What is this man lacking?

@rajk999 said
People read what you write but its nonsense.
You write garbage.

This is how you back up nearly all of your conversations when it is pointed out to you that you are twisting scripture into things it isn't saying. You don't address the points you go after people, and you do it in ways that is actually counter to what scripture teaches us on how we are to defend our faith Biblically speaking.

@rajk999 said
Christ does not need to be omnipotent to read the mans heart and mind. Tell Fr. Chad I said that, and he should not add to or change what Jesus said to suit his church doctrine.

Lets get back to the story in the opening post which I notice you did not address. What did Jesus say the man lacketh? The man believed in God and he had faith and he followed the Low of Moses. What is the something else that was missing for him to get eternal life in the Kingdom of God.

So Christ is not God, and was incapable of knowing the man's heart -- he merely guessed it or inferred it from some clue like a conman? This is heretical.

The man lacked charity. He was full of attachment and greed.

I do not think that you could say that he lacked good works for good works sake.

Or, in this case, Christ was literally calling him to do the one last big thing and to enter the monastic life with Christ (the life of Nazarines or Essenes, as it would have been understood at this time and understood by Jews of this day and age), and was calling him to be like Him.

Remember when Elijah met Elisha?

2 Kings 19:

19So he departed thence, and found Elisha the son of Shaphat, who was plowing with twelve yoke of oxen before him, and he with the twelfth: and Elijah passed by him, and cast his mantle upon him.

20And he left the oxen, and ran after Elijah, and said, Let me, I pray thee, kiss my father and my mother, and then I will follow thee. And he said unto him, Go back again: for what have I done to thee?

21And he returned back from him, and took a yoke of oxen, and slew them, and boiled their flesh with the instruments of the oxen, and gave unto the people, and they did eat. Then he arose, and went after Elijah, and ministered unto him.

There is the Old Testament potential parallel with this, yet the man has refused his calling to Christ because of his love of wealth.

how else would we explain the fact that others in the Bible are not told to give up all of their possessions, but are merely told things like your faith has made you well, and to go forth and sin no more?

I think you are stretching this to an extreme interpretation -- and one that is also heretical in the sense that you are advancing that it is works that save.

I would also point out that Kelley rightfully pointed out here that Christ said in this passage that none can do good but God.

@thinkofone said
What did Jesus say the man lacketh?

Never mind what Jesus explicitly stated. It's irrelevant.

What's important is what Fr. Chad Ripperger said.

The sooner you get that through your thick skull, the better.

But what are we doing right now?

Debating the meaning of the Bible.

I am relying on people who draw their authority from a long history of interpretation of the Bible, and who do it as a vocation, and I think that is good.

What is wrong or dirty about that?

@philokalia said
I am relying on people who draw their authority from a long history of interpretation of the Bible, and who do it as a vocation, and I think that is good.

It's called Appeal to Authority. It's a common informal fallacy used in arguments. When someone uses Appeal to Authority, they are basically saying that a thing must be true because it is believed by someone they agree with and who they insist is an "authority" on the subject. Appeal to Authority is often largely used instead of genuine discussion. It can even come across as rather spammy. You use Appeal to Authority so much and so often in your contributions here, I think you might be oblivious to it.

@philokalia said
So Christ is not God, and was incapable of knowing the man's heart -- he merely guessed it or inferred it from some clue like a conman? This is heretical.

The man lacked charity. He was full of attachment and greed.

I do not think that you could say that he lacked good works for good works sake.

Or, in this case, Christ was literall ...[text shortened]... y rightfully pointed out here that Christ said in this passage that none can do good but God.

Sometimes it seems that you people are bunch of 10yr olds.
Go in peace.

@fmf said
It's called Appeal to Authority. It's a common informal fallacy used in arguments. When someone uses Appeal to Authority, they are basically saying that a thing must be true because it is believed by someone they agree with and who they insist is an "authority" on the subject. Appeal to Authority is often largely used instead of genuine discussion. It can even come across as rath ...[text shortened]... to Authority so much and so often in your contributions here, I think you might be oblivious to it.

I think Appeal to Authority is only a fallacy if the authority figure is improper, i.e., not actually an expert on the subject.

If appealing to ANY authority figure is a fallacy, then we can't quote Einstein in discussions on Physics.

@fmf said
It's called Appeal to Authority. It's a common informal fallacy used in arguments. When someone uses Appeal to Authority, they are basically saying that a thing must be true because it is believed by someone they agree with and who they insist is an "authority" on the subject. Appeal to Authority is often largely used instead of genuine discussion. It can even come across as rath ...[text shortened]... to Authority so much and so often in your contributions here, I think you might be oblivious to it.

But this is actually wrong. I have not stated that this is absolutely the truth because one person has said it to be, I have merely shown that important figures in the church believe this to be true. I think that citing a philosopher or a theologian when talking about a topic that their works are pertinent to lend credibility to your arguments because you are bringing forward somebody who is respected in that field.

Of course you would be right if I were to say that father ripperger or some other person can only be the authority we look to on this and that the argument is true because they stated it.

It's a common problem for people who aren't that super familiar with philosophy to take these logical fallacies and apply them in a way that is way too broad and think that they are being relevant. In reality, no logical fallacy was committed. It was just referencing somebody who can be respected and has a opinion on this issue.

@bigdoggproblem said
I think Appeal to Authority is only a fallacy if the authority figure is improper, i.e., not actually an expert on the subject.

If appealing to ANY authority figure is a fallacy, then we can't quote Einstein in discussions on Physics.

that's entirely right. Of course, we can't say that X is true simply because Einstein stated that it is true, but if we show that the most respected figure in physics who is an expert in the field thought this way, it says an awful lot about the statement.

@philokalia said
But this is actually wrong. I have not stated that this is absolutely the truth because one person has said it to be, I have merely shown that important figures in the church believe this to be true. I think that citing a philosopher or a theologian when talking about a topic that their works are pertinent to lend credibility to your arguments because you are bringing forw ...[text shortened]... as committed. It was just referencing somebody who can be respected and has a opinion on this issue.

I don't think your incessant use of Appeal to Authority on a forum like this serves you well or adds much value. But you should post as you see fit.

@bigdoggproblem said
I think Appeal to Authority is only a fallacy if the authority figure is improper, i.e., not actually an expert on the subject.

I disagree. I think saying 'Saint So-and-So of Somewhere from the Whatever century agrees with me and he was an expert' is offered INSTEAD of a genuine contribution to a discussion on a forum populated by people with the range of beliefs that are on show here. I think it is a bit of a cop-out.

@bigdoggproblem said
I think Appeal to Authority is only a fallacy if the authority figure is improper, i.e., not actually an expert on the subject.

If appealing to ANY authority figure is a fallacy, then we can't quote Einstein in discussions on Physics.

If you think citing "Fr. Chad Ripperger" gives any additional credence to whatever Philokalia happens to believe and spends his time trotting out here, good for you. You obviously won't agree with my perception of Appeal to Authority.

I find - for example - Rajk999's references to the Bible and to the text itself - and grappling using his own intellectual and discursive steam - to be much more compelling debate and discussion than what is offered by those who trot out stuff about their superstitious beliefs regarding supernatural matters and then cite long-dead "Saints" and "experts" as if that achieves anything much other than drawing attention to their own confirmation bias.

If and when Rajk999 starts citing cult leaders' books, "Popes", "Saints", Jesus experts, "Priests", angels who came down into a field in Turkey, "experts" on immortality or 'eternal torture', and whoever else, and does so instead of engaging in debate, I will surely call him out ~ for what it's worth.

@philokalia said
I have not stated that this is absolutely the truth because one person has said it to be, I have merely shown that important figures in the church believe this to be true. I think that citing a philosopher or a theologian when talking about a topic that their works are pertinent to lend credibility to your arguments because you are bringing forward somebody who is respected in that field.

If you are a Christian who can't discuss a Biblical point toe to toe, Bible in hand, with someone like Rajk999 without having to refer to "Fr. Chad Ripperger" or to "Saints" or other "experts" whose beliefs you happen to agree with, why do you bother to engage Rajk999 at all? I ask you this even though, at the same time, I urge you to post as you see fit.

@bigdoggproblem said
I think Appeal to Authority is only a fallacy if the authority figure is improper, i.e., not actually an expert on the subject.

As Ellen G. White established and pointed out to us all in 1914, the Earth was literally created in 6 days.

As an authority figure, is she "improper"?

@fmf said
It's called Appeal to Authority. It's a common informal fallacy used in arguments. When someone uses Appeal to Authority, they are basically saying that a thing must be true because it is believed by someone they agree with and who they insist is an "authority" on the subject. Appeal to Authority is often largely used instead of genuine discussion. It can even come across as rath ...[text shortened]... to Authority so much and so often in your contributions here, I think you might be oblivious to it.

Your only authority is you it seems.

@kellyjay said
Your only authority is you it seems.

The only thing I am an "authority" on is what my own perspective is.