|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Okay, okay, the Bible isn't literal 100% Word-O-God, fine. I get that. Or, at least, I get that you are asserting that. But if other religions have texts, which are also not the literal word of God, and that make similar claims of the divinity of other beings, and some of them are even formulated similarly to the Bible, why is the Bible trustworthy and others not? I'm not sure I would use the word "untrustworthy" to describe how many religions view other religious texts. From the Catholic perspective, all religions are humans grasping toward the same unknown. It views the similarities that exists between faiths in their beliefs and practices to be a sign of this fact. Humanity is one community with a common destiny in God. Nostra Aetate states outright that, Pope Paul VI posted:[t]he Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim, Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6) in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to himself. Lumen Gentium further states that: quote:This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity. So the issue isn't that Catholicism views these texts as malevolent, as you seem to imply, as much as the Catholic Church having a greater understanding of divine reality. There are "numerous elements of sanctification and of truth" outside the Church. However, Catholicism would claim that it has the best understanding of ultimate reality among religions and that, if you accept the existence of a God, that the nature of things naturally lead more toward itself than other faiths.
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 04:52 |
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I mean, every religion thinks it's the greater understanding of divine reality. Every religion thinks that "the nature of things lead more toward itself than other faiths." That is the very nature of choice. Everything you choose is arguing that it will lead to something better than some alternative. It is up to your internal calculus to discover wha that is. GAINING WEIGHT... posted:am not meaning to imply a perception of malevolence in other books, I am meaning to imply a perception of incorrectness. I did not mean "trustworthy" to denote whether the Bible has good or evil motivations, only that the information presented therein could be counted on as being true. Because that is what you, after having studied the issue in depth and after having interacted with the metaxy, understand to be more true. If you do not find Christianity to make more sense than its alternative, which it claims it is, then you either study it further or choose the alternative. What you are asking this entire thread is for some sort of impersonal simple formula to tell you want to do. Everyone in this threads both atheist and theist, has been trying to tell you that this entire conception is wrong. Religion is predicated on choice and one's personal experiences. You want to remove belief from religion, which completely violates a core tenet of religion. QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
^ That is a phenomenally good post.GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I guess I'm wondering why anyone arrives at that belief in the first place if it's so nonsensical to do so. OR, why it isn't nonsensical. Most religions base themselves on the idea of a dual search. Humanity is searching for God and God is searching for humanity. This search manifests itself in certain spectacular ways, such as the Angel Gabriel's appearance to the Prophet Muhammad, but also through the mundane. Subtle things, such as the structure of the universe, personal revelations, and the intuition that a higher reality exists are examples that have been used in the past to explain how God reaches toward us. Having built the universe, many religions would argue that nature should lead toward an ultimate reality. If you have the time and patience, I would recommend reading Thomas Aquinas's Summa Contra Gentiles to gain a better understanding of how believers defend themselves against unbelievers. Many of the arguments here and in the "Let's Prove God's Existence" thread are pretty much rehashes of arguments that Aquinas encountered. EDIT: I'll also recommend A Canticle for Leibowitz which, while fiction, is one of my favorite books and discusses issues like faith and belief. A good portion of the novel discusses how divine reality can manifest itself in mundane ways and there is an extended debate on God's existence that leaves the reader sympathetic to both sides. QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_infallibility#Catholicism Come on, man, the passage you just quoted directly states that Catholicism does not consider infallibility to be the same as inerrancy. The fact that the Bible cannot be interpreted as completely true is a big issue in Catholicism that makes causes certain radical Protestant sects to claim that Catholics aren't Christians. "Since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:http://www.wetalkofholythings.com/2013/03/inerrancy-vs-infallibility-theological.html quote:I was born and raised in Miami, Fl., where I still reside. I am an active member of a Plymouth Brethren Assembly here in Miami called Bible Truth Chapel. We consider ourselves to be a non-denominational, conservative Bible Church. i don't think a non-denominational blogger from miami has any institutional authority on how the catholic church interprets the bible. QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/09/16/inerrancy-and-infallibility-truth-claims-and-precision/ A non-denominational pastor in Wheaton, Illinois would also probably not be considered a strong authority for Catholicism. The words inerrant and infallible have different meanings in the Protestant and Catholic traditions. You can't use Protestant thinkers talking solely about Protestantism to claim what Catholicism believes.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:http://www.theopedia.com/Inerrancy_of_the_Bible I really don't know what to tell you except that Protestantism and Catholicism are different religions. You keep quoting sources that really have no relevance or applicability to Catholic teaching. That last source is an online evangelical encyclopedia. You might as well quote the Dhammapanda. SedanChair is completely correct. QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/do-you-read-the-bible-literally.html quote:Affirming that the entirety of Scripture is to be taken literally is a confession of fundamentalism, which is one of the few things our pluralistic society cannot tolerate. quote:Most often what our culture means by the phrase "reading Scripture literally," would be more correctly rendered "reading Scripture literalistically," that is, taking each word at face value apart from its literary context. Such an approach drains the life out of language; such readers leech the meaning out of Scripture.  The word "inerrant" within Catholicism means that the overall message of the Bible, that God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that none should not perish, but have everlasting life, is without flaw, but that individual books and verses need to be interpreted within the historical, cultural, and psychological context of the author when it was written. The Bible was inspired by God but written by flawed men who suffered their own biases and prejudices. Anything filtered through a human person is flawed. quote:And the definition stands, its splitting hairs to try to make one organization look more progressive than the other. Every time I read an article on the Roman Catholic sites about it, it reads like Libertarianism: Lots of words to cover make it look well read and intellectual. If you think that anything is a lot of words is without value, then I hope you spend all your time on Something Awful because you are in for a nasty surprise should you ever have to leave your basement. quote:Christians who don't see the Bible as inerrant (or even infallible), yet believe its story about Jesus: why aren't you a Muslim? I view the Bible as inerrant, but think this question was answered already. I am Catholic because I understand Catholicism to be more true for me than the alternatives. quote:Have you studied the Koran? I can't claim to have read the Qu'ran in Arabic because I am not fluent, but I understand the religion and its tenets. quote:Have you sincerely considered that the conclusions of your spiritual guidance may contain at least one error? Yes, it is possible I have made my conclusions in error, but the same goes for any action that I do. I don't think you will find a single human that can claim they have never experienced doubt about a decision that they have made. That's how choice tends to work. GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Hmm. So are you of the opinion that worshiping the wrong God, following the wrong faith, even believing (as part of said wrong faith) that Christianity is heretical - none of that is a problem for God? Doesn't matter, we're all saved regardless? All faiths, particularly the Abrahamic faiths, worship the same divine reality. There is no such thing as "the wrong God." QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You are saying the same thing without thinking you are. The definitions are only so slightly different, in reality they might as well mean the same thing. Would you please explain how these two methods of interpretation are the same in specific terms? Unless you are defining literacy as "believing in Christ," then I'm still confused about what it is you are claiming. I would like to understand where you are coming from, but think we might be defining the word "literally" differently.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 04:52 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:Faith is nothing more than gullibility by another name. You base this statement on...?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2014 04:56
|
|