Fine.
Now show that this All-Knowing etc. actually exists.
That's one definition. Where does this particular example occur?
Objective morality vs subjective morality
- Thread starter Mind Over Matter
- Start date
Now show that this All-Knowing etc. actually exists.
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
With all the contradicting versions of Christianity and other religious groups how do I know which one is proclaiming the real absolute objective truth directly from God? I think this is why the son of God established an invincible visible church that would never cease to exist; to proclaim His truth without any error and to be His speaker here on earth...
The Catholic Church is a true gift to all people.
You dare to hold the Catholic Church up as an example of objective morality??? You can't be serious...
How do you know the Catholic church is:
A) invincible
B) everlasting
C) error-free
D) actually speaking for god?
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
That's the opposite of objective truth. Your stance, I guess.
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
There is a such thing as absolute truth and that absolute truth is contained within the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church alone!
(John 14:6 RSV) Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.
(John 8:31 RSV) Jesus then said to the Jews who had believed in him, "If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples,
(John 8:32 RSV) and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
Where in those phrases does it state "Catholic church"?
And you're still back to the old argument that "my book is true because it says so in my book".
No, it's one possible example of a "non-absolute morality".
One more time: can you tell me where this occurs?
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
The Fact is that Christ gave Peter the Keys and promised that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. He also gave Peter, and all the Apostles the authority to Bind and Loose. He also promised to be with His Church until the end of time.Where in those phrases does it state "Catholic church"?
And you're still back to the old argument that "my book is true because it says so in my book".
If we believe these things, then the fact that the Church developed the way it did IS evidence for the validity of the papacy.
Here is where the true strength of the Church comes in. The Church (ecclesia – group called out) uses the combined strength of its many members in prayer and in council to discern what is correct. When a correct instruction-interpretation-guidance etc is determined, it is documented and promulgated universally. This gives assurance to each individual Catholic that what is being taught truly is of the Holy Spirit.
In this way conflicting issues are resolved and the unity of Christ’s body is maintained.
Interesting, you start off stating "the FACT is" and finish with "if we BELIEVE...".
The actual fact is that "Catholic church" isn't mentioned in the bible, and that your previous assertions (as questioned by me in post 44) are nothing more than unsupported claims.
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
Actually I can confuse you even more if we talk about the bible or passages on it. For example, Catholic’s Bible is composed of 73 books; 46 in the OT and 27 in the NT. Other religion claims 39 books of NT and 27 books of NT. So many Bibles. Seems each religion has a different translation of what ever the Bible is.
In fact, the EO Churches use a canon that has closer to 80 books in it. A fact which does not seem to be a problem for the RC Church which recognizes the EO as having valid Apostolic Succession and sacraments.Perhaps it would help if I address this by summarizing into a couple of complimentary paths. One relating to the Bible, another relating to the validity of the Church’s authority and finally a look at the fruits of each Church system.
First we must start with the acceptance of Christ, His life, death and resurrection.
So. If we accept Christ we need to ask some questions to arrive at a decision as to which church is correct.
First let’s deal with the Bible since that is a crux of teaching and the center of what we as Christians know of Jesus.
1) Do all Christians accept the Bible as the Word of God? - Yes
2) Do all Christian bibles have the same books in them? (the same canon) - No
3) Does it make sense that the “Holy Word of God “, used by Christians should have differing canons? - No
4) Then why the difference and which canon is correct? - This led me to an investigation of how the Bible as we use it today came about. The result was that the universally accepted Bible in the Catholic Church from around 400 AD to 1500 AD, 1100 years had 73 books in it. It was at the time of the Protestant Reformation that the reformers removed the seven OT books AND, it should be noted, Martin Luther wanted to toss several NT books as well.
Upshot? The Catholic Church compiled the Bible as we use it today. We accept these books as The Word of God because of the Authority of the Catholic Church. The Protestant denominations, who place such high regard on The Bible” and declare, as it says in revelation, that not one word is to be changed, started out by changing The Bible.
Now – How to deal with the issue of who is right among the Churches.
1) Can the Holy Spirit inspire or teach conflicting doctrine? - No
2) Did Christ establish a community/Church? - Yes
3) Did Christ establish multiple independent Churches? - No (Christ says “Church”)
4) Did Christ give this Church Authority? - Yes (Mt 16:18-19 and Mt 18:15-19) [indents] Note that these are the only 2 places in the Gospels where the term Church is used. [/indent]5) Did Christ Promise to be with His Church, to not leave us orphans and to Send the Paraclete? - Yes
6) Did Christ leave us a Church to guide us, or did He leave us a book? - A Church
So – Based on the above, we can see that, Christ established a Single, Authoritative Church, that hell will not overcome, and has the authority to Bind and Loose. Since Christ cannot lie, it follows that His Church will be in continuous and visible existence and not fall into apostasy as some claim, but will persevere. (Which is not to say individuals, even high ranking ones, will not fall into apostasy.) She will also act authoritatively in matters of faith and morals. The only church that fits that description is the Catholic Church. That same Church acted authoritatively in selecting the Books to be included in the canon of the Bible.
Therefore the correct church, for correct teachings on faith and morals must be the Catholic Church.
Now let’s look at the “Fruits” of “Catholicism” and “Protestantism”.
CatholicismCatholicism is built upon the Three legged stool of Scripture, Tradition (Oral teachings), and Magisterium. Each is critical to the Fullness of Truth and unity. We can also add Apostolic Succession – That is we have teachings not only from the Apostles but from those who were taught by the apostles and so on.
Catholicism has been messy from the beginning having to work constantly to define doctrine, answer questions and fight those who would teach a different Gospel. However the Church places a huge emphasis on Unity. Christ has One Mind. There is One Truth. There has been and will continue to be discussion, argument and within the Church. However, such problems are dealt with within the structure of the Church and decisions reached prayerfully in unity and always with reference to the Holy Bible as well as the many great writings of the Church fathers and Doctors. Once a decision is reached by the Church (always after much prayer, discussion and consultation) the faithful who might still disagree submit their will to the Will of Christ in The Church thus maintaining unity and fulfilling Christ’s command to "Tell it to The Church", and reinforcing Paul’s teaching that it is The Church that is the “Pillar and Foundation of Truth”.
Protestantism
Protestantism in it’s most basic, submits that it is The Bible Alone, interpreted by the “Spirit Led individual”. That will lead one to Christ. However it became quickly evident that there were different "spirit led" interpretations flying around. Even the Reformers themselves could not come to agreement and since none was willing to submit their own “Spirit Led” wills to the others in for the sake of Truth and Unity, they each went their own way.
The result of this is many – many different and conflicting "Bible Based, and Spirit Led" beliefs among protestants and no way to distill them into one unified whole. Even the Old and established Protestant Churches are finding themselves splitting apart because they have no authority to tell the schismatic that they are wrong.
So – The fruits of Catholicism is Doctrinal Unity built upon Scripture, Tradition, and Teaching Authority. The Fruits of Protestantism is doctrinal chaos built upon the individual right of self interpretation.
You shall know them by their Fruits.
Brilliant! The catholic church's authority is valid because the books that it selected (and edited) say it is.
:runaway:
If he ever existed, that is.
K
keith1
Guest
The evidence is plain that natural drives are the objective, or point to the destination/objective. Natural drives are the rudder of the ship.
When the subject is the individual sperm, breaking down the egg-cell wall is the objective. At each stage or threshold, when the natural objectives are met, the services of the individual players are...expendable.
In this light, all extraneous individual endeavors, that diffuse from the course of the destination/objective, are...eliminated, without delay, sadness...or moral consideration.
yes it does when it's god's spirit that brings you in line with the law. the holy spirit is a couselor and accomplishes a work in you. it's a catalyst for rebirth.
can't you see how religion attempts to circumvent that process, or take over that role? and it doesn't work; not nearly well enough for my own personal standards anyway. religion and governments may control the symptoms of what is wrong with us to an extent, but it doesn't cure us. the spirit cures us. so i guess i'm arguing rebirth vs subjective morality. real positive change as opposed to what i interpret a lot of time as oppression.
Ritchie: How do you know she's a virgin?
The Fonz: She told me.
Ritchie: How do you know she not lying?
The Fonz: Hey, virgins don't lie.
Is that what happened when the inquisition tortured people for Christianity and profit?
that sounds like the opposite of what i'm talking about.
Does anyone care to defend the original topic?
But, MoM tells us that the Catholic Church is God's voice on Earth when it comes to objective morality.
This would imply that he may be wrong!
But, MoM tells us that the Catholic Church is God's voice on Earth when it comes to objective morality.
This would imply that he may be wrong!
mom?