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.
Well, if I had curly hair.....! Just sayin? :)
Oh, I think it's been understood.
I never said that the Catholic liturgy is identical to what was celebrated by St. Justin, Martyr or any of our ancient role models in Antioch, Jerusalem, Rome or Alexandria. That would be an incredibly stupid thing for me to say,--- yes, both incredible and stupid.
Yet on these very forums, Roman Catholics have told us, you included IIRC, that Roman Catholicism is doing only what the Apostles handed down....your "big 'T' Tradition". No deviation. Nothing new.
A simple exercise as I've shown on just responding to a couple of your "Traditions" shows this is not the case.
This is why Rome has had to come up with the "development of doctrine" to explain why Rome has changed from the days of the Apostles.
Bottom line is Rome has taken the two places where Paul talks about tradition and has used that as a blank check to create pretty much what they want to.
I recall an Ethics course in college which contained the insane teaching/beliefs of Peter Singer who as I recall, headed the Princeton Ethics department. Peter Singer is a lauded so-called ethics teacher/writer/theorist known around the world. Among his many insane notions, this man posited that we are not fully human until we reach the age of self-awareness (2,3,4 years of age) - and until that time we are no better than a mature pig. As such, parents should be able to dispose of their unwanted children up until they reach the age of self-awareness.
Hitler was able to murder millions of Jews and other undesirables because they were "sub-human". My point is that people will believe anything, distort, lie and deceive to justify their personal beliefs or their goals. I'm sorry to say that I am not surprised by the depravity and blindness we see in men and women today.
Keeper.
Athanasius/Council of Nicea.
Verse by verse, dogmatic statements on what individual verses mean.
.
After requesting I do the work of posting a definition of Sola Scriptura, I never heard back from you - surprisingly.
“When Jesus saw them, He said, “Go, show yourselves to the priests.” And as they were on their way, they were cleansed. When one of them saw that he was healed, he came back, praising God in a loud voice. He fell facedown at Jesus’ feet in thanksgiving to Him—and he was a Samaritan.”
Not a Samaritan?
7. The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
8. The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart, the commandment of the LORD is pure; enlightening the eyes.
Psalms 19:7-8
there's a difference.
So you no longer want an exegesis: I’ve yet to see a Roman Catholic do an exegetical breakdown of a section of Scripture.
Do you have some gold standard example in mind?
Colossians 2:1-14 means such and such.
There would be an explanation of each verse with what the verse means. This may or may not include an exegesis of the Greek. But right now I'd take it in just English.
Do you have an example?
You said there were plenty from Roman Catholicism....if there are plenty, I'd think you should be able to quickly produce one.
Otherwise,it would be redundant to write the New Testament, since the law and testimony and precepts and commandments of the LORD were (as you interpret "perfect") "complete" right then and there when the Psalms were written, in the OT.
However, Scripture --- even, the very excellent Psalm you quoted for me, Psalm 19 itself--- says that God's "report" to us comes through even the natural things He created:
The heavens declare the glory of God;On the basis of this, and many other passages, we know the authority of Natural Law. Its authority is as great as Scriptural Law, and cannot contradict Scriptural Law, because they both have the same Author.
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
Moreover, even the NT, while perfect,is not "complete" since Jesus said He would send our Lord the Holy Spirit to instruct the Church. And notice the context: this is the Last Supper discourse, where Jesus is talking to His Apostles, the very core of the Apostolic leadership of the Church:
John 14:17Thus the Lord Jesus could say to his 72 disciples,
The world cannot accept him [the Holy Spirit], because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you know Him, for He lives with you and will be in you.
John 14:26
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
John 15:26
When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father -- the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father -- He will testify about me.
John 16:13
But when He, the Spirit He will not speak on His own; He will speak only what he hears, and He will tell you what is yet to come.
Luke 10:16-17
"Whoever listens to you listens to Me;
whoever rejects you rejects Me;
and whoever rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me."
The seventy-two returned with joy and said,
"Lord, even the demons submit to us in Your name."
`
`
`
OK, you posted several—care to direct me to the best example?
(2) May I ask that you to look at this in detail, too, to see if your definition is the same as hers? Anything you would like to add, subtract, or revise?
(3) What do you mean, "Not a Samaritan?" It says right there that he was a Samaritan.
(4) I'm having some cinnamon - and - apple coffeecake with tea. It is not Scriptural, but has its own goodness, truth and beauty nevertheless --- which I would love to share! :oD
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.