Pope To Consider Allowing People To Live

[Hydey]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


their God given common sense

common sense given by a non existant deity is actually no sense at all.

[Flip McWho]

Firstly: I'm not a catholic, I'm a (protestant) christian.

Cybershy, I know, that was a general statement aimed at catholics, not all of christianity.

Why not? Paul oftenly comes with rational reasoning himself as well. Rational reasoning just only will not lead to faith. But it may remove some obstacles of pre justice that much people hold against christianity.

So rational reasoning would lead to agnosticism then?
Faith is trusting in God's existence ultimately.

"i'm not capable to live a rightious life myself" and "He's the King and he's worth it to be followed".

Whice are arguably emotional positions. Also based on the trust in Gods existence.

Most of them are not carefully reasoned

No, they're all carefully reasoned, you just don't agree with the assumptions they're making behind the decision.

That's something that both catholics and protestants, eventhough we may disagree on other issues, share.

Aye, I find it annoying when i'm talking to a christian who'll just call themselves just a Christian when they obviously belong to some denomination or other which is what I really wanna know.

Christianity is not like that.
In fact it's not even a religion

Umm yeah it is. And it is quite like that, dressed up in more benevolent clothing but essentially the same.

Through suffering and dying jesus becomes the hero. Theres more to herohood than mighty victories on fields of battle, thats a worldly hero, Christ was not exactly entirely of this world. He also provides for our salvation, thats pretty damn heroic of him, especially considering what he had to go through.

What matters is that you want to follow him, that you want to give your life to him, that you trust all you are and all you will ever be to him. That matters. And that's much more then believing in existance or something.

You need to believe in his existence before you can give all that to him. Thats the prerequisite assumption that cannot be based entirely on reason.

For other religions are reasonable for humanity while christianity is against all that's human, and is for that reason not a faith that would be invented by humans.

Interesting logic, never considered it that way before.

Oh well, that might be true, but if you're a christian, base yourself on the Bible. Then the non-christians may hold that up against us. But don't hide behind some human inventions. No matter if it's called the book of Mormon, the Qu'ran or the RC Teachings.

You do realise that the NT can be considered just as much a human invention as the Book of Mormon and the Qu'ran?

The Catholic church is often referred to as the Church (with church capitolized) and has been since before most of the protestant sects broke off.

Thats cause you guys were the first, original church (well once most of the budding ones were wiped out around 300-500AD)

I don't like the idea of protestant churches lumping Catholics with them by using Christianity.

I agree, though thats what you all are is Christians.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
So rational reasoning would lead to agnosticism then?
Faith is trusting in God's existence ultimately.

I think so. I think that you need something more than just rational reasoning, in order to find God.

Jon Miller

[Flip McWho]

Jon,

Yeah I agree, it definitely takes a certain leap of faith to entirely trust in Gods existence. Rational reasoning can only provide a plausible reason to believe not an absolute conviction.

[Robert]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
So rational reasoning would lead to agnosticism then?
Faith is trusting in God's existence ultimately.

Faith is not trusting in God's existence.
Jesus says that the demons believe in his existence as well, but they fear God and do not follow him.

The greek word that's been used for 'faith' and 'believe' in the new testament most of the time can better be translated by 'trust'. The purpose of the gospel is not to just blatantly believe that God exists. It is that you resign yourself to him and trust your life to him.

And I don't see why rational reasoning would automaticly lead to agnosticism, eventhough that's another discussion. Rational reasoning leads to deism for me.

[Flip McWho]

Faith is not trusting in God's existence.
Jesus says that the demons believe in his existence as well, but they fear God and do not follow him.

Faith is exactly that.
Of course the demons would believe, there existence depends on Gods existence. You're right they don't follow him.
However as humans we get the choice to follow him and trust your life to him. Part of that trusting you life is trusting in Gods existence, as rational reasoning will only lead you so far. It can't confirm gods actual existence it can just provide plausible reasons to lead to that trust.

But this leads to the last point of yours. Rational reasoning can lead you to many different standpoints. For example I agree Deism is a rationally reasoned position, but so is atheism. The first cause argument is unproveable and so is the argument from design. Both have plausible alternatives, for example big bang, and evolution and what not. Given that both these positions are plausible then agnosticism is the only rational option.

[Robert]

Of course one needs to believe in the existence of God to have trust in him. But the existence itself is no the sole purpose of christianity.
Therefor I disagree with people who say that it's not good to come with reasonable arguments for the existence of God, you just have to believe it.

That's BS. you can come with reasonable arguments for the existence of God, though that will not make you a christian. Of course more should come after that, among others: resign your life to him and follow him. Reasoning has nothing to do with that.

I disagree with you that reasonable argumentation automaticly leads to agnoticism. The first cause argument is by itself a reason to say that reasonable argumentation at least gives deism as the only option. We can't find the answer to or origination in ourselves. The cause of our reality can't be found within our reality. For everything we have observed external factors are a must to get something in existence.

I agree taht we can't reason ourselves to christianity by reasoning in this way. Though the jewish case through all ages is a good reason to assume that judaism / christianity appear to are quite close, for sure if you concider the huge amounts of biblical prophecies that are being fullfilled in our time. But once again, that can be assigned to pure 'luck', eventhough I think that's a pretty lame excuse.

[Flip McWho]

no the sole purpose of christianity.

correct, the purpose is to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, in which believing in the trinity and the resurrection is apart, both of which rely on the pre-existing condition of Gods existence. Being a christian is your belief in Christ which is dependant on a belief in God.

That's BS. you can come with reasonable arguments for the existence of God, though that will not make you a christian. Of course more should come after that, among others: resign your life to him and follow him. Reasoning has nothing to do with that.

No it won't make you a christian. Belief in the trinity and the resurrection of Christ will make you one.
Are you kinda saying that deism is the default position and christianity is the faith position?

I disagree with you that reasonable argumentation automaticly leads to agnoticism.

Firstly the first cause argument can go either way. No proof to the contrary does not equal proof off. We've got just as much proof of God's existence as we do of Gods nonexistence. Its an assumption you're making that god exists from this point. An assumption that could just as easily be given towards not believing. Hence agnosticism.

You're correct that we can't:

The cause of our reality can't be found within our reality.

But this is the same as the meaning to life question which again has many answers depending on which assumption you take from the beginning. You assume that nothing this complex could exist without some sort of external factor. Truth be told we cannot know for sure what caused the existence of this universe to come into being so the default is agnosticism.

But once again, that can be assigned to pure 'luck', eventhough I think that's a pretty lame excuse.

Theres no such thing as luck. I reckon theres a bit of self fulfillments going on, with a healthy dose of liberal interpretations on somewhat ambigious data.

Isn't Islam also a kinda branch of off Judaism?

[Robert]

You assume that nothing this complex could exist without some sort of external factor. Truth be told we cannot know for sure what caused the existence of this universe to come into being so the default is agnosticism.

This has nothing to do with complexity.
The first cause argument does not deal with complexity, it deals with existence.
how can something without a cause come out of nothing? Where comes the space from where we live in? What created the space in which something came uncaused from nothing?

Something is needed for our existence, something that's not a part of our reality. Somethingism / deism is therefor the default, imho.

Regarding Islam, with all respect to Islam, Islam is just a misinterpertation of judaism and christianity. The Quran mostly concists of mixed up Biblical stories.
suddenly Miryam, the sister of Moses is the mother of Jesus, and the parents of Miryam/Moses are therefor the 'grand parents' of Jesus. That's a huge mixup of two stories.

Mohammd wanted to be accepted by the christians and the jews. Only after they rejected him he started to battle against them. Mohammed never got the intention to start a new religion. He just knew something about both monotheistic religions (both aren't really monotheistic btw) but he knew not exactly what it was, and made a lot of stuff up. Therefor Islam is imho not really a religion, like hinduism / zoroastrianism / judaism / christianity are. Islam is just a misunderstanding of judaism/christianity.

[Flip McWho]

Yeah sorry I mixed up the complexity with the first cause one. They both follow a similar line. We can't comprehend therefore it was God.

Something without a cause could quite easily come out of nothing as there ain't no cause in the first place. That presumes there was nothing prior to creation (again no evidence of this outside of the bible).
The space comes from the big bang, which was a singularity exploding apparently. Where does the singularity come from? Well thats open to any amount of guesswork, since we cannot prove anything at all, prior to some incredibly small timeframe from in the big bang. It all boils down to cause really. A deist makes an assumption that we (this universe) could not exist without a first cause. An atheist makes the opposite assumption. Yet neither is really proveable (rationally or empirically) in the end.

It is plausible that there is no cause to the universe, it just is. Just as there is no cause to God, God just is. No matter what, with an infinite regression like first cause the line will always be arbitrary whereever its drawn. Religious people draw that line at God, non-religious either make no line or there own whereever line.

Hence agnosticism. Deism requires the assumption that something couldn't exist out of nothing, which again assumes there was nothing prior to creation.

Regards Islam,

Instead of saying mixed up biblical stories, the word misinterpretated biblical stories may be more applicable. But then that leads to all versions are necessarily interpretations, unless a claim is made that they are the literal word of God. Or divinely inspired word of God, but then a Muslim would argue that as well.

I agree that Christianity isn't so much a monotheistic religion, though it technically has to try to remain so. But I don't see how judaism isn't? I thought that was like the original monotheistic religion.

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by CyberShy
The RCC is not THE church.

Because the Church is the whole People of God, authority resides in the community as a whole, although it is exercised in various ways, by various persons, for the good of the whole.

Catholicism
Richard P. McBrien 1994


Sorry to go Kenobi on your ass. But thought I'd throw this in as a sidenote.
Re: "Catholic"

Are Catholics who are in communion with Rome Roman Catholics or just plain Catholics?
Some inside as well as outside the Catholic Church think it ecumenically insensitive to drop the adjective Roman because so many Anglican, Orthodax, Protestant and Oriental Christians also regard themselves as Catholic. But other Catholics object to the use of the adjective Roman on ecclesiological grounds. For such Catholics Roman tends to confuse rather than define the reality of Catholicism.
The history of the Church begins with Jesus' gathering of his disciples and with the postresurrection commisioning of Peter to be the chief shepherd and foundation of the Church - but in Jerusalem, not in Rome. Therefore, it is not the Roman primacy that gives Catholics one of it's distinctive marks of identity within the family of Christian churches, but the Petrine primacy. The adjective Roman applies more properly to the diocese, or see, of Rome than to the worldwide Church which is in union with the Bishop of Rome. Indeed it strikes some Catholics as contradictory to call the Church Catholic and Roman at the same time.
Eastern Rite Catholics who are in union with Rome also find the adjective Roman objectionable. They prefer to speak of their churches as Catholic and then to distinguish particular ecclesial traditions within the Catholic communion. In addition to the Latin, or Roman, tradition, there are seven other non-Latin, non-Roman, ecclesial traditions: Armeian, Byzantine, Coptic, Ethiopian, Esat Syrian (Chaldean), West Syrian and Maronite. Each of these is a Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome; none of these is a Roman Catholic church. Catholicism, therefore is neither narrowly Roman nor narrowly Western. It is universal in the fullest sense of the word.

ibid.

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Terra Nullius
Strictly speaking though, the RCC sees itself as 'Right' and everyone else as 'Wrong.' Well, everyone except the Greeks, but we're working on that.

Don't tell Horse, but I got this one wrong.

@#$@#%% Vatican II.

The Church is at once local and universal. The Body of Christ truly exists in particular locales (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, n. 26) and is also the Church universal. It is indeed a communion of churches. Insofar as the Church is a communion of churches, the papal office serves the unity of the Church as "the perpetual and visible source of and foundation of the unity of the bishops and of the multitude of the faithful" (n. 23). The pope's primacy is a primacy of service, in service of unity. Insofar as the Church is a communion of churches, the papal office must respect the legitimate diversity of these churches (n. 23), a collegial mode of decision-making (n. 23), and the time-honoured Catholic social principle of subsidiarity, which holds that nothing is to be done by a higher group, agency, or level of authority that can be done better or as well by a lower group, agency or level of authority.
The Church, whether local or universal, is the People of God. The Spirit is given to all. All share in principle in the total mission of the Church: prophetic, priestly, and kingly. The hierarchy, including the pope, exists to serve the rest of the Church in the exercise of that Spirit-rooted mission. The primacy is precisely for that purpose.

ibid.

Of course, I could be misinterpreting this too. But it seems like Vatican II went muuuch much further than I thought on ecumenism.

[Terra Nullius]

Screw you guys.

I'm heading back to the fifteenth century. When Catholicism was fun!!

The Council of Florence, Decree for the Jacobites (1442)
... the document does not deny the presence of grace beyond the borders of the Church. It also affirms that Christian freedom makes all human customs lawful if the faith is intact and edification attended to. The kay negative teaching, however, is contained in this declaration: "[The Holy Roman Church] ... firmly believes, professes and preaches that 'no one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, ' but Jews, heretics, or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but they will go to the 'eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels' (Matthew 25:41), unless before the end of their life they are received into it."

[Terra Nullius]

On the plus side, at least the Atheists get condemned to heaven too...

Can't wait to say "Hi" to Che and Spiff!

What is to be said, finally, of the abiding presence of unbelief in the world? According to Vatican II (the Pastoral Constitution, nn. 19-22; the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, n. 16; and the Decree on the Church's Missionary Activity, n. 7) not every instance of positive atheism, i.e., explicit rejection of God, is to be regarded as the result and the expression of personal sin. Even the atheist can be justified and receive salvation if he or she acts in accordance with his or her conscience. Over against the earlier teaching of the textbooks, the council assumes that it is possible for a normal adult to hold an explicit atheism for a long period of time, even to life's end, without this implying moral blame on the part of the unbeliever.
The council also seems to rule out the notion that those who die without explicit faith in God but who live good lives are destined for some form of natural happiness alone. The council, in the Decree on the Church's Missionary Activity, implicitly affirms the thesis that the natural order is already graced and that there can be no purely and distinctly natural end of human existence. Even the so-called nonbelievers can reach a saving faith without having accepted the explicit preaching of the Gospel.

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by CyberShy
I'm not sure if the quote is still usuable for horse spanking.

Oh, it did the job quite nicely, thanks.

In fact, that was so much fun. I thought I'd have another go.

Although the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (n. 25) restates and carries forward Pope Pius XII's teaching in Humani Generis, ie. that Catholics owe "religious allegiance of the will and intellect" even to noninfallible teachings of the pope, it is significant that the council did not reassert the doctrine of Humani Generis forbidding further public discussion of matters settled by the pope, even though this doctrine appeared in the preliminary draft of November 10, 1962.