The Infallibility of Doctrine

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Well, in Catholic terms, the doctrine of infallibility covers both.

Scripture "must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation." Dei Verbum — so Scripture is infallible insofar as it makes known Divine

So is that a caveat, a legalistic out? ie portions of scripture that do not make known the divine or are not for the sake of salvation are classified as outside of what we are calling infallible?

I mean if we are to be open we know there are contradictions and modifications and historical errors. Hence the reasons for long drawn out explanations and theories to prove same.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by wil

So is that a caveat, a legalistic out? ie portions of scripture that do not make known the divine or are not for the sake of salvation are classified as outside of what we are calling infallible?

We don't break up Scripture that way. Scripture in toto is the record of the witness of the Hebraic experience, intuition, insight, illumination and revelation of the Divine, it is not just a record of Revelation, rather it is the Record of a Salvation History ... so some bits tell us what happen to Moses when he went up the mountain, and some bits tell us what happened when he went to the shops ...

In Christendom it was all regarded as the unalloyed Word of God, and then as we grew more wise we realised this can't quite be the case.

Scholars had introduced the idea of textual criticism (it was a Catholic scholar who first proposed a workable source theory to the Pentateuch), and questions began to be asked.

The Enlightenment took an extreme position — theirs was a 'new' truth that rendered all prior to it as false. There is no supernatural, no divine intervention, no revelation, so all Scripture is just a silly old myth. In fact 'history' should be consigned to the trash can. Everyone before the Enlightenment was a 'flat-earther'.

During the 18/19th century, Protestant theologians unpicked their religion until there was nothing left but unknowingness and a pious attitude. Religion was reduced to a humanism, a system of ethics (my criticism of 'liberal Christianity').

The Catholic worldview was all but overwhelmed with the speed of the Enlightenment and the dogmatism of its argument ... the depravations of the Industrial Revolution and the dehumanising effect of the new sciences effectively overturned the 'old order' and the Church, who moves on a different timescale, was traumatised ... we didn't handle the situation very well, we just withdrew into a shell, relying on a Renaissance and Medieval Scholasticism which was soon shown to be just too archaic in its thought processes to argue with 'modernity' which dogmatically insisted that nothing could be known with any certainty and faith was just blind superstition.

Slowly, the Catholic Church began to realise that the answer lay in expressing the 'old' truths in a 'new' way ... we went back to the sources of our theology and philosphy to find out if, indeed, we had got it all wrong and, if not, how we might answer the claims of the day.

Surprisingly, it was the Arguments of Antiquity that did for them ... Aristotle through to Aquinas provided a philosophical foundation from which to investiage the 'new' truth of the Enlightenment ... and lo and behold! That truth was found wanting! (see Cognitional Theory for example, which argues that certainty can be known. Existentialism was another ... )

Today, I would say the arguments of Catholic Doctrine are 'right on the mark' and Catholic theologians have held some of the highest positions in the world of philosophy. Post-50s Christianity (New Age Christianity/Liberal Christianity) still clings to a faulty and outmoded methodology of a worn-out Anglo-American empirical criticism, and will eventually dwindle to largely a US-phenomena, an outgrowth of the hippy movement and 60s pop philosophy.

Originally Posted by wil

I mean if we are to be open we know there are contradictions and modifications and historical errors. Hence the reasons for long drawn out explanations and theories to prove same.

Indeed we do ... that's what Dei Verbum explains, or in greater depth:
Interpretation of the Bible in the Church

The encyclical "Faith and Reason" talks of faith and reason as the 'wings' by which one ascends ... neither faith nor reason alone will suffice ...

As a note of real interest, whilst Scripture has been 'defined' ... the infallibility of Scripture, the question of the human processes behind it, revelation, inspiration, intuition, insight ... is an open book and the Magisterium has asked that theologians and philosophers investigate the matter in greater depth.

Thomas

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

... Scripture in toto is the record of the witness of the Hebraic experience, intuition, insight, illumination and revelation of the Divine, it is not just a record of Revelation, rather it is the Record of a Salvation History....In Christendom it was all regarded as the unalloyed Word of God, and then as we grew more wise we realised this can't quite be the case.....The Enlightenment took an extreme position — theirs was a 'new' truth that rendered all prior to it as false. There is no supernatural, no divine intervention, no revelation, so all Scripture is just a silly old myth. In fact 'history' should be consigned to the trash can.... 18/19th century, Protestant theologians unpicked their religion until there was nothing left but unknowingness and a pious attitude. Religion was reduced to a humanism, a system of ethics (my criticism of 'liberal Christianity').....
Slowly, the Catholic Church began to realise that the answer lay in expressing the 'old' truths in a 'new' way ... ...
Today, I would say the arguments of Catholic Doctrine are 'right on the mark' and Catholic theologians have held some of the highest positions in the world of philosophy. Post-50s Christianity (New Age Christianity/Liberal Christianity) still clings to a faulty and outmoded methodology of a worn-out Anglo-American empirical criticism, and will eventually dwindle to largely a US-phenomena, an outgrowth of the hippy movement and 60s pop philosophy..

Namaste Thomas,

You constantly waiver between amazing me and baffling me. I'm surprised you didn't break every catholics elbow with the big pat on the back repeating the tried and tired "We are the only one and true religion and only one and true Christians"

I so respect your studies, just wish you were able to break free or some of it. How is New Thought which has remained largely unchanged since the turn of the century a product of the hippies and the post '50's?

Which Christians said it was ALL mythology, NO divinity?

How the heck does the Catholic new way of looking at scripture but still claim infallibility? Plays on words in this regard are amazing.

I find it all quite sad.

[Thomas]

Hi Wil —

"Tried and tired" doesn't make it any less true — and I would rather tried and tested, than investing my life in the untried and untested ...

Originally Posted by wil

How is New Thought which has remained largely unchanged since the turn of the century a product of the hippies and the post '50's?

Can you define 'New Thought' — are you proposing that as a philosophical school?

There is a general movement in philosophy today to recognise a paradigm shift that occurred post war and emerged socially in the movements of the 50-60s. Generally prior to this, truth was still considered the goal of objectivity, and there were certain objective standards by which truth, morality, ethics etc., were measured.

Post 60s saw a move to 'truth as narrative' ...
Evan Thomas of "Newsweek" was quoted in the American Journalism Review:
"We fell into a stereotype of the Duke lacrosse players ... The narrative [adopted by the media] was about race, sex, and class ... We went a beat too fast in assuming that a rape took place ... We just got the facts wrong. The narrative was right, but the facts were wrong."

That's the position in the West today ... if the narrative works, it is 'truth', regardless of any attachment to reality.

Traditional Christianity works the other way round. What we depend on as being 'true' is tradition — whether you choose to accept 'tradition' as true or not, you are obliged to accept that tradition has a stronger case going for it than the alternatives ... so on whatever grounds you mistrust tradition, you must apply the same criterion in every other case as well.

Originally Posted by wil

Which Christians said it was ALL mythology, NO divinity?

I didn't say 'Christians', but philosphers of the Enlightenment, largely and most influentially in Germany. They declared the 'historical process' as unreliable, and therefore all historical texts were, to some degree, mythologies, more than objective accounts.

"The Quest for the Historical Jesus" for example, was begun by a deist (Reimarus) who was violently anti-supernaturalist and denied any aspect of the divine or the miraculous in Christ. Strauss followed. Schweitzer moderated their position somewhat ... but here is the root from which 'liberal Christianity' sprang — it did not spontaneously occur out of nowhere — and the 60s has had further significant impact.

Then again, Rudolf Karl Bultmann (1884-1976 — a Lutheran), one of if not perhaps the most influential theologian of the 20th century, said precisely that.

I would say, of 'liberal Christianity' generally, that it is more dependent on the modern mythologising process than any accusation of mythologisation aimed at traditional Christian understanding.

Originally Posted by wil

How the heck does the Catholic new way of looking at scripture but still claim infallibility? Plays on words in this regard are amazing.

We don't look new, we look harder at what we've got ... as I said we follow the method established by the Greeks, with refinements as we go on. In so doing we saw the flaws inherent in the Enlightenment position. What they argue as de facto we now say is not a given.

The evidence is that Plato, Aristotle et al still figure as luminaries in the philosophical firmament, as does Aquinas (Thomism is discussed even in secular schools) and Lonergan has set the benchmark in Cognitional Theory.

Relativism, which is currently the fundamental philosophy of the West, is being shown to be too personalist, too subjective, too sentimental.

Most notably is the proliferation of Jesus images in the last 150 years, and the obvious fact, emerging from all these images, is that in rejecting objectivity, we fall back on subjective projection ... they're not who Jesus is, and some would argue it does not matter who the historical Jesus was, or whether He was at all, theses images represent who we choose him to be ... revolutionary, feminist, socialist, humanist ... teacher, sage, prophet, mystic, angel, charlatan, saint, avatar ... even an alien ... they are all self-projections which sit shaped and conformed to a given sociopolitical milleau in which they derive their meaning.

The Catholic Church sticks rigorously to the teachings of the Tradition, and the Greek philosophical method. Some may wish to argue that neither can confer infallibility, but they remain our best bet.

We can argue that this image is more sure, more secure and more grounded in the data we have available, than the proliferation of images that began with the Reformation, and really got going in the wake of the influence of post-Enlightenment German pietism, which shift and alter as social circumstances shifts and alters.

The reason why the Catholic Church refuses to change is that the dynamism of change that motives Western society is consumerism, novelty and the cult of the individual.

The Orthodox tradition, for example, eschews 'religious art' (far too emotional and subjective for them, way too maudlin) and sticks to the rules of ikon painting ...

... I was never a huge fan of ikons particularly, but God save me from these California beach-bum images that pass as portraits of Jesus that proliferate today!

Thomas

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Can you define 'New Thought' — are you proposing that as a philosophical school?

Traditional Christianity works the other way round. What we depend on as being 'true' is tradition — whether you choose to accept 'tradition' as true or not,

The Catholic Church sticks rigorously to the teachings of the Tradition, and the Greek philosophical method. Some may wish to argue that neither can confer infallibility, but they remain our best bet.
The Orthodox tradition, for example, eschews 'religious art' (far too emotional and subjective for them, way too maudlin) and sticks to the rules of ikon painting ...

... I was never a huge fan of ikons particularly, but God save me from these California beach-bum images that pass as portraits of Jesus that proliferate today!

Namaste Thomas, could easily be a group of California beach bums sitting at the Krishna buffet that DaVinci painted, the heretic, and what about the Sistine Chapel ceiling, or all those little medallions folks wear, seems the church is not beyond ikonery to me.

As for tradition, most nations and the bible has a big tradition on slavery, concubines and the like...I personally have moved beyond this. And see no need to hold on to anything just because "That's the way we've always done it"

As for the New Thought movement, I just googled it and got more detailed explanations than I could provide.

[bob x]

Today, I would say the arguments of Catholic Doctrine are 'right on the mark'

But why should we believe that, when the positions taken by the Catholic church in the past have been so very wrong?

[AndrewX]

I truly believe that 9/10ths of Christians, Catholic or otherwise, wouldn't know Jesus if he walked into their church, sat down, and sang the hymns along with them.

POSSIBLY, and I mean just possibly, after he had left, there might a handful of folks who would ask each other, Who was that interesting visitor?

And friends ... that's exactly what he would be.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by wil

Namaste Thomas, could easily be a group of California beach bums sitting at the Krishna buffet that DaVinci painted, the heretic, and what about the Sistine Chapel ceiling, or all those little medallions folks wear, seems the church is not beyond ikonery to me.

Well, to me the difference is as plain as day. The Medieval and Renaissance artist drew from the cultural paradigm for their imagery ...

Originally Posted by wil

As for tradition, most nations and the bible has a big tradition on slavery, concubines and the like...I personally have moved beyond this.

You mean we're still into slavery, concubinage, etc? Else, what's your point? Then you shouldn't be a Christian at all — Jesus never condemned slavery, concubinage ... and I can interpret His texts to promote an extreme racism if I wanted ... I have moved beyond finding ancilliary reasons to condemn anyone ... I look to the heart of their beliefs ...

Originally Posted by wil

And see no need to hold on to anything just because "That's the way we've always done it"

Nor is that what I'm saying.

Is the opposite any better? That we dump everything we've ever learned at the turn of every generation?

Originally Posted by wil

As for the New Thought movement, I just googled it and got more detailed explanations than I could provide.

OK. Just wanted to clarify.

But movements don't spring up out of nowhere ... they all have sources and causes, and that's what needs to be examined.

Thomas

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I have moved beyond finding ancilliary reasons to condemn anyone ... I look to the heart of their beliefs ...

Isn't it refreshing that you are looking beyond superficialities before you condemn us, Thomas?

Your words.

Originally Posted by Thomas

That we dump everything we've ever learned at the turn of every generation?

It depends entirely on what remains, if anything, of value. You have your standards for judging what is of value, and I have mine. Each person should be free to make this decision on his or her own.

My argument shall ever remain that the assumption that we need an external authority to DETERMINE for us what our standards should be, even our standards for interpreting religious texts and meanings ... is a fallacious one. People are not mere sheep, however herdlike we may typically act, in the majority.

Were it not for individual, inventive, creative and constructive thought ... (read imagination) ... the world as we know it would not exist. Once a man has equated the imagination with a sphere of purely hypothetical, and never-real existence ... he has immediately HALTED the natural order of the precipitation, or manifestation of the Divine into (and through) the earthly.

Only once we are restored to a position of confidence and empowerment, recognizing our Divine potential and accepting our Responsibility as stewards of this, God's own Handiwork surrounding us on every side (interior, as well as exterior), may we begin to cooperate with the Divine Order and fulfil our Purpose (Destiny, Dharma) here.

I did not need the writings of the learned doctor Thomas Aquinas to bring me to any of the above realizations. I may yet be able to learn something from such a study, even apply various principles to my life and behavior in order to better myself (ideally to thereby assist others). But curiously, there are other authors of advice and theological hypothesis ... and entering by another gate, a man still comes to the same, outwardly concealed Divine Presence.

If the Great Ones can bi-locate, and even appear twice at once while IN THE FLESH upon our planet, just imagine what They can do -- in Spirit.

Originally Posted by Thomas

But movements don't spring up out of nowhere ... they all have sources and causes, and that's what needs to be examined

Amazing, how if God gave us all the same potential powers of observation, we do not all report precisely the same experiences ... even two people standing side by side and gazing at the clouds in the sky. Take these same two individuals to the closest art gallery, and the reports of their perceptions and impressions continue to diverge ... despite the closer proximity of the objects of their investigation.

Now ask both of these same persons to explain to you the life of an ant. Without a leading word or additional parameters, even a speck no larger than a pinhead becomes two utterly different realities ... manifest, somewhere, through the descriptions of each of our immediately present, equally OBJECTIVE observers.

At which point, were we to substitute for the ant the presence of a man, telling a tale to a huddled group of college students, will we recognize the Saviour ... and understand that Christ, too, walks and talks among us?

When shall the recognition of the Teacher ... finally reach us, even in this dark corner?
Or would we prefer to ask, when shall recognition from the Teacher ... ever, finally arrive?

[Thomas]

Hi Andrew —

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Isn't it refreshing that you are looking beyond superficialities before you condemn us, Thomas?

Not really, I always do ... I just wish it was mutual ... in fact I wish I got just an answer to my question, half the time.

May I remind you all I asked here was ... do other traditions have the concept of infallibility of doctrine?

Most answers have been short and succinct ... yes ... or no.

No-one from another tradition feels it necessary to then step up and start criticising Christianity.

TS likewise says no ... but why cannot you just leave it at that? Why the constant and tiresome ad hominem attacks? Why the constant strawman arguments?

Originally Posted by AndrewX

You have your standards for judging what is of value, and I have mine. Each person should be free to make this decision on his or her own.

Thanks you once again for affirming that simple fact, which has ever been the case of dispute between us ... then it begs the questions I have asked above ... why can you not respect my beliefs?

Your own words mock your doctrine of brotherhood.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

My argument shall ever remain that the assumption that we need an external authority to DETERMINE for us what our standards should be, even our standards for interpreting religious texts and meanings ... is a fallacious one. People are not mere sheep, however herdlike we may typically act, in the majority.

Criticial thinking time - it's a straw-man argument.

Indeed, as Christians thinkers occupy some of the foremost seats in the circles of academia, this renders your whole argument a nonsense. Furthermore, I might ask where your TS representatives are? or is this just 'sour grapes'?

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Were it not for individual, inventive, creative and constructive thought ... (read imagination) ... the world as we know it would not exist.

I know, isn't it fantastic? The contribution that Christianity has made to European culture is inestimable. When, if ever, TS achieves likewise, it might be in a position to criticise.

Thomas

[Francis king]

lol... "HPB didnt want to tell ppl about the masters"... so why are they mentioned so often? to give her thoughts some kind of credibility? ah ha!

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Thomas

No-one from another tradition feels it necessary to then step up and start criticising Christianity.

TS likewise says no ... but why cannot you just leave it at that? Why the constant and tiresome ad hominem attacks? Why the constant strawman arguments?

Thomas,

I stated that I don't think 90% of people would know Jesus if he walked into their church and sat down beside them to sing and pray. From this, you dare to talk about me "criticising Christianity?" The AUDACITY!

This, coming from someone who had made it his personal mission in life to SHOOT DOWN every voicing of the Theosophical philosophy and science wherever it occurs, whenever it occurs. HYPOCRITE!!!

Then, you accuse ME of `ad hominem' attacks, and the MASTER of the straw man ploy dares to invoke such a weak accusation, where THERE HASN'T EVEN BEEN an argument made, much less a straw man argument!

Thomas, crack kills.

But remember, it is you yourself that said, plain and simple, that "YOU ARE HERE TO CONDEMN US." Frankly, I don't GIVE A DAMN whether you are bothering to look beyond superficialities or not. Your purpose here, as voiced against Theosophists, at least - and anyone ELSE who doesn't SUIT YOU, I suppose - is OFFENSIVE ENOUGH.

Why do I despise your very presence? The reasons should now be clear enough. You are a man of judgment and hate ... and I wonder, WHAT have you to offer, supposedly pertaining to the Teachings of the Saviour of Angels and of men, which will not reflect this curious spirit in which you approach those who do not meet with your standards?

Originally Posted by Thomas

why can you not respect my beliefs?

Your own words mock your doctrine of brotherhood

For a man who "is here to CONDEMN US," I think you have enough cleaning of your OWN house to do, and some time to spend in the proverbial, introspective mirror of your OWN psyche, before you go digging around and mucking around in OTHER people's ... looking to make improvements.

I refuse to respect ANY philosophy which tries to tell ME how to think, much less precisely WHAT to think.

ON THIS THREAD, you yourself have declared the INFALLIBILITY of your doctrine. At least I have the balls enough to ADMIT ... that like everyone else, I am a seeker, and that I do NOT have the authority - the ultimate authority - to decide whose doctrines, and which doctrines, ARE and ARE NOT legitimate, accurate, valid and worthy.

YOU, on the other hand Thomas, by your OWN STATEMENT AND ADMISSION, are "HERE TO CONDEMN," believing vainly, as you do, that YOUR DOCTRINES ARE INFALLIBLE.

There is no room in a Brotherhood of Man, for this kind of obstinate, childish insistence. You must either GROW UP, which I'm afraid you have forgotten how to do ...

... or the basis, and the true nature of the Brotherhood, will ever elude you.

There are those who band together in the opposition of the Spirit of Chirst, however - and they will ever stand for (and with those who insist upon) rigidity of intepretation and for (those who likewise prefer) divisiveness ... and, like yourself, they love to attack the Brotherhood of Love and Light. Keep knocking. Ever do they answer, and each knock takes you one door deeper ...

Originally Posted by Thomas

'sour grapes'

You, of all people, would be the expert when it comes to sour grapes. I refer, in speaking of external authority, to your own affirmation that your doctrines and papal pronouncements are INFALLIBLE. Ever, so long as the ability to recognize truth is ascribed to another, and REPUDIATED as existing within the heart and mind of every single one of us ... it is YOUR stance which is the `house of cards,' itself erected on a foundation of sand.

Petrine legacy indeed. What you don't know won't hurt you ... much.

Originally Posted by Thomas

The contribution that Christianity has made to European culture is inestimable. When, if ever, TS achieves likewise, it might be in a position to criticise.

Your Master, at the moment, tests me by pushing me to the very limit, yet he also knows where my allegiances lie ... and he knows well enough that my indignation is justified.

Thomas, you have allied yourself with evil itself. Woe to you; your karma, as that of every single individual (and GROUP), must eventually ... be balanced. Godspeed you on your recognition of this fact, and on the righting of your wrongs.

I will not add to the burden, but I will also leave it to you, to carry this load.

Namaskar,

~andrew

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Francis king

lol... "HPB didnt want to tell ppl about the masters"... so why are they mentioned so often? to give her thoughts some kind of credibility? ah ha!

LOL, credibility? Just exactly who, besides one TS member, one AS member, and one former TS member believes her CREDIBLE around here?

THINK before you speak, Francis.

HPB sought to popularize the existence of the Hierarchy, and she did this, in part, by speaking about various individual members of that Brotherhood. She was taken to task during her own lifetime, by people exactly like yourself, bananabrain and Thomas ... and what she regretted is the revelation to the mundane of such individual identities as her own Master, the Master KH, the Master R, et al.

She did not resent making it known that such Teachers exist. It was the specifics, the providing of the ignorant, the self-righteous and even the pernicious or jealous would-be students ... with more than a paper target, with something to fix their attacks upon, which she regretted.

I, for one, understand where she's coming from. It led to nothing but hell for her ... and 130 years later, we STILL see - and feel - the hate, pouring in. Hatred, envy, fear, ridicule, scorn ... the list goes on.

Thanks ...

[Thomas]

Andrew - as we seem to be at loggerheads over who's attacking who, and on what grounds, let me distil the essentials from your post.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

I stated that I don't think 90% of people would know Jesus if he walked into their church and sat down beside them to sing and pray.

Well, unless you have the authority to speak for 90% of of people, this comprises an:
ad hominem
strawman

By the way, there is an esoteric teaching in Christianity you might be unaware of, that signifies that no-one will know Jesus, unless Jesus Himself chooses to be known, and if that is the case, then that knowing will be undeniable.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

From this, you dare to talk about me "criticising Christianity?" The AUDACITY!

You have conflated my post to support your criticism, so this is:
False logic
ad hominem

Originally Posted by AndrewX

This, coming from someone who had made it his personal mission in life to SHOOT DOWN every voicing of the Theosophical philosophy and science wherever it occurs, whenever it occurs. HYPOCRITE!!!

As I do not post on topics from Theosophy, but only when my tradition is misrepresented:
False logic
ad hominem

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Then, you accuse ME of `ad hominem' attacks, and the MASTER of the straw man ploy dares to invoke such a weak accusation, where THERE HASN'T EVEN BEEN an argument made, much less a straw man argument!

As I invariably supply the reason and logic for my answers, and as my requests for a debate on such grounds are consistently ignored or denied:
False logic
ad hominem

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Thomas, crack kills.

ad hominem
I'm not a crack dealer.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

But remember, it is you yourself that said, plain and simple, that "YOU ARE HERE TO CONDEMN US."

ad hominem
Show me where.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Frankly, I don't GIVE A DAMN whether you are bothering to look beyond superficialities or not. Your purpose here, as voiced against Theosophists, at least - and anyone ELSE who doesn't SUIT YOU, I suppose - is OFFENSIVE ENOUGH.

False logic
ad hominem
And simply an offensive remark ...

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Why do I despise your very presence? The reasons should now be clear enough.

Thank you for admitting as much. Your reasoning, by the way, are your own.
And simply an offensive remark ...

Originally Posted by AndrewX

You are a man of judgment and hate ... and I wonder, WHAT have you to offer, supposedly pertaining to the Teachings of the Saviour of Angels and of men, which will not reflect this curious spirit in which you approach those who do not meet with your standards?

False logic
ad hominem
And simply an offensive remark ...

Originally Posted by AndrewX

For a man who "is here to CONDEMN US," I think you have enough cleaning of your OWN house to do, and some time to spend in the proverbial, introspective mirror of your OWN psyche, before you go digging around and mucking around in OTHER people's ... looking to make improvements.

False logic
ad hominem
And simply an offensive remark ...

Originally Posted by AndrewX

I refuse to respect ANY philosophy which tries to tell ME how to think, much less precisely WHAT to think.

Would you ignore advice from a doctor? A scientist? A fireman?
False logic

Originally Posted by AndrewX

ON THIS THREAD, you yourself have declared the INFALLIBILITY of your doctrine.

This is true ... we are allowed, according to your principles, the freedom of religious expression to make such statements.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

At least I have the balls enough to ADMIT ... that like everyone else, I am a seeker,

False logic
ad hominem
strawman
Are Christians not seekers?

Originally Posted by AndrewX

and that I do NOT have the authority - the ultimate authority - to decide whose doctrines, and which doctrines, ARE and ARE NOT legitimate, accurate, valid and worthy.

Nor do we ... we just speak for our own.
False logic
ad hominem
strawman argument.

Might I remind you that throughtout this, it is you who is telling me how to interpret my Scriptures and my doctrines?

Originally Posted by AndrewX

YOU, on the other hand Thomas, by your OWN STATEMENT AND ADMISSION, are "HERE TO CONDEMN," believing vainly, as you do, that YOUR DOCTRINES ARE INFALLIBLE.

False logic
ad hominem

Originally Posted by AndrewX

There is no room in a Brotherhood of Man, for this kind of obstinate, childish insistence. You must either GROW UP, which I'm afraid you have forgotten how to do ...

ad hominem

Originally Posted by AndrewX

... or the basis, and the true nature of the Brotherhood, will ever elude you.

ad hominem

[QUOTE=AndrewX;129880]
You, of all people, would be the expert when it comes to sour grapes. I refer, in speaking of external authority, to your own affirmation that your doctrines and papal pronouncements are INFALLIBLE. Ever, so long as the ability to recognize truth is ascribed to another, and REPUDIATED as existing within the heart and mind of every single one of us ... it is YOUR stance which is the `house of cards,' itself erected on a foundation of sand.
False logic
ad hominem
strawman argument.
And simply an offensive remark ...

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Petrine legacy indeed. What you don't know won't hurt you ... much.

False logic
ad hominem
And simply an offensive remark ...

[QUOTE=AndrewX;129880]
Your Master, at the moment, tests me by pushing me to the very limit, yet he also knows where my allegiances lie ... and he knows well enough that my indignation is justified.
False logic
ad hominem
And simply an offensive remark ...

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Thomas, you have allied yourself with evil itself. Woe to you; your karma, as that of every single individual (and GROUP), must eventually ... be balanced. Godspeed you on your recognition of this fact, and on the righting of your wrongs.

False logic
ad hominem
And simply an offensive remark ...



Thomas

[Thomas]

So that Andrew and any others interested might better understand, I shall offer some of the reasoning behind the notion of the infallibility of Doctrine.

The whole rests, of course, on the idea of a Personal God.
From then, there are two simple steps:
1 It is God's will that He be known;
2 God's will being such, it is a given that such a God is capable of ensuring that what He wishes to be known can be known 'infallibly', that is without the admixture of error.
3 Whether man chooses to accept what is made known is, of course, another matter.

Judaism and Islam, with regard to Christianity, reject not so much the infallibility of the Divine Word, but the infallibility of its messener, in this instance, Jesus.

The distinction between Scripture and Doctrine is that the latter flows from the former. In fact there were discussions in the 4th century as to whether a doctrine could be defined if there was no precise referrant in Scripture (such as in the case of The Trinity), or where a referrant did occur, should it be taken absolutely at face value.

One of my favourite speculations on the latter case is the term 'apokatastasis' — the final reconciliation of good and evil, based on 1 Corinthians 15:28 — "When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all".

The Pauline text seems to contradict the words of Jesus in the Gospel — who speaks of a final conflagration and the extinction of those who remain perpeutally turned away from God. On this occasion, Paul is the more charitable and forgiving — Jesus is definitely the hard-liner! Thus the necessity for theology.

I do think that if the notion of a Personal God is accepted, then the idea of infallibility is not far away — otherwise we must assume that God's own word is itself suspect.

There is an argument that the Absolute nature of God does not a priori render Scripture itself infallible. The Church is well aware of this from the post-Englightenment disputes, as discussed above. I think the position is nuanced, but not beyond reason and logic.

The one traditional notion under constant review is that God alone is the direct author of Scripture. We no longer press this issue, although we do insist that its inspiration is Divine.

To me this is the most exciting arena of doctrinal investigation, and brings up a host of questions, such as:
What is the difference between inspiration and intuition, reason and revelation? and, Did the scribe know he was writing a text that would become Canonical and thus Infallible?

However, what I would like to ask is:
Do other religious traditions draw a distinction between 'infallible' and 'reliable' with regard to their sacra doctrina?

or put another way, how 'dependable' is a text, and what certitude can an adherent draw from it?

What effect has this on a text's exegesis?

Thomas