Traditions of men - us vs them

[steve_b]

What exactly constitutes knowledge; from what point on can it be said that a man knows something?

If you recite something to someone, does this automatically mean that the person knows it?

Since you don’t give a specific example, I will provide one

How about this

Paul instructs the Church at Corinth

• 1 Corinthians 6: 9 - 10 no sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders ἀρσενοκοῖται]10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

In their hearing this warning ONCE, or their reading of this warning ONCE, do they (the Corinthians) or anyone for that matter, now know these sins are grave (i.e. mortal sin) because if one dies in them they will go to hell? Yes

 

[steve_b]

As for me I don’t assume I know what they have been taught. I can assume as make an assuming mistake that I rather not make.

In over 10 years on these forums I have not started 1 thread, not 1 topic. That’s because I personally prefer not to start a conversation, I’d rather come in after one is already going.

In that case, one can tell pretty fast, what a person believes or doesn’t, and also what they’ve been taught. It reduces making assumptions big time.

 

[CatholicHockey7]

It’s why Protestantism is one of The Great Heresies in history. It’s why the Church calls for a new evangelization by Catholics. We need to educate these folks and the rest of the world. Agreed?

I agree we must work to educate, but I say we have to educate at home first and foremost. How many Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence?

 

[steve_b]

I agree we must work to educate, but I say we have to educate at home first and foremost. How many Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence?

I agree, education starts at home. One can’t pass on what THEY don’t have themselves.

 

[mdcpensive1]

In over 10 years on these forums I have not started 1 thread, not 1 topic. That’s because I personally prefer not to start a conversation, I’d rather come in after one is already going.

In that case, one can tell pretty fast, what a person believes or doesn’t, and also what they’ve been taught. It reduces making assumptions big time.

I understand what you say because to me when you know a lot about apologetics and theology as you do it is not necessary to ask the questions but give to others what they do not know. It is an understanding of bringing more of Christ to them.

For me, I have started just a few threads, less than fingers on one hand. I did it because sometimes I am interested in a fuller understanding of a topic and to get the benefit of the wonderful knowledge people have here. There is much to be learned from others who have put much time in gaining knowledge and I like to be able to use that in my other evangelization efforts.

 

[Lucy107]

Since you don’t give a specific example, I will provide one

How about this

Paul instructs the Church at Corinth

• 1 Corinthians 6: 9 - 10 no sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders ἀρσενοκοῖται]10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

In their hearing this warning ONCE, or their reading of this warning ONCE, do they (the Corinthians) or anyone for that matter, now know these sins are grave (i.e. mortal sin) because if one dies in them they will go to hell? Yes

No. They most certainly don’t.

You seem to have a trivial standard for what can be counted as “knowledge.”

If a crazy man in the street tells you that the Earth is flat, do you thus know it? After all, someone told you, you have heard it, so you know it …

 

[Ignatius]

This may be a bit off topic but it seems heresy is a debateable topic. It seems like the same reasons to have mortal sin in that you have to know it is a direct turning from what God wants. I don’t think that many protestants even know what the Catholic Church teaches and how that differs from what they know.

It is an interesting topic maybe picked up on some other thread.

It’s the difference between formal and material heresy. A heretic would be a Catholic who turns away from the de fide teachings of The Church.
St. Augustine forbids us to blame a man for being a heretic because he was born of heretical parents, provided that he does not with obstinate self-assurance shut out all better knowledge, but seeks the truth simply and sincerely.

 

[steve_b]

No. They most certainly don’t.

You seem to have a trivial standard for what can be counted as “knowledge.”

If a crazy man in the street tells you that the Earth is flat, do you thus know it? After all, someone told you, you have heard it, so you know it …

I quoted St Paul’s warning as an example answer to your question #40. And your response back to me is

“If a crazy man in the street tells you that the Earth is flat, do you thus know it? After all, someone told you, you have heard it, so you know it”

That is NOT an appropriate response to what I said. I think you just like to argue for the sake of arguing.

 

[Lucy107]

I quoted St Paul’s warning as an example answer to your question #40. And your response back to me is

“If a crazy man in the street tells you that the Earth is flat, do you thus know it? After all, someone told you, you have heard it, so you know it”

That is NOT an appropriate response to what I said. I think you just like to argue for the sake of arguing.

Oh dear.

You are simply failing or knowingly refusing to acknowledge that there are additional steps necessary before it can be reasonably said that someone knows something.

Why did you think that the example with the crazy man in the street was not appropriate? Because you implicitly operate out of the notion that crazy men in the street who say odd things are not a source of knowledge that you trust.

But you implicitly operate out of the notion that the Bible or the CCC are a source of knowledge that you trust.

I am pointing out that not everyone considers the Bible or the CCC as trustworthy sources of knowledge; so when such people hear something from these sources, they cannot be rightfully said to know.

 

[steve_b]

Oh dear.

You are simply failing or knowingly refusing to acknowledge that there are additional steps necessary before it can be reasonably said that someone knows something.

you in effect compared St Paul to some crazy man on the street instructing people.
L:

Why did you think that the example with the crazy man in the street was not appropriate? Because you implicitly operate out of the notion that crazy men in the street who say odd things are not a source of knowledge that you trust.

You are the one comparing St Paul to a crazy man. And you think that’s appropriate?
L:

But you implicitly operate out of the notion that the Bible or the CCC are a source of knowledge that you trust.

Bingo!!!

Given your point of view on the CCC and the bible, why are you on Catholic Answers?
L:

I am pointing out that not everyone considers the Bible or the CCC as trustworthy sources of knowledge; so when such people hear something from these sources, they cannot be rightfully said to know.

You never stipulated upfront your objection to those sources for any answer. If you want secular answers only, there are pleanty of places to go on the internet for that. Why are you on Catholic Answers?

 

[Lucy107]

you in effect compared St Paul to some crazy man on the street instructing people.

You did that, sadly.

I made a point about epistemic principles of trustworthiness.

Given your point of view on the CCC and the bible, why are you on Catholic Answers?

To better understand how Christians/Catholics think, and thus what can reasonably be expected from them in communication.

You never stipulated upfront your objection to those sources for any answer. If you want secular answers only, there are pleanty of places to go on the internet for that. Why are you on Catholic Answers?

Thank you, you’ve made some things very clear to me.

 

[hiramross]

You did that, sadly.

I made a point about epistemic principles of trustworthiness.

To better understand how Christians/Catholics think, and thus what can reasonably be expected from them in communication.

Thank you, you’ve made some things very clear to me.

Hi Lucy107

If I might add some of my own (name removed by moderator)ut.

From your earlier post your stance was on the side of - what is considered known “knowledge” that would/wouldn’t condemn some one (correct me if am wrong please). In the very early days of the church the apostles were still able to perform miracles that were proofs of a “supernatural” and in that time was needed as information wasn’t as accessible as today. That and testimony from multiple sources (more than one Gospel and living apostles plus St. Paul) was the evidence needed to reasonably say someone now had has the knowledge presented to them. Therefor they don’t qualify for the “ignorance” factor. As time progressed and more understanding of the Bible and scripture is shined more evidence can be asserted to others.

IF a crazy man shouts out “the world is an egg in the belly of a chicken” (just an example *wink) that claim is unsupported as the only man claiming this is the “crazy man”. But if the crazy man works some supernatural works from the chicken…maybe views would defer…

The questioning about the crazy is funny and you have made me laugh! Thank you Lucy!!