Why should Christians go *only* to the Bible?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

CLAIRE

>Martin, I admit that I am not well educated in, for example, most of the

>rabbinic traditions of Jesus' time. For now, I'll just have to take my

>(church-approved) commentary's word for it that Jesus was using rabbinic

>exaggeration when he told his followers to "hate" their families.


AUSTIN
Why just take their word for it? The RCC has changed its position in the
past - an implicit admission that the previous position was at least
inadequate, if not erroneous. In other cases there has been the admission
of error. There might be error here.

Wouldn't a better course of action be to examine the issue independently
and form independent conclusions?

CLAIRE
 And

>no, Catholics are not supposed to go *only* to the Bible to discover how

>to interpret it. Any "noted authority" has to be approved by the Church.


AUSTIN
Why?

What is wrong with authorities who stand outside the RCC? Isn't there a
small problem with only accepting authorities whihc are approved by a
single organization?


Austin Cline; German Department; Princeton University
--- The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher
      esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.

               - Nietzsche "The Dawn" (1881)

• Previous message: Is it a possibility that Claire's being brainwashed?
• Next message: Does Inerrancy Require Literalism?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]