301 Predator Priests...

[carpedm9587]

In that context, it appears to be hyperbole. It is true that only God is holy by nature, but many are called holy in scripture ("saint" literally means "holy one").

Have you read the context? Yes, it's hyperbole, though it's also largely true.

I agree that it doesn't appear to be a general command intended for all believers, but why would it stop with them? It's not as if sin was no longer operative after their generation.

Sure.

I'm not quite sure where you're going with this; is this a continuation of your preceding argument, or a push-back against prayer to the saints? If the latter, I don't know of anyone who prays to a saint asking them to forgive their sins. On the other hand, what's wrong with seeking God's forgiveness for someone else?

For those engaged in this discussion, based on my previous life as a seminarian and (later) a Jesuit Novice, there are some notable errors in describing the Catholic "Sacrament of Reconciliation" (which goes by several other names. OBP seems to have it pretty spot on. For the rest, you might want to review the actual Catholic catechism on it as put forward by the Vatican instead of arguing against positions the formal church does not promote.

And I am not putting this forward as a statement of my own beliefs. First, much of this document still makes me go and it's hard to believe in such things when you don't believe there is a god!

[One Bad Pig]

I would take that as a given. If the leader says, "the earth is flat," and I follow that leader into that belief, then I am going to hold a wrong belief by definition. But "the earth is flat" is a verifiable statement. The problem with religions is there is no basis for verification.

That depends on the religion. A normative set of scriptures is a basis; tradition is another. Disputes arise over differences in interpretation or rejection of certain bases.

Every distinct religious group, by definition, believes the other religious groups are "wrong," at least to some degree. If they didn't, they wouldn't be separate. Every time a dispute arises in a religious organization, it is either quelled by the leadership (and sufficiently dissatisfied members go looking for a different church more to their liking or more aligned with their beliefs), or (usually if leadership is involved) it is resolved by a schism in the religion, creating two distinct religious groups that have the same beliefs on pretty much everything, except the specific thing that led to the schism. Christianity began to fragment almost from the day the original sect emerged, and today there are over 2500 distinct "Christian" sects across the planet. The variation in belief ranges from relatively small to ginormous. And each one thinks the others are wrong and following "mistaken leaders." From the outside looking in (now), it looks like a mess.

It IS a mess.

But that doesn't make everyone in that religion "evil." And if the leadership is engaging in evil acts, unbeknownst to the members, the members cannot be held accountable and should not be judged for it, IMO. I cannot be held responsible for another person's actions if I knew nothing about them and/or had no capability of affecting them.

I dunno - I'd probably consider everyone voluntarily following a religion espousing human sacrifice evil. We're not talking about holding members accountable for uknown evil acts by leadership.

[rogue06]

In doing so, they were breaking with Calvin.

While Calvin never condemned the concept it seems that he didn't exactly embrace it either. At least not in the way that Zwingli, Wesley and especially Luther did.

[One Bad Pig]

While Calvin never condemned the concept it seems that he didn't exactly embrace it either. At least not in the way that Zwingli, Wesley and especially Luther did.

Well, he denied that there was any scriptural warrant for rejecting the concept.

[carpedm9587]

That depends on the religion. A normative set of scriptures is a basis; tradition is another. Disputes arise over differences in interpretation or rejection of certain bases.

I work in telecommunications, a field riddled with "standards" that are considered "normative." Unfortunately, history taught us that these "standards" were far from normative. As with any other document, they were written in a language by humans. Languages are intrinsically symbolic, and symbols are subject to interpretation. To complicate things further, the standards have "options." The existence of a standard is not adequate to ensure that two devices developed to the same standard will inter-operate correctly. If two manufacturers interpret part of the standard differently, there will likely be problems. If they implement different options, there will likely be problems. If the standard was not well written and has areas that were not adequately specified, there will likely be problems.

This gave rise to "forums." These are working groups comprised of users, equipment manufacturers, and service providers. Their primary task is to provide clarification on the standards (i.e., more documents), specify which options should and should not be implemented, clarify obtuse language, and work too fill in gaps in the standard. Most importantly, they typically create a set of testing suites. Devices that go through this testing process (sometimes called "certification") are shown to interwork with one another.

Now take all of that and apply it to the bible. This is a document written 2-3.5K years ago by a multitude of authors, most of which could not have known one another. It was written in a different language and culture. We have no original copies of any of these documents. The oldest pieces we have are fragments the size of a credit card. Our first complete copies are centuries after the originals were believed to have been written. And most lay people are working from translations of translations of copies. What they speak to are human beliefs, attitudes, and rules for living - not a physical technology that can be quantified and tested. So there is no way to arrive at a "forum" with any definitive, standardizable outcome.

Yet, on this basis, people right and left claim "absolute and objective" knowledge of "absolute objective" standards that everyone is supposed to agree with. What god wants is "clearly documented." Even the idea of god itself is unquestionable. As a teacher - mathematician - and engineer - the claim is preposterous on its face. The level of certainty transcends the available evidence by orders of magnitude.

It IS a mess.

Agreed. And Christianity is not alone in this. Step a bit further back, and the entire world of "religion" is in this state.

I dunno - I'd probably consider everyone voluntarily following a religion espousing human sacrifice evil. We're not talking about holding members accountable for unknown evil acts by leadership.

Agreed. If the espoused beliefs of a religion are themselves evil, then it's membership is buying into evil. The same is true of any group that forms around a given belief. There are no "innocent" members of the KKK. There are no "innocent" members of the Westboro Baptist Church. There were no "innocent" members of the Third Reich (the government; there were clearly innocent people living within the country).

I don't think the same is true of most of the major religions of the world. Most of these religions, though I do not believe they are teaching "truth," are not actively teaching "evil."

[rogue06]

Well, he denied that there was any scriptural warrant for rejecting the concept.

In his "Commentary on Matthew 1:25" he wrote that

Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us.

This seems to be a case of fence straddling.

[One Bad Pig]

In his "Commentary on Matthew 1:25" he wrote that

This passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary’s perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us.

This seems to be a case of fence straddling.

I've added, in bold, what Calvin said immediately prior to that. When one position is a "pretext" and the other is "earnest"....

[rogue06]

I've added, in bold, what Calvin said immediately prior to that. When one position is a "pretext" and the other is "earnest"....

Calvin was no fan of Helvidius and expressed that on many occasions.

[Mountain Man]

In that context, it appears to be hyperbole. It is true that only God is holy by nature, but many are called holy in scripture ("saint" literally means "holy one").

Have you read the context? Yes, it's hyperbole, though it's also largely true.

I agree that it doesn't appear to be a general command intended for all believers, but why would it stop with them? It's not as if sin was no longer operative after their generation.

Sure.

I'm not quite sure where you're going with this; is this a continuation of your preceding argument, or a push-back against prayer to the saints? If the latter, I don't know of anyone who prays to a saint asking them to forgive their sins. On the other hand, what's wrong with seeking God's forgiveness for someone else?

It's the whole "Forgive me, father, for I have sinned" thing. It's not his place. If I've sinned against God then I need to go directly to him. What would you say if someone came to you and said, "I've sinned against God! Can you ask him to forgive me?" I would say, "No, you need to ask him yourself."

[oxmixmudd]

It's the whole "Forgive me, father, for I have sinned" thing. It's not his place. If I've sinned against God then I need to go directly to him. What would you say if someone came to you and said, "I've sinned against God! Can you ask him to forgive me?" I would say, "No, you need to ask him yourself."

But we are encouraged to confess our sins to one another (not actually done much or in great detail outside catholic circles - who do you trust?) So the real issue is the idea of someone (a priest) pronouncing forgiveness on another (the confessor)?

Is that what actually happens? Or is it more subtle than that. Is the priest forgiving or is he pronouncing that Christ has forgiven (which the Bible tells us He will in fact do to those that repent)?

Just revealing a little of my own ignorance of the practice and asking those that are practicing Catholics to clarify.


Jim

[Mountain Man]

I work in telecommunications, a field riddled with "standards" that are considered "normative." Unfortunately, history taught us that these "standards" were far from normative. As with any other document, they were written in a language by humans. Languages are intrinsically symbolic, and symbols are subject to interpretation. To complicate things further, the standards have "options." The existence of a standard is not adequate to ensure that two devices developed to the same standard will inter-operate correctly. If two manufacturers interpret part of the standard differently, there will likely be problems. If they implement different options, there will likely be problems. If the standard was not well written and has areas that were not adequately specified, there will likely be problems.

This gave rise to "forums." These are working groups comprised of users, equipment manufacturers, and service providers. Their primary task is to provide clarification on the standards (i.e., more documents), specify which options should and should not be implemented, clarify obtuse language, and work too fill in gaps in the standard. Most importantly, they typically create a set of testing suites. Devices that go through this testing process (sometimes called "certification") are shown to interwork with one another.

Now take all of that and apply it to the bible. This is a document written 2-3.5K years ago by a multitude of authors, most of which could not have known one another. It was written in a different language and culture. We have no original copies of any of these documents. The oldest pieces we have are fragments the size of a credit card. Our first complete copies are centuries after the originals were believed to have been written. And most lay people are working from translations of translations of copies. What they speak to are human beliefs, attitudes, and rules for living - not a physical technology that can be quantified and tested. So there is no way to arrive at a "forum" with any definitive, standardizable outcome.

Yet, on this basis, people right and left claim "absolute and objective" knowledge of "absolute objective" standards that everyone is supposed to agree with. What god wants is "clearly documented." Even the idea of god itself is unquestionable. As a teacher - mathematician - and engineer - the claim is preposterous on its face. The level of certainty transcends the available evidence by orders of magnitude.



Agreed. And Christianity is not alone in this. Step a bit further back, and the entire world of "religion" is in this state.



Agreed. If the espoused beliefs of a religion are themselves evil, then it's membership is buying into evil. The same is true of any group that forms around a given belief. There are no "innocent" members of the KKK. There are no "innocent" members of the Westboro Baptist Church. There were no "innocent" members of the Third Reich (the government; there were clearly innocent people living within the country).

I don't think the same is true of most of the major religions of the world. Most of these religions, though I do not believe they are teaching "truth," are not actively teaching "evil."

I will simply note that contrary to what most if not all skeptics believe, the Bible is far less ambiguous and open to interpretation than the technical standards you describe. Skeptics who claim otherwise are speaking from ignorance.

You also assume that one must interpret scripture without supernatural guidance. If you accept the premise that God exists, if only for the sake of argument, then you can accept that he can guide us to a proper understanding.

[Mountain Man]

But we are encouraged to confess our sins to one another (not actually done much or in great detail outside catholic circles - who do you trust?) So the real issue is the idea of someone (a priest) pronouncing forgiveness on another (the confessor)?

Is that what actually happens? Or is it more subtle than that. Is the priest forgiving or is he pronouncing that Christ has forgiven (which the Bible tells us He will in fact do to those that repent)?

Just revealing a little of my own ignorance of the practice and asking those that are practicing Catholics to clarify.


Jim

Confess, yes, but not ask others to forgive you on God's behalf. Even the Pharisees recognized that as blasphemy.

[Sparko]

Confess, yes, but not ask others to forgive you on God's behalf. Even the Pharisees recognized that as blasphemy.

I don't think that is what they do though. don't they just ask the saints to intercede for them? Basically I heard it explained as the same as when you ask your friends to pray for you. My question is how can the saints hear prayers in the first place and how can they hear prayers for thousands of people at a time? Seems logistically impossible for anyone who is not omniscient. Plus it would take up all of their time. Seems like a lot of work for heaven.

I never heard of them asking the saints to forgive them on God's behalf.

[Terraceth]

It's the whole "Forgive me, father, for I have sinned" thing. It's not his place. If I've sinned against God then I need to go directly to him. What would you say if someone came to you and said, "I've sinned against God! Can you ask him to forgive me?" I would say, "No, you need to ask him yourself."

Well, for starters, despite what you'll sometimes see in popular entertainment, the line is actually "Bless me, father, for I have sinned."

[carpedm9587]

I will simply note that contrary to what most if not all skeptics believe, the Bible is far less ambiguous and open to interpretation than the technical standards you describe. Skeptics who claim otherwise are speaking from ignorance.

No. I would suggest that those who claim an unsupportable level of certainty are the ones speaking from ignorance. They simply do not understand the nuances of human symbolic language.

You also assume that one must interpret scripture without supernatural guidance. If you accept the premise that God exists, if only for the sake of argument, then you can accept that he can guide us to a proper understanding.

Which is a self-supporting tautology. Naturally, if I accept that an all-powerful, all-knowing, ever present being exists, I have to accept that such a being could guide any individual to correct understanding.

Unless, of course, such a being doesn't actually exist, and this "correct understanding" is nothing more than a personal delusion.

I have a coin ready to flip...