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

[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. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

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 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[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 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[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.