4 ms·

So two points here I disagree with (though I'm not I a Catholic I can't really explain their belief system.) One is the belief a all intelligent things have a

So two points here I disagree with (though I'm not I a Catholic I can't really explain their belief system.) One is the belief a all intelligent things have a soul, obviously fetuses and intelligent life do, but animals functionally don't. Aliens could fall somewhere on the potential intelligence spectrum between sperm and fetus or only one in a billion could reach acceptable intelligence for a soul whatever that is deemed to be. What if they are intelligent, but physically cannot believe in God? Is that just metaphysically impossible? Second is that the Bible doesn't claim to be comprehensive. This kind of weird to argue against, basically anything disagreeable in the Bible could be controverted then. It's like saying there COULD be an 11th commandment or something of that nature. It makes the Bible not necessarily wrong but difficult to take seriously.

coldtea 6y ago
>One is the belief a all intelligent things have a soul, obviously fetuses and intelligent life do, but animals functionally don't. Who is to say? >Second is that the Bible doesn't claim to be comprehensive. This kind of weird to argue against, basically anything disagreeable in the Bible could be controverted then. It's like saying there COULD be an 11th commandment or something of that nature. It makes the Bible not necessarily wrong but difficult to take seriously. In traditional Christianity (not protestantism) the Bible is not the be all end all. Oral tradition, lived experience of the church community, the so-called prominent figures ("fathers of the church"), etc, mattered as much if not more. It was protestantism (a kind of crude fundamentalist "back to the basics" movement not that different to muslim fundamendalism of today, which is in fact a distortion of the actual tradition which was never just about the Bible and only about what's in the Bible/NT) that makes the Bible/New Testament the be-all/end-all.
- nobodyandproud 6y ago
  In fairness, protestantism was a rejection of the idea that the Catholic church has a monopoly on Christianity. As with any large organization, greed and corruption settles in sooner or later; and the Catholic organization still can’t shed its bad habits. Nor does it own up to it. That’s not to say that the fundamentalist protestants in the US have got it right; they certainly have their fair share of cock-ups and scandles and shouldn’t be trusted either. This is why appreciate the US’ separation of religion from politics.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >In fairness, protestantism was a rejection of the idea that the Catholic church has a monopoly on Christianity. Well, there was already the Orthodox church, the Coptic search, and a few others, so that was quite clear. Protestantism was both a reaction against the power of the Pope (via Catholic church) to the Germanic etc nations, who remained "christian" but wanted their own church to break away from Rome, plus a simplification of the faith that reduced its subtler points to fit their mentality... A version of christianity for peoples who haven't had much of a philosophic legacy. Then you add calvisnism for people who'd like to get richn and feel good about it, without all the christian guilt about the subject of money (they kept and expanded the guilt at the domains of sex and fun -- which is why protestants have been way more killjoys than the catholics).
- question000 6y ago
  Presumably animals don't have souls, maybe in some wordy sense they do, but functionally they don't so we can eat them or step on them. If bacteria has a soul we are in trouble. As for the comprehensiveness of the Bible yeah what your saying is logically correct, but seems a bit disingenuous. Why not include the Quran and Book of Mormon in the holy scriptures as well if the Bible isn't the "end-all"? For God to only be concerned with terrestrial matters in the Bible is very strange if ET Intelligent life exists. Any religion that acknowledges ET life prior to their discovery would seem to be more plausible... though obviously that seems kind of ridiculous in practice.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >As for the comprehensiveness of the Bible yeah what your saying is logically correct, but seems a bit disingenuous. Why not include the Quran and Book of Mormon in the holy scriptures as well if the Bible isn't the "end-all"? Because, as I said, in traditional Christianity, while the Bible is not the be-all-end-all, it's not supplemented by anything-and-everything. Rather, the other important elements are the oral tradition of christians, lived experience of the church community, the so-called prominent figures ("fathers of the church"), etc. So the Bible is not everything, but there's no room for the and Quran and Book of Mormon in there still -- there are other things that are accepted by (non protestant) Christianity that supplement the Bible -- not just anything.

coldtea 6y ago

>One is the belief a all intelligent things have a soul, obviously fetuses and intelligent life do, but animals functionally don't. Who is to say? >Second is that the Bible doesn't claim to be comprehensive. This kind of weird to argue against, basically anything disagreeable in the Bible could be controverted then. It's like saying there COULD be an 11th commandment or something of that nature. It makes the Bible not necessarily wrong but difficult to take seriously. In traditional Christianity (not protestantism) the Bible is not the be all end all. Oral tradition, lived experience of the church community, the so-called prominent figures ("fathers of the church"), etc, mattered as much if not more. It was protestantism (a kind of crude fundamentalist "back to the basics" movement not that different to muslim fundamendalism of today, which is in fact a distortion of the actual tradition which was never just about the Bible and only about what's in the Bible/NT) that makes the Bible/New Testament the be-all/end-all.

nobodyandproud 6y ago
In fairness, protestantism was a rejection of the idea that the Catholic church has a monopoly on Christianity. As with any large organization, greed and corruption settles in sooner or later; and the Catholic organization still can’t shed its bad habits. Nor does it own up to it. That’s not to say that the fundamentalist protestants in the US have got it right; they certainly have their fair share of cock-ups and scandles and shouldn’t be trusted either. This is why appreciate the US’ separation of religion from politics.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >In fairness, protestantism was a rejection of the idea that the Catholic church has a monopoly on Christianity. Well, there was already the Orthodox church, the Coptic search, and a few others, so that was quite clear. Protestantism was both a reaction against the power of the Pope (via Catholic church) to the Germanic etc nations, who remained "christian" but wanted their own church to break away from Rome, plus a simplification of the faith that reduced its subtler points to fit their mentality... A version of christianity for peoples who haven't had much of a philosophic legacy. Then you add calvisnism for people who'd like to get richn and feel good about it, without all the christian guilt about the subject of money (they kept and expanded the guilt at the domains of sex and fun -- which is why protestants have been way more killjoys than the catholics).
question000 6y ago
Presumably animals don't have souls, maybe in some wordy sense they do, but functionally they don't so we can eat them or step on them. If bacteria has a soul we are in trouble. As for the comprehensiveness of the Bible yeah what your saying is logically correct, but seems a bit disingenuous. Why not include the Quran and Book of Mormon in the holy scriptures as well if the Bible isn't the "end-all"? For God to only be concerned with terrestrial matters in the Bible is very strange if ET Intelligent life exists. Any religion that acknowledges ET life prior to their discovery would seem to be more plausible... though obviously that seems kind of ridiculous in practice.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >As for the comprehensiveness of the Bible yeah what your saying is logically correct, but seems a bit disingenuous. Why not include the Quran and Book of Mormon in the holy scriptures as well if the Bible isn't the "end-all"? Because, as I said, in traditional Christianity, while the Bible is not the be-all-end-all, it's not supplemented by anything-and-everything. Rather, the other important elements are the oral tradition of christians, lived experience of the church community, the so-called prominent figures ("fathers of the church"), etc. So the Bible is not everything, but there's no room for the and Quran and Book of Mormon in there still -- there are other things that are accepted by (non protestant) Christianity that supplement the Bible -- not just anything.