With the economy bouncing up and down and the “R” word breathlessly being uttered, it might be a good time to think about money. Let’s consider why money cannot be the source of happiness. What I mean is that money—literally—cannot make men happy.
First, we need to define happiness. Happiness is not emotional exhilaration. As Aristotle noted, all men seek happiness. In the Declaration of Independence there is that wonderful misunderstood phrase that tells us that all men are endowed by their Creator with the inalienable right to “pursue happiness.” Rightly understood, happiness is the ultimate end or purpose of human life. Happiness is pursued for its own sake. For instance, you don’t pursue happiness go get money. That is absurd. People pursue money thinking it will make them happy. In short, an intimate relationship with God is what makes humans happy. That is the ultimate purpose or end of life.
Now, of course, everyone gives lip service to the fact that money doesn’t bring happiness. Meanwhile people turn right around and pursue it with their whole hearts. Americans are famous for this. We jabber on endlessly about how wretched it is to pursue money for happiness; meanwhile, we are obsessed with watching those inane cable-channel programs that show the over-the-top material excesses of rap artists and the Paris Hiltons of the world.
So, why is it that money cannot bring happiness? Let me list a few reasons.
First, material wealth is only desired for the sake of other things. Money is useless unless you can purchase something with it. In the simplest of terms, money is used to acquire things for the maintenance of life or some other reason. Happiness though, is desired for its own sake and not for the sake of something else. Therefore, money cannot be the source of happiness. Money is only a means to an end.
Second, the object of man’s purpose in life must be something higher than himself. For instance, people are naturally amazed when an animal can do something that seems above itself; but, we are naturally disgusted when a dog eats its own vomit. Likewise, when men act like animals we are repelled. Man is better than money. Riches are but things that are subordinated to man’s use. When men make money the object of their happiness they are like a dog eating vomit.
Third, when people give money or resources to those in need, it is praiseworthy. Remember the wonderful outpouring of generosity during Katrina or the Tsunami a few years back? People recognize that it is more praiseworthy when people generously help those in need then when people by luxuries for themselves. We also see this kind of generosity as virtuous. We also call people misers who hoard their resources to themselves. Classically, hoarding resources was described as a “vicious habit”—a vice. Consequently, piling up money for oneself cannot be the road to happiness.
Finally, money is often involuntarily lost. A lot of people are discovering this as they read the daily returns from the stock market. Additionally, often evil men are able to amass wealth through unjust means. Because the acquisition and maintenance of money is so unstable, it cannot be the natural means of attaining happiness. The road to happiness must be something that all mean are able to attain.
For these and other reasons, money does not bring real happiness. Unfortunately, millions of Americans, while giving lip service to this truth, are living like money actually brings happiness. They may become very unhappy in the near future.
|
The Christian finds happiness through faith. Hebrews 11:1 teaches us that "faith is the substance [assurance] of things hoped for, evidence of things not seen." Faith is the principle of action in all intelligent beings. As intelligent creatures we have the capacity to hope. We may be peculiar as well in being alone in our ability to fear. This is emphasized though our consciousness of time. So, "hope" enters the picture. Hope is confidence in the future and a time when things not yet seen will appear. But hope alone is not enough. Faith provides confidence or assurance to hope that it can find the things it seeks. Faith helps us plan with present actions with an eye to the future. Is there an ultimate end to where these actions take us? Indeed, its happiness.
Thom, Aristotle aso said that Happiness is an "an activity of soul in accordance with virtue". Adding to that, I have learned that happiness is not some sort of end that can be secured and held.
"Happiness is the object and design of our existance; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness. faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments fo God." (Teachings of Joseph Smith 255-256)
In our actions we not only show others our faith, but we show it to ourselves as well.
Azron lamented that most Christians could not be distinguished from their nonChristian neighbors. (Excepting perhaps that Megachurch senior pastors are generally wealthier). Following true to form Thom enters the discussion on happiness via money.
●As usual, you cannot help but take a personal swipe at my character. This, more than anything else, loudly and profoundly gives testimony to the character of your religion. Mormons love to talk about their “testimony.” You consistently display yours here.
●You may not have noticed this, but, my post is on how money does not bring happiness.
You wrote: The Christian finds happiness through faith.
●Note the meaning of your own words, “through faith.” Faith, therefore, according to your own words is a “means” by which one reaches happiness. Happiness, consequently, is an “end”--this according to your own words. In Christian tradition the word for ultimate happiness is “felicity” which describes the state of seeing God face-to-face. In LDS theology, happiness is attaining a breakthrough into the state of eternal progression by which the good Mormon becomes the same as God in all power, knowledge, ability and perfection. The Christian conception of happiness or felicity focuses on God as the ultimate purpose and end for oneself and all of creation. Whereas, the Mormon conception focuses upon oneself as becoming a god. One conception is about glorifying and worshipping God and the other (LDS) is about self-glorification.
You wrote: Thom, Aristotle aso said that Happiness is an "an activity of soul in accordance with virtue". Adding to that, I have learned that happiness is not some sort of end that can be secured and held.
● Aristotle takes the word "happiness" and gives it the meaning of ultimate good, last end, or summum bonum. He writes the following:
"The chief good, is evidently something final . . . Now we call that which is in itself worthy of pursuit more final than that which is worthy of pursuit for the sake of something else, and that which is never desirable for the sake of something else more final than the things that are desirable both in themselves and for the sake of that other thing. Therefore, we call final without qualification that which is always desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else. Such a thing happiness, above all else, is held to be; for this we choose always for itself and never for the sake of something else."
●Christians recognize that the ultimate last end that is desirable for itself and is “more final than the things that are desirable both in themselves and for the sake of that other thing” can only be God.
You wrote: "Happiness is the object and design of our existance; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness. faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments fo God." (Teachings of Joseph Smith 255-256)
●Nothing that Joseph Smith wrote here is per se wrong except for what is not described by the quote. What is not described is the state of happiness (the end) that the path of virtue, uprightness, etc. leads to. Smith had in mind the state of eternal progression to deity. Aquinas, St. Paul and Jesus had in mind the union with God Himself. There is a huge difference between the two ends.
"Some people came and asked me, "What about foreigners? They have no suffering (i.e., persecution)." I told them, "In the Western countries,there is no suffering; in China we are suffering more and more. But Satan has two ways: one is persecution, and the other is delusion. In China there is persecution; in the Western countries there is delusion. In the West there is the attempt to make people love not the Lord but the world."
"In China, by the Holy Spirit, we lead people to the Lord through persecution. This is not easy. But in the Western countries, you lead people to the Lord while leading them to not love the world. This is also not easy."
"Therefore I said, "We have the same value, but in two aspects. We suffer, and we lead the people not to fall. But you lead the people not to love the world."
Isn't this really the choice for us in the west, to love the world (and ourselves) or love God? Selfishness or selflessness? The west should take the story of the rich young ruler very seriously.....a message not everyone wants to hear.
I do though have an issue with this statement you made:
Loving God for true Happiness, is something Osama is preaching to al Qaeda. The only serious flaw in your article.
My issue is that I do not believe that Osama is preaching this, at least, not in the Christian sense of loving God. From a Christian perspective, one cannot separate loving God from loving one’s neighbor and doing good to those who “hate” you. Osama’s brand of Islam does not necessitate that a good Muslim love those who are “infidels.” In fact, as we have seen, the infidel can be exterminated (often grotesquely) in the name of Allah. This sort of wanton and unjust murder is considered a form of hating God in Christianity. Osama may think he is achieving union with God and ultimate happiness; however, I think he is going to be very surprised when he meets his maker.
Isn't this really the choice for us in the west, to love the world (and ourselves) or love God? Selfishness or selflessness? The west should take the story of the rich young ruler very seriously.....a message not everyone wants to hear.
●Thanks, Timbo, for the fascinating and insightful story about the pastor from China. I learned a long time ago that in America there are two stronghold areas of satanic delusion. One is sex, the other is money. As a pastor, you really see this when you preach on either topic. I discovered that as soon as you begin to talk about these, the atmosphere turns chilly. On those Sundays, I don’t expect a lot of affirmations or “thank you’s” for the sermon. As you note, these are messages that “not everyone wants to hear.”
These delusions are so powerful. In China, people are coming to Christ as never before, one report I read mentioned a rate of 14 Million per year. This in the face of ongoing persecution and hardship. Meanwhile, in the United States, church membership overall continues to fall and Europe is now largely succumb to secularism. Love for Christ seems to be evaporating from the decadent west while it blossoms in China and Asia/Africa in general.
Its hard to imagine many Americans joining an outlaw church and having to meet in secret to avoid persecution. We are such consumers, bombarded by constant pressure to want more stuff. I think Americans kind of try and do that with God too. They consume only what they like and discard the uncomfortable. Feel good messages are undoubtedly very popular but try telling them that maybe they really don't need so much stuff. I can see why those messages don't get too much acclaim. In our society, how do you convince someone not to love the world?
This may sound good to a grieving mother, but consider the ramifications. In all of human history (~1,000,000 years?) infant mortality was very high placing billions of infants in the LDS highest Valhalla. These babies have godlike intelligences, but are still trapped in the helpless bodies of babies for all eternity unable to wipe their rear ends. Meanwhile, where are the parents? The vast majority are excluded and only start trickling in with Joseph Smith's latter day saints. Can you imagine their shock when they see a vast ocean of babies backlogged for them to bottle feed and diaper change? There's a vision of Hell appropriate for an episode of the "Twilight Zone"! If I was such a baby or one of those saints, I'd be looking for the S.O.B. who set me up for this!
These babies have godlike intelligences, but are still trapped in the helpless bodies of babies for all eternity unable to wipe their rear ends. Meanwhile, where are the parents? The vast majority are excluded and only start trickling in with Joseph Smith's latter day saints. Can you imagine their shock when they see a vast ocean of babies backlogged for them to bottle feed and diaper change?
●Now, this was funny. I cannot figure out why Messer. Smith would postulate that infants who die would “never grow.” My only thought is that he was making things up as he went along. In this case, perhaps, he felt it was comforting to grieving parents to think that they would meet their deceased children in the “celestial heaven” just as they had last seen them. The problem with making theology up on the “fly” is that one is prone to create glaring inconsistencies and odd ball notions. This is particularly true when the theologian is responding to the emotional needs of his audience.
Some people have claimed that the presence of Muslims in these societies, and the possibility of Turkey coming into the European Union, might actually reinforce in the long run the Christian identity of Europe because it will remind Europeans of what they've been and make them want to recover that,…
●Finally, there are many indications of a striking resurgence of Christianity in heavily secularized European countries.
Try to imagine spirits. They are in a spirit world. They need not be cared for because they have no bodies. The resurrection has not occurred yet. When the resurrection occurs, every one of them will have mothers to care for them. They will have bodies of skin and bone then, celestialized. They will grow to full stature.
Yea, I heard it from Thom also about how crowded it will be with all those babies in the infinite realms of the Heavens. Crowded, right. Thom was more concerned about dogs that go to Heaven, not believing they should. To Thom, the spirits of dogs are exterminated by God and are no more after their life here on earth. It was a very significant and revealing discussion concerning the Love limitations of the Orthodox God. You should have been here then. It happened right here. Look it up.
I will try again.
Here is what I wrote on March 24, 2007 about the 'pursuit of happiness' on one of my blogs:
In the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence, we read these words,
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
Many people assume that because happiness is listed as an 'unalienable Right', therefore, they should be happy.
Well, first, I am sorry to disappoint all of us, but I must point out, that the Declaration doesn't guarantee that happiness is an unalienable Right. Please re-read the above quote from the Preamble again. What is an unalienable Right is 'the pursuit of Happiness!'
What is guaranteed is that we have is the right to pursue happiness. There is no guarantee that we will be happy or find happiness. What are our Rights are: Life and Liberty. You have to be alive to pursue happiness; you have to have certain liberty or freedom to be able to pursue happiness. What you do with your life and liberty has a lot to do with how successful your pursuit of happiness will be.
Second, I want to remind you what happiness meant when the framers of the Declaration wrote these words. The word, happiness' is from the Greek word, eudaimonia which consists of two words: eu - 'good' and daimon - 'spirit'. To be happy is to be in good spirits. What the ancients meant by being in good spirits is not what we usually mean by being in good spirits - it was not about fine wine, good food and welcoming company. For the ancients, to happy meant to be at peace with oneself and one's world including one's god. Many of the framers of the Declaration had a classical education, they understood this ancient meaning of the word, 'happiness'.
Are we waiting for someone to make us happy? Are we waiting for some circumstance to befall us to make us happy, such as meeting the right person, getting the right job, wining the lottery? Many people tie their happiness to a happening.
People cannot make us happy; we make ourselves happy. We have every right and privlege to pursue all the happiness we want.
I remind all of us that happiness is an inside job. Someone has said, "I am as happy as I make up my mind to be." When we are at peace with our inner spirit, our God and with our world, then we will fulfill our pursuit of happiness.
(c) 2007 Ronald Friesen
Gecko: you wrote,
Yea, I heard it from Thom also about how crowded it will be with all those babies in the infinite realms of the Heavens. Crowded, right. Thom was more concerned about dogs that go to Heaven, not believing they should. To Thom, the spirits of dogs are exterminated by God and are no more after their life here on earth. It was a very significant and revealing discussion concerning the Love limitations of the Orthodox God. You should have been here then. It happened right here. Look it up.
●Oh, drat, here we go again. I, for the umpteenth time, have to correct another Gecko mischaracterization about what I have written. As you know, Gecko, purposefully mischaracterizing others is a vice. To consistently mischaracterize others is known as a vicious habit.
●Probably most people posting here know that Christians believe that God uniquely created man in His image and likeness. Man is different than the rest of the animal kingdom. Christians believe that man has an immortal soul and that when he dies he is held by God either in Sheol (Hades) or with Him until the resurrection of the dead at the “end of the age.” In Scripture, there is no comparable spiritual holding place for departed dogs, cats, mice, birds, fish, plants or rocks.
●God does not “exterminate” dogs. Simply put, dogs do not have immortal souls. Mice don’t have immortal souls and neither do flowers. Therefore, when they die, they do not go to a spiritual holding place because there is no immortal spirit to go anywhere.
●God is free, of course, to create anything and everything that He desires in order to populate the new heavens and earth. If He chooses to have animal life in the new heavens and earth, so be it. However, when Fido dies, he does not have an immortal soul that goes to be with God.
●The LDS alternative view apparently is that every plant (i.e. all blades of grass that come up each spring and die in the fall), every animal that has ever lived (including multiplied eons of dinosaurs and all manner of creatures) have “spirits” that go to heaven and will be populating the post-resurrection heavens and earth. This type of belief is termed “animism” or “spiritism.”
I think that calling her audience members mindless is uncalled for. They are actually there becaue they like her music. She is rightfully earning every dime she gets. No one is forced to shell out the money to go to see hers, or any others, concert. Just becasue you may not like her music does not mean she is incompetent.She is giving the people what they want. Her voice is what she is selling. It is not my type of music but it does appeal to people or she would not be making money. As for judging her mental capacity, she has made some mistakes, big mistakes, but living a life in a fishbowl is never easy. The constant people in your face, the lies, the gossip and the loss of a private life would be upsetting to almost everyone.
...and Earths (as in countless), Thom. Not Earth. In addition to unbaptised babies taking a u turn out of Heaven to the darkness of Limbo, you believe God has been destroying the spirits of all creatures, plant and animal...and He does this why? Oh, because He created them to be destroyed by Him.
You create a false dilemma in holding to the principle that God preserves only one species of all He has created. Absurd, irrational, even evil.
Far better to be anonymous and giving, living a humble life of service. Every day there are opportunities to give of our time, talent or treasures without the expectation of reward or acknowledgment. It simply requires being aware of the possibilities.
Giving something of yourself everyday gets to be a habit, because it gets to be a great way to live your life, and spend your days. It becomes easier and easier to see the opportunity and take a chance. Humbly serving others. Thats happiness.
Fame, fortune and the fast life are all direct routes to shame and misery. Maybe thats why other people are so fascinated by it all. They see their heroes self destruct, yet they still want to be like them.
Thom is not saying the spirits are destroyed. He said there never were spirits.
Gecko says that all creatures have eternal spirits.
This seems to be the fundamental question in the last posts. So, gentlemen, I will pose the question:
Do all creatures (plants and animals) have eternal spirits?
I think this needs answering first.
I don't think you more correctly quoted the source. I quoted the Journal of Discourses directly and it didn't include the parentheticals you or someone else later added. The original text did not hint at these and they look more like revisionist alterations by someone who realized how stupid it was.
Reading through other parts of this discourse, it's pretty clear that the whole theology is about becoming "exalted". First priority is doing a good job so you can make your boss god look good so he can get promoted up the corporate chain of exaltation and you can take his place. This is something Satan would really appreciate...a whole theology based on becoming exalted; instead of one that says we should strive to emulate the unparalleled humility of God, who emptied himself so that He might place Himself in our hands.
Gecko: you wrote,
You create a false dilemma in holding to the principle that God preserves only one species of all He has created. Absurd, irrational, even evil.
●Other than just spouting off an opinion, I dare you to rationally and coherently prove the following:
1. That creatures which are corruptible by nature should be incorruptible by nature.
2. That it is absurd and evil for God to make things that do not have immortal souls (i.e. planets, plants, bugs, rocks, etc.).
3. That it is absurd and evil for God to make beings that have an incorruptible nature (such as angels) and beings that do not (such as cockroaches).
4. That it is absurd and evil for blades of grass to not have immoral souls like men which have God’s Imago Dei.
5. That it is evil of God to fail to give the dinosaurs immoral souls while giving man an immortal soul.
I will await your coherent and rational response.
You wrote: ...and Earths (as in countless), Thom. Not Earth.
●Okay, so now there are countless earths. Hmm…so when the Scripture speaks of the “earth” it is actually speaking of “countless earths.” I can see we are not playing with a full deck here.
You wrote: In addition to unbaptised babies taking a u turn out of Heaven to the darkness of Limbo, you believe God has been destroying the spirits of all creatures, plant and animal...and He does this why? Oh, because He created them to be destroyed by Him.
●You’ll notice that I did not mischaracterize LDS belief. However, you continue your mendacious ways in regard to Catholic doctrine and my stated position here. This is a real credit to your religion.
●Again, for the umpteenth time +plus one, God does not destroy the “spirits of all creatures, plant and animal.” Christians do not believe that plants and animals have spirits. On the other hand, Animists believe that everything is endowed with a spirit. Remember Disney’s Pocahontas and “Grandmother Willow.” Animism is a very primitive form of religion—Voodoo is one brand of it. It is fascinating that Joseph Smith would revive Animism. Now that is really taking “Restoration” to its extreme!
●Just as God did not create you to be Cherubim, He, likewise, did not create a cockroach to be in His divine image. You seem to believe that God can only do one thing—sort of like the guy who can’t chew gum and walk at the same time. But then again, I forget that the LDS deity is different than Almighty God.
John: you wrote,
This is something Satan would really appreciate...a whole theology based on becoming exalted; instead of one that says we should strive to emulate the unparalleled humility of God, who emptied himself so that He might place Himself in our hands..
●Wow, beautifully and powerfully stated!
If LDS theology is right, and for an infinite past there have been gods having children and fathering worlds to teach their children to become gods to also father children each planet with inumerable plants, animals, and bacteria ...
Lets just assume that happens. Now we also know that the universe is somewhat limited in space and material so ... um why is there so much space between planets and such. I mean the universe should literally be jam packed full of all this infinite life ... I mean just think about the total number of spirits that have existed with an infinite past to work with.
I mean, look at it this way. The earth is actually quite big when it comes right down to it. If you drive from LA to NYC you will find that by and far the majority of the country is unoccupied with small sections being heavily populated. In fact, most of the world is pretty well unoccupied with some places being super dense. Entire ocean exist without people. Still, this is with only a little under 7 billion people alive and well.
However, there are an estimated 1 million miscarriages in the US alone each year plus nearly another million in reported abortions. This is in a country with good healthcare. In third world countries the miscarriage rate goes up. I China, for example, there are over 6 million reported abortions each year. If we add up the the lives and potential lives of the last century alone we qould have standing room only in this planet.
Now, sure it is easy to say infinite planets, but once again there is limited space. Sure, we can assume the universe will continue to expand infinitely and that everything is unorganized matter so that there is ultimately infinite resources to continue to build infinite worlds from as more people need them, but we are speaking of infinite past with infinite life forms and a currently limited universe that isn't full to the brim.
Something just doesn't add up.
When I write of God (Christ) placing Himself in our hands, I refer not only of his passion and death at the hands of man; but submitting Himself into our hands daily in the form of the Eucharist. This to me is an incomparable gift and blessing that illustrates the greatest humility in service to the unfathomable depth of His love for us.
Timbo, you haven't been here long enough. Thom has previously retreated to a position acknowledging that animals have spirits, just not souls. It was quite uncomfortable for him to be told by me that his Protestant founding fathers taught that animals have spirits. (He knew that being a trained theologian but was bobbing and weaving again). It was a cleaner divorce for him to simply dismiss the spiritual in animals. Thom presently gets his courage for their distruction as a consequence of fairly recent doctrinal corruption.
Upon discovering that he retreated to a position that supposed animals do not have souls, in a manner of speaking making a new distiction for Thom. For animals to be destroyed, their spirits are destroyed.
I suggest you forget about Thom and take responsibility for learning doctrines for yourself. Fundamentally, one should evaluate the character of God in a reflective manner here.
Thank you for the advice. Nevertheless, in this and other posts, you ignore research (and quotes to help you focus) on doctrinal issues and ignore questions you are asked based on the facts uncovered. Prove your point if you can. If you cannot....stop with the insults.
The post you reference simply asked you to prove your thesis. Instead you create straw dogs by mis-stating the statements of others and offer only opinion as support for your premises or you offer inane advice instead of any support at all for your statements or you simply fall back to calling the questioner ignorant. You are an educated man, apparently (from your profile). How about proving something you say? Offer something.
I have a suggestion for you as well: show a little intellectual honesty and courage. Give up the repeated snide remark and just maybe "evaluate the character of God in a reflective manner." And how about some biblical or even some other sources for your opinions for a change.
By the way, I did plenty of research in the last line of comments and found some very surprising statements which you repeatedly chose to ignore. How about it Gecko....got the courage to back up your bull?
Answer the question. I'll ask it again, Do all creatures have eternal spirits?
Ever wonder why I call you a liar? Let me once again prove that you are either a liar or a fool.Here we see that you claim Thom has been changing his views on this issue based on your own comments in the past. In fact, you claim Thom "retreated" in the face of your reason. Now lets see what Thom said way back when he first broached this subject.This is a direct quote from Thom's first blog entry on this subject from 11-17-2005. It is clear that Thom is saying the exact same thing now as he said back then. In other words, you are misrepresenting the truth. This is because you are either a liar or a fool. Well, you could be mentaly unballanced as well.
Oh, and if someone was curious how Gecko adressed the subject.This was the entirety of his first comment in this entry. Feel free to look at the entire 120+ comments and see for yourself just how honest Gecko is being. Back then Gecko called himself "Stealtharachnid."
First, I don't believe in heaven as a place somewhere in the universe.
'Heaven' is a Jewish way of saying 'God'. (This is why the 'Kingdom of God' and "Kingdom of heaven' are interchangable in the NT.)
Second, I believe in a 'new heaven and earth'. This 'heaven and earth' is much like the Garden of Eden. (The bible begins in a garden and ends in a garden. According to the apocalyptic lit of OT, there will be animals in the new heaven and earth.
Third, I agree dogs don't have spirits. So I don't know if Heide's Fido will be there - but dogs will be there.
those are my thoughts
ron
●Puri, as you know, even if the universe was to expand on infinitely and the LDS gods were to continue to create more planets from “unorganized matter,” they still have a huge problem. Here it is. Given that the known universe has a finite limitation of distance, the fact is, if there have been an infinite regression of LDS “Fathers” and their progeny, the universe would already be stacked nine miles high with offspring on every single inhabitable planet and every conceivable place to put people. We would literally be swarming with people like an anthill in August. Additionally, every moon and asteroid would be colonized to the absolute maximum. Just the “Father” deities would be infinite in number. Add to that the infinite number of “Mother” goddesses and all of their billions of “spirit children”—each! Holy smoke, talk about overpopulation…yikes! Well, I guess this comes under the heading of “Hey, just minor details…just minor details.”
John wrote: Thom,…When I write of God (Christ) placing Himself in our hands, I refer not only of his passion and death at the hands of man; but submitting Himself into our hands daily in the form of the Eucharist. This to me is an incomparable gift and blessing that illustrates the greatest humility in service to the unfathomable depth of His love for us
●Thanks for your additional insight. I was struck by the contrast between what you termed as an LDS “theology based on becoming exalted” as opposed to that which “says we should strive to emulate the unparalleled humility of God”—truly an amazing contrast.
Gecko wrote: Timbo, you haven't been here long enough. Thom has previously retreated to a position acknowledging that animals have spirits, just not souls. It was quite uncomfortable for him to be told by me that his Protestant founding fathers taught that animals have spirits. (He knew that being a trained theologian but was bobbing and weaving again). It was a cleaner divorce for him to simply dismiss the spiritual in animals. Thom presently gets his courage for their distruction as a consequence of fairly recent doctrinal corruption…Upon discovering that he retreated to a position that supposed animals do not have souls, in a manner of speaking making a new distiction for Thom. For animals to be destroyed, their spirits are destroyed.
●Actually, I think you have it backward. My position is that animals do have souls. They just don’t have immortal souls. However, I will deal more fully with this in response to Ron’s comment below.
Ron wrote: Second, I believe in a 'new heaven and earth'. This 'heaven and earth' is much like the Garden of Eden. (The bible begins in a garden and ends in a garden. According to the apocalyptic lit of OT, there will be animals in the new heaven and earth…Third, I agree dogs don't have spirits. So I don't know if Heide's Fido will be there - but dogs will be there.
●Precisely, my position is that when dogs die, they don’t go to be with the Lord. Remember, Paul states in both Philippians and 2Cor 5:8 that “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.” Additionally, I have made the point that God may well populate the new earth with animal life. As Creator, that is His prerogative. Thomas Aquinas makes a strong case against this; however, this is a disputable matter.
●In regard to “spirits” I think we need to be careful to define our terms. By an overwhelming margin, the NT references to “spirit” or “spirits” have to do with either “evil” spirits or the Holy Spirit. Therefore, what we are talking about are immaterial beings such as angels or God Himself. Please note what Jesus states here in Luke:
Luke 24:39 Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”
●The Greek word used for “spirit” in Luke 24:39 (and also in v. 38) is Pneuma which is the common NT word for spirit.
●Consequently, the spirit of man is that part of or the capacity of the human soul to relate with God. It is the highest part of the human soul. The human spirit denotes all that belongs to our higher life as contrasted with mere sense perception and bodily passions. For instance, Jesus stated to His disciples in the Garden of Gethsemane that “the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.” Note that Jesus states that the “spirit is willing.” The human spirit is the central aspect of our ability to have free will. Therefore, because the animal soul is tied directly to its sense perceptions and bodily passions, it does not have an immaterial spiritual nature. An animal soul is not incorruptible by nature nor is an animal capable of moral decisions and, therefore, it cannot be held responsible for its decisions. Animals are not capable of having biblical faith or love. Yes, animals can express affection—this is obvious. However, affection is not biblical love. For all these reasons, Fido and Fluffy don’t go to be with the Lord when they die.
I guess we do agree
this is good, I think
Sorry, Fresno is out in April - my only grandchild beat out Kreeft et. al.
Thom's remark in the topic Puri identifies answers the question whether Thom believes that animals have spirits: Well, he does.
"In medieval Christian theology (which is my specific interest) animals are understood to have souls—known as sensate souls; however, their souls are not immortal by nature. Plants also have souls which are called nutritive souls. Human rational souls are immortal by their very nature. From this perspective, when animals die they cease to exist. This does not preclude God from creating whatever He wants in the new heavens and earth.----------- The fact that the human soul is immortal is abundantly clear from Scripture both Old and New Testaments. What is being discussed here and is less clear from Scripture is whether or not animals have immortal souls. "
So, they not only have spirits but souls, if one want to differentiate. The open question which Thom admits to is What is it about a spirit that it has that assures its Creator not destroying it?
For that post, you should be rewarded a reward of the spirit
Can you expand on this. Isaiah 11 and 65 both describe animals in the new heavens and earth, when the Messiah rules. The animals are described with a somewhat altered nature (non-predatory, peaceful). Do you take this literally (animals present) or are these statement just examples Isaiah uses to show the absence of conflict and the changed nature of the world that accompanies the Messiah's reign? If we take it literally, how does this square with Aquinas case against animals in heaven?
All creation is eligible but many seem to go by default (i.e. everything created except adult humans). Apparently, adult humans are the only creation that must earn their way.
Ahhh, but to what heaven? Maybe all creatures go by default but to which heaven? What about dishonorable people or those that heard about mormonism and don't accept? Do they go where dogs and roaches go at least?
And killing animals would seem to be a blessing to them since one would assume that heaven is a better life for a pig than a feed lot or a chicken coop for a chicken. And if they all have the same immortal spirit as me...isn't it kind of immoral to kill and eat them?
This viewpoint is paradoxical. Need much more info for any real evaluation. What are the LDS sources for these statements?
And by the way, thank you for trying to answer the question.
So deaf people who can't hear the gospel don't go to heaven? More seriously, are the invincibly ignorant, i.e. those who have not heard the gospel, all going to hell? What about isolated savages? What about the babies and severely retarded who have not the physical capacity to "hear" the gospel and that you enumerated as going to heaven?
Those in heaven are perfectly happy and entirely satisfied with the justice of the situations others ultimately place themselves. If, God forbid, your wife should choose to go to hell, you too would find yourself in total agreement and acceptance of the rightness of God allowing this. If you did not, your only choice would be to throw yourself into hell to join her.
You claim that Thom believes animals have spirits. He has clearly said in and in the past that he believes animals have souls, but not spirits. Further the souls of animals are not destroyed since they are not created immortal. When the animal dies is ceases to exist. This is what Thom said in the past and what he is still saying in spit of your lies that he has changed his views blah blah blah.
Face it Gecko, you are wrong and what is worse you are caught in an intentional lie.
●The answer to this question is no. I presume “Spot” is a dog. If we are talking about God as understood by Christians, then we must define our terms from a Christian perspective. This is quite different than the way modern sentimental Americans understand terms such as “love” and “tolerance.” Biblical love demands free will. Love is defined as a “disposition of goodwill to do good toward others” including one’s enemies. For instance, the bible defines love as “while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” While dogs can show affection toward those that they are attached to because of mutual affection, they cannot freely choose to love there enemies. By nature, they are aggressive toward all things that threaten them.
●Dogs cannot be tolerant. True tolerance requires that one strongly disagrees with another and, yet, allows the other party to live, act and communicate their ideas unhindered. This, as well, demands free will. Currently, many Americans define tolerance as agreement. This, however, is not tolerance. Dogs, in a sense, can agree with one another. However, they cannot tolerate other animals, insects or humans that they strongly “disagree” (threaten them) with.
Gecko wrote: At the end of his post, Thomisticguy reminds us "The Bible forbids cruelty to animals". That is God forbids us to be cruel to animals. Are we to believe we are to do what He says and not regard what He does? There is a certain inconsistancy that your position reveals about the nature of the Orthodox God.
●First of all, I cannot help but notice that you are not able to make an affirmative case for your position other than to simply say “I believe this…” Additionally, you cannot answer any of my questions as a defense of your position. Thirdly, you’ll notice here that I will ably deal with your objection regard inconsistency. All of these things demonstrate the serious weakness of the LDS position.
●The biblical injunction against cruelty to animals and the biblical teaching that man is a moral creature and uniquely created by God to have union with Him are perfectly consistent. First of all, you’ll notice that there is no biblical injunction instructing animals to refrain from being cruel to humans. Why? Well, this is because animals have no voluntary (free) control over their instinctual natures. They are not free moral agents. It would do absolutely no good whatsoever for the Scripture to instruct lions to be kind to humans. Lions eat humans for food.
Second, the Scripture instructs man to not be cruel to animals because man can be “instructed.” Man has voluntary (free) control over his own agency. Therefore, he can refrain from cruelty to animals. This, obviously, shows us that man is different than the animal kingdom. Man is uniquely created by God to rule over the animal kingdom and to do so kindly. Man is a free moral agent and designed by God to relate with Him in a free moral relationship. Animals have no free agency and cannot freely express either love or hate for God. Therefore, they cannot be either rewarded or punished for their moral actions. They have no moral actions.
There are many other ways to show that the Christian teaching in regard to cruelty to animals is perfectly consistent with man’s uniqueness; however, this should suffice for now. What is, though, inconsistent, is the idea that God holds man responsible for his actions as a free moral agent by either rewarding or punishing him and, yet, also rewards animals with eternal life without free agency. If this is true, it is far better to be an animal than to be a human—which is absurd. By the way, the LDS does not believe that animals have free agency. I have proved this before.
Timbo wrote: Can you expand on this. Isaiah 11 and 65 both describe animals in the new heavens and earth, when the Messiah rules. The animals are described with a somewhat altered nature (non-predatory, peaceful). Do you take this literally (animals present) or are these statement just examples Isaiah uses to show the absence of conflict and the changed nature of the world that accompanies the Messiah's reign? If we take it literally, how does this square with Aquinas case against animals in heaven?
●I’ve run out of time this morning so I cannot go into any detail on this; however, I will make a few quick comments.
●The subject, specifically, that Aquinas deals with is in regard to the new earth after the resurrection. He takes the biblical references to “lions lying down with lambs” to be an analogical reference to a completely whole or perfect environment. He then goes on to make the case that God only creates those things that are ordered to one another. In a beatified (complete) environment, there would be no need for animals that don’t eat one another in a food chain relationship because animals do this in order to survive and propagate. Humans, on the other hand, will exist not to propagate, but to adore and enjoy God. Because of God’s infinite nature, all things that man desires can be found in Him. Therefore, there can be no end to our enjoyment of Him.
●Thank you for saving me the effort to have to deal with Gecko’s obvious misrepresentation of my position.
Boethius argued through Lady Philosophy that nothing that is less than ourselves can make us happy,nothing that is less than ourselves can be our fulfillment, and CS Lewis said much the same; "nothing that can be taken away was ever truly yours," and how can that make us happy?
Burning Boats said: "When the threat of death is an actual possibility it creates in us a need to believe in something more, something higher than ourselves, something more powerful than death."
I agree that it may be harder to avoid the temptation to love the world in the west. As you say, even if one doesn't affirmatively choose the world, apathy is still a choice. The path to destruction is wide as can be.
I think though, that while it is true that the threat of death makes us seek God, I'm not sure that this explains the exponential growth of Christianity in China. These converts are giving up relative safety to join up with an outlaw religion that faces tremendous persecution, and yet they still come. They aren't seeking God because they face danger. Because they seek God, they invite the danger into their life. Not aligning oneself with the Christians is the safest choice from a worldly perspective. It makes their decision all the more miraculous.
We in the west should pay more attention to Christians around the world and the struggles they face. There are powerful lessons to be learned. Americans are so sure we have all the answers. Thats part of loving the world and ourselves. Our ego. What does it say when countries like South Korea send missionaries to the United States?
As the prior quote (in the older post) said, overcoming persecution is hard, teaching people not to love the world is also hard. We are at a point now where, sometimes its hard to even get people to think about anything deeper than their own sensory pleasure. When the focus is on instant gratification, how does one focus on eternity?
I see where you are going and I like to look at it like this. We don't usually see that kind of growth in the church outside of persecution because the choice is too easy. We don't really count the cost when we choose Christ and so we aren't willing to pay the price when it comes down to it. When there is significant persecution, people must weigh what the choice is going to cost them. When the Holy Spirit draws them despite the cost the person tends to be highly motivated and so fully embraces the gospel including the admonition to share the gospel.
People see this powerful change and are drawn to it because they know what it cost and so such willingness makes it more real to them.
In America there is little or no cost. Maybe a lifestyle change and giving some extra money to charity, but ... not like we see in many other places in the world.
A recession, if one is truly indicated, may be so devastating that we will be forced to live like our parents did - Heaven forbid! But I know it is no light matter that an economy created by a staggeringly prolific consumption of disposable products purchased with borrowed money is too easily toppled, and there would indeed be some genuine employment and property value loss as a result. That's not something I would wish.
The fact that the people in China are risking everything, including their lives, to follow Christ is such a powerful witness for us in the west where sometimes, no sacrifice is asked of us at all.
Affluence is such a deception. It gives the illusion of control.
Here is part of an interesting story out of Afganistan:
(CNSNews.com) - An Afghan Christian leader in the U.S. has welcomed reports that criminal charges may be dropped against an Afghan convert who was threatened with execution for refusing to return to Islam. The case has prompted strong international condemnation.
Hussain Andaryas said the publicity surrounding the Abdul Rahman case had resulted in a surge of interest in Christianity among Afghans, strong concern for the plight of Afghanistan's underground Christians -- and an antagonistic response from Muslims.
And then there are emails coming from Afghans wanting to know more about Christianity, asking where they can get a Bible in the Dari or Pashto language, or sharing the news that they had become believers in Jesus Christ.
Among the most stirring messages are those from Afghan Muslims marveling about a faith for which a man was willing to die and wanting to study the Bible further.
"I strongly believe God is using this situation for His glory," Andaryas said. "One man's bold step has shaken the world."
Convert Case Sparks Surge of Interest in Christianity Among Afghans
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
March 27, 2006
This isn't at all accurate. The Communist Chinese government sanctions Christianity within its borders. This is nothing new either. The Christianity they sanction is that which they define and control. When it comes to Catholicism or LDS, there is no established and approved organization. This is because the Chinese government is a jealous God. They cannot allow their people to give allegance to men outside their own borders. No prophets or pontiffs exist for the Chinese people except those the government manufacture. As a result a curious thing has occurred...not entirely surprising, just curious.
Where the Chinese Catholic Church will not take direction from the Pontiff, the Roman Catholic Church does not recognize that organization as their own. But the Protestants, ever eager to add to their numbers, have no problem embracing them in the World Counsel of Churches. It is hard to imagine a Christian who is Protestant but cannot look to anyone beyond China's borders historically.
They meet in caves in Mongolia or travel to the mountains to meet and worship secretly. For many years, a group met before dawn in a remote cemetery where they could worship unhindered.
People like Lin Xiangoa (discussed earlier) or Peter Xu Yong Ze, the imprisoned leader of one of the largest group of house churches would disagree with the notion that there is no persecution of Christians in China.
I have a photo of Lin Xiangao in front of his house church at 35 Da Ma Zhan in Guangzhou and another from an illegal babtismal service taken in 1996.
Its happening today. Check this story out:
Location: China
Arrested: July 2007
Days Imprisoned: 211
"In July 2007, 42-year-old Li Mei and nine house church leaders were arrested, when they were discovered having a Sunday worship service. They were charged with singing Christian hymns to villagers, showing the JESUS film in a nursing home and praying for healing for a disabled elderly man. The nine were sentenced to re-education through labor for 12 to 18 months. Li Mei served part of her one-year sentence in a hospital with both hands chained to her bed. Repeated beatings and torture caused her to require a hysterectomy. She is currently serving the remainder of her sentence at home under house arrest."
See The Voice of the Martyrs, http://www.persecution.com/, for additional info or the book, Christ the Eternal Tao by Hieromonk Damascene for the story of Lin Xiangao and the photos.
Gecko, instead of calling me a liar, ask for my proof. I'm not a liar and I do the work before I spout off. Being able to back up what you say is how one can avoid being called ignorant.
A north China visitor to Lin Xiangoa's house church said this, "I truly have come to thank God for our difficult times, for our limited possessions, for the uncertainties we face. That is what keeps us close to Jesus Christ."
It seems that Tertullian had it right.
The harsh treatment of Catholics in China dates to the 1950's, when Mao Zedong's Communists expelled the last papal representative and set up the Catholic Patriotic Association, an official church under Communist control that was more a tool of persecution than propagation. Driven underground, the underground, the unofficial Catholic Church received a broad mandate from the Vatican to persevere as best it could by ordaining its own bishops and adapting the liturgy to local conditions. When China emerged from the Maoist period, some churches reopened and religious toleration expanded during the 1980's with Beijing seeking to lure more religious believers into the Government-supervised religious organizations. But without a reconciliation with the Vatican, millions of Catholics remain underground, where some local governments have tolerated them. Still, they are subject to periodic assaults ordered by central authorities. (New York Times - January 26, 1997 Front Page)
The Pope
Currently, all the Bishops of the Catholic Church in China are sons of the Chinese People. Notwithstanding many grave difficulties, the Catholic Church in China, by a particular grace of the Holy Spirit, has never been deprived of the ministry of legitimate Pastors who have preserved the apostolic succession intact. We must thank the Lord for this constant presence, not without suffering, of Bishops who have received episcopal ordination in conformity with Catholic tradition, that is to say, in communion with the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Peter, and at the hands of validly and legitimately ordained Bishops in observance of the rite of the Catholic Church.
Some of them, not wishing to be subjected to undue control exercised over the life of the Church, and eager to maintain total fidelity to the Successor of Peter and to Catholic doctrine, have felt themselves constrained to opt for clandestine consecration. The clandestine condition is not a normal feature of the Church's life, and history shows that Pastors and faithful have recourse to it only amid suffering, in the desire to maintain the integrity of their faith and to resist interference from State agencies in matters pertaining intimately to the Church's life. For this reason the Holy See hopes that these legitimate Pastors may be recognized as such by governmental authorities for civil effects too – insofar as these are necessary – and that all the faithful may be able to express their faith freely in the social context in which they live.
LETTER
OF THE HOLY FATHER
POPE BENEDICT XVI
TO THE BISHOPS, PRIESTS,
CONSECRATED PERSONS
AND LAY FAITHFUL
OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
IN THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, 2007
I honestly believe that if you were to check out this website you would find the information contained there to be inspiring.
Both Protestants and the true Catholic Church in China have suffered great persecution but they remain faithful to the Lord while serving Him underground. Additionally, both are growing through evangelization.