Religious foundation authority

[STT]

I observe that you appear to believe you are arguing against a Christian teaching on this point. You are mistaken in thinking this is accurate Christian teaching if that is the case.
Not hard to understand at all really.

I am arguing against all religious foundation authorities as it is reflected in OP. I am in Catholic forum so it seems that I am only against Christian teaching. I was a Muslim before and find out that your line of reasoning is parallel to Muslim’s one.

 

[STT]

If God is love, then he pours himself out to everyone. God is a giver, as this is the nature of love. A relationship exists. In this relationship there is a reciprocity between persons. Giving and receiving.
Why should we ask God for his grace? Because it delights the relationship and fills it with joy. Why would you not speak to someone so gracious and pour out your heart?

I don’t understand what we can offer to God if He is perfect so God to me is only a giver. I don’t understand why we should ask God if He is a giver.

 

[STT]

What do you think religious authority is about?

To tell you what is right and what is wrong.

Whether you accept the authority or not you should know what you are talking about.
Religious authority is personal. God is a being. The authority is in God, not in religion for it’s own sake.

I agree that religious authority is personal in another word it is matter of accepting religion and its authority.

Huh? :whacky:

What is wrong with that? Do parents have authority over their children when they are mature enough?

A mature person realizes he is a contingent being and is utterly dependent on someone else for his existence.

I don’t understand how this is related to our discussion.

God is present. Have you heard of the Incarnation?

Yes, I have heard of Incarnation but that doesn’t prove anything. God doesn’t need to Incarnates since He can directly speak to people.

You don’t accept it, but to have a discussion you should know what you are talking about.

I know what you are talking about. I have a Catholic friend.

 

[goout]

To tell you what is right and what is wrong.

Not so. That is like saying the point of having a mother is to tell you “keep your hands out of the fire”. Minimalist.
Morality leads us to a person, not to mere statements of prohibition and direction.

I agree that religious authority is personal in another word it is matter of accepting religion and its authority.

What is wrong with that? Do parents have authority over their children when they are mature enough?

God is not a human parent, so…
The human person is “mature” (a better word is fulfilled) when united with God.

I don’t understand how this is related to our discussion.

A mature person realizes he is a contingent being and is utterly dependent on someone else for his existence. And longs for unity with God. It’s not like a mature person does not want or need God anymore. The more mature a person’s faith, the more he recognizes the “otherness” of God.

Yes, I have heard of Incarnation but that doesn’t prove anything. God doesn’t need to Incarnates since He can directly speak to people.

Yes, God speaks directly to us** with his very self**.
Like in the consummation of a marriage. A language is spoken between persons when one person gives their very selves to the other. In the Incarnation God gives his very self to us. “Speaking” is not like directions falling from the sky or appearing on a billboard.

I know what you are talking about. I have a Catholic friend.

That’s really nice you have a Catholic friend.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This problem took my attention when I was discussing another topic in another thread. The problem is that most of religious foundation authorities claim that they get their authority from God. How we are informed about God? Through religious foundation. This to me is circular and problematic. What do you think?

Obviously if a Christian claims to get religious authority from God he does not claim to get it directly, but through the authority of the Church Christ founded. So I don’t see how this seems circular and problematic to you. It seems linear and certain, all the more so as Christ endowed Peter as the ultimate fountain of all religious authority from his day to the present.

Matthew 16:18, Jesus creates and builds His Church (not “churches”) on Peter, the Rock. Notice also that even hell can’t stop the everlasting existence of His Church. The only way it could do so is if the foundational authority of Peter was not valid and guaranteed.

“And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.”

To this day Catholics recognize Peter as the “rock” upon which Christ founded his Church.

 

[STT]

The human person is “mature” (a better word is fulfilled) when united with God.

The human person is mature when it can stand on its own feet.

A mature person realizes he is a contingent being and is utterly dependent on someone else for his existence. And longs for unity with God. It’s not like a mature person does not want or need God anymore. The more mature a person’s faith, the more he recognizes the “otherness” of God.

We are not talking about maturity in faith only.

Yes, God speaks directly to us** with his very self**.
Like in the consummation of a marriage. A language is spoken between persons when one person gives their very selves to the other. In the Incarnation God gives his very self to us. “Speaking” is not like directions falling from the sky or appearing on a billboard.

He has never spoken to me any many others I think.

 

[STT]

Obviously if a Christian claims to get religious authority from God he does not claim to get it directly, but through the authority of the Church Christ founded. So I don’t see how this seems circular and problematic to you. It seems linear and certain…

Your claim is again circular. Where the church gets its authority from? It gets authority from foundation of the church by Christ. How we informed about the Christ? The church.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I see. I thought that by OP you meant the OP related to this thread.

I think I answer your question by asking other questions. You didn’t answer my questions so I repeat them again: What would be the point having a faith at all then if those without any faith can go to Heaven too? What is the point of Jesus teaching for our salvation? Why He died on the cross for our sins? Why did He say that faith is a gift?

There are two main answers to these questions: There is a purpose for faith or there is no purpose for faith. What would be the purpose of faith if it cannot save us from Hell?

I am not really interested in answering your shotgun questions here…I am only interested in understanding how you arrived at your peculiar strawman understanding of Lucretius’s contribution .

If you are unable to justify your interpretation that’s fine.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I am arguing against all religious foundation authorities as it is reflected in OP. I am in Catholic forum so it seems that I am only against Christian teaching. I was a Muslim before and find out that your line of reasoning is parallel to Muslim’s one.

And still you haven’t explained why you think Lucretius is rightly interpreted to be saying that the ungifted go to hell.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Your claim is again circular. Where the church gets its authority from? It gets authority from foundation of the church by Christ. How we informed about the Christ? The church.

The claim is not circular.

Scientists claim to get their authority from the rules for practicing science.

Where do they get these rules? From the foundation of scientific principles by scientists.

How is that circular?

 

[goout]

The claim is not circular.

Scientists claim to get their authority from the rules for practicing science.

Where do they get these rules? From the foundation of scientific principles by scientists.

How is that circular?

It’s only circular when you separate ideas from people.
Dualism.

 

[STT]

I am not really interested in answering your shotgun questions here…I am only interested in understanding how you arrived at your peculiar strawman understanding of Lucretius’s contribution .

If you are unable to justify your interpretation that’s fine.

That doesn’t follow from that verse but the following verse.

John 3:16-18, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”

 

[STT]

And still you haven’t explained why you think Lucretius is rightly interpreted to be saying that the ungifted go to hell.

Please read post #51.

 

[STT]

The claim is not circular.

It is circular. You just need to press on it.

Scientists claim to get their authority from the rules for practicing science.

I don’t think that scientists have ever claimed that they have authority over people.

Where do they get these rules? From the foundation of scientific principles by scientists.

How is that circular?

There is nothing circular in scientific principles. These principles are objectivity (ability to experience the subject matter), measureability (subject matters has a set of measurable properties), repeativity (the property that the same experiement can perform by others in the same condition), etc.

 

[STT]

It’s only circular when you separate ideas from people.
Dualism.

Could you please elaborate?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I don’t think that scientists have ever claimed that they have authority over people.

As a matter of fact, they do claim to have authority over people, namely non-scientific people.

They even claim to have authority over each other, when they exercise peer review.

The kind of circular argument you meant to give is something like this:

(1) We know God exists.
(2) What authority have we that God exists?
(3) Because the Church tells us God has told us He exists.
(4) How do we know that the Church has this authority to tell us God exists?
(5) Because God conferred this authority on the Church?

That’s circular argument!

But you had said in an earlier post:

“The problem is that most of religious foundation authorities claim that they get their authority from God. How we are informed about God? Through religious foundation.”

Actually, we are not informed about God through **religious foundation **but by the words of Jesus Christ.

You either believe those words came from Jesus Christ or you do not.

There is no way to prove they did not, and the fact that the Church reports them as his words does not invalidate the words or even suggest circular reasoning.

 

[goout]

Could you please elaborate?

For instance…
Physics has a long lineage of investigation by *people *called scientists. Physicists are people, eh?
Authority is invested in *people *who write authoritative books.

You point to the objective nature of science.
It is objectively true that physics is done by people. If there were no people called physicists, there would be no branch of science called physics.

By dualism is meant the separation of thinking, being, meaning, authority, etc…from persons. (and there’s a lot more to it but I would rather go to choir than do research so…)

Is it starting to make sense?

 

[STT]

As a matter of fact, they do claim to have authority over people, namely non-scientific people.

I have not idea where did you get that from?

They even claim to have authority over each other, when they exercise peer review.

That is not true. A referee only performs a voluntary duty to make sure that content of a manuscript is correct. Authors either accept the words of referee or engage in a discussion or try elsewhere.

The kind of circular argument you meant to give is something like this:

(1) We know God exists.
(2) What authority have we that God exists?
(3) Because the Church tells us God has told us He exists.
(4) How do we know that the Church has this authority to tell us God exists?
(5) Because God conferred this authority on the Church?

That’s circular argument!

I don’t understand your argument. I have never seen questions as a premise.

But you had said in an earlier post:

“The problem is that most of religious foundation authorities claim that they get their authority from God. How we are informed about God? Through religious foundation.”

Let me write the argument in the syllogism form:

(1) Religious foundation gets its authority form God
(2) We are informed about God through religious foundation

That is it. The above argument is circular.

Actually, we are not informed about God through **religious foundation **but by the words of Jesus Christ.

That is not true unless you talk with Jesus directly. There are however two problems here in regards to our discussion: (1) Church needs to prove to individuals that Jesus is God (the creator) and (2) Church needs to prove that She received its authority from& /was established by Jesus.

You either believe those words came from Jesus Christ or you do not.

Has anyone witnessed that Jesus creates a universe?

There is no way to prove they did not, and the fact that the Church reports them as his words does not invalidate the words or even suggest circular reasoning.

It is circular reasoning. The Church does not have any foundation that She can stand upon (previous comment).

 

[STT]

For instance…
Physics has a long lineage of investigation by *people *called scientists. Physicists are people, eh?
Authority is invested in *people *who write authoritative books.

Scientific books are not authoritative books. Scientific book are only justified by science.

You point to the objective nature of science.
It is objectively true that physics is done by people. If there were no people called physicists, there would be no branch of science called physics.

Ok, this we can agree.

By dualism is meant the separation of thinking, being, meaning, authority, etc…from persons. (and there’s a lot more to it but I would rather go to choir than do research so…)

I see what do you mean with separation and dualism.

Is it starting to make sense?

No, it doesn’t make any sense to me.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

That is not true. A referee only performs a voluntary duty to make sure that content of a manuscript is correct. Authors either accept the words of referee or engage in a discussion or try elsewhere.

Peer review is by people who claim to have scientific authority to judge the merits of a scientific work. So yes, scientists claim to have authority all the time. They even cite each other as authorities.