Inventions/Superstitions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hope1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brand new here! Super-long, sorry, but, trying to help! (Part 1)

Besides what everyone’s said about Lutherans… They tried to evangelize me when I was agnostic. Didn’t work. They said “Sola Scriptura”, & had it as their “sole rule of faith”, so I asked Sola which Scriptura? Which manuscripts are the right ones? Which translation is so reliable that it can be a “sole rule of faith”? They couldn’t answer! Nothing was precise w/ the Lutherans. They had no basis for their canon. They said “Scripture explains Scripture”, but it doesn’t explain the hapax legomena, e.g., what is “gopherwood”? Protestants say it’s enough that it explains the “essentials”, such as CARM saying, “[H]ow do we determine what is and isn’t essential?…[Primary essentials] are doctrinal truths that the Scriptures declare to be essential…Secondary essentials are likewise necessary truths, but there is no self-declared penalty for their denial…” But they love 2 Tm 3:16—all Scripture is…profitable!—& they can’t prove there isn’t more that’s necessary, or that there isn’t any penalty for denial of things outside their self-declared “essentials”. They say the Bible is their authority, but Biblically, authority is exousia, something only imbued in people, & which the Apostles passed on, as in Acts 8, but Protestants have only Scripture & no exousian, no authority to make any declaration, like the scribes in Mt 7:29. They can’t admit that many necessary things are not in the Bible, e.g. rites for baptism, marriage, & funerals, & a prohibition of cannibalism. They’re unable to follow Hb 9 (Even the first Covenant had ordinances of divine service…) or 2 Th 2:15 (hold fast the traditions we taught you by [spoken] word (logou) and epistle). Unlike Catholics, they have no basis for the Bible, but nothing can rest upon itself. Protestants admit the Bible is true, but according to the Bible, the basis of the Bible is the Church: “the church of the living God [is] the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tm 3:15). Basically, the longer we went to a Lutheran church, the more unanswered Qs piled up—I could go on & on!

(Eventually I was made Russian Catholic, but it turns out some of my ancestors were in the Union of Brest, & if things hadn’t gone awry a few gens ago, I would have been born Byz. Cath. anyway.)
 
(Part 2) Protestants can’t explain why all Christians in the world except them have always had the same Sacraments. Why they’re in, besides Scripture: the Church Fathers, the Didache, the Apostolic Constitutions (the last, while among “Apostolic Church”-professing Lutherans, I mentioned being excited to read—subj. was quickly changed! 😆 I could quote those but already I’m going on forever). It’s a lot like prayers for the departed. Practically everyone in the world except Protestants has always prayed for the departed. Jews incld. Even the Book of Concord “do[es] not prohibit” “prayer for the dead”. But Confessional Lutherans do! Occam’s Razor will tell you Protestants threw the prayers out, w/ so much else.

I won’t call Mass boring, myself, b/c it’s beloved of Roman Catholics generally. But maybe I have the same exp. as you, b/c at Mass I get restless. Praying at all is a big struggle for me, except if there are icons, if it’s sung/chanted, & if I can do it w/ everyone. I can’t meditate; I can’t visualize stuff (it’s aphantasia), e.g. Rosary things. People at Mass pray silently in their heads & meditate, but I come to worship, to do things, proskyneseis, Biblical “worship” (e.g. Mt 2:11), meaning kiss, bow, prostrate self… And to sing. Mass here has 1 hymn everyone can sing at the beginning & 1 at the end, & the rest is Latin sung by a choir. Except the new-style Mass that seems to = Protestantism + Eucharist, & except when there’s Low Mass: even more bewildering. 1st Low Mass I was at was over while I was still waiting for it to start! My Latinized Ruthenian husband doesn’t understand how it confuses me. Since we have the Eucharist just Sun. & other Holy Days, don’t have Eucharistic Adoration, do have plenty of icons at home, & to pray in front of the icon is to pray in front of who is in it, I’d have to get myself & kids dressed up, have all of us ride 1 hr round trip, come home exhausted (I have chronic mono), to do what I could have done at home. Occas. I overhear someone singing at Mass very quietly, but I don’t know the tunes, & I can learn only a little Latin w/ a big struggle, to say nothing of thinking in it, singing it, & meaning it, all at once. If I go to Mass, I’m the only one in a Slavic scarf, standing, bowing before relics, kissing statues… 😁 And then I run out of things to do. And Roman theology really confuses me. I’d have made a terrible Roman Catholic! 😬 (Sorry, everyone. Embarrassed…)

If you can get to one, you should try coming to an Eastern Catholic church. Guessing you haven’t been yet. In general (b/c of some variation in Rites), lots of beautiful icons, incl. ones showing Biblical scenes w/ amazing details, extremely beautiful music always w/ deep & intricate theological meaning, all a capella, everyone singing & chanting almost nonstop, & the homily is short & on the Gospel reading. Impossible to get bored! 😁 You may have to ask around wherever you are. Ukrainian ones are relatively common. If there’s not an Eastern Catholic church close, maybe you’re going to travel sometime & could look one up & plan to stop at it when you’re in the area.
 
That they are regarded as quacks or disrespected doesn’t matter at all in evaluating their arguments. That their arguments are largely nonsensical does (although I’d encourage you to not take my word for it).

There’s a lot of bickering and posturing among scientists, and it is quite possible for legitimate theories to be dismissed as quackery. Continental drift took decades to be accepted by the scientific community, for instance. Don’t be afraid to evaluate ideas for yourself, especially if you have a passing familiarity with the subject.
 
Having lived much of my life in an area with many fundamentalists Protestants and such, I have found there are some very basic differences in not just their approach to the Christian faith, but in the very way they think. Mind you, I count many of these people as good friends and wonderful people. But they have been conditioned to think very differently.

If I tell any Catholic, even one who has never thought about such things, that there can never be a conflict between faith and reason, they would rarely be surprised at this teaching, it seems quite natural to them. If I make that argument to many of these Protestants, at best they think it a very strange idea. Certainly they have never considered it, and often they will immediately disagree.
There is a very well known Protestant seminary in our area that refuses to teach philosophy. That is dangerous and can only lead to error.
Now, Catholics have spent centuries considering the philosophical aspects of being (among other things). We have an understanding of God, eternity, creation, man, etc as part of our religious thinking that they are utterly lacking. They don’t think in terms of an immutable God, in terms of a God who lives outside of all time, all change. They may not disagree with these concepts, but these concepts (and many others) have little or no bearing on their understanding of the faith.
So they are left with the Bible, and only personal interpretation of it, and a mindset that makes personal interpretation even more error prone than it should be.
Now, in this point in history, they are faced with confronting science and modern culture that can, admittedly, be antagonistic to the faith. They are woefully lacking the intellectual tradition and tools to do so. The Church, on the other hand, very literally invented modern science. It can look at these concepts and judge them where needed, adapt to them when needed, and work with them to seek better answers , more complete answers, etc.
 
Hope1960 said:
And there’s probably answers for all sorts of mysteries they think point to YEC. They just haven’t discovered the answers yet.
Click to expand...
It’s not that they haven’t discovered them, it is that YEC deny or ignore the actual science.
 
whatistrue said:
It’s not that they haven’t discovered them, it is that YEC deny or ignore the actual science.
Click to expand...
That’s true, which goes back to my comment that for them, Scripture trumps science.
 
Last edited:
Yes, that would be included under the deny part.

If you don’t have a personal familiarity with a given subject, look at the actual (or at least purported) credentials of the person who is making the claim. If, for example, someone has a degree, even if a PhD, in Computer Science, then they cannot claim authority in Paleontology or Geology.

To answer an earlier question, Argumentum ad Populem is a logical fallacy that has to do with trying to support an argument on the basis that most people believe it. Popularity does not imply truth.
 
Hope1960 said:
What do you mean? Explain further. Do you mean that I’m using flawed logic? If so, how?
Click to expand...
The statement:
I read that there’s something like 97% of scientists don’t believe in creationism. They can’t ALL be wrong.
Click to expand...
Is reliant upon the popularity of the position to determine if it is correct. You should rely upon if it is actually correct.
 
Hope1960 said:
I’m not that knowledgeable about this topic.
Click to expand...
Popularity does not dictate what is correct.
If you do not have sufficient knowledge of a topic for a conclusion, it is always far better to leave it unconcluded and open while you do your own research.
Otherwise you fall into a logical fallacy and do not have a solid foundation.
 
whatistrue said:
If you don’t have a personal familiarity with a given subject, look at the actual (or at least purported) credentials of the person who is making the claim. If, for example, someone has a degree, even if a PhD, in Computer Science, then they cannot claim authority in Paleontology or Geology.
Click to expand...
This I disagree with. While credentials and experience should not just be ignored, they are also not proof of correctness. Nor should there be any kind of barrier to entry based on specialization. It doesn’t take as much familiarity with the subject as you would think to read and evaluate arguments. Scientists are supposed to be making their results as easy to understand as possible.

Authority can give weight to an otherwise reasonable argument, but assuming that the authority is right because they are authorities is the Argument From Authority Fallacy.
 
Inquiry said:
This I disagree with. While credentials and experience should not just be ignored, they are also not proof of correctness.
Click to expand...
That is absolutely correct, nor did I say otherwise. But if a person is touted as an authority because he/she possesses a PhD (which I have seen on this forum related to a person writing articles for Answers in Genesis), then the PhD should be in the field that the article is covering. Essentially, if the credential is used as support for the argument, it should be relevant to the subject.
Inquiry said:
It doesn’t take as much familiarity with the subject as you would think to read and evaluate arguments.
Click to expand...
Also true. And also not opposed to what I was saying.
Inquiry said:
Authority can give weight to an otherwise reasonable argument, but assuming that the authority is right because they are authorities is the Argument From Authority Fallacy.
Click to expand...
The first part of that is related to what I was saying; my emphasis was on evaluating the validity of claimed authority. Never did I claim that an authority is automatically right. If my phrasing was confusing, I apologize, but that was never part of my meaning.
 
No worries. I am used to arguments like “your arguments are invalid because you aren’t in the right field” so I’ve started to see that everywhere. Thanks for the clarification.
 
This Lutheran Church believes in everything literally, opposing science. Or they agree with science but only from the scientists who support their view, who are in the small minority. Linguistics have a theory (fact?) of how languages came about, this church believes it’s the Tower of Babble. (Sp).
All sorts of stuff like that.
Since I’m no expert on these things, I rely on those who are.
The opinion of many Evangelical Creationists is that Catholics believe in man made superstition.
 
Last edited:
Hope1960 said:
Since I’m no expert on these things, I rely on those who are.
Click to expand...
Just make sure that those who claim expertise actually possess it. And try to get more familiar with the current actual science; you don’t have to be an expert, just a general understanding of what is going on in the various fields at a basic level.
 
I just watched part of a lecture on Answers in Genesis and the lecturer was Bodie (Hodge?). He really sounds like he knows what he’s talking about. Now I’m wavering back to wondering if creationism might be true. I’m so confused.
 
Before you go any further: If young earth creationism is true, how does that affect your life? How does it affect the way you relate to God? What changes?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top