are the conditions of infalibillity ever even met?

[Rick Otto]

Who here has implied you were a pscho

It was that guy that looks like Anthony Perkins, I think

 

[MrPolo]

Faith isn't faith without the possibility that we're wrong.

This is how Cardinal John Henry Newman put it regarding faith:

For directly you have a conviction that you ought to believe, reason has done its part, and what is wanted for faith is, not proof, but will.​

 

[ebia]

"there is a God" is a fallible statement.

Faith isn't faith without the possibility that we're wrong.

So when Jesus told people they need to have faith in him, there was a possibility that he didn't exist?

 

[MrPolo]

So when Jesus told people they need to have faith in him, there was a possibility that he didn't exist?

The infallibility skeptic would have to say that those people could not necessarily trust their eyes, right? Because no humans are infallible, right? That's what the infallibility skeptics are saying of anyone who makes a claim based on the evidence at hand. The witnesses of Christ therefore have to be unreliable too!

 

[Uphill Battle]

This is how Cardinal John Henry Newman put it regarding faith:

For directly you have a conviction that you ought to believe, reason has done its part, and what is wanted for faith is, not proof, but will.
​

I couldn't resist.

 

[Uphill Battle]

So when Jesus told people they need to have faith in him, there was a possibility that he didn't exist?

no, but there would have been possibility that he wasn't telling the truth.


they had to believe that he was.

 

[Rick Otto]

This is how Cardinal John Henry Newman put it regarding faith:

For directly you have a conviction that you ought to believe, reason has done its part, and what is wanted for faith is, not proof, but will.
​

I once put it this way regarding faith:

Will is the obstacle to faith, unless of course it's God's.​

 

[Korah]

Ultimately, such critics have no effect on the Church's infallibility and they discredit their own belief system entirely.

A rather odd and uncalled for conclusion to a post that was not otherwise too bad.
Clearly any other likewise fallible RC could conclude that the various inconsistent RC teachings on birth control are not infallible. I'm old enough to remember the days when all Catholics were expected to have large families--at the same time other RC biologists were convinced that the pill would be perfectly acceptable as a means to deter fertility. (It's no barrier, and merely alters a woman's fertility in most cases. If it had worked less well, it would have been accepted?)

 

[MrPolo]

I couldn't resist.

You didn't like Cardinal Newman's quote?

 

[Korah]

Well, he must be fallible.
The news is that on Tuesday the 23rd, just in time for Thanksgiving (by all rational people), Pope Benedict XVI has a book out in which he gives moral reasons allowing use of condoms. But surely RC teachings on birth control remain infalliible.

 

[MrPolo]

Pope Benedict XVI has a book out in which he gives moral reasons allowing use of condoms.

No, he did not. That is a misrepresentation of what the Pope actually said.

Rule #1 - Do not take the secular media's spin on what any Catholic clergy says. Go to source material so that you will be able to offer an honest representation.

 

[Uphill Battle]

You didn't like Cardinal Newman's quote?

nope. I believe things I wish I didn't have to. Don't you?

 

[Rick Otto]

Well, he must be fallible.
The news is that on Tuesday the 23rd, just in time for Thanksgiving (by all rational people), Pope Benedict XVI has a book out in which he gives moral reasons allowing use of condoms. But surely RC teachings on birth control remain infalliible.

Of course. Anything is posible with Latin,... uh, I mean God.

 

[Standing Up]

Well, he must be fallible.
The news is that on Tuesday the 23rd, just in time for Thanksgiving (by all rational people), Pope Benedict XVI has a book out in which he gives moral reasons allowing use of condoms. But surely RC teachings on birth control remain infalliible.

Seewald: Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?
Benedict: She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.
​

They are now very clear to say this is the Pope's personal opinion.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Seewald: Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?
Benedict: She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.
​

They are now very clear to say this is the Pope's personal opinion.

I for the life of me can't help but think that Benedict was attempting to answer the question.... without really answering it.

 

[MrPolo]

nope. I believe things I wish I didn't have to. Don't you?

Yeah, but I don't think Cardinal Newman's quote says otherwise. The way I understand it, he is saying you are confronted with the evidence. For instance, you study the history of the early Church, you learn of the martyrs who died for this idea of God made man and that He rose from the dead and did miracles, you study the historicity of the Bible, etc... whatever evidence there is for Christianity. Then he says what you need in the face of that evidence is not "proof" because you aren't a first hand witness. You are the forensic detective piecing together the evidence. You are a fallible person yourself. So what the Cardinal said was that you add faith to complete the evidence. You say in the face of the evidence: "I believe in that Resurrection or miracles, etc... even though no one can offer absolute metaphysical proof." Your reason is made complete by your faith.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Yeah, but I don't think Cardinal Newman's quote says otherwise. The way I understand it, he is saying you are confronted with the evidence. For instance, you study the history of the early Church, you learn of the martyrs who died for this idea of God made man and that He rose from the dead and did miracles, you study the historicity of the Bible, etc... whatever evidence there is for Christianity. Then he says what you need in the face of that evidence is not "proof" because you aren't a first hand witness. You are the forensic detective piecing together the evidence. You are a fallible person yourself. So what the Cardinal said was that you add faith to complete the evidence. You say in the face of the evidence: "I believe in that Resurrection or miracles, etc... even though no one can offer absolute metaphysical proof." Your reason is made complete by your faith.

then I misunderstood the quote, because I agree with this.

that, and I wanted to post a funny picture.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Hey Polo... to explain:


"your argument is invalid" is typically used in debate where logical thought applies.

so, to make it funny, people use the most illogical things they can think of, and then use the phrase "your argument is invalid" as if they'd won the argument using good sound logical reasoning.

except it's more like this.

it's just childish fun. Kind of like "no Jimmy, you can't play baseball with us, because you're too small to play with us, you're only 8, and we're all 16." and Jimmy replies "yeah, well my dad can beat up your dad."

impeccible logic.

 

[MrPolo]

Hey Polo... to explain:

I see, so next time I'm in a debate, I should just say "Monkeys like bananas---so you're wrong."

 

[Uphill Battle]

I see, so next time I'm in a debate, I should just say "Monkeys like bananas---so you're wrong."

exactly.

and given how much stock some put in each others arguments... it would be about as effective, no?