|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 10, 2018 13:46:16 GMT -5
There is no eternal importance whether or not Jesus laughed. I think the intrinsic KIND of error must be taken into account. As is said above Christians are responsable for knowing certain truths with certainty. Like the four marks of the Church...or the resurrection. If a bishop publically asserted that the resurrection was metephorical I am under no obligation to accept that just because a bishop asserted it.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2018 17:49:41 GMT -5
There is no eternal importance whether or not Jesus laughed. I think the intrinsic KIND of error must be taken into account. As is said above Christians are responsable for knowing certain truths with certainty. Like the four marks of the Church...or the resurrection. If a bishop publically asserted that the resurrection was metephorical I am under no obligation to accept that just because a bishop asserted it. You won't answer the question regarding the hypothetical scenario?
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 10, 2018 19:42:53 GMT -5
No because I find it irrelevant to even your point because the error proposed is inconsequential to salvation. If a Pope asserted that Jesus never ate vegetables I wouldnt see any need to check him on it either...Id say sure...ok Holy Father.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2018 20:17:47 GMT -5
No because I find it irrelevant to even your point because the error proposed is inconsequential to salvation. If a Pope asserted that Jesus never ate vegetables I wouldnt see any need to check him on it either...Id say sure...ok Holy Father. But whether it's integral to salvation isn't the point of the question. The Church has been involved in many issues that aren't, strictly speaking, necessary for salvation either, but that doesn't stop her from having something to say about them. I chose this question for a reason, so that it wouldn't bias you before answering. If I choose a question that has solid theological underpinnings, your answering will be contingent upon how it fits in with what your understanding is of the Church's teaching. It's not about the question; it's about how you respond to the Church's judgment.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 10, 2018 21:38:58 GMT -5
Well Im setting the parameter to be the import of the error involved.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2018 7:05:28 GMT -5
...only insofar as you don't want to answer the question 😉 Don't worry. It's not a trap.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 11, 2018 7:17:36 GMT -5
Presumptuous much? You dont want to deal with my parameter. No matter which way I answer the question its moot. If a Pope asserts Jesus never laughed. Np...then he never laughed.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2018 19:27:01 GMT -5
Presumptuous much? You dont want to deal with my parameter. No matter which way I answer the question its moot. If a Pope asserts Jesus never laughed. Np...then he never laughed. Again, that's not the point of the question. It's not about what you answer but why you answer the way you do. But since you won't even indulge me that far and trust that I know the point of my question, we are at an impasse.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2018 19:33:33 GMT -5
Why won't you just answer the question to see where I'm going before assuming that you already know? The very reason you gave for why you won't answer shows me that you don't know where I'm going. You can laugh at me all you want later. For now, just trust that it has nothing to do with whether Christ laughed or not. It's just an introductory question that needs to be answered before we can get to the real : the next question.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 11, 2018 20:20:00 GMT -5
With all due respect fess I did answer...I said I would accept that Jesus never laughed. I just think you are being optuse when I have my own take on your point. The truth about Jesus laughing isnt the same as the truth about whether allah is the Trinity. You are playing devils advocate indeed because the devils a liar and its a lie to say allah and the Trinity are the same. And since I know tgat the Magesterium can never lie...Im not SIFTING the magesterium at all I am judging the quality of the statement made AGAINST what the magesterium MUST say...and what it must say is the truth. So if a lie is asserted and it matters not from who it cannot be of the magesterium. That is not sifting it at all but using it AS the Standard.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2018 20:53:48 GMT -5
With all due respect fess I did answer...I said I would accept that Jesus never laughed. Ah, ok. So my next question is: "Why would you accept that Jesus never laughed?" Well, the approach you're taking includes a logic fallacy, to be frank. I'm just pointing it out. This fallacy is dangerous when you begin to apply it to things down the road, like Vatican I for example. It is the same method the Protestants use: instead of picking things out of the bible, we pick them out of the magisterium. They're the same in one essential way: we only know them because an authority told us so. The Trinity is not a naturally knowable doctrine. With all the contradictions it seems to imply, we accept it because a divine authority told us so. It is the same with Jesus never laughing. We know it is true because a divinely protected authority told us so. But when it concerns the Novus Ordo, suddenly we don't apply the same standard. Suddenly the same standard we told the Protestants they had to accept we ourselves don't follow. Suddenly we are above that divine authority and even using its own teaching to tell them they are not a divine authority. So then the pope doesn't really decide what is or isn't of faith. At the end of the day, we do. We put our fallible, corruptible, insufficient, error-prone interpretation of magisterial documents over top of a divine authority, declare it to be false, and then say that that authority isn't really divine because our error-prone intellect has found an error in what that divine authority has said. But this is special pleading. The only way you know Allah and the Trinity aren't the same is because Pope A, Pope B, and Pope C told you what the Trinity is and what it isn't. On their authority, not your own, you know that they aren't the same, only because their authority said so. But when the authority of Pope D, Pope E, and Pope F say Muslims intend to worship the same God, you say they are wrong. But the only reason you can say that is because you listened to ABC's authority, but now when DEF come with the same authority, now their authority doesn't apply, which undermines the whole reason you accepted the teachings of ABC to begin with in order to use it to reject that of DEF...
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 12, 2018 0:33:25 GMT -5
No...if I was an Episcopalian or some guy who reads the bible alot Id come to the same conclusion. You are denying that there are things we can know about God without a Catholic authority. Im begining to think we are discussing the same thing we touched on in our audio discussion. How can a thing be known at all. You are arguing from authority...isnt that some kind of fallacy. Btw its getting a little irritating that you keep accusing me of being fallacious. That is a form of ad hominum. Also your assuming my positions before I get a chance to explain them and that is a strawman tactic is it not? I know allah is not the Trinity the same way I know That trump isnt hillary. Or that a turtle isnt a seahawk. I dont think you belive that such a way of knowing a thing is possible. Let me ask you a question...how do you know that your awake and not dreaming?
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2018 11:22:10 GMT -5
No...if I was an Episcopalian or some guy who reads the bible alot Id come to the same conclusion. But you're still missing the point: the bible is an authority. You only believe the Trinity because the bible says so. And you only believe the bible because the Church says so (that's who gave it to us). And you only believe in the Church because Jesus said so. At the end of the day, we believe what Jesus said because he proved He was God. Whatever else He said, then, we believe because He was God and couldn't teach error. It's the same with the Church. We can't know these things withoutban authority. And that authority is useless unless it is guaranteed from teaching error.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 13, 2018 12:43:40 GMT -5
No I belived many things that were True about God before I ever read a Bible. I even knew there was a God. How do you know that Church is the Church of Christ? Because the Church says so? Circular. You belive first because of the gift of Faith. God reveals to you.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 13, 2018 12:45:16 GMT -5
Ill ask again how do you know your awake and not dreaming.
|
|