A reply to a post by kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (aka Nancy's Sweetheart): 

?Human brains are infested with sin, and they can only be trusted
?in very limited circumstances.

I would beg to differ with you here.  The properly-formed conscience can
be trusted virtually ALL the time.  I am not so sure, though, about something
so materialistic as the human brain.  Does that mass of tissue possess
anything trustworthy?  Your observation would probably be valid if we were
discussing the "mind" of an animal, but the human being is only half animal,
as it were; and half spiritual. 

?At the moment he stops speaking, and people start interpreting, the
?possibility of error appears.  Did he mean that literally or not?  We do
?not have any record that he elaborated on the words.  Was he thinking of
?Tran- or Con- substatiation?   He didn't say.  We interpret this passage
?using our brains; we think and reason and draw conclusions.  But we know
?that our brains are not perfect: our thinking often leads us wrong.  (This
?is something that most of us have direct experience of.  8-)

Now you have hit on the purpose of the Church.  It is by necessity the
infallible interpreter of divine revelation.  Without the Church,          
Christianity would be nothing more than a bunch of little divisive sects.
 
?Unless you are infallible, there are very few things you can be certain
?of.  To the extent that doctrines rely on fallible human thinking, they
?cannot be certain.

This argument of yours regarding the certainty of an observation or a
conclusion is not necessarily substantiated by experience.  It reminds me
of the theoretical physicist who said that you can never be certain of
a measurment because the sensor interferes with the field you are trying
to measure.  Now, the experimental physicist will reply that although the
measurement can never be made with absolute certainty, he is able to
determine the certainty with which the measurement can be made, and this
knowledge is often sufficient to render the measurement useful enough
to allow evidence of the true condition of the field under observation.
Therefore, although our minds are finite and susceptible to error, our
competence in arriving at inductive insights gives confidence in our
ability to distinguish what is true from what is not true, even in areas
not subject to the experimental method. 

?Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu
?"If any substantial number of  [ talk.religion.misc ]  readers read some
? Wittgenstein, 60% of the postings would disappear.  (If they *understood*
? some Wittgenstein, 98% would disappear. :-))" -- Michael L Siemon

This quote seems a little arrogant, don't you think?
 
-- 
boundary