Sola Scripture (yes, again)

[justasking4]

I for one am not trying to shake your faith.

I was taught my faith by true believers, certainly not by anti-Catholics. Your saying that Protestantism is false doesn’t in any way make it so. Through many years of study in many disciplines I have been afforded the ability to discern logic from illogic. I can perceive something of truth. Your displays of Catholic logic want, a great deal. But more power to you. It’s good that you believe what you believe. It doesn’t satisfy rational examination.

That’s no great matter because religion does not require rationality. It requires faith, and only faith.

What is the basis for you saying–:“religion does not require rationality. It requires faith, and only faith”?

 

[Brother_John]

What is the basis for you saying–:“religion does not require rationality. It requires faith, and only faith”?

Isn’t that pretty much a “given” ?

Religion is based on faith. Faith is belief without proof. Belief without proof rather diminishes rationality, no?

 

[Namesake]

What is the basis for you saying–:“religion does not require rationality. It requires faith, and only faith”?

Rationality requires falsifiability. Obviously religion doesn’t allow that, or at the very least doesn’t encourage that. I figured you understood that idea.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
What is the basis for you saying–:“religion does not require rationality. It requires faith, and only faith”?

Namesake
Rationality requires falsifiability. Obviously religion doesn’t allow that, or at the very least doesn’t encourage that. I figured you understood that idea.

Not so. Take the resurrection of Christ. If the body of Jesus could have been produced then that would have disproved the resurrection and Christianity would be false.

 

[Namesake]

Isn’t that pretty much a “given” ?

Religion is based on faith. Faith is belief without proof. Belief without proof rather diminishes rationality, no?

Religion operates in the realm of faith. So, of course proof isn’t a necessary component.

I accept on faith that Jesus is God. I really do! He is Lord of all creation. I can’t prove that without doing some ridiculous calculus. I accept that on faith, and that’s enough for me.

Proof belongs to science. I am intimately aware of science, but that does not affect my faith. Geddit?

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
What is the basis for you saying–:“religion does not require rationality. It requires faith, and only faith”?

Brother John
Isn’t that pretty much a “given” ?

Religion is based on faith. Faith is belief without proof. Belief without proof rather diminishes rationality, no?

No. Take the resurrection account. Paul in I Cornithians 15:1-8 gives the evidence for it based on eyewitness accounts. Or take the miracles of Jesus that He uses to demonstrate that His teachings are in fact true. He actually encourages people to do look closely at His works. See John 10:38.

 

[justasking4]

Namesake;3324944]Religion operates in the realm of faith. So, of course proof isn’t a necessary component.

Your not talking about Christianity here. Christianity is a religion or belief system that is based on historical real time events. If you don’t have “proof” then you have a make believe faith.

I accept on faith that Jesus is God. I really do! He is Lord of all creation. I can’t prove that without doing some ridiculous calculus. I accept that on faith, and that’s enough for me.

I don’t think thats necessary. Creation itself points strongly to a Creator. It is by the best explaination why the universe is the way it is.

Proof belongs to science. I am intimately aware of science, but that does not affect my faith. Geddit?

Proof also belongs to Christianity. The same kind of “proof” that you believe science provides is the same kind that can be applied to Christianity.

 

[Namesake]

Your not talking about Christianity here. Christianity is a religion or belief system that is based on historical real time events. If you don’t have “proof” then you have a make believe faith.

I don’t agree at all. Faith requires no proof.

I don’t think thats necessary. Creation itself points strongly to a Creator. It is by the best explaination why the universe is the way it is.

I disagree. Creation is based on faith, not science. The nature of the universe is the realm of science, not religion. The why of the universe is in the realm of religion. Science doesn’t really care. Science wants to understand how, not why.

Proof also belongs to Christianity. The same kind of “proof” that you believe science provides is the same kind that can be applied to Christianity.

Proof, in a scientific way, kills religion. Science doesn’t want to kill religion. If you insist on incorporating science into religion you risk killing religion, or devaluing science. That isn’t appropriate.

 

[justasking4]

Namesake;3325051]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Your not talking about Christianity here. Christianity is a religion or belief system that is based on historical real time events. If you don’t have “proof” then you have a make believe faith.

Namesake
I don’t agree at all. Faith requires no proof.

Your not talking in a biblical sense here. If you don’t have evidence or good reason to believe something then you don’t have biblical faith. Read the gospel accounts. Jesus is doing many of His miracles in public and these miracles that are being performed on people are changing them. The blind can see, the lame can walk and the dead are raised. The Scriptures encourage us to look at the evidence and put our faith in it. This is no different than when a scienctist makes a claim about some object in deep space that is supposedly there and you are encouraged to believe it.

Quote:justasking4
I don’t think thats necessary. Creation itself points strongly to a Creator. It is by the best explaination why the universe is the way it is.

Namesake
I disagree. Creation is based on faith, not science. The nature of the universe is the realm of science, not religion. The why of the universe is in the realm of religion. Science doesn’t really care. Science wants to understand how, not why.

If you just beleive whats science claims then you will end up believing absurd claims many times. I agree that science wants to understand how but it falls short on some issues like the origin of the universe and life.

Quote:justasking4
Proof also belongs to Christianity. The same kind of “proof” that you believe science provides is the same kind that can be applied to Christianity.

Namesake
Proof, in a scientific way, kills religion. Science doesn’t want to kill religion. If you insist on incorporating science into religion you risk killing religion, or devaluing science. That isn’t appropriate.

Not so. Good science will work hand and hand with true faith. The 2 can be integrated and at times overlap.

We should start a thread on this.

 

[Brother_John]

We should start a thread on this.

This should be fun.

But before you do, your penance is five verses of “Whatsoever You Do To The Least Of My Brothers…”

 

[Namesake]

Not so. Good science will work hand and hand with true faith. The 2 can be integrated and at times overlap.

We should start a thread on this.

Maybe so. But the position of religion against science cannot prevail. Just as the position of science against religion cannot prevail. The two must remain in their own spheres.

 

[Brother_John]

Maybe so. But the position of religion against science cannot prevail. Just as the position of science against religion cannot prevail. The two must remain in their own spheres.

It might make for some interesting conversation and insights…or it may just turn into a shouting match

 

[Namesake]

It might make for some interesting conversation and insights…or it may just turn into a shouting match

I don’t engage in shouting matches. I firmly believe that science and religion have entirely separate areas of discernment. The Bible isn’t a science book. It is for the purpose of instruction in religion. Science isn’t required.

Science has no place in religious instruction. The two must be separate.

 

[Brother_John]

Science has no place in religious instruction. The two must be separate.

Well, I would disagree somewhat, but I’ll save it for your new thread.

But I do agree, that the Bible is the history of Mans relationship with God. It clearly is not a history of science, or even a history of Man, civilized or uncivilized.

But I have some “different” views on the Bible, Creation, and Science…most of which will get me villified on this forum as “unCatholc”, nonCatholic, or something similar.

 

[Pier]

My understanding is that Sola Scripture was a response to the Church’s central authority. A way of saying that there is no inherent quality of a Pope or of the Church to interpet the Bible in a final way. Objectively, how is this belief less reasonable than the belief that only the Church can validly interpet the Bible?

Because the Bible tells us the authority was given to the Church Christ founded by the Holy Spirit.

 

[khutcheson]

Because the Bible tells us the authority was given to the Church Christ founded by the Holy Spirit.

Where?

 

[CentralFLJames]

Maybe so. But the position of religion against science cannot prevail. Just as the position of science against religion cannot prevail. The two must remain in their own spheres.

It sounds like you are pontificating. Do we accept this assertion in faith or do we accept in faith that you are the infallible pontiff?

James

 

[Pier]

Where?

Pentecost.

 

[Namesake]

It sounds like you are pontificating. Do we accept this assertion in faith or accept you in faith that you are pontiff?

James

Oh come on now. Give me a break. I am in no way pontificating. It’s just that science and religion don’t mix. If you insist on mixing them you lose the essence of each.

If you choose to mix science and religion you are outside of anything that I understand about either.

By the way, I have a pretty fair understanding through education of science. Tread thereon with some care.

 

[guanophore]

Is it possible for the community of faith to misinterpret the Scriptures?

I am surprised you would ask a question like this here, ja4. You have been saying since you got here that the Catholic Church has done this from the early centuries!

Your not talking about Christianity here. Christianity is a religion or belief system that is based on historical real time events. If you don’t have “proof” then you have a make believe faith.

If this is true for you ja4, then your religion is based in the sand.
Christianity is based on a Person, Jesus, who brought Divine Revelation into history. Yes, it does include historical real time events, but it is a religion of faith, not of “proof”. It is based on the apprehension of revelation by faith, not rationality.

Perhaps the fact that you base you religion on historical events is why you have so much trouble understanding the most basic tenents of Christianity?

Proof also belongs to Christianity. The same kind of “proof” that you believe science provides is the same kind that can be applied to Christianity.

You can but it will fail miserably. There are too many “mysteries” that are beyond the grasp of human cognition