Comparison between Christianity and other religions

[Abu]

Major Tom
Ummm, off the top of my head, the Egyptians were extremely advanced in astronomy, the Arab world gave us algebra if I’m not mistaken, the Chinese gunpowder and paper… science arose nowhere but Christian Europe ?!

As for the Arabs, while their translations of ancient Greek classics led to their dissemination in the Western world in the twelfth century a profound development for Western intellectual history, contributions of Muslim scientists “typically occurred in spite of Islam rather than because of it. Orthodox Islamic scholars absolutely rejected any conception of the universe that involved consistent physical laws, because the absolute autonomy of Allah could not be restricted by natural laws. Apparent natural laws were nothing more than mere habits, so to speak, of Allah, and might be discontinued at any time.” (How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, Thomas E Woods Jr., Regnery Publishing, 2005, p 79)

Fr Stanley Jaki stresses that we do not see the flowering of formal and sustained scientific inquiry emerging from the other cultures’ sometimes impressive technology. (Woods, p 77). “The earlier technical innovations of Greco-Roman times, of Islam, of imperial; China, let alone those of pre-historic times, do not constitute science and are better described as lore, skills, wisdom, techniques, crafts, technologies, engineering, learning, or simply knowledge.” (For the Glory of God, Rodney Stark, Princeton University Press, 2003, p 125).

As Rodney Stark explains the great figures in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries confessed their absolute faith in a creator God whose work incorporated rational rules awaiting discovery.

“The rise of science was not an extension of classical learning. It was the natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine: nature exists because it was created by God. In order to love and honor God, it is necessary to fully appreciate his handiwork. Because God is perfect, his handiwork functions in accord with immutable principles. By the full use of our God-given powers of reason and observation, it ought to be possible to discover these principles.

“These were the crucial ideas that explain why science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else.” The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 22-23].

The twin pillars of Faith and Reason (Fides et Ratio, John Paul II) will always result in the best science – directed to the discovery of God’s laws and based on His natural moral law as to ends and means – with which Christ’s Church alone is fully equipped by Him to guide.

 

[Schn]

Are you sure that it wasn’t the fact that a life of priesthood was like an eternal research grant? The idea of funding science doesn’t mean science is motivated by Christianity or any religion.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Good to know you agree with what I’ve posted.
Don’t know to what specifics you refer, but for a faithful Catholic a dogma is believed on divine and Catholic faith (Canon 750 #1). Yes, Christ gave His Church, through His first pope Peter, the power of binding and loosing so a public promotion of disbelief in a dogma or infallible doctrine could result in excommunication after investigation and caution. There is nothing “accidental” involved, and one mission of the Catholic laity is to proclaim and explain.

twinc,
BTW John the Baptist was the last and greatest of the Jewish prophets, sent to proclaim the coming of the Messiah.

The “accidental” that I was referring to is the fact that people come to believe things based on their own minds and what their minds perceive (by whatever means). Currently Scientism is filling minds with a variety of fundamental superstition which the Church it seems, cannot detect, and certainly a great many members cannot detect (the “unseen” invader). Those beliefs, although actually no more than superstition have all of the ring of truth backed up by “Science” and thus credible. Secular politics uses this effect. But with or out without intent, everyone’s mind is subject to misperception of truth. Once such misperception settles in, anyone telling you that something is not true after it has become clear to you that it certainly is true, causes a disbelief in the person trying to argue against you, even if that is the Church.

Image the CC coming out one day and proclaiming that “2+2=3”. Would all Catholics merely accept it and go on with business as usual? To me, certain metaphysical concerns, such as “time”, are as clear as “2+2=4”, even though to a great many time is a little vague of a topic. When I say that time is eternal, it is not a guess or imagining. It is as clear to me as anything can get, as clear as “2+2=4”. But one day, such will be equally clear to every child. So what is the CC going to do to support the idea that time “began”, which is paramount to saying that “2+2=3”? If they continue to teach such a thought, they will merely gradually look more and more foolish until one day, they will have lost all credibility concerning everything they say.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

James S. Saint

*When I say that time is eternal, it is not a guess or imagining. It is as clear to me as anything can get, as clear as “2+2=4”. So what is the CC going to do to support the idea that time “began”, which is paramount to saying that “2+2=3”? If they continue to teach such a thought, they will merely gradually look more and more foolish until one day, they will have lost all credibility concerning everything they say. *

One thing Christianity has in common with many other religions is that the universe is not eternal. In almost every ancient religion there is a creation myth. Even with the theory of the Big Bang science supports the idea of a beginning in time. So the evidence for an eternal universe is speculative at best. What makes you convinced that “one day, such will be equally clear to every child”?

 

[James_S_Saint]

One thing Christianity has in common with many other religions is that the universe is not eternal. In almost every ancient religion there is a creation myth. Even with the theory of the Big Bang science supports the idea of a beginning in time. So the evidence for an eternal universe is speculative at best. What makes you convinced that “one day, such will be equally clear to every child”?

Do you believe that lightening is electricity?
Do you believe that electricity is made of electrons?
Do you believe that electrons revolve around protons to make atoms?
Do you believe that water is made of atoms and molecules?
Do you believe that the Earth travels around the Sun?
Do you believe that physical disease is caused by tiny creatures we call germs?
Do you believe that a machine can propel itself without a living being inside pushing it?
Do you believe that a man has stood on the Moon?
Do you believe that that machines are in space revolving around the Earth?
Do you understand the concept of infinity?

There are very many things that every child today believes that once were no more than conjecture everywhere throughout humanity. They believe them because clarity was brought to the subjects.

Clarity is coming, coming to all things. Every angel, every prophet, every theory, everything that man has ever thought, said, or done, will soon be brought into the light of clarity and judged for the edification of every child. But when I say that clarity is “coming”, I mean that it is already here, but just hasn’t been made available to you… yet.

Where will bold statements made in the darkness stand once brought into the light and opinions no longer matter? Where will elite decrees stand? Where will the worth of your beliefs stand? If not absolutely correct in every iota, where will you hide them?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The “accidental” that I was referring to is the fact that people come to believe things based on their own minds and what their minds perceive (by whatever means).

I wonder, though, here, about the difference between “belief” and “assent”. Some languages probably don’t have both meanings available to them, but the difference is powerful.

Personally, I assent to the doctrine of papal infallibility, for example, though I suspect the doctrine is less than meaningful. (For what is the difference between saying “Jesus is God’s Son” and “Jesus is God’s Son, and that is true”?) But to say that I assent to it does not entail that I believe it – for beliefs are, as you say, involuntary.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I wonder, though, here, about the difference between “belief” and “assent”. Some languages probably don’t have both meanings available to them, but the difference is powerful.

Personally, I assent to the doctrine of papal infallibility, for example, though I suspect the doctrine is less than meaningful. (For what is the difference between saying “Jesus is God’s Son” and “Jesus is God’s Son, and that is true”?) But to say that I assent to it does not entail that I believe it – for beliefs are, as you say, involuntary.

Agreed. Acceptance is not the same as belief.

But once belief has been established, what is left that can be accepted for long? A child might accept that 2+2=3 for a while, but how strongly he must be sequestered to keep him in the fold.

Who today still believes that the Earth is flat?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Agreed. Acceptance is not the same as belief.

But once belief has been established, what is left that can be accepted for long? A child might accept that 2+2=3 for a while, but how strongly he must be sequestered to keep him in the fold.

Who today still believes that the Earth is flat?

I’m no expert on that 17th century saga, but I will say this: if someone who has real authority over me tells me something that I know to be blatantly false, because I am an expert on the matter, I cannot change my belief, and I cannot be held in any way responsible for not changing my belief. If anyone in the Church has written otherwise, then that person was clearly “philosophically challenged”, shall we say.

There are, in fact, two ways about it:

1. If the Church declares infallibly the truth, and we fail to believe it, then it may be that God has not given us the capacity to believe it. Since God is just, our lack of belief is *our *problem, and we can face the consequences.
2. The Church is made of people who err. Sometimes their errors wind up in documents that really ought not be in error. God does not protect them from their error for the same reason God does not strike down heretics (usually!). We do not know what that reason is. At any rate, we should be wary of encouraging a spirit of “intellectual renagadery” in ourselves, and constantly be searching for whether it is we, and not the Church, that are in error. But we may, with much reluctance, refuse to assent to a teaching that we judge to be clearly false.

I opt for option #2.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I cannot change my belief, and I cannot be held in any way responsible for not changing my belief.

But you can be held responsible for what you say, yet by not saying that of which you are an “expert”, you, by omission, create deception and mislead, fore others expect consensus of those who can think and know.

The authority that dispermitted the discussion and dispensation of actual Truth is also held accountable, but in due time.

 

[Abu]

Prodigal Son
The Church is made of people who err.

NOT in defined doctrine on faith or morals. As Fr Stanley Jaki recalls, one of the foremost theologians at Vatican I, Giovanni Perrone, expresses what we have seen well for he “was on most biblical grounds when he pointed out that Christians must adhere to the pope not because he is infallible; but since they must, on divine command, adhere to the pope, he has to be infallible.” (The Keys of the Kingdom, Franciscan Herald Press, 1986, p 170).

 

[AndyF]

nsper7:

For Christians, eternal and brutal Hell is threatened like a gun to the head.

If one does not want to experience the hell of being shot, then common sense would suggest that playing with sin(guns) increases the risk. We know tornadoes exist also, but it isn’t a threat unless we ignore our common sense and try to bicycle through it.

Hell is a place of last resort since the other planes of existence are privileged to the elect. Hell is an option. In other words God has no other place to put those who chose not to measure up.

Being a member of the wrong religion does not fully provide for the elements that keep us from playing with “guns”, and which in full complement can only be found in the True Religion. This is because God resides fully in His sanctioned Religion. If being in the right religion provides for all the members of our self when we confront the temptations of sin(guns), why join one which provides* just some* of the elements, especially when we need all the help we can get?. Better to swing a sword with two hands than one.

Andy