How to approach the teachings of Jesus

[TSherbs]

This is a spill over thread because another became way off topic.

Continue here if you are interested in a discussion about the New Testament.

[Cool Breeze]

This is a spill over thread because another became way off topic.

Continue here if you are interested in a discussion about the New Testament.

100 or 1 million people could read something and have exactly that many interpretations as to how to correctly do so. As such, there needs to be an authoritative source as to what the proper or correct interpretation is. Our Blessed Lord gave that authority to the Catholic Church. You need to find older sources that have been adopted as authoritative and without error (a difficult thing to do if you don't know where to look). If I were you, I would look first at anything by St. Thomas Aquinas. He developed the entire moral philosophy (first started by Aristotle) that the Church as adopted as Her own. He has been declared a Doctor of the Church and his writings are amazing.

If, for some reason, you don't like the idea of what I just wrote because you are protestant, etc, you should still look at his commentary on the virtues as they are a completely OBJECTIVE (NOT subjective/relativist) way to look at literally every single situation you face in your life.

ETA - the Order of Preachers/Dominican Order follow St. Thomas Aquinas in their teachings. So you can look up anything they write as well. Look for "OP" after the author's name and it should be a good starting point as well.

[TSherbs]

A central tenet of existentialism is the ethical obligation of the individual to construct a rational morality without a godhead. It's our duty, and Sartre calls it cowardice to shirk it or to rely on the false certainty of godhead to reinforce "right" and "wrong."

[TSherbs]

This is a spill over thread because another became way off topic.

Continue here if you are interested in a discussion about the New Testament.

100 or 1 million people could read something and have exactly that many interpretations as to how to correctly do so. As such, there needs to be an authoritative source as to what the proper or correct interpretation is. Our Blessed Lord gave that authority to the Catholic Church. You need to find older sources that have been adopted as authoritative and without error (a difficult thing to do if you don't know where to look). If I were you, I would look first at anything by St. Thomas Aquinas....

It's this addressed to me, specifically?

[Cool Breeze]

This is a spill over thread because another became way off topic.

Continue here if you are interested in a discussion about the New Testament.

100 or 1 million people could read something and have exactly that many interpretations as to how to correctly do so. As such, there needs to be an authoritative source as to what the proper or correct interpretation is. Our Blessed Lord gave that authority to the Catholic Church. You need to find older sources that have been adopted as authoritative and without error (a difficult thing to do if you don't know where to look). If I were you, I would look first at anything by St. Thomas Aquinas....

It's this addressed to me, specifically?

Yes, of course - you started the thread "How to approach the teachings of Jesus"

[TSherbs]

This is a spill over thread because another became way off topic.

Continue here if you are interested in a discussion about the New Testament.

100 or 1 million people could read something and have exactly that many interpretations as to how to correctly do so. As such, there needs to be an authoritative source as to what the proper or correct interpretation is. Our Blessed Lord gave that authority to the Catholic Church. You need to find older sources that have been adopted as authoritative and without error (a difficult thing to do if you don't know where to look). If I were you, I would look first at anything by St. Thomas Aquinas....

It's this addressed to me, specifically?

Yes, of course - you started the thread "How to approach the teachings of Jesus"

I started it, but really only to move the discussion that was derailing the other thread.

I'm all set on the Jesus stuff. I have decades of history with the church and with the writings of many saints and Christian writers.

[kazoolaw]

I'm all set on the Jesus stuff. I have decades of history with the church and with the writings of many saints and Christian writers.

Neither of which is the teaching of Jesus.

[Cool Breeze]

I'm all set on the Jesus stuff. I have decades of history with the church and with the writings of many saints and Christian writers.

Neither of which is the teaching of Jesus.

The specific books that were read were never mentioned so how can you make that assertion?

[TSherbs]

I'm all set on the Jesus stuff. I have decades of history with the church and with the writings of many saints and Christian writers.

Neither of which is the teaching of Jesus.

The specific books that were read were never mentioned so how can you make that assertion?

He's just trolling me. Don't worry about it. If you want to discuss something with me, I'm open to it, but you should know that I no longer believe that the Bible is the word of a god. I have no confidence that any god exists, particularly not the Christian idea of one. But I read the Bible and also teach stories from it as part of my literature classes.

[Bold2013]

Just out of curiosity what Bible stories do you teach?

[Cool Breeze]

I'm all set on the Jesus stuff. I have decades of history with the church and with the writings of many saints and Christian writers.

Neither of which is the teaching of Jesus.

The specific books that were read were never mentioned so how can you make that assertion?

He's just trolling me. Don't worry about it. If you want to discuss something with me, I'm open to it, but you should know that I no longer believe that the Bible is the word of a god. I have no confidence that any god exists, particularly not the Christian idea of one. But I read the Bible and also teach stories from it as part of my literature classes.

Trolling - gotcha. I should have known. I was not part of the other series of posts you mentioned and didn't read it. These kind of discussion tend to get heated and no one really changes their minds - so I never bother. I saw the subject to your post on the main board as I was scrolling and it was a slow fastball right over the middle of the plate and I could not help but hit a home run especially for the little effort it took me. It all seemed legitimate to my very fast glance.

As for your current beliefs - I am sorry to hear that and I am not prepared to have a long discussion about that. But I will put my money where my mouth is and present to you the advice I gave in my first post. St. Thomas Aquinas's famous work called "Five proofs/ways of the existence of God". There is an 8:53 min video about it on youtube that is entertaining as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42Eg6UUBqqo - If curiosity ever strikes you! Best wishes.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

There are two main problems with the 'Five ways' presented by Aquinas.

1. They are all based on assumptions without evidence.
2. They are all sufficiently explained by science - physics, biology, chemistry.


In his struggles to understand the phenomena of our Universe at large and the world in local (bearing in mind that he lived in the 13th century CE), and being already massively biased toward religion, it is hardly surprising that he ascribed anything unexplainable (for the time) as a product of a mythical all-powerful being. It was a convenient get out of jail card if you will. This is not to say that his works are completely without value.

[Cool Breeze]

There are two main problems with the 'Five ways' presented by Aquinas.

1. They are all based on assumptions without evidence.
2. They are all sufficiently explained by science - physics, biology, chemistry.


In his struggles to understand the phenomena of our Universe at large and the world in local (bearing in mind that he lived in the 13th century CE), and being already massively biased toward religion, it is hardly surprising that he ascribed anything unexplainable (for the time) as a product of a mythical all-powerful being. It was a convenient get out of jail card if you will. This is not to say that his works are completely without value.

1. What assumptions?
2. Science does not and cannot explain the first cause.

[Lloyd]

I was raised as a Conservative Jew and now I'm an Atheist- leaning Agnostic and a mathematician. I watched the video. There's absolutely nothing in that video in terms of proof. To ascribe a "God" as the source of the unknown is why they threw virgins into volcanos to improve harvest.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Lloyd]

Also, GERD can cause a sore throat.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Bold2013]

There are two main problems with the 'Five ways' presented by Aquinas.

1. They are all based on assumptions without evidence.
2. They are all sufficiently explained by science - physics, biology, chemistry.


In his struggles to understand the phenomena of our Universe at large and the world in local (bearing in mind that he lived in the 13th century CE), and being already massively biased toward religion, it is hardly surprising that he ascribed anything unexplainable (for the time) as a product of a mythical all-powerful being. It was a convenient get out of jail card if you will. This is not to say that his works are completely without value.

My study of biology makes me further marvel at the Creator.

[Bold2013]

I'm all set on the Jesus stuff. I have decades of history with the church and with the writings of many saints and Christian writers.

Neither of which is the teaching of Jesus.

The specific books that were read were never mentioned so how can you make that assertion?

He's just trolling me. Don't worry about it. If you want to discuss something with me, I'm open to it, but you should know that I no longer believe that the Bible is the word of a god. I have no confidence that any god exists, particularly not the Christian idea of one. But I read the Bible and also teach stories from it as part of my literature classes.

Trolling - gotcha. I should have known. I was not part of the other series of posts you mentioned and didn't read it. These kind of discussion tend to get heated and no one really changes their minds - so I never bother. I saw the subject to your post on the main board as I was scrolling and it was a slow fastball right over the middle of the plate and I could not help but hit a home run especially for the little effort it took me. It all seemed legitimate to my very fast glance.

As for your current beliefs - I am sorry to hear that and I am not prepared to have a long discussion about that. But I will put my money where my mouth is and present to you the advice I gave in my first post. St. Thomas Aquinas's famous work called "Five proofs/ways of the existence of God". There is an 8:53 min video about it on youtube that is entertaining as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42Eg6UUBqqo - If curiosity ever strikes you! Best wishes.

Cool Breeze we might not see eye to eye on some theological matter but I appreciate your wisdom and genuineness.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

There are two main problems with the 'Five ways' presented by Aquinas.

1. They are all based on assumptions without evidence.
2. They are all sufficiently explained by science - physics, biology, chemistry.


In his struggles to understand the phenomena of our Universe at large and the world in local (bearing in mind that he lived in the 13th century CE), and being already massively biased toward religion, it is hardly surprising that he ascribed anything unexplainable (for the time) as a product of a mythical all-powerful being. It was a convenient get out of jail card if you will. This is not to say that his works are completely without value.

1. What assumptions?
2. Science does not and cannot explain the first cause.

What first cause? The universe is eternal, a first cause is not required.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

There are two main problems with the 'Five ways' presented by Aquinas.

1. They are all based on assumptions without evidence.
2. They are all sufficiently explained by science - physics, biology, chemistry.


In his struggles to understand the phenomena of our Universe at large and the world in local (bearing in mind that he lived in the 13th century CE), and being already massively biased toward religion, it is hardly surprising that he ascribed anything unexplainable (for the time) as a product of a mythical all-powerful being. It was a convenient get out of jail card if you will. This is not to say that his works are completely without value.

My study of biology makes me further marvel at the Creator.

It's a wonderful cop-out that can be used for absolutely any argument.

[Lloyd]

Science does not and can not explain the first cause

If this is to be used to prove there exists a God, that should been written "Science HAS not BUT MAY ONE DAY explain the cause". Then, one must disprove this. Beginning the proof with the assumption that it can't ever be explained scientifically is to start the proof with the apriori assumption that there is a master creator.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk