Because the man is extremely disinclined to engage with anyone. Now, as I said when I answered the Kurgan’s three questions, I was not interested in entertaining further discussion or engaging in debate with anyone on the subject. I particularly dislike theological discussions, because not only are most of them totally incapable of going anywhere substantial, but I have yet to meet a single individual who is intellectually honest enough to treat his fundamental assumptions with the same rigor that he treats everyone else’s.
Which means, of course, that I have yet to meet a single person, of any religious or irreligious persuasion, who is capable of genuinely defending the full panoply of his belief system against my critiques of it. And while there was a time when I enjoyed tearing down certain people’s belief systems, and while it remains necessary from time to time, I don’t get a kick out of seeing how it observably distresses people to see what scanty foundations support their intellectual infrastructure. And for some reason, my observation that it really doesn’t matter what nonsense your average person believes to be true, so long as he does his best to serve God, family, and nation, seems to provide most people with cold comfort.
Naturally, my simple act of answering a friend’s questions immediately prompted this self-titled DEFENSE OF THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS. Now, just to be clear, I’m not picking on this guy and I’m not targeting Catholic beliefs here, they simply happen to serve as recent and useful examples of something every single person from every single religious persuasion I have ever encountered always – and I do mean ALWAYS – does. And it should serve to explicate, yet again, why I am not interested in answering anyone’s questions or engaging in debates anymore.
In defense of the Catholic claims that you addressed today on your blog –
Kurgan formulated the first question badly, and you rightly caught his mistake.
Apostolic Succession is the fundamental basis for authority in the Apostolic (Catholic or Orthodox) churches.
A stronger formulation of Kurgan’s first question is “If Jesus gave his apostles the authority to teach, to forgive sins, and to distribute the Sacraments until He returns, as He explicitly states in the Gospels, then in what form does that authority exist on earth today?”
Protestants must say “it doesn’t”, or “everyone has that authority”, or “whoever I agree with has that authority”. None of which make any sense.
This is why it doesn’t matter that the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed was formulated after a later Ecumenical Council. The same Apostolic authority is behind all the Ecumenical Councils. The council of Nicaea is not any more or less authoritative than any other Ecumenical Council.
Kurgan’s second question – “then how is God loving” – was silly, and you addressed it properly.
On the third question of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s perpetual virginity –
First of all, that tradition goes back to the early Church Fathers, who all read the same Gospels you do, which say Jesus had “brothers”. And yet they still believed Mary remained a virgin, for good reasons.
When Gabriel appeared to a girl about to be married and announced that she would be a mother, her response was very strange: “how can this be, for I know not man”? Rather than what most girls would think – that the upcoming marriage would obviously produce a child.
This indicates that Mary was not expecting to consummate her marriage to Joseph, probably because she had already taken a vow of perpetual virginity, which was not uncommon at the time.
As for the word “brothers”, in Greek “adelphoi”, it does not strictly indicate men with the same mother, but rather men who are relatives. The word could apply to half-brothers or cousins. Those brothers are probably from Jesus’ extended family, or maybe Joseph’s children from a previous marriage.
My response:
You make the same mistake he does when you go off on what you imagine Protestants “must” say. You’re obviously wrong. This is why I will not talk to you or anyone else about these things. None of you are intellectually honest enough to examine your own assumptions as critically as you do everyone else’s. I run into this every single time I talk to anyone, of any religious persuasion. So I no longer talk to anyone about these things.
If we grant that the Apostles had authority from Jesus, and then we ask “where is that authority after the Apostles have died?” –
The only possible answers are
“Nobody has it”
“Everybody has it”
“Some people have it”
If Nobody has it, then no council, including Nicaea, has any authority.
If Everybody has it, then every council, including Nicaea, has exactly the same authority as any individual – which amounts to none at all.
If Some people have it, then who and how?
See if you can spot the moving target, kids! I did, of course, and I knew it would be there, of course, because it always is. Furthermore, note the total inability everyone has to simply ask a question, receive an answer, and then stop right there.
I didn’t agree to a debate. I didn’t agree to explain anything. I don’t care what nonsense any of these guys believe. I’m even open to the theoretical possibility that they might somehow, against all probability and despite their observable errors, have accidentally landed on the precise historical and textual interpretations that sets the foundation for perfectly correct theological understanding.
Perhaps, against all the odds, they alone see through the glass with perfect clarity.
Now, I understand that virtually everyone who reads this blog is smarter than the average. I also understand that virtually everyone who reads this blog is a binary thinker who doesn’t really understand what I mean by probabilistic thinking. You see, it’s not about what you can do, it’s about what you are instinctually comfortable with. And most people naturally, instinctively, intuitively, seek certainty above all else. You are creatures of intellectual safety and order, and that is a good thing.
But I am not. I don’t think like you do and I don’t need what you do. I thrive on intellectual chaos and uncertainty. The crazy thing, the amusing thing, is that I am so often accused of that very certainty that doesn’t matter to me at all, usually by people who don’t even know what their own words mean, let alone mine. The following is a fairly common objection, one that happened to be raised on SG today:
Vox is using as authority his own intellect, which we were told is not trustworthy.
Tell me you’re retarded without telling me you’re retarded. So many of you are so blitheringly stupid. This is precisely why I don’t talk about these things. When you say something that is obviously incorrect and stupid, and I show that what you said is incorrect and stupid, I am not appealing to the authority of my intellect.
You morons don’t even understand your own words. And you think you’re going to teach anyone else what God’s Word means?
I will now happily go back to ignoring theological disputes and religious debates. But perhaps now you will have a better understanding of my lack of interest in them. If I’m going to explore these topics, I will do so with my new best friend, who for all his shortcomings and petty dishonesties is at least capable of comprehending his errors when they are pointed out to him. And indeed, we have had several good discussions about potential logical errors in the Summa Theologica, which actually holds up rather better than Arthur C. Clarke imagined it would.
One last piece of advice. If you think something logically follows, then write out the syllogisms. Major premise, minor premise, conclusion. Rhetorically appealing to logic is not the same thing as actually applying it, and you’re never going to fool anyone who is capable of distinguishing between a syllogism and an enthymeme.
