Dear Tipsters,
Comments on 3 points that have arisen:
1. I think Marx has been attributed for saying that religion is the
opiate of the masses.
2. WRT the possible conflicts in values between Christian therapists
and clients, what about the Biblical exhortation to render unto
Ceasar things that belong to Caesar and to God things that belong to
God? (paraphrased)
3. Regarding certain beliefs themselves:
I asked my Religion colleague Havey White about theological thinking
on the matter of how salvation works for people who have not heard of
the Christian God, and I share with you some of his thoughts below.
Sincerely,
Stuart
"Aquinas' view is based on the difference between mortal and venial
sins. The former are defined as the breaking of one's mental intention
from the order to God; i.e., one simply has no desire to attain
his/her proper end; thus it is one turning him/her self away from
seeking that end. It amounts to self-destruction.
Aquinas deems that all persons have a natural desire for
happiness (= fulfillment). He also insists that knowledge of God
(i.e., explicitly and literally so) is not only not a necessity for
happiness, but is impossible in this life. It boils down to seeking
fulfillment of one's nature (seeking the good), and this can be
tantamount to seeking God and living a godly life (i.e., intending the
order to God). It seems (as I read Aquinas) that only the most
perverse and intentional turning away from that order will constitute
a mortal sin.
Other sins -- venial ones -- are punishable in proportion to their
seriousness, but ultimately the guilty party will find reconciliation.
Some modern versions are more inclusive and universal -- excluding no
one from ultimate reconciliation with God (=salvation?). Those who
take this position usually get confronted with questions about Hitler.
There is, of Course, the Calvinist who allows that even
those who live a godly life, whether knowing of God or in ignorance,
may be excluded."
And:
"It strikes me that the view proposed there -- that the littlest sin
is enough to separate people from God, and therefore it is not what
one does but having faith that counts -- can lead to Calvin's
position; i.e., human nature is such that it is incapable of meeting
the demands of the divine law. But what is faith, if not an act by a
person of committment to God. This would presuppose an intrinsic
ability to do so; yet if persons are intrinsically lacking in
resources to do anything pleasing to God, whence faith? The answer
usually is it is an act of Divine grace -- not an act of a person.
Thus one has it that either faith is given to all or to some -- close
to Calvin's doctrine of election.
Calvin carried this a step further; the human nature is so removed
from God and godliness, that no knowledge of God is possible; thus one
can not know whether he/she has been elected by God (in addition to
being unable to "get" one's self elected). Thus it is entirely an act
of God, with regard to which persons have absolutely no say or
influence.
Moreover, the act of God in granting salvation -- for Calvin -- is one
that in no way is based upon human nature; indeed, it is in spite of
it. I find Aquinas' position preferable."
___________________________________________________
Stuart J. McKelvie, Ph.D., Phone: (819)822-9600
Department of Psychology, Extension 2402
Bishop's University, Fax: (819)822-9661
3 Route 108 East,
Lennoxville, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quebec J1M 1Z7,
Canada.
Bishop's University Psychology Department Web Page:
http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy
___________________________________________________
