|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Almost thou persuadest me (to the Roman Catholic Church)
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen
It's that first part I'm getting at. It seems to me that we can only acknowledge Scripture as authoritative through faith. That the Bible is the Word of God cannot be empirically proven. We accept it because we believe it to be true or we deny it because we do not believe it to be true.
What do you mean by 'faith'?
Are you suggesting that, in order to come under the authority of the Bible, I am supposed to believe it in the same way that I could conceivably make a naked decision to believe that JRR Tolkien's novel "The Hobbit" is true?
If that is how you understand the concept of 'faith' - just taking a leap without any rational justification, then I am amazed that any sane person can do that. I find that impossible both to comprehend and to do. How is it possible to be convinced that a claim is true without any evidence whatsoever?
What I was saying in an earlier post is that I have reasons for believing the Bible to be true. I don't just 'decide' to believe it simply because I want to believe it, as if anyone could really convince himself that a body of information is true purely on the basis of a naked act of will. I don't how anyone can do this. It is impossible for me to comprehend.
Perhaps those who think like this could explain to me how it's done?!
The impression I get when I read certain views on this website, is that the spiritual world is regarded as really a kind of world of the imagination, which is conjured up to help us get through life, and we haven't the faintest idea whether what we believe is actually true. It's post-modernism and subjectivism gone mad. Everything goes and there is no such thing as truth, it seems (apart from a capitulation to the philosophy of naturalism - aka atheism, of course). And anyone who says that there is, is regarded as arrogant and divisive. What a far cry that is from the testimony of Jesus Himself, who often spoke about truth. Are we to regard Him as arrogant? He was certainly divisive, though!
As for "empirically proven": you seem to suggest that empiricism is the way to produce proof. But no empirical experience in and of itself as a mere sense impression can produce a proof. A proof is a rational thing. Reason is not synonymous with the empirical method. The empirical method itself is dependent on reason, and a whole set of a priori ideas, without which sense impressions are meaningless. Much of empirical science is interpretation, speculation and inferences based on assumptions. So I don't know why you appeal to the empirical method to define the concept of 'proof'.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So I don't know why you appeal to the empirical method to define the concept of 'proof'.
I have not appealed to the empirical method to define the concept of proof. My point was exactly the opposite—that most of us, if not all of us, accept as true things that cannot be empirically proven because we are reasonably convinced they are true. I cannot prove empirically that my wife loves me, yet I am convinced beyond a whit if doubt that she does, because I experience it every day.
By the same token, I cannot prove in any empirical sense that Scripture is inspired by God and, through the Holy Spirit it is the unique and authoritative witness to Christ, both in the church and to me. But I believe it to be so, sometimes uncomfortably so, because my experience both with Scripture and with the world convinces me so. And because I believe it to be so, I must accord it (or at least try to do so) some degree of authority. I may certainly wrestle with it, but I am not free to ignore it, nor can I put conditions on my submission: "I'll go along as long as . . . ." If it is indeed what I believe it to be, then at the end I'm required to say "Okay. Not what I will, but what you, God, will."
It is at the end, a decision of faith—faith based on, I think, abundant evidence, but faith nonetheless. And my point is simply that the decision need be no different for those Roman Catholics and Orthodox who submit to Tradition as those churches understand it. It is not the decision I make, but I recognize it as being quite like the decision I've made in terms of faith.
As for the rest of your post, you seem to be responding to things you assume I'm thinking. And I'd go with The Lord of the Rings over The Hobbit.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What I was saying in an earlier post is that I have reasons for believing the Bible to be true. I don't just 'decide' to believe it simply because I want to believe it, as if anyone could really convince himself that a body of information is true purely on the basis of a naked act of will. I don't how anyone can do this. It is impossible for me to comprehend.
I guess many of us would say that we have reasons for believing that truth is to be found in the bible; whether that is truth as facticity or truth as meaning is an important additional distinction.
But personally I question the blanket statement that the bible is true, as opposed to the statement that the bible contains truth. One cannot go into that in detail except in Dead Horses when considering inerrancy.
So I am not sure what you mean, E.E., by the phrase "the bible is true". Perhaps you can clarify, and if necessary that part of this discussion might have to contiune in Dead Horses.
[ 08. June 2014, 23:12: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
q, 'they' are any who exclude with Tradition. And not just Tradition. Protestant damnationists are orders of magnitude worse.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
q, 'they' are any who exclude with Tradition. And not just Tradition. Protestant damnationists are orders of magnitude worse.
Be of good cheer, Martin; every fragment contains the whole.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What I was saying in an earlier post is that I have reasons for believing the Bible to be true. I don't just 'decide' to believe it simply because I want to believe it, as if anyone could really convince himself that a body of information is true purely on the basis of a naked act of will. I don't how anyone can do this. It is impossible for me to comprehend.
I guess many of us would say that we have reasons for believing that truth is to be found in the bible; whether that is truth as facticity or truth as meaning is an important additional distinction.
I would say the vast majority of us would say we have reasons for believing what we believe. But are those reasons good reasons? Do they stand up to scrutiny? Have we bounced them off other people, both like-minded and not, to see if we're deceiving ourselves? Everyone has reasons. But not all of those reasons are the result of critical thinking.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen
It is at the end, a decision of faith—faith based on, I think, abundant evidence, but faith nonetheless. And my point is simply that the decision need be no different for those Roman Catholics and Orthodox who submit to Tradition as those churches understand it. It is not the decision I make, but I recognize it as being quite like the decision I've made in terms of faith.
Forgive me if I am getting hold of the wrong end of the stick, but there seems to be an implication or insinuation that, because I express disagreement with Catholics and Orthodox who submit to the traditions of their churches, I am somehow impugning their integrity. They have their reasons for following Tradition, and frankly those reasons are none of my business. I don't think I have ever made those reasons my business, to be honest. But, like everyone on this site, I have the right to think for myself, and if I am not convinced by some of the claims of Tradition, and if I feel I have reasons for questioning those claims, then I may express that point of view. Disagreeing with someone is not equivalent to launching a personal attack. To use an analogy: despite all the rancour in Parliament, I am sure there are many politicians who have friendships - or at least civil and constructive relationships - across party lines. They may disagree vehemently over many issues, but I can't believe that every Tory is consumed with hatred for every Labour member and vice versa. It is possible to disagree and yet respect the integrity of your intellectual opponent. What is true of politics is also true of theology.
I will listen to Tradition, and, in fact, I have been listening to Tradition on this very thread. I could easily just say that the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary is a load of rubbish (and I may have said something like that at the beginning of the discussion, admittedly). But during the process of discussing this idea, I have been prepared to consider that perhaps Mary and Joseph did indeed remain celibate after the birth of Jesus, but on a voluntary basis. In other words, I am happy to try to come to terms with the idea, but in a way that fits into what I understand about the ways of the grace of God. I am not insisting that Mary had to have sex after the birth of Jesus, in order to uphold some exalted view of physical intimacy. I am willing to listen to the challenge of Tradition, but only on the basis that I can understand it. What I will not do is just mindlessly accept ideas simply on the say-so of a religious institution, no matter how exalted. I will listen to that institution and see whether I can go along with its ideas in a positive and constructive way. After all, if that institution is promulgating truth, then its ideas must make sense.
But let us suppose that it is right that I should just accept an idea on the basis that the Church says it is true, but I am not allowed to engage critically with that idea (i.e. try to understand it). I may 'believe' it, but unless I understand it, what can I do with it? What can anyone do with any idea that is not understood?
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
I would say the vast majority of us would say we have reasons for believing what we believe. But are those reasons good reasons? Do they stand up to scrutiny? Have we bounced them off other people, both like-minded and not, to see if we're deceiving ourselves? Everyone has reasons. But not all of those reasons are the result of critical thinking.
I couldn't agree more.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
If this mollifies things, then yes, I agree with that, EE.
I think though, rightly or wrongly, some of us here - myself included or perhaps predominantly - were interpreting your posts as inferring that the likes of Mousethief and IngoB were accepting Tradition in a 'mindless' and uncritical way simply because this was what they were expected to accept.
If you are not saying that then please accept my apologies for the way I was defending them against what I took to be an unwarranted attack. But then, they are both uglier than I am and can stand up for themselves ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I think your political analogy is a good one and I have certainly met MPs and local politicians who speak well of their opponents and opposite numbers in other parties.
I think though, in terms of the OP and the issue of acceptance of authority claims - whether of scripture or tradition/Tradition, Nick Tamen has been raising some pertinent points.
Whether we are accepting the authority of scripture or accepting that Tradition has authority we are exercising faith rather than simply going along with incontrovertible evidence of some kind ... and I'm careful how I phrase that - because it doesn't mean that we are making a step of faith without any evidence whatsoever.
Nick expresses this sort of thing better than I can.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Forgive me if I am getting hold of the wrong end of the stick, but there seems to be an implication or insinuation that, because I express disagreement with Catholics and Orthodox who submit to the traditions of their churches, I am somehow impugning their integrity.
No, you are seen to be impugning our integrity not by disagreeing with us, but by saying things like:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Are you both grown men, able to stand on your own two feet?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
mousethief, I don't think you were the intended target of EE's unfortunate post, but please note that Eutychus asked everyone not to continue with the personal line thus begun.
Your cooperation is appreciated.
Eliab
Purgatory host
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
mousethief, I don't think you were the intended target of EE's unfortunate post, but please note that Eutychus asked everyone not to continue with the personal line thus begun.
Your cooperation is appreciated.
Eliab
Purgatory host
Apologies. I had missed or forgotten that.
[ 09. June 2014, 21:20: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I also agree with mousethief. Critical thinking, and testing one's thinking against the critical thinking of others to avoid self-deception. That's the way to avoid much grief. Not just in interpretation of scripture.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Oops sorry about UBB code mix-up. My answer ended up inside the QUOTE tags.
[corrected]
[ 09. June 2014, 21:20: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I also agree with mousethief. Critical thinking, and testing one's thinking against the critical thinking of others to avoid self-deception. That's the way to avoid much grief. Not just in interpretation of scripture.
But what happens most often is we check our thinking against like-minded people, especially a group of people who have a history of interpreting the scriptures in certain ways.
In short, a tradition.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Aye, but the critical thinking is iced post-hoc on the cake of experiential thinking.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
If by that you mean we have to have experiences before we have anything to think about, then yes, that is true, but trivial.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
How do you quantify that? They are obviously dominant, formative, twig bending.
[ 09. June 2014, 19:33: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
But, like our desires, they are raw material for our thinking and behavior, not the end product. We are not at their mercy.
[ 09. June 2014, 19:38: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I am. I don't know anybody who isn't. Except you of course.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I am. I don't know anybody who isn't. Except you of course.
More sarcasm. Clearly this side conversation is over.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
That's flesh tearing?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Protestant damnationists are orders of magnitude worse.
I like imagining Martin as Governor Carter and hearing the velvety There you go again.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Heyyy, m, loved Ronnie. Despised Jimmy. Still love Ronnie. Love Jimmy more. So yeah, deep cultural conditioning can be overcome.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I am. I don't know anybody who isn't. Except you of course.
Host Hat On
Martin, you ignored Eutychus' line (and Eliab's reminder) re personal digs. So you get a formal warning.
Any further similar mucking about will get the offender a reference to Admin.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Host Hat Off
[ 09. June 2014, 21:36: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Critical thinking, and testing one's thinking against the critical thinking of others to avoid self-deception. That's the way to avoid much grief.
But what happens most often is we check our thinking against like-minded people, especially a group of people who have a history of interpreting the scriptures in certain ways.
In short, a tradition.
Yes, and yes.
Having traditions, having a culture, is part of being a community. We learn from people, learning what is culturally proper and fitting, alongside and in the same way as learning facts and learning how to work out what's true and what isn't. The process of judging what is true seems close to - perhaps using some of the same circuits of the brain as - judging what is culturally appropriate, what's the Way We Do Things.
And within each community there are those who encourage others to think critically, to reflect on the tradition and on the ways of others, and seek out what is truest and best. (when they're old enough - I have some sympathy with the view that you have to know your own tradition before you can understand its better and worse points and points of similarity and difference relative to other traditions).
But there are also those who seem to want to discourage others from critical thought, from trying out for size perspectives from other traditions. Not Invented Here syndrome. Big-T Tribalism.
And that distinction seems meta-cultural. Whatever the content of a tradition - say Buddhism - about which I know very little - it's not hard to imagine that there are the sort of Buddhists who seek to recognise truth outside Buddhism as well as within, knowing that they tend to think in a Buddhist way but trying to recognise and transcend the limits of that way. And the sort of Buddhists who try to reinforce the boundaries, to keep others from straying off the True Path, to idolise the tradition and demonise the outside.
So I have to try to make the distinction between
- understanding and appreciating the riches and subtleties of the Catholic way and the Orthodox way, and
- the proposition that "that it's our tradition is evidence of its truth". I.e. any old crap is good enough to earn the label of "true" so long as its Our Traditional Crap.
Don't claim the bad way of approaching a tradition as part of your tradition...
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
There has to be a balance between being a slave to tradition, and chucking the past wholesale and reinventing the wheel every generation.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
The basic problem with the glorification of critical thinking can be stated quite simply: philosophy has not come to a conclusion in our times, and there is no indication that it ever will by its own powers. Hence where critical thinking rules truly supreme, we do not find that it establishes solid foundations, rather it has dissipated the discourse into the factionalism of apparently arbitrary intellectual allegiance.
The problem is that critical thinking is like a kind of acid. Acid provides a powerful means of cleaning for things covered by grime that regular washing cannot attack, but at the risk of dissolving the very thing that we try to clean. If one keeps happily scrubbing away with acid, at some point one will have scrubbed things into nothings.
There is, of course, such a thing as intellectual error, truly "uncritical thinking". And we all are guilty of it some of the time. However, it simply is not true that correction of such intellectual faults brings us close to universal agreement. Rather we find that the world divides into camps training their critical arsenals at each other, barely kept civil in their exchanges by a kind of intellectual Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine.
There is an art to everything, and so there is to reasoning. Critical thinking is a tool we wield, a means towards an end. But it is not the measure of intellectual satisfaction. Nobody has ever run through the streets naked, shouting "Eureka!", because of critical thinking. Error correction can help us achieve truth-seeing, but should not be confused with it.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
Thanks for your post, EE. I think I understand better what you're saying.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But let us suppose that it is right that I should just accept an idea on the basis that the Church says it is true, but I am not allowed to engage critically with that idea (i.e. try to understand it). I may 'believe' it, but unless I understand it, what can I do with it? What can anyone do with any idea that is not understood?
Hmmmm. I guess I would say there's some balance here. I don't think anyone is advocating blindly and unquestioningly following a teaching merely because "the church says so."
At the same time, I know that I, at least, have limits on my ability to understand. To use two obvious examples, I have some grasp on the Trinity, but I don't begin to really understand it, and I certainly do not understand how exactly Christ is present in the Eucharist. And I know the dangers inherent in trying to make a go of figuring it all out on my own.
I am faced, then, with deciding who I will trust, and with deciding how I think the Holy Spirit works not just in me individually but in the church to lead us to truth.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Sir.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I know that I, at least, have limits on my ability to understand. To use two obvious examples, I have some grasp on the Trinity, but I don't begin to really understand it, and I certainly do not understand how exactly Christ is present in the Eucharist. And I know the dangers inherent in trying to make a go of figuring it all out on my own.
I am faced, then, with deciding who I will trust, and with deciding how I think the Holy Spirit works not just in me individually but in the church to lead us to truth.
In one sense you're not on your own - you have Shipmates to discuss with, you have the treasure-house of past Christian writings to draw on.
Whoever explains it in a way that makes most sense to you, which seems to you least inadequate or most sure, that you can adopt as your answer if anyone asks you and as a building block in your own thinking.
But the act of moving from "I dunno - it's a mystery to me" to "I find it helpful to think of it this way" is a making the idea your own. And no-one else can take that step for you.
So in one sense you're alone whatever answer you choose for whatever reason you choose it. And in another sense others are with you and supporting you, whatever answer you choose for whatever reason you choose it.
So it's not a case of the dangerous course of figuring it out for yourself or the safe course of running with the crowd.
The good reason for choosing an answer is that "this strikes me as true", this is consistent with my experience of life.
As bad reasons go, showing your loyalty to the community isn't any better than choosing what you think will impress others.
And in some cases it might be more honest for you to stay at "I dunno".
If your answer amounts to "My Dad always says X and I love my Dad", that's a good answer too, because you're honestly making it clear that it's his answer not yours, disclaiming knowledge as well as offering your listener a perspective that may be helpful.
But telling people that they can rely on the answer being X because that's the party line amongst the crowd you run with iseems like failing to take the idea of truth seriously.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
Russ, I agree completely.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
I think this new thread in Hell touches on one serious obstacle many would have. The RCC does not err and therefore will not change because to change would acknowledge they did err. It's circular and ignores human frailty and the whole "through a glass darkly" situation.
[ 12. June 2014, 15:32: Message edited by: Siegfried ]
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
I think this new thread in Hell touches on one serious obstacle many would have. The RCC does not err and therefore will not change because to change would acknowledge they did err. It's circular and ignores human frailty and the whole "through a glass darkly" situation.
And yet the RCC does admit error and does change. Consider the exoneration of Galileo.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And yet the RCC does admit error and does change. Consider the exoneration of Galileo.
Yes.. there is that.
There's also the bit mentioned earlier on this thread about the Orthodox also being the One True Church, which is another whole can of worms. I have to wonder, would it be useful to bear in mind that when using the metaphor of Peter being the rock upon which the Church is built, that "church" can also be a building with many rooms?
[code]
[ 12. June 2014, 21:14: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Wow. Once in 400 years. I cannot see how the Holy Spirit wants us to give up and let someone else with no idea believe on our behalf.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Surely all people who claim to be Christian,believe,what they believe to be the message and words of Jesus. ?
Surely those who claim to follow Jesus Christ,follow what they believe to be the message of Jesus ?
Surely those who claim to be part of a church,recognise some 'truths' which come to them via the Church or the Bible ?
Surely Christians do not just make up their own dogma ?
We all believe ( or do we ?) that we get the message from Jesus Christ.
It is not altogether unreasonable to interpret Scripture and Tradition as giving a certain guarantee of inerrancy to the Church.
It is,however, unreasonarble to classify all those who believe in God's protection of the Church as people who simply believe 'under pain of thumbscrews' what someone else tells them to believe.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
No Roman that this catholic knows is under such threat, I ADMIRE all the Romans here. I love the truth of the word dogma: the etymology is that which seems. That's fine. ALL dogma is made up. What's wrong with that? I'm certainly making it up as I go along. Who isn't? WHo didn't? Starting with Jesus.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88
Well, if the Church doesn't meet your standards, what does?
I don't know why you are enquiring about my standards. It is God's standards that matter, and the Christian Church has fallen short of those standards many times throughout history. "You will know them by their fruit" as Jesus said. The idea that we can affirm something as being "of God" even at times when its fruit is clearly evil, makes a mockery of the teaching of Jesus. God's presence and blessing is manifested through the good fruit. As Jesus said: "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. A tree is known by its fruit." A good tree is not known as a good tree just because it has a particular name or position in the garden. No. A good tree is known by only one thing: its fruit. A corrupt and murderous church is not a church, irrespective of ecclesiastical pedigree, and this goes for Catholicism, Protestantism or Orthodoxy.
To say that God - or at least "God's best" - can only be found in a particular ecclesiastical organisation, irrespective of its sins, is a travesty of the clear teaching of our Lord. In fact, it's blasphemy to call a bad tree good. If the tree is good, then it has to show the world that its fruit is good. The Church has to justify its existence morally, and not take its status for granted based on longevity, continuity or pedigree.
We look to Christ as the only mediator between God and man. We are not saved because we wear a certain badge, but because God, in His grace, has worked in our hearts. This is what the New Covenant is all about.
Ss. Peter and Paul were neither of them perfect, but they taught the truth with Jesus' mandate, as their successors have continued to do in clear line from there up to Pope Francis.
Jesus did say the Church would be perfect like God, just that it would teach faithfully and authoritatively. This it does as no other are able.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Not.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
