God in sikhism more loving than Christian God

[ecco]

You think to much. no one thinks the way you wrote now

Yeah, I think. Do you have a problem with really thinking about things instead of just blindly accepting them?

If more people did a little critical thinking there would be a lot fewer people who believe in that kind of nonsense

 

[Vouthon]

So, except for Baptised Catholics, we still all are under the doom and gloom of Original Sin.

"...It is false that we say to anyone that he is damned. To do so would be false to our general doctrine relating to sects outside the bosom of the Church.

We are persuaded that all of those who with sincerity remain in their errors, who through inculpable ignorance believe themselves in the way of salvation . . . are children of the Catholic Church. Such is the opinion of all divines from St. Augustine..."

- Nicolas-Sylvestre Bergier, (1715 – 1790), celebrated French Catholic theologian​

Your understanding of the doctrine of 'original sin' is pretty off-the-mark and lacking - as is your understanding of our doctrine of baptism.

We do not impute 'guilt' to anyone who has not committed personal sin.

Christ referred to human flesh as "weak" (i.e. "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak"). Weakness does not equal inherently bad/totally corrupt.

Ludwig Ott wrote, concerning the Fall, in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford, Illinois: TAN Books, 1974 [orig. 1952], translated by Patrick Lynch), distinguished our dogma from the errors of the Protestant Reformers and their bleak view of human nature:

• "The Reformers . . . admitted the reality of original sin, but misunderstood its essence, its operation, since they regarded it as identical with concupiscence which corrupts completely human nature . . .
• 
  Original Sin does not consist, as the Reformers . . . taught, in ‘The habitual concupiscence, which remains, even in the baptised, a true and proper sin, but is no longer reckoned for punishment.’
  
  The wounding of nature must not be conceived, with the Reformers and the Jansenists, as the complete corruption of human nature. In the condition of Original Sin, man possesses the ability of knowing natural religious truths and of performing natural morally good actions....The Council of Trent teaches that free will was not lost or extinguished by the fall of Adam." (pp. 108, 110, 112-113)

Now, the grace of 'baptism' is NOT limited to formal water baptism.

Baptism is the essential perquisite for both admission into the church and salvation in the Christian faith. It can be effected either by physical immersion or, in the case of this being impossible on account of water not be available, by desire or if a person is of a different religious confession (or an atheist), by implicit desire in spirit, according to Catholic doctrine.

The Catholic dogma in this area is quite distinct. I would call it "exclusivist inclusivism". On the one hand, the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Jesus Christ [in our eyes that is], the vehicle and font of salvation for all humanity, the "universal sacrament of communion" to use the language of ecclesiology. There can be no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. Yet this does not mean that everyone outside it (bodily) is "wrong" or "lost". On the contrary, there are many within the Church bodily who are not of her spiritually, while there are many outside her bodily who are within her spiritually:

"...How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!...When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body.... All who are within in heart are saved in the unity of the ark..."

- Saint Augustine, Church Father (354–430 AD), Baptism 5:28:39

"...He was ours [a Christian] even before he was of our fold. His way of living made him such. For just as many of ours are not with us, whose life makes them other from our body [the Church], so many of those outside [the Church] belong to us, who by their way of life anticipate the faith and need only the name, having the reality..."

- St. Gregory of Nazianzus, <Oration> 18.5 (c. 374 AD)​

"...The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation..."

- St. Pope John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (1990)​

The official name for this doctrine is "baptism by implicit desire", in other words possessing a pure heart whereby one faithfully adheres to the dictates of their conscience and the will of God as far as they themselves, or their religion (if they have one) implores them and so attains to salvation:

"...But does the proposition that outside the Church there is no salvation involve the doctrine so often attributed to Catholicism, that the Catholic Church, in virtue of the principle, "condemns and must condemn all non-Catholics"? This is by no means the case. The foolish unchristian maxim that those who are outside the Church must for that very reason be eternally lost is no legitimate conclusion from Catholic dogma. The infliction of eternal damnation pertains not to the Church, but to God, Who alone can scrutinize the conscience. The task of the Church is confined exclusively to the formulating of the principle, which expresses a condition of salvation imposed by God Himself, and does not extend to the examination of the persons, who may or may not satisfy this condition. Care for one's own salvation is the personal concern of the individual. And in this matter the Church shows the greatest possible consideration for the good faith and the innocence of the erring person...She places the efficient cause of the eternal salvation of all men objectively in the merits of the Redeemer, and subjectively in justification through baptism or through good faith enlivened by the perfect love of God, both of which may be found outside the Catholic Church...The gentle breathing of grace is not confined within the walls of the Catholic Church, but reaches the hearts of many who stand afar, working in them the marvel of justification and thus ensuring the eternal salvation of numberless men who either, like upright Jews and pagans, do not know the true Church, or, like so many Protestants educated in gross prejudice, cannot appreciate her true nature. To all such, the Church does not close the gate of Heaven, although she insists that there are essential means of grace which are not within the reach of non-Catholics. In his allocution "Singulari quadam" of 9 December, 1854, which emphasized the dogma of the Church as necessary for salvation, Pius IX uttered the consoling principle: "Sed tamen pro certo...." (But it is likewise certain that those who are ignorant of the true religion, if their ignorance is invincible, are not, in this matter, guilty of any fault in the sight of God). (Denzinger n. 1647)
. . . As early as 1713 Clement XI condemned in his dogmatic Bull "Unigenitus" the proposition of the Jensenist Quesnel: . . . no grace is given outside the Church. . . just as Alexander VIII has already condemned in 1690 the Jansenistic proposition of Arnauld: . . . (Pagans, Jews, heretics, and other people of the sort, receive no influx [of grace] whatsoever from Jesus Christ). . . Catholics who are conversant with the teachings of their Church know how to draw the proper conclusions. . .The doctrine is summed up in the phrase, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. This saying has been the occasion of so many objections that some consideration of its meaning seems desirable. It certainly does not mean that none can be saved except those who are in visible communion with the Church. The Catholic Church has ever taught that nothing else is needed to obtain justification than an act of perfect charity and of contrition. Whoever, under the impulse of actual grace, elicits these acts receives immediately the gift of sanctifying grace, and is numbered among the children of God. Should he die in these dispositions, he will assuredly attain heaven
. . . As early as 1713 Clement XI condemned in his dogmatic Bull "Unigenitus" the proposition of the Jensenist Quesnel: . . . no grace is given outside the Church. . . just as Alexander VIII has already condemned in 1690 the Jansenistic proposition of Arnauld: . . . (Pagans, Jews, heretics, and other people of the sort, receive no influx [of grace] whatsoever from Jesus Christ). . . Catholics who are conversant with the teachings of their Church know how to draw the proper conclusions. . .The doctrine is summed up in the phrase, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. This saying has been the occasion of so many objections that some consideration of its meaning seems desirable. It certainly does not mean that none can be saved except those who are in visible communion with the Church. The Catholic Church has ever taught that nothing else is needed to obtain justification than an act of perfect charity and of contrition. Whoever, under the impulse of actual grace, elicits these acts receives immediately the gift of sanctifying grace, and is numbered among the children of God. Should he die in these dispositions, he will assuredly attain heaven...”"

- The Catholic Encyclopedia (1910)
Vol. 14, TOLERATION​

 

[ecco]

- Nicolas-Sylvestre Bergier, (1715 – 1790), celebrated French Catholic theologian...
Ludwig Ott wrote, concerning the Fall, in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford, Illinois:

- Saint Augustine, Church Father (354–430 AD), Baptism 5:28:39

Quoting the opinions of members of the church is not making a very compelling argument.

Your understanding of the doctrine of 'original sin' is pretty off-the-mark and lacking - as is your understanding of our doctrine of baptism.

Do try to be more specific. What, precisely, did I say that led you to make those assertions?

 

[ajay0]

So, someone born into poverty as a cripple who cannot walk is the reincarnation of a really bad person. These persons should not be pitied or helped. Rather, they should be ridiculed and ostracized because of what they did in their past life.

Interesting concept.

If I accepted that, I should have to wonder about how bad little children with cancer must have been in their past life. Do you see these children and go: Yeah - you finally got what you deserve?

One should not bother about the karma what others have done, but should focus on our dharma or duty to others.

If we see someone handicapped or diseased, it is our duty to help them as per our capacities, and to desist from vicious conduct that would increase their pain and create negative karma for ourselves.

Ridiculing and ostracizing, as you stated, only leads to negative karma for the perpetrator, and it is possible he himself will land in a similar situation in the future.

Karma is logical and impartial.

 

[ajay0]

It's ramblings like that that remind me to be thankful that I never got sucked up into religious/psychic/spiritual nonsense.

Karma deals with cause and effect sternly. Cause and effect, is an integral part of scientific research and thinking as well.


Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. ~ Albert Einstein

Shallow men believe in luck. Strong men believe in cause and effect.~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

[Muffled]

God in sikhism seems more loving than the Christian God. In sikhism God give his children many chances to learn and grow because sikhism believe in reincarnation.
But in Christianity God give his children only one lifetime and if you fail you are sentenced to eternal hell or annihilation.

So the sikhism God is uconditional loving, but the Christian God is not...

What do you think about what i wrote now? Some thoughts?

I believe you are mistaking Christian thinking for God. It is not.

I believe that is a false view of Christianity.

I believe in re-incarnation as a current fact that will end soon but most Christians view it as Hindu myth. There is evidence in the Bible for it but the focus of Jesus is on eternal life since that is what will happen soon.

 

[Muffled]

Yes I agree with you about God. There are many paths to God. All religions points to the same Source, God.

Yes sikhs seems more loving.

It is frustrating Christianity do not believe in reincarnation. Without it God seems less loving.

I believe God is not pleased that most people can't handle a day without sinning let alone more than one lifetime.

 

[Muffled]

This is RF. We don't even read short posts.
We just opinionate.

I believe I must be an exception because I read short posts and respond if necessary.

 

[ecco]

Ridiculing and ostracizing, as you stated, only leads to negative karma for the perpetrator, and it is possible he himself will land in a similar situation in the future.

Should I be afraid? Nah. Only believers need be afraid. In that sense, karma is just like voodoo.

Karma is logical and impartial.

There is nothing logical about anything supernatural.

 

[ecco]

Karma deals with cause and effect sternly. Cause and effect, is an integral part of scientific research and thinking as well.

Incompetent bad guy robs a bank, gets caught. That is an example of cause (being incompetent) and effect (getting caught). You view it as an example of karma.

Competent bad guy embezzles millions, lives a life of luxury . That is an example of cause (being competent) and effect (living in luxury). You view it as an example of karma - Oh wait - no you don't. What do you view it as? Or is this a "just wait and see - you'll pay in your next life thingy"?

 

[Alea iacta est]

There are some indications of reincarnation in NT. It's not very clear but some things can surely make you think.

Luk 9:19
19 They answering said, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others say, that one of the old prophets is risen again.

Matt 16:13-14
13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

Matt 8:27-28
27 And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am?
28 And they answered, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets.

I think it was in 2016 or 2017 I was at a book fair and I met a very small publishing company that publishes about Christian reincarnation. They were based in Germany (the book fair was in Sweden). I don't remember the name of this publisher nor can find it online right now. But they had some interesting things to say about this. I kept the broshures and I think I may still have them in a box somewhere.

 

[ajay0]

Incompetent bad guy robs a bank, gets caught. That is an example of cause (being incompetent) and effect (getting caught). You view it as an example of karma.

Competent bad guy embezzles millions, lives a life of luxury . That is an example of cause (being competent) and effect (living in luxury). You view it as an example of karma - Oh wait - no you don't. What do you view it as? Or is this a "just wait and see - you'll pay in your next life thingy"?

Lol..

In the scenarios presented, it is the competent good guy who leads over the incompetent bad guy and competent bad guy. He earns a honest and prosperous living for himself, and have a clean conscience and peaceful sleep at night, not worrying about the cops, law, and public disgrace overtaking him one day.


Competence is also good karma, even if it is of a bad guy. It challenges the good guys and cops to become more competent as well.

The competent bad guy will lose his luck one day and end up in jail. There are many financial and political frauds exposed with time.

 

[ajay0]

Should I be afraid? Nah. Only believers need be afraid. In that sense, karma is just like voodoo.

I only stated the doctrine revolving around reincarnation. It is not a matter of being afraid or brave. The cause must brings its effect in time and space.

There is nothing logical about anything supernatural.

Karma is cause and effect, and it is the most natural thing in the material world, and most scientists use the sequence of cause and effect to study natural phenomena.

 

[ecco]

There are some indications of reincarnation in NT. It's not very clear but some things can surely make you think.

It makes me think that some unknown people wrote some feel-good stories to get people to follow their agenda.

 

[ecco]

The competent bad guy will lose his luck one day and end up in jail. There are many financial and political frauds exposed with time.

Uh huh. Bernie Madoff went to jail. The hundreds of bankers and traders involved in the 2007/08 real estate bubble bust are still living the good life off of their ill-gotten gains.

Karma is nothing more than a false hope some people have that the bad guys get caught. When it doesn't happen they say, "Just wait 'til their next lives - boy, then it'll be payback".

 

[ecco]

I only stated the doctrine revolving around reincarnation. It is not a matter of being afraid or brave. The cause must brings its effect in time and space.

MUST? Really? And you know this based on what? Your own needs or wants?

Karma is cause and effect, and it is the most natural thing in the material world, and most scientists use the sequence of cause and effect to study natural phenomena.

Like many woo-believers, you try to twist words and concepts to make it sound like science supports your view. That is nonsense. Just because "scientists use the sequence of cause and effect to study natural phenomena", it is false to try to extend that process to supernatural/woo.

 

[danieldemol]

Karma is cause and effect, and it is the most natural thing in the material world, and most scientists use the sequence of cause and effect to study natural phenomena.

Scientists also study seemingly uncaused events as well.

ETA, you would have to know the cause of everything (ie be omniscient) to know everything has a cause.

 

[ajay0]

Uh huh. Bernie Madoff went to jail. The hundreds of bankers and traders involved in the 2007/08 real estate bubble bust are still living the good life off of their ill-gotten gains.

Karma is nothing more than a false hope some people have that the bad guys get caught. When it doesn't happen they say, "Just wait 'til their next lives - boy, then it'll be payback".

You or me don't have enough data to make a rigid conclusion about what happened to the bad guys who committed crimes without getting caught. As per the law of karma, they will get their dues one way or the other in time.

I only placed the doctrine of karma over here. How you interpret is upto you.

 

[ajay0]

Like many woo-believers, you try to twist words and concepts to make it sound like science supports your view. That is nonsense. Just because "scientists use the sequence of cause and effect to study natural phenomena", it is false to try to extend that process to supernatural/woo.

I am only stating that there is a similar doctrine in science. Whether it exists in science or not, cause and effect as in karma exists in eastern religious philosophy from ancient times.

 

[GURSIKH]

God in sikhism seems more loving than the Christian God. In sikhism God give his children many chances to learn and grow because sikhism believe in reincarnation.
But in Christianity God give his children only one lifetime and if you fail you are sentenced to eternal hell or annihilation.

So the sikhism God is uconditional loving, but the Christian God is not...

What do you think about what i wrote now? Some thoughts?

Very Interesting !I don't know much about Christian God, can you provide eternal hell reference from the bible ?