|
Are we really trusting random Protestant clergy of tiny-rear end American congregations to interpret and judge Catholicism?
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:http://www.theopedia.com/Inerrancy_of_the_Bible I really don't know what to tell you except that Protestantism and Catholicism are different religions. You keep quoting sources that really have no relevance or applicability to Catholic teaching. That last source is an online evangelical encyclopedia. You might as well quote the Dhammapanda. SedanChair is completely correct. QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:I really don't know what to tell you except that Protestantism and Catholicism are different religions. You keep quoting sources that really have no relevance or applicability to Catholic teaching. That last source is an online evangelical encyclopedia. You might as well quote the Dhammapanda at this point. quote:'Inerrant' means there are no errors; 'infallible' means there can be no errors. Splitting. Hairs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
"About Theopedia Theopedia is a growing online evangelical encyclopedia of biblical Christianity, a network of interconnected pages, constantly being refined and updated." Once more you are using Evangelical sources to talk about Roman Catholic understandings. What next? Citing Jack Chick? Seriously, it isn't hard to find out what Roman Catholics believe. Unlike most denominations they have a pretty detailed catechism, making it easy to find out what the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are. (And most things outside the Catechism? Aren't official teachings, merely opinions that Catholics don't have to take seriously even officially). Edit: You'd do better using either Catholic sources or a source that at least tries to be neutral. neonchameleon fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:"About Theopedia Let's go to the dictionary and Wikipedia quote:'Inerrant' means there are no errors; 'infallible' means there can be no errors. Yep. Hair splitting fun.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Let's go to the dictionary and Wikipedia Hair splitting in Theology? Surely not. Next you'll be saying the Pope is Catholic. But let's look at your link to Wikipedia and what it actually says. There are two pull quotes. quote:The Second Vatican Council, citing earlier declarations, stated: "Since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation" quote:It added: "Since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words." In both cases it only claims that the Bible is correct in "what God wanted to put into sacred writings" or "what God wanted to manifest by means of their words." This does not mean (as the Evangelical definition would have us believe) that the earth actually was created in six days. It means that there is a reason that the six day creation narrative is there. Roman Catholicism no more claims that the Bible is literally true than it does that any given parable is referring to historical events. Jesus had reasons for telling each of his parables. This doesn't mean that every single detail of them can be treated as accurate in every way. Merely that there is a point to each of them. That is all the Roman Catholic Church claims (although some Roman Catholics claim more).
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:Roman Catholicism no more claims that the Bible is literally true than it does that any given parable is referring to historical events. Jesus had reasons for telling each of his parables. This doesn't mean that every single detail of them can be treated as accurate in every way. Merely that there is a point to each of them. That is all the Roman Catholic Church claims (although some Roman Catholics claim more). http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/do-you-read-the-bible-literally.html I think arguing that they take it literally but don't want to appear to do so it two different things. And the definition stands, its splitting hairs to try to make one organization look more progressive than the other. Every time I read an article on the Roman Catholic sites about it, it reads like Libertarianism: Lots of words to cover make it look well read and intellectual.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/do-you-read-the-bible-literally.html An actually useful, although non-authoritative source. (As mentioned, the Catechism is authoritative). Some Roman Catholics take the Bible literally. Others merely take it as useful and there is no requirement within Catholicism to take is as more than useful on matters of Faith and Morals. The Catechism (and therefore Catholic beliefs) merely state that "The inspired books teach the truth. Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confined to the Sacred Scriptures." But this allows enough wiggle room that if science disproves something then clearly that understanding is not part of the Scripture that is necessary for the sake of salvation. Any more than the idea that the Good Samaritan (or the Prodigal Son) had to be a real person. Therefore Roman Catholics are entirely free to believe the earth goes round the sun, the universe started with the Big Bang, and a lot of other things. quote:And the definition stands, its splitting hairs to try to make one organization look more progressive than the other. Every time I read an article on the Roman Catholic sites about it, it reads like Libertarianism: Lots of words to cover make it look well read and intellectual. Well, yeah. That's Roman Catholic theology all over. There's also a reason educated Roman Catholics often become lawyers (hence the current Supreme Court).
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Yeah dude. Theology is all about splitting hairs. You and that one dude who keeps trying to get me to defend biblical literacy don't seem to understand that. There's a bunch of silly stuff that's all them trying to have a single way to view it doesn't work. Some people use the things I posted to claim a literal interpretation. That's what was going on in the thread. However, it's all sort of whatever since you can interpret things however you want to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/do-you-read-the-bible-literally.html You've uncovered our secret, Vatican Karate Gorillas have been dispatched to your location
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:You've uncovered our secret, Vatican Karate Gorillas have been dispatched to your location Do they have rights to personhood?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
Silly, gorillas don't exist, haven't you read, The Bible?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:Silly, gorillas don't exist, haven't you read, The Bible? Obviously they just fell out of favor with the lord.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Post more links that go against your argument, it's really funny!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:Post more links that go against your argument, it's really funny! Na, you'll just confuse dictionary terms and try to claim some weird special snowflake right to do so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Let's not let this devolve into a petty slapfight, please. Christians who don't see the Bible as inerrant (or even infallible), yet believe its story about Jesus: why aren't you a Muslim? Have you studied the Koran? Have you sincerely considered that the conclusions of your spiritual guidance may contain at least one error?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Like I said, people should go with whatever faith works best from their point-of-view. Islam is dope, maybe I would be a Muslim if I was more familiar with it's tradition and concepts. Alas! I am a product of my time and place. Plus, my Muslim and Jewish brother and sisters don't really anthropomorphize the Almighty enough for my tastes. Gotta get absurd with that poo poo yo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:Like I said, people should go with whatever faith works best from their point-of-view. Hmm. So are you of the opinion that worshiping the wrong God, following the wrong faith, even believing (as part of said wrong faith) that Christianity is heretical - none of that is a problem for God? Doesn't matter, we're all saved regardless?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/do-you-read-the-bible-literally.html quote:Affirming that the entirety of Scripture is to be taken literally is a confession of fundamentalism, which is one of the few things our pluralistic society cannot tolerate. quote:Most often what our culture means by the phrase "reading Scripture literally," would be more correctly rendered "reading Scripture literalistically," that is, taking each word at face value apart from its literary context. Such an approach drains the life out of language; such readers leech the meaning out of Scripture.  The word "inerrant" within Catholicism means that the overall message of the Bible, that God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that none should not perish, but have everlasting life, is without flaw, but that individual books and verses need to be interpreted within the historical, cultural, and psychological context of the author when it was written. The Bible was inspired by God but written by flawed men who suffered their own biases and prejudices. Anything filtered through a human person is flawed. quote:And the definition stands, its splitting hairs to try to make one organization look more progressive than the other. Every time I read an article on the Roman Catholic sites about it, it reads like Libertarianism: Lots of words to cover make it look well read and intellectual. If you think that anything is a lot of words is without value, then I hope you spend all your time on Something Awful because you are in for a nasty surprise should you ever have to leave your basement. quote:Christians who don't see the Bible as inerrant (or even infallible), yet believe its story about Jesus: why aren't you a Muslim? I view the Bible as inerrant, but think this question was answered already. I am Catholic because I understand Catholicism to be more true for me than the alternatives. quote:Have you studied the Koran? I can't claim to have read the Qu'ran in Arabic because I am not fluent, but I understand the religion and its tenets. quote:Have you sincerely considered that the conclusions of your spiritual guidance may contain at least one error? Yes, it is possible I have made my conclusions in error, but the same goes for any action that I do. I don't think you will find a single human that can claim they have never experienced doubt about a decision that they have made. That's how choice tends to work. GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Hmm. So are you of the opinion that worshiping the wrong God, following the wrong faith, even believing (as part of said wrong faith) that Christianity is heretical - none of that is a problem for God? Doesn't matter, we're all saved regardless? All faiths, particularly the Abrahamic faiths, worship the same divine reality. There is no such thing as "the wrong God." QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
You are saying the same thing without thinking you are. The definitions are only so slightly different, in reality they might as well mean the same thing. The only reason it gets this special 'We're different because....' treatment is because its the Catholic Church. Its part of the whole 'We're the one true faith' dogma that they throw around. That's it. No other reason. The annoying part is it seems like for the most part these two views are still heavily debated even among Catholics and other Christian religions. So, I don't think you get to plant your flag just yet. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Hmm. So are you of the opinion that worshiping the wrong God, following the wrong faith, even believing (as part of said wrong faith) that Christianity is heretical - none of that is a problem for God? Doesn't matter, we're all saved regardless? For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:There is no such thing as "the wrong God." ...??? Thou shalt have no other gods before me? What???
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:...??? Thou shalt have no other gods before me? What??? QuoProQuid posted:All faiths, particularly the Abrahamic faiths, worship the same divine reality. There is no such thing as "the wrong God."  ya don't want to end up looking like CommieGIR. Reading carefully is key to understanding.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You are saying the same thing without thinking you are. The definitions are only so slightly different, in reality they might as well mean the same thing. Would you please explain how these two methods of interpretation are the same in specific terms? Unless you are defining literacy as "believing in Christ," then I'm still confused about what it is you are claiming. I would like to understand where you are coming from, but think we might be defining the word "literally" differently.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Hmm. So are you of the opinion that worshiping the wrong God, following the wrong faith, even believing (as part of said wrong faith) that Christianity is heretical - none of that is a problem for God? Doesn't matter, we're all saved regardless?  )Despite what you might think, universalism isn't a modern belief, it's actually a really old one. Like really, really old: you can trace universalism all the way back to Origen, an early Christian scholar who lived in the second century (184–253). Origen, a really cool early Christian dude posted:Origen was a scholar and early Christian theologian who was born and spent the first half of his career in Alexandria. He was a prolific writer in multiple branches of theology, including textual criticism, biblical exegesis and hermeneutics, philosophical theology, preaching, and spirituality. 
fade5 fucked around with this message at 05:27 on Dec 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
fade5 posted:Welcome to the wonderful, wonderful world of universalism, aka universal reconciliation. It's a somewhat less mainstream belief, and some of the various Christian sects consider it heretical. (Ooh, these guys think these other guys' beliefs are heretical, that's never happened among the various Christan sects before. To be fair, it's absolutely a brand of Christianity I can get on board with. Not in that I'm convinced of Christ's divinity, but in that I can jive with it existing. It's kind of "everyone's searching, no one really knows, we'll all end up saved in the end, be cool, peace"
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
Yes, that would make you a Universalist. Whoops, you sneezed and became an atheist again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Yes, that would make you a Universalist. Whoops, you sneezed and became an atheist again. I'm not sure I take your point. Hey, have any a y'all motha fuckas ever seen Jesus Camp?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I'm not sure I take your point. I found it alternatingly hilarious, creepy, and pathetic. Often more than one at the same time, come to think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:Like I said, people should go with whatever faith works best from their point-of-view. Not anthropomorphizing God is a major theological point of Islam.  ?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 09:00
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:
I did read carefully, you're ignoring my point. This is nonsensical. God Himself prescribes that we must not worship anything but Him. I feel like this wouldn't be such a strongly emphasized rule if it weren't possible. Are you suggesting that even when people worship Brahma, call him a different name, assign him different attributes, and think of him completely differently and mistakenly, that they are still actually worshiping the real God, even if they don't realize it? Even if, in addition to worshiping their God, they think of the Christian version of God as false?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:
Its all about interpretation amirite?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I did read carefully, you're ignoring my point. This is nonsensical. God Himself prescribes that we must not worship anything but Him. I feel like this wouldn't be such a strongly emphasized rule if it weren't possible. There are people that believe that. Now can you actually read this thread through again, and stop trying to apply logic to faith? It doesn't work, and you're wasting everyone's time hardheadedly missing the point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
I was hoping this thread would be about the Book of Revelation, and the problem is that there's no Michael Bay-directed textually-accurate film adaptation yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Thanks, and I look forward to some illumination on this topic. The cynic in me would tell you "Because neither of them are actually being guided by the holy spirit and what you described sounds like a complicated way of saying 'Don't think about it, just go with what feels right.' Which entirely explains why people would give different answers because there's nothing divine about it, just two opposing gut reactions." Assuming you're looking for a faith based rationalisation for the behavior, obviously one of the people isn't really talking to the holy spirit, they just think they are, so their faith isn't strong enough and they are misguided/heretics/possessed depending on your preference. I would argue that any justification for the discrepancy is only ever going to be that, a justification after the fact for something you don't really have a clue why it happens. Of course, if the justification is attained by 'asking the holy spirit' then I suppose that makes it divinely inspired and thus true, but that's sort of like asking someone you think might be wrong, if they're wrong or not, then trusting the answer. GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I did read carefully, you're ignoring my point. This is nonsensical. God Himself prescribes that we must not worship anything but Him. I feel like this wouldn't be such a strongly emphasized rule if it weren't possible. Doesn't God say you shouldn't have any gods before him? Which presumably means you can believe in other gods so long as you are first loyal to capital God? Or does he contradict that later? OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Dec 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
redstormpopcorn posted:I was hoping this thread would be about the Book of Revelation, and the problem is that there's no Michael Bay-directed textually-accurate film adaptation yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
LaughMyselfTo posted:Not anthropomorphizing God is a major theological point of Islam. Yup, although they certainly use human characteristics to describe "Him", as do Jews and Christians. Many thinkers of theses tradtions acknowledge that God is beyond our languages' ability to fully explain or understand, but through continuous thought and prayer and argument and debate over the long centuries we can figure out some useful approximations. To me, this means believing that God has a literal human aspect, like a very specific dude, but that is my bias as a Christian. I'm fine that other monotheists drop the Jewish peasant from Roman Palestine, it's close enough. GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I did read carefully, you're ignoring my point. This is nonsensical. God Himself prescribes that we must not worship anything but Him. I feel like this wouldn't be such a strongly emphasized rule if it weren't possible. Read more carefully. QuoProQuid posted:All faiths, particularly the Abrahamic faiths, worship the same divine reality. There is no such thing as "the wrong God." QuoProQuid posted:All faiths, particularly the Abrahamic faiths, WORSHIP THE SAME DIVINE REALITY. There is no such thing as "the wrong God." QuoProQuid posted:All faiths, particularly the Abrahamic faiths, WORSHIP THE SAME DIVINE REALITY. There is no such thing as "the wrong God." QuoProQuid posted:All faiths, particularly the Abrahamic faiths, WORSHIP THE SAME DIVINE REALITY. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "THE WRONG GOD" I'm quoting QuoProQuid because I agree with what he/she says here. I'm not very familiar with Eastern concepts, but from what little I've heard, nibbana or brahman share some similarities with the Western God. Good enough I say! Now obviously even within every religion, there are disputes, like whether or not the Christian god would send anyone to hell for example. Figuring out which interpretations work best for a person depends a lot on the reading comprehension, morals and reason of that individual. External factors too, like where you were born and raised. I reject Hell and Biblical literalism because from my perspective, they are foolish nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:I reject Hell and Biblical literalism because from my perspective, they are foolish nonsense. Splitting Hairs again are we? Not only do you get to pick and chose what in the Bible is acceptable, you get to pick and chose God's eternal plan?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
It's me, im god
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
Yes, of course. You are actually correct here. I'm sure that's a new experience for you, but don't be frightened! Embrace it, learn from it, become it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 02:08
|
|