View Full Version : Thought there might...
Soundbear
10-10-2007, 10:55 PM
..be something interesting to read when I got home.
What happened???
You'll just have to post something.
Soundbear
10-11-2007, 08:27 AM
You had a question up. Just wondering why it was gone.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You'll just have to post something.
</div></div>
As you can see, the task of posting something that was of interest was simply too much for Barry to handle.
Barry, I am to busy to get involved in any discussions that require more research than what I am already doing. So I have decided against being 'controversial'. For now.
Speedy, you'll be interested to know that I am studying the Catechism. I gotta tell you, there are such finely nuanced paragraphs in there, it is very difficult to determine what the church believes in some cases.
Batman
10-11-2007, 08:26 PM
It's called 'holy ambiguity'. That was promoted in a Baptist church I once attended as a way of trying to 'keep the peace'. The idea was that if you were ambigious enough with a certain teaching or idea that everyone could interpret that teaching or idea to their own liking so we would all walk around thinking we were in agreement. The trouble was that most of us were not comfortable with that so when we pressed an issue to determine just exactly what it was that was being passed onto us, that's when the 'mess hit the fan' so to speak and the congregation had enough.
I think parts of the Catholic Catechism are written with the same 'holy ambiguity' idea in mind. The idea is that when someone presses a leader (or priest) about a certain part, the leader can then tell the member that the teaching means exactly what they think it means. This works so long as you have the person in private. it backfires when you're in a general membership meeting and the leaders are pressed about what they mean 'exactly'. That's what I had the unfortunate experience of witnessing.
I am not familiar enough with the Catholic Church to say but I'm only guessing that there are no 'general membership meetings' like this to give opportunity for disagreements to arise. So the ambiguity works. I guess.
Well, I am finding out that what the official teaching is and what the average Catholic believer actually believes can be very disparate indeed. I suppose the same could be said of many Protestant churches as well. But not to the same degree of disparity on very important issues.
Such as the distinctions between the veneration of Mary, and the worship of God and the honour given to the angels and saints.
Officially, Mary is not worshipped. But does the average Catholic know the difference between latreia, hyperdulia and dulia*?
*google it...
Soundbear
10-12-2007, 12:33 PM
Batman, would you please specify the doctrines that were "ambiguous" in those cases? Just interested.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Barry, I am to busy to get involved in any discussions that require more research than what I am already doing. So I have decided against being 'controversial'. For now.
Speedy, you'll be interested to know that I am studying the Catechism. I gotta tell you, there are such finely nuanced paragraphs in there, it is very difficult to determine what the church believes in some cases.
</div></div>
That's interesting, because I think the Catechism takes away any ambiguity.
That is, without a doubt, the number one reason I was drawn back into the RCC. There is a definitive source of authority, as explained in the Catechism. With all due respect, Protestantism has practially choked to death on its lack of authority.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Officially, Mary is not worshipped. But does the average Catholic know the difference between latreia, hyperdulia and dulia*?</div></div>
You guys like to run with the "does the average Catholic know..." line, but that makes little sense in the overall premise of it all.
Does the "average" Protestant know everything he should? Some do, some don't.
Does the "average" Catholic know everything he should? Some do, some don't.
Your argument fails quickly.
Batman
10-13-2007, 01:03 PM
Barry there were several things that all boiled down to 'who's in charge?'. The egalitarian idea of women holding the same offices of authority as men in church (pastors and elders) was held by a very small minority. This small minority banded together to manipulate the male leadership into agreeing with their position by offering to 'help the overworked and underpaid male leadership' by taking some of the burdensome responsibility off their shoulders. That is what they told the men they were 'helping'. Everyone else got to hear 'through the gossip grapevine' how lazy and irresponsible the men were by not taking responsibility for things they should be so the women have to do it. This minority managed to lose a large portion of membership by holding a general membership meeting to discuss whether or not we should allow a man to wear a dress in church or not.
Now this led to lack of confidence in the leadership which opened the door for the small minority to 'feed the flock' as it were their ideas that they claimed were 'not theirs but come from the first century church' etc.. etc.. From that point on, any male trying to exercise any kind of authority or question anything was viewed with suspicion so much so that they were manipulated into silence lest they be accused of being labeled a male chauvenist homophobic bigot.
Scripture took a back seat in general meetings to popular psychology and secular business principles. A group-think mentality emerged so much so that I was told at a Deacon's meeting that we must all agree on a decision and there is no room for voting on anything. That's when I knew it was time to leave. I had only agreed to be a deacon there in the hopes of restoring some semblance of 'the church that once was'. It didn't work. We saw the membership of that church go from over 200 members 15 years ago to the remaining 15 that it has today.
There was also a 'scripturally challenged' pastor there as well who 'visualized' a Jesus that needed his (the pastor's) protection. His Jesus really wanted to destroy the Romans who crucified him and his obedience to his father was reluctant. That's how much Jesus was just like us. He also admitted in a small group that he did not pray for the Holy Spirit's guidance when preparing a sermon or when reading the Bible. He had been to Bible college and knew it all anyway. So it's easy to see why power hungry feminists were able to diminish the church.
That is about as specific as I will get here on a public message board. I may even be criticised for being too public about it I don't know. If you want to know more then PM me and we can discuss it more in email.
Soundbear
10-13-2007, 02:41 PM
Your wording is interesting, especially on the egalitarian issue.
Curious. Does your understanding of scripture go as far as head coverings??
And exactly where does this come from:
"...whether or not we should allow a man to wear a dress in church or not"
Batman
10-13-2007, 02:54 PM
Okay Barry. I did say I would discuss it privately and not here. thanks.
Soundbear
10-13-2007, 03:34 PM
Heaven forbid that we should be too public with things that we would preach from our pulpits if necessary.
The church is too damn political.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Barry, I am to busy to get involved in any discussions that require more research than what I am already doing. So I have decided against being 'controversial'. For now.
Speedy, you'll be interested to know that I am studying the Catechism. I gotta tell you, there are such finely nuanced paragraphs in there, it is very difficult to determine what the church believes in some cases.
</div></div>
That's interesting, because I think the Catechism takes away any ambiguity.
That is, without a doubt, the number one reason I was drawn back into the RCC. There is a definitive source of authority, as explained in the Catechism. With all due respect, Protestantism has practially choked to death on its lack of authority.
</div></div>
No Protestant church I know of claims infallibility.
That is the issue with the RCC.
We can be wrong in our teaching office.
The Pope/magisterium cannot be.
Yet there is some ambiguity.
Batman
10-13-2007, 04:36 PM
Okay Barry. Here is some free advice. Sometimes when someone says they will discuss things 'privately and not publically' it does not mean they are trying not to offend people. Sometimes it just means that it is an emotional and personal experience that they would rather not discuss publically.
That was my family church for more than 20 years. My family was one of the founding families there. Issues that arose there also split families and not just the church. So please forgive me if I don't want to relive that whole experience openly here on a public board.
Now if you want to discuss it privately I will. If you have followed any of my posting in the past you will see that I do not come here to engage in controversy. If you want to be contentious that is your business, not mine. You asked a question and I answered it. I'm sorry you did not like my answer.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yet there is some ambiguity. </div></div>
Okay, we know you feel that way. This is the second time you've said as much in the last few days.
Now, the next step is to show examples of that 'ambiguity'.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We can be wrong in our teaching office. </div></div>
Yet Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit into the word after He was gone in order to keep us from falsehoods.
God fails again, if you believe as Aydeloof does in this situation.
God either has a source for infallible teaching above and beyond the human mind's capability, or He does not. According to Aydeloof, it's a crapshoot on if you're right or not...there is no way to know 100%.
I could never believe the 'God of all Creation' would be so slipshod.
Umm, the question of whose interpretation works on both sides of the argument, for there are scholars in the RC community who interpret these infallible teachings in different ways.
I have just read of the two-source theory of authority and the single source theory. Is Trent definitive or Vatican II on this issue? Does Vatican II contradict Trent? The language is nuanced to include both positions, it seems.
Again, you'll need to provide examples of "scholars in the RC community who interpret these infallible teachings in different ways".
http://percaritatem.blogspot.com/2007/05/part-i-heiko-oberman-on-scripture-and.html
I'm still working my way through this issue.
Soundbear
10-15-2007, 11:20 AM
Batman, you said the following words:
...manipulate the male leadership .... gossip grapevine' .... we should allow a man to wear a dress in church or not.... lack of confidence .... manipulated into silence .... male chauvenist homophobic bigot....
Scripture took a back seat....power hungry feminists...
And then you think that I am trying to be contentious?????? Oddly enough, we have church wreckers up here who speak the same way!!!
I have hoped over the years that we might have some substantive discussion on these issues here, but it really seems to me that those involved in church ministry are much more concerned about political correctness than talking about problems, even in an anonymous setting such as this.
Let me tell you this. I take an egalitarian point of view. But on the elders board of my church, I never, never, ever pushed it. It would only cause problems to do so. As far as the discussions ever went was to instruct our convention delegates NOT to vote on the issue, because the elders had no consensus. And did this affect the church?? Nope, not one little bit.
So, about the only thing I'm really wondering is about is this man in a dress thing. What's up with that?? A cross-dresser???
Batman
10-15-2007, 11:29 AM
You are right Barry. I should not have posted anything about that on this site. When you first asked the question I should have responded to you privately. I apologize.
Soundbear
10-15-2007, 11:39 AM
The dress??? Please, please!!!
Batman
10-15-2007, 01:12 PM
Okay. I sent you a PM about that.
Soundbear
10-15-2007, 03:27 PM
Thanks.
Nothing like the whole truth.
peterparker_sault
10-15-2007, 10:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, I am finding out that what the official teaching is and what the average Catholic believer actually believes can be very disparate indeed. I suppose the same could be said of many Protestant churches as well. But not to the same degree of disparity on very important issues.
Such as the distinctions between the veneration of Mary, and the worship of God and the honour given to the angels and saints.
Officially, Mary is not worshipped. But does the average Catholic know the difference between latreia, hyperdulia and dulia*?
*google it...
</div></div>
Well, the average Catholic would tell you Christ was born in December and the Jesus was the Immaculate Conception. I've found that most ALL Catholics can be summed up by the South Side Chicago Irish adage of "Most Catholics don't believe much, but what they believe, they believe fully"
Mostly I say, if it helps keep it, if not throw it away. But that's probably the adage that's paving my way to hell.
j
That adage doesn't help. I guess I'll toss it! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif
Seriously, utilitarianism cannot be your only test for truth, can it? Do you care about truth? Or do you just care about 'what works for you'?
peterparker_sault
10-15-2007, 11:17 PM
What I care about, and what is attainable are not always in sync, and in questions of faith most often mutually exclusive. About the ONLY truth I know is that we are here. My faith says that was no accident, although there is no proof of that (faith comes from doubt). Beyond this, I can not say, nor will I ever be able to PROVE, nor frankly, will anyone be able to PROVE to me, as there are no facts left that have not been tampered with. So what I'm left with is, what makes sense, what can I compute and make sense out of, and what, tempered with the right amount of faith and doubt, can be not only possible, but plausible. It would be difficult to sum up my beliefs in an online post, or even a book for that matter. In keeping with true honesty, I probably don't consciously know what my beliefs are until they are questioned, as I don't spend much time any more trying to figure them out, and now they are much like knee jerk responses, which is how I know they are mine. Are this instant responses divine? I don't think so, but even this is unknown to me.
But hey... that's what freedom of (and more importantly from) religion is all about I guess... who am I to say.
j
peterparker_sault
10-15-2007, 11:18 PM
Oh yhea... I forgot to answer... I guess I just care about what works for me... selfish hey?
(Grin)
j
Rats! And here I thought you wanted a real substantial discussion.
You've eliminated all possibility of that by saying,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">here is no proof of that (faith comes from doubt). Beyond this, I can not say, nor will I ever be able to PROVE, nor frankly, will anyone be able to PROVE to me, as there are no facts left that have not been tampered with.</div></div>
There's much more than proof to life. And if you prefer freedom FROM religion, this is the wrong forum.
peterparker_sault
10-15-2007, 11:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Rats! And here I thought you wanted a real substantial discussion.
You've eliminated all possibility of that by saying,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">here is no proof of that (faith comes from doubt). Beyond this, I can not say, nor will I ever be able to PROVE, nor frankly, will anyone be able to PROVE to me, as there are no facts left that have not been tampered with.</div></div>
There's much more than proof to life. And if you prefer freedom FROM religion, this is the wrong forum.
</div></div>
Oh contrair, I don't need to agree or disagree with a point to discuss or debate it... I'm american for pete's sake I don't even need need truth. (LOL... oh I kill me)... Seriously folks, I'm here 3 nights a week, try the contry fried stake.
And besides, this forum is EXACTLY where some one who appreciates freedom of AND from religion should be.
J
peterparker_sault
10-15-2007, 11:45 PM
why... are you in possesion of unaltered facts? If so we should talk... /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
j
Soundbear
10-16-2007, 08:34 AM
"..unaltered facts.."
Hmmmm.
Peter, you said that, "About the ONLY truth I know is that we are here."
I understand that Christian Scientists believe that life is but a dream, so I guess that possibility might be a problem.
I think this is the essence of the problem, "...nor frankly, will anyone be able to PROVE to me,..." Lots of folks here have it.
peterparker_sault
10-16-2007, 06:47 PM
My opinion is not in contrast to that statement. Weather we are HERE in reality, or only here in a dream state, we are still here (here on earth or here in the dream... right?)
So I kindly thank you for agreeing with me. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
J
Soundbear
10-17-2007, 08:28 AM
I certainly will agree that one cannot nail jello to a wall!!!!
kalam
10-17-2007, 12:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I certainly will agree that one cannot nail jello to a wall!!!! </div></div>
Don't be so sure...!
How to Nail Jello to a Wall (http://www.myscienceproject.org/j-wall.html)
KaL
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.7 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.