Callers to my door.

keano_afc · 12-05-2011 3:05pm

Festus wrote: »

It would be a false faith. A bit like the false gospel you follw

Matthew 7:1: "Judge not, lest ye be judged"

Fanny Cradock · 12-05-2011 3:07pm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Edit this is thread right? You can look at what I wrote?

What?

antiskeptic · 12-05-2011 3:08pm

keano_afc wrote: »

Matthew 7:1: "Judge not, lest ye be judged"

It's but righteous discernment, keano. Righteous discernment indeed.

When it comes to my musings at least

Fanny Cradock · 12-05-2011 3:09pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

This would certainly appear to mean the deity cannot be omniscient.

Perhaps you can explain why this is?

CerebralCortex · 12-05-2011 3:17pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

You define a contra-causal free will as being able to act contra the expectation of a deity. This would certainly appear to mean the deity cannot be omniscient.

But a contra-causal free will isn't the only kind of freewill possible. Other models of freewill could accomodate an omniscient deity.

I don't define it as that. It is what it is i.e. going against causation which is the very definition of free will.

CerebralCortex · 12-05-2011 3:19pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps you can explain why this is?

Because you would have done something it/he didn't know would happen there omniscience ceases to be a quality of the deity. Very simple, no?

antiskeptic · 12-05-2011 3:23pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps you can explain why this is?

I'm assuming a dog-in-the-street understanding for 'omniscience': God knows everything there ever will be to know - now. In that case, there would be no possibility of us taking an unexpected route because in order for it to be unexpected, God couldn't already know that it was the route we would take.

"I know what you're going to do already and when you do it, it'll come as unexpected to me"

..strikes me as an impossible statement. I'm working off this by CerebralC btw

"That is to say you were able to choose a course of action that completely goes against the deities expectation"

CerebralCortex · 12-05-2011 3:28pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm assuming a dog-in-the-street understanding for 'omniscience': God knows everything there ever will be to know - now....

Oh wow I see what you're doing there, nice little line of retreat! There is no dog-in-the-street understanding for omniscience it is simply

the state of being omniscient; having infinite knowledge.

But perhaps you're privy to a special religion permitting definition.

antiskeptic · 12-05-2011 3:30pm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I don't define it as that. It is what it is i.e. going against causation which is the very definition of free will.

But God creating a cause-free will doesn't mean he ceases to be omnipresent. And being omnipresant means he occupies the future as well as now (if the future also exists now - which we can suppose of an eternal realm).

If he is in the future now he can observe our future cause-free actions and so know the future now without necessarily influencing it.

Freewill + omniscience side by side.

antiskeptic · 12-05-2011 3:34pm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Oh wow I see what you're doing there, nice little line of retreat!

All I was doing was explaining why your position makes sense. Given your definition of free will

All I'm excluding is God not knowing how to make a square circle and the like. For the purposes of dealing with your query, he knows everything there is to know - outside such codswallop.

Other theological views has God's omniscience rather more limited. I'm not supposing those views in your case.

Festus · 12-05-2011 3:38pm

keano_afc wrote: »

Matthew 7:1: "Judge not, lest ye be judged"

Is there anthing in what I wrote that says I am judging the person?

homer911 · 12-05-2011 3:42pm

Festus wrote: »

Is there anthing in what I wrote that says I am judging the person?

You just accused antiskeptic of following a false gospel! - that sounds like judgement

Festus · 12-05-2011 3:45pm

homer911 wrote: »

You just accused antiskeptic of following a false gospel! - that sounds like judgement

I accused the gospel he follows of being false. That's discernment.

philologos · 12-05-2011 3:46pm

Festus wrote: »

It would be a false faith. A bit like the false gospel you follw

Can I ask how is it false? (N.B The Pope says so isn't a valid answer)

Fanny Cradock · 12-05-2011 3:50pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm assuming a dog-in-the-street understanding for 'omniscience': God knows everything there ever will be to know - now. In that case, there would be no possibility of us taking an unexpected route because in order for it to be unexpected, God couldn't already know that it was the route we would take.

"I know what you're going to do already and when you do it, it'll come as unexpected to me"

But this assumes that God's can't foreknow our choices if we have free will. Why?

Festus · 12-05-2011 3:53pm

philologos wrote: »

Can I ask how is it false? (N.B The Pope says so isn't a valid answer)

There is only One True Faith.
Follow anything else and it is false.

Can of worms not withstanding it is the Truth.

Slav · 12-05-2011 3:53pm

Yes!! THE MEGATHREAD is alive and it's right here! Even atheists joined in. What a feast!.. :pac:

Fanny Cradock · 12-05-2011 3:56pm

Yes, it's sort of gone that way hasn't it?

keano_afc · 12-05-2011 3:59pm

Festus wrote: »

Is there anthing in what I wrote that says I am judging the person?

Yes, you accused him of following a false gospel.

Slav · 12-05-2011 4:00pm

JimiTime wrote: »

A point that fails to see the difference between a proper faith grounded in Christ, and the institutional faith which befalls a OTCer. Your point is akin to saying, 'Well me and Albert Einstein are very alike, in that we both have heads'.

Don't start confusing terms here Slav. There is a HUGE difference in believing in the body of Christ, and believing in institutional superiority.

Ok, I think we finally found some common ground. I agree with everything you said about believing in OTC when it's bound to faith in institution but is it the only type of OTCers? I think JW are pretty close to what you mean but can they be on par with RC, at least with Catholics in their majority? Obviously things like Papacy might provoke the institutional based OTCism but does automatically exclude all other reasons to believe in RCC as OTC? Pope is not everything Roman Catholics have.

What about us, Orthodox? Aren't we one-true-churchers as well? But we have no institution as such as far as I'm aware...

What would you consider the roots? I believe OTCers are attracted to elitist type institutions, and find security in institutional authoritarianism. Believing you have the right answers is a powerful spell that these institutions can cast. While I believe Christians should be discouraged from such attitudes, such institutions help such attitudes blossom.

I guess it happens when an urge for competition and winning meets ignorance. Then anything would do as an excuse: the "right" pope, the "right" book, the "right" church.

Festus · 12-05-2011 4:01pm

keano_afc wrote: »

Yes, you accused him of following a false gospel.

Accusation is not judgement.

I accused the gospel he follows of being false. That's discernment.

If he tells me which gospel he follows or which bible he reads I may judge them to be false but that is still not judging the person.

If you disagree then you must agree that he is equally guilty of judging all Catholics.

philologos · 12-05-2011 4:03pm

Festus wrote: »

There is only One True Faith.
Follow anything else and it is false.

Can of worms not withstanding it is the Truth.

Predictable answer is predictable, how do we know that the RCC is the one true version of Christianity? (N.B - There are apostolic churches which predate the RCC). By the by, I'd hazard a guess that most denominational differences are a result of different practices rather than different theology necessarily.

keano_afc · 12-05-2011 4:05pm

Festus wrote: »

Accusation is not judgement.

I accused the gospel he follows of being false. That's discernment.

If he tells me which gospel he follows or which bible he reads I may judge them to be false but that is still not judging the person.

If you disagree then you must agree that he is equally guilty of judging all Catholics.

OK, I'll put it another way. Do you believe he follws a false gospel?

EDIT: Can you see how the 2 statements I highlighted are completely at odds?

philologos · 12-05-2011 4:07pm

Slav wrote: »

Yes!! THE MEGATHREAD is alive and it's right here! Even atheists joined in. What a feast!.. :pac:

It all kicked off from the false gospel lark :pac:

Festus: False Bible, I guess means any Bible that isn't translated from the Vulgate such (Doubay Reims being an example translated from Vulgate). But the Vulgate is itself a translation?

antiskeptic · 12-05-2011 4:10pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But this assumes that God's can't foreknow our choices if we have free will. Why?

I think God can foreknow our choices whilst we have freewill. But just not according to a model which says he foreknows what we will do yet is surprised when we do it. Knowing all / being surprised by what we do .. are two mutally exclusive states.

antiskeptic · 12-05-2011 4:12pm

Festus wrote: »

Accusation is not judgement. I accused the gospel he follows of being false. That's discernment.

If he tells me which gospel he follows or which bible he reads I may judge them to be false but that is still not judging the person.

If you disagree then you must agree that he is equally guilty of judging all Catholics.

For once I agree completely..

But only this once

CerebralCortex · 12-05-2011 4:20pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think God can foreknow our choices whilst we have freewill.

So you don't believe he's omniscient?

Festus · 12-05-2011 4:28pm

keano_afc wrote: »

OK, I'll put it another way. Do you believe he follws a false gospel?

Put it this way. Do you believe the gospel I follow to be false?

keano_afc wrote: »

EDIT: Can you see how the 2 statements I highlighted are completely at odds?

Nope

PDN · 12-05-2011 4:30pm

Festus wrote: »

Anyone who can look down his nose and sneer at a prostitute is worse than Pharisee in my book.

The vast majority are trafficed, co-erced, beaten and raped, held under threat and God knows what else. Many become prostitutes following abuse by their fathers or other family members. Others through drug abuse and addiction Frequently forced drug addiction. It is for many their only escape from abject destitution.
True there may be some who do it out of choice but they are few and far between. The majority are victims.

PDN's words incensed me. If his words are a true reflection of his attitude towards prostitutes, never mind seeing it as a fit way to attack the Catholic Church, I have difficulty in considering him human, never mind Christian.

What a load of crock! Before I became a Christian I used to live on the streets among prostitutes and, for what its worth, I frequently found them to be better company than many religious folks I have met (both Protestant and Catholic).

The point I was making, as you would readily have seen if you had read my comments in context instead of getting all needlessly outraged, was in regards to church membership. You cannot compare the membership of, say a Baptist Church (which counts adults who regularly attend services and observe the requirements of membership) with that of a Catholic Church (which counts every baptised baby even if they haven't attended mass in decades, live a life totally contrary to all Church teaching, or are atheists). It's comparing apples with coconuts. Therefore bragging about which church is the biggest makes even less sense than one philosopher claiming his concept of truth is better than another philosopher's because he's got a bigger willy.

To try to turn that into an allegation that I look down my nose or sneer at prostitutes is a joke. Also, to talk about considering a fellow-Christian as being "barely human" says a lot more about you than it does about me.

wolfsbane · 12-05-2011 4:31pm

Festus said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I'm sorry, I thought you and the RCC held that we are saved, to some extent, by our works.
Why? Do you get your education on Catholicism from the likes of antisceptik?

Various sources, including the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church', Veritas, Dublin 1994.

Matthew 19:20 provides and instruction to do that applies to all Christians, not just Catholics.

Seems a question rather than an instruction. So I assume you meant verse 21 as well:
Matthew 19:20 The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept from my youth. What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

You really think Jesus meant that for all men, not just for this Rich Young Ruler who was in love with his money?

Work done for merit carries no merit. It must be unselfish to carry any merit

Without getting into that debate, the issue remains: Do our good works merit salvation in whole or in part, or is salvation solely of God's gracious gift?

Ephesians 2:8 is how we are saved but we need be mindful of Matthew 7:21.

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. I agree. Some have only the faith of demons, as James reminds us. True faith always produces the fruit (good works).

Unfortunately those who follow sola and wrongfully accuse others of sola labora are well described in Matthew 15:18

I agree. It would be a slander - or careless error at least - for anyone to accuse the RCC of teaching sola labora. Evangelicals accuse it of teaching justification by faith + works.

They would do well to read Matthew 25:31-46 before making baseless accusations.

That passage shows that the faith that does not produce good works is a false faith. The passage does not show that the sheep were saved by their good works, nor by a combination of their good works and their faith.

Justification is not earned, in whole or part, but is the gift of God.

*******************************************************************************
Matthew 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

Callers to my door.

Comments