What You Protestants Don't Seem to Get

[ajmargarine]

It is safe to say that, before Jesus came the first time, the dominant "religion of God" (Judiasm) and especially it's largest sect (the Pharisees), believed themselves to be 100% correct in doctrine. In hindsight, we see the folly of that.

Now as we await His second coming, the dominant "religion of God" (Christianity) and especially its largest sect (RCC), suffer from the same delusion. You should be able to see the parallel.

100% logical acceptance of doctrine is nice; but, it is only a blanket that temporarily succors the restless soul of man; and sadly, is a substitute for 100% faith in the Son of Man.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

It is safe to say that, before Jesus came the first time, the dominant "religion of God" (Judiasm) and especially it's largest sect (the Pharisees), believed themselves to be 100% correct in doctrine. In hindsight, we see the folly of that.


[/ QUOTE ]

Matthew 15:9

9'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'"

I think the broad group of people labeled "Christian" has outdone the Pharisees by a factor that is scary to think about.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Which denomination has complete doctrinal perfection? If you say RC, please state the year and day this occurred.

[/ QUOTE ]

Year 33 A.D. upto now. If you believe otherwise then give examples. But if you are going to pull various texts of scripture out of context of the rest of scripture to do this, and also insist on a certain, literal or not, interpretation of same in support of your assertions, then you also have to prove why such interpretations are authoritative.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you have also stated that you can find no logical contradictions in my views,

[/ QUOTE ]
When?

[/ QUOTE ]

From the another question for NotReady thread:

BluffTHIS!: "Demonstrate a logical contradiction in the things I have said."
NotReady: "I didn't say there is one."


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you think that true doctrine and true logical implications of those doctrines can be in conflict

[/ QUOTE ]
I never said this.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He doesn't ask us to check our brain at the door to the church

[/ QUOTE ]
I did say this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not see a difference between the faith in God that accepts some things may never be fully understood in their theological implications, and believing that a set of beliefs about God is correct when various doctrines in that set are logically contradictory? Why does this have to mean human reason can't comprehend why as opposed to that set of beliefs being false in many parts, especially when alternate sets of beliefs held by another christian denomination do not possess those internal logical contradictions?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and accept logically contradictory doctrines as a part of a set of beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]
I never said this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure you have. You have done it time and again implicitly by the statements in the post I am responding to when you say that God expects you to check your brain at the door, that you have to choose God over logic and reason when there should be no conflict between those, assuming your particular interpretations about God's doctrines are correct, and when you say you don't expect doctrinal perfection in any denomination.


In another thread I said the following in response to one of your posts:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't reconcile some concepts in the Bible to satisfy human reason. So you may choose your ultimate standard. Your ability to reason or the Bible. If you go with reason, you will eventually run into other logical contradictions.

[/ QUOTE ]
In what I am about to say, I am not referring to various Christian doctrines that have mystical or supernatural implications that cannot be fully apprehended by human reason because it is too limited in its understanding.

By your statements above you imply that various Christian doctrines can be logically inconsistent with each other or with the human reason that God has given us. Since God is truth and cannot be the author of error, how can this be? The rational explanation is that either Christianity is false, or that your understanding of it is in error. I cannot see how anyone but a cult member can believe that although some things might not be fully explained by God, that it is possible that sound doctrine is in conflict with itself internally or with its core axioms, or with human reason once those axioms are accepted, even if those axioms could not be proved to a virtual certainty to non-believers. Note that in all this I am talking about logical implications when I speak of reason, and not about whether certain beliefs appear "reasonable" on their face apart from the whole.

Thus, the only logical explanation for two conflicting passages in the bible (assuming one is not an OT one supersed by the NT), is an explanation that is a synthesis of two taken in the context of the entire bible and consonant with core axiomatic beliefs and logic, or that one of the two has to be understood in a more limited sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you disagree with that response, or can you provide another explanation for apparently conflicting passages in scripture? You have previously called such apparent contradictions "paradox". Yet why do you not also admit that an explanation for such paradox is the holding of heterodox beliefs and interpretations?

[David Sklansky]

"I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand that the logic of a finite, imperfect creature is likely to be finite and imperfect. It's only logical to believe that. Our sight isn't perfect. Our hearing isn't perfect. Our emotions aren't perfect. Our strength isn't perfect. Our will isn't perfect. But our logic is?"

Is our arithmetic?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Year 33 A.D. upto now.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying Catholic doctrine has never made a mistake and that all Catholics always agree about all points of doctrine?

[ QUOTE ]

BluffTHIS!: "Demonstrate a logical contradiction in the things I have said."
NotReady: "I didn't say there is one.


[/ QUOTE ]

"your views" and "things I have said" are two different things. I don't know all your views and therefore have not said you have no views that are logically contradictory. What I said in the thread you quote pertains to what you said in that thread.

[ QUOTE ]

believing that a set of beliefs about God is correct when various doctrines in that set are logically contradictory?


[/ QUOTE ]

I never said this.

[ QUOTE ]

Sure you have.


[/ QUOTE ]

No I haven't.

[ QUOTE ]

When you say that God expects you to check your brain at the door,


[/ QUOTE ]

I never said this.

[ QUOTE ]

that you have to choose God over logic and reason


[/ QUOTE ]

I never said this.

[ QUOTE ]

when you say you don't expect doctrinal perfection in any denomination.


[/ QUOTE ]

I said this. It isn't the same as logical contradiction.

[ QUOTE ]

By your statements above you imply that various Christian doctrines can be logically inconsistent with each other or with the human reason that God has given us


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a partial truth. Human reason is the qualifier.

[ QUOTE ]

that it is possible that sound doctrine is in conflict with itself


[/ QUOTE ]

I never said this.

I'm stopping at this point. I didn't finish reading the post. This is why I don't debate you. You don't quote me accurately and you are constantly putting words in my mouth.
I just don't have the time.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Is our arithmetic?


[/ QUOTE ]

Probably. I sometimes assume people understand without infinite detailing, sometimes I shouldn't do so. I use the word logic loosely to mean the soundness of an argument. Obviously, an argument can be perfectly logical and completely unsound. When I question human logic or reason I'm talking about the soundness of the argument, not necessarily the formal logical process.

You don't really believe all arguments are sound because they are logically correct, do you?

[BluffTHIS!]

NR, I have no desire at all to misquote you. However when I say that you have said something that you say you didn't, what I am often referring to is the logical implications of what you have said. And you keep referring to "human reason" as if it is only an understanding that has to be faulty. What I am continually referring to is logic, and the logical implications of holding certain beliefs either by themselves, or most often in concert with each other. Logic is a part of mathematics and science, which is why David asked the question above. If you deny this, because you do not like the logical implications of certain things, and yet never question your own particular beliefs because of same, then how can you strive to be intellectually honest with yourself?

And regarding catholic doctrine, various doctrines are held with various degrees of certainty, and this is a very thechnical subject. Some things such as the nature of angels, can not be determined very far from scripture and thus some of those things are indeed deduced from reason. The church has changed its view of some such matters that are not really that important in the scheme of things over time. However, no doctrines, which are labeled as being held infallibly true or at the highest level of certainty, have ever been changed. And it is those major fundamental doctrines that are what I am talking about in my first post in this thread. And fundamental doctrines were what the reformation was mostly about, not archane matters such as the nature of angels or the levels of closeness to God in heaven.

Here is a link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and its table of contents. Pick a topic and find a doctrine whose truth you question and state why, and I will be happy to discuss it. And this brings up a very important point. It is not enough to say that the particular beliefs and scriptural interpretations of oneself or one's particular denomination are correct and that those of others are not. One must also be able to say why. If not, then that is indeed an example of faulty "human reason" that adopts beliefs based upon superficial factors or one's mere preference.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't really believe all arguments are sound because they are logically correct, do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

They can only not be so if they proceed from faulty axioms. But NO argument can be sound if its conclusions are logically fallaceous.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

hat I am often referring to is the logical implications of what you have said


[/ QUOTE ]

As I was technically inaccurate in using the word logic instead of typing out "the soundness of human reason" every time (I'm inherently lazy), so you are inaccurate to logically imply something without making it clear and stating the argument.

[ QUOTE ]

And regarding catholic doctrine


[/ QUOTE ]

I have no desire to attack Catholics. As to individual doctrines I deal with them when relevant. Anyone interested in their doctrines, the Scriptural accuracy of same and the countervailing arguments can easily find them on the net.

[ QUOTE ]

It is not enough to say that the particular beliefs and scriptural interpretations of oneself or one's particular denomination are correct and that those of others are not. One must also be able to say why. If not, then that is indeed an example of faulty "human reason" that adopts beliefs based upon superficial factors or one's mere preference.


[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I can remember I've never said I'm right and some other particular denomination is wrong, though since I do think some of the doctrines I believe are in conflict with what others believe I would be willing to say it when appropriate. If I do, I hope I will remember to defend my position.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

They can only not be so if they proceed from faulty axioms


[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo.

And since we don't often know what are the correct axioms, the "soundness of our human reasoning" may be uncertain.