Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Eli Islands]

that is true thank you for correcting me.

You probably shouldn't consider that to be 'correction'.

You can justify anything that way.

the reason I considered that a correction is because he (or she) helped refine my statement.

[Venerable Bede]

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.

Uniates aren't Orthodox, they just Roman Catholics who use our rite, or at least something like it. Catholics seem to simplify us tremendously in that regard, thinking it is all about rites (perhaps they forget that there are Western Rite Orthodox). There is no Uniate equivalent to Theophan the Recluse, Uniates have not generated a single saint or thinker in the Orthodox vein of holiness since splitting with us. Doctrine for us is not petty drivel.

By "salt", in our understanding, Christ means "zeal". Christianity is bland and lukewarm without it, it has no flavor; it also doesn't preserve well, traditions and doctrines erode.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

that is true thank you for correcting me.

You probably shouldn't consider that to be 'correction'.

You can justify anything that way.

Except I didn't justify anything 1.

2. As I've repeatedly pointed out to you, that's biblical.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

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".

Possible, but not probable.

[Grave_n_idle]

You probably shouldn't consider that to be 'correction'.

You can justify anything that way.

Except I didn't justify anything 1.

2. As I've repeatedly pointed out to you, that's biblical.

Jesus said he hated a Nationstates poster called Tarsonis Survivors.

Sure, it's not recorded in the canonical gospels, but that doesn't mean he didn't say it.

[Eli Islands]

Except I didn't justify anything 1.

2. As I've repeatedly pointed out to you, that's biblical.

Jesus said he hated a Nationstates poster called Tarsonis Survivors.

Sure, it's not recorded in the canonical gospels, but that doesn't mean he didn't say it.

dang

[Venerable Bede]

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.

Your claim is that the Son, along with the Father, is the single principle (origin/source/beginning) of the Spirit? Because that is what it says in what you quoted, "[the Father] is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds." Is this single principle, the "first" principle aforementioned? That is, "the first origin of the Spirit"? If so, then the Father and the Son are the first and only principle; or is a second principle? In which case, it is wrong to call it the "single" principle. Can you not see this is blatant mendacity?

[Anywhere Else But Here]

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".

I believe that's in the Gospel according to Tarantino.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Except I didn't justify anything 1.

2. As I've repeatedly pointed out to you, that's biblical.

Jesus said he hated a Nationstates poster called Tarsonis Survivors.

Sure, it's not recorded in the canonical gospels, but that doesn't mean he didn't say it.

You apparently missed the class on the differention between possibility and probability.

[Grave_n_idle]

Jesus said he hated a Nationstates poster called Tarsonis Survivors.

Sure, it's not recorded in the canonical gospels, but that doesn't mean he didn't say it.

You apparently missed the class on the differention between possibility and probability.

You apparently missed the class on what historical evidence does and doesn't support.

Clue: the answer isn't 'whatever I want'.


But let's examine your probability/possibility idea.

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?

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.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

You apparently missed the class on the differention between possibility and probability.

You apparently missed the class on what historical evidence does and doesn't support.

Clue: the answer isn't 'whatever I want'.

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.

But let's examine your probability/possibility idea.

Since Jesus says absolutely nothing about homosexuality,

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. 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. We do have mountains of evidence based on things Christ is recorded as saying, as well as cultural and historical contexts, as well as teachings from sources who either learned directly from him, or were approved by those who learned directly from him.

which 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.

l

On the contrary, that's a basic function of higher reasoning: extrapolation.

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

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.

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.

On the contrary, that's a basic function of higher reasoning: extrapolation.

Sure.

But extrapolation is not evidence.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

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.

Ah but thats not what I said now is it? I challenged the asserting that "Jesus never said that" assertion typically made by LGBT apololists. Saying Jesus didn't condemn homosexuals, and Jesus never commented on homosexuality, are two different claims.

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.

I didn't realize the Gospel of St. John was "external" scripture.

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,

fact.

and it wouldn't be consistent with his message.

Opinion.

On the contrary, that's a basic function of higher reasoning: extrapolation.

Sure.

But extrapolation is not evidence.

Extroplaion comes from a multiple of sources, not just Scripture, something you've proven unwilling to do.

[Grave_n_idle]

I didn't realize the Gospel of St. John was "external" scripture.

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.

[Salus Maior]

What do you think of the Baha'i Faith?

From what I know of it, it's basically Islamic flavored Unitarian Universalism.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I didn't realize the Gospel of St. John was "external" scripture.

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. I've reiterated this multiple times which you constantly ignore.

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

The posts are still there. What you are saying is not what happened.

[Luminesa]

I didn't realize the Gospel of St. John was "external" scripture.

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.

Written in 90 A.D. by a direct witness to Jesus? Nnnnnnnno. That doesn't get pushed to the outside.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

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.

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.

Thats exactly what happened.

[Grave_n_idle]

The posts are still there. What you are saying is not what happened.

I'm not presuming that, at al.

I'm just not inventing external scripture.

Thats exactly what happened.

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?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Thats exactly what happened.

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?

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. 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. We know this by critical analysis for the text (there's no way they contain the totality of even one years worth of teachings, rather specific incidents of teachings), and by biblical proclamation in the final verse of St. John's Gospel, that the Gospels are not complete accounts.

It's then completely without merit to claim difinitively, that Christ never spoke on the subject of homosexuality, and any argument that stems from such a claim, is falacious. That's the only point I have made.

Any other argument you think I have made is your own conjecture.

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

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.)

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.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

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.

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.)

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.

To claim he never said it, and use it as a foundational premise to argue Christ supports/would support homosexuality being legitimized in Christian theology, requires evidence to substantiate that claim. My point is it can't be used either way.


That being said, because we don't know the full breadth of Christ's teachings, his views on Homosexuslity must be inferred from his other teachings, life, culture, contemporaries, Religious Traditins, etc. all things considered, the assertion that Christ "approved" of homosexuality is highly unlikely.

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

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.

Jesus central message of love and condemning/not condoming homosexual conduct, are not mutually exclusive actions.

And I think that's where I'll leave this discussion.