1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThe question of who wrote the New Testament books, for whom and for what purpose is not a subjective issue - it's a matter of historical fact.
Your position is a matter of opinion, not fact.
It is arrogant to take a subjective issue and declare your position to be objectively true, with the corallary that all who believe otherwise must be ignorant or unmindful of the facts.
The question of who defined the Christological doctrines is likewise a matter of historical fact.
The question of whether a person can coherently adhere to a doctrine which is justified in terms of its declaration by a particular authority, whilst simultaneously rejecting that authority is not a subjective issue - it's a matter of logic.
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesHe was writing to the Christians in Corinth. At that point of time, the only Christians in Corinth were Catholics. The Protestants won't even appear on the scene for another fifteen centuries.
I'm saying it was not Paul's Letter to the Catholic Corinthians. He was writing to the Corinthian people, not to those of a particular faith.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesSince I [probably*] don't have Jewish ancestry on my mother's side, I think I cannot become a Jew. Besides, Jewishness is more a cultural identity than a religion.
If you couldn't be Catholic, is it true that you would rather be an atheist than a Jew?
If I were to have any objections to Catholicism, it would be with its most basic doctrines (God, Christ etc.). That would automatically rule out any other Christian church or denomination. If the belief in God is my reason for leaving the Church then, quite naturally, I would be an atheist.
So, yes, I am more likely to become an atheist rather than a Jew if I were to reject Catholicism.
---
* It's possible, though. A few Indian historians have recently argued that the Christians in my part of India originally came from the Holy Land. Our own tradition (not to mention the vast majority of historians) says otherwise.
Originally posted by lucifershammerhttp://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=40579
If I were to have any objections to Catholicism, it would be with its most basic doctrines (God, Christ etc.). That would automatically rule out any other Christian church or denomination.
"The Holy Father called particular attention to a joint Catholic-Lutheran document on justification, signed in October 1999, which he described as "a significant milestone on our common path to full visible unity." He added, however, that "differences remain" on the issue of justification, and these differences must still be addressed.
How can this be the case if what you say is true? How can there be unity in the face of the alleged fundamental, objective difference that you assert? Why would the Pope want there to be such unity?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThe Good News of Christ was, of course, meant to be shared with non-Christians. But the epistles themselves were written to the Christian churches in Rome, Corinth, Ephesus etc.
His message wasn't to be shared with any non-Christians? How about Romans? Was that written only for the Christians in Rome?
It's quite explicit in the opening verses of virtually every epistle.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesBecause some differences (as the ones agreed upon in the joint declaration on justification) are just a matter of phraseology. Two people can think they differ because they say the same thing in different words - that's not an uncommon occurrence.
How can this be the case if what you say is true? How can there be unity in the face of the alleged fundamental, objective difference that you assert?
Why would the Pope want there to be such unity?
Because such differences interfere with the Christian mission to the world. Because Christ himself wanted his followers to be united.
3 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerBut you have said that, objectively, Lutherans can't actually be followers of Christ - they only suffer the delusion that they are. You said you couldn't be Lutheran because choosing a non-Catholic denomination entails rejecting Christ, making Lutheranism logically untenable.
Because such differences interfere with the Christian mission to the world. Because Christ himself wanted his followers to be united.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI never said that Lutherans can't actually be followers of Christ - I said that they could not coherently do so.
But you have said that, objectively, Lutherans can't actually be followers of Christ - they only suffer the delusion that they are. You said you couldn't be Lutheran because choosing a non-Catholic denomination entails rejecting Christ, making Lutheranism logically untenable.
1 edit
Originally posted by Halitose🙂
Are you serious?
Well, given the premises that (a) I stop believing what I currently do, and (b) that I have a choice—i.e., that I am not compelled by some revelatory experience—
Broadly, animism is based on the notion of a spirit-filled universe, such spirit either manifesting itself as, or—more commonly I think—being embodied in physical things: trees, hawks, rivers... (Many, if not most, animistic religions also have either a monistic or monotheistic base, by the way—an ultimate creator which is, however, far removed from day-to-day spiritual encounter: Olodumare [African], the Dagda [Celtic], etc.* In this, I think, it is unlike the simple polytheisms of, say the Greeks or the Norse.)
I would think it would offer me the following advantages:
1. Since animism takes local/tribal forms, I could create my own version here where I live (on about 20 acres of meadowland, woodland, a creek, lots of wildlife).
2. Following on the above, it might be the one religious form where I wouldn’t end up as a heretic, or even heterodox.
3. A deeper, spiritual expression of communion with nature—when I dance naked in the rain, it is no longer simply a “secular” exercise, but a liturgy....
Could I really pull it off? Well, the supernatural, spiritism aspect would give me some trouble... Also, a lot of (most?) forms have a sacrificial aspect that I’d have trouble embracing—though our goats tempt me sometimes... 🙂
* EDIT: I forgot Wakan Tanka.
Originally posted by vistesdIs animism inconsistent with your current belief system?
🙂
Well, given the premises that (a) I stop believing what I currently do, and (b) that I have a choice—i.e., that I am not compelled by some revelatory experience—
Broadly, animism is based on the notion of a spirit-filled universe, such spirit either manifesting itself as, or—more commonly I think—being embodied in physical things: trees, hawks, riv ...[text shortened]... a sacrificial aspect that I’d have trouble embracing—though our goats tempt me sometimes... 🙂