Explain please ?

Phototoxin

I am discussing the cervical cancer jab on a website (primarily catholic) and its deviated to suffering and then someone came up with this gem. While its tempting to post it on the A&A forum, declare myself Dawkins disciple and just laugh at the backwardness of it all I thought I might come here to ask WHAT THE FORNICATION is this about :

This world is nothing but suffering. Whether we are healthy or sick, we all suffer. It may be one big thing, or many small things. Such is the life of this world.

That is why God asks as to turn our back on this world of sin and misery, to turn our back on the ways of the "Lord of this World".

"He who loves his life will lose it, but he who hates his life will gain eternal life".

>Phototoxin<, Type I Diabetes is a terrible cross to carry. You have my full sympathy and prayers that you may carry this cross heroically.

HIV, on the other hand, is a punishment to teach that promiscuity (and too active searching for the pleasure of this world) is bad.

St. Augstine comments that the same sufferings are inflected on sinner and believer alike. For the sinner, it is a punishment. For the believer, it is a reminder of the vanity of this world.

My response was along the lines of :

HIV is a virus, just like the flu. If your God make it to 'teach' people that promiscuity is bad then he's a very perverse god who does not deseve acknowledgement let alone worship.

In terms of type one, you get used to having a non functioning pancreas.

I find it ironic that being on a catholic site, to support my friends who made it, is making me less and less catholic.

To me HIV is a virus. Yes if you shag around burning out in a ball of pleasure seeking fire than its not a good thing. But how does an innocent child be 'punished' and for what ? I do have a feeling it ties to original sin (but I don't believe in that as I understand it)

Is it easy for the straight AIDS free white christian in first world* countries to ignore that a baby can be born with HIV and die due to no fault of their own?


*wiht BIFFO in charge you may disagree!

Nodin

I have no idea what "the vanity of this world" refers to......particularily in relation to the poor blameless sods afflicted with various serious diseases and injuries.

Fanny Cradock

One can't necessarily explain their view. I just accept that they have an entirely different view of God than I - and many other Christians - subscribe to. The God I believe in isn't some top-down bully who casually fires out cancers, earthquakes, and nasty viruses at people. Oddly, theses people often seem to completely bypass the the fundamental love aspect of God's relationship with us and focus on their bully God instead.

Mickeroo

The person who posted that is clearly a self hating idiot. I can respect peoples beliefs but there's a line.

kelly1

Phototoxin wrote: »

I am discussing the cervical cancer jab on a website (primarily catholic) and its deviated to suffering and then someone came up with this gem. While its tempting to post it on the A&A forum, declare myself Dawkins disciple and just laugh at the backwardness of it all I thought I might come here to ask WHAT THE FORNICATION is this about :

The view expressed is a bit extreme to put it mildly. It's not true to say that the "world is nothing but suffering". We do suffer at times to various degrees but suffering isn't part of God's plan. God, I'm sure, takes no pleasure in our suffering. I do believe however that God permits suffering to happen in order to show us the error of our sinful ways. HIV might or might not be a form of punishment for fornication etc, but that's not for us to judge.

Imagine what would happen if there were no negative consequences on earth arising from sin? We'd all end up in hell!

God bless,
Noel.

Phototoxin

when i said 'what the fornication' i meant wtf / what the f*** btw but I was using religous terminology =p

Fanny I tend to think that I have a similar world view.

However my experience of 'true' Catholicsm is unfortunately this type of view.

true as opposed to our more 'irish' version of Catholicsm which is (in my view

'ah sure we're probably going to hell anyway unless we can snake (sneak) id-in past Peter above, but sure hopefully we wont if we're good and say our prayers'

Fanny Cradock

Phototoxin wrote: »

Fanny I tend to think that I have a similar world view.

I assume you are speaking about my view?

MrPudding

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

One can't necessarily explain their view. I just accept that they have an entirely different view of God than I - and many other Christians - subscribe to. The God I believe in isn't some top-down bully who casually fires out cancers, earthquakes, and nasty viruses at people.

Surely what you believe in is largely irrelevant? Either god exists or does not. If he does then either you are correct or the extreme guys are. Both of you will posit roughly the same justifications for your beliefs, but I would presume his view is as likely to be correct as yours.

kelly1 wrote: »

The view expressed is a bit extreme to put it mildly.

Not really untypical for this forum.

kelly1 wrote: »

It's not true to say that the "world is nothing but suffering". We do suffer at times to various degrees but suffering isn't part of God's plan.

Says the person living in a first world country who doesn't have to wonder where his next meal is coming from and which of his kids will die next.

kelly1 wrote: »

God, I'm sure, takes no pleasure in our suffering. I do believe however that God permits suffering to happen in order to show us the error of our sinful ways.

Nothing like punishing the innocent for the sins of the father.

kelly1 wrote: »

HIV might or might not be a form of punishment for fornication etc, but that's not for us to judge.

Typical. "Oh, I am not sure how to spin this... Shall I go for not for us to understand or god moves in mysterious ways?"

kelly1 wrote: »

Imagine what would happen if there were no negative consequences on earth arising from sin? We'd all end up in hell!

There are negative consequences, when of course what you see as sin relates to a crime.

MrP

Fanny Cradock

MrPudding wrote: »

Surely what you believe in is largely irrelevant? Either god exists or does not. If he does then either you are correct or the extreme guys are. Both of you will posit roughly the same justifications for your beliefs, but I would presume his view is as likely to be correct as yours.

No, what I believe is entirely relevant to me. As for my beliefs being as likely to be correct as an extremist's, I'm at a loss to see how.

MrPudding

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No, what I believe is entirely relevant to me. As for my beliefs being as likely to be correct as an extremist's, I'm at a loss to see how.

I am sure it is relevent to you, but correct me if I am wrong, but what you believe will not influence your god one bit.

You use the same book as the extremist, you both have interpreted it in a particular way, both of you will give the same justifications for your views and probably quoyte similar scripture to support it. One of you is wrong, and you are a likely as him to be wrong.

MrP

robindch

Phototoxin wrote: »

I thought I might come here to ask WHAT THE FORNICATION is this about

Some guy wrote:

HIV, on the other hand, is a punishment to teach that promiscuity (and too active searching for the pleasure of this world) is bad.

To me HIV is a virus.

In many religious populations, there appears to be a higher-than-average percentage who believe that there is a human or non-human intention behind every event.

There are plausible evolutionary-psychological reasons why some people misattribute in this way, but the upshot of it is that there's a lot of people out there who habitually seek political motivations behind physical/chemical/biological/other-non-intentional events, regardless of whether or not they exist. The guy on the other board is simply making a common category error (and not a very helpful one either).

Phototoxin

The guy was a gal and I guess if she gets cervical cancer tomorrow it will because she is sinful and deserves to be punished. I wont say more as I tend to get annoyed at this sort of thinking and make comparisons to S&M which then gets me banned from places.

But I just cannot understand this way of thinking.

Fanny Cradock

MrPudding wrote: »

I am sure it is relevent to you, but correct me if I am wrong, but what you believe will not influence your god one bit.

You use the same book as the extremist, you both have interpreted it in a particular way, both of you will give the same justifications for your views and probably quoyte similar scripture to support it. One of you is wrong, and you are a likely as him to be wrong.

MrP

Temporarily leaving aside the argument about which persons view turns out to be correct (and I would like to think that most Christians would be open to correction given a strong enough biblical based case) it doesn't follow that because a number of outcomes are possible all of them are equal in certainty.

She believes HIV is a specific form of punishment from God, I don't. Now if you assume for a moment that there is a Christian God then such black and white arguments can't both stand an equal chance of being correct (or wrong if you prefer).

postcynical

Phototoxin wrote: »

The guy was a gal and I guess if she gets cervical cancer tomorrow it will because she is sinful and deserves to be punished. I wont say more as I tend to get annoyed at this sort of thinking and make comparisons to S&M which then gets me banned from places.

But I just cannot understand this way of thinking.

Perhaps the person you're quoting was also frustrated or unhappy in themselves too. The internet is not necessarily a good companion the way prayer is.

I'll try and give my reading of the OP although as it is expressed, it is not my own way of thinking:

some random girl on the internet wrote:

HIV, on the other hand, is a punishment to teach that promiscuity (and too active searching for the pleasure of this world) is bad.

Not specifically to HIV, but including sexual promiscuity, any actions against the natural law will bring a natural reaction. It applies to economic greed, incest, hating your neighbours, dishonesty. Karma is part of the human social fabric. God does not intervene and infect somebody with HIV as a cruel lesson; these things are built in to nature.

God does intervene when we sin or when we lead a habitually sinful life and intervenes in a loving way to show us the correct way of living. So if we love our life more than Him, he might take it from us. However this is not how HE seems to act. Usually he gives us chance after chance, always nudging us back to him. If we love our work more than Him, he takes our job. Our friends, we lose them. Even our family and loved ones, He can take them from us to show us how much we need him. No earthly goods or pleasures can fulfil us. We are spiritual beings. If we place all our energy, all our creativity, all our talent, all our being into getting laid all the time it's a sad way to be at the end of the day. God will take away our looks, our sense of humour, our money, our charms. Anything to get us to reorient ourselves to the Truth. Maybe He'll even introduce sickness. But it's done out of love. This is clear when we have faith and is shrouded in paradox when we lack faith.

same girl wrote:

St. Augstine comments that the same sufferings are inflected on sinner and believer alike. For the sinner, it is a punishment. For the believer, it is a reminder of the vanity of this world.

St Augustine is right IMO. Inflictions and suffering to a believer bring the believer closer to God and thus are good. Of course, joy and pleasure also bring a believer closer to God but often we turn to God in times of need rather than in times of gay abandon (pardon the pun:p). The vanity of the world captures the truth that a believer is completely free of the world for his/her fulfilment. They live through, with and in the Lord and are completely free of the world. If they also love the world, it is with gratitude to God for providing it. And their love for God is increased by their love for the world. Sufferings for the believer are often to remind him/her to keep God in first place. A reminder for which they are grateful. And which is given as a loving gift, in the form of suffering.

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Temporarily leaving aside the argument about which persons view turns out to be correct (and I would like to think that most Christians would be open to correction given a strong enough biblical based case) it doesn't follow that because a number of outcomes are possible all of them are equal in certainty.

If we follow Mr P's logic then there's not much point in discussing anything on boards.ie since we all have an equal chance of being right. OK, now, where's that mod button for locking the whole darn site?

2Scoops

kelly1 wrote: »

I do believe however that God permits suffering to happen in order to show us the error of our sinful ways. HIV might or might not be a form of punishment for fornication etc, but that's not for us to judge.

Let's assume, just for a moment, that 'fornication' is a real sin worthy of punishment. What about all the people who contract HIV through non-sinning means? Medical researchers and the children of infected parents, for example? Where's the value in infecting them with this 'righteous' virus?

MrPudding

PDN wrote: »

If we follow Mr P's logic then there's not much point in discussing anything on boards.ie since we all have an equal chance of being right. OK, now, where's that mod button for locking the whole darn site?

Plenty of christians, including a few on this board, have used the old "either god exists or he doesn't, 50/50" nugget. Funny, I don't seem to remember you following their logic to its conclusion or suggesting we should lock Boards. Not surprising really.

I happen to agree that all possible outcome are not neccesarily equally likely, but given as it seems to be a popular enough christian arguement I thought, when in Rome.

At the end of the day we are talking about to specific beliefs about one particular subject. Both perosns have come to their individual conclusions based on reading the same material and applying some interpretation to it. There are even a few people posting on this boards that have this "other" opinion.

But then, at the end of the day, you are talking about god. And as I am sure you are aware, he is unknowable. Given that how do you know that your interpretation of him is correct? Do you use different tools to the likes of Wolfie & BC?

MrP

MrP

Handsome Bob

Phototoxin wrote: »

The guy was a gal and I guess if she gets cervical cancer tomorrow it will because she is sinful and deserves to be punished. I wont say more as I tend to get annoyed at this sort of thinking and make comparisons to S&M which then gets me banned from places.

But I just cannot understand this way of thinking.

This line of thinking would drive me nuts. What about her extended family? If she woke up with cervical cancer tomorrow and it was uncurable, would her children deserve to see their mother die like that, just because she was "sinful"? How about her parents seeing their daughter go before them?

It really infuriates me, to the point where I would have to be rude.:pac:

Phototoxin

This line of thinking would drive me nuts. What about her extended family? If she woke up with cervical cancer tomorrow and it was uncurable, would her children deserve to see their mother die like that, just because she was "sinful"? How about her parents seeing their daughter go before them?

Well I started to question my faith. I wasn't happy with the answers I got then I got seriously ill - coincidence? Perhaps but reading stuff like that makes me think that maybe God was going 'you dare question?!!!' **SMITE**

Also I might add that 'random internet girl' was from a heavily moderated Catholic site

kelly1

Phototoxin wrote: »

when i said 'what the fornication' i meant wtf / what the f*** btw but I was using religous terminology =p

Yes, I copped that.

Phototoxin wrote: »

However my experience of 'true' Catholicsm is unfortunately this type of view.

The personal opinions of one, or several Catholics for that matter, should not alter the fact the being a good Catholic/Christian is about following Christ and imitating His virtues of humility, charity, faith, patience, non-judgment etc.

Phototoxin

I have to disagree Noel,

to be a good Catholic one must follow the Church. Indeed I have met many 'good Catholics' who were anything but christian and horribly reminiscent of the pharisees in the Gospels.

God should trumph the church but he doesn't as you must follow the rules.

Fanny Cradock

Phototoxin wrote: »

I have to disagree Noel,

to be a good Catholic one must follow the Church. Indeed I have met many 'good Catholics' who were anything but christian and horribly reminiscent of the pharisees in the Gospels.

God should trumph the church but he doesn't as you must follow the rules.

Possibly these type of people are to be considered cultural Christians.

kelly1

Phototoxin wrote: »

I have to disagree Noel,

to be a good Catholic one must follow the Church. Indeed I have met many 'good Catholics' who were anything but christian and horribly reminiscent of the pharisees in the Gospels.

God should trumph the church but he doesn't as you must follow the rules.

You see, I believe Jesus founded an apostolic Church so that we would have a visible authority on earth to teach divine truth and administer grace via the sacraments. So I believe that to fully following the commandments and teachings of Christ must involve obedience to the Church which Christ founded. Some scriptural quotes to back this up:

John 10:16 He that heareth you [the apostles], heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.

Matthew 18:17. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

John 20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

2 Thes. 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Tim. 2:2 And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. 9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.

1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Acts 20:28 Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.