The Roman Catholic cult

I’m reposting some comments I left at Denny Burk’s blog in response to Bryan Cross:

steve hays April 1, 2013 at 1:35 pm #

Proponents of SSM can’t reject an argument that hasn’t even been made. The point is not to assert that homosexual acts are immoral, but to present an argument to that effect. I think Burk’s point is that many proponents of traditional marriage have withdrawn the argument from public consideration.

Reply

    Bryan Cross April 1, 2013 at 2:05 pm #

    Steve,

    The argument has been made, but it isn’t available for use by those [such as yourself] who think that masturbation and artificial contraception are morally licit, because it rules out such things as well. Damon Linker’s recent article “How gay marriage’s fate was sealed more than 50 years ago” lays out the problem:

    http://news.yahoo.com/gay-marriages-fate-sealed-more-50-years-ago-073000037.html

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

   

        steve hays April 1, 2013 at 2:14 pm #

        You’re assuming those are linked. Those are only linked in Roman Catholicism.

steve hays April 3, 2013 at 10:00 pm #

Bryan Cross

“This use of the “self-authentication” thesis loads bullying right into the nature of the consequent ‘dialogue,’ because it gives you the green light to pound the table repeatedly with your ‘self-authenticating’ Bible verses, even when your interlocutor doesn’t accept their truth or believe they have divine authority. In my opinion, this violates the Golden Rule.”

i) That’s ironic coming from a Catholic apologist who interjected his opposition to artificial contraception into this thread. What if Bryan appealed to natural law to justify his position on artificial contraception, and his opponents said:

“This use of the “natural law” thesis loads bullying right into the nature of the consequent ‘dialogue,’ because it gives you the green light to pound the table repeatedly with your ‘natural law” claims, even when your interlocutor doesn’t accept their truth or believe they have moral authority. In my opinion, this violates the Golden Rule.”

ii) What if (ex hypothesi) the Bible is self-authenticating? Would it still violate the Golden Rule to invoke Biblical authority?

iii) BTW, Jesus often cited the OT to validate his positions. Did Jesus violate the Golden Rule?

“I would find that uncharitable, arrogant and off-putting. And I’m guessing that you would too, if someone were to treat you in this way.”

Why does Bryan resort to the emotive rhetoric of the Far Left?

steve hays April 3, 2013 at 12:08 pm #

Bryan Cross

“The Obery Hendricks piece [and the 1,749 comments that follow it] are a good example of the inability of Scripture alone to resolve the question. When the interpretation of Scripture is left to private judgment, as entailed by Protestantism [as such], then Scripture can be interpreted any which way, depending on the presuppositions one brings to Scripture.”

i) How do you derive your conclusion from 1749 comments? 1749 comments don’t represent 1749 different interpretations, or 1749 different arguments.

ii) Are you saying the pro-homosexuality interpretation is just as plausible as the anti-homosexuality interpretation? Do you place all arguments and counterarguments on a par?

iii) To say Scripture alone is unable to resolve the question is ambiguous. Do you mean Scripture alone is unable to make everyone agree? But if that’s what you mean, the Magisterium is unable to make everyone agree.

iv) How does the Church “determine” the meaning of Scripture? Do you mean the Church recognizes the true meaning, or the Church assigns meaning?

steve hays April 1, 2013 at 7:24 pm #

“If and when the church of Rome chooses” to discipline them? That’s a great all-purpose escape clause.

BTW, the so-called ” pervasive interpretive pluralism” has been addressed.

steve hays April 1, 2013 at 7:33 pm #

Bryan’s church is a hermetically sealed abstraction.

steve hays April 1, 2013 at 9:47 pm #

    “I’m not sure exactly what you mean by ‘all-purpose escape clause,’ but what I said is true, i.e. that the Catholic Church can discipline such persons.”

    You originally said “if or when.” You denomination can do it, or not do it. Heads you win, tails you win.

    “…and often she does do so (typically in very quiet ways), even if not on our preferred time-table.”

    “Preferred time-table”? That’s euphemistic. More like no time-table. For decades, high-profile Catholic gov’t officials have supported abortion with absolute impunity from your denomination.

    If Pelosi and Biden were disciplined privately in the past, that clearly didn’t take.

    Anyway, this is another example of your fanatical commitment to Catholicism. If pope Francis publicly disciplined them, you’d defend that. If he privately disciplined them, you’d defend that. If he chose not to discipline them, you’d defend that.

    “Imagine Chris Matthews interviewing (think split-screen) Denny arguing that Scripture opposes SSM and Obery Hendricks on the other side of the screen arguing that Scripture doesn’t oppose SSM. Hendricks wins before even opening his mouth, by the very fact that he represents [by his very presence there] a ‘plausible’ opposing interpretation, and neither has greater interpretive authority than the other.”

    When two people disagree, that simply means one or both are wrong.

    BTW, are you saying Obery’s pro-homosexuality interpretation of Scripture is just as reasonable as Denny’s anti-homosexuality interpretation, which is why we need the Magisterium to play tiebreaker?

    “This is an example why, in my opinion, for Scripture to have public authority, the Church must have interpretive authority.”

    Of course, Bryan, if you think that’s a problem, then your solution only relocates the same problem. Imagine Chris Matthews interviewing (think split-screen) G. B. Caird or F. F. Bruce arguing that Scripture and history oppose the claims of Rome and Cardinal George on the other side of the screen arguing that Scripture and history support the claims of Rome.

steve hays April 1, 2013 at 11:42 pm #

                You rig the answer by framing the question in terms of authoritative interpretations rather than true interpretations. Authoritative interpretations can be false, while true interpretations can be unauthoritative.

                You also have an unscriptural view of Scriptural authority. When, for instance, the Apostle John wrote 1 John to squash heresy, his opponents wouldn’t be entitled to say, “Well, you may interpret 1 John as condemning Docetism, but we don’t. Therefore, his letter has no intrinsic adjudicative force.”

                “…I wouldn’t applaud or defend a decision by a pope not to discipline persons who ought to be disciplined, unless I had reason to believe that they knew something I didn’t regarding the persons in question.”

                You’re being sophistical, for you take your cue on who ought or ought not to be disciplined from who your church does or doesn’t discipline. You disclaim exercising your independent judgment on the matter.

                “The existence of a magisterium does not merely ‘relocate’ the same problem, because the debate you imagine does not presuppose the acceptance of any authority, but concerns the location of ecclesial authority.”

                Both Catholic and Protestant positions presuppose the acceptance of *an* authority. So, in fact, my comparison is apt.