Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Is the possibility of a God not a scary thought...?
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
Deleted User wrote: »I told John Hutton by PM a few weeks ago when I sent him the paper that I would avoid the Christianity forum until November 1st to both give him time to think and come up with replies to the following and because I think we were both getting a bit testy in the the heat of the moment.
1) Read the paper and give a comprehensive reply to its findings
2) Describe why that example I chose from the video is not contradictory
3) Respond to the comments from my last post
I look forward to now reading your detailed responses to these which you stated that you would work on over this period.
So what should I conclude from your lack of response to this given the ample amount of time that was given? You stated many times in this thread that you would describe why an example from the video was not contradictory if I picked out one, that you would reply to the findings of the paper if I sent it to you etc.
The only conclusion that I can personally draw from it is that asserting that your faith is correct is in fact not as important to you as you previously suggested, and that you have instead simply accepted that Christianity is correct and nothing I or anyone else could say to you or show you could potentially change your mind.
Would this be a fair assumption?
(Mods: not trying to attack the poster of anything, my apologies if it sounds that way. He did however write a lot of posts asking me to pick out an example and suggested he would read and respond to the paper if I paid and sent it to him. I think that it's only fair that I ask why he has not bothered to respond since.) 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Some rather interesting thoughts from a Christian perspective here which concludes babies are born innocent and the concept of inherited sin (see original sin) is not well supported in the bible. Purely speculation, but I would imagine the vast majority of Christians in this country would assert that babies are born innocent and that sin is not something that is inherited. So far as I'm aware this is also the Catholic position but not the Calvinist position which asserts sin is hereditary.
Might just try to clear up this point. The Catholic position is that all human beings are born with original sin (the only exception being the Mother of Christ, for reasons I will let all y'all explore for yourselves):
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:402 All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms: "By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned." The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."
403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul". Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.
There is a difference between original sin and personal sin. A child has no personal sin, but it is already marked by the sin of our first parents.
And from the Council of Trent:If anyone denies that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, are to be baptized, even though they be born of baptized parents, or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam which must be expiated by the laver of regeneration for the attainment of eternal life, whence it follows that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins is to be understood not as true but as false, let him be anathema (...)
For in virtue of this rule of faith handed down from the Apostles, even infants who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this reason truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that in them what they contracted by generation may be washed away by regeneration
Therefore, this point is not even up for discussion for Catholics. With Protestants though, all bets are off. Each of the 20,000 or so different Protestant ecclesial communions preach whatever they want.0 -
-
-
antiskeptic wrote: »That old chestnut sidesteps the fact that everyone makes the choice to believe whatever they want. Some chose to believe the Catholic Church is the ultimate authority on what is and isn't Christianity, for instance.
A person might grant the Catholic Church the authority to tell them what the Bible says and means. But they themselves cannot but remain the ultimate authority on what they choose to believe. Their granting authority to the Catholic Church makes the Catholic Church a secondary authority to their own primary authority.
For people who are Catholics, the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church) is the final authority on the interpretation of Scripture and Tradition. The Church interprets authoritatively through defining Dogmas of the Faith. An example of this is the Eucharist being the real Body of Christ (not in any figurative sense, but really and truly the body of Our Saviour).
Catholics who vocally disagree with these definitions are in danger of automatic (latinae sententiae) excommunication (this will apply if certain conditions are met, as determined by Canon Law). So no, everyone cannot be their own Pope and remain a Catholic (if that is what you meant, I wasn't clear).
This is because, as a Church, you cannot lay claim to holding the One True Faith and at the same time allow for a multiplicity of beliefs on essential issues. This is illogical.
Additionally, the Bible cannot interpret itself, therefore it cannot be its own final authority.
However, it is worth noting that Christianity flourished for decades before the Bible was written (yes, a Christianity without a Bible!). Then the Catholic Church assembled the Canon of Scripture ie. discerned which books can be trusted as authoritative and which must be rejected as inauthentic. One of the key factors in rejecting a book,eg the alleged Gospel according to St Thomas, was that it did not square with the faith which was handed down orally from the Apostles (who knew Christ personally) and carefully preserved by the Catholic Church. Therefore, it was out of the bosom of the Catholic Church that we now have the Bible.
There is also ample evidence for Church authority in the Scriptures themselves:
“He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” (Lk 10:16)
Here, Christ explicitly identifies himself with the Apostles: this identification is so complete that accepting or rejecting the Apostles is the same as accepting or rejecting Christ. Catholic Bishops are successors of the Apostles ie. you can trace their chain of consecration all the way to the Apostles.
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.(Mt 16:18-19)
This is a key passage for understanding the Catholic doctrine of Church authority: Christ’s deliberate intent to establish a new Church (“I will build My Church”) His choice of Peter as the foundation, or head, of this Church Christ confers on Peter his own divine authority (“the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven”) for ruling the Church (“bind” and “loose”). This power to “bind and loose”, repeated also in Mt 18:18 to the Apostles as a whole, is understood as applying first to Peter and his successors (the Pope), and then to the rest of the Apostles and their successors (the other Bishops) in union with Peter.
http://www.beginningcatholic.com/church-authority0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
Kyree Icy Reforestation wrote: »the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church) is the final authority on the interpretation of Scripture and Tradition.
Indeed. The point was though, that that authority is granted the Magesterium by you. Making you the ultimate authority for what you believe.
Like, if you, like me, didn't grant it authority in matters of the faith, then it would have none. None that can be demonstrated in any case
Same thing if you grant one of the 20 squillion Protestant denominations authority over you on matters faith
Or decide not to grant authority to any authority and make up your own mind.
Messy, I know, but it can't be helped. You're on your own, even if part of a crowd.The Church interprets authoritatively through defining Dogmas of the Faith. An example of this is the Eucharist being the real Body of Christ (not in any figurative sense, but really and truly the body of Our Saviour).
Catholics who vocally disagree with these definitions are in danger of automatic (latinae sententiae) excommunication (this will apply if certain conditions are met, as determined by Canon Law). So no, everyone cannot be their own Pope and remain a Catholic (if that is what you meant, I wasn't clear).
An example of your own authority to remove the authority of the Magisterium over you. You would see the authority kicking you out. But only because you first expressed your authority to differ.
In which case so what if your kicked out. By someone who you grant no authority over you??This is because, as a Church, you cannot lay claim to holding the One True Faith and at the same time allow for a multiplicity of beliefs on essential issues. This is illogical.
It isn't so difficult if you don't suppose yourself as having the last word. You might learn something, for instance.
I appreciate the Magisteriums view. But seeing as I haven't granted it an authoritative voice, I can decide that view erroneous.
And you can decide it non erroneous. We are each the authority.Additionally, the Bible cannot interpret itself, therefore it cannot be its own final authority./quote]
Since we are both our own authority we are each our own interpreters. Now you can decide to cook for yourself or farm out the work and get a takeaway. But what nutrition we put into our bodies is our own choice.There is also ample evidence for Church authority in the Scriptures themselves:
“He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” (Lk 10:16)
Here, Christ explicitly identifies himself with the Apostles: this identification is so complete that accepting or rejecting the Apostles is the same as accepting or rejecting Christ. Catholic Bishops are successors of the Apostles ie. you can trace their chain of consecration all the way to the Apostles.
All this rests on your having granted the Magisterium the authority to tell you hoe it all stitches together.
Once you start with the bible itself and itself alone, those arguments fall asunder. Only the authority granted to the Magisterium binds things together. Apostolic sucession from a verse. A huge doctrine. From a verse? Not possible. Well if that possible and permissible then just about anything else too.
If you strip back the boiler plate stuff, the stuff which is assumed without evidence, there is very little upon which the Magisterium stands.
I can appreciate a system constructed with a verse left hanging over the door which is said to encompass it. But that verse isn't sufficient to ground the structure. You can't pull a massive church out of a hat with 'on this rock'. Not a chance..0 -
-
Kyree Icy Reforestation wrote: »the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church) is the final authority on the interpretation of Scripture and Tradition.
Indeed. The point was though, that that authority is granted the Magesterium by you. Making you the ultimate authority for what you believe.
Like, if you, like me, didn't grant it authority in matters of the faith, then it would have none. None that can be demonstrated in any case
Same thing if you grant one of the 20 squillion Protestant denominations authority over you on matters faith
Or decide not to grant authority to any authority and make up your own mind.
Messy, I know, but it can't be helped. You're on your own, even if part of a crowd.The Church interprets authoritatively through defining Dogmas of the Faith. An example of this is the Eucharist being the real Body of Christ (not in any figurative sense, but really and truly the body of Our Saviour).
Catholics who vocally disagree with these definitions are in danger of automatic (latinae sententiae) excommunication (this will apply if certain conditions are met, as determined by Canon Law). So no, everyone cannot be their own Pope and remain a Catholic (if that is what you meant, I wasn't clear).
An example of your own authority to remove the authority of the Magisterium over you. You would see the authority kicking you out. But only because you first expressed your authority to differ.
In which case so what if your kicked out. By someone who you grant no authority over you??This is because, as a Church, you cannot lay claim to holding the One True Faith and at the same time allow for a multiplicity of beliefs on essential issues. This is illogical.
It isn't so difficult if you don't suppose yourself as having the last word. You might learn something, for instance.
I appreciate the Magisteriums view. But seeing as I haven't granted it an authoritative voice, I can decide that view erroneous.
And you can decide it non erroneous. We are each the authority.Additionally, the Bible cannot interpret itself, therefore it cannot be its own final authority./quote]
Since we are both our own authority we are each our own interpreters. Now you can decide to cook for yourself or farm out the work and get a takeaway. But what nutrition we put into our bodies is our own choice.There is also ample evidence for Church authority in the Scriptures themselves:
“He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” (Lk 10:16)
Here, Christ explicitly identifies himself with the Apostles: this identification is so complete that accepting or rejecting the Apostles is the same as accepting or rejecting Christ. Catholic Bishops are successors of the Apostles ie. you can trace their chain of consecration all the way to the Apostles.
All this rests on your having granted the Magisterium the authority to tell you how it all stitches together.
I mean, how do you get to the idea of tracing bishops all the way back to the apostles without the a priori idea that there's such a thing as apostolic succession. If there is then perhaps, if there isn't such a thing then all the tracing is worthless.
How to decide, other than taking it on Authority? I mean, we can't take on mere Authority when we are questioning whether there is an Authority..
Set aside 'because the Church says so and its the Authority" then whats left?0 -
I found Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities made for some good reading on proto-Christianity and how the canonical New Testament was formed. From my reading there was a very broad range of conflicting beliefs during the early stages of Christianity.
Yeah, he writes some interesting stuff but as an agnostic atheist he may just have an agenda?
I think you're right about there being lots of conflicting beliefs, but there are a couple of things that spring to mind. First is that there are lots of areas of difference where we have freedom of conscience. An obvious one is the subtle differences between Jewish and Gentile Christians in the early church - culturally they were very different. I'm sure the church in Jerusalem would have had a very different feel to say Philippi or Corinth. Another is the teaching on eating meat sacrificed to pagan idols. Some Christians could do that happily, knowing that the idol is not real while others could not (especially those who came out of a pagan background).
The second thing to bear in mind is that error and false teaching have been a constant presence since New Testament times; the NT books talk about Judaisers (those who maintained that Christians had to keep to the OT ceremonial law, be circumcised etc. as prerequisites to salvation) and Gnosticism (secret knowledge and further revelation), and many of the NT letters mention false teaching of one sort or another.
In deciding if a teaching is false or true, we need to weigh and assess it against some higher authority. Depending on which branch of Christianity you're coming out of that could be scripture, church teaching, or human reason.0 -
-
Yeah, he writes some interesting stuff but as an agnostic atheist he may just have an agenda?
No doubt, though you could say the same for any biblical scholar who is vocally theistic. In either case, it is effectively an ad hominem as it is attacking the person's work through their personal beliefs.
Personally I find Ehrman very readable and his academic credentials in this area would appear to be excellent.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »Claiming he was prejudiced because of the conclusions he came to as a result of his studies is quite a thing...
Ehrman was a fundamentalist Christian and began his biblical studies believing in biblical inerrancy.
No, as others have said in this thread his prejudice (and we all have them) predisposes him to certain conclusions. I really struggle to see how that is a controversial point. When approaching matters of faith, our faith (or lack thereof) is going to have an influence on us. Shocker!
As to his former belief, all I can say is that people are complex beings and can gain or lose faith for any number of reasons. Plenty of people look at the evidence and move from unbelief to belief - so while it's interesting on a personal level, I don't think it helps us move this conversation forward.0 -
-
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement