Opinion and Faith

[Arandur]

No I haven’t.

But I’m not learning anything here, just practicing my debating skills which has never been my intention.

Interesting thread, have fun with it

Then don’t dodge. Address my argument that followed what you quoted, because it explains your inconsistency. Merely claiming that you’re not inconsistent rather than addressing the argument that challenges your consistency is quite hollow.

 

[fhansen]

I don’t think Dameedna’s denied that truth’s objective-she’s only claimed that certain Christian tenets are unprovable. And I’d agree that they’re mainly unprovable by empirical means but that they’re knowable nonetheless for no other reason than that the God in question really does exist and wants us to know and responds to faith, revealing Himself to those who humble themselves enough to override their own pride or fear of others opinions-kind of a Catch-22 for us but nothing insurmountable for Him.

OTOH, that does nothing for someone who’s not known that experience. But for a believer with any depth of faith, it can never be reduced to mere opinion-especially after comparing notes with other believers down through the centuries who’ve testified to the same experiences and speak with a similar mind about them. So the answer to the OP will always be that faith and opinion are different.

 

[jkiernan56]

I don’t think Dameedna’s denied that truth’s objective-she’s only claimed that certain Christian tenets are unprovable. And I’d agree that they’re mainly unprovable by empirical means but that they’re knowable nonetheless for no other reason than that the God in question really does exist and wants us to know and responds to faith, revealing Himself to those who humble themselves enough to override their own pride or fear of others opinions-kind of a Catch-22 for us but nothing insurmountable for Him.

OTOH, that does nothing for someone who’s not known that experience. But for a believer with any depth of faith, it can never be reduced to mere opinion-especially after comparing notes with other believers down through the centuries who’ve testified to the same experiences and speak with a similar mind about them. So the answer to the OP will always be that faith and opinion are different.

I would really appreciate hearing from Dameedna on this. If she acknowledges the objectivity of truth, then I will stand corrected and eat humble pie. dameedna …please come back and help us out !!!

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The problem with your statement here is one you’ve been pretty consistent with, and is common. You don’t fully consider the Catholic perspective, whether you agree with it or not. In the Catholic perspective, the authority you refer to is none other than that of the Holy Spirit given by Christ. It is not the men of the Church relying on some concept of earthly authority. It is obedience even/especially at the level of the apostolic office to the structure and method of transmission of Truth that Christ provided.

Aw, come on. I noted that somewhere previously when I compared the Catholic view to the Protestant view (which is that th Holy Spirit guides individuals in their own interpretation of scripture.

As demonstrated clearly through all the historical heresies, schisms, and continuing proliferation of schismatic beliefs, a simple appeal to truth based on persuasive argument or interpretation is not sufficient to maintain unity and protect the Body of Christ in Truth. God knows this. That is why He has provided various other mechanisms of providing His children with an assurance of what is true that is sufficient to fend off the deceptions of the devil and the foolishness and pride of man.

We are not so far apart on this as you might think. First of all, let’s agree that the Church is of two minds as I noted: 1) pursuit of truth, and 2) authority. Now comes the question whether the second is good or bad.

Second, it’s worth noting that while Church authority turned back some schisms, it failed to turn back others, most notably Protestantism.

More importantly, though, the reliance upon athority in such cases weakens the argumentative case because it leads to intellectual laziness. It’s the theological equivalent to “because I said so.”

Finally, it’s not at all clear ot me that a diversity of theological opinion is a bad thing. You seem to assume that schism must be avoided but schism only occurs when each side in a debate cannot abide the other. I’m not arguing for “unitarianism”, simply stating the obvious.

That is why He has provided various other mechanisms of providing His children with an assurance of what is true that is sufficient to fend off the deceptions of the devil and the foolishness and pride of man. The greatest of these gifts is His Divinely Instituted Church, Christ’s own Body, preserved and led by the Holy Spirit Himself. The Church manifests in not just or even primarily Scripture, but through Tradition and through the Apostolic offices (as described in Scripture, btw).

Yes, I think I mentioned already that Catholics place their fath inerrant magesteriam, tradition, and scripture, arguably in that order. But the Protestant solution is just as logical: that the Holy Spirit is not partial to clergy in its interactions.

This dichotomy existed through most of history largely for practical reasons. Education systems were accessible only to few through no fault of the people of the times. In modern times, you find much more lay education, but yes, some inertia due to centuries of culture that tends to leave many among the laity fairly passive. Is there anything wrong with that?

I rely on the “authority” of others all the time, usually out of laziness. As I noted before, there are only so many days in a lifetime. But the essential question is whether I “must” rely on authority for lack of a good argument or whether authority is invoked out of a desire to avoid making an argument.

What baffles me is how obvious it is that the Protestant “experiment,” if you will, has failed so dramatically; that the proliferation of even contradictory beliefs demonstrates that whatever methods Protestants are using to try to discover, preserve, and transmit Truth have not been sufficient. There must be something more. The Catholic answer is simply “The Church.” The Tradition and Apostolic authority spoken of in the Bible, and that gave the Bible its form.

I think you are measuring truth by consistency. But one can be consistently wrong.

I myself am more ambivalent about the Protestant “experiment”. On the one hand, I am less than impressed with most of what passes for dogma among Protestants. But I also find many brilliant individuals among Protestants.

It is an interesting question, how do you measure the success of a religion if the self-stated goal is salvation, something that cannot be observed.

Are you “discouraged from forming an opinion” about the reality that there is a force that makes matter fall to the ground? And, as more information was verified about that force we call “gravity,” are you “discouraged from forming an opinion,” for instance, about the operation of that force as far as its measurable relationship between bodies of matter? Of course, there are aspects of how the force of gravity acts that we didn’t always and even don’t now understand. Speculation and investigation into those questions is certainly encouraged by science. I think that is a very accurate analogy to how the Church views and “encourages” or “discourages” “opinion” about dogma.

There is not much debate about gravity but let’s look at evolution instead. There are certainly many who, for various reasons, want to impose authority to end debate on the issue. You don’t have to sympathize with fundamentalists to see how cockeyed public schools can be on the subject.

I think you’re still missing it. As the Church welcomes everyone to it and opens itself to our examination, it does encourage us to investigate the truth of its claims.

This is the CC on its good days. And I agree with your general argument that it is moving in this direction. I’m just arguing for it to go further, faster.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The Church certainly teaches dogmatically. Do not Protestant Churches dogmatically state that God exists or that the resurrection must be believed in? As stated above there are certain claims that may be supportable but not provable.

This is really the issue of this thread, though, isn’t it? What do we do with claims that are not provable?

At a minimum, we should marshall the available evidence as a starting point. In the case of the ressurection, for example, there is plenty starting with the existence of Christianity itself.

Other than that, the CC teaches “primacy of conscience”-that a person must stay true to their consciences, whether or not objectively wrong, unless convinced otherwise in order for faith to be real. This in no way implies, however, that the Church would consider her own teachings to be anything but objectively right. She simply desires all to come to recognize that, too, and agree with her, for the good of us all. Most of us do the same thing in our own ways.

Yes, this is the “pursuit of truth” side of Catholicism. As Arandur noted, it’s certainly moving more toward this view.

But note that this is, essentially, an invitation to people to form an opinion about the truth of dogma. Now, of course, the Church has a dogma and it desires that the opinion that people form is that the dogma is true. But the key question is how does it seek to arrive at that outcome. Insofar as conscience is valued, it must do so through argument and persuasion at some level. (Noting, again, that people accept authority out of convenience.)

 

[Arandur]

Aw, come on. I noted that somewhere previously when I compared the Catholic view to the Protestant view (which is that th Holy Spirit guides individuals in their own interpretation of scripture.

Sorry, I supposed I missed that. I’m glad we’re on more common ground

We are not so far apart on this as you might think. First of all, let’s agree that the Church is of two minds as I noted: 1) pursuit of truth, and 2) authority. Now comes the question whether the second is good or bad.

Okay, though I’m not sure what you mean by “good or bad.”

Second, it’s worth noting that while Church authority turned back some schisms, it failed to turn back others, most notably Protestantism.

Are you using a measure of success as a criterion for whether that authority is valid? I don’t think that follows. Authority can exist validly whether or not people choose to follow it. God is the ultimate authority, and yet in a certain sense He hasn’t had much success in getting people to follow Him in the way He wants.

I also don’t agree with your evaluation of success If you consider success to only be the eradication of a heresy or the repairing of a schism, well, consider:

1. Arianism was a heresy that lived for some 7 or 8 centuries before it pretty well died out. By that measure, we’ve got 2-3 hundred more years to deal with Protestantism on the same schedule
2. The Great Schism with our Eastern brethren has not been wholly healed, but there has been progress, including the reunion of many of the smaller Eastern Churches with the Roman See.

More importantly, though, the reliance upon athority in such cases weakens the argumentative case because it leads to intellectual laziness. It’s the theological equivalent to “because I said so.”

Though I have studied a fair amount, I haven’t even scratched the surface of Catholic thought and exploration of Truth. Would you agree that the depth of Catholic literature on pretty much every subject relating to God is far deeper than that of any other Christian group, with the possible exception of the Orthodox?

If so, then I don’t see where you’re getting “intellectual laziness.” God’s authority serves as a complement to His revealed truth, authority granted in limited fashion as gift to His Church on earth to serve as a beacon, a lighthouse amidst the darkness of confusion and deception in the world.

Further, how can authority weaken an argumentative case? Would you say that the premier, most widely-acknowledged and respected scientists and doctors on a given subject have a weaker case because of their recognized authority? Or does not that authority complement what they are saying, and by virtue of their experience, honesty, and intellectual rigor, lend credence and the “benefit of the doubt,” if you will, to their arguments?

Finally, it’s not at all clear ot me that a diversity of theological opinion is a bad thing. You seem to assume that schism must be avoided but schism only occurs when each side in a debate cannot abide the other. I’m not arguing for “unitarianism”, simply stating the obvious.

Diversity in thought only goes so far. Do relativistic or atheistic philosophical theories really help us arrive at truth? Do old, discredited scientific theories–or ones wildly at odds with well-established Laws that don’t seem to explain observations any better–really help discover scientific truth?

Even if they somehow did, is it worth it? If a flat-earther stumbles upon some truth while trying to justify their position, is their rejection of the other obvious truths worth that? If embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, or unwilling lethal human experimentation leads to some medical advance or another, was it worth the cost for the discovery?

No, diversity in denial of known truth does not serve. As we’ve covered before, there is plenty of room for diversity of theological argument in areas that are not fully understood, diversity that need not ignore known truths.

 

[Arandur]

But the Protestant solution is just as logical: that the Holy Spirit is not partial to clergy in its interactions.

By this do you mean that the Holy Spirit works among the laity, and works among all peoples, Baptized or not, Catholic or not, Christian or not? This is not a Protestant innovation; this is another belief understood by the Catholic Church and inherited and accepted by most non-Catholic Christians.

Please clarify if I misunderstood you.

I rely on the “authority” of others all the time, usually out of laziness. As I noted before, there are only so many days in a lifetime. But the essential question is whether I “must” rely on authority for lack of a good argument or whether authority is invoked out of a desire to avoid making an argument.

We all stand on the intellectual shoulders of pioneers before us, whether “lazy” or studious.
I just don’t see where you are getting that Catholics appeal to authority rather than making arguments. Again, the depth of Catholic exploration of truth exceeds that of any Protestant group; by comparison, it is Protestants who are “lazy.”

I think you are measuring truth by consistency. But one can be consistently wrong.

Yes, the Catholic Church could be consistently wrong. Given its longevity, size, and yes, consistency, does that really seem likely? When an organization is wrong about something, does it really tend to last? When an idea is wrong, just what is its staying power? The staying power of the Catholic idea has far exceeded that of any other in its form. In fact, the longevity and unity of the Catholic Church as an organization far exceeds that of any other in history, maintaining form, foundational principles, leadership, and cohesion with far less transformation. Is that evidence of falsehood? No, everything Satan corrupts dies, becomes destroyed. Like the decay of Protestantism into so many fragments, and distinctly unlike the life of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

But I also find many brilliant individuals among Protestants.
Of course there are many brilliant individuals outside Catholicism. Given the deeds and success and even the ideas of brilliant individuals throughout history, that’s not saying much. I would go further than your statement, though, and say that there are many non-Catholics who sincerely love and even understand God better than all but the best of Catholics.

There is not much debate about gravity but let’s look at evolution instead. There are certainly many who, for various reasons, want to impose authority to end debate on the issue. You don’t have to sympathize with fundamentalists to see how cockeyed public schools can be on the subject.

If the Church didn’t attempt to argue a position or a case, I would say that you might have a point. But it does and always has refuted untruth with reason. You seem to be placing upon the Church as an institution the faults of individuals who appeal to authority rather than present an argument. The Church has no such fault, but many Catholics may. The same would go for Protestants, many of whom would appeal to Luther or Calvin etc.

This is the CC on its good days. And I agree with your general argument that it is moving in this direction. I’m just arguing for it to go further, faster.

I assume you refer to earlier history where the Church didn’t go around exhorting everyone to delve deeply into the Scriptures and debate to discover truth?
Do you recognize that in times past, education and access to resources (printed and authoritative) was a huge limitation to the study of truth? So was time and training in disciplined thought?

It is extremely easy to be deceived, to be led astray. In fact, the Bible warns us against learned men and the “wisdom” of men. How responsible would a Church given teaching authority have been to tell all of its members to go out seeking on their own, without guidance or preparation? That is throwing sheep to the wolves, not tending the flock.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Okay, though I’m not sure what you mean by “good or bad.”

When the Catholic Church researches theological questions for us and arrives at a reliable answer that we can trust and then, trusting the Catholic Church, we turn to it as an authority on theology, that is good.

When the Catholic Church says that something is true because the Catholic Church says so, that is bad.

Are you using a measure of success as a criterion for whether that authority is valid? I don’t think that follows. Authority can exist validly whether or not people choose to follow it. God is the ultimate authority, and yet in a certain sense He hasn’t had much success in getting people to follow Him in the way He wants.

Yes, God is the ultimate authority though even (especially!) with God we expect truth. If you pursue truth you will arrive at God so there is no conflict between the two. One question is to what extent can we similarly rely on the Catholic Church. Another question is how important is it for us to understand, i.e. to form an opinion, on matters of truth?

I also don’t agree with your evaluation of success If you consider success to only be the eradication of a heresy or the repairing of a schism…

You can eradicate heresy simply by burning heretics at the stake.

Though I have studied a fair amount, I haven’t even scratched the surface of Catholic thought and exploration of Truth. Would you agree that the depth of Catholic literature on pretty much every subject relating to God is far deeper than that of any other Christian group, with the possible exception of the Orthodox?

Absolutely.

If so, then I don’t see where you’re getting “intellectual laziness.” God’s authority serves as a complement to His revealed truth, authority granted in limited fashion as gift to His Church on earth to serve as a beacon, a lighthouse amidst the darkness of confusion and deception in the world.

See above distinction between good/bad authority.

Further, how can authority weaken an argumentative case? Would you say that the premier, most widely-acknowledged and respected scientists and doctors on a given subject have a weaker case because of their recognized authority? Or does not that authority complement what they are saying, and by virtue of their experience, honesty, and intellectual rigor, lend credence and the “benefit of the doubt,” if you will, to their arguments?

Actually, professionals often slip into the same failure when they answer tough questions with their diplomas.

Diversity in thought only goes so far. Do relativistic or atheistic philosophical theories really help us arrive at truth? Do old, discredited scientific theories–or ones wildly at odds with well-established Laws that don’t seem to explain observations any better–really help discover scientific truth?

I think this really is the core issue. Obviously I’m not arguing for falsity, e.g. discredited theories. But much of theology is built on faith and thus, by its very nature, open to question. We can’t test theological claims like we can scientific claims.

Even if they somehow did, is it worth it? If a flat-earther stumbles upon some truth while trying to justify their position, is their rejection of the other obvious truths worth that?

Quite possibly! One of my favorite examples of this is capitalism, which is pretty much a product of Protestantism (although there are some who claim that Catholic monks were first to practice it). Or take the example of church service in the local language (while I love to watch a Latin mass, I might as well be watching an opera).

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

By this do you mean that the Holy Spirit works among the laity, and works among all peoples, Baptized or not, Catholic or not, Christian or not? This is not a Protestant innovation; this is another belief understood by the Catholic Church and inherited and accepted by most non-Catholic Christians.

And yet, for whatever reason, it is Protestants who rely on this and Catholics who poo-poo it. Note that I’m not arguing for this view, only pointing out it is not logically inconsistent for Protestants to claim that they interpret the scipture with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

We all stand on the intellectual shoulders of pioneers before us, whether “lazy” or studious. I just don’t see where you are getting that Catholics appeal to authority rather than making arguments. Again, the depth of Catholic exploration of truth exceeds that of any Protestant group; by comparison, it is Protestants who are “lazy.”

Well, I will certainly agree with you that Protestants are lazier than Catholics in terms of dogma. However, it’s been my experience that for all its intellectual poverty, Protestants know their beliefs better than Catholics (on average) and can better explain them to others. I say this having gone through 12 years of Catholic school (from nuns, brothers, and priests, not church lady ccd stuff).

Yes, the Catholic Church could be consistently wrong. Given its longevity, size, and yes, consistency, does that really seem likely? When an organization is wrong about something, does it really tend to last?

Judaism has been consistent in it’s rejection of Jesus as Messiah for as long. They may not agree on much among themselves, but they’re damn sure that Jesus was a fraud. What does that prove?

When an idea is wrong, just what is its staying power? The staying power of the Catholic idea has far exceeded that of any other in its form.

Tradition.

If the Church didn’t attempt to argue a position or a case, I would say that you might have a point. But it does and always has refuted untruth with reason.

Unfortunately, not always. But this statement would be more true if Catholics were to set aside the claim of authority.

You seem to be placing upon the Church as an institution the faults of individuals who appeal to authority rather than present an argument. The Church has no such fault, but many Catholics may. The same would go for Protestants, many of whom would appeal to Luther or Calvin etc.

Yes, this is a common human failing. I would say, rather, that the Catholic Church has room to improve on this.

I assume you refer to earlier history where the Church didn’t go around exhorting everyone to delve deeply into the Scriptures and debate to discover truth?
Do you recognize that in times past, education and access to resources (printed and authoritative) was a huge limitation to the study of truth? So was time and training in disciplined thought?

Yes, I realize this. In fact, I think Protestants have a point that this was a Roman influence. You don’t see this from Jesus or in the early Church. I agree with you that the CC is moving in the right direction. But the belief in it’s own infallibility will always make this difficult.

It is extremely easy to be deceived, to be led astray. In fact, the Bible warns us against learned men and the “wisdom” of men. How responsible would a Church given teaching authority have been to tell all of its members to go out seeking on their own, without guidance or preparation? That is throwing sheep to the wolves, not tending the flock.

It’s also very easy to throw such accusations around. Some Protestants are absolutly convinced that the Pope is the anti-Christ.

 

[Dameedna]

Dameedna, where I see you having difficulty is in acknowledging there is such a thing as objective truth. You take the position that truth is relative … that position denies the reality of objective truth. Thank you for engaging us in discussion. Maybe it really is true that you are not learning anything here. I believe that’s true … you believe that’s true … hmmmm … we have a consensus … lol

Not really.

I think there is a “truth” to our existance.Truth is a tricky one to discuss because one wrong word in your argument and it’s all over for you. hehe.

For me, the question is , how did we get here. I think this can be answered and verified with as much certainty as humanly possible, but requires us to put faith in our own powers of observation.

The problem is not about truth itself. You may not realize but even the most staunch athiest scientistic is on an endeavour to discover truths. They wouldn’t bother, if they didnt think the truth was out there.

The problem is that as soon as you get into the realm of religious experience you are dealing with THAT individual and not something that can be verified for all humanity. Do you agree with all of the buddhists who have reached enlightenment that re-incarnation is real? Should we base our societies on this view?

The only tool we have atm that can work for all humanity is the scientific method because it can be verified. It’s not something(once verified) that is really up to “personal” feelings or experiences. Truth, doesn’t give two hoots about what we want to believe.

That doesn’t mean, as I said that a person cannot find meaning or believe they’ve come across some great truth via a spiritual experience. They can even share it with us. But because they cannot verify it, we cannot use it to manage our global society. And yes, of course this is my opinion.

Now if you don’t agree with me, then please consider the “truth” of some religions, such as the revelations given to the phrophet of the FDLS that claims all men who wish to get to heaven must marry 3 women.

How is one to differentiate between a spiritual experience and insanity?

I’m sorry to say, but humans who have very similar experiences don’t equate to truth, unless you believe all those in the FDLS or all the buddhists have the spiritual truth as well.

And as to the ressurrection of Jesus being an historical event? It is not considered by many historians or theologians of any note to be an historical event. They do not think the writers of the gospels ever intended for the reader to take it as an actual event. They used their cultures writing techniques , history and beliefs to try and get a message to their people. And Yes, that includes christian theologians.

 

[Dameedna]

I don’t think Dameedna’s denied that truth’s objective-she’s only claimed that certain Christian tenets are unprovable. And I’d agree that they’re mainly unprovable by empirical means but that they’re knowable nonetheless for no other reason than that the God in question really does exist and wants us to know and responds to faith, revealing Himself to those who humble themselves enough to override their own pride or fear of others opinions-kind of a Catch-22 for us but nothing insurmountable for Him.

I would actually consider it far more humble to admit one can never know for sure.

Nice insulting assumption you threw in there about pride and fear. Why do believers alway’s do this?

 

[jkiernan56]

I’m sorry to say, but humans who have very similar experiences don’t equate to truth, unless you believe all those in the FDLS or all the buddhists have the spiritual truth as well.

And as to the ressurrection of Jesus being an historical event? It is not considered by many historians or theologians of any note to be an historical event. They do not think the writers of the gospels ever intended for the reader to take it as an actual event. They used their cultures writing techniques , history and beliefs to try and get a message to their people. And Yes, that includes christian theologians.

Dameedna, if you read the Documents of Vatican II - there is a section titled “On Other Religions.” In it you will find that the Chuch does acknowledge there is truth in other religions. Some religions have more truth than others. But in Christianity and in particular in the Catholic Faith - the Documents of Vatican II state that we have the fullness of the truth in Jesus Christ - the fullness of God’s revelation to mankind.

Can you provide for me some names of theologians and historians that do not consider the resurrection of Christ to be historically significant? What I would like you to understand is that the resurrection of Christ is the CENTRAL truth of Christianity. All the truth of Christianity centers and depends on this historical event. St. Paul says that we are the greatest of fools if Christ did not rise from the dead. Now either this historical event is TRUE or NOT TRUE. It can’t be both. Either Christ did rise body and soul from his grave or He did not. The reason I am explaining this is because if you were taking a class on Religions and had to write a paper about “What is the central truth of Christianity” - I would want you to be educated enough to respond that Christians believe the central truth is the resurrection of Christ.

 

[Dameedna]

Dameedna, if you read the Documents of Vatican II - there is a section titled “On Other Religions.” In it you will find that the Chuch does acknowledge there is truth in other religions. Some religions have more truth than others. But in Christianity and in particular in the Catholic Faith - the Documents of Vatican II state that we have the fullness of the truth in Jesus Christ - the fullness of God’s revelation to mankind.

I know what they state. Other’s can and do state the same thing, that they have the fullness of God’s revelation to man.

I’m not going to believe what another tells me, just because…they tell me.

Can you provide for me some names of theologians and historians that do not consider the resurrection of Christ to be historically significant? What I would like you to understand is that the resurrection of Christ is the CENTRAL truth of Christianity.

No, it is what many people of christian faith rely on, as proof of a God. It isn’t of course proof at all. It’s a 2000 year old book.

Start with the writings of Shelby Spong. He summarizes a lot of theological understanding and references many theologians and historians in all of his books. You can go from there. He, is not however a theologian(though he’s rather knowlegable on the subject even if he isn’t alway’s correct).

All the truth of Christianity centers and depends on this historical event.

No I don’t think so. The faith that many adhere to, rely on this story to be historical. If the story is not correct, they have no faith. Their “faith” isn’t based on God at all nor is it based on the man called Jesus and what he shared with the world.

It is a based on a 2000 year old story, read literally to mean that God defied the laws of nature and physics and expects you to believe it, many centuries later.

What the first followers of Jesus say and did, and what actually happened is what christianity is about. It did start for a reason. Yes, Many scholars do now realize, that the writers of the gospels never intended it to be taken as a literal event.

St. Paul says that we are the greatest of fools if Christ did not rise from the dead. Now either this historical event is TRUE or NOT TRUE. It can’t be both.

Of course.

Paul, never knew Jesus.

Either Christ did rise body and soul from his grave or He did not. The reason I am explaining this is because if you were taking a class on Religions and had to write a paper about “What is the central truth of Christianity” - I would want you to be educated enough to respond that Christians believe the central truth is the resurrection of Christ.

How kind of you to attempt to educate me.

There are plenty of christians who do not believe this. You would not call them christians, but …so what? What actually happened, and what people believe and claim is the “centre” of their faith are two different things.

I suspect for many, if the ressurection story is not real, they would no longer believe in God. Their faith is not based on God himself, it based on a book and a story. WITHOUT that story, they lose their faith. This is sad.

Isn’t it amazing however, how some faiths systems, like Islam do not require such miracles to have occured, for them to trust and believe in God.

 

[jkiernan56]

Paul, never knew Jesus.

There are plenty of christians who do not believe this. You would not call them christians, but …so what? What actually happened, and what people believe and claim is the “centre” of their faith are two different things.

I suspect for many, if the ressurection story is not real, they would no longer believe in God. Their faith is not based on God himself, it based on a book and a story. WITHOUT that story, they lose their faith. This is sad

I certainly hope you do acknowledge that we can and do know about historical events. Do you also deny that there was a Person by the name of Christ who was put to death on a cross by the Romans around 33 AD?

Paul may have never known Christ before His death. But he certainly came to know Him after the Resurrection … but that is another historical event that was recorded when Christ appeared to him on the road to Damascus.

I would not agree with you that a person who does NOT believe in the resurrection of Christ would be able to call themselves Christian. (Please take special notice that I used the words “call THEMSELVES Christian”.) They may try to live a good life, but you can’t associate yourself as a member of something when that something IS BASED on the central truth of the resurrection. Without this central truth, Christianity as a religion would not exist.

 

[Dameedna]

I certainly hope you do acknowledge that we can and do know about historical events. Do you also deny that there was a Person by the name of Christ who was put to death on a cross by the Romans around 33 AD?

There is no physical evidence that a man of this name even existed.

Considering the age we live in one cannot base claims made 2000 year ago as true. Especially when there are no documents that are carbon dated, that can show the story was even “physically” written during that time.

Would you believe a map that was drawn up 2000 years ago as fact? Why not? The individuals did not know enough to create a truthful map.

And that, is what we are trying to build. A map of truth.

As much as this may annoy the religious institutions, the humans who will never believe what they are told and who search for truth, are the very same humans who have given you a vaccine for the majority of human plauges. Some-one told them it was just God’s work. They didn’t believe it. And because they didn’t, your child…is now protected. Don’t discard us skeptics too quickly. Most of your famous christian philosophers were skeptics.

When we say evidence, we mean something that is physical. Ie it can be verified through a scientific method that requires a specific object of study.

There is no physical evidence at all, of Jesus’ existance, anymore than there is physical evidence of a God.

But that is not all the evidence we may consider. Historians use much more refined techniques to determine any artifact (including literature) has changed and wether it could be based on consistant knowlege of that time. It is guess work at best, but it is educated guess work.

Paul may have never known Christ before His death. But he certainly came to know Him after the Resurrection … but that is another historical event that was recorded when Christ appeared to him on the road to Damascus.

An historical event is one that occured. The description given to you by Paul , was metophorical. God didn’t strike him from his horse literally. It’s an interpretation of an experience that Paul had and he wrote about it using the only language he knew at the time.

These are not literal events. They are human experiences of God.

I would not agree with you that a person who does NOT believe in the resurrection of Christ would be able to call themselves Christian.

It doesn’t matter what you do or do not call christian. You can’t define what it means to them. Nor can your church. You can TRY to, but it won’t matter to them.

 

[fhansen]

I would actually consider it far more humble to admit one can never know for sure.

Nice insulting assumption you threw in there about pride and fear. Why do believers alway’s do this?

That’s the way I and many others have experienced it-that our resistance to the notion of God wasn’t so strictly due to rational motives after all. In Catholic thought there exists in humans a drive to find truth which can be denied but only at our own expense. At the same time we possess an arrogance of sorts which is out of place, because it causes us to give preferential treatment to our own righteousness, placing it in a position ahead of truth. This is the Catch-22 I referred to, a subtle illness that can be overcome by the hypothetically existing god whom we’ve found to exist if and when we turn to Him with some sincerity and ask, because that act itself is one which runs counter to the very arrogance which detests the act and which opposes God and causes an unnatural separation from Him in the first place.

And if this sounds too esoteric and all consider your own words that humility should demand that we acknowledge that we just don’t know. Christians agree that that is the correct starting point but that one need not stay there by necessity -that a little more humility before an interiorly existing hunch that “somethin’ bigger” is going on here-that the transcendent *should *exist in some manner primarily perhaps because of an “awesomeness” I detect in myself and the world even amidst the dirt and suffering and mundaneness and even shame of it all. Anyway, that’s my short version of why I say things like that which you objected to and why I’ve come to agree, after many years of searching in life and various religions that the Catholic thought I alluded to above just happens to be correct.

And where this all becomes most important is in the fact that the very pride we believe God wants us to expel is the same self-righteousness that, at its extreme, causes all moral evil in the world.

 

[jkiernan56]

There is no physical evidence that a man of this name even existed.

True, but IS physical evidence necessary to show historically that someone existed? Would the same hold true for Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Julias Caesar, Pontias Pilate? To say that you have to have physical evidence … like DNA … to prove that someone existed is irrational. Jesus Christ existed just as did the other people mentioned here.

But I can see how a person might deny the truth of a historical event such as the resurrection due to thinking the person never existed. That is logical. If A is NOT true, then B cannot be true.

A has to be true before B can be true. Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead if He never existed … that is a true statement. But if Christ did exist in History … which I think REALLY is fact … then I am able to at least consider point B - The Resurrection … which I believe is a historical event as well … but that is my belief - I can’t prove that to you - but I think there probably is sufficient evidence for any rational person to consider point A … that at least Christ really did exist Historically.

 

[Arandur]

When the Catholic Church says that something is true because the Catholic Church says so, that is bad.

Please show me where the Church has done this. In every situation that I have investigated, the Church gives official explanations and provides the teaching behind the doctrine.

Individuals have relied on authority, and that is often what people do when they do not understand well or are not good at explaining things. Others have admonished people to just obey. That could be good or bad. Obedience to Christ whether we understand and agree with him or not is good, is it not?

Yes, God is the ultimate authority though even (especially!) with God we expect truth. If you pursue truth you will arrive at God so there is no conflict between the two.

Pursuing truth is no guarantee that you will do it well. Personal interpretation is usually errant in some fashion.

One question is to what extent can we similarly rely on the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church is Christ’s Body and is ensouled with the Holy Spirit. When it expresses the gift of these, it is God protecting the message from error. Thus, it is as reliable as God.

Another question is how important is it for us to understand, i.e. to form an opinion, on matters of truth?

Will we ever understand God fully? Did God ever call His people to each become a theologian? I don’t think it’s very important. He stresses obedience much, much more than learning.

You can eradicate heresy simply by burning heretics at the stake.

What are you trying to get at?

Actually, professionals often slip into the same failure when they answer tough questions with their diplomas.

When they answer them that way, yes. What I was referring to was that the academic community is more likely to carefully consider the findings of a man who has proven consistent rigor and creativity to discover new things than they are to consider the findings of a novice. Likewise those who are recognized to have conducted the most extensive studies of a given subject matter and written substantively and impartially on it are recognized as authorities on the subject more likely to be correct than those who have not.

Thus proper authority complements the message and is properly used to do so. In the case of the apostolic office, as the Scriptures tell us of the early apostles, was their authority not used properly to ensure to people the truth of their message? If the Church DOES have the charism of infallibility, then is its authority on those limited matters not the highest, and thus a perfect complement to the message?

I think this really is the core issue. Obviously I’m not arguing for falsity, e.g. discredited theories. But much of theology is built on faith and thus, by its very nature, open to question. We can’t test theological claims like we can scientific claims.

To a point. If God tells you one truth, are you ever going to be right if you develop theologies around an idea that contradicts or combats against that truth? No. Thus it is with the Church. God has given us certain truths. There is no point questioning Him, unless you don’t think He’s truthful. Thus we develop our understanding around what has been revealed and guaranteed as truth already. Why would you do it any other way?

To analogize again to science, once a coefficient for a force is mathematically determined, do you bother tossing out that known factor? Or do you just try to make it more precise (to fewer decimal places) through further study, or study something else related to it?

Quite possibly! One of my favorite examples of this is capitalism, which is pretty much a product of Protestantism (although there are some who claim that Catholic monks were first to practice it). Or take the example of church service in the local language (while I love to watch a Latin mass, I might as well be watching an opera).

Catholics had the first economists—it was formalized through monks and Jesuits. Aside from that, though, Capitalism is just a human label applied to a natural process. How do you think human civilizations got along ever since we started settling down? Barter, trade, division of labor; capitalism is a natural process. It’s ecology as it expresses itself in human civilization.

Capitalism aside, let me offer another, more extreme analogy. If through human sacrifice the Aztecs perfected certain qualities of sacred obedience, was that worth it? If through human experimentation the Nazi’s discovered some medical breakthroughs (and from what I hear, they did), was it worth it? And here is the most relevant one: if through disobedience to God and committing the first sin Adam learned about evil, learned a lesson about obedience and the cost of sin, or really learned anything at all, was that worth the cost of that disobedience?

How, then, would our disobedience of God by rejecting His Truth ever be “worth it” in the sense of being better than obedience to God? That is what it seems like you are saying. Better for some people to be disobedient to God because you never know what they might come up with.

Would in these instances the learning have been impossible to gain any other way, or could it still have come through a much better avenue?

 

[Arandur]

And yet, for whatever reason, it is Protestants who rely on this and Catholics who poo-poo it. Note that I’m not arguing for this view, only pointing out it is not logically inconsistent for Protestants to claim that they interpret the scipture with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

But it is inconsistent for them to claim that they can do so without error. It is also not logical to deny the Church’s authority if there even was a Church before the Bible was compiled. The first three centuries are unexplainable logically to those Protestants who assume that the Church had no authority and the Bible is all we need. It is also not logical to discount the Church’s authority when the Bible (which is accepted as a source of truth) never tells us to rely on it, but rather on the Church.
Thus Protestants if they wish to be logically consistent must recognize some role for a singular Church that complements the truth revealed in Scripture. I’m not sure I’ve heard of any Protestants who will admit that.

Well, I will certainly agree with you that Protestants are lazier than Catholics in terms of dogma. However, it’s been my experience that for all its intellectual poverty, Protestants know their beliefs better than Catholics (on average) and can better explain them to others. I say this having gone through 12 years of Catholic school (from nuns, brothers, and priests, not church lady ccd stuff).

I will agree. The Church has failed at catechesis for many. However, in my previous post I made the point that God never called His people to become theologians, but rather has always placed more importance on obedience. Why do we need to be able to explain theological beliefs and the intricacies of them? Yes, Paul calls us to always be ready to defend the faith and explain what we believe, and we are advised to study the Scriptures. Study, though, is an aid on our journey of faith, not the whole journey. And the faith can be defended and explained in the simple terms of love, it’s primary reality, absent the intricate understanding of theology. “Preach the Gospel at all times; when necessary, use words” is a good explanation of how to be faithful having to have deep intellectual understanding. The admonitions that learned men are often more foolish than the unlearned is another.

Judaism has been consistent in it’s rejection of Jesus as Messiah for as long. They may not agree on much among themselves, but they’re damn sure that Jesus was a fraud. What does that prove?

Judaism has longevity and some measures of consistency—they retain their cultural heritage and many of their core teachings and traditions. Moreso and through more hardships than any other human community in history, I would wager. This is evidence of God’s work.
They lack much theological unity or consistency, however. I’m not an expert on this, but it seems like there is a great diversity of religious traditions and a significant amount of change through the centuries.

The Catholic Church has less longevity so far, but it has also not lost its place on earth in the same way (as the Jews lost their Holy Land). It has spread through the world as per the Great Commission and is the single largest cohesive religious group, another evidence (though not a proof on its own) of God’s favor and guidance. We argue that we have the most consistency of organization and belief of any institution—and we’re talking about the body of beliefs, not just consistency in one belief, like you suggested. Many cultures have been consistently polytheistic; a few basic precepts remaining unchanged is no big deal, particularly when they are not challenged much from within as well as without. The Catholic Church has grown in understanding, but has never contradicted prior beliefs and has held strong against all sorts of attacks from within and without.

The preponderance of evidence is far greater for the Catholic Church that it is guided through history by God with more direction and favor than any other human institution. And that’s because it’s not just human, but also Divine.

Tradition.

?

Unfortunately, not always. But this statement would be more true if Catholics were to set aside the claim of authority.

I did already say this above, but please show me where. Individuals, yes, even whole regions. But where has there ever been a defined doctrine that was not supported by argument by the Church? We’ve always had leaders combating heresies with truth. Surely you’re not proposing to condemn the truth of the Church for the lack of argument of a few?

And then there is the validity of simple obedience to God’s Truth. Why would you claim that such obedience is not good?

Yes, this is a common human failing. I would say, rather, that the Catholic Church has room to improve on this.

It and every human community will always have room to improve.

Yes, I realize this. In fact, I think Protestants have a point that this was a Roman influence. You don’t see this from Jesus or in the early Church.

You don’t see what? Are you saying that the Romans reduced access to education and scholarly resources? That would be surprising to me. Are you saying that Jesus and the early Church wanted everyone to be scholars with a Bible in their hands?

 

[Arandur]

It’s also very easy to throw such accusations around. Some Protestants are absolutly convinced that the Pope is the anti-Christ.

Am I making an accusation? My point is that if the Church was given teaching authority, it would be irresponsible to abdicate its role in favor of telling everyone to figure things out on their own, particularly without proper preparation.

As far as whether the Church was given teaching authority in the first place, aside from the many evidences that it was, we know Christ had teaching authority. Why would he leave his flock to wander on their own, abdicating his teaching authority and role in favor of telling everyone to figure things out on their own, without proper preparation, having only to study those few things that he said were written down? Christ is no shepherd if he did that.