Christ Centered Gamer

I think that Jesus was speaking to Peyer specific ally. I find Petrine doctrine, with all due respect to Catholics, to be pretty questionable. There are a lot of steps missing between "Peter, I will build my church through you" and "Peter, through you will be a line of infallible clergymen who will be the voice of God on earth." To me, it seems like Jesus made Peter the father of the early church; there are absolutely no indications that this blessing extended to others unless you're looking for a way to put one particular group in power, especially when that group puts no emphasis on individual research of the Bible (leaving it to the clergy instead). It's an attempt to legitimize the structure of the church by claiming that it is the result of a divine edict.

Edit: to be clear, I'm not exactly thrilled with other Christian sects/denominations/etc., either. I'm just a highly individualistic and skeptical person, and my encounters with Catholicism have pretty much cemented my fundamental disagreements with much of their doctrine.

Hey, this actually brings up a question.

IF Jesus specifically pointed to Peter saying he was the Rock on which the church will be built, was Christianity hijacked by Paul's doctrines?
Let's be honest, NT is really about Paul's letters.

Well, I mean, mayhaps Peter was the solid foundation but just didn't do most of the writing?

(speaking out of my butt. I'm not familiar with how much Peter wrote outside of what is contained in the NT)

ChickenSoup wrote:Well, I mean, mayhaps Peter was the solid foundation but just didn't do most of the writing?

(speaking out of my butt. I'm not familiar with how much Peter wrote outside of what is contained in the NT)

I doubt Peter wrote much of anything, since (according to the gospels) he was an illiterate fisherman who spoke Aramaic and the NT was written in Greek. I'm not saying it was impossible for him to become literate in a completely different language, it's just a lot more likely that 1 and 2 Peter were written by someone claiming to be Peter. I mean, we know for sure that people wrote letters claiming to be apostles, many of which didn't make the canon. Heck, most Biblical scholars believe that about half of Paul's letters in the NT are forgeries, and with good reason.

Heck, most Biblical scholars believe that about half of Paul's letters in the NT are forgeries, and with good reason.

wat

A lot of the Jewish people spoke and wrote in Greek during the time period. The even had a version of the Torah translated into Greek.

Peter very well could have dictated, he doesn't have to have written himself for his words to be in writing. Then again it isn't unreasonable that he could have learned how to read and write during his time with Jesus and the other Disciples. There is a lot of time unaccounted for in the Gospels.

Wintercross wrote:A lot of the Jewish people spoke and wrote in Greek during the time period. The even had a version of the Torah translated into Greek.

Peter very well could have dictated, he doesn't have to have written himself for his words to be in writing. Then again it isn't unreasonable that he could have learned how to read and write during his time with Jesus and the other Disciples. There is a lot of time unaccounted for in the Gospels.

John 16
13
* But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth.h He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.

Weren't the Apostles given the Spirit of truth and enlightenment? This was God's miracle to take common men and build a Church. You state the Pope does not preach The Bible, but it seems you can't agree on what versions or parts should be taught???

It's been awhile since I've read the last few responses to this discussion. These are questions which will not be resolved here if ever. My opinion is that Faith is the greater part of an individual's belief system. Much time over centuries has been spent analyzing documents and we still don't have any universal conclusion. I just don't know if everyone being individualistic is going to keep the gates of Hell from prevailing against the Church. We aren't doing such a great job so far, as Christians are a house divided.

Comotto wrote:Christians are a house divided.

^This. All day long.

Been quite some time since I posted on here.

Well, I do not think we have to worry about the Gates of Hell prevailing against the Church. Christ promised as much in the Bible that this would not happen.

I think the confusion comes in when we then go to define what is the Church? Different denominations have different answers. Some claim that there is no such thing (or no longer such a thing) as the One True Church. Others claim there may be in some sense but not any one particular denomination alone can declare it. Others still claim to be the One True Church. Of the last I know for a fact that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches each make this claim and have their reasons for doing so. There may be others I am sure but I am not sure which ones explicitly state that.

So that's what the issue really hinges on and one worth exploring further.

I do want to make one thing clear though concerning the matter:

Even with those Churches that do make the claim of being the One True Church, it does not imply that if one is not a member of said Church that they are condemned either. As to how that works I believe Catholics and Orthodox have different ways of looking at that but nonetheless I want to make sure that this is clear before anything else is said.

Welcome back!

RoosterOnAStick wrote:Been quite some time since I posted on here.

Well, I do not think we have to worry about the Gates of Hell prevailing against the Church. Christ promised as much in the Bible that this would not happen.

I think the confusion comes in when we then go to define what is the Church? Different denominations have different answers. Some claim that there is no such thing (or no longer such a thing) as the One True Church. Others claim there may be in some sense but not any one particular denomination alone can declare it. Others still claim to be the One True Church. Of the last I know for a fact that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches each make this claim and have their reasons for doing so. There may be others I am sure but I am not sure which ones explicitly state that.

So that's what the issue really hinges on and one worth exploring further.

I do want to make one thing clear though concerning the matter:

Even with those Churches that do make the claim of being the One True Church, it does not imply that if one is not a member of said Church that they are condemned either. As to how that works I believe Catholics and Orthodox have different ways of looking at that but nonetheless I want to make sure that this is clear before anything else is said.

Exploring further

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/assurance-of-salvation

Who are the current day Apostles who can bind or loose?

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/ ... tthew-1619

Science and Christianity are not at odds with one another. Why? Because the entire enterprise of scientific discovery (observation, formulating a hypothesis, experimentation, etc) presupposes a *Christian* cosmology. The assumptions of science:
1.The universe is orderly. It's not chaos; there are discernible patterns
2.We can reasonably trust what our senses (seeing, hearing, smelling, etc) perceive
3.We can reasonably trust our minds to comprehend what our senses perceive

The assumptions of science spring directly from belief in a creator God who...
1.Ordered the universe.
2.Created human beings with wonderful bodies and minds.

Concerning evolution, Genesis 1 and 2 is not a "scientific" description of creation, it's "theological". The question of "how" creation came to be is not answered exhaustively in scripture. However, the question of "who" (a far more important question imo) is answered. As Christians, the truth that God created the heavens and earth is not optional, but on the finer details of how God went about the task of creation... there is much room to disagree.

I definitely agree. One can even go deeper to see where the supposed rift between the Science and Religion lies in the first place. My take on it is that it isn't the things we are usually told such as [insert historical anti-scientific or anti-religious controversy of choice here]. To me the issue isn't whether there is a conflict between the two and certainly not how to "reconcile" them.

The question of whether or not science and faith can be reconciled is a loaded question to begin with. It assumes a conflict that was not always the case and addressing it in this way implies a false dichotomy. Often the barrier has been created throughout history by man's errors and people looking to push an agenda of some sort. The first part is on the religious side where no one wants to believe that their beliefs are, in a number of cases, non-falsifiable and thus non scientific and most likely not empirical. This is especially problematic if religious people try to pass off their beliefs as if they were scientific, with predictable results. Either they present pseudoscience to "support" their false scientific premises or they deny science altogether. On the flipside we have the overreaction of secular philosophies such as logical positivism which posits that science and falsifiable theories alone can sufficiently explain the universe and provide universal truth. Even when they admit they cannot it does not concern them, as long as no one tries to propose an answer that they do not approve of. This is especially true if any metaphysical or religious answer is brought to the table, because that cannot possibly be true since it is not empirical (or at least not enough by their standards).

Both views in my opinion are taken on faith, and thus are non-falsifiable views in themselves, though neither side will admit to all of this fully. Both sides have at their core the issue of extreme rationalism, though the religious fanatic won't admit it and the anti-theistic scientist sees no issue with this. In both cases, if deductive reasoning alone can't arrive at the answer, then the answer doesn't exist or is of little concern. It was the unfortunate side effect of the Enlightenment that has only become expounded today. We make our own reasoning ability the end all be all without even acknowledging that the foundations of our ability to reason came from outside sources to begin with, much less a proper understanding of them. Without that understanding, anti-intellectual ways of thinking will inevitably occur.

The first step to resolving this is to realize that religion and science, in addition to other forms of knowledge and understanding, must not overstep their respective domains. The so called "conflict" between the two begins when one attempts to exert influence into the other. It is made worse by the fact that those who do this are seeking to not just bring it into the conversation but destroy the other domain if necessary to assert their "truth". You see this all the time in the more fanatical Young Earth Creationists and in the New Atheist scientists alike.

The second part is the realize what the nature of science and falsifiable theories are in the first place. I had recently seen a few snippets from philosopher of science Karl Popper and his take on falsifiability that may help in this case. There is a lot he wrote on this but so far he came up with a very elaborate exposition of falsifiability as we understand it today. However, Popper also argues that, contrary to logical positivism's claims, meaning and falsifiability are not necesarily linked. Falsifiability is meant to establish criteria for whether or not something is scientific. It is to posit a scientific theory with sufficient explanatory power to describe how the universe works. When presented with observations that could potentially falsify a theory come along, the scientist must make a decision as to whether or not it is sufficient to actually falsify an established theory. The nature of the observation, the frequency of this and other falsifying observations, and the reasonableness of any ad-hoc hypothesis that one could come up with that may provide an alternative explanation for the appearance of these observations factor in to this. The last one is tricky of course because in some ways the existence of one or two observations may not constitute a refutation unless it is fully understood why these phenomena have occurred, so it is not wrong to think that maybe this is mere coincidence or explained in some way that doesn't imply a falsification of the current theories. On the other hand, taking this too far will result in pseudoscience and the negation of any scientific experimentation of any sort. Assuming this last issue is handled well, if there comes a point where there are too many things that can contradict a current theory and cannot be reasonably explained by any other means, then a new set of theories are required with the ability to explain these new phenomena since the old ones are no longer tenable.

The final piece also comes from Popper, with regards to whether or not non-falsifiable statements or theories have any meaning or truth to them. The answer is, contrary to logical positivism, that non-falsifiability does not in itself mean that there is no meaning that can be derived from such things. It also does not mean that such statements are true or false by default. It is merely that they are not scientific by nature and thus are outside of the domain of empirical science. Non-falsifiable statements and theories should not pretend to be as such but that does not assign a value judgment on them by default either. Like scientific statements and theories, non-scientific statements can be just as good, bad, true, or false as well, but must be examined in different ways.

Now remember I haven't had a chance to read all of his stuff yet so if I mess this up I apologize. If I did get this right however, then this is how we ought to view the issue of science and religion, and this holds true whether one is of a religious persuasion or not.


Common examples in history of societies that did not have this issue were Ancient Rome itself, it's later descendant the Byzantine Empire, the Sassanid Persian Empire of the same time period and later the Islamic Empire. All of them were societies where classical learning was not lost, remained preserved, but advanced. It was thanks to these near and middle eastern empires that the Renaissance was even possible in the first place, yet all we remember are the time periods in Western history where men set up one against the other. We do not remember our ancestors who did harmonize science and religion and who were the ones that even made the sciences possible in the Western World. Rather, we only remember the bad apples sadly.