🚀 go-pugleaf

Apologies for the delayed response...

The Astute Andrew wrote:
> 
> Phorse 5 wrote:
> 
> > The Astute Andrew wrote:
> >
> >> These "other works" are called Sacred Tradition and the
> >> Magesterium. They aren't text, although the Early Church Fathers
> >> write frequently about Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the
> >>  Magisterium.
> >
> > Are they the word of God? How does one verify such a thing?
> 
> The Magisterium and Sacred Tradition are part of the deposit of faith.
> As for verification, you verify it in much the same way you verify the
> way the Bible is the word of God.  You first go out and prove that
> Christ established Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium.  Then you move
> on to "prove" or suggest the divinity of Christ (which admittedly
> requires an assent of faith... but both Protestants and Catholics must
> give an assent of faith in that regard).
> 
> http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp
> 
> The above link gives a quick run down of "proving" how the Sacred
> Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magesterium are the word of God.

Interesting link. Seems aimed to undermine fundamentalist christians.
Not a bad thing...

It mentions several philosophers works in relation to 'accuracy' (site
quotes between §):

§
Sir Frederic Kenyon, in The Story of the Bible, notes that "For all the
works of classical antiquity we have to depend on manuscripts written
long after their original composition. The author who is the best case
in this respect is Virgil, yet the earliest manuscript of Virgil that we
now possess was written some 350 years after his death. For all other
classical writers, the interval between the date of the author and the
earliest extant manuscript of his works is much greater. For Livy it is
about 500 years, for Horace 900, for most of Plato 1,300, for Euripides
1,600." Yet no one seriously disputes that we have accurate copies of
the works of these writers. However, in the case of the New Testament we
have parts of manuscripts dating from the first and early second
centuries, only a few decades after the works were penned. 
§

Amongst philosophical circles, the legitimacy of the works mentioned may
be questioned, or ready for doubt. It is widely believed by many that
the more times something has been reproduced, the less like the original
it is. This holds well in science, and we also see it in literature.
Works are often 're penned' for the contemporary audience, and this can
result in errors. Over time, they can accumulate.

So the assertion that the works of ancient philosophers are not
questioned may be flawed. However, we were not discussing its accuracy,
per se. As it goes on to say, there are multiple resources and cross
referencing often verifies the factual events reported. It's the
spiritual ones which are a little harder to pin down cross references
for...

§
 we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be — God — or
he was crazy
§

Maybe he was both? ;D

§
 According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a
hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but
you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which
they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen his disciples
would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of
the resurrection.
§

If they do not think of the act as a hoax, then they might. Fanatical
followers do all sorts of weird things, and the apostles demonstrate
fanaticism, in good and bad ways.

§
The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus
indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself —
including his claim to be God - have credibility. He meant what he said
and did what he said he would do. 
§

Unless he was not actually dead (something pointed to by many medicos as
a possibility). Further, it does not prove his claim to be God, as 'the
devil' has resurrection powers too. Further, Lazarus was not god, yet he
rose from the dead. Just doing what you said you would do hardly gives
you credibility. It might make you intimidating, but hardly credible.
(Osama says he is gonna blow up washington, it's noticed, but if MrBean
said it, who would care?)

§
Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible and other
ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with
the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today - papacy,
hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority. We have thus
taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded
the Catholic Church. 
§
Doesn't that 'church' still exist in Iraq? I use 'church' in the people,
not the building, sense of the word. This does not prove that christ
established the catholic church.

§
This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the
Church's word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. 
§

Um, this assertion is somewhat disproven by history... Or is this the
part where the 'church' blames the 'people' who run it?

§
we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From
that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. ... What we have
demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never
know whether the Bible is inspired. 
§

Say wha??
 
I'm sure one could utilize similar arguments to prove the truth of
wiccan faith (I think it has been tried by some) or the infallibility of
the ancient Gods of the Incas, the Egyptians or the beliefs of the
Australian native peoples. Indeed, the fact that such a large land mass
(Australia) had a fairly similar belief system for a helluva long time
before european settlement, which is still alive, indicates that maybe
they have it right.

Lots of ancient works can be proved by cross referencing or such. If
they espouse ways of living and believing as well as mention actual,
verifiable events, does this mean they ought to be followed as well?
That's what the bible does...

> >> Catholics use the cross and rosary beads as things to focus our
> >> attention during meditation.  It is a misconception to say that
> >> Catholics believe there is inherent value in beads or crosses.
> >
> > Ok, so it is a physical focal point, rather than a spiritual one?
> 
> Essentially.  Much like an icon that the Eastern Orthodox Churches use.

It still risks being iconified (e.g.: if people say it must be a certain
type of cross or bead). Although I see your point that the object is
essentially redundant, in theory, it does not pan out so well in
practice.
 
> >> The sacrament of Confession comes largely out of the book of James
> >>  and the Sacred Tradition.
> >
> > James as in the new testament?
> 
> Yes, as in the Epistle of James.

So he said 'confess your sins to some guy who says he is closer to God
than you'? I thought the idea was to confess your sins to God, or
Christ, directly? Not that having a customer service centre in the form
of priests in private booths is a bad idea, just i don't recall it being
mentioned?
 
> > Confess to God, I think it says, or along those lines. No need to
> > confess to a sinner (all humans are sinners, even the saints and
> > priests, etc.). As for the ST... I refer you to my earlier qn.
> 
> >> Prayer to Mary and the saints akin to someone walking up to another
> >>  person and asking that person to pray for them.  The word "prayer"
> >>  is perhaps a bit misleading in todays society with it's
> >> connotation meaning an act of worship.  A more descriptive way to
> >> say "praying to the saints" is to say "asking for the intercession
> >> of saints." Furthermore, the "Hail Mary" (most frequent Catholic
> >> prayer to Mary) comes mostly out of the Bible itself.
> >
> >
> > What's wrong with praying to Christ?
> 
> Absolutely nothing.  I'd encourage it.

So why pray for others to pray on your behalf? One interpretation of the
afterlife, from the bible, is that all the dead are in a sort of stasis
field. Time has stopped for them at death, and will restart after the
apocalypse. This is one of the arguments given when people say they see
ghosts of the dead. 'They're not the dead, since the dead are frozen in
time. They're demons trying to take you to hell. Ignore them and they'll
go away' or similar.

So the only ones who are allowed to communicate from the other side are
the Holy trinity, since everyone else, including the saints and the holy
family, are popsicles in the space-time continuum (a concept that was
probably impossible to explain to people 2000 - 6000 years ago, so we
got the term 'limbo' and a few others)

IIRC, the bible makes no mention of heaven and hell as places you go
after you die. Only as places you go after the final judgement. Before
then it's either a waiting room scenario, or a sort of pause (e.g..
frozen in time). I think it also says a few really good people might get
into heaven, and some of the people who everyone thought were good
(e.g.. false prophets) will go to the eternal flames and suffering in
the lake of fire?
 
> > He said that none shall come to the father but through me, or
> > something along the lines of: Pray to me and no other, or you're not
> > getting into Heaven.
> 
> He says that he is the only way to the Father.  That much I know.  I do
> not ever recall him saying the latter part of that statement.

I might have got a bad interpretation, or a bad recollection. Point was
he emphasized prayer to him (since he is part of the holy trinity), not
any other
 
> > I don't see why one needs to extoll the virtues of a lucky broad, or
> > ask others to pray for them. God values your requests and thoughts
> > most when they are from you, rather than an intermediary who is
> > looking for brownie points with his/her congregation.
> 
> Hmm... I see we have a difference of opinion here.  But, now I must
> bring up a point I really like to bring up called the principle of
> Christian liberty.  If what I am doing is not prohibited according to
> the Christian faith, and can bring a positive outcome, why should I be
> prohibited from that certain action?  The only real objection you seem
> to have here is a discomfort with allowing other people to pray for you,
> and it does not appear to be based on sacred Scripture.

The devil is not simply one who makes bad things happen. His goal is to
take you from the one true path, and if he can do that by making you
choose things which might be slightly spiritually dubious, but have a
tangible positive outcome, he's in like flynn. Hedonism and Satanism
focus on making things really nice, but they are nowhere near christian,
even if their ranks include people who would label themselves as such.
Buddhism is focussed heavily on the good of all, but since they are
unbelievers they are headed for the flames.

An example within the catholic church i can recall is how it relates to
Voodoo magic. Apparently they were having a hard time converting the
locals in an area that practised Voodoo, so instead of fighting it, they
found a way to embrace it. In so far as saying it is ok, but
discouraging people from doing it. Since it meant less human suffering,
it was seen as ok.

Another is the theft of pagan holidays (easter, christmas), the theft of
pagan holy land (the Vatican sits on Land that was holy long before the
Christians popped up, and it was taken by force, apparently). And then
there were the crusades... how that murderous rampage and lie factory
got past the veto squad I'll probably never understand.
 
> >>> The bible says you may only enter heaven through christ. It also
> >>>  says you are not to bow down, worship, or pray to any other than
> >>>  christ or God. Your 'good works' will not get you a place in
> >>> heaven, nor will your wealth or charity.
> >>
> >> Before I even pull out my Bible to offer evidence to the contrary,
> >>  I'd like to again establish that I do not understand the logic
> >> behind why Protestants consider the Bible divinely inspired.  I
> >> understand the logic behind why the Church considers it inspired,
> >> but not why Protestants do.
> >
> >
> > I don't follow? How come one party can think it is divinely inspired,
> >  and another cannot.
> 
> Oh, it's not that.  I just don't understand Protestant reasoning behind
> the divine inspiration of Scripture.  I do, however, understand Catholic
> reasoning.  People can believe that lollipops rule the universe for all
> I care.  I just probably won't understand the reasoning behind that.

Ah, I gotcha now. What's it matter what the line of reasoning is as long
as the belief it is inspired is there? For protestants and catholics i
mean? Both groups rely on the leaders saying the bible is inspired, and
the masses believing them without (much) question.
 
> > As for prayer, it says in the old and new testaments repeatedly to
> > make any kind of idol to kneel before. Bow your head only to God &
> > the trinity, not any other thing or entity.
> 
> Two things.  In Genesis, while the Israelites were wandering around in
> the desert and being generally horrid, God orders Moses to build an
> statue of a serpent that the Israelites are supposed to look at in order
> to be saved from being bitten by a bunch of snakes.  Secondly, where in
> the Bible is the concept of the Trinity explained?

I think I missed a word up there... 'repeatedly to NOT make' ...
The Jews were not worshipping the snake, just using it like a sign that
says "DANGER: Poisonous Snakes Ahead. Don't poke 'em" (although I cannot
recall the bit of scripture you refer to).

I'm not sure where the concept of the trinity is explained specifically.
I think it is more a cross referenced thingy. The Holy spirit was with
God and the Word at creation, and the word became his son about 4000
years later, or something along those lines?
 
> >> Additionally, I would make the argument that the Bible is not
> >> necessary, though perhaps helpful, for Christianity to exist.  The
> >>  vast majority of Christians throughout history got along fine with
> >>  maybe seeing a Bible once or twice in their lifetime, considering
> >>  that most Christians were illiterate peasants.  The concept of
> >> "sola scriptura" only arose after the Middle Ages when literacy
> >> rates rose and the printing press made Bibles more available.
> >
> > Those illiterate folks were often tricked into doing some rather
> > nasty things (the witch hunts, and the crusades come to mind). They
> > trusted their literate peers to be honest, and often relied on what
> > they saw of that person's behaviour to establish whether or not to
> > trust the fellow.
> 
> Literate folks in more recent times have been tricked into nasty things
> as well.  Slavery, abortion, materialism, and etc.  Literacy, while
> useful, doesn't guarantee a complete adherence to the faith.

This is plainly true. Literacy seems to ensure a falling away from faith
if anything. The literate tend to ask more questions, and can read for
themselves the works of those not endorsed by the church leaders. The
church has repeatedly tried to quash the works of others, and the
literate can do their darndest to read these works before they are
burned.
 
> >>> The church is the people, not the building. Ergo, the building
> >>> should be simple, not extravagant.
> >>
> >> My non sequitur alarm went off here, because that's a logical
> >> fallacy. How does it follow that because the Church consists of
> >> people that buildings dedicated to worship (called churches) *must*
> >>  be simple?
> >
> > The first priority of the congregation is to worship God.
> 
> Worship and glorfying God.  God deserves the best.  As such, if it is at
> all possible to do so, his buildings should reflect this.

At the expense of the welfare of the people? I don't think He would
approve. I'm all for capital investment to make more money to help even
more of the needy, but not when it means killing them with neglect now.
 
> > The next is to help the needy. (visit prisoners, clothe the naked,
> > feed the hungry, take care of the sick, etc. All that gear JC said
> > near the end). How can the congregation say it has done all it can if
> >  it is spending money on appearances? JC put more value in the
> > peasants coin than the rich mans gold, IIRC, because it was all she
> > had, whereas the wealthy man could still give more.
> 
> See above.  Also recall the story when Jesus's feet were washed with
> expensive perfume by a woman, and how there were objections because the
> perfume could have been sold and the money given to the poor.  Remember
> how Jesus rebuked the objections.

Remind me?
 
> >> Furthermore, there is precedent for having extravagant places to
> >> worship.  The Old Testament is filled with examples where God
> >> demands his people create extravagant worship and ritual sites.
> >
> > Yes, and IIRC JC said that was old hat.
> 
> Really?  Where?

Not sure. Ask someone from a church with historically crappy or
'unflashy' buildings (Uniting comes to mind). Or some of the more bible
bashing types (e.g., Potters House) who assemble in smelly community
halls. Didn't he say a few things when he tossed over the tables in the
synagogue, and weren't most of his sermons open air? Although given the
location and climate this might have been quite common.
 
> > And he never preached in a building unless he had no choice (e.g.,
> > weather or some sort of charitable act in progress). Indeed, IIRC, he
> > preached and wandered about in areas most modern christians would
> > fear to tread within. God only knows (literally) how he managed in
> > some locations. I guess the pimps and drug dealers knew he was not
> > interested in flogging them, or such. Unlike most people who seemed
> > to have authority, he was approachable to everyone.
> 
> He certainly preached in buildings.  Some of his most profound teachings
> occured indoors, such as the Last Supper.

Suppers are often better had indoors. That region tends to get nasty
cold at night. Like I said above, no choice. Not sure of other examples.
I know he rambled a bit when he healed the woman, but was that a sermon?
 
> He did, however, preach outside a lot.  This is primarily for logistical
> purposes.  Massive crowds tend to have a difficult time fitting in small
> peasant buildings.  There does not appear to be any objections to
> buildings or a roof over your head in the Bible.

Shelter? Yes, that is fine. Golden inlays and expensive art? Dodgy.
Glorify God with your attitudes in relation to others, Him, and
yourself. Not what you can make with your hands. Better to save a lost
soul than make a pretty thing, or something.

-- 
from: Mr. J D Cooper aka Phorse 5 [Force 5]
Remove the number(s) from the email address
for fastest reply. More sig here:
© http://phorse.netfirms.com/sig.html ©
Fireball Holdings © 2001 - 2004  
ABN: 23 939 806 835