Religion and Science!

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

The article you provided by Walter Shurden appears to be no more than an opinion piece that has no binding authority behind it. He emphasizes the right of Baptists to privately interpret Scripture and to not be obliged to any higher authority in the interpretation of Scripture. If so, there must be a lot of disagreement among Baptists as to what they believe.

That seems to me to be the very fragmenting policy that has left all Protestants (not just Baptists) protesting not only against Catholics, but also against each other.

How then would Shurden deal with Acts 15, when the apostles met at the Council of Jerusalem to settle the matter of circumcision for the Gentiles? Did they leave the matter up for every Christian’s interpretation of Scripture, or did they come down with a binding decision that all Christians were to honor … that circumcision was no longer required under the law of Christ?

 

[inocente]

The article you provided by Walter Shurden appears to be no more than an opinion piece that has no binding authority behind it. He emphasizes the right of Baptists to privately interpret Scripture and to not be obliged to any higher authority in the interpretation of Scripture. If so, there must be a lot of disagreement among Baptists as to what they believe.

The authority is Christ.

That seems to me to be the very fragmenting policy that has left all Protestants (not just Baptists) protesting not only against Catholics, but also against each other.

It’s your word, and your grouping, doesn’t mean much to me. Either you accept freedom of religion or you don’t, there’s no halfway house.

How then would Shurden deal with Acts 15, when the apostles met at the Council of Jerusalem to settle the matter of circumcision for the Gentiles? Did they leave the matter up for every Christian’s interpretation of Scripture, or did they come down with a binding decision that all Christians were to honor … that circumcision was no longer required under the law of Christ?

In general you look at how something either fits or doesn’t fit with the Spirit and with scripture as a whole, you discuss it, you pray. In this particular case imho there’s absolutely no basis for thinking that being saved has anything to do with physical anatomy.

No decision is binding unless specifically agreed, we believe everyone is competent before God.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

**No decision is binding unless specifically agreed, we believe everyone is competent before God. **

II Peter 3:16 King James Bible
Peter speaking of Paul’s epistles

“As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”

It is clear from scripture that not all are “competent before God.”

 

[grannymh]

I’m interpreting you as saying that most Catholics don’t treat the NT as a rulebook.

It would be helpful to remember that in most instances I am not a “mutually exclusive or” personality. What I was trying to say is that Catholicism consists of a lot more than a “rulebook” so that a person who considers the NT as a rulebook is not typical of the Catholic Church per se.

The problem I’ve found on CAF with looking at the Church per se is that different views emerge, and this lowly Baptist can’t tell which is authentic.

.
It is not my intention to insult any individual whose views are different from mine. This is a general comment-- one cannot easily learn about Catholicism from people in the attack mode.

OK, sometimes I’m not sure any are, sometimes that all are and the Church is rather more relaxed than often painted. For instance, I doubt that any of my hill farmer neighbors have even seen a CCC. Some still have a picture of Paul VI on the wall!

To return to your theme-- the most important truth is that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Light. I try not to tell Him how to shepherd His flock. (I often fail.)

From listening to the Gospel readings during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, I find that Jesus meets people where they are in life. Starting with John the Baptist in the river and the wedding feast in the neighborhood. Jesus continually satisfies curiosity. The coin used for Roman taxes is an example. What I am trying to say is the old saying–different strokes for different folks. Who knows what that means today.

Would Jesus meet you among the olive trees on the hill? Of course He does and He knows you personally. Your curiosity about Catholicism might be a natural follow-up. I don’t know. What I do know is that it would be helpful to understand some basic principles of Catholic doctrines so that you can use your intellect and will to choose your course of action. As I indicated much earlier, I do not necessarily require acceptance or belief. At this point I hope for understanding.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, and “you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’” means many never see Him.

Not even after death?

 

[inocente]

It is clear from scripture that not all are “competent before God.”

We don’t baptize children until they are mature enough to commit, if that’s what you mean.

Otherwise you may be overlooking that in the same letter Peter has already said we’re competent through grace: “His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.” – 2 Peter 1:3

Just before the verse you quoted he writes “So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.”. Methinks wisdom comes when we’re at peace with God.

 

[inocente]

(I often fail.)

With you on that one.

Would Jesus meet you among the olive trees on the hill? Of course He does and He knows you personally. Your curiosity about Catholicism might be a natural follow-up. I don’t know. What I do know is that it would be helpful to understand some basic principles of Catholic doctrines so that you can use your intellect and will to choose your course of action. As I indicated much earlier, I do not necessarily require acceptance or belief. At this point I hope for understanding.

I’m unlikely to join up . Although my career is information technology, I trained as an artist. It took a while to find my feet until I found the freedom of minimalism. Browning’s The Faultless Painter - for me less is more:

To paint a little thing like that you smeared
Carelessly passing with your robes afloat,
Yet do much less, so much less, Someone says,
(I know his name, no matter) - so much less!
Well, less is more, Lucrezia: I am judged.

 

[inocente]

Not even after death?

He says “you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”, so until we say it we won’t see Him.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente
**
We don’t baptize children until they are mature enough to commit, if that’s what you mean.**

Our Sacrament of Confirmation is a second baptism, which is not given until the recipient is old enough to commit … and probably somewhat older than your children receive baptism. RCIA, a program of intense study of the faith, precedes the receiving of Confirmation.

**Otherwise you may be overlooking that in the same letter Peter has already said we’re competent through grace: “His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.” – 2 Peter 1:3 **

Yes, but we were not talking about grace, we were talking about understanding scripture. And it is clear from Peter that many are not competent to understand it and will wrest it to their own destruction.

How is it that you can use one passage of Peter to defeat another passage? Do you think Peter is contradicting himself?

I think I will put out of this thread now since it has lost its connection with the thread title, Religion and Science.

Thanks to all, especially inocente.

 

[tonyrey]

Not even after death?

In that case all those who have never heard of Jesus will be excluded through no faullt of their own…

 

[grannymh]

With you on that one.

I’m unlikely to join up . Although my career is information technology, I trained as an artist. It took a while to find my feet until I found the freedom of minimalism. Browning’s The Faultless Painter - for me less is more:

To paint a little thing like that you smeared
Carelessly passing with your robes afloat,
Yet do much less, so much less, Someone says,
(I know his name, no matter) - so much less!
Well, less is more, Lucrezia: I am judged.

Somewhere you mentioned Christ as the Authority. Do not remember the question, but that is totally unimportant.

When I think of the Catholic doctrine that Christ is True God and True Man, I think of the power and majesty of Jesus Christ. He has the authority over all creation. So to me, it is logical that He can be present to us in the Holy Eucharist.

As for “less is more”, my aunt and uncle practiced that. St. Francis of Assisi practiced it. But the “less” never seemed to influence the practice of their Faith. One of the good things about Catholicism is that it offers seven sacraments to help us become “less” when it comes to worldly pleasures and goods.

 

[inocente]

In that case all those who have never heard of Jesus will be excluded through no faullt of their own…

I’m just reading what’s written. You have to hear him (“For I tell you”) to be able to choose whether to say “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” to see Him again, so He’s not speaking of those who never heard Him.

 

[inocente]

One of the good things about Catholicism is that it offers seven sacraments to help us become “less” when it comes to worldly pleasures and goods.

We only have three.

I think CII is right, the thread has lost its focus, so I’m also going to unsubscribe, see you and tonyrey soon on a thread near you.

 

[grannymh]

We only have three.

I think CII is right, the thread has lost its focus, so I’m also going to unsubscribe, see you and tonyrey soon on a thread near you.

You will have to let me know (via PM) if you want any (name removed by moderator)ut from me.

Right now, I am generally disappointed in some, not all, areas of apologetics and philosophy. So I intend to return to my area of interst which is Adam and Eve and human nature.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m just reading what’s written. You have to hear him (“For I tell you”) to be able to choose whether to say “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” to see Him again, so He’s not speaking of those who never heard Him.

I don’t think that statement necessarily excludes those who say nothing. It could mean 'None of you will see me until you (His followers) say “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” '. It is always risky to base a conclusion on one statement without citing others to support it…

 

[grannymh]

Homo sapiens does indeed descend from 3,000-10,000 breeding couples. Behaviorally modern humans did grown in what we may term moral and spiritual awareness.

Back to the title of this thread.

This (post 429) serves as a general example of the contradiction between Catholic teaching and the polygenetic claim of human beginnings.

Homo sapiens (a term found in scientific literature) refers to archaic populations which eventually turned into modern-type humans who were aware of their surroundings. This is often referred to as polygenism.

The polygenism (polygenesis) claim for the source of present living people directly denies the Catholic doctrines regarding Adam and Eve as the two, real, sole, human parents of all humanity (monogenism). In addition, polygenism leads to the denial of the Catholic doctrines regarding human nature, the spiritual soul, original sin, and the power of God as Creator.

 

[StAnastasia]

The polygenism (polygenesis) claim for the source of present living people directly denies the Catholic doctrines regarding Adam and Eve as the two, real, sole, human parents of all humanity (monogenism).

Correct, because that interpretation of the doctrine is flat out incorrect.

In addition, polygenism leads to the denial of the Catholic doctrines regarding human nature, the spiritual soul, original sin, and the power of God as Creator.

Completely false.

 

[grannymh]

From granny’s post 841
The polygenism (polygenesis) claim for the source of present living people directly denies the Catholic doctrines regarding Adam and Eve as the two, real, sole, human parents of all humanity (monogenism).

Correct, because that interpretation of the doctrine is flat out incorrect.

From granny’s post 841

In addition, polygenism leads to the denial of the Catholic doctrines regarding human nature, the spiritual soul, original sin, and the power of God as Creator.

Completely false.

Your answers remind me of the modernist theology movement to change Catholic doctrines. Some people off-line start by making fun of our true first parents. Then they claim that certain theories from natural science override original sin. And finally, human origin, human nature, the spiritual soul, original sin, and the power of God as Creator are flat out denied.

Pardon me. It looks like either you doubt Catholic doctrines regarding the real Adam and Eve or you do not understand them. How would you like me to help you get a better grasp on Catholicism?

 

[StAnastasia]

Your answers remind me of the modernist theology movement to change Catholic doctrines. Some people off-line start by making fun of our true first parents.

False.

Then they claim that certain theories from natural science override original sin.

False.

And finally, human origin, human nature, the spiritual soul, original sin, and the power of God as Creator are flat out denied.

False, scurrilous, and slanderous. Typical Grannymh approach: make up a claim and falsely ascribe it to me.

Pardon me. It looks like either you doubt Catholic doctrines regarding the real Adam and Eve or you do not understand them.

False.

How would you like me to help you get a better grasp on Catholicism?

A mean-spirited and idiotic comment, directly contravening the forum rule against questioning the sincerity of another member’s commitment to Catholicism.

 

[grannymh]

False.

False.

False, scurrilous, and slanderous. Typical Grannymh approach: make up a claim and falsely ascribe it to me.

False.

A mean-spirited and idiotic comment, directly contravening the forum rule against questioning the sincerity of another member’s commitment to Catholicism.

Emphasis mine.

Instead of posting “False” would you be so kind as to give your reasons why post 841
is False?

By the way, no one is questioning the sincerity of another member’s commitment to Catholicism. It is acceptable to ask another member (Catholic or not) questions about his or her public posting in order to get a better understanding.