Catholic Social Teaching

Originally posted by Conrau K
[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"?

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 ...[text shortened]... t continues to show.[/b]

See? This style of argumentations makes you a bigot.[/b]

You're a funny kid. Good luck in school.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
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.

Whoah! Back track a minute there matey! What you are in effect saying is this.....

" Everything that Jesus says that is not completely explicit and instantly understandable is not to be taken seriously " (????)

This position on the words of Jesus is entirely your own interpretation of how his words should be read. There's no logical reason why words that are obviously meant to allude to something are not just as valid as explicit words. One other important fact here is that Jesus says an awful lot of things that require interpretation. I wouldn't mind betting that 50% of everything he said was not exactly explicit. In addition even the verses you quote are not as explicit as they could be.

Notice that whilst you point out that the words of Jesus allude to certain things you have no other alternative interpretation for them. Presumably his words are there to allude to something important (or was Jesus just messing about?) . If so then what?

So to simply use an argument like this (explicit = right , alluding = wrong) is Ok , but you need to own it as your own take on how things should be looked at rather than proclaim it as the "truth".

Me? I think it's more logical not to place restrictions on Jesus' words like this and take into account the whole range of what he said explicit or otherwise. But then I'm "devoid of logic and reason" aren't I?

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]

Isn't it likely that they may not have actually known , but in effect turned a blind eye as well. My experience is that people kind of choose not to know. For example , I think Bush and Blair kind of knew that there were no WMD's in Iraq , but also they sort of convinced themselves that there was in the end. To not know is not always innocence , it can be willful ignorance in the face of some truth that is very uncomfortable. In this model it might mean that the Vatican did not deviously plan a cover up , but at the same time they might have been able to do more to find out the truth but instead chose to remain ignorant.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Whoah! Back track a minute there matey! What you are in effect saying is this.....

" Everything that Jesus says that is not completely explicit and instantly understandable is not to be taken seriously " (????)

This position on the words of Jesus is entirely your own interpretation of how his words should be read. There's no logical reason why w he said explicit or otherwise. But then I'm "devoid of logic and reason" aren't I?

Jesus explicitly stated several times and in several different ways that righteousness is required for salvation.

Yes, a lot of what Jesus says requires interpretation. Why do you chose interpretations that support a position that's contrary to what He explicitly states? For your interpretations to be true, you have to believe that Jesus delivered a message that was self-contradictory. It makes little sense to do so when His words can easily be interpreted as being consistent within themselves.

For example, place "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed" in context.

So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." They answered Him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, 'You will become free'?"
Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed."

He starts off with the caveat "IF you continue in my word...". This is consistent with the message that you must follow His commandments. This is required to be a disciple of His. Only then will you "know the truth, and the truth will make you free." It is the truth that will make you free. A truth that is revealed only IF you follow His commandments. He further states that this freedom is not available to anyone who commits sin: "...everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin". Furthermore this freedom is required for eternal life: "The slave does not remain in the house forever".

The question is how does Jesus set you free. He explicitly tells you as I've outlined above.

Originally posted by Conrau K
If you teach at a Catholic school, you will need to understand a fundamental difference between Catholicism and Protestantism: Catholics do not consider faith as the acceptance of nonsensical doctrines. The doctrine of "one nature and three people" was developed out of an attempt to rationalise the Trinity. Historically, it was not taking it as a faith, but ...[text shortened]... who perform different acts. They clones are different persons, but they share the same nature.

If true, then that (the meaning of the word faith) is indeed a fundamental difference between the holy rollers over here and the Church.

Three bodies with the same thoughts are not three people. They are one person with three bodies unless the sameness is simply a coincidence that may end at any moment.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
If true, then that (the meaning of the word faith) is indeed a fundamental difference between the holy rollers over here and the Church.

Three bodies with the same thoughts are not three people. They are one person with three bodies unless the sameness is simply a coincidence that may end at any moment.

If true, then that (the meaning of the word faith) is indeed a fundamental difference between the holy rollers over here and the Church.

Yes; that is a subject which ivanhoe used to often posts about.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Isn't it likely that they may not have actually known , but in effect turned a blind eye as well. My experience is that people kind of choose not to know. For example , I think Bush and Blair kind of knew that there were no WMD's in Iraq , but also they sort of convinced themselves that there was in the end. To not know is not always innocence , it can ...[text shortened]... ey might have been able to do more to find out the truth but instead chose to remain ignorant.

Very possibly. some members of the Roman Curia knew about abuse allegations and cover-ups, but decided to play deaf. However, to say that the Vatican knew, or that the Catholic Church knew, is incoherent.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]If true, then that (the meaning of the word faith) is indeed a fundamental difference between the holy rollers over here and the Church.

Yes; that is a subject which ivanhoe used to often posts about.[/b]

Ivanhoe posted about something? I thought he just copied official Church statements and pasted them here.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Jesus explicitly stated several times and in several different ways that righteousness is required for salvation.

Yes, a lot of what Jesus says requires interpretation. Why do you chose interpretations that support a position that's contrary to what He explicitly states? For your interpretations to be true, you have to believe that Jesus delivered a ow does Jesus set you free. He explicitly tells you as I've outlined above.

Ok , so now we are starting to have an intelligent discussion about this yes?

I see two major problems with your position. Firstly , although there is some interpretation of Jesus's other words , ,many of the interpretations are entirely logical and valid. Just because something is an interpretation does not make it false. If I interpret what Jesus said at the last supper about his death and his blood , it may be an interpretation but proper analysis shows that it's about the only one possible. Jesus was afterall quite explicit about the Holy Spirit and his death being a "remission of sins".

Secondly , you have not said what it is that Jesus actually does in setting us free. Jesus did not say "my words will set you free" , but "the son" will set you free. So you have interpreted it a certain way. Your version is basically that we should set ourselves free , and it's not Jesus that does it.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Ok , so now we are starting to have an intelligent discussion about this yes?

I see two major problems with your position. Firstly , although there is some interpretation of Jesus's other words , ,many of the interpretations are entirely logical and valid. Just because something is an interpretation does not make it false. If I interpret what Jesus ...[text shortened]... rsion is basically that we should set ourselves free , and it's not Jesus that does it.

Please read my post again.

These two paragraph address your "problems":
Yes, a lot of what Jesus says requires interpretation. Why do you chose interpretations that support a position that's contrary to what He explicitly states? For your interpretations to be true, you have to believe that Jesus delivered a message that was self-contradictory. It makes little sense to do so when His words can easily be interpreted as being consistent within themselves.

He starts off with the caveat "IF you continue in my word...". This is consistent with the message that you must follow His commandments. This is required to be a disciple of His. Only then will you "know the truth, and the truth will make you free." It is the truth that will make you free. A truth that is revealed only IF you follow His commandments. He further states that this freedom is not available to anyone who commits sin: "...everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin". Furthermore this freedom is required for eternal life: "The slave does not remain in the house forever".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Please read my post again.

These two paragraph address your "problems":
Yes, a lot of what Jesus says requires interpretation. Why do you chose interpretations that support a position that's contrary to what He explicitly states? For your interpretations to be true, you have to believe that Jesus delivered a message that was self-contradictory. It ...[text shortened]... m is required for eternal life: "The slave does not remain in the house forever".

"If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."

Alternative intepretation to Think of One....

Here Jesus says that the knowing of the truth is to come in the future at some point and come to those who carry on and don't fall away. We know that he says that this truth is something to do with "the son shall set you free" but at this point the truth is incomplete (Jesus admits this later). One could say that if one continues in his teachings , but you have used the word "if" to mean the conditions under which salvation is granted. Nowehere does Jesus explicitly say that salvation is only to be granted via perfect righteousness. He could be saying , "keep at it lads , the truth is on it's way" . You also translate "my word" to mean "commandments" but I could also say that it actually means his teachings , and that therefore we need to look at how those teachings develop later (bearing in mind that Jesus said "you WILL know the truth" )


So why is your interpretation "self evident"????

You say .....

"He starts off with the caveat "IF you continue in my word...". This is consistent with the message that you must follow His commandments. This is required to be a disciple of His." -----ToO

But this is your own interpretation. You have translated his words into your own words. I can also say that this verse is consistent with the later message of the remission of sin because those who did continue received that message. They found out what "the Son shall set you free" means. So who is right? Surely you need some argument here rather than just stating your position as self evident . It is only self evident to you.

No doubt you will translate what I am saying to mean that we should disregard what Jesus said about moral standards and love , compassion , but that would be a mistake. My model is a team based model in which God actually takes an active role as opposed to just saying "do this" and it's a team effort (eg we have to sort out personal sin but God also sets us free). My model is more consistent with the entire range of Jesus's teachings and not just the small sample you always quote.

Originally posted by knightmeister
"If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."

Alternative intepretation to Think of One....

Here Jesus says that the knowing of the truth is to come in the future at some point and come to those who carry on and don't fall away. We know that he says that this tr ...[text shortened]... of Jesus's teachings and not just the small sample you always quote.

You seem to have ignored this part:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever"

What do you think this means?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You seem to have ignored this part:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever"

What do you think this means?

I link this to the following statement where he says "the Son shall set you free" ........this links in with the theology regarding us becoming "adopted" Sons of God by being in Christ. A slave is not part of the household proper but a Son is. We are released from the penalty of sin via the Son setting us free. Despite this there is still an onus on us to battle with sin and live righteously but the final battle to beat the "wages of sin" is won for us in Christ ("my blood is shed for the remission of sins" )

This way we have assurance that our sins will not prevent us from salvation as long as we work them through in Christ through confession and repentance. If we rely only on ourselves then we have no assurance because our sinful nature is always there waiting to trip us up. One slip and we've had it. I don't think God intends us to live on a knife edge like that.

So what's your understanding of "when he the Comforter comes he will guide you in to all truth" ?

The reason I ask is it's because it's the one place where Jesus tells us how the truth is to be understood---- we are to be guided by the Spirit. He says that explicitly.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I link this to the following statement where he says "the Son shall set you free" ........this links in with the theology regarding us becoming "adopted" Sons of God by being in Christ. A slave is not part of the household proper but a Son is. We are released from the penalty of sin via the Son setting us free. Despite this there is still an onus on us ...[text shortened]... to be understood---- we are to be guided by the Spirit. He says that explicitly.

You seem to have ignored this part:
"everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever"

What do you think this means?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You seem to have ignored this part:
"everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever"

What do you think this means?

The word "sin" in the Bible literally means separation , so we are separated from God by our slavery (captivity) to sin (the wages of sin is death). Separated from God means separated from eternal life and salvation so we need to be united with God and made one ("that they may be made one as we are one" ) We can be adopted as sons rather than remain slaves. But we are adopted first in order to overcome rather than the other way round.No slave can enter and become part of the house unless the master of the house grants it. How can God grant this? On the basis of righteousness? Since none of us have lived a perfect life then that's impossible. We will always fall short.

We are all in slavery to sin because our nature is to be cut off from God , it's the stuff we are made of. Therefore we need an inner transformation rather than just a change in behaviour. If Christ does not set us free then we are doomed but we also need to act when our chains are cut. However , we are also set free from the penalty of sin because the price is paid on our behalf ("this is my blood shed for the remission of sin" ) Basically Christ is describing the seriousness of our situation before God and then afterwards hints at the solution.

One cannot take these few words out of context from the others that follow. Now will you do the decency of also addrsssing my questions?