5 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerCan you be serious?
Why should that make it un-true or un-genuine?
The set of things that Catholicism claims today is different than the set of things that it claimed two hundred years ago.
If ivanhoe thinks there is only one true and genuine set of claims that describe the Christian Faith, which one is it? If he thinks it is today's set, what will he do when it morphs again: say the new one is the only true one, or deny Catholicism?
And I'm not going to let him have his cake and eat it too by distinguishing between substantial and peripheral claims. For he didn't allow the Baptist church under discussion to make the same defense. I'm sure that they too would say that damnation is a peripheral aspect of their faith, just like the Catholics do, and thus they would argue that they don't deserve the quotes since they are as much a Christian church as ivanhoe's.
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Can you be serious?
Very
The set of things that Catholicism claims today is different than the set of things that it claimed two hundred years ago.
Be specific, Doctor. Which things?
If ivanhoe thinks there is only one true and genuine set of claims that describe the Christian Faith, which one is it? If he thinks it is today's set, what will he do when it morphs again: say the new one is the only true one, or deny Catholicism?
Once again, that depends on the morph. If the Church were to, say, announce a Fourth Person of the Trinity (Quadrity?), then that would be very different from it saying that priests (in the Roman rite) can now marry. The first is a substantial change, the second peripheral. Or, to be more technical in this case, the first is a dogmatic change, the second disciplinary.
And I'm not going to let him have his cake and eat it too by distinguishing between substantial and peripheral claims. For he didn't allow the Baptist church under discussion to make the same defense.
Defence of what?
I'm sure that they too would say that damnation is a peripheral aspect of their faith, just like the Catholics do, and thus they would argue that they don't deserve the quotes since they are as much a Christian church as ivanhoe's.
Damnation is not a peripheral aspect of faith for either Catholics or Baptists. Which is besides the point. There are two distinct issues being discussed in this thread:
1. Whether the Baptist community that wib grew up in should be called a "Church" because it uses fear.
2. Whether the Catholic Church is justified in calling itself the One True Church because it has [apparently] changed over the centuries
1 edit
Originally posted by kirksey957Or Mary Kay Letourneau. Or Beth Friedman.
Even better! Just do a Google search on Sandra Beth Geisel and see if that curriculum might appeal to you.
Do you think Sandra Geisel deserves special attention over these others because she worked at a Catholic school? What if it had been a Baptist school? Or an Evangelical school?
Originally posted by kirksey957I know, I was just kidding.
I think this particular school had something better to offer.
I'm not sure I'll ever *find* religion again, but I don't rule anything out. I try hard to keep an open mind about everything.
I went to a Unitarian church with my wife a couple of times, years ago. It was so drastically different than my Baptist experience it felt like I wasn't even in church. I'm still not sure exactly what I was doing there. It was more like an informal gathering of people who felt like they needed to be in a church somewhere, but they weren't exactly sure why. I eventually bailed.
Originally posted by lucifershammerTo move the discussion along, I'll provide my own responses.
1. Whether the Baptist community that wib grew up in should be called a "Church" because it uses fear.
2. Whether the Catholic Church is justified in calling itself the One True Church because it has [apparently] changed over the centuries
1. From a Catholic perspective, what determines whether a particular Christian community is called a "Church" or a "denomination" is based on the principle of Apostolic Succession and validity of sacraments; i.e. a Church is a community that can trace valid orders back to the Apostles. In this sense, therefore, only the Catholic and Orthodox Churches (and, I've heard, some Sedevacantists and SSPX-ites) are "Churches" and all others (including the Anglicans/Evangelicals) are "denominations".
2. Once again, this boils down to substantial vs. peripheral change.
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe Catholic Church once insisted, as a matter of its theology as you have often made quite clear, that the sun revolved around the Earth.
[b]The set of things that Catholicism claims today is different than the set of things that it claimed two hundred years ago.
Be specific, Doctor. Which things?[/b]
It later recanted.
Thus, its theology has changed. At most one of these two theologies can be true.
3 edits
Originally posted by kirksey957Oops, but I dó care for what you say .... only I have the impression that you avoid a serious and maybe stiff discussion about it. My anger (oh well, lets not exagerate) stems from the fact that you dodge serious and in-depth discussions about certain issues. I have accepted that now, because you have explained that you are here for your pleasure. That's all right .... I was not angry with you because you express certain views, but for not being willing to discuss them in depth after a certain point. After a while you simply .... disappeared .... in fact you ignored me .... and that fed my irritation, because you did it more than once.
Would this explain why you usually react pretty negatively to my interpretations? From what you said it sounds like you may not care for what I say just because I am not a Catholic.
I have accepted that now, because you have explained that you are here for your pleasure after working hard during the day.
.... and having said all that, this doesn't dismiss the fact that I dó have a lot of problems with your interpretations of Christ's teachings ...... remember the Story of the Rich Young Ruler ....... the notion of "making the tent bigger", which is in fact a discussion about cheap (?) grace in my view ..... and let's not forget the issues concerning the Sanctity of Life, abortion and euthanasia .....
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I have made a brief return for some Spiritual renewal, but I will be taking my leave again in a couple weeks for my investigation into the origins of species.
I wish you good luck in your research, dear Doctor .... and please share your findings with us after you return.
Originally posted by wib
No. It was Southern Baptist. The "fire and brimstone" kind of Baptist.
Sunday school in the mornings, sermon in the afternoon, prayer meetings on Wednesday nights, vacation bible school during the summer (for a whole week) and revivals were held "as needed". Which was often....
That's a lotta churching.
I feel for ya, wib .....
Originally posted by ivanhoeWell it is very possible that I did discuss it as fully as I knew how. My responses to isues is most often shorter than many others because I 1) like to get to the point and 2) most things of great importance don't need a lot of discussion as they are simply important to that particular person for simple reasons.
Oops, but I dó care for what you say .... only I have the impression that you avoid a serious and maybe stiff discussion about it. My anger (oh well, lets not exagerate) stems from the fact that you dodge serious and in-depth discussions about certain issues. I have accepted that now, because you have explained that you are here for your pleasure. That's al ...[text shortened]... not forget the issues concerning the Sanctity of Life, abortion and euthanasia ..... etc.
Because I live in a very isolated area, this is in many ways my community. I am trying to have some "real" friends, but it is an effort where I live. One of the things that makes where I live so frustrating is that I experience the church as complicitis in the problems of life. Let me give a brief example. Our community is facing a vote on whether to serve alcohol in the area. That may seem odd to many of you who love beer with a passion, but for many around here it is a mortal sin (the devil's urine). I heard one minister say that he would not drink rootbeer because the word "beer" resided in it. Is this the best the church has to offer? Ivanhoe, I 'd rather kick it around with you that be involved in that kind of nonsense.
With Euthanasia, I feel that there are many people I come across in my daily life that really have no purpose other than to die. They are unresponsive and oblivious to any interactions around them. This is not living. My faith tells me that God has promised something better than being curled up in a bed and drooling on oneself. I understand that you will see this as "the slippery slope" of weeding out the useless of society.
With abortion, I believe I may be the only one on the site who has offered a plan to drastically limit abortion as we know it. The plan I offered was one of incentive provided by churches that went far beyond anything that I am hearing from any denomination. But as we know ideas are cheaper than money.