As horrible as such a decree might sound, I think it actually brings the true catholic “Church” nearer to truth – in terms of orthopraxis – although it’s clearly offset by its person/institution of origin. The bare fact is that the Church is to be as a united and uniformly pure gathering of individuals after the return of Jesus, not as some arbitrary decree from a “recognized” (that is, recognizably flawed) institution like that of the Vatican.
That said, as a follower of the Way, our identity is formed and dictated by our relationship to God and one another, not to any earthly institutions.
Vatican: Non-Catholics ‘wounded’ by not recognizing pope
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) — The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ.
4/30/2013 note: If you are coming here from Google, here is the update to this post. I tried to make use of some editing skills to make it more readable.
Reposted from what seems like a now-defunct Garage Scholars blog (argh!). A very good recap of a Ravi Zacharias message, “A Defense of Absolute Truth”, which details why secularism fails to provide a coherent set of answers to the problems of the world (part 1 | part 2).
An interesting anecdotal defense of this point is in the second result of this Google search.
Here’s a gem: Secularization = no shame. Relativism = no reason. Privatization = no meaning. [All three have occurred to varying degrees in Westernized civilizations.]
Original post has been reposted below.
[note: in case you missed it, this is a recap which has taken on a kind of bullet-point form. I’ve reformatted parts of it for readability. If you don’t get parts of it, feel free to comment.
note #2: thread available at Newsvine. I’m thinking about manually importing it.]
On Saturday, March 12, the Garage Scholars, named that day by Robert Grange, held their second meeting and listened to a talk by Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias. This talk was given the day before Ravi’s talk at the Mormon Tabernacle.
A Defense of Absolute Truth
The University of Utah
Sexuality, marriage, stem-cell research, genetics—“these things are getting very, very complex.” It’s hard to know “how to address this tangled subject with meaning and coherence.”
The formatting always gets lost in translation… even with html. Bleh.
The tags are a good indicator of what this thread’s about (maybe will work on a summary later).
A: It’s fine, I suppose. But the longer it takes, the more disingenuous your pursuit of “exposing incompetence”, as it were, will look (recent post(s) nonwithstanding).
J: You put a bit much weight on a tagline…
That’s not just a tagline… it’s also the title of your blog.
…How is this conversation exposing incompetence.
Well, that one should be obvious. The incompetence comes in the form of dogmaticism regarding the “ultimate truth” of science, which is implied from your For Christians page.
The real incompetence is not whether you believe in a god [or not], but what you use that belief for, what objective you try to achieve with that belief.
I can agree if you’re referring to “amoralism”, e.g. in the case of Hitler and Bush. I don’t think proselytising necessarily bring you to the same conclusion.
Had a good feeling it would’ve been caught by akismet (whoops, I’ve been calling it azkimet) and, most likely, not undeleted by Vance. Thread has been continued here.
It is not needful for me to defend my unbelief in a deity. It is up to the theists to defend their belief in a deity. They do this to their own satisfaction but not to mine.
This is dogmaticism at its finest. I hope you recognize that, and are secretly joking.
AND THIS IS WHY YOU MUST “study” to prove yourself unto god and thats
great to know for “WHEN YOU GET TO HEAVEN” meanwhile here on EARTH you must live each day with a great display of common sense, 1 such being:
if a group of “FANATICS” is holding a knife to your throat asking you to chose between what you belive and what he thinks you should believe…..what are you gonna do ?????
Jim I’m not entirely sure of your position. Could you clarify a little bit?
Are you a practicing Christian? If so, what do you consider to be a practicing Christian?
In the spirit of my two other posts I’d like to open up a discussion about the problems I see in neoconservatism (which I’m assuming you are).
I take it that you’re:
2. Pro Israel
3. Pro America (a nationalist)
I believe in neither 2 nor 3 due to the fleeting nature of civilization. Moreover, I firmly believe, as prophesied in the Bible and consistent throughout history, that mankind will meet its eventual end.
In the case #1, if you’re going to dictate Christian ethics to me, give me verse and context. Otherwise you’re just being dogmatic.
So as not to be off-topic in your current posts I reposted here. I take it that you’re:
- a practicing Christian
- Pro Israel
- Pro America (a nationalist)
- by 2 and 3, neoconservative
I don’t believe that Christians act primarily for the benefit of the state nor Israel (hence the “I disagree with the nationalism and “Politely knocking on Taquiyya’s door” bit). Instead I am convinced that we act out of God’s interests, derived from a heart of worship to God, which in turn may or may not be in the mutual benefit of the state.
I also believe Christians don’t have the moral obligation to protect the state of Israel. Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus give this commandment.
Regarding my allergy to nationalism, I believe this was one of the root causes for the spiritual wandering of the Israelites found in the OT.
These are some of my reasons.
This is in reference to Comment Commandments revisited and the previous Pope to Muslim Fanatics: Why bother? posts in soccermomunplugged.
Cate implicates my comments in the “Pope…” post are inflammatory and purely malicious in nature.
– are inflammatory without addressing the issue of the blog
– are purely malicious in nature
Going by this definition of malicious, I fail to see where I am acting out of pure malice. Also, if the first few posts are any indication, I am sure that my characterization of your (Cate’s) generalized opinion of ME Arabs is on the mark.
I believe you (Cate) and I reached some sort of commonality of spirit at the “end” of our discussion, but judging by your last comment of the night, I believe it was built on false pretenses or a false unity, hence your post and following ban.
Allow me to illustrate:
No I didn’t forget that Jesus would know. But I am making the point that we all generalize. How aboutwe concede that we both reacted adversely to our triggers.
We are both probably on the same side of the issue anyway. You and I both want Muslims to be seen in a better light. Only I want the fanatics to stop doing everything in their power to reinforce negative stereotypes and you want President Bush and I not to generalize and create a hostile environment for innocent Muslims. Got it. I’ll make sure my Palestinian friend and her family feel welcome when they come for dinner on Tuesday evening.
Good night, Albert. (#97)