"You think you know better!"

[kage_ar]

So, Jesus should have said “whoever hears you hears 90% of me, the other 10% is a big fat lie.”

 

[tjm190]

So, Jesus should have said “whoever hears you hears 90% of me, the other 10% is a big fat lie.”

If Jesus wanted to state that the Church could not come to error have done so, he would have- and this would be included in scripture.
And I’m not saying the Church is “lying”

 

[newbetx]

If Jesus wanted to state that the Church could not come to error have done so, he would have- and this would be included in scripture.
And I’m not saying the Church is “lying”

Matthew 16
16] Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17] And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

That’s powerful stuff. But what does it mean? It doesn’t mean EVERYTHING Peter said was binding… He made a few blunders before and after Christ died. So what’s the difference?

And I understand that you don’t think the Church is lying… Just, maybe, misinformed?

Could it be us that are misinformed? Could our experience or our fears or our selfishness blind us to what is best for us? No. Take nothing at face value. If you do, you risk believing what you do not understand. If we don’t understand, how can we believe? Well, some things are beyond our understanding. Like how Christ rose from the dead. We have to take that on faith. But we are called to defend our faith so we must also learn enough about it to face the challenges to it from within and without.

Things may SEEM false. But I’ve come to understand the church has a reason for everything. I just likely don’t have the background to understand it. For that, I have to go search for a knowledgeable source to educate me.

 

[PapaSquash]

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/

Appear competent? I’m not worried on that account TJM. I believe you did not debunk anything.

Saying someone thinks they know better is a clear attempt to imply that mere disagreement is an insult to those holding the belief which is being disagreed with- but this is not the case!

This is a strawman. You claim to know what virtually every person making the statement “you think you know better” means, so you can refute that, and you torture out some gobbledegook about dialogue and debate, and the notion that your believing something to be true in the face of oppostion to that belief does not means that you think you have superior knowledge. We both know that truth is superior to (better than) falsehood. I’m in no way insulted by the fact that you hold to beliefs that I think are wrong. I merely state the plain meaning of the words:

You think that you are right and that the Church is wrong. You have stated this explicitly.
You hold beliefs that are in opposition to the Church teachings. You hold that it is proper to guide your actions in accordance with these beliefs and think that others should as well. At least one of you has to be wrong. (Logically the possibility exists in some situations that you are both wrong, but not that you are both right.) In the question of contraception it’s a binary deal: either you are right and the church is wrong, or vice versa. These are not opinions they are doctrinal facts. In this situation somebody has to “know better.” (to “know better” in this situation is to hold the doctrinal position that accurately reflects God’s moral order) You have stated that neither of you are infallible, (a counter-doctrinal position in itself) and that any position is subject to change. In this state of moral flux you have stated that you will rely 100% on your knowledge and will not move of of your position unless you acquire additional knowledge that convinces you. Nobody else’s knowledge will do.(I grant that you refer to this as not true flux but perceived flux; the idea of correct action only changes as your/our moral compass improves.)

The statement that “you think you know better” is merely a rephrasing of that, with no significant alteration in meaning. You may chafe at it, call it out as “uncharitable” or divisive but your attempt to logically refute the accuracy of the statement is an exercise in the use of language to obscure rather than to communicate.

The statement “you think you know better” when I use it, is an attempt to get you to look with genuine humilty at your “doctrine” in light of the fact that it is in contradiction to many of the great minds on our civilization and and in opposition to the teaching of what, as a Catholic, we expect you believe is God’s Church on earth. Protected from error, as a matter of dogma and spiritual guarantee. When I find myself running counter to Papal encyclicals or Aquinas and Augustine, I personally downshift and review myself.

There is already a moral compass that works just fine. It is the Catechism. Why re-invent the wheel? I’m speaking as a guy whose yesterdays outnumber his tomorrows - you don’t have time.

 

[tjm190]

Matthew 16
16] Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17] And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

That’s powerful stuff. But what does it mean? It doesn’t mean EVERYTHING Peter said was binding… He made a few blunders before and after Christ died. So what’s the difference?

And I understand that you don’t think the Church is lying… Just, maybe, misinformed?

Could it be us that are misinformed? Could our experience or our fears or our selfishness blind us to what is best for us? No. Take nothing at face value. If you do, you risk believing what you do not understand. If we don’t understand, how can we believe? Well, some things are beyond our understanding. Like how Christ rose from the dead. We have to take that on faith. But we are called to defend our faith so we must also learn enough about it to face the challenges to it from within and without.

Things may SEEM false. But I’ve come to understand the church has a reason for everything. I just likely don’t have the background to understand it. For that, I have to go search for a knowledgeable source to educate me.

Well we have the same information, so misinformed doesn’t seem like the right word. And again, any blindness should be revealed in discussion- should it not?

 

[tjm190]

Appear competent? I’m not worried on that account TJM. I believe you did not debunk anything.

I think I’m in for some fun now

This is a strawman. You claim to know what virtually every person making the statement “you think you know better” means, so you can refute that, and you torture out some gobbledegook about dialogue and debate, and the notion that your believing something to be true in the face of oppostion to that belief does not means that you think you have superior knowledge. We both know that truth is superior to (better than) falsehood. I’m in no way insulted by the fact that you hold to beliefs that I think are wrong. I merely state the plain meaning of the words:

You- referring to me
Think- Hold as a belief or opinion.
Know- Have knowledge
Better- that is superior
Putting that all together does one of two things- states the obvious, since everyone with a belief that is not shared by all thinks their conclusions are superior, or imples a sense of arrogance and disrespect- making simple disagreement an act of foolish pride. I hold that disagreement does not mean you think you’re smarter. I hold too much respect for my fellow posters to think they would waste time making a statement that could be inferred to be true with next to no brain power exerted. Thus, I assume the second meaning to have been implied.

You think that you are right and that the Church is wrong. You have stated this explicitly. You hold beliefs that are in opposition to the Church teachings. You hold that it is proper to guide your actions in accordance with these beliefs and think that others should as well. At least one of you has to be wrong. (Logically the possibility exists in some situations that you are both wrong, but not that you are both right.) In the question of contraception it’s a binary deal: either you are right and the church is wrong, or vice versa. These are not opinions they are doctrinal facts. In this situation somebody has to “know better.” (to “know better” in this situation is to hold the doctrinal position that accurately reflects God’s moral order) You have stated that neither of you are infallible, (a counter-doctrinal position in itself) and that any position is subject to change. In this state of moral flux you have stated that you will rely 100% on your knowledge and will not move of of your position unless you acquire additional knowledge that convinces you. Nobody else’s knowledge will do.(I grant that you refer to this as not true flux but perceived flux; the idea of correct action only changes as your/our moral compass improves.)

Well the miracle of communication, someone else’s knowledge can become your knowledge. You shouldn’t be convinced just because somebody else is.

The statement that “you think you know better” is merely a rephrasing of that, with no significant alteration in meaning. You may chafe at it, call it out as “uncharitable” or divisive but your attempt to logically refute the accuracy of the statement is an exercise in the use of language to obscure rather than to communicate.

Well again, the statement may be correct in that if I disagree I favor my belief over there’s- but the statement “you think you know better” as I go on to explain, implies a sense of arrogance and disrespect that isn’t there. If I can be said to think I know better, it is only so in the sense that everybody thinks they know better than everybody else (aside from people who think the exact same way for the exact same reasons on everything, although I doubt such a pair exists)

The statement “you think you know better” when I use it, is an attempt to get you to look with genuine humilty at your “doctrine” in light of the fact that it is in contradiction to many of the great minds on our civilization and and in opposition to the teaching of what, as a Catholic, we expect you believe is God’s Church on earth. Protected from error, as a matter of dogma and spiritual guarantee. When I find myself running counter to Papal encyclicals or Aquinas and Augustine, I personally downshift and review myself.

In all things, you have to accept that there were and are smarter people then you on both sides. That, to me, necessitates the formation of your own opinion.

There is already a moral compass that works just fine. It is the Catechism. Why re-invent the wheel? I’m speaking as a guy whose yesterdays outnumber his tomorrows - you don’t have time.

There are plenty of things claiming to be the perfect moral compass. I’m profess to be a member of the organization that has the one that is the most accurate- accurate, but not perfect.

 

[newbetx]

There are plenty of things claiming to be the perfect moral compass. I’m profess to be a member of the organization that has the one that is the most accurate- accurate, but not perfect.

So what in your opinion would have to change, and why, to make it perfect?

 

[newbetx]

Well we have the same information, so misinformed doesn’t seem like the right word. And again, any blindness should be revealed in discussion- should it not?

Possibly… I find this quote interesting. Don’t you?
For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no explanation is possible.

I find this to be a polar opposite, don’t you? And both are wrong.

 

[tjm190]

Possibly… I find this quote interesting. Don’t you?
For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no explanation is possible.

I find this to be a polar opposite, don’t you? And both are wrong.

It applies well to logical axioms, but not conclusions those axioms lead us to.

 

[tjm190]

So what in your opinion would have to change, and why, to make it perfect?

Haven’t devoted much thought to how I would change church teaching were I to miraculously receive said power, since the claim of infallibility prevents such change from occurring.

 

[PapaSquash]

Putting that all together does one of two things- states the obvious, since everyone with a belief that is not shared by all thinks their conclusions are superior, or imples a sense of arrogance and disrespect- making simple disagreement an act of foolish pride. I hold that disagreement does not mean you think you’re smarter. I hold too much respect for my fellow posters to think they would waste time making a statement that could be inferred to be true with next to no brain power exerted. Thus, **I assume **the second meaning to have been implied.

OK Then. You assumed. Now I understand.

 

[newbetx]

Possibly… I find this quote interesting. Don’t you?
For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no explanation is possible.

I find this to be a polar opposite, don’t you? And both are wrong.

It applies well to logical axioms, but not conclusions those axioms lead us to.

Well, I was definitely thinking something different. Jesus didn’t expect the apostles to blindly believe. He took years to teach them. And he didn’t really condemn the Pharisees. He noted that they were condemning themselves for refusing to believe.

 

[newbetx]

Haven’t devoted much thought to how I would change church teaching were I to miraculously receive said power, since the claim of infallibility prevents such change from occurring.

So do you believe it is even possible for humans to receive such power? Where does it come from? How does one earn it?

 

[tjm190]

Well, I was definitely thinking something different. Jesus didn’t expect the apostles to blindly believe. He took years to teach them. And he didn’t really condemn the Pharisees. He noted that they were condemning themselves for refusing to believe.

That’s a different scenario- Jesus was in the process of delivery new divine revelation. The axioms of the apostles were in flux- not so for Pharisees.

 

[tjm190]

So do you believe it is even possible for humans to receive such power? Where does it come from? How does one earn it?

…the power to change Church doctrine? There is a process in place for this, no?

 

[newbetx]

…the power to change Church doctrine? There is a process in place for this, no?

No, to create it in the first place. Who has such power? Where does it come from? If, true, how does one receive it?

 

[john_ennis]

Hence the “dissident” in front of my religion. And the Church’s primary goal is not it’s own infallibility, so the feminist analogy is fatally flawed.

It is not the Church’s primary goal–it is the Church’s fundamental claim about its own nature.

To claim to be a dissident Catholic is to reject the very belief that makes one Catholic.

 

[tjm190]

No, to create it in the first place. Who has such power? Where does it come from? If, true, how does one receive it?

The power to create Church doctrine lies with the authority structure of the Church, the power is inherent within the positions. And receive what?

 

[newbetx]

The power to create Church doctrine lies with the authority structure of the Church, the power is inherent within the positions. And receive what?

How does one receive the power to create Church doctrine?

 

[tjm190]

It is not the Church’s primary goal–it is the Church’s fundamental claim about its own nature.

To claim to be a dissident Catholic is to reject the very belief that makes one Catholic.

If you believe the Church has no value if it has the capacity to come to error, then you are welcome to go on believing that.