I'm not a Catholic because

[joe370]

dingodile

I have, after decades of struggle, some degree of faith. Like Kant, I am filled with wonder by the starry skies above and the moral law within. That inner moral compass is as miraculous as anything, even though I know well how easy it is to misread it.

Amen to that brother!!!

 

[geoformeo]

I think you are guilty of a false dilemma if you suppose that one must choose between infallibilism and nihilism. A nihilist believes in nothing, that no beliefs are ever warranted and knowledge is impossible. I don’t accept any of that. Just as science doesn’t depend upon a belief that the scientific method is infallible, rational belief in general doesn’t require a belief in infallibility. This isn’t nihilism.

I am not at all advocating an either/or choice between infallibilism and nihilism. In a sense, this is analogous to the “either/or” arguments many Protestants promote with regard to faith and reason: either you believe in God, or you believe in science. Which, of course, is utter nonsense. I am saying that there are both infallible revelations/declarations and there are many things that require a healthy dose of skepticism. But from what I gather from your posts, it appears that you don’t believe in anything with certainty.

Do you have any certain beliefs? Or is your entire life based on relativistic uncertainty? The thing is, one may have those convictions but nobody actually lives their life that way. You can’t. It is equivalent to the atheist who claims there is no absolute morality but then squawks about how “wrong” it is that somebody stole their computer or punched them in the face or slept with their spouse.

Make no mistake, much of life is uncertain. Quantum physics bears that out as a physical reality. But there are definite certainties, just as there are definite doubts. No, rational belief in general doesn’t require belief in infallibilism, but it doesn’t rule it out either.

 

[geoformeo]

I didn’t assert that the Church that Jesus founded “turned into something else,” because I don’t know exactly what it was that he was founding. I can’t simply assume that what the Church turned out to be is exactly what Jesus had in mind. My evidence is inductive.

As is mine, to a large degree. Ask yourself this: why would the Apostles and early Christians go through the torments that they endured, why would they vehemently oppose heretics, why would they devote their entire livelihoods to the rigorous defense of something which did not happen or that they had very little reason to believe was accurate?

The oldest gospel is generally accepted to be Mark’s, and it probably wasn’t written until about 40 years after the death of Jesus. We don’t know, and cannot know, how much of the teaching of Jesus had already been distorted by then.

Actually, this is not accurate. Luke wrote both his gospel as well as Acts. Acts ends before Paul was killed in Rome in 67 AD, and Luke drew much of his material from Mark, which had to have been written before then. Also, there is much internal evidence (as well as tradition) which suggests Matthew’s gospel was actually the first written (which is why it is included first in the line of gospels in the canon in the first place).

We don’t know how much of the teaching was never properly understood in the first place. You want to know my evidence for the teachings of Jesus having been distorted or partially forgotten or misunderstood. My answer is simply that this sort of thing happens all the time, even with people who are trying their best to get it right. People are fallible, you see. I don’t think I need to adduce any special evidence for that. Rather, the burden is on anyone who claims that mortals are ever infallible.

The gospels clearly show that every single time the Apostles misunderstand Jesus, He corrects them. Every time. Sure, the gospel writers could have intentionally lied or made up what Jesus said and did. But again, what gain would that get them? Drawn and quartered, fed to wild beasts, burned at the stake, beheaded…great list of gains.

Like Joe says in a later post, you take the God element out of it. I 100% agree with you that if we were left to our own devices, of course there would be no such thing as infallibility, as it is the “sort of thing you see everyday”. But it comes back to Jesus as Truth Incarnate and His promise of infallibly guiding His Church. Human infallibility is not possible without God.

I find no evidence that the people within the Church were less susceptible to error than anyone else.

Where is your evidence that they are just as susceptible? How about the inductive evidence of unchanged teachings for 2000 years without an internal collapse despite human failings and sin? How many kingdoms, empires, governments, and countries have come and gone in that span and yet a single institution remains?

Who established that inspiration entails infallibility?

God did.

Again, the burden isn’t on me to defend the claim that mortals are fallible. This is common knowledge. The burden is on you to defend the claim that sometimes they’re not. It’s entirely circular to rest your argument upon the allegedly infallible interpretation of the very sources whose infallibility is in question.

I am not arguing the claim that mortals are fallible. I am arguing for the claim that God can grant His infallibility to humans, which is exactly what Jesus did. So, if God has the power to do this, and if Jesus was God, and if Jesus passed infallibility on to the Church, then the Church has Jesus’ infallibility (in exactly the same way He granted priests the ability to forgive sins. Men can’t do that, but they most certainly can if He authorizes them to do so in His name.) That is not circular.

You have been avoiding the question I’ve raised multiple times. Was Jesus God or not? Ultimately that is the question, because everything else is predicated on this fact.

The argument comes to:

1. Jesus was God.
2. God is not limited to keeping His infallibility to Himself.
3. Jesus gave His infallible authority to bind and loose on matters of faith and morals to the Church.
4. To ensure infallibility, Jesus promised the Holy Spirit (also God) to guide said Church to “all truth”.

Ergo, the Church is infallible.

Of course, the record of such events are contained within Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, but that is only because a) in reality, the Church is the only one who cares what Jesus said and did; had there not been a Church the teachings of Jesus (and many of the ancient Greeks, for that matter) would never be known; and b) the eyewitnesses were the only ones who could validate or invalidate any claims regarding what Jesus actually said and did.

In the end, as Joe said, it ultimately comes down to faith. My faith is not a blind one, but based upon the evidence I’ve provided. You have faith in your skepticism of the fallibility of human beings. I think you hit it on the head in a previous post when you said we will have only as much information/certainty as we need before having to make a final leap of faith in one way or another. I follow St. Augustine: “I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.”

 

[dingodile]

Do you have any certain beliefs?

Sure I do.

That is, there are many things that I believe with certainty. There’s a bit of ambiguity in the phrase “certain belief.” As far as I’m concerned, certainty is a psychological property of people, not beliefs. People can be certain of some beliefs. Thus, to call a belief certain is either to say that someone actually does feel certain about it, or that people should feel certain about it. Thus, it’s unclear whether talking about “certain beliefs” is descriptive or prescriptive.

But there are many things that I believe with certainty.

Or is your entire life based on relativistic uncertainty?

First nihilism, now relativism. The relativist believes that propostions are at best “true for you” or “true for me” but not simply true for everyone. I’m not a relativist.

Make no mistake, much of life is uncertain. Quantum physics bears that out as a physical reality. But there are definite certainties, just as there are definite doubts. No, rational belief in general doesn’t require belief in infallibilism, but it doesn’t rule it out either.

I have never claimed that rational belief in general rules out the very possibility of infallibility. I do claim that there’s insufficient reason to believe that it exists among mortals, due to (a) the very strong inductive evidence of human fallibility, and (b) the circularity of the reasoning adduced for infallibility (which I’ve already explained).

 

[dingodile]

As is mine, to a large degree. Ask yourself this: why would the Apostles and early Christians go through the torments that they endured, why would they vehemently oppose heretics, why would they devote their entire livelihoods to the rigorous defense of something which did not happen or that they had very little reason to believe was accurate?

What “something” are you referring to? The resurrection of Jesus or the doctrine of infallibility? I haven’t claimed that the resurrection didn’t happen.

The gospels clearly show that every single time the Apostles misunderstand Jesus, He corrects them. Every time. Sure, the gospel writers could have intentionally lied or made up what Jesus said and did. But again, what gain would that get them? Drawn and quartered, fed to wild beasts, burned at the stake, beheaded…great list of gains.

They could have also misremembered, misquoted, and misinterpreted, but with utter conviction.

Like Joe says in a later post, you take the God element out of it. I 100% agree with you that if we were left to our own devices, of course there would be no such thing as infallibility, as it is the “sort of thing you see everyday”. But it comes back to Jesus as Truth Incarnate and His promise of infallibly guiding His Church. Human infallibility is not possible without God.

You’re back in your circular argument. As long as it’s possible that the people who heard, repeated, eventually wrote, and interpreted the words of Jesus were fallible, we simply cannot rationally help ourselves to the assumption that they weren’t. But all arguments that purport to show that it’s not possible either presuppose the infallibility of these very things or they rest on unsupportable assumptions about what God would or would not do.

Where is your evidence that they are just as susceptible?

The burden isn’t on me to provide special evidence for what everyone already knows, i.e., that people misremember, misunderstand, and misinterpret things. Rather the burden is on you (or any other infallibilist) to show that infallibility exists in this special instance, and to do so non-circularly.

How about the inductive evidence of unchanged teachings for 2000 years without an internal collapse despite human failings and sin? How many kingdoms, empires, governments, and countries have come and gone in that span and yet a single institution remains?

As far as I know, certain Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of no-self (anatta) have been unchanged for even longer than that. Is mere constancy evidence of truth? I say no.

I am not arguing the claim that mortals are fallible. I am arguing for the claim that God can grant His infallibility to humans, which is exactly what Jesus did. So, if God has the power to do this, and if Jesus was God, and if Jesus passed infallibility on to the Church, then the Church has Jesus’ infallibility (in exactly the same way He granted priests the ability to forgive sins. Men can’t do that, but they most certainly can if He authorizes them to do so in His name.) That is not circular.

Look at the modality of your argument. If I may rephrase it…

1. God can arrange for mortals to be infalliible.
2. If he did so, then the Church can be infallible in its teaching.

I don’t dispute those statements, but as it stands it’s an enthymeme. Without the additional premise that God did arrange for mortals to be infallible, it doesn’t support the conclusion that the Church actually is infallible.

You can’t reason from:

1. Possibly P
2. If P then Q

to Q. The best you can get from those premises is Possibly Q. To get what you want you need:

1. P

But your argument for P unfortunately presupposes P.

The argument comes to:

1. Jesus was God.
2. God is not limited to keeping His infallibility to Himself.
3. Jesus gave His infallible authority to bind and loose on matters of faith and morals to the Church.
4. To ensure infallibility, Jesus promised the Holy Spirit (also God) to guide said Church to “all truth”.

Ergo, the Church is infallible.

The problem is the utter fallibility of premises 3 and 4. Your certainty with respect to them is based on presupposing your conclusion.

In the end, as Joe said, it ultimately comes down to faith. My faith is not a blind one, but based upon the evidence I’ve provided. You have faith in your skepticism of the fallibility of human beings. I think you hit it on the head in a previous post when you said we will have only as much information/certainty as we need before having to make a final leap of faith in one way or another. I follow St. Augustine: “I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.”

I have no quarrel with anyone who says simply “I believe that all that the Church teaches is true, because I have faith that this is how God would do things.” When our beliefs are underdetermined by evidence, as they so often are, it’s faith that lets us step across the gap, so to speak, and believe anyway. My problem is with the position that the case for infallibilism is so logically compelling that it’s irrational to believe otherwise. I just don’t see it.

 

[Roy5]

It’s tempting to spend a lot of time on this and other interesting topics on CAF, but I need to focus attention elsewhere. But let me focus on two points.

** About 15 years ago I spent time in India,** some of it as guest of a Hindu family in Puna. All this business of who gets to heaven strikes me as beyond human understanding, and I find any definitive discussion of hell, heaven, purgatory, etc., as purely speculative. While I personally believe in an afterlife, I’m aware that ego may have something to do with it. Me die forever? Not a very attractive idea. As to what the afterlife is like - well, I don’t think we have any reliable details. Lots of symbolism, but few facts.

** Now, as to that Hindu family, if they don’t get to heaven, I am nervous about my own fate**. Wonderful people, sophisticated, kind, generous. They had an altar of sorts with images of various gods and goddesses. They asked me for a picture of Jesus to add to this altar. I didn’t give them one, but what I deeply appreciated was their total tolerance toward other faiths - well, except perhaps Islam, because their parents had been refugees from what now is Pakistan. Islam seems to produce far more dogmatism than Hinduism - though, by the way, there are some Hindu nationalists, too. This Hindu family sent their children to what they said was a Catholic school. When I visited it one day, the sign said “sponsored by the Church of North India” (or was that South India?). Anyway, it was a Protestant school, but the Hindu family wasn’t concerned either way,. They simply wanted their children to get a great education.

** My problem with Catholicism, as I wrote earlier, is that it requires lockstep thinking** on questions about which I won’t stop thinking independently. Just today I was reading an op-ed in the NYTimes that an estimated 112 million babies a year are not aborted because of family planning involving artificial birth control. Yet, the RC still sharply condemns artificial birth control even though it permits ‘natural family planning’ whose goal is the very same. With the world population at 7 billion, and 9 billion estimated by 2050, with poverty especially rampant in areas where there is little family planning, how can the RC claim to be sensitive on such issues and still stick with its iron-clad position on this matter? Beats me.

 **I also treasure the freedom to 'think and let think' on a host of other theological questions,** from transubstantiation to the immaculate conception, from absolution by a priest to marriage of priests, from Biblical literalism to the ordination of women. I do not condemn others faiths, if people choose to follow them. That's their right. If they find comfort in their particular religion, okay. Different strokes for different folks.

** Re heresy. I did my undergraduate thesis on Aquinas.** What a shock it was to come across his solution for heresy. No, he said, the church should not kill heretics. Instead, it should turn them over to the civil authorities to be executed. That seemed to be the Catholic position for several centuries. Fortunately, today it shows an interest in religious liberty now that Christianity is under assault in parts of the world…

** I guess I am a Matt. 25 Christian**. When Jesus expanded on the theme of who gets to heaven, he doesn;t say a word about doctrine or church affiliation. He speaks of feeding the hungry and other acts of love. I go with that.

** One final off-tangent point. **This morning I was watching EWTN, and the guest being interviewed by Fr. Pacwa has written some books on purgatory. I thought it was interesting how our prayers - plus paid-for masses, etc. - can shorten (allegedly) the stay of relatives and friends in the punishments of purgatory and get them into heaven quicker. This somehow reminded me of the incident that started the Reformation 500 years ago - when Tetzel frightened well-meaning German Catholics into contributing toward the construction of St. Peter’s by telling them that their great pain being suffered by their loved ones in Purgatory would be lessened if they gave generously. Is this idea still valid in the RC? I always found it curious that in one sense the construction of St. Peter’s played such a key role in the development of early Protestantism.

** God bless everybody** - of every creed, color,culture and country,

 

[Ahimsa]

They asked me for a picture of Jesus to add to this altar. I didn’t give them one…

Why not?

 

[Roy5]

Ahimsa
Why I did not give them a picture of Jesus?

(1)** I didn’t have one**. Of course, there are no actual pictures of Jesus.

(2) While I am the sort of Christian who respects other faiths - including Hinduism - I am not a polytheist and would be bit uncomfortable giving a picture of Christ to be mixed in with all the various Hindu gods and goddesses, which are essentially mythological. The family I was with explained that these deities (in their mind) were symbols. Hinduism was more a matter of their culture than their faith. This particular family tended toward pantheism, popular among well-educated Hindus - seeing God in everything and everybody. As one consequence, they were vegetarians who did not believe in killing animals for food. I confess that I grew a bit impatient with the dirty cows who roamed the streets freely, often sat down and caused even slower movement of vehicles, their dung everywhere, etc.

 There were things about India and even that family which troubled me. They employed two young girls as housemaids, helping to sustain an 'outcast' family. That was good. However, the girls were treated poorly, never greeted when they arrived each morning, never ate with the family, etc. So, even this wonderful family was still being influenced by centuries of the caste system, though they were helping one outcast family. Americans have little to say when we consider what was done to Native Americans, African-Americans, Japanese-Americans, etc. I am a staunch patriot, but there is no perfect nation or society.

 (3) **Did I note that you are a Jesus Buddhist? **That interests me. I spent time in Japan, Korea and (less so) in China and there is much in Buddhism that I admire, too. I think the original story re Buddha, how he abandoned his family to achieve nirvana for himself - now, I've always been troubled by that account. I also have been, perhaps, much too much of an activist to admire the strong emphasis traditional Buddhism had placed upon life as a monk. Even so, there is much in Buddhist scriptures and teachings that I do embrace. Like Christianity, too often Buddhists have not reflected the key precepts of that faith.

 (4)** As I recall, doesn't Ahimsa mean, in effect, an attitude of pacifism, reverence for life, non-injury, etc.? **Do you embrace that view? I come close, though under certain extreme conditions I would personally respond with force. If, for example, an armed escapee from a nearby mental hospital invaded my home and threatened to kill members of my family, I would shoot him first (if I had a weapon within reach). So, I guess I'm not a total pacifist. Still, I do try to abide by the Sermon on the Mount as much as possible.

 God bless everybody.

 

[ReginaCoeli]

I’m not a Catholic because the Easter Vigil hasn’t arrived yet

Welcome Home Balian!! I, too, am a convert; Easter Vigil 2009. Coming home has been the greatest, most important thing in my life. I hope your experience @ Easter Vigil is as wonderful as mine was.

 

[Ahimsa]

I think the original story re Buddha, how he abandoned his family to achieve nirvana for himself - now, I’ve always been troubled by that account.

No need to worry: (1) being of royal family, the wife and child were well taken care of; and (2) the wife and child eventually became practicing Buddhists, and realized Nirvana.

(4)** As I recall, doesn’t Ahimsa mean, in effect, an attitude of pacifism, reverence for life, non-injury, etc.? **Do you embrace that view?

Ahimsa means “non-violence”; and sometimes one has to act “violently” in order to prevent even greater violence.

 

[jmoneyideas]

I found Christ a little over a year and a half ago. I was made aware of him in a weeeee little church and enjoy it very much although as I have grown in my walk with the lord I have been searching for a spiritual truth and that church to me is the Roman Catholic Church. From my time watching Father Barron on youtube to listening to The Catholic Channel on XM radio, it is definitely calling me. So maybe soon I will move from my weeeee little church that is full of amazing people and move onto where God has called me. The idea of the Change is a little scary for me since my Pastor and I are such good friends outside of church and he is a ex catholic turned Pentecostal and is now heading are little Non denominational church. He gets a little defensive when ever I bring up Catholicism in discussion with him. I also forward things to him to see his reply about certain things that are drawing me closer to THE church. Maybe soon I will make the Leap of Faith and find a home in Catholic church.

 

[patmiron]

=Roy5;

** About 15 years ago I spent time in India,** some of it as guest of a Hindu family in Puna. All this business of who gets to heaven strikes me as beyond human understanding, and I find any definitive discussion of hell, heaven, purgatory, etc., as purely speculative.

My problem with Catholicism, as I wrote earlier, is that it requires lockstep thinking on questions about which I won’t stop thinking independently. Just today I was reading an op-ed in the NYTimes that an estimated 112 million babies a year are not aborted because of family planning involving artificial birth control. Yet, the RC still sharply condemns artificial birth control even though it permits ‘natural family planning’ whose goal is the very same.

May I attempt to respond to this very well articulated set of beliefs.

1. Belief in heaven, hell and purgatory are both logical and biblical. Logical because of all created and existing things only One; man, can rationalize and love. The odds of this being anything other an intentional design are MANY BILLIONS TO one. Man alone has a mind, intellect, freewill attached to our eternal souls [the cause of life for this discussion].
2. Because man alone has these gifts it is logical to conclude they exist for a precise reason. The ability to determine for ourselves what we will or will not believe, practice or accept is the reason these attributes do exist.
3. The Creator [source] of these gifts intends them to be used to know, love, obey and serve Him. We call this Creator =God.
4. Because we can freely choose to do or not do this is evidence of the goodness and love of the Creator. Because we make the choice and even science acknowledges that actions have reactions [or consequences], we can KNOW that both good and evil [our choice] must and will have there natural consequences. Our souls, minds, intellects and freewill being of Spiritual nature cannot die or be killed. And thus heaven hell and purgatory are a necessary condition of man’s nature and choices by a Just God.
5. As for the CC “lockstep” requirement. God who can be defined as ‘All good things perfected” gives humanity two choices and then allows us to choose. Either we are in charge of our life and our decisions or we permit God to be in charge. It’s cannot be a shared responsibility. So what the CC demands is what God Himself COMMANDS. Everyone is given the opportunity to know God, and everyone can accept or decline this knowledge. It’s OUR choice.

1Pet.4: 13 ” But rejoice in so far as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.

1Pet.5: 1, 9 “So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experience of suffering is required of your brotherhood throughout the world.”

1. As for the birth issues. Either God who creates life and controls death is in charge or we are. Regulating birth through NATURAL family planning conforms to God still being in charge as this is an option He God provides. All other forms of birth-control have as there goal to bypass God’s role and authority and allow man to usurp these Godly powers. They are gravely sinful. Abortion is flat out murder of those unable to defend themselves. Actions will, and do have consequences,

The worlds problem is NOT over-population; but excessive greed. There is enough for everyone [except for those that are never satisfied, no matter how much they have.]

Out of space, but my friend your positions are not justified by either God or logic.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Sufjon]

As for the birth issues. Either God who creates life and controls death is in charge or we are. Regulating birth through NATURAL family planning conforms to God still being in charge as this is an option He God provides. All other forms of birth-control have as there goal to bypass God’s role and authority and allow man to usurp these Godly powers.

So, does taking cholesterol mediation rather than just diet and exercise bypass God’s plan for how you avoid a heart attack? How about insulin for type 2 diabetes rather than just diet and exercise? If diet and exercise alone won’t do it, then must it be God’s will that you die? What are the boundaries that define whether humankind improving our lot interferes with a divine plan? What words of Jesus are we construing to mean thou shalt not use a condom or take a pill?

The worlds problem is NOT over-population; but excessive greed. There is enough for everyone [except for those that are never satisfied, no matter how much they have.]

I can agree that greed is a huge problem. It always has been and I imagine that it always will be. As for overpopulation not being a problem, what do you reckon is the limit that this planet can support? 8 Billion? A trillion? Or do you reason that there is no limit? We’ve added a billion people in just over a decade, and doubled the world’s population since Neal Armstrong walked on the moon. How long would you say that we can sustain that sort of growth?

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Kouyate42]

Scrub any other posts i’ve made in this thread, I’m not a Catholic because through study of the Old Testament and the halachah, as well as attendance at my local Orthodox synagogue and learning about Judaism, I am satisfied that the Moshiach is not Yeshua (Jesus). The Jewish religion is very specific on who the Moshiach is and how he is to be idenfied, and Jesus does not fit this profile in many ways.

 

[ufamtobie]

Its not so much that I’m not Catholic, as it is I am Lutheran. But to answer your question, I’ll point to 2 things:

1. I still find the Augsburg Confession to be a confession of faith that is both catholic and evangelical, and one I can still confess without any serious question of conscience.
2. I continue to find the current claims of universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the pope to be outside the teachings of the early councils and Church. This is for me the overriding factor in remaining outside of communion with the Bishop of Rome, something I would be happy to resolve.

Jon

Hey there Johnny,

In your opinion What has the Pope or past Popes done wrong with their God Given right of having the universal jurisdiction and infallibility that you my brother are so against?

Now let me be the first to tell you that if the Pope were to say that abortion, homosexuality, or to sum it all up and he were to say you can break any of the Ten Commandment, and following the teachings of Christ is an error, then I would say this Pope is wrong! But has any Pope ever said such things? No! So now again I ask you why does it bother you so?

The Pope is a Man a Sinner like the rest of us sinners, Jesus Christ knows this but yet he still left His Church in the Hands of Men to guide us his people with Authority and Jurisdiction.

The Church has the Authority and Jurisdiction, you should be asking yourself why your church don’t.

Ufam Tobie

 

[Ahimsa]

Scrub any other posts i’ve made in this thread, I’m not a Catholic because through study of the Old Testament and the halachah, as well as attendance at my local Orthodox synagogue and learning about Judaism, I am satisfied that the Moshiach is not Yeshua (Jesus). The Jewish religion is very specific on who the Moshiach is and how he is to be idenfied, and Jesus does not fit this profile in many ways.

Are you Hasidic? Why or why not?

 

[geoformeo]

What “something” are you referring to? The resurrection of Jesus or the doctrine of infallibility? I haven’t claimed that the resurrection didn’t happen.

The “something” is the whole Jesus story: life, death, resurrection, miracles, handing of the keys of heaven to Peter, etc.

This will be the last time I ask you the question. Was Jesus God or not? If you won’t answer the question, then I guess we are done here, because my whole argument relies on the reliability and trustworthiness of Jesus. It seems to me that no evidence of any sort would satisfy you.

They could have also misremembered, misquoted, and misinterpreted, but with utter conviction.

Not if they were being guided by the Holy Spirit. What is more unbelievable (or more “miraculous”)?: 1) that the Gospels are entirely accurate; or 2) that the world was converted to Christianity from either a deliberate lie or inaccurate portrayals of the sayings and deeds of Jesus.

As long as it’s possible that the people who heard, repeated, eventually wrote, and interpreted the words of Jesus were fallible, we simply cannot rationally help ourselves to the assumption that they weren’t.

That is correct. However, you are leaving out the trustworthiness of Jesus and His faithfulness to His word. The Church is not infallible without Christ.

The burden isn’t on me to provide special evidence for what everyone already knows, i.e., that people misremember, misunderstand, and misinterpret things. Rather the burden is on you (or any other infallibilist) to show that infallibility exists in this special instance, and to do so non-circularly.

True, but you apparently will not accept any evidence. Simply put, what kind of evidence would convince you? I know that I don’t have direct, empirical evidence. I’ve just been trying to show that not only is it logically possible, but there is inductive evidence that suggests infallibility exists in this special instance.

You argue circularity because you won’t accept answers from the Church. But think about that for a second. If you really want to know answers to specific things, you ask an expert in that field. I don’t go to my dentist for tax questions. I don’t go to a botanist for physical therapy questions. You go to the source to find the real answers. But your whole argument is that “because the Church said it, it can’t be so”. That is equivalent to asking a Hindu about Christian theology. How much sense does that make?

The Church was founded by Christ. The Apostles sat at His feet and heard Him speak. Does it really make sense that these guys would follow Jesus around for 3 years hearing Him speak profoundly and work miracles, and not write any of it down until after the fact? These were the guys who were there. No outside source, aside from these guys, would have any legitimate claim to know what Jesus actually did or said. So your asking for evidence outside of the Church is irrational, illogical, and ignorant of where the truth of the matter would lie.

As far as I know, certain Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of no-self (anatta) have been unchanged for even longer than that. Is mere constancy evidence of truth? I say no.

But Buddhism is not an institution. Constancy may not be evidence of truth, but it sure is a lot closer than inconstancy.

You can’t reason from:

1. Possibly P
2. If P then Q

to Q. The best you can get from those premises is Possibly Q.

That’s all I’m trying to get you to see! That Q is possible. I’m not trying to definitively show that infallibility is real and true, because that requires a leap of faith. But it is not illogical or irrational to believe in, and there is a great deal of inductive evidence that suggests its reality.

My problem is with the position that the case for infallibilism is so logically compelling that it’s irrational to believe otherwise. I just don’t see it.

Then maybe we have just been talking past one another, because I feel the same way, only from the other side: I take issue with those who say that it is irrational to believe in infallibility because all humans are fallible. I’m sorry if I’ve misunderstood you this whole time.

 

[dingodile]

This will be the last time I ask you the question. Was Jesus God or not? If you won’t answer the question, then I guess we are done here, because my whole argument relies on the reliability and trustworthiness of Jesus. It seems to me that no evidence of any sort would satisfy you.

My answer: I think so. I can’t be certain.

Not if they were being guided by the Holy Spirit. What is more unbelievable (or more “miraculous”)?: 1) that the Gospels are entirely accurate; or 2) that the world was converted to Christianity from either a deliberate lie or inaccurate portrayals of the sayings and deeds of Jesus.

I find (2) much more believable. But we should be clear that the conversion of “the world” hasn’t happened yet, and may never happen. It seems to me that it was, and is, belief in the fact of the resurrection that is most responsible for the spread of Christianity.

That is correct. However, you are leaving out the trustworthiness of Jesus and His faithfulness to His word. The Church is not infallible without Christ.

And you are simply assuming that the trustworthiness of Jesus implies the infallibility of others.

True, but you apparently will not accept any evidence. Simply put, what kind of evidence would convince you? I know that I don’t have direct, empirical evidence. I’ve just been trying to show that not only is it logically possible, but there is inductive evidence that suggests infallibility exists in this special instance.

Induction isn’t your friend when it comes to unique circumstances. Now, you may say that the case for the resurrection is just as weak, or as strong, as the case for the infallibility of the Church, and for exactly the same reasons. Our belief in it is based on the very same texts and traditions. But in fact, it’s not quite the same. The resurrection was an observable spatiotemporal event. Jesus died, the tomb was found empty, we was later seen again by many. We know exactly what these things mean, and we have multiple eyewitness reports of many details.

When it comes to the alleged promise of infallibility, things are different. We have statements framed in metaphor. Assuming that Jesus actually said “The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church”, in just those words, we don’t really know whether that means that the Church will never be permitted to teach an error. It can just as easily be read as a promise that the Church, as an institution, would not be allowed to perish. The promise to be “guided into all truth” does not explicitly entail that no error would ever be allowed.

The Church was founded by Christ. The Apostles sat at His feet and heard Him speak. Does it really make sense that these guys would follow Jesus around for 3 years hearing Him speak profoundly and work miracles, and not write any of it down until after the fact? These were the guys who were there. No outside source, aside from these guys, would have any legitimate claim to know what Jesus actually did or said. So your asking for evidence outside of the Church is irrational, illogical, and ignorant of where the truth of the matter would lie.

You are assuming that the truth of these things can still be known. But it’s just as possible that it’s lost. Then again, it’s possible that new texts will be discovered that will shed more light on the sayings and life of Jesus. We don’t know precisely when the Apostles wrote things down, or whether someone else did the writing for them. I reject the argument that because the texts and traditions we have are all that we have, they must be good enough.

But Buddhism is not an institution. Constancy may not be evidence of truth, but it sure is a lot closer than inconstancy.

If constancy isn’t evidence of truth, then it’s not closer. It’s irrelevant.

That’s all I’m trying to get you to see! That Q is possible. I’m not trying to definitively show that infallibility is real and true, because that requires a leap of faith. But it is not illogical or irrational to believe in, and there is a great deal of inductive evidence that suggests its reality.

I’ve never said that belief in infallibility is irrational. I simply don’t find the evidence sufficient or especially compelling. I’m answering the question “I’m not Catholic because…” Whenever belief is underdetermined by evidence, as in this and many other cases, it’s perfectly possible that belief in P and belief in not-P can be equally rational (though not in one and the same person!). That is, even though P and not-P can’t both be true, it can be, and often is the case that there is partial evidence for P and partial evidence for not-P.

 

[Ahimsa]

But Buddhism is not an institution.

The Sangha (the community of Buddhists) was established by the Buddha around 500 BCE, and it continues, in a direct line from the Buddha, to today.

 

[joe370]

Hey dngodile…

I’ve never said that belief in infallibility is irrational…

The following passage is just as irrational as the belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since we do not possess verifiable proof of either? Of course, if John 16 is true then it certainly implies infallibility, if in fact we can call “all truth” infallible as opposed to fallible - correct?

“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”