What’s a True Scotsman Christian?
Nov 18
Daniel Larison has started an interesting, but cursory, discussion on what constitutes a “Christian,” and whether or not Obama can rightly be considered one. This is a line of inquiry which has always irked me, but at the same time, given me trouble. On the one hand, we can’t have a definition of “Christian” that’s so broad that it includes anyone who claims to be one, irrespective of their actual beliefs. But on the other hand, we’ve seen far too many attempts to go to the other extreme, defining away anyone who doesn’t agree with someone’s particular brand of Christianity in no-true-Scotsman fashion.
To his credit, Larison recognizes (correctly, I think) that any attempt to define Obama as non-Christian would also define Mormons as non-Christians, and even more compellingly. The problem is, given the nature of the current Christian conservative movement, I’m not sure this is terribly helpful.
And making matters worse, when pressed for a definition of what he thinks really constitutes a “Christian,” Larison refers us to a five-volume set (!); apparently, if there’s an easy-to-summarize layperson’s definition of what’s “really” Christianity, Larison opts not to explain it to us.
In any case, it’s an interesting start, and you should read the whole thing.
[ Side note: Larison also links our old friend and frequent adversary Joe Carter as part of his discussion. So Linky Love for Joe.]
UPDATE: Either I’ve been away from Christian theology far too long, or this reads like complete and total gibberish. My money’s on the latter.
#1 by David Dvorkin at November 18th, 2008
| Quote
I hope he also settles the issue of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, which to me is just as meaningful.
#2 by Janusz at November 18th, 2008
| Quote
Tgirsch wrote, “On the one hand, we can’t have a definition of “Christian” that’s so broad that it includes anyone who claims to be one, irrespective of their actual beliefs.”
Why not?
Otherwise you may have given yourself an impossible task. You want to create some fairly exclusive theological parameters, but then you want to include the LDS, whose theology is so far removed from other denominations. You could try a more historical definition than a theological one, say, any denomination that can trace its roots to the Council of Nicea, or those that accept the Nicean Creed. Broad enough to encompass almost all denominations, but still excluding, say, the Gnostics. But again, would the Mormons fall within that group? Would the Friends?
You’re better off just letting anyone who wants to use the name “Christian” and seems to accept some part of what Christ said, and maybe even tootles around with a cross, be included. Just my two sous.
#3 by Big U at November 18th, 2008
| Quote
Here’s an interesting question that no one has ever been able to answer well for me. If people hold beliefs that go directly against the New Testament, or directly against the idea of Jesus Christ being God, etc. why do they want to be called Christians?
I hold many ideas that go against left-wing ideology. However, there are some things about it that I like. Using the same criteria used these days for calling oneself a Christian, I should be able to classify myself as left-wing and receive full acceptance for any ideas I bring simply because I like some of the things that personify left wing ideaology. Any ridicule of me would be hypocritical of those on the left as none of them has the right to decide what is and is not a true left-winger.
The LDS holds beliefs that go in direct contrast to what the Bible states. They can call themselves whatever they want but it doesn’t make it so. Same for many other groups.
#4 by Janusz at November 18th, 2008
| Quote
Big U wrote: “or directly against the idea of Jesus Christ being God, etc. why do they want to be called Christians? ”
I believe Unitarianism is considered a “Christian” denomination as they follow His teachings though they don’t believe Christ was divine. Perhaps it’s a matter of interpretation or “spin”? Similarly, Arians differed from the “orthodox” on the nature of Christ during the 4th century, and I believe most historians consider them to be a “Christian” sect.
#5 by Big U at November 18th, 2008
| Quote
Christ says he was God. So anyone who says they follow Christ but do not believe he was God is willingly saying they are following either a massively deluded lunatic (He died because of His insistence he was God) or they are willingly saying they are following a liar who intentionally decieved several people and sent them to their deaths. Neither of those choices makes any sense. For someone to be a real Christian, the first thing that has to be acknowledged by that person is that Christ was who He says He was. Unless that is there, then their claim has no merit and deserves no time.
#6 by Dan M. at November 18th, 2008
| Quote
BU, the fact that you blithely refer to the New Testament seems to indicate a presupposition on your part. For instance, Gnostics certainly thought of themselves and Christian, but their teachings were excluded from “the” New Testament.
Your question could as well be asked as “Why would anyone want to be called Christian if they deny the teachings of Thomas or deny the powers of personal revelation of the occult?”. (Yeah, I’ve probably gotten my gnostic theology wrong. *Shrug.*)
Mind you, I have no investment who gets called Christian, and maybe it would be useful to somebody to have a term that includes Baptist, Anabaptists, Roman Catholics, and Russian Orthodox, but excludes LDS and Fred Phelps. To me, a broader term, like “monotheist”, is plenty specific.
#7 by Dan M. at November 18th, 2008
| Quote
Though I just remembered the irony of assuming all Christians fall solidly in “monotheist”, what with the whole three-headed god thing most of them have, as well as the two distinct gods of the LDS.
#8 by bob at November 19th, 2008
| Quote
It really doesn’t matter what others consider to be Christian or not, the only one you should care about is whether Jesus Christ considers you to be a faithful Christian. As Christians we are not to condemn others as that is only God’s decision, but as Christians we are required to judge and condemn immoral behavior. Anyone who opposed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, who opposes any and all restrictions on abortion, including partial-birth abortions and promises to enact the FOC act would be hard-pressed to be considered a faithful Christian.
#9 by bob at November 19th, 2008
| Quote
The Trinity is not a three-headed god, Dan. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit do possess the same divine nature, but each is wholly himself, conscious of himself as himself, of the other as other. God is entirely spirit, Jesus is the Word of God, incarnated as both fully human and fully divine as the perfect offering to the Father to die for our sins (yours too). Only He could pay the debt for the fall of man. The infinite love between the Father and Son is expressed as the Holy Spirit (breath), whom our Lord has entrusted to us, to guide us and to give us sanctifying grace.
#10 by LarryE at November 19th, 2008
| Quote
This whole discussion could be very interesting so long as we do not impose real meaning on it; that is, so long as we do not decide the answer has actual significance to the world in which we live except to our personal convictions and how we behave as a result of them.
What I have long found interesting is that the occasions in the gospels where it can be argued that Jesus said he is God occur in John. (And yes, I said “can be argued.” I won’t bother explaining why here since I doubt anyone is that interested.) In the synoptic gospels, not only does Jesus avoid describing himself that way - sometimes rather cagily - but he instructs the apostles to not call him that in public.
Which indirectly raises Dan M.’s point. Defining what is “Christian” by what is in the Bible is to define it by tradition, not by anything that can lay claim to an ultimate truth. Early on there were fierce debates about Jesus and his message and how it should be understood. (Much of Acts revolves around precisely that.) There were a number of different groups with different convictions and it wasn’t until around 300 CE that the Bible settled into pretty much the form we know it now.
What that means, ultimately, is that we don’t have a religion based on the Bible but a bible based on the religion, with the books chosen for inclusion being the ones that reflected the teachings of those who won, whether by force of logic or force of force, the debates.
#11 by tgirsch at November 19th, 2008
| Quote
Janusz:
Why not?
Because in order for terms to be useful, they have to have agreed-upon meanings. If we say a Christian is simply anyone who self-identifies as Christian, the term becomes so broad as to lose any real meaning. At some point, there has to be a minimum requirement or least common denominator of some sort. Otherwise, someone could [for example] self-identify as “pro-choice” while claiming to vigorously oppose legal abortion in all circumstances. At some point, it really is fair to say that someone isn’t really what they say they are. At the same time, it’s important not to carry this too far the other way, such that somebody who agrees on the basics but disagrees on particular points of detail can be cavalierly excluded. That’s why the discussion fascinates me.
Big U:
Christ says he was God.
LarryE beat me to this, but that’s actually highly debatable. The concept of Jesus-as-God rather than Jesus-as-son-of-God is a relative latecomer.
And I’m sorry, but the tired old “Lord, Liar, or Lunatic” argument is the worst sort of false dilemma. Just to give you one of the many examples of things that it doesn’t account for is the possibility that Jesus (assuming, for the moment, that he existed) never actually claimed to be God — the Bible verse stating that he did is either misunderstood, misrepresented, or simply fabricated. That’s none of the three, then. Another is simply that Jesus didn’t exist at all, of course.
Putting it another way, either Paul Bunyan was a liar, insane, or he really did have a giant blue ox named Babe.
LarryE:
so long as we do not decide the answer has actual significance to the world in which we live except to our personal convictions and how we behave as a result of them.
I’d argue that that’s a pretty big “except.”
I think I understand what you’re getting at, but whether or not there’s any substance to what Christians believe, the fact remains that there are an awful lot of them, and they act on those beliefs in ways that effect those around them (including and especially heathens like us). So I think it is important to understand these beliefs, to the extent that they can be understood.
What that means, ultimately, is that we don’t have a religion based on the Bible but a bible based on the religion
That’s an excellent way of putting it. I’m going to shamelessly plagiarize that summation.
#12 by LarryE at November 19th, 2008
| Quote
T. -
I think I understand what you’re getting at
I expect you do, which was to say that how an individual defines the term “Christian” and thus whether they are one or not can impact their sense of their relationship to God and/or Jesus and/or Christian doctrine and thus how they feel they should behave - but debating it beyond that, debating a universal definition, is really an academic exercise: interesting, perhaps even stimulating, but with little if any impact on the larger world. It wasn’t about understanding what Christians of various stripes believe but about debating a definition.
(By the way, want another wrinkle? How about “Christian Jews?” No, not “Jews for Jesus,” these are observant Jews who - unlike Jews for Jesus - do not regard Jesus as the Messiah but do regard him as a great, perhaps the greatest, rabbi.)
I’m going to shamelessly plagiarize
No need: I hereby declare it to be in the public domain. No skippy, I.
#13 by Elaine at November 19th, 2008
| Quote
I believe a “Christian” is any person who follows the teachings of Christ. That includes loving your neighbor without judgement or casting stones. I feel like many supposed Christians are too busy shoving Christ down people’s throats without really understanding who Christ was and the message that He spread. I have known several atheists who are better “Christians” than most people who go to church two or three times a week; the atheists may not worship Christ, but they live their lives as He advised people to do. Christ didn’t come here to build a religion; He came to spread peace, love and understanding. (cue the Elvis Costello . . .)
#14 by bob at November 19th, 2008
| Quote
What that means, ultimately, is that we don’t have a religion based on the Bible but a bible based on the religion, with the books chosen for inclusion being the ones that reflected the teachings of those who won, whether by force of logic or force of force, the debates.
Mathew 16:18-20
“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Jesus gave the authority to St. Peter (the first Pope) and the perfect apostolic succession of the Church leaders, to determine what was to be “bound on earth” as part of our Catholic faith. It is true that for the first 300+ years of Christiandom our faith was handed down through the Tradition of the early Church Fathers. That is why, contrary our Protestant brothers who believe in sola scriptura (bible alone), Catholics believe in both Tradition and sacred Scripture as interpreted by the teachings of the Catholic Church (the Magisterium).
#15 by Ron E. at November 19th, 2008
| Quote
I don’t see why this is so hard. From my non-Christian perspective, a “Christian” is anybody who believes Jesus was the son of God and that he rose from the dead after being crucified. The rest of it is just details.
#16 by bob at November 19th, 2008
| Quote
The problem with that definition Ron, is that even satan believes that Jesus was the son of God and that he rose from the dead.
#17 by tgirsch at November 19th, 2008
| Quote
bob:
Just because the Bible says something is so doesn’t make it so. Otherwise, there are a whole lot of rabbits who need to get about the business of chewing their cud, like, pronto!
#18 by digglahhh at November 19th, 2008
| Quote
The problem with that definition Ron, is that even satan believes that Jesus was the son of God and that he rose from the dead.
1. That’s not really a big problem. More like an anomaly, or a loophole.
The problem with Kevin Youkilis being Jewish is how his name is filed in his Baseball Prospectus player card page. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/youki________ke01.php
See? (The elongated underscore is new, btw.) Nate Silver, you anti-semite…
2. I like how you add the word “even” Even, Satan recognizes that plainly obvious truism - implying those of us who do not are even worse than Satan.
[David Putty] Go Devils! [David Putty}
#19 by Big U at November 19th, 2008
| Quote
C’mon Tgirsch, you can do better than that
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/rabbits.asp
#20 by Big U at November 19th, 2008
| Quote
digg > your point 2 is wrong. Bob (and I can’t believe I’m defending him) is making his comment in response to Ron’s which changes the context within which you want to see it. He is saying that the phrase a “Christian” is anybody who believes Jesus was the son of God and that he rose from the dead after being crucified is an incorrect phrase because even Satan believes that and he is in no way considered a Christian.
#21 by tgirsch at November 19th, 2008
| Quote
Big U:
If they gave out Pulitzer prizes for paper-thin post hoc rationalizations, it would be difficult to beat out AiG for that award!
Their explanation of why the Bible doesn’t really say pi = 3.0 is even more amusing than the rabbit/cud “answer.”
#22 by Dan M. at November 19th, 2008
| Quote
bob,
Way to go! You’ve shown me that all Christians must believe exactly what you said about the three aspects of their god(s). Of course they all accept the exact same teachings that you cite. How very catholic in your understanding.
Now, what was that about having a historical perspective about how teachings have been passed down and variously promoted and suppressed? Oh, right, there’s only one version of history, the one from Rome.
#23 by Big U at November 19th, 2008
| Quote
hehehe. I knew I’d get roasted for being lazy and citing and AIG link. Here, try this one instead
: http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=1&t=182&m=1
#24 by digglahhh at November 20th, 2008
| Quote
Big U,
It would read that way without the “even.”
Even Keith Richards realizes Amy Winehouse has an unhealthy relationship with drugs.
#25 by bob at November 20th, 2008
| Quote
2. I like how you add the word “even” Even, Satan recognizes that plainly obvious truism - implying those of us who do not are even worse than Satan.
I did not mean it that way. No one living on this earth is worse than satan. He has been judged and condemned to eternal death, but all of us living have a chance at eternal life. But it won’t be easy; we must “enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many. How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few.” Matthew 7:13
#26 by bob at November 20th, 2008
| Quote
Now, what was that about having a historical perspective about how teachings have been passed down and variously promoted and suppressed? Oh, right, there’s only one version of history, the one from Rome.
Isn’t that better than having each person or church preaching their own version of the truth, such as with have now with our seperated protestant brothers? Jesus knew that we would need a central teaching authority, that is why He gave the keys of the kingdom to St. Peter himself, and promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church (and it hasn’t in 2,000 years). Thats the way it was for the first 1,500 years of Christendom until the reformation.
#27 by Janusz at November 21st, 2008
| Quote
Bob wrote: “Isn’t that better than having each person or church preaching their own version of the truth, such as with have now with our seperated [sic] protestant brothers?”
Uhm…actually, no. Despite the divine pretenses, churches are created and run by men with human failings. Having one church with absolute authority would only lead to the worst kind of abuses. People have a right to choose their spiritual paths, and such choices encourage transparency and oversight.
Bob wrote: “Thats the way it was for the first 1,500 years of Christendom until the reformation.”
One unified Christian church for 1,500 years? You’re kidding right? Once Paul made the decision to preach among gentiles, you see divisions in Christianity. The “church” at the time consisted of small, secretive gatherings that spread throughout the Greek east, there was no monolithic organization. By the time it reaches the Latin west, the variations become starker; there are Greek words and concepts that have no Latin equivalent, for example, and rites, holidays and theology were not standardized. By the time of the fourth century, despite the Nicene Council, the differences between the east and the west had become ingrained and irreconcilable (though they remain uncomfortably under one roof for 600 more years), and further divisions occur, the Arians are one example. To suggest there was only one, Latin-speaking church for much of history is either naive or propagandistic.
#28 by bob at November 21st, 2008
| Quote
Uhm…actually, no. Despite the divine pretenses, churches are created and run by men with human failings. Having one church with absolute authority would only lead to the worst kind of abuses. People have a right to choose their spiritual paths, and such choices encourage transparency and oversight.
While I agree that the Church is run by men with human failings (including the Pope) the Catholic Church was definitely not created by man (see Matthew 16:18-19). If you are a Christian, you do not have a “right” to create your own spiritual path. Jesus clearly left us His Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, to give us the means of salvation. Just look at the spiritual mess our country is in by people picking and choosing their “own” beliefs. People often confuse Papal infallibility with impeccability. The pope and his college of Cardinals are not impeccable, that are capable of sin just as the next man. Infallibilty is not a “personal” gift. However, when speaking infallably under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, our Catholic teachings are held as unchangeable doctrines of the faith. Not a single doctrine of the Church has changed for over 2000 years!
#29 by bob at November 21st, 2008
| Quote
I never said that there was one, latin-speaking church for much of history. There are many different rites of the Roman Catholic Church of which the latin rite is only one, but by far the largest (others include greek and aramic speaking rites such as the Maronites, Melkites, etc..). But the important thing is that they are ALL in communion with Rome. As far as the Eastern Orthodox Church goes, Pope John Paul II liked to refer to them as the left lung of the Church, while Catholics are the right lung. Meaning that are differences in beliefs, but they are not as large are irreconcilable as you claim them to be. My understanding is the split was due to the Orthodox belief that proclaims that the Father is the eternal source of the Godhead, from whom is begotten the Son eternally and also from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally. Unlike the Catholic Church , the Orthodox Church does not espouse the use of the Filioque (”and the Son”) in describing the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is believed to eternally proceed from the Father, not from the Father and the Son. The pope and his bishops are working to reconcile this split, but most of the basic beliefs between the faiths are essentially the same, unlike the protestant reformation.
#30 by Janusz at November 21st, 2008
| Quote
Bob wrote: “the Catholic Church was definitely not created by man (see Matthew 16:18-19).”
Of course it was. You keep insisting that the Christian church has always been the Catholic church, when in fact the early church bore no resemblance to the Catholic church, nor was it the only game in town. There were various divisions and sects as early as the beginnings of the church. To suggest there was basically one organization with a common theology, that the differences were insignificant, is just inaccurate. One of the justifications of the reformation was an attempt to return to what the early church had been.
Bob wrote: “Not a single doctrine of the Church has changed for over 2000 years!”
Is this so? How about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, for example? That wasn’t a part of Catholic doctrine until the 19th century, and is not recognized by any other denomination, including the Orthodox. Should they have to accept it because one, unified church is necessary? Of course not. It goes without saying such ultimately unprovable things are best left to one’s private beliefs, and not imposed as gospel on other people.
Bob wrote: “But the important thing is that they are ALL in communion with Rome.”
Not necessarilly. While some Easter rite churches are in communion with Rome, the Eastern Orthodox most definitely are not, as Rome and Constantinople excommunicated each other (another example of Christian tolerance and brotherhood) in 1054, if memory serves.
Bob wrote: “Meaning that are differences in beliefs, but they are not as large are irreconcilable as you claim them to be.
You and the western church may think so, but the Eastern churches don’t seem quite as anxious to reconcile.
#31 by bob at November 21st, 2008
| Quote
Of course it was. You keep insisting that the Christian church has always been the Catholic church, when in fact the early church bore no resemblance to the Catholic church, nor was it the only game in town. There were various divisions and sects as early as the beginnings of the church. To suggest there was basically one organization with a common theology, that the differences were insignificant, is just inaccurate. One of the justifications of the reformation was an attempt to return to what the early church had been.
Yes I’ve heard this argument before (usually to justify the reformation). Somehow the “Christian” church mysteriously went underground for 1,200 years only to be saved by Luther! It is true that there were many disagreements during the early Christian Church (the term “Catholic” was not used until the 2nd century by St. Ignatious of Antioch) that is why the council of Nicea was eventually convened. Arianism and its derivatives were deemed heretical, and the Nicean creed was instituted. Its interesting to note that the roots of Arianism (Christ was not divine) found its way into Islam.
Is this so? How about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, for example? That wasn’t a part of Catholic doctrine until the 19th century, and is not recognized by any other denomination, including the Orthodox. Should they have to accept it because one, unified church is necessary? Of course not. It goes without saying such ultimately unprovable things are best left to one’s private beliefs, and not imposed as gospel on other people.
The belief in the Immaculate Conception (Mary conceived without sin) originated in the East, and was later spread to the West. Since the earliest centuries the Eastern Churches have celebrated St. Anne’s Conception of the Theotokos (Mother of God). The Church is careful when speaking infallibly, and in this case it took them centuries to do so.
Not necessarilly. While some Eastern rite churches are in communion with Rome, the Eastern Orthodox most definitely are not, as Rome and Constantinople excommunicated each other (another example of Christian tolerance and brotherhood) in 1054, if memory serves.
You misunderstood, perhaps my wording was poor but I never said that the Orthodox were in Communion with Rome, only the Eastern-rite Catholics. What I did state is that the majority of their beliefs are in common with the West, with the major acception of the use of the Filioque. I think great strides have been made to reconcile with the Orthodox, but you may be correct about their unwillingness to do so. We can only pray for their return as well as our Protestant brothers.
#32 by bob at November 21st, 2008
| Quote
One of the justifications of the reformation was an attempt to return to what the early church had been.
Would you mind explaining further? The concept of sola scriptura is no where to be found in the bible. By the way, Luther’s belief that we are saved by faith “alone” ( a word he added to scripture!) seems contradicted by James 2:24: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
If adding words to and contradicting scripture is a return to what the early church had been, then no thanks.
#33 by digglahhh at November 21st, 2008
| Quote
I did not mean it that way. No one living on this earth is worse than satan
Just more stubborn when it comes to recognizing the absolute veracity of the [Bill Maher]big book of Jewish fairy tales[Bill Maher].
If you are a Christian, you do not have a “right” to create your own spiritual path
Well, you can debate the extent to which there’s wiggle room within the general Christian doctrine. But, generally speaking, you don’t become Christian and then choose/create your own spiritual path. The decision to become Christian is the result of one choosing a particular spiritual path.
My understanding is the split was due to the Orthodox belief that proclaims that the Father is the eternal source of the Godhead, from whom is begotten the Son eternally and also from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally. Unlike the Catholic Church , the Orthodox Church does not espouse the use of the Filioque (”and the Son”) in describing the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is believed to eternally proceed from the Father, not from the Father and the Son. The pope and his bishops are working to reconcile this split, but most of the basic beliefs between the faiths are essentially the same, unlike the protestant reformation.
This is essentially how Ghostface explained his beef with RZA and the recent tribulation within the Wu Tang Clan.
#34 by tgirsch at November 21st, 2008
| Quote
The decision to become Christian is the result of one choosing a particular spiritual path.
Well, truth to tell, for the overwhelming majority of Christians, no such choice is ever made, at least not by them. They became Christians because their parents were Christians and raised them as Christians from infancy, not because of some conscious decision to “become” one.
#35 by Janusz at November 21st, 2008
| Quote
Bob wrote: “I think great strides have been made to reconcile with the Orthodox, but you may be correct about their unwillingness to do so. We can only pray for their return as well as our Protestant brothers.”
Ah yes, here we go again. Somehow all other people who claim to be “Christian”, however well intentioned, just don’t pass muster. The only way they can truly be saved is by “returning” to the correct path, which just happens to be your denomination. We’ve heard the same argument from several “Christians” on this site, from different groups, but they all seem to rely on the same “true scotsman” fallacy. Which I imagine, is why tgirsch started this thread (what a trouble maker!)
#36 by Janusz at November 21st, 2008
| Quote
Bob wrote: “Would you mind explaining further?”
By reducing a hierarchy that had developed over the centuries, eliminating much pomp, ritual and over-blown theology that hadn’t existed in the beginning, and relying more heavily on Scripture.
Bob wrote: “..(the term “Catholic” was not used until the 2nd century by St. Ignatious of Antioch) ”
That may be so, but the church of Roman Empire, and the one that accepted the Nicene Creed referred to itself as “Orthodox” in the fourth century and later. I don’t know when the term “Catholic” was officially used (it may not have been until the Great Schism), but it was not called Catholic 500 years after the death of Christ.
#37 by Big U at November 21st, 2008
| Quote
Just so I have this straight, bob, are you saying that the only church that is correct in all its doctrines, beliefs, etc. is the Roman Catholic church?
#38 by tgirsch at November 21st, 2008
| Quote
Which I imagine, is why tgirsch started this thread (what a trouble maker!)
Hey, at least I recognize my calling!
#39 by LarryE at November 21st, 2008
| Quote
Bob -
A couple of areas of questions. I do not intend to argue the points but just to better understand you. Please give direct answers first; if you want to expand on those answers, by all means do, but direct answers first.
1. Were John Calvin and Martin Luther heretics?
2. Are present-day Protestant churches heretical? Here a direct answer would be either “yes, they are” or “no, they’re not” or “some are,” the latter followed a by list of examples.
3. Is the Bible inerrant? Is one translation superior to others?
4. Is your understanding of the Bible informed by historical fact?
5. Do you believe in predestination?
#40 by LarryE at November 21st, 2008
| Quote
Oh, and on one other point: James does not say one is “saved” by works but “justified” by them. Works prompted by faith were the proof of such salvation, not the source of it.
If you want to argue otherwise, that Luther was wrong to say one is saved by faith “alone” than you also say Paul was wrong when he wrote in Ephesians 2:8-9:
“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast.”
#41 by tgirsch at November 21st, 2008
| Quote
LarryE:
While not many Catholics openly admit they do this, their tendency to effectively ignore large swaths of the Pauline epistles is, I think, one of Catholicisms few redeeming qualities.
#42 by digglahhh at November 21st, 2008
| Quote
Well, truth to tell, for the overwhelming majority of Christians, no such choice is ever made, at least not by them. They became Christians because their parents were Christians and raised them as Christians from infancy, not because of some conscious decision to “become” one..
Agreed 100%. For the sake of the specific point I was making, I granted a liberal definition of what it means to actually make a choice. In fact, quite the same (though often to a bit lesser degree) allegation can be made about an individual’s political views
#43 by Dan M. at November 21st, 2008
| Quote
Digg,
wrt politics being like religion, I agree that there may be a similar (though lesser) level of unconsciousness, I think there’s a huge difference between the sources of the unconscious choices. The unconcious choice of religion comes from your parents when you are an infant. The unconscious choice of politics comes from your peers when your a teenager. That’s wildly important for at least two reasons: (a) you have a lot more than 2 peers and they probably vary a lot more than your parents. (b) teenagers are old enough and young enough to be susceptible to data, if not reason.
#44 by bob at November 22nd, 2008
| Quote
Ah yes, here we go again. Somehow all other people who claim to be “Christian”, however well intentioned, just don’t pass muster. The only way they can truly be saved is by “returning” to the correct path, which just happens to be your denomination. We’ve heard the same argument from several “Christians” on this site, from different groups, but they all seem to rely on the same “true scotsman” fallacy. Which I imagine, is why tgirsch started this thread (what a trouble maker!)
Well first off the Catholic Church is not a denomination, there is only one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. Secondly, I never said that those outside the Catholic Church cannot be saved. When a non-Catholic is baptized in the faith he automatically enters into a union with the Catholic Church (whether he realizes it or not.) Also, when he and professes his belief in Jesus as the son of God, he is himself to our first pope, St. Peter who proclaimed “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” However this union is not perfect, and prevents him from entering into the fullness of our faith and what our Lord has provided to help us in our salvation (such as seven sacraments).
So why be Catholic if you can be saved outside the Church? This is like asking, what is the minimum amout of love I need to enter into with my wife for a successful marriage? Well, wouldn’t you want to love her as fully human possible? Also, remember that Catholics believe that no one is guaranteed salvation (even Catholics) we can only hope for it. It will be up to God to decide, and this may even include the salvation of those who are completely outside the Christian faith, whether through their own ignorance, or psychological wound, etc. that prevents them from living according to the Word.
#45 by bob at November 22nd, 2008
| Quote
By reducing a hierarchy that had developed over the centuries, eliminating much pomp, ritual and over-blown theology that hadn’t existed in the beginning, and relying more heavily on Scripture.
Bob wrote: “..(the term “Catholic” was not used until the 2nd century by St. Ignatious of Antioch) ”
That may be so, but the church of Roman Empire, and the one that accepted the Nicene Creed referred to itself as “Orthodox” in the fourth century and later. I don’t know when the term “Catholic” was officially used (it may not have been until the Great Schism), but it was not called Catholic 500 years after the death of Christ.
There are over 2 billion Christians in the world. Of that amount, approximately 1.2 billion claim themselves to be Catholic. Of course a growing hierarchy is going to be needed to “shephard” the flock. How else would you expect to accomplish this?
What non-Catholics fail to understand about the Catholic Mass (and sadly many Catholics as well) is that the entire Mass is essentially a prayer taken directly out of sacred scripture! How can you rely more on scripture that that? Most protestants are shocked when they come to this realization. What you call too much pomp and ritual, is what Catholics consider the re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross during Mass (the holy sacrifice of the Mass). Our Lord lives outside ot time, so His crucifixtion is eternally present to us, so we offer this gift up to the Father in Heaven at each Mass in thankgiving (that’s what Eucharist means) to Christ for paying the debt that only He could pay. Oh and believe me, this “ritual and pomp” has existed almost from the very beginning. There’s even more pomp and ritual in the Orthodox Church.
It is a proven fact that St. Ignatious of Antioch first used the phrase katholikos (catholic) to describe the Church in approximately 107a.d. In fact some evidence shows that it goes back to the first century. When Ignatius wrote the Letter to the Smyrnaeans in about the year 107 and used the word “catholic”, he used it as if it were a word already in use to describe the Church. This has led many scholars to conclude that the term “Catholic Church” with its ecclesial connotation may have been in use as early as the last quarter of the first century.
#46 by bob at November 22nd, 2008
| Quote
Just so I have this straight, bob, are you saying that the only church that is correct in all its doctrines, beliefs, etc. is the Roman Catholic church?
The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ when He gave the keys of the Kingdom to St. Peter and said “Upon this rock (Peter, the first Pope) I will build my Church and the gates of hell should not prevail against it.” While there exists other churches with many elements of the truth, only the Catholic Church possess the fullness of truth.
Aposolic succession of the Catholic Church:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
#47 by Dan M. at November 22nd, 2008
| Quote
The point you seem to be missing, bob, is that the fact that when the church run by the pope, whatever you want to call it, claims something, such as who are the best christians, the rest of us don’t necessary accept it as right. You can keep repeating the claims of that church, but you’re doing nothing to argue their correctness.
Argument by authority doesn’t work to defend the authority relied upon.
#48 by LarryE at November 22nd, 2008
| Quote
Dan -
And what you’re missing is that Bob is not arguing, he’s preaching.
In that context, simply repeating the claims of established authority without critical examination is not only normal, it’s required.
#49 by bob at November 22nd, 2008
| Quote
The point you seem to be missing, bob, is that the fact that when the church run by the pope, whatever you want to call it, claims something, such as who are the best christians, the rest of us don’t necessary accept it as right. You can keep repeating the claims of that church, but you’re doing nothing to argue their correctness.
Argument by authority doesn’t work to defend the authority relied upon.
Well Dan, I suppose what it really comes down to if you believe that it is the Catholic Church that Jesus established when Christ gave Peter alone the “keys of the kingdom” (Matt 16:19) and promised that Peter’s decisions would be binding in Heaven. Jesus then appointed the apostles to be the first leaders of the Church, and their successors were to be its future leaders. The apostles were the first bishops nad since the first century, there has been an unbroken line of Catholic bishops faithfully handing on what the apostles taught the first Christians in Scripture and oral Tradition (2 Tim 2:2). What these first Christians believed is still believed by the Catholic Church today. No other Church can make that claim.
#50 by N.S. Allen at November 23rd, 2008
| Quote
I think the biggest problem with this debate is that we really have a need for two different definitions in two different contexts.
Folks who are sincerely interested in Christian theology will want to define “Christian” in a sort of ideal sense, as a term denoting those believers whose beliefs are in accordance with what Christ supposedly would have wanted. They don’t want the term applied to people who aren’t “right with Jesus,” so, obviously, they want to narrow the definition, in this way. It shouldn’t surprise us if the Catholics define “Christian” in a way that excludes Mormons, for example.
But, for people who are having a conversation in life outside of church, that definition’s going to be kind of useless, because it’s completely disconnected from how the term is used. As a non-believer, if I’m having a conversation about “Christians,” I’m almost certainly not concerned with the theological vagaries that various denominations may assign to the term.
The same is likely true, believer or not, if someone is having a conversation in which Christians are involved but that is not specifically about Christianity. If we’re talking about, say, volunteerism among Christians, and someone interjects to say that we need a much more specific definition of the term “Christian,” he’s not really contributing anything to the conversation - he’s just making it harder for us to communicate, because we both have some broader idea of what the term “Christian” denotes in common parlance, something much closer to “people who believe Christ died for man’s sins” or something like that.
So, I think people ought to more clearly distinguish between what we might call a theological definition of Christianity, which will almost certainly vary from person to person and from denomination to denomination, and a functional or vernacular definition of Christianity. Otherwise, you’ll just end up trying to separate the “real” meaning of the word from the way it’s used, which will just be futile. Words wouldn’t have definition to begin with, if we didn’t, as a society, use them to mean things.
#51 by Big U at November 23rd, 2008
| Quote
Actually Bob, the Catholic hierarchy has added several things to what was originally taught, but nice try.
Also, this may be something for you to read and respond to: http://www.remnantofgod.org/pope1.htm
#52 by Janusz at November 23rd, 2008
| Quote
Bob wrote: “The belief in the Immaculate Conception (Mary conceived without sin) originated in the East, and was later spread to the West. Since the earliest centuries the Eastern Churches have celebrated St. Anne’s Conception of the Theotokos (Mother of God). The Church is careful when speaking infallibly, and in this case it took them centuries to do so.”
Bob, though there are writings by Greek and Syriac theologians referring to Mary’s purity, it is often interpreted in the East as an indication of her conduct after birth. Listen carefully…the Eastern Orthodox do not accept Immaculate Conception as it would contradict the doctrine of the redemption of man and make Christ’s work unnecessary. The Immaculate Conception was formalized by the Catholic church in the 19th century; it is not accepted by any other denomination, it is just one example of how the Catholic church has changed since the founding of Christianity. I can appreciate your attachment to the church of your choosing, but it is but one denomination (yes, Bob, it is a denomination) among many, it has evolved considerably over the centuries so that theologically, ritually and structurally it bears little resemblance to the band of itinerant preachers that Christ and the Apostles essentially were. You can not expect the Orthodox, Protestants, Mormons, Pentecostals, Charismatics or any other group to “return” to Catholicism any more than you should “return” to them. Catholicism has no more exclusive claim to Christ, Peter and the Apostles than any other denomination.
#53 by bob at November 23rd, 2008
| Quote
50.
Actually Bob, the Catholic hierarchy has added several things to what was originally taught, but nice try.
Also, this may be something for you to read and respond to: http://www.remnantofgod.org/pope1.htm
Through the workings of the Holy Spirit, the Church continuously seeks out spiritual truths as the Spirit reveals them to us. Not all has been revealed and some mysteries will never be fully revealed in this world. If you can give me a specific example of where the Catholic hierarchy has added something in contradiction to Chuch teachings that would be helpful.
That website is a typical anti-Catholic hate forum, probably started by fundamentalists. There exists plenty of historical evidence that St. Peter lived in Rome at the time of his crucifixtion (which was upside down, because he didn’t feel worthy of Christ, and His being crucified right side up). For instance the writings of Tertullian, Ignatious of Antioch, Ireneaous, Clement of Alexandria and Lactantius all indicate Peter being an inhabitant of Rome. There is even now archeological evidence that St. Peters tomb is buried under St. Peter’s Church in Vatican City!
But just for the sake of argument, what if Peter didn’t live and die in Rome? So what? That wouldn’t disqualify him as the first Pope. Rome is only the place that Catholicism settled, probably because it was the center of civilization at the time, other than that there is no geographical significance. The term “Roman Catholicism” wasn’t even used until 17th century England.
#54 by bob at November 23rd, 2008
| Quote
Bob, though there are writings by Greek and Syriac theologians referring to Mary’s purity, it is often interpreted in the East as an indication of her conduct after birth. Listen carefully…the Eastern Orthodox do not accept Immaculate Conception as it would contradict the doctrine of the redemption of man and make Christ’s work unnecessary. The Immaculate Conception was formalized by the Catholic church in the 19th century; it is not accepted by any other denomination, it is just one example of how the Catholic church has changed since the founding of Christianity. I can appreciate your attachment to the church of your choosing, but it is but one denomination (yes, Bob, it is a denomination) among many, it has evolved considerably over the centuries so that theologically, ritually and structurally it bears little resemblance to the band of itinerant preachers that Christ and the Apostles essentially were. You can not expect the Orthodox, Protestants, Mormons, Pentecostals, Charismatics or any other group to “return” to Catholicism any more than you should “return” to them. Catholicism has no more exclusive claim to Christ, Peter and the Apostles than any other denomination.
The Catholic Church has changed how? They never declared dogmatically that Mary was not the Immaculate Conception and then decided in the 19th century to turn around and change their minds. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception does not contradict anything in the previous teachings of the Church. In fact, some of the original thinking behind this can be traced back to St. Augustine in the 4th century. I can not recommend highly enough reading books on the early Church Fathers, you will come to a new understanding of the beginnings of the Church, and why it is one, holy, catholic and apostolic.
Concerning the Orthodox, its my understanding that they believe Jesus could not have obtained His human nature if Mary was conceived without sin. Which doesn’t really make sense because God can do anything He wants. Anyway, remember that the Eastern Orthodox is not in communion with Rome going back to the 11th century, so their not accepting the dogma of the Immaculate Conception does not somehow invalidate this Church teaching. You may be able to argue persuasively that Eastern Orthodoxy is not a denomination, because their faith is nearly in union with Rome and in fact their sacraments are recognized as valid by the Catholic Church. Many Eastern Orthodox Churches have come back in communion with Rome over the last 500 years by the way. However, the Protestant faith did not even exist until the reformation, and there now exists thousands of protestant denominations, all claiming their own version of the truth. Do you really think this is what Christ wanted? As the world sinks further and further into sin, many of the protestant faithful will return to the Church. It is already happening now, we are seeing protestant evangelical ministers and bible scholars who are studying their way back into the faith.
#55 by Big U at November 23rd, 2008
| Quote
bob, I won’t bother providing you with any more information as you have clearly decided that no matter what is said you will contradict with something or just brush it off. I will ask you one question though….where in the Bible does the Catholic church find support for it’s teachings regarding last rights?
#56 by Janusz at November 23rd, 2008
| Quote
Bob wrote: “The Catholic Church has changed how? They never declared dogmatically that Mary was not the Immaculate Conception and then decided in the 19th century to turn around and change their minds.”
The Immaculate Conception was not part of Christian theology before the 19th century, when the Catholic church instituted the doctrine. That is one example of how the church has changed. To suggest that it wasn’t official because “The Church is careful when speaking infallibly, and in this case it took them centuries to do so” is extremely tortured logic. It also runs counter to your assertion that there has been an “unbroken line of Catholic bishops faithfully handing on what the apostles taught the first Christians in Scripture and oral Tradition”. If that was fact, there would have been no need to wait “centuries” to reveal it. These revelations are changes to church doctrine, however you may choose to justify it.
Bob wrote: “Concerning the Orthodox, its my understanding that they believe Jesus could not have obtained His human nature if Mary was conceived without sin. Which doesn’t really make sense because God can do anything He wants.”
It’s also beside the point. The “left lung” of the church does not believe in the doctrine because it was added centuries after Peter and the Apostles. You try to make the case that the Catholic church has an unbroken line of succession, both theologically and structurally, when given that the church started in east, it would seem the Orthodox would have as much, and probably greater claim to that assertion than the western church. But the fact is, the church was continually evolving from its start as an underground religion with no hierarchy, ritual or buildings, so the “eternal, unchanging” church is a myth.
#57 by Dan M. at November 23rd, 2008
| Quote
Poor Janusz, you seem to think that adding something new after 1500 years is some kind of change. How very uncatholic of you!
#58 by Janusz at November 24th, 2008
| Quote
Dan M. wrote: “Poor Janusz, you seem to think that adding something new after 1500 years is some kind of change. How very uncatholic of you!”
How completely unreasonable of me!
#59 by bob at November 24th, 2008
| Quote
bob, I won’t bother providing you with any more information as you have clearly decided that no matter what is said you will contradict with something or just brush it off. I will ask you one question though….where in the Bible does the Catholic church find support for it’s teachings regarding last rights?
I’m only trying to explain the what and why of Catholic Church teachings. If I contradict someone, its because I think they are misinformed about the Church, which is not surprising as even many Catholics are misinformed as well.
Your question about last rights is a good one. The Lord gives us the sacraments involved in the last rites to comfort us in our final days and prepare us for the journey ahead. These include penance (or confession), confirmation (when lacking), anointing of the sick, and Viaticum (which is meant to be the last reception of Communion for the journey from this life to eternity). I will assume you are interested specifically in the sacrament of “Annointing of the Sick” which can be received by not just those who are dying but also those who are very ill. Like all the sacraments, holy anointing was instituted by Jesus Christ during his earthly ministry. It is alluded to by Mark, but is recommended to the faithful and promulgated by James the apostle and brother of the Lord (Mark 6:13; Jas. 5:14-15).
Mark refers to the sacrament when he recounts how Jesus sent out the twelve disciples to preach, and “they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them” (Mark 6:13). But most importantly, in his epistle James says, “Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven” (Jas. 5:14–15).
#60 by bob at November 24th, 2008
| Quote
The Immaculate Conception was not part of Christian theology before the 19th century, when the Catholic church instituted the doctrine. That is one example of how the church has changed. To suggest that it wasn’t official because “The Church is careful when speaking infallibly, and in this case it took them centuries to do so” is extremely tortured logic. It also runs counter to your assertion that there has been an “unbroken line of Catholic bishops faithfully handing on what the apostles taught the first Christians in Scripture and oral Tradition”. If that was fact, there would have been no need to wait “centuries” to reveal it. These revelations are changes to church doctrine, however you may choose to justify it.
Thats just not true. Lets go back to scripture and see how this doctrine of the Church developed. In Luke 1:28 the angel Gabriel said to Mary “Hail full of grace, the Lord is with you”.
The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary. The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics believe it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.
I agree that my explanation of why the Church took so long to officially declare this as dogma was not the best. But I never said that this was a new revelation, the Church believed this from its early beginnings, it was just not declared dogmatically. When people claim that the doctrine was “invented” by Pope Pius IX in 1854, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. They are under the impression that no doctrine is believed until the pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it. Actually, doctrines are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the magisterium of the Church thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed. Pope Pius IX, who was highly devoted to the Blessed Virgin, hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her.
#61 by Dan M. at November 24th, 2008
| Quote
Lets go back to scripture and see how this doctrine of the Church developed.
develop: to [...] grow or change into a [..] larger or stronger form.
#62 by bob at November 25th, 2008
| Quote
Bob -
A couple of areas of questions. I do not intend to argue the points but just to better understand you. Please give direct answers first; if you want to expand on those answers, by all means do, but direct answers first.
1. Were John Calvin and Martin Luther heretics?
2. Are present-day Protestant churches heretical? Here a direct answer would be either “yes, they are” or “no, they’re not” or “some are,” the latter followed a by list of examples.
3. Is the Bible inerrant? Is one translation superior to others?
4. Is your understanding of the Bible informed by historical fact?
5. Do you believe in predestination?
First I’d liked to differentiate between material and formal heresy. A material heretic holds a particular view that is contrary to Church doctrine but is either unaware of that fact or incapable of understanding the matter properly. For instance, it is somewhat common for people to have misconceptions of the Trinity or of the nature of Jesus Christ without knowing it. Someone might think that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three manifestations of a single God (the heresy of modalism), or someone might think that Jesus Christ is a divine soul infused in a human body (the heresy of Apollinarianism). For the material heretic, these misunderstandings are unfortunate but innocent. It is only when one becomes aware of the heretical nature of one’s position and obstinately refuses to change that one is a formal heretic.
1. Yes. I would further claim that Luther was a formal heretic. However, Luther’s excommunication ceased upon his death for obvious reasons. Remember though that being a heretic does not condemn one hell, only God can judge someone’s soul.
2.Yes. The very definition of Protestant is to protest the teachings of the Catholic Church. However I would claim that many (most?) protestants are material heretics.
3.The Bible is the inerrant word of God. The latin vulgate although far from perfect is probably our best translation of the original greek and hebrew writings. I’m not going to get into the KJV v. Douis-Rheims argument though. For me I use the Revised Standard Version- Catholic Edition
4. Yes. Our Catholic Faith, while it is faith, is based on proven facts, historical events and authentic sayings.
5. No
#63 by bob at November 25th, 2008
| Quote
develop: to [...] grow or change into a [..] larger or stronger form.
good grief!
develop: to bring into being or activity
#64 by LarryE at November 25th, 2008
| Quote
Bob -
Thank you for finally answering; I had come to think you weren’t going to. As I said, I will not argue the points, as tempting as that is, since my purpose was to understand better where you’re coming from.
I will note that my question about “historical fact” referred to a knowledge of our best current understanding of the societies and cultural standards and beliefs of the general time and place(s) in which the Gospels and Epistles were written down, including that the facts that some concepts and phrases simply did not mean the same thing to them as they do to us.
I’ll also note in closing that your arguments do not refute the complaints against Roman Catholicism that lead to the Reformation so much as they confirm them.
#65 by bob at December 13th, 2008
| Quote
I will conclude with this very apt quote from Archbishop Fulton Sheen:
“There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church.”
#66 by Dan M. at December 13th, 2008
| Quote
So, was it the “real” Catholic Church or the “imaginary” one that encouraged priests to continue raping children? Was Bernie Law part of the real or imaginary church when the Pope moved him to Rome to avoid prosecution for his long-standing cover-up of rape?
#67 by Janusz at December 13th, 2008
| Quote
Bob wrote:
“The Father, Son and Holy Spirit do possess the same divine nature, but each is wholly himself, conscious of himself as himself, of the other as other. God is entirely spirit, Jesus is the Word of God…”
“So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.”
“First I’d liked to differentiate between material and formal heresy. A material heretic holds a particular view that is contrary to Church doctrine but is either unaware of that fact or incapable of understanding the matter properly.”
Bob, while in some ways your unwavering dedication to your beliefs is admirable, your apparent inability to distinguish between matters of faith and empirical fact borders on the unbalanced.
#68 by digglahhh at December 15th, 2008
| Quote
“There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church.”
I hear what you’re saying, but you could make that statement about anything. It is up to you clear up the misconceptions, or to offer alternative forms/interpretations of the thing in question. Otherwise, this statement is meaningless.
As a huge hip hop fan, I’ve used this argument many times. I don’t really see how an intelligent, politically-aware person (especially a progressive) could say they don’t respect rap music as an art form. Unless of course, they are a “material heretic” and only know of the music that which is portrayed and played in the MSM. But, all that argument does is request that the person listen to your point of view with an open mind, it doesn’t actually convince anybody of anything. Now it’s incumbent on me to produce evidence that counters their previously held notions.
Like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r0KpWMNxnM
(this one even writes out the lyrics on the screen like karaoke)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJfumftYyxY
Now, unlike hip hop music, I would expect that many of regulars here have done a fair amount of research into the history of the Catholic Church, and have formed their own opinions. That’s all you can really ask.
#69 by bob at December 16th, 2008
| Quote
So, was it the “real” Catholic Church or the “imaginary” one that encouraged priests to continue raping children? Was Bernie Law part of the real or imaginary church when the Pope moved him to Rome to avoid prosecution for his long-standing cover-up of rape?
I don’t know of any priest or bishop who would “encourage” anyone to rape children, that is an outrageous claim. Of course serious mistakes were made, and no one was more outraged by the behavior of bishops like Bernard Law than most practicing Catholics, including myself. The Church in America has paid a heavy spiritual and financial price for the crimes and cover ups of these abusers.
Its important to note however, that according to the John Jay study from the years 1950 to 2002, that an overwhelming majority of the victims, 81 percent, were males, and that a majority of the victims were post-pubescent adolescents with a small percentage of the priests accused of abusing children who had not reached puberty. Indeed, in the National Review Board’s 2004 report, it said, “We must call attention to the homosexual behavior that characterized the vast majority of the cases of abuse observed in recent years.”
#70 by bob at December 16th, 2008
| Quote
Bob, while in some ways your unwavering dedication to your beliefs is admirable, your apparent inability to distinguish between matters of faith and empirical fact borders on the unbalanced.
God has given each of us the gift of free will, we can chose to believe and have faith in Him or not. God is love. If He were to appear to you in person and provide “empirical evidence” of His existence, where would be the love in that? You would no longer have this gift of free will, you would be enslaved to Him.
Furthermore, look what happened when God the Son did appear to us in person and gave us “empirical evidence” of His divinity by performing miracles of healing, feeding and even raising the dead. How did we respond? We crucified Him.
#71 by bob at December 16th, 2008
| Quote
Now, unlike hip hop music, I would expect that many of regulars here have done a fair amount of research into the history of the Catholic Church, and have formed their own opinions. That’s all you can really ask.
Well, I agree with you up to a certain point. Just the argument over the dogma of the Immaculate Conception here shows that yes, many have done a fair amount of research on the Church, but their misunderstanding of why the Church declares dogma has led them to believe that this doctrine was simply “invented” in the 19th century, when nothing could be further from the truth. I think what Archbishop Fulton Sheen was getting at was that hatred of the Church is often a function of ignorance of her teachings. Not necessarily that knowledge of her teachings would lead to their conversion, although that happens quite a bit.
#72 by tgirsch at December 16th, 2008
| Quote
There’s a perverse part of me that can’t wait for an argument between bob and Fred. Is that wrong of me?
#73 by Janusz at December 16th, 2008
| Quote
Bob wrote: “Its important to note however, that according to the John Jay study from the years 1950 to 2002, that an overwhelming majority of the victims, 81 percent, were males, and that a majority of the victims were post-pubescent adolescents with a small percentage of the priests accused of abusing children who had not reached puberty. Indeed, in the National Review Board’s 2004 report, it said, “We must call attention to the homosexual behavior that characterized the vast majority of the cases of abuse observed in recent years.”
Bob, I’m not sure how to interpret this statement of yours. Are you trying to minimize the predatory behavior of the priests involved by suggesting the victims were of a sexually active age, or are you trying to deflect the responsibility of the church hierarchy onto the gay community??? Keep in mind that the victims weren’t exclusively adolescent or male, and keep in mind that gay people are no more prone to predatory behavior than heterosexuals. Also keep in mind, the predatory priests were not the only ones at fault here; the consistent cover-up perpetrated by the church hierarchy was just as criminal and reprehensible as the acts of the priests. I must say, this is probably one of the most tortured and shocking attempts to defend the acts of the church I’ve yet come across.
Bob wrote: “God has given each of us the gift of free will, we can chose to believe and have faith in Him or not.”
True enough, and each of us is free to interpret what has been “revealed”, and to worship in our own way, all being equally valid. You keep trying to present theological minutiae, a triune Godhead, Mary’s state of grace, distinctions between “heresies”, as if they were indisputable, empirical fact simply because they are advanced by the Catholic church, and you’re very quick to disparage any group that disagrees. As Dan M. so eloquently stated earlier, “You can keep repeating the claims of that church, but you’re doing nothing to argue their correctness. Argument by authority doesn’t work to defend the authority…”
#74 by bob at December 17th, 2008
| Quote
No, my point was that the majority of the abuse cases were homosexual men preying on post-pubescent boys. I’m in no way minimizing what happened to these youths, even one case of abuse is unacceptable. However, the Church has recognized this fact, and has taken serious steps to prevent homosexual men, especially those showing signs of difficulty living a chase life, from being accepted into the seminaries.
You certainly do have the gift of free will to worship as you please, but it is most certainly not equally valid. Why even have the Commandments then, if anyone is free to interpret divine scripture as they so please? Or why even pay attention to scripture at all? Lets pick and choose what satisfies our lifestyle. This type of reasoning is exactly what has lead to today’s dictatorship of relativism and the culture of death. Christ gave us His Church, his mystical body on earth, and its central teaching authority to prevent us from falling into this trap. I was respond to you as I responded to Dan…. what it really comes down to if you believe that it is the Catholic Church that Jesus established when Christ gave Peter (the first Pope) alone the “keys of the kingdom” (Matt 16:19) and promised that what he bound on earth would be bound in Heaven. Jesus appointed the apostles to be the first leaders of the Church, and their successors were to be its future leaders. The apostles were the first bishops and since the first century, there has been an unbroken line of Catholic bishops faithfully handing on what the apostles taught the first Christians in Scripture and oral Tradition (2 Tim 2:2). What these first Christians believed is still believed by the Catholic Church today. No other Church can make that claim.
#75 by Janusz at December 17th, 2008
| Quote
Bob wrote: “No, my point was that the majority of the abuse cases were homosexual men preying on post-pubescent boys.”
No, your point is an attempt to deflect responsibility away from the church and scapegoat gay people. The church engaged in an organized, consistent cover-up, moved people with predatory histories from one parish to another thereby almost guaranteeing the offending actions would be repeated. The church’s response was secretive and conspiritorial. Homosexuals were not the only perpatrators; your attempt to scapegoat gay people is dishonest and only serves as a distraction. Your response, and your attempt to minimize the church’s responsibility demonstrates an astounding moral bankrupcy on your part.
Bob wrote:”…what it really comes down to if you believe that it is the Catholic Church that Jesus established…”
And many people don’t believe the Catholic church is the sole inheritor of Christ’s legacy, are free to believe such and their opinions are equally valid. Despite your cataloging of theological talking point, you haven’t established WHY the church should be considered the SOLE representative of Christ’s legacy. You haven’t established WHY your particular estimate of the number of angels on the head of a pin is the correct one. You can’t. Such things can’t be empirically known, they can’t be proved or disproved in a scientific manner. To disparage the beliefs of Protestants, Orthodox, Mormons and others when such proof is unavailable is narrow and bigoted. Your assertions in this regard are as equally bankrupt as your response to the sex scandal.
#76 by bob at December 17th, 2008
| Quote
No, your point is an attempt to deflect responsibility away from the church and scapegoat gay people….
The facts speak for themselves, the vast majority of predatory behavior was committed by homosexual men preying on post-pubescent boys. I never said that homosexuals were the only predators, nor did I deny that some Church bishops did engage in covering up these crimes.
To disparage the beliefs of Protestants, Orthodox, Mormons and others when such proof is unavailable is narrow and bigoted. Your assertions in this regard are as equally bankrupt as your response to the sex scandal.
I am supposed to provide you with empirical evidence to scientifically prove why I believe in a faith that is 2,000 years old, otherwise I am a narrow-minded bigot??This is a perfect example of the politically correct nonsense that is wrecking our country.
#77 by Dan M. at December 18th, 2008
| Quote
What these first Christians believed is still believed by the Catholic Church today. No other Church can make that claim.
No other church has the hubris to make that claim. And the Roman church has nary a shred of evidence to prove it, other than its own cooked books.
I am supposed to provide you with empirical evidence to scientifically prove why I believe in a faith that is 2,000 years old, otherwise I am a narrow-minded bigot??
No, you’re a narrow-minded bigot for thinking that your 2k year old faith that you have no evidence for has significantly more legitimacy than some other chump’s 2k year old faith that’s mostly the same, soley because your faith claims that the other faith was wrong all along.
#78 by bob at December 19th, 2008
| Quote
No, you’re a narrow-minded bigot for thinking that your 2k year old faith that you have no evidence for has significantly more legitimacy than some other chump’s 2k year old faith that’s mostly the same, soley because your faith claims that the other faith was wrong all along.
Catholics do not say, and never have said, that they are the sole possessors of revelation. Indeed, the Church does not “possess” revelation at all. Revelation possesses her; and that revelation, who is Christ, has, she teaches, committed Himself fully to her. “God,” said the great Protestant writer George MacDonald, “is easy to please, but hard to satisfy.” On the one hand, God is delighted when the most miserable sinner takes the smallest serious step toward the love of God and neighbor. On the other hand, He will not be completely happy until every last person He came to save is completely perfected in the image of Christ and overflowing with perfect love for God and neighbor. This same pattern is supremely evident in the Catholic Church’s understanding of her relationship with her members, whether in full or very imperfect communion. For the Church is happy to recognize even the smallest commonalities she may share, not only with other Christians, but even with non-Christian religious traditions and the great philosophical traditions of paganism. The Church can even find things to affirm in virtuous atheists.
But at the same time, the Church is acutely aware that there is a real difference between imperfect and perfect unity and so she, too—easy to please, but hard to satisfy—labors toward that day when all the members of the Body of Christ will be perfected in faith, hope, and love.
Till that day, we know where the Church is; we do not know where she is not.
-Mark Shea
#79 by bob at December 23rd, 2008
| Quote
Merry Christmas to all left leaning people. May your hearts be open to receiving the grace of our Lord in the coming new year.
#80 by tgirsch at December 23rd, 2008
| Quote
Thanks, bob. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you and yours.