Confession ...

[Steeno7]

Yeh, I too thought that that "early form of Gnosticism" comment was just something pulled out of thin air.

Ignorance is not bliss. Not even close.

 

[Albion]

You are either misinformed or being intellectually dishonest.

No, it's actually neither. But I am often surprised at how little Catholics know about their own church's beliefs and history.

The ability to absolve sins was absolutely not given to the Church. It was given to the apostles, who gave it to bishops, who gave it to priests.

If that were so, there would be evidence for it. It's a pretty theory though. Sounds really spiritual.

 

[Albion]

Ignorance is not bliss. Not even close.

Why don't tell us all about it then?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yep, cutting n' pasting scripture is such a blessing.

Yes, my interlocutor, it is a blessing that past generations did not receive and consequently had to laboriously write quotes by hand. But we who have this blessing and they who had to labour recognise what a privilege it is to have the scriptures available to us and what a responsibility it is to quote from it because it is God's written revelation.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

No, it's actually neither. But I am often surprised at how little Catholics know about their own church's beliefs and history.


If that were so, there would be evidence for it. It's a pretty theory though. Sounds really spiritual.

Could you explain what you would consider to be evidence?
The first part has merit as all groups have that malady. We all have some who do not understand what is taught. It should not surprise us but it should concern us.

 

[Steeno7]

Why don't tell us all about it then?

Done did.

 

[Albion]

Could you explain what you would consider to be evidence?

Oh, something that Christ is recorded as having said about this matter, for example. Claiming that a certain sequence of events was planned and/or ordered by him--but without any evidence that that's so--is obviously simply self-serving, little different from Jehovah's Witnesses saying that the Early Church apostasized (until its revival in the 1870s) or Mormons making the same claim (until the gods visited Joseph Smith in the 1820s). Those are plausible story lines, just as is the one that the Apostles intended to hand off their commission to an endless line of successors and from them to priests who were endowed with the right to administer a sacrament called Penance, etc.

All these things COULD possibly have happened, but I doubt that you buy into the first two of them. Why not? The three story lines have essentially the same likelihood of being what actually happened.

 

[Steeno7]

Yes, my interlocutor, it is a blessing that past generations did not receive and consequently had to laboriously write quotes by hand. But we who have this blessing and they who had to labour recognise what a privilege it is to have the scriptures available to us and what a responsibility it is to quote from it because it is God's written revelation.

As it is to us all. I am sure we all have bibles. Merely posting bits of it as a response alone with no explanation of what the poster feels it means, accomplishes little more than taking up more space on a server.

 

[MoreCoffee]

As it is to us all. I am sure we all have bibles. Merely posting bits of it as a response alone with no explanation of what the poster feels it means, accomplishes little more than taking up more space on a server.

There was some leading comment before the quote was there not? And the context of the quote was an exchange of several posts between your good self and my unworthy self and that ought to help explain the quoted text.

 

[fhansen]

Oh, something that Christ is recorded as having said about this matter, for example. Claiming that a certain sequence of events was planned and/or ordered by him--but without any evidence that that's so--is obviously simply self-serving, little different from Jehovah's Witnesses saying that the Early Church apostasized (until its revival in the 1870s) or Mormons making the same claim (until the gods visited Joseph Smith in the 1820s). Those are plausible story lines, just as is the one that the Apostles intended to hand off their commission to an endless line of successors and from them to priests who were endowed with the right to administer a sacrament called Penance, etc.

All these things COULD possibly have happened, but I doubt that you buy into the first two of them. Why not? The three story lines have essentially the same likelihood of being what actually happened.

For what reason would you insist that all are necessarily unlikely? For what reason would you insist that everything Jesus said and did would need to be recorded?

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Oh, something that Christ is recorded as having said about this matter, for example. Claiming that a certain sequence of events was planned and/or ordered by him--but without any evidence that that's so--is obviously simply self-serving, little different from Jehovah's Witnesses saying that the Early Church apostasized (until its revival in the 1870s) or Mormons making the same claim (until the gods visited Joseph Smith in the 1820s). Those are plausible story lines, just as is the one that the Apostles intended to hand off their commission to an endless line of successors and from them to priests who were endowed with the right to administer a sacrament called Penance, etc.

All these things COULD possibly have happened, but I doubt that you buy into the first two of them. Why not? The three story lines have essentially the same likelihood of being what actually happened.

Thank you for that explanation. It helps me to understand you a bit better.

 

[Steeno7]

There was some leading comment before the quote was there not? And the context of the quote was an exchange of several posts between your good self and my unworthy self and that ought to help explain the quoted text.

It was a meaningless response. It was what was quoted that was to be considered by the one quoting. Cutting and pasting is not "considering".

 

[Albion]

For what reason would you insist that all are necessarily unlikely?

I think that to get at the answer to that I'd have to ask you why you feel any of them are correct. If you think they're all pretty likely--or even more than that--I would like to have your explanation why that is so.

The whole point of this is EVIDENCE. That's what Mama Kidogo asked for, and my reply was oriented towards the matter of evidence. So, is that present in these three cases, in your opinion?

 

[MoreCoffee]

It was a meaningless response. It was what was quoted that was to be considered by the one quoting. Cutting and pasting is not "considering".

I shall endeavour to do better next time.

 

[MoreCoffee]

That's a start. You could also do as suggested. To consider something one must actually engage the brain and think about it, study it. The more difficult that something being considered is, the more study it will require. 1st John is one of those more difficult ‘somethings’.

Pray for me that my brain may be engaged as you think it ought.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

ROFL!

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[MoreCoffee]

If we never move past the Narthex we will never be able to offer our Amen.

Engage brain indeed.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

One tries to be gracious to one's interlocutor and with God's help it is possible yet even with God's help one still recognises an insult when it is hurled in one's direction so the scripture comes to mind "A mild answer calms wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger."
Proverbs 15:1

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Ones persons insults are another's loving correction. Love is tough sometimes.

And sometimes not used at all.

 

[Steeno7]

And sometimes not used at all.

Sometimes.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I like pictures of kangaroos and wallabies.