K
Khalid
Guest
Exactly the same as predenominational Christianity.
- Status
B
Brandon_Rimmer_1
Guest
Let me try to make my point by altering your quotation slightly (but importantly):
In religion also, there is no certainty, and things are even more vague and fuzzy.
In science there are no authoritative answers. There are accurate meaurements and best guesses, but anything in science might be wrong. There is no certainty.
In religion also, there is no certainty, and things are even more vague and fuzzy.
Indeed! If such a thing actually happens, then there will be certainty.
F
fbl9
Guest
Bradon place yourself on top a very tall building, now step off the edge. Are you going fall, or just keep right on walking?
Certainly you will fall, science calls this gravity. It is not a guess and it is most certainly not wrong.
There is certainity in religion as well.
F
fbl9
Guest
Let’s see if the pdc train has reverse.
One must desire to seek Christ yet must also beleive that Christ may not exist at all.
In this pdc how would one worship with an athiest? I ask this (bolded section) means you hold an athiestic postion as being equally true.
A
asd72
Guest
The Catholic Church teaches that when the bread and wine is consecrated it becomes the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. It teaches that only the Catholic and Orthodox Church are able to consecrate the bread and wine because they have valid Apostolic succession.
If someone receives Holy Communion in the Catholic or Orthodox Church and believes it to be symbolic only, we believe they still receive the real presence of Jesus.
There IS objective truth. Either the bread and wine is actually transformed or it is not. One of these options are true and one is false.
This could be a good thing to explore. Either:
- The Church for the first 1500 years was teaching falsehood regarding Holy Communion.
- It started out teaching Holy Communion was symbolic and fell into the falsehood about the Real Presence between the time of the Apostles and the Protestant Reformation.
- The Catholic and Orthodox Churches have always taught the truth about the Real Presence and the Protestant Churches have been teaching falsehood.
R
robwar
Guest
you sound like Unitarian Universalist which is a denomination but is an extremely liberal barely Christian denomination. While you seem to be exploring things, you really are more of an ala cart Christian, going here or there or any where. The trouble with this is that you will end up no where. Jesus clearly set up an authority structure in his apostles. If your attitude is that any and all can be right or may be wrong will lead you no where just more mixed up and further from the truth. One can be so open minded that their brains fall out.
T
TypesAndShadows
Guest
“Jesus is roughly God” makes no more sense than “natural selection is roughly the driving force of evolution”, and I note you did not say that because you presumably recognise it would not make sense. Natural selection is the main driving force of evolution, although there are also additional driving forces that come into play when you look in more detail. Jesus is God, although there are also additional details (he is human, he is the Son of God) that come into play.
I can give you the mass of an electron, in a variety of units, along with an indication of the range the mass is known to fall between, with certainty. And if you say that the rest mass of an electron is 0.1 kg, I can say with certainty that you are wrong. And it is certainly possible to give an authoritative answer on that. There are recognised authorities on particle mass, recognised for being reliable and reporting peer-reviewed and duplicated results.
To give another example: we recognise that classical mechanics is a useful approximation, and that general relativity gives more accurate answers when large masses or high accelerations are involved. And we recognise that a more accurate model than GR is possible, because our models are not reality, they are just helpful ways of thinking that give useful answers. Nonetheless, we know that whatever model we use, the Sun is much bigger than the Earth, and the centre of mass of the Earth-Sun system lies within the Sun, even though the boundary of where the Sun ends is not clearly defined, even though the exact mass is not known down to the last decimal place, even though we do not completely understand how gravity works. Our uncertainties and vaguenesses do not prevent us from making some definite statements about reality. And every model will agree on these points, because otherwise the model will be rejected as failing to reflect reality.
We can know things.
Similarly, just because we cannot clearly define all aspects of the Trinity and the nature of Christ in a way that makes intuitive sense, doesn’t mean we can’t know things. In fact, we reject proposed models of either that contradict known facts. Just as we contradict models of mechanics that would not match what we observe, so we reject models of the Trinity that make God divisible, or make more than one God. Just as we reject models of gravity that do not match results, so we reject Christologies that say Jesus is not “our Lord and our God”, or that there was when he was not.
Fuzziness on the boundaries doesn’t stop something existing. The truth being more complicated doesn’t mean the simple statement isn’t true, just that it is not the whole truth. And that’s okay.
G
grandfather
Guest
Are you trying to tell us that Anglicans are orthodox, or reasonable? Or are you saying that all orthodox Christians down through the centuries believed women can be priests and bishops and men can marry men?
Another way to see some churches that have abandoned the moral precepts their forebears passed on over the centuries rather than postdenominational is post-Christian.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Brandon have you actually thought about this? Gravity is an example as mentioned lets look at another.
You do realize this statement is incorrect? Science means knowledge, knowledge leads to Truth.
The laws of science are not a guess or a hypothesis. They are Law because they are “absolute”… Ohms Law for another example with E=IXR regardless of how you do the math, it is a law. Why because the mathmatics prove itself.
Science is not restricted to an implied exclusion of pure mathematics.
Remember the statistical probabilty Of Jesus being the living God?
G
grandfather
Guest
The field of study on the natural sciences, their jurisdiction, is the physical universe. They can study anything in time and space, anything that can be observed with the five senses or instruments designed to expand the power of the five senses. Science using math observes and measures the behavior and interaction things that have mass and that move in time, befores and afters, causes and effects to try to learn about material things. Science claims there is no certain knowledge we can have about the universe. We can only have theories about the way things are and the theories might be true and might be proven wrong at any time. The motive for the study of the natural sciences is mankinds natural curiosity. We want to understand the universe, because we are made to wonder and with some power of intellect that birds, cats, fish and amoeba lack. We are made this way.
Science tells us we can not know truth about the universe. Whatever we think we know can be proven false at any time. You said you are searching for truth, spiritual truth. Science can not provide that and makes no claim to be able to provide it, even about the physical universe.
We also wonder about non-physical nature, spiritual nature. Our senses or instruments can tell us nothing about it, if it exists. We have encounters with nonphysical phenomena that seem to come from outside the material world and defy the laws of science, like near death experiences, miracles, public appearances of Mary to many thousands in places like Fatima and so on.
The natural sciences can not help us understand spiritual phenomena which are not predictable using any theories or laws we learn about from observations and taking data. We can do no experiments, collect no data, or confirm by repeatablility, measure or weigh or time any event or occurence of a spiritual nature. The tools and methods of the natural sciences can not be applied. They are useless.
I can maniplate the material world. If I strike a match I can see what happens and do it again and again. I can measure temperature, speed, mass.
If it is possible to learn anything about spiritual things the knowledge has to come from the spiritual dimension if there is one. The only way we can learn about it is if spirit reveals itself to us. Religion claims that has happened. We can accept this knowledge by faith, believing what has been revealed, or reject it. We can also ask questions of ourselves about it to see if it is reasonable, meaning we can apply reason to it.
We can ask if the spiritual dimension has revealed itself to us why would it do that. It must be that it wants us to know something about beyond here. Why? Is that knowledge the same as the knowledge we discover about the physical, uncertain and potentially true, or is it true?
If it is true then we can know things for certain about the spiritual world we can not see and we can not know things for certain about the world we can see.
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Hoping in the Lord vs. hoping in the Church is a false dichotomy through and through. The Lord said to his disciples, “Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16).
For over three-quarters of Christian history, Christians understood that belonging to the Church is important, even if we disagreed over which church was the true Church of Christ (as we have probably since the fifth century, and certainly since the East-West Schism).
Christianity has always been a Creedal faith. Those who learned about faith in Christ from the Apostles themselves, and from their disciples, consistently operated in a way that was very serious about comprehending and defending orthodoxy, and eliminating the danger of heresy.
You can’t just throw, “Disbelieving in the Virgin Birth doesn’t disqualify you from being a Christian” out there as though this assertion has equal weight merely because the one saying it - you - intends to love and follow the Lord in all sincerity. Sincerity alone doesn’t necessarily reflect truth. The testimony of every Christian community until relatively modern times unanimously considers the Virgin Birth to be of critical importance. This is the faith that has been handed onto us, to which the Bible instructs us to adhere.
On what grounds do you justify saying such a belief is negotiable?
As will we all.
Yes, we understand and acknowledge that very few denominations claim to be the one true Church of Christ.
And it is also true that there is indeed latitude in Catholicism for varying views.
That’s why we have different rites, for instance, which are not just different ways of celebrating Mass, but reflect truly differing theological and spiritual patrimonies.The problem, however, is that denominations also differ in matters that are critical, that do happen to be teachings on which orthodoxy itself is at stake.
On these matters I stand with the Catholic Church, with the Teaching handed on to each successive generation, from the Apostles down to today’s bishops.
We’re not saying you “need to define God to the nth degree” to know Him. That would make knowing Him impossible.
But a kind of denominational relativism isn’t the answer, either. That’s the opposite extreme, and it too is an erroneous approach. Leeway, speculation, and diversity is good and commendable on some matters; not so on others. It is indeed problematic that on some theological matters in the latter category, denominations distinctly and vehemently differ.
While I admire your spirit of generosity and openness, Publisher, I have to admit that on an intellectual level, I find even anti-Catholic Protestants more rational. Diversity on, say, whether we should believe in the Sacrifice of the Mass or not makes no sense. Far more logical is the opinion of those who denounce it completely as idolatry, even though I passionately disagree with their conclusion itself.
I
Izdaari
Guest
Well, I do think I am orthodox and reasonable, and I’m also Episcopalian and Lutheran. (I attend a church that’s affiliated with both TEC and ELCA, and will soon be formally a member. I also intend to be confirmed in both denominations, and the Episcopal priest who’s teaching my confirmation class says he sees no problem with it.) Trinitarian Pentecostals, which is what I was before (specifically AoG), also ordain women.
By “mere Christianity”, Lewis and I were speaking of such things as the Nicene Creed rather than on such matters as who can be priests and who can be married. As you may know, those other matters are the subject of some disagreement within Anglicanism, and between different synods of Lutheranism. I personally am content with TEC and ELCA positions, and I think I am Christian and not “post-Christian”.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Rim,
Arsenic if taken regularly will kill you. Since you do not believe in certainty then perhaps you may want to test this for certainty.
Alcohol if ingested may cause illness. Methanol ingestion will cause blindness and death. You may not believe that this is certain and perhaps if you want to test the Methanol you can test this for certainty.
Hydrofluric acid can burn you severly. You do not believe this with certainty and you can test this.
I do not believe you are accurate about your assessment of science.
T
TarkanAttila
Guest
I will tell you this: the answer does not lie in accepting anything and everything. And while I’m sure you intend to find the truth, this is not the way to go about it.
You want to find the truth? Research. Go to the Church Fathers. Go to Church History. Look at what the early Christians and their teachers taught. As St. Vincent of Lerins said, “Hold fast that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.”
Go and research, and I guarantee you you will not find sola scriptura, sola fide, soli deo gloria, or any other Protestant-only heresies. Granted, you will find evangelism and a fiery spirit which many Catholics are sadly lacking in to-day, which many Protestants have. You will also find Scripture is very important - “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ” so said St. Jerome. But Scripture did not, does not, and never will stand alone as the measure of our faith.
You want to find truth? 1 Timothy 3:15. Paul calls the Church - that is, Christ’s Church - the pillar and ground of truth. The Church is not the Bible.
T
TarkanAttila
Guest
Good answer. (Maybe I had you wrongly pegged. Hm.)
But your approach… makes me worry that it, too, could just become another denomination. Like non-denominational Christianity sometimes is. (Or, worse, like the Unitarians, who can’t really be called Christians at all.)
Take my advice: do some research, and find the denomination that most correctly follows the Traditions of pre-reformation Christianity, all the way from the Apostolic Age, through the Middle Ages, to today. And whatever denomination it is that resembles early Christianity (although it might be somewhat evolved - after all, mustard trees look little like the seeds they’re grown from!), join it and spread the good news.
Then, whatever that denomination may be, follow it and preach the good news.
I think I did have you wrongly pegged, because I’ve always thought of reuniting everyone* in the Catholic Church* (by name). But I guess before the rise of Protestantism, there really only was one “Christian Church”, and it was given that it was catholic. So I kinda get what you are saying… but the way to go about reuniting all Christian in this post-denominational church is by finding and following the Truth, and sharing the Truth.
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
Brandon, you are right about in science there are no authoritative answers. Ptolemy was authoritative until Copernicus and Galileo. Newton was authoritative for a long time, until Einstein replaced Newton. Now Einstein is authoritative , but even so, scientists still must be ready to change their minds about Einstein. Scientists must not be dogmatic, but must be prepared to adjust their pardigms in light of new observations.
However, I don’t think this compares to the arena of theology. Revelation from God plays a large role. Revelation does not depend on empirical evidence, but faith. True, there is room for some vagueness and fuzziness–for example the canon of the bible was somewhat fuzzy until Trent. Now it is dogma.
Well, empirical evidence may play a role in religion by the observation of miracles. Healing the lame, the blind, turning water into wine, parting the waters, these kinds of things. For those who witnessed the miracles, it is not faith, but knowledge of what they saw. However, for everyone else, they have to believe what is told to them. Faith. Which becomes dogma.
G
grandfather
Guest
How many denominations do you think a person can belong to at the same time? Probably depends on which ones I suppose.
Were you anything before you were AoG, or was that your first affiliation?
Yes I am aware that Anglicans do not agree with one another as well as Lutherans not agreeing with one another. So if you are both at the same time you must find a way to harmonize the two religions when both can’t agree amongst themselves about this and that.
Sounds perfectly reasonable.
If this latest personal venture in religion does not pan out for you, as the AoG did not, do you have any idea on what you might try next?
Do you think religion is kind of like shopping for shoes? When the shoe fits wear it.
I
Izdaari
Guest
I have previously attended Baptist and Open Bible churches, but did not formally join any prior to AoG.
TEC and ELCA are in full communion, and are not in conflict with each other in any significant way, so I’m not seeing that any difficult balancing act is required.
So far as denominations, I think the only really important thing is being part of the universal church, the Body of Christ, and I would not attend any church that I didn’t see as being part of it. If someone asks me my religion, I say “Christian” or “Christ-follower” (same meaning, less baggage and better conversation starter); and that has not changed and will not. I’ll tell them my church or denomination only if they really want to know, because that’s less important. I would hope Catholics would do the same. It’s more important that we’re all Christians than that some of us are Protestant, some Catholic and some Orthodox.
B
Brandon_Rimmer_1
Guest
That’s why I like to say that, in science, there are no authorities. Only experts.
I do not have faith in that council. I also do not believe that the Bible is a perfect document. My faith is somewhat different than yours.
If faith were a good way to ensure certainty, why is faith so different among different people?
B
Brandon_Rimmer_1
Guest
I am concerned about the same thing, more-so after interacting with people here. I need time to revise and hopefully to improve my ideas. I have become somewhat interested in the work of Pierre Gassendi, and his attempts to unite atomism with Catholic theology.
I will take your advice seriously, but as far as I understand the Catholic Church, I could not come to believe it. There are fundamental disagreements between myself and the Catholic faith, in both belief and methodology.
But, in the spirit of my own uncertainty, who knows? Nothing can be completely disregarded or removed from the table.
So, to you and to others following the thread, I’ll be back soon, with new and better ideas.
- Status