[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I can see it comin[/quote]
The only thing in this world that I worship is HUMAN ABILITY.
There is more truth and justice in a child mastering the multiplication tables than all your Holy Books and hossanas and whooping with snakes.
[/quote]
I don’t know what to call your views except… cute. I think that’s the best way to describe them. They are extremely cute, and you are totally entitled to them. But please take your pseudo-intellectual Objectivist nonsense elsewhere. Ayn Rand wrote a bunch of simplistic, neo-romantic garbage, and the only people convinced by her trash were high schoolers (or, as reading levels have dropped substantially in the last half-century, freshman-sophomore undergrads). Seriously, her unfounded humanistic propositions make serious philosophers laugh, so if you want to move humankind back to their appropriate position on the pedestal, start a new thread or something. Please.[/quote]
You go KingKai!
Ayn Rand was a Micky Mouse philosopher… I have been more profound with my rectum. I really don’t get the notoriety. She didn’t present anything new and didn’t present it in a new way, so I really don’t get the attraction. I mean, if she was hot or something, but she was a troll and an intellectual half-wit. Her and Nietzsche were both blithering idiots coming up with school playground rhymes and trying to pass it as profound.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I can see it comin[/quote]
The only thing in this world that I worship is HUMAN ABILITY.
There is more truth and justice in a child mastering the multiplication tables than all your Holy Books and hossanas and whooping with snakes.
[/quote]
I don’t know what to call your views except… cute. I think that’s the best way to describe them. They are extremely cute, and you are totally entitled to them. But please take your pseudo-intellectual Objectivist nonsense elsewhere. Ayn Rand wrote a bunch of simplistic, neo-romantic garbage, and the only people convinced by her trash were high schoolers (or, as reading levels have dropped substantially in the last half-century, freshman-sophomore undergrads). Seriously, her unfounded humanistic propositions make serious philosophers laugh, so if you want to move humankind back to their appropriate position on the pedestal, start a new thread or something. Please.[/quote]
(1) If you can disprove a single one of her ideas, I shall hear such refutation gladly.
(2) You believe in fairy tales and laugh at a rational philosopher…irony = delicious.
(3) Faith is not even in the same ballpark with ANY philosopher, even demented ones like Kant or Schopenhauer. At least they do TRY to think and not engage in blind worship.
[/quote]
(1) WWI and WWII showed her idealistic human-worship for the farce it was.
(2) A self-proclaimed “rational philosopher.” As I said, serious philosophers don’t even include her among their ranks. And I don’t buy Rand’s interpretation of what constitutes “rationality.”
(3) That’s really not true. Everyone works by faith, including Rand. She assumed (i.e., believed in) the epistemic priority of the senses and naively conflated perception of the thing with the evidence of its existence. She was, in other words, a common sense philosopher, which really makes her no great philosopher at all.
We are in the middle of a very important conversation, one which I don’t feel like interrupting to deconstruct her philosophy. If you don’t like our conversation, start a new thread, but don’t interrupt it with Rand’s idealistic, neo-Romantic, sexist human-worship. Please. Leave us stupid Christians to our meaningless babble.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I can see it comin[/quote]
The only thing in this world that I worship is HUMAN ABILITY.
There is more truth and justice in a child mastering the multiplication tables than all your Holy Books and hossanas and whooping with snakes.
[/quote]
I don’t know what to call your views except… cute. I think that’s the best way to describe them. They are extremely cute, and you are totally entitled to them. But please take your pseudo-intellectual Objectivist nonsense elsewhere. Ayn Rand wrote a bunch of simplistic, neo-romantic garbage, and the only people convinced by her trash were high schoolers (or, as reading levels have dropped substantially in the last half-century, freshman-sophomore undergrads). Seriously, her unfounded humanistic propositions make serious philosophers laugh, so if you want to move humankind back to their appropriate position on the pedestal, start a new thread or something. Please.[/quote]
(1) If you can disprove a single one of her ideas, I shall hear such refutation gladly.
[/quote]
Her revolutionary idea of objectivism is pretty laughable. First, she shamelessly stole the notion from Kant and proceeded to fuck it up. The idea, of course has been around since Aristotle. She believed that consciousness existed separately from “reality” but that reality is knowable through sensory perception. This is pure unadulterated garbage. As Des Carte so cleverly established, something exists, versus, not exists. Now that something is not necessarily i dentifiable or knowable except in it’s affect. Something is there. However, this cannot be known through the senses. This is a purely metaphysical construct. Because of the limited and errant nature of the senses, they cannot be counted on reliably to tell you anything about reality, reliably.
Ayn Rand a was a bad philosopher, at best. Hume, Kant, Spinoza, Berkley, They are rational philosophers. Rand is a joke. The only thing dumber than Ayn Rand is her disciples.
You know nothing about scripture so you aren’t qualified to discuss them.
Everybody lives on faith, some are smart enough to recognize it, others, well…not so smart.
You could not even make a convincing argument that you exist. To pretend you know anything about philosophy is hilarious to me. You read ‘The Fountain’ and now you’re a philosopher? LOL!
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I can see it comin[/quote]
The only thing in this world that I worship is HUMAN ABILITY.
There is more truth and justice in a child mastering the multiplication tables than all your Holy Books and hossanas and whooping with snakes.
[/quote]
I don’t know what to call your views except… cute. I think that’s the best way to describe them. They are extremely cute, and you are totally entitled to them. But please take your pseudo-intellectual Objectivist nonsense elsewhere. Ayn Rand wrote a bunch of simplistic, neo-romantic garbage, and the only people convinced by her trash were high schoolers (or, as reading levels have dropped substantially in the last half-century, freshman-sophomore undergrads). Seriously, her unfounded humanistic propositions make serious philosophers laugh, so if you want to move humankind back to their appropriate position on the pedestal, start a new thread or something. Please.[/quote]
(1) If you can disprove a single one of her ideas, I shall hear such refutation gladly.
[/quote]
Her revolutionary idea of objectivism is pretty laughable. First, she shamelessly stole the notion from Kant and proceeded to fuck it up. The idea, of course has been around since Aristotle. She believed that consciousness existed separately from “reality” but that reality is knowable through sensory perception. This is pure unadulterated garbage. As Des Carte so cleverly established, something exists, versus, not exists. Now that something is not necessarily i dentifiable or knowable except in it’s affect. Something is there. However, this cannot be known through the senses. This is a purely metaphysical construct. Because of the limited and errant nature of the senses, they cannot be counted on reliably to tell you anything about reality, reliably.
Ayn Rand a was a bad philosopher, at best. Hume, Kant, Spinoza, Berkley, They are rational philosophers. Rand is a joke. The only thing dumber than Ayn Rand is her disciples.
You know nothing about scripture so you aren’t qualified to discuss them.
Everybody lives on faith, some are smart enough to recognize it, others, well…not so smart.
You could not even make a convincing argument that you exist. To pretend you know anything about philosophy is hilarious to me. You read ‘The Fountain’ and now you’re a philosopher? LOL!
Run along, grown ups are trying to talk.[/quote]
Descartes…Rene…if you’re going to spout nonsense, at least spell it correctly.
Rand derived much of her thought from Aristotle. It was he who created the simple idea that humans think by analyzing their perceptions and then categorizing these under individual concepts. As such, there is no evidence of God though he tries to create one as a ‘First Cause’ or ‘Immovable Mover’.
Indeed, humans live by analyzing their perceptions and forming concepts. Neither he nor she equated the concept with the existant. And saying that Rand stole noumenality from Kant…LOLOLOLOLOLOL!
Ah well, go ahead back to your fairy tale circle jerk. There is a God but, like Spinoza’s God, he doesn’t care and neither do I.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
In my opinion, the turn to Catholicism for the answer to the desire for doctrinal certainty is an inherently cowardly move.[/quote]
Are you saying that I’m a coward?
PS. I did not “read” myself into the Church. Faith is believing something on the word of a witness, not reasoning.
PPS. Studying 2000 years of miracles through the Saints by God in the Catholic Church is a major factor. However, my eye witness of several miracles is what gave me faith on top of the proclamation of the Jesus and the Gospel by a dear friend of mine.
edit: PS. & PPS.[/quote]
This got ugly fast…
Before going any further in this extremely important discussion (and since I have to leave to pick up my wife in a few minutes), I just want to clarify a few things.
Cortes called me out (and so did Tirib, guys) about my “mean, possibly intentionally offensive post to Chris about Catholics” (Cortes). First of all, my statement about the “inherently cowardly move” was not an accusation against Catholics in general. I am sorry if it came off that way. Contextually, my focus was extremely narrow - I was talking about Protestants who, frustrated with the diversity of interpretations of the same material within Protestant circles, join the Catholic church IN ORDER TO find certainty. I asked Chris in that post if the desire for certainty (i.e., to escape the reality of an often ambiguous Bible) is what lead him to Catholicism. THAT (and that alone) would be, in my opinion, a cowardly reason for becoming a Catholic. I stand by that statement. For those who are simply more convinced by Catholic readings of Scripture and portrayals of the church fathers, I hold a deep respect, regardless of the fact that I remain unconvinced. And Chris (I believe) has implied in this post that the desire for certainty was not his reason. Furthermore, I do believe that there is meaningful distinction between saying that someone did something cowardly or evil or good and characterizing that person in general as cowardly or evil or good.
My post was not intended to be mean. I consider myself a seeker of truth; I have supplied my reasons from Day 1 as to why I do not believe that Catholic church holds the truth (truth being understood in terms of propositional content in this context). I have said several times before exactly what I said in my previous post - the Catholic church’s claims to interpretive authority do not convince me because its leaders have historically shown little interest in developing historical sensitivity or awareness of its own variegated beginnings. There are notable bright spots (John Henry Newman being one) who were wiling to recognize the genuine historical, cultural, and sociological (i.e., contingent) factors that contributed to the development of church doctrines and practices, and even he wouldn’t go far enough.
And all this talk of miracles is worth discussing, but I am out of time. For now I’ll say that I don’t deny that the Spirit is at work powerfully in the Catholic church or among Protestant denominations (at a conference last week, I saw a girl with a silicone eye scream in joy as, after prayer, she was able to SEE THROUGH IT). There was a lot more to my statement, however, about “credentials”…
Witnessing the risen Christ is a further prerequisite of apostolic authority. Nevertheless, even then I ask that the one who works wonders in an apostolic fashion and witnessed the risen Christ “show me logically, with some degree of historical sensitivity, how their beliefs actually harmonize with the words of Paul and Peter in the New Testament.” I’m not denying that God has and continues to work wonders in your midst, brothers - I am saying that such miracles are not SUFFICIENT to render your leaders infallible interpreters of Scripture (just as I don’t buy the widespread Protestant nonsense about needing only my Bible and the Holy Spirit to interpret rightly).
And I cannot disagree with you more, BC, on your definition of faith. Yes, testimony by its nature must be taken on faith (see Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses) IN MATTERS WHERE THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE AND THE WITNESS IS TRUSTWORTHY. But that is the critical issue - based on the historical insensitivity to even its own roots that I SEE in the Catholic church, I question the legitimacy of the church’s witness to its own authority. There is other evidence to the contrary. And besides, by your definition, any witness is as legitimate as any other, so I can trust the pagan medicine man as much as I trust a bishop? That doesn’t make sense to me.
More later.[/quote]
Well KingKai, you know of all people I love and respect you greatly. There is no way to put a spin on the word ‘cowardly’ where it is not absolutely purely offensive, no matter how narrow the meaning. There are better word choices in civil discourse that get the meaning across with out being demeaning.
The Catholic Church doesn’t claim ‘doctrinal certainty’, because nobody can claim such a thing. If we had it, then there would never be a need to adjust it’s understanding. The magisterium is greatly misunderstood, like many things, in the church. The magisterium does provide interpretation, but personal study is encouraged. The church has people dedicated full time to pouring over and reviewing scripture. This is to keep the doctrine in line with the scriptures and not the other way around. What is not claimed is a perfect understanding of God’s mind. Nobody is doing that. The point of having the authority, isn’t to squelch personal scriptural interpretation, it to prevent fool hearty heretical interpretation for selfish gain.
I expect the use of the word ‘cowardly’ and some such nonsense to come from, immature half-wits like Chen or tirib, where the lack of doctrinal certainty and the desire for aggrandizement above edification leads to derogatory, inflammatory, selective negative discourse. I hold you to a higher standard because I know for a fact you know better, way better.
And quite frankly, I don’t mean to speak for Brother Chris, but I am betting above all his draw to the Church, wasn’t doctrinal certainty, but the Eucharist. That relationship is hard to understand until you live it… Then you understand.
You do realize, I can be extremely mean about Protestantism? I don’t and I am not because of people like yourself. I hold my tongue for you guys. Because I do realize, you are my brothers and not my enemies. That you speak for Christ makes you for me not against me. That doesn’t mean I can’t find grave errors if I want to. It means that life in Christ is above that crap. Nobody has it totally right.
[/quote]
First of all, the respect is mutual.
Secondly, I realize that cowardly is an offensive word. I knew that when I used it. I stand by my use of it IN THE CASE of a PROTESTANT turning to Catholicism purely to attain a sense of certainty. I’ve seen it occur several times, even among people who were not really more convinced of Catholicism’s tenets than they were of Calvinism’s. In my opinion, that is a cowardly move, and I won’t back down from that statement. I could turn to Buddhism just because its history extends farther than Christianity’s, but that would be a cowardly move as well.
That being said, my statements were not intended as an attack on Catholicism in general. I don’t know how they could be taken that way, but they were, so I am sorry. I was not implying that any Protestant who converts to Catholicism does so for cowardly reasons; if someone is more convinced by Catholicism, then I hold them in tremendous respect. My problem is the Protestant cop out - there are too many denominations, so I am going to join the group that has the longest history and most unity of belief, i.e., Catholicism. Just to reiterate - I was only referring to PROTESTANTS who convert to Catholicism BECAUSE THEY ARE TIRED OF UNCERTAINTY.
My statements were not meant as an attack on Catholicism in general. Nevertheless, as I said in my previous post, I am a seeker of truth. Consequently, if I am not convinced of the truth of something, I will give the reasons why I am not convinced. My laying out the reasons is not meant as an attack; it is meant to say, “here, critique! Here is what I think. Convince me otherwise if you hold the truth.” I try very hard not to oversimplify the views I have previously rejected because that would intellectually disingenuous.
To that end, you have stated…
I am not trying to imply that the magisterium actively studies every passage to derive the singular, correct, authoritative interpretation of it. That’s not my point. My point is that by imposing limitations on the range of possible meanings for ANY passage based on anything other than historically sensitive exegesis, the episcopacy automatically exerts significant control on interpretation. Textual meaning is constrained far more by church doctrines than church doctrines are by textual meaning. You have even cited the magisterium as the source of your arguments for the proper interpretation of Matthew 25:31-46. If any textual meaning is constrained in the service of established dogma, then (since we are dealing with an ostensibly theologically consistent set of Scriptures) all textual meaning becomes (to a great degree) constrained. The text loses its capacity to challenge accepted doctrines. The church CAN become (to borrow a rather crass analogy) like the Supreme Court, interpreting the constitution (itself part of the system of checks and balances) in ways that fit with what the judges WANT to believe. This doesn’t imply automatically any selfishness or malevolence on the judges’ parts; they can interpret in ways they think are truly moral while still completely misinterpreting the passage. I suggest that the same is possible for the episcopacy - without any malicious intent, they too can inadvertently misinterpret Scripture in the interest of the “greater good.” Augustine himself argues in On Christian Teaching that, so long as love for God and neighbor is the end result, no interpretation can be THAT wrong. I respectfully disagree.
Descartes…Rene…if you’re going to spout nonsense, at least spell it correctly.
Rand derived much of her thought from Aristotle. It was he who created the simple idea that humans think by analyzing their perceptions and then categorizing these under individual concepts. As such, there is no evidence of God though he tries to create one as a ‘First Cause’ or ‘Immovable Mover’.
[/quote]
Proving further you don’t know what your talking about. Metaphysics doesn’t function on evidence, it functions on logic. Evidence enhances probability, not necessity. There in lies the difference and no shock as to why you don’t understand it. It not ‘First Cause’ it ‘Uncaused-cause’ and ‘Prime Mover’, btw. In this realm physical evidence would actually weaken the argument.
Analyzing perceptions, you mean: synthetic or analytic a priori, or a posteriori judgments? So you’re telling me she brilliantly reinvented a wheel that had already been turning because she didn’t bother to do any research? Or she just stole it, reworded it, made it worse and then presented it as her own ideas…My, how impressive. Next you’re going to tell me that she came up with the idea that if dog really meant cat, it’d still be a cat.
I am underwhelmed.
Noooo, she came up with it all her own… They just happen to resemble what he wrote, but she couldn’t spell those words I guess.
And go ahead and jerk to ‘South Park’ while listening to ‘Hot Rats’, like all pseudo-intellectuals do… You seem very impressed with yourself.
The only one spouting nonsense is you. No educated people take Rand seriously at any level. She’s like, imitation smart. Yeah, she stole the objects of her ‘Objectivism’ horseshit from Kant. To say she’s Aristotelian in her philosophy is an insult to Aristotle. She’s as sharp as a bowling ball. Anybody, can rehash 1000 year old ideas and claim them as their own to fools who don’t know any better. You quite honestly don’t know what your talking about… I know it won’t stop you from further making a fool of yourself, but I guess if you delusional enough to think your bloody brilliant all the sense in the world won’t make a difference.
When I reduce my cognitive abilities down to a kindergarten level, I’ll discuss theology with you…
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
In my opinion, the turn to Catholicism for the answer to the desire for doctrinal certainty is an inherently cowardly move.[/quote]
Are you saying that I’m a coward?
PS. I did not “read” myself into the Church. Faith is believing something on the word of a witness, not reasoning.
PPS. Studying 2000 years of miracles through the Saints by God in the Catholic Church is a major factor. However, my eye witness of several miracles is what gave me faith on top of the proclamation of the Jesus and the Gospel by a dear friend of mine.
edit: PS. & PPS.[/quote]
This got ugly fast…
Before going any further in this extremely important discussion (and since I have to leave to pick up my wife in a few minutes), I just want to clarify a few things.
Cortes called me out (and so did Tirib, guys) about my “mean, possibly intentionally offensive post to Chris about Catholics” (Cortes). First of all, my statement about the “inherently cowardly move” was not an accusation against Catholics in general. I am sorry if it came off that way. Contextually, my focus was extremely narrow - I was talking about Protestants who, frustrated with the diversity of interpretations of the same material within Protestant circles, join the Catholic church IN ORDER TO find certainty. I asked Chris in that post if the desire for certainty (i.e., to escape the reality of an often ambiguous Bible) is what lead him to Catholicism. THAT (and that alone) would be, in my opinion, a cowardly reason for becoming a Catholic. I stand by that statement. For those who are simply more convinced by Catholic readings of Scripture and portrayals of the church fathers, I hold a deep respect, regardless of the fact that I remain unconvinced. And Chris (I believe) has implied in this post that the desire for certainty was not his reason. Furthermore, I do believe that there is meaningful distinction between saying that someone did something cowardly or evil or good and characterizing that person in general as cowardly or evil or good.
My post was not intended to be mean. I consider myself a seeker of truth; I have supplied my reasons from Day 1 as to why I do not believe that Catholic church holds the truth (truth being understood in terms of propositional content in this context). I have said several times before exactly what I said in my previous post - the Catholic church’s claims to interpretive authority do not convince me because its leaders have historically shown little interest in developing historical sensitivity or awareness of its own variegated beginnings. There are notable bright spots (John Henry Newman being one) who were wiling to recognize the genuine historical, cultural, and sociological (i.e., contingent) factors that contributed to the development of church doctrines and practices, and even he wouldn’t go far enough.
And all this talk of miracles is worth discussing, but I am out of time. For now I’ll say that I don’t deny that the Spirit is at work powerfully in the Catholic church or among Protestant denominations (at a conference last week, I saw a girl with a silicone eye scream in joy as, after prayer, she was able to SEE THROUGH IT). There was a lot more to my statement, however, about “credentials”…
Witnessing the risen Christ is a further prerequisite of apostolic authority. Nevertheless, even then I ask that the one who works wonders in an apostolic fashion and witnessed the risen Christ “show me logically, with some degree of historical sensitivity, how their beliefs actually harmonize with the words of Paul and Peter in the New Testament.” I’m not denying that God has and continues to work wonders in your midst, brothers - I am saying that such miracles are not SUFFICIENT to render your leaders infallible interpreters of Scripture (just as I don’t buy the widespread Protestant nonsense about needing only my Bible and the Holy Spirit to interpret rightly).
And I cannot disagree with you more, BC, on your definition of faith. Yes, testimony by its nature must be taken on faith (see Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses) IN MATTERS WHERE THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE AND THE WITNESS IS TRUSTWORTHY. But that is the critical issue - based on the historical insensitivity to even its own roots that I SEE in the Catholic church, I question the legitimacy of the church’s witness to its own authority. There is other evidence to the contrary. And besides, by your definition, any witness is as legitimate as any other, so I can trust the pagan medicine man as much as I trust a bishop? That doesn’t make sense to me.
More later.[/quote]
Well KingKai, you know of all people I love and respect you greatly. There is no way to put a spin on the word ‘cowardly’ where it is not absolutely purely offensive, no matter how narrow the meaning. There are better word choices in civil discourse that get the meaning across with out being demeaning.
The Catholic Church doesn’t claim ‘doctrinal certainty’, because nobody can claim such a thing. If we had it, then there would never be a need to adjust it’s understanding. The magisterium is greatly misunderstood, like many things, in the church. The magisterium does provide interpretation, but personal study is encouraged. The church has people dedicated full time to pouring over and reviewing scripture. This is to keep the doctrine in line with the scriptures and not the other way around. What is not claimed is a perfect understanding of God’s mind. Nobody is doing that. The point of having the authority, isn’t to squelch personal scriptural interpretation, it to prevent fool hearty heretical interpretation for selfish gain.
I expect the use of the word ‘cowardly’ and some such nonsense to come from, immature half-wits like Chen or tirib, where the lack of doctrinal certainty and the desire for aggrandizement above edification leads to derogatory, inflammatory, selective negative discourse. I hold you to a higher standard because I know for a fact you know better, way better.
And quite frankly, I don’t mean to speak for Brother Chris, but I am betting above all his draw to the Church, wasn’t doctrinal certainty, but the Eucharist. That relationship is hard to understand until you live it… Then you understand.
You do realize, I can be extremely mean about Protestantism? I don’t and I am not because of people like yourself. I hold my tongue for you guys. Because I do realize, you are my brothers and not my enemies. That you speak for Christ makes you for me not against me. That doesn’t mean I can’t find grave errors if I want to. It means that life in Christ is above that crap. Nobody has it totally right.
[/quote]
First of all, the respect is mutual.
Secondly, I realize that cowardly is an offensive word. I knew that when I used it. I stand by my use of it IN THE CASE of a PROTESTANT turning to Catholicism purely to attain a sense of certainty. I’ve seen it occur several times, even among people who were not really more convinced of Catholicism’s tenets than they were of Calvinism’s. In my opinion, that is a cowardly move, and I won’t back down from that statement. I could turn to Buddhism just because its history extends farther than Christianity’s, but that would be a cowardly move as well.
[/quote]
Ok, I can see that IF that is the sole or main motivation. Chasing historical credibility rather than faithful and true tenets… I personally have not experience that with converts. The number one motivation for conversion is the significant others spouse being Catholic. Which is actually worse than what your talking about. The number 2 reason is multifaceted usually, but starts with the Eucharist, the historical roots tracing it to MT 16:18, and the doctrinal parallels with scripture. It’s usually rooted in experience and converts tend to be way more rigid than cradle Catholics.
Well I would agree with that, because nobody is certain about everything. The history is compelling but the faith has to be the one that brings you closest to Christ. All the other stuff is bunk if your relationship with Christ suffers because of it. I still think it a poor choice of words. Even in a scenario where this is true, cowardly seems to be the wrong word. Simply saying it’s the wrong reason, or a false reason for conversion would be more accurate and less offensive. And it’s offensive on the surface, once you explain it it makes more sense.
Fair enough.
[quote]
To that end, you have stated…
I am not trying to imply that the magisterium actively studies every passage to derive the singular, correct, authoritative interpretation of it. That’s not my point. My point is that by imposing limitations on the range of possible meanings for ANY passage based on anything other than historically sensitive exegesis, the episcopacy automatically exerts significant control on interpretation. Textual meaning is constrained far more by church doctrines than church doctrines are by textual meaning. You have even cited the magisterium as the source of your arguments for the proper interpretation of Matthew 25:31-46. If any textual meaning is constrained in the service of established dogma, then (since we are dealing with an ostensibly theologically consistent set of Scriptures) all textual meaning becomes (to a great degree) constrained. The text loses its capacity to challenge accepted doctrines. The church CAN become (to borrow a rather crass analogy) like the Supreme Court, interpreting the constitution (itself part of the system of checks and balances) in ways that fit with what the judges WANT to believe. This doesn’t imply automatically any selfishness or malevolence on the judges’ parts; they can interpret in ways they think are truly moral while still completely misinterpreting the passage. I suggest that the same is possible for the episcopacy - without any malicious intent, they too can inadvertently misinterpret Scripture in the interest of the “greater good.” Augustine himself argues in On Christian Teaching that, so long as love for God and neighbor is the end result, no interpretation can be THAT wrong. I respectfully disagree.[/quote]
I think your missing the point of it’s purpose. It’s not to lord it’s authority over the reader, it’s to prevent gross misrepresentation of scripture that can lead to heresy, such as Double-Predestination, Pelagianism, Gnosticism, etc. Scripture carries great power as we can see. In the wrong hands of a convincing heretic, he can lead many astray. Especially if said heretic claims to speak for the church. While it’s not as big an issue now, it was born from ye olde heretics who would wield their sales prowess over a witless and generally uneducated masses who didn’t know any better and had one church. The purpose more than anything is to prevent people from speaking for the church with lies. Basically, it’s to prtoect the church from people who wish to do it harm by misrepresenting what it says. It’s not an institution designed to ‘keep people in line’, that’s not the point.
This “self interpretation” as brought forth by Protestant fathers, was, is and has been an unmitigated disaster. How the hell can you get 36,000 denominations that are all righter than everyone else? Not working…
[/quote]
One of the ways is by taking a verse or two out of the context where it appears. Like this one:
Joh 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
My last post on this thread was 2/3 of the way down on pg 37 and covered this part of John 6; no one commented. Shall I assume there is no argument against my conclusion?
[quote]pat wrote:
I think your missing the point of it’s purpose. It’s not to lord it’s authority over the reader, it’s to prevent gross misrepresentation of scripture that can lead to heresy, such as Double-Predestination, Pelagianism, Gnosticism, etc. Scripture carries great power as we can see. In the wrong hands of a convincing heretic, he can lead many astray. Especially if said heretic claims to speak for the church. While it’s not as big an issue now, it was born from ye olde heretics who would wield their sales prowess over a witless and generally uneducated masses who didn’t know any better and had one church. The purpose more than anything is to prevent people from speaking for the church with lies. Basically, it’s to prtoect the church from people who wish to do it harm by misrepresenting what it says. It’s not an institution designed to ‘keep people in line’, that’s not the point.
[/quote]
I do believe I understand your point - the Magisterium performs a minimalist function (i.e., providing definitive interpretations only so far as necessary to prevent heresy) - but I don’t think I am making mine clear enough. I am not accusing the episcopate of seeking “to lord it’s authority over the reader.” I am not trying to demonize anyone. My point, however, remains the same - REGARDLESS OF INTENTION, once someone interprets a passage or two ON THE BASIS OF THEIR AUTHORITY rather than HISTORICALLY AND CONTEXTUALLY SENSITIVE EXEGESIS, the perspective of the entire canon (if we are dealing with a set of theologically consistent texts) is automatically constrained. THAT is problematic, because it doesn’t matter if I can provide a reading more consistent with the literary context and historical background of the passage; the decision has already been made as to what that passage means. Conversation fundamentally ends, as one party claims to, in essence, possess at least some degree of special interpretive authority, and I am left asking for evidence.
Take the case of John 6, for example. I say this with the utmost respect for all of you (Brother Chris, Cortes, Pat) - I remain unconvinced by your interpretation of John 6. I will refrain from assuming that your readings of it are essentially the dominant reading taught in the Catholic church, but I would be surprised if it isn’t. That being said, there are other readings of that passage (As Mr. Chen also noted) that I find more compelling. Am I required to accept the argument I consider much less convincing purely on faith?
And please know that I am not questioning your experience of God’s presence in the eucharist. I do not question that AT ALL. I know that this kind of discussion can be difficult specifically because of how precious the eucharist is to men like yourselves. It is not my intention to belittle that sacrament or to deny that God communes with you through that means. That being said, your experience of God’s presence does not prove that your interpretation (i.e., the Catholic church’s) of what is occurring when you take the bread and wine is accurate, nor that such an interpretation is what Jesus refers to in John 6. That, in my opinion, is the critical issue. We can have a genuine spiritual experience without necessarily possessing the appropriate theological categories or vocabulary in which to understand it.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< Am I required to accept the argument I consider much less convincing purely on faith >>>[/quote]THIS is the crux of the matter right here.
What do you do with protestant miracles, or new age miracles or voodoo and santerÃ??Ã?Âa miracles. Or manifestations of the supernatural in many cases. There are examples of the supernatural from ungodly sources even in the bible. In Exodus 7 and 8 Pharaoh’s magicians were able mimic some the works that God performed though Moses for instance.
In Matthew 24:24 Jesus foretold of false christs and prophets who would show signs and wonders so great “so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.” 2 Thessalonians 2:9 tells us that “The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders,”… among others.
I believe in miracles. I believe in miracles for today. How do we know then who is who? By whether what they teach is according to the scriptures or not, that’s how. The ministry of ongoing miracles, practically on demand sometimes, has not been seen since John died. I’m even assuming that Catholic miracles approach what they claim which is certainly not a given. Nether is it for alleged protestant miracles of which I also am convinced 99% are a proverbial load of bovine fecal matter.
Show me a pope who feeds thousands with a few loaves and fishes… twice, heals a man born blind along with countless others, raises a couple of dead people, walks on water and commands the weather all while preaching the simple faith once for all delivered to the saints and maybe we’ll have something.
Weeping statues, levitating saints, stigmata, visions of Mary and such, IF they happened at all, smack more of demonic deception than anything we find associated with Jesus or the apostles in the bible. I’m just being totally honest with you man.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< 60-When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61-But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62-Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63-It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64-But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65-And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” 66-After THIS many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.
(John 6:60-66 ESV)
Indeed it is hard to listen when it doesn’t say what you want it to.[/quote]I know you’d never want to violently wrench scripture out of it’s context Pat OR refuse to listen unless it said what you wanted it to so I fixed that for ya. Emphasis mine. There was a cumulative effect here which, while including their misunderstanding of His “eating my flesh” statement, culminated and was finally completed in their learning that Jesus was teaching sovereign election. [/quote]
Yes, Jesus casting out demons by the name of Beelzebub. K
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Yes, Jesus casting out demons by the name of Beelzebub. K
[/quote]I’ll just go ahead and ignore this one and wait for your real answer Chris.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Yes, Jesus casting out demons by the name of Beelzebub. K
[/quote]I’ll just go ahead and ignore this one and wait for your real answer Chris.
[/quote]
It’s vague, but it’s my answer. There is a simple (though not conclusive by any means) way to test miracles…do they point to the glory of Jesus or not. I’ve experienced demonic deception. Things that happen because of demonic influence don’t point to Jesus.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Yes, Jesus casting out demons by the name of Beelzebub. K
[/quote]I’ll just go ahead and ignore this one and wait for your real answer Chris.
[/quote]
It’s vague, but it’s my answer. There is a simple (though not conclusive by any means) way to test miracles…do they point to the glory of Jesus or not. I’ve experienced demonic deception. Things that happen because of demonic influence don’t point to Jesus. [/quote] That’s better, but still open to wide interpretation and absolutely subject to scripture. I’ll be back.
The Bible is not a book for non-Christians. The Bible is for Christians.
The Bible is part of a larger deposit of faith.
Without proper understanding of how to read the Bible, you’re walking along cliff at night without a stick or light.
You need the magisterium, not to create a deposit of faith, but to serve it. Not to create truth, but to teach it or interpret it.[/quote]Hope you don’t mind. This is better over here and is absolutely central to the topic at hand. Lemme whisper sumthin in yer ear here Christopher. I could buy this. I could. In fact, on a very real level? I would prefer it. However, as KK said above. I would be forced to adopt readings of the scriptures in areas of Catholic(big C) distinctiveness especially, that cannot be found there without already knowing what you want them to say before the book comes off the shelf. That is a simple fact. Only Catholic(big C) scholars see them that way. Why? You would say the Holy Spirit to which I would reply then that there is no need for scripture at all if we can simply have then mean something other than what they said to their original audience if God says so.
1st Greg 1:1 “My little children. Hath not the Lord God everywhere and in all ways declared by the Word of His power and the works of His hands the certain truth that twoeth, when thou dost addeth twoeth more, dost deliver unto the sons of men the glorious sum of foureth?”
Catholic interpretation?: Mary could make unleavened bread with one hand tied behind her back.
THAT of course is over the top, but IS the logically possible conclusion.
The Bible is not a book for non-Christians. The Bible is for Christians.
The Bible is part of a larger deposit of faith.
Without proper understanding of how to read the Bible, you’re walking along cliff at night without a stick or light.
You need the magisterium, not to create a deposit of faith, but to serve it. Not to create truth, but to teach it or interpret it.[/quote]Hope you don’t mind. This is better over here and is absolutely central to the topic at hand. Lemme whisper sumthin in yer ear here Christopher. I could buy this. I could.[/quote]
Could buy it? It’s fact. Jesus gave the Apostles the deposit of faith, their duty is to serve that truth (and ultimately Jesus, since he is Truth itself). This is a plain stated fact by the Church, the magisterium itself, in their constitutions, by the Pope himself:
“The Magisterium, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ (cf. Dei Verbum, n. 10), is an organ of service to the truth and is responsible for seeing that the truth does not cease to be faithfully handed on throughout human history.” - http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papad1.htm
Why do you insist on making this point. You have made it multiple times so I assume you wish to flesh it out.
As I said, the Bible is a Christian book to instruct Christians in the faith. When the letters and the Gospels were written, they seem to be written in a manner assuming the hearer knew quite a bit already.
No, I wouldn’t say it’s the Holy Spirit.
[quote]1st Greg 1:1 “My little children. Hath not the Lord God everywhere and in all ways declared by the Word of His power and the works of His hands the certain truth that twoeth, when thou dost addeth twoeth more, dost deliver unto the sons of men the glorious sum of foureth?”
Catholic interpretation?: Mary could make unleavened bread with one hand tied behind her back.
THAT of course is over the top, but IS the logically possible conclusion.[/quote]
Yes, that’s why I don’t take your making up of pretend scripture seriously. It’s irrelevant and a waste of time, because you can’t prove your point with actual scripture.
The Bible is not a book for non-Christians. The Bible is for Christians.
The Bible is part of a larger deposit of faith.
Without proper understanding of how to read the Bible, you’re walking along cliff at night without a stick or light.
You need the magisterium, not to create a deposit of faith, but to serve it. Not to create truth, but to teach it or interpret it.[/quote]Hope you don’t mind. This is better over here and is absolutely central to the topic at hand. Lemme whisper sumthin in yer ear here Christopher. I could buy this. I could.[/quote]
Could buy it? It’s fact. Jesus gave the Apostles the deposit of faith, their duty is to serve that truth (and ultimately Jesus, since he is Truth itself). This is a plain stated fact by the Church, the magisterium itself, in their constitutions, by the Pope himself:
“The Magisterium, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ (cf. Dei Verbum, n. 10), is an organ of service to the truth and is responsible for seeing that the truth does not cease to be faithfully handed on throughout human history.” - http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papad1.htm
Why do you insist on making this point. You have made it multiple times so I assume you wish to flesh it out.
As I said, the Bible is a Christian book to instruct Christians in the faith. When the letters and the Gospels were written, they seem to be written in a manner assuming the hearer knew quite a bit already.
No, I wouldn’t say it’s the Holy Spirit.
[quote]1st Greg 1:1 “My little children. Hath not the Lord God everywhere and in all ways declared by the Word of His power and the works of His hands the certain truth that twoeth, when thou dost addeth twoeth more, dost deliver unto the sons of men the glorious sum of foureth?”
Catholic interpretation?: Mary could make unleavened bread with one hand tied behind her back.
THAT of course is over the top, but IS the logically possible conclusion.[/quote]
Yes, that’s why I don’t take your making up of pretend scripture seriously. It’s irrelevant and a waste of time, because you can’t prove your point with actual scripture. [/quote]
Chris, are you going to get around to responding to the stuff I wrote? Or at least get back to the central point that Tirib and I keep trying to make.
Here is where Tirib lays it out nicely…
Let me reiterate that point and add a further one. As I’ve said an obnoxious number of times before, I am trying to seek truth, the kind of truth that can be defended (at least to some great degree) on the basis of history. The death, burial, and disappearance of the body of Jesus (as N.T. Wright as aptly demonstrated - far better than the other pathetic and popular apologetics books out there) CANNOT be explained convincingly in any way other than that, a few days after genuinely dying, Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead. There is NO better historical explanation for what happened than that. There is no better explanation for why his disciples would have thought he rose from the dead and built a new movement around that assumption than that the resurrection actually occurred. Believing in the resurrection of Jesus IS the logical move, and while it does take faith, it doesn’t demand that I just shut off my brain either.
When it comes to the notion of transubstantiation and the “literal” reading of John 6, however, there are MUCH more convincing historical arguments for how and why such ideas arose. Seriously. There is nothing amazing about their rise; they can convincingly be chalked up to a host of historical, social, and cultural (i.e., contingent) factors.
And here’s where the real problem lies. In most Protestant denominations, I can go into church and say, “I disagree with your memorial view of the Eucharist; can I still fellowship with you?” They would respond, “totally. Scripture is ambiguous enough on these issues to allow for diversity.” The catholic church, on the other hand, requires adherence to certain central tenets (Mary’s immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, bodily ascension; the POTENTIAL infallibility of the catholic church; the legitimacy of veneration of saints and seeking their intercession; the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the Eucharist as an actual, expiating sacrifice; the necessity of penance) as prerequisites for communion. I remain unconvinced by Catholic arguments for the truth of each and every single one of these dogmas. The interpretations of Scripture used to support some of them are unconvincing and often historically and contextually insensitive, and there are excellent historical explanations for the rise of these distinctive doctrines. That is one of the main reasons why I cannot be a Catholic, because I (me personally) would have to shut my brain off and say, “yes, even though I am unconvinced, I will proclaim that these things are true.” If I do proclaim that such things are true, my Scripture reading AUTOMATICALLY BECOMES CONSTRAINED - I cannot offer readings (no matter how well they jibe with the historical and literary context of a passage) that go against these dogmas. That seems problematic to me, because the check and balance that Scripture should ideally be providing to tradition is suddenly shifted far more in favor of tradition.
To reiterate - if the meaning of even one or two passages are constrained for any reason other than sound historically sensitive exegesis, the witness of the entire canon becomes constrained, meaning that it can no longer stand as a check and balance of the church’s teaching.
It is not that all Protestants simply irrationally hate Catholicism, BC. It’s that some of us have the moral fortitude and intellectual integrity to refuse to accept the authority of people who cannot demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that there beliefs are either contained in Scripture or reflect the beliefs proclaimed by the apostles.
The Bible is not a book for non-Christians. The Bible is for Christians.
The Bible is part of a larger deposit of faith.
Without proper understanding of how to read the Bible, you’re walking along cliff at night without a stick or light.
You need the magisterium, not to create a deposit of faith, but to serve it. Not to create truth, but to teach it or interpret it.[/quote]Hope you don’t mind. This is better over here and is absolutely central to the topic at hand. Lemme whisper sumthin in yer ear here Christopher. I could buy this. I could.[/quote]
Could buy it? It’s fact. Jesus gave the Apostles the deposit of faith, their duty is to serve that truth (and ultimately Jesus, since he is Truth itself). This is a plain stated fact by the Church, the magisterium itself, in their constitutions, by the Pope himself:
“The Magisterium, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ (cf. Dei Verbum, n. 10), is an organ of service to the truth and is responsible for seeing that the truth does not cease to be faithfully handed on throughout human history.” - http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papad1.htm
Why do you insist on making this point. You have made it multiple times so I assume you wish to flesh it out.
As I said, the Bible is a Christian book to instruct Christians in the faith. When the letters and the Gospels were written, they seem to be written in a manner assuming the hearer knew quite a bit already.
No, I wouldn’t say it’s the Holy Spirit.
[quote]1st Greg 1:1 “My little children. Hath not the Lord God everywhere and in all ways declared by the Word of His power and the works of His hands the certain truth that twoeth, when thou dost addeth twoeth more, dost deliver unto the sons of men the glorious sum of foureth?”
Catholic interpretation?: Mary could make unleavened bread with one hand tied behind her back.
THAT of course is over the top, but IS the logically possible conclusion.[/quote]
Yes, that’s why I don’t take your making up of pretend scripture seriously. It’s irrelevant and a waste of time, because you can’t prove your point with actual scripture. [/quote]
Chris, are you going to get around to responding to the stuff I wrote? Or at least get back to the central point that Tirib and I keep trying to make.
Here is where Tirib lays it out nicely…
Let me reiterate that point and add a further one. As I’ve said an obnoxious number of times before, I am trying to seek truth, the kind of truth that can be defended (at least to some great degree) on the basis of history. The death, burial, and disappearance of the body of Jesus (as N.T. Wright as aptly demonstrated - far better than the other pathetic and popular apologetics books out there) CANNOT be explained convincingly in any way other than that, a few days after genuinely dying, Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead. There is NO better historical explanation for what happened than that. There is no better explanation for why his disciples would have thought he rose from the dead and built a new movement around that assumption than that the resurrection actually occurred. Believing in the resurrection of Jesus IS the logical move, and while it does take faith, it doesn’t demand that I just shut off my brain either.
When it comes to the notion of transubstantiation and the “literal” reading of John 6, however, there are MUCH more convincing historical arguments for how and why such ideas arose. Seriously. There is nothing amazing about their rise; they can convincingly be chalked up to a host of historical, social, and cultural (i.e., contingent) factors.
And here’s where the real problem lies. In most Protestant denominations, I can go into church and say, “I disagree with your memorial view of the Eucharist; can I still fellowship with you?” They would respond, “totally. Scripture is ambiguous enough on these issues to allow for diversity.” The catholic church, on the other hand, requires adherence to certain central tenets (Mary’s immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, bodily ascension; the POTENTIAL infallibility of the catholic church; the legitimacy of veneration of saints and seeking their intercession; the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the Eucharist as an actual, expiating sacrifice; the necessity of penance) as prerequisites for communion. I remain unconvinced by Catholic arguments for the truth of each and every single one of these dogmas. The interpretations of Scripture used to support some of them are unconvincing and often historically and contextually insensitive, and there are excellent historical explanations for the rise of these distinctive doctrines. That is one of the main reasons why I cannot be a Catholic, because I (me personally) would have to shut my brain off and say, “yes, even though I am unconvinced, I will proclaim that these things are true.” If I do proclaim that such things are true, my Scripture reading AUTOMATICALLY BECOMES CONSTRAINED - I cannot offer readings (no matter how well they jibe with the historical and literary context of a passage) that go against these dogmas. That seems problematic to me, because the check and balance that Scripture should ideally be providing to tradition is suddenly shifted far more in favor of tradition.
To reiterate - if the meaning of even one or two passages are constrained for any reason other than sound historically sensitive exegesis, the witness of the entire canon becomes constrained, meaning that it can no longer stand as a check and balance of the church’s teaching.
It is not that all Protestants simply irrationally hate Catholicism, BC. It’s that some of us have the moral fortitude and intellectual integrity to refuse to accept the authority of people who cannot demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that there beliefs are either contained in Scripture or reflect the beliefs proclaimed by the apostles. [/quote]
Yes. I work 18 hour days right now training for my new ministry. When I post it’s because I’m either in a lull or not paying attention to training.
I have been compiling an answer as fast as I can. However, I’ll say this, the church never asks anyone to purpose that you shut off your brain. It is a sin to hinder your intellect or will.
Vivo Cristo Rey
P.S. As itold Tirib, the prior knowledge brings up a point that as a Catholic I have with Protestants. But, later.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< It is not that all Protestants simply irrationally hate Catholicism, BC. It’s that some of us have the moral fortitude and intellectual integrity to refuse to accept the authority of people who cannot demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that there beliefs are either contained in Scripture or reflect the beliefs proclaimed by the apostles. [/quote]Once we are in the arena of mutually assumed Christian theism, claims of being the one true holy and apostolic church. Alone ordained by the second person of the Godhead. The alone dispenser of grace in the earth and keeper of all truth. Festooned with doctrines, dogma and an ecclesiastical hierarchy one million times the size of the content of the earliest documents? Some flat down industrial strength persuasion will need to be forthcoming in order for me to buy those claims. It’s never even been close for me. Aside from the fact that the system of faith, doctrine and life I DO find there is in every area that really matters entirely incompatible with the claims of this “one true church”.
This was a great post overall btw. Except the part where you tainted it with Wright, but I’ll live.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Yes. I work 18 hour days right now training for my new ministry. When I post it’s because I’m either in a lull or not paying attention to training.
I have been compiling an answer as fast as I can. However, I’ll say this, the church never asks anyone to purpose that you shut off your brain. It is a sin to hinder your intellect or will.
Vivo Cristo Rey
P.S. As I told Tirib, the prior knowledge brings up a point that as a Catholic I have with Protestants. But, later.[/quote]This is gonna get good. The utter necessity for systematic thought, the utter inescapability of circular reasoning somewhere, along with the necessity of what WILL wind up being logically unverifiable presupposition, and AND, the central question being which circle we accept, is about to be on display in loud neon colors.