Theology IV

[katya]

Oh I'm sorry EAR! I wrote a reply to that but I didn't post it because I realized there was still another page I hadn't read yet. Anyway I was going to say something like this...

It's true that at the time of the Reformation, the Catholic church was pretty much the church, but there were a lot of different kinds of Christianity before that that all got more or less put together into one. The Catholic church is in a lot of ways different from early Christianity, and I think the reform was party about going back to it, so you could say Protestantism pre-dates Christianity (you could, it wouldn't be accurate but in a way it makes sense). There were some things the Catholic church was doing that it seems to have invented, like purgatory and indulgences. Do you know about indulgences? I think it's one of the strangest ideas I've ever heard.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by katya

Oh I'm sorry EAR! I wrote a reply to that but I didn't post it because I realized there was still another page I hadn't read yet. Anyway I was going to say something like this...

It's true that at the time of the Reformation, the Catholic church was pretty much the church, but there were a lot of different kinds of Christianity before that that all got more or less put together into one. The Catholic church is in a lot of ways different from early Christianity, and I think the reform was party about going back to it, so you could say Protestantism pre-dates Christianity (you could, it wouldn't be accurate but in a way it makes sense). There were some things the Catholic church was doing that it seems to have invented, like purgatory and indulgences. Do you know about indulgences? I think it's one of the strangest ideas I've ever heard.

The Catholic Church is much closer to early Christianity than you might think. (Also, just FYI, the Catholic Church was not the church at the time of the Reformation; there were the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Nestorians who had split earlier).

As for Purgatory, it can be found in one form or another throughout the history of the Church. By no means can it be considered a clerical invention of the middle ages. The belief in and use of indulgences is merely an application of that belief with the promises of Christ to St. Peter, "Whatever you bind on earth, is bound in heaven, and Whatever you loose on Earth, is loosed in heaven."

The only Protestant body which you could really make any sort of argument at all of its resembling early Christianity more than Catholicism is the

[katya]

I know, it wasn't the only church (that's why I said pretty much), but it existed and Protestantism didn't, anyway. As for purgatory, what I mean is is it in the scriptures? Did Christ mention it? My mistake on using "invented", that was just the impression I got. What I was trying to say was that the Catholic church wasn't the first and only (up until the Reformation), and that Luther and co. and anyone else who broke away from the Catholic church might well have good reason to do so.

[ElizabethAnnRoger]

Originally Posted by katya

I think it's one of the strangest ideas I've ever heard.

Oh yes, I know about it. We've been taught it at school for a long time. Unfortuantly, since the pope doesn't know everything, it was used for raising money. Send 100 dollars and you won't go to hell. Now its more prayers and getting yourself closer to Christ, which I believe, is the right way. It was indulgences that built some of the beautiful chruches in Rome. Sad, but true. I won't deny that my faith sometimes curves for the worse...

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

EAR, Gwai posted the answer to your question. There are a number of churches besides the RC church that date back to the same time.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by katya

It's true that at the time of the Reformation, the Catholic church was pretty much the church, but there were a lot of different kinds of Christianity before that that all got more or less put together into one. The Catholic church is in a lot of ways different from early Christianity, and I think the reform was party about going back to it, so you could say Protestantism pre-dates Christianity (you could, it wouldn't be accurate but in a way it makes sense).

That's Protestantism's argument, but if you look at the writings of the Early Church Fathers, it's not hard to see that it is completely bogus. That's one of the things that drew me to Catholicism in the first place: the discovery, through research, that the Early Church was Catholic!

The Protestant removal of Catholic "additions" tend to be the removal of ancient Early Church doctrines and interpretations of Scripture.

I read in a book a while ago about 200 Protestant evangelical leaders who all joined the Eastern Orthodox Church simultaneously. They did that because they were seeking hard after Early Church's doctrine, and through careful research into the writings of the Early Church, they became convinced that the Orthodox were fully practicing the beliefs of the Early Church.

The serious difference between us Catholics and them is Papal authority- the main thing in their research that they seem to have gotten wrong. Also pretty much the only serious thing the Orthodox have gotten wrong, at least to my knowledge. Papal authority is the main difference between Catholics and the Orthodox.

Anyway, those 200 men were seeking the practice of the Early Church and it led them back to the truly ancient traditions the Protestant Reformers worked hard to dismantle.

[Curufin]

Hmm. I'm considering starting a thread to talk about religions other than Christianity. I've tried to put some stuff into this thread, but it's really become the "Christianity" thread, not the "theology" thread. . .

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Curufin

Hmm. I'm considering starting a thread to talk about religions other than Christianity. I've tried to put some stuff into this thread, but it's really become the "Christianity" thread, not the "theology" thread. . .

I'm afraid it'll likely be merged into this one. We've been trying to contain all religious discussion to this thread instead of all over the board like it has been at times in the past.

[Ilfirin]

Let me explain a theory.

Like all the theories it has a few assumptions, ie, existence of a Babel Fish. A Babel Fish, let us assume can be anything mind-bogglingly useful throughout this universe.

Now let us say that God exists and argues, "I refuse to prove that I exist, because, proof denies faith and without faith Im nothing."

Now the question is, could a Babel Fish, which is ever so useful, have existed or evolved purely by chance? No right? So its the final proof that God exists.Hence by his own arguments he does not.

This, ladies and gentlemen is the Babel Fish Theory, by Douglas Adams as explained in H2G2. My Norwegian friends must be familiar with this name. It also happens to be the name of a band.

Thats about my opinion. Not that God does not exist, but it hardly matters, unless Im stranded on an island and have got another engineer for company .

Cheers
Ilfirin

Disclaimer: With a pinch of salt my friends. Mighty serious discussions throughout the thread!

[BeardofPants]

Oh my... Kant, a silly-billy? *grin*

[inked]

Why, BoP?! Haven't you heard? He's the source for cant! As in 'Kant couldn't or can't, either way he's full of cant!" Or Monty Python's Philosophers Song?

Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant who was very rarely stable!

But here, sung and illustrated! From me to you! ENJOY!!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQycQ8DABvc

or this version,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bppHD...eature=related

and materialistically all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWVsh...eature=related

[brownjenkins]

The "literary" scientists like to romaticize evolution, probably because it sells books, but there is no goal.

Science simply trys to explain what is, not why is.

[Coffeehouse]

Yeah, spot on. In science, there is no inherent goal towards something. It is simply understanding how things are, not how things should be.

Evolution is blind, but not entirely random.

[inked]

Coffehouse, Does the search for the TOE - Theory Of Everything - not count as a goal in science? Science does in fact have a goal and it is not merely the observation of everything, rather it is understanding the "how". It is not enough to merely describe and observe. Science strives to find the principles which underlie the phenomena - strictly in a materialist sense, of course.

And please explain what you mean by evolution being blind but not random.

BJ,
That's as close as you can get to separating materialist presuppositional faith from theological presuppositional faith! A presupposition that explanation for what is in strictly materialist terms is the ultimate description. The theological presupposition is that what is has a "why" - a cause and a purpose. So science and theology are not at odds and it is not an either/or scenario. Each answers different questions.

The conflation of the two questions is entirely feasible but the absolute opposition of them as alternative sole explanations is not.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by inked

Coffehouse, Does the search for the TOE - Theory Of Everything - not count as a goal in science? Science does in fact have a goal and it is not merely the observation of everything, rather it is understanding the "how". It is not enough to merely describe and observe. Science strives to find the principles which underlie the phenomena - strictly in a materialist sense, of course.

And please explain what you mean by evolution being blind but not random.

I'll gladly explain this for you!

While the Theory of Everything is an ambitions way of saying we want to connect all the different spheres of science together to form one unified, coherent picture, albeit somehwat obscurely defined, there is no goal to reach a certain conclusion. The goal is to connect everything, not to define what that final picture looks like. Which is an important difference.

Evolution is blind. It does not pursue a goal. The fact that human beings are as we are and do as we do is not a goal, and has never been. We haven't f.ex. arrived at a specific point in time as a final epic stage/culmination of evolution. Thus, no goal.
But it's not entirely random either, because we have arrived where we are by natural selection, and there are branches of our roots which have died off in competition with us. The Neanderthals is the best example of this. There wasn't a goal in evolution that led to us being where we are today, but the circumstances having been what they have been in different periods of time, we came through and the Neanderthals didn't. Not random, but not destined either.

[katya]

Originally Posted by inked

Coffehouse, Does the search for the TOE - Theory Of Everything - not count as a goal in science?

That's not a goal of science, it's a goal of scientists.

[inked]

Coffeehouse, "The goal is to connect everything, not to define what that final picture looks like."

The goal is...certainly seems like you are defining the goal of science. But maybe I mistake you actually using the words you mean?

"We haven't f.ex. arrived at a specific point in time as a final epic stage/culmination of evolution. Thus, no goal."

Umm, that would be no arrival at "a final epic stage/culmination of evolution" which is not the same as no goal. The first is a process, second an end.

katya,

A person employing science is a scientist. The scientific method is a paradigm used to make and collate observations into _______ ? The TOE is convenient shorthand for _________ which is the goal of science.

The person who does repetitive observations and records the data without attempting to understand them is called the technician, not the scientist.

[Rían]

*gives IRex a virtual hug and then runs out*

[BeardofPants]

Yep, Inked has it correct. Homo sapiens sapiens shares a common ancestor with the ape, and is NOT descended from them.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Just want to point out that theistic evolution and Intelligent Design are two different things many theistic evolutionists would appreciate being labelled IDers.

They definitely are different. However, they are both hard to take seriously in light of the Christian faith or, as is the case of ID, scientifically laughable.
The concept of theistic evolution is inherently devoid of credibility, in the case of Christianity, because the holiest book of said religion says something completely different. Generally, in a non-Christian aspect, I see no obvious problem with a higher being as the prime mover of evolution. But the Christian faith will have to answer to its own book, which contradicts the concept of theistic evolution by word of its own creation-story. I see Inked throwing at me lots of buts and ifs. Firstly, it's not very convincing. Secondly, why should I put your poetic interpretation of the Bible above what actually says there? I am not at all convinced I should..
Intelligent Design is flawed in so many ways. It isn't science. It has no coherent scientific inquiry to show to. It does not in any way add up to the facts of the ground. It's a weak and desperate attempt at derailing the theory of evolution, and luckily, outside of the United States, it is as believed as the Toothfairy.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I don’t see the problem with the concept that evolution could be used as a tool by a god for a specific goal just as I don’t see a problem with the concept that gravity could be used by a god either. It says nothing about the nature of evolution. It only speaks of the nature of the god. If we assume there exists a creative force then we can certainly assume said force could be directly responsible for the natural process we call evolution. No? Note this says absolutely nothing about the literal nature of the bible or even about Christianity at all.

Originally Posted by inked

Coffehouse,
"Jesus Christ is a descendant of Apes. He and the rest of his contemporaries had DNA 95% similar to some of our cousins."
Check your evolutionary theory. I am certain that it claims a common ancestor for apes and humans but not what you said.

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Yep, Inked has it correct. Homo sapiens sapiens shares a common ancestor with the ape, and is NOT descended from them.

To Inked and BoP: A little human evolution:
The DNA of human beings, or if you like, homo sapiens (sapiens) is 95% similar to many of our primate cousins in the Great Ape family. Or, if you like, the Hominidae.
Homo sapiens sapiens most certainly have descended from an ape. It is not the chimpanzee, or the orangutan or the gorilla. Rather we share a common ancestor. The name of this ape, which is believed to be our common ancestor with some or all of the above-mentioned apes, is the Pierolapithecus catalaunicus. It is extinct, it was a primate, and lastly, it was an ape.