do imperfect things, but that you *are*
imperfect. The imperfect things that you do spring from the basic fact
of what you are.

The purist theologian would say that you are condemned already because
of what you are; personally, although I agree, I think it is splitting
hairs. There is not one of us who has not sinned in thought, word or
deed so it would be quite safe to say that we are condemned for our actions.

> Suppose my background, upbringing, people I hang around
> with leads me to end up with the tag 'thief'. If I am very strongly
> encouraged or predisposed to steal something, unless I actually give in
> to the temptation, I'm not a thief. I would say most (all?) examples in
> the Bible where someone is accused of sin is because they have *done*
> something wrong....

Certainly, because it is the visible things - the actions - which reveal
the invisible things - what the person is. God may have the luxury of
looking on the heart, but we would never have guessed at the lust in
David's heart were it not for what he got up to with Bathsheba.

> For most of us, I suggest we follow the speed limits more-or-less for the
> bulk of the time without having someone continually watching us. Most
> speeding people would slow down given a sign and the occasional reminder.

More or less - my point exactly, whereas when there is a police car
behind us we strive for exactitude, not "more or less".

> Since I disagree with your "sin is what you are", I also disagree with
> everything you build on that foundation. It's a thought experiment, not
> a reality, but you and I clearly have different views of our fellow man.

No doubt, but I think my view is more in accord with the traditional
teaching regarding original sin.

> I don't think anyone alive *wants* or *aims* or *desires* to be worse, so
> I think both Christians and non-Christians are alike in this.

No? What about all those young thugs in the big cities who can't wait to
stab someone so that they can boast about it? Why do you think the
idiots post their crimes on FaceBook?

> Most
> people want to be better themselves, and have a better life for their
> children

But "better" is almost always expressed in economic terms rather than
moral ones.

> Well, I can't comment on the gentleman involved in your specific case,
> and people can say strange and over-exaggerated things in the heat of the
> moment but I've never, ever, in my entire life come across someone who
> would honestly say that they have never been sorry for anything they have
> done.

I don't know whether this chap was being honest or whether he was, as
you suggest, speaking in the heat of the moment. All I can report is
what I heard him say.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 11/09/2021 11:15, Mike Davis wrote:

> I wasn't aware of that last article - but it seems to me to be an
> excellent analysis of the issues and gives valid answers. Did you read it?

I agree with you, but nevertheless the point is that the author speaks
of praying *to* the saints - as you quote below:

> One example:-
> The reason we pray to the saints is that they are still members of the
> Body of Christ.

If I ask a living Christian to pray for me, both he and I would be
appalled if that request were characterised as "praying to" him! Why
should it be any different just because he is dead? And the fact that it
is different leads me - and most other Protestants - to suspect that
despite the theological window dressing, that is what an awfully large
number of Catholics actually do - they pray *to* the saints.

> Some Christians–most Protestants, in fact–deny that the Bible gives
> support for devotion to the saints, but they are incorrect. The Bible
> encourages Christians to approach the saints in heaven, just as they
> approach God the Father and Jesus Christ the Lord: “But you have
> approached Mount Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly
> Jerusalem, and myriads of angels, and the assembly and church of the
> firstborn who have been enrolled in heaven, and God the judge of all,
> and spirits of righteous ones who have been made perfect, and Jesus, the
> mediator of a new covenant, and the sprinkled blood which speaks better
> than that of Abel” (Heb. 12:22-24).

Er - where does that passage suggest that you should present prayers to
these myriads of angels and righteous ones made perfect?

I am not sure whether to be charitable and accuse the author of
ignorance or to be perhaps more accurate and accuse him of mendacity,
but the context has nothing to do with praying to saints and everything
to do with repenting of our sins.

14 Be at peace with all
15 be diligent lest you are defiled by bitterness
16 or fornication - consider Esau who gave up his birthright
17 and could never get it back again.
18 You have not come to a mere earthly mountain
19 nor even to the actual terrifying voice of God
20 which those who heard it could not endure
21 and even Moses admitted to being afraid;
22 you have come before angels and God's city
23 and God the Judge and perfect men before you
24 and before Jesus, mediator of the New Covenant,
25 so don't reject. Those who rejected under the Old Covenant did not
excape and we sure won't!

If that website - and the bit you quote with approbation - is an example
of Catholic exegesis, it no wonder that you are mired in superstition
and idolatrous practices!

> Why ask one another to pray for us when we have direct access to God
> Himself?

Generally speaking it is because the other wants to do something to help
and suggesting that one would be grateful for prayers is a practical way
in which he can do so. It may not be possible for him to come and clean
the house or share in the burden of personal care, but he can do
*something*.

[Mike Davis]

On 11/09/2021 21:25, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 11/09/2021 11:15, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> I wasn't aware of that last article - but it seems to me to be an
>> excellent analysis of the issues and gives valid answers. Did you read
>> it?
>
> I agree with you, but nevertheless the point is that the author speaks
> of praying *to* the saints - as you quote below:
>
>> One example:-
>> The reason we pray to the saints is that they are still members of the
>> Body of Christ.

Yes, the English language does confuse the issue. As in 'I love my wife'
and 'I love my brothers in Christ' - both have an element of the same
relationship, yet both are different in many ways. So I 'pray' to God
and I 'pray' to the saints. Indeed there are a multiplicity of ways in
which I communicate with God in that term. 'Praise', 'Adoration',
'Request', 'Repent' etc etc.

As with 'praying to the Saints', it means communicating at a spiritual
level, but because the word is the same it doesn't (necessarily) mean
the action/relationship is the same. You only persist in arguing about
it, afaics, because of your religious bias.

The concept of 'the Communion of Saints' (Apostles' Creed) - is that the
'Church' consists of all those redeemed by Christ, past present &
future. ie the One Body - the Whole Body of Christ.

>
> If I ask a living Christian to pray for me, both he and I would be
> appalled if that request were characterised as "praying to" him! Why
> should it be any different just because he is dead? And the fact that it
> is different leads me - and most other Protestants - to suspect that
> despite the theological window dressing, that is what an awfully large
> number of Catholics actually do - they pray *to* the saints.

And as I keep saying, YES and NO! *YES* in that they do believe that the
saints (i.e. those definitively in the Lord's presence, *NO* because
they do not worship or adore ...etc., but merely ask them to keep their
'prayer' before God when they are unable to, just as I am praying for my
friends, and also those whom I know are in need.

The fact that it gets friendly and more informal is a sign of their
continuing relationship in the whole 'Body of Christ'.

>
>> Some Christians–most Protestants, in fact–deny that the Bible gives
>> support for devotion to the saints, but they are incorrect. The Bible
>> encourages Christians to approach the saints in heaven, just as they
>> approach God the Father and Jesus Christ the Lord: “But you have
>> approached Mount Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly
>> Jerusalem, and myriads of angels, and the assembly and church of the
>> firstborn who have been enrolled in heaven, and God the judge of all,
>> and spirits of righteous ones who have been made perfect, and Jesus,
>> the mediator of a new covenant, and the sprinkled blood which speaks
>> better than that of Abel” (Heb. 12:22-24).
>
> Er - where does that passage suggest that you should present prayers to
> these myriads of angels and righteous ones made perfect?

Um, I accept your point, although we would see those as being 'The Body
of Christ' as above.

Interestingly, I grant you that praying to angels is not so clear. But,
I'd suggest they are directly involved in our Christian life, as in:
Acts 5:18-20
Acts 8:26-29
Acts 10:3-8
Acts 12:6-11
Acts 27:23-25

It is a *Tradition* that we have 'Guardian angels' - a quick search
shows these:
Luke 16:22
Psalm 34:7
Psalm 91:10-13
Job 33:23-24 (Glad you accept that!)
Zech 1:12
..and I can see no reason why we should not communicate with them and
ask for help.

>
> I am not sure whether to be charitable and accuse the author of
> ignorance or to be perhaps more accurate and accuse him of mendacity,
> but the context has nothing to do with praying to saints and everything
> to do with repenting of our sins.
>

[snip quote] I take your point in terms of that being unhelpful to the
message.
All I said was I thought that that particular article was quite helpful.
Clear I was wrong! ;-)

But there are many Catholic websites - especially from across the pond -
that do not express Catholicism that I (or, I suspect, Pope Francis)
would recognise. Please beware of the 'right-wing' polarisation that
seems to have unhealthily afflicted both politics and Catholicism over
there!

>
> If that website - and the bit you quote with approbation - is an example
> of Catholic exegesis, it no wonder that you are mired in superstition
> and idolatrous practices!

As above! (But do remember that you, too, wish to put a spin on what you
think the Church teaches, to justify your own bias!)

>> Why ask one another to pray for us when we have direct access to God
>> Himself?
>
> Generally speaking it is because the other wants to do something to help
> and suggesting that one would be grateful for prayers is a practical way
> in which he can do so. It may not be possible for him to come and clean
> the house or share in the burden of personal care, but he can do
> *something*.

That comes over as a pretty defeatist reason for requesting prayers.
Pray first - offer to help afterwards!

Blessings

[Kendall K. Down]

On 12/09/2021 18:13, Mike Davis wrote:

> Yes, the English language does confuse the issue. As in 'I love my wife'
> and 'I love my brothers in Christ' - both have an element of the same
> relationship, yet both are different in many ways. So I 'pray' to God
> and I 'pray' to the saints.

I don't think the English language is to blame for the confusion.

> As with 'praying to the Saints', it means communicating at a spiritual
> level, but because the word is the same it doesn't (necessarily) mean
> the action/relationship is the same. You only persist in arguing about
> it, afaics, because of your religious bias.

Certainly I am biased against praying *to* anyone other than God (vide
Daniel 6).

> The concept of 'the Communion of Saints' (Apostles' Creed) - is that the
> 'Church' consists of all those redeemed by Christ, past present &
> future. ie the One Body - the Whole Body of Christ.

I don't have a problem with that; it is praying to any member of that
communion, alive or dead, that I reject.

>>> Some Christians–most Protestants, in fact–deny that the Bible gives
>>> support for devotion to the saints, but they are incorrect. The Bible
>>> encourages Christians to approach the saints in heaven

>> Er - where does that passage suggest that you should present prayers
>> to these myriads of angels and righteous ones made perfect?

> Um, I accept your point, although we would see those as being 'The Body
> of Christ' as above.

But that fact has nothing to do with a) praying to them, or b) claiming
that the passage encourages Christians to approach the dead.

> Interestingly, I grant you that praying to angels is not so clear. But,
> I'd suggest they are directly involved in our Christian life, as in:

No one denies that - though you will notice in Revelation that twice
John tried to pray *to* an angel and was soundly rebuffed.

> It is a *Tradition* that we have 'Guardian angels'

Yes, Scripture only talks about children having specific angels. The
rest of us have to take pot-luck.

> [snip quote] I take your point in terms of that being unhelpful to the
> message.

Not "unhelpful"; it has nothing whatsoever to do with prayers to saints
or angels and claiming that it does is a straight-out porky pie.

> But there are many Catholic websites - especially from across the pond -
> that do not express Catholicism that I (or, I suspect, Pope Francis)
> would recognise.  Please beware of the 'right-wing' polarisation that
> seems to have unhealthily afflicted both politics and Catholicism over
> there!

I shall endeavour to do so. We all suffer from fanatic fringes.

[Jason]

On Sat, 11 Sep 2021 21:06:41 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 11/09/2021 17:45, Jason wrote:
>
>> Yes, I think sin is largely what you do, not what you are. Unless I'm
>> misunderstanding you, I don't see how we can be held responsible for
>> "what we are".
>
> Are you perfect?
>
> I will assume that your answer is "No". That means, of course, that you
> are imperfect - not that you do imperfect things, but that you *are*
> imperfect. The imperfect things that you do spring from the basic fact
> of what you are.

Being imperfect is not the same as being inherently sinful: being
imperfect is what leads me to give in to temptation, and that act is what
is sinful.

> The purist theologian would say that you are condemned already because
> of what you are; personally, although I agree, I think it is splitting
> hairs. There is not one of us who has not sinned in thought, word or
> deed so it would be quite safe to say that we are condemned for our
> actions.

Well, I guess there are two topics here, some would think we are
condemned by "original sin" regardless of what we actually *do* (e.g. the
death of a newborn baby). As you say, for everyone else, the question is
to some extent academic.

>> Suppose my background, upbringing, people I hang around with leads me
>> to end up with the tag 'thief'. If I am very strongly encouraged or
>> predisposed to steal something, unless I actually give in to the
>> temptation, I'm not a thief. I would say most (all?) examples in the
>> Bible where someone is accused of sin is because they have *done*
>> something wrong....
>
> Certainly, because it is the visible things - the actions - which reveal
> the invisible things - what the person is. God may have the luxury of
> looking on the heart, but we would never have guessed at the lust in
> David's heart were it not for what he got up to with Bathsheba.

I don't think it's to do with things that are visible or invisible. If I
daydream lustfully about someone that's just as much an 'action' as
stealing: I'm not arguing whether others see it or not. But I don't
believe that being "lustfully inclined" if I fight and resist the
temptation and nip it in the bud as soon as it arises then I don't
believe that is sinful.

>> Since I disagree with your "sin is what you are", I also disagree with
>> everything you build on that foundation. It's a thought experiment,
>> not a reality, but you and I clearly have different views of our fellow
>> man.
>
> No doubt, but I think my view is more in accord with the traditional
> teaching regarding original sin.

That may well be true.

>> I don't think anyone alive *wants* or *aims* or *desires* to be worse,
>> so I think both Christians and non-Christians are alike in this.
>
> No? What about all those young thugs in the big cities who can't wait to
> stab someone so that they can boast about it? Why do you think the
> idiots post their crimes on FaceBook?

They (I am imagining: I have no real clue why they do it, I can only
suppose) do not think they *are* desiring to be worse: they think that
(by their moral code) they are doing the right thing if they "defend
their turf" or stab a rival. If loyalty to your gang is paramount, then
questionable behaviour surely will follow. The problem is that their
entire way of seeing the world is off-kilter.

>> Most people want to be better themselves, and have a better life for
>> their children
>
> But "better" is almost always expressed in economic terms rather than
> moral ones.

I agree that is how it is often used, but that actually wasn't what I'm
thinking of: think of the period following a war, when many of the older
generation have been killed. Or think of refugees fleeing dreadful
atrocities. I think wanting a better life for your children is far more
than simply about money.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 19/09/2021 18:36, Jason wrote:

> Being imperfect is not the same as being inherently sinful: being
> imperfect is what leads me to give in to temptation, and that act is what
> is sinful.

No, the act is sin, being imperfect is sinful. We believe that Jesus was
perfect; His nature did not respond to temptation as you or I might.

> I don't think it's to do with things that are visible or invisible. If I
> daydream lustfully about someone that's just as much an 'action' as
> stealing: I'm not arguing whether others see it or not. But I don't
> believe that being "lustfully inclined" if I fight and resist the
> temptation and nip it in the bud as soon as it arises then I don't
> believe that is sinful.

If you were not sinful, the temptation would have no attraction for you.
To illustrate: as a life-long vegetarian for whom the thought of eating
a dead animal is repulsive, I can assure you that the temptation to eat
pork finds absolutely no response in me. I am not even curious about
what it tastes like! On the other hand, a naked girl ...

Now I hope that I would resist the temptation and not actually sin, but
there would certainly be an inward response, because I am both imperfect
and sinful.

Jesus was not sinful; every temptation that the devil offered him evoked
no response whatsoever (must have been frightfully frustrating for the
devil!) even though the possibility of sinning was there.

>> No? What about all those young thugs in the big cities who can't wait to
>> stab someone so that they can boast about it? Why do you think the
>> idiots post their crimes on FaceBook?

> They (I am imagining: I have no real clue why they do it, I can only
> suppose) do not think they *are* desiring to be worse: they think that
> (by their moral code) they are doing the right thing if they "defend
> their turf" or stab a rival. If loyalty to your gang is paramount, then
> questionable behaviour surely will follow. The problem is that their
> entire way of seeing the world is off-kilter.

That may well be so, but in practical terms they do desire to be worse.

>> But "better" is almost always expressed in economic terms rather than
>> moral ones.

> I agree that is how it is often used, but that actually wasn't what I'm
> thinking of: think of the period following a war, when many of the older
> generation have been killed. Or think of refugees fleeing dreadful
> atrocities. I think wanting a better life for your children is far more
> than simply about money.

Which is why I inserted the word "almost". Mind you, far too many of
these refugees may want "a better life" for their children but get
terribly upset when the children reject the deplorable culture that led
their parents to become refugees and, for example, choose her own
husband. In such a case I think I am right in saying that they desire
was for better economic circumstances, not better morals.

[Jason]

On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 20:23:43 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 19/09/2021 18:36, Jason wrote:
>
>> Being imperfect is not the same as being inherently sinful: being
>> imperfect is what leads me to give in to temptation, and that act is
>> what is sinful.
>
> No, the act is sin, being imperfect is sinful. We believe that Jesus was
> perfect; His nature did not respond to temptation as you or I might.

I'm not sure if that's true, that Jesus' nature did not respond to
temptation as you or I might, but this is a whole topic in itself. Could
it not be argued that if Jesus' very nature does not respond to
temptation that he is not fully human? If he's not tempted as we are
tempted (i.e. he is pre-programmed to resist) I would argue it's no
temptation at all. If I offer a robot a pile of cream cakes and it's not
tempted to eat them all, it's hardly to its credit, is it??

>> I don't think it's to do with things that are visible or invisible. If
>> I daydream lustfully about someone that's just as much an 'action' as
>> stealing: I'm not arguing whether others see it or not. But I don't
>> believe that being "lustfully inclined" if I fight and resist the
>> temptation and nip it in the bud as soon as it arises then I don't
>> believe that is sinful.
>
> If you were not sinful, the temptation would have no attraction for you.

I don't think this premise is correct. Adam and Eve were not sinful, yet
temptation was an attraction for them.

> To illustrate: as a life-long vegetarian for whom the thought of eating
> a dead animal is repulsive, I can assure you that the temptation to eat
> pork finds absolutely no response in me. I am not even curious about
> what it tastes like! On the other hand, a naked girl ...

I'm not sure I understand your point. I don't like seafood, so it's no
temptation for me. Therefore, it's not to the slightest to my "credit"
that I refrain from eating it. What benefit can there be in avoiding
something you don't want to do anyway?

> Now I hope that I would resist the temptation and not actually sin, but
> there would certainly be an inward response, because I am both imperfect
> and sinful.

I agree that there would be an inward response---otherwise it would not
be a temptation---but disagree that this is sinful. I would argue it is
only sinful if you give in to that temptation and fantasise about it and
feed that lust. I'm arguing that if instead you acknowledge it, nip it
in the bud, and move on that is not sinful.

>>> No? What about all those young thugs in the big cities who can't wait
>>> to stab someone so that they can boast about it? Why do you think the
>>> idiots post their crimes on FaceBook?
>
>> They (I am imagining: I have no real clue why they do it, I can only
>> suppose) do not think they *are* desiring to be worse: they think that
>> (by their moral code) they are doing the right thing if they "defend
>> their turf" or stab a rival. If loyalty to your gang is paramount,
>> then questionable behaviour surely will follow. The problem is that
>> their entire way of seeing the world is off-kilter.
>
> That may well be so, but in practical terms they do desire to be worse.

What I am suggesting is that it may look "worse" from our (UK, present
day, law abiding) perspective, but from their "moral code" (look after
your own tribe is paramount) perspective it may not be. If a fox gets
into a hen-house and kills all the birds, as far as the fox is concerned,
it is not being "worse" than a tortoise that just munches lettuce all day.

>>> But "better" is almost always expressed in economic terms rather than
>>> moral ones.
>
>> I agree that is how it is often used, but that actually wasn't what I'm
>> thinking of: think of the period following a war, when many of the
>> older generation have been killed. Or think of refugees fleeing
>> dreadful atrocities. I think wanting a better life for your children is
>> far more than simply about money.
>
> Which is why I inserted the word "almost". Mind you, far too many of
> these refugees may want "a better life" for their children but get
> terribly upset when the children reject the deplorable culture that led
> their parents to become refugees and, for example, choose her own
> husband. In such a case I think I am right in saying that they desire
> was for better economic circumstances, not better morals.

I'm arguing against your use of the word "almost". Take our own society,
if you ask what parents want for their kids, I think a very common
response would be "I want them to be happy". Whilst money may be one
factor, I think it is far from "almost" the only factor they have in
mind. Quite how much a refugee, migrant, ex-pat, whatever you want to
call them needs to adapt to a "host" country's ethics is up for debate.
I would like to think that if I were (say) persecuted in this country for
my political views and fled somewhere else in fear of my life that I
would make an attempt to become part of the new-country's society (e.g.
learn their language and customs) but I would still be fundamentally a
Christian. I see no problem in that....

[Kendall K. Down]

On 20/09/2021 10:22, Jason wrote:

> I'm not sure if that's true, that Jesus' nature did not respond to
> temptation as you or I might, but this is a whole topic in itself. Could
> it not be argued that if Jesus' very nature does not respond to
> temptation that he is not fully human?

On the contrary, He is the first genuine, fully human, in 4,000 years!

Remember, Jesus is the "second Adam", not the second "Jason". He merely
needed to conquer where Adam failed, not where or I fail.

Mind you, I don't think that there was anything in either Adam or Eve
that responded, in the way we have been describing, to the temptation to
eat the forbidden fruit. According to St Paul, "the woman was deceived"
- she was tricked, she didn't recognise the serpent's words as temptation.

> I don't think this premise is correct. Adam and Eve were not sinful, yet
> temptation was an attraction for them.

No, they were tricked.

> I'm not sure I understand your point. I don't like seafood, so it's no
> temptation for me. Therefore, it's not to the slightest to my "credit"
> that I refrain from eating it. What benefit can there be in avoiding
> something you don't want to do anyway?

I wasn't claiming any benefit or merit, I was merely using an
illustration of what I mean by "no response"; you have added to that
illustration.

> I agree that there would be an inward response---otherwise it would not
> be a temptation---but disagree that this is sinful. I would argue it is
> only sinful if you give in to that temptation and fantasise about it and
> feed that lust. I'm arguing that if instead you acknowledge it, nip it
> in the bud, and move on that is not sinful.

Giving in is sin, but like you and seafood, there would be no temptation
if you were not sinful.

> I'm arguing against your use of the word "almost". Take our own society,
> if you ask what parents want for their kids, I think a very common
> response would be "I want them to be happy".

No doubt. Now ask how they are going to achieve that result and the
answer will be by getting a good education leading to a good (ie. high
salary) job. There will no doubt be some who will say "well, if he wants
to be a street sweeper, so long as he's happy, that's the main thing",
but they will still lean on the kid to achieve at school.

[Jason]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 21:27:37 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 20/09/2021 10:22, Jason wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure if that's true, that Jesus' nature did not respond to
>> temptation as you or I might, but this is a whole topic in itself.
>> Could it not be argued that if Jesus' very nature does not respond to
>> temptation that he is not fully human?
>
> On the contrary, He is the first genuine, fully human, in 4,000 years!
>
> Remember, Jesus is the "second Adam", not the second "Jason". He merely
> needed to conquer where Adam failed, not where or I fail.

For me, if Jesus is not fully human (i.e. like you, me, and everyone
else) it raises serious theological problems: how can he know "what it's
like" to be human if he's not like us at all? Giving in to temptation is
at the root of so many of our sins, I can't see how he can claim to be
"fully human". Jesus clearly *can* be tempted (there's a whole passage
on it), so I see no reason why Adam and Eve could not also be tempted.

>> I don't think this premise is correct. Adam and Eve were not sinful,
>> yet temptation was an attraction for them.
>
> No, they were tricked.

It's true that the serpent incited the event, in the same way that
someone trying to abstain from alcohol may find it difficult when a
friend says "go on, just one pint, can't do any harm". However, once the
fruit was brought to Eve's attention, she saw it was "pleasing and
desirable". Perhaps if it had been "ugly and foul smelling" she would
not have been tempted to take up the serpent's offer.....

>> I agree that there would be an inward response---otherwise it would not
>> be a temptation---but disagree that this is sinful. I would argue it
>> is only sinful if you give in to that temptation and fantasise about it
>> and feed that lust. I'm arguing that if instead you acknowledge it,
>> nip it in the bud, and move on that is not sinful.
>
> Giving in is sin, but like you and seafood, there would be no temptation
> if you were not sinful.

I disagree. Jesus could be tempted, and indeed the Devil tries to
encourage Jesus to give in to temptation. (I would say 'peer pressure'
can be a potent force, but I don't want to imply that Jesus and the Devil
are peers). We often are weak-willed enough that we can give in to such
pressure. (Even Jesus 'gave in' when his mother badgered him in the water-
to-wine episode).

>> I'm arguing against your use of the word "almost". Take our own
>> society,
>> if you ask what parents want for their kids, I think a very common
>> response would be "I want them to be happy".
>
> No doubt. Now ask how they are going to achieve that result and the
> answer will be by getting a good education leading to a good (ie. high
> salary) job.

I think that says more about you than it does about the hypothetical
picture we are discussing. I can speak best for myself but I have
*never* equated a "good" job with a "high salary" one: in fact I have
taken pay cuts to do a job I find more enjoyable and rewarding.

> There will no doubt be some who will say "well, if he wants
> to be a street sweeper, so long as he's happy, that's the main thing",
> but they will still lean on the kid to achieve at school.

I would agree that not many will aspire to that particular career path
(though there will no doubt be some), but I think you are very wrong to
equate "good" with "high salary".

[Kendall K. Down]

On 21/09/2021 09:42, Jason wrote:

> For me, if Jesus is not fully human (i.e. like you, me, and everyone
> else) it raises serious theological problems: how can he know "what it's
> like" to be human if he's not like us at all?

That sounds all very well, but it is an evidence of shallow thinking.
Let us suppose that Jesus had to be sinful in order to fully understand
us. Well, that would mean that His incarnation wouldn't count unless He
was born in the 21st century because without the internet and the easy
availability of porn He couldn't really be tempted into sexual sin. But
if time goes on for another 100 years someone else might claim that
unless He was tempted with 3-D, feel-o-matic virtual sex He couldn't
really be tempted. And goodness knows what those in 200 years time might
feel?

Born back in 1 AD? Pah. He hasn't a clue what real temptation is.

> Jesus clearly *can* be tempted (there's a whole passage
> on it), so I see no reason why Adam and Eve could not also be tempted.

Certainly Jesus was tempted from outside; but from inside, no.

> It's true that the serpent incited the event, in the same way that
> someone trying to abstain from alcohol may find it difficult when a
> friend says "go on, just one pint, can't do any harm". However, once the
> fruit was brought to Eve's attention, she saw it was "pleasing and
> desirable". Perhaps if it had been "ugly and foul smelling" she would
> not have been tempted to take up the serpent's offer.....

There was also the sophistry about "become like gods knowing good and
evil" - and, of course, we probably only have a precis of the
conversation. Devil was probably a good deal more plausible than the
brief acount in Genesis implies.

> I disagree. Jesus could be tempted, and indeed the Devil tries to
> encourage Jesus to give in to temptation. (I would say 'peer pressure'
> can be a potent force, but I don't want to imply that Jesus and the Devil
> are peers). We often are weak-willed enough that we can give in to such
> pressure. (Even Jesus 'gave in' when his mother badgered him in the water-
> to-wine episode).

Jesus was certainly tempted by the devil, but like you and seafood, He
was not tempted internally. To be tricked, you would have to be told
that the particular fish didn't taste like seafood or that it wasn't
really seafood, just looked like it, or some other lie.

> I think that says more about you than it does about the hypothetical
> picture we are discussing. I can speak best for myself but I have
> *never* equated a "good" job with a "high salary" one: in fact I have
> taken pay cuts to do a job I find more enjoyable and rewarding.

And what did your parents think?

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <sidfh5$h3s$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Tue, 21 Sep 2021 21:32:37 +0100:

> That sounds all very well, but it is an evidence of shallow
> thinking. Let us suppose that Jesus had to be sinful in order to fully
> understand us. Well, that would mean that His incarnation wouldn't
> count unless He was born in the 21st century because without the
> internet and the easy availability of porn He couldn't really be
> tempted into sexual sin. But if time goes on for another 100 years
> someone else might claim that unless He was tempted with 3-D,
> feel-o-matic virtual sex He couldn't really be tempted. And goodness
> knows what those in 200 years time might feel?
>
> Born back in 1 AD? Pah. He hasn't a clue what real temptation is.

One would have thought with the abundance of porn and the temptation
vicarious and virtual, it would be easier for not to fall to temptation
when faced with the situation. (I believe I've seen news reports of
priests who claimed the benefit)

[Of course it pervets the male-female relationship but that was a lost
cause in society anyway]

[Mike Davis]

On 21/09/2021 21:32, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 21/09/2021 09:42, Jason wrote:
>
>> For me, if Jesus is not fully human (i.e. like you, me, and everyone
>> else) it raises serious theological problems: how can he know "what it's
>> like" to be human if he's not like us at all?
>
> That sounds all very well, but it is an evidence of shallow thinking.
> Let us suppose that Jesus had to be sinful in order to fully understand
> us. Well, that would mean that His incarnation wouldn't count unless He
> was born in the 21st century because without the internet and the easy
> availability of porn He couldn't really be tempted into sexual sin. But
> if time goes on for another 100 years someone else might claim that
> unless He was tempted with 3-D, feel-o-matic virtual sex He couldn't
> really be tempted. And goodness knows what those in 200 years time might
> feel?

Every generation has its range of temptations.
This discussion has not defined 'sinful' so you are talking at cross
purposes. (See what I just did?)

I would consider Pauls quote (1 Cor 10:13):-
"No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And
God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can
bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that
you can endure it."
.. applies equally to us as it did to Jesus.

> Born back in 1 AD? Pah. He hasn't a clue what real temptation is.
>
>> Jesus clearly *can* be tempted (there's a whole passage
>> on it), so I see no reason why Adam and Eve could not also be tempted.
>
> Certainly Jesus was tempted from outside; but from inside, no.

What does 'tempted from the inside' mean; one cannot be tempted from the
'outside' unless it is internalised 'what's in it for me?'. Otherwise,
there's no temptation.

>> It's true that the serpent incited the event, in the same way that
>> someone trying to abstain from alcohol may find it difficult when a
>> friend says "go on, just one pint, can't do any harm".  However, once the
>> fruit was brought to Eve's attention, she saw it was "pleasing and
>> desirable".  Perhaps if it had been "ugly and foul smelling" she would
>> not have been tempted to take up the serpent's offer.....
>
> There was also the sophistry about "become like gods knowing good and
> evil" - and, of course, we probably only have a precis of the
> conversation. Devil was probably a good deal more plausible than the
> brief acount in Genesis implies.
>
>> I disagree.  Jesus could be tempted, and indeed the Devil tries to
>> encourage Jesus to give in to temptation. (I would say 'peer pressure'
>> can be a potent force, but I don't want to imply that Jesus and the Devil
>> are peers).  We often are weak-willed enough that we can give in to such
>> pressure. (Even Jesus 'gave in' when his mother badgered him in the
>> water-
>> to-wine episode).

;-) I don't think that was 'temptation' - just God-given obedience!

> Jesus was certainly tempted by the devil, but like you and seafood, He
> was not tempted internally. To be tricked, you would have to be told
> that the particular fish didn't taste like seafood or that it wasn't
> really seafood, just looked like it, or some other lie.

No, you clearly don't accept that Jesus was 'truly human'

>
>> I think that says more about you than it does about the hypothetical
>> picture we are discussing.  I can speak best for myself but I have
>> *never* equated a "good" job with a "high salary" one: in fact I have
>> taken pay cuts to do a job I find more enjoyable and rewarding.

Ah! So you did give into temptation! Just a different one.

>
> And what did your parents think?

I wonder, is it a temptation to be called to be holy?
(Don't mistake it with 'being seen to be holy'!)

[Jason]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 21:32:37 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 21/09/2021 09:42, Jason wrote:
>
>> For me, if Jesus is not fully human (i.e. like you, me, and everyone
>> else) it raises serious theological problems: how can he know "what
>> it's like" to be human if he's not like us at all?
>
> That sounds all very well, but it is an evidence of shallow thinking.
> Let us suppose that Jesus had to be sinful in order to fully understand
> us. Well, that would mean that His incarnation wouldn't count unless He
> was born in the 21st century because without the internet and the easy
> availability of porn He couldn't really be tempted into sexual sin. But
> if time goes on for another 100 years someone else might claim that
> unless He was tempted with 3-D, feel-o-matic virtual sex He couldn't
> really be tempted. And goodness knows what those in 200 years time might
> feel?
>
> Born back in 1 AD? Pah. He hasn't a clue what real temptation is.

I've no idea how you've come to the conclusion ("Well, that would
mean...) it doesn't mean that at all. There is nothing new under the
sun. Technology and the internet is of course another channel, but
sexual sin is as old as the hills. David didn't need an internet
connection to lust after Bathsheba, and they don't call prostitution the
"oldest profession" for no reason.

>> Jesus clearly *can* be tempted (there's a whole passage on it), so I
>> see no reason why Adam and Eve could not also be tempted.
>
> Certainly Jesus was tempted from outside; but from inside, no.

I don't really understand your distinction. You seem to be saying that
"I'm tempted to eat that cake, but I will resist" is materially different
to someone else saying "go on, eat that cake". Are you saying that Jesus
is subject to the latter but not the former? What about in the Garden of
Gethsemane, Jesus clearly desired for the "cup to be taken away from him"
but did not give in to this temptation, instead handling it by saying
"yet not my will but thine").

>> I disagree. Jesus could be tempted, and indeed the Devil tries to
>> encourage Jesus to give in to temptation. (I would say 'peer pressure'
>> can be a potent force, but I don't want to imply that Jesus and the
>> Devil are peers). We often are weak-willed enough that we can give in
>> to such pressure. (Even Jesus 'gave in' when his mother badgered him in
>> the water-
>> to-wine episode).
>
> Jesus was certainly tempted by the devil, but like you and seafood, He
> was not tempted internally. To be tricked, you would have to be told
> that the particular fish didn't taste like seafood or that it wasn't
> really seafood, just looked like it, or some other lie.

>> I think that says more about you than it does about the hypothetical
>> picture we are discussing. I can speak best for myself but I have
>> *never* equated a "good" job with a "high salary" one: in fact I have
>> taken pay cuts to do a job I find more enjoyable and rewarding.
>
> And what did your parents think?

I'm sure that they are happy for me that I'm doing the thing I love to
do. To be honest, I would be shocked if I found out that they secretly
thought that I should instead spend my life doing some dismal but well
paid job. You seem to be implying that money should be everything, but
that view is so alien to my own I can't sensibly respond....

[Kendall K. Down]

On 22/09/2021 09:45, Madhu wrote:

> One would have thought with the abundance of porn and the temptation
> vicarious and virtual, it would be easier for not to fall to temptation
> when faced with the situation. (I believe I've seen news reports of
> priests who claimed the benefit)

Assuming, of course, that viewing porn is not itself a sin. I am by no
means convinced.

> [Of course it pervets the male-female relationship but that was a lost
> cause in society anyway]

Which society?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 22/09/2021 13:02, Jason wrote:

> I've no idea how you've come to the conclusion ("Well, that would
> mean...) it doesn't mean that at all. There is nothing new under the
> sun. Technology and the internet is of course another channel, but
> sexual sin is as old as the hills. David didn't need an internet
> connection to lust after Bathsheba, and they don't call prostitution the
> "oldest profession" for no reason.

Of course - and there is nothing new under the sun. Nevertheless the
internet made porn much more freely available and therefore sexual
temptation more common.

And, of course, that was just the temporal aspect of temptation. Some
might argue that Jesus wasn't really relevant to them because He never
experienced life as a Kalahari Bushman, struggling to find enough food.
Others that Jesus wasn't relevant because He came from a lower class in
society and therefore doesn't understand the temptations peculiar to
wealth and upper class.

> I don't really understand your distinction. You seem to be saying that
> "I'm tempted to eat that cake, but I will resist" is materially different
> to someone else saying "go on, eat that cake".

No, it is materially different to someone like myself who is not all
that keen on cake and who says, "Oh, cake" and passes by without a
second thought.

> I'm sure that they are happy for me that I'm doing the thing I love to
> do. To be honest, I would be shocked if I found out that they secretly
> thought that I should instead spend my life doing some dismal but well
> paid job. You seem to be implying that money should be everything, but
> that view is so alien to my own I can't sensibly respond....

No, I'm not implying that money should be everything, I'm merely
pointing out that wealth and status are both things that every parent
wants for his or her child, along with happiness. Most, I think, would
not be attracted to the idea that their child can find happiness as a
long-haired drop-out who does drugs every weekend.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 22/09/2021 17:14, Mike Davis wrote:

> Every generation has its range of temptations.

Exactly, so insisting that Jesus should have been tempted exactly as we
are - which is what Jason wanted - is nonsense.

> This discussion has not defined 'sinful' so you are talking at cross
> purposes. (See what I just did?)

Well, I have done my best to differentiate between "sinfulness" and
"sin". Sin is what you do; sinfulness is what we are as imperfect human
beings. It is the barrier between us and God, even if we do not actually
sin.

> I would consider Pauls quote (1 Cor 10:13):-
> "No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And
> God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can
> bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that
> you can endure it."
> .. applies equally to us as it did to Jesus.

Jesus was tempted in every way possible, no one disputes that. The
question is whether He had an internal response, an attraction, to the
temptations.

Although I am happily married, if I am presented with a naked girl - in
reality or in picture - certain thoughts and emotions pass through my
mind. I resist and dismiss those thoughts, but my claim is that Jesus
did not have those thoughts in the first place.

> No, you clearly don't accept that Jesus was 'truly human'

On the contrary, as I said to Jason, I believe that Jesus was truly
human; it is we who are not truly human, for we have degenerated from
the man God first created.

In theological terms, the question is whether Jesus had a sinful human
nature or a sinless one. I believe that the orthodox Christian position
is that Jesus had a sinless nature.

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <sifvp3$lpj$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Wed, 22 Sep 2021 20:22:11 +0100:

> On 22/09/2021 09:45, Madhu wrote:
>
>> One would have thought with the abundance of porn and the temptation
>> vicarious and virtual, it would be easier for not to fall to temptation
>> when faced with the situation. (I believe I've seen news reports of
>> priests who claimed the benefit)
>
> Assuming, of course, that viewing porn is not itself a sin. I am by no
> means convinced.

It isn't cited in the bible. Lust, adultery, and Idol Worship are cited
as sins. there is likely a connection of Pornography with Idol Worship
starting with the idols of obscene cananite demons and the high-places
and temples dedicated to fertility and sex. Addiction is usually deemed
to be a sin (no chapter/verse for that) and Pornography is related to
addiction.

But my point was the understanding that "X isn't a sin unless acted
upon" - jesus gives the lie to this w.r.t lust but I see this argument
employed even on ukrc in other situations. In the case of porn it is
arguable that lust for an anonymous image is not lust for a tangible
individual like a neighbours wife, and consequently adultery is not an
option into which one can fall.

>> [Of course it pervets the male-female relationship but that was a lost
>> cause in society anyway]
> Which society?

Quoting from a pamphlet (from www.savedatsea.com)

Zillman and Bryant 1984 - non-violent porn encourages callousness to
women, distorted perceptions of sexuality, devaluation of monogamy,
decreased satisfaction with partner's sexual performance, affection, and
appearance, doubts about the value of marriage; and decreased desire to
have children.

I believe hollywood, media, and other institutions of satan have been on
this job for much longer and have been more successful in bringing about
the effects

The other complaint is that porn and masturbation deprives the partner
from what is rightfully theirs (Paul)

[Kendall K. Down]

On 23/09/2021 02:41, Madhu wrote:

>> Assuming, of course, that viewing porn is not itself a sin. I am by no
>> means convinced.

> It isn't cited in the bible. Lust, adultery, and Idol Worship are cited
> as sins. there is likely a connection of Pornography with Idol Worship
> starting with the idols of obscene cananite demons and the high-places
> and temples dedicated to fertility and sex. Addiction is usually deemed
> to be a sin (no chapter/verse for that) and Pornography is related to
> addiction.

I don't think there's any need to be so convoluted. Porn is lust or
feeds lust, whether or not you can claim idolatry in addition. I think
it could also be adultery - it's certainly "lusting after another woman
in your heart".

> But my point was the understanding that "X isn't a sin unless acted
> upon" - jesus gives the lie to this w.r.t lust but I see this argument
> employed even on ukrc in other situations.

I think the problem is the focus on sin as an action, whereas I see it
as what you are rather than what you do. Of course, things get
complicated because what you do springs from what you are, but what you
are is still at the bottom of it.

> I believe hollywood, media, and other institutions of satan have been on
> this job for much longer and have been more successful in bringing about
> the effects

I agree. One reason why I don't watch ordinary television and am
selective about what I watch on YouTube.

> The other complaint is that porn and masturbation deprives the partner
> from what is rightfully theirs (Paul)

That is true, though I have a certain sympathy for someone when the
partner doesn't actually want what is rightfully theirs! Men commonly
have more active sex drives than women.

[Jason]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 20:29:15 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 22/09/2021 13:02, Jason wrote:
>
>> I've no idea how you've come to the conclusion ("Well, that would
>> mean...) it doesn't mean that at all. There is nothing new under the
>> sun. Technology and the internet is of course another channel, but
>> sexual sin is as old as the hills. David didn't need an internet
>> connection to lust after Bathsheba, and they don't call prostitution
>> the "oldest profession" for no reason.
>
> Of course - and there is nothing new under the sun. Nevertheless the
> internet made porn much more freely available and therefore sexual
> temptation more common.

Pornography is indisputably easer to get hold of thanks to the internet,
but the "sexual revolution", everyone putting car keys into a bowl and
selecting a "partner" etc all seemed to thrive without such things.

>> I don't really understand your distinction. You seem to be saying that
>> "I'm tempted to eat that cake, but I will resist" is materially
>> different to someone else saying "go on, eat that cake".
>
> No, it is materially different to someone like myself who is not all
> that keen on cake and who says, "Oh, cake" and passes by without a
> second thought.

I don't think that is a good analogy. If you're not tempted by something
then it is not a temptation at all. On what basis do you conclude that
Jesus was not tempted by anything in the slightest? I've always
understood the various passages that Jesus, being fully man, was of
course tempted by things, but was able to overcome this temptation and
not fall into sin. I maintain that simply being tempted is not sinful,
so I see no theological reason why Jesus should be immune to this.

>> I'm sure that they are happy for me that I'm doing the thing I love to
>> do. To be honest, I would be shocked if I found out that they secretly
>> thought that I should instead spend my life doing some dismal but well
>> paid job. You seem to be implying that money should be everything, but
>> that view is so alien to my own I can't sensibly respond....
>
> No, I'm not implying that money should be everything, I'm merely
> pointing out that wealth and status are both things that every parent
> wants for his or her child, along with happiness. Most, I think, would
> not be attracted to the idea that their child can find happiness as a
> long-haired drop-out who does drugs every weekend.

You always go from one extreme to the other. No-one has raised the
prospect of being a "drop out" (though what hair length has to do with it
I'm not sure). You are allowed to pursue priorities other than financial
ones without becoming dependent on recreational drugs. Thankfully, I
don't have the sort of parents for whom "wealth and status" are
important; if other parents prioritise that, then I feel privileged and
lucky to have been born into the family I was.

[Jason]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 20:42:04 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 22/09/2021 17:14, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> Every generation has its range of temptations.
>
> Exactly, so insisting that Jesus should have been tempted exactly as we
> are - which is what Jason wanted - is nonsense.

You are deliberately mistaking me, as I'm sure you know. For
clarification, given that electronics was some years into the future in
Jesus' day, I *do not* (repeat, *do not*) think he was tempted to watch
too much TV. I do, however, assume he was tempted to idle his time away
in other ways (assuming procrastination was a temptation for him, though
as with all of us, we all find different things tempting).

>> This discussion has not defined 'sinful' so you are talking at cross
>> purposes. (See what I just did?)
>
> Well, I have done my best to differentiate between "sinfulness" and
> "sin". Sin is what you do; sinfulness is what we are as imperfect human
> beings. It is the barrier between us and God, even if we do not actually
> sin.

So you claim. Sin (doing / thinking wrongly, i.e. actions) is what
separates us from God. I don't think "sinfulness" in the abstract as
"imperfections" does.

>> I would consider Pauls quote (1 Cor 10:13):-
>> "No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And
>> God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can
>> bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that
>> you can endure it."
>> .. applies equally to us as it did to Jesus.
>
> Jesus was tempted in every way possible, no one disputes that. The
> question is whether He had an internal response, an attraction, to the
> temptations.

But if he didn't how is it a temptation? I repeat what I've said
elsewhere, if you don't have any "desire" for something, it is simply NOT
a temptation.

> Although I am happily married, if I am presented with a naked girl - in
> reality or in picture - certain thoughts and emotions pass through my
> mind. I resist and dismiss those thoughts, but my claim is that Jesus
> did not have those thoughts in the first place.

This is perhaps at the core of our difference: I believe that Jesus *did*
have these thoughts but was able to deal with them in a way that is not
sinful. What is your Biblical basis for assuming that Jesus had no real
temptations? I can't see how he is fully human without it.

>> No, you clearly don't accept that Jesus was 'truly human'

Exactly! (I should have read down the thread first, then I could simply
have agreed!) :-)

> On the contrary, as I said to Jason, I believe that Jesus was truly
> human; it is we who are not truly human, for we have degenerated from
> the man God first created.
>
> In theological terms, the question is whether Jesus had a sinful human
> nature or a sinless one. I believe that the orthodox Christian position
> is that Jesus had a sinless nature.

I believe that too, that Jesus was without sin (I may be a tad unorthodox
in other areas, but agree with this!!). Where we differ, is that I don't
think this equates to "without temptation in the first place".

[Kendall K. Down]

On 26/09/2021 17:20, Jason wrote:

> Pornography is indisputably easer to get hold of thanks to the internet,
> but the "sexual revolution", everyone putting car keys into a bowl and
> selecting a "partner" etc all seemed to thrive without such things.

There have always been, for want of a better word, orgies. They used to
be the preserve of the idle rich. Now they are more common and through
more classes of society as such behaviours are increasingly seen as
"normal", thanks to the influence of the media.

> I don't think that is a good analogy. If you're not tempted by something
> then it is not a temptation at all.

There is a sense in which that is true, but it is only part of the
story. To continue with the cake analogy, if I am constantly surrounded
by cakes and they are made to look ever more appetising, sooner or later
they will actually tempt me to have a nibble. And, perhaps, one nibble
will lead to another.

> On what basis do you conclude that
> Jesus was not tempted by anything in the slightest? I've always
> understood the various passages that Jesus, being fully man, was of
> course tempted by things, but was able to overcome this temptation and
> not fall into sin. I maintain that simply being tempted is not sinful,
> so I see no theological reason why Jesus should be immune to this.

Define "being tempted". Let us assume that gambling is a sin; there are
two betting shops in Rhyl High Street and several gambling machine
arcades. They are there, they have bright lights and attractive offers
and posters in their windows. They are certainly offering temptation to
all who pass by. Is that "being tempted"?

I can walk past those places without a second glance (not because the
thought of a big win is unattractive, but because rationally I know that
the only winners are the shops, and morally I have been thoroughly
indoctrinated that gambling is wrong). I know people who really struggle
to pass those places and I know of other people who simply cannot go
past without popping in to waste their money. That is "being tempted" is
a completely different way.

Being tempted in the first way is not a sin nor is it sinful. You cannot
control what is on offer in the High Street. Being tempted in the second
way is also not a sin, but the temptation relies on you being sinful. If
you were not sinful, there would be no temptation.

Actually, what is needed is not supernatural power, but simple
innocence. I remember being in Llandudno some years ago when a young,
moderately attractive female very obviously not wearing a bra, stopped
me and asked, "I want a good time." I spent a good five minutes
suggesting the various attractions on offer in Llandudno - the beaches,
the views from the Great Orme, the museum and the Alice in Wonderland
Experience - but to each she simply repeated that she wanted "a good time".

It was only a couple of days later that it occurred to me that she was
probably offering a very specific form of "good time", a thought which
never even crossed my mind! On that occasion I think I can claim
(without seeking any credit for myself) that I was both neither sinning
nor sinful!

Jesus was, obviously, tempted in the first way. He was surrounded by all
the opportunities for sin that were available to everyone else. I deny
that He was tempted in the second way, partly because of innocence but
mostly because He recognised that what was on offer was sin and refused
to even countenance it.

> You always go from one extreme to the other. No-one has raised the
> prospect of being a "drop out" (though what hair length has to do with it
> I'm not sure). You are allowed to pursue priorities other than financial
> ones without becoming dependent on recreational drugs. Thankfully, I
> don't have the sort of parents for whom "wealth and status" are
> important; if other parents prioritise that, then I feel privileged and
> lucky to have been born into the family I was.

I don't say that parents "prioritise" wealth and status, merely that
they desire to see their children comfortably off and recognised for
their achievements. Even the least "pushy" of parents will want those
things.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 26/09/2021 17:33, Jason wrote:

> You are deliberately mistaking me, as I'm sure you know. For
> clarification, given that electronics was some years into the future in
> Jesus' day, I *do not* (repeat, *do not*) think he was tempted to watch
> too much TV. I do, however, assume he was tempted to idle his time away
> in other ways (assuming procrastination was a temptation for him, though
> as with all of us, we all find different things tempting).

So you do not demand that Jesus should have been tempted *exactly* as we
are. Fine. Believing that Jesus was a second Adam, with Adam's nature
rather than the sinful nature of you or me, is simply an extension of
that idea.

> So you claim. Sin (doing / thinking wrongly, i.e. actions) is what
> separates us from God. I don't think "sinfulness" in the abstract as
> "imperfections" does.

If imperfection was acceptable, why does Jesus tell us "Be ye therefore
perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect"?

> But if he didn't how is it a temptation? I repeat what I've said
> elsewhere, if you don't have any "desire" for something, it is simply NOT
> a temptation.

See my analysis in a previous post.

> This is perhaps at the core of our difference: I believe that Jesus *did*
> have these thoughts but was able to deal with them in a way that is not
> sinful. What is your Biblical basis for assuming that Jesus had no real
> temptations? I can't see how he is fully human without it.

Was Adam fully human?

Scripture tells us that Adam and Eve were "naked but not ashamed". If
they hadn't got tangled with the serpent they would, in due course, have
had children who would have been similarly naked. Adam would have been
surrounded by young, beautiful and naked girls, but being innocent and
sinless he would not have been tempted by them (see my story of the girl
in Llandudno). Yet he was still fully human.

> I believe that too, that Jesus was without sin (I may be a tad unorthodox
> in other areas, but agree with this!!). Where we differ, is that I don't
> think this equates to "without temptation in the first place".

When Jesus said, "The prince of this world cometh but hath nothing in
Me" I believe He was expressing the simple truth; there was no internal
response to the devil's offers of wealth and power.

[Jason]

On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 07:32:42 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 26/09/2021 17:33, Jason wrote:
>
>> You are deliberately mistaking me, as I'm sure you know. For
>> clarification, given that electronics was some years into the future in
>> Jesus' day, I *do not* (repeat, *do not*) think he was tempted to watch
>> too much TV. I do, however, assume he was tempted to idle his time
>> away in other ways (assuming procrastination was a temptation for him,
>> though as with all of us, we all find different things tempting).
>
> So you do not demand that Jesus should have been tempted *exactly* as we
> are. Fine. Believing that Jesus was a second Adam, with Adam's nature
> rather than the sinful nature of you or me, is simply an extension of
> that idea.

Seriously?? I *knew* you were taking that angle on the word "exactly".
To avoid future doubt, if I say (for example) that I had "exactly the
same thing for tea as yourself last night" I don't mean that I was
sneaking foodstuffs from your plate while your back was turned, merely
that I ate something which consisted of the same (to a first
approximation) ingredients as the thing you were eating, and cooked to
the same recipe. Though I do concede that you may have bought yours from
a different store or cooked them for a few seconds longer....

>
>> So you claim. Sin (doing / thinking wrongly, i.e. actions) is what
>> separates us from God. I don't think "sinfulness" in the abstract as
>> "imperfections" does.
>
> If imperfection was acceptable, why does Jesus tell us "Be ye therefore
> perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect"?

Imperfection is not ideal, hence the "im" at the beginning of the word.
In our current state, 'imperfections' though not sinful in themselves,
can mean that we give in to temptations, and therefore into sin, so we
are to strive for perfection. I don't see any contradiction.

>> This is perhaps at the core of our difference: I believe that Jesus
>> *did*
>> have these thoughts but was able to deal with them in a way that is not
>> sinful. What is your Biblical basis for assuming that Jesus had no
>> real temptations? I can't see how he is fully human without it.
>
> Was Adam fully human?

Yes. And we don't know, prior to the serpent's intervention whether or
not he was tempted (but overcame) to eat of that particular fruit.

> Scripture tells us that Adam and Eve were "naked but not ashamed". If
> they hadn't got tangled with the serpent they would, in due course, have
> had children who would have been similarly naked. Adam would have been
> surrounded by young, beautiful and naked girls, but being innocent and
> sinless he would not have been tempted by them (see my story of the girl
> in Llandudno). Yet he was still fully human.

I would argue there that being tempted by one's offspring, however
alluring, is probably not a temptation that many would feel even in
today's world.

>> I believe that too, that Jesus was without sin (I may be a tad
>> unorthodox in other areas, but agree with this!!). Where we differ, is
>> that I don't think this equates to "without temptation in the first
>> place".
>
> When Jesus said, "The prince of this world cometh but hath nothing in
> Me" I believe He was expressing the simple truth; there was no internal
> response to the devil's offers of wealth and power.

As mentioned before, I wouldn't be surprised if an element of Jesus'
anguish in the Garden of Gethsemane was that he was tempted by "take this
cup away from me" but was able to resist with "But thy will be done". It
seems to me that the first part is the way we would all be tempted, but
the response is where we differ.

[Jason]

On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 07:23:30 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 26/09/2021 17:20, Jason wrote:
>
>> Pornography is indisputably easer to get hold of thanks to the
>> internet, but the "sexual revolution", everyone putting car keys into a
>> bowl and selecting a "partner" etc all seemed to thrive without such
>> things.
>
> There have always been, for want of a better word, orgies. They used to
> be the preserve of the idle rich. Now they are more common and through
> more classes of society as such behaviours are increasingly seen as
> "normal", thanks to the influence of the media.

I have absolutely no figures one way or the other than this, but if I was
forced to make a guess, I'd say these things are probably less common
than they were in the '60s and '70s.

>> I don't think that is a good analogy. If you're not tempted by
>> something then it is not a temptation at all.
>
> There is a sense in which that is true, but it is only part of the
> story. To continue with the cake analogy, if I am constantly surrounded
> by cakes and they are made to look ever more appetising, sooner or later
> they will actually tempt me to have a nibble. And, perhaps, one nibble
> will lead to another.

I can't disagree outright with that, but nevertheless, if someone wanted
me to eat seafood, however dressed up it might be, I still wouldn't be
tempted to eat it.

>> On what basis do you conclude that Jesus was not tempted by anything in
>> the slightest? I've always understood the various passages that Jesus,
>> being fully man, was of course tempted by things, but was able to
>> overcome this temptation and not fall into sin. I maintain that simply
>> being tempted is not sinful, so I see no theological reason why Jesus
>> should be immune to this.
>
> Define "being tempted". Let us assume that gambling is a sin; there are
> two betting shops in Rhyl High Street and several gambling machine
> arcades. They are there, they have bright lights and attractive offers
> and posters in their windows. They are certainly offering temptation to
> all who pass by. Is that "being tempted"?

Certain people will be tempted, I (for example) would not. Likewise, if
there was a nice coffee shop, with roasting coffee aromas emerging from
the door and a French-style patisserie display in the window, I would be
tempted, though (it goes without saying) others would not. We are all
tempted by different things.

> I can walk past those places without a second glance (not because the
> thought of a big win is unattractive, but because rationally I know that
> the only winners are the shops, and morally I have been thoroughly
> indoctrinated that gambling is wrong). I know people who really struggle
> to pass those places and I know of other people who simply cannot go
> past without popping in to waste their money. That is "being tempted" is
> a completely different way.

Yes, agreed.

> Being tempted in the first way is not a sin nor is it sinful. You cannot
> control what is on offer in the High Street. Being tempted in the second
> way is also not a sin, but the temptation relies on you being sinful. If
> you were not sinful, there would be no temptation.

No, I believe the temptation relies on our being *imperfect* (the key
difference is that being imperfect is NOT a sin. Giving in to the
temptation is where 'sin' creeps in.

> Actually, what is needed is not supernatural power, but simple
> innocence. I remember being in Llandudno some years ago when a young,
> moderately attractive female very obviously not wearing a bra, stopped
> me and asked, "I want a good time." I spent a good five minutes
> suggesting the various attractions on offer in Llandudno - the beaches,
> the views from the Great Orme, the museum and the Alice in Wonderland
> Experience - but to each she simply repeated that she wanted "a good
> time".
>
> It was only a couple of days later that it occurred to me that she was
> probably offering a very specific form of "good time", a thought which
> never even crossed my mind! On that occasion I think I can claim
> (without seeking any credit for myself) that I was both neither sinning
> nor sinful!

Well indeed. But I would also argue that if you knew exactly what she
was offering, and you desired to partake but nevertheless declined and
went on your way that is also not sinful.

>> You always go from one extreme to the other. No-one has raised the
>> prospect of being a "drop out" (though what hair length has to do with
>> it I'm not sure). You are allowed to pursue priorities other than
>> financial ones without becoming dependent on recreational drugs.
>> Thankfully, I don't have the sort of parents for whom "wealth and
>> status" are important; if other parents prioritise that, then I feel
>> privileged and lucky to have been born into the family I was.
>
> I don't say that parents "prioritise" wealth and status, merely that
> they desire to see their children comfortably off and recognised for
> their achievements. Even the least "pushy" of parents will want those
> things.

Do you think Jesus would want his friends / family / offspring (if he had
any) to be "recognised for their achievements"? It never seems
particularly high on the list during his various discourses....

[Kendall K. Down]

On 27/09/2021 13:58, Jason wrote:

> I have absolutely no figures one way or the other than this, but if I was
> forced to make a guess, I'd say these things are probably less common
> than they were in the '60s and '70s.

If so, it can only be because of the fear of AIDS.

> No, I believe the temptation relies on our being *imperfect* (the key
> difference is that being imperfect is NOT a sin. Giving in to the
> temptation is where 'sin' creeps in.

You appear unable to grasp the distinction between "sin" - an action -
and "sinful" - a state of being, an attitude of mind.

Of course being imperfect is not a *sin*, but it is - at the very least
- a manifestation of our sinfulness.

> Well indeed. But I would also argue that if you knew exactly what she
> was offering, and you desired to partake but nevertheless declined and
> went on your way that is also not sinful.

No, it would not be a sin, but if I desired to partake, that would be
because I am sinful.

> Do you think Jesus would want his friends / family / offspring (if he had
> any) to be "recognised for their achievements"? It never seems
> particularly high on the list during his various discourses....

At the very least Jesus could hardly be regarded as a "normal" parent.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 27/09/2021 13:47, Jason wrote:

> Imperfection is not ideal, hence the "im" at the beginning of the word.
> In our current state, 'imperfections' though not sinful in themselves,
> can mean that we give in to temptations, and therefore into sin, so we
> are to strive for perfection. I don't see any contradiction.

It depends on the "imperfections". Having one leg shorter than another
is not sinful; having a tendency to bad temper is.

> I would argue there that being tempted by one's offspring, however
> alluring, is probably not a temptation that many would feel even in
> today's world.

Which is, of course, to miss the point entirely. We are *all* Adam's
offspring and therefore in those early years, all relationships were
what we today would call "incestuous" (for example, Abraham marrying his
half-sister).

> As mentioned before, I wouldn't be surprised if an element of Jesus'
> anguish in the Garden of Gethsemane was that he was tempted by "take this
> cup away from me" but was able to resist with "But thy will be done". It
> seems to me that the first part is the way we would all be tempted, but
> the response is where we differ.

I'm not at all sure - I would be interested in others' opinions -
whether "Take this cup" was indeed a temptation or merely a human
response to the prospect of a painful and gruesome death. I don't think
that fearing a trip to the dentist is either the result of satanic
intervention nor of sinful weakness and imperfection.

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <sitb5j$ntu$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Mon, 27 Sep 2021 21:56:20 +0100:

> On 27/09/2021 13:58, Jason wrote:
>> I have absolutely no figures one way or the other than this, but if I
>> was forced to make a guess, I'd say these things are probably less
>> common than they were in the '60s and '70s.
>
> If so, it can only be because of the fear of AIDS.

[and maybe a fallout from the engineered in fertility rates coupled with
the vicarious vice of porn and related substitutes. Maybe the real thing
is reverting back to the privileged elite]

>> No, I believe the temptation relies on our being *imperfect* (the key
>> difference is that being imperfect is NOT a sin. Giving in to the
>> temptation is where 'sin' creeps in.
>
> You appear unable to grasp the distinction between "sin" - an action -
> and "sinful" - a state of being, an attitude of mind.
>
> Of course being imperfect is not a *sin*, but it is - at the very
> least - a manifestation of our sinfulness.

[I miss Celia's contributions on the topic of the "fully human" aspect
of Jesus.]

I would prefer to be in Jason's camp on "sin an action" -- it makes for
great doctrine, but I don't see it in practice. Escaping one temptation
only means still get tripped up in another temptation. The only way to
escape to hope that God listens when we say "lead us not into
temptation." - because many when tempted will fall on account of the
base nature. Though God's plan does involve refinement by trials

Making a legal system out of "sin as action" with a system of attendant
fines and prison systems is all fine for the world's economy, but I
don't think it is relevant in our relationship with God. Though the
bible employs the language of a book of works with a running tally of
sins, what matters I believe is not the avoidance of sin but the
transformation of the sinful nature.

Personally this knowledge is disappointing because it only confirms the
sinful nature and consequent state of condemnation.

[Timreason]

On 27/09/2021 22:01, Kendall K. Down wrote:
>
> I'm not at all sure - I would be interested in others' opinions -
> whether "Take this cup" was indeed a temptation or merely a human
> response to the prospect of a painful and gruesome death.

I've always read it as Christ being tempted to refuse to comply with
what was required of Him, but nevertheless He submitted to bearing the
Sacrifice.

Further to that, I've always believed that Christ was tempted more than
any other human being that has ever lived, including Adam. Possibly, the
temptations took a different form to ours, due to His sinless nature,
but unless they were very real, (that is, there was a very real risk of
His succumbing to them), they were meaningless. I don't believe they
were meaningless.

Tim.

[Jason]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2021 10:22:10 +0530, Madhu wrote:


> Making a legal system out of "sin as action" with a system of attendant
> fines and prison systems is all fine for the world's economy, but I
> don't think it is relevant in our relationship with God. Though the
> bible employs the language of a book of works with a running tally of
> sins, what matters I believe is not the avoidance of sin but the
> transformation of the sinful nature.
>
> Personally this knowledge is disappointing because it only confirms the
> sinful nature and consequent state of condemnation.

I think this is very nicely put. While I have perhaps a different
understanding of 'sinful nature' than does Kendall (though maybe it's
simply the case that what I call 'imperfect' he labels as 'sinful') I
think you are right. While it is the individual actions that are
actually sinful, the Christian journey is surely one of transformation as
you say.

[Jason]

On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 21:56:20 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 27/09/2021 13:58, Jason wrote:
>
>> I have absolutely no figures one way or the other than this, but if I
>> was forced to make a guess, I'd say these things are probably less
>> common than they were in the '60s and '70s.
>
> If so, it can only be because of the fear of AIDS.

Unless you have even the slightest modicum of information, I suggest
you've made that up completely off the top of your head, so in particular
I question your use of the word 'only' there.

>> No, I believe the temptation relies on our being *imperfect* (the key
>> difference is that being imperfect is NOT a sin. Giving in to the
>> temptation is where 'sin' creeps in.
>
> You appear unable to grasp the distinction between "sin" - an action -
> and "sinful" - a state of being, an attitude of mind.

I grasp what you are meaning by it, I simply disagree with it.

> Of course being imperfect is not a *sin*, but it is - at the very least
> - a manifestation of our sinfulness.

I'm afraid that I can't link the two. I could write a piece of software
that is imperfect, but that in no way shape or form makes it imperfect.
My cat (I don't actually have one) may claw at the sofa which makes it an
imperfect pet, but not sinful. Why do you want to tie the two together
for the case of humans?

>> Well indeed. But I would also argue that if you knew exactly what she
>> was offering, and you desired to partake but nevertheless declined and
>> went on your way that is also not sinful.
>
> No, it would not be a sin, but if I desired to partake, that would be
> because I am sinful.

Here's where we differ.

>> Do you think Jesus would want his friends / family / offspring (if he
>> had any) to be "recognised for their achievements"? It never seems
>> particularly high on the list during his various discourses....
>
> At the very least Jesus could hardly be regarded as a "normal" parent.

Maybe not 'normal' but perhaps 'perfect'. I suggest that he is a better
model to strive for rather than what you consider 'normal'.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 28/09/2021 05:52, Madhu wrote:

> [and maybe a fallout from the engineered in fertility rates coupled with
> the vicarious vice of porn and related substitutes. Maybe the real thing
> is reverting back to the privileged elite]

I presume that by "real thing" you are referring to orgies?

> I would prefer to be in Jason's camp on "sin an action" -- it makes for
> great doctrine, but I don't see it in practice.

More importantly, Jason seems to adopt a Humpty-Dumpty approach to word
meanings.

Incidentally, we are reading Tyndale's New Testament for morning worship
- a chapter a day - and have now reached the Book of Romans, which is
preceded by an 18 page prologue! We are reading a page or two a day -
about all we can take of his pre-Elizabethan language.

"Sin in the scripture is not called that outward work only committed by
the body, but all the whole business and whatsoever accompanieth, moveth
or steereth unto the outward deed, and that when the works spring: as
unbelief, proneness and readiness unto the deed in the ground of the
heart, with all the powers, affections and appetites wherewith we can
but sin. So that we say, that a man then sinneth, when he is carried way
headlong into sin, altogether as much as his is of that poison,
inclination and corrupt nature wherein he was conceived and born. For
there is none outward sin committed, except a man be carried away
altogether with life, soul, heart, body, lust and mind thereunto."

("lust" appears to mean nothing more than "desire", with none of the
negative connotations that we apply to the word.)

Putting it in modern English, Tyndale appears to be saying that sin is
not just an action, but the whole nature of man, because unless you have
a sinful nature, you will not sin!

[Kendall K. Down]

On 28/09/2021 13:22, Jason wrote:

> Unless you have even the slightest modicum of information, I suggest
> you've made that up completely off the top of your head, so in particular
> I question your use of the word 'only' there.

Perhaps you would care to suggest other factors?

>> You appear unable to grasp the distinction between "sin" - an action -
>> and "sinful" - a state of being, an attitude of mind.

> I grasp what you are meaning by it, I simply disagree with it.

Disagreeing with simple grammar seems a somewhat eccentric position to take.

> I'm afraid that I can't link the two. I could write a piece of software
> that is imperfect, but that in no way shape or form makes it imperfect.

Sorry? You write software that is imperfect but it is not at all imperfect?

> My cat (I don't actually have one) may claw at the sofa which makes it an
> imperfect pet, but not sinful. Why do you want to tie the two together
> for the case of humans?

Because if we were perfect, we would not sin. (Cats clawing at sofas are
not sin.)

> Here's where we differ.

Yes. I use words correctly and precisely. You treat them as playthings
that can be used to mean whatever you want them to mean.

> Maybe not 'normal' but perhaps 'perfect'. I suggest that he is a better
> model to strive for rather than what you consider 'normal'.

Could well be - but it is a bit difficult to model oneself on something
Jesus didn't do.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 28/09/2021 08:50, Timreason wrote:

> Further to that, I've always believed that Christ was tempted more than
> any other human being that has ever lived, including Adam. Possibly, the
> temptations took a different form to ours, due to His sinless nature,
> but unless they were very real, (that is, there was a very real risk of
> His succumbing to them), they were meaningless. I don't believe they
> were meaningless.

I can comprehend someone who has great musical talent being distressed
by my attempts to play the trumpet. In the same way Jesus, being
perfect, was more distressed by the sin He saw about Him than you or I are.

Was He more tempted by it? I have no doubt that the devil pulled out all
the stops to present every conceivable temptation to Jesus and must have
been incredibly frustrated when, like me with the girl in Llandudno,
they just bounced off Him.

However I believe that Jesus was subject to temptations that would have
little relevance to you and me. For example, the offer "All these things
are mine and I will give them to You if You will fall down and worship
me" might be attractive to me, but to Jesus it offered a shortcut to
achieving His aim of regaining the world, a path without suffering. It
was, therefore, a far more attractive temptation than it would be to you
or me.

Was it possible that Jesus could sin? Definitely yes.

[Timreason]

On 28/09/2021 21:03, Kendall K. Down wrote:

>
> Because if we were perfect, we would not sin.

Adam and Eve were created perfect, and yet they sinned.

Tim.

[Jason]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2021 20:56:05 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

[Snipping out a bunch of stuff]

> Putting it in modern English, Tyndale appears to be saying that sin is
> not just an action, but the whole nature of man, because unless you have
> a sinful nature, you will not sin!

Just to clarify a point in our use of terms here, how does your comment
above square with the previous comment you made:

> Was it possible that Jesus could sin? Definitely yes.

Assuming Jesus has a 'sinless nature', how do you square these two? Have
I missed something??

[Kendall K. Down]

On 29/09/2021 13:16, Jason wrote:

>> Putting it in modern English, Tyndale appears to be saying that sin is
>> not just an action, but the whole nature of man, because unless you have
>> a sinful nature, you will not sin!

> Just to clarify a point in our use of terms here, how does your comment
> above square with the previous comment you made:

There is no contradiction: we sin because we are sinful, but because we
are sinful, we would be lost even if we never sinned. Nevertheless, sin
and sinful are not the same thing.

>> Was it possible that Jesus could sin? Definitely yes.

> Assuming Jesus has a 'sinless nature', how do you square these two? Have
> I missed something??

Adam was created sinless, yet sinned; why is it such a problem if Jesus
was born sinless yet had the possibility of sinning?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 29/09/2021 08:20, Timreason wrote:

>> Because if we were perfect, we would not sin.

> Adam and Eve were created perfect, and yet they sinned.

Indeed, but as I have argued, they were tricked.

In my understanding, it was of the very essence that they were tricked.
The devil was cast out of heaven but desired to be readmitted. The devil
having - as I strongly suspect - rejected numerous attempts at
reconciliation before that final step was taken, God declined to give
credence to the devil's new professions of repentance and change.

Adam and Eve were newly created. If they could be persuaded to
deliberately sin it would not profit the devil at all. They would simply
join him in exile from God's favour. If, however, they could be tricked
into sin then God would be willing to forgive them.

But, of course, as soon as He did, the devil would pop up and demand to
be forgiven as well. "You are not just if You forgive them but not me."

Jesus offered to come to this world and place Himself in the devil's
power. If satan submitted to Him, then perhaps he could be considered as
a candidate for forgiveness. In fact the devil seized the opportunity to
harrass and finally kill Jesus, thereby demonstrating beyond doubt that
his protestations of repentance were false - and once that was shown,
God was then free to forgive all who wished to be forgiven.

I admit that in the above there is a good deal of reading between lines,
supposition and guess-work. I don't think it is an impossible scenario,
though.

[Mike Davis]

On 29/09/2021 21:03, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 29/09/2021 08:20, Timreason wrote:
>
>>> Because if we were perfect, we would not sin.
>
>> Adam and Eve were created perfect, and yet they sinned.
>
> Indeed, but as I have argued, they were tricked.

Not tricked, but told a lie, and they chose to believe (and so act on)
the lie rather than God's instruction ( "...you must not eat!").

>
> In my understanding, it was of the very essence that they were tricked.
> The devil was cast out of heaven but desired to be readmitted. The devil
> having - as I strongly suspect - rejected numerous attempts at
> reconciliation before that final step was taken, God declined to give
> credence to the devil's new professions of repentance and change.

Fictional, but possibly credible - but surely that would all be before
the fall of A&E?

>
> Adam and Eve were newly created. If they could be persuaded to
> deliberately sin it would not profit the devil at all. They would simply
> join him in exile from God's favour. If, however, they could be tricked
> into sin then God would be willing to forgive them.
>
> But, of course, as soon as He did, the devil would pop up and demand to
> be forgiven as well. "You are not just if You forgive them but not me."
>
> Jesus offered to come to this world and place Himself in the devil's
> power. If satan submitted to Him, then perhaps he could be considered as
> a candidate for forgiveness. In fact the devil seized the opportunity to
> harrass and finally kill Jesus, thereby demonstrating beyond doubt that
> his protestations of repentance were false - and once that was shown,
> God was then free to forgive all who wished to be forgiven.
>
> I admit that in the above there is a good deal of reading between lines,
> supposition and guess-work. I don't think it is an impossible scenario,
> though.

A bit too much rbl - Satan had already fallen - which is why it* wanted
to drag others down too.

Mike

*I always use 'it' in referring to satan, as the rebellion deprived it
of it's God-given personality.

--
Mike Davis

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Jason]

Well I agree with that statement, but I thought you were precluding it by
your statement above "because unless you have a sinful nature, you will
not sin". Does that not remove the possibility of sinning for those with
a perfect nature?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 30/09/2021 09:13, Jason wrote:

> Well I agree with that statement, but I thought you were precluding it by
> your statement above "because unless you have a sinful nature, you will
> not sin". Does that not remove the possibility of sinning for those with
> a perfect nature?

Sorry; I was not as clear as I should have been. I was continuing to
distinguish between "sin" and "sinful" and made the point - perfectly
valid in context - that if we were perfect we would not sin (unspoken:
knowing what we know now about sin).

[Kendall K. Down]

On 30/09/2021 13:49, Mike Davis wrote:

> Not tricked, but told a lie, and they chose to believe (and so act on)
> the lie rather than God's instruction ( "...you must not eat!").

The woman was deceived - I think that "tricked" is an adequate synonym.

> Fictional, but possibly credible - but surely that would all be before
> the fall of A&E?

Yes, that is how I see it.

> A bit too much rbl - Satan had already fallen - which is why it* wanted
> to drag others down too.

I sympathise with the use of the neuter pronoun.

I don't think that the devil wanted to drag others down out of malice
simpliciter. I think he (it) had a malign purpose behind tempting Adam
and Eve. No doubt he gained evil pleasure when they fell for his lies,
but I think he is clever enough to have an eye to the main chance as
well as sadistic pleasure.

[Madhu]

* Jason <18KdnRfrDd4t7Mj8...@brightview.co.uk> :
Wrote on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 03:13:36 -0500:

It is the same difficulty when one tries to square the 1John
pronouncements on sin

5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is
begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.
5:19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in
wickedness.

3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

[Kendall K. Down]

On 01/10/2021 03:19, Madhu wrote:

> It is the same difficulty when one tries to square the 1John
> pronouncements on sin

Perhaps we should say that if we were perfect - sinless - we would not
deliberately sin. We might be tricked into sin or sin without knowing we
had done so, but we would not choose to sin.

> 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

I am sure you are aware that "transgression of the law" is better
translated as "lawlessness"? The Greek word "anomia" points to an
attitude rather than an action.