Religion of fellow civvers

[peter grimes]

Any deviation or departure from what the Church definitively teaches cannot rightfully be said to be Catholic, for dogma cannot be changed to reflect the fancies of the age and the truth does not change simply because people want it to be different to justify their own actions or personal opinions.

So what happens when the Pope changes his mind on something like Astronomy? One could argue persuasively that the Earth-centric view was nothing more than the fancy of the age at the time. Or you could claim that the heliocentric view is the fancy of the age (despite being true).

So didn't that mean that the earlier view and teachings of the Catholic Church were incorrect, and therefore fallible?

If there's a better thread for this, I'll be happy to take an answer over there.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Added to that:

because people want it to be different to justify their own actions or personal opinions.

Is missing the mark since one person cannot make that big of a change, it's social and cultural changes on a large scale.

Added to the added to that, this is almost certainly coming from someone who does exactly what he is accusing others of, because of what El Mac said. The words remain the same, the interpretations have been varying wildly over the years from the day before the Bible was composed when was decided which scriptures had the factor. Spare me the one true word and one true interpretation bullcrap when you're marketing your own interpretation and opinion.

No True Christian indeed.

 

[Traitorfish]

Atheism, of the Bakuninian "if God really, it would be necessary to abolish him" variety.

Similarly, Marxism is commonly considered a faith because of its strong principles and the prophecy that the workers will one day overthrow their oppressors. It may have more thoughts on politics than most faiths, but what's the difference between "God and the Devil will one day do battle" vs. "The proletariat and the bourgeiose will one day do battle?" Never mind, Islam is widely accepted as a religion, but has quite a few thoughts on politics as far as I know. (For example, as I recall, it openly forbids the concept of separate countries)

I'm not sure that you actually know anything about either Marxism or Islam.

 

[timtofly]

Explain the existence of Christianity and Islam.

this ->

I agree that you cannot change the word itself. But you can change how you listen.

 

[madviking]

I'm not sure that you actually know anything about either Marxism or Islam.

TFox is touching the notion of political religion, advanced by people such as Sam Harris.

 

[Traitorfish]

TFox is touching the notion of political religion, advanced by people such as Sam Harris.

Then he should probably wash his hands before he catches something serious.

 

[El_Machinae]

Cool faith, bro. Where do I sign up?

You practice the faith by pro-actively taking steps to improve the human condition and by engaging in some self-sacrifice to do so. To think about 'forever' while fighting today's temptations. Learning & teaching are sacraments. Creating is worship and preventing destruction is holy.

The goal is to live forever, with whoever wants to join me. I want to give that option to as many people as possible: my parents, your parents, people I don't know. And I think the best way there is through teamwork and mutually beneficial activities. The more things we do to make it likely, obviously, the more likely it will be.

Shallowly,
http://www.imminst.org
http://humanityplus.org/
(though they're a splinter sect)

 

[timtofly]

You practice the faith by pro-actively taking steps to improve the human condition and by engaging in some self-sacrifice to do so. To think about 'forever' while fighting today's temptations. Learning & teaching are sacraments. Creating is worship and preventing destruction is holy.

The goal is to live forever, with whoever wants to join me. I want to give that option to as many people as possible: my parents, your parents, people I don't know. And I think the best way there is through teamwork and mutually beneficial activities. The more things we do to make it likely, obviously, the more likely it will be.

Shallowly,
http://www.imminst.org
http://humanityplus.org/
(though they're a splinter sect)

This sounds like something from the AD 30's???

 

[Maniacal]

I agree that you cannot change the word itself. But you can change how you listen.

I disagree, it is quite easy to change the word when you translate it into other languages. Sure it doesn't change the original text, but if no one (or very few) can read it or if it has been lost...

Although afaik the koran is written in the original language, which is a bit different from modern Arabic and people are taught both languages in Muslim countries. Although parts of it are from other holy books.

 

[Jehoshua]

So what happens when the Pope changes his mind on something like Astronomy? One could argue persuasively that the Earth-centric view was nothing more than the fancy of the age at the time. Or you could claim that the heliocentric view is the fancy of the age (despite being true).

So didn't that mean that the earlier view and teachings of the Catholic Church were incorrect, and therefore fallible?

If there's a better thread for this, I'll be happy to take an answer over there.

said thread would be Ask A Catholic:

However the answer would be that scientific matters, such as matters relating to astronomy are not dogmatic defined religious teachings and are beyond the purview of the Church's infallible teaching, which naturally deals with matters of faith and morals.

-

Also I might point out that Copernicus who revived heliocentric theory was a Catholic priest, that his book De revolitionibus was dedicated to the pope of the day, and he was encouraged to publish it by the archbishop of Capua. The main detractors at the time were Luther and Calvin. Heliocentrism only got the bad end of the stick many decades later upon Galileo, and he didn't really help himself and his cause when his book the " Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo" (written on the request of the pope) appeared to mock the pope.

Even then however the Church accepted heliocentrisms validity as a calculating device and never totally rejected it, even though it took time for it to universally accept the theory as true in regards to the physical structure of the solar system. Contemporaneously sa well (at least according to some scholars) the theory was held, despite associations with heresy in regards to galileo, to be devoid of general theological significance.

-

@Ziggy Stardust: I simply proclaim what the Church teaches, on dogmatic matters they are unchangeable and cannot shift because of peoples personal opinions born of experience or cultural change. In regards to things related to that, like when people throw specific examples at me, I then provide an informed opinion based on what the Church teaches infallibly (ergo dogmatic teaching), and based on orthodox theological opinion if infallible teaching does not completely cover the question.

Also I think your statement reflects a protestantised understanding of Christianity, I was not talking about the bible, or biblical interpretation, indeed the Church does not follow sola scriptura so homing in on the bible alone is fallacious when trying to discern what I am talking about truth. I was talking about those fundamental realities which are unchangeable and not subject to the fancies of the age. To list some examples, the existence of God, the trinity and the literal ressurection of Christ are what I am talking about. These things cannot change and will not change ever. In the Catholic Church these things are dogma, and no one, not even the pope or an ecumenical council has the authority to change them, as they simply cannot be changed.

 

[Oruc]

Explain the existence of Christianity and Islam.

From a Jewish perspective a false messiah and false prophet, from Christian perspective Christianity is God correcting human error in Judaism and Muhammad is a false prophet, From a Islamic perspective Muhammad is the last prophet the revelations he recieved were correcting previous human errors like worshipping Jesus as if he was divine (all very simplified, I'm sure you could have thought of this yourself though)

I agree that you cannot change the word itself. But you can change how you listen.

That kind of thinking would lead to the complete irrelevance of religion in the modern world (each religious person holding their own personal religion) which is the very reason you encourage it.
If you're religious and want a more moral society you must oppose this line of thinking

 

[El_Machinae]

I very, very much want a more moral society

I disagree, it is quite easy to change the word when you translate it into other languages. Sure it doesn't change the original text, but if no one (or very few) can read it or if it has been lost...

Although afaik the koran is written in the original language, which is a bit different from modern Arabic and people are taught both languages in Muslim countries. Although parts of it are from other holy books.

I was being a bit deeper than that. If a god exists, nearly everyone believes that the god would communicate in multiple ways. These communications wouldn't change, but what parts we listen to can change if we grow or recede in wisdom.

The Koran is a good example, people think it's the word of God. The Koran talks about Moses. But what does god say? Well, all of reality is arranged such to insist that Moses is merely a myth. A story. It didn't happen. You and I cannot change this. The created reality is informing us as to what is true.

God's Universe contains a Koran that says that Moses was real. God's Universe also contains thousands of indications that the Moses story is not real. IF we accept that God is not deceptive, we need to change how we listen. We need to recognise that worshiping the god described with Moses is dangerous, because we've been told (by reality) that this god does not exist. The entire Universe has been arranged to tell us that the story of Moses isn't true; and so maybe we should rethink whether it's actually immoral to worship a non-existent baby-killer.

If reality is part of the Word, then we can change how we listen.

 

[Arakhor]

If you're religious and want a more moral society you must oppose this line of thinking

And the key problem with that is who determines what constitutes a more moral society?

 

[Tee Kay]

Religious zealots may deny that religions innovate, but they do.

 

[Azash]

Agnosticism. Not enough evidence for anything, and I won't presume gods don't exist just because I haven't seen proof.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Religious zealots may deny that religions innovate, but they do.

Quite a lot, actually. Evangelicals are notorious for trying to adapt scripture to modern culture, no matter how comically absurd this can be at times.

 

[sophie]

Quite a lot, actually. Evangelicals are notorious for trying to adapt scripture to modern culture, no matter how comically absurd this can be at times.

I've always rather been a fan of the "oh and the dinosaurs were there too" revisions to the first chapters of genesis, particularly the children's bible versions which depict Adam and Eve chillin' with T. Rexes.

 

[_random_]

I've always rather been a fan of the "oh and the dinosaurs were there too" revisions to the first chapters of genesis, particularly the children's bible versions which depict Adam and Eve chillin' with T. Rexes.

If we ever meet up in the Tri-State area, I'm taking you to the Creation Museum. It's got Adam and Eve chillin' with animatronic T-Rexes.

 

[Arakhor]

You know, Tri-State area or not, if I want dinosaurs, I'll go to the Natural History Museum. I tend not to be too polite when exposed things that offend my intelligence.

 

[MantaRevan]

If we ever meet up in the Tri-State area, I'm taking you to the Creation Museum. It's got Adam and Eve chillin' with animatronic T-Rexes.

You know, I went there once. They kicked me out. Said I couldn't come back. .