The New Christian Thread 4

[DOOMCVLT]

I was listening to NPR this morning and they were talking about Heather Cook. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_7192268.html

The new suffragan said something to the effect of, we tend to (inappropriately) hold people of the cloth to a higher standard that what is humanly possible? That seemed really bullshiitty to me. I won't ask of a person anything I wouldn't do myself. If you are a drunk, in my opinion, you can't be much of a preacher.

[MuscleXtreme]

I was listening to NPR this morning and they were talking about Heather Cook. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_7192268.html

The new suffragan said something to the effect of, we tend to (inappropriately) hold people of the cloth to a higher standard that what is humanly possible? That seemed really bullshiitty to me. I won't ask of a person anything I wouldn't do myself. If you are a drunk, in my opinion, you can't be much of a preacher.

Didn't hear of this, but I am actually a little surprised that the Episcopalian church actually defrocked her.


If you're a person in power then it is only natural for you to be held to a high standard. Your position grants you more responsibilities over other, and sets you as a role model to others. We shouldn't forget that those in elevated positions are fallible people, but at the end of the day a higher standard is implemented when your position is elevated in some setting.

[GreatOldOne]

Pretty relaxing, however really touristy. It doesn't have the authentic Mexican feel like other beach cities like Puerta Vallarta, Mazatl�n, Acapulco, Zijuatenejo, San Blas, has. But Cancun, was just a very small fishing village up until 1970 when the Mexican government decided to transform it into a travel destination, so the history isn't there.

The water is absolutely beautiful though. Crystal clear, high visibility underwater, white sand beaches.

The pictures on the internet look beautiful. Clear looking water seems so alien to me. The ocean to me is always this very harsh and impenetrable thing (NC beaches are wonderful, but there is no looking around under the water. You wouldn't see one foot in front of your face...)

[lasher]

I don't know if this is what you are looking for, but here is what the CCC says.

"1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ. "



The species can only subsist while the bread and wine retain their physical attributes. Digestion would cause the bread and wine to lose the attributes, and with those physical properties lost the real presence is lost as well.

[streetlegaltank]

Pretty relaxing, however really touristy. It doesn't have the authentic Mexican feel like other beach cities like Puerta Vallarta, Mazatl�n, Acapulco, Zijuatenejo, San Blas, has. But Cancun, was just a very small fishing village up until 1970 when the Mexican government decided to transform it into a travel destination, so the history isn't there.

The water is absolutely beautiful though. Crystal clear, high visibility underwater, white sand beaches.

Always thought cancun was more dangerous than the other resort towns.

[lasher]

What�s Your Theological Deal-Killer?
JOHN ZMIRAK



Sitting over an overpriced gin and tonic at the Polo Lounge in the Beverly Hills Hotel, I probed the excommunicated bishop about his secret sedevacantism. I didn�t toss the issue naked on the table, since he would simply have denied everything. But I knew from several sources that, while the man publicly claimed to accept the legitimacy of then-Pope John Paul II, privately he sowed doubts among his friendlier seminarians. He whispered that the �formal and material heresies� taught by that pope had quite possibly deprived Karol Wotyjla of the throne. That would have left the seat (sede) of Peter empty (vacantes). A small but intense contingent of Traditionalists have held this position for decades, although the public leader of that movement, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, always insisted that his resistance to Popes Paul VI and John Paul II amounted to �true� (versus false) obedience, carried out in a grave emergency situation for the Church � akin to the Arian heresy, when St. Athanasius refused commands from the dithering Pope Liberius.

Archbishop Lefebvre�s was an emotionally stressful position to hold, since commitment to Catholic tradition encourages us to maximize the authority of the pope � which is hard to do when you�re defying direct papal commands and ignoring the bishops he has appointed. One can square this circle neatly by saying instead that Catholics should always obey the pope, and that God prevents popes from making decisions catastrophic to the Church � such as the vandalization of the Roman Rite of the Mass. The pope deserves our veneration and our respect. The pope would never allow such a development of doctrine as Vatican II�s decree on religious liberty. Therefore, we haven�t had a valid pope since Pius XII.


I think that this sad conclusion is encouraged by the happy fact that, since the Counter-Reformation, we have had a very good run of largely prudent, often saintly popes. People tempted by this position need to read a little further back � for instance, one of my favorite books for understanding the extent and limits of papal authority, Russell Chamberlain�s The Bad Popes. This grimly funny chronicle of the felonies of popes in the distant past is a nice corrective to the temptation to treat every papal opinion as dogmatic and to canonize every pontiff on his deathbed. It will vaccinate the reader against the dismal disappointment that comes when one forms a cult of personality around a mere mortal man.

There are plenty of wacky stories about sedevacantists getting valid episcopal orders through squirrelly means, or even electing their own popes � since hey, it�s clear that the Church always needs one! But I�m not here to make fun of such people. If you grant their premises, their conclusions seem to follow. And the pastoral abuse suffered by Catholics for the past four decades at the hands of real live heretical nuns, liturgists, catechists, priests, and bishops was so widespread and egregious that I think Christ will be very forgiving of their traumatized victims.



What I wanted to know from the bishop was this: If you really believe that a validly elected pope has embraced and taught formal heresy, doesn�t that shake your faith in the papacy itself? Isn�t it kind of a cop-out to make such grand claims for papal authority � and then when a pope seems to misuse it, to simply claim that he�s no longer pope? Wouldn�t it be more intellectually honest, at some point, to opt out � and become, say, Eastern Orthodox? You�d still have the Sacraments, and all the Christological councils. That�s where I would go if, per impossibile, some future pope ordained a woman. Or a tuba.

The bishop pointed out that none of Paul VI�s or John Paul II�s �heretical� statements were given ex cathedra. Okay, I countered, but what if one of them had been? What if the pope tomorrow were to stand up and proclaim, ex cathedra, that abortion was morally licit? Or (to sharpen the point still further) that Mary had not in fact been assumed into heaven? Would that convince him to reject papal authority? What hypothetical circumstance would convince him that the Roman reading of Christ�s promises to Peter had in fact been exaggerated?

The bishop was offended by the question. He insisted that such a thing would never happen. I agreed, then said: �But what if it did?� He refused to entertain such a blasphemous hypothetical. I insisted that he must. �Is your position really that the pope teaches infallibly, except when he doesn�t � and then he�s no longer pope? That seems like kind of a sad loophole through which to save your faith. We argue for the primacy of Peter by pointing to a perfect historical consistency of doctrinal teaching coming from Rome. If that consistency were broken, would we just look for other arguments instead?� He shook his head and we shook hands.



This incident sparked me to start thinking, intensively for many years, about precisely such blasphemous hypotheticals and troubling counterfactuals, and wondering which ones for me would be �theological deal-killers.� Just as St. Thomas Aquinas looked for the best arguments against the Faith so he could counter them, I decided to deepen my own faith by considering just what it would take for me decide that the Church had, in fact, been wrong. Or else that I had mistaken the nature of the Church, and it might reside somewhere else than I�d been brought up to believe.

It might sound like I�m looking around for a fire exit, finding potential excuses for flouncing off someday into a Tibetan Buddhist temple, or a flashy Ground Zero mosque. Not at all. Instead, as someone who writes apologetics, I�m trying to keep my arguments honest and make sure that I never squirm through loopholes such as the excommunicated bishop used. I also want to be ready to counter the strongest objections to the teachings of the Church and to correct exaggerations that well-meaning people draw from one-sided readings of Church documents. Some of those exaggerated positions are popular among the folks I meet at Latin Mass up here in New England; and to be honest, when I hear what they believe our Church really teaches, I encounter a �theological deal-killer.� I say to myself, �I don�t think that the Church teaches that, but I know it can�t be true.� That sends me back to the sources, to read the Church�s full teaching in its true context. I think mine is the best response to intellectual doubts. Next week, I�ll go through a list of what I and some friends consider �deal-killers� and explore the faithful Catholic answers. In the meantime, I invite readers to post their own � to clarify their faith and make it more tangible by marking out its rational limits.

Of course, some people think it�s virtuous to beat their intellects into submission, along the lines of Rex Mottram in Waugh�s Brideshead Revisited. Rex is an opportunistic convert with an� expansive notion of the virtue of docility. As the priest trying to instruct Mottram recounts:

�Yesterday I asked him whether Our Lord had more than one nature. He said: �Just as many as you say, Father.� Then again I asked him: �Supposing the Pope looked up and saw a cloud and said �It�s going to rain�, would that be bound to happen?� �Oh, yes, Father.� �But supposing it didn�t?� He thought a moment and said, �I suppose it would be sort of raining spiritually, only we were too sinful to see it.'�

If you don�t have, at least in theory, any theological deal-killers, then you�re in grave danger of joining Rex Mottram, out in the �rain.�

given the upcoming synod in oct for the RCC, this strikes a cord with me.

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2010/w...al-deal-killer

[MuscleXtreme]

Always thought cancun was more dangerous than the other resort towns.

Nah, there is so much tourist revenue that Cancun brings in, that it's pretty safe. Plus it's way out of the way for the drug trade, and with all the tourism, it's pretty safe.

The State Department puts out a list on the safety level for the various Mexican states, and Quintana Roo (The state Cancun is in), had no warnings at all.

[MuscleXtreme]

given the upcoming synod in oct for the RCC, this strikes a cord with me.

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2010/w...al-deal-killer

Nice find, I am in total agreement with:

This incident sparked me to start thinking, intensively for many years, about precisely such blasphemous hypotheticals and troubling counterfactuals, and wondering which ones for me would be “theological deal-killers.” Just as St. Thomas Aquinas looked for the best arguments against the Faith so he could counter them, I decided to deepen my own faith by considering just what it would take for me decide that the Church had, in fact, been wrong. Or else that I had mistaken the nature of the Church, and it might reside somewhere else than I’d been brought up to believe.

It might sound like I’m looking around for a fire exit, finding potential excuses for flouncing off someday into a Tibetan Buddhist temple, or a flashy Ground Zero mosque. Not at all. Instead, as someone who writes apologetics, I’m trying to keep my arguments honest and make sure that I never squirm through loopholes such as the excommunicated bishop used. I also want to be ready to counter the strongest objections to the teachings of the Church and to correct exaggerations that well-meaning people draw from one-sided readings of Church documents. Some of those exaggerated positions are popular among the folks I meet at Latin Mass up here in New England; and to be honest, when I hear what they believe our Church really teaches, I encounter a “theological deal-killer.” I say to myself, “I don’t think that the Church teaches that, but I know it can’t be true.” That sends me back to the sources, to read the Church’s full teaching in its true context. I think mine is the best response to intellectual doubts. Next week, I’ll go through a list of what I and some friends consider “deal-killers” and explore the faithful Catholic answers. In the meantime, I invite readers to post their own — to clarify their faith and make it more tangible by marking out its rational limits.

[lasher]

Nice find, I am in total agreement with:

If the synod affirms the agenda of Kasper and his crew in this upcoming synod, I won't be able to honestly take the RCC seriously.

[MuscleXtreme]

If the synod affirms the agenda of Kasper and his crew in this upcoming synod, I won't be able to honestly take the RCC seriously.

I agree, but if the RCC is truly the church of St. Peter, then I doubt that the Holy Spirit would allow for it to happen.

[Harbinger]

If the synod affirms the agenda of Kasper and his crew in this upcoming synod, I won't be able to honestly take the RCC seriously.

The birth of Lasherism, I predicted this years ago!

[rdferguson]

To be honest I wasn't thinking about divine purpose...it was the distinction between what you feel is divine and what you feel is...human or perhaps just natural.

I don't think there's anything unnatural about the divine. I think the divine is the nature from whence all other natures are possible.

"Police, help! That man stole something!"
"What did he steal?"
"My innocence."

You're assuming things have an explanation at all. Why would you do that?

My assumption hinges on pragmatism. So far it has been my experience 100% of the time that things either have an explanation or are at least open to investigation to unveil an explanation.

If things do not have explanations at all, then almost all patterns -- especially including the patterns of physical law, mathematical law and cause and effect -- are inherently false. If we reject the assumption that things generally do have explanations, there goes philosophy, math and science, at which point this discussion becomes full retard.

Once you accept logic as legit then you are controlled like a robot as easily as somebody can make something appear logical. This can be even more powerful when God is the one making logic legit. It's something to keep in mind.

I'm not suggesting you start being illogical. I do suggest that any arguments for God are logically misguided...and we're not likely to agree because we don't agree what is God and what does God do...

I don't see how I can take both of the above paragraphs together. How is paragraph 1 not a suggestion to start being illogical?

It sounds like you're saying arguments for God are logically misguided either on the basis of them being arguments for God or on the basis of them being arguments that could affect control.

I don't conclude that. It would be foolish to do so. However I present that hypothetical conclusion as a more defensible version in place of any other person who wanted to try.

Well that certainly sounded like your conclusion based on what you wrote.

I believe you have mistaken the job of atheists in general. Atheists kill invisible people.

That's the job of the atheists. And they are excellent invisible person assassins.

That's it.

It's not the job of the atheist to figure out the clusterfuk of language you are turning necessary/contingent into.

In general, atheists have no set job. In terms of expressing why atheism is reasonable, in light of the reasons people have for theism, atheists have a bigger job than mere denial that there is any reason for theism.

Ok.

Alright.

[CalmWind]

The birth of Lasherism, I predicted this years ago!

Lols

Feels good being a free agent Christian. My bible and my prayer!

[MuscleXtreme]

So I want to make it a daily habit of mine to read a psalm every morning. Any tips on how to study them?

[Swamp Dog]

So I want to make it a daily habit of mine to read a psalm every morning. Any tips on how to study them?

No method to my madness, I just read through them from time to time.
Psalm 27 is a good one, among many, to start off the day.

[GreatOldOne]

Response to rdferguson...in spoiler to not clutter...

Spoiler!

My assumption hinges on pragmatism. So far it has been my experience 100% of the time that things either have an explanation or are at least open to investigation to unveil an explanation.

Aren't unexplained things what get leveraged to determine miracles? The 'miracle' being the explanation for what is not understood? That doesn't seem like a great explanation...you just kind of give up and say, miracle.

If things do not have explanations at all, then almost all patterns -- especially including the patterns of physical law, mathematical law and cause and effect -- are inherently false.

You're combining several different realms here and arbitrarily deciding the same principles govern them. You can't just throw math in with what we call physical law. Not to mention forgetting that humans are pattern finding and creating creatures.

If we reject the assumption that things generally do have explanations, there goes philosophy, math and science, at which point this discussion becomes full retard.

That seems a little dramatic. But they probably do take on an artistic character you might not be comfortable with. In any case you're not going to be reasonably leveraging math/science into the God you want to worship. You'd just end up worshiping the existence of math and science.

I don't see how I can take both of the above paragraphs together. How is paragraph 1 not a suggestion to start being illogical?

It's a recommendation to be aware of how you become convinced of things.

It sounds like you're saying arguments for God are logically misguided either on the basis of them being arguments for God or on the basis of them being arguments that could affect control.

Arguments for God are logically misguided on the basis that there's no evidence you can think beings into existence.

Well that certainly sounded like your conclusion based on what you wrote.

In general, atheists have no set job. In terms of expressing why atheism is reasonable,

Why what, specifically, is reasonable?

in light of the reasons people have for theism, atheists have a bigger job than mere denial

Denial of what? What is it atheists are supposed to deny?

[Swamp Dog]

Spoiler!

Response to rdferguson...in spoiler to not clutter...

Spoiler!

Aren't unexplained things what get leveraged to determine miracles? The 'miracle' being the explanation for what is not understood? That doesn't seem like a great explanation...you just kind of give up and say, miracle.



You're combining several different realms here and arbitrarily deciding the same principles govern them. You can't just throw math in with what we call physical law. Not to mention forgetting that humans are pattern finding and creating creatures.



That seems a little dramatic. But they probably do take on an artistic character you might not be comfortable with. In any case you're not going to be reasonably leveraging math/science into the God you want to worship. You'd just end up worshiping the existence of math and science.



It's a recommendation to be aware of how you become convinced of things.



Arguments for God are logically misguided on the basis that there's no evidence you can think beings into existence.



Why what, specifically, is reasonable?



Denial of what? What is it atheists are supposed to deny?

Repped for tightness

[Harbinger]

^^^Good luck dude, being married and having kids is incredible.

[CalmWind]

^^^Good luck dude, being married and having kids is incredible.

So when are you going to stop resisting God's calling and become a Christian?

I had to ask, felt like a good time.

[streetlegaltank]

hey brothers and sisters, I've made the decision to start praying for God to bring me a wife of his choosing. I have avoided doing this through all this time, after my failed engagement to my high school first love, but I think it's time to try to build a family again.

I have explained everything to God in prayer, even though he already knows it before I even say it, but still. Maybe it's being placed into my heart to do it, I don't know. I've avoided this for long enough. I'll place this matter completely in God's hands but I will ask for it. It's basically the only thing I will be asking God for, aside from constantly asking for his will to rule over my life.

Anyone else done this before? Did God match you with a god-fearing spouse and bless your marriage?

And I have considered the idea behind it. God matched Adam with Eve. Also Isaac with Rebekah, etc...... so I don't think this is out of the question!

[sawoobley]

So when are you going to stop resisting God's calling and become a Christian?

I had to ask, felt like a good time.

I'd volunteer to be the one to baptize him but it most likely wouldn't count depending on which church he joined. lol

[Athanasius90]

So when are you going to stop resisting God's calling and become a Christian?

I had to ask, felt like a good time.

I think Harby is a closet deist/non denominational theist, he just doesn't like or accept Christianity. I think this is the case with a lot of them.

[plak89]

answersingenesis. org is a really cool website

[lasher]

[CalmWind]

those comics are gold

[lasher]

btw Bose, if you were looking for a Christian occasionalist, Malebranche is your boy.

[Uxxas]

Lols

Feels good being a free agent Christian. My bible and my prayer!

das it mane.





Anyways, I read a lot about the prophecies in Isaiah and I still can't believe that the Jews crucified and rejected Jesus as their Messiah. I mean, Isaiah can't get any more clearer of the guy's description. Isaiah literally gives us an entire template for the guy.


- The Messiah will be of virgin birth.
- The Messiah will be an heir of the House of David.
- Then Messiah will begin with a Galilean ministry.
- The Messiah will be widely rejected, ridiculed, beaten and disfigured.
- The Messiah will make a blood atonement.
- The Messiah will be buried in a rich man's tomb.



And these are just some, not all. I still cannot understand the Jew thought process after all these years.

[Harbinger]

So when are you going to stop resisting God's calling and become a Christian?

I had to ask, felt like a good time.

I have a specific list of things that need to happen before that even becomes a possibility.

[CalmWind]

das it mane.





Anyways, I read a lot about the prophecies in Isaiah and I still can't believe that the Jews crucified and rejected Jesus as their Messiah. I mean, Isaiah can't get any more clearer of the guy's description. Isaiah literally gives us an entire template for the guy.


- The Messiah will be of virgin birth.
- The Messiah will be an heir of the House of David.
- Then Messiah will begin with a Galilean ministry.
- The Messiah will be widely rejected, ridiculed, beaten and disfigured.
- The Messiah will make a blood atonement.
- The Messiah will be buried in a rich man's tomb.



And these are just some, not all. I still cannot understand the Jew thought process after all these years.

A rabbi in Israel talks about this precisely



I'm curious what everyone thinks of the Rabbi's answers. The video has over 200k views

[Uxxas]

His answers make sense since he's using the Torah to justify them. Some of the answers, like men forgiving sin, will be sure to rustle some jimmies.

He compared Jesus to the Hindus lol.


One thing I don't agree with him tho is that we don't worship the Father. I thought we all prayed thru Jesus in order to reach the Father. That's how I do it anyways. I think the Jews suffer from the same thing Muslims do, they think we worship 3 gods.