The Catholic church did not give us the Bible

[NotTooSmart]

I’ll take a crack at it!

In the first case, we have the early Church in council mulling over many writings to discern which ones are gnostic and which ones are inspired. The result was of the Holy Spirit.

The second case was the result of sinful human beings acting on sinful passions inspired by the evil one. Love the sinner hate the sin.

But the second case was more than that.

It would be one thing for a priest off-hours to go to Joe’s bar, pick up hookers, and smoke crack. The Catholic church would have nothing to do with this, unless it fails to discipline this priest somehow.

But it is another thing for a priest on church time and on church property to molest altar boys. And if this example is still tenuous, it is another thing for Cardinals and Bishops as a part of their job duties to cover this up and to quietly move the offending priest to another jurisdiction.

And I haven’t even touched on the inquisition and the role of Catholic clerics in this historical event (because I would have to read up on history to review the facts of the case). I stick to the priest stuff because it is current and I have access to the facts of the case.

And again, my intent in this is not to rub your collective noses in it. We after all are the denomination that blessed the world with Swaggart and Bakker.

 

[gepnav]

It was the Church, the pillar and ground of truth, who separated which Books should be in the Bible and those books which were to be excluded and canonised the former as authentic.

The next time you open your Bible thank the Catholic Church for giving it to you.

Correction: It was the one, holy catholic church, not the Catholic Church that gave us the Bible. Most all Christians were united in this – news flash: there were no Protestants back then.

Later, some bodies of Christians are thought to have left that original true church. Modern Catholics say it was the heretical Protestants who departed from the Way, and Protestants return the favor by saying that it was the venal, pagan, idolatrous Roman Catholics who left.

I think both positions are pretty silly.

 

[KindredSoul]

But even if to you I am just whacky nonsense, it still to me does not make sense. I still have a great big disconnect.

Catholic clergy while acting as Catholic clergy performed the tasks necessary in sorting through all of the ancient documents available at that time to create the new Testament.

Catholic clergy while acting as Catholic clergy (not off hours in Joe’s bar) molested altar boys and covered it up.

In the first case we have “the Catholic church gave us the Bible”.

In the second case we have “this was not the Catholic church this was just men”

I still have a great big disconnect on this one. Sorry.

It must be because I am NotTooSmart (as other posters here have told me) and because I make “whacky nonsense” (hey I like that phrase). I get it.

Maybe this does make my list of compliments, Haven’t decided yet.

Just that somebody was “on hours” as Catholic clergy doesn’t mean that what they did in molesting youths was done in the official capacity of the Church as the arbiter of Faith–in this case, it doesn’t even mean that what they did was in the official capacity of the Church in practical matters (on practical matters, by the way, we do not at all assert that the Church is perfect, but even then this situation doesn’t apply to the Church). On the previous page, or maybe the one before that, I offer a more extensive examination of the differences.

For now, I can only say that someone being “on hours”, in a Church or otherwise, doesn’t mean that something they do had the approval of whatever organization they represent, and especially doesn’t mean that they define what that organization stands for. If a Wal-Mart employee shoots me from across the bagging counter, this does not mean that Wal-Mart commissioned them to do so with Wal-Mart’s approval, and has no reflection on the company values of Wal-Mart at all. If, on the other hand, a group of prominent employees decides in the company’s official capacity, approved by the highest authorities in the company, that to be Wal-Mart means that your customers deserve refunds or replacements if they bought something that was broken, that is an official decision. For another contrast, if they then violate that policy, even at the behest of the higher ups, but without officially changing the policy, it still does not reflect what Wal-Mart officially is. It is a matter of what is done in an organization’s official (and in the case of a religious organization, timeless) capacity as opposed to what is done despite that. The analogy is imperfect (because a religious organization defined as the Catholic Church is defined is inherently different from a secular/business model) but I think the point can be inferred. The difference is clear…clear eyes (sorry, couldn’t resist )

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

P.S. You may say that what the Bishops did to cover up the molestations was an official capacity of the Church…and to some extent you are correct insofar as those Bishops were (mis)using authority vested in them by the Church. But above, I established the difference (and I believe it is easy to see) between practical and theological matters. The Church is not perfect in all practical matters, as it is made up of imperfect men who can sin, and the Holy Spirit doesn’t forcibly guard us from sinning if we defy Him. The Church is, however, guarded from derailing the Faith theologically, since the Holy Spirit does protect the Church, when She speaks in the proper capacity (Ex Cathedra) from error. This makes all the difference in the world.

 

[Bill_Pick]

That the Catholic Church exists wherever the bishop appears doesn’t mean that everything the Bishop says is a teaching of Catholicism. While I understand how you would come to that conclusion, it doesn’t automatically follow from the premise.

Exactly how did Jesus take responsibility for Peter cutting off the servant’s ear? He did what was in His power to heal the servant, but in no way does that imply He said it was His own fault that Peter cut off the servant’s ear. Likewise, the Church should do, whenever possible, what it can to amend the mistakes Her followers have made in the past. However, that does not make those mistakes a fault of Catholicism anymore than Peter’s violent act was Jesus’ fault–to even suggest that anything was the fault of Jesus is not a claim I would feel safe to make at all.

Just because rocks and donkeys have been used by God before doesn’t mean that the Catholic Church is not being continually used to deliver God’s word in the present age. I do not even understand how that can be inferred. It has nothing to do with the Church saying “Look at me! I’m the Church God is using to spread His word, Losers!!!” It is instead about the Church speaking the simple Truth–no matter whether God has used Donkeys, rocks, or even if He had used cockroaches to spread His Word in the past, now He is primarily using the Church to fulfill that function. Where is the pride in speaking the simple truth if that is what we honestly believe?

Though one might say “corrupt Senate” as a convenient shorthand, it would be more technically accurate to say there is corruption in the Senate. Though this is a technicality, it makes a difference. If the Senate is corrupt, this implies that the very institution in itself is illegitimate and needs to be replaced with a totally different system, as it implies that the Senate in itself, regardless of what kind of people are in it, is a bad thing and has been proven so. If that corruption is only due to the nature and underhandedness of its members, the system itself may work perfectly fine and trying to do away with the system itself in that case would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The same thing applies to the Church and those historic cases where there were corrupt clergy. Leaving the Church or losing faith in Catholicism itself (deciding the Church as an institution and a religious entity was bad) wasn’t necessarily the answer. Clearly you disagree, but it doesn’t follow of necessity from the given evidence (the corrupt clergy).

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

SOME ONE REALLY SAID THIS they must be kidding no one with any sense can say this====Finally if a number of individual Senators are taking bribes and practicing corruption, one can correctly say that the Senate is corrupt even if all Senators are not acting in a corrupt coalition.

 

[Mickey]

But it is another thing for a priest on church time and on church property to molest altar boys.

What do you mean by , “it is another thing”? Priests can sin like any other human being. The passion of lust can be a powerful and evil force. Is it a sin and a crime? Yes. Was it a sin and a crime to cover it up? Yes. Does it negate the Roman Catholic Church and her teachings? No.

And again, my intent in this is not to rub your collective noses in it.

You are not rubbing my nose in anything. I am not Roman Catholic. I do not think your accusations against the RC Church by using this scandal is effecting any of the Roman Catholics here.

 

[NotTooSmart]

Just that somebody was “on hours” as Catholic clergy doesn’t mean that what they did in molesting youths was done in the official capacity of the Church as the arbiter of Faith–in this case, it doesn’t even mean that what they did was in the official capacity of the Church in practical matters (on practical matters, by the way, we do not at all assert that the Church is perfect, but even then this situation doesn’t apply to the Church). On the previous page, or maybe the one before that, I offer a more extensive examination of the differences.

For now, I can only say that someone being “on hours”, in a Church or otherwise, doesn’t mean that something they do had the approval of whatever organization they represent, and especially doesn’t mean that they define what that organization stands for. If a Wal-Mart employee shoots me from across the bagging counter, this does not mean that Wal-Mart commissioned them to do so with Wal-Mart’s approval, and has no reflection on the company values of Wal-Mart at all. If, on the other hand, a group of prominent employees decides in the company’s official capacity, approved by the highest authorities in the company, that to be Wal-Mart means that your customers deserve refunds or replacements if they bought something that was broken, that is an official decision. For another contrast, if they then violate that policy, even at the behest of the higher ups, but without officially changing the policy, it still does not reflect what Wal-Mart officially is. It is a matter of what is done in an organization’s official (and in the case of a religious organization, timeless) capacity as opposed to what is done despite that. The analogy is imperfect (because a religious organization defined as the Catholic Church is defined is inherently different from a secular/business model) but I think the point can be inferred. The difference is clear…clear eyes (sorry, couldn’t resist )

I thought of that distinction, which is why I specifically mentioned the coverup.

But then my mind turns to the Abu-Ghraib prison scandal where low level operatives on army time and army property tortured Iraqi prisoners. IMHO the victims of this scandal have every right to say “The United States did it” and the United States would be out of line to just dismiss this and say “It ain’t us, it is just some low level scum”. Instead the United States should take responsibility for what these low level scum did as representing the United states.

P.S. You may say that what the Bishops did to cover up the molestations was an official capacity of the Church…and to some extent you are correct insofar as those Bishops were (mis)using authority vested in them by the Church.

Exactly, even if the previous example were tenuous, which I don’t think it is, you still have this issue.

But above, I established the difference (and I believe it is easy to see) between practical and theological matters. The Church is not perfect in all practical matters, as it is made up of imperfect men who can sin, and the Holy Spirit doesn’t forcibly guard us from sinning if we defy Him. The Church is, however, guarded from derailing the Faith theologically, since the Holy Spirit does protect the Church, when She speaks in the proper capacity (Ex Cathedra) from error. This makes all the difference in the world.

Laying aside for the minute my disagreement that the Church is somehow protected from making any little mistake in theological matters.

Even if I am wrong and in fact it is protected…

God has every right to charge an institution with sin on behest of some of its members. If you read the inconvenient account of Achan, God did exactly that. And Achan was just a low-level operative who did what he did without anybody knowing it.

If you think of the implications of this story, they are sobering. God has every right on the basis of my sin (not just Swaggart and Bakkar) to say “Assemblies of God, you have sinned against me”. And God has done this exact same thing in the past with His people.

 

[josie_L]

Correction: It was the one, holy catholic church, not the Catholic Church that gave us the Bible. Most all Christians were united in this – news flash: there were no Protestants back then.

Later, some bodies of Christians are thought to have left that original true church. Modern Catholics say it was the heretical Protestants who departed from the Way, and Protestants return the favor by saying that it was the venal, pagan, idolatrous Roman Catholics who left.

I think both positions are pretty silly.

Newsflash: Protestants separated from the “one holy Catholic and apostolic” Church which was known (as it would be a mouthful to answer I belong to the OHCA Church) as the Catholic Church.

 

[KindredSoul]

I thought of that distinction, which is why I specifically mentioned the coverup.

Which was also dealt with in the post, which you address a couple of paragraphs below, and below I address your address in turn. (Confusing wording, isn’t it? )

But then my mind turns to the Abu-Ghraib prison scandal where low level operatives on army time and army property tortured Iraqi prisoners. IMHO the victims of this scandal have every right to say “The United States did it” and the United States would be out of line to just dismiss this and say “It ain’t us, it is just some low level scum”. Instead the United States should take responsibility for what these low level scum did as representing the United states.

Except that taking responsability for something in the sense of setting it right is not the same thing as saying “I am the one who did this.” Sometimes responsability means you might have been able to do more to prevent a wrong and thus share a role in doing your part to fix what was done, as in your example, rather than saying you in your official capacity (“you” being an institution, nation, etc.) approved that action and that your authority is somehow illegitimated as a result. Though your analogy doesn’t entirely fall flat, by the way, you are bound to eventually run into a brick wall if you continue to insist that a religion (and the religious institution to which it is bound) is directly comparable to more secular situations. As long as you understand the limits of such analogies, it may not be problematic to your grasping the issue…otherwise, however, it may lead you to make conclusions that don’t necessarily follow.

Exactly, even if the previous example were tenuous, which I don’t think it is, you still have this issue.

Which was addressed in the block of text you quoted afterwards, to which you respond:

Laying aside for the minute my disagreement that the Church is somehow protected from making any little mistake in theological matters.

Even if I am wrong and in fact it is protected…

God has every right to charge an institution with sin on behest of some of its members. If you read the inconvenient account of Achan, God did exactly that. And Achan was just a low-level operative who did what he did without anybody knowing it.

If you think of the implications of this story, they are sobering. God has every right on the basis of my sin (not just Swaggart and Bakkar) to say “Assemblies of God, you have sinned against me”. And God has done this exact same thing in the past with His people.

Yes, God has every right to say to the Catholic Church “You failed to be perfect. You have had sin in your midst. Thus, like ancient Israel after Achan’s sin, you have brought hardships upon yourself”–such hardships are evident quite apart from Protestantism having come along, so I do not believe it follows that splitting the Church or invalidating it was God’s “plan of judgment”; there is poverty and pain in our midst, there is tragedy and injustice, and we do not live in anything close to an ideal world, as has been true throughout history; we suffer spiritually, intellectually and (for many) physically in ways that are directly related to the failures of our people…indeed, we deal with the consequences of our imperfections everyday, for I dare say many of the injustices and spiritual agonies in the world would vanish in large part if all Catholics were perfect people who perfectly followed our Faith. Indeed, God’s judgment is upon us for our sins and transgressions, and one can see that by a basic review of our struggles in the world.

However, none of the above even remotely means God will say “You are a false Church and yours is a false Faith.” Consider, had He held the sin of Achan against the religion to which the nation as a unit was adhering, that would be to insinuate that He Himself (God) was to blame, since He is clearly the one who founded that religion. Had He held the sin of Achan against the institution of Israelite religion, in such a way that invalidated it, then the priesthood of Judaism and its religious structure would have been invalid; it would have nothing to do with Christ or the new covenant, but from that very day that Achan had sinned God would have dissolved Judaism as it stood at the time and given them the Jewish version of Protestantism to save them from the system that Achan’s sin had somehow invalidated, if this line of Protestant logic against Catholicism has even the most remote possibility of being sound, let alone leading to a true conclusion. Again, there is a big difference between practical imperfection and theological invalidity. As Catholics, we believe that God founded Catholicism and give the Catholic Church infallibility which can be exercised in theological matters. To lay practical errors (sins, horrible treatment of others throughout history, etc.) at the Church’s charge is at least arguably in line with God’s behavior in the Achan situation. However, to say such sins invalidate (any part of) the religion itself and the institution to which it is intimately bound, does not follow by any means.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[NotTooSmart]

What do you mean by , “it is another thing”? Priests can sin like any other human being. The passion of lust can be a powerful and evil force. Is it a sin and a crime? Yes. Was it a sin and a crime to cover it up? Yes. Does it negate the Roman Catholic Church and her teachings? No.

Actually that is not the problem I have. I agree that it is possible for an institution to be morally messed up and still teach truth. Whether that is happening is another issue, but it is logically possible.

Again my disconnect is
(1) Sola Scriptura Threads: The church gave you heretical Protestants the Bible. So therefore … (in other words church taking credit for the Bible)
(2) Priest Abuse and Inquisition Threads: This is not the church this is just men (church pass the buck on this). Somehow it seems so difficult to say the words “The church has sinned” when it comes to the negative but it is so easy to say “We did it” when it comes to the positive.

You are not rubbing my nose in anything. I am not Roman Catholic. I do not think your accusations against the RC Church by using this scandal is effecting any of the Roman Catholics here.

Oh I absolutely know I will not convince anybody here. That is not my motivation anyway.

 

[Mickey]

Actually that is not the problem I have. I agree that it is possible for an institution to be morally messed up and still teach truth.

Well, that’s good to hear–because the “institution” is not “morally messed up”.

Again my disconnect is
Sola Scriptura Threads: The church gave you heretical Protestants the Bible. So therefore … (in other words church taking credit for the Bible).

It is a fact of history that the Church compiled the canon of the New Testament.

Priest Abuse and Inquisition Threads: This is not the church this is just men (church pass the buck on this). Somehow it seems so difficult to say the words “The church has sinned” when it comes to the negative but it is so easy to say “We did it” when it comes to the positive…

And my disconnect is that I do not understand your disconnect. People sin. That is an obvious fact. Christ is the head of the Church and the Church cannot sin. But the pews are filled with sinners. What is your dilemma?

Oh I absolutely know I will not convince anybody here. That is not my motivation anyway.

That’s good to know.

 

[PRmerger]

I’ll take a crack at it!

In the first case, we have the early Church in council mulling over many writings to discern which ones are gnostic and which ones are inspired. The result was of the Holy Spirit.

The second case was the result of sinful human beings acting on sinful passions inspired by the evil one. Love the sinner hate the sin.

Indeed.

Here’s another thought: Jesus gave us Peter. But he also gave us Judas.
Again, in the spirit of this thread, one ought to put the blame on Jesus for “giving us” Judas.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh…just for the record. I have no intention of changing churches. I am happy where I am thank you.

Oh. disappointed.

I thought you were a seeker of Truth.

 

[Randy_Carson]

But even if to you I am just whacky nonsense, it still to me does not make sense. I still have a great big disconnect.

Catholic clergy while acting as Catholic clergy performed the tasks necessary in sorting through all of the ancient documents available at that time to create the new Testament.

Correct. Working as a group, the “clergy” of the Catholic Church collectively affirmed those books which are contained in the canon we have today.

Catholic clergy while acting as Catholic clergy (not off hours in Joe’s bar) molested altar boys and covered it up.

Correct. A few priests, acting on their own, molested altar boys.

In the first case we have “the Catholic church gave us the Bible”.

Correct. The Church, acting through its bishops as a whole, gave us the Bible.

In the second case we have “this was not the Catholic church this was just men”

Correct. Individual men acted on their own impulses.

I still have a great big disconnect on this one. Sorry.

Suppose that a few police officers who are racists go out of their way to target minorities for traffic violations. Worse, during one traffic stop, they actually get into an altercation with someone, shoot and kill that person. Now, their racism is not an official policy of the police department. The racial profiling that the officers did is not condoned by the police department. The death of the driver is not ordered or approved by the police department.

The legitimate authority of the police department “gave us” safe streets.

The death of the driver, however, is “just the actions of men.”

It must be because I am NotTooSmart (as other posters here have told me) and because I make “whacky nonsense” (hey I like that phrase). I get it.

FWIW, this “nottoosmart” schtick is getting tiresome. Move on.

 

[KindredSoul]

Indeed.

Here’s another thought: Jesus gave us Peter. But he also gave us Judas.
Again, in the spirit of this thread, one ought to put the blame on Jesus for “giving us” Judas.

Delightful observation, PRmerger.

Actually that is not the problem I have. I agree that it is possible for an institution to be morally messed up and still teach truth. Whether that is happening is another issue, but it is logically possible.

Again my disconnect is
(1) Sola Scriptura Threads: The church gave you heretical Protestants the Bible. So therefore … (in other words church taking credit for the Bible)
(2) Priest Abuse and Inquisition Threads: This is not the church this is just men (church pass the buck on this). Somehow it seems so difficult to say the words “The church has sinned” when it comes to the negative but it is so easy to say “We did it” when it comes to the positive.

Earlier you say that your intention is not to “rub out noses” in our past sin. When your argument is closely observed, that is the only accomplishment of your premise, however. Catholics say “The Church gave us the Bible.” You say “The Church also gave us the Inquisition, if that’s true.” Regardless of if that argument makes sense (which we do not agree insofar as “The Church” is used to denote the Catholic religion and the institution bound to it, not the body of potentially sinful mortals), all you would be showing if your argument were sound is that the source of the Biblical canon, and thus potentially the rightful source of other truths of Christianity, is also the source of bad things. Besides calling the Bible’s legitimacy into question as much as any other Catholic teaching (if your logic, if believed, implied that there is something flawed with the Catholic religion, which we do not grant nor believe), what would you have accomplished if your point was valid?

It would be very very much like saying “Jesus gave us the Christianity. He also gave us Judas, and as an extension of the religion He founded (no matter which version of Christianity you observe), He gave us religious intolerance and bigotry.” While I disagree with the assertion that it is appropriate to apply both the good and the bad to Jesus directly, and for the same reasons disagree with the same assertion regarding Catholicism, I fail to see how that accusation, even if the least bit accurate, would in any way harm or invalidate any dogmatic claims that Jesus Christ ever made (i.e. the makings of Christianity)? Ditto with Catholicism and the Catholic Church. You cannot blame or invalidate the Catholic Church as a religious institution (as opposed to, when appropriate, blaming a collection of people and leaders) for the failures of its followers without saying that same blame logically applies to Jesus Christ for such/similar failures.

Thus again, what were you hoping to accomplish other than to offend Catholics or make them uncomfortable, when even if you succeed in doing so you still fail to invalidate even one of the Church’s claims or plant even a seed of doubt in what Catholics believe in? You may say “To make them think.” But this line of thought in no way leads to any real point against Catholicism, nor would it for any rational reason lead us to question even one aspect of our beliefs even if we believed your point was 100% valid, as your claims, even fully believed, demonstrate not the slightest flaw with the Catholic religion. In the end, even a Catholic who agreed with your less-than-compelling claims could be left thinking “So what, exactly?” and continue to believe (without necessitating in any way forsaking rational thought or going into denial) that Catholicism is the one true religion, and the Catholic Church is the one, true, infallible Church, regardless of the sins committed by Her people and how responsible She may or may not be.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I wonder.

I think we have reached the point where we can say,
“NTS believes what he says is perfectly logical and will not change his position.”

Well, if that is so, then all that will happen is that he will continue to state X no matter how often we show X is false. Whatever he’s feeling in regard to this (which could be anything from self-satisfaction to bewilderment to anger, or indeed just about any emotion one can think of) is going to intensify. If he’s angered by the rebuttals, he’ll get more angry. If he’s self satisfied because he thinks he ‘got to’ people, he’ll be more self satisfied.

However, I think there is something different that we can try, and I got a clue from his obvious reaction in showing the "unchristian name-calling’ he had received from what he’s going to assume are disgruntled Catholics.

So here’s what I propose:

Let’s not argue any more. Really. We’ve given the arguments over and over. Simply say, “We addressed that point already. Please re-read the thread. Thank you.”

And let’s not make ANY disparging remarks whatsoever. No matter what the provocation.

Let’s simply love NTS the person (regardless of how we might feel about his words or actions). Without being hypocritical or accepting as ‘right’ what we know is wrong, we can love NTS for simply existing as a child of God, love him for his attempts to know God, and wish him well on his journey to God. Let’s acknowledge that even if people thought they were ‘justified’ to make personal remarks that were in any way unChristian, that we are sorry that they did so and hurt NTS.

Let’s try it.

 

[KindredSoul]

I believe that a convenient shorthand for the solution is this: The Church, as the timeless Institution bound to the Catholic religion and not as in Catholic people (clergy included) in specific places and times, can only “give” us things that are parts of the Catholic religion itself–the doctrinal teachings on faith and morals–as opposed to isolated practices, whether by space or time, throughout history. Good or bad, anything that the Catholic clergy, including Popes, give us that is not logically within the realm of being part of the religion itself, are not, cannot be, given to us by “The Church” in the sense of the timeless Institution that is the arbiter of truth. This is a universal rule that can be gleaned from an honest review of what Catholicism is, and you will find that applying it throughout history cleanly (without having to make exceptions to the rule when inconvenient) establishes that the Church (as defined above) did not, as it could not, give us any of the bad things you may cite.

To illustrate what this means: The Bible, if it was inherently bad and contrary to God’s Truth, would derail the Catholic religion (as in fact it would derail your own beliefs), not simply a generation of Catholic believers who went amok. The Inquisitions, molestation scandal, etc., even though (“if” in the case of the premise behind the Inquisition) inherently bad and contrary to God’s Truth, haven’t and couldn’t logically have had any impact whatsoever on the Catholic religion, insofar as they do not constitute or define one jot or tittle of Doctrinal belief. If the Church as a timeless institution (not the Church as a group of people) is only capable of giving us that which imparts our religion itself (by which I mean, what the religion is, not how it is perceived or treated in the world) then the Bible fits the criteria. The Inquisitions and molestation scandals? They do not fit, as is clear. Neither do Catholic school systems and several other good things, the likes of which, if we were just clamoring to claim the good and not the bad, we would be saying were given to us by “The Church” as an institution. The Catholic Church as a body of believers gave us those good things (so you might hear people claim it as such), just as the Catholic Church as bodies of believers in certain places and times has given us bad…but the Catholic Church as an Institution Teaching the Catholic religion did not, nor did it give us any of bad. One can say, I must add the caveat, that The Catholic Church as a timeless institution, when properly understood, can inspire those good things such as schools and the like, even if it does not directly give them anymore than the Bible does. To say that same Church (again, the institution) carries the blame when misunderstood so as to result in historical atrocities, however, would be as ludicrous as blaming the Bible for similar things. If you believe something is inherently good and God-inspired, as Catholics do about the Church as an Institution (again, not the group, which consists non-impeccable humans) it logically follows that you believe only good things can result from a true understanding of that something, so this is not unique to Catholic claims about the Catholic Religion and the “Church” as signifying the Institution (not the people) to which that religion it is bound…

I pray (and believe in good natured faith) you will be able to understand the distinction, even if you clearly do not believe in Catholicism yourself.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Justy90]

Not only is he misinformed, and uneducated in the faith, he truly believes this.
But with his posting this, only shows how hard it is for non-Catholics to accept this to be true.

That’s not true at all. Most non-Catholics that care enough to be involved in debating with Catholics know the issues and know the Catholic position. They simply do not subscribe to them. Not everyone who isn’t Catholic is an idiot ya know.

 

[Bill_Pick]

If we are to use Nottoosmart logic we can say Hitler was a German and a bad man so all Gereman are bad. Thie thread is like the person who started it not too smart.

 

[NotTooSmart]

If we are to use Nottoosmart logic we can say Hitler was a German and a bad man so all Gereman are bad. Thie thread is like the person who started it not too smart.

Bill:

I hate to inform you, but you have reached your quota of compliments to be added to my compliment file. Time to let some fresh blood in.

 

[KindredSoul]

I wonder.

I think we have reached the point where we can say,
“NTS believes what he says is perfectly logical and will not change his position.”

Well, if that is so, then all that will happen is that he will continue to state X no matter how often we show X is false. Whatever he’s feeling in regard to this (which could be anything from self-satisfaction to bewilderment to anger, or indeed just about any emotion one can think of) is going to intensify. If he’s angered by the rebuttals, he’ll get more angry. If he’s self satisfied because he thinks he ‘got to’ people, he’ll be more self satisfied.

However, I think there is something different that we can try, and I got a clue from his obvious reaction in showing the "unchristian name-calling’ he had received from what he’s going to assume are disgruntled Catholics.

So here’s what I propose:

Let’s not argue any more. Really. We’ve given the arguments over and over. Simply say, “We addressed that point already. Please re-read the thread. Thank you.”

And let’s not make ANY disparging remarks whatsoever. No matter what the provocation.

Let’s simply love NTS the person (regardless of how we might feel about his words or actions). Without being hypocritical or accepting as ‘right’ what we know is wrong, we can love NTS for simply existing as a child of God, love him for his attempts to know God, and wish him well on his journey to God. Let’s acknowledge that even if people thought they were ‘justified’ to make personal remarks that were in any way unChristian, that we are sorry that they did so and hurt NTS.

Let’s try it.

This seems to be very sound advice…it is just so difficult for me to discern whether someone is irrevocably determined to believe claims about us like his no matter how good our defense, or whether or not they are truly failing to notice some inherent flaw with their logic, not due to stupidity (I suspect he is quite smart) but oversight. I am still not certain which is the case with NTS, which is why it is still easy to remain absorbed in this thread (and other threads like it; you’d think I’d learn my lesson ).

I suspect, however, that you are correct…knowing me, it probably won’t keep me from taking further bait remaining submerged in the fray. …but I can give it a try.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul