Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (14098)	6/4/2002 7:11:58 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I assume internal inconsistencies aren't counted as defects. I wonder whether changes over time in Church doctrine mean those components of it were defective before but aren't now. Do you know this? It's interesting. 'Defects' must have a special meaning. I guess I mean that 'theological defects' must have a special meaning. Do you know its definition? Very nice post. I doubt there's any official definition of defects. I'll hazard a guess, that it refers to certain theological positions of the Church. This is trickier than it sounds. There are positions of the Church expressed by the Pope which don't fall under the cover of 'Papal infallibility'. Which means, it could be a position of the Church, but not necessarily correct [scratch head at this point.] As an average person, it's virtually impossible to tell which position of the Pope, is or isn't covered by Papal infallibility. I would doubt that the claim of the RC Church being the only religion without defect is an absolute theological position; a church scholar would mumble that perhaps it isn't correct, but not loud enough for the Pope to hear. I think the Immaculate Conception [The Virgin Mary born without original sin]is a theological position decreed under Papal infallibility. Which means it's an absolute position of the Church and will never change. [so they say] I wonder whether changes over time in Church doctrine mean those components of it were defective before but aren't now. From my childhood religious training, I think the answer to that would be: It wasn't that the prior position was 'defective', the Church is providing greater clarification. One changed position of the Church is with respect to married priests. During the Middle Ages, priests were allowed to be married; somewhere along the line, the Church changed that position requiring that priests not be married [though there are a few RC priests that are...scratch head again.] And even though the RC Church does have married priests, the Pope has said that he will not change the position of the Church and allow it [scratch head again]. There was a recent case in Mexico, where an ordained priest got married. The Church threw his butt out. On the other hand, had he been a married Methodist Minister, that converted to Catholicism, it would have been possible for him to get ordained as a RC priest. Since divorce is a sin, he would be allowed to keep his wife. This is where married priests come from <s>. IMO, if you ever exam religious views in depth, you find a whole mess of inconsistencies and contradictions...to which the good nuns would say...'Sometimes God works in mysterious ways.' Ya just gotta believe. jttmab