tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post2115051397038192153..comments2024-03-29T05:55:32.588-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Ten years onEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78374843312206452252011-09-18T09:56:34.589-07:002011-09-18T09:56:34.589-07:00Brian,
I started reading this link...
Ecclesial ...Brian,<br /><br />I started reading this link...<br /><br />Ecclesial Deism: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/<br /><br />...but got so frustrated with the author's underhanded tactics I could not continue.<br /><br />He uses a lot of 'bait and switch', 'guilt by association', and 'false equivalencies' in his presentation. <br /><br />For instance, he starts off by comparing Mormonism to Protestantism. He draws a false equivalency between the two factions based on one similarity: that both reject the Catholic church as the divine authority. What he's doing here is sneaky: he's using a church that most Protestants would call a 'cult' and equating it to Protestantism because of this one similarity. He obviously does this for effect.<br /><br />What he ignores here is that Mormonism and Catholicism are actually <i>more alike</i> than Mormonism and Protestantism: Both churches hold to extra-biblical dogma; both believe this dogma was passed down by the 'true' succession from the Apostles to a present day hierarchy; for both, that hierarchy includes a leader who speaks with divine authority (the Pope and the Prophet); and both believe that scripture can only be correctly interpreted by <i>their</i> hierarchy. The authority of both churches are rejected by Protestants <i>for these reasons</i>. Yet he finds one similarity between the two churches and lumps them together for effect.<br /><br />Next, he equates the belief in a universal spiritual church to 'Gnosticism'. This too I found underhanded. Again, as with Mormonism, he presents obvious heretical belief, (the 'bait') and then equates that with a rejection of Catholic authority (the 'switch'.)<br /><br />Finally, after disparaging those who would hold the bible to be the authority on disputed matters, he then <i>quotes the bible</i> and says this: <br /><br />"The distinction between these two kinds of faith follows from the distinction between <i>the Gnostic conception of the Church</i> [meaning those that hold to the bible alone as authority] and <i>the biblical conception of the Church</i> [meaning those who <i>reject</i> the bible alone as authority] as a living and hierarchically unified Body." [my italics and comments in brackets.]<br /><br />I find this amazing!! I actually quit reading at this point. I could go no further. He calls those who hold to the bible "Gnostic", then quotes the bible in order to make the claim that those who hold to extra-biblical teachings are "biblical"!!! An obvious attempt to have his cake and eat it too!<br /><br />Maybe your other links are better, I don't know. At this point I'm not really interested in anything similar in style to this article.Daniel Smithhttp://thefoolishnessofgod.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4613316368106109092011-09-18T04:03:44.411-07:002011-09-18T04:03:44.411-07:00I think the discussion about which Christian theol...I think the discussion about which Christian theology or which Christian church is the true one is irrelevant, and actually misleading. An idea or an institution works for the truth to the degree it is illuminated by the character of Christ and to the degree it guides one to walk the path of Christ. The issue is to follow Christ, and if a Protestant is guided by her church to follow Christ then she is following the truth. All Christian churches are members of the body of Christ. <br /><br />Some speak as if the truth was a property of some particular church. But ultimately truth is not a thing to be possessed or even a thing to be thought about or to be learned or to be taught. Truth is the divine person Himself and can only be known by acquaintance. And it’s not like Christ is in one but not in the other church; rather all Christian churches are in Christ. And any church is true and authoritative in that it teaches the path towards Christ.Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63196325625442864422011-09-18T04:02:55.229-07:002011-09-18T04:02:55.229-07:00I think the discussion about which Christian theol...I think the discussion about which Christian theology or which Christian church is the true one is irrelevant, and actually misleading. An idea or an institution works for the truth to the degree it is illuminated by the character of Christ and to the degree it guides one to walk the path of Christ. The issue is to follow Christ, and if a Protestant is guided by her church to follow Christ then she is following the truth. All Christian churches are members of the body of Christ. <br /><br />Some speak as if the truth was a property of some particular church. But ultimately truth is not a thing to be possessed or even a thing to be thought about or to be learned or to be taught. Truth is the divine person Himself and can only be known by acquaintance. And it’s not like Christ is in one but not in the other church; rather all Christian churches are in Christ. And any church is true and authoritative in that it teaches the path towards Christ.Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44451297030546221782011-09-16T16:00:06.215-07:002011-09-16T16:00:06.215-07:00beng: "Paul, Apollos and Cephas were a part o...beng: <i>"Paul, Apollos and Cephas were a part of a single community with one faith, one Lord, one baptism. Nowadays Christians are a part of multiple communities with many faith, many Lords [...]and many baptism [...] So the comparison really fails."</i><br /><br />There were plenty of schisms and differences of belief even in the early church. Many New Testament passages deal with this - including disagreements between Paul and Peter.<br /><br /><i>"Then how do you know that they (the "remnant") exist?"</i><br /><br />Because God says so.<br /><br /><i>How do you know you are the inheritor of their faith?</i><br /><br />I don't know for sure, I put my faith in the grace and mercy of God and in the sacrifice of Jesus.<br /><br /><i>"Do you actually know their article of believes"</i><br /><br />Why do you keep acting like this is some human institution with "articles of faith" etc? I've explained what it is - a spiritual entity with no man-made articles of faith.<br /><br /><i>"(please don't say the Bible, because people of different believes claim that Bible is their sole infallible authority yet come up with contradictory believes)"</i><br /><br />Precisely why I don't embrace any man-made institution's interpretation of the bible.<br /><br /><br /><i>"It seems that you have never really carefully thought about these things."</i><br /><br />On the contrary, I've spent a lot of time seriously thinking about these things.Daniel Smithhttp://thefoolishnessofgod.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78258370861189265482011-09-16T15:48:36.298-07:002011-09-16T15:48:36.298-07:00Brian: "you are articulating thoughts that yo...Brian: <i>"you are articulating thoughts that you don't know are incoherent. So only God knows who is a true believer? That means that you don't know that you are a true believer."</i><br /><br />That's correct. I may <i>think</i> I'm a true believer, but I may deceive myself. Only God knows for sure. I don't find that incoherent at all. I've spent the better part of my life thinking about these things.<br /><br /><i>"I think you will be as refreshed when you study historic and orthodox Christianity. I will post again links that I really hope you read:"</i><br /><br />I may take a look at your links, (probably not though). There's really not much chance of me becoming a Catholic (unless they suddenly abandon most of what they believe about Mary and praying to the saints!) I was <i>raised</i> a Catholic, I've had countless discussions with Catholics, including priests, about these things. I'm really past the point of convincing on that subject.Daniel Smithhttp://thefoolishnessofgod.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-70053914287983762752011-09-15T22:38:53.965-07:002011-09-15T22:38:53.965-07:00To paraphrase the Apostle: "One of you says, ...<b>To paraphrase the Apostle: "One of you says, “I follow the pope”; another, “I follow Luther”; another, “I follow Calvin”; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was the pope crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Luther?"</b><br /><br />Paul, Apollos and Cephas were a part of a single community with one faith, one Lord, one baptism.<br /><br />Nowadays Christians are a part of multiple communities with many faith, many Lords (if we consider the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarian have trinitarian baptism but deny Christ's divinity) and many baptism (many Protestants reject Catholic baptism). So the comparison really fails.<br /><br /><b><i>"But you said yourselves there are remnant who keep the true faith. Which one? (it goes without saying that this remnant must go back from 2011AD to 33AD)."</i><br /><br />Their names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life. I don't claim to know who is and isn't a true believer - only God knows for sure.</b><br /><br />Then how do you know that they (the "remnant") exist? How do you know you are the inheritor of their faith? Do you actually know their article of believes (please don't say the Bible, because people of different believes claim that Bible is their sole infallible authority yet come up with contradictory believes)?<br /><br /><br />It seems that you have never really carefully thought about these things.bengnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46320110424540621282011-09-15T19:03:12.121-07:002011-09-15T19:03:12.121-07:00Daniel Smith, you don't know that you don'...Daniel Smith, you don't know that you don't know. You know those smug, ignorant atheists that come to this site and no next to nothing about philosophy or theology - well, you are nothing quite like that, but I only draw the comparison in this narrow sense: you are articulating thoughts that you don't know are incoherent. So only God knows who is a true believer? That means that you don't know that you are a true believer.<br /><br />Protestantism is really a janky, janky mess. Your site says that you are Thomist, so perhaps I am not mistaken in assuming that you agree with Feser about the errors of modern philosophy - how janky it is. I think you will be as refreshed when you study historic and orthodox Christianity. I will post again links that I really hope you read:<br /><br />Christ Founded a Visible Church: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/06/christ-founded-a-visible-church/<br /><br />St. Thomas Aquinas on the Relation of Faith to the Church:<br />http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/02/st-thomas-aquinas-on-the-relation-of-faith-to-the-church/<br /><br />Ecclesial Deism: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/<br /><br />Holy Orders and the Sacrificial Priesthood:<br />http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/05/holy-orders-and-the-priesthood/<br /><br />The Issue of Authority in Early Christianity:<br />http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/the-issue-of-authority-in-early-christianity/<br /><br />Why Protestantism has no "visible catholic Church":<br />http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/why-protestantism-has-no-visible-catholic-church/<br /><br />Wilson vs. Hitchens: A Catholic Perspective:<br />http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/05/wilson-vs-hitchens-a-catholic-perspective/ <br /><br />Just a sampling. Take a look and let me know what you think.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39156070988227652872011-09-15T16:51:20.250-07:002011-09-15T16:51:20.250-07:00Thomas de Aquino: "Not physically, but they s...Thomas de Aquino: <i>"Not physically, but they struck back verbally."</i><br /><br />Jesus and Paul often attacked their opponents verbally. There is no prohibition against honesty! And "turning the other cheek" does not imply otherwise to me.<br /><br /><i>"How do you reconcile this meaning with the duties of a soldier? Or of someone who needs to defend his loved ones by physical force?"</i><br /><br />By using the bible to interpret the bible. Jesus often talked to soldiers and never once told them that killing in defense of country or family was wrong.<br /><br /><i>"I was reasoned into it"</i><br /><br />Then (theoretically at least) you can be reasoned out of it.Daniel Smithhttp://thefoolishnessofgod.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56496834099212349952011-09-15T16:43:21.058-07:002011-09-15T16:43:21.058-07:00beng: "Which Christian?"
To paraphrase ...beng: <i>"Which Christian?"</i><br /><br />To paraphrase the Apostle: "One of you says, “I follow the pope”; another, “I follow Luther”; another, “I follow Calvin”; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was the pope crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Luther?" <br /><br /><i>"But you said yourselves there are remnant who keep the true faith. Which one? (it goes without saying that this remnant must go back from 2011AD to 33AD)."</i><br /><br />Their names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life. I don't claim to know who is and isn't a true believer - only God knows for sure.Daniel Smithhttp://thefoolishnessofgod.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35112886264168793492011-09-15T07:56:41.902-07:002011-09-15T07:56:41.902-07:00Rev14:12 "Here is the patience of the saints,...Rev14:12 "Here is the patience of the saints, here are they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus" This remnant! Blessings.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43090577390419833952011-09-14T23:42:32.071-07:002011-09-14T23:42:32.071-07:00Daniel Smith
I'm a Christian
Which Christia...Daniel Smith<br /><br /><b>I'm a Christian</b><br /><br /><br />Which Christian?<br /><br />But you said yourselves there are remnant who keep the true faith. Which one? (it goes without saying that this remnant must go back from 2011AD to 33AD).bengnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84356438613402833552011-09-14T16:08:34.737-07:002011-09-14T16:08:34.737-07:00Daniel Smith:
"In neither of the examples ci...Daniel Smith:<br /><br />"In neither of the examples cited did the person struck strike back."<br /><br />Not physically, but they struck back verbally.<br /><br />"That's the clear meaning of "turning the other cheek" for me."<br /><br />How do you reconcile this meaning with the duties of a soldier? Or of someone who needs to defend his loved ones by physical force?<br /><br />"You've probably been conditioned to accept only the Catholic interpretation so there will be no convincing you of anything that ventures outside of that."<br /><br />I'm not a dog or parrot or something. I was not <b>conditioned</b> to accept only the Catholic interpretation. I was reasoned into it<br /><br />PS: Sorry, I gave the wrong link. Here is the right one: <br /><br />http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102138.htmradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15971384998033929481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58679160396977774422011-09-14T15:53:17.919-07:002011-09-14T15:53:17.919-07:00Thomas de Aquino: "I'm not so sure about ...Thomas de Aquino: <i>"I'm not so sure about this:"</i><br /><br />In neither of the examples cited did the person struck strike back. That's the clear meaning of "turning the other cheek" for me.<br /><br />We could argue scriptural interpretation all day and get nowhere. You've probably been conditioned to accept only the Catholic interpretation so there will be no convincing you of anything that ventures outside of that.<br /><br />What I truly believe is that the seeker of truth will find it, but only in a measure proportional to their willingness to be changed by it.<br /><br />I've got a looooong way to go.Daniel Smithhttp://thefoolishnessofgod.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9635821357370180962011-09-14T15:44:02.293-07:002011-09-14T15:44:02.293-07:00beng: "Pray tell which remnant, stretching al...beng: <i>"Pray tell which remnant, stretching all the way back from 33AD to 2011, that you currently follow?"</i><br /><br />I am a Christian.Daniel Smithhttp://thefoolishnessofgod.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3042602322859937222011-09-14T09:27:56.221-07:002011-09-14T09:27:56.221-07:00Daniel Smith:
"Parts of it are incredibly c...Daniel Smith: <br /><br />"Parts of it are incredibly clear and easy to understand (things like turning the other cheek for instance.)"<br /><br />I'm not so sure about this:<br /><br />St. Augustine:<br /><br />"13. In fine, that these precepts pertain rather to the inward disposition of the heart than to the actions which are done in the sight of men, requiring us, in the inmost heart, to cherish patience along with benevolence, but in the outward action to do that which seems most likely to benefit those whose good we ought to seek, is manifest from the fact that our Lord Jesus Himself, our perfect example of patience, when He was smitten on the face, answered: "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil, but if not, why do you smite me?" John 18:23 If we look only to the words, He did not in this obey His own precept, for He did not present the other side of his face to him who had smitten Him but, on the contrary, prevented him who had done the wrong from adding thereto; and yet He had come prepared not only to be smitten on the face, but even to be slain upon the cross for those at whose hands He suffered crucifixion, and for whom, when hanging on the cross, He prayed, "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do!" Luke 23:34 In like manner, the Apostle Paul seems to have failed to obey the precept of his Lord and Master, when he, being smitten on the face as He had been, said to the chief priest: "God shall smite you, you whited wall, for do you sit to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?" And when it was said by them that stood near, "Do you revile God's high priest?" he took pains sarcastically to indicate what his words meant, that those of them who were discerning might understand that now the whited wall, i.e. the hypocrisy of the Jewish priesthood, was appointed to be thrown down by the coming of Christ; for He said: "I knew not, brethren, that he was the high priest, for it is written, You shall not speak evil of the ruler of your people;" Acts 23:3-5 although it is perfectly certain that he who had grown up in that nation and had been in that place trained in the law, could not but know that his judge was the chief priest, and could not, by professing ignorance on this point, impose upon those to whom he was so well known."<br /><br />http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/16011.htmradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15971384998033929481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59336641777209214942011-09-14T00:36:00.624-07:002011-09-14T00:36:00.624-07:00Daniel Smith
Not necessarily. We don't have t...Daniel Smith<br /><br /><b><i>Not necessarily. We don't have to believe "our group" to be a "restoration" in order to believe that the Catholic church lost its way. Have you never read the Old Testament? It tells the story of a people who were</i> almost constantly <i>falling away from God - though there was always a remnant who remained faithful.</i></b><br /><br /><br />Pray tell which remnant, stretching all the way back from 33AD to 2011, that you currently follow?bengnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-12021495619816256302011-09-13T18:33:10.754-07:002011-09-13T18:33:10.754-07:00"alternatives such as Orthodoxy or protestant..."alternatives such as Orthodoxy or protestantism are clearly not obviously, immediately false to the searching layman."<br /><br />Good point.<br /><br />And who is it that arbitrates the issue to oneself? Oneself. Necessarily. So the individual has a set of candidate claims to adjudicate using criteria that is assumed to be up to the task. We both reference a God-level or God-like structure of evaluative analysis and also -play- God as chief determining officer in that process.machinephilosophyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07715878687266064548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45051491392331878452011-09-13T15:54:03.178-07:002011-09-13T15:54:03.178-07:00Brian: "You have an obligation to your parent...Brian: <i>"You have an obligation to your parents, at the very least, to get to the bottom of this."</i><br /><br />My parents are no longer Catholic. I may have contributed to that somewhat. It's a long story.Daniel Smithhttp://thefoolishnessofgod.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21928768339491344152011-09-13T15:49:45.736-07:002011-09-13T15:49:45.736-07:00Gail F: "So you are the only person who knows...Gail F: <i>"So you are the only person who knows the truth?"</i><br /><br />I'll be the first to admit that I am only vaguely aware of the truth. My point is, after 31 years of careful examination of all manner of competing doctrines and dogmas, I have come to believe that all are in the same boat as me! So no, I am not claiming that I'm somehow all alone in a different (better) boat than anyone else. I just don't trust men to give me the scoop on God. Sorry - that's how I am.<br /><br /><i>"The Bible is so incredibly clear in what it means that it is obvious to you but no one else on earth? Really?"</i><br /><br />Parts of it are incredibly clear and easy to understand (things like turning the other cheek for instance.) Other parts, not so much. It's the incredibly clear parts that so many ignore (and I include myself in that number.)<br /><br /><i>"It sounds like the "spiritual church made up of true believers" you posit doesn't have any other believers."</i><br /><br />I often wonder if <i>I'm</i> a part of it. I hope so, but I know my own sins and how I fail God every day. My only hope is the grace of God.Daniel Smithhttp://thefoolishnessofgod.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77554562382651861332011-09-12T20:22:56.037-07:002011-09-12T20:22:56.037-07:00A non-church attending believer. We see the reduct...A non-church attending believer. We see the reductio ad absurdum of Protestantism.<br /><br />Daniel Smith:<br /><br />http://www.calledtocommunion.com/<br /><br />"The Catholic Controversy"<br />"The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism"<br /><br />http://www.calledtocommunion.com/library/suggested-reading/<br /><br />^Get to it. You have an obligation to your parents, at the very least, to get to the bottom of this. Take it seriously.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39060326726945361212011-09-12T19:51:23.978-07:002011-09-12T19:51:23.978-07:00Daniel Smith: So you are the only person who knows...Daniel Smith: So you are the only person who knows the truth? The Bible is so incredibly clear in what it means that it is obvious to you but no one else on earth? Really?<br /><br />It sounds like the "spiritual church made up of true believers" you posit doesn't have any other believers.<br /><br />I'm not attacking you, just pointing out that your post isn't persuasive. Where did that Bible you base everything on come from? What did Christians do before there was a Bible?Gail Fhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11740482509910163332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30237556711470132522011-09-12T17:02:39.781-07:002011-09-12T17:02:39.781-07:00Brian: "A Protestant or a Mormon, to be Prote...Brian: <i>"A Protestant or a Mormon, to be Protestant or Mormon, has to posit that at some point in this Church's history, it fell away or went out of existence and that their particular group represents a restoration."</i><br /><br />Not necessarily. We don't have to believe "our group" to be a "restoration" in order to believe that the Catholic church lost its way. Have you never read the Old Testament? It tells the story of a people who were <i>almost constantly</i> falling away from God - though there was always a remnant who remained faithful.<br /><br />Why is the Catholic church any different? Why is it so hard to believe that a group of people can be fallible?<br /><br />It is my belief that "the church" is a spiritual entity made up of all true believers. It is not - nor has it ever been - an institution of man, be it Protestant <i>or</i> Catholic.<br /><br />I came to this conclusion in exactly the opposite way from Dr. Feser. I was raised a Catholic but could not wait to turn 18 so I could quit going to church! I floundered around for a couple years, then decided to commit myself to God. I did this on my own, in my bedroom, kneeling down before an open Catholic bible.<br /><br />The transformation wasn't immediate, but it was just a short time later when I noticed that the bible was coming alive to me (I still was not attending any church yet.) I decided to go to the library and research denominations - but never got anywhere. I eventually ended up back at the Catholic church my parents attended, but it seemed that what I was hearing didn't coincide with the scriptures I'd been devouring. It was after a long discussion with the priest that I realized I was not a Catholic.<br /><br />After that I moved from one Protestant church to another, but noticed the same disturbing trend in all of them - most of what was preached did not coincide with the simple truths that were becoming ingrained in me. I became so frustrated that I became what I am today: a non-church-attending believer.<br /><br />I don't know if I'm right or wrong, but I've yet to find a church where I feel comfortable with what's being taught.Daniel Smithhttp://thefoolishnessofgod.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86624841150706781312011-09-12T16:30:38.888-07:002011-09-12T16:30:38.888-07:00From a practical standpoint, I think that when you...From a practical standpoint, I think that when you are in the middle of Protestantism, it's difficult to see that it's obviously false. You are wandering around in the shadows, as it were, looking for which shadow is lightest. And people do wander around, switching from denomination to denomination more or less happily, all their lives. Or they stick right where they are, more or less happily, all their lives.<br /><br />When you are outside Protestantism -- a Catholic, an agnostic, an atheist -- it is easier to see the whole of Christianity. Some folks broke off, some went off the deep end, the folks that broke off had folks that broke off, and they had folks that broke off... it is not close to being universal. The Protestants don't even all consider each other to all be Christians. Some consider most people to be Christians, some consider everyone but Catholics to be Christians, some consider no one but themselves to be Christians... it is a big huge mess, and the Protestants only get along as much as they do by agreeing to ignore each other's differences and concentrate on what's the same. <br /><br />Within that tradition, you can be extremely intelligent and a wonderful person. You start with your tradition and go on from there (although many people who look back do become Catholic). The Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years and doesn't change its mind every couple of years. Also, as someone commented, it didn't effectively stand still and turn into a collection of local churches as the Orthodox did.<br /><br />So yes, I think that many (not all!!) intelligent people looking at Christianity end up thinking something along the lines of: These little churches are nice, should I pick one that does everything exactly the way I like it, and agrees with me about everything? Or should I go all the way and become Catholic?Gail Fhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11740482509910163332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76868700755199292172011-09-12T16:10:39.747-07:002011-09-12T16:10:39.747-07:00I have no problem with the arguments for God being...I have no problem with the arguments for God being the ultimate cause and sustainer of our reality.<br /><br />I can even accept that Jesus was brought back from the dead.<br /><br />The problem I have is why does that make Jesus god-like or even be the authority when it comes to the afterlife, God and so on?<br /><br />There have been many credible reports now and in the past of people seeing dead relatives come visiting and even appearing in what seemed to be the flesh. Just look in the parapsychology literature. So what makes the Jesus resurrection so special?<br /><br />However, if unique then what does that prove? It just shows he had better paranormal/spiritual abilities than anyone so far or that we know of. <br /><br />Also, why not suspect one other alternative. Aliens like the kind that fly around in flying saucers brought him back as part of some kind of experiment. The current evidence for UFO's is overwhelming despite denials so this doesn't sound that far-fetched.<br /><br />Now if we have gotten past all this and Jesus is the real deal then what do we really believe in the bible can be attributed to what he thought and said?Mark Szlazakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15359238216464029620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19995106422885778702011-09-12T15:14:23.536-07:002011-09-12T15:14:23.536-07:00I too like Eastern Orthodoxy. But I suspect that t...I too like Eastern Orthodoxy. But I suspect that there is a quasi-Hegelian argument for Catholicism and against Orthodoxy. <br /><br />Orthodox churches have valid sacraments and an (almost) correct theology. Nonetheless, they have devolved into a collection of ethnic/national church bodies that exercise no genuine authority. They have not participated in any of the ecumenical councils aside from the first seven, and they have effectively taken a "holiday from history". For all of the beauty of their liturgy and depth of their spirituality, they have been feckless. <br /><br />The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has maintained its spiritual authority and has never taken a "holiday" from history. It has retained theological orthodoxy, and it has also retained its ability to be a "universal" institution. Can the myriad of ethnically bound Orthodox churches say the same? To my mind, this historical argument is the tie-breaker between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.Untenurednoreply@blogger.com