Stephen168
New member
Catholicism, unlike Mormonism, is a very rational religion which requires very precise language and reason. That is why this never happened.
- Status
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I just provided links demonstrating it happened.TOmNossor:
Catholicism, unlike Mormonism, is a very rational religion which requires very precise language and reason. That is why this never happened.
I suggest your blind faith here is unfounded and perhaps should lead you to question other assertions you make here.
Charity, TOm
Stephen168
New member
You provided links that showed it did not happen, because Catholicism, unlike Mormonism, is a very rational religion which requires very precise language and reason. I understand why you, as a Mormon, would come to the conclusion you did.
G
gazelam
Guest
You’re killing me!!
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Perhaps you or someone else can decode what you are saying. I used the precise language and it was declared wrong by two Catholics.TOmNossor:
You provided links that showed it did not happen, because Catholicism, unlike Mormonism, is a very rational religion which requires very precise language and reason. I understand why you, as a Mormon, would come to the conclusion you did.
Here is the post where the other Catholic poster acknowledged the correction from the Catholic priest and apologized for telling me that I was incorrect.
Said Catholic priest also corrected you though I found your “trying to briefly answer” explanation reasonable.
It was a good thread and I enjoyed reading it again.
Charity, TOm
Stephen168
New member
Perfect? No. But I know you are wrong about Catholicism, and I am right about Mormonism.
You did not use precise language that is why it was declared wrong by two Catholics in the context of the discussion. Catholicism, unlike Mormonism, is a very rational religion which requires very precise language and reason. Therefore, I know Catholicism is true and Mormonism is not.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Stephen168,TOmNossor:
Perfect? No. But I know you are wrong about Catholicism, and I am right about Mormonism.
You too make mistakes concerning Catholicism that I do not and should be less certain with your heralding of your position based on your intellectual assessment of it.
I could believe said Catholic priest in the other thread knows his faith and I understand these issues well enough OR that you understand and he and I do not.
Concerning precise words, he said to you:
“That’s still not necessarily the case.”
…
“We cannot make blanket statements like that.”
Because your words were not “precise” to use your term.
Earlier, I said to him:
“Here is how I see the history.
FrDavid98, I would love comments, challenges, or corrections on this.”
cont…
His response to me:
“Yes. That’s a fair summary of the points you decided to make. Of course, there’s much more to this beyond what you addressed.
…
Catholics want to drop “consubstantial” and go back to “one in being” because it’s easier to say! What a sad state of affairs indeed.”
In the summary he approved of was a point I have regularly tried to explain to you and either because I am a LDS and you refuse to listen or something, you continue to evidence you do not understand.
I am sure I do not agree with Father David on what evidence exists in the Bible for a priesthood we would be justified in calling “the Melchizdek Priesthood” and I was happy to quote other Catholics (a priest and an apologist) who are in the minority and support my understanding of the Bible here. BUT concerning the word “consubstantial” I will agree with Father David and many/most/all Catholic scholars and tell you that you do not speak precisely.
Charity, TOm
Last edited:
Stephen168
New member
Again, you proved my point. Catholicism, unlike Mormonism, is a very rational religion which requires very precise language and reason. Therefore, I know Catholicism is true and Mormonism is not.
G
GKMotley
Guest
The only consistent thing about people and their constructs is their invariable motleyness. Generalizing is generally inaccurate.
In general, that is.
In general, that is.
G
GKMotley
Guest
The ultimate caveat is to allow me to be invariably correct, in my observations/assertions, if necessary.
G
gazelam
Guest
Just curious, how do you personally go from “Catholicism is a very rational religion” to “therefore Catholicism is true”? Thanks in advance for a very short answer if you care to provide one.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
As I recall, said priest bowed out of the conversation when it became apparent to him that you were not in fact in agreement. You’re cherry picking, again.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Catholic teaching is clear, that God created us as rational beings, gifted by him with the ability to reason, in order that we can come to understand both creation and Creator. St. Paul preached against the irrationality of pagan idolatry, as pointing towards the falsehood of pagan religions of his time. So we can reason, that irrational beliefs are a sign of a false religion.Stephen168:
Just curious, how do you personally go from “Catholicism is a very rational religion” to “therefore Catholicism is true”? Thanks in advance for a very short answer if you care to provide one.
St. Paul also taught that if the Ressurection did not occur then our faith is in vain. Again, pointing us towards the ability to reason in discerning truth.
Catholicism can be discerned rationally, using reason, precise language, and rigor in thought and logic. This points towards true religion.
A religion that is irrational, does not use reason and even goes so far to declare reason and rigour in thought and logic as of the world and not of God, is declaring that the truth claims of said religion cannot be discerned using reason. Clearly this fails the test of a true religion.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
You are not remembering correctly and/or not reading correctly which is one of the reasons that all the trumpeting of rationality rings so HOLLOW.
BTW, I read the thread where Stephen denies what I assert and what Father David agreed with in the thread linked from here. I hope you and I do not get to the place we did in that thread. I am not happy to be UNFAIRLY accused of “cherry picking” AGAIN, but hopefully I will not push us over the cliff.
ANYONE in this thread can follow the links I offered (including you). They will see where one and two Catholic posters denied Catholic dogma and told me I was wrong. You will see Father David correct them and one of them offer an apology to me.
ANYONE can see Father David tell me that my summary was correct in ALL that I decided to share. And there is no evidence that he disapproved a single word I said in the entire thread. From this approval, I will suggest there are problems with rationality for Catholic truth claims.
ANYONE can see Father David tell Stephen168 that his statement is not strictly correct (essentially telling him that his words are not "precise").
If NOBODY follows the links it is easy to cheer for the Catholic team, but the links are there for ANYONE to see that you and Stephen are either reading extremely poorly and or not paying any attention to what is said.
Furthermore, in the summary Father David approved of a statement that will discuss in response to your “rationality” claim you offered to Gazelam. It is my considered belief that Ostler’s much celebrated Exploring Mormon Thought series provides a rational explanation for LDS theology. It is my considered belief that in the section approved of by Father David and denied by Stephen168 (previously in another thread for sure and perhaps he continues to disagree with Father David to this day) there is a DOGMATIC assertion that requires one word to mean two things in the same sentence.
Catholics at Catholic answers are fans of the Eastern Orthodox faith. It is not the thinkers in the CoJCoLDS who reject rationality (for the most part and in my case and in Ostlers and …) it is thinkers in the Easter tradition who claim that dialectic reasoning done by the Catholic Church is a problem. I agree with these EO scholars and instead of rejecting the obvious problems produced when dialectic reasoning is carried out, I reject traditional Christianity because reason applied to it produces such problems.
Charity, TOm
Last edited:
Stephen168
New member
There is a long complicated history to the word ‘cup.’ Therefore there is no consensus today as to a ‘cup.’ Scholars agree with me. Look how smart I am for knowing the history of the word ‘cup,’ therefore you don’t know cakes.
Stephen168
New member
I would say RebbecaJ covered it.
O
OKComputer
Guest
I’m not sure that Mormons are capable of rational, reasonable arguments to support their faith. When you spend your entire life believing something because you “just know” it’s true, it makes it nearly impossible to think rationally about your faith. Like you said, that’s one of the many reasons why Christianity has philosophers like Anselm/Aquinas/Augustine/CS Lewis, etc. And Mormonism has…
Stephen168
New member
Mormons have claimed that Christ is the example to show us that man can become Gods and that God the Father was not born an ordinary man because he was born the same way Christ was born.
From Mormon sources it is clear that Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church have always taught that God was a man like us; a mere man. It is also clear that Mormonism teaches that Christ was born at least partially divine because God the Father was his earthly father.
It seems to me that to believe that God the father was born in the same way that Christ was born would require that God the Father had a father, as B.H. Roberts said. Of course to believe God was once a man would require that he had a father. And if Christ was born divine, he could not be an example to show that man can become a God.
From Mormon sources it is clear that Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church have always taught that God was a man like us; a mere man. It is also clear that Mormonism teaches that Christ was born at least partially divine because God the Father was his earthly father.
It seems to me that to believe that God the father was born in the same way that Christ was born would require that God the Father had a father, as B.H. Roberts said. Of course to believe God was once a man would require that he had a father. And if Christ was born divine, he could not be an example to show that man can become a God.
Last edited:
O
OKComputer
Guest
I’d love to hear the Mormon response to that question.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Stephen168,RebeccaJ:
There is a long complicated history to the word ‘cup.’ Therefore there is no consensus today as to a ‘cup.’ Scholars agree with me. Look how smart I am for knowing the history of the word ‘cup,’ therefore you don’t know cakes.
Now that perhaps you have followed the links, can you withdraw the suggestion without any foundation that the problem with the two Catholics who denied Catholic dogma was not a product of my “imprecise” language.
It is my position that not responding to arguments by calling them imprecise, cherry-picked, or nutty is not what folks who herald the rationality of their faith should be doing. It is quite possible you do not know how to respond and yet there is a rational response, but it is also quite possible that there truly is an issue with Catholic thought here despite your crowing.
Charity, TOm
- Status