I don't get it...if you are a non-Catholic Christian, then why aren't you a Catholic Christian?

[larkin31]

Jesus did not rebel against anything that was established by God prior to His coming. Nor did he abrogate any authority that was appointed, such as the Seat of Moses. On the contrary, he fulfilled the Law and the Prophets through His perfect obedience to them.

Jesus rebelled against the misuse of authority only.

tomato, tomahto

this is my point: Jesus was a rebel against those appointed to carry out God’s laws

 

[benedictus2]

It is not rocket science to figure out that Paul was talking about us humans, not Jesus

But Jesus IS human LIKE US.

To even suggest that Jesus sinned, is outrageously ridiculous!

PR wasn’t suggesting that Jesus sinned. That was a natural conclusion from your stricly literal reading of the text.

You are just looking for an out, to verify Paul’s not being literal, by your standards! Was Paul infallible? Then why would he say,“I am a wretched man!?”

Sinlessness and infallibility are two different things. The former pertains to morality the latter to doctrine.

In fact, Paul said,“He became sin, who knew no sin,” or was that from the Book of Isaiah?

And how exactly do you understand that phrase : Jesus became sin?

 

[benedictus2]

The spreading of the idea of purity and infallibility over time through the teachings of the Catholic Church is one of the reasons that I could never be one. It seems so unnecessary, to me, to insist on the impossibility of error in the writings and teachings in these documents whose provenance is so varied and complex and in some cases, muddied.

Let me explain why infallibility is NECESSARY.

You believe in the Bible right? How do you know that the Bible is inerrant? What makes you so sure that it is the word of God? Did Jesus come down again and say this Bible is inerrant? Yet, you believe 100% in the Bible.

The only reason we know the Bible is inerrant because the Church said so. It is only because of the Catholic Church that we have the Bible.

Now if the Church is not infallible in matters of faith and doctrine, then how can we be sure that the Bible is indeed the word of God. Maybe the ones they included shoudl be ommited and the ones they eschewed should have been part of the Bible.

We don’t even know who really wrote some of them (like the books “of Moses”).

Precisely! So how do you know that it is indeed the word of God and how do you know that certain parts should be read literally.

I have never been an absolutist (a condition, honestly, that I consider neurotic), my church and my Protestant minister father NEVER taught infallibility in the texts and teachings of Jesus as written in these very human documents

If these texts are not inerrant, then how do we know which one is true? Which book, verse, etc, can we really ought to follow because it is the teaching of Jesus Christ. Do you seriously believe that a group of followers mired in this uncertainty is what Jesus had in mind for His Church.

Come to think of it, how do we even know that Jesus is indeed God if we can’t be certain for sure which, text is true and infallible and which text is not?

, and the wisdom held therein was never reliant upon the idea of perfect freedom of error.

If we can never be certain of freedom from error in doctrine, then Jesus failed in His promise to lead His Church into all truth. If Jesus fails then Jesus is not God.

 

[benedictus2]

My opinion: I just don’t know why any Truth-seeking person would follow an idea, a person, a church that claims it’s going to be wrong. That defies logic and reason, IMHO.

Well said! But perhaps said Truth seeker is not really truth seeker but self - seeker thereby following what is most pleasing to the ego?

 

[benedictus2]

No, it isn’t. You keep simply trying to pin me into little rhetorical corners for little points. It’s really kind of funny. But it doesn’t work.

Nope. PR Merger is right. You are making absolute statements when you make a statement that is absolute. Just like when people say that there are no absolutes. Well duh, that in itself is an absolute statement.

If you mean to suggest that “My name is Frank” is an “absolute” (or an “absolutist statement”) like “all murder is wrong,” then you are simply engaging in sophistry for some other reason of your faith. If you mean to claim that all declarative sentences (e.g. “I like some types of meat”) is a form of “absolute,” then you are wasting our time here. But it is your prerogative, and your time to spend how you wish.

I think what PR Merger is trying to do is help you clarify your thinking.

 

[benedictus2]

oh, baloney



here is a real good reason that as a Protestant I was not interested in Catholic discourse

Oh hogwash! That real good reason that as a protestant you were not interested in Catholic discourse is perhaps due to weakness in the area of rational thought processes.

 

[benedictus2]

Glad you are so perfect!! Te church of the living God is the church of all believers and I am one of them, so lets just praise the Lord.

Sorry but no. Jesus built only one Church, the Catholic Church. If you were to study Church history you will find that out. Christ did not intend people to follow a book. Otherwise, He would have just written one. Instead He founded a Church upon Peter.

From the beginning there was only one church. Then through pride, disobedience, willfullness, self-interest, people started breaking off the Body of Christ.

But God is merciful and loving, so He never ceases to look for the lost and separated members that He may bring them back into His household.

You were a Catholic once and the Holy Spirit is at work trying to make you see your back to God’s church that you have left. But at this stage you are this guidance from the Holy Sprit because the wilfull self reigns. You want to be the lord , the determiner of morality. You insist on being God. But in the end the Holy Spirit will triumph and you will once again be re-united with your brothers and sisters in Christ. And then your joy will be full.

 

[PRmerger]

There is a real good reason that as a Protestant I was not interested in Catholic discourse

That is quite a meaningless sentence, coming from an agnostic.

It’s like a drowning man saying, “There is a real good reason that as a passenger on the cruise ship I was not interested in the filet mignon.” What? Who cares what you would have done as a passenger? You’re drowning now, man!

 

[PRmerger]

Jesus was a rebel against those appointed to carry out God’s laws

So peculiar that you keep pointing to things Jesus did, which you only know from Scripture, yet do not believe other things which Jesus did, such as rise from the dead, which are stated in the very same Scriptures.

How is it that you determine that Jesus did “rebel against those appointed to carry out God’s laws” but that he did not rise from the dead? Doesn’t it say he did both in the Scriptures?

 

[larkin31]

So peculiar that you keep pointing to things Jesus did, which you only know from Scripture, yet do not believe other things which Jesus did, such as rise from the dead, which are stated in the very same Scriptures.

How is it that you determine that Jesus did “rebel against those appointed to carry out God’s laws” but that he did not rise from the dead? Doesn’t it say he did both in the Scriptures?

You find it peculiar that a person does not believe in supernatural miracles? If the same thing were claimed in a biography of George Washington, I would be just as skeptical of that claim. I don’t believe that Jesus walked on water, either. And I certainly do not believe that Moses parted the Red Sea. And that Flood that covered the mountains? Well, you can guess what I think of that…But, peculiar as it may be to you, my disbelief in miracles does not logically mean that I have to throw out the possibility that Jesus was a real person in history who gained a following and was martyred. There are those that claim every word of the NT about “Jesus” is a fiction, but I am not one of them. THAT is another extreme position that I do not adhere to.

 

[PRmerger]

You find it peculiar that a person does not believe in supernatural miracles? If the same thing were claimed in a biography of George Washington, I would be just as skeptical of that claim. I don’t believe that Jesus walked on water, either. And I certainly do not believe that Moses parted the Red Sea. And that Flood that covered the mountains? Well, you can guess what I think of that…But, peculiar as it may be to you, my disbelief in miracles does not logically mean that I have to throw out the possibility that Jesus was a real person in history who gained a following and was martyred. There are those that claim every word of the NT about “Jesus” is a fiction, but I am not one of them. THAT is another extreme position that I do not adhere to.

Ok. I can see what you’re saying, Frank. (Is that your name, BTW? 'cause it either is, or it isn’t. Absolute, ya know?)

If you mean to suggest that “My name is Frank” is an “absolute” (or an “absolutist statement”).

Anyway, fair enough. You may claim that Jesus “rebelled against authorities” because you read it in Scripture, but disbelieve that he walked on water. That’s acceptable to me.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I don’t get it, you don’t believe me???

I believe that none of the priests you’ve encountered at various Masses have attacked Protestant figures. To say, however, that it is true that no Catholics have done so, would be absurd, as evidenced by the book referenced.

 

[larkin31]

Ok. I can see what you’re saying, Frank. (Is that your name, BTW? 'cause it either is, or it isn’t. Absolute, ya know?)

Anyway, fair enough. You may claim that Jesus “rebelled against authorities” because you read it in Scripture, but disbelieve that he walked on water. That’s acceptable to me.

It may be part of a name. Or it may have been my name in only one location, or at only one time, or only with one group of people. I may actually have no permanent name at all. Or it may be a nickname. Truth can be limited and transient and complicated. Fortunately.

 

[PRmerger]

It may be part of a name. Or it may have been my name in only one location, or at only one time, or only with one group of people. I may actually have no permanent name at all. Or it may be a nickname. Truth can be limited and transient and complicated. Fortunately.

So, is your name Frank? Yes or no. I appeal to your integrity in answering this question.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Hi Jimmy B-

Good question. The answer is simple. I am a catholic christian. However, I am not a Roman Catholic Christian.

Mike

 

[larkin31]

So, is your name Frank? Yes or no. I appeal to your integrity in answering this question.

I have been called frank, but Frank is not one of my present names of any kind.

I have no integrity absolutely.

 

[PRmerger]

I have been called frank, but Frank is not one of my present names of any kind.

My point has been made, then. “My name is Frank” is an absolute statement. Either it’s true, or it’s not.

I have no integrity absolutely.

An absolute statement if I ever heard one!

 

[larkin31]

My point has been made, then. “My name is Frank” is an absolute statement. Either it’s true, or it’s not.

Or a combination of both, or for a limited amount of space and time. That’s about as absolute as one gets in the real world.

In many stories I write, my name is “Frank.” Whoever “Frank” is.

ennui is again settling in with this kind of questioning from you… :yawn:

Are you just trying to get my name and address? :tsktsk:

 

[PRmerger]

In many stories I write, my name is “Frank.” Whoever “Frank” is.

There’s a reason it’s called a pseudonym. It’s false, yes?

ennui is again settling in with this kind of questioning from you… :yawn:

That’s when I know I’m getting to you–when you feel some “ennui” (read: discomfort). That, and when you get a bit grouchy.

Are you just trying to get my name and address? :tsktsk:

Isn’t that against the CAFs rules? (I never break the rules. Absolutely. Rule follower–that’s me!)

 

[PRmerger]

Or a combination of both, or for a limited amount of space and time. That’s about as absolute as one gets in the real world.

In many stories I write, my name is “Frank.” Whoever “Frank” is.

ennui is again settling in with this kind of questioning from you… :yawn:

Are you just trying to get my name and address? :tsktsk:

Look, Larkin-not Frank, the point is that there are many, many absolute truths in life. Not everything is just an opinion.

You must see that now.

Where the discussion begins–and it could be quite interesting–is whether MORAL absolutes exist.

Thus, you agree

-that this is an absolute truth:
Steak is not a vegetable.

-this is an opinion:
I like steak.

Now, your paradigm states this is an opinion:
Stealing is wrong

We state it is an absolute truth.