Where do you look for authority in Religious matters?

SoulandForm

I think this is an extremely important question.

Personally I believe that the ultimate authority is the Bible, secondly I would place reason and as a close third tradition-understood as the consensus of Christians across time and space. Reason though needs to be respectful and a hand maid to the Bible.

If you dont have an objective place to look for authoritative answers outside ourselves in the Spiritual realm than what is the point of Christianity?

antiskeptic

SoulandForm wrote: »

I think this is an extremely important question.

Given the nigh on infinite variety when it comes to viewpoints I would agree.

Personally...

Which is another way of saying you are the ultimate authority. And I would agree.

I believe that the ultimate authority is the Bible

More accurately: your interpretation of the bible (whether interpreted personally or deciding that anothers interpretation is the correct-ist one.

If you don't have an objective place to look for authoritative answers outside ourselves in the Spiritual realm than what is the point of Christianity?

I'm not sure that arriving at objective, authoritative answers is God's ultimate goal regarding us. I mean, it's not possible that we do that, so it can't be his goal..

SoulandForm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which is another way of saying you are the ultimate authority. And I would agree.

I'm not sure that arriving at objective, authoritative answers is God's ultimate goal regarding us. I mean, it's not possible that we do that, so it can't be his goal..

NO by personally I didnt mean that its a subjective thing- I meant that it is what I subscribe.

Humans differ incredibly so God's approach to different humans I believe differs however that does not mean there are no objective God revealed standards otherwise we are completely thrown back upon ourselves. God said that the truth shall set us free- therefore having some guide to truth is very necessary.

_Redzer_

SoulandForm wrote: »

NO by personally I didnt mean that its a subjective thing- I meant that it is what I subscribe.

Humans differ incredibly so God's approach to different humans I believe differs however that does not mean there are no objective God revealed standards otherwise we are completely thrown back upon ourselves. God said that the truth shall set us free- therefore having some guide to truth is very necessary.

I always wondered if he was talking about science

georgieporgy

SoulandForm wrote: »

I think this is an extremely important question.

Personally I believe that the ultimate authority is the Bible, secondly I would place reason and as a close third tradition-understood as the consensus of Christians across time and space. Reason though needs to be respectful and a hand maid to the Bible.

If you dont have an objective place to look for authoritative answers outside ourselves in the Spiritual realm than what is the point of Christianity?

Good question, and I agree with your view on the necessity for some objectivity.
St Cyprian of Carthage, early third century, is well known for his opinion on this subject so you might like to read some of his stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprian

verbumdei

SoulandForm wrote: »

I think this is an extremely important question.

Personally I believe that the ultimate authority is the Bible, secondly I would place reason and as a close third tradition-understood as the consensus of Christians across time and space. Reason though needs to be respectful and a hand maid to the Bible.

If you dont have an objective place to look for authoritative answers outside ourselves in the Spiritual realm than what is the point of Christianity?

Where in the Bible does it say this? The word of God was given to his Church and is part of his Church. Nowhere in the Bible does it say we should only believe solely what is in the Bible. Protestants typically read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context. During the early Church there would have been the experiences of the people who had know Christ + the Tora. Sacred Scripture as we know today the bible formed from the Church.

Even today you have various Protestant churches who hold the Bible as the source of all their faith.. But when you open it you fine one or other book missing, and in some cases a later book added.

Christ came, choice his apostles, to that group he entrusted his message. No where did Christ say that his teachings once written down were the ultimate authority in the church. He gave his message to people, these people were entrusted to pass his message forward, who were given the keys.

SoulandForm

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Matthew 15:9.

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

John 5:39.

So obviously to know what are doctrines and commandments of men we have to look to towards the Scriptures?

SoulandForm

Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.

1 Corinthians 7:23.

If we are not to be the slaves of men where than should we look for authority?

homer911

verbumdei wrote: »

Where in the Bible does it say this? The word of God was given to his Church and is part of his Church. Nowhere in the Bible does it say we should only believe solely what is in the Bible. Protestants typically read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context. During the early Church there would have been the experiences of the people who had know Christ + the Tora. Sacred Scripture as we know today the bible formed from the Church.

.. and nowhere does it say in the bible that if someone teaches something contrary to what is in the Bible, you should believe it instead. The Bible sets the standard against which all teaching should be judged

Even today you have various Protestant churches who hold the Bible as the source of all their faith.. But when you open it you fine one or other book missing, and in some cases a later book added.

Before giving out about missing books in the Bible, ask yourself a couple of questions:
Why do Jews not include these books in their scripture?
Why were the books ommitted in the first place? They were judged against the standard of the other books in the Bible, and judged by people who didnt "only believe solely what is in the Bible"

Christ came, choice his apostles, to that group he entrusted his message. No where did Christ say that his teachings once written down were the ultimate authority in the church

Why would he have?

He gave his message to people, these people were entrusted to pass his message forward, who were given the keys.

so what's your point? That oral tradition and canon law, devised by man, should take precedent over God's word? As I said, the Bible is the gold standard by which these should be judged

Interesting article here on not adding to or detracting from scripture
http://www.letusreason.org/Biblexp117.htm

Manach

I'm going with http://www.vatican.va/, as per Tradition, Bible and Magistrium.

tommy2bad

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure that arriving at objective, authoritative answers is God's ultimate goal regarding us. I mean, it's not possible that we do that, so it can't be his goal..

This I like.

I go with the bible, tradition, and conscience.
Yes it means that it's my reading of the bible in the light of tradition and how I feel about it. Dose that make it less authoritative?

SoulandForm

Manach wrote: »

I'm going with http://www.vatican.va/, as per Tradition, Bible and Magistrium.

The problem though with looking to the Magisterium is that it is contradicted itself- you just have to take the example of the issues of religious liberty or usury.

This is fast turning into a Catholic versus Protestant thread which wasnt my intention; may main purpose in starting this thread was to examine both Roman Catholic and Protestant "liberalism" and to see if they are indeed based solely on the fallen human will.

verbumdei

SoulandForm wrote: »

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Matthew 15:9.

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

John 5:39.

So obviously to know what are doctrines and commandments of men we have to look to towards the Scriptures?

When the above was written was it with Knowledge of what St.Paul had written?

SoulandForm

verbumdei wrote: »

When the above was written was it with Knowledge of what St.Paul had written?

I believe the New Testament was Divinely inspired.

God exists in a NOW in which past, present and future are seen altogether.

SoulandForm

georgieporgy wrote: »

Good question, and I agree with your view on the necessity for some objectivity.
St Cyprian of Carthage, early third century, is well known for his opinion on this subject so you might like to read some of his stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprian

St Cyprian is an incredibly interesting figure in the history of Christianity- but his ideas were rejected by the Pope of Rome of his time and later by St Augustine (the Donatists drew mostly on St Cyprian). His ideas however to this day are very influential in the Christian East.

He deserves his own thread.

verbumdei

SoulandForm wrote: »

I believe the New Testament was Divinely inspired.

God exists in a NOW in which past, present and future are seen altogether.

So do I believe that. God use his church into which inspire what is written in the New Testament. The Sacred Scripture came from the Church inspired by God.

antiskeptic

SoulandForm wrote: »

NO by personally I didnt mean that its a subjective thing- I meant that it is what I subscribe.

Humans differ incredibly so God's approach to different humans I believe differs however that does not mean there are no objective God revealed standards otherwise we are completely thrown back upon ourselves. God said that the truth shall set us free- therefore having some guide to truth is very necessary.

Indeed it is. But at the end of the day, you've only got your subscription to what you are supposing God's truth is. And where you suppose it is to be found. .

I don't see the problem in this since I suppose one truth to be that the Spirit takes a hand in leading and that being lead (or desiring to go) astray isn't the end of the world. If I am wrong in that particular supposition then so be it - I don't see what other choice I've got but to suppose God offers some sort of leading.

antiskeptic

tommy2bad wrote: »

This I like.

I go with the bible, tradition, and conscience.
Yes it means that it's my reading of the bible in the light of tradition and how I feel about it. Dose that make it less authoritative?

Since I don't suppose there'll be anyone standing between you and God come the time of reckoning, your own authority strikes me as the only one that'll be in town.


Which makes it very authoritative indeed.

antiskeptic

_Redzer_ wrote: »

I always wondered if he was talking about science

I sincerely doubt it. For every freedom science has given us I can name a prison.

Truth doesn't do prisons.

Manach

antiskeptic wrote: »

I sincerely doubt it. For every freedom science has given us I can name a prison.

In defence of Science, it is the best ever tool to shape the material world. It searches for and achieves an objective truth on nature, with a self-correcting mechanism to discard untruths. However, it does not cast judgement. I was at a Rights conference, and the topic of Science was on the floor. In discussion, was the lack of ethics in science - in that no regard is taken of the end results of the scientific process or that science can be used to aid in tyrannical regimes like Stalin or Enda. Pointing out though the moral of Science is the discovery of knowledge and what happens to that, is outside its realm. Pure data is neutral.

antiskeptic

Manach wrote: »

In defence of Science, it is the best ever tool to shape the material world..

... for good or for ill.

I'm not attacking science such that it needs to be defended. I'm merely adding ill to the poster in question's good.

SoulandForm

Manach wrote: »

In defence of Science, it is the best ever tool to shape the material world. It searches for and achieves an objective truth on nature, with a self-correcting mechanism to discard untruths. However, it does not cast judgement. I was at a Rights conference, and the topic of Science was on the floor. In discussion, was the lack of ethics in science - in that no regard is taken of the end results of the scientific process or that science can be used to aid in tyrannical regimes like Stalin or Enda. Pointing out though the moral of Science is the discovery of knowledge and what happens to that, is outside its realm. Pure data is neutral.

The thing though is that it was the accursed line of Cain from which cities (and I presume also technology) sprang while the God fearing line of Abel led pastoral simple lives in harmony with nature. Also according to the Book of Enoch which is quoted in the New Testament and taken as Scripture by the Ethiopian Church (the true Religion in Ethiopia goes back to the time of Solomon) it was fallen angels who brought various technological knowledge to earth. Technology is kind of sinful in that comes out of an effort to dominate and seek outward distraction and pleasure.

verbumdei

Hope this explains a little about the Church.

http://youtu.be/mNFUUPSxxoc

(Michael Vorris is a convert to Catholicism)

tommy2bad

SoulandForm wrote: »

The thing though is that it was the accursed line of Cain from which cities (and I presume also technology) sprang while the God fearing line of Abel led pastoral simple lives in harmony with nature. Also according to the Book of Enoch which is quoted in the New Testament and taken as Scripture by the Ethiopian Church (the true Religion in Ethiopia goes back to the time of Solomon) it was fallen angels who brought various technological knowledge to earth. Technology is kind of sinful in that comes out of an effort to dominate and seek outward distraction and pleasure.

Ahh hold on a minute! Doesn't the bible start in a garden and end in a city?
Where did you get this pastoral =good, urban = bad from? I know it a sort of trope of heaven to have lambs and lions and oddly well grazed fields but I always presumed this was a early industrial period longing for a lost and fondly remembered past. I think of pastoral heaven as an Anglican vision.
Enquiringly minds need to know!

lmaopml

SoulandForm wrote: »

I think this is an extremely important question.

Personally I believe that the ultimate authority is the Bible, secondly I would place reason and as a close third tradition-understood as the consensus of Christians across time and space. Reason though needs to be respectful and a hand maid to the Bible.

If you dont have an objective place to look for authoritative answers outside ourselves in the Spiritual realm than what is the point of Christianity?

First of all I'm Catholic, so I believe that as the bible says in Timothy that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and it belongs to Christ who instituted it, to Providence. It's extremely part of the plan.....we're not always privy to that...

In saying that, I think a very wise man once said..


Without the way there is no going,

Without the truth there is no knowing,

Without the life there is no living.


Authority is important, no doubt! I think seeing authenticity in another is also important, and trying to understand or praying for that gift of the Holy Spirit is a starting point to dialogue with separated, well....family..in order to understand - after all there is only ONE King of Kings.

PopePalpatine

SoulandForm wrote: »

The thing though is that it was the accursed line of Cain from which cities (and I presume also technology) sprang while the God fearing line of Abel led pastoral simple lives in harmony with nature. Also according to the Book of Enoch which is quoted in the New Testament and taken as Scripture by the Ethiopian Church (the true Religion in Ethiopia goes back to the time of Solomon) it was fallen angels who brought various technological knowledge to earth. Technology is kind of sinful in that comes out of an effort to dominate and seek outward distraction and pleasure.

So, why are you using the Internet? Why do you use any sort of mechanised transport? Why do you use electricity?

homer911

SoulandForm wrote: »

.. may main purpose in starting this thread was to examine both Roman Catholic and Protestant "liberalism" and to see if they are indeed based solely on the fallen human will.

Sorry SoulandForm, I don't understand your question - can you clarify?

SoulandForm

homer911 wrote: »

Sorry SoulandForm, I don't understand your question - can you clarify?

Basically I was hoping Katydid would clarify her views on the subject given her dismissal of St Paul's letters of being anything other than the work of a brilliant mind.

antiskeptic

SoulandForm wrote: »

Technology is kind of sinful in that comes out of an effort to dominate and seek outward distraction and pleasure.

Hard to be convinced by that, having had the opportunity to dial 999 in the last few days. Per mobility phone.

Me? I think God delights in our endeavours aimed at unravelling the mystery of creation. Just as one looks at a child exploring and learning and expressing through the knowledge it obtains in it's quest.

Whether we apply what we come to learn to fair or foul means is what is of interest/joy/pain to him (I think). Not the 'thing' in itself. The 'thing' in itself is (as Manach points out above) mute and neutral until such time as a human decides to apply it to fair or foul means

From a Christian perspective there can be no doubt: this world of ours is a but a precursor to the main, eternal event and our reaction to the freedom God permits us now is core to our position in what is to come. For sure, technology has and will continue to be utilised for appalling ends. But at the end of the day, and I mean the end of the day which matters, all will be wiped away and a new, perfect world heralded in, in which all this appalling endeavour will be eradicated forever.

I don't say it doesn't matter, because it does. For now. But ultimately, it doesn't matter.

SoulandForm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

So, why are you using the Internet? Why do you use any sort of mechanised transport? Why do you use electricity?

Because Im a hypocrite.