Questioning all communication. Except for mine.

In the very large combox of a recent post, Paul C has been advancing an 'argument' that has become one of my biggest pet peeves.  Its history and usage is inclusive among liberals, Emergents (but I repeat myself), Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, atheists, other skeptics, and now Paul C (who doesn't really divulge his own position).  It's a pet peeve of mine because it casts doubt on all communication.  It is self-defeating.  It is absurd.  And it's an obvious smokescreen to conceal when someone is out of substantive arguments on a given topic.
In this case, Paul C unwisely decided to question Coram Deo and me on biblical doctrine.  Sidenote - it's never advisable for a skeptic to challenge a Calvinist like Coram Deo on such grounds, and I don't recommend doing so with me either.

So, let's get on with it.
Paul C said:
"God said you do" = "your specific interpretation of the Bible". There are many, many Christians who don't share your specific interpretation of your Bible, and there is precisely no reason why I should accept your interpretation over theirs.

Your only defense at this point is to claim that they are wrong, and you are right, because your understanding of the bible is accurate and theirs is not. Unfortunately that isn't actually a reason to accept your interpretation over theirs; it's just your opinion.

But feeeeeeeeeeeeeel free to try.

Rhology said...

Let's say Jimmy were to come along and ask, "Hmm, what does Paul C's last comment mean?"
And Chris said, "It means he is eating tortillas and guacamole."

Paul C might later object and say "No, I was discussing whether I'm a sinner a la Christian theology."
But that = "your specific interpretation of your comment". There are many, many readers who don't share your specific interpretation of your comment, and there is precisely no reason why I should accept your interpretation over theirs.

Your only defense at this point is to claim that they are wrong, and you are right, because your understanding of your comment is accurate and theirs is not. Unfortunately that isn't actually a reason to accept your interpretation over theirs; it's just your opinion.

Wed Dec 08, 03:22:00 PM CST 

Paul C said...

Tragically your argument (once again) fails. Your appeal to meaning is rooted in the text under dispute, which is of course viciously circular reasoning. How do you know your reading of the Bible is right? Because your reading of the Bible tells you so. Nice try; epic fail.

Thu Dec 09, 04:27:00 PM CST

Coram Deo said...

Tragically your argument (once again) fails. Your appeal to meaning is rooted in the text under dispute, which is of course viciously circular reasoning. How do you know your reading of the Bible is right? Because your reading of the Bible tells you so. Nice try; epic fail.

But that's just your opinion, and there are readers who don't share your specific interpretation of Rho's comment, and there is precisely no reason why I should accept your interpretation over theirs.

In Him,
CD

Fri Dec 10, 06:33:00 AM CST

Paul C said...

But that's just your opinion, and there are readers who don't share your specific interpretation of Rho's comment, and there is precisely no reason why I should accept your interpretation over theirs.

Well, this is pretty easy to resolve - you can ask Rho to clarify, and he can post a comment for both of us to see right here, in this very comments box. This gives us *additional* information to clarify the *original* information, and is therefore not circular.

So now perhaps you'd like to claim that you can get *additional* information from God to clarify the *original* information he provided in the Bible? Unfortunately that additional information doesn't appear to be forthcoming - and if it is, isn't it strange that different Christians claim to have different additional information?

Sat Dec 11, 06:32:00 AM CST 

Now, let's stop for a moment and see how Paul C has already lost the argument.  Why, if the text of the Bible is unclear, is more communication going to help?  Adding more unclear information that requires interpretation, where necessity of interpretation = necessary lack of clarity in Paul C's view as expressed here, is not going to help.  It's going to hinder.  When you want to clear smoke, do you add more smoke?

He thinks that another comment from me will help, but will he allow the Bible that same thing?  Isn't the Bible pretty long, and doesn't it comment on the same topic in multiple passages on most topics?  Does Paul C want a Pope?

And why is his comment exempt from this "problem" as he has set it out?  If I have a different interpretation of:

-His comment

-His clarification

-The clarification of his clarification
-Etc

to the effect that I'm still convinced he's discussing tortillas, will Paul C simply throw up his hands, as he is pretending to with respect to the Bible?  Yeah, probably not.

Coram Deo picks up on this:

Coram Deo said...

So now perhaps you'd like to claim that you can get *additional* information from God to clarify the *original* information he provided in the Bible? Unfortunately that additional information doesn't appear to be forthcoming - and if it is, isn't it strange that different Christians claim to have different additional information?

Why should I believe Rho's additional information? After all he might be lying or confused.

I like my interpretation just fine, and since Rho might be lying or confused can you think of any non-circular reason why I should give more credence or weight to an external authority over my own personal autonomous authority?

What if I think I know best?

In Him,
CD

Sat Dec 11, 10:21:00 AM CST 

Paul C said...

What if I think I know best?

You mean, what if you view your interpretation of Rho's statement in the same way as you view your interpretation of the Bible?

If you viewed your interpretation of Rho's statement in that way, I guess you could claim whatever you wanted about his statement *and* claim that only your view was correct.

Which was, of course, my point about your interpretation of the Bible. And here was me thinking that we disagreed!

Sun Dec 12, 05:59:00 AM CST

Coram Deo said...

You mean, what if you view your interpretation of Rho's statement in the same way as you view your interpretation of the Bible?

If you viewed your interpretation of Rho's statement in that way, I guess you could claim whatever you wanted about his statement *and* claim that only your view was correct.

Which was, of course, my point about your interpretation of the Bible. And here was me thinking that we disagreed!

Close, but you missed.

The point is that I was inserting myself into your worldview. If the One true and living God is not the ultimate authority, and if His truth has not been revealed in the 66 books of the Holy Bible, then you and I and Rho are truly autonomous, and we are each our own ultimate authorities.

This gets back to my prior point that you are your own god. You dismissed the suggestion pretending not to know what I meant, but hopefully now you can understand.

The irony is that your worldview is self-defeating because you have no grounds from which to make an objection about anyone else's interpretation of anything, because everything is ultimately just a matter of each individual's subjective interpretation, which is ultimate for each individual.

In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes. - Judges 17:6; 21:5

Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the LORD weighs the heart. - Proverbs 21:2

Although not not entirely on subject, you might find this article to be of interest.

In Him,
CD

Sun Dec 12, 08:41:00 AM CST

Rhology said...

Paul C said earlier: There are many, many Christians who don't share your specific interpretation of your Bible, and there is precisely no reason why I should accept your interpretation over theirs.

Your only defense at this point is to claim that they are wrong, and you are right, because your understanding of the bible is accurate and theirs is not. Unfortunately that isn't actually a reason to accept your interpretation over theirs; it's just your opinion.

But feeeeeeeeeeeeeel free to try. 


Paul C says now: I don't believe that “everything is ulimately just a matter of each individual's subjective interpretation”, so this argument has no purchase with me whatsoever.

Now, Paul C has many times shown himself to be willingly, intentionally obtuse, so I don't expect him to accept the obvious here, but it should be obvious to anyone else reading.

Mon Dec 13, 11:04:00 AM CST

Paul C later circles back around on himself, as if he forgot, never read, or just didn't comprehend what has gone before:

Paul C said...

Answers to all your questions:

Are you equally interested in my metric to support the accuracy of my personal interpretation that chocolate ice cream is superior to vanilla ice cream, or why I believe my chosen brand of chocolate ice cream is superior to the brand of chocolate ice cream selected by others?

No, I'm only interested in what metric you use to discern the accuracy of your personal interpretation of the Bible over that presented by other Christians.

Why or why not?

Because this discussion is about what metric you use to discern the accuracy of your personal interpretation of the Bible over that presented by other Christians.

Are my religious metrics more important or meaningful to you than my ice cream metrics?

Yes, I'm only interested in what metric you use to discern the accuracy of your personal interpretation of the Bible over that presented by other Christians.

If so, why?

Because this discussion is about what metric you use to discern the accuracy of your personal interpretation of the Bible over that presented by other Christians.

Anyway, why should I answer your questions?

I can offer you no reason why you should answer my single simple question, other than to demonstrate what metric you use to discern the accuracy of your personal interpretation of the Bible over that presented by other Christians.

Why would you care? What difference does it make to you?

Why I care and what difference it will make to me is irrelevant to the question of what metric you use to discern the accuracy of your personal interpretation of the Bible over that presented by other Christians.

So, now that I've answered all of your questions in full, perhaps you'll do me the courtesy of answering the single question that I posed to you before you started throwing irrelevant questions at me. What metric do you use to discern the accuracy of your personal interpretation of the Bible over that presented by other Christians?

Thu Dec 16, 05:33:00 PM CST

Rhology said...

One last time, then: what metric do you use to decide that your interpretation of your own comment is more accurate than another skeptic who doesn't share your specific beliefs?

Either you have one, or you don't. If you do have one, I'd have thought that you want to share it both with other skeptics and non-skeptics alike, in order to help them come to truth.

But perhaps you don't have any metric at all. That would be funny, wouldn't it? So very, very funny.

Fri Dec 17, 07:27:00 AM CST 

Finally, David, having totally missed the point, chimes in with a completely unhelpful aside:

David said...

Paul C,

The problem is that Alan and CD do not have an answer to your question. Hence, the need to evade and digress.

Fri Dec 17, 09:09:00 AM CST

Let's just answer him here so as to get it out in the open.

David,

My interpretation of your comment is that you're inviting Paul C for coffee on Mars.  

Please give me a good reason to think that my interpretation of your comment is wrong, whereas your preference of interpretation is correct.  Then make sure to let me know why I should prefer your interpretation of your answer to that question over mine, b/c my guess is that I'll continue to think you're discussing coffee on Mars.  Answer that question as many times as you can, and let me know when you're done, so I can just say, with Paul C: "That's just your interpretation" one more time, so I can distract and divert you, so that you won't have to deal with the actual topic at hand.

On the cosmological argument

Discussions on this blog come around to the Cosmological Argument every so often.  I enjoy talking about it and think it is a compelling argument, so that's why I bring it up.

From the last post's comment box, I thought this interaction between the Jolly Nihilist and I was worthy of posting:


JN said: our confidence is commensurate with the evidence

You mean, what you think the evidence is, now.  But this is not the face you usually put forward; you guys like to present science as pretty much the be-all, end-all of knowledge.  Then when we ask enough questions, we break you back down to the nitty-gritty - we can't actually be certain about these things.  But we're sure we can form conclusions "commensurate with the evidence", even though we're relying on inductive reasoning and arguments from authority, and it could all be totally different tomorrow.


Ppl used to say that about geocentrism, spontaneous generation of flies from rotting meat, etc. How do you know you've got it right this time?


Again, science is not structured to provide absolute certitude, and thus, no scientific truth, no matter how well evidenced, is immutable.

So you don't know you've got it right this time.  Cool, thanks.



In the very, very distant future, all the other galaxies will have receded from us to the point that, no matter how hard we look, their light will be unable to reach us.

What's even funnier is that you don't know you're looking at galaxies now.  Have you ever looked at something like a 2-D illusion from one spot, which looked like it was flat, then moved to a different spot to get a different perspective, and it was a 3-D figure?  Well, in our case, we can't exactly change our perspective by moving an appreciable distance w.r.t. these far-off views.  But I don't hear lots of hemming and hawing from the scientific establishment that would be commensurate with the caveats you're giving us here. Why is this, if not self-deception in action, leading to deception of others?


Cosmologists of this very, very distant future could do the very best, most perfect science and reach the (erroneous) conclusion that our galaxy is alone in the cosmos.

If the cosmologists of the future are anything like the evo biologists of today, who don't have access to the past and yet presume to tell us that evolution is a "fact", they won't say what you're saying.  They'll say they're sure of what we know to be true.  And if you ask them enough questions, they'll throw a fit and excommunicate you.



I see no reason why those laws must exist temporally. Why could they not exist outside of space-time as we know it?

Again, laws are DESCRIPTORS.
1) Laws are statements of observed behavior.  If there's no observer, there's no law.
2) As I've said at least twice now, if there's no THING to behave, there's no behavior.  No behavior = no law.
3) And since, if a thing existed an infinite amount of time, we'd run into the problem of traversing an infinite, this argument fails.


We say this, we believe it, but can we prove it? No.”

Quite so - it's your blind faith religion.  Well said.



one must assume that the cause of the universe did not begin to exist because... failure to make this assumption makes WLC's argument potentially infinitely regressive and, thus, absurd?

I don't know what's so hard about this.  When given a choice between a logical fallacy and a logical non-fallacy, why wouldn't you choose the non-fallacy?


Merely pushes the question back a step. This is not an answer.


Exactly! And neither is WLC's argument a genuine answer.

Look, you can say that all you want, but the Ultimate First Cause, outside of spacetime, is a causally sufficient answer for the problem we're dealing with.  An infinitely old piece of matter isn't.  And as we've seen, "laws" aren't either.
You need to provide an argument why the UFCause doesn't answer the problem, not just assert it.


P1: Cause-and-effect relationships are temporal in nature.

Premise 1 is the problem.  Some cause-effect relationships are LOGICALLY ordered, not CHRONOlogically ordered.

An example of why I hold Hitchens in pretty low regard

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVA5GB_6nWQ#t=4m40s

"...what we now know about the quantum...suggests that nothing from nothing isn't as much of a contradiction as it may seem..."
You know, because if there's nothing and something came from nothing, it's because the quantum did it.  Got a gap in your knowledge?  Quantumdidit!
And of course, quantum is something.  Which shows, of course, that something could come from nothing, since something came from nothing, because of quantum.

This reminds me of a clever quip from Dinesh D'Souza -
"Now, we live at a time unfortunately where what physicists call 'quantum weirdness' has become an excuse for theoretical promiscuity. You don't know how to explain something, all you have to do is keep chanting repeatedly the word 'quantum'. You don't understand consciousness, 'well, it's probably some sort of a quantum thing'. This is not explanation; this is idiocy."
- Dinesh D'Souza, debate with John Loftus, minute 47:00

The Westboro cult is coming to protest at my church

Over the course of time, I've had skeptical commenters here and elsewhere compare me to the Westboro freaks.  Such comparisons are gratuitously ignorant and insulting, with no substance whatever.
I guess there are a few similarities I can think of:
-Both our churches contain the name "Baptist"
-We both say "Jesus" and "God" and "judgment", though with varying degrees of frequency
-We're all human beings
-We have breathed the same air molecules at times in our lives
-We drink water
-That might be about it.

Now, what are the differences?
-They're led by one guy and the entire "congregation" consists mostly of his extended family
-It would appear that all they do is attract media attention to themselves by explicitly hating most everyone
-They do in fact hate most everyone
-Etc.
-Most importantly, they are all law and no Gospel.


I've commented on this before, but their main problem is that, unlike most of America and American evanjellyfishism, which is highly antinomian, the Westmorons preaching literally nothing but law, judgment, and destruction.  To the ignorant, it can seem like my message is the same, but let's look a little more closely.

Westmorons - America, and you personally, have offended God and there is no hope for you. You are doomed.  Repent. It won't do you any good, but repent anyway.  God hates you and you'll burn in Hell.
The Gospel (good news) I preach - America, and you personally, have offended God and there is only one hope for you - Jesus Christ. You are doomed outside of Jesus Christ.  Repent. It will do you every good.  Refuse to repent and you'll burn in Hell, and though God has love for you, it will be as if He hates you.

Huge difference, foundational difference.  The Westboro cult is a completely different religion than mine.  Neither I nor the Southern Baptists (I attend an SBC church) want anything to do with Westboro; we have both explicitly rejected any tie with them.

I discovered yesterday that the feeling is mutual.
From their wehateeverybody.com site (or something like that):

Trinity Baptist Church in Somewhere, OK    December 5, 2010  10:10 AM - 10:40 AM

WBC will picket Trinity Baptist Church to remind these so-called Christians that the Lord commanded them to boldly preach the whole truth of the Gospel, not the lies about a weak, effeminate "God loves everybody" Christ. The Baptists know full good and well that God hates fags and that he casts fags and those that enable them into Hell forever. They are afraid to tell the truth about God's Word because they do not want to suffer afflictions for Christ's sake.

"Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake."  Matthew 5:11 

These so-called baptists care for this world, not the world to come.  They tell you what you want to hear to keep the money coming in.  It is the blind leading the blind and you will both land in the pits of hell!

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"  Isaiah 5:20

I'd like to extend my appreciation to Phred Felps and his inbred clan for their contribution to the clarity of the good news that it is my heart to proclaim to everyone in all nations. Interestingly, they're mostly wrong about my church.
-We do boldly preach the truth of the Gospel.  So much so that we routinely encounter persecution and reviling, much like Matthew 5:11 says.  (BTW, what does "Gospel" [good news] mean to Westboro? You're doomed without hope. Not very good news.)  It's simply ignorant to say our fear of affliction leads us to chicken out of controversy for the sake of truth.
-They'd have a hard time producing biblical proof that God does not in fact love everyone.  He doesn't love everyone the same, but that's not what they said, is it?
-We know full well such things.  I don't know about full good.
-Yes, God will cast unrepentant homosexuals into Hell, just like all unrepentant sinners.  We offer the homosexual healing and restoration to a relationship with Jesus, just like all sinners.  It's what we all need.  Westboro offers no healing, no love, no restoration.  When it comes to sin, they cut themselves the slack they need to assuage their own consciences, but they're unwilling to extend to others the same mercy.
-Our church is, um, not monetarily rich.  The elders don't even have access to the giving records in order to know who gives what.

All that to say that Westboro has excommunicated me.  Let that be a lesson to you, hater.  Felps and I want nothing to do with each other.  Even if I do plan to offer him coffee and cinnamon rolls Sunday morning.
Luke 6:27“But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29“Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either. 30“Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back. 31“Treat others the same way you want them to treat you. 32“If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33“If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34“If you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners in order to receive back the same amount. 35“But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men.

bossmanham, Pope Benedict, condoms, and me - 2

Good stuff on the previous post's comment thread.

Joel said:
since the Catholics did kinda sorta take a lot of it back in Vatican II, don't you think that amounts to a de facto retraction, at least of some of it?

The inconsistencies and complete lack of clarity with respect to this issue make such questions an exercise in wishing upon a star, I should think.  Which side do you want to prefer they meant?  They certainly can't tell you; the RCC has felled thousands of trees in its self-"clarification"; if they could, they'd'a done it by now.
So, what are we, Reformedigelicals, to do?  I guess it comes down to what you want to do.  I think it's far more useful to nail people to Trent and hold them there, b/c ISTM this allows the difference inherent in the true Gospel to shine forth that much more brilliantly.  Much like the Law kills in its condemnation, and it is in finding our condemnation to a messy and awful eternity lifted by the messy and awful sacrifice of Christ that we understand how exalted and wonderful the free gift of grace truly is. 
There's also the smaller issue that people need to come out of RCC, whether you think RCC teaches saving doctrine or not.  Being right before God is not the end; it is the beginning.  And most ppl are far more familiar with Vat2 and the modern squishy liberal RCC than they are with the heretic-burning Trent RCC.  I seek to remind them that the modern RCC has not taken back Trent, and remind them that they need to come out of such a screwed up church in favor of one that is far less doctrinally screwed up.  Even if you're saved, it does you no good, and in fact does you a lot of bad, to be bowing down to Mary all the time.


bossmanham,

Let's go further into Trent, though:

  CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

  CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

(In other words, if you say you're justified ONLY by the sacrifice of Christ, anathema to you.)


  CANON XVII.-If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.

(Anathematises Calvinists.  And Augustinians.)



Oh, and "anathema" to RCC generally means "cut off from the Church".  It's a roundabout way of damning you, but a few observations on that:
1) It's sort of a cowardly way of affirming Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus w/o affirming it. 
2) It allows a man the time to come back to the Church.
3) It's a different meaning than what the Bible means when it uses the term.  Which is a problem.
4) It's supposed to be a bad deal for the anathematised man b/c he is thus cut off from the reception of the Sacraments (confession, Eucharist, etc), which are the main ways thru which grace is infused into the soul.  The hidden message is:  "Good luck getting to Heaven without the Sacraments.  If you know what's good for you, you'll come back to The Church®".

bossmanham, Pope Benedict, condoms, and me

bossmanham and I have just concluded a Facebook conversation.  He had posted this:
Like usual, the media has made someone say what they didn't actually say. Sad. The media truly is dead.

about this column from Roman Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin - "The Pope Said WHAT about Condoms???"

bossmanham is a bit too sympathetic to Rome for my taste, and I chimed in with a comment.  The following is our dialogue.

--Rhology-- Well...I don't know about that. He said it, after all.
This kind of ridiculous double standard doesn't make sense from Roman Catholics, like: "It does not carry dogmatic or canonical force."
Oh, b/c Jimmy Akin says so? Where's his imprimatur, nihil obstat, or Cardinal hat? Where's his Magisterium card?

Also, the Pope's statement that the use of condoms by males prostitutes could be "the first step towards moralization" was quite disturbing. As if the job of the church is to see that the world is "moralized". I think that shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Pope doesn't know the Gospel. He talks like a politician, not a shepherd of souls.


--bossmanham-- It's the spin the media has put on what he said that is the problem. A private interview with the pope isn't a dogmatic judgment. Catholics are pretty clear about this actually. Only when the pope speaks ex cathedra does it carry infallible force in their view. The pope can have private views that are wrong according to RC doctrine.

The media has painted this statement as an approval of using condoms, if only in this situation, when it seems that what he is saying is that in that case, it is a realization by the prostitute that what he is doing isn't necessarily right; that perhaps they are having a moral reckoning that what they are doing is wrong. That's what I take away from it after reading about it for a bit.

I'm not sure why Akin would need any of those things to try to interpret what the pope was saying. As a Catholic, it would seem he'd have some knowledge as to Catholic dogma.

I'm not sure how the pope saying that someone may be realizing their moral failure could lead you to believe that his soteriology is one of moralizing the world. I don't have a problem with moral teachings as long as we aren't concluding that that can make us right with God. So I think you're being a little hasty saying, "I think that shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Pope doesn't know the Gospel." I don't think we can make that judgment off of this tiny portion of an interview.

But I will agree that it seems to be something said carelessly. I wouldn't have said that was acceptable at all, but would have said that if you need to use a condom, you shouldn't be having sex. So it was a dumb thing to say, but my critique of media spin still stands.


--Rhology-- ‎--A private interview with the pope isn't a dogmatic judgment.

Says you. You need to explain why what you say is more important/authoritative than what the Pope says.

--Catholics are pretty clear about this actually

Not that clear, if you read the combox of the post to which you linked. One is tempted to think that RCism is a blueprint for anarchy.

--Only when the pope speaks ex cathedra does it carry infallible force in their view.

Not that anyone can ever identify when he does speak ex cathedra.

--could lead you to believe that his soteriology is one of moralizing the world.

Why would someone who's familiar with the Gospel say anything, ever, to the effect that "moralising the world" is a worthy goal?

-- I don't think we can make that judgment off of this tiny portion of an interview.

I didn't, thanks for your concern. ;-)
But you'd never catch me saying anything like that. Ever. Words mean things, you know?


--bossmanham-- ‎"Says you. You need to explain why what you say is more important/authoritative than what the Pope says"

Because what the pope says isn't always authoritative as dogma. Beyond that it could be debated, I'm sure. Just like many opinions of other Catholic theologians, liberal or conservative.

"Not that clear, if you read the combox of the post to which you linked. One is tempted to think that RCism is a blueprint for anarchy."

Well one reason I'm not Catholic is because I don't think their hierarchical structure is Biblical. I honestly don't think that many random internet Catholics are that informed about their dogmas. But then here's another problem with magisterial infallibility, who interprets the magisterial proclamations?

Anyway, I said they were clear on what is authoritative from the pope. That doesn't mean that I approve.

"Not that anyone can ever identify when he does speak ex cathedra."

Perhaps, but what IS ex cathedra teaching is distinct from the dogmatic proclamation that ex cathedra is all that is considered infallible.

"Why would someone who's familiar with the Gospel say anything, ever, to the effect that "moralising the world" is a worthy goal?"

I don't know that he said that, but I also wonder what the problem with moral teaching is. Jesus did it. So did Paul. That doesn't mean it saves you, but it also doesn't mean that it's bad to tell people to stop sinning either.

"But you'd never catch me saying anything like that. Ever. Words mean things, you know?"

Well we all have unguarded moments, which is why I'm thankful for the forgiveness of Jesus :D


--Rhology-- ‎--what the pope says isn't always authoritative as dogma

The problem is that it's virtually never clear when it is authoritative as dogma. It's left up to the layman in real practice, just like now.
And of course, why would a layman have authority to pronounce this statement of the Pope non-authoritative? Akin has no standing, no authority. Guy's not even a priest.
I should think Akin should do the right thing and submit himself to the Pope, not the other way around.

--But then here's another problem with magisterial infallibility, who interprets the magisterial proclamations?

Um, yep.

-- I also wonder what the problem with moral teaching is. Jesus did it. So did Paul.

I'm sure you realise that "moralising the world" is far different from teaching people about morals.

--we all have unguarded moments, which is why I'm thankful for the forgiveness of Jesus

And if your statements were to cast doubt on your acceptance of Christ ALONE as your atonement and merit... you would not in fact have His forgiveness. That's the problem here.


--bossmanham-- Well just because it isn't clear when it is authoritative doesn't mean really anything about it, other than we may face epistemic issues in figuring out when it is. I would say that Catholics would say that a private interview where the pope airs his private views on things is clearly not.

"I'm sure you realise that "moralising the world" is far different from teaching people about morals."

Sure. But I'm not sure the pope has ever advocated the former.

"And if your statements were to cast doubt on your acceptance of Christ ALONE as your atonement and merit... you would not in fact have His forgiveness. That's the problem here."

I don't think confusing statements one may make causes you to not have forgiveness. No one is perfect, and I'm sure I haven't spoken clearly before. Doesn't mean my relationship with Christ is nullified, does it?


--bossmanham-- Also, "moralizing the world" seems a tad ambiguous anyway, as I could take it as just spreading moral teachings. If it means to preach sinless perfection to gain heaven, well then Catholic dogma is against that.


--Rhology-- The point is: Why say "moralising the world"? Why not talk about preaching the Gospel? A man's priorities say a lot about him.

-- I would say that Catholics would say that a private interview where the pope airs his private views on things is clearly not.

I'm questioning on what basis they say that.

-- I'm not sure the pope has ever advocated the former

He just did, man.

--I don't think confusing statements one may make causes you to not have forgiveness.

If you're THE POPE, a man who has studied theology his entire life, and say stuff like that, there's a reason. The reason is not that he made a mistake or that he's ignorant. The reason is that he believes what he said and communicated what he believes.

-- Doesn't mean my relationship with Christ is nullified, does it?

What reason could you give me to think that he has a relationship with Christ, to begin with?


--bossmanham-- Did he say "moralizing the world?" I think he said that the use of a condom by such a person is a moralizing step. And just because that might be a priority wouldn't mean it's THE priority. Without knowing the man, I couldn't make that call.

"I'm questioning on what basis they say that."

You'd have to ask them, I suppose. They'd probably point to the magisterial teaching.

"If you're THE POPE, a man who has studied theology his entire life, and say stuff like that, there's a reason. The reason is not that he made a mistake or that he's ignorant. The reason is that he believes what he said and communicated what he believes. "

We're debating what he said too, so just saying this statement damns him would be begging the question. He's said other things too. It's not as if one sentence of an interview is an appropriate source to gauge his soteriology.

"What reason could you give me to think that he has a relationship with Christ, to begin with"

He professes Christ as Lord. I have no reason to doubt that. Just being the pope doesn't mean he isn't saved


--Rhology-- ‎--You'd have to ask them, I suppose.

Oh, I do. Over and over again.

--They'd probably point to the magisterial teaching.

Which is as easily identifiable as "ex cathedra" papal pronouncements.

--He professes Christ as Lord.

The demons do too, and the unregenerate will. There's a bit more to it, and a few things you need to NOT have in your confession, like any trust in your own merit for example.


--bossmanham-- Heh, the Catholic bloggers you interact with don't really have a handle on their own theology. But I've not looked into it enough to see if there are good answers.

"The demons do too, and the unregenerate will"

They know Christ is God, but they don't profess Him as Lord. And I'm aware that unregenerate can make the false claim that they are in Christ. I'm saying we can't make that determination because we don't have access to their hearts.

And Catholics don't trust in their own merit. They think the merit comes from God through the sacraments and then through the actions the sacraments and God enable and initiate. They do believe one has to willingly do good, but they chalk it all up to grace.

The main disagreement historically was over justification, and I think it's mostly talking past one another. Plus, I've quoted to you citations where the pope extols the merits of Luther's teaching on justification. I don't think your contentions here are viable.

Not only that, I'm not sure that vocalizing the doctrine of sola fide is a necessary condition of salvation.


--Rhology-- ‎--They do believe one has to willingly do good

And there it is.

-- I've quoted to you citations where the pope extols the merits of Luther's teaching on justification

I'm confused now. When do I believe that what a Pope says outside of an official ex cathedra capacity really matters? Trent is infallible w/o question and it condemned the Gospel.

-- I'm not sure that vocalizing the doctrine of sola fide is a necessary condition of salvation.

Normally no. But Ben16 is a trained theologian. He's the Pope! If he believed the Gospel, it would come out sometime. Since it never does...


--bossmanham-- There what is? You don't think we need to willingly do good?

"I'm confused now. When do I believe that what a Pope says outside of an official ex cathedra capacity really matters? Trent is infallible w/o question and it condemned the Gospel. "

Because we're talking about the pope.

Trent was pretty much overturned in Vatican 2 (at least the anathemas, though they can't say that) and I don't judge people by 500 year old documents. Though I can judge that the institution that is Catholicism is inconsistent in what it says and what it practices.

I mean at one time it was said there is no salvation outside the institutional Catholic church, and now we're separated brethren and they've pretty much adopted an expanded mercy, respond to the light given, explanation of those outside and their salvation. 500 long years since Pope Pius and the Trent boys.

"Normally no. But Ben16 is a trained theologian. He's the Pope! If he believed the Gospel, it would come out sometime. Since it never does..."

Again, I've cited to you where he does. And I'm not sure how being a theologian magically changes his status. You and I can't examine his heart, let alone his life, so I don't think we can make that judgment.


--Rhology-- ‎--(at least the anathemas, though they can't say that

Haha, well, those were no small thing! And that's precisely what I'm talking about.
Besides, appealing to po-mo flower-child Vatican II is not the way to go. There's a reason many conservative RCs shy away from it.

-- I don't judge people by 500 year old documents.

What about judging them by their still-active allegiance to them? Their unwillingness to put them aside and embrace the biblical faith?

--And I'm not sure how being a theologian magically changes his status.

It leaves him w/o excuse. He has zero excuse for speaking imprecisely and for not sharing the Gospel most every chance he gets. I challenge you to find me one place where he's shared it.


--bossmanham-- I agree they were no small thing. I'm not defending it, I'm saying they only give it lip-service today, because if they didn't it would show that, in fact, Roman Catholic dogma CAN change. Then they'd have to admit something they espoused didn't come from apostolic succession. But in practice it is ignored.

"It leaves him w/o excuse. He has zero excuse for speaking imprecisely and for not sharing the Gospel most every chance he gets."

Well we're all without excuse, and hopefully the blood of Christ covers our imperfections. Of course we can't really take one sentence from an interview and say it proves he believes a false gospel.

"The Letter to the Philippians, provides moving testimony of Paul's shift from a justice founded on the Law and achieved by observing certain prescribed actions, to a justice based upon faith in Jesus Christ. ... It is because of this personal experience of the relationship with Jesus Christ that Paul focuses his Gospel on a steadfast contrast between two alternative paths to justice: one based on the works of the Law, the other founded on the grace of faith in Christ"

"Paul knows that in the twofold love of God and neighbor the Law is present and fulfilled. So in communion with Christ, in faith, which creates charity, the Law is realized. We become just by entering into communion with Christ, who is love."

I mean that really contradicts at least two cannons of Trent.


--Rhology-- ‎--I mean that really contradicts at least two cannons of Trent.

If he really believes consistently with that, then here are the consequences:
1) He's a hypocrite. As Pope, he is bound to uphold the infall teachings of Rome, but here he's beating up infall anathemas.
2) What does it say about his conscience, that he would rise to be THE BIG CHEESE of a church that has officially anathematised the Gospel? Not "a priest". THE POPE.
3) He's a double-talker, a politician. These quotations are incompatible with the goal of "moralising the world".


--bossmanham-- ‎1) Perhaps, or he's just unwittingly inconsistent.

2) It shows that they no longer believe that we're anathema.

3) You've not shown that he actually said anything about moralizing the world. Those words aren't in the statement.


--Rhology-- ‎1. Unwittingly? The man has been thinking theology longer your and my combined lifetimes. Highly doubtful. Lk 12:48 and all that.

2. They SHOULD. That's part of the point, I should think. If they don't, I guess it would go to show two things:
a) What you said about their unbiblical authority structure - they can't live it out! (very Francis Schaeffer-like)
b) The supposed strong distinction between infallible-authoritative teaching and fallible-non-authoritative teaching is a phantom. Individual RCs will pick and choose between whatever whoever says, as they like. If they say they're supposed to be held fast to infallible-authoritative teaching and yet toss it aside as you're suggesting they've done, that's the exact same as what they do with what *I* say.

3. "There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where ***this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization***, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality."


--bossmanham-- ‎1) I don't know for sure. I'm just saying it isn't necessarily some malevolent intent on his part just because he's the pope.

2) I agree, and think this should be pointed out to RC's.

3) I don't take that as his whole goal is to moralize the (world).

On starlight and stupid arguments

Tommykey has provided an argument against young-Earth creationism that the Jolly Nihilist describes as "well-nigh impossible to refute".  Sounds like I have a stiff challenge ahead of me.


Me: I point out that I don't see why it's unreasonable to think God created the light beams as well as the stars. What possible evidence could prove their criticism wrong OR right?

Tommykey:

Events like Supernova 1987A? It occurred 168,000 light years from Earth but was not observed until 1987, hence the name.

With your approximate 6,000 year time frame, the progenitor star Sanduleak 69 should have been created in a state of supernova, with the light beams manifesting a state of supernova reaching the Earth at the moment of creation. However, since that did not happen, you will need to identify for us at exactly what point in the last 6,000 or so years the star went supernova and then the light of the supernova traveled at a greater than light speed in order for us to observe it in the year 1987.

But to take the matter further, with the more powerful telescopes at our disposal, such as Hubble, we are able to see the birth of stars in places such as the Carina Nebula. The story you're advocating is one of a creator poofing things into existence, whereas what we observe all around us are processes and objects at different stages in those processes, such as stars being formed, mature stars, and stars that have died. If God created the stars some 6,000 years ago to provide us with light in the night sky, then why do new stars continue to form?

Events like Supernova 1987A? It occurred 168,000 light years from Earth but was not observed until 1987, hence the name.

I am literally shaking my head here.  Why would this be a difficulty?
Let's pretend the creation occurred at 7000 BC, a nice round number.  And then the light was observed on Earth in 1987.  7000+1987=8987.  So the supernova exists out there and was created in the course of supernova, as well as the light beams from the supernova up to 8987 light years from Earth.  That's a little exercise called "addition", and I learned it in kindeygarten.  I commend it to you.
In fact, you go on to describe it pretty close to that in your comment.  So where's the problem?

Your facile objection continues:

However, since that did not happen, you will need to identify for us at exactly what point in the last 6,000 or so years the star went supernova and then the light of the supernova traveled at a greater than light speed in order for us to observe it in the year 1987.

1) Correct, it did not happen.  There was never a time at which the star was not supernova.  Probably (It's not as if we can know for sure - we're not there.  We're looking a VAST distance away, and you're assuming w/o evidence that the laws of physics hold the same way at that distance).

2) The light having traveled faster than what we know as "the speed of light" is possible.  I'd ask you to prove a negative, but you'd demur and throw out another argumentum ad incredulum.  Suffice it to say, you don't know how fast light goes outside of, say, the solar system.  You just think you do, and it's a de fide tenet of your religion, so you hold fiercely to it.

3) What part of "give me a reason to think it's implausible that the light was ALSO created, in transit, at creation" don't you understand?  Where's the power of your argument?


we are able to see the birth of stars in places such as the Carina Nebula.

"Birth" is a specious term here. You mean coalescence of material into a galaxy.  So what?  Where did the matter come from?


The story you're advocating is one of a creator poofing things into existence, whereas what we observe all around us are processes and objects at different stages in those processes, such as stars being formed

No argument as to why I should think God didn't create things "in process".  Just an assumption.


If God created the stars some 6,000 years ago to provide us with light in the night sky, then why do new stars continue to form?

B/c He did create SOME stars at creation.  Then, see, there are OTHER stars ALSO.

Questions to which it's hard to get answers

bossmanham invited me over to this thread where he's been participating and I thought it'd be fun to respond to "Teacup" in particular.

@Teacup,

You defined “theory” for us. When has the disputed part of evolution - macroevolution from common ancestor - been REPEATEDLY OBSERVED?
You said a theory explains the facts. Which facts does ID not explain? Be specific, give me 3 and explain why.
You talked about fossils. Please prove that any of the organisms who are fossilised ever had children.
You mentioned intermediate skulls. How do you KNOW they are intermediate between apes and humans? And why believe you when so many past “intermediate” skulls have been found, trumpeted as “intermediates”, and later quietly rejected?
You mentioned dinos -> birds. Why is it that many scientists are now doubting this connection, how do you know they did evolve into birds, and how do you know that any fossils you might bring up in support of that contention had children?
You mentioned “legitimate scientific journals”. Do you not realise that this commits the genetic fallacy? How exactly do logical fallacies strengthen the Darwinian position? Be specific.
You mentioned creationists refusing peer review. Again, genetic fallacy, as well as argument from ignorance and unknown other cause. Maybe the peers reject them for no good reason or on ideological grounds. You have to think these things thru.
You mentioned “fundamentalists”. Again, genetic fallacy. Further, ppl such as Dawkins easily qualify as “Darwinian fundamentalists”. I don’t see you dismissing them for that reason!
You mention Hitchens - you think he MUST discuss such things? This is just stupid. Who’s forcing him at gunpoint to do so?
And when has Hitch ever debated a creationist? (Calling ID theorists “creationists” is more evidence of your fundy ignorance. Strawmen are also logical fallacies.)

Finally, the moronic comment from Stephen Roberts is more-than-adequately answered here:http://bit.ly/fVZfMK Do try again.

Peace,
Rhology

YouTube debate about science and evolution

In the comments of a YT video of Kent Hovind at Cal Berkeley, I recently had a discussion with a Darwinian named maskofsan1ty.
I don't love Hovind and I think he probably plays fast and loose with facts some of the time, but OTOH he's useful b/c it shows how even someone who's a bit of a doofus can make a fool of pretty much any Darwinian he faces.  I don't know why so many Darwinians are bad at debating, but it might be a useful skill to learn, you'd think. 

Me: Which is funny - a guy w/o an advanced degree makes evolution and evolutionists look like fools.
I'd respect the evolutionary establishment alot more if they could actually win a debate or two with creationists.

Him: Wining a debate is irrelevant! It doesn't make something real or not it only tests the debaters skills at debating! The only reason Kent Hovind is respected by creationist is because he is a good debater and is able to make it seem like he knows what he is talking about and has valid evidence when in reality he has no idea or evidence. He is a fraud who knowingly misrepresents the science of evolution so that people find it hard to believe.

Me: Hovind presents quite a lot of evidence. Just b/c you disagree with it doesn't mean he doesn't show any.  Ironically, all the evidence you think you have is easily explainable under a creationist mode or is fallacious, while there are data your position can't explain. You clearly haven't done enough reading into the matter.

Him: It's not me who disagrees with it, it's science! All of his 'evidence' for a God can be, and has been, disproven with ease. Show me some of this evidence that cannot be explained by any other way then by creationism?

Me: Haha "it's science!" You're a 110% acolyte, man. Signed over your brain and everything!
Science can't access the supernatural.
Science can't tell you whether other minds exist.
Can't tell you whether evidence exists.
Can't tell you what constitutes evidence.
Can't tell you what is moral.
Can't tell you whether YOU exist.
Can't explain fossilised trees VERTICALLY passing thru "millions of years" of geological strata.
Can't explain the origin of life. Or of intelligence.


Him: No one ever claimed that science can be used to prove everything. It has a good success rate though! It has never claimed to know how life has formed though the production of amino acids is pretty convincing that at some point we will be able to. Vertical petrified trees have been explained SCIENTIFICALLY!!
Might I add that your comments refute the existence of intelligence!!


Me: Oh, a good success rate when it is constantly getting overturned? But it's nice to see you have blind faith, with your "give us a chance!" comment. You're a disciple, man. I note that you did not respond to the most foundational of my challenges. Thus, I have answered your question - creationism explains these fine, whereas science cannot by your own admission. Thanks for the fail! Also, please explain the vertical fossil trees on an old Earth schema.

Him: That's the beauty of science. It changes according to new evidence. Evolution has been around for 150 years but there has been no evidence to prove it wrong (feel I need to add that it has to be credible scientific evidence). The longer a scientific theory remains uncontested the more likely it is for it to be true. Vertical trees like the petrified trees in Yellowstone were found after the Mt St Helens eruption in 1980. Which challenge did I not respond to?


Me:  Read my 2nd response to you where I said "science can't" and gave you a long list. That's what you can't respond to. And fossilised trees a la St Helens would be more like a young Earth substantiation. Remember, these trees I'm referring to straddle 10s of millions of yrs (according to old Earth) of strata. How did that happen slowly?
And unfortunately, science has not changed to accommodate its limitations. Too many new atheists are ignorant of philosophy of science (and logic)


Him:  Yeah, you may well be right. But it's irrelevant and I can't see how Christianity can. I never said they were fossilised. I said they were vertical. Ok, I've done some quick research into these tree's crossing millions of years of strata and have only found creationist sites. Can you link me to a peer reviewed article please? Atheism and science have nothing to do with each other so your last sentence is irrelevant.

Me: I reject the necessity of linking to "peer-reviewed" sites. I prefer logical arguments. But to make you happy, know how to use bit ly links? bit dot ly slash a4MCOt. That's your Darwinist Bible site. It says "You be the judge as to the most logical interpretation... slow accumulation over thousands of years or... rapid burial during a massive world wide flood." LOL, yes, I will be. The 'explanation' seems to be that some creationists disagree with others. Wow!


Him: Unbelievable! Peer reviewed articles are the foundation of science and without them scientific research would be a mess and would achieve nothing. The reason you don't feel the necessity for them is because there are none that support the creationist idea! The worldwide flood is a ludicrous idea with absolutely no proof! I would love to continue debating you but I can't bring myself to argue with someone who 'rejects the necessity of peer-reviewed' papers.

Me: No, proper experimentation, logic, and repeated observation are the foundation of science. Sheesh, you ppl with your obsession over peer review! I fully expect few peer-rvw articles to be YEC b/c of the philosophically ignorant biases of the scientific community at large. You have yourself done a good job of confirming that diagnosis of ignorance. OK, nice talking to you.