Different Storytellers

[Paladin D]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 29 2005, 02:29 PM']RESPONSE:

Again the fundamental all-or- nothing belief fallacy.

And do you believe a relationship with Jesus should be based on the acceptance of fiction in place of fact?
[right][snapback]663985[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Then what do you know about Christ? What does He mean to you?

Please answer the question.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 29 2005, 03:29 PM']Again the fundamental all-or- nothing belief fallacy.

And do you believe a relationship with Jesus should be based on the acceptance of fiction in place of fact?
[right][snapback]663985[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
A relationship with Jesus is based on FAITH. Reason alone is not good enough to "prove" that God exists. It's not enough to "prove" that the Scriptures are divinely inspired.

When it comes to whether or not the Gospels are "fact or fiction," you're entitled to your own opinion. You don't have to be Catholic, you don't have to believe in the Gospel.

Just know that your present actions and your lack of faith will have eternal consequences, unless you turn to God.

If you're not willing to listen to what the Catholic Church has to say, if you're not willing to read the Bible with an open mind, then why bother posting on this board? Why not just go and become a Buddhist or something. No one here is forcing you to believe anything.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 29 2005, 02:02 PM']Then what do you know about Christ?  What does He mean to you?

Please answer the question.
[right][snapback]664040[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

You are deviating from the present topic. If you want to pursue this question, might I suggest that you start another thread.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 29 2005, 11:44 AM']RESPONSE:

It has to do with  how much of the Gospel of Luke is creditable history or fictional.

Unless you have no difficulty basing your faith on fiction. :
[right][snapback]663636[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No it doesn't.

You miss the big picture les, the point, and in general almost everyting else.

The Scriptures are written so people can understand them, little things which appear to be off are not off. The problem is in your PRIVATE interpretation of Scripture, NOT scripture.

Please reread my post. It has NOTHING to do with salvation, the bible is a tool to help us to learn Christ's way to salvation.

Christianity is not a buffet.

Edited July 29, 2005 by ironmonk

[LittleLes]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Jul 29 2005, 03:01 PM']
A relationship with Jesus is based on FAITH.    Reason alone is not good enough to "prove" that God exists. 
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

The First Vatican Council, Session 3, Canon 2 declares:

2. On revelation
". If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.

"Reason alone is not good enough to "prove" that God exists" you say??

I'm afraid that in disagreeing with Vatican I, and ecumenical and therefore infallible council, you incur an anathema. Sorry

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 29 2005, 04:50 PM']RESPONSE:

The First Vatican Council, Session 3, Canon 2 declares:

2. On revelation
". If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.

"Reason alone is not good enough to "prove" that God exists" you say??

I'm afraid that in disagreeing with Vatican I, and ecumenical and therefore infallible council, you incur an anathema. Sorry
[right][snapback]664263[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Certainly the Council's decree is true, it is possible to know God through reason without revelation - although one cannot know Him [i]fully[/i] without it.

Do you hold to this canon (it's actually canon 1), Les? If so, do you also hold to canons 2 and 4?
[quote]2. If anyone says that it is impossible, or not expedient,
that human beings should be taught by means of divine revelation about God and the worship that should be shown him: let him be [b]anathema[/b].[/quote]
[quote]4. If anyone does not receive as sacred and canonical the complete books of sacred scripture with all their parts, as the holy [b]council of Trent[/b] listed them, or denies that they were divinely inspired: let him be [b]anathema[/b].[/quote]

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 29 2005, 04:07 PM']Certainly the Council's decree is true, it is possible to know God through reason without revelation - although one cannot know Him [i]fully[/i] without it.

Do you hold to this canon (it's actually canon 1), Les?  If so, do you also hold to canons 2 and 4?
[right][snapback]664318[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


RESPONSE:

Perhaps we can say I hold to Canon 2 and 4 with the same degree of certitude as Photosynthesis, based on what he says, holds to Canon 1. :

Actually, I hold to something because its true, not because I'm told by somebody that I must. If something can be shown to be in error, I'm under no obligation to believe it.

Of course the true believers take another view.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 29 2005, 05:32 PM']RESPONSE:

Perhaps we can say I hold to Canon 2 and 4 with the same degree of certitude as Photosynthesis, based on what he says, holds to Canon 1. :

Actually, I hold to something because its true, not because I'm told by somebody that I must. If something can be shown to be in error, I'm under no obligation to believe it.

Of course the true believers take another view.
[right][snapback]664375[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I've heard many a definition for the term "true believer." What is your definition of the term?

[Paladin D]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 29 2005, 04:24 PM']RESPONSE:

You are deviating from the present topic. If you want to pursue this question, might I suggest that you start another thread.
[right][snapback]664196[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You out of all people.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 29 2005, 04:50 PM']I've heard many a definition for the term "true believer."  What is your definition of the term?
[right][snapback]664403[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Actually, I picked up the term from Eric Hoffer's book of the same title.

It deals with the psychology of those who attach themselves to mass movements, whether in religion, politics, economics, etc.

He makes the observation that most of these movements end in the suffix " -ism" and inspite of the belief system involved, all share a lot in common. It seems strange, but capitalism, communism, Catholicism, Mohamadism, Republicanism, etc., etc, make very similar demands on their respective memberships.

One feature is a sense of personal power experienced by those who belong, and the consequent fear of loss if one cannot belong . Hence the need to obey and conform with the mores of the group.

Another is the unquestioning acceptance of a belief system or what one is told by the leadership. This, too, is tied into belonging. Members simply have to reject out of hand anything which contradicts "central dogma," regardless of how overwhelming the evidence. Alligience is the core value.

As a review notes: "The True Believer is a visionary, highly provocative look into the mind of the fanatic and a penetrating study of how an individual becomes one. Eric Hoffer was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1983."

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 29 2005, 05:07 PM']You out of all people.
[right][snapback]664410[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

"Every day and in every way I'm getting better and better."

[Paladin D]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 29 2005, 06:35 PM']RESPONSE:

"Every day and in every way I'm getting [b]better and better[/b]." 
[right][snapback]664434[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

From a certain point of view...

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 29 2005, 06:15 PM']RESPONSE:

Actually, I picked up the term from Eric Hoffer's book of the same title.

It deals with the psychology of those who attach themselves to mass movements, whether in religion, politics, economics, etc.

He makes the observation that most of these movements end in the suffix " -ism" and inspite of the belief system involved, all share a lot in common. It seems strange, but capitalism, communism, Catholicism, Mohamadism, Republicanism, etc., etc, make very similar demands on their respective memberships.

One feature is a sense of personal power  experienced by those who belong, and the consequent fear of loss if one cannot belong . Hence the need to obey and conform with the mores of the group.

Another is the unquestioning acceptance of a belief system or what one is told by the leadership. This, too, is tied into belonging. Members simply have to reject out of hand anything which contradicts "central dogma," regardless of how overwhelming the evidence. Alligience is the core value.

As a review notes: "The True Believer is a visionary, highly provocative look into the mind of the fanatic and a penetrating study of how an individual becomes one. Eric Hoffer was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1983."
[right][snapback]664417[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The list of "isms" renders the book self-contradictory and nonsensical. Mr. Hoffer himself probably subscribes to some sort of "ism." But his is probably ok.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 29 2005, 09:46 PM']The list of "isms" renders the book self-contradictory and nonsensical.  Mr. Hoffer himself probably subscribes to some sort of "ism."  But his is probably ok.
[right][snapback]664619[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Got a point.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 29 2005, 08:46 PM']The list of "isms" renders the book self-contradictory and nonsensical.  Mr. Hoffer himself probably subscribes to some sort of "ism."  But his is probably ok.
[right][snapback]664619[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Obviously this is your opinion. Again, if you have any evidence, please present it.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 29 2005, 09:53 PM']RESPONSE:

Obviously this is your opinion. Again, if you have any evidence, please present it.
[right][snapback]664632[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Anyone and anybody is part of some sort of "ism". Whatever his political view was, he would be part of that "ism". If he held to a certain religious belief (or lack of), it would be an "ism".

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 29 2005, 08:58 PM']Anyone and anybody is part of some sort of "ism".  Whatever his political view was, he would be part of that "ism".  If he held to a certain religious belief (or lack of), it would be an "ism".
[right][snapback]664639[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


RESPONSE:

But not everybody is a true believer. That's the difference.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 29 2005, 10:08 PM']RESPONSE:

But not everybody is a true believer. That's the difference.
[right][snapback]664647[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Even those with no religion are true believers of [b]atheism[/b].

[Aloysius]

you just have the nicest little elitest attitude

everyone that agrees with the Church must be mindless and never think for themself, you say.

but then where does the teaching come from? oh okay, so the people in the magisterium think for themselves and form the teaching and then the masses are stupidly duped.

isn't it possible that us, simple laypeople, can study logic, philosophy, and religion and come up with conclusions that are the same as what the magisterium came up with when it studied logic, philosophy, and religion?

oh no, it is much more likely that LittleLes is the enlightened genius of phatmass and allt he masses of people, some with (some without) college degrees who have read hundreds of documents and hundreds of books on the issue and pondered it for themselves and come to the conclusion that the Church is right are all stupid.

that story was written by Aloysius. the following story was written by Snoopy:

"It was a dark and stormy night..."

hows that for different story tellers? isn't that what this thread is about?

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 29 2005, 05:50 PM']RESPONSE:

The First Vatican Council, Session 3, Canon 2 declares:

2. On revelation
". If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.

"Reason alone is not good enough to "prove" that God exists" you say??

I'm afraid that in disagreeing with Vatican I, and ecumenical and therefore infallible council, you incur an anathema. Sorry
[right][snapback]664263[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Of course we can know God through His creation. No one here would deny that. However, the foundation of a relationship with God is faith, not reason. You can't base a relationship with God on reason. What you're doing is quoting out of context, and any uneducated cradle Catholic can see though it.

If you actually listened to what I said, you'd know that I wasn't saying you couldn't know God at all through reason. Actually, reason is very useful in learning about God. But we must always put our faith in God, whose Wisdom is far above human reason.

Oh, and if anyone calls me a "he," as LittleLes did, let him be anathema. :