scripture vs philosophy

[Socrates]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Dec 18 2005, 07:18 PM']?
[right][snapback]830119[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Your answer was not clear, especially this statement: "I must admit, as a revert it is weird to debate without scripture. No one else uses it, and it seems to have almost no strength."

What do you mean that "no one else uses it" and "it seems to have almost no strength"??

[N/A Gone]

eddie, great post..

socrates...I have started-participated in many ecumenical dialogue,or just flat out wicked sick debates with many people I love like brothers on both sides of the party. But, I honestly cant think of 1 serious dialogue/debate thing with a catholic where scripture was the primary source of the argument. its typically some person or document..which is fine and dandy, but it bothers me

[eddieloudog]

Thanx rev!

Most of my debates are with Evangelicals or Baptists. There Churches are so young, that they haven't even begun to explore the philosophical aspects of their Religion. So they just try to overwhelm the debate with memorized Bible verses.

So, I fought Fire with Fire and memorized some myself!

[Socrates]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Dec 18 2005, 07:33 PM']eddie, great post..

socrates...I have started-participated in many ecumenical dialogue,or just flat out wicked sick debates with many people I love like brothers on both sides of the party. But, I honestly cant think of 1 serious dialogue/debate thing with a catholic where scripture was the primary source of the argument. its typically some person or document..which is fine and dandy, but it bothers me
[right][snapback]830152[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
There are many Catholic Apologists out there (many of them former protestants) who do NOT neglect using Scripture, and who know how to debate with "Bible Christians."

I'd recommend reading [i]This Rock [/i]magazine, or the corresponding website which I linked to.
I'd also check out books advertized therein.

Quite simply the best Apologetics resource out there!

[eddieloudog]

Hey Rev, U in Roch too? So am I!

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Dec 18 2005, 07:01 PM']Well, what if there is a teaching in scripture..yet a philosophy disagrees with it, thus we interpret the scripture in a less-than-natural light so it works with scripture...

That perhaps is the hierarchy of interpretation maybe..

I must admit, as a revert it is weird to debate without scripture. No one else uses it, and it seems to have almost no strength. Just a new arena I guess.
[right][snapback]830103[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

There is no hierarchy of interpretation, nor can there be, for Catholics. There is one authoritative interpretation, whether it be of Scripture or of philosophy, and that is the Magisterium of the Church.

This is one of the reasons you will not see Catholics quote scripture alone for an argument, or quote philosophy alone - because our subjective interpretation of both might be wrong.

Instead, we look to the authoritative teaching of the Church: What does the Church teach about this passage from Scripture, about this idea in philosophy, etc.? By referencing many individuals who participate in the Church's Magisterium, we protect ourselves from fallacious interpretations.

Does that mean we shouldn't use philosophy or scripture in our debates? Absolutely not! But when we use either, we take great care to make sure we are doing so in a way that is consistent with the teachings of the Magisterium.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Dec 18 2005, 07:33 PM']eddie, great post..

socrates...I have started-participated in many ecumenical dialogue,or just flat out wicked sick debates with many people I love like brothers on both sides of the party. But, I honestly cant think of 1 serious dialogue/debate thing with a catholic where scripture was the primary source of the argument. its typically some person or document..which is fine and dandy, but it bothers me
[right][snapback]830152[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I quoted Scritpture in my posts on the TWT thread but you did not answer...

It is understandable though because it really works best between 2-4 people anyway. Too many voices can drown out what is really being said. :

[N/A Gone]

fellas...

paph...Im sorry sir, i dont remember or i would have said something. That debate did have too many people. and too much information and too much too much to resolve.

eddie..you are in roch? Im at crossroads. So is JoeyO.

Jeff, your posts are always the most detailed to reply..hehe

You say there is only 1 interpretation of philosophy and of scripture..if it is settled and set in stone like that what is the point of dialogue and further study?

thanks for the explaining why you use church figures. I understood that, but it just made more sense now.(unlike the anselm stuff..hehe)

My thing, honestly, is that when I started this debate with the friend I couldnt with a clear conscience answer because I am still uncertain/upset about the concept that anytime God appeared relational in the bible we are supposed to assume it was an anthropomorphical whatever carp. I dont see it like that, i still dont agree and its bothering me.

[Guest JeffCR07]

just a couple things:

First, thank you for the compliment,

Second, just because the Church teaches with authority does not mean that it has done so exhaustively. The Word of God is necessarily inexhaustible, and so there are always going to be things for us to discuss and debate. My point, however, is that when we debate, we should always be making absolutely sure that the points we are marking coincide with what has been definitively set down by the Magisterium and in Tradition. So, when we are debating things that have not already been authoritatively decided, there can be multiple interpretations [i]provided none of those interpretations contradict what has been decided with authority[/i]. That is why Catholics quote the patristics, the councils, Magisterial Documents, Scripture, and philosophy together, rather than just focusing on one. If we only focus on one and refuse to look to the others, then we are in danger of adopting a skewed and subjective view, rather than the Objective Truth that we are called to.

Third, you have over and over again mentioned that without Open Theism, God is not a personal, relational God. This is simply not true. Sure he is not relational in the same way that my mom is relational to me, but this does not mean that he is non-relational. In fact, God is [i]more[/i] relational than my mom. God is love, and love is relational (hence the Trinity). That means that God is constantly and always in a relation of loving me, unlike my mom, who might have to work at loving me (and probably does, given some of the stupid things that I do).

The immutability and unchanging nature of God does not harm his relation to us, it increases it. God is the North Star, never moving, and thus guiding us in our journey. He is the sun, around which we turn, stationary, but always giving us light and life. God's relation to us is perfect [i]because[/i] He is unchanging. God is Love, whether you discuss our relation to Him in the past, present, or future, He is Love, unchanging. That means that His love for us is unchanging, and his relation with us is unchanging.

This is why Peter says, "O Lord, you have been our refuge from one generation to the next. Before the mountains were born or the earth of the world brought forth, you are God, without beginning or end."

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Didacus]

Other than little school I was taught next to nothing on scriptures.
You can count in prayer and chruch's teachings on top of that too!

Catching up now, doing double time... but its not easy.

I almost never used any scriptures in debartes for two reasons;

1. I don't know them well enough.

2. Most of the time I debated against Atheists who did not give the weight of a single nickle to anything the scriptures said.

[Aloysius]

phatmass only uses scripture when debating the pros and cons of alcohol.

[Guest JeffCR07]

hahaha, do you really want to go there - I just woke up, so I'm well rested :

[Aloysius]

lol not really, just mentioning that that's the last debate I remember that contained a bunch of scripture references

[Guest JeffCR07]

hahaha, good - i like it when we're on the same side :

[N/A Gone]

jeff...

since we hijacked this..oh wait it is my thread

my problem right now, the main one is that I still see the whole "God knows a settled future" and we have free will as not reconcilable..help is looked for..

also, the fact that we automatically assume God is speaking anthropromorphically when he "regrets" or "changes his mind' or "tests" us...I dont like this concept,