I think you are wrong on both counts there Ed. I have a computer that can indeed program itself.
There’s no hiding, considering how explicit they are in their lack of decisive teaching. The Church has no need to absolutely bear down on all issues - they don’t need to tell physicists which interpretation of QM is correct either.
There’s no contradiction there. All Salvation comes through Christ. If a muslim is saved, it isn’t through the power of Mohammed’s teachings (though there can be good in such teachings), but through Christ. If a buddhist is saved, it isn’t due to the teachings of Buddha (which, again, can have plenty of good in them), but through Christ. Missionary work remains important - they’re still in a darkness, they still benefit tremendously from direct knowledge of and access to the Church.
Catholic teaching does not allow a preexistent hominid to be infused with a soul. It requires that the body and soul
As we have seen, the Church clearly teaches that Adam and Eve were our "First Parents and insists on the doctrine of Original Sin. I ask how that can be compatible with the evolutionary model and the answer seems to be “Dunno, you can believe whatever you like in that area”.
As VociMike said, “the key phrase is ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’” - outside the Church there is no salvation".
(124) Cf. Mc 16, 16; Jn. 3, 5.
How can that be? Muslims reject the idea of Christ as the son of God and John goes on to add:
In rejecting the Catholic faith I so “Fail to respond” and I am therefore not only to be beyond salvation I am to be “the more severely judged”. But why? Why should I be condemned for all eternity for being honest and seeking to eliminate misconception ( the way of science) and contradiction ( the way of logic) from my understanding?
Good Questionhow sure we are that what we think is true really true? or how do we know that we know truth?
We don’t. This is the question of the ages. Our problem has always been by far epistemological. What people tend to do is form a conclusion that feels safe and then squish the “evidence” to make it fit.how sure we are that what we think is true really true? or how do we know that we know truth?
That is a valid point. During RCIA (we may have waved to each other as I was arriving at Catholicism and you were leaving) I was told that I must assent to the whole enchilada. It was as if there was an access panel in my skull where I could just throw a switch. The term “required to believe” has to be one of the most ignorant mandates in the history of mandates. Either one believes or they don’t. There are many good reasons to be Catholic. But expecting blind acceptance of EVERYTHING is weird.There’s an implicit loop in that
I think science and religion are both at fault for opposite reasons. Religion is wrong to reject what empirical science reveals and science is wrong for its arrogance by insisting that what it observes presupposes the absence of a Diety merely because He doesn’t register on its instrumentation.My point is that the assertion by a human that God exists when science can find no evidence of that proposition and many similar views held by other humans are known to be wrong cannot be described as a “humble” attitude.
The answer is that there are multiple answers congruent with the Catholic position. We know we had first parents, we know original sin flows from them. If they had biological ancestors, that’s fine. If they did not, that’s also fine. The specific conditions and event details aren’t specified, nor need to be. You seem to want to know what the specific teaching is, and when you’re told there is none as specific as you’re asking, that somehow is itself incompatible. To each their own, I just don’t see the problem.
Well, obviously I’m familiar with that teaching.
Because the “fish” do not possess the necessary “equipment” to disprove the existence of the person who has their being outside the bowl, breathes air and sprinkles fish food into the water.How do you know if that is true or not?
That’s my point.Because the “fish” do not possess the necessary “equipment” to disprove the existence of the person who has their being outside the bowl, breathes air and sprinkles fish food into the water.
If you say that then you merely declare a belief rather than a conclusion based on evidence. Science doesn’t do that, it developes theories which deliver explanatory power in the light of the evidence. Those theories indicate that all humanoid beings had parents. So denying that is to deny the scientific argument. I can’t see that as being “fine”.
That is in direct contradiction with LG when it says thatWell, obviously I’m familiar with that teaching.
Again: They can be saved without being Catholic. But their salvation does not come from their beliefs, but through Christ and the church. That they reject the church does not change this
I love analogy but that one doesn’t work. The medics have a strict order from the top brass ( The words of Jesus Christ) that they must not save anyone who is not in their army.
You seem to be arguing that when LG says:
the word “knowing” means “believing”. Because of my Catholic education I “Know” what Catholics believe but I do not believe it myself. I therfore “refuse” to remain in the Church and, according to the belief, I am to be punished for that.
It seems to me that LG is very clear that any lack of belief in the Catholic faith is to be punished by damnation. There’s no justice in that when, as in my case, the lack of belief is the result of honesty. I made the transition from being a devout young Catholic to being an ex-Catholic over a number of years as my doubts accumulated. I see nothing in that that justifies my damnation for all eternity.
There’s that contradiction again. If LG stresses the necessity of faith in Christ and baptism as being necessary you cannot claim that these things are not necessary without contradiction. It’s a matter of simple logic.
In my youth I had the catholic faith drummed into me with considerable force. I came to see many logical problems and contradictions and I was unable to make sense of what I was told that I believed. I realised that I don’t control what I believe and no other person has the right to tell me what I believe.
Yes it’s straightforward enough - a straightforward contradiction.
Actually, I don’t know anything about the outside of the tank. I only know that there IS an outside of the tank. (BTW, when any person says “I know” it should come with the usual epistemological disclaimer which renders it almost meaningless in a absolute sense.) Before the Big Bang there was no space or time. Space and time had a beginning. A particle existed before it exploded and created time and space. Where did the particle reside? We don’t have the circuits to understand that but it was “outside the tank”.That’s my point.
I don’t know absolutely. But I can interpret areas of high probability. This is much like the world of quantum mechanics where the behavior and exact locations of particles cannot be ultimately known but are understood only within the context of probabilities.
Hmm…
Sadly many scientists paint their vocation in those colours. But I do not and nor do many of my scientific friends.
It is perfectly reasonable (and required by the scientific method) to only suspect divine intervention when there is a reason so to do.
No such reason has yet appeared so there is no need for any accomodation of supernatural actions.
> Science is cool. Religion is cool. They are intimately and necessarily related. But they are like twins who deny the existence of each other and they are both poorer for it.
Science is indeed cool but it does not ignore Religion - it explains it. Religion however, as evidenced here, is clearly struggling in its attempt to explain Science.
Emotel.Umm… I see a contradiction in that
If you know that the outside exists then you do indeed know something about the outside. The question is “How do you know what you claim to know”. According to one solution of Einstein’s equations, the Universe is finite but unbounded. That could mean that there is no “outside”.If there is no time how can “before” have any meaning that relates to reality?
The theory of biological evolution delivers considerable and quite extraordinary insights into those questions. I find the explanatory power that it delivers quite breathtaking.
I, conversely, started with Catholicism and found it wanting. Science is by far the best tool we have for determining the truth about reality. ( and about Religion
)Hush now
Two cents they may be but meaningless they are not. At least not to me. There’s plenty of evidence at work in the church’s views on things - ranging from biblical teaching and church tradition to science and philosophy. And the Church does not deny that Adam and Eve had parents - as I said, they’re entirely at home with the theory of evolution, the theory that Adam and Eve could have had biological precursors (in other words, parents). But there comes a break between that biological lineage at a certain point - a ‘before’ and an ‘after’. Even science admits as much, which is why biologists don’t say the human race is billions of years old (stretching us back to the origin of life) but vastly less than that.
Faith and baptism - but even far preceding LG was the baptism of desire and the baptism of blood. Baptism of desire lines up entirely with LG - an implicit (not explicit) desire for baptism by sincere seekers of God. The discussions of the range of the baptisms of desire and blood has been ongoing for awhile now - hence the whole discussion about the fates of unbaptized infants, the range of culpability in play in any given sin or act, etc.
No, it doesn’t. To know is to be certain - to believe involves having some faith. I mean, look at what you just said - ‘I know, but I don’t believe’. Rather indicates ‘knowing’ doesn’t mean ‘believing’, don’t you think?
It’s a good thing you’re demonstrably and entirely misreading LG, then - I already provided a fair chunk of it that not only argues that people of other faiths and non-believers can well be saved, but that being in the Church itself is not a guarantee of salvation. In fact, proclaiming yourself to be Catholic just to give yourself a false image of being pious or being a member of the community is a grave mistake.
It’s more a matter of being well-versed IN logic, as well history and language, particularly where the Church is concerned. Back to the baptisms of desire and blood - and it’s worth noting that not every teaching of the church, even teachings related to an explicit infallible declaration, are without discussion. There are various opinions and views among orthodox theologians in good standing who take an assortment of views - hence why topics such as invincible ignorance, culpability, and their relation to salvation get discussed. It’s why there are theologians to begin with; if all aspects of the Church were considered utter certainty, there’d be no use for theologians.
“No one can say.” The Church won’t take a position on whether Pilate or Judas were saved or damned. They can say what would aid in your salvation, what would aid your life, what may warrant harsher judgment - but if you’re asking for an explicit formula for salvation/damnation that applies to a wider variety of people than saints, you’re going to come up short. You don’t get certainty even being a believing Catholic.
Catholic sources please.
To start with,