Not enough evidence sir

[TheCuriousCat]

But what if you could deliver your book to each reader with your personal representative there to clear up any misinterpretations?

I’d still try to create a book that was as clear as possible. I would never write a letter to a person that had to be hand delivered by someone who was better able to interpret what the letter said than the recipient.

Heh. You do know that the Bible does indeed say that, yes?

Really? There is a clearly written disclaimer in the Bible? Perhaps you could point that out to me. I’d have thought that such a passage would have destroyed Protestantism in its tracks.

 

[PRmerger]

I’d still try to create a book that was as clear as possible. I would never write a letter to a person that had to be hand delivered by someone who was better able to interpret what the letter said than the recipient.

Personal question, TCC, that you, of course, need not answer, but were you raised as an evangelical or fundamentalist?

Really? There is a clearly written disclaimer in the Bible? Perhaps you could point that out to me. I’d have thought that such a passage would have destroyed Protestantism in its tracks.

There’s quite a few, but here’s one that comes to mind:

[BIBLEDRB]John 20:30
[/BIBLEDRB]

Oh, and this one just came to mind:
[BIBLEDRB]John 16: 12-13[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[TheCuriousCat]

This argument, TCC, is inutile.

Hmm… a word I had to look up. That’s unusual.

God could have done lots of things. He could have chosen to save us through an alien. He could have chosen to come to Teotihuacan to incarnate. He could have sent a legion of angels to smite the Romans before they crucified Christ.

That he didn’t doesn’t say anything at all about him, except that…

he didn’t do that.

Again, my question should be taken in context. I have been responding to people who have claimed that this very idea is ridiculous. You should be addressing these criticisms to them, not to me.

 

[PRmerger]

I’d still try to create a book that was as clear as possible. I would never write a letter to a person that had to be hand delivered by someone who was better able to interpret what the letter said than the recipient.

I’m not sure what the above means, exactly. ( That’s why all things written need an interpreter. And it’s good to have access to the author or his representative to clarify, even if the writing appears to be quite clear.)

Are you saying that the “someone” who has better able to interpret the letter is the Church?

 

[TheCuriousCat]

Personal question, TCC, that you, of course, need not answer, but were you raised as an evangelical or fundamentalist?

Nope. I was raised a Catholic. I was taught in a Catholic school. Taught CCD, and spent a year in a seminary.

If you re-read what I was posting, you will see that I am at no point saying that the Bible is the sole source of truth. Again, I was respond to posters that intimated that it wouldn’t be possible for God to create a book that was worthwhile in its own right.

Not that he did. Or that he should. Or that Catholics believe he did.

You, yourself, are saying that the Bible needs to be interpreted by the Church. I am saying that the Bible is unclear and needs interpretation.

Why do you keep bringing up fundamentalism.

There’s quite a few, but here’s one that comes to mind:

[BIBLEDRB]John 20:30
[/BIBLEDRB]

Not the same thing

Oh, and this one just came to mind:
[BIBLEDRB]John 16: 12-13[/BIBLEDRB]

…and not the same.

They do say that not everything is written, but it doesn’t say that the book does not stand on its own merits.

 

[PRmerger]

Nope. I was raised a Catholic. I was taught in a Catholic school. Taught CCD, and spent a year in a seminary.

Okay. Thanks for revealing that, even though you were under no obligation to do so.

If you re-read what I was posting, you will see that I am at no point saying that the Bible is the sole source of truth.

I understand that. But what I am saying is that your argument “Why would God give a Bible when it’s so unclear” is an argument you can use against evangelicals, but not against Catholics.

Again, I was respond to posters that intimated that it wouldn’t be possible for God to create a book that was worthwhile in its own right.

Sorry. I am not following you. Could you provide the link to the post that said this?

You, yourself, are saying that the Bible needs to be interpreted by the Church.** I am saying that the Bible is unclear and needs interpretation**.

And then you are very Catholic when you say this.

Why do you keep bringing up fundamentalism.

Because it appears that you are arguing against a fundamentalist “Church? I don’t need no stinkin’ church!” mindset.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

I’m not sure what the above means, exactly. ( That’s why all things written need an interpreter. And it’s good to have access to the author or his representative to clarify, even if the writing appears to be quite clear.)

Are you saying that the “someone” who has better able to interpret the letter is the Church?

You said:

But what if you could deliver your book to each reader with your personal representative there to clear up any misinterpretations?

By “someone” I meant my hypothetical “personal representative”. I assumed that you were using this as an analogy for the Church, so yes.

 

[PRmerger]

They do say that not everything is written, but it doesn’t say that the book does not stand on its own merits.

Okay. What about the very famous 1 Timothy 3:15, which says that the Church, (not the Bible) is the pillar and foundation of Truth?

And Luke 10: 16: “He who hears you hears me”?

 

[PRmerger]

By “someone” I meant my hypothetical “personal representative”. I assumed that you were using this as an analogy for the Church, so yes.

Ah. I understand now.

And I think our exchange has just proven my point, yes?

You see how much it helps me to understand what you wrote when I have you here to help me understand?

Even when we write back and forth, being in the same historical era, and speaking the same language, and essentially being of the same culture, I can’t really understand what you say unless the living spirit of TheCuriousCat is here to interpret for me.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

This may sound simplistic and “presumptous,” but I (if I was God, which, of course, I am not) would have said:

“The thing is, there WAS evidence-----you simply chose to ignore it or not consider it.”

Based on the way I’ve seen “choice” used here in the forums that may (or may not) be a tautology. In many threads it appears that “choice” comes down to the capability to assume a mental position, regardless of whether that position was conscious, subconscious, voluntary, or involuntary. Under the usages that I’ve seen here one could be said to “choose” to find a heavy weight being dropped on their foot uncomfortable.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

Okay. Thanks for revealing that, even though you were under no obligation to do so.

No problem.

I understand that. But what I am saying is that your argument “Why would God give a Bible when it’s so unclear” is an argument you can use against evangelicals, but not against Catholics.

Okay, why would God create a Bible that was so unclear if He was planning to have an infallible Church? (Please notice this is a question, not an argument.)

Sorry. I am not following you. Could you provide the link to the post that said this?

I don’t know, I quote it in my very first post, and then there is another one by tonyre. I’m sorry, I really don’t want to scan back throughout the entire thread. I’m not exactly quoting them. That’s also why I have been repeatedly asking them questions, not making statements. (Other than to try and clarify the intent of my questions, or point out that people were putting words into my mouth.)

You’ll notice I am saying, “Are you saying that… ?”; "Let me get this clear, you don’t think…?

Questions, not arguments.

And then you are very Catholic when you say this.

Well, I’m academically minded. It just happens to be a similar position in this case.

Because it appears that you are arguing against a fundamentalist “Church? I don’t need no stinkin’ church!” mindset.

Could you point out how I seem to be doing this?

(Again, question.)

Edit: I was mistaken. I have made statements on this thread that didn’t fit what I said above. However, they don’t appear to be the points of contention. The questions have.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

Ah. I understand now.

And I think our exchange has just proven my point, yes?

You see how much it helps me to understand what you wrote when I have you here to help me understand?

Even when we write back and forth, being in the same historical era, and speaking the same language, and essentially being of the same culture, I can’t really understand what you say unless the living spirit of TheCuriousCat is here to interpret for me.

Well, not really. I’ll grant it supports your point, but this back and forth isn’t the best for getting one’s point across. If I had forever to write this, and I had the potential to be the best writer of all time, and I had a perfect knowledge of how you would interpret what I was about to write, I’d have chosen to write it so you understood it the first time.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

No problem.

Okay, why would God create a Bible that was so unclear if He was planning to have an infallible Church? (Please notice this is a question, not an argument.)

I don’t know, I quote it in my very first post, and then there is another one by tonyre. I’m sorry, I really don’t want to scan back throughout the entire thread. I’m not exactly quoting them. That’s also why I have been repeatedly asking them questions, not making statements. (Other than to try and clarify the intent of my questions, or point out that people were putting words into my mouth.)

You’ll notice I am saying, “Are you saying that… ?”; "Let me get this clear, you don’t think…?

Questions, not arguments.

Well, I’m academically minded. It just happens to be a similar position in this case.

Could you point out how I seem to be doing this?

(Again, question.)

**** Edit: I am mistaken. I have made statements. However, the statements I have made don’t seem to be the points of contention, rather the questions have.

 

[davidv]

No problem.

Okay, why would God create a Bible that was so unclear if He was planning to have an infallible Church? (Please notice this is a question, not an argument.)

I don’t know, I quote it in my very first post, and then there is another one by tonyre. I’m sorry, I really don’t want to scan back throughout the entire thread. I’m not exactly quoting them. That’s also why I have been repeatedly asking them questions, not making statements. (Other than to try and clarify the intent of my questions, or point out that people were putting words into my mouth.)

You’ll notice I am saying, “Are you saying that… ?”; "Let me get this clear, you don’t think…?

Questions, not arguments.

Well, I’m academically minded. It just happens to be a similar position in this case.

Could you point out how I seem to be doing this?

(Again, question.)

I don’t believe God created the Bible, so your question (bold above) seems invalid (based on a false premise). The Bible ( a book of books) was created by humans over many centuries, using the language of the time in which it was written (inspired by God, but not created by God).

 

[TheCuriousCat]

I don’t believe God created the Bible, so your question (bold above) seems invalid (based on a false premise). The Bible ( a book of books) was created by humans over many centuries, using the language of the time in which it was written (inspired by God, but not created by God).

I used “created” in the sense of it being His message for humanity. It wasn’t inspired in the sense that movies are, “inspired by true events”.

You do believe it is the word of God right? As in:

“P: This is the word of the Lord
R: Praise be to God”

 

[PRmerger]

Yes! Once again, kudos PR-M…for impressive vocab skills

whatshouldwecallme.tumblr.com/post/19363225309/when-im-with-my-friends-and-i-say-something-witty

 

[PRmerger]

I see your point.
The Ten Commandments were somewhat clear: Thou Shalt Not Kill, for example. But there wasn’t enough detail.
I would have read that as one can never kill…yet still, humans thousands of years later put people on death row and kill them, on purpose, with deliberation.
So it seems even a relatively clear line like that can be twisted and bent into any shape someone wants to make it into.

Still, would have been much clearer that…*.if *Jesus had *meant to *say that no women can be ordained in the church he was building…that no same sex marriage, no masturbation, and no condom use was allowed…one of the writers whose books are featured in the christian canon would have written those things out with more clarity–at least at the level of the Ten C’s.
I assume they did not because Jesus didn’t say those words or give those clear instructions.

Yep. That’s because the Bible wasn’t intended to be a full compendium of the Faith.

That’s a Protestant paradigm. Not a Catholic one.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, not really. I’ll grant it supports your point, but this back and forth isn’t the best for getting one’s point across. If I had forever to write this, and I had the potential to be the best writer of all time, and I had a perfect knowledge of how you would interpret what I was about to write, I’d have chosen to write it so you understood it the first time.

Of course. But then you’d have to take into account that your readers are fallible and that means that they’re not only capable of misinterpreting…they’re GOING to misinterpret.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

I see your point.
The Ten Commandments were somewhat clear: Thou Shalt Not Kill, for example. But there wasn’t enough detail.
I would have read that as one can never kill…yet still, humans thousands of years later put people on death row and kill them, on purpose, with deliberation.
So it seems even a relatively clear line like that can be twisted and bent into any shape someone wants to make it into.

Apparently the word used is better translated as “murder”. So, there is a lot of wiggle room available.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

Of course. But then you’d have to take into account that your readers are fallible and that means that they’re not only capable of misinterpreting…they’re GOING to misinterpret.

Does that mean that you are saying that an all-knowing being, who is utter perfection*** wouldn’t*** be able to write something that won’t be misinterpreted? :ehh: