So, I had a conference with a Roman Catholic speaker yesterday. He spoke on the Christian intellectual tradition.
For the record, I don't typically approve of Catholicism - partially because it screams of legalism to my angsty teenage mind, and partially because they put so much faith in their traditions and their strict lifestyles and so little emphasis on their passions.
I don't dislike Catholics, but I certainly feel like they are incredibly guilty of being hereditary Christians instead of choosing the faith intentionally. Obviously, there is some of this in evangelical and Protestant Christianity, as well, but it seems like the majority rather than the exception in Catholicism. Maybe this is just my perception instead of my knowledge.
Anyways, that's not the point.
I didn't agree with all that he said, but he responded to a question that I had in a very enlightened way.
All of you Jesus freaks who read this know that atheists and evolutionists and all of our non-Christian friends love to say that we don't have an objective point of view on science because we always look at stuff through our God perspective, so we can't ever say anything about science because we're biased.
I asked him whether or not our scientific approach was valid, that Christians can approach science from our point of view and still say something.
He responded by saying that while it is impossible to be truly objective, and that especially the atheists are not objective, the Christians were the ones who came up with the idea of objective point of view, and the ideals of science in the first place. People with faith in God are the only ones who can believe that the rules of the universe are consistent and unchanging, because God must have designed them that way. God is the only one who can break those rules, because He is all-powerful.
That makes so much sense to me. I think I'd heard it all before in separate parts, but hearing it all together so succinctly was just nice.
I know this post is really philosophical and up in the sky, but it's important to me to know this stuff.
I'll just rant on the wrongs of Catholicism later.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
So, this is the blog of Brett. I used to write on my Myspace and I still use my Facebook all the time to tell people what's going on in my life, but I suppose true blogging isn't about what's happening in your life, it's about your reaction to it and what it inspires you to think. Not to say that this is my journal. It's where I drop my brain off at the end of the day.
5 comments:
I think that was one of the most incredible answers I heard that night. A lot of the questions were poorly worded, but you put your thoughts together and I think he really understood. However, after reading Aquinas he is really just repeating to you what is already in the Christian intellectual tradition.
The idea that Aquinas presents is actually one of his evidences that God exists. He says that because the universe is ordered and follows a seeming set of "rules" there must be a God who puts those rules in place. I felt like he really did do an amazing job of bring that idea to life in answering your question.
What really did upset me though is that in our church or Christian walk we have never heard those answers before. This piece of work has been around for ages! Some churches still know and quote the Saints. I guess that we're just so scared of the icons though that we go to an extreme, like was brought up in the discussion on the emergent church, and we try to start from scratch. Unfortunately, our past is at closer to when Christ actually lived than we are and I think that there is a lot of good sense in trusting in some of that tradition. Anyway... good post, hon!
I think the reason Catholicism is so legalistic is because it's been around for so long...few people convert to it and feel the passion that was once felt when it was the new way of worshipping God. As protestants we have kept things up to date, but we still have the same danger of becoming too set in the old traditions and not evolving to reach new generations.
And i'm saying all this with a slight disregard to all the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism and their translations of the word. But with the perspective of time and traditions, if we become legalistic it will cloud our true purpose...which is living and knowing Christ and the Trinity.
sadly, I cannot impart my knowledge of pregnancy-prevention upon your virgin ears.
But the day you figure out how to become pregnant, we can trade discoveries. I'll make you un-pregnant, and you can make me the richest woman in the world as i sell your male-impregnation secret to thousands of gays.
Christianity tends more objective because the Christian foundation uses (or is supposed to use) all three major perspectives to view the world.
-Special revelation and knowledge
(This is divine knowledge or hearing from God [views that only use this method are typically cults or beliefs in which no questions God or the ones he "sends"])
-General revelation and knowledge
(This is scientific or tangible knowledge from the word around us. [views that only use this method are typically atheistic or agnostic, believing that there is only what you study)
-Experiential revelation and knowledge
(This is knowledge that is obtained via experience [views the only use this view are typically postmodern, essentially believing that you determine truth and reality])
Does that make sense?
word = world
sry... i was too lazy to grammar check...
Post a Comment