Debating Catholicism

[Pound Foolish]

HeliosYes, but what do you mean you're examining your life? Do you mean you're reconsidering you stance on debating? Do you mean you feel you're in a stage in life where you're trying to figure out who you are? Do you mean you've been reading a lot of theology lately?
Good Doctor I'm still a little stunned that the entire time we've been having this conversation, we've had entirely different interpretations of what logic even is. Good Doctor, good golly, good heavens, good grief, how can we reach the truth through logic when we disagree what logic even is?
So then. You realize of course, the philosophical principal it's far harder to prove a negative than a positive? For instance, if you were to say there is a spider in a room, all you would have to do is point to the spider. If you wished to say there are no spiders, you would have to examine every cranny and corner of the room for spiders.
So how do you know that there is no way Christ's nature could be logical? Have they looked everywhere for an answer and considered every possible one? (Even supposing that is possible and there aren't some matters that are complicated beyond human reason.)
In closing, let me ask you one question. I simply want you to answer yes or no. This is very important:
Would you agree Christ's nature is a mystery?
This may seem irrelevant to you, but please answer and I will expound.

[Samantha14]

HeliosYes, but what do you mean you're examining your life? Do you mean you're reconsidering you stance on debating? Do you mean you feel you're in a stage in life where you're trying to figure out who you are? Do you mean you've been reading a lot of theology lately?

...It means she was being sarcastic. I thought you, of all people, would be able to recognize sarcasm, mirror lover. You're off of your game. =p

[Eleventh Doctor]

Yes, Christ's nature is a mystery. As is much of our faith, in Orthodoxy we call the Sacraments the Mysteries.

[Helios]

Gracious, Sammy, I was being serious.

For once.

And in answer, PF, I meant I was examining what I believe about Catholicism. Haven't quite reached a conclusion yet, but I think I do have a refute for the thing about the Virgin Mary being sinless.

[Samantha14]

Gracious, Sammy, I was being serious.

For once.

And in answer, PF, I meant I was examining what I believe about Catholicism. Haven't quite reached a conclusion yet, but I think I do have a refute for the thing about the Virgin Mary being sinless.

Oh, well then. =p Your seriousness and your sarcasm are too close together. .-.

[Pound Foolish]

Helios, I look forward to it immensely, sir.

Froggy, my dear sarcasm queen, it seems you are the one who is off her game. But I would tend to agree about the close together thing... Though I must admit I love your sense of humor, Helios. (Helios sir, that is.)

Good Doctor:
In that case, how can you claim to know so much about it that you know there is no logical answer? Such a claim assumes great knowledge of the subject.

[Eleventh Doctor]

I have never claimed great knowledge, if I have forgive me for my assumptions, I have tried to be faithful to the witness of the Church and the truth given once and for always. I do this by echoing what wise men, led by the Spirit, who knew the uncreated energies of God through mystical experiences have said throughout the Church. This is not logical, it is mystical.

[Pound Foolish]

No, you never claimed that knowledge intentionally. But if you claim there is no logical answer, than knowledge is implicit. Doesn't a certainty that there is no logical answer to something assume you know enough about the subject to say there can be no logical answer?
But you claim some people had "mystical" experience in which it was revealed to them that Jesus' nature is logically impossible. In other words, divine revelation, which as I said once before, is not infallible unless approved by the magisterium. Divine revelation can be seeming revelation that is in fact demons, or imagined, or twisted intentionally or accidentally, or simply made up. All these things can happen and have happened to even the holiest of wise people.

[Eleventh Doctor]

I believe that divine revelation is infallible if it matches the witness of the Church throughout the ages and if it is accepted by the Church as a whole, not just the magisterium. The East has a much more mystical approach to theology than the West. Cataphatic theology is a good starting point but it does not hold the answers for everything and is in fact inferior to Apophatic theology, which is emphasized in the East. This is a major difference between East and West.

[Helios]

Ah, Pound Foolish, you do your humble servant much honor by claiming to like his sense of humor.

I mean her's. Sorry.

Now, I got this out of a commentary by John MacArthur, so you can accuse me of plagiarism all you want.

And I quote:

“God showed his grace to Mary by choosing her to be the mother of Jesus. Although descended from the royal line of David, Mary was an ordinary, unknown young woman. Contrary to claims of her immaculate conception (her being conceived miraculously in her own mother's womb), Mary was just as much a sinner as all other human beings ever born. She was likely much better, morally and spiritually, than most people of her time, but she was not sinless. She was deeply devout and faithful to the Lord, as she demonstrated by her humble and submissive response to the angel's announcement (Luke 1:38).

“Mary needed a Savior, as she herself acknowledged at the very beginning of her song of praise, often called the Magnificat: “My soul exalts the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave” (Luke 1:46-48). The notions of her being co-redemptrix and co-mediator with Christ are wholly unscriptural and were never a part of early church doctrine. Those heretical ideas came into the church several centuries later, through accommodations to pagan myths that originated in the Babylonian mystery religions.”

He then goes on to talk about Nimrod and Semiramis, and how the idea of Lent, Mary's immaculate conception, and her “queen of heaven” status originated from Semiramis' legendary conception by a sunbeam, the death of her sun Tammuz, and his resurrection after 40 days of fasting. Sound familiar? That's because it's the origins of Lent.

Practically every ancient nation had their own version of the mother-child cult. Egypt, Rome, Greece, China, the Philistines...

And of course, since the Israelites sometimes spent far too much in pagan company, it's easy to see how they would accept the whole idea. (Now I'm paraphrasing Jack Chick) After the birth of Christ, when Satan needed a way to subvert the Christians to himself, he created the Mary-Jesus version of the cult.

There. My arm is aching with typing all this down, but at least I didn't make any typos.

Was that a proper refutation, ma'am?

-- Mon Dec 16, 2013 2:28 pm --

BTW, SamanthaIcan'ttellHelios'moodsaparteventhoughI'veknownhersincebeforetimedawned....

Did you ever look at the writing corner, like I told you on SATURDAY??? *smoke rises from Helios*

[Eleventh Doctor]

Wow, quoting a Jack Chick tract. Sorry Helios but you just lost all credibility with me. Jack Chick is possibly the worst source of all times. His claims have no backing and he simply makes things up. Satan did not create the Mary-Jesus cult, I am highly insulted by this claim.

[Metal15]

Wow, quoting a Jack Chick tract. Sorry Helios but you just lost all credibility with me. Jack Chick is possibly the worst source of all times. His claims have no backing and he simply makes things up. Satan did not create the Mary-Jesus cult, I am highly insulted by this claim.

The last little sentence of her post was from Jack Chick(Who I know nothing about), the rest was John MacArthur(I also don't know who this is XD). What did you think of that?

[Helios]

Sorry to insult you, Eleventh. I know Jack Chick is considered to be...what's the term...controversial. But don't worry. I rely more on John MacArthur than I do on Jack Chick (besides, it's expected you wouldn't agree with him, since probably a lot of the stuff you subscribe to bashes him over the head). As to his claims having no backing...have you ever heard of Alberto Riviera?

No backing?

His story seems fairly sound to me, considering what I've heard from other sources about the Catholic church. Besides, Jack Chick uses Scripture to back up what he says. I haven't seen you doing much of that during this discussion with me and PF. You just seem to quote a lot of extra-Biblical sources (nothing wrong with those necessarily).

And to be quite truthful, I do believe that Satan came up with the whole mother-child thing. Have you noticed that even though God is a spirit, He is always referred to as a He? Goddesses simply don't exist in Christianity. It's unBiblical. Almost all of the other pagan cultures during Bible times had goddesses. What's so hard to believe that Satan would use that form as a model for creating a counterfeit religion from Christianity?

[Eleventh Doctor]

The origins of Lent were not from some Semiramis myth, Christ fasted for 40 days too you know. Unless you want to claim that came from Semiramis myths too. The idea of Mary being the Theotokos came about in the same Council as the Nicene Creed, unless that Creed is also being questioned the defense of Mary as Theotokos came from a God honoring source. I can see where MacArthur is coming from and in fact I agree that Mary was not immaculately conceived. But I feel like he's over correcting and making Mary less than she is simply in response to the Roman Catholics doctrine.

Stuff I subscribe to bashing him over the head? I don't understand. I just read his tracts and realize that he is a conspiracy theorist who is anti-Catholic and hasn't read his Church history.

Yes I have heard of Alberto Riviera, the conspiracy theorist who lied about his background as a Jesuit priest, and is a fraud. He lied about his degrees too, he has lied about almost every aspect of his life at one point or another. He has a history of credit fraud and being a con man. I would never trust anything he says and if you do then I question your ability to discern good sources from bad sources.

I seem to forget the Bible verse that talks about the Catholic church being founded by Satan and as you say, nothing wrong with using extra-Biblical sources.

I agree Goddesses don't exist in Christianity, Mary is not a Goddess. I don't understand why you seem to think we are making her one. I find it insulting for you to say that my faith is a religion founded by Satan.

[Pound Foolish]

Helios (sir)
Alright, Mod, like I was saying... actually that's it. Connie, (or rather Eleventh Dr.) hogged the whole thing.
Well done, Good Doctor, better said than I could. However, one thing should be added: the verse you used, accidentally twisted rather, Helios, naturally holds up to no scrutiny. Mary called God her savior for a good reason: He saved her.
Mary did not make her soul, and therefor, when God formed it without sin, he saved her. Suppose there's a wide road where people are always falling into a pit at night obscured by the growth. Then a man helps you out. Now, suppose a man called out to the traveler before she fell into the pit at all. Would the traveler be less a savior of the traveler because he saved her before she fell into the pit? Obviously not. Just the polar opposite. He saved her even more so than the other travelers: he saved her from being harmed at all.
Mary had more cause to call God her savior than the rest of us, not less!
We now return you the Get Your Theology Straightened by the Good Dr. Show. It seems you have quite a few challenges from him to answer.
PS you are quite welcome for the honor, little servant.
Eleventh Dr.
You we can assume something to be true if it is accepted by the church in general. Yet I have never heard this teaching from Protestants, nor Catholics. How can the church then accept it as a whole?
In any case, something does not become true simply because people believe it, does it? Then why does it need to verification of general religious opinion? What does it prove?
As to this idea of mysticism. This mysticism is mystifying and mistaken.
You say this mysticism somehow revealed to somebody that Jesus' nature is a logical contradiction. In which case, we obviously couldn't come to the realization that Jesus is God through logic.
But God's world is a world of logic and reason. We have been using it throughout this conversation. We use it every day. The Bible is full of it. Socrates even came to the idea of a single God, not even before Christianity but before God even chose the Jews, purely through logic and reason.
Now, suppose I told you someone wanted to walk through a wall and stay entirely on side he was already on and be inside of the wall of the wall at the same time. Is not that a logical contradiction? We cannot conceive of that. Such a thing could never happen. That is the way of the world. There are logical limitations. Your premise is that Jesus' nature is something like that, a logical impossibility.
Then that requires us to ignore God's gift of reason. God's universe cannot lead us to such a conclusion. In fact, God's world, His logical world leads us a away from it.
Why would God create a wold that inherently leads away from Him? Don't all the theologians say that the world leads us to Him?

[Eleventh Doctor]

I think we're going around in circles at this point PF. The EO place a different emphasis on logic than the RC, this is obviously the major point of disagreement between EO and RC. But I stand by my assertion that we are not meant and cannot know everything about God. As I said, this is Apophatic theology which has a rich history in the East. I do not mean to say this is true simply because there is agreement, just that the truth of this theology is witnessed to by the agreement of the Church. Let me define though what I mean by the Church, I mean the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I do not mean every person who calls themselves Christian. Yes the natural world leads us to God but that does not mean we will know everything about God, He is not illogical He is above logic.

[Pound Foolish]

We cannot know everything about God, naturally. Yet you claim to know Christ's nature is a contradiction, which does not involve a lack of knowledge but the presence of the knowledge that His nature is contradictory. So how is that relevant?
Further, the fact remains, a logical world can must lead us away from God if Jesus, that is God, is illogical. Yet you say the world leads us to him. Is this not contradictory?
What do you mean by saying, "Let me define though what I mean by the Church, I mean the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church"? Earlier in that very post and earlier in this topic, you claim correctly that Eastern Orthodoxy butts heads with Catholicism here. So how can you say a minute later we agree that Christ's nature is illogical? I assure you, there is no such doctrine. Or did I misunderstand you somewhere?

[Eleventh Doctor]

Christ was 100% God and 100% human, how is that logical? That is a mathematical impossibility.

A logical world can lead us to God but that is different than complete knowledge.

I meant that the Church before the Schism agreed on Christ's nature, fully God and fully man, which is a contradiction.

[Helios]

I might add that 40 days isn't really the significant thing. Nor really is the fasting. It's the whole idea...never mind. This is a stalemate point between us because we'll agree on it. And what pray tell does Theotokos mean? I love it when you use Greek words because they're authentic, but sometimes I don't understand them.

What I mean about the bashing over the head thing was that the stuff you read would, of course, take a negative view of him. Not literal or figurative bashing over the head (it's just a figure of speech I use sometimes). But as appears that you read his stuff directly, my apologies are in order for that mistake.

Now for Alberto Riviera (how in blazes did we get on this? Oh, yeah, my stupidity). I've heard that he's a con man...from the Catholics. That's a little...suspicious in my book. And frankly, I agree with a lot of what he says, due to the fact that I don't really trust what the Catholic leaders say. This goes back to what John MacArthur proved in his commentary (it's the first one of the Matthew series, if you're interested in reading it for yourself in case you haven't already).

I didn't expect the Bible would mention it. It came along afterward or near the end of Biblical times.

Let's look at the Mary goddess thing this way. If Jesus is the same as God, that is, they are on the same rank (and are in fact the same person), then if Mary's rank is the same as Jesus', wouldn't that make her goddess? And if someone prays to her, expecting aid from her, isn't that what anyone would ask of a goddess? And if someone has a picture of her in their home that they burn incense to, aren't they treating her like a goddess?

Like I said, sorry if I insulted you. I believe in speaking what I know in my heart is the truth. If it insults you...there's not really much I can do other than recanting my beliefs, and what kind of Christian would that make me? I never meant to insult you. If I could have avoided it, I would most certainly would have. But I appeared to have stepped into roiling water here.

One thing I don't get about you, though. You said you're Eastern Orthodox. So how can my saying that Catholicism was created by the devil insult your faith?

Yo, Poundy. I didn't twist the verse, John MacArthur did (but since I don't believe he twisted it in any way shape or form, that's irrelevant).

Why should Mary need saving if she was born sinless? The whole reason Christ was sent was to save humanity from their sins. A sinless person needs no saving. And God created sinless people, yes, but when they sinned, that act effected EVERYONE born afterward. Mary is no exception. She can't be. If she was sinless, then she was not human, and therefore Jesus was not God and man in one. To be sinful is to be human. To be sinless is to be God.

Lol, you have a searing sense of humor, my friend (and I use the term facetiously, lol, not really). I'm hoping all this hot debate won't ruin any progress at friendship we've made thus far (though you're still not replying to my latest PM to you).

I suppose, though, I can safely assume that you're also insulted by what I said about Satan creating Catholicism (since you are, after all, an actual Catholic).

[Eleventh Doctor]

Theotokos means God bearer. It is meant to indicate the fact that Mary gave birth not just to Christ's humanity but to Christ; fully human and fully divine.

I heard that he's a con man from Cornerstone Magazine, a Protestant publication: http://web.archive.org/web/200512020842 ... ge.asp?228 Also Zondervan Publishers and the Southern Baptist Sunday School Board, Protestant organizations, banned his books from their stores. It is not just Catholic leaders who say he is a con man. Also just look into his life, he has changed his life story multiple times and claimed to have three doctorates before admitting that he got a degree from a diploma mill. He is a liar and a con man, there is no way around that fact.

I never said Mary was equal in rank to God.

You are the kind of Christian who refuses to find out what others actually believe. You refuse to take others at their word as to what they actually believe. You don't have to believe what they say is true or recant your beliefs but we cannot have an honest discussion if we don't believe each other. I take you at your word that you honestly believe what you say, please extend me and the others here the same courtesy.

So you don't think my religion was created the devil? Even though I have similar, but still different, beliefs to Catholics?