"You think you know better!"

[tjm190]

We should 100% trust our own thinking? Because everybody knows that they don’t bring any pre-conceived notions, rationalizations, attachments to sin, prejudices, addictions, personal preferences, justifications or moral blind-spots into the excercise of deciding what behavior is best.

All of these things would be brought to light in a discussion of one’s reasoning would they not?

But in the end your way all boils down to: the individual gets to decide.
If I say that by the light of my intellect, I have seen nothing that shows any dissident conclusions are better than the traditional magesterial teachings of the Church, I will go with those conclusions that have been tried and tested and measured against all the novelties that have cropped up over the centuries. But If I prefer my own way - that’s OK too. It’s just a cooincidence that my way happens to go with the flow of modern thinking - really, it is.

“Preference” is a matter of opinion- a logical conclusion based on sound logical debate and discussion is not a matter of opinion.

A pretty good way of summing this up is: “You think you know better”

I believe I sufficiently debunked your ability to make this claim in the original post. You are welcome to keep holding this belief, but if you wish to appear competent I suggest you rebuttal the claims made against it/

It need not be a condemnation - it sounds like a statement of fact. You do indeed think you know better, and that we are all just mindless sheep following the dictates of Rome becasue we can’t be bothered to fire up our own intellectual jet-packs.

After all you think your way is right don’t you?

Everyone thinks their current belief system is the true one, but not all of us have to say our current beliefs are infallible.

 

[PapaSquash]

No, if you have the facts you are just as entitled to form an opinion as everyone else- but to test it’s validity you have to expose it to criticism. You do never need authority to form an opinion- that’s just easy mode. (Btw, String Theory is ridiculous,albeit interesting, speculation, I wouldn’t recommend spending too much time on )

Opinions are subjective and cannot be right or wrong. Moral choices are always right or wrong. An opinion about a moral choice is like the statement " I think a D-minor chord should be yellow" in the end, it’s meaningless.

Testing the “validity of an opinion” is just a popularity contest. you will end up blowing with the breeze. And if you can claim that submitting to authority is “easy mode” I have to suspect that you have never done it.

Someone once told me: You can’t think your way into right living - but you can live your way into right thinking. This is a concept that I didn’t get at the time and could never have arrived at on my own. I have tried to implment it in my life however, and to the extent I have, it has worked.

I agree with you about String Theory, it’s a bit of a wankfest.

peace, TJM thanks for the discussion.

 

[allhers]

…and what about a properly informed conscious?

 

[tjm190]

…and what about a properly informed conscious?

Debate. And. Discussion.

 

[Tosk]

No, if you have the facts you are just as entitled to form an opinion as everyone else- but to test it’s validity you have to expose it to criticism. You do never need authority to form an opinion- that’s just easy mode. (Btw, String Theory is ridiculous,albeit interesting, speculation, I wouldn’t recommend spending too much time on )

I certainly never started with just the facts and then worked through to my own opinions in anything I ever learned. I was hand fed everything by teachers, parents, books; basically by some authority on whatever subject I was learning. I would have never arrived at anything like calculus or the theory of evolution by relying 100% on my own intellect. I would be stuck eating raw berries and nuts and starting a fire with two sticks if I had to rely solely on my own intellect and just the facts. I mean you can learn the facts and examine the evidence and form your own opinions carefully but a great deal of what you call original thought is anything but. Maybe you are just a whole lot smarter than I am though.

I don’t see what the big deal is; you accept Jesus and accept the Church’s authority to proclaim what Jesus taught, at least in certain subjects. So why reject her authority in sexual matters? It seems you are accepting the most incredible parts of the Jesus story and then doubting the most trivial matter.

One more question, why remain Catholic? I thought most Original Thinkers® were atheists.

 

[allhers]

Debate. And. Discussion.

Well, unfortunately, I don’t have the time to get into it all right now or I’d be here the rest of the day, as it is…I’ve been on here longer than I intended.

Anyway, right now Fr. John Corapi is involved in launching a new web site, and it currently isn’t available, but…when it is…check it out…you’ll learn more than you even wanted to or knew you needed to. .

www.fathercorapi.com

 

[tjm190]

I certainly never started with just the facts and then worked through to my own opinions in anything I ever learned. I was hand fed everything by teachers, parents, books; basically by some authority on whatever subject I was learning. I would have never arrived at anything like calculus or the theory of evolution by relying 100% on my own intellect. I would be stuck eating raw berries and nuts and starting a fire with two sticks if I had to rely solely on my own intellect and just the facts. I mean you can learn the facts and examine the evidence and form your own opinions carefully but a great deal of what you call original thought is anything but. Maybe you are just a whole lot smarter than I am though.

When someone “hand feeds” you a belief, they start with their facts and proceed with their analysis do they not? At that point do you not have atleast some of “the facts”? And are you not capable of seeking out more relevant information to better form your belief system?
I can safely say I have never read a book/been taught something that put me on the path to dissidence besides the Church’s own teachings.

I don’t see what the big deal is; you accept Jesus and accept the Church’s authority to proclaim what Jesus taught, at least in certain subjects. So why reject her authority in sexual matters? It seems you are accepting the most incredible parts of the Jesus story and then doubting the most trivial matter.

I do not accept the Church’s infallibility in any matter.

One more question, why remain Catholic? I thought most Original Thinkers® were atheists.

Because I believe that the Church is the best available representation of God’s will on Earth.

 

[newbetx]

Howdy! Glad to see you are still active here.

I suppose this is a disconnect- I don’t believe any group of human beings is above error, and so reject infallibility

To reject infallibility on the basis humans are error prone is to not understand infallibility. Scripture is written by error prone humans. So that too would have to be dismissed. What makes something infallible isn’t who says it or when, but how truly inspired it is by the Holy Spirit.

Consistency does not equate to correctness, and God’s will is what we are trying to determine. And I’ve thrown out this Galileo quote a million and one times, but-
Your own reason and intellect have value and what you get from them should be trusted! This does not mean you should reject anything that doesn’t seem right initially: this is why we have debate/discussion- to see who’s conclusions are correct

True. But you said in a previous thread that just because my experience backs up a particular teaching, it is meaningless to others. So if my experience is meaningless, what makes yours meaningful to the argument?

Relativism states that there is no universal moral code, so everybody can do what they feel- it stems from moral nihilism. Using your own reason to try to determine what God’s will is necessitates the belief in a universal moral standard, and is therefore opposed to moral nihilism and relativism.

Relatively speaking, of course.

1. It happens with everything
2. Through discussion and debate

At what point does a point get resolved? Debate and discussion can go on for years. If, say A is based on B, but someone refuses to accept that B is true (because it requires faith) then arguing about A is pretty much a wasted effort. If B requires faith or experience to validate, and a person has neither. How is A ever accepted by all except through the humility that maybe, someone else has the faith or experience to validate it?

 

[tjm190]

Howdy! Glad to see you are still active here.

Hey again! This group is starting to look familiar.

To reject infallibility on the basis humans are error prone is to not understand infallibility. Scripture is written by error prone humans. So that too would have to be dismissed. What makes something infallible isn’t who says it or when, but how truly inspired it is by the Holy Spirit.

And what a coincidence that the Church has alloted itself the power to determine how inspired certain statements are.

True. But you said in a previous thread that just because my experience backs up a particular teaching, it is meaningless to others. So if my experience is meaningless, what makes yours meaningful to the argument?

Experience is not the same thing as the conclusions you arrive at via rational analysis.

Relatively speaking, of course.

You got me… i think

At what point does a point get resolved? Debate and discussion can go on for years. If, say A is based on B, but someone refuses to accept that B is true (because it requires faith) then arguing about A is pretty much a wasted effort. If B requires faith or experience to validate, and a person has neither. How is A ever accepted by all except through the humility that maybe, someone else has the faith or experience to validate it?

Welllll the “B” in this case is the Gospels is it not?

 

[newbetx]

Hey again! This group is starting to look familiar.

And what a coincidence that the Church has alloted itself the power to determine how inspired certain statements are.

Again, we have to make a leap of faith here… Either somethings are inspired or not.

Experience is not the same thing as the conclusions you arrive at via rational analysis.

True. And when there is conflict… we reassess. And if someone has a rational analysis that your experience says it’s true, what do you do?

Welllll the “B” in this case is the Gospels is it not?

I was actually making a generic statement… but you bring up a good point. A similar group of people chose the scriptures. So if the scriptures are not infallible…

It comes back to what you want to believe. Of others and yourself. “Take all of it or none of it.” (Boy that has a familiar ring)

When we “pick and choose” we create our own faith. Agreed? So therefore, we end up rejecting “the one true faith” for something that would not likely be the right and only faith. So if “You think you know better.” then fine. I use to think I knew better, too. I’ve found I can’t hold a candle to scriptural scholars and thousands of years of theological study. So I submit. Begrudgingly of course, but submit, none the less. It is our choice. As it is yours.

 

[newbetx]

But I still want to know… After debate and discussion, when do we know we’ve arrived at the truth and not “an agreement to disagree?”

 

[tjm190]

Again, we have to make a leap of faith here… Either somethings are inspired or not.

I’ve established my faith- the Church’s infallibility is not a part of it

True. And when there is conflict… we reassess. And if someone has a rational analysis that your experience says it’s true, what do you do?

Then you should accept said analysis

I was actually making a generic statement… but you bring up a good point. A similar group of people chose the scriptures. So if the scriptures are not infallible…

It comes back to what you want to believe. Of others and yourself. “Take all of it or none of it.” (Boy that has a familiar ring)

When we “pick and choose” we create our own faith. Agreed? So therefore, we end up rejecting “the one true faith” for something that would not likely be the right and only faith. So if “You think you know better.” then fine. I use to think I knew better, too. I’ve found I can’t hold a candle to scriptural scholars and thousands of years of theological study. So I submit. Begrudgingly of course, but submit, none the less. It is our choice. As it is yours.

Submitting to what you believe to be fallacious is silly. If something we call “the one true faith” stacks up to that claim, it should not appear to be fallacious.

 

[newbetx]

Then you should accept said analysis
.

So as you say, I should accept it. Accept it I did. I found nothing false in it’s teaching. My experience backed it up. Some hard to accept, but not because I thought it was wrong as much as difficult. But even you say I should accept TOB, but you don’t have to. So what is the truth, here?

 

[tjm190]

But I still want to know… After debate and discussion, when do we know we’ve arrived at the truth and not “an agreement to disagree?”

Well we never know with absolute certainty if what we have is “truth”, even when all sides agree. These things can only add information and insight, which can increase the degree of certainty- but aside from divine revelation, there is no total certainty.

 

[newbetx]

Submitting to what you believe to be fallacious is silly. If something we call “the one true faith” stacks up to that claim, it should not appear to be fallacious.

Maybe it only appears to be fallacious. Do you agree that we can blind ourselves to the reality of something? David Copperfield does a great job of that, doesn’t he? Chis Angel, too. ( I love watching him although that’s probably a no-no, too.)

 

[Tosk]

It isn’t about infalibility: you believe just about everything the church teaches except one or two little details. So you believe that the Church teaches with authority when it speaks about faith and morals, say, 90% of the time. Why not just give them the benefit of the doubt? Also you are able to believe that a man rose from the dead but find it hard to believe that this same man established a church that the gates of hell shall not prevail against. I find that hard to understand.

 

[tjm190]

So as you say, I should accept it. Accept it I did. I found nothing false in it’s teaching. My experience backed it up. Some hard to accept, but not because I thought it was wrong as much as difficult. But even you say I should accept TOB, but you don’t have to. So what is the truth, here?

Your experience has led you to accept it. Can reasonably expect other people to reach the same conclusion you only reached due to an experience not everyone has?

 

[tjm190]

It isn’t about infalibility: you believe just about everything the church teaches except one or two little details. So you believe that the Church teaches with authority when it speaks about faith and morals, say, 90% of the time. Why not just give them the benefit of the doubt? Also you are able to believe that a man rose from the dead but find it hard to believe that this same man established a church that the gates of hell shall not prevail against. I find that hard to understand.

Since when is the proclamation “When I say I’m right on XXX, I’m right 100% of the time” a “small detail”?
And you believe saying the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church is a statement in infallibility? That’s more than a stretch.

 

[Tosk]

Since when is the proclamation “When I say I’m right on XXX, I’m right 100% of the time” a “small detail”?
And you believe saying the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church is a statement in infallibility? That’s more than a stretch.

Being right 90% of the time is practically divinely inspired. hell, being right 50% of the time is practically impossible. If somebody was right as often as you believe the catholic church is I would begin to really suspect something fishy going on. anyway, have a good night

 

[tjm190]

Being right 90% of the time is practically divinely inspired. hell, being right 50% of the time is practically impossible. If somebody was right as often as you believe the catholic church is I would begin to really suspect something fishy going on. anyway, have a good night

There are plenty of people and organizations I agree with more than 90% of the time- however, that doesn’t make them infallible.