To continue our analogy: an atheist could then say, “this is exactly why atheists want a concrete scientific proof or a solid historical proof…it is b/c w/o any such proof all that one is offered is blustering opinion.”
believr,
You ae getting a little off the wall now - No one is talking about tux’s or 2000 dollar suits.
A bibel is a simple mispelling of bible which those early memebers of the Church DID write.
The Reason why Protestantism is gravely divided in faith and morals is because it relies strictly on proof reading the scriptural texts deprived of the central Apostolic teaching authority (Magisterium) of the Church which is guided by the Paraclete.
Certainly God has seen me: in jeans, in shorts, in a bathing suit, wearing a hat, wearing nothing at all …
No, although I can see how you might get such an idea, since very few Catholics are confirmed (chrismated) as infants.
Hey, I just noticed something interesting: 3 months is also about how long you’ve been on CAF. Now how’s that for a crazy coincidence?
Interesting point – although I don’t think it will make you very popular among your fellow Ps.
As with all Marian doctrines/dogmas, their significance has to do with our understanding of Christ. Every doctrine/dogma re-affirms our Christology.
We are agreed? You believe that it’s disingenuous and hypocritical of a P to demand concrete evidence from a RC yet cannot provide concrete evidence to an atheist?
No, it would be like a P demanding evidence from a RC yet being unable to provide concrete evidence to an atheist.Would be kinda like arguing that b/c the history professor can’t provide scientific proof that Alexander was the son of Philip, he shouldn’t require any proof from historical evidence that Napolean actually won the battle of Waterloo…he must simply accept the assertion.
No Catholic here is claiming that any mortal man is “completely” holy, 1beleevr.
Oh dear, the dreaded “if you don’t believe what I tell you, then you have made Jesus out to be a liar” ploy. Some originality please.
Interesting that you should make that point, 1beleevr, since it’s usually the Protestant who use the word “saints” to mean living Christians, whereas Catholics usually use the word “saints” to mean the saints in heaven.
Hey, something we can agree on.
And I would respond that b/c the question of Christ’s existence is a historical question, one can not properly require scientific proof…and I would agree that it is entirely appropriate to request solid historical proof.
Do atheists say this? Maybe my atheists are smarter than your atheists? In any event, some things might have a mathematical proof, some things might have a logical proof based on agreed premises and some other things might just be faith…but that bit of bile was a blusterous opinion.
No, not necessarily the question of Christ’s existence, Radical. There’s also the question of Christ’s divinity, the question of His resurrection, the question of His miracles. etc etc etc. Can you as a Christian provide scientific, historical, CONCRETE proof of these?
Indeed. And the part about faith is the part that atheists reject.
You will see people whispering, perhaps even pointing at one, whom they have deemed dressed inappropriately, while God is saying,“His/her heart is the focus of my attention!”.And I am in the presence of my Saviour, on a daily basis; not just when I am in church! He encounters me at my home, at my work, in the mall, in my car, etc. This is the beauty of what happened when the veil(curtain) was torn from the top down; we were given the privilege of entering the throne room of grace, through prayer, and communion! So, if what someone is wearing, is distracting, perhaps your focus is on the wrong thing
Please note that we both believe that we are under Christ’s authority and that we are obedient to him….the actual difference is that it is your personal opinion that the RCC is a valid inerrant authority (re official doctrine) and it is my personal opinion that it is not.
The historical context for a book such as Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians is that it is a letter written by someone (who we both acknowledge as an apostle) to a local church in Corinth regarding its circumstances at that time. That letter was immediately recognized as possessing the authority of apostolic teaching and was therefore copied and circulated for the edification of others. Nothing, absolutely nothing about that historical context gives the RCC the ability to infallibly interpret the epistle. The epistle constitutes part of God’s Word and not part of the RCC’s Word. Likewise the book of Genesis is part of God’s Word and not part of the Jews’ Word and I am no more bound (by historical context) to accept the Jews’ interpretation of the OT than I am bound to accept the RCC’s interpretation of the NT.
that was obvious
likewise I indicated that your expectation for a P to accept the RCC’s authority is akin to the kind of expectation that we might expect from a Mormon.
This seems valid….if you had indicated to the fellow that you have no proof or solid evidence for Mary’s perpetual virginity and that you believe it purely as a matter of faith, then it is odd for him to request proof (as you have already acknowledge that you don’t have any)….and it would also be reasonable for him to inform you that, for his purposes, he would require solid evidence in order to believe (particularly when the earliest record of the belief is a forgery).
I believe that it’s disingenuous and hypocritical of a P to demand concrete scientific evidence from a RC while refusing to meet an atheist’s demand for concrete scientific evidence (wrt the same or wrt a similar matter). Further, I believe that it’s disingenuous and hypocritical of a RC to insist that a P accept the RCC’s claims of authority w/o offering any solid historical or scriptural proof while the RC refuses to accept the Mormon Church’s claims of authority unless the Mormon produces solid historical or scriptural proof. And finally, I don’t think that it’s disingenuous and hypocritical of a P to demand concrete historical evidence from a RC while refusing to meet an atheist’s demand for concrete scientific evidence b/c historical evidence can be applicable to matters that scientific evidence cannot touch.
Tattered and torn, immaculate and pressed, Jesus will meet you right where you are; be it a gleaming, stained glass adorned building or a weather-beaten shack! Yes, the OT speaks of the glorious Temple that Solomon built, but without God in a building, it is just that a building! Question:A seemingly homeles person, dressed in worn out, dirty clothes, reeking of perspiration and other odors, shows up at your church. What would you do with him/her? Remember one thing when talking about appearances, whether how one is dressed, or what type of house they live in; our Saviour was born in a manger:thumbsup:I would like to ask you what evidence you have in the historical record for the bolded statement above.
And you know this how??