Note on Dr. Scott Hahn (was: A query for the classicists)

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

>BRIDEAN

>Scott Hahn's reasoning regarding this was that it was because of the Catholic

>churches claims.  Unlike the Baptists who don't claim anything sacreligious if

>not true, the Catholics make claims that if not true, would make them

sacreligious

>and blasphemous.  An example would be the real presense in the eucharist.

>If there is a real presense, then you are actually saying that a piece of bread

>IS GOD.  Whereas the Baptist claim that you should wait until a certain age

>before you baptize, if not true, is not really a blasphemy against God.

ACHILLES

This just reinforces my point. "Blasphemy" is a sloppy concept, not one that
people with good mental hygiene tend to be overly fond of. How could it
possibly be defined without being totally subjective? 

If there is no presense, then the catholics are wrong. 

There are some baptist claims that other groups might find "blasphemous" as
well, particularly the trinity which falls into that category from the point
of view of real monotheists (Moslems, Jews, and even some Xtian sects.) 


>But if you want to read Scott Hahn's own reasoning on this read, "Rome

Sweet Home"

>which you can probably find either at a Catholic book store, or a book

store that

>has a good Catholic section.

>

ACHILLES
Thanks, but no thanks. 


Achilles

"...we are not simply contending in order that my view or that
of yours may prevail, but I presume we ought both of us to be
fighting for the truth..."
from Philebus, the Dialogues of Plato 

• Previous message: Note on Dr. Scott Hahn (was: A query for the classicists)
• Next message: The Debate with Hovind
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]