the reason I considered that a correction is because he (or she) helped refine my statement.
Advertisement
by Eli Islands » Thu Apr 13, 2017 2:15 pm
by Venerable Bede » Thu Apr 13, 2017 2:15 pm
Coulee Croche wrote:Venerable Bede wrote:I'm presenting the meaning of the Filioque from the RCC catechism.
One can only hope that you can connect all the variables written on that page rather than on a stand alone basis.Yes, I agree you should focus on reunion with Protestants; chance of reunion with us is zero.
Tell that to the Uniates.
I think there are more pressing matters than your petty drivel; the fact of the matter is, there are many that do not even have a Eucharistic theology. You Orthodox are sustained in areas they are not, but please dont let your pretentiousness get ahead of you, do you think that if it was my vocation to try and heal the schism that I would care about what chance you gave me? Vocations are from God, and you are nothing to me, brother religious.Concerning the miaphysites, though, we have made a great deal of progress and I think our reunion with them in a hundred years is very likely. Their perspicacity has actually facilitated this, since like salt it has preserved their traditions from change over these 1,600 years of seperation.
What happened with the Miaphysites was just as much our problem we'll admit, which is why it was included. Let us not make the same mistakes...But since we're talking about salt, maybe they'll give you a lesson on how to fling it.
by Tarsonis Survivors » Thu Apr 13, 2017 2:18 pm
by Tarsonis Survivors » Thu Apr 13, 2017 2:19 pm
The Alma Mater wrote:Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
Christ's commentary on homosexuality may not be recorded in the Canonical gospels. That however is a far different assertion than "Jesus never said that." The extent and scope of Christ's total teachings are not recorded.
Reasoning like that, Christ could also have said "slaughter all babies and feast on their flesh".
by Grave_n_idle » Thu Apr 13, 2017 2:21 pm
by Eli Islands » Thu Apr 13, 2017 2:22 pm
by Venerable Bede » Thu Apr 13, 2017 2:25 pm
Coulee Croche wrote:Venerable Bede wrote:I'm unsure if you understand what principium means. It is Latin for origin or source; it is translated as "principle" in English, and it is in the RCC catechism.
246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)". The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."
The Spirit is not God's love, God's love is a property common to all three persons.
The Spirit is not "set in motion," God is impassible, immutable and unmovable.
CCC 248 Oh look what I found, golly.
Thank you, now i dont have to copy and paste from two places in the Catechism to support my claim, need we go further?At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason",78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle",79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.
by Anywhere Else But Here » Thu Apr 13, 2017 2:26 pm
The Alma Mater wrote:Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
Christ's commentary on homosexuality may not be recorded in the Canonical gospels. That however is a far different assertion than "Jesus never said that." The extent and scope of Christ's total teachings are not recorded.
Reasoning like that, Christ could also have said "slaughter all babies and feast on their flesh".
by Tarsonis Survivors » Thu Apr 13, 2017 2:57 pm
by Grave_n_idle » Thu Apr 13, 2017 3:16 pm
by Tarsonis Survivors » Thu Apr 13, 2017 3:26 pm
But let's examine your probability/possibility idea.
Since Jesus says absolutely nothing about homosexuality,
lwhich is more consistent? Which is more probable?
That he expressly condemned it, or that he just didn't express any judgement on it?
Both are possible. One is probable.
That's the problem with your argument that you can make assumptions outside of the text - even within your own 'logic', your own conclusion is the less probable option.
by Grave_n_idle » Thu Apr 13, 2017 3:42 pm
Tarsonis Survivors wrote:You apparently missed the part where I made a claim as to what Christ's opinion on homosexuality was. Oh wait, no you didn't because I didn't make one. I simply pointed out a recognized and biblically proclaimed fact: the gospels are not exhaustive cocordances of Christ's teachings .
Thanks for projecting your strawmanned arguments onto me though.
Tarsonis Survivors wrote:This is the fundamental problem with your argument. You're presuming that the Gospels are exhaustive accounts of Christ's teachings, they are not, and one even acknowledges this.
Tarsonis Survivors wrote:So the argument about "Jesus never said" is already shakey at best. The fact is we don't have any explicit written recordings of what Christ may or may not have said on the matter.
Tarsonis Survivors wrote:On the contrary, that's a basic function of higher reasoning: extrapolation.
by Tarsonis Survivors » Thu Apr 13, 2017 4:01 pm
Grave_n_idle wrote:Tarsonis Survivors wrote:You apparently missed the part where I made a claim as to what Christ's opinion on homosexuality was. Oh wait, no you didn't because I didn't make one. I simply pointed out a recognized and biblically proclaimed fact: the gospels are not exhaustive cocordances of Christ's teachings .
Thanks for projecting your strawmanned arguments onto me though.
It's not strawmanning.
Amusingly, you actually discuss extrapolation in this very post.
If you oppose the argument that Jesus didn't condemn homosexuals, it's not unreasonable to extrapolate that you're arguing in favour of the condemnation of homosexuals.
But you can easily put this to rest by simply stating that you believe Jesus was okay with the gay.
Tarsonis Survivors wrote:This is the fundamental problem with your argument. You're presuming that the Gospels are exhaustive accounts of Christ's teachings, they are not, and one even acknowledges this.
I'm not presuming that, at al.
I'm just not inventing external scripture.
Tarsonis Survivors wrote:So the argument about "Jesus never said" is already shakey at best. The fact is we don't have any explicit written recordings of what Christ may or may not have said on the matter.
Jesus is never recorded as saying it,
and it wouldn't be consistent with his message.
Tarsonis Survivors wrote:On the contrary, that's a basic function of higher reasoning: extrapolation.
Sure.
But extrapolation is not evidence.
by Grave_n_idle » Thu Apr 13, 2017 4:11 pm
Tarsonis Survivors wrote:I didn't realize the Gospel of St. John was "external" scripture.
by Salus Maior » Thu Apr 13, 2017 4:55 pm
Novsvacro wrote:What do you think of the Baha'i Faith?
by Tarsonis Survivors » Thu Apr 13, 2017 5:24 pm
by Grave_n_idle » Thu Apr 13, 2017 6:46 pm
Tarsonis Survivors wrote:Grave_n_idle wrote:
It might have been, prior to the canonisation.
But I think you're tilting at windmills, because I don't think anyone made the claim that it was.
You referenced external scripture in response to my claim that the gospels are admittedly not complete accountings of Christ's teachings. This is not a claim of external scripture it's a claim made in the Gospel of St. John.
by Luminesa » Thu Apr 13, 2017 7:09 pm
by Tarsonis Survivors » Thu Apr 13, 2017 7:35 pm
Grave_n_idle wrote:Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
You referenced external scripture in response to my claim that the gospels are admittedly not complete accountings of Christ's teachings. This is not a claim of external scripture it's a claim made in the Gospel of St. John.
The posts are still there. What you are saying is not what happened.
by Grave_n_idle » Thu Apr 13, 2017 7:47 pm
by Tarsonis Survivors » Thu Apr 13, 2017 9:20 pm
Grave_n_idle wrote:
You said that the fundamental problem with my argument was that I was presuming that the Gospels are the exhaustive accounts of Christ's teaching.
I haven't said that. What I have said, is that the recorded words we have in the scripture are the recorded words. We don't have any recorded words apart from that (self-evidently, I would have thought - I'm surprised this is being seen as controversial).
The subject we were discussing, by the way - was this: "Since Jesus says absolutely nothing about homosexuality, which is more consistent? Which is more probable? That he expressly condemned it, or that he just didn't express any judgement on it?"
Your response - that the problem with my argument was that I was presuming the gospels were exhaustive accounts - means that you are (once again) saying that there are other teachings, by Jesus, that just aren't in the scripture.
Which means you are inventing external scripture - because, by the very definition - these scriptures that you are claiming are NOT in the scripture, MUST be external to the scripture.
Again, I'm not seeing how this is considered controversial.
The gospel of St. John is irrelevant to this point. Unless you're arguing it is not in the Bible?
by Grave_n_idle » Thu Apr 13, 2017 9:47 pm
Tarsonis Survivors wrote: No, Christ is not a literary character who solely exists on the pages of a text. He was a figure in history, who taught real people. He existed.
Tarsonis Survivors wrote:By claiming he "said absolutely nothing about homosexuality", which you premise from the Gospel texts, it necessitates that the Gospels contain the totality of his teachings to be a definitive claim, which they don't.
Tarsonis Survivors wrote:It's then completely without merit to claim difinitively, that Christ never spoke on the subject of homosexuality...
by Tarsonis Survivors » Thu Apr 13, 2017 9:59 pm
Grave_n_idle wrote:Tarsonis Survivors wrote: No, Christ is not a literary character who solely exists on the pages of a text. He was a figure in history, who taught real people. He existed.
Or didn't.
Fortunately, it doesn't matter.Tarsonis Survivors wrote:By claiming he "said absolutely nothing about homosexuality", which you premise from the Gospel texts, it necessitates that the Gospels contain the totality of his teachings to be a definitive claim, which they don't.
The only things we can DEFINITELY say he said (if he was real, and the scripture is accurate) - are the things that we have evidence of.
Anything else is conjecture, at best. (Putting your OWN beliefs in the mouth of your messiah, at worst.)Tarsonis Survivors wrote:It's then completely without merit to claim difinitively, that Christ never spoke on the subject of homosexuality...
In interwebs circles, it has been common to offer variations around the theme 'pics or it didn't happen'.
There's a certain elegance to it.
If you can't prove Jesus said it, then it's not logical to assume he did.
by Grave_n_idle » Thu Apr 13, 2017 10:06 pm
Tarsonis Survivors wrote:all things considered, the assertion that Christ "approved" of homosexuality is highly unlikely.
by Tarsonis Survivors » Thu Apr 13, 2017 10:32 pm
Grave_n_idle wrote:Tarsonis Survivors wrote:all things considered, the assertion that Christ "approved" of homosexuality is highly unlikely.
"Highly unlikely" doesn't mean whatever you don't like.
Jesus' on central, consistent message is love. If you're getting something other than that, you're reading it wrong.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Atrito, Eahland, Ethel mermania, Ifreann, Simonia, Statesburg, Suriyanakhon, The Holy Therns, The Jamesian Republic, Valyxias
Advertisement