Too much depends on the bible?

[No*s]

Frubles to thee

OK...Maybe not. Clicking on "frubles" didn't bring up a dialogue...

 

[SoulTYPE]

Basically a marketing product that comes with your belief than?

 

[Scott1]

Basically a marketing product that comes with your belief than?

To whom is this directed at?

 

[SoulTYPE]

....You.

 

[Sunstone]

Basically a marketing product that comes with your belief than?

I can't understand how you get that out of anything that's been said here, SoulType. Could you explain your reasoning, or was what you said a matter of revelation?

 

[Scott1]

I was afraid of that..... yes it's a marketing tool.... we've got T-shirts and everything....

.... anything else?

 

[SoulTYPE]

By everything

I can't understand how you get that out of anything that's been said here, SoulType. Could you explain your reasoning, or was what you said a matter of revelation?

By everything that was said bu SogFPP. He follows his belief, which is God instead of following the bible. Therefor, the Bible would be a marketing product that God promotes on his "infomercial", where his infomercial being Church.

 

[SoulTYPE]

...Kind of like a tip book.

 

[Sunstone]

By everything
By everything that was said bu SogFPP. He follows his belief, which is God instead of following the bible. Therefor, the Bible would be a marketing product that God promotes on his "infomercial", where his infomercial being Church.

That's a clever association, but we're getting off topic here. The subject of the thread is a comparison of the merits of a morality based on revelation versus a morality based on sound reason.

Scott, No*s, are the moral traditions of the Catholic Church considered to be based revelation? Or in reason? How does that break down?

 

[linwood]

I'm just a little on the hesitant side of ever going Sola Ratione just as I am of going Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide.

Yeah, thats understandable I suppose as long as a person can keep their mind open.

It`s hard to be rational all the time as well.

 

[No*s]

Basically a marketing product that comes with your belief than?

Isn't that a bit harsh? You said "tip guide" later, and that sounds much better. "Guide" would be better still. That, however, seems to compare Christians to greedy corporate capitalists...

 

[Scott1]

The problem, as I see it SoulType, is that you don't have a firm grasp of what the Bible is historically.

The Church came first.... the Bible is the Sacred writings of the Church.... and in my opinion, are meaningless without the Holy Spirit to interpret them..... and Christ gave us the Church to do just that.

 

[linwood]

I'm also genuinely curious how the bible arrived at the conclusion that eating shellfish was wrong, or that wearing clothing made of two or more kinds of fabric was wrong. Can we ever puzzle out the reasons for those prohibitions?

To be honest many of the old laws had good reasons for those they were meant for.

I am only speculating here but even today our shellfish has a high mercury content due to polution in the waters.

Shellfish produce this mercury to defend itself against the polutants in their environment.
It can kill people with low immune systems.
Perhaps there was a reason the shellfish in that area had the same probelm back then and people were dying/becoming ill.

I actually read a rational explanation for the not mixing two fabrics together somehwere but it escapes me now and I can`t find it.
I`ll keep looking.

But it is full of sound common sense advice for the people it was meant for.

Don`t eat the fruit of citrus trees for 3 years (It takes at least that long for a natural growing tree to fertilize well.)
Quarantine for leprosy.

I`m not sure about the female menstrual cycle but can you imagine hiow messy it might be before stay-free got into business?

Just my speculation.

 

[No*s]

Scott, No*s, are the moral traditions of the Catholic Church considered to be based revelation? Or in reason? How does that break down?

I'm not a member of the Roman Catholic Church, so I can't speak for them.

For Orthodoxy, I don't think there is an official statement, so take this with a grain of salt. I tend to view revelation and reason as working synergetically. Each compliments the other, and either without the other is deprived. I can't really provide a systematic approach to the relationship between the two either.

Revelation also needs to be applied. For that, I rely on my priest, bishop, and Church.

That's about as specific as I can get without giving examples.

 

[linwood]

The Church came first.... the Bible is the Sacred writings of the Church.... and in my opinion, are meaningless without the Holy Spirit to interpret them..... and Christ gave us the Church to do just that.

This is not exactly true.
Many of the writings of the Bible pre-date any date for the Orthadox church.

It is true that the Bible didn`t exist in its present form before the church considering it was the church that put it together.

I do get your meaning though Scott

 

[No*s]

Yeah, thats understandable I suppose as long as a person can keep their mind open.

It`s hard to be rational all the time as well.

The former is rather difficult *grin*. I would agree that it's hard to be rational all the time (in fact, I would go so far as to say "impossible" lol), and I'm not sure it'd be a good thing if we were.

 

[Scott1]

Scott, No*s, are the moral traditions of the Catholic Church considered to be based revelation? Or in reason? How does that break down?

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church # 159
"Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth." "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."

 

[Melody]

I think many people nowadays apply reason to the biblical injunctions. If they find that an injunction, such as "thou shalt not kill" is reasonable, then they accept it. On the other hand, if they find that one is not reasonable or has no apparent reason to it, such as "thou shalt not eat shellfish", then they quietly ignore it (and go right ahead and eat shellfish).

For those people who do this, does it make sense for them to say that they are following the bible, or are they really following reason? Perhaps, reason inspired by the bible?

The explanation I was given was that some laws of the OT are cultural and some are moral. Jesus was the culmination of the law and so all of these cultural laws were no longer necessary. It does state that in the NT.

So laws such as not eating shellfish, cutting your hair, etc. were gone, while some laws such as homosexality are mentioned again in Romans as a nono and are to be obeyed.

I also have a conservative stance on this topic and won't be pulled into debates on the right or wrong of it. However, it bothers me a bit that the christian community is placing so much emphasis on homosexuality and overlooking all the other sins and, according to the Bible, no one sin is greater than the other. A sin is a sin in God's eyes.

 

[No*s]

Sunstone, we've all been saying what we think, but what do you think?

 

[Sunstone]

However, it bothers me a bit that the christian community is placing so much emphasis on homosexuality and overlooking all the other sins and, according to the Bible, no one sin is greater than the other. A sin is a sin in God's eyes.

Melody, I'm not sure whether it's the Christian community per se that is making such a hoopla about homosexuality, or merely certain self-appointed spokespeople for the Christian community. I kinda wish the Jerry Falwells of this world would simply be raptured and the rest of us left to clean up the mess they've made of morality.

Scott, your quote substantially reflects how I would view the relationship between faith and reason, if I were a believer. It makes very good sense to me that God would not create a world in which faith and reason were genuinely at odds with each other.

No*s, since it is impossible to be rational all the time, is that not an argument against the notion that we can have a comprehensive and coherent morality based solely on reason?