Posted on 05/29/2019 12:37:41 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
May 27, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — Speaking with one of the best-known conservative Jews, Dennis Prager, at the PragerU summit last week, world-famous psychologist Jordan Peterson spoke of God and his views of faith. After speaking about his dislike for the question ‘Do you believe in God?’ Peterson said, “I think that Catholicism — that's as sane as people can get.”
Peterson has often been asked about his faith, if he believes in God, and he said the question has always troubled him. He promised a podcast on the matter since he has given his dislike for the question much thought.
He explained, “Who would have the audacity to claim that they believed in God if they examined the way they lived? Who would dare say that?”
“To believe, in a Christian sense,” he added, “means that you live it out fully and that's an that's an unbearable task in some sense.”
Then in one long drawn-out, rapid-fire thought, the type that has enthralled his millions of fans, he laid out extemporaneously the vision of a believer in God:
“To be able to accept the structure of existence, the suffering that goes along with it and the disappointment and the betrayal, and to nonetheless act properly; to aim at the good with all your heart; to dispense with the malevolence and your desire for destruction and revenge and all of that; and to face things courageously and to tell the truth to speak the truth and to act it out, that's what it means to believe -- that's what it means -- it doesn't mean to state it, it means to act it out. And, unless you act it out you should be very careful about claiming it. And so, I've never been comfortable saying anything other than I try to act as if God exists because God only knows what you'd be if you truly believed.”
See the full exchange of Peterson and Prager here.
Thank you x2 :op
Yes, for consistent with the position in Catholic theology that one cannot know writings are of God except by faith in her which tells you ("no matter what be done the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities..." - Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium. "People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high."- Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, “Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith,” p. 72; http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/08/magisterial-cat-and-mouse-game.html) and thus "when we appeal to the Scriptures for proof of the Church's infallible authority we appeal to them merely as reliable historical sources, and abstract altogether from their inspiration" (Catholic Encyclopedia > Infallibility) whereby it is supposed that one finds warrant for submission to Rome, then the basis for assurance that something is of God is that the Catholic magisterium has told you this. Thus as regards the (assumption of the) Assumption in sacred tradition, as the founder of Catholic Answers states,
“Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
But thus it follows that the basis for assurance that sacred tradition establishes the infallible magisterium is the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults). Rome infallibly defines what sacred tradition consists of and means, and what she say it means is that Rome infallibly defines what sacred tradition consists of and means. If she does say so herself.
For again, Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
Of course, God calls souls to believe in Him based upon evidential warrant and the grace He gives to believe, and then progressively confirms this decision to the faithful. But Rome can only imagine that she provides the evidential warrant to believe her elitist claims, including her the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.
No wonder Catholics are hopelessly confused.
Keating made the same asinine statement regarding the Immaculate conception in a debate with James White.
1st Corinthians 2:14 should explain that.
You've got nothing.
The incarnation is not a dogma?
What am I missing. I’ve got nothing, so tell me: What is a “dogmatic position.”
Already explained. Not going to continue to repeat.
You keep stalling. If you’ve got something post it. Or I’m done with this exchange.
I’m out.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm
Here's another stab at mortal sins:
http://saintrobertbellarmine.blogspot.com/2007/11/examination-of-conscience-mortal-sins.html
Interestingly, this lists "Leaving the Catholic Faith for another religion or practice" as a MORTAL sin. Others it lists are:
Willful failure to fast and abstain on Ash Wednesday/Good Friday
Missing mass intentionally on Sunday or Holy Days
Willfully working at a task for more than a few hours on Sunday regularly
Then, there's venial sins:
http://saintrobertbellarmine.blogspot.com/2007/11/have-you-examined-your-conscience.html
A few that I noticed:
Excessive use of TV, video games, use of cell phones or computer
Excessive blogging
what about Galatians 5:19?
The Roman Catholic Church has updated the OT Law for modern times.
Pretty soon they'll be told they can only walk so many cubits a Sunday.
Willful failure to fast and abstain on Ash Wednesday/Good Friday
Just more evidence of non-Scriptural positions by Roman Catholicism.
Doesn't that kinda violate the Golden Rule?
This is only a venial sin???????
Who are they trying to kid?
I guess if they made it a mortal sin, Roman Catholics would be lined up outside the doors. They'd never get through all the confessions.
Good move.
😂
1853 Sins can be distinguished according to their objects, as can every human act; or according to the virtues they oppose, by excess or defect; or according to the commandments they violate. They can also be classed according to whether they concern God, neighbor, or oneself; they can be divided into spiritual and carnal sins, or again as sins in thought, word, deed, or omission. The root of sin is in the heart of man, in his free will, according to the teaching of the Lord: "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man."128 But in the heart also resides charity, the source of the good and pure works, which sin wounds.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.