Should I Desire That You All Follow My Religion?
(Cross-posted on the Front Page)
I would hope not to court much controversy by saying that all of us should live in accordance with the truth. Call it a notion of natural law that I can get behind. That each of us conceives and understands the truth differently complicates the imperative, but it doesn’t do away with it. More controversially, I believe that religion–well, my religion anyway–provides a uniquely and especially true way of being in the world. I’m Catholic, not for my comfort, but because I believe this religious faith at its core embodies, if imperfectly, the right communal response to a sacred and inexplicable event–a Revelation of a community of persons at the heart of the universe. If I desire that everyone should live according to the truth, believe that truth includes the content of Revelation, and believe further that Catholicism is the true religious faith, then it would seem to follow that I should desire that you all convert to my religion. If I don’t wish all of you to be Catholic, then I don’t really believe Catholicism is true.
Not a handful of my coreligionists would say so, stopping at this syllogism’s end without considering any complications or nuances. For example, Michael Voris of the fittingly-named Church Militant TV, chides the leaders in his church who do not manifestly desire everyone in the world to be Catholic. For Voris, whose manner of evangelism could be likened to the broad swing of a heavy blunt instrument, if you’re not in or at least headed for the church, then you’re literally moving in the direction of Hell. If I don’t desire you all to begin the process of conversion, then I in effect desire your eternal torment in everlasting hellfire.
Except, no, I don’t desire for anyone the conditions that would mean a one-way road trip to Hell. I’m not allergic to any notion of an afterlife, even one of chosen misery, but I know next to nothing of what an afterlife means. I have only the signs and symbols of the here and now to imagine the hereafter, and, speaking of the here and now, the line of reasoning outlined above has a big problem: it treats religion and the people within it as abstractions divorced from the real world.
First of all, my religious faith is not a Platonic Form or some abstract ideal to which we’re all supposed to accord our lives. It’s an institution situated in the messiness of history, and its own history is often morally repellant. Second, as a community with traditions of myth, ritual, and interpretation by which its members live their lives and understand themselves, Catholicism contributes to the identities of those situated within it. I cannot encourage conversion without also encouraging a change to who someone is.
Because sin affects people in the church, clergy and laity alike, conversion in some circumstances may not be a blessing. Let’s say I know an atheist living in a small rural area where there’s only one religious community, and that one community happens to be a Catholic Church. My atheist friend has told me over Facebook that he’s interested in learning more about my faith and that he plans to visit the parish where he resides as its the only one he can feasibly attend. Awesome, I think, but then he messages me after his visit and describes the peculiar practices of this particular Catholic community. Listening to him, I become quickly aware that much of what he’s describing sounds cultish and authoritarian–more so than is usual for Catholicism–practices I judge to be spiritually and psychologically unhealthy. In this scenario, I would not suggest he return.
It would be easy to say that this particular parish did not practice authentic Catholicism, meaning that I was not really advising my hypothetical friend against returning to the only Catholic community where he could feasibly start on the official road to conversion. Too easy, really. There is no pure, authentic Catholicism practiced anywhere in the world. Every community has its moral strengths and weaknesses, its blessings and dangers to solidarity and spiritual health. People too are complicated. Where one thrives another may suffer. I’m all for evangelization provided it respects our “situatedness.” Consequently, I wouldn’t recommend that everyone, without care to where they are or who they may become, stop what they’re doing and take steps toward my religion. The results would not be dandy, even assuming the ultimate truth of Catholicism, which, of course, you should.
Follow Kyle on Facebook and Twitter. Just don’t follow him to Hell, which is where he’s going after writing this post.
Kyle,
Do you believe that there are some people of other faiths who are more “Catholic” than some Catholics today? I do believe that the best way to get to heaven is follow the Church that Christ founded, the Catholic Church. But with saying that people can be Catholic and faithful in other religions. People of other faiths can be saved and go to heaven.
Oh Kyle you’re not going to Hell. Maybe a few more years in purgatory? 🙂
“I do believe that the best way to get to heaven is follow the Church that Christ allegedly founded.”
– There are no primary historical sources for this event.
“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.” The Catholic Church was the only one in existence for centuries. You can deny the Truth but that doesn’t make it false.
The Catholic Church was the only one in existence for centuries.
Well, not really. That’s a post-hoc rationalization the Catholic Church created when it got itself really hierarchically organized and claimed all the past under its mantle, even though it had in no way had such a previous existence. Catholic Church history and the history of early Christianity aren’t actually identical, and it’s kind of irritating that the Catholic Church is less than truthful about this.
You’re right, Qub, to object to the idea that the Catholic Church was the only Christianity in existence for centuries, but you should know that the Church would agree. It’s clear from New Testament and writing of the early fathers that there were multiple conflicting understandings of what it meant to be Christian. The church developed out of a conflict of interpretations, a power struggle among various movements. Gnosticism, for example, was very prevalent.
I like this answer, Kyle. But I’ll say that I didn’t know the Catholic Church would agree. I’m glad to hear it. But it makes me wonder why so many of the Catholics I’ve known (not all, by any means, and with the great majority of my Catholic friends and acquaintances the issue has never even come up) believe it.
Perhaps you can answer this question (and if not, that’s ok): Was there any point at which it could be said that the Catholic Church was the sole church,* or were there always some distinct churches separate from it, at every point through history? I would guess the latter, but I’m not really a church historian. And if you’re not, either, that’s fine. It’s just a question arising out of curiosity, and no more.
__________________
*Setting aside the concepts of all Christians being part of the same church and/or only the Catholic Church being the true church, and using “church” in its more colloquial sense of a local congregation or an organized group of congregations.
Historically it is known that early Christianity contained the same doctrine that came to be known as the Catholic Church. While at the beginning the name “Catholic Church” hadn’t been named it is hard to support an assertion that early Christianity was different from the Catholic Church and Her beliefs. Gnosticism is not an example of Christianity. That is an example of a heresy. Prior to the Great Schism can you name a different denomination of Christianity?
Teresa,
There were multiple doctrines early on, not a single one.
Are you actually unaware of the existence of the Assyrian Church? The Oriental Orthodox churches?
Qub:
In answer to your question, I would say “No,” if by “church” we mean a religious movement or community. The Catholic Church traces its roots back to the Descent of the Holy Spirit (celebrated at Pentecost), but since its birth its had to contend with what it calls heresy, interpretations of the teachings of Christ that run counter to the official word. Heresy wouldn’t be an issue if it were individual and private–no one would know about it. Because it was shared, it spread, and new movements were formed. Whether any of these organized themselves into a religious system with an explicit structure of authority, I’m not sure. Simply carrying on a message of some time assumes a degree of authority, though. You can’t teach if no one will listen.
Kyle,
Thank you. I very much like the way you respond to these questions, taking them seriously instead of trying to overbear with spiritual authority, as some others are doing here. Despite my needling, I’m not actually anti-Christian (although I do not believe in a spirit world of any kind myself), and I do find the history of Christianity, particularly the early era, an interesting issue from a historical/sociological/political perspective. Unfortunately I do not have time to explore it in depth.
But it seems evident to me that there were a variety of, as you said, “multiple conflicting understandings” early on, later defined as heresies by those who shared a particular understanding and who managed to become dominant, and who for fairly evident sociological and political reasons found it valuable to define those heresies as “untrue” approaches so they could establish a stronger claim of having a direct descent from the “true” approach. It’s what any set of people in similar circumstances would do.
Their success can, of course, be attributed to having been right, and thereby having God’s support. But non-mystically, we can see that in other ideological movements through history (where “ideological” simply means “idea-based,” with no pejorative implications), similar histories occur, including continuing fissioning. I find it amusing that my own forebears, anabaptists, thought of their movement as a restoration, and also believed–in the 1500s–that they were the direct descendants of the “true” early church. And of course in some ways their approach was more similar to the early church than is the Catholic approach. (Which is not to say they were any more right; just that they had as much reason as any other group to believe they were right.)
If I’m not mistaken, the lines about Peter here were added later, not having been in the original manuscript. In any case, it really doesn’t work as a historical basis for the papacy as it was the papacy that put those lines in there. Perhaps under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but at the end of the day all we have is the say-so of the Catholic Church that it was founded by God. That doesn’t meet the basic requirements of historical verification.
I know of no historiological basis for the assumption that “the lines about Peter were added later”, and the notion that it was added later by a papacy that was not instituted by Christ but emerged later as a natural, completely man-made religio-political office does not sit at all well with the evidence of the rest of scripture, let alone the testimony of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Biblical references to Simon Bar-Jonas as Cephas (transliterated Aramaic for Peter, that is, Rock or Stone, ) are found in letters whose Pauline authorship is not seriously disputed by anyone, skeptic or believer. Peter’s pre-eminence among the apostles throughout the New Testament, implied and expressed, is a fact that could never have been inserted later as simply, seamlessly, and as elegantly as it appears, as if it were always part of the text. The literary unity of the specific text in question, Matthew 16, is not at all consistent with verse 18 having been simply added in. It is very typical of our Lord’s teaching style. First He elevates Simon above his peers, and then, when Simon rebukes Him for insisting on the necessity of the coming crucifixion, he is brought low by our Lord, who calls him Satan, and a “stumbling block” (skandalon). The ancient image of the stone that the builders rejected becoming the cornerstone keeps coming to mind.
Now try to imagine a later papacy inventing that whole episode, not just verse 18, simply to lend credibility to a new man-made ecclesio-political office that no one had ever heard of before. And try to imagine people not saying, “That wasn’t in that gospel! You’re making that up!”. When I try to think through and concretely imagine what would have to happen in the real world for this and other positions skeptical of the traditional view of scripture to be true, I find nothing but preposterous scenarios, every one of which strains credibility past the breaking point, all of them more counterintuitive and insulting to common sense than the traditional teaching denied by the position whose claim to the noble mantle of “skeptical” I must consequently judge as highly dubious. In light of the abundant scriptural support for the papacy, the allegation that it all could have been invented later and added in provokes in me a response like that of Augustine of Hippo to the Manicheans – produce the original, unaltered text – the one without all the add-ons.
Quibbling over terms is usually pointless and vain, so there may be nothing to gained by taking issue with the way someone is using a word like “Christianity”, whether it should signify only the orthodox teaching of the Church founded by Christ or used as a broader conceptual umbrella to cover other historical movements that emerged at the same time due to the collision of other religious ideas with the new Church, or more or less later, from within it, movements later identified as heretical by that Church. But the idea that “the Catholic Church” would, in some important sense, as a Church, identify these movements as “Christian” in some non-trivial sense, has me as puzzled as Qub. Before I can accept that, I should like to see an irreproachably orthodox Catholic source make that identification. A quote would be greatly appreciated.
the abundant scriptural support for the papacy
Whuhh? I guess the Catholic Bible is a lot more different from the Proddie Bible than I thought it was.
If the Roman Catholic Church weren’t the One True Church founded by Christ, we’d have to consider the slaughter and forced conversion of heretics and unbelievers it has been responsible for over the millennia to be pretty serious crimes.
I assume you are aware, Kevin, that the Catholic Church, in response to the Bible-alone Christians, boasts that it wrote the New Testament. And it did, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Catholics believe. That inspiration doesn’t mean divine dictation or that the Scriptures came together as an unaltered draft. Saying a particular passage was added later doesn’t actually prove that the passage doesn’t refer to a real event.
I agree that there’s a biblical case for the papacy, but because the church itself wrote the books on which this case is based, the persuasiveness of the case rests on whether you believe in the church.
The orthodox catholics would call them heretics. A name that implies being in and out of the flock.
“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.”
It’s a pun. “Petros” is Greek for “rock”. He was Jewish, so it should be no surprise that part of His human nature was making jokes, like when Judas objected to spending money on oil and He said “Don’t worry, we won’t run out of poor people.”
@Mike Schilling
“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.”
Did you mean to demonstrate that this passage must have been inserted later as there is no evidence that Jesus or Peter spoke Greek?
@Mike Schilling
“MATTHEW 26:11 For ye have the poor always with you”
– Of course some European social democracies don’t accept this hypothesis either and are making a fair stab at falsifying it.
I’m out on a limb here because I’m pretty ignorant about the content of the Bible (I’ve read more than half of it, but not all, including about half the new testament, but I don’t remember much): but wasn’t Peter’s original name Simon, and by calling him “Petrus,” Jesus (or whoever) was naming him “rock”? Also, if I understand correctly, Koine Greek was the lingua franca of the Mediterranean.
I could be wrong on all this, and also wrong about what can be extrapolated from it.
Kyle,
It is nice to see that the notion of divine inspiration has some place in your mind, so I won’t try to imply that your bringing it up in the first place is unappreciated. But let’s not lose eight of the fact that nothing I said made reference to scripture as divinely inspired, and none of my points require inspiration. God can and doubtless did make use of any natural historical process conveniently at hand, so to speak, as the Divine Author of books that had human authors, including later redaction of an earlier proto-document. A thoroughly compelling case can be made that, while, Moses MAY (and I believe was) the principal human author of the Pentateuch, he was not the SOLE human author, and thus any process of divine inspiration would have to have included later editing (on the part of Joshua, or the so called Yahwist or priestly editor(s)). No big deal. The evangelist need not have written Matthew 16:18, and it could still not only be true, but the very word of God in words of men. Nevertheless, I know of no good reason, none whatsoever, to assert that verse 18 was not a part of the original text. Scholarly arguments that continue to this day in an unbroken continuity that go back to a modern historical origin have their beginning in the wake of the Kulturkampf of Otto Von Bismarck and the money that he threw into the seminaries and university theology departments to foster theories as baseless and bereft of documentary support now as they were then that the Gospel attributed by tradition to the hand of the evangelist Matthew was not the first gospel written and was not written by an apostle/1st century witness of the ressurection. But even these scholars made less use than you might have expected of arguments that Matthew 16:18 was not a part of the gospel as it was originally written by its human author, whether or not he (or she?) was divinely inspired.
The point I made, and which begs to be addressed, was that the New Testament passages that support the papacy, in general as well as the specific one in question, bear the interior evidence of an obvious literary unity which makes any theory that novel doctrinal points were simply and conveniently added to them very difficult for any but a “skeptical” mind to accept (note the ironic quotes). C.S. Lewis makes a slightly different but not unrelated point in his essay “Fern Seed and Elephants”, and it is well worth quoting:
“Here, from Bultmann’s Theology of the New Testament is another: ‘Observe in what unassimilated fashion the prediction of the parousia (Mark 8:38) follows upon the prediction of the passion (8:31). What can he mean? Unassimilated? Bultmann believes that predictions of the parousia are older than those of the passion. He therefore wants to believer – and no doubt does believe – that when they occur in the same passage some discrepancy or ‘unassimilation’ must be perceptible between them. But surly he foists this on the text with shocking lack of perception. Peter has confessed Jesus to be the Anointed One. That flash of glory is hardly over before the dark prophecy begins – that the Son of Man must suffer and die. Then this contrast is repeated. Peter, raised for a moment by his confession, makes his false step: the crushing rebuff ‘Get thee behind me’ follows. Then, across that momentary ruin which Peter (as so often) becomes, the voice of the Master, turning to the crowd, generalizes the moral. All his followers must take up the cross. This avoidance of suffering, this self-preservation, is not what life is really about. Then, more definitely still, the summons to martyrdom. You must stand to your tackling. If you disown Christ here and now, he will disown you later. Logically, emotionally, imaginatively, the sequence is perfect. Only a Bultmann could think otherwise.”
If by “Catholic” you mean something like closeness to God, then, yes.
Once you start an argument from shaky premises, that is truth claims for which there is very little evidence, it can lead virtually anywhere. Consequently there is little point in trying to progress such an argument.
Just because you don’t acknowledge and/or reject certain evidence for truth claims doesn’t mean it is nonexistent. Are you a person of faith?
@Teresa Rice
“Are you a person of faith?”
You certainly need to be a person of faith to accept the idea that the “God hypothesis” is a valid premise for further argument.
As a person of faith, I can’t say I think much of the idea of a “God hypothesis”. Anyone who considers the existence of God hypothetical, whatever other virtues he or she may have (open-mindedness, perhaps), a strong personal faith can hardly be one of them.
That being said, what does it say about the person who cannot even bear to consider the existence of God in a provisional, hypothetical way? What remains of the credibility of arguments against traditional theism when it is admitted that those who accept them and use them do so because they are intellectually unable to so much as briefly entertain the positions they oppose with anywhere near the degree of care required to properly understand them well enough to soundly refute them? What an embarrassing admission that is!
Kevin,
I’m wholly willing to entertain the hypothesis that God exists. Now I’m just waiting for evidence. No evidence, no further entertainment of the hypothesis.
(To be more blunt, from my perspective “faith” is just a cheat we use when we really really want to believe something but there’s no evidence to support that belief. It’s a copout from a reality we can’t face up to.)
@Kevin Rice
It’s not a matter of “cannot even bear to consider the existence of God” it’s a matter of wanting to use time productively. I don’t spend time considering what will be the result of the sun not rising tomorrow either even though that possibility is more likely than the existence of a god.
Before something of great importance is completely lost sight of, I need to quote something said earlier to emphasize that which really should have been my main point, and might well have stood alone and rendered moot the rest of what I found it necessary to say:
Kyle said, “If I’m not mistaken, the lines about Peter here were added later, not having been in the original manuscript. In any case, it really doesn’t work as a historical basis for the papacy as it was the papacy that put those lines in there.”
But it is not lines of text that are the basis of the papacy, but the event the text conveys: Christ having established the Church on the Rock that is Simon Peter. The text is not the basis of the papacy, our Lord’s act of commissioning Simon as Peter is. The text is one (not the sole) basis of our KNOWLEDGE of the origin of the papacy.
Qub,
“There were multiple doctrines early on, not a single one.”
Of course… Catholicism has multiple doctrines. The doctrines in the Catholic Church are the same ones as in early Christianity. Any other doctrines?
This no longer has any chance of being a reasonable discussion. Suffice it to say I don’t like that type of game.
Arianism, which, as you might recall, was at one time the official doctrine in much of Europe.
Fnord,
“Are you actually unaware of the existence of the Assyrian Church? The Oriental Orthodox churches?”
Good point in naming those churches. But as far as Orthodoxy goes there isn’t much difference between Assyrian, Oriental Orthodox, and the Catholic Church, if any. Plus, they believed in the same doctrines as the Catholic Church.
Filioque.
Don’t forget the apostolic primacy of Petrine succession or the Orthodox doctrine of the real distinction between the ousia (essence) and energeia (energy) of God, which most Catholic writers judge to be a form of polytheistic doctrinal corruption.
Now shall we count all the doctrines that Orthodoxy and Catholicism have in common? What would make something like that interesting is a wager of real money. A defender of the notion that Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are not significantly different in doctrinal content would start out behind by however much we would wish to monetarily weigh the filioque, the primacy of Peter, and the real ousia-energeia distinction. Then all that they have in common would be weighed against that. Who would win, do you think? How much money would change hands if the two aforementioned elements of doctrinal disparity were priced at, say, $5.00, each and every element of commonality that could be brought forward were priced at a mere $1.00 each? The defender of the idea that they are and always were substantially the same religion — the one founded by Jesus Christ — would start out $15.00 behind. Where would he or she end up, do you think? Would the House stay ahead and win?
It was considered an important enough difference to stop the Catholic countries from offering military aid against the Ottomans to the Orthodox heretics.
There appears to be some confusion. I was referring to divisions in the church BEFORE the Great East-West Schism.
Filioque (among others) is what drives the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church apart. That is the Great Schism in 1054.
The Oriental Orthodox churches were already out of communion when that happened. They rejected the Council of Chalcedon. The Assyrian Church of the East left communion even earlier than that, rejecting the First Council of Ephesus.
Without wading too deeply into the specific theological differences, it’s important enough that the churches left communion with each other and (in many cases) are still not in communion with each other. And, of course, by leaving communion with the church that including the Patriarch of Rome, they were implicitly rejecting the primacy of Rome (at least in the way that the Catholic Church interprets it now).
So many replies on the Orthodoxy-Catholicism point. Are they all replies to Teresa? Is that why no one wants to address the concrete challenge in my comment (#34) even to dispute its legitimacy? Perhaps no one has gotten around to it. I did write a lot of other stuff.
How much money would change hands? Who would win?
I see that the enumeration of these comments changes when someone adds to them. In retrospect that should have been obvious. As of this writing, the challenge, the wager, is no longer in 34, it is in 36. It may move again at any time.
I have no interest debating how some arbitrary accounting scheme tabulates “similarity”. The churches themselves define that separation exists.
Separation exists, yes. But that is not the main point. Whether that makes them doctrinally different in a significant way is the main point, the one you “have no interest in debating”. If they are significantly different in doctrine, then they do not share a single religion – that of Christianity. The main point was Teresa’s. It was that “early Christianity contained the same doctrine that came to be known as the Catholic Church” and that the Orthodox Churches “believed in the same doctrines as the Catholic Church.” My wager addresses that point head on. Three doctrinal differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism are mentioned and weighted heavily. Then I proposed that doctrinal similarities be weighted individually at only one fifth the weight of the doctrinal differences, and asked what people think would happen if the similarities and differences were tallied up like that. If there was any doubt about the outcome, it would have been so easy to say that the person offering the wager would end up owing money because Orthodoxy and Catholicism do not share enough doctrines to overcome the prior weighted disadvantage. Maybe someone will still say that. Maybe not. I don’t suppose anyone wants to see me post a list, let alone a long one, of the doctrinal similarities, with a bill at the end.
If we were to evaluate whether Islam and Christianity were part of the same religion, how would you suggest we weight the “doctrinal difference” of whether Jesus is divine or not?
This idea of deciding whether churches count as being part of the same religion based on adding up similarities and subtracting differences, even if you add weightings, is absurd.
Since you’re misstating “Church founded by Saul of Tarsus”, there’s no point quibbling about more minor issues.
@Pierre Corneille
“wasn’t Peter’s original name Simon, and by calling him “Petrus,” Jesus (or whoever) was naming him “rock”? Also, if I understand correctly, Koine Greek was the lingua franca of the Mediterranean.”
Yes and true. That is: (1) according to all four gospels the disciple we know as Peter was named Peter, or Cephas (Aramaic for Rock) by our Lord (Matthew 16:18; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; John 1:42). Before that, he was a fisherman named Simon, son of John, brother of Andrew, and (2) your understanding of the prevalence of Koine Greek at that time is the same as my own. I was taught the same thing and never had cause to doubt it. But it should not be forgotten that Our Lord and disciples spoke Aramaic amongst each other. Peter is a the Greek version, Cephas (Kepha) the Aramaic version. The new name is Rock or Stone. The image is from Messianic prophecy (Daniel 2:34-35; 44-45).
“I could be wrong on all this, and also wrong about what can be extrapolated from it.” Granted. Anyone of us can be wrong about anything. But I can’t help but wonder: what DO you extrapolate from it?
I also can’t help but speculate that what you extrapolate from it, that is, what you conclude from the scriptural evidence, is the very thing that the Catholic Church teaches about the origin of the papacy. I hope so.
I broke down and decided to click the link provided and watch the Michael Voris video. I have not seen the others he references where he has laid out his big Yes or No question before, so perhaps I speak from ignorance, but I do not see him implying, let alone stating, that all Catholics, laity and clerical alike, are obliged to positively desire that all people convert to the Catholic faith. That was a question he recommends that the faithful ask their bishops because of the character of their sacred office. I also do not see him implying, let alone, stating, that to lack that desire is “in effect” (whatever that means) to positively desire that they those who do not convert to Catholicism should be damned to hell. The latter is clearly not the case, and I should have been surprised to see Mr. Voris state something that is plainly and obviously not true. You do not desire something by default. You either desire it or you do not desire it. If you do not happen to have a desire for X, that does not mean that you implicitly or by default want Not-X. If a thought never occurs to you, no one can justly attribute a desire to you regarding the content of that thought as either an affirmation or negation. Intentionality just does not work that way.
@Qub
Unfortunately it is not possible for me to click a reply underneath your comment, so this will have to do. I imagine I am supposed to be dutifully impressed by a declaration that you are “waiting for evidence”. Or perhaps I am supposed to curl up into a mortified fetal position at how embarrassing it is that unspecified evidence has not grown legs, sought you out, and presented itself, unbidden, to your passive waiting dignity. But I am neither. Maybe if something you said allowed me to assume that you had even a faint idea what would count as evidence I might be able to take more seriously your report of not having encountered any. If you don’t know what you are looking for you could be surrounded by it and not perceive it.
Another thing I can’t take very seriously is a confession, not OF faith, but ABOUT faith as such, that it is nothing more than an intellectual cheat or copout from reality. No one in a close relationship of trust with even one other human being actually lives like that. If your good friend or lover or parent tells you something about his or her past you don’t demand documentation before you accept it. You believe it. If they show up late and tell you where they have been, you don’t demand third party verification. You don’t suspect lies, treachery, or infidelity at every turn. If you did, you would not be exercising some virtuous skepticism. You would be failing to exercise a virtue of faith. Natural faith rather than supernatural faith, but faith nonetheless.
Faith is belief in the truth of the word of someone you have accepted as worthy of trust. Faith is not an insufficiently critical response to propositions or opinions as such, but a sufficiently trusting response to persons and their testimony in the context of a relationship wherein such trust is appropriate. Religious faith is a supernatural extension of such natural faith as I have described above to those who have passed down to us through the vehicle of tradition the testimony of those who were eyewitnesses to divine action in the world and with whom one stands in a fraternal relationship in a larger community that transcends time and history.
That being said, very little faith of any sort, almost none, is necessary to dispassionately and fairly evaluate the evidence and arguments that establish the existence of God and conclude that the case weighs in favor of a affirmative response.
No, Kevin. I do not expect you to be impressed at all. I only ask you to understand that neither am I impressed by your claims to faith, regardless of how confidently and eloquently you express them. By examining the disregard that you personally feel for evidentiary demands you should be able to understand more than adequately the disregard that I feel for faith-based claims.
your passive waiting
As for that, you don’t know me, so please don’t pretend you do. You have no idea whether I have spent my life waiting passively for evidence of God or whether I sought it ought vigorously.
This sort of smug knowingness is unbearable in any person, religious or not.
It’s true, apart from the words you use I have no idea about you or your life. But the words people use mean something. Much can be revealed, at times, even unintentionally, by very few words. I make use of the words as they come. I expect the same of others with regard to the words I use. I expect to be held accountable by them for what I say, and for the way in which I say it. Smug? Yes, I’ll cop to that. How did that happen, do you think? Smug begets smug. Perhaps if you had asked for a presentation of evidence or some sort of demonstration by way of argument (and you need not have dressed it up with a please or special anything like that – asking especially nicely is not necessary) you would have seen me more than willing to offer some, but you simply and curtly reported that you were “waiting” for it, as if you imagine that all people of faith start right out of gate saddled with some prior obligation to account for their beliefs to you personally and try in vain to change a mind already made up. Or are you going to insult my intelligence by coloring your short lines as mere generic, emotionally neutral “evidentiary demand”?
Kevin,
Your attitude is familiar. You are the kind of Christian that turns people away from the church. I recognize your style of argument and condescension. I dealt with that kind of thing for years before walking away from Christianity.
You should consider Kyle’s style. Folks like him are the reason I stayed in the faith as long as I did. I still have numerous friends like him, in fact.
Oh, and as for,
Smug begets smug,
you might want to refresh yourself on Matthew 5:38-39.
There are few things more ironic than Christians using the “he hit me first” defense.
I like that… My “claims to faith”! Well, these comments have not been wholly bereft of statements on my part that can reasonably be counted as “claims to faith” or “faith-based claims”. Though few and far between, they can be found. One example comes to mind: when I clarified earlier that lines of text in scripture are not the basis of the papacy but rather the basis of the papacy is the event they convey, that seems like a faith-based claim, i.e., that the event occurred at all, but as claims go, it is not a very strong one. It is not a claim in the sense of being a demand that someone believe what I believe about the papacy. It is merely the assertion of a difference between the ontology of another claim and the epistemology of it. As for that other claim, I do not suppose anyone feels obliged to respect it, and I don’t care about that as it was never my main point. My main point was not that Christ instituted the papacy. My point was that the basis for an institution of any sort is the event of its institution, not the written report of that event. That, I don’t think, is a faith-based point. Other faith claims I have made here are peripheral in a similar way. I don’t present them as my main point, I just make no effort to hide my beliefs as I make my points. Why should I? Just to avoid some obligation to prove every belief of mine that I happen to mention? That’s not going to happen. Like Mr. Gordon Hide, I value my time, and I don’t think I obligate myself to prove everything I happen to mention that I believe merely by mentioning it.
As for evidentiary demands, I present evidence before any demand is made, and it is ignored. I ask nicely for evidence and my requests are ignored. In response to an unsupported statement that verse 18 was added later to Matthew 16 I offered evidence that no such clumsy insertion of a novel doctrinal point took place. No one asked for that evidence, but I presented it. No response to my evidence as such has been forthcoming, nor has the original assertion been further supported by evidence or argument. Instead, all I got from Kyle was a non sequitur along the lines of “even if the Bible was divinely inspired that doesn’t mean it was divinely dictated.” When Kyle said that the Catholic Church would agree with Qub that it was not the only form of Christianity even in its earliest years, as there were Gnostics about, I asked nicely for an irreproachably orthodox Catholic source supporting the notion that early Gnostics could, in some non-trivial way, be categorized as other (non-Catholic) Christians. What was the response to that request? Cricket sounds.
Are demands for evidence only to be respected on one side of an argument? Am I, as the proponent of a traditional view, less entitled to ask for evidence, but still required to serve it up on demand? And when I present it, is no one obliged to consider it?
Chirp chirp.
The early orthodox might not use the term christian, but the very label heretic implies someone who is outside the thinking and practice of the church but not wholly other.
Who used the very label?
You’re asking who in the early church used the word heretic/heresies or referred to false teachings related to orthodox Christianity?
@Kyle
“You’re asking who in the early church used the word heretic/heresies or referred to false teachings related to orthodox Christianity?”
Actually I am asking how the word fell into this discussion. I have endeavored to avoid it wherever possible, so I don’t think I brought it in here.
I asked nicely for an irreproachably orthodox Catholic source
A convenient limitation.
And surely it takes a lot of heavy lifting interpretation to move from “on you I will build my church” to a conclusion that the statement instates anything along the lines of the papacy. Simply quoting that verse is wildly insufficient on a logical basis for concluding anything of the sort.
A lot of protestant churches tend to see those old guys who always show up to move tables and chairs, mow the lawn, paint the Sunday School rooms, etc., as the foundation of the church. What biblical evidence is there that Jesus wasn’t just saying, “Simon Peter, you’re the kind of guy we need to do all the heavy lifting”?
The evidence is only that no “impeachably orthodox Catholic source” would say so. But then that’s begging the question, isn’t it?
“The evidence is only that no “impeachably orthodox Catholic source” would say so. But then that’s begging the question, isn’t it?”
Not if the question is whether — the Catholic Church — would call Gnostics Christians. The question was no longer whether you were right about there being more to early Christianity than the Catholic Church. The question was whether THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WOULD AGREE WITH YOU. That is what Kyle said, and the point with which I took issue. You may recall that you yourself were surprised when Kyle said that.
I think we may need a score card to keep track of these points that are flying past each other willy nilly.
Don’t bother. I’m done with you and your tarbaby style of argument.
@GordonHide
“It’s not a matter of “cannot even bear to consider the existence of God” it’s a matter of wanting to use time productively.”
I see. So when you talked about “a valid premise for further argument”, you didn’t mean anything like validity, premises, or further argumentation. You just meant Shut Up.
@Kevin Rice
“You just meant Shut Up.”
Not necessarily. I mean to encourage you to have discussions around mutually agreed premises. They are likely to be more useful.
@Fnord
Obviously some doctrines should weighted greater than others. Refusal to accept the divinity of Christ puts one right outside of any meaningful Christian identity. No controversy there – Muslims do not claim to be Christians, and no one else thinks they are. I was willing to weigh the filioque very heavily, and the real energeia-ousia distinction within the divine nature, as well, far more than they deserve. Since you point out the divinity of Christ, that is a point that Orthodoxy and Catholicism share. If your point is that the divinity of Christ is a very significant difference between Muslims and Catholics, then I employ your point and say that it is a fortiori a strong point of doctrinal commonality between Catholics and Orthodox Christians, and part of what makes them both doctrinally Christian. So, fine, I will weight that one in at, say $50. And the Trinity, let’s put that at another $5o. The fully human nature of Christ, let’s price that at $25. The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? The necessity and efficacy of Baptism? Those should be more than a $1, but they don’t have to be. The inerrancy of scripture, should that be $10 or $1? Angels, demons, the perpetual virginity of Mary, her sinlessness, the role of the Holy Spirit in the production of sacred scripture, the Incarnation, the role of the Father in the begetting of the divine nature of the Son, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, and so on and so on. Should the canonicity of the seven books of the deuterocanon be $1 or $7? Should the sacraments be $1 because the Orthodox call them Mysteries, or $7, because they recognize all seven under that name?
As the tally of similarities grows, can anyone point out any other differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy? Significant ones like the divinity of Christ as a deal breaker between Islam and Christians?
If not, then Teresa’s point stands unrefuted.
This whole original argument was started because Theresa Rice claimed special status for the Catholic Church as the true church founded by Christ.
And then was challenged on the historical accuracy of that statement.
To turn around and say that other churches which are not in full communion with the Catholic Church are effectively the same as the Catholic Church, as long as they believe the fundamental precepts of Christianity, is to nullify the original statement. Either the Catholic Church has a unique historical claim to being the Church founded by Christ or it doesn’t.
I’m not the one who declared the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy to be out of full communion with each other. If you think that the differences are given more weight than they deserve in creating that separation, I suggest you address your complaints to the Pope.
“To turn around and say that other churches which are not in full communion with the Catholic Church are effectively the same as the Catholic Church, as long as they believe the fundamental precepts of Christianity, is to nullify the original statement”
“Not in full communion” means Not Fully Catholic. It does not mean “fully out of communion”, i.e., Not At All Catholic. The original statement was about “the best way” not “the only way”, so it stands. It is not nullified by a recognition of the Eastern Orthodox Churches as Christian, i.e., as Catholics in a partial communion rendered imperfect by schism (which is not heresy, not doctrinal separation).
I’m not objecting the ahistorical claim that the Catholic Church is the unique, best way to heaven. If you want to make that claim on spiritual grounds, I can’t disprove it.
I’m objecting to the historical claim that the Catholic Church is the unique historical successor to the early church (“the Church that Christ founded”). Specifically, I responded to the question “Prior to the Great Schism can you name a different denomination of Christianity?” by pointing out the existence of the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East. I have no interest in claiming that those denominations are not Christian. Merely that they’re not the same thing as the Catholic Church, which, unless you’re prepared to argue that imperfection is the same thing as perfection, it seems you must concede.
But you also need to look at the context of my question. I was talking about doctrines and whether early Christianity and the Catholic Church held the same basic doctrines. Which they do. Is there any evidence which point out that 1) Peter was not the first Pope? 2)That Jesus didn’t hand Peter the Keys to His Church? and 3) that another church is Christ’s Church? 4)Any direct lineage to disprove that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded? Plus, is there any historical evidence which shows that the Assyrian and Oriental Orthodox Churches existed prior to the Catholic Church or at the time the Catholic Church’s inception?
But I do give you kudos for giving me two separate Christian churches which were in existence prior to the Great Schism. But my point was more about orthodoxy, doctrines, since some in this thread claimed that early Christianity was different or believed in different doctrines than the Catholic Church.
The doctrines of the Catholic Church are CONSISTENT with the doctrines of the early church, because the doctrines of the early church were not specified in as much detail as those of the Catholic Church. It’s not that the early church was dyophysite, and miaphysitism arose as a heresy; best as I can tell, the Christology at the time of the Council of Nicaea simply didn’t recognize the distinction.
That’s the answer to all of your questions, really. There was, at one time, one church (well, debatably, but I’m not going to argue about pre-Council of Nicaea divisions). And the modern Catholic Church is descended from that church. But it’s not the ONLY descendant from that Church, and there’s no historical reason to consider it the one true or perfect descendant of that church. There may be ahistorical reasons: if you believe that the Holy Spirit has revealed that the modern Catholic Church is the true and perfect descendant, no amount of historical data is going to affect that conclusion.
And the issue of the primacy of Rome has come up repeatedly, and it is important, so I’ll address specifically:
Even though that’s pushing the definition of “historical”.
Historically, this was not universally given the same meaning given to it by the modern Catholic Church. The keys were given to Peter, not the Patriarch of Rome (indeed, the Patriarchate of Rome was not a title Peter held at that time, nor is it the only Patriarchate Peter held in his life). The primacy of Peter was historically understood, variously, to affirm the importance of all bishops, under Apostolic Succession, and to affirm the traditional expanded role of the Petrine sees, which included not only Rome but also Alexandria and Antioch.
And the title “pope” was historically used for many senior churchmen, not just the Patriarch of Rome, and is indeed still used by the Eastern and Oriental Patriarchs of Alexandria, too.
@Kevin Rice
It’s interesting that you feel sufficiently authoritative to decide for other people whether they are Christians or not. There are indeed people who do not accept Christ’s divinity but who live by his precepts and call themselves Christian. They are no more misguided than you.
@Gordon Hide
I like how you put that little block of text in there. I have to get that code. It’s cool.
“It’s interesting that you feel sufficiently authoritative to decide for other people whether they are Christians or not.”
That’s not what’s happening. Christianity already has its meaning, particularly with its foundational dogmas which cannot taken away on a whim, so I am not adding anything or re-adding what others took away (they didn’t, they can’t.) The meaning of Christianity is not up for grabs. It’s meaning is sufficiently fixed that I don’t get to add to it, and others do not get to subtract from it. I’m not the one exercising a power of authority to make decisions. It’s the people who make the decision to reject the divinity of Christ who put themselves outside a meaningful Christian identity, preferring, I suppose, for whatever reason, an identity with a label evacuated of its meaning. THAT is what we can decide with regard to Christianity, or any other identity that is already fixed in meaning: whether to to conform to an identity that already exists or not do so. If I chose to worship multiple gods in the Norse or Greek pantheon and call myself a Muslim I might be able to get a bunch of people to come along with me and do likewise, but we would be calling ourselves something that we were NOT. Those who choose to call themselves Christian but reject Christ’s divinity call themselves something they are not. I don’t have any power of decision over what it means to be Christian. Not even the Pope has the authority with respect to Catholics, to stretch the meaning of Christian identity to the breaking point by including those who reject Christ’s divinity in that category. That was decided long, long ago.
Do you not get that fact that some words and ideas have fixed meanings that are not open to radical change even by very large numbers of people?
@Kevin Rice
Look up the dictionary definitions of Christian. You’ll find that some don’t specify that Christ has to be divine. Here is an example:
“Christ” also has various definitions not all of which confer divinity.
You seriously want me to check dictionaries and give the most weight to the least informative of them?
I want you to have some idea how it feels to get a response like that, so I am going to use a paint you a vivid word portrait. Imagine making a very telling point in a stimulating discussion, and the person you are talking to says, “Oh, but on the contrary, what about the matter of…”, and then suddenly freezes, starts to shake, lets out a long, loud, unbroken nineteen second fart, then mumbles an apology, tries to get his train of thought back, stutters, stammers unintelligibly for about a minute and a half, and then vomits all over you. Imagine the embarrassment and shame you would feel on his behalf, and you’ll get the idea.
On the plus side, it stimulated a bit of creativity. I determined to invent an emoticon I could use on occasions like this in the future, which I will unveil now.
:-X*)
The above emoticon means Excuse Me I Just Threw Up A Little Bit In My Mouth
@Kevin Rice
What I want you to do is “get your mind right”, (with apologies to Cool Hand Luke).
Why on Earth would you want to deny people who self identify as Christians the right to do so however flimsy you believe their reasons to be? Do you want the world to be divided on matters of theology forever?
Fortunately language is a dynamic thing over which nobody has control. So neither you nor the Catholic Church nor anybody else gets to define meaning for all time, (or even for today).
@GordonHide
“Why on Earth would you want to deny people who self identify as Christians the right to do so however flimsy you believe their reasons to be?”
You think I want to deny someone a right to self-identify as Christian even if they are not? Well I don’t. I don’t care what people call themselves, and if someone handed me the power enforce accurate religious self-identification I would refuse it. Intelligent people know better than to take superficial self-selected labels at face value without inquiring into what those using them mean by them, so there is little or no danger of my being taken in by a bogus claim to be Christian. Call yourself whatever you wish, but calling yourself something that you are not does not change what you are. Abraham Lincoln once asked, “How many legs does a sheep have if we call its tail a leg?” He went on to say that the answer is still four, because calling a tail a leg does not make it one.
“Do you want the world to be divided on matters of theology forever?”
Do you think that divisions on matters of theology can be eliminated by evacuating the words people use of their meaning so that no one can communicate matters of lingering objective difference that will remain even after we are all dumbed down, but no longer have any way of addressing them by talking? That will not work. When we are no longer able to talk meaningfully about our differences, we are left with no other way to address each other with regard to them except by force.
@Kevin Rice
I see you are still trying to control the language on behalf of those you defer to. The difference between the number of legs on a sheep and the word Christian is that the number of legs on a sheep is not in dispute whereas there is a wide diversity of opinion on what constitutes a Christian.
Recognising that other people use words differently is part of understanding them and avoiding conflict. You certainly can’t avoid conflict by insisting that they use your or your faction’s interpretation.
From my point of view there are no primary historical sources which even attest to the existence of Jesus Christ much less anything he said or did. To me the point of view of all Christians is based on myth and is equally not worth getting hot under the collar about.
@GordonHide
“Recognising that other people use words differently is part of understanding them and avoiding conflict. You certainly can’t avoid conflict by insisting that they use your or your faction’s interpretation.”
I keep saying that I don’t insist that other people adjust their self-identification on my account. How can you keep not believing me or understanding that? If the Pope can address Justin Welby as the Most Reverend and Right Honourable Archbishop of Canterbury even though it is the teaching of the Catholic Church that the Anglican Church has no valid episcopal consecration and therefore their Christian communion technically has no bishops, then why would I go out of my way to dispute someone’s self-chosen identity in my communication with him or her? I would not, and when the opportunity has presented itself, I have not. I have had many a pleasant discussion with Jehovah’s Witnesses who come to my door . I welcome their visits. I have never, in those discussions, labelled them as contemporary adherents to the Arian heresy or denied them the Christian identity they lay claim to. If they were to ask me whether I believed they were Christians in the traditional, historically meaningful sense, I would admit to them that I do not. But only if they asked.
When I am speaking ABOUT Christianity, either to no one specifically, or to those who do not self-identify as Christian, charity does not demand as much scrupulous discretion. I can be more candid and not tip-toe around the subject of what Christian identity means. I have been candid here, at the risk of being unfairly accused, by some, of refusing people the right to call themselves what they would. I deny no one that right. But I do no affirm that they have the right to actually change what it means to be Christian for everyone else, so that now, for everyone, it means little or nothing distinctive or coherent.
@Kevin Rice
Because your other statements belie your sincerity. Just as you believe the pope to be you are prepared to be duplicitous about others right to the word Christian for the sake of cordiality. In your own mind you have still reserved the word “Christian” for the use of yourself and like minded Christians.
@GordonHide
There is truly no pleasing you. First I suffer your unjust accusation of needlessly provoking theological conflict with people by insisting that people use my favored terminology. Now you appear to accept that I do not do that, but instead of offering some sort of apology or conciliatory language, you up the ante by calling me a liar because I don’t do that.
I’m right. It doesn’t. I do not attribute duplicity to His Holiness and therefore excuse my own. I take exception to that accusation. I am not duplicitous. I am as candid as need requires and charity allows, as is the Pope. The virtue in that is avoiding needless conflict over theological matters. You seemed to value the avoidance of such conflict when you were accusing me of failing to do that. But now we get to the real meat of your objection: that I still have the nerve to continue to believe what I believe in spite of other people’s non-belief or contrary beliefs. So now we are all supposed to agree with each other and believe the same thing? Is that your idea of avoiding conflict? Everyone toe the line? Everyone “get your mind right”? Everyone just agree to agree Well I am all for unanimity if it is acheived naturally, but how can I, with any sincere effort of mind, simply agree with everyone’s disparate beliefs which contradict each other? How can I “get my mind right” by agreeing with all of them even if they do not agree with each other? Why are they allowed to keep their beliefs, but I must let go of them and effectively empty my mind of any intelligible content including the Law of Non-Contradiction?
What you appear to want — theological unanimity — cannot be achieved unless you adopt a single coherent standard and hold everyone to that standard. That is what you accused me of doing, but really, I do not value theological unanimity at the cost you want me to pay for it. All I am doing is refusing to abandon the standard. Holding people to it is a different matter. I have no power to hold people to it and would refuse such power if it were offered to me. But I will not, on that account, abandon the standard. I will not dumb myself down and placidly accept the reduction of meaningful language and institutions to a homogenous porridge empty of distinctive intelligible content, composed of nothing more than complicated grunts and non-symbols, signs that no longer signify.
@Kevin Rice
No-one is asking you to change your beliefs. I am suggesting you recognise that the word “Christian” has by usage come to mean several different things, (see the dictionaries). and that you would do well to stop secretly believing that you and like minded Christians are the only ones who can legitimately use the word to refer to yourselves.
The meaning of words is created by practical usage. Some words do retain the same meaning over long periods. Others don’t. “Christian” is a word legitimately used by many with different belief tenets. The legitimacy comes from usage not from tradition or scripture. Language is used to transmit meaning from one person to another. As long as it succeeds in this it can be considered legitimate.
Ok. That’s cool.
FWIW, I have never disputed “legitimacy” of “usage”. Does your browser have a Find function for text? If it does, I recommend you use it to confirm this fact. Do a find for “legit”. I use Google Chrome. On this page of comments, that string of letters appears seven times (after this comment is posted, it will be twelve). Of the seven, four are from you, and they are all in the comment to which I am directly responding right now. One of them is from me, but in the context of the discussion from which this exchange broke off, the one in which I was insisting that certain non-Catholics (Eastern Orthodox) are Christians (how ironic is that?). Legitimacy of usage was not what I was insisting on. I was talking about meaningfulness. “a meaningful Christian identity” (from April 28, 2013 at 3:35 pm, which you quoted on April 30, 2013 at 8:30 am.
So, yes, I am saying that those who take refuge in an undisputed legitimacy of usage by self-identifying a Christian without conforming to the historic meaning of that term do so at the expense of a meaningful identity. Is that not so? If you ask someone a question like “What are you?” or “What do you believe” and he says that he is Christian, or better yet, if you ask someone if he is Christian and he says “Yes, I suppose”, do you know enough to tell me any one single thing that he definitely (indisputably) believes or does, or at least ought to believe or do in order for that self-identification not to be mistaken or a lie? Give me just one. Just one, and I can concede the point. But I do not promise to make this easy on you. I will dispute whatever you offer if it is disputable.
“FWIW, I have never disputed “legitimacy” of “usage”. ”
In re-consideration, I no longer insist on this point. While I did not employ the word, some of what I said cannot be understood as consistent an attitude that grants legitimacy to the usage of the words “Christian” and “Christianity” as a self-identification for those whose doctrinal commitments are incompatible with traditional Christian orthodoxy, i.e., acceptance of the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc. Of such people I have said that those who call themselves Christian “Call themselves something they are NOT,” but in retrospect, and due to diligent and admirably persistent debating efforts of GordonHide, I have to judge that such expressions of mine were out of line. Only if those who use that term are, in some sense, claiming to qualify for the category that I just referred to above as “traditional Christian orthodoxy”, would they be calling themselves something they are not, but usually, that is not the case. Instead, they would sooner dispute that label for that claim (i.e., they would not agree with Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and some traditionally oriented mainstream Protestantism should properly be called “traditional Christian orthodoxy”), and that is fine. They are very much within their rights to do that.
So, take a screen shot of this, because you won’t see it very often, but…
…I was wrong.
I’d say time changes all things. By most of the world’s Jewry’s standard (at least at the time of the Reformation, which is what you are talking about), I am not a Jew.
Total nonsense, naturally.
Um… do you not get that *all* words are conventional symbols, and their meaning(s) within a given language community can only be what the members of that language community think they mean? Do you not get that all words in a language are subject to change over time?
You’re welcome to have your definition of the term “Christian”, and you’re welcome to share it with all who agree with you (which set includes many dogmatic atheists as well as dogmatic believers, interestingly enough). You’re even welcome to tell people like me who use the term differently that we’re “wrong”, but that doesn’t actually make us wrong — it just means we have competing definitions.
You could rather more sensibly make a religious claim that God wouldn’t consider someone like me to be Christian — God’s opinion is obviously not subject to conventional usage. On the other hand, God’s opinion is not directly knowable, so your opinion would be mere speculation and still not binding on anyone else.
Could you be misinterpreting what are in the precepts of Christianity? Do you think whatever you think something is makes that word what you think it is? For instance if I was a philosopher and called myself an existentialist but believed human existence to be explainable and didn’t believe in freedom of choice that would be contra to what an existentialist really is or what they believe. That is what Kevin is saying about Christianity. There are certain timeless standards which are supposed to be adhered to, essential principles at the beginning of Christianity that are requirements of Christianity and if one departs from those it isn’t accurate for the person to claim they’re following Christianity. Now if you said you were following a watered down version of Christianity where you don’t follow all of the precepts that make Christianity “Christianity” maybe that’s quasi-Christianity? Would you agree that your version of Christianity departs from Traditional Christianity, the one which arose out of Judaism?
When you say that words meanings change over time and that words meanings within a given language community can only be what the members of that language community think they mean you are essentially admitting that you are a relativist who believes that your opinion changes the meaning of words even if they really mean something different, that you are the one who is changing the definition of the word Christian and departing from it’s authentic definition and precepts.
Could you be confusing being faithful, believing in faith, with Orthodox Christianity? Not necessarily following the precepts which make up Orthodox Christianity but having faith?
Well, let’s take the linguistics first. Perhaps you haven’t thought much about it, but I’m curious to know what you think determines the meanings of words if not common usage?
The purpose of this comment is to test whether I can nest blockquotes.
This is just regular text.
And this should be regular text again
Satisfied with the test.
“You should consider Kyle’s style. Folks like him are the reason I stayed in the faith as long as I did.” Until you left, because that wasn’t enough to keep you in the faith, was it? No big surprise. I left Christianity in my late teens and returned in my late twenties. No one’s “style” could have convinced me to keep the faith once I had rejected it, no matter how accomodating they were.
“There are few things more ironic than Christians using the “he hit me first” defense.”
I can name one: non-Christians admonishing Christians with scripture.
I notice that you are not denying that you were smug first. So why should you be greeted with anything more than that? On what grounds do you imagine that you are entitled to treat believers with thinly veiled contempt while they bend over to kiss your rump? What am I, Amish?
You seem to be laboring under the assumption that I am trying to, or at least supposed to want to, convert you to Catholicism. But I am like Kyle in at least this one respect – I do not care to.
Actually, in my interactions with the Amish I have treated them with far more respect than I would treat a scrub like you.
Name calling? Is that ok here? Can I do it too?
So as long as a person is acquiescent, ambivalent, or agreeable with you beliefs then their ok in your book? But when a person is a defender of their Faith and is on fire for faith, oh no, that’s not acceptable to you.
Catholics sprinkle rather than engage in full immersion baptism.
Seems to me like that gives the game away right there.
FWIW, some Catholic churches still use full immersion, so it’s not a case of either/or/rather-than. I don’t see what game has been given away. Are you suggesting that full immersion baptism is the only valid baptism?
Full immersion baptism of adults is the only kind mentioned in the Bible, and the archaeological evidence suggests it was the kind used by the early church. So churches that practice infant baptism and sprinkling are non-biblical and clearly can’t claim to be the one true church established by Christ. 😉
Actually, there’s better scriptural support for the notion that full immersion is required than there is for the idea that Peter was designated as a pope!
That link was fascinating, especially since the art depicted people being baptized by having water poured over their heads. If that counts as Total Immersion, then I am left scratching my head. Wasn’t there supposed to be a difference between “Total Immersion” and “sprinkling”? Wasn’t that the point?
Well, you missed the tongue-in-cheek aspect, there, didn’t you?
The image of sprinkling does in fact suggest that full immersion must not be necessary. That means you don’t think the biblical evidence–always full immersion–is sufficient grounds for a doctrine of full immersion.
And yet you think the biblical words, “on you I will build my church,” are sufficient grounds for a doctrine as complex as the papacy.
You, sir, have failed to abide by your own standards of interpretive evidence when it became inconvenient. No doubt you will have some explanation for why you really haven’t done so, and no doubt that explanation will be wholly convincing to you.
@James Hanley
“The image of sprinkling does in fact suggest that full immersion must not be necessary. That means you don’t think the biblical evidence–always full immersion–is sufficient grounds for a doctrine of full immersion…And yet you think the biblical words, “on you I will build my church,” are sufficient grounds for a doctrine as complex as the papacy.”
I have made this point already but it is worth repeating: the ground for the papacy is not “the biblical words”, but the actual event conveyed by those words, which is attested to by sacred tradition as well as sacred scripture. I also said that “The text is one (not the sole) basis of our KNOWLEDGE of the origin of the papacy.” (April 27, 6:31 pm)
If there were anything in the Bible that forbade sprinkling, or a consensus of tradition that contradicted the primacy of Peter, you would have a point. Sorry, Mr. Hanley. It was a noble effort on your part. If you have more, I encourage you not to throw up your hands just yet.
Mr. Rice,
The “event” is known only from the biblical text, and the “sacred tradition” is based on the biblical text. There is no source other than the text for deriving the meaning of the event, and the tradition cannot serve as an independent source of meaning for the text, since it is itself based on the biblical text, nor for the act, since we only know of the act from the text. At rock bottom, all we really have is the text, and it’s a tolerably vague one, which is why you’re trying to slip in these other supports. But since they also derive from the text, they’re not independent supports, but themselves depend on that vague text for their own support.
You will try again, of course. Because you are not committed to seeing what is the outcome of the logic, but are committed to forcing the logic to commit your preferred outcome. There is no true discussion to be had with a person like that, because they are not open to logic, not open to a sincere consideration of the logic, which requires accepting the possibility that the belief may not be supported. It’s sad, though. It’s the trap of all ideology, whether religious or political.
Go ahead and make your reply. You can have the last word.
@James Hanley
“The “event” is known only from the biblical text, and the “sacred tradition” is based on the biblical text. There is no source other than the text for deriving the meaning of the event, and the tradition cannot serve as an independent source of meaning for the text, since it is itself based on the biblical text, nor for the act, since we only know of the act from the text. At rock bottom, all we really have is the text”
Sorry, but I just don’t agree. Along with the text there has always been the people and they had mouths. Christianity is not like the religion of the ancient Mayans. We didn’t dig up the gospels and epistles the way we dug up Popul Vuh. At no time was there only text. Oral tradition has been an unbroken source of doctrine and a relatively independent source for the interpretation of the text since the very beginning.
Are you suggesting that full immersion baptism is the only valid baptism?
Would such a suggestion be off-limits?
Even if I were authorized to set limits here, that would not be one of them. It is more than welcome. But FWIW, I do not happen to agree (big surprise, right?). Do you care to support that suggestion with an argument? An etymological one perhaps? That would have a certain surface level plausibility.
I was raised Southern Babtist. We were taught that full immersion was the only valid baptism.
I was told this by people who, you’d think, would know.
Gnosticism is an adversary of Christianity. But if some in this thread (not the author of the post) want to believe it is Christian and opposes Christians in this thread who say Gnosticism is anti-Christian for the sake of opposing people of faith just to display their minimum requirement of ‘tude’ for the day so be it.
But there’s your game right there, Theresa. We say there were multiple Christian churches–and the gnostic Christians claimed to be Christian, of course–and you just declare that, no, contra their own claims, they weren’t actually Christian.
This is just the Catholic Church is setting itself up as the judge in its own case: if a group is similar enough to us, we’ll just define it as actually being a part of us (but what if that group didn’t agree?), and if it’s different enough we’ll just define it as not being…not simply not a part of us, but not Christian (but what if that group didn’t agree?).
It’s a rigged game, which is why it can’t be taken seriously.
“This is just the Catholic Church is setting itself up as the judge in its own case”
Who else is competent to judge Her case?
Wow. OK, then, let’s play your game. Who else is competent to judge whether the Gnostic Christians were actually true Christians than the Gnostic Christians themselves? You can’t answer “the Catholic Church” without devolving back into circularity and question-begging.
@Qub
But that IS my answer. Who else do you think is competent to judge the question NOW? Who are the contemporary unbroken successors of the ancient Gnostics? Mandeans perhaps? Are there any Mandeans here willing to make a case? Or is there anyone willing to take up their cause? Do they have a body of published work you can reference? Let’s explore this – does anyone actually want to make a case that Gnostics were Christians but Catholics weren’t? Or that they were both Christians even though they could hardly be more different and did not consider themselves as in communion with each other at all? Let someone make the case and I will give my whole mind to the fairest hearing of it of which I am capable.
Wow, you are maddening. Your approach to argumentation is so persistently dishonest, so intent on shifting all grounds to those that favor you. There’s no way to ever actually have a meaningful argument with you because whatever answer is given, you will find some way to move the goalposts.
For example, when asked whether the gnostics should be their own judge, you are forced to admit yes, but then you shift the goalposts to whether there are contemporary gnostics, and you ignore that we actually have writings of the Gnostic Christians. So suddenly the actual words of the actual Gnostic Christians of the time don’t count.
But only because you’re a dishonest interlocutor. A scrub. A cheat. Please don’t try to engage me anymore.
No, you stop playing your shell games deflecting from the reality that your arguments are extremely weak and don’t hold water. You’re the one who is deflecting from the original claim about doctrine or doctrines. You haven’t explained how other Christian churches or religions in early Christian times were so, so different from the Catholic Church’s doctrine(s). Could it be due to the fact that most if not all of the Christian churches agreed on a majority of the doctrines? And that yes, many Christian sects in early Christianity ended up forming the Catholic Church?
It’s rigged? So the pot calls the kettle. Huh?
Actually “Kevin Rice” above comment was by me, Teresa.
Qub,
Not surprisingly you missed Kevin’s point. Are there any Gnostics today who can attest to whether history shows early Gnostics and Gnostics today are Christian or Anti-Christian? If not, then we need to look at historical arguments and evidence/examples which show Gnostics are one way or the other. If you have found a bit of evidence to support your claim that Gnostics are Christian could you please cough it up? Show me the evidence with a link because I would love to see something which backs up your position. I have seen a historical example that describes Gnostics as being pessimistic toward Christianity. Would a Christian group be skeptical and look down at their own religion, Christianity?
By your own theory, what makes you, an atheist or agnostic, a legitimate critic of the validity of the historic origins of the Catholic Church? Since you’re not Catholic? I have done plenty of research on the beginning of the Catholic Church and there is nothing to support the notion that this scripture – “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18) – was referencing any other Church than the Catholic Church. There is agreement among early Christians like Tatian the Syrian, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian of Carthage, Firmillian, Optatus and many more that this scripture verse is referring to the Catholic Church and Peter as the first pope.
“By your own theory, what makes you, an atheist or agnostic, a legitimate critic of the validity of the historic origins of the Catholic Church?”
For the enemies of the Catholic Church, standards are not things to be held to consistently, they are convenient sticks with which to beat Her. Any one at hand will do for a time, and they can discarded on a whim. The enemies of the Church will happily burn their own houses down to set Her ablaze. It has ever been thus.
I’m tempted to say something about how the church will actually burn down their houses too, and that it has ever been thus, but doing that would be as silly as the comment it responds to.
For the enemies of the Catholic Church, standards are not things to be held to consistently,
A curious statement, coming from a man who has himself used standards inconsistently.
And a strange thing to assume I am an “enemy” of the Catholic Church, as though I wish it harm. I only dispute it’s claim of being uniquely the one true descendant of the early church. I don’t seek to destroy it, to claim its doctrines are heretical and people should abandon it, or anything of the sort. Granted I don’t believe in any sort of spirit world, but if I’m wrong and Jesus is really God, I assume being Catholic is probably as good a path to heaven as Methodism or Presbyteriansm. But if defining me as an enemy of your church comforts you, then I suppose nothing I can say will deter you from that belief.
“A curious statement, coming from a man who has himself used standards inconsistently.”
I am prepared to hear a charge of inconsistency made against me. I welcome it.
No, you don’t welcome such a charge, and to say you do is a lie. What you welcome is the chance to once again miss the point, move the goalposts, and apply faulty logic to your own satisfaction, but not to that of anyone who’s ever bothered with the study of logic and argument. Your whole argument boils down to “the Catholic Church is the only one true Church and we know it because the Catholic Church says so.” It all boils down to that because everything else you throw out falls back down to “this is the true interpretation because that’s how the Catholic Church interprets it.” Seriously, please study the concept of begging the question (aka circular reasoning). Having studied logic, I am utterly unmoved to grant your arguments any remote semblance of validity because they are all based on this fallacy.
I’m bored, and your inanities truly are a waste of my time. Good bye.
“Your whole argument boils down to “the Catholic Church is the only one true Church and we know it because the Catholic Church says so.”
I deny that what I am doing here can be justly reduced to an attempt advance such an argument. I have been responding to a great many points, and have argued from my vantage point, which is, of course, Catholic. But I have not been trying to prove that the Catholic Church is the one true Church. I have been making separate points, too many to catalog here. If I happen to mention my Catholic ecclesiology while making another point, that’s not the same as arguing for it.
Ehe Church’s biggest problem nowadays being its preference for sweeping problems under the rug rather than admitting and addressing them. I’d suggest ignoring its enemies for now and focusing on its friends.
“I’m bored, and your inanities truly are a waste of my time. Good bye.”
Qub, I seem to remember hearing this sort of thing from you twice before. Cease engaging me, or do not, I really don’t care, but I am not simply going to let the words you have directed at me stand unanswered just because you bow out.
” you ignore that we actually have writings of the Gnostic Christians.”
I asked who is competent to judge the case. Instead of pointing to a judge you point to the documents of the case, but they are not a judge, and the Gnostics who wrote them are all long dead. They are not judges. They are that which is to be judged. Good thing you wimped out. You suck at this.
Coincidentally, those who wrote all the documents of the early Catholic Church are all dead, too. But that double-standard, a most dishonest practice, probably doesn’t bother you. You’ll no doubt posit the Church itself as a living entity, pretending that “it” has an understanding, rather than acknowledging the reality that the Catholic Church has consisted of different men through different times, and that the authors of its early documents are wholly as long gone as the Gnostics.
You’ll do that because it is yet another way to rig the game. Another way to beg the question about the Catholic Church’s specialness by assuming its specialness. I urge you to look up the definitions of begging the question and circular reasoning.
I’m never happy when Christians engage in dishonesty to defend their church or faith. But in contrast to the Protestant fundamentalists, I suspect you do so out of ignorance, an inability to actually grasp the inherent dishonesty of your method, rather than intentional dishonesty.
“You’ll no doubt posit the Church itself as a living entity”
Good one. Exactly right. You’re getting better and better at arguing both sides of this case. Eventually I’ll be able to just sit back and just watch.
The Gnostics who wrote the documents are all gone, and so are the Gnostics. The Catholics who wrote the New Testament are not alive either, BUT THERE ARE STILL CATHOLICS. And we not only preserved our own scriptures, we preserved the Gnostic documents. Your welcome.
“You’ll do that because it is yet another way to rig the game. ”
I say it because I believe it. I guess I am supposed to dumb the case for Catholicism down because it is too good and therefore has an unfair advantage over its opposition on account of Catholicism being true and its opponents being mistaken to the extent that they oppose the truth. But I don’t care to hobble my case to make my opponents more comfortable. I’m sorry, but I just don’t feel sorry for you. You can charge me with petitio principii all you wish, but I remain unmoved because I was willing to fairly hear a case for Gnosticism as authentic Christianity. I still am. Make the case if you wish.
I’ll give $100 to the charity of your choice if you can identify the error of logic in your response. I give you my word.
That’s generous of you. I am sorely tempted. It would be a pro-life charity. Let me think about this.
Do I have to agree with your assessment of my response as advancing the fallacy I identify as the one I think you are charging me with? If I guess the fallacy you had in mind, is that the same as copping to it?
Incidentally, when I said “But that IS my answer,” I was responding to the following remark: “You can’t answer “the Catholic Church” without devolving back into circularity and question-begging.” As I said, BUT THAT — IS — MY ANSWER. The Catholic Church. Not the Gnostics. But I was willing to hear a case made by contemporary successors of the ancient Gnostics. Too bad there aren’t any. Well, not too bad. Not really.
@Jaybird
“I was told this by people who, you’d think, would know.”
Sorry, but I personally wouldn’t assume that at all. I would read the early Church Fathers. I would seek to consult sacred tradition, the present day teachings of the Church that can trace its founding to Christ and his disciples rather than so-called reformers who came along over a millenium and a half and more later.
” “Church founded by Saul of Tarsus”
Not!
Are you saying that the church that broke with Judaism and abandoned all Jewish practices was founded by the guy whose last meal was a Passover Seder? That would be odd indeed.
It’s so like Judaism that any Gentile can see it!
Some do seem to have trouble telling the difference.
Interesting. I find cultural syncretism fascinating. Of course not having any stake in that kind of thing , it’s easy for me to look upon it as just a curiosity. I can understand why some are offended by it, or at least irritated.
Mormons will tell you “seriously, we’re totally Christians!”
Babtists will tell you “seriously, the Mormons totally aren’t.”
Unless there’s an election or something.
One obvious criterion is “Do they worship Christ?” Which puts Mormons, Baptists, and Jews for Jesus all on the same side of the line.
Don’t forget full immersion!
And being a poor QB.
Scoreboard.
“broke with Judaism and abandoned all Jewish practices”
Again, Not!
Christian liturgy has many Jewish roots. Do we still sing Psalms? Do we still read the Torah and other read sacred scriptures of Israel? Do we still sacrifice at an altar? The Church did not require Gentiles to become circumcised, and it dispensed with the propitiatory blood sacrifice since that was perfected by the Messiah, but the New Covenant He instituted at the aforementioned Passover Seder was anticipated by the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel et al, and while it was a new sacrifice, a New Priesthood, it was not unforeseen by the Hebrew prophets. It was just what they said would happen. That’s Jewish enough for me.
Saul of Tarsus was a Jew, too.
Do Christians celebrate the Jewish Sabbath? No, changed the day to make their separation clear. Observe the festivals? No. Practice circumcision? No.
Retcon the Old Testament to rationalize these changes? Yes.
Practice circumcision?
Not to get all weird or tell you all about my life or anything, but there are some Christian sects out there that practice circumcision to the point where it’s just assumed that that’s what you’re going to do to the boy. Or, at least, there were in the 70’s.
The problem with Judaism is that it’s dated. Try something newer, like Christianity.
What was the standard set by the question as it was asked?
“broke with Judaism AND abandon ALL Jewish practices.” (emphasis in caps mine)
All I had to do to falsify that statement was bring up one Jewish practice that was not abandoned. I did more than that, as I reject that statement in totum, so I definitely met the burden of refutation.
Yes, Christians do breathe oxygen and exhale CO2, just like Jews.
Very snarky. I mentioned the reading of Hebrew scriptures and the singing of Psalms. Those were pretty exclusively Jewish when Christians inherited those Jewish practices. Much in traditional Christian liturgies, Catholic and Orthodox, is an inheritance from the first century Judaism out of which Christianity sprang, so your flippant remark is irrelevant. You fail.
Kevin,
Aren’t both of those common with the Karaites?
I think, sir, you fail.
ROFL. Elijah would scald you for even thinking of a “New Covenant.”
@Kimmi
Elijah does not need you to speak for him regarding the New Covenant. He is already on the record (Matthew 17:1–9, Mark 9:2–8, Luke 9:28–36), as prophetically anticipated (Malachi 4:5). So were other prophets (Jeremiah et al ).
Not having read your holy book, I must ask: are they having the dead speak? Because it was certainly my impression that Elijah was quite dead well before Jesus walked the earth.
@Kimmi
“Aren’t both of those common with the Karaites?”
So?
“I think, sir, you fail.”
Why? The point was not that ONLY Christians inherited Jewish practices. Karaites are Jews. Of course JEWS inherit Jewish practices! That has no relevance to the point about whether Christianity, as a movement that developed out of First Century Judaism, inherited Jewish practices. If you think your point has any relevance, then I think, Kimmi, that your failure is epic.
Karaites are NOT Jews, and they never were.
I am merely pointing out that by following written scripture, you are not following anything that makes Judaism unique.
I could also mention the black folks who claim to be descendants of Jews and who believe in Jesus, but also follow the Torah. But I won’t name them Christian, as they aren’t.
@Kimmi
“Not having read your holy book, I must ask: are they having the dead speak? Because it was certainly my impression that Elijah was quite dead well before Jesus walked the earth.”
Not having read the Bible, and thus having no idea what you were talking about, you still felt confortable speaking for Elijah as if you knew what he would say about the New Covenant. Shame on you. If you wish to be informed about which you speak, you would do well to find a Bible and turn to 2nd Kings 2:11, and read of Elijah and the chariot of fire.
“Karaites are NOT Jews, and they never were.”
You should compare notes with Gordon Hide. He seems to think that religious identities, and indeed all ideas, meanings, words, and definitions, are totally up for grabs. Anyone can call himself anything and we are as obliged to respect their claim, however baseless and devoid of historical support or conceptual continuity as we are someone else’s more supported and historically founded claim. He just suggested that I cross check dictionaries regarding the definition of Christianity and allow the least informative of them to carry the most weight. For my part, withe Karaites, I was going with wikipedia, which I suppose could be wrong, but then, I have even less confidence in your reliability as a source of information. You have (and continue) to show your inability to grasp a simple point. This whole Karaite thing has no relevance and never did.
The above comment from Teresa was supposed to be mine. Sharing a computer with as spouse can be a bummer 🙁