Apologetics discussion

[StColette]

Okay gentlemen and ladies ( though there are very few girls whoever step foot in here lol )

I want an Apologetics discussion about something lol Boredom has set in so someone pick a topic and let's talk about it.

God Bless,
Jen

[StColette]

*starts tappin her foot on the floor*

[journeyman]

Jennie

I don't even think these are apologetics questions . . . but here are some topics . . . I'm somewhat verklept . . . discuss amongst yourselves

There are many images of Jesus. Why are there four Gospel accounts rather than a single version? Discuss the image of Jesus that might be needed most within our modern cultural context.

Explain the primary differences between "high Christology" (Christology from above), and "low Christology" (Christology from below).

What are the five historical periods in the development of the Church's beliefs about Jesus?

[phatcatholic]

ok, here's two things that have been on my mind recently:

1. how can we harp at protestants for relying on their own subjective authority when it was this very same faculty that we used to determine that catholicism was true and that the Church was an authority?

2. i'd heard it said that protestant arguments are "circular" but catholic arguments are "spiral." what does this mean?

i think i have answers for both of these questions, but i would like to know what everyone else has to say......

[StColette]

oh boy lol finally got some responses lol

[phatcatholic]

pick one jennie............my post or journeyman's

[StColette]

Okay I remember reading something about the circular and spiral arguments thing.

Isn't a circular argument something that is based on like the foundation of one thing. Like many Protestant view with Sola Scriptura. Anything that they believe would keep coming back to the same foundation, Scripture.

Now a spiral argument would be based upon different foundations like Scripture, History, Church teachings etc.

did I get that anywhere close to correct ? lol

[goldenchild17]

I'm interested in the spiral-circular thing as well.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='StColette' date='Jul 14 2005, 07:35 PM']Okay I remember reading something about the circular and spiral arguments thing.

Isn't a circular argument something that is based on like the foundation of one thing. Like many Protestant view with Sola Scriptura.  Anything that they believe would keep coming back to the same foundation, Scripture.

Now a spiral argument would be based upon different foundations like Scripture, History,  Church teachings etc.

did I get that anywhere close to correct ? lol
[right][snapback]643830[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
i feel like this is one of those questions that is easy to answer, but that i am making much more difficult then it needs to be. it would help me to have an example of a circular argument and an example of a spiral argument.

[StColette]

Can I cheat and use an example of a circular argument I found ? lol

pwease ? lol

[StColette]

Well, here's something about a Spiral Argument and a little about a Circular one lol

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. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

A Spiral Argument

Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp[/url]

Edited July 15, 2005 by StColette

[franciscanheart]

hey im a girl and i come in here

[StColette]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' date='Jul 15 2005, 02:10 PM']hey im a girl and i come in here
[right][snapback]644598[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

that's why I added the "though very few girls come in here*

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' date='Jul 15 2005, 02:10 PM']hey im a girl and i come in here
[right][snapback]644598[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
you're not a girl...............you're a baby

[franciscanheart]

oh. right. i forgot

[StColette]

[quote name='StColette' date='Jul 15 2005, 01:57 PM']Well, here's something about a Spiral Argument and a little about a Circular one lol

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. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

A Spiral Argument

Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp[/url]
[right][snapback]644590[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Read !!! lol

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' date='Jul 15 2005, 03:10 PM']hey im a girl and i come in here
[right][snapback]644598[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
me too!

that makes 3 so far.

[franciscanheart]

yeah! woot. girls gotta stick together in here.

[Noel's angel]

i come in here-i don't post very often though 'cause I spend all my time reading and learning from everyone else

[Laudate_Dominum]

Noel's Angel! A chuisle mo chroi! (hehe j/k) Conas ata tu?

It has been a while.. Good to see you're still around on here.