Radbod, Wolfram, and Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

[PumpkinCookie]

(continued…)

LOL – if you’re trying to allude that Constantine was the final arbiter of Christian doctrine, then you’ll need to change your context: you’re now in the realm of science fiction, not history…

It should. Sometimes, though, ‘nonsense’ and ‘vicious speculation’ is what humans are better at. Sometimes, throughout the course of history, ‘violent suppression’ was the normal way of doing things. Applying modern mores to ancient contexts is called ‘anachronism’. It’s not your friend. :nope:

I think it is entirely appropriate to judge the morality of our ancestors by our own standards if we believe morality is objective. Aren’t you required by your faith to believe morality is objective? How can you let your ancestors off the hook when even your own church has changed her teachings to now embrace religious freedom?

I won’t go into caesaropapism or the Nicene controversy now. Of course, I do not hold that Constantine “invented” Christian beliefs. I do believe we have evidence to show that he was the final arbiter between Arianism and Cyrillianism.

Psst… here’s your clue-by-four for the day: throughout history, whenever someone taught something that ticked off someone else, do you know what the accusation of the offended person was, against the ‘offender’? Yep, you got it! ‘Treason’ or ‘sedition’ or ‘corrupting the morals of youths.’ If “the Greco-Roman culture had no concept of ‘orthodoxy’”, then you need to come up with a really, really creative explanation of why Socrates’ last happy hour included a hemlock cocktail…

Socrates made many political enemies during his life. He made people feel like fools, and disapproved of various wars. He was obnoxious to all kinds of people (though brilliant and possibly the greatest philosopher ever). You are correct that we are much more religiously tolerant now due to the adoption of enlightenment ideals.

The fact is: the religious persecution practiced by Islam and Christianity far surpasses anything seen in the ancient world (other than by the Jewish people, perhaps).

So the Catholic Church and the ignorant fools who executed Socrates are on the same side of history? Is that what you’re implying?

Let’s consider some states who practice(d) censorship, book burning, and execution of nay-sayers. Iran, North Korea, USSR, China, Saudia Arabia, ISIS, Venezuela, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, oh yeah and Christendom. Hmmm…

I realize that Christendom was made up of humans. Humans do terrible things. No argument from me there. However, shouldn’t a Christian civilization run by the Catholic Church have been better than the above mentioned regimes? Why would modern secular states be more peaceful and more free?

It argues not against the claims being made, but merely against the persons making the claims. You can translate “ad hominem”… can’t you?

Au contraire, my friend. You’ve got more skin in the game than you realize. Your entire perspective on the world is at stake. If you accept Catholic teaching as truth, the pillars of your world-view come crashing down. That’s at least as hairy a consequence as “daily bread” – in fact, it’s a far weightier consequence!

Neither, I’d say. Rather, it points to the fact that personally-held convictions are precisely that: personally-held. You’re merely demonstrating that a person can change his mind. That doesn’t prove or disprove the conclusions he’s abandoning or embracing; it merely demonstrates that he’s decided for one and against another.

We have good reason to be skeptical of the claims of people who are PAID to make those claims.

1. A scientist says a drug is perfectly safe after having lots of tests. Later we find out he was paid large sums of money by the drug manufacturer. Are you as confident in his claim of safety after learning about the payment? What about the claims of millions who took the drug, got sick, and warn you not to take it?
2. A salesman says the car is the best model out there and you should totally buy it. Later you find out he gets a large bonus every time he sells that particular model. Are you as confident in the truth of his claim? What about your friend who owned that car, got into an accident, and is now telling you there are much better and safer ones?

Isn’t a professional Catholic, one who depends for his or her income on affirming the Catholic faith while denying all others, similar to the corrupt scientist or car salesman? Shouldn’t we be equally suspicious? Why not?

 

[goout]

Catholicism isn’t like Calculus. Calculus can be demonstrated to be true. My wife teaches it all the time. Catholicism cannot be demonstrated to be true, and relies on naked appeals to authority. If calculus relied on appeals to authority instead of reason, and Newtonian and Leibnizians had been torturing and killing each other for centuries due to their minor differences in the interpretation of Euler, then it would absolutely make sense to examine the sordid details.

This is really silly.
Catholicism is not calculus, you are right. And calculus is not Catholicism.
Catholicism doesn’t pretend to be calculus. And Catholicism does not pretend to present the same type of truth as calculus. So your insistence that Catholicism conform to the same type of truths as calculus is silly.


Ask your wife when she teaches calculus, if calculus makes propositions as to meaning, being, purpose, identity, where we came from, where we are going. No, it doesn’t.
By your standards, calculus is very deficient, because it says nothing about the things Catholicism addresses. Should we dismiss the value of calculus because it does not address these truths? You can see the silliness of this argument.

And perhaps you could note that noone will ever get very upset in a disagreement over calculus because in the end, while the truths it addresses are important, they are not existentially important. So they are important, just not very important in comparison.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

This is really silly.
Catholicism is not calculus, you are right. And calculus is not Catholicism.
Catholicism doesn’t pretend to be calculus. And Catholicism does not pretend to present the same type of truth as calculus. So your insistence that Catholicism conform to the same type of truths as calculus is silly.


Ask your wife when she teaches calculus, if calculus makes propositions as to meaning, being, purpose, identity, where we came from, where we are going. No, it doesn’t.
By your standards, calculus is very deficient, because it says nothing about the things Catholicism addresses. Should we dismiss the value of calculus because it does not address these truths? You can see the silliness of this argument.

And perhaps you could note that noone will ever get very upset in a disagreement over calculus because in the end, while the truths it addresses are important, they are not existentially important. So they are important, just not very important in comparison.

I’m not insisting that it does, I am demonstrating the inadequacy of Gorgias’ analogy. Go back and read his/her post. I unfortunately made the context unclear by cutting out some of the post since I wanted to avoid the word limit.

 

[goout]

I’m not insisting that it does, I am demonstrating the inadequacy of Gorgias’ analogy. Go back and read his/her post. I unfortunately made the context unclear by cutting out some of the post since I wanted to avoid the word limit.

I did read it.
You do not understand what is being said to you. You are simply throwing out objections without knowing what you are objecting to.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I did read it.
You do not understand what is being said to you. You are simply throwing out objections without knowing what you are objecting to.

OK, here we go.

PC: Why don’t they teach history in religious indoctrination classes?
GS: Why don’t they teach math?
PC: Math isn’t relevant, history is relevant.
GS: History is a different subject that isn’t relevant at the most basic level. Do math students lean history?
PC: History is irrelevant to math because math is based on reason whereas religion is based on history and authority. If math were based on history and authority like religion is, then your analogy would be functional and the controversy would be highly relevant. However, your analogy fails because it relies on a non-symmetric relation.

GT: You’re silly. Math and religion aren’t the same!
PC: Right, that’s why GS’ analogy fails. Maybe read it again?
GT: I did, you’re dumb.
PC: [here we are]

 

[goout]

OK, here we go.

PC: Why don’t they teach history in religious indoctrination classes?
GS: Why don’t they teach math?
PC: Math isn’t relevant, history is relevant.
GS: History is a different subject that isn’t relevant at the most basic level. Do math students lean history?
PC: History is irrelevant to math because math is based on reason whereas religion is based on history and authority. If math were based on history and authority like religion is, then your analogy would be functional and the controversy would be highly relevant. However, your analogy fails because it relies on a non-symmetric relation.

GT: You’re silly. Math and religion aren’t the same!
PC: Right, that’s why GS’ analogy fails. Maybe read it again?
GT: I did, you’re dumb.
PC: [here we are]

I’ll just repost your words and let your words demonstrate the problem.

Catholicism isn’t like Calculus. Calculus can be demonstrated to be true. My wife teaches it all the time. Catholicism cannot be demonstrated to be true, and relies on naked appeals to authority (you don’t understand Catholicism). If calculus relied on appeals to authority instead of reason, and Newtonian and Leibnizians had been torturing and killing each other for centuries due to their minor differences in the interpretation of Euler, then it would absolutely make sense to examine the sordid details.

 

[e_c]

So far, what we have here, is very strange…

PC says St. Wolfram’s off the cuff remarks to Radbod provide a contradiction in Catholic teaching.

He similarly claims that some random priest’s homily had a philological error, which means that no Catholic knows what the heck is going on.

Combined with the insistence on his own fair-mindedness and historical acumen, this points to PC as the best authority on the great questions of religion, over and against two other random people.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I’ll just repost your words and let your words demonstrate the problem.

There isn’t any one, cohesive “Catholicism” to understand. But anyway:

PC: How do I know the trinity/transubstantiation/other Catholic dogmas are true?
Catholic: Because Jesus says so, and he was God, so he can’t be wrong.
PC: How do you know he says so and is God?
Catholic: Because the Bible says so.
PC: How do you know that’s what the Bible actually says?
Catholic: Because the Church says so.
PC: How do you know the Church is right?

Catholic: Because the Jesus says so, and he was God, so he can’t be wrong.
PC: How do you know he says so and is God?
Catholic: Because the Bible…

This will go on forever, in a circle, because it is ultimately grounded on self-referential authority.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

So far, what we have here, is very strange…

PC says St. Wolfram’s off the cuff remarks to Radbod provide a contradiction in Catholic teaching.

Off the cuff, recorded in his official hagiography. OK. This single case doesn’t prove anything, it is merely more evidence.

He similarly claims that some random priest’s homily had a philological error, which means that no Catholic knows what the heck is going on.

It’s not just a philological error, it betrays a deep ignorance about the Bible from a person who is supposed to be a paid “faith expert.”

I have many, MANY more stories but this website itself is more than enough evidence that “no Catholic knows what the heck is going on.”

Combined with the insistence on his own fair-mindedness and historical acumen, this points to PC as the best authority on the great questions of religion, over and against two other random people.

I never claimed to be fair-minded and have acknowledged my anti-Catholic bias many times. No one is paying me to have my opinions though and my livelihood doesn’t depend on making sure I never change my mind.

I am not a historian, though I have studied some aspects of history as an amateur and others as a graduate student.

 

[e_c]

An “official hagiography” which we both agreed was spurious and hostile…

I don’t know the individual you are bad-mouthing here, but my guess is that he knows more about Scripture than you.

Great… Not everyone is an expert.

You’ve continually pointed out that you have no “skin in the game,” while so many others do. You even went so far as to say that if you did convert, your life wouldn’t change at all… Shows how little you understand how forceful the kerygma is, and its demands on daily life. There’s no conversion without change… Seems self-evident.

You are not a historian for sure.

So, PC, where is the contradiction? Are you satisfied that Wolfram is irrelevant for us?

 

[goout]

There isn’t any one, cohesive “Catholicism” to understand. But anyway:

Yes, there is. It is easily available and is there for anyone to attack. It happens a lot.

PC: How do I know the trinity/transubstantiation/other Catholic dogmas are true?
Catholic: Because Jesus says so, and he was God, so he can’t be wrong.
PC: How do you know he says so and is God?
Catholic: Because the Bible says so.
PC: How do you know that’s what the Bible actually says?
Catholic: Because the Church says so.
PC: How do you know the Church is right?

Catholic: Because the Jesus says so, and he was God, so he can’t be wrong.
PC: How do you know he says so and is God?
Catholic: Because the Bible…

This will go on forever, in a circle, because it is ultimately grounded on self-referential authority.

With all respect for you and where you’re at, you don’t understand what Catholicism is. You don’t understand revelation or authority.
And so yes, you do go in self-referential circles because you attack straw men constantly, as you did above.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Yes, there is. It is easily available and is there for anyone to attack. It happens a lot.

With all respect for you and where you’re at, you don’t understand what Catholicism is. You don’t understand revelation or authority.
And so yes, you do go in self-referential circles because you attack straw men constantly, as you did above.

OK. How do you know, for instance, that the bread and wine really are transformed into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus and that he is truly substantially present on the altar after the words of consecration?

See if you can give me a one-sentence answer without the word “relationship.”

 

[goout]

OK. How do you know, for instance, that the bread and wine really are transformed into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus and that he is truly substantially present on the altar after the words of consecration?

See if you can give me a one-sentence answer without the word “relationship.”

You want scientific proof of something that is not science.
And you want to dictate the terms I can use.

Self referential, yes.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

You want scientific proof of something that is not science.
And you want to dictate the terms I can use.

Self referential, yes.

Science? What? All I asked is “how do you know?” Can you answer that question?

 

[e_c]

Of course it’s based on the authority and power of Christ, and the ability to extend that authority and power to select individuals.

Before this thread spins into no-man’s-land, can we agree that Wolfram is irrelevant?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Of course it’s based on the authority and power of Christ, and the ability to extend that authority and power to select individuals.

Before this thread spins into no-man’s-land, can we agree that Wolfram is irrelevant?

There once was a bishop, St. Wolfram
Whose preaching to Radbod was flim-flam
The centuries flew by
Forum posters did sigh
“irrelevant this guy, don’t you think, man?”

No not irrelevant, just another piece of evidence that the Church has changed its teachings and contradicted itself. Is it conclusive evidence? No. Has anyone been caught with their hand in the cookie jar? No. But it’s not totally irrelevant either.

 

[goout]

Science? What? All I asked is “how do you know?” Can you answer that question?

I know by faith, trust, reason, using my experience and discerning all that has been passed on to me.
If you want a one word answer it would be “faith”.
And that faith is in a relationship.

 

[goout]

No not irrelevant, just another piece of evidence that the Church has changed its teachings and contradicted itself. Is it conclusive evidence? No. Has anyone been caught with their hand in the cookie jar? No. But it’s not totally irrelevant either.

The Church has changed it’s teachings. Yea, so? Change is not necessarily a refutation of what came before. It’s a development of it.

Look outside at the nearest tree and tell us, does a tree look like it’s seed?
No you say? A tree looks like a tree?
Fine then, it seems the seed must have changed. It no longer seems to be a seed.

So you can accuse the seed of change and deny that it made a good tree.
Wouldn’t that be kinda silly?

Is the seed part of the true substance of the tree, or is it not?
Before you reflexively reject the analogy, please note that if you are going to object to the nature of the Church, you should at least know what you are objecting to.

The Church is organic. (or living) It’s nature is to grow in understanding. It is a pilgrim Church. It journeys. It is not static. It is not a book of doctrine.
It is a living organism.

 

[Gorgias]

Why would you give the priest the benefit of the doubt here but assume ignorance on my part?

Simple. It’s all about context. He’s talking to an audience who may not have a deep understanding of Scriptural languages and the history of the move from oral tradition to written Scripture; here, that’s part of the set of assumptions. Moreover, he only has a limited time, so his ability to delve into all the relevant background is limited; here, we have that ability. So, given that I’d expect that your argument include these considerations, and that I’d expect that his wouldn’t necessarily do so, therefore I conclude that your perspective and knowledge is less than you make it out to be. Perhaps I’m assuming too much about you: in that case, I should conclude merely that you weren’t up to the challenge of properly contextualizing your argument.

Bottom line: it doesn’t matter that Jesus spoke Aramaic in his day-to-day life since the priest wasn’t talking about Jesus the real human being, but the character Jesus in the gospel accounts which are rendered in Greek.

Wait… now who’s making assumptions about what the priest was trying to say? Did he talk about ‘characters in narratives’? Or is that your own personal assertion?

By his insistence that the very words in the gospel accounts were Hebrew, he raises serious questions about his education.

To-may-to, to-mah-to. I see it, rather, as shorthand for a reference to Hebraisms in the Gospel account.

Again, you assume there was an original meaning that can be “mapped” retroactively from later accounts in a foreign language.

Whereas you assume there’s no original meaning. Looks like we’re at loggerheads.

I just thought you would like to be aware of the intellectual company you’re keeping.

The more you write, the more I become aware of exactly that dynamic…

Catholicism isn’t like Calculus. Calculus can be demonstrated to be true.

And… you’ve completely failed to perceive my example. It’s all good, dude. You’re always right; we’re always wrong. You’re always logical; we’re always illogical. We’re well aware of the way you perceive the world. It’s all good. Wrong… prejudicial… but all good.

 

[Gorgias]

PC: How do I know the trinity/transubstantiation/other Catholic dogmas are true?
Catholic: Because Jesus says so, and he was God, so he can’t be wrong.
PC: How do you know he says so and is God?
Catholic: Because the Bible says so.
PC: How do you know that’s what the Bible actually says?
Catholic: Because the Church says so.
PC: How do you know the Church is right?

Catholic: Because the Jesus says so, and he was God, so he can’t be wrong.
PC: How do you know he says so and is God?
Catholic: Because the Bible…

Straw man much, do you? Oh yes… yes, you do.