Isn’t Scientology very clearly built on a foundation of at least vaguely Christian concepts? Isn’t it supposed to be about Jesus Christ? Jesus Christ is not man-made. Therefore Scientology is not completely man-made. Correct? (N.B.: “Man-made” and “super-naturally made” do not form an exhaustive (or exclusive) dichotomy.)
Fact is that which is so and not not-so. If we cannot repeatedly measure something, that does not mean that there are no facts regarding that thing.
I was thinking of another thread, I don’t think invincible ignorance had been mentioned in this one. Here’s a link to an article:
No, TRUTH is that which is so. Fact is that which can be proven.
Why would you say that? That is not how the term is usually used. Google it if you need to.
Why would I say that?
How was it off topic? I didn’t continue on it, I was simply saying that to say Muhammad promoting rape and murder is very, very ignorant and shows lack of study in Islam. You do not say things about other religions when your religion is just as “fishy”
Are you saying God is nature?
No.
That is clearly not true. At the very least, it depends which one is right.
No, NDE does not tell us that; a very ambitious and (I dare say) ridiculously presumptuous interpretation of the NDE tells us that.
Do you think the following statements are equivalent?:
I really hope I’m not just wasting my time responding to this. Now here’s what was off-topic:How was it off topic? I didn’t continue on it, I was simply saying that to say Muhammad promoting rape and murder is very, very ignorant and shows lack of study in Islam. You do not say things about other religions when your religion is just as “fishy”
I do not understand how you can say that, no religion encompasses more than 1/3 of humanity (Christianity) with Islam in 2nd place at about 21%. So for the sake of discussion let’s suppose christianity is ‘right’ and that you must BE christian to receive salvation, that means at LEAST 75% of humanity is screwed. And I believe Catholicism teaches that being Christian isn’t enough, in fact one must be Catholic, do they not?
How do you figure? NDE experiencers come from all faiths, and even no faith. For the most part they are all welcomed with love, compassion, and open arms regardless of their religion or lack thereof. That is a fact. How must one spin that ambitiously or presumptively to conclude that all paths lead to the light? For that matter, how in the world can you spin it to NOT come to that conclusion.
Your assumption here is that every religion teaches that only its own adherents are “not screwed” - that is obviously a false assumption, including for the case of Catholicism. (I’m guessing you didn’t check out the link I posted to the ‘invincible ignorance’ article?)
It does seem intuitive, but many atheists around here seem to think they can and do know that they are nothing more than “walking talking (etc.)… with no existence after physical death.”
The point is that “the light” is variously interpreted. I don’t believe there is any compelling reason to interpret a positive NDE as a guarantee that the individual who experienced it is destined for some kind of lasting state of beatitude. If we assume that NDE’s are some kind of supernatural experience, then there are other alleged supernatural experiences that we know of that assure us that Satan comes as an angel of light and that he is a deceiver, etc and so the evidence on each side must be given due consideration, including the fact that the evidence on the one side directly calls into question the credibility of the evidence on the other side.
Actually, I did. I found it a tad confusing and more than a tad arrogant. The author must have some serious insiders connection to the almighty. But what I’m still not clear on is this: If a Muslim is aware of Christianity, has studied it, and has concluded that it is false is that invincible ignorance, or must he be unaware of it through no fault of his own?
So NDE’s are real but they’re tricks of demons to try to fool us into thinking the wrong thing? Boy, that’s some system your just, loving God created, huh. It’s almost like a human parent allowing, nee forcing his child to play russian roulette with an adult who’s allowed to cheat.
Arrogant? I don’t think so. It’s all pretty much common sense corollaries of the basic notion of justice. If you have something specific to criticize, please do so. This kind of vague blanket dismissal is what I find arrogant.
Tricks of demons is one counter-possibility that you should consider. The basic point is just that one cannot infer with any certainty from this kind of fleeting experience anything about the permanent state of the spirit once the body definitively ceases to function. Isn’t that obvious?
I don’t necessarily disagree with that, but the simple fact is that is runs contrary to your scripture, and that is why I find it arrogant. One of the criticisms that I (and others) use against organized religion is that if it were truly accurate then a majority of humanity is headed for eternal damnation. I find that idea runs counter to the concept of a fair, just, and loving God.
Indeed, they might. Under your theory, such a person would be forgiven for believing the wrong thing. But under the words that form the foundation of your church, there is no room for such forgiveness.
Well, no, it’s not.
What counter-evidence? Sure, from time to time there is a hellish NDE, then again from time to time there is an NDE reported from someone who was nowhere near death in any conventional medical sense. Those from the lunatic fringe are safe to disregard, methinks.
Catholics do *not *subscribe to Sola Scriptura. Meaning that our authority is the Church, herself. Scripture and Tradition are authoritative only indirectly, via her interpretation. This is so because of confusion that results from individual reading of scripture. Not that this is wrong in itself-it’s just that any verse taken alone can easily be misunderstood. For example, Jesus can be the only way to the Father regardless of whether or not a person has even heard His name, let alone believes in Him. And such a person would be considered to be invincibly ignorant for obvious reasons.
This is an argument for absolute moral irresponsibility. We may as well throw our legal system out the door. As it is with life in the secular world, the CC teaches that what *we do counts *in the spiritual realm as well.
That’s interesting. An do tell, who within the church exactly is the one in communication with God? Surely someone must be, otherwise the interpretation of the church is just the opinions of mere men. How do these conversations take place?
I disagree. Most people are good people. Very few people have the desire or the capability of being killers, or rapists, or thieves. There is a good reason that the moral theology board here spends so much time discussing birth control, masturbation, and other trivial topics, but you don’t see anyone arguing about whether or not it’s really a bad thing to murder someone else.
The church, herself, is either led by God or she’s worthless. It sounds like you’ve opted for the latter position.
Well, “Thou shall not kill”, is certainly a biggee in catholic teaching:shrug: That’s why she consistently takes a pro life stance in all areas.
Who cares? I’m glad someone is.
No, I’m asking a question.
Teaching authority is given to the magistereum of the CC. This includes the bishops with the pope, the bishop of rome. Church teachings go way back, of course, and seldom are doctrines newly defined or declared. The gift-or ability to “speak for God”, so to speak, is considered mainly a negative one, in that error in teachings on faith and morals is said to be precluded from becoming doctrine in any official sense.