Zone1 Theology of the Body

[Meriweather]

In a nutshell, Pope John Paul II said the body alone can make visible what is invisible. He went on to say the body was created to transfer into the physical world the mystery of God and make it a visible reality.

Who are we? Why are we here? Here are some conflicting points of view between a worldly view vs people of faith:

• Indulge vs Discipline
• Get what you want vs Give what you have
• Feel good do it vs Pick up your cross
• Love is a feeling vs Love is a choice

What say you?

 

[lg325]

People of faith view for me.

 

[Donald H]

In a nutshell, Pope John Paul II said the body alone can make visible what is invisible. He went on to say the body was created to transfer into the physical world the mystery of God and make it a visible reality.

Who are we? Why are we here? Here are some conflicting points of view between a worldly view vs people of faith:

• Indulge vs Discipline

That needs further explanation. It's not clear to me what's being proposed.
Disciplining oneself over indulgence?

I'm wondering if it can be inferred that a person should discipline oneself?

 

[Augustine_]

• Indulge vs Discipline
• Get what you want vs Give what you have
• Feel good do it vs Pick up your cross
• Love is a feeling vs Love is a choice

Impossible to tell the difference between worldly view and faith view from your examples

 

[Meriweather]

That needs further explanation. It's not clear to me what's being proposed.
Disciplining oneself over indulgence?

I'm wondering if it can be inferred that a person should discipline oneself?

Absolutely. It is about how one sees him/herself in relationship to the present life s/he is now living.

 

[Meriweather]

Impossible to tell the difference between worldly view and faith view from your examples

What are you finding difficult? Keep in mind, atheists and people who do not practice a faith should not be regarded as those with worldly views. In fact, people of faith are just as likely to be drawn into worldly views. However, Pope John Paul II was viewing the body from a theological point of view. From a theological point of view, self-discipline, giving, working, choosing to love is part of Biblical/scriptural faith.

 

[Augustine_]

self-discipline, giving, working, choosing to love

All of those things exist without requiring religious faith

 

[Meriweather]

All of those things exist without requiring religious faith

Yes. So? What are you saying? People of religious faith shouldn't bother with practicing or discussing it?

 

[Donald H]

Absolutely. It is about how one sees him/herself in relationship to the present life s/he is now living.

You haven't answered my question. The problem is, there are many different ways that a person can righteously indulge oneself and many ways a person can wrongly discipline oneself.

The first that comes to mind is the question of recreational sexual relations with one's partner/ wife/husband.

Is that what you are thinking too?

 

[Meriweather]

You haven't answered my question. The problem is, there are many different ways that a person can righteously indulge oneself and many ways a person can wrongly discipline oneself.

Can you give us some examples of both of these?

 

[Donald H]

Absolutely. It is about how one sees him/herself in relationship to the present life s/he is now living.

In relation.
Should I discipline myself more or should I indulge more?

If you can't even be specific with an example then you don't want a discussion.

 

[Donald H]

Can you give us some examples of both of these?

Yes.
Should I indulge in working more hours for my favourite charity?
Should one discipline oneself to limiting recreational sex with one's husband/wife to once a week?

I limited my question to only your first comment on the question of indulgence vs. discipline, to save complicating the question unnecessarily. However, I also discerned that to me they all mean the same thing. That's the reason why I'm asking you for an example that can make the one I've questioned understandable or relevant.

What are you implying with discipline and what on indulgence? In other words, indulge vs. discipline is the 'heading' and the three that follow are sub headings.

I'll take it as your preference to not have a discussion, if all I get from you are your customary short replies in the form of questions.

 

[TruthNotBS]

In a nutshell, Pope John Paul II said the body alone can make visible what is invisible. He went on to say the body was created to transfer into the physical world the mystery of God and make it a visible reality.

Who are we? Why are we here? Here are some conflicting points of view between a worldly view vs people of faith:

• Indulge vs Discipline
• Get what you want vs Give what you have
• Feel good do it vs Pick up your cross
• Love is a feeling vs Love is a choice

What say you?

• Indulge vs Discipline

What a cheap charge against non-Christians or the non-religious. There are plenty of decent, well-disciplined non-religious folks, fully dedicated to a cause or whatever is meaningful to them. You're fair game now, hence here's your own medicine...Christians are a bunch of babies unable to come to terms with the reality of the human condition, as it apparently, truly is. They're unable to create their own meaning or find any value in life apart from their sky-daddy, handing it to them on a silver platter. If they don't have a BIG ABUSIVE DADDY-GOD standing over them with a heavenly Louisville slugger, terrorizing them, they'll lose their incentive for being good.

• Get what you want vs Give what you have

It's the Christians who demand God give them the eternal life in paradise that they want before they give what they have. They're ingrates, that don't appreciate or see value in their mortal lives, apart from God handing them eternal life. They're also trying to kill God for their sins because they're unwilling to take responsibility for them. They have no sense of duty to their God or fellow human beings unless they get what they demand: ETERNAL LIFE IN PARADISE.

• Feel good do it vs Pick up your cross

Christians don't pick up any crosses, they also do what feels good. So what? What's wrong with doing what feels good, provided no one gets hurt? Plenty of atheists and adherents of non-Christian religions believe in doing what feels good, that's natural and it doesn't in any way imply anything immoral or destructive. You only have one life to live, enjoy it.

• Love is a feeling vs Love is a choice

Love is all of the above, and for you to suggest that only Christians choose to love is ridiculous and stupid. Atheists love too and they don't need a God terrorizing them with eternal damnation or eternal life in heaven to do it.

 

[Donald H]

• Indulge vs Discipline

What a cheap charge against non-Christians or the non-religious. There are plenty of decent, well-disciplined non-religious folks, fully dedicated to a cause or whatever is meaningful to them. You're fair game now, hence here's your own medicine...Christians are a bunch of babies unable to come to terms with the reality of the human condition, as it apparently, truly is. They're unable to create their own meaning or find any value in life apart from their sky-daddy, handing it to them on a silver platter. If they don't have a BIG ABUSIVE DADDY-GOD standing over them with a heavenly Louisville slugger, terrorizing them, they'll lose their incentive for being good.

• Get what you want vs Give what you have

It's the Christians who demand God give them the eternal life in paradise that they want before they give what they have. They're ingrates, that don't appreciate or see value in their mortal lives, apart from God handing them eternal life. They're also trying to kill God for their sins because they're unwilling to take responsibility for them. They have no sense of duty to their God or fellow human beings unless they get what they demand: ETERNAL LIFE IN PARADISE.

• Feel good do it vs Pick up your cross

Christians don't pick up any crosses, they also do what feels good. So what? What's wrong with doing what feels good, provided no one gets hurt? Plenty of atheists and adherents of non-Christian religions believe in doing what feels good, that's natural and it doesn't in any way imply anything immoral or destructive. You only have one life to live, enjoy it.

• Love is a feeling vs Love is a choice

Love is all of the above, and for you to suggest that only Christians choose to love is ridiculous and stupid. Atheists love too and they don't need a God terrorizing them with eternal damnation or eternal life in heaven to do it.

You could have found a better way to get out the facts and the truth, without the insults. All you've accomplished is getting Meriweather the satisfaction she's always looking for when she takes part in the religion debate.

Anyway, well said!
But still, don't you think that her point is really all about sexual relations and her guilt feelings over indulgence? I think she's offered us a clue on why she's a believer. If she's JW, it becomes more than just 'thinking' that's what she's all about.

 

[onefour1]

The reason we gain a body in this life and receive resurrection with a body of flesh and bones for all eternity is because our bodies give us more joy than to be disembodied. For this reason the Father and the Son both have bodies of flesh and bones and receive a fullness of joy.

Doctrine and Covenants 93:33-34
33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;
34 And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.

 

[Donald H]

The reason we gain a body in this life and receive resurrection with a body of flesh and bones for all eternity is because our bodies give us more joy than to be disembodied. For this reason the Father and the Son both have bodies of flesh and bones and receive a fullness of joy.

In a nutshell Meriweather is suggesting that we discipline ourselves to not receiving the 'joy' to which you're referring.
In her particular case, it's become clear that is in regard to sexual relations as recreational.

Doctrine and Covenants 93:33-34
33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;
34 And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.

Meriweather lacks the spirit, in reference to recreational sexual relations. It's usually a mental issue with JW's that is brought on by physical issues that are often no fault of their own.

 

[Meriweather]

What a cheap charge against non-Christians or the non-religious. There are plenty of decent, well-disciplined non-religious folks, fully dedicated to a cause or whatever is meaningful to them. You're fair game now, hence here's your own medicine...Christians are a bunch of babies unable to come to terms with the reality of the human condition, as it apparently, truly is. They're unable to create their own meaning or find any value in life apart from their sky-daddy, handing it to them on a silver platter. If they don't have a BIG ABUSIVE DADDY-GOD standing over them with a heavenly Louisville slugger, terrorizing them, they'll lose their incentive for being good.

I am guessing you missed two things: First, this is a thread about theology, specifically, theology of the body. Theology is the study of religious faith, so why would someone with no interest in God or religion even open the thread? Looking for an argument or to be mortally offended?

Post #6 was added when the first person decided to take offense on the behalf of atheists and others who do not follow a religion.

The reason for this thread is that we have had several threads recently unfriendly towards popes, including the current pope. We have also had threads bickering about the dogmas of numerous Christian denominations. Wouldn't it be nice if those of us interested in theology could discuss theology from a broader perspective? People of faith should be able to peaceably discuss a topic without the "yelling", right? I haven't had any Christians yelling at me yet, but here come all the atheists. By the way, there are many atheists in my extended family and I am a Catholic married to an atheist.

Peace.

 

[Meriweather]

Yes.
Should I indulge in working more hours for my favourite charity?
Should one discipline oneself to limiting recreational sex with one's husband/wife to once a week?

What are you implying with discipline and what on indulgence? In other words, indulge vs. discipline is the 'heading' and the three that follow are sub headings.

When you were married were part of your vows an agreement to forsake all others? If so, doesn't it make sense to put your spouse first?

The purpose of an unordered list is present more than one topic. If you think the first says it all, not a problem.

 

[Meriweather]

In a nutshell Meriweather is suggesting that we discipline ourselves to not receiving the 'joy' to which you're referring.
In her particular case, it's become clear that is in regard to sexual relations as recreational.

Wrong. That is, if you are referencing me, not the "Meriweather" residing only in your own mind. The Theology of the Body has little--in many cases nothing--to do with sex.

More to the point: This thread is not about Meriweather. It is about the Theology of the Body. It's the more interesting topic--by far.

 

[TruthNotBS]

I am guessing you missed two things: First, this is a thread about theology, specifically, theology of the body. Theology is the study of religious faith, so why would someone with no interest in God or religion even open the thread? Looking for an argument or to be mortally offended?

Post #6 was added when the first person decided to take offense on the behalf of atheists and others who do not follow a religion.

The reason for this thread is that we have had several threads recently unfriendly towards popes, including the current pope. We have also had threads bickering about the dogmas of numerous Christian denominations. Wouldn't it be nice if those of us interested in theology could discuss theology from a broader perspective? People of faith should be able to peaceably discuss a topic without the "yelling", right? I haven't had any Christians yelling at me yet, but here come all the atheists. By the way, there are many atheists in my extended family and I am a Catholic married to an atheist.

Peace.

No one is shouting at you, you're hearing voices in your head. That's an atheist you conjured up in your imagination. If you don't want atheists participating in your threads, including this one, then say so. You're talking smack about atheists, so I'm here to respond to your anti-atheist claptrap.