When does human personhood begin?Posted 11 months Ago

At 7/29/2018 2:01:12 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 7/26/2018 6:38:23 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/22/2018 7:33:09 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/1/2018 6:16:52 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/1/2018 1:49:34 AM, YeshuaBought wrote:
I believe I became a person at implantation. What is your position, or do you have one yet?

Fertilization. There is no distinction between being human and being a person.

Hmm. Although I agree with you, I have an argument against it. I wonder how you would respond to it.

Sock it to me!

It's hard to explain, so bear with me. It goes something like this.

1. If personhood begins at conception, then there is a definite answer to who remains after twinning and fusing.
2. There is no definite answer to who remains after twinning and fusing.
3. Therefore, personhood does not begin at conception.

Lemme explain. Twinning is when the clump of cells splits into two clumps of cells. if they remain split, then the mother will have twins. But they could also recombine. So if the clump of cells is a person before the split, then when it splits, you'd have two persons, not just one. That creates a problem of identity that can't be solved because it raises the question of who the two clumps are after twinning. These are the only possibilities. . .

A. The original person ceases to exist, and two new persons come into existence.
B. After the split, one of the clumps is the same person as the original person, and the other clump is a new person who comes into existence at the moment of twinning.
C. The one person is actually now two persons, so the two persons are actually the same person.

C can be dismissed immediately because it's a logical contradiction. The problem with B is that twinning occurs to an undifferentiated clump of cells. There is nothing to distinguish one clump of cells from the other such that personhood goes with one but not the other. There is no criteria of personhood that answers the question of who is who. A suffers from the same problem. There is nothing about the cells that could adjudicate between A and B. So there's really no answer to the question of who is the original.

You can run these same questions through the scenario of when the twins recombine. Is the person left over the original person, one of the twins, or an all new person. Did the twins cease to exist? If only one ceased to exist, which one? There's no answer to these questions because there's no truth maker to them. There's nothing about the cells that could account for personal identity.

So that's basically it. If personhood begins at conception, it creates an unsolvable problem with personal identity. And the problem isn't just epistemological either. The problem is ontological.

I think the easiest way to look at this is to look at an even more extreme case of what you are discussing. There are cases of Human Chimeras where two embryos from two different zygotes combine into a single organism. In this case the adult will have 2 types of DNA in their body. What this means is that there were 2 distinct human organisms that combined into one. There were 2 organisms and one "died" in the combination.

Now what you have is a single organism with 2 types of DNA contained within it. In a similar manner you can have a heart transplant and have 2 types of DNA within you and only have one organism.

So the act of twinning creates a new soul and the act of combination results in the death of one of those souls.
Forums Home > Philosophy

When does human personhood begin?Posted 11 months Ago

At 7/22/2018 7:33:09 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/1/2018 6:16:52 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/1/2018 1:49:34 AM, YeshuaBought wrote:
I believe I became a person at implantation. What is your position, or do you have one yet?

Fertilization. There is no distinction between being human and being a person.

Hmm. Although I agree with you, I have an argument against it. I wonder how you would respond to it.

Sock it to me!
Forums Home > Philosophy

Why Can't You Agree?Posted 1 year Ago

At 7/12/2018 9:56:05 PM, WoeJ wrote:
At 7/12/2018 9:10:50 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/12/2018 8:52:24 PM, WoeJ wrote:
At 7/12/2018 8:37:41 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/12/2018 8:05:16 PM, WoeJ wrote:
At 7/12/2018 7:23:54 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/12/2018 7:07:23 PM, WoeJ wrote:
At 7/12/2018 6:49:43 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/12/2018 6:21:44 PM, WoeJ wrote:


My question about what you are trying to achieve is no so much in the over all discussion, but rather your last few posts. You seem, and correct me if I am wrong, trying to convince me that the RCC is credible in its doctrinal claims. Is that correct?

Actually what I'm doing is noting a criteria - i.e. historically congruent that can trace it lineage and teachings all the way back to the beginning of the belief system to show that the authentic expression of Christianity must have these characteristic. Then noting that it is the Catholic Church that satisfies these characteristics.

You already said that, and I already told you that I reject those claims. Simply repeating them at me won't persuade me.

And why do you reject these claims? It is like saying a friend of Shakespeare wrote a treatise on Macbeth based on his time spent with Macbeth. The 400 years later somebody comes along and writes that it was actually about gender theory. Somebody else writes it was about class warfare, etc... None of which correlates with the person who lived with and talked to Shakespeare directly about the play.

And you are going to tell me that there is no way to understand which interpretation of Macbeth is correct? That is

I have no idea why you think that stuff you just said is supposed to be an example of anything. It sounds like you just stuck a bunch of stuff together that you thought would sound nutty without any regard for, or comprehension of what I have said. Would you like to try to pose your question again, with a bit less rhetoric?

Nope, it was an apt example. You haven't said why you reject the logic presented you just say you do.
So, it is an apt example because you are ignorant of my reasons for rejecting your claims.

That's okay we can end the discussion if you aren't willing to expound on why you reject the reasoning presented.

I will try one last time. You have made two claims
1) That there is an unbroken chain of history
2) That an unbroken chain of history demonstrates that the claims of that history are true.

It doesn't matter why I reject the first, because even if I accepted the first, I would still reject the second. An unbroken chain of claims does not demonstrate the the source of the claims was correct. A lie that is unbroken and unchanging for centuries is still a lie.

Ah, but the question is not whether Christianity is true, it is which teachings represent the authentic Christianity.

That isn't really a question I wonder about.

Geez-Louise... that is the whole purpose of the thread and what is being argued.

There is not an authentic Christianity. Every sect picks the most advantageous criteria to their particular doctrinal set as the "true standard," which they spin as being God-inspired It's a religion that is designed to so that any any believer can and does adhere to their own individual interpretation, call it inspired, and call any dissenters ignorant, misinformed, concupiscent, erroneous and sinful.

Or you can just look at what the original Christians believed...
Forums Home > Religion

Why Can't You Agree?Posted 1 year Ago

At 7/12/2018 8:52:24 PM, WoeJ wrote:
At 7/12/2018 8:37:41 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/12/2018 8:05:16 PM, WoeJ wrote:
At 7/12/2018 7:23:54 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/12/2018 7:07:23 PM, WoeJ wrote:
At 7/12/2018 6:49:43 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/12/2018 6:21:44 PM, WoeJ wrote:


My question about what you are trying to achieve is no so much in the over all discussion, but rather your last few posts. You seem, and correct me if I am wrong, trying to convince me that the RCC is credible in its doctrinal claims. Is that correct?

Actually what I'm doing is noting a criteria - i.e. historically congruent that can trace it lineage and teachings all the way back to the beginning of the belief system to show that the authentic expression of Christianity must have these characteristic. Then noting that it is the Catholic Church that satisfies these characteristics.

You already said that, and I already told you that I reject those claims. Simply repeating them at me won't persuade me.

And why do you reject these claims? It is like saying a friend of Shakespeare wrote a treatise on Macbeth based on his time spent with Macbeth. The 400 years later somebody comes along and writes that it was actually about gender theory. Somebody else writes it was about class warfare, etc... None of which correlates with the person who lived with and talked to Shakespeare directly about the play.

And you are going to tell me that there is no way to understand which interpretation of Macbeth is correct? That is

I have no idea why you think that stuff you just said is supposed to be an example of anything. It sounds like you just stuck a bunch of stuff together that you thought would sound nutty without any regard for, or comprehension of what I have said. Would you like to try to pose your question again, with a bit less rhetoric?

Nope, it was an apt example. You haven't said why you reject the logic presented you just say you do.
So, it is an apt example because you are ignorant of my reasons for rejecting your claims.

That's okay we can end the discussion if you aren't willing to expound on why you reject the reasoning presented.

I will try one last time. You have made two claims
1) That there is an unbroken chain of history
2) That an unbroken chain of history demonstrates that the claims of that history are true.

It doesn't matter why I reject the first, because even if I accepted the first, I would still reject the second. An unbroken chain of claims does not demonstrate the the source of the claims was correct. A lie that is unbroken and unchanging for centuries is still a lie.

Ah, but the question is not whether Christianity is true, it is which teachings represent the authentic Christianity.

Looking at the lives and beliefs of those who were taught by the Apostles shows us what the application of the early beliefs were. The fact that there are numerous records over large geographical areas shows which practices were aberrations and which were consistent and authentic.
Forums Home > Religion

Matthew 15:1-9 and Roman CatholicismPosted 1 year Ago

At 7/12/2018 8:29:34 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/12/2018 6:02:33 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/12/2018 5:12:26 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/12/2018 4:03:45 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/11/2018 11:38:14 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/11/2018 8:58:31 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/11/2018 8:35:54 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/11/2018 7:09:57 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/30/2018 1:24:54 AM, annanicole wrote:

Correct. He is condemning those "traditions" which were simply made up by uninspired men, i. e. nobody was able to find them in the scriptures.

Was St. Paul Married?

The Bible does not say whether Paul was ever married or not. Peter was, of course (unlike present-day "popes" and bishops), but the NT is not specific in Paul's case.

So it is more than likely Paul was not given the extensive documentation from Luke and his own exhortation for celibacy.

Repeat: whether or not Paul was ever married is purely a matter of speculation. I've heard folks defend the idea that Paul was likely married at one time. Likewise, I've heard people defend the position that Paul was never married. Neither side makes much of a case. Paul commended celibacy, and he also said that "marriage is honourable in all, except the Catholic clergy." Just kidding. I made that last part up.

He also said, "A bishop must be the husband of one wife." How the Catholics can look at that, and turn around and disqualify (from consideration as a bishop) a man who is actually the "husband of one wife" is, to me, a little far-fetched - and based upon extremely presumptive logic and circuitous reasoning.

Or it is, as previously noted, that it is a matter of discipline. I have listened to a married priest - yes a real married Catholic priest. He was an Anglican Priest, but became Catholic through the opening made by Benedict XVI. When comparing his life to that of his fellow priests he said that he sees great wisdom in this discipline of the Church.

Permissible may be less than ideal. The Church follows the example of Jesus in making the role of the leaders completely self-sacrificial for their flock.

Is that not in keeping with the pearl merchant who sold all he possessed to buy the one pearl of great value?

Absolutely not.

The home is the proving ground for the "bishopric." That's why Paul rhetorically asks, "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" That's a pretty good question, and the obvious response is, "As a rule, such a man can't take care of, or rule, the church of God." The current Catholic position positively ensures that a guy is unproven in "ruling" his own household, mainly because those with households (wife, children) are banned. Thus, they completely ignore the logic employed by Paul.

And wouldn't that be a useless statement from someone who wasn't married? Paul wanted men of character who were competent.

Correct, and the estimation of their competency was, "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?"

So nobody should listen to Paul because he was incompetent due to being single. Gotcha.

You will note that although Paul plainly said, "The bishop must be the husband of one wife", MOST Catholics will immediately blurt out that Paul was simply condemning polygamy (which we was). However, at a very minimum - and this is not my position - Paul was affirming that a married man can (and did) become a bishop. That's not the Catholic position today - and it hasn't been the Catholic position for centuries. Then the reply is usually that Paul was merely tolerating married bishops!

And when making converts, the number of competent men who weren't married would have been near zero.

Did Paul break his rule when Timothy wasn't married? He was a bishop.

I find no Biblical evidence concerning whether or not Timothy was a bishop.

As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions. - 1 Timothy 1

Yeah, Paul instructed Timothy to be the leader and teacher of Ephesus, but that doesn't mean he was the bishop. And Paul wouldn't write to the bishop, but just to an underling. OK.

The same "logic" and "reasoning" would allow for female bishops, female priests, and the like. I see no difference at all.

Except that there were no female bishops or priests because the priest stands in Persona Christi.

What scripture states that the priest stand in Persona Christi?

When He anointed them priests and commanded then to do this in remembrance of Him.

This is an excellent example of why one needs the lived experience of Sacred Tradition to properly interpret the Bible.

The Bible IS sacred tradition, including an inspired historical narrative, covering the apostolic age.

It is part of Sacred Tradition. We were told there was more.

As far as "interpretation", I've repeated asked dsjpk5 to give us a grammatically-parallel simple sentence to "A bishop must be the husband of one wife" which supports the Catholic position. So far, he hasn't provided a one. The form would be this:

"A __________ must be the __________ of one ____________ (as a qualification for any office, position, rank, etc)."

And that restriction is dependent on the question being asked. You only have 1/2 of a conversation.

I can't think of a one. Nor can he.

And yet Paul and Timothy were single Bishops still...
Forums Home > Religion

Why Can't You Agree?Posted 1 year Ago

At 7/12/2018 8:05:16 PM, WoeJ wrote:
At 7/12/2018 7:23:54 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/12/2018 7:07:23 PM, WoeJ wrote:
At 7/12/2018 6:49:43 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/12/2018 6:21:44 PM, WoeJ wrote:


My question about what you are trying to achieve is no so much in the over all discussion, but rather your last few posts. You seem, and correct me if I am wrong, trying to convince me that the RCC is credible in its doctrinal claims. Is that correct?

Actually what I'm doing is noting a criteria - i.e. historically congruent that can trace it lineage and teachings all the way back to the beginning of the belief system to show that the authentic expression of Christianity must have these characteristic. Then noting that it is the Catholic Church that satisfies these characteristics.

You already said that, and I already told you that I reject those claims. Simply repeating them at me won't persuade me.

And why do you reject these claims? It is like saying a friend of Shakespeare wrote a treatise on Macbeth based on his time spent with Macbeth. The 400 years later somebody comes along and writes that it was actually about gender theory. Somebody else writes it was about class warfare, etc... None of which correlates with the person who lived with and talked to Shakespeare directly about the play.

And you are going to tell me that there is no way to understand which interpretation of Macbeth is correct? That is

I have no idea why you think that stuff you just said is supposed to be an example of anything. It sounds like you just stuck a bunch of stuff together that you thought would sound nutty without any regard for, or comprehension of what I have said. Would you like to try to pose your question again, with a bit less rhetoric?

Nope, it was an apt example. You haven't said why you reject the logic presented you just say you do. That's okay we can end the discussion if you aren't willing to expound on why you reject the reasoning presented.
Forums Home > Religion

Why Can't You Agree?Posted 1 year Ago

At 7/12/2018 7:07:23 PM, WoeJ wrote:
At 7/12/2018 6:49:43 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/12/2018 6:21:44 PM, WoeJ wrote:
At 7/12/2018 5:50:59 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/12/2018 5:20:36 PM, WoeJ wrote:
At 7/12/2018 3:49:06 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/11/2018 10:29:56 PM, WoeJ wrote:
At 7/11/2018 3:26:06 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/11/2018 10:02:16 AM, WoeJ wrote:
At 7/11/2018 1:38:59 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/11/2018 12:59:29 AM, WoeJ wrote:
At 7/11/2018 12:53:36 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/11/2018 12:29:45 AM, WoeJ wrote:
At 7/11/2018 12:07:49 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/10/2018 11:05:39 PM, WoeJ wrote:
At 7/10/2018 10:57:35 PM, Geogeer wrote:

Ignorance, misinformation, concupiscence, error and sin.

It's a religion that is designed to so that any any believer can and does adhere to their own individual interpretation, call it inspired, and call any dissenters ignorant, misinformed, concupiscent, erroneous and sinful.

Actually it isn't. However, when you reject the legitimate authority, then anything becomes possible.

Sure it is. That is why you tossed out a sound-bite rather than anything of substance.

Fine. I'll be blunt. The true Church of Jesus Christ, the one founded on Peter the Rock, the one protected by the Holy Spirit against error, the one granted the authority to forgive sin, and the one established on Pentecost Sunday is the Catholic Church. It can only be the Catholic or Orthodox Church that have the pedigree to be the true Church.

Better?

Better for what, exactly? You are just naming an organization that asserts a claim to authority based on its own claims about the nature and existence of an authorizor. I don't know how that is supposed to add any weight to your position.

In the context of the thread it is incredibly relevant. How? It can be traced to its originator and has an unbroken unchanging set of teachings. Those are facets of an authentic organization that can speak authoritatively on its own topic.

The teachings are not unbroken, nor are they unchanging. But that doesn't matter, because even if they were, 'unbroken and unchanging' do not constitute credibility. A lie that is unbroken and unchanging for centuries is still a lie.

Ummm... maybe you should show me how they are not unbroken or unchanging... you know make a counter argument or something.

Errrr...why do I need to make a counter-argument when you have not first made an argument. You made a claim, backed by nothing but your earnest gaze, and a rejected it with my dimpled smile.

Well it is kinda impossible to cover 2000 years of teaching on everything from sanctification to Just War Theory in 8000 characters or less. In this thread I have given the example of contraception and how only the Catholic Church can show continuity of thought and doctrine for the last 2000 years.

If there are other specific examples that you feel dispute my claim I would be happy to address them.

And actually, unbroken and unchanging do constitute an authoritative source.

No, they don't.

If it originates with the founders (which the Catholic Church's do) then it does classify as such. In the very same way as there is a succession of presidents that signify the authority of the United States.

This is the sole source that has had the same message from the time of Christ to the present.
It isn't even one source.

And yet it is - one organization who's sole purpose is to preserve and pass on the teachings of the apostles.

Now you don't have to believe that the message of Christianity is true, but you do have to accept that if the Christian message were true that this is the only source that can assert that it holds the fullness of the Christian message.

That earnest gaze again? I think not.

No such thing, just simple logic. There isn't even a Bible for any of the other denominations to use without the Catholic Church.

I have given simple arguments as to why only the Catholic Church can make the claim that it teaches the true version of Christianity.

1. It can show its start dates back to the apostles.
2. It can be shown that the Bible itself relies on the Catholic Church for its existence.
3. It can be shown that its teachings are unchanging.

It is simple to disprove Catholicism. Just show me how that is wrong.

You see like most atheists you jump topics. The question was how do we know which interpretation of Christianity is correct. I have shown you how you can know, to which you answer, "Yea, but it isn't true." That is a different issue altogether.

You have not shown anything. You have just baldly asserted a bunch of stuff, then tried to hide that fact by demanding I prove you wrong. I am happy to discuss any facts you can establish. But you have to a letter to establish them with more that your mere insistence.

As I said, unless you have read the entire Catechism of the Catholic Church and all of the councils and relevant papal documents that is an impossible task. You got a couple of years?

What is your goal in this conversation? What specifically, are you trying to achieve in talking to me?

Well you are the one who engaged me. I assumed that we were discussing why there isn't agreement on interpretation of scripture amongst Christians. You asked me to clarify which interpretation is correct and why.

I didn't ask you that, but it is not unreasonable for you to have inferred that I was inviting the discussion -- because in a general way, I was.

My question about what you are trying to achieve is no so much in the over all discussion, but rather your last few posts. You seem, and correct me if I am wrong, trying to convince me that the RCC is credible in its doctrinal claims. Is that correct?

Actually what I'm doing is noting a criteria - i.e. historically congruent that can trace it lineage and teachings all the way back to the beginning of the belief system to show that the authentic expression of Christianity must have these characteristic. Then noting that it is the Catholic Church that satisfies these characteristics.

You already said that, and I already told you that I reject those claims. Simply repeating them at me won't persuade me.

And why do you reject these claims? It is like saying a friend of Shakespeare wrote a treatise on Macbeth based on his time spent with Macbeth. The 400 years later somebody comes along and writes that it was actually about gender theory. Somebody else writes it was about class warfare, etc... None of which correlates with the person who lived with and talked to Shakespeare directly about the play.

And you are going to tell me that there is no way to understand which interpretation of Macbeth is correct? That is
Forums Home > Religion

Why Can't You Agree?Posted 1 year Ago

At 7/12/2018 6:31:53 PM, Goldtop wrote:
At 7/12/2018 5:47:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/12/2018 5:03:53 PM, Goldtop wrote:
At 7/12/2018 4:47:12 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/12/2018 4:32:57 PM, Goldtop wrote:
At 7/12/2018 4:19:06 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/12/2018 12:39:05 AM, Goldtop wrote:
At 7/11/2018 10:16:39 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/11/2018 9:46:12 PM, Goldtop wrote:
At 7/11/2018 9:19:33 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/11/2018 8:22:22 PM, Goldtop wrote:

Nope, explicitly killed Onan for spilling his seed.

Verse from Scriptures?

Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother"s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also. - Genesis 38:9-10

Did you even read that? That says absolutely nothing about masturbation being a sin. Huge fail.

It is extrapolated that all 'wasting of seed' (i.e. misuse of the sexual faculties) was forbidden and displeasing to God.

Yes, a clear violation of interpretative objectivity. Sad really.

You take this along with the verses which required a ritual cleansing for having a wet dream (an involuntary action).

Lev 15:16-17 And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even. And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the even.

Deut 23:10-11 If there be among you any man, that is not clean by reason of uncleanness that chanceth him by night, then shall he go abroad out of the camp, he shall not come within the camp: but it shall be, when evening cometh on, he shall wash himself with water: and when the sun is down, he shall come into the camp again.

The prohibition against masturbation (an intentional action) becomes apparent.

No, it doesn't, not even remotely. That is by far an egregious display of authoritative abuse.

Have you noticed that you never make an argument?

Still waiting for you to make one.

We're done. Every interaction with you is as useless as the previous one. All I've done is make arguments.

Wrong. All you've done is exactly what the OP is about, claiming you're right and everyone else is wrong. Arguments don't work that way. Even your interpretations of the Bible are specious at best.

A guy masturbates to do the right thing and dies for it, but your clans interpretation of that is masturbation is a sin. Ridiculous in the extreme.

Bu-bye!
Forums Home > Religion

Why Can't You Agree?Posted 1 year Ago

At 7/12/2018 6:21:44 PM, WoeJ wrote:
At 7/12/2018 5:50:59 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/12/2018 5:20:36 PM, WoeJ wrote:
At 7/12/2018 3:49:06 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/11/2018 10:29:56 PM, WoeJ wrote:
At 7/11/2018 3:26:06 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/11/2018 10:02:16 AM, WoeJ wrote:
At 7/11/2018 1:38:59 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/11/2018 12:59:29 AM, WoeJ wrote:
At 7/11/2018 12:53:36 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/11/2018 12:29:45 AM, WoeJ wrote:
At 7/11/2018 12:07:49 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/10/2018 11:05:39 PM, WoeJ wrote:
At 7/10/2018 10:57:35 PM, Geogeer wrote:

Ignorance, misinformation, concupiscence, error and sin.

It's a religion that is designed to so that any any believer can and does adhere to their own individual interpretation, call it inspired, and call any dissenters ignorant, misinformed, concupiscent, erroneous and sinful.

Actually it isn't. However, when you reject the legitimate authority, then anything becomes possible.

Sure it is. That is why you tossed out a sound-bite rather than anything of substance.

Fine. I'll be blunt. The true Church of Jesus Christ, the one founded on Peter the Rock, the one protected by the Holy Spirit against error, the one granted the authority to forgive sin, and the one established on Pentecost Sunday is the Catholic Church. It can only be the Catholic or Orthodox Church that have the pedigree to be the true Church.

Better?

Better for what, exactly? You are just naming an organization that asserts a claim to authority based on its own claims about the nature and existence of an authorizor. I don't know how that is supposed to add any weight to your position.

In the context of the thread it is incredibly relevant. How? It can be traced to its originator and has an unbroken unchanging set of teachings. Those are facets of an authentic organization that can speak authoritatively on its own topic.

The teachings are not unbroken, nor are they unchanging. But that doesn't matter, because even if they were, 'unbroken and unchanging' do not constitute credibility. A lie that is unbroken and unchanging for centuries is still a lie.

Ummm... maybe you should show me how they are not unbroken or unchanging... you know make a counter argument or something.

Errrr...why do I need to make a counter-argument when you have not first made an argument. You made a claim, backed by nothing but your earnest gaze, and a rejected it with my dimpled smile.

Well it is kinda impossible to cover 2000 years of teaching on everything from sanctification to Just War Theory in 8000 characters or less. In this thread I have given the example of contraception and how only the Catholic Church can show continuity of thought and doctrine for the last 2000 years.

If there are other specific examples that you feel dispute my claim I would be happy to address them.

And actually, unbroken and unchanging do constitute an authoritative source.

No, they don't.

If it originates with the founders (which the Catholic Church's do) then it does classify as such. In the very same way as there is a succession of presidents that signify the authority of the United States.

This is the sole source that has had the same message from the time of Christ to the present.
It isn't even one source.

And yet it is - one organization who's sole purpose is to preserve and pass on the teachings of the apostles.

Now you don't have to believe that the message of Christianity is true, but you do have to accept that if the Christian message were true that this is the only source that can assert that it holds the fullness of the Christian message.

That earnest gaze again? I think not.

No such thing, just simple logic. There isn't even a Bible for any of the other denominations to use without the Catholic Church.

I have given simple arguments as to why only the Catholic Church can make the claim that it teaches the true version of Christianity.

1. It can show its start dates back to the apostles.
2. It can be shown that the Bible itself relies on the Catholic Church for its existence.
3. It can be shown that its teachings are unchanging.

It is simple to disprove Catholicism. Just show me how that is wrong.

You see like most atheists you jump topics. The question was how do we know which interpretation of Christianity is correct. I have shown you how you can know, to which you answer, "Yea, but it isn't true." That is a different issue altogether.

You have not shown anything. You have just baldly asserted a bunch of stuff, then tried to hide that fact by demanding I prove you wrong. I am happy to discuss any facts you can establish. But you have to a letter to establish them with more that your mere insistence.

As I said, unless you have read the entire Catechism of the Catholic Church and all of the councils and relevant papal documents that is an impossible task. You got a couple of years?

What is your goal in this conversation? What specifically, are you trying to achieve in talking to me?

Well you are the one who engaged me. I assumed that we were discussing why there isn't agreement on interpretation of scripture amongst Christians. You asked me to clarify which interpretation is correct and why.

I didn't ask you that, but it is not unreasonable for you to have inferred that I was inviting the discussion -- because in a general way, I was.

My question about what you are trying to achieve is no so much in the over all discussion, but rather your last few posts. You seem, and correct me if I am wrong, trying to convince me that the RCC is credible in its doctrinal claims. Is that correct?

Actually what I'm doing is noting a criteria - i.e. historically congruent that can trace it lineage and teachings all the way back to the beginning of the belief system to show that the authentic expression of Christianity must have these characteristic. Then noting that it is the Catholic Church that satisfies these characteristics.

Protestant denominations on the other hand pick up the bible and interpret it without the 'Tradition' that preceded them. My contention is that this invalidates their viewpoint because they fill the 'voids' with their own bias instead of through the understanding that has been passed down from the earliest age of the Church.

It is like having the phrase:

I didn't say you stole money.

How is one to interpret that phrase?

It could be depending on the inflection:

>I< didn't say you stole money
I didn't SAY you stole money
I didn't say YOU stole money
I didn't say you STOLE money
I didn't say you stole MONEY

You need to know how that is to be properly interpreted. The interpretation of the witnesses must be maintained and that is done by what has been passed down and referred to as 'Sacred Tradition'.
Forums Home > Religion

Matthew 15:1-9 and Roman CatholicismPosted 1 year Ago

At 7/12/2018 5:12:26 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/12/2018 4:03:45 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/11/2018 11:38:14 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/11/2018 8:58:31 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/11/2018 8:35:54 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/11/2018 7:09:57 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/30/2018 1:24:54 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2018 10:04:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/28/2018 8:20:04 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
Hello! If you are a Roman Catholic, I was wondering how you reconcile Matthew 15:1-9 with the doctrine that Catholic tradition can override the Bible. For example, the Bible teaches that "A bishop ... must be ... the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:4, NKJV), but Catholic tradition is supposedly able to revise this teaching.


First of all, this was never a doctrine, but rather a practice, so it can be modified.

It was apparently both.

Second, the verse isn't saying a bishop has to be married. It's saying, if they are married, it can be to ONLY one wife. To try and argue otherwise would require a bishop to give up his office if his wife dies.

The argument is that an elder either (1) has to be married to one wife or (2) has to have been married to one wife.

In Matthew 15:1-3, the scribes and Pharisees ask Jesus why His disciples violated established tradition that commands to wash your hands before eating. Such man-made traditions were unimportant, so Jesus replies that their traditions actually violate God's commandments. God's word told them to honor their parents, for example, but their traditions allowed exceptions (vv. 4-6). "Thus," Jesus said, "you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition."

Finally, in verses 7-9, Jesus condemns them as "hypocrites" and says they fulfill the prophecy from Isaiah 29:13. The verse teaches that while people appear outwardly to serve God, their hearts are far from Him as they engage in false worship, "Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:9).

I can answer both paragraphs here. Jesus isn't condemning ALL traditions here. He's specifically condemning "traditions of men".

Correct. He is condemning those "traditions" which were simply made up by uninspired men, i. e. nobody was able to find them in the scriptures.

Was St. Paul Married?

The Bible does not say whether Paul was ever married or not. Peter was, of course (unlike present-day "popes" and bishops), but the NT is not specific in Paul's case.

So it is more than likely Paul was not given the extensive documentation from Luke and his own exhortation for celibacy.

Repeat: whether or not Paul was ever married is purely a matter of speculation. I've heard folks defend the idea that Paul was likely married at one time. Likewise, I've heard people defend the position that Paul was never married. Neither side makes much of a case. Paul commended celibacy, and he also said that "marriage is honourable in all, except the Catholic clergy." Just kidding. I made that last part up.

He also said, "A bishop must be the husband of one wife." How the Catholics can look at that, and turn around and disqualify (from consideration as a bishop) a man who is actually the "husband of one wife" is, to me, a little far-fetched - and based upon extremely presumptive logic and circuitous reasoning.

Or it is, as previously noted, that it is a matter of discipline. I have listened to a married priest - yes a real married Catholic priest. He was an Anglican Priest, but became Catholic through the opening made by Benedict XVI. When comparing his life to that of his fellow priests he said that he sees great wisdom in this discipline of the Church.

Permissible may be less than ideal. The Church follows the example of Jesus in making the role of the leaders completely self-sacrificial for their flock.

Is that not in keeping with the pearl merchant who sold all he possessed to buy the one pearl of great value?

Absolutely not.

The home is the proving ground for the "bishopric." That's why Paul rhetorically asks, "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" That's a pretty good question, and the obvious response is, "As a rule, such a man can't take care of, or rule, the church of God." The current Catholic position positively ensures that a guy is unproven in "ruling" his own household, mainly because those with households (wife, children) are banned. Thus, they completely ignore the logic employed by Paul.

And wouldn't that be a useless statement from someone who wasn't married? Paul wanted men of character who were competent.

You will note that although Paul plainly said, "The bishop must be the husband of one wife", MOST Catholics will immediately blurt out that Paul was simply condemning polygamy (which we was). However, at a very minimum - and this is not my position - Paul was affirming that a married man can (and did) become a bishop. That's not the Catholic position today - and it hasn't been the Catholic position for centuries. Then the reply is usually that Paul was merely tolerating married bishops!

And when making converts, the number of competent men who weren't married would have been near zero.

Did Paul break his rule when Timothy wasn't married? He was a bishop.

The same "logic" and "reasoning" would allow for female bishops, female priests, and the like. I see no difference at all.

Except that there were no female bishops or priests because the priest stands in Persona Christi.

This is an excellent example of why one needs the lived experience of Sacred Tradition to properly interpret the Bible.
Forums Home > Religion