a little reflection reveals that the ten commandments came into being because they were necessitated as things were not okay or good by God who created and can only accept everything as good or very good as is only possible through Jesus Christ - twinc
havent finished the whole post… got stuck on this…
This is why I think Christians should be more respectful of one another than is often exhibited here - and more respectful of differences of opinion when it comes to certain doctrines and practices. The Bible isn't that clear-cut. Sorry, but any honest reader of scripture knows that. Catholics accept the church's interpretation. Protestants permit different believers to have different views. What about infant baptism, for example? I believe in it. But Jesus was Baptized at 30, probably by immersion. I would permit Christians to believe either way, as there is scripture that may appear to support both.
God bless Catholics, Protestants and all his children.The Bible wasn’t written FOR the church (believers) it was written BY the Church (the Catholic Church to be exact).
‘I don’t like this Bible passage: I’ll ditch it!’=intellectual arrogance, pure and simple. It’s easy to misinterpret verses or take them out of context. This is especially so when one sets out with a predetermined mindset, such as ‘I’m going to hunt down all the stories I don’t like and SCRAP THEM!’ Consider reading back over them with expert commentary. Pray for humility to help you find meaning in difficult passages. It does help.
‘If someone justifies a nefarious belief with a Bible verse, that Bible verse must be rejected.’ Rubbish. It’s a case of baby and bathwater. If someone took Our Lord’s command to love each other equally as brothers and sisters as a justification for philandering and incest, would that mean we should chuck out that command? NO!
I would remind you that science and history are built on scholarly consensus, which is constantly being changed or challenged by new findings. Yesterday’s Higher Criticism is today’s scrap paper. One simply can’t conclude dogmatically, based on shifting, subjective human opinion, that part of the Bible is ‘proven wrong’.
Your comment is why I refer to the
Then there are those who have trouble, intellectually or maybe psychologically, too, with accepting without their independent review and examination, what the Church declares essential truth. They feel the right and even the responsibility to examine the Church's teachings to find that they are also in sync with legitimate history, modern science and - most illusive of all - common sense or reasonable logic.
To me, the story of Noah's Ark as provided in Genesis contradicts legitimate history, fights with modern science, and certainly doesn't make sense for a variety of reasons. Would God actually regret his Creation which had been declared "good' in Genesis 1? Would he deliberately drown large populations, certainly including babies and other innocents, some unborn? Could Noah and his sons build an ark big enough to hold two of every species and provisions for 150 days when the waters covered the earth? Was there any reasonable way that they could have gathered together two of every species, everything from elephants (and dinosaurs?) to mosquitos, boa costrictors and thousands of varieties of ants, beetles, and butterflies, etc.
Yes, there must have been a mammoth flood in the Middle East centuries before Christ. But it seems logical that the basic truth of that story was embellished over the years into a myth-like tale with only limited historic truth. The spiritual truth, of course, is that punishment results from sin. It's a parable, at best, and why not let it stand at that and be grateful?
Keep smiling.I was referring to the Catechism in general as a very useful educational tool regarding Catholicism. It can be difficult with its cross-references in the margins and system of footnotes, but considering everything, it is a good read.
Glad you asked. You will notice that Catholics and other Christians on CAF use a variety of sources for Catholic teachings. Sometimes, there is reference to a consensus of the Early Church Fathers. Sometimes, there are references to various Church documents as if posters are trying to find a democratic type consensus.
The modernist claim to symbolic truth obscures the reality of God’s work. If science cannot put God in a laboratory to study Him then why compare God to science here? By definition, God can perform miracles. He can raise people from the dead, give sight to the blind and cleanse lepers. Does He need human instruments or technology to do this? No.
Here is the e-mail I received from www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
Our faith should set us free, as Christ promised. I feel most free and most excited by my faith when it encourages me to explore and inquire and wonder and question and even doubt here and there, now and then. Is that some sort of sin? I can't believe it is.
God bless dedicated people who seek spiritual truth, including those who struggle with doubt. God must rejoice that we care enough to spend time meditating on such matters without automatically conforming to beliefs carved out by others.In many ways, I am part of your minority. My idea of a reasonable religion is basic Catholicism. Just for fun, put Noah in the search box for this link: www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
Who are these others you are referring to? The Catholic Church has a Magisterium which is the supreme teaching authority for Catholics. They not only proclaim but explain. However, there are certains truths that are spiritual and there are acts of God that happened in time and history. These simply cannot be ignored.
It appears that we have a different view on this issue. I have spent many years reading the Bible, the Church Fathers, and all sorts of contemporary books and opinions. I watch EWTN with some regularly, subscribe to Our Sunday Visitor, etc etc etc. I delight in faith, but I cannot go along with the idea that the faithful cannot reexamine doctrines and practices that date back centuries. Just because they go back to ancient times and have the imprimatur of the Church doesn't - in my mind - mean that I can't question them. I guess this means I don't have a comfortable niche in the Catholic Church. I come from a mixed heritage and perhaps this is where it all started. We were encouraged while growing up to think for ourselves, and I guess I'm guilty of that.
Sorry. But God bless all those who are ready to submit to all the truths as proclaimed by the magisterium. I have a pressing need to weigh such things. I know this can be dismissed as arrogance or whatever, but so be it - Amen. I don't claim to know more than others, but I have a curiosity that causes me to explore, examine, and think. Is that so bad? My faith in Christ is constant, but I guess I don't believe that we are saved by doctrinal correctness or religious affiliation, but through God's amazing grace.