Authority/Responsibility

Stella1000

Well-known member
The same documents that are available to all men.

Did your church get to just make it up?
Can you imagine the state of all those massive bridges in the world if they weren't built to engineering guidelines proven to be authentic and authoritative? Sure you can build your faith on any random instruction that sound good, but if those instructions/teachings aren't based in a solid foundation, a faiths foundations will collapse in the first tempest.
 

balshan

Well-known member
If there were authoritative documents detailing the history of the Church turning orthodox to heterdox, there'd be something credible to argue. But as it is there are just random moderns engaging in anachronism claiming that. It's just not a credible story.
Yep it is written in all the evil fruit throughout the centeries, it is only those who are blind who cannot see it.
 

balshan

Well-known member
Can you imagine the state of all those massive bridges in the world if they weren't built to engineering guidelines proven to be authentic and authoritative? Sure you can build your faith on any random instruction that sound good, but if those instructions/teachings aren't based in a solid foundation, a faiths foundations will collapse in the first tempest.
Well we can see what happens when an institution is built on false claims and doctrines with false teachers for leaders. It wallows in sin, lies, justifies said sin and this is what your institution has done for centuries.
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
Can you imagine the state of all those massive bridges in the world if they weren't built to engineering guidelines proven to be authentic and authoritative? Sure you can build your faith on any random instruction that sound good, but if those instructions/teachings aren't based in a solid foundation, a faiths foundations will collapse in the first tempest.

Now you are rambling about things which are irrelevant to the point at hand.
 

Stella1000

Well-known member
Yeah it is pointless rambling. Engineering standards are not the same thing as history.
That is a very naïve perspective. The structural safety of mammoth constructions is only possible through thousands of years of development of physics and mathematics principles. Do you really think that you could go out on your own and get one of those bridges right without the benefit of that history?
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
That is a very naïve perspective.

Since engineering is what I do, I know it is your post that is naive and completely misguided.

The structural safety of mammoth constructions is only possible through thousands of years of development of physics and mathematics principles.

Irrelevant to the point at hand.

We are talking about what is authentic history and what is not. Apparently, this has totally escaped you. The history of engineering is irrelevant since we don't need to depend on historical facts to know present day engineering actually works. That too, has escaped you.

Do you really think that you could go out on your own and get one of those bridges right without the benefit of that history?

Yes, I could.

And whether I could, or couldn't, has nothing to do with what is authentic history and what is not.

But I'm now guessing you have confused yourself into oblivion and this has went right over your head.
 

Stella1000

Well-known member
Since engineering is what I do, I know it is your post that is naive and completely misguided.



Irrelevant to the point at hand.

We are talking about what is authentic history and what is not. Apparently, this has totally escaped you. The history of engineering is irrelevant since we don't need to depend on historical facts to know present day engineering actually works. That too, has escaped you.



Yes, I could.

And whether I could, or couldn't, has nothing to do with what is authentic history and what is not.

But I'm now guessing you have confused yourself into oblivion and this has went right over your head.
My point is exactly on point. You can trace the development of fundamental principles way on back through the ages. You can cite them. You can build on them and you can know that in the future, amazing and unknown developments would astound those of us alive today. And that is the history of the principles of Christ, documented through the ages by the Catholic Church. That tradition is invaluable to guarding the authenticity of faith. It's proven to be a nightmare of division where those traditional principles have been swapped for novelty. New churches and new theories pop up and then dissipate into the miasma of individual opinions about them.
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
My point is exactly on point. You can trace the development of fundamental principles way on back through the ages. You can cite them. You can build on them and you can know that in the future, amazing and unknown developments would astound those of us alive today. And that is the history of the principles of Christ, documented through the ages by the Catholic Church. That tradition is invaluable to guarding the authenticity of faith. It's proven to be a nightmare of division where those traditional principles have been swapped for novelty. New churches and new theories pop up and then dissipate into the miasma of individual opinions about them.

You have a bad habit of telling yourself what you want to hear without scrutizing what you are saying.

What actually is used in engineering today is used because we know it works today not because somebody did it 2000 years ago. Engineering does not depend on a reliance to history because we can test it's reliance today. But as I said before, this escapes you.

What happens to be authentic history and what isn't, is a matter of debate. Engineering isn't.
 

Stella1000

Well-known member
You have a bad habit of telling yourself what you want to hear without scrutizing what you are saying.

What actually is used in engineering today is used because we know it works today not because somebody did it 2000 years ago. Engineering does not depend on a reliance to history because we can test it's reliance today. But as I said before, this escapes you.

What happens to be authentic history and what isn't, is a matter of debate. Engineering isn't.
I think it's the other way 'round. What you are espousing is denialism. We got to understand it a lot more during covid with the denial of science and a reliance on randoms outside the discipline.
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
I think it's the other way 'round. What you are espousing is denialism. We got to understand it a lot more during covid with the denial of science and a reliance on randoms outside the discipline.

You are off on a self-confusing tangent again. Let me get you back on track. How do you decide what is authentic history and what is not? How do you decide whether the Vikings arrived in North America or not?
 

Stella1000

Well-known member
You are off on a self-confusing tangent again. Let me get you back on track. How do you decide what is authentic history and what is not? How do you decide whether the Vikings arrived in North America or not?
I am guided by tradition and the historical method developed therein to distinguish between authentic history and pseudo history. Or authentic science and pseudo science. How do you determine the authenticity?
 
Top