Catholic Social Teaching

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
My position is simple. The words of Jesus support salvation through righteousness.

The only "challenge" that you've presented boils down to you believe otherwise largely based on the words of Paul.

You have a seriously distorted view of reality.

"God is omniscient and God isn't omniscient."

You've convinced me that you actually believe that. ...[text shortened]... ave a rational discussion with someone who is so deluded that he actually believes that?

Ok , so what would it take for you to engage in a discussion on these issues? I say this because my experience is that you close down any discussions before they really start and block me out.

For example , I would like to start a discussion regarding the Trinity and omniscience and bring in Jesus's surprise at the Centurion's faith. That could be interesting because there we see God (the Son) as unknowing and capable of being surprised. I could discuss the issue of Jesus' words being often metaphorical and incomplete and look at the whole spectrum of what he said. There's a lot we could explore but basically there seems to be no way in at all.

So what might it take? Are there any words or any arguments that could reach you? Are you open to anything new? I get the feeling that I am wasting my time and that the only exploration you are willing to entertain is that which supports what for you is a self evident truth. The problem is that it is not self evident for others and you seem either angry or mystified as to why. You could at least try to understand why I have a different view of Jesus without being so dismissive.Let's take it step by step......

For example , it's clear that Jesus taught he was the Son of God and co-equal in existence with God (the Father) " before Abraham was I am"

He was basically killed because he claimed this. OK, so I will stop now and ask you if that's Ok with you and what it is that you disagree with about such a position. Logical so far....?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Ok , so what would it take for you to engage in a discussion on these issues? I say this because my experience is that you close down any discussions before they really start and block me out.

For example , I would like to start a discussion regarding the Trinity and omniscience and bring in Jesus's surprise at the Centurion's faith. That could be th you and what it is that you disagree with about such a position. Logical so far....?

If you have something to present, just present it instead of giving the usual song and dance. I've repeatedly shown verses where the words of Jesus explicitly support salvation by righteousness.

Just show me the verses containing the words of Jesus.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You seem unaware or unwilling to accept the fact that the actual workings of an organization is rarely the same as what is published. This is especially true of large, powerful and wealthy organizations. All the more so with organizations that have a long running history of corruption. I think your naivete is unreasonable and I called you out on it. And so it goes...

BTW, read your post. How is that not an ad hominem? What's up with that?

You seem unaware or unwilling to accept the fact that the actual workings of an organization is rarely the same as what is published. This is especially true of large, powerful and wealthy organizations. All the more so with organizations that have a long running history of corruption. I think your naivete is unreasonable and I called you out on it. And so it goes...

This is bigotry. I have already explained that talking about the Church in this way is incoherent. And the only evidence that you have to refute that is a letter, of which you have now backflipped over by saying that it does not reflect the inner workings of the Church.

This argument is getting circular. To prove that the Church is sinister, you rely on this single case which suggests that the Church (from Pope downwards) conspired in cover-ups; now that this has been refuted, you claim that the inner workings of the Church must be sinister...so they must have engaged in a cover-up. I'm getting dizzy.

BTW, read your post. How is that not an ad hominem? What's up with that?

Your accusing me of playing some game, which seems to be your cocluding argument.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If you have something to present, just present it instead of giving the usual song and dance. I've repeatedly shown verses where the words of Jesus explicitly support salvation by righteousness.

Just show me the verses containing the words of Jesus.

"This is my blood , shed for the remission of sins"

"Whoever believes in me shall have eternal life"

" When he the comforter comes he will guide you in to all truth" (alluding to the Holy Spirit and the "extrapolations" that were to come)

" If the Son sets you free you shall be free indeed" (alluding to the role of grace played out by Christ via the Holy Spirit)

" So that they may be one in us Father as I am one in you" (alluding to the gift of becoming an adopted "son" of God via the Holy Spirit)

" On that day you will know that I am in you and you are in me ......remain in me and I will remain in you" (again alluding to literal oneness with God via the Spirit and also tying in with the idea of the last supper ie us taking Christ's body into our body via bread)

" When two or three are gathered in my name there will I be amongst them" ( alluding to the presence of the risen Christ amongst believers via the Holy Spirit)


Need any more? There's a whole catalogue of things he said about the Spirit and him being spiritually present with believers. Would you not agree with me that it's pretty damn conclusive that Christ taught we were to receive him via the Holy Spirit?

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]You seem unaware or unwilling to accept the fact that the actual workings of an organization is rarely the same as what is published. This is especially true of large, powerful and wealthy organizations. All the more so with organizations that have a long running history of corruption. I think your naivete is unreasonable and I called you out on it. And that?

Your accusing me of playing some game, which seems to be your cocluding argument.[/b]

Read through my posts again. You seem to have inferred things that aren't true.

While you may believe that talking about "the Church" is incoherent, I don't. I believe that it's naive to believe that the dioceses are fully autonomous. I suppose I could, like you, remind you that I've "already explained" it to you as if that makes it any more true.

When speaking of the actual inner workings of the Church, it wasn't specifically about "the letter" though you seem to have inferred this. Look into "plausible deniablility". The Church appears to have a structure tailor-made for this. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Church didn't write the book for it. The Church is big business. You're naive if you don't think that a central authority isn't orchestrating the whole affair.

Originally posted by knightmeister
"This is my blood , shed for the remission of sins"

"Whoever believes in me shall have eternal life"

" When he the comforter comes he will guide you in to all truth" (alluding to the Holy Spirit and the "extrapolations" that were to come)

" If the Son sets you free you shall be free indeed" (alluding to the role of grace played out by Christ conclusive that Christ taught we were to receive him via the Holy Spirit?

You do understand the difference between "explicitly" and "alluding" don't you?

Where does Jesus explicitly state that if an individual professes belief that Jesus died for everyones sins, that individual will be granted salvation?

Please provide the chapters and verses.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Read through my posts again. You seem to have inferred things that aren't true.

While you may believe that talking about "the Church" is incoherent, I don't. I believe that it's naive to believe that the dioceses are fully autonomous. I suppose I could, like you, remind you that I've "already explained" it to you as if that makes it any more true.
...[text shortened]... you don't think that a central authority isn't orchestrating the whole affair.

While you may believe that talking about "the Church" is incoherent, I don't. I believe that it's naive to believe that the dioceses are fully autonomous. I suppose I could, like you, remind you that I've "already explained" it to you as if that makes it any more true.

You have no evidence, bar rhetoric, to support your claims. The fact is, individual dioceses and religious orders are responsible for abuse-cases. And it is the local ordinary or provincial who decides to cover-up. These people will have different motivations for their actions. You have no evidence that the Catholic Church endorses or encourages this behaviour.

When speaking of the actual inner workings of the Church, it wasn't specifically about "the letter" though you seem to have inferred this.

But if you look through all your posts, it is the only piece of evidence you have used.

Look into "plausible deniablility". The Church appears to have a structure tailor-made for this.

So you are able to comment on its structure, now? This is coming from the same person who did not know that victims sued dioceses, not the whole Church; who cited a letter which he had not read.

The Church is big business. You're naive if you don't think that a central authority isn't orchestrating the whole affair.

And you are a bigot to think that a central authority is orchestrating it. More than that, you are just plain stupid, talking about stuff you know nothing about.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]While you may believe that talking about "the Church" is incoherent, I don't. I believe that it's naive to believe that the dioceses are fully autonomous. I suppose I could, like you, remind you that I've "already explained" it to you as if that makes it any more true.

You have no evidence, bar rhetoric, to support your claims. The fact is, indiv ...[text shortened]... than that, you are just plain stupid, talking about stuff you know nothing about.[/b]

lol. You're a mouthy kid aren't you? Unless you work high up within the structure of the Church, you don't KNOW anything about it either. I guess that makes you "just plain stupid" also.

Do you honestly believe that sexual abuse, coverup, and the moving of those priests from parish to parish could happen at that level of magnitude for that many years without the knowledge of the Vatican? Remarkable.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
lol. You're a mouthy kid aren't you? Unless you work high up within the structure of the Church, you don't KNOW anything about it either. I guess that makes you "just plain stupid" also.

Do you honestly believe that sexual abuse, coverup, and the moving of those priests from parish to parish could happen at that level of magnitude for that many years without the knowledge of the Vatican? Remarkable.

lol. You're a mouthy kid aren't you? Unless you work high up within the structure of the Church, you don't KNOW anything about it either. I guess that makes you "just plain stupid" also.

But you especially know nothing about the Church, let alone its structure. All you can do is rant bigoted conjectures about it.

Do you honestly believe that sexual abuse, coverup, and the moving of those priests from parish to parish could happen at that level of magnitude for that many years without the knowledge of the Vatican? Remarkable.

People in the Vatican might have known; they may also have been lied to by the bishops who moved priests between parishes. That is the nature of a cover-up: others do not know about it.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]lol. You're a mouthy kid aren't you? Unless you work high up within the structure of the Church, you don't KNOW anything about it either. I guess that makes you "just plain stupid" also.

But you especially know nothing about the Church, let alone its structure. All you can do is rant bigoted conjectures about it.

Do you honestly bel ...[text shortened]... ed priests between parishes. That is the nature of a cover-up: others do not know about it.

[/b]Given the power, wealth, and history of the Church; it more than strains my credulity that the Vatican was completely ignorant of the situation. Evidently you find that idea believable. I have to believe that you're seriously naive. Perhaps with some real world life experience...

For future reference: the government of the US is also "bad".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Given the power, wealth, and history of the Church; it more than strains my credulity that the Vatican was completely ignorant of the situation. Evidently you find that idea believable. I have to believe that you're seriously naive. Perhaps with some real world life experience...

For future reference: the government of the US is also "bad".[/b]

Given the power, wealth, and history of the Church; it more than strains my credulity that the Vatican was completely ignorant of the situation.

I have no idea how wealth, power or history would enable the Vatican to know about sex-abusers being moved between parishes. Bishops could easily deceive members of the Curial departments; some members of the Vatican were known to suppress allegations from colleagues. I doubt that everyone in the Vatican was in-the-know.

[bI have to believe that you're seriously naive. Perhaps with some real world life experience...[/b]

And again, the ad hominem. You know nothing about my life experience.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Given the power, wealth, and history of the Church; it more than strains my credulity that the Vatican was completely ignorant of the situation.

I have no idea how wealth, power or history would enable the Vatican to know about sex-abusers being moved between parishes. Bishops could easily deceive members of the Curial departments; some members of ...[text shortened]... perience...[/b]

And again, the ad hominem. You know nothing about my life experience.[/b]

Did I say that "wealth, power or history would enable the Vatican to know about sex-abusers being moved between parishes."? Did I say that "everyone" was in-the-know?

From your line of inquiry, it was easy to surmise that you are at "Uni". This is because your lack of real world experience is quite evident.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Did I say that "wealth, power or history would enable the Vatican to know about sex-abusers being moved between parishes."? Did I say that "everyone" was in-the-know?

From your line of inquiry, it was easy to surmise that you are at "Uni". This is because your lack of real world experience is quite evident.

Did I say that "wealth, power or history would enable the Vatican to know about sex-abusers being moved between parishes."?

You said this:

"Given the power, wealth, and history of the Church; it more than strains my credulity that the Vatican was completely ignorant of the situation."

Somehow the power, wealth and history of the Church leads you to believe that Vatican could not be ignorant of the situation. I only wonder how the power, wealth and history of the Church could have any impact on whether the Vatican knew about sex-abuse cover-ups.

Did I say that "everyone" was in-the-know?

I have no idea what it means to say that the "Vatican knew". The only referent, that I can conceive of, is the people who work at the Vatican. In which case, I think it highly implausible that everyone, or even a large group, in the Vatican knew about the moving of abusers from one parish to another.

From your line of inquiry, it was easy to surmise that you are at "Uni". This is because your lack of real world experience is quite evident.

Or perhaps it is because I have previously mentioned it in this thread and others. Whatever reason, it has no relevance.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Did I say that "wealth, power or history would enable the Vatican to know about sex-abusers being moved between parishes."?

You said this:

"Given the power, wealth, and history of the Church; it more than strains my credulity that the Vatican was completely ignorant of the situation."

Somehow the power, wealth and history of the Church lead ...[text shortened]... eviously mentioned it in this thread and others. Whatever reason, it has no relevance.[/b]

How is it that when I call you "naive", you cry "ad hominem", yet you have no qualms about calling me "stupid", "ignorant" and a "bigot"?

I only mentioned how evident your lack of real world experience is, because you said "You know nothing about my life experience." Evidently I know enough. It continues to show.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
How is it that when I call you "naive", you cry "ad hominem", yet you have no qualms about calling me "stupid", "ignorant" and a "bigot"?

I only mentioned how evident your lack of real world experience is, because you said "You know nothing about my life experience." Evidently I know enough. It continues to show.

How is it that when I call you "naive", you cry "ad hominem", yet you have no qualms about calling me "stupid", "ignorant" and a "bigot"?

Because those names are not the basis of my argument; they are the conclusion. I call you a bigot because I have marshalled a series of refutations against your arguments, of which you refuse to acknowledge. You say that because I am a Uni student, there must be something defective about my "line of enquiry" or that I am playing "an academic game". The difference is that you use these personal attacks to undermine my arguments.

I only mentioned how evident your lack of real world experience is, because you said "You know nothing about my life experience." Evidently I know enough. It continues to show.

See? This style of argumentations makes you a bigot.