The Intelligent & Relentless Pursuit of Muscle™
Politics and World Issues
 
Catholic Q&A Continues
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Posts: 17056

Tiribulus wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:<<< Yes. I'm pretty sure the decree was...don't eat the fruit on that tree, lest you die. ;)
I'm positive you are mistaken Christopher. Decree is not the same as command. God decrees what He forbids. Again, by means of divine mechanisms known only to Himself.


He decrees what he forbids?

Can you explain this sentence for me. I can take this two ways and I want to make sure I understand what you're saying. Also, please give the definition of decree and forbids that you're using so I can understand exactly what you're saying.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Tiribulus
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2006
Posts: 16196

Cortes wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:<<< Yes. I'm pretty sure the decree was...don't eat the fruit on that tree, lest you die. ;)
I'm positive you are mistaken Christopher. Decree is not the same as command. God decrees what He forbids. Again, by means of divine mechanisms known only to Himself.
If he's wrong it's because you needed to define "decree," before unilaterally scoring your point. I consider myself fairly literate, and even after looking at a few definitions, I'm not understanding the distinction here.
Alright, no need to be gittin all shnippy there Hernando. Decree = "God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass". Command = "thou shalt not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden for in the day thou eatest it thou shalt surely die".

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Tiribulus
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2006
Posts: 16196

I am absolutely not forgetting Joab's challenge. Nor this humongous post (content wise) that KK hit me with

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

KingKai25
Level 4

Join date: Feb 2012
Posts: 876

Brother Chris wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:<<< Yes. I'm pretty sure the decree was...don't eat the fruit on that tree, lest you die. ;)
I'm positive you are mistaken Christopher. Decree is not the same as command. God decrees what He forbids. Again, by means of divine mechanisms known only to Himself.


He decrees what he forbids?

Can you explain this sentence for me. I can take this two ways and I want to make sure I understand what you're saying. Also, please give the definition of decree and forbids that you're using so I can understand exactly what you're saying.


This goes back to the dual wills of God distinction - the revealed will as encapsulated in Scripture and the hidden will, in accordance with which all events occur. As usual, Tirib is skillfully playing with seeming contradictions - God decrees in his hidden will that human beings commit certain actions which are in direct conflict with his revealed will.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Cortes
Level 4

Join date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7145

Tiribulus wrote:
Cortes wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:<<< Yes. I'm pretty sure the decree was...don't eat the fruit on that tree, lest you die. ;)
I'm positive you are mistaken Christopher. Decree is not the same as command. God decrees what He forbids. Again, by means of divine mechanisms known only to Himself.
If he's wrong it's because you needed to define "decree," before unilaterally scoring your point. I consider myself fairly literate, and even after looking at a few definitions, I'm not understanding the distinction here.
Alright, no need to be gittin all shnippy there Hernando. Decree = "God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass". Command = "thou shalt not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden for in the day thou eatest it thou shalt surely die".


Ah, I see my feelings were correct. You are asking a different question, then, with far more narrow parameters than most reasonable people could have discerned from your initial statement. In most cases that I am aware of, "decree" is pretty much the equivalent of "command," or "edict," and is not intuitively meant to be "something you can't do nothing about."

I wasn't being snippy, I suspected that one of those "gotchas" was on its way, and my tone reflected as much. I see where you are going with this, but I'll get out of the way now and let Chris answer. This conversation is between the two of you, and he's probably more capable of addressing it properly than I am anyway.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Tiribulus
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2006
Posts: 16196

Cortes wrote:<<< Ah, I see my feelings were correct. You are asking a different question, then, with far more narrow parameters than most reasonable people could have discerned from your initial statement. In most cases that I am aware of, "decree" is pretty much the equivalent of "command," or "edict," and is not intuitively meant to be "something you can't do nothing about."

I wasn't being snippy, I suspected that one of those "gotchas" was on its way, and my tone reflected as much. I see where you are going with this, but I'll get out of the way now and let Chris answer. This conversation is between the two of you, and he's probably more capable of addressing it properly than I am anyway.
Ok, but I was using the same definition of "decree" that you've seen me quote a few dozen times over the past couple years. Remember?
Why thank you Cortes. But don't ya see,(Van Til always said that) this is the absolute core of EVERY discussion, even if only unconsciously assumed, which is usually the case. Not just religious, but philosophical and scientific as well. People everywhere simply meander through life making universal uninterrupted use of a set of intellectual rules without even once ever questioning either their origin or validity. They simply proceed as if it's a preeminent given that logic governs their reality in such a way that not one coherent thought word or deed would be possible without it.

My contention is... hang on... they're right!!!! With one fatal flaw. By every "religious' definition there is, they worship logic itself instead of the super-logical God who has created us in is image and in so doing has lent us a finite derivative version of HIS logic. Only He has the full version. That's why when someone asks "how can God decree evil and not be it's author and thereby responsible for it?" or "How can God choose individuals to save and damn and those individuals still be free and responsible?" my profound, goose bump inducing answer is... "I dunno" LOL!!! I don't even pretend to try n know.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Cortes
Level 4

Join date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7145

Tiribulus wrote:
Cortes wrote:<<< Ah, I see my feelings were correct. You are asking a different question, then, with far more narrow parameters than most reasonable people could have discerned from your initial statement. In most cases that I am aware of, "decree" is pretty much the equivalent of "command," or "edict," and is not intuitively meant to be "something you can't do nothing about."

I wasn't being snippy, I suspected that one of those "gotchas" was on its way, and my tone reflected as much. I see where you are going with this, but I'll get out of the way now and let Chris answer. This conversation is between the two of you, and he's probably more capable of addressing it properly than I am anyway.
Ok, but I was using the same definition of "decree" that you've seen me quote a few dozen times over the past couple years. Remember?
Why thank you Cortes. But don't ya see,(Van Til always said that) this is the absolute core of EVERY discussion, even if only unconsciously assumed, which is usually the case. Not just religious, but philosophical and scientific as well. People everywhere simply meander through life making universal uninterrupted use of a set of intellectual rules without even once ever questioning either their origin or validity. They simply proceed as if it's a preeminent given that logic governs their reality in such a way that not one coherent thought word or deed would be possible without it.

My contention is... hang on... they're right!!!! With one fatal flaw. By every "religious' definition there is, they worship logic itself instead of the super-logical God who has created us in is image and in so doing has lent us a finite derivative version of HIS logic. Only He has the full version. That's why when someone asks "how can God decree evil and not be it's author and thereby responsible for it?" or "How can God choose individuals to save and damn and those individuals still be free and responsible?" my profound, goose bump inducing answer is... "I dunno" LOL!!! I don't even pretend to try n know.



Okay, understood.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Posts: 17056

Tiribulus wrote:
Cortes wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:<<< Yes. I'm pretty sure the decree was...don't eat the fruit on that tree, lest you die. ;)
I'm positive you are mistaken Christopher. Decree is not the same as command. God decrees what He forbids. Again, by means of divine mechanisms known only to Himself.
If he's wrong it's because you needed to define "decree," before unilaterally scoring your point. I consider myself fairly literate, and even after looking at a few definitions, I'm not understanding the distinction here.
Alright, no need to be gittin all shnippy there Hernando. Decree = "God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass". Command = "thou shalt not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden for in the day thou eatest it thou shalt surely die".


Where is that in the Bible?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Posts: 17056

anon says:
What's the point of having scriptures, infallible and inspired by the Word of God if its not the final authority by which we must live by? And also why do Catholics utilize the writings of the early Church fathers (which contradict each other many times, some believed in the true presence and some didn't for example) if they are not scripture?


This question has been on my mind lately, thought I should come back to it.

Two things. I think there needs to be a distinction made between infallible and inerrant. The Canon of Scriptures is inerrant. If the author of this question wants to define what he believes infallible means we can flesh this out some more to answer, better. And, I also want to ask (anyone can answer this) where in the Canon of Scripture that the Canon of Scripture is the final authority?

I'm tabling the second motion for the moment.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Tiribulus
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2006
Posts: 16196

This appears at a glance pretty good Chris. I usually do my own work, but I have to go somewhere.
http://www.theopedia.com/.../Decrees_of_God

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

driftingbamafan
Level 1

Join date: Apr 2011
Posts: 77

no where in the bible does it say that the "holy scriptures" "holy bible" "anything written" is the final authority.
inerrantcy or whatever is deff different from infallable.
i dont like the word inerrant though... just personally, seems like its incomplete and leaves alot on the table.. so i go with inspired.
the inspired word, or the holy scriptures (another thing i prefer since Christ Himself is the Word), is inspired or God-breathed/God-authored. the Church at the counsils of Hippo, Carthage (2 of them), and Trent decided, by guidance of the Holy Spirit, what writtings truely are inspired. that is the authority that gave the Bible as we know it. Hippo and Carthage are what gave us the New Testament as we know it, and is the collection that both us catholics and the rest of the christian Church can agree on. and what i believe should be focused mostly on, at least by the day-to-day disciple, seeing as it is the new covenant that we are currently under and not the old.
infallalible simply means that the Holy Spirit gives its negative assistance to the magistarium (idk if i spelt that right) so as to assure that the Church as a whole will not be mislead in a grave way. doesnt mean complete, just not totally wrong, and infallibility only occure with the entire magistarium or when the Pope goes through a certain process (of which i am under-educated on) to speak infallibly. its also my understanding that only 2 popes have used this authority.

anyways, thats my humble and probably over-siplified understanding.
we only have the holy scriptures because of the authority of the Church that Christ put in place in Mat 16 with Peter and His disciples - and that the scriptures contiue to outline especially throughout the book of Acts.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Tiribulus
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2006
Posts: 16196

You're doin fine Chief.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Headhunter
Level 4

Join date: Oct 2002
Posts: 15058

Honest question: why does anyone still believe stories written by middle eastern tribesmen and goatherds from 1700 years ago, embellished by people who wanted to rule over monarchs, by divine right?

Life should be micromanaged by continuous mathematics for each while societies should follow some sort of chaos math (human societies are chaos systems).

No wonder the world is fucked up -- using theories from long ago to run a modern world. LOLOLOLOL!

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Cortes
Level 4

Join date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7145

Headhunter wrote:
Honest question: why does anyone still believe stories written by middle eastern tribesmen and goatherds from 1700 years ago, embellished by people who wanted to rule over monarchs, by divine right?

Life should be micromanaged by continuous mathematics for each while societies should follow some sort of chaos math (human societies are chaos systems).

No wonder the world is fucked up -- using theories from long ago to run a modern world. LOLOLOLOL!


Probably stems from a similar human drive to the one that causes some to believe the world is controlled by a tiny elite group of pseudo-human Satan-worshipers who engage in ritual pedophilia and human sacrifice in a perfectly contained conspiracy involving nearly every member of the government up to even the highest echelons.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Sloth
Level

Join date: Dec 2002
Posts: 13663

Cortes wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Honest question: why does anyone still believe stories written by middle eastern tribesmen and goatherds from 1700 years ago, embellished by people who wanted to rule over monarchs, by divine right?

Life should be micromanaged by continuous mathematics for each while societies should follow some sort of chaos math (human societies are chaos systems).

No wonder the world is fucked up -- using theories from long ago to run a modern world. LOLOLOLOL!


Probably stems from a similar human drive to the one that causes some to believe the world is controlled by a tiny elite group of pseudo-human Satan-worshipers who engage in ritual pedophilia and human sacrifice in a perfectly contained conspiracy involving nearly every member of the government up to even the highest echelons.




Rofl. Yes, I typed rofl...I couldn't see his post directly, but THAT is a heckuva reply.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Posts: 17056

Sloth wrote:
Cortes wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Honest question: why does anyone still believe stories written by middle eastern tribesmen and goatherds from 1700 years ago, embellished by people who wanted to rule over monarchs, by divine right?

Life should be micromanaged by continuous mathematics for each while societies should follow some sort of chaos math (human societies are chaos systems).

No wonder the world is fucked up -- using theories from long ago to run a modern world. LOLOLOLOL!


Probably stems from a similar human drive to the one that causes some to believe the world is controlled by a tiny elite group of pseudo-human Satan-worshipers who engage in ritual pedophilia and human sacrifice in a perfectly contained conspiracy involving nearly every member of the government up to even the highest echelons.




Rofl. Yes, I typed rofl...I couldn't see his post directly, but THAT is a heckuva reply.


roflcopter.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Tiribulus
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2006
Posts: 16196

KingKai25 wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
KingKai25 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:

Trying to understand God will find you curled up in a corner somewhere babbling something about His ways being higher than your ways.


You mean such an attempt naturally results in a frenzied misinterpretation of Isaiah 55:8-9? Crazy how that happens... :)

Just had to razz you a little...
It was a use of generally biblical language to portray the incomprehensibility of God. Razzing received.

@Severiano: You know neither what you are talking about nor the God about whom it is. I urge you to forsake confidence in yourself and ask Him to change both situations which are actually two sides of the same situation anyway. He will ya know.


Both of you rely on personal interpretation. I don't see how you can say his view is invalid and unsound and your view is, however, sound and to be believed. You both rely on your own authority.


Seriously, BC? This stuff again?

I gather you're a former Protestant; is the question of authority the one that turned you? You respond to what Christian Smith calls "pervasive interpretive pluralism" in Protestantism by running to the safe halls of Catholicism, where the answers are supplied by those who claim special interpretive authority. That's one possible reaction, and I saw a number of students (mostly philosophy majors) go that direction in college. Other Protestants, faced with the same dilemma, react by entrenching themselves further in "old" positions, trusting that Wesley or Calvin or Luther or Zwingli or SOMEONE was sufficiently inspired so as to interpret Scripture rightly. The latter position entails remaining in Protestantism and generally goes back 500 years and assumes that its system reflects the beliefs of the early church; the former jumps into the boat that claims a 2000 year lineage and perfect continuity with the faith of the church fathers.

In my opinion, the turn to Catholicism for the answer to the desire for doctrinal certainty is an inherently cowardly move. It ignores the fact that Catholicism continues to function because its leaders maintain interpretive hegemony and curtail all historical sensitivity, pretending that Irenaeus holds to the same beliefs as Tertullian or Basil the Great, who in turn hold to the same beliefs as Anselm or Aquinas. The realities of historical distance and theological development are evaded by the careful harmonization of dissenting voices, the explicit denial of sociological and cultural factors in the shaping of dogma, and the unthinking acceptance of the church fathers' own illegitimate claims to the unity of their beliefs.

No, I don't believe that the Catholic church is maintained by the devil or irrevocably leads people astray. I do, however, believe that Catholicism maintains its claims to interpretive hegemony only by refusing to critically and honestly scrutinize its own roots. Work miracles in the power of the Holy Ghost, claim to have witnessed the risen Christ, and show me logically, with some degree of historical sensitivity, how your beliefs actually harmonize with the words of Paul and Peter in the New Testament. Then I'll consider laying down my tool belt and following. But if a bunch of men possessing no greater claim to authority than that they were touched by someone else in a long line of people touched by preceding bishops (who may have gone back to the apostles) try to tell me how to interpret a particular biblical passage, I'm going to ask them to prove it, not jump ship and say, "thank you so much for helping me out. For so long I was confused. Now I can finally turn my brain off and KNOW what these passages mean."

Paul never said, "trust me - I have authority. Peter laid hands on me." Paul said, "The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience - signs and wonders and mighty works."

As far as "private interpretation goes" (an idea which you still need to define), I don't think you could be more off the mark. Tiribulus and I were joking because we DO agree about the meaning of that passage.

More importantly, "private interpretation" carries the negative connotation of "the way one person reads a passage that no one else would agree with." That's certainly doesn't apply here. Thoughtful Protestants attempt to apply sound hermeneutical principles to the biblical text (something the Catholic church does not condemn), which militate against an interpretive free-for-all. We do not simply say, "this is what I think it means," but also, "this is why I think it," allowing our views to be subject to scrutiny and refined through dialogue with other perspectives.

If you want to find genuine "private interpretation," by which I mean reading the passage without any sensitivity to its original historical (or even literary) context, read some Origen, or even Irenaeus. There you will find PLENTY of interpretations that simply boggle the mind, yet were plenty convincing to these guys.
Very very VERY good indeed. Right down the line. (Except the part where you take that transparent shot at me too =] ) I moved this over here because I sense we may finally be getting to that long awaited discussion of the ekklesia and authority. I surmised early on in your attempted conquest of the kingdom of T-Nation that your highness and I would be much more opposed to one another in this arena. I am pleased to now see that much greater concord than I had previously assumed, will be the case. I further will publicly announce that I much prefer you as an ally than an adversary. Any day. And twice on Sunday. Yes, you can take that as the declaration of respect and even relief that it sounds like.

I know you intended no personal insult and were speaking generally, but "cowardly" is not a word I would use in the same sentence with dearest Christopher. I know him much better than you do. That's just a statement of fact. There ARE however large numbers of people who do fit that description. There also are even less noble motivations than cowardice, but that's another discussion. That said? You have absolutely NAILED the one overriding allure of the Catholic (big C Christopher) church among people who really do want to please God.
"I KNOW He loves me, because I am following the framework of objectively codified practice and worship that has been prescribed for me by the alone source of His voice in the earth. While the dogma and practice themselves are cumbersome and complex, the simple and secure foundation makes them a more than fair and even welcome price."
I MYSELF feel the draw of that structured certainty. I have never been more sincere about anything. I WANT that and have said so many times. There is however simply no possible way that the books of the ancient Christian scriptures can be coerced into comportation with this: http://www.newadvent.org/cathe... Being therefore forced to choose, the scriptures win. In order to see in the definitive passages what Rome prescribes as the only non-private and authoritative interpretation, one must have already committed and surrendered to the Vatican as supremely authoritative. If Aquinas's own Aristotelian methods of sensory investigation governed by undeniable principles of studying ancient literature were brought to the scriptures independently of this pre-commitment to "the Church"? One would never arrive at their conclusions.

Of course after reading this, KingKai will be thinking that he could turn that last sentence on me in some areas of theology as well. I disagree, but that's also another large discussion.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Posts: 17056

KingKai25 wrote:
In my opinion, the turn to Catholicism for the answer to the desire for doctrinal certainty is an inherently cowardly move.


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.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pat
Level 3

Join date: Oct 2002
Posts: 17559

KingKai25 wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
KingKai25 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:

Trying to understand God will find you curled up in a corner somewhere babbling something about His ways being higher than your ways.


You mean such an attempt naturally results in a frenzied misinterpretation of Isaiah 55:8-9? Crazy how that happens... :)

Just had to razz you a little...
It was a use of generally biblical language to portray the incomprehensibility of God. Razzing received.

@Severiano: You know neither what you are talking about nor the God about whom it is. I urge you to forsake confidence in yourself and ask Him to change both situations which are actually two sides of the same situation anyway. He will ya know.


Both of you rely on personal interpretation. I don't see how you can say his view is invalid and unsound and your view is, however, sound and to be believed. You both rely on your own authority.


Seriously, BC? This stuff again?

I gather you're a former Protestant; is the question of authority the one that turned you? You respond to what Christian Smith calls "pervasive interpretive pluralism" in Protestantism by running to the safe halls of Catholicism, where the answers are supplied by those who claim special interpretive authority. That's one possible reaction, and I saw a number of students (mostly philosophy majors) go that direction in college. Other Protestants, faced with the same dilemma, react by entrenching themselves further in "old" positions, trusting that Wesley or Calvin or Luther or Zwingli or SOMEONE was sufficiently inspired so as to interpret Scripture rightly. The latter position entails remaining in Protestantism and generally goes back 500 years and assumes that its system reflects the beliefs of the early church; the former jumps into the boat that claims a 2000 year lineage and perfect continuity with the faith of the church fathers.

In my opinion, the turn to Catholicism for the answer to the desire for doctrinal certainty is an inherently cowardly move. It ignores the fact that Catholicism continues to function because its leaders maintain interpretive hegemony and curtail all historical sensitivity, pretending that Irenaeus holds to the same beliefs as Tertullian or Basil the Great, who in turn hold to the same beliefs as Anselm or Aquinas. The realities of historical distance and theological development are evaded by the careful harmonization of dissenting voices, the explicit denial of sociological and cultural factors in the shaping of dogma, and the unthinking acceptance of the church fathers' own illegitimate claims to the unity of their beliefs.

No, I don't believe that the Catholic church is maintained by the devil or irrevocably leads people astray. I do, however, believe that Catholicism maintains its claims to interpretive hegemony only by refusing to critically and honestly scrutinize its own roots. Work miracles in the power of the Holy Ghost, claim to have witnessed the risen Christ, and show me logically, with some degree of historical sensitivity, how your beliefs actually harmonize with the words of Paul and Peter in the New Testament. Then I'll consider laying down my tool belt and following. But if a bunch of men possessing no greater claim to authority than that they were touched by someone else in a long line of people touched by preceding bishops (who may have gone back to the apostles) try to tell me how to interpret a particular biblical passage, I'm going to ask them to prove it, not jump ship and say, "thank you so much for helping me out. For so long I was confused. Now I can finally turn my brain off and KNOW what these passages mean."

Paul never said, "trust me - I have authority. Peter laid hands on me." Paul said, "The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience - signs and wonders and mighty works."

As far as "private interpretation goes" (an idea which you still need to define), I don't think you could be more off the mark. Tiribulus and I were joking because we DO agree about the meaning of that passage.

More importantly, "private interpretation" carries the negative connotation of "the way one person reads a passage that no one else would agree with." That's certainly doesn't apply here. Thoughtful Protestants attempt to apply sound hermeneutical principles to the biblical text (something the Catholic church does not condemn), which militate against an interpretive free-for-all. We do not simply say, "this is what I think it means," but also, "this is why I think it," allowing our views to be subject to scrutiny and refined through dialogue with other perspectives.

If you want to find genuine "private interpretation," by which I mean reading the passage without any sensitivity to its original historical (or even literary) context, read some Origen, or even Irenaeus. There you will find PLENTY of interpretations that simply boggle the mind, yet were plenty convincing to these guys.


First of all, to call it cowardly is disingenuous and then to mean to offense is complete garbage. You are indeed a very educated man King, but your understanding of the Magisterium of the church is patently false. The main job of the magisterium is the define the boundaries, not to control the information. It draws the borderline of personal interpretation to where it conflicts with dogma of the church. The majority of the dogma that was established by the apostles themselves. At the core of the church lies the original dogma and not one letter of that has ever changed since that time. How do we follow St. Peter, or St Paul? Are you serious? Consider the following:
"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

(1 Corinthians 11:23-29 ESV)

This is the proclamation made at every mass everyday save for Good Friday. This is the example we follow reverently. These people who you proclaim act as king, act not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of all. To be obedient to Christ in all things....

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...

What did these protestant fathers truly accomplish? Well I think John says it best following the 'Bread of life' discourses:
" When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"
(John 6:60 ESV)
"After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him."
(John 6:65-66 ESV)

Indeed it is hard to listen when it doesn't say what you want it to.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Tiribulus
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2006
Posts: 16196

Brother Chris wrote:<<< PPS. Studying 2000 years of miracles through the Saints by God in the Catholic Church is a major factor. >>>

What do you do with protestant miracles, or new age miracles or voodoo and santer√?¬≠a 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.

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.
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.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Cortes
Level 4

Join date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7145

Tiribulus wrote:

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.


Since you are being so "honest," T, I'll pay you the respect of being honest, too.

While I do not have any problem with the things you've stated above, we have all sorts of miracles that are dead on with the "nice" ones you described above. Thousands upon thousands upon thousands of them.

Once again, you just picked a number of things out of context and then framed them to look creepy, in the same manner that journalists will seize on an old Mexican woman finding an image of Our Lady of Guadalupe in a burned tortilla. They ignore the countless truly unexplainable accounts of healing and, yes, feeding massive amounts of people with nearly nothing and, yes, people who were born without the optical equipment to see even being completely cured of blindness. But the second the kind of miracle pops up that they can seize upon and twist to their agenda, the hyenas all come out, snapping and howling and cackling, "Look at the Catholics! Look what weirdos these people are! See what kind of craziness they believe!" All in the name of "honest" journalism.

You are honestly disappointing me, Tirib. I was hoping you were better than this. I wanted to believe it. But over and over and over again, you come with the cheap shots against the Catholic Church, and yes, we Catholics do take it personally.

Your system starts to look less and less impressive to me the more I see you act like every other insecure, mean, jealous, Catholic HATING Protestant I have ever met. Oh yes you do. The cheap shot about priests giving communion to grave sinners the other day. Your sudden public and very transparent embracing of King Kai as one of your own, so to speak, the minute he posts what appears to be a mean, possibly intentionally offensive post to Chris about Catholics. And now this, trying to paint us and our miracles as weird demonic possession.

I must ask, where do you get off, dude?

Don't worry, I'm not personally offended by you. I still consider you my friend. But you need to hear this. Because this is exactly why you piss off so many people on this board, so many Catholics specifically, to the point that they put you on ignore. Because this is what you do.

I'm just being totally honest with you man.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Cortes
Level 4

Join date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7145

Tiribulus wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:<<< PPS. Studying 2000 years of miracles through the Saints by God in the Catholic Church is a major factor. >>>

What do you do with protestant miracles, or new age miracles or voodoo and santer√?¬≠a 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 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 five thousand 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 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.

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.
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.


And how do you know this?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Tiribulus
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2006
Posts: 16196

Cortes wrote:<<< to the point that they put you on ignore. Because this is what you do. >>>
I have never been put on ignore for what you allege and I can prove it. Just say the word my friend. Did you miss the part where I said that I hold almost all alleged protestant miracles also to be crap? I'll make it even clearer. Many of them are demonic deception too and just as goofy. Bottom line? Outside of a ministry of miracles as recorded in the new testament? Miracles, even real ones, prove nothing.

As for KingKai? I hope you do not believe that I would lie to you. There is a lot more goin on there than is in these forums. There is nothing sudden happening here either. I said 5 weeks ago now, in this very thread (05-04-2012, 12:29 AM) http://tnation.T-Nation.com/...7&pageNo=31

<<< Speaking of offense. This is my thread and as good a place as any to do this. I was myself offensive to the Lord and a poor witness of His character by my shameful public attacks on KingKai25 before allowing him the opportunity of so much as 10 seconds of conversation in my direction. I do hereby repent as promised and declare my premature estimation of this young man to have been among the wrongest in my life. This is one of the horrible sins of my past and I have no excuse. Aragorn recently rightly rebuked me for not taking these things up privately first. I should have.

We've talked extensively through PM's and he's forgiven me. I'm humbled and grateful. To God be the glory. >>>

You don't know me better than these accusations you're making by now? I picked from a Catholic perspective, celebrated well known alleged miracles using utterly non sensational language. I said nothing about faces in tortillas. The ones I cited have been confirmed by the church. Ya know what I think? I think you guys liked it better when I WAS snidely and condescendingly and viciously spitting all over your church. You weren't nearly as angry with me then.(except Pat) Go back and look at both my language and your responses a year ago. I'm learning lessons here.

You're one of the guys here I've gotten closer to than most others as you know. I have no problem arguing or debating with you. Even with some heat. I will not however countenance falsehood directed at me OR YOU GUYS. Did you also miss the part where I defended Chris's character... again? You are right this minute learning about the PM's where I defended yours to someone who doesn't know you like I do. Yes I did. Please allow all horn locking to at least be over things that truly exist. We can do that can't we?

You are coloring your recent reading of me. You are. Please look.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pat
Level 3

Join date: Oct 2002
Posts: 17559

Cortes wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:

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.


Since you are being so "honest," T, I'll pay you the respect of being honest, too.

While I do not have any problem with the things you've stated above, we have all sorts of miracles that are dead on with the "nice" ones you described above. Thousands upon thousands upon thousands of them.

Once again, you just picked a number of things out of context and then framed them to look creepy, in the same manner that journalists will seize on an old Mexican woman finding an image of Our Lady of Guadalupe in a burned tortilla. They ignore the countless truly unexplainable accounts of healing and, yes, feeding massive amounts of people with nearly nothing and, yes, people who were born without the optical equipment to see even being completely cured of blindness. But the second the kind of miracle pops up that they can seize upon and twist to their agenda, the hyenas all come out, snapping and howling and cackling, "Look at the Catholics! Look what weirdos these people are! See what kind of craziness they believe!" All in the name of "honest" journalism.

You are honestly disappointing me, Tirib. I was hoping you were better than this. I wanted to believe it. But over and over and over again, you come with the cheap shots against the Catholic Church, and yes, we Catholics do take it personally.

Your system starts to look less and less impressive to me the more I see you act like every other insecure, mean, jealous, Catholic HATING Protestant I have ever met. Oh yes you do. The cheap shot about priests giving communion to grave sinners the other day. Your sudden public and very transparent embracing of King Kai as one of your own, so to speak, the minute he posts what appears to be a mean, possibly intentionally offensive post to Chris about Catholics. And now this, trying to paint us and our miracles as weird demonic possession.

I must ask, where do you get off, dude?

Don't worry, I'm not personally offended by you. I still consider you my friend. But you need to hear this. Because this is exactly why you piss off so many people on this board, so many Catholics specifically, to the point that they put you on ignore. Because this is what you do.

I'm just being totally honest with you man.


Hence, why he's on permanent ignore. He uses the word to glorify himself and to pit his righteousness against anybody else's. Since I have nothing good to say, I say nothing. I am not disappointed, this self glorifying gospel of hate is, who he is. He knows the words but are clueless to their meaning, intent and purpose.
Even Makavali said he would do less damage to the scriptures if he wiped his ass with them, I agree wholeheartedly.

"Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you."
(Matthew 7:6 ESV)

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

KingKai25
Level 4

Join date: Feb 2012
Posts: 876

Brother Chris wrote:
KingKai25 wrote:
In my opinion, the turn to Catholicism for the answer to the desire for doctrinal certainty is an inherently cowardly move.


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.


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"...

Work miracles in the power of the Holy Ghost, claim to have witnessed the risen Christ, and show me logically, with some degree of historical sensitivity, how your beliefs actually harmonize with the words of Paul and Peter in the New Testament. Then I'll consider laying down my tool belt and following.


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.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
Topic is Locked
This thread has reached its maximum number of replies. Click HERE to start a new topic.