Pope on gays : "Who am I to judge?"

[crazy canuck]

If these threads had been around about 5 years ago I probably would have ended up a Catholic based on the positions taken by the athiests here.

[Viking]

The point of religion (well, at least any thinking man's religion) isn't that it's an instruction manual - do x, y and z and get into heaven.  It's about the struggle to be closer to God.  It's the journey, not the destination, that matters.  From a more Christian perspective, we're all sinners.  It's not that we follow religion and we will be perfect - we won't.  It's that we try to be perfect.

I think that the issue of sin in the Christian faiths (such as I understand it) is probably a good illustration of your larger point; once, the emphasis seemed to be that everyone was a sinner because of "original sin."  Nowadays, the emphasis seems to be that everyone is a sinner because that's just human nature.  In other words, the issue of "God made us perfect, but one man blundered and so we are all being punished, and we have to hope God forgives us for Adam's mistake" has been replaced by "it is no one's fault, we are the way we are, and we try to rise above our natures."

I am not sure that anyone can argue with a straight face that the modern view is "better" in an objective sense (though you could argue that my characterization of it is wrong), but it certainly is more understandable to the modern audience.  Nowadays, we don't tolerate the whole "corruption of the blood" idea that once informed not just religion, but secular punishment.

If that is the case you stop being catholic as well. If there is no original sin you can live a sinless life outside the catholic church and go to heaven. At which point jesus isn't strictly necessary. You can't really do away with original sin without doing away with, y'know, christianity.

[The Brain]

If these threads had been around about 5 years ago I probably would have ended up a Catholic based on the positions taken by the athiests here.

Are they: athier than thou?

[Eddie Teach]

If these threads had been around about 5 years ago I probably would have ended up a Catholic based on the positions taken by the athiests here.

These threads have been around since the forum began.

[Viking]

Viking and Tamas are fundamentally right - there is a very basic problem with the claims that religious beliefs ought to inform our actions, while at the same time accepting that those religious beliefs are not in fact the product of some form of external revelation in some fashion, but simply the consequences of societal norms. Why not just let the societal norms coupled with out personal views and perceptions inform our actions, and leave the religion out of it?

That's an option for some. For others, it isn't. No one is saying that religion is right for everyone, though Viking and Tamas seem to be claiming that a lack of religion should be.

At which point the argument ceases to be universal, or catholic. The entire point of christianity and catholicism is that it is for everybody. It is a one stop shop for the whole human race to find salvation from sin.

Secondly, Religion is not merely a way of life. It is a set of metaphysical facts about the nature of the universe and the history and the nature of the putative creator of the universe. If you want to have a lifestyle of being spiritual, do not pretend you have the answer to the question of life the universe and everything.

[Viking]

That's an option for some. For others, it isn't. No one is saying that religion is right for everyone, though Viking and Tamas seem to be claiming that a lack of religion should be.

I am saying that religion is right for everyone.  In particular, Christianity is right for everyone. 

I'll agree that  that is what the catholic church and virtually all christian denominations say too.

[crazy canuck]

If these threads had been around about 5 years ago I probably would have ended up a Catholic based on the positions taken by the athiests here.

These threads have been around since the forum began.

I think the strawmen being constucted by Viking and Tamas are new.  I blame Dawkins.

[Viking]

If these threads had been around about 5 years ago I probably would have ended up a Catholic based on the positions taken by the athiests here.

These threads have been around since the forum began.

I think the strawmen being constucted by Viking and Tamas are new.  I blame Dawkins.

We are arguing the traditional catholic position in this thread. The apologists are arguing against dogma. The strawmen aren't new, they were constructed by the Church Fathers.

[Caliga]

White Zinfandel.

That was my mother in law's favorite wine till she had to sign a contract to stop drinking so she could still teach Sunday school.

[Barrister]

Which, in this case, is a red herring. It is the sole source of revelation and as such is gods big book of instructions. Which is what you asked me to show. Yes, sole source of sacred scripture does mean it is the "divine instruction manual". The Bible, (the book = manual) is the sole source of gods (god = the divine) revelation (what is revealed? gods instructions). Dei Verbum says this in words you can understand and apparently repeat back to me. But as for reading comprehension I repeat "Gods Instruction Manual" = "Sole Source of Divine Revelation".

But that isn't what it says at all.  The Bible is not, and never has been, the "sole source of divine develation".  From Dei Verbum itself

Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.

As for sacred tradition. Dei Verbum also goes Antoinin Scalia Style Originalist and insists that the intention of the divinely inspired authors is what interpretation is supposed to discover. There is no changing understanding of god, the Gospel writers GOT IT RIGHT, or so says the Catholic Church. God wasn't deceiving the Gospel writers or telling them stuff they didn't understand. The catholic church claims the gospel writers understood the truth and, with inspiration from the holy spirit, wrote down what they understood as best the could.

Yes they gospel writers "got it right".  But do we properly understand it?  Again from Dei Verbum

12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)

But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)

[Barrister]

If these threads had been around about 5 years ago I probably would have ended up a Catholic based on the positions taken by the athiests here.

These threads have been around since the forum began.

I think the strawmen being constucted by Viking and Tamas are new.  I blame Dawkins.

We are arguing the traditional catholic position in this thread. The apologists are arguing against dogma. The strawmen aren't new, they were constructed by the Church Fathers.

Uh, I just quoted a whole bunch of dogma right at you.

You have a very curious debate style.  You continue to make assertions, which I continue to show are incorrect.  You never recognize this, and instead you either just make new assertions, or just repeat the same assertion you made previously.

The Catholic Church has never, ever been in the biblical literalism business.   I don't know why you think it did or does.  The entire point (well one of them anyways) of the entire Protestant Reformation was that the Catholic Church didn't pay enough respect to the Bible.

Plus, damn you to hell for making me defend the Roman Catholic Church.

[crazy canuck]

Plus, damn you to hell for making me defend the Roman Catholic Church.

[Viking]

Which, in this case, is a red herring. It is the sole source of revelation and as such is gods big book of instructions. Which is what you asked me to show. Yes, sole source of sacred scripture does mean it is the "divine instruction manual". The Bible, (the book = manual) is the sole source of gods (god = the divine) revelation (what is revealed? gods instructions). Dei Verbum says this in words you can understand and apparently repeat back to me. But as for reading comprehension I repeat "Gods Instruction Manual" = "Sole Source of Divine Revelation".

But that isn't what it says at all.  The Bible is not, and never has been, the "sole source of divine develation".  From Dei Verbum itself

Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.

All true and all red herrings. Note my bolding. Sacred tradition which are the secret whispers of the holy ghost to the apostles which is why they require an apostolic succession. They are used to interpret the word, which is in the bible. The revelation is in the bible while the way of understanding it is in the tradition. Nothing I have said contradicts that. If you think it does then you have mis-understood me.

As for sacred tradition. Dei Verbum also goes Antoinin Scalia Style Originalist and insists that the intention of the divinely inspired authors is what interpretation is supposed to discover. There is no changing understanding of god, the Gospel writers GOT IT RIGHT, or so says the Catholic Church. God wasn't deceiving the Gospel writers or telling them stuff they didn't understand. The catholic church claims the gospel writers understood the truth and, with inspiration from the holy spirit, wrote down what they understood as best the could.

Yes they gospel writers "got it right".  But do we properly understand it?  Again from Dei Verbum

12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)

But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)

The bit I bolded is what I referred to. The human error lies not in the intention of the authors but rather in their ability to convey the supposedly sublime intention of god and/or the holy spirit. Interpretation in this case is about wading through the tradition and human error and ancient conventions and down right copying errors to find the intention of the author.

The question about if we understand it propery is resolved by the FUCKING SACRED TRADITION which the catholic church is supposedly in posession of. The sacred tradition is a guarantee that you did understand it properly. This is what the catholic church has been saying for millennia. The bible has the truth, we have the secret decoder ring so what we say goes. It is not until the church itself changed this truth beyond all recognition that it was forced to pretend that they never claimed to have the truth for all these years.

This is what the reformation was all about, a revolt against the holders of the secret decoder ring by asserting that there was no secret decoder ring and/or that if it did exist god had given it to all of us.

[Barrister]

Which, in this case, is a red herring. It is the sole source of revelation and as such is gods big book of instructions. Which is what you asked me to show. Yes, sole source of sacred scripture does mean it is the "divine instruction manual". The Bible, (the book = manual) is the sole source of gods (god = the divine) revelation (what is revealed? gods instructions). Dei Verbum says this in words you can understand and apparently repeat back to me. But as for reading comprehension I repeat "Gods Instruction Manual" = "Sole Source of Divine Revelation".

But that isn't what it says at all.  The Bible is not, and never has been, the "sole source of divine develation".  From Dei Verbum itself

Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.

All true and all red herrings. Note my bolding. Sacred tradition which are the secret whispers of the holy ghost to the apostles which is why they require an apostolic succession. They are used to interpret the word, which is in the bible. The revelation is in the bible while the way of understanding it is in the tradition. Nothing I have said contradicts that. If you think it does then you have mis-understood me.

You're cherry picking.  Read the whole thing. "Sacred tradition and sacred scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence".

As for sacred tradition. Dei Verbum also goes Antoinin Scalia Style Originalist and insists that the intention of the divinely inspired authors is what interpretation is supposed to discover. There is no changing understanding of god, the Gospel writers GOT IT RIGHT, or so says the Catholic Church. God wasn't deceiving the Gospel writers or telling them stuff they didn't understand. The catholic church claims the gospel writers understood the truth and, with inspiration from the holy spirit, wrote down what they understood as best the could.

Yes they gospel writers "got it right".  But do we properly understand it?  Again from Dei Verbum

12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)

But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)

The bit I bolded is what I referred to. The human error lies not in the intention of the authors but rather in their ability to convey the supposedly sublime intention of god and/or the holy spirit. Interpretation in this case is about wading through the tradition and human error and ancient conventions and down right copying errors to find the intention of the author.

The question about if we understand it propery is resolved by the FUCKING SACRED TRADITION which the catholic church is supposedly in posession of. The sacred tradition is a guarantee that you did understand it properly. This is what the catholic church has been saying for millennia. The bible has the truth, we have the secret decoder ring so what we say goes. It is not until the church itself changed this truth beyond all recognition that it was forced to pretend that they never claimed to have the truth for all these years.

This is what the reformation was all about, a revolt against the holders of the secret decoder ring by asserting that there was no secret decoder ring and/or that if it did exist god had given it to all of us.

You've lost me.  What exactly are you arguing here?

If you'll recall, the dispute was whether or not the Catholic Church believed that the Bible is the "sole source of divine revelation"?  Because you seem to finally be acknowledging that the Catholic Church believes in more than just the Bible.

[Viking]

Uh, I just quoted a whole bunch of dogma right at you.

You have a very curious debate style.  You continue to make assertions, which I continue to show are incorrect.  You never recognize this, and instead you either just make new assertions, or just repeat the same assertion you made previously.

The Catholic Church has never, ever been in the biblical literalism business.   I don't know why you think it did or does.  The entire point (well one of them anyways) of the entire Protestant Reformation was that the Catholic Church didn't pay enough respect to the Bible.

Plus, damn you to hell for making me defend the Roman Catholic Church.

The catholic church has been in the "I decide which parts of the book we will use for this issue" business. The very definition of a-la-carte religion. The protestant reformation was not about respect for the bible is was about a monopoly on interpretation.