Perhaps for you, that is subjectively true. But I am speaking about objective truth. Sources outside of myself say that human liberals cannot hatch from eggs [referring to the example from FK], because then they would no longer be human, by scientific definition. Oh... I guess then they aren't human :-)
First of all, don't get me started on whether liberals are human. In all fairness, that deserves its own thread. :)
The point I was making is that an already predisposed, like-minded source cannot count as a legitimate "outside source". You wouldn't allow me to say my Reformed theology claims are true because the outside sources of Calvin and Luther agreed with them, would you? :)
What sources would you like me to state? I wasn't there, so I use historical evidence AND I ascertain whether the witnesses corroborate the history.
You KNOW how I would answer that question. :) Historical evidence is a wonderful source for supporting the validity of a proposition. The problem arises when all the historians one is relying upon are already vested towards a particular bias and outcome. One is free to believe that they all are credible "anyway", but this is strictly an argument of faith, not of objectivity.
How do you know George Washington was a president?
I'd use the same sources as you. The difference would be that none of those sources would have had a personal vested interest in convincing the public that Washington was president. I'm not saying that all the Fathers were corrupted and crooks. I am saying that human nature is human nature. Unsubstantiated errors will multiply exponentially. Well meaning and good people often do take a bad situation and make it worse. Had scripture been their base, instead of their self-proclaimed authority to be equal with scripture, then of course matters would be much different today.
What outside claims or sources are you talking about? Are you saying that an observer of religion cannot give a report about it because his report might be biased? Then history has no value to us because we cannot trust it...
Historical evidence is a wonderful source for supporting the validity of a proposition. The problem arises when all the historians one is relying upon are already vested towards a particular bias and outcome. One is free to believe that they all are credible "anyway", but this is strictly an argument of faith, not of objectivity.
I suppose it depends where you set the bar... You are ruling out your very own Scriptures as coming from God if you continue down this path.
1 Jesus Christ existed.
2. Jesus Christ claimed to be a messenger from God.
3. Jesus Christ formed an inner body of followers.
4. Jesus Christ sent these followers from himself to continue his teachings.
5. Part of Jesus' teaching was the claim to be divine.
With this basic notion, I think we have enough to "prove" the notion that Christ established a Church to continue His teachings. If God, then you will have to answer to Him on your continued rejection. Now, if you set the bar of proof so high, what can you absolutely prove that occured before 1900 AD? Only very general things. As such, we have a relative degree of certainty that history proves the above 5 things - which leads one to see that the Catholic Church is the continuance of the Church established by Christ.
The difference would be that none of those sources would have had a personal vested interest in convincing the public that Washington was president.
How do you know that? You know I could easily invent a conspiracy theory behind why someone would want people to believe that Washington was president... It depends on how high I set the bar of proof. I used to deal with military history. Trust me. You aren't going to be able to prove ANYTHING beyond a shadow of a doubt. History is a matter of faith in the recorders.
Unsubstantiated errors will multiply exponentially.
Where is the evidence of ANY "unsubstantiated errors" among the Church Fathers and what we call "apostolic tradition"? You see, you already approach the table "KNOWING" that the Catholic Church is wrong. Rather than approaching unbiased, you come with your Reformed thoughts. So thus, what about Calvin's "unsubstantiated errors that multiply exponentially" today?
Had scripture been their base, instead of their self-proclaimed authority to be equal with scripture, then of course matters would be much different today.
And now another presumption on top of presumption. First, you presume that the Bible is the Word of God, based on its own internal word. Sorry, the Bible isn't self-authenticating. And secondly, you are presuming that YOUR interpretation of said book is correct. Thus, I hardly would consider you a person to give me a lecture about self-proclaimed authority... Your previous argument from bias rules you out - and no one I know outside of Reformed theology considers Calvin of any consequence.
Merry Christmas - and thank a Catholic for it. You'd have no "Mass of Christ" without the Church.
Regards