Religion and Science!

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

You said:

Romans 14: Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.

It appears you are getting your quotations from atheist websites where they are unscrupulously used to distort Christian teachings. If you had got them on your own, you would know that this chapter is entirely in reference to dietary traditions of the Jews. Some Christians who were Jews wanted to keep them, others did not. Paul is just saying it is not a matter for Christians to judge other Christians about following these traditions.

On the other hand, also from Paul.

Saint Paul, writing to the Corinthians, illustrates our requirement to judge, and even to judge harshly if need be. “It is widely reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of a kind not found even among pagans—a man living with his father’s wife. And you are inflated with pride. Should you not rather have been sorrowful? The one who did this deed should be expelled from your midst. I for my part, although absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as if present, pronounced judgment on the one who has committed this deed….” (1 Corinthians 5:1-4)

This is a matter of moral substance as opposed to dietary tradition. Paul is not afraid to judge, and judge harshly.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

**Whereas Flew’s early Theology and Falsification is imho a little nugget, not really pro-atheism as such but about what can reasonably be asserted, in the end, by anyone. **

It certainly is pro-atheist. It was used by Flew to justify his own atheism, and I have seen it used by many atheists visiting CA, not to mention the atheists who are publishing their books and using it to fight religion. The principle of Falsification assumes that if god exists, He should exist in the physical world, so that He would be subject to falsification. But since that is not the claim of theists, God cannot be falsified, and therefore there is no reason to believe that he exists.

Obviously Flew abandoned this argument when he wrote There Is a God.

 

[tonyrey]

inocente

You said:

Romans 14: Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.

It appears you are getting your quotations from atheist websites where they are unscrupulously used to distort Christian teachings. If you had got them on your own, you would know that this chapter is entirely in reference to dietary traditions of the Jews. Some Christians who were Jews wanted to keep them, others did not. Paul is just saying it is not a matter for Christians to judge other Christians about following these traditions.

On the other hand, also from Paul.

Saint Paul, writing to the Corinthians, illustrates our requirement to judge, and even to judge harshly if need be. “It is widely reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of a kind not found even among pagans—a man living with his father’s wife. And you are inflated with pride. Should you not rather have been sorrowful? The one who did this deed should be expelled from your midst. I for my part, although absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as if present, pronounced judgment on the one who has committed this deed….” (1 Corinthians 5:1-4)

This is a matter of moral substance as opposed to dietary tradition. Paul is not afraid to judge, and judge harshly.

So did Jesus for that matter. His condemnation of the Pharisees leaves no doubt about the reality of evil - and hell:

13  “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, **you hypocrites**! You shut  the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces...     15  “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You  travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have  succeeded, you make them **twice as much a child of hell as you are**.

16 “Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath.’ 17 You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?..
23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
25 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are** full of greed and self-indulgence**. 26 Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
27 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
29 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30 And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!
33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar." ! Matthew 23 13-35

 

[PRmerger]

1. Do you believe there is no scope whatsoever for differences of opinion among Catholics about issues whichiare not fundamental teachings of the Church?

Could you please answer first the question about how it is you know that Jesus speaks to us individually and directly through our conscience? Is it because the Church told you so?

 

[PRmerger]

1. Do you believe there is no scope whatsoever for differences of opinion among Catholics about issues whichiare not fundamental teachings of the Church?

No, I don’t believe that. I believe there are a multitude of issues upon which good Catholics may disagree.

Namely (but not exclusively):

• Capital punishment
• Communion on the tongue vs hand
• Confession face to face or behind a screen
Does it serve the Church well to have female altar servers?
• Does the book of Revelation deal with the future or 1st century Christianity?
• When did the Patristic era end? Who exactly are the ECFs?
• Whether Mary experienced labor pains
Whether Mary died and was assumed into heaven or simply “fell asleep” and
was assumed
• Whether John the Baptist was also free from original sin.

 

[PRmerger]

1. Do you ever make your own decisions after having discovered there is disagreement among Catholics about an issue which is not a fundamental teaching of the Church?

If I ever come to a decision that disagrees with a teaching of the Church I conform my beliefs to God’s.

To do otherwise–to say, "Well, I know the Church says , but I don’t really believe that God said " is to create a god in my own image.

I daresay that if you’re in a Church that hasn’t caused you to re-conform your own beliefs, then you (a generic “you” here) are in a church of the Almighty Self.

For my own personal example I give the case of divorce and re-marriage. I myself would LOVE to be able to say to my divorced friends who are “marrying” again at the altar, “Go for it! I am SO HAPPY for you to have this second chance at love!”

However, sadly, I cannot do this, despite the fact that I have lost friends over this. I cannot decide to edit God’s message because I find it unpalatable. Or even if I find it unreasonable.

I can’t create a god in my own image.

I must conform myself to God’s.

 

[PRmerger]

1. If you were in a position to do so would you excommunicate any Catholic who does not accept every statement in the Catechism which is not a fundamental teaching of the Church?

I’ll answer it this way: I’m a parent and if any of my children commited a very grave offense, it would break my heart but I would offer "the principal and severest censure, as a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty child of all participation in the common blessings of the family. Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that we can inflict, it naturally supposes a very grave offence. It is also a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish the culprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness. It necessarily, therefore, contemplates the future, either to prevent the recurrence of certain culpable acts that have grievous external consequences, or, more especially, to induce the delinquent to satisfy the obligations incurred by his offence. Its object and its effect are loss of communion, i.e. of the spiritual benefits shared by all the members of PRmerger family, hence, it can affect only those who by birth have been admitted to that society. Undoubtedly there can and do exist other penal measures which entail the loss of certain fixed rights; among them are other censures, e.g. suspension from driving privileges, Excommunication, however, is clearly distinguished from these penalties in that it is the privation of all rights resulting from the social status of the child as such. The excommunicated person, it is true, does not cease to be a E****, since his birth can never be effaced; he can, however, be considered as an exile from the family and as non-existent, for a time at least, in the sight of parental uthority. But such exile can have an end (and the parents desire it), as soon as the offender has given suitable satisfaction. Meanwhile, his status before the family is that of a stranger. He may not participate in holidays and dinners and the coveted and competitive E**** Game Night.
–adapted from New Advent)

 

[tonyrey]

Could you please answer first the question about how it is you know that Jesus speaks to us individually and directly through our conscience? Is it because the Church told you so?

I believe Jesus speaks to us individually and directly through our conscience because the Church has told everyone:

CCC 1776 “Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.”

Do you accept that teaching?

 

[PRmerger]

I believe Jesus speaks to us individually and directly through our conscience because the Church has told everyone:

So why do you accept this from the Church but decide that the Church may be wrong in other things?

What is the canon you use for discerning when she is wrong and when she hits the target?

 

[tonyrey]

1. Do you believe there is no scope whatsoever for differences of opinion among Catholics about issues whichiare not fundamental teachings of the Church?

Not every statement in the Catechism is a fundamental teaching of the Church yet you agreed:

The analogy with children implies that adults must accept every statement in the Catechism.

 

[tonyrey]

So why do you accept this from the Church but decide that the Church may be wrong in other things?

What is the canon you use for discerning when she is wrong and when she hits the target?

The Church is never wrong but individual members of the Church are sometimes mistaken. I disagree with them when the statement is not a fundamental teaching of the Church and it clashes with my knowledge, with my experience and the experience of others, with science and - above all - with my conscience.

What canon do you use?

 

[PRmerger]

Not every statement in the Catechism is a fundamental teaching of the Church yet you agreed:

Maybe we’re getting tripped up on semantics.

What are the “fundamental teachings” of the Church?

What non-fundamental teachings of the Church do you disagree with?

And has there ever been a teaching of the Church that you disagreed with, but that you conformed to because it’s the Church saying so?

 

[tonyrey]

If I ever come to a decision that disagrees with a teaching of the Church I conform my beliefs to God’s.

Even if it is not a fundamental teaching and it goes against your conscience?

To do otherwise–to say, "Well, I know the Church says , but I don’t really believe that God said " is to create a god in my own image.

I daresay that if you’re in a Church that hasn’t caused you to re-conform your own beliefs, then you (a generic “you” here) are in a church of the Almighty Self.

For my own personal example I give the case of divorce and re-marriage. I myself would LOVE to be able to say to my divorced friends who are “marrying” again at the altar, “Go for it! I am SO HAPPY for you to have this second chance at love!”

However, sadly, I cannot do this, despite the fact that I have lost friends over this. I cannot decide to edit God’s message because I find it unpalatable. Or even if I find it unreasonable.

I can’t create a god in my own image.

I must conform myself to God’s.

Your concept of God’s Will is necessarily your own - to a certain extent - because you have agreed there are a multitude of issues upon which good Catholics may disagree… and you also have to follow the dictates of your conscience.

 

[grannymh]

Random thoughts from a non-Catholic on the last few pages of posts.

1. 
   *]The CCC meets modern standards by stating its objectives up front: CCC 12 *This work is intended primarily for those responsible for catechesis: first of all the bishops, as teachers of the faith and pastors of the Church. It is offered to them as an instrument in fulfilling their responsibility of teaching the People of God. Through the bishops, it is addressed to redactors of catechisms, to priests, and to catechists. It will also be useful reading for all other Christian faithful. *
   
   *]Imho those objectives do not give license to use the work as ammunition on what makes a true Scotsman.
   
   *]Romans 14: Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.
   
   *]Ten nights to Midnight Mass.
   
   *]The kids don’t like it when the parents quarrel.

1. 
   That is how the Catechism can be used. All it says about the content is the reference to “this work”.
   
   Are you using a hard copy or an online version? Do you see the Apostolic Letter Laetamur Magnopere and Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum in the very front of the book? This is where the CCC is upfront about the contents and/or ammunition.
   
   From post 723 above
   The quote regarding “norm” is found on page 5 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. For the context of the quote, may I suggest reading the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum which begins on page 1. In addition, one should also read the Apostolic Letter Laetamur Magnopere which begins on page xiii.
   
   For information regarding specific points, one should check the footnotes. To understand the depth of research which went into this universal Catechism, please check the “Index of Citations” which follows paragraph 2865 in the hard copy of the Catechism.
   
   from post 725 above
   Paragraphs 18 - 22 are very useful when it comes to “every sentence” and the reason for “small print”. Obviously, one should start with paragraph 1 to get a grasp on the structure of the Catechism.
   
   P.S. I will get back to your earlier post later.

 

[PRmerger]

Even if it is not a fundamental teaching and it goes against your conscience?

Your concept of God’s Will is necessarily your own - to a certain extent - because you have agreed there are a multitude of issues upon which good Catholics may disagree… and you also have to follow the dictates of your conscience.

So is there any teaching to which you’ve said, "I believe this but the Church says so I’m going to change my position to "?

 

[tonyrey]

So is there any teaching to which you’ve said, "I believe this but the Church says so I’m going to change my position to "?

There are many because as a child I was sent to a state school and I drifted away from the Church. At university I returned to the fold and revised my views accordingly…

 

[tonyrey]

If I ever come to a decision that disagrees with a teaching of the Church I conform my beliefs to God’s.

How do you determine God’s Will when you disagree with a teaching of the Church - and acknowledge that there is room for disagreement on certain issues?

 

[PRmerger]

There are many because as a child I was sent to a state school and I drifted away from the Church. At university I returned to the fold and revised my views accordingly…

That’s what I mean. Logic dictates that a God who is Creator is going to proclaim somethings which are contrary to our own agenda/beliefs/will. If we understand the nature of creature/Creator, then it is we who must conform our beliefs. Not declare that “God didn’t really say…”

 

[PRmerger]

How do you determine God’s Will when you disagree with a teaching of the Church - and acknowledge that there is room for disagreement on certain issues?

When the Church has permitted multiple viewpoints, then I use faith and reason to discern what’s correct.

When the Church has taught something, I conform my viewpoint to God’s.

 

[tonyrey]

What are the “fundamental teachings” of the Church?

Those which satisfy the criteria of infallibility.

What non-fundamental teachings of the Church do you disagree with?

Here is one example:

353 God willed the diversity of his creatures and their own particular goodness, their interdependence and their order.** He destined all material creatures for the good of the human race.** Man, and through him all creation, is destined for the glory of God.

That statement is anthropocentric. There may well be persons on other planets for whom God created the universe. Even on this planet there have been many creatures which became extinct before human beings appeared and which had their own intrinsic value. If we destroy the human race other creatures will not become valueless!