Posted by John West  7/22/2016 10:48 am | #71 |
Jason wrote:
My apologies there. I was just using it as a general term for Christians (is that spelling associated with fundamentalists? I picked it up from a Catholic friend who just preferred it as an alternative). It certainly wasn't meant in a perjorative sense.
No need to apologize, I think your friend is right and it was an honest mistake on my part.
Just to avoid potentially awkward situations at cocktail parties: some people don't like it because it's used to pull "Christ" out of words (e.g. Xmas).
|
Posted by Jason 7/22/2016 11:44 am | #72 |
My apologies there. I was just using it as a general term for Christians (is that spelling associated with fundamentalists? I picked it up from a Catholic friend who just preferred it as an alternative). It certainly wasn't meant in a perjorative sense.
No need to apologize, I think your friend is right and it was an honest mistake on my part.
Just to avoid potentially awkward situations at cocktail parties: some people don't like it because it's used to pull "Christ" out of words (e.g. Xmas).
and it would come under the "No Gossip" section of the cocktail party etiquette http://www.personalitytutor.com/cocktail-party-etiquette.html
|
Posted by iwpoe 7/22/2016 11:09 pm | #73 |
My apologies there. I was just using it as a general term for Christians (is that spelling associated with fundamentalists? I picked it up from a Catholic friend who just preferred it as an alternative). It certainly wasn't meant in a perjorative sense.
No need to apologize, I think your friend is right and it was an honest mistake on my part.
Just to avoid potentially awkward situations at cocktail parties: some people don't like it because it's used to pull "Christ" out of words (e.g. Xmas).
Isn't it a Chi? As in Chi-Rho?
☧
Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
|
Posted by John West 7/22/2016 11:30 pm | #74 |
No need to apologize, I think your friend is right and it was an honest mistake on my part.
Just to avoid potentially awkward situations at cocktail parties: some people don't like it because it's used to pull "Christ" out of words (e.g. Xmas).
Isn't it a Chi?
Yup. Thanks for catching that.
|
Posted by EarthlingMortal 7/25/2016 6:32 am | #75 |
Hello, actually I am a Catholic, and while I definitely believe in Hell, I think there might be some mistake in my thinking because there seems to be an incongruous relationship with Heaven and Hell in regards to theology of grace.
I understand that entry into Heaven isn't something you can "earn," but it is something you can merit with the help of grace. The logic being that there's nothing we can do in our finite earthly existence to "deserve" eternal life. This is why salvation is a gift, as I've often heard.
But if this is true, shouldn't it also be the case that there's no amount of evil one can do in a finite amount of time to deserve eternal punishment?
I am prepared to accept the apparent incongruity as a matter of divine revelation. It could be that that's just the way it is and I have to be obedient to that fact. At the same times I wonder if I have misunderstood something. Is there another way to frame the issue so that this confusion doesn't arise?
|
Posted by 884heid 7/25/2016 3:00 pm | #76 |
Hello, actually I am a Catholic, and while I definitely believe in Hell, I think there might be some mistake in my thinking because there seems to be an incongruous relationship with Heaven and Hell in regards to theology of grace.
I understand that entry into Heaven isn't something you can "earn," but it is something you can merit with the help of grace. The logic being that there's nothing we can do in our finite earthly existence to "deserve" eternal life. This is why salvation is a gift, as I've often heard.
But if this is true, shouldn't it also be the case that there's no amount of evil one can do in a finite amount of time to deserve eternal punishment?
I am prepared to accept the apparent incongruity as a matter of divine revelation. It could be that that's just the way it is and I have to be obedient to that fact. At the same times I wonder if I have misunderstood something. Is there another way to frame the issue so that this confusion doesn't arise?
I am not Catholic but the usual response would be somewhat along the lines of sin deserving infinite punishment due to act of transgression going towards God himself. Aquinas stated that sin is an offense towards God which deserves everlasting punishment: "The magnitude of the punishment matches the magnitude of the sin. Now a sin that is against God is infinite; the higher the person against whom it is committed, the graver the sin—it is more criminal to strike a head of state than a private citizen—and God is of infinite greatness. Therefore an infinite punishment is deserved for a sin committed against Him". God can't get offended in classical theism obviously but it would be considered an act of injustice if God didn't act in this manner towards transgressors according to Catholics. You can check this page out which has Maverick philosopher debate this issue with a Thomist:
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2011/05/how-could-an-impassible-god-be-offended.html
Page: