God Conquers Posted April 4, 2005 Author Share Posted April 4, 2005 [quote]Considering your alluded to beliefs, why are you Catholic? I mean this very seriously. What do you believe the Catholic Church is? What is its purpose? Why are you a member?[/quote] These questions are all closely related, and are personal, not inquisitional. I'd appreciate if you answered at least one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 Hi God Conquers, I once asked an Irishman why he always answered a question with a question. His answer was "Why not?" That's somewhat like your question. I'm a cradle Catholic. But, of course, that doesn't have to mean that I buy into the whole belief system. But actually, I think as a belief system, it contains a lot to offer and a lot that is true. But as I mentioned elsewhere, a lot of not so good information got incorporated along the way. The trick is to separate the two, even though this may at times be painful. You actully asked three additional subquestions which are logical extensions of your first question. Lets begin at the beginning, which also seems to be the basis of a number of other questions asked me. Oops! Space is used up. Let me continue on the next post. LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 (edited) Matt 16:15 "But who do you say that I am"? Before we can answer this question satisfactorily, we have to look at the evidence available. (1) Jesus left no written record. (Eusebius in his Church History, chapter 1, claims that Jesus left a letter saying, in effect, that he didn't make housecalls, but not too many believe Eusebius on this and perhaps some other points). (2) There are a limited number of non-Christian references to Jesus. (3) There is basically only the New Testament record. And this can be viewed in two ways, See next post. And I really am glad that Kilroy the Ninja terminated two of the other threads. They were indeed becoming rather redundant! Little Les See, I try to limit them to one screen. This is not always possible, but it's a reasonable goal. Edited April 4, 2005 by LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 On the one hand, the New Testament can be viewed as "God breathed," the Holy Spirit whispered each passage word for word into the ear of the evangelists, therefore the new Testament is completely "inerrant." Formerly, this was the principle Catholic belief, but no longer. On the other hand, the best description is that given by Fr. Bonhoffer in his Concise History of the Catholic Church, which, since I'm away from my desk, I'll paraphrase from memory. The New Testament contains accounts of how the early Christian communities came to view Jesus. Not everything is really historical. Deeds were ascribed to him and words put in his mouth which, strictly speaking, he never said or did. This was not dishonest. It reflected how Jesus came to be remembered. The different gospels were written by different authors for different audiences at different times. They started to be written when it was realized that end times were not really imminent and a written, rather than a strictly oral record, was desirable. We could debate this, but it is fairly certain that none of the writers were eyewitnesses to the events they described. LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 [b]Imagine Littleles at a restaurant for breakfast...[/b] Waitress: How would you like your eggs sir? Scrambled? Poached? Sunny side up? Littleles: I'm sorry but I don't respond to inquisitions or having questions shotgunned at me. If you could pose just one question at a time, I'll do my best to answer. Waitress: I'm sorry sir....... How would you like your eggs? Littleles: Waitress: Sir? Littleles: You know there are many people who would assert that the waffle originated in Belgium. We could begin a dialogue about the true nature of the waffle and its birth into society Waitress: Sir I'm sorry but you don't want eggs anymore? You would prefer waffles instead? Or did you want waffles as well as eggs? Littleles: You know its quite natural for someone who has no skills in debate to simply throw out 84 questions to deflect attention away from the fact that they have shown no evidence to support their assertions. Waitress: Sir I'm your waitress. I just want to take your order and help my other customers. The only thing I know about waffles is that they come from our kitchen. How would you like your eggs. Littleles: Oh how nice of you to take the party line. You cannot see the truth that waffles are not what you thought they are. Waitress: Sir HOW WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR EGGS? Littleles: If you recall, I answered that question previously and I would rather not take the time to repeat myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: So sad but true . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 (edited) [quote name='LittleLes' date='Apr 4 2005, 12:58 PM'] On the one hand, the New Testament can be viewed as "God breathed," the Holy Spirit whispered each passage word for word into the ear of the evangelists, therefore the new Testament is completely "inerrant." Formerly, this was the principle Catholic belief, but no longer. On the other hand, the best description is that given by Fr. Bonhoffer in his Concise History of the Catholic Church, which, since I'm away from my desk, I'll paraphrase from memory. The New Testament contains accounts of how the early Christian communities came to view Jesus. Not everything is really historical. Deeds were ascribed to him and words put in his mouth which, strictly speaking, he never said or did. This was not dishonest. It reflected how Jesus came to be remembered. The different gospels were written by different authors for different audiences at different times. They started to be written when it was realized that end times were not really imminent and a written, rather than a strictly oral record, was desirable. We could debate this, but it is fairly certain that none of the writers were eyewitnesses to the events they described. LittleLes [/quote] The Church has never changed Her official teaching that Sacred Scripture is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. What certain dissenting theologians may say regarding this is beside the point. LittleLes, your basic claim seems to be that neither the Church teaching and Tradition nor the Scriptures has any authority nor credibility. You reject both Scripture and Church Teaching as being unreliable, and you basically seem to say because there is not enough evidence, what the Church and Bible teach cannot be trusted. Then basically nothing at all can be known about Jesus and the Early Church. But then, by what authority, can we believe your assertions? By the authority of some liberal theologian having asserted them? By your own authority? You claim there is no evidence to support the Church's claims ("party line" as you like to call it.) But there is absolutely no conclusive evidence for your modernist "party line's" assumptions. You do not beleive the Church or Scripture. We do not believe the "liberal" theologians. If nothing can be known or trusted about the Bible, or the Church, it is rather pointless to make your arguments. Your'e simply wasting your time here. Edited April 4, 2005 by Socrates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 hot stuff, That is priceless! That should be published or something to show apologist what they might be up against someday. The worst part of it all, though, is that Littless doesnt tip well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 Hi Socrates, Thank you for asking the question on my behalf. But the Church has stopped claiming complete inerrency in scripture- with the possible exception of Pope Leo XIII (Providentiissimus deus) - because there simply are too many errors. Little Les Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Apr 4 2005, 03:24 PM'] Hi Socrates, Thank you for asking the question on my behalf. But the Church has stopped claiming complete inerrency in scripture- with the possible exception of Pope Leo XIII (Providentiissimus deus) - because there simply are too many errors. Little Les [/quote] And where does the Church teach that Scripture is not inspired by God and not inerrant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 (edited) Hi Socrates, "And where does the Church teach that Scripture is not inspired by God and not inerrant"? I'm afraid you have fallen into the "faulty dilemma" aka "either-or" fallacy. Pre-WWII someone claimed that Italy and Germany would either become democratic or communistic. But they became fascist. Traditionally Scripture was thought to be the direct word of God and therefore inerrant. But in time it came to be realized that it was not. Witness the condemnation of Galileo. Apologists try to avoid it, the the real issue was that the Church had defined scripture (in this case several psalms) literally, that the earth could not be moved. With Trent and Vatican I we can see the inerrancy of scripture being limited to the area of faith and morals only. (Pope Leo XIII's Providentissimus deus claimed otherwise, but he was in error). If you read the catechism of the Catholic Church you will see that the Church's postion as dropped back still further, see CCC107 "...the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error TEACH THAT TRUTH WHICH GOD, FOR THE SAKE OF OUR SALVATION, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scripture (DV 11). In short, we can recognize that the biblical passages dealing with the moral licitness of slavery, claiming that Jesus rode on two animals when entering Jerusalem, and even passaged permitting geneocide, are not without error but are not essential to our salvation. LittleLes Edited April 4, 2005 by LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 You have not managed to give any official teaching of the Church which claims scripture is [b]not[/b] inerrant. You have merely made an assertion that the Church was wrong (presumably based on your own authority.) The issues you mention are all bogus. Saying the sun stood still is no more false or errant than saying "the sun rises in the morning." It was the way it appeared at the time (probably similar to miracle of the sun at Fatima). How God acheives this is a mystery, but it is within His almighty power. God permitted slavery and warfare for His own purposes in the old Testament. And the colt, the foal of an ass is one animal (a young male donkey). You are trying to create contradictions where none exist. Scripture is not errant -your interpretation of it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayed Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 [quote]Archangel : They were concentrated in Palestine and the surrounding regions and led by James the Just, the oldest brother of Jesus[/quote]. Hold on, Archangel!! Has Jesus a brother ?I am surprized yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 [quote name='hot stuff' date='Apr 4 2005, 02:29 PM'] [b]Imagine Littleles at a restaurant for breakfast...[/b] Waitress: How would you like your eggs sir? Scrambled? Poached? Sunny side up? Littleles: I'm sorry but I don't respond to inquisitions or having questions shotgunned at me. If you could pose just one question at a time, I'll do my best to answer. Waitress: I'm sorry sir....... How would you like your eggs? Littleles: Waitress: Sir? Littleles: You know there are many people who would assert that the waffle originated in Belgium. We could begin a dialogue about the true nature of the waffle and its birth into society Waitress: Sir I'm sorry but you don't want eggs anymore? You would prefer waffles instead? Or did you want waffles as well as eggs? Littleles: You know its quite natural for someone who has no skills in debate to simply throw out 84 questions to deflect attention away from the fact that they have shown no evidence to support their assertions. Waitress: Sir I'm your waitress. I just want to take your order and help my other customers. The only thing I know about waffles is that they come from our kitchen. How would you like your eggs. Littleles: Oh how nice of you to take the party line. You cannot see the truth that waffles are not what you thought they are. Waitress: Sir HOW WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR EGGS? Littleles: If you recall, I answered that question previously and I would rather not take the time to repeat myself. [/quote] That's my Himester...... He taught me all I know....well, he taught me how to be a smart-alek. Cam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 Hi Socrates, You've NOT given any evidence that St. Peter didn't live in Brooklyn and have a halo either. It's called trying to "prove the negative." LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts