Does it matter to you if you are a follower of the "right" religion?

[Esdra]

But, Esdra, what are his teachings? When you subscribe to a particular teaching of Jesus, then you subscribe to a particular Church.

I do yes, I go to a Church as you already know. I go to a bible-believing Church which are the Anabaptists for example. But also the Lutherans are bible-believing, the Baptists, the Pentecostals etc. ---- Well, yes, even the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches, although they use also other scriptures besides the Holy Bible (Catechism, Sacred Tradition etc). The last two have many truths (those they share with all other Christians), but there are also things which are not true. (Similar to the LDS Church. It also has truths - but also a lot [much more than the CCs and the EOC of course] untrue teachings).

Some Christian churches teach that divorce and remarriage is ok. Despite what Jesus said. Some teach that one must baptize in Jesus’ name only. Some teach that the Sabbath must still be celebrated on Saturday evening. Some teach that women must not preach in church. Some teach…etc etc etc!

His teachings are in the Bible, where else?
And neither God, nor Jesus nor I can help that some of my protestant brothers and sisters have “interpreted it wrongly”. “It’s all in the Bible and the Bible explains itself”, our pastor once said to me.
I also read for myself in the Bible and try to be a good Christian (so to speak I am in a “one-man non-denominational Church”, as well; and I have been in there the eight years before I got to learn the evangelical Protestants too). I am Christian. I have His HS and I can intrpret the Holy Bible with the help of the HS. At least I did so the last 8 years and I think I was pretty successful!

In Christ,
Esdra

 

[PRmerger]

Well, yes, even the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches, although they use also other scriptures besides the Holy Bible (Catechism, Sacred Tradition etc).

We do not consider the Catechism as another Scripture, Esdra.

His teachings are in the Bible, where else?
And neither God, nor Jesus nor I can help that some of my protestant brothers and sisters have “interpreted it wrongly”.

Does your church state that it is the one that has “interpreted it correctly”? Does it claim to be infallible? (I thought it was only the CC that made this claim.)

If it does not claim to be infallible, then, it is fallible and, by defintion, IT WILL BE WRONG on some part of its teaching.

“It’s all in the Bible and the Bible explains itself”, our pastor once said to me.

I think you should ask your pastor to show you where in Scripture it says that "the Bible explains itself’.

That actually is a man-made tradition never taught in the Bible. It never says “the Bible explains itself.”

 

[Noesis]

Does the only thing that really “matters” to you is that you believe in God? Or does it matter to be a part of the “right” religion?

“Right” religion, for me, is a religion which a person is inherently attune to. How can a person determine what they are attune to? This is a matter for inner understanding, and is achieved through years of life which result in a certain wisdom. In my view, our inner compass is the only method by which we can determine what we hold to be truth, and what is falsehood.

In accordance with this, I of course choose to be part of the “right” religion; and it would naturally be folly to align myself with certain perceptions which are contrary to “right” religion.

I do not focus on this sort of concept that states that a hierarchical institution has a divine right to define what is right religion, and what is false religion. In my opinion, this sort of thinking is a remnant of the governmental functions of the ancient world; and that it evolved from the administrative choices of the emperor Constantine.

Again, in accordance with this, I cannot extend that my “right” religion is the “right” religion for you, or for your family, or for anyone else that I might meet. My personality is intrinsically linked with my religion, and I cannot impose this personality onto others whilst still being truthful. Therefore, I cannot project my religious views either; and I think it is arrogance to state otherwise.

What is universal truth, then? I adhere to it, but I know it only through the lens of my self, and I cannot state what another might perceive it as being. I am ignorant of your mind, and of your inner life. So it is that I am ignorant of the inner, spiritual workings of the mind of the kosmos.

 

[PRmerger]

I do not focus on this sort of concept that states that a hierarchical institution has a divine right to define what is right religion, and what is false religion.

Did you know, Noesis, that “hierarchy” means “sacred order” (hieros = sacred; archein = order).

So you’re saying that a hierarchical institution ( or institution with a sacred order) does not have a divine or sacred right. That’s actually a nonsensical statement.

Again, in accordance with this, I cannot extend that my “right” religion is the “right” religion for you, or for your family, or for anyone else that I might meet. My personality is intrinsically linked with my religion, and I cannot impose this personality onto others whilst still being truthful. Therefore, I cannot project my religious views either; and I think it is arrogance to state otherwise.

It is not any more arrogant to assert religious truth than it is to assert, say, a mathematical truth such as 2 + 2 = 4.

 

[Esdra]

We do not consider the Catechism as another Scripture, Esdra.

You don’t? I thought the Catechism is part of the ST?! And the ST and the SS are the basis of your faith, aren’t they? If not, enlighten me.

Does your church state that it is the one that has “interpreted it correctly”? Does it claim to be infallible? (I thought it was only the CC that made this claim.)

We know that through the Holy Spirit our Bible interpretation is correct. The HS guides us all. He was promised to us and it was promised that He will guide us into the full truth.
(By the Way these bible verses I have from you, at least from a Catholic at CAF here. But we and I think that the HS doesn’t only guide the bishops, priests etc into the full truth but also everybody else. The HS was sent to EVERYBODY! - So we are all “infaillable” priests - if you wish to use this term.)

If it does not claim to be infallible, then, it is fallible and, by defintion, IT WILL BE WRONG on some part of its teaching.

I think you should ask your pastor to show you where in Scripture it says that "the Bible explains itself’.

That actually is a man-made tradition never taught in the Bible. It never says “the Bible explains itself.”

But it does if you seek thoroughly enough! this is what cross-references for instance are there for, right? Especially if you know your bible very well after attending a Bible School (what I will certainly do sooner or later!)

 

[PRmerger]

             *                     Originally Posted by **PRmerger***                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6752241#post6752241)

We do not consider the Catechism as another Scripture, Esdra.

Posted by Esdra:You don’t? I thought the Catechism is part of the ST?! And the ST and the SS are the basis of your faith, aren’t they? If not, enlighten me.

No… The Catechism is NOT part of ST.

**Q:“ **

What is the status or the degree of authority of the Catechism of the Catholic Church? People tend to quote it as if every sentence in it is a de fide proposition.
”
**A: **
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a presentation of Church doctrine that has previously been taught with varying degrees of authority. To determine the degree of authority with which any given doctrine has been taught, one must investigate the history of that particular teaching. Look to the Catechism’s footnotes for help in this regard. There you will find references to Church councils, documents, canon law, Scripture, etc., all of varying degrees of authority.

Whatever the underlying degree of authority any given doctrine may carry, Pope John Paul II called the *Catechism *“a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s magisterium” (*Fidei Depositum *3). He declared it to be “a sure norm for teaching the faith.” source: Catholic.com

Also, Esdra:

**It would be helpful if you could put this: ** at the end of my posts, so that I can respond to your posts.
*

**The way you’re posting right now, your responses are nested inside mine and it’s very difficult to quote your responses.
**

So, whatever is inbetween these two codes: QUOTE ] blah blah blah / QUOTE ] appears in the brown box.

**Thanks!
**

 

[PRmerger]

Originally posted by PRmergeroes your church state that it is the one that has “interpreted it correctly”? Does it claim to be infallible? (I thought it was only the CC that made this claim.)

Esdra then responded:

We know that through the Holy Spirit our Bible interpretation is correct. The HS guides us all. He was promised to us and it was promised that He will guide us into the full truth.

So if 2 Christians, both claiming to be guided by the HS, come to contrary interpretations of Scripture, who is correct?

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger said:That actually is a man-made tradition never taught in the Bible. It never says “the Bible explains itself.”

Esdra responded:

But it does if you seek thoroughly enough! this is what cross-references for instance are there for, right? Especially if you know your bible very well after attending a Bible School (what I will certainly do sooner or later!)

What verses, then, say that the Bible explains itself?

 

[Noesis]

Did you know, Noesis, that “hierarchy” means “sacred order” (hieros = sacred; archein = order).

So you’re saying that a hierarchical institution ( or institution with a sacred order) does not have a divine or sacred right. That’s actually a nonsensical statement.

It is not any more arrogant to assert religious truth than it is to assert, say, a mathematical truth such as 2 + 2 = 4.

I did not know the etymology of the word. Thank you for sharing it with me. Isn’t it amazing how much of our modern culture is built upon Hellenism?

Now, as for your logic.

Perhaps I misunderstand you, but you seem to be insinuating that any institution which claims to have a hierarchy, is by proxy dependent upon divine mandate. I cannot seem to follow your thought process here, would you please explain yourself?

As for arrogance.

Mathematical truth is true because it is demonstrable. Spiritual truths exist in a realm which is not demonstrable, but are dependent upon an individual’s personality, and the ways in which such a personality perceives ideas. That is, spiritual belief, according to my opinion, is subjective.

Things which are subjective, should be spoken of in terms of their inherent subjectivity, and to confuse them with objectivity is foolish. When we speak of subjective truths of gods, again, according to my opinion, we must temper ourselves with proper piety. When we confuse such subjectivity with objectivity, then in this case we are acting impious, and are exposing ourselves to a certain greed for clear and universal understanding, an act of hubris.

Edit: I’m afraid that I have to expand on your earlier etymology.

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, hierarchy comes, from Gk. hierarkhia “rule of a high priest,” from hierarkhes “high priest, leader of sacred rites,” from ta hiera “the sacred rites” (neut. pl. of hieros “sacred;” see ire) + arkhein “to lead, rule”.

I cannot see how this etymology can support your logic.

 

[PRmerger]

I did not know the etymology of the word. Thank you for sharing it with me. Isn’t it amazing how much of our modern culture is built upon Hellenism?

Indeed!

Perhaps I misunderstand you, but you seem to be insinuating that any institution which claims to have a hierarchy, is by proxy dependent upon divine mandate. I cannot seem to follow your thought process here, would you please explain yourself?

No. I don’t believe that’s what I was stating. What do you mean “by proxy”?

As for arrogance.

Mathematical truth is true because it is demonstrable.

Can you prove it’s true* because* it’s demonstrable? EDIT: and can you prove the corollary that if something is NOT demonstrable it’s NOT true?

(NB: I’m not asking you to prove that 2 + 2 = 4; I’m asking you to prove that something can only be true if it’s “demonstrable”.)

 

[PRmerger]

IThings which are subjective, should be spoken of in terms of their inherent subjectivity, and to confuse them with objectivity is foolish.

Yes, I agree with you 100%!

When we speak of subjective truths of gods, again, according to my opinion, we must temper ourselves with proper piety.

First you must prove that religious truth is subjective.

When we confuse such subjectivity with objectivity, then in this case we are acting impious, and are exposing ourselves to a certain greed for clear and universal understanding, an act of hubris.

Again, we are agreed on the fact that we ought not confuse subjectivity with objectivity.

 

[Noesis]

First you must prove that religious truth is subjective.

The fact that the vast society of the world, and its various eras, all have held to different and often contradictory views of religious truth, demonstrates that, in practical terms, such truth is subjective.

Beyond practical terms, there are objective terms; but I feel that such spiritual truth as exists in the objective sense, is known only through the lens of subjective personality, and so objective terms are not relevant here.

 

[Dokimas]

Does the only thing that really “matters” to you is that you believe in God? Or does it matter to be a part of the “right” religion?

Are you positive that you are a member of the one, correct religion? (Catholic, Mormon, Muslim, Baptist)

Does it matter to you if you are not?

What main points lead you to believe that you are a follower of the “correct” or “right” religion?

I’m not big on ‘religion’. It’s the correct relationship to Jesus that concerns me. He will try to lead me (if I follow) to the correct place for me to find Christian community.

 

[PRmerger]

The fact that the vast society of the world, and its various eras, all have held to different and often contradictory views of religious truth, demonstrates that, in practical terms, such truth is subjective.

Firstly, it is not true that vast societies of the world have held to different views of religious truth. Almost all societies have held to the golden rule, that murder is wrong, that one cannot take what does not belong to him…

Secondly, the fact that different societies have contradictory religious views is not proof of its subjectivity. That is begging the question!

 

[Noesis]

I’m asking you to prove that something can only be true if it’s “demonstrable”.)

Hm.

No, I do not hold that something can only be true if it’s demonstrable. However, I do hold that what is objective, is also demonstrable.

To willfully claim that the objective is the subjective, is to be motivated by a psychological trait which can be called arrogance, or let’s call it an exaggeration of personal knowledge. Why an exaggeration? Because there is claim to know something in a way which does not depend upon the capacity to show the origin of such knowledge, and there is the statement that such knowledge is built not upon subjectivity, but objective fact. If this contradiction is perceived by intellectual honesty, then there is willful abandonment of the precepts of such honest. This abandonment is arrogance, because it assumes that a person is exempt from such honesty because of some fact which grants him, and not another, immunity.

 

[Noesis]

Firstly, it is not true that vast societies of the world have held to different views of religious truth. Almost all societies have held to the golden rule, that murder is wrong, that one cannot take what does not belong to him…

Secondly, the fact that different societies have contradictory religious views is not proof of its subjectivity. That is begging the question!

Are religious truths the same things as societal or even philosophical ethics?

If I state that I believe in polytheism, and you state that you are a monotheist, then we contradict the others position. Why is this? Because my polytheism, and your monotheism, are subjective views of the universe. This is what I mean by subjective in a practical sense.

But what is the objective reality? The objective reality exists in a “place” which neither you nor I can access; we can only access our own personalities, which are of course subjective. Because of this, the objective truth is something which we cannot separate from our inner being, and it is therefore wise to admit this fact. If it is not admitted, we fall into a pit which was dug for us by own sense that what we know, is a true reflection of reality.

Can I prove to you that objective reality with regard to gods exists or does not? Absolutely not. I can only express my inner life, and this is as far as man can go. If man wishes to go further, then again, he has a certain greed which I have called hubris. To be afraid of this, is in my opinion immoral.

 

[Dokimas]

Are religious truths the same things as societal or even philosophical ethics?

If I state that I believe in polytheism, and you state that you are a monotheist, then we contradict the others position. Why is this? Because my polytheism, and your monotheism, are subjective views of the universe. This is what I mean by subjective in a practical sense.

But what is the objective reality? The objective reality exists in a “place” which neither you nor I can access; we can only access our own personalities, which are of course subjective. Because of this, the objective truth is something which we cannot separate from our inner being, and it is therefore wise to admit this fact. If it is not admitted, we fall into a pit which was dug for us by own sense that what we know, is a true reflection of reality.

Can I prove to you that objective reality with regard to gods exists or does not? Absolutely not. I can only express my inner life, and this is as far as man can go. If man wishes to go further, then again, he has a certain greed which I have called hubris. To be afraid of this, is in my opinion immoral.

Where or what part of us believes?

 

[Noesis]

Where or what part of us believes?

Consciousness, and everything that you are conscious of forms your belief.

Are you conscious of having a soul? This is a subjective perception, and I cannot tell you what anyone who is not me perceives inside of themselves.

 

[PRmerger]

No, I do not hold that something can only be true if it’s demonstrable. However,** I do hold that what is objective, is also demonstrable**.

Can you prove that?

Seriously! I’m not trying to be difficult.

You’re stating a fact: what is objective is also demonstrable.
Therefore, you ought to be able to demonstrate that.

My definition of objective is this: that truth which is not dependent upon the perceiver.

To willfully claim that the objective is the subjective, is to be motivated by a psychological trait which can be called arrogance, or let’s call it an exaggeration of personal knowledge.

Again, you’ll find no objection from me that we ought not confuse objectivity with subjectivity. We are agreed on this, Noesis!

 

[PRmerger]

Are religious truths the same things as societal or even philosophical ethics?

They are not mutually exclusive.

If I state that I believe in polytheism, and you state that you are a monotheist, then we contradict the others position.

Yes.

So are you saying BOTH can be true?

My point is: there is ONE objective truth about this: either there are many gods OR there is only one God.

Objective. Not subjective.