Religion and Science!

[inocente]

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.

Oh! Sounds like you never even opened your Bible at Romans 14 before. There are no chapters written by Paul which you can write off as mere historical curiosities as if they don’t apply to us here and now. If you’re not aware of that then you might want to spend a bit more time reading before trying to lay down the law to others. Maybe then you’ll understand than Christ isn’t a competition. I know some Catholics regard scripture as optional, and I chose Romans 14 because it is exactly about division in the church, and note the lower case, I mean the whole of Christ’s church.

Do you Catholics have preachers? They’re a mixed blessing, but can be very helpful for opening our eyes. In the absence of a preacher (I still remember the first sermon I heard on Rom 14, it was terrific), here’s part of Matthew Henry’s commentary, have a look and learn. You say you were an atheist for 25 years but not how long you’ve been a Christian, there’s always more to learn.

*…] We are all apt to make our own views the standard of truth, to deem things certain which to others appear doubtful. Thus Christians often despise or condemn each other, about doubtful matters of no moment. A thankful regard to God, the Author and Giver of all our mercies, sanctifies and sweetens them. – on Rom:1-6

…] Those are most pleasing to God that are best pleased with him; and they abound most in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. They are approved by wise and good men; and the opinion of others is not to be regarded. – on Rom:1-14-18

Many wish for peace, and talk loudly for it, who do not follow the things that make for peace. Meekness, humility, self-denial, and love, make for peace. We cannot edify one another, while quarrelling and contending. Many, for meat and drink, destroy the work of God in themselves; nothing more destroys the soul than pampering and pleasing the flesh, and fulfilling the lusts of it; so others are hurt, by wilful offence given. Lawful things may be done unlawfully, by giving offence to brethren. This takes in all indifferent things, whereby a brother is drawn into sin or trouble; or has his graces, his comforts, or his resolutions weakened. Hast thou faith? It is meant of knowledge and clearness as to our Christian liberty. Enjoy the comfort of it, but do not trouble others by a wrong use of it. Nor may we act against a doubting conscience. How excellent are the blessings of Christ’s kingdom, which consists not in outward rites and ceremonies, but in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost! How preferable is the service of God to all other services! and in serving him we are not called to live and die to ourselves, but unto Christ, whose we are, and whom we ought to serve. – on Rom:19-23*

So then, consider whether Paul is speaking directly to all of us here:

*You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. It is written:

“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,
‘every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will acknowledge God.’”

So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God. - Romans 14:10-12*

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

And Paul is an apostle, and you are not.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

Oh! Sounds like you never even opened your Bible at Romans 14 before. There are no chapters written by Paul which you can write off as mere historical curiosities as if they don’t apply to us here and now. If you’re not aware of that then you might want to spend a bit more time reading before trying to lay down the law to others. Maybe then you’ll understand than Christ isn’t a competition. I know some Catholics regard scripture as optional, and I chose Romans 14 because it is exactly about division in the church, and note the lower case, I mean the whole of Christ’s church.

Evasive, to say the least. You have not answered the criticism that you use a quote out of context as if it applied to all judgment. When I answered with Paul in Corinthians, you ignore his own exercise of judgment against the incestuous man.

It seems your knowledge of Scripture is rather limited for a Protestant. Whatever quotes you don’t like, you just ignore, then charge others with ignorance instead of argument. Enough of that.

 

[inocente]

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

From The Message paraphrase - Do you have any idea how silly you look, writing a life story that’s wrong from start to finish, nitpicking over commas and semicolons? -

I often quote Matt 23 at people who appear to have got it in their head that Christ is about books and words rather than the Spirit, but those with a rule-based view just never seem to get that Christ is talking about them.

 

[inocente]

Evasive, to say the least. You have not answered the criticism that you use a quote out of context as if it applied to all judgment. When I answered with Paul in Corinthians, you ignore his own exercise of judgment against the incestuous man.

Twenty-five minutes after I posted, instead of taking a little time to understand, you come back with your pat answer. Here it is again, this time instead of trying to make superficial debating points why not try to comprehend, for once in your life, a view other than your own, as per the passage.

I’m not going to respond in the next 15 or so hours, so take your time.

Oh! Sounds like you never even opened your Bible at Romans 14 before. There are no chapters written by Paul which you can write off as mere historical curiosities as if they don’t apply to us here and now. If you’re not aware of that then you might want to spend a bit more time reading before trying to lay down the law to others. Maybe then you’ll understand than Christ isn’t a competition. I know some Catholics regard scripture as optional, and I chose Romans 14 because it is exactly about division in the church, and note the lower case, I mean the whole of Christ’s church.

Do you Catholics have preachers? They’re a mixed blessing, but can be very helpful for opening our eyes. In the absence of a preacher (I still remember the first sermon I heard on Rom 14, it was terrific), here’s part of Matthew Henry’s commentary, have a look and learn. You say you were an atheist for 25 years but not how long you’ve been a Christian, there’s always more to learn.

…] We are all apt to make our own views the standard of truth, to deem things certain which to others appear doubtful. Thus Christians often despise or condemn each other, about doubtful matters of no moment. A thankful regard to God, the Author and Giver of all our mercies, sanctifies and sweetens them. – on Rom:1-6

…] Those are most pleasing to God that are best pleased with him; and they abound most in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. They are approved by wise and good men; and the opinion of others is not to be regarded. – on Rom:1-14-18

Many wish for peace, and talk loudly for it, who do not follow the things that make for peace. Meekness, humility, self-denial, and love, make for peace. We cannot edify one another, while quarrelling and contending. Many, for meat and drink, destroy the work of God in themselves; nothing more destroys the soul than pampering and pleasing the flesh, and fulfilling the lusts of it; so others are hurt, by wilful offence given. Lawful things may be done unlawfully, by giving offence to brethren. This takes in all indifferent things, whereby a brother is drawn into sin or trouble; or has his graces, his comforts, or his resolutions weakened. Hast thou faith? It is meant of knowledge and clearness as to our Christian liberty. Enjoy the comfort of it, but do not trouble others by a wrong use of it. Nor may we act against a doubting conscience. How excellent are the blessings of Christ’s kingdom, which consists not in outward rites and ceremonies, but in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost! How preferable is the service of God to all other services! and in serving him we are not called to live and die to ourselves, but unto Christ, whose we are, and whom we ought to serve. – on Rom:19-23

So then, consider whether Paul is speaking directly to all of us here:

*You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. It is written:

“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,
‘every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will acknowledge God.’”

So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God. - Romans 14:10-12*

 

[inocente]

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.

Online. I’m trying to point out gently that according to the CCC itself, it’s main audience is the Bishops and through them “redactors of catechisms, to priests, and to catechists”. For anyone outside that group it is “useful reading”, not “ammunition to shoot at other laity”.

I still find it a bit stunning when lay Catholics haul each other over the coals on the minutiae they dictate must and must not be believed, as if.

Can you or anyone else show me what I would have to profess in order to be a Catholic? The Nicene Creed is a given, that’s fine, but I get the feeling there must be something else, some secret long complicated document, otherwise what possible right have lay Catholics got that they can so confidently lay down the law under the guise of “correcting”, and often not even that?

Or is is just fundamentalists who do it, and the vast majority don’t, so I’m getting entirely the wrong idea?

P.S. I will get back to your earlier post later.

I may have to get back to your other post tomorrow. I was taking my German Shepherd dog walkies and another dog attacked him, so now he has a torn ear and sundry gashes, and I need a rest after dragging them around the farm trying to part them. At least I didn’t get bitten.

 

[grannymh]

Online. I’m trying to point out gently that according to the CCC itself, it’s main audience is the Bishops and through them “redactors of catechisms, to priests, and to catechists”. For anyone outside that group it is “useful reading”, not “ammunition to shoot at other laity”.

Let’s look at this from the position of the Bishop. He knows he is part of the reading audience so he better turn off the TV and start reading. As a heads up, he looks up a review or two describing the book. My question is – How would the reviewers describe the content of the book? Answering “good” or “bad” is not what I mean.

 

[StAnastasia]

I am glad you have asked because with this question towards Knowledge, begins GOD’s fulfillment on the promise towards His path of Humanity’s Eternal Life. I also have belief that the Message of the Good News from Our Lord Jesus Christ are One and the Same as the ancient teachings of GOD’s Transendental Science of Humanity.

I did not know about the Transendental Science of Humanity.

 

[grannymh]

I may have to get back to your other post tomorrow. I was taking my German Shepherd dog walkies and another dog attacked him, so now he has a torn ear and sundry gashes, and I need a rest after dragging them around the farm trying to part them. At least I didn’t get bitten.

I am sorry about your poor German Shepherd and am grateful you did not get bitten.
Hopefully, you will find me in the forest of posts which take over this thread when we take a break.

 

[buffalo]

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.

Humble and obedient…:clapping:

 

[grannymh]

Online. I’m trying to point out gently that according to the CCC itself, it’s main audience is the Bishops and through them “redactors of catechisms, to priests, and to catechists”. For anyone outside that group it is “useful reading”, not “ammunition to shoot at other laity”.

While I agree that the reference to the reading audience is true, it is not the only thing which is true about the Catechism.

Let’s pause for a moment to look at this from a bishop’s position. He knows he is part of the main reading audience which means he needs to turn off the TV and open the CCC. As a heads up, he finds some book reviews on the net. If you are the reviewer, how would you describe the book? Answering “good” or “bad” is not what I have in mind.

 

[tonyrey]

:clapping:

But i just want to offer this seed to be planted: asking “is this infallibly taught?” as a measure of whether Catholics are bound to believe a particular statement is the absolute wrong question for any thinking person to be asking. It’s the “Minimum Daily Adult Requirement” question.

Again, it’s analogous to a lover asking his beloved, “What’s the minimum amount of contact I have to have with you in order to still be considered your lover?”

I would say the very first question to ask from a philosophical point of view ( which is the context of our discussion) is “Is this the teaching of Jesus?” Obviously the Church interprets His teaching but sometimes it is difficult to see the wood for the trees, i.e. the rules tend to mask the intention for which the rules are made. At the same time contact with Him implies prayer - which helps us to be loving rather than legalistic!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

Oh! Sounds like you never even opened your Bible at Romans 14 before. There are no chapters written by Paul which you can write off as mere historical curiosities as if they don’t apply to us here and now.

Paul himself says the choice is up to each Christian, to follow dietary traditions or not. That is still in effect. We are not to judge those who do or do not eat fish on Friday, for example.

But in Corinthians there is no wiggle room for the son who commits incest with his mother. The difference is between what is tradition and what is basic law. We are obliged not to judge those who follow different traditions. But we are obliged to judged those who commit incest.

Have you or have you not read Corinthians?

 

[PRmerger]

I would say the very first question to ask from a philosophical point of view ( which is the context of our discussion) is **“Is this the teaching of Jesus?” **Obviously the Church interprets His teaching but sometimes it is difficult to see the wood for the trees, i.e. the rules tend to mask the intention for which the rules are made. At the same time contact with Him implies prayer - which helps us to be loving rather than legalistic!

The only way any Christian knows any teaching of Jesus is because the Church told them that He said it.

So when I hear someone say, “Jesus wouldn’t * *because Jesus loves me” I find great irony in that paradigm. It appears that this person is convinced that “Jesus loves me” because, well, the Church told him that Jesus loves him, but, oddly, is not convinced about when it’s the same Church that told him .

 

[PRmerger]

While I agree that the reference to the reading audience is true, it is not the only thing which is true about the Catechism.

Let’s pause for a moment to look at this from a bishop’s position. He knows he is part of the main reading audience which means he needs to turn off the TV and open the CCC. As a heads up, he finds some book reviews on the net. If you are the reviewer, how would you describe the book? Answering “good” or “bad” is not what I have in mind.

Maybe he might say, “I’m waiting for the movie version to come out. They’re trying to cast Leonardo DiCaprio as the lead”

 

[grannymh]

Can you or anyone else show me what I would have to profess in order to be a Catholic? The Nicene Creed is a given, that’s fine, but I get the feeling there must be something else, some secret long complicated document, otherwise what possible right have lay Catholics got that they can so confidently lay down the law under the guise of “correcting”, and often not even that?

It appears to me and this is my own personal, humble opinion that some, not all, CAF Catholics and those who like to wear the catholic label, do not fully realize that the first part of the Catechism IS the PROFESSION OF FAITH based on the NICENE CREED.

And the reason that the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, appears to be some secret long complicated document is that some, not all, Catholics and those who like to wear the catholic label, erroneously think that the CONTENT is not to be read by ordinary people. Thus, the fact that the Catechism is based on the TEACHINGS of Jesus Christ goes completely over their heads.

As for lay Catholics, they happen to belong to the human species. Therefore, they have the intellect and will to choose their actions, good, bad, and neutral. Of course, some, not all, Catholics and those who like to wear the catholic label, are misinformed or do not really comprehend – that is why God is the final evaluator.

In the meantime, those who are interested in Catholicism should seek out the presence of Jesus within the Catholic Church. Yes, I know that Jesus is present in the world in many different ways. The presence of Jesus in the Catholic Church is different from these many ways. Check out the Catechism. There is a whole section about Jesus Christ. (This is because Jesus is mentioned in the Nicene Creed.)

 

[grannymh]

Maybe he might say, “I’m waiting for the movie version to come out. They’re trying to cast Leonardo DiCaprio as the lead”

Actually, that is probably what some, not all, Catholics and those who like to wear the catholic label would say.

This, in my very, very humble opinion, is because some, not all, of those who wear the catholic label, consider the Catechism as some kind of “handbook” which in the long run is not much good. There is the popular misconception that Catholicism should conform [change] its doctrines to agree with modernist science.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

Can you or anyone else show me what I would have to profess in order to be a Catholic? The Nicene Creed is a given, that’s fine, but I get the feeling there must be something else, some secret long complicated document, otherwise what possible right have lay Catholics got that they can so confidently lay down the law under the guise of “correcting”, and often not even that?

The Church, collectively established by the bishops under the authority of Peter (Rome) has final say in moral pronouncements. The CCC, for example, is a product of official Church teachings. The Councils are also a product of the Church teaching. The Council of Jerusalem, described in Acts 15, gives the first account of the Church’s authority to settle disputed questions in a collective and official way. This Council also established the authority of the Church to interpret Scripture, since it was mainly about the OT requirement for circumcision of males. The matter was settled by reversing the OT requirement, since the practice had applied only to the Jews, and now Christianity was for the Gentiles as well. At the Council of Jerusalem, Peter indicates that he was appointed by Christ as the apostle to the Gentiles (the whole world) and he settles the disputed matter by agreeing with Paul that circumcision is no longer required. Then the dispute ends, and they go on to discuss other matters.

 

[inocente]

Was that an angel on top or the back of the tomb? I think it was a tomb? At first, I thought it might be a statue of Jesus as in ultimately conquering death. I am not familiar with that kind of procession.

It’s a statue usually kept in the church, on top a wooden platform and garlanded with flowers. The combination is really heavy and is paraded around the streets during Holy Week on the shoulders of men and women in a church fraternity, in this case from the Paso Blanco.

I think every church in Spain does this, it’s a long tradition from the days when people couldn’t read and “living” images from the Bible were used instead.

Have a look at this video – is your church this exciting? It’s Saint John returning to the church, the Virgin having arrived minutes before. See also the slide shows here and here. (Sadly this church was damaged in the recent earthquake).

And an expression of joy, although there ain’t much to be had in some parts. But to illustrate the yawning chasm with the Catholicism I see in real life, listen to one of the Holy Week processions in my local town: youtube.com/watch?v=siExZ7VBcno
grannymh;8694652:

I can’t quite fit an expression of joy into Holy Week, unless it is anticipation of Easter.

There are solemn moments too. But I agree that Spanish Catholics are a lot more lively than the CCC.

I did watch the link and now I have sound on my lap top. But I am very unfamilar with what is going on. Could you elaborate on what is happening? You have my curiosity flowing.

It’s the Paso Blanco band (the other main paso in the town is the Azul) warming up the crowd. Somewhere behind the stands, my wife and I are in a café getting sustenance . Also click on the first video (“video promocional”) here – apart from the horsemanship note the zillions of hours that goes into the silk embroidery.

 

[inocente]

I am sorry about your poor German Shepherd and am grateful you did not get bitten.
Hopefully, you will find me in the forest of posts which take over this thread when we take a break.

Thanks, same here. His name is José, he also answers to Joseph and Dozy.

 

[inocente]

Let’s pause for a moment to look at this from a bishop’s position. He knows he is part of the main reading audience which means he needs to turn off the TV and open the CCC. As a heads up, he finds some book reviews on the net. If you are the reviewer, how would you describe the book? Answering “good” or “bad” is not what I have in mind.

I’d describe the CCC as a set of normative bullet points for teachers, an aide memoire for those who already know the content.

I think it is intended as a unifying standard, and not as a primary document, since the words Second Edition imply that it has changed and may again.

And the reason that the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, appears to be some secret long complicated document is that some, not all, Catholics and those who like to wear the catholic label, erroneously think that the CONTENT is not to be read by ordinary people. Thus, the fact that the Catechism is based on the TEACHINGS of Jesus Christ goes completely over their heads.

But you get my point that it is “useful reading” for laity, not obligatory commandments?