N
NoWings
Guest
Does the Bible you use omit the Johannine Comma?
- Status
K
KathleenGee
Guest
What Martin Luther did was not only add a word that had tremendous implications on faith and the oneness of it, but that he removed 7 books of the Bible, that was the work of the apostles, the early church fathers and many other people. The Bible is the work of the church, not just one man.
And to understand Catholicism, if that is the one that is being questioned here, it is not just sided. You have to look at the revelation of the Word of God, its nature and dogma, the liturgy as it is the form of worship – the only time believers come together in the first place, so all its actions, words and symbol must profess the tenants of faith in its completeness, as well as the life of the Church–the sacraments, morality found in the catechism whose tenants are the same as those 2,000 years ago, the canons and church law, prayer and solid spirituality, and the lives of the saints. It also helps to understand the work of inculturation and the many rites and practices, the challenge and work that is required assimilating new peoples, languages and cultures so there is a mutual recognition between them and the universal church, as well as the nature and mission of the church itself, which most Catholics don’t understand very well.
And to understand Catholicism, if that is the one that is being questioned here, it is not just sided. You have to look at the revelation of the Word of God, its nature and dogma, the liturgy as it is the form of worship – the only time believers come together in the first place, so all its actions, words and symbol must profess the tenants of faith in its completeness, as well as the life of the Church–the sacraments, morality found in the catechism whose tenants are the same as those 2,000 years ago, the canons and church law, prayer and solid spirituality, and the lives of the saints. It also helps to understand the work of inculturation and the many rites and practices, the challenge and work that is required assimilating new peoples, languages and cultures so there is a mutual recognition between them and the universal church, as well as the nature and mission of the church itself, which most Catholics don’t understand very well.
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
arguably many protestants still use apocryphal works (and view them as historically significant, even though not canonical, much as the CC does). However, not to nit pick about who uses what … my point was simply I’ve seen (with my own eye balls attached to my brain, well in a round-about way) plenty of heated arguments over the single word inserted by Luther “alone.” Pages upon pages of wasted type in this forum arguing back and forth in a most unkind manner, about a single word.
Yet, when the tables are turned and words are used against you, conveniently words lose their value & aren’t important anymore. Sort of like what is the meaning of is anyway?
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
funny but atheists and agnostics make up only a sliver of one percent of our prison population, while Catholics are the most likely bunch to occupy our jail cells, with protestants running a close second.
Action speaks louder than words my friend.
J
josie_L
Guest
No one said that atheists or agnostics aren’t able to be good but we live in a Judeo-Christian society which affected the laws/culture of your country and mine (well the whole of western civilization was/is based on Judeo-Christian principles). I think that was the point estebob was trying to make.
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
oh gosh … here we go down this road again. Do I have to once again give you a history lesson and show you how many of the men who articulated the principals, which form the basis of our social structure in the west, have been secular or non-Christians deists?
Moreover, none of this is relevant to whether or not your religion is true. If stoic philosophy (as just one of many examples) became as pervasive as Christianity it could have possibly produced a better result (in terms of inspiring discipline, a sense of duty, integrity, etc. among the average citizen in the west). We’ve always had some sort of system that enforced a moral code. The Romans had paganism, which served them well for centuries (as did the Greeks and Persians before them).
It’s the same old argument based on an incomplete view of history, and ignoring the pattern of human conduct (not to mention simple logic and human psychology).
Isn’t that how every regime and system in history has justified themselves? When people know of no other way of life it’s easy enough to convince them their current way of life is responsible for all they find good in the world. However, that reasoning couldn’t be more fallacious (and in fact it’s been used to manipulate people for centuries).
To spite how it must look, I don’t think religion is the result of a lack of intelligence. To the contrary, it’s a natural consequence of intelligence. Animals don’t need to imagine they have an immaterial soul that will outlive their physical bodies, because they lack the high degree of awareness humans have of our imminent death. In fact most animals have a short memory span (so they lack the capacity to form relationships without constant reinforcement … although animals vary widely in this regard). In the animal kingdom, comparatively speaking, our level of intelligence is in a different paradigm. The ability to wonder about questions like why are we here, do we have a purpose, etc. requires an immense level of complexity in terms of intelligence. Therefore, religion is the natural consequence of intelligence, but of course so is science (and it stands to reason eventually we will completely outgrow our need to use false myths to explain away what may eventually, “hopefully” … become scientific fact. At least this is the direction the momentum has been flowing
).
J
josie_L
Guest
Wait, did I read this correctly, are you actually saying something nice about . . . .religion?
Do you honestly think we’ll ever come to know how the Universe was created through science?Therefore, religion is the natural consequence of intelligence, but of course so is science (and it stands to reason eventually we will completely outgrow our need to use false myths to explain away what may eventually, “hopefully” … become scientific fact. At least this is the direction the momentum has been flowing
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
I’m saying something true about religion. We need religion because we’re intelligent animals. If we were too dumb to be aware of our mortality or to ask questions like how were we created, why are we here, etc. we wouldn’t need religion (frankly if we were that dumb I doubt we could have been smart enough to invent religion in the first place).
I do think we’re close to finding more answers (in particular I believe once we discover a unified theory of physics & we develop models to simulate the singularity that don’t break down as they do now … we’ll be much closer to an answer). Of course every time science discovers an answer, we wind up with new questions.
However, I also think we probably allocate too many research dollars to endeavors that don’t seem like they’ll result in much benefit for mankind. For instance, the super-collider at Bern. Don’t get me wrong, if they really simulate what happened at the big bang, then we’ll have real data to work backwards from. But I do have mixed feelings. Would those dollars be better spent trying to find a cure for cancer or discovering ways to extend human life?
Anyways … not to digress. An answer to your question, yes I do think science will discover how the universe was created (and probably much sooner than most people think).
J
josie_L
Guest
Some one pass me my smelling salts, I’m about to faint from sheer shock.
But now some scientists are proposing a multiverse, how could we verifiably know this is true? I mean the essence of the scientific method is observation and experimentation? Thus, it would be pretty hard to do either in assessing the veracity of the multiverse hypothesis, for example.
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
multiverses sound pretty far fetched to me, but I suppose it’s possible. The only way (I can think of anyway) that we could prove multiverses exist, is if we discover backwards time travel (and we don’t screw up our planet and maybe the universe in the process). I think the theory of backwards time travel is that it wouldn’t cause a butterfly effect, but rather a fork in time (essentially a parallel universe). But it’s unintuitive to think we can travel to a place that doesn’t exist anymore. It’s even more unintuitive to think there are trillions of alternate universes floating around that elude our observations.
I agree … but where did this focus on multiverses come from (certainly not me that’s for sure)?
J
josie_L
Guest
Well, I said this because it seems to be a somewhat popular hypothesis amongst well-known atheists, but even without a multiverse hypothesis, how could we ever really know about the origins of the Universe, I mean we’re aware of the big bang, but what created the big bang? Wouldn’t it have to be something eternal, i.e., outside of space and time?
J
josie_L
Guest
By the way I found this (I will respond to this post in full, tomorrow, I’m too tired to tax my brain tonight):
Historical Christianity as a Means to Freedom in Hegel’s “Neufassung des Anfangs”.
by TIMOTHY C. HUSON
In 1800 Hegel rewrote the introduction to his Bern writings on positive religion. In this text, which has become known as “Neufassung des Anfangs” (“New Version of the Beginning”), Hegel departs from his previous more critical approach to religion and emphasizes that an important historical and conceptual component for the development of rational human freedom is to be found in the belief in a positive religion based on authority, in particular on historical Christianity.(1) H. S. Harris, in his discussion of Hegel’s “Neufassung,” does not indicate how Hegel’s rejection of both “positive religion” and “enlightened religion” also entails a preservation of these conceptions of religion as historical and conceptual moments(2) in the negation (Aufhebung). In contrast to Harris’s interpretation, a way will be offered here of seeing how it is precisely the positive aspect of historical religion, authority, which constitutes the historical and conceptual precondition for the emergence of the abstract notion of freedom. This abstract concept of freedom, in turn, will be seen as an essential moment in Hegel’s own concrete concept of freedom, the “ideal of human nature,” a view of freedom which focuses on, to use Harris’s words, “humanity in its integrity.”(3)
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
not that I disagree (or agree) with this; but it does validate my view that philosophy is usually worthless. Some of these guys write a book on something that could be said in a sentence (and all they do is try to codify common sense). Don’t get me wrong, there’s been some good ones (even great ones) … but most of it is absurd nonsense. I only feel bad for the trees that were wasted to make the paper it was written on.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Yankee Doodle,
When you infer it is uncharitable regarding mainline people referencing Luther and others, we are also inferring the great break in common charity. How many were killed on both sides with the Reformation, and the subsequent splintering into further fractions, divisions and denominations.
Christ instituted only one church. Reading Acts and the history of the apostles, there is always the work of inculturating the faith into the given culture to ensure the transmission of faith and the Word of God is shared, its integrity maintained. One Baptism, One Body both maintains diversity but also the Christian brotherhood.
The development of the Bible was not the work of one man.
It is said Luther did not intend for events to go as far as they did. And there was a great deal of corruption in the Church.
The transmission of apostolic faith and tradition is separate from human beings’ desire to embrace its fullness or to choose otherwise and become scandal to it. The Church cannot guarantee that its disciples and followers will be faithful themselves. The only perfection the Church can attain in this life is faithfulness to the conviction of our tenant of faith found in the Nicene Creed. When we as a Church state this creed in communion, it is the only perfection.
Believers in any given parish or denomination are all on different levels of faith and behavior. Conversion is a life long process.
When you infer it is uncharitable regarding mainline people referencing Luther and others, we are also inferring the great break in common charity. How many were killed on both sides with the Reformation, and the subsequent splintering into further fractions, divisions and denominations.
Christ instituted only one church. Reading Acts and the history of the apostles, there is always the work of inculturating the faith into the given culture to ensure the transmission of faith and the Word of God is shared, its integrity maintained. One Baptism, One Body both maintains diversity but also the Christian brotherhood.
The development of the Bible was not the work of one man.
It is said Luther did not intend for events to go as far as they did. And there was a great deal of corruption in the Church.
The transmission of apostolic faith and tradition is separate from human beings’ desire to embrace its fullness or to choose otherwise and become scandal to it. The Church cannot guarantee that its disciples and followers will be faithful themselves. The only perfection the Church can attain in this life is faithfulness to the conviction of our tenant of faith found in the Nicene Creed. When we as a Church state this creed in communion, it is the only perfection.
Believers in any given parish or denomination are all on different levels of faith and behavior. Conversion is a life long process.
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
I think I mentioned Luther in the context of pointing out the hypocrisy of a poster who said the forgeries of the works by Titus Falvius Josephus merely amounted to over-enthusiasm, while Luther’s addition of the single word “alone” into Galatians was a heresy against god and his church (I’m always amused by the drama of Catholic language).
OK … obviously as an agnostic I believe these are all myths, but we’re all entitled to our opinions.
Indeed not. It’s a collection of myths spanning back centuries (even millennium), drawn up by numerous men; some of whom were probably mad, while others were just relaying old tribal folklore from one generation to the next.
That’s accurate I suppose to a point. I believe Luther initially voiced his complains properly, up his chain of command. When they went unanswered I assume he couldn’t sit by while his people were being so obviously exploited by Rome. Eventually I’m sure the reformation picked up so much momentum, Luther lost control of it (even though he remained its hero).
honestly, my response would usually be yeah right, and I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale. But since you’re being kind let’s just say I strongly disagree.
yeah, but deprogramming is an even longer process
K
KathleenGee
Guest
We as Catholics can say, ‘We are saved by faith in Christ’…our faith represented in the Nicene Creed. As far as living up to that…the focus then changes to the individual and how that person is applying one’s life to the Gospel. Conversion is thus a lifelong process. Perfection is found only in heaven.
The prophets of the Old Testament all pointed to God’s relationship with man. We all came from common ancestors, and you know, in those days in reflecting eschatology–who are we, where did we come from, where are we going, what is life’s purpose—the myths also reveal the need for the human being to find meaning to one’s existence.
Science can’t answer everything.
The prophets of the Old Testament all pointed to God’s relationship with man. We all came from common ancestors, and you know, in those days in reflecting eschatology–who are we, where did we come from, where are we going, what is life’s purpose—the myths also reveal the need for the human being to find meaning to one’s existence.
Science can’t answer everything.
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
sure, no disagreement here. These myths are the natural result of our intelligence. Dog’s haven’t invented myths to allay their concern about their imminent fate, because they’re not as keenly aware of their morality as we are. We’ve never heard of cat’s pondering questions like why are we here, because they lack the intellectual capacity to form those types of thoughts in their mind.
It’s our only real hope. What we can know through history and common sense observation is there’s no invisible being who answers prayers or intervenes in the physical world. Whether or not some intelligent being or beings had a hand in constructing the universe is a separate question, but we’re always better off assuming everything has a natural cause.
The only constant laws that have ever existed are the laws of nature (i.e. physics, random natural selection, adaptation, etc.). There is no such thing as an invisible conscience, since human history makes it abundantly evident that man has never possessed an intuitive sense of morality or principals by which we’re mysteriously compelled to live by.
Survival of the fittest became survival of the family, then tribe, then nation state, and now world. This shows that not only has our biology evolved, but our morality has evolved, and therefore the most logical assumption is it’s the product of our intelligence.
N
NoWings
Guest
Not to get off topic, but the pessimist in me doesn’t see a cure for cancer, ever. I honestly don’t think pharmaceutical interests would allow it. /tinfoil hat
The other off-topic is that I think NASA should be disbanded because I see it as a waste of tax dollars. If there’s really a lot of good things to come out of local space exploration then the private sector will find a way to capitalize on it.
Anyway, yeah… Please continue your feud.
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
I guess I have a little more optimism. There’s simply too much incentive attached to new discovery to suppress science indefinitely. For instance, I see promise in nanotechnology. Obviously the big constraint is the deepest pockets in terms of research dollars are the pharma companies (and they have no interest in nanotechnology unless it has a pharmaceutical companion).
hmmm, maybe? I have mixed feelings on the utility of NASA. I do think there’s some justification in terms of national defense (but I suppose we could roll those functions into the Air Force). Anyways … like I said I’m not sure (not something I’ve thought about or researched enough to form an opinion either way).
M
mathematician
Guest
Atheists who come on to Christian forums are almost by definition militants out to make bores of themselves. The open minded ones in the form of people like Mary Midgley, John Gray, Terry Eagleton or Paul Davies tend to stay away, even though you could have a meaningful discussion with them.
Still, at least we are spared the presence of Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens.
- Status