DS (and others), please expand on this thought:

[PokerGoblin]

David,

A week and a half ago I read a post of yours where you stated:

[ QUOTE ]
I've realized for quite a few months now that Catholics are the least nuts of all the Christians.

[/ QUOTE ]

This implies that you believe all Christians are nuts (which I might agree with to some degree), and Catholicism is the least idiotic of it's empire.

If you have time, would you mind expanding on why you believe this?

I am not Catholic (or a Christian) BTW. I would just like to hear your (and others) thoughts on this outside of the context of the post you were responding to at the time.

Thanks

PG

[Darryl_P]

I think he is simply saying that all religions make claims which are very, very unlikely when examined from a scientific perspective.

That is what makes the believers nuts.

Catholics have been able to come up with the most reasonable explanations for the stuff making it only very unlikely instead of very, very unlikely.

That is what makes them less nuts than the others.

I should point out that I do not agree with him (about the definition of nuts I suppose), because religious teachings are not meant to be taken so literally. There is a spiritual element which transcends the details and Sklansky is either sorely missing an ability to see this dimension or somehow strongly believes that it is superfluous and unnecessary because logic is the key tool you need to discover the axioms of life (starting from what I don't know because I always thought axioms were a required input to a logical thought process and not an output).

[RJT]

PG,

Without getting into too many details - it has to do with things like the following:

The Catholic Church does not teach that the Bible is strictly literal (although some Catholics, I am sure, believe it is). Some Protestants read it no other way.

Without getting into which Protestant Churches believe what: some believe in predestination - that our place in the after-life is already destined, some think that through Faith alone and only Faith gets one past the Pearly Gates - that no amount of good works help to that regard.

I would guess David thinks the Catholic idea of transubstantiation is a bit more odd than the symbolic only Eucharist of some (all?) of the Protestants. Here I am sure it is a moot point for him.

David probably really likes the idea of our Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession) where you can have lap dances all week, then confess that you were a bad boy and start over with a clean slate. (I must admit it is one of our more ingenious beliefs - quite handy too, especially when we hang out with the likes of you heathens. /images/graemlins/wink.gif )

RJT

[ QUOTE ]
The Catholic Church does not teach that the Bible is strictly literal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really think that is the point that David uses to support his statement. Unfortunately, I disagree strongly with David here. I think that if crazyness is equated with irrationality, then a bit like being preganant, it is not a matter of degree. The underlying psychological neurose will manifest itself in many ways. Indeed it seems that ultimately it permeates all aspects of experience, even in the face of contrary evidence. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
... our Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession) where you can have lap dances all week, then confess that you were a bad boy and start over with a clean slate. (I must admit it is one of our more ingenious beliefs ...

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to me again an illustration/manifestation of the above mentionned crazyness. I mean, you must first instill/associate a notion of guilt with a pleasant and innocuous activity to create the need for "Reconciliation"! Now, I admit I may be wrong here, as I have never had the experience of a lap dance. I cannot truthfully say that I speak from knowledge. I just assume that it is somewhat similar to activities available in commercial establishment (of repute /images/graemlins/smile.gif )that I have frequented, and is an activity which, in such establishments,is considered merely precursive or, for the more musically inclined, a prelude to much more satisfying moments. Moments, after which, I never experienced any feelings of guilt, on the contrary. I would say that the attempts at eliciting feelings of guilt after such wonderful gratification, must be an attempt at perverting an act so fundamental to living, thus rendering its associated pleasure more accute by introducing an element of masochism. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Zygote]

read all of sklansky's posts and your answer will be found!

[RJT]

MG,

Oh, don’t get me wrong - David still considers us a quite mad. Just not certifiable I am guessing. And/or he has Hamlet in mind a bit. There might be a bit more method to our madness than our Protestant brothers possess.

Now see MG, you can very easily imagine and just about got right the actual experience of said lap dances (not that I would necessarily know one way or the other - another good thing we have and is protected by the U. S. Constitution, priest-penitent privilege) . Yet, you waste your time not reaching for God that is also unknown and inexperienced by yourself. Such a pity that a great mind like yours lays fallow. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

RJT

[David Sklansky]

Everybody has got it wrong, which is irritating because I am now repeating myself. Catholics are less nuts because:

1. They admit that well meaning, smart and hopefully objective, evidence evaluators, without the "gift of faith", cannot be expected to THINK (as opposed to HOPE)that the specific beliefs of Catholics is more likely to be true than the sum total of all the other possibilities.

2. They believe that very selfless people who are not Catholic, or even Christian, can go to heaven.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
Catholics are the least nuts of all the Christians.

[/ QUOTE ]

That entirely depends whether he meant Roman Catholics or Greek Orthodox. If the latter, then I completely agree.

Scott

[ QUOTE ]
2. They believe that very selfless people who are not Catholic, or even Christian, can go to heaven

[/ QUOTE ]

David, I stand to be corrected, but I think you are wrong on this point. A sine qua non to enter paradise, afaik, is a baptism. If I do remember in the catholic comsmogony, there is another place, actually called limbo, for such infortunates, which is neither hell, nor purgatory, but doesn't have all the facilities/benefits/attraction of heaven.

If I am corrected then there has been a certain evolution in catholic doctrine which augurs well for the lesser crazyness argument.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
Catholics have been able to come up with the most reasonable explanations for the stuff making it only very unlikely instead of very, very unlikely.


[/ QUOTE ]

Kierkegaard has them toasted on this one.

Scott

[IronUnkind]

But they're still a little nuts, right?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Everybody has got it wrong, which is irritating because I am now repeating myself. Catholics are less nuts because:

1. They admit that well meaning, smart and hopefully objective, evidence evaluators, without the "gift of faith", cannot be expected to THINK (as opposed to HOPE)that the specific beliefs of Catholics is more likely to be true than the sum total of all the other possibilities.

2. They believe that very selfless people who are not Catholic, or even Christian, can go to heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]

Plus even if you don't accept our axioms or personal experience of the faith that we believe is additional evidence, catholic theology does not contain the logical contradictions of other christian sects.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Catholics are the least nuts of all the Christians.

[/ QUOTE ]

That entirely depends whether he meant Roman Catholics or Greek Orthodox. If the latter, then I completely agree.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

While the catholic church regards the orthodox church highly as a sister church very close to us in doctrine, you should study the history of the arian heresy where you will find that the see of Rome never succumbed to it whereas a majority of the eastern sees did, even taking into account parallel eastern apostolic sees.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
A sine qua non to enter paradise, afaik, is a baptism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Three forms of baptism:

1) Traditional water baptism;
2) Martyrdom for the faith;
3) Baptism of desire, which is how non-christians can be saved.

P.S. I think you are the same poster as SDM.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Catholics have been able to come up with the most reasonable explanations for the stuff making it only very unlikely instead of very, very unlikely.


[/ QUOTE ]

Kierkegaard has them toasted on this one.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

To the contrary, Kierkegaard rejected the dual importance of faith and reason and insisted on faith alone, which is hard to get non-believers to accept by itself. If you are already a christian, then his thinking would be more worthwhile for the practice of the faith perhaps.

[ QUOTE ]
... catholic theology does not contain the logical contradictions of other christian sects.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed you are right bluff and let me come to the defense of catholics against Slansky insinuation that they are crazy and I hope bigdaddydvo is not going to tell me I should stay in my lane. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Indeed from an impartial observer viewpoint the catholic doctrine and dogmae are much more consistent. That may be because they adjust over time. Not so long ago, catholics had a difficulty with as mild as an heliocentric view of the universe. They have now recanted that position but were, however, a bit late in coming with apologies (a few centuries). In my mind this adaptability shows that they not as crazy. I think that they are only .. uuh... slow learners maybe /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[IronUnkind]

You've said this on many occasions, but I think you need to elaborate further. Your claim is perplexing because I don't know how you are defining Catholicism -- the Church's official position on issues? If The Vatican is the arbiter of what Catholics believe, then I think you will find your own position harder to defend. Not because Protestants necessarily stand on firmer ground, but because of the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, which gives them extra outs.

If you point out a contradiction in, say, a Methodist position, one may rightly point out that he can reject this viewpoint and remain a True Methodist (because Methodism allows for a greater degree of flexibility on the part of its membership). I'm not sure the same is true in Roman Catholicism.

Perhaps you don't define Catholicism as narrowly as this, but in this case, I don't know what you are claiming. Aren't your "axioms" derived from your "theology?" And because it is hierarchical in its organization, isn't Catholic theology subject to reinterpretation via The Pope?

I am not so familiar with the Catholic faith that I can say that there are definite logical inconsistencies, but even if there were not, I would guess that this would be due to The Church's adjustment of its views in order to achieve an internal consistency. But what if the whole edifice is fundamentally flawed?

[IronUnkind]

Each one individually effective unto salvation?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A sine qua non to enter paradise, afaik, is a baptism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Three forms of baptism:

1) Traditional water baptism;
2) Martyrdom for the faith;
3) Baptism of desire, which is how non-christians can be saved.

P.S. I think you are the same poster as SDM.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hiya BluffTHIS.

You are absolutely right about the three types of baptisms. I knew once and forgot. I am corrected. I am not even going to ask the relevance or possibility of the third alternative (of desire) for someone who has never been exposed to the creed as I am not sure of its canonical definition either. Maybe you could enlighten?


PS. no never heard of SDM. I don't think I have ever read one of his posts. I will look at it now, though /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Each one individually effective unto salvation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not by catholic theology, except for the 2nd form of baptism, i.e. martyrdom, also called baptism by fire. Catholic theology teaches that you have to die in a state of grace, and that you are not confirmed in grace until death (it should thus logically be clear why the 2nd form above is an exception). This differs from some protestant theologies that teach "once saved always saved". Thus by catholic theology, with the exception noted, baptism is necessary but insufficient by itself for salvation, that is, one must remain in or as a result of contrition which recovers the loss of that grace by serious sin, die in a state of grace.

[BluffTHIS!]

The edifice as you put it, can only be fundametally flawed by the use of far-fetched axioms, which are accepted without 100% proof, or by internal logical contradictions of various subsections of theology (which doesn't exist in catholic theology). I think that you will find that the catholic views I express are fully in line with catholic teaching represented in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Of the catholic posters here, only Peter666 would disagree with some of my posts because he is a traditionalist catholic belonging to a sect that rejects most of Vatican II, especially regarding liturgical changes, which they view as doctrinal in nature.

Actually the protestant doctrine of the preisthood of all believers, with its assumption that all christians can validly interpret scripture, does not give them extra outs. It only leads to a continual process in time where there are more and more splits and disagreements, evidenced by the great variety of protestant denominations that hold contrary views on fundamental points of christian doctrine. Some of these denominations, like the episcopal, lutheran and methodist ones, are in many ways closer to the catholic church in theology than to the fundamentalist/calvinist based denominations. Thus protestant denominations lack an authentic interpreter of scripture and doctrine, and this leads to certain logical contradictions in their theology. You can search the archives for a couple threads I started entitled "A question for protestants" regarding these matters.

Regarding the pope reinterpreting theology, his ability to infallibly define doctrine, called an ex cathedra pronouncement, is not really creating new doctrine, but only more clearly defining doctrine that has always been believed, often through the 2nd source of reveleation, oral tradition, called Holy Tradition (as opposed to man-made traditions or customary practices). Also of course he might occasionally make lesser pronouncements, but also higly authoritative, clearly explaining catholic doctrine in regards to matters which have not come up in the past, such as changes in science and catholic ethics regarding it such human cloning for example. All of this is in contrast for example to the prophet and head of the council of elders of the mormon church, who by their doctrine can receieve new doctrinal revelations from God. Most christians including catholics, believe that all general revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle, although special reveleation could be given to an individuals which would not be official doctrine even if accepted as legitimate.

[BluffTHIS!]

To put all this in a gambling perspective with David's statment that catholics are "less nuts", then perhaps a good way to view this is that catholics are blackjack players and the rest are playing the big wheel. Of couse I would like to think that we cathlolics are card counters as well and thus have a positve EV. And if we have theological Thorp to back us up, then Thomas Aquinas comes the closest.

[IronUnkind]

I'm confused. Do you think that there is a monolithic protestantism or not? You characterize it as riven by factionalism, yet you criticize it as if it is uniform.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Thus by catholic theology, with the exception noted, baptism is necessary but insufficient by itself for salvation

[/ QUOTE ]

So where do unbaptized protestants go?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thus by catholic theology, with the exception noted, baptism is necessary but insufficient by itself for salvation

[/ QUOTE ]

So where do unbaptized protestants go?

[/ QUOTE ]

Baptism of desire is the means by which non-baptized whether believers or not may be saved. Along with living a "good" life in accordance with the Natural Law if they are not believers (search the archives or google for natural law if you don't understand). Basically baptism of desire means that if they heard and believed in the gospel then they would want to be baptized.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm confused. Do you think that there is a monolithic protestantism or not? You characterize it as riven by factionalism, yet you criticize it as if it is uniform.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the very fact of their divided theology comes flaws which they all share. And the further down the line of spitting off one another and starting new denominations, then the more flaws an individual denomination has.

Here are links to old threads regarding some of these matters. And please don't bump those old threads. Just start a new one or reply here if you have a question on something there.



Question For Protestants (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=scimathphil&Number=336704 2&Searchpage=5&Main=3338251&Words=protestants&topi c=&Search=true#Post3367042)

What You Protestants Don't Seem To Get (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=scimathphil&Number=337882 2&Searchpage=5&Main=3350123&Words=protestants&topi c=&Search=true#Post3378822)

Another Question For Protestants (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=scimathphil&Number=350293 5&Searchpage=2&Main=3495623&Words=protestants&topi c=&Search=true#Post3502935)

[Peter666]

Oh, just tell him the truth: Straight to Hell! Or limbo if lucky.

Iron Unkind asked a very specific question. One who is unbaptized, and that includes baptism of desire as explained above, cannot enter into heaven. BluffThis is charitably assuming that the unbaptized Protestant really wants to know the truth and seeks it, and is also free from mortal (serious) sin. Thus they can enter into heaven through baptism of desire.

The catch is the serious sin part. Once one reaches the age of reason (around 6 years old normally) their first "free act of will" will either be in accordance with God or not. This is always a serious decision. From this decision and onwards, they take on some responsibility for their willful actions. It gets very messy from here.

If they are unbaptized, die, and have not made a willful decision (children, mentally handicapped) they will go to limbo (a state of natural happiness). If they are unbaptized and have made a willful decision, they will either go to limbo if it was a good decision, or Hell if it was a bad decision.

However, before falling into despair, it is also doctrine that every human being will receive enough grace to save their soul from Hell, IF they act in accordance with it. It is up to us to reject it or accept it by avoiding or commitng sin.