ISAW wrote: » And science says "there are laws to the universe which don't change"
So science was "wrong"? Or was it just that people were ignorant of the underlying law of nature and their interpretation was in error?
JimiTime wrote: » I welcome discussion, disagreements, arguements etc from those of all denomination and none.
ISAW wrote: » I agree with you 100 percent! And all the people who don't agree with us Jimitime are splitters and heretics and are all wrong!
JimiTime wrote: » And if in they are wrong, they are wrong. As it stands though, science is fallible, and its claims are not based on a source of absolute truth.
ISAW wrote: » Some philosophies of science would not view it like this. They would suggest that there are fundamental laws to the universe which can be discovered and can explain how everything happens. This is probably the "strong interpretation" and there are indeed other philosophies of science but one can I believe quickly identify how such a strong interpretation rivals religion and how atheists who adhere to such an interpretation can come into conflict with those who have faith.
JimiTime wrote: » Fixed that for you:)
JimiTime wrote: » Well if a scientist declares something as absolute truth, but then is found to be wrong, his decree of truth would be undermined, so that any future decrees would be met with scepticism.
StealthRolex wrote: » You "feel" it is inaccurate.
StealthRolex wrote: » Have you actually researched it and looked at it forensically and objectively to see if your feelings are warranted?
StealthRolex wrote: » You use the words "reasonable" and "inaccurate". Well inaccurate is just a slight modification from accurate. So what is more reasonable than a slight inaccuracy?
StealthRolex wrote: » I think it is reasonable for you to be more specific here. As you are only talking about slight inaccuracies maybe we can explore these areas to see if there is any genuine concern.
StealthRolex wrote: » btw the "reasonable" assessment you find elsewhere are interpretations made under whose authority again? I can't recall who your spiritual director is - maybe you mentioned him before and I missed it - sorry.
ISAW wrote: » Which as far as I know the Roman church accept. They don't condemn the use of condoms to prevent a husband or wife getting HIV.http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20031201_family-values-safe-sex-trujillo_en.html#ChurchPromotesLife Paragraph 20: One has to seriously distinguish between the proper use of the condom and the failures of the same due to different causes. How could they refer to "proper use" if it didn't exist. In other words the kernel of the Vatican position is: [same source] What is being proposed is to live one’s sexuality in a way that is consistent with one’s human nature and the nature of the family. So they do not oppose using condoms to reduce an infection in a married couple. the main issue is one of using condoms to facilitate casual sex or extramarital sex. It is a valid argument because it is casual sex which is the factor in the spread of disease and not condom use. That is why it is called an STD.
JimiTime wrote: » Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm married;):D
I see where you're coming from in relation to this thread, but I think the content of this thread evidences why its needed tbh. You can see that arguements like 'The Magisterium says you're wrong' would be useless to someone who does not recognise the magisterium as any for of authority? So if someone wishes to go down that road, they end up here. Catholics or anyone else are more than welcome, and I would go so far as to say encouraged to post in aany/all threads, so long as its discussion and not soap boxing they are indulging in. There was a very nice nun that used to post here, who I think may have been a bit misunderstood, as well being misunderstanding at times herself. However, IMO, she had Christianity licked! I disagreed with some of her views, agreed with others etc, but she recognised that all this yabbering is vanity. Its not about rites, masses, OSAS, Works versus faith etc. She, as an RC Nun saw Christianity for what it truly is I.E. Living your life in the ways of Christ. In fact, this Nun was most vehemently opposed by some Catholic posters. You really do have to ask yourself, whatever your denomination, what is it to be Christian? Is it about Mass, sacraments, rituals, festivals etc? Or is it about Love God, your neighbour and walk in the ways of Christ? I can gurantee you, that a man without the former but full of the latter will certainly enter the Kingdom. Reverse that however, and they will certainly not.
Wicknight wrote: » I don't want to side track the thread, but science most certainly does not say that.
JimiTime wrote: » Because SR etc are saying that the Church don't err and are always right, because they are led by the holy spirit. If this is truly the case, then its not about in light of new knowledge. It becomes, 'well you obviously aren't inerrant, as you've had to revise your position. This means that you were wrong at a certain point.' Nobody has any issue with this revising of positions in light of new knowledge etc. Its only a problem, if someone is claiming that their authority is THE truth.
ISAW wrote: » As regards jurisprudence and the RCC might I draw a parallel with the Sanhedrin and Pharisees and Sadducees? One bunch were interested in rule by the letter of the law and in mixing with the rich and powerful another were closer to the people and more "bottom up" and believed more in less literal things and oral tradition. There is similar in the Church today. Authoritarians and Pastoralists you might call them.
JimiTime wrote: » I welcome discussion, disagreements, arguements etc from those of all denomination and none. However, it is of no benefit whatsoever, if someone comes in and soapboxes and THAT is what I am 'anti'. This is a multi denominational fora, and as such, we should all respect that the reason we are here is that we have a common denominator. I.E. Jesus Christ. Like it or not, Luther, Calvin or the magisterium have no authority here. So accept that our common denominator is Jesus, and reason with HIM in mind. That way you are appealing to ALL contributors.
PDN wrote: » Because science does not claim never to make mistakes. My point is that all denominations, including the Roman Catholic Church, evolve. They get some things right and they get some things wrong - and hopefully they eradicate, rather than compound, the errors over a period of time. Such a pragmatic view, obviously, is incompatible with the views of those who argue that the Church is without error. Therefore it is logical to ask whether such infallibility only applies to the Church today, or whether it applied in the past. If it can be demonstrated that the Church contradicted itself in the past, then few of us will have any confidence that it is perfect now.
ISAW wrote: » You mean two other posters say "The Catholic Church position is X" and I say "the catholic point of view is Y and Y precludes X" . The thing is if you want to know the Church position and whether X and Y are mutually exclusive then I suggest you write to your local Bishop because what people claim is just their opinion but some other posters here accept that those in authority with "ordinary power" have the authority to issue a nihil obsat or imprimatur on such opinions. At least then you will know an official position.
lmaopml wrote: » I believe there are many people who perhaps are just brought up in their tradition and follow it....and then there are others who are curious as to the 'whys' of things, which is fine too, depending on our approach... I guess the 'Magesterium' is the starting point, and researching the early Church history...
smurfhousing wrote: » A Catholic can never accept that premise.
Jakkass wrote: » So one cannot come into this forum, and recognise that it is a multi-denominational forum rather than an RCC forum? It is evident that if you're talking to people who don't share your assumptions, and not substantiating them, it is going to be very difficult to discuss indeed. Merely saying that the RCC and the Magisterium are not to be questioned in any way isn't going to settle the matter for a lot of people. The problem is a question of epistemology more so than substance at this point. The method in which you are deriving your conclusion is different to how others, including lmaopml if I am interpreting your post correctly is.
lmaopml wrote: » It would be helpful to know from a Protestant perspective, even if it's in 'point' form, why they 'don't' believe from early Church history that there is a line of authority on the interpretation of Scripture, and the full message?
smurfhousing wrote: » For the Roman Catholic, the Magisterium is the authority. The non-Roman Catholic obviously won't accept that.
PDN wrote: » Because even a cursory reading of history demonstrates that the people who have claimed to have the authority to tell everyone else how to interpret the scriptures have an awful track record. They have tortured and killed those who disagreed with them, produced forged documents to bolster their territorial claims, have feuded with each other, have bribed their way into office, have sometimes been guilty of the most heinous sins, and have produced interpretations that are so much at variance with a straight reading of the Scriptures that we need to believe that black is white and that language has little or no meaning in order to accept their interpretations. (Btw, Protestant leaders have often behaved just as badly down through the centuries - although that is somewhat irrelevant since non-Catholics don't see them as being anything other than fallible human beings who had some great insights in some areas, but were deficient in others). God has given us brains so that we can read the Scriptures for ourselves, avail of the advice and insight of theologians and biblical scholars, and seek to follow Him as best we can with sincere hearts. This will mean we will sometimes disagree over details of doctrine, but we can trust that the Holy Spirit (who dwells in our hearts by faith) will guide our understanding so that we can know God for ourselves. Does that sound unreasonable?
Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the "bad popes" stand out precisely because they are so rare.) Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.
smurfhousing wrote: » I suggest you educate yourself on what Papal Infallibility is and isn't, because you are clearly confused, and all this despite various efforts to set you straight: http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp An excerpt:
PDN wrote: » I'm not confused in the slightest. I just think that it makes no sense. You're saying that it doesn't matter if a Pope is a murderous lecher or not, God has still ordained him to rule on how sincere godly Christians should interpret Scripture. Like most right thinking people I find that notion to be repugnant. If the Catholic Church can't be trusted to always appoint a reasonably decent person to lead their organisation, then I certainly won't trust them to tell me how I should understand the Bible.
smurfhousing wrote: » ''If Jesus Christ can't be trusted to choose 12 good men, can He be trusted??? I mean, come on, how hard can it be?''.
You keep spinning things in a most disingenuous way. I'm reminded of 1 Timothy 6:4
PDN wrote: » People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
smurfhousing wrote: » There is no harm in seeking greater understanding. Indeed it is good. For a Catholic, the Magisterium is a sure and certain guide in matters of faith and morals and we cannot go wrong if we follow that guide. It is the guide the Lord Himself has given us. It is not a matter, for the Catholic, of looking at what the Magisterium has taught, and looking at the Church Fathers, and then coming to our own conclusion. That would be protestantistic in approach and not faithfully Catholic. I'm not sure that was what you were implying, but that would be erroneous.
StealthRolex wrote: » Agreed. but #231 took the biscuit. I'm not sure what the rules on Moderator impartiality should be and maybe there are none but back handed jibes at the way Catholics elect their leader are pushing it. Imaopml, this discussion needs either an impartial Mod or a Catholic Mod. If the latter you have my vote.
StealthRolex wrote: » So stop throwing them. Been to Uganda lately?
