A question for all Christians...

[SnakeMauler]

I’m not trying to be an elitist or ignorant or anything, but does it really matter? By “it” I mean, do we really have to sit down and argue and take into consideration every new person’s “interpretation” of scripture and what they think means to be a Christian? I mean, do people seriously think that a select few Bible verses read out of context and without consideration to others really give them the authority to abolish the Church that Jesus started? And for those who don’t think the Catholic church is what Jesus started, what do you contend? That he established some sort of “invisible” Church (a theory that I’m pretty sure didn’t exist in the 1st century AD) and was some sort of quasi-pluralist who believed that people could believe whatever they wanted and engage in whatever disciplines they wanted as long as they “believe” in him?

Do people really contend that the Holy Spirit DIDN’T actually give Jesus’s disciples some special abilities, and that Peter wasn’t actually the foundation that Jesus built his church on? I mean, it’s outrageous to think about. Why would Paul waste his time writing these long complex letters to Christian communities if there were multiple ways for them to live their lives, or if they were “already saved” (generalizing a bit with “Non Catholics” here)? I mean, to me, Christianity (Catholicism) is the only logical relation out there. So why don’t people look at things logically? For example, when Jesus’s disciples leave him in John Chapter 6 after having difficulty accepting his commandment of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, do people at all take into consideration that there are certain, hard, mysterious aspects to Christianity that go beyond just a 2 second consideration and human understanding?

Really what I’m asking is, when Jesus told Peter he would be “the rock” and whatnot, and when Jesus said that “whose sins you forgive are forgiven, whose sins you retained” did this mean anything?

Now I know everything about Catholicism doesn’t have to be “accepted” to be considered a “true” Christian (I guess?) But consider this: Our service to God and religion is supposed to be the central aspect to our lives. So why settle for anything less than perfection and how God wanted things to be? I mean, why would Jesus “pray for them all to be one” and focus so much on unity if it didn’t matter? I challenge you to ask yourself, are you going to “call another man Father”, or follow your one Father, Christ, and the Church he founded?

I mean sure, we can do good things in the name of “non denominational” or “Bible” Christianity, but I mean, we can also do it in the name of Catholicism- in the name of the ACTUAL Church Christ founded. But, never mind that, because I guess the word “Catholic” offends people these days or something, perhaps because Catholics typically don’t try and kill people for drawing a cartoon satirizing it?

I dunno guys. It just seems pretty logical to me that if God actually did come down to earth in the form of Jesus Christ, he’d leave a visible human Church type thing that is guided by the Holy Spirit. I mean, I don’t think it’d be up in the air. Like, I don’t think that Jesus would come down to earth, live out his life, let a few decades pass before the Holy Spirit divinely guided the authors of the NT, and then just, have people not practice Christianity properly until the Protestant Reformation and then everything else that his sprung since then.

If we can, let’s take it from this point of view and not start throwing around oversimplified Bible verses.

I dunno maybe I’m wrong. If there’s nothing at least partially true to my pathetic argument than just tell me and I’ll stop talking. I’m just trying to reduce the amount of Bible throwing around and just take things from a simplified perspective.

Thanks,
Snakemauler

 

[SnakeMauler]

Maybe all of this is void today because the church can’t marry gays, or ordain women, or of some political view on immigration or something. Or maybe a couple of molestation scandles really overrides the endless good deeds the church has done, and that sex abuse amongst basically any other human occupation or religious group is irrelevant.

 

[ZDHayden]

Your statement makes quite a bit of sense, and actually was along the lines of the same thought process I had during RCIA. Some people though – many, actually, refuse to consider your proposal and I would like to detail a few I have had experience with:

1. They take whatever their pastor says as the inerrant word of God.
2. They think, honestly, that it does not matter which “Christianity” one prescribes to.
3. Apathy – they just don’t care.
4. They do not want to give something up (like contraception).

The third one seems to be, in my experience, the most harmful of the four. This era does not care – let everyone do what they want, our culture says. There are some who are “just in case” Christians, meaning that they are Christians just in case there is an afterlife and the Christians are right.

The abuse scandal has been a factor, I’m sure, because almost every-time I speak of the Church, it is brought up.

Logically, in short, your statement makes sense and is compelling, but logic and reason, for all the praise they receive, are rarely used. They have become ephemeral abstractions in the common use.

 

[SnakeMauler]

I didn’t really take into consideration apathy because, based on the fact that this forum even exists, it feels like people like to argue.

 

[ZDHayden]

I didn’t really take into consideration apathy because, based on the fact that this forum even exists, it feels like people like to argue.

Apathy is a big part of the world outside this forum. A forum, I would like to remind, is full of the minority who care. A vast part of the population just couldn’t care less. This is why we have Catholics who support contraception, abortion, gay “marriage.” This is why such arguments that you posted here and I thought a year ago do not matter to a great number of people outside our internet ghettos. Inside, everyone cares, perhaps the minority of non-Catholics even care more than we do as evidence of their being here – or perhaps some just like to, as you said, argue. An argumentative temperament does not mean that the person necessarily cares so much as likes conflict. One is concern, the other is pride.

Apathy is the greatest opponent I have faced outside this forum. The doctrinal issues don’t even compare. Apathy will make someone listen to the entirety of your argument, backed up with enough evidence to convince Stephen Hawking that he does not exist, and say, after you are finished, “so what?”

 

[SunnaB16]

… And for those who don’t think the Catholic church is what Jesus started, what do you contend? That he established some sort of “invisible” Church (a theory that I’m pretty sure didn’t exist in the 1st century AD) and was some sort of quasi-pluralist who believed that people could believe whatever they wanted and engage in whatever disciplines they wanted as long as they “believe” in him?..
Thanks,
Snakemauler

That`s it in a lot of cases.

A few months back, i ran into an old classmate from Catholic primary school.
He proudly informed me that he had left the Church, and had joined Hillsong!
He said exactly what ive emphasised above; and had built around himself an impenetrable wall which could not be breached, no matter what challenges were made. He virtually said that God doesnt mind spiritual anarchy.

Totally frustrating!

Hes saying that God is a God of division. The god of division is Satan; and hes refined it to a fine art!

ZDH:
Apathy:
Dead right!
The Church`s worst enemy: Laodicean Catholics.

 

[SnakeMauler]

What’s a laodiean catholic?

 

[dianaiad]

I’m not trying to be an elitist or ignorant or anything, but does it really matter? By “it” I mean, do we really have to sit down and argue and take into consideration every new person’s “interpretation” of scripture and what they think means to be a Christian? I mean, do people seriously think that a select few Bible verses read out of context and without consideration to others really give them the authority to abolish the Church that Jesus started? And for those who don’t think the Catholic church is what Jesus started, what do you contend? That he established some sort of “invisible” Church (a theory that I’m pretty sure didn’t exist in the 1st century AD) and was some sort of quasi-pluralist who believed that people could believe whatever they wanted and engage in whatever disciplines they wanted as long as they “believe” in him?

This is an odd question for the non-Catholic religions forum. Those of us who are not Catholic don’t look at our beliefs quite the way you think we do. ;

 

[SnakeMauler]

This is an odd question for the non-Catholic religions forum. Those of us who are not Catholic don’t look at our beliefs quite the way you think we do. ;

Ok, so how do you look at things?

 

[rinnie]

I didn’t really take into consideration apathy because, based on the fact that this forum even exists, it feels like people like to argue.

Some do like to argue, some really do not understand.

One time when I first started on this thread someone told me not to be too hard on others that did not have the Grace that I was given to see what I see so clearly.

I will never forget that. It took me years to ponder that thought. And then it came quite clear to me one day, I remember having tears in my eyes saying the famous WHY ME LORD?

But this time is a positive way. Why me Lord, why did you give me that gift to see what you so clearly teach, and others missed it completely.

Then I vowed to teach anything that I am made worthy of him to teach, with his grace, as a Thank-you for the small gifts I did receive.

For some the truth comes easy, for some not so easy. But what I learned is while learning the truth is easier for some then others. Living it is hard for us alll!!

 

[SnakeMauler]

Some do like to argue, some really do not understand.

One time when I first started on this thread someone told me not to be too hard on others that did not have the Grace that I was given to see what I see so clearly.

I will never forget that. It took me years to ponder that thought. And then it came quite clear to me one day, I remember having tears in my eyes saying the famous WHY ME LORD?

But this time is a positive way. Why me Lord, why did you give me that gift to see what you so clearly teach, and others missed it completely.

Then I vowed to teach anything that I am made worthy of him to teach, with his grace, as a Thank-you for the small gifts I did receive.

For some the truth comes easy, for some not so easy. But what I learned is while learning the truth is easier for some then others. Living it is hard for us alll!!

Good perspective. But people need to stop bashing Catholicism.

 

[Todd520]

SnakeMauler,
I think the point is people don’t stop at their own interpretation. If they did stop there, the forum would be filled with civil discussions on scripture.

Instead people spend much of their time telling other people “this is what you believe” and implying ‘aren’t you a silly fool’

Ok, so how do you look at things?

 

[rinnie]

Good perspective. But people need to stop bashing Catholicism.

But see my friend they never will. Jesus told us that himself. He said if the world hates you remember they hated me first. He told us this is not my world and this is not our world. Or the world would accept the truth.

Jesus said if they persecuted me they will persecute you. Remember the devil has one thing to do in this world and he won. To destroy the Catholic Church. The Church that was built by Jesus and led by Peter and now the Pope.

But remember what Jesus told us, there will be many trials, but hades will not prevail. He said the devil will never destroy our Church. It has been here from the time of Jesus and still exists. But just as the devil tried to tear it down in the time of Peter he is still trying. But he will fail. as God promised. The CC will never fall.

 

[dianaiad]

Ok, so how do you look at things?

That Catholicism isn’t automatically the Truth, the whole Truth, and the arbitor of all religious Truth…and that presenting all arguments regarding religious truth by using Catholicism as the proof text is really not an effective way to go----if you are talking to non-Catholics.

It’s called 'begging the question."

 

[SnakeMauler]

That Catholicism isn’t automatically the Truth, the whole Truth, and the arbitor of all religious Truth…and that presenting all arguments regarding religious truth by using Catholicism as the proof text is really not an effective way to go----if you are talking to non-Catholics.

It’s called 'begging the question."

Isn’t LDS automatically not true since, for example, the book of abraham has been proven to just be a couple of unrelated egyptian funeral texts?

Those same ridiculous things don’t exist in Catholicism.

 

[JonNC]

=SnakeMauler;7154978]I’m not trying to be an elitist or ignorant or anything, but does it really matter? By “it” I mean, do we really have to sit down and argue and take into consideration every new person’s “interpretation” of scripture and what they think means to be a Christian?

Yes, I do think that we have to sit down and discuss our differences (as opposed to argue). If our intention is to once again unify, as Christ calls us to, then yes.

I mean, do people seriously think that a select few Bible verses read out of context and without consideration to others really give them the authority to abolish the Church that Jesus started?

Do you seriously believe that the Lutheran reformers selected a few Bible verses?
Question: which is the Church that Christ started? Since 1054, there are at least 2 that make that claim.
And, who wants to abolish the Church?

And for those who don’t think the Catholic church is what Jesus started, what do you contend? That he established some sort of “invisible” Church (a theory that I’m pretty sure didn’t exist in the 1st century AD) and was some sort of quasi-pluralist who believed that people could believe whatever they wanted and engage in whatever disciplines they wanted as long as they “believe” in him?

See above.

Do people really contend that the Holy Spirit DIDN’T actually give Jesus’s disciples some special abilities, and that Peter wasn’t actually the foundation that Jesus built his church on? I mean, it’s outrageous to think about. Why would Paul waste his time writing these long complex letters to Christian communities if there were multiple ways for them to live their lives, or if they were “already saved” (generalizing a bit with “Non Catholics” here)? I mean, to me, Christianity (Catholicism) is the only logical relation out there. So why don’t people look at things logically? For example, when Jesus’s disciples leave him in John Chapter 6 after having difficulty accepting his commandment of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, do people at all take into consideration that there are certain, hard, mysterious aspects to Christianity that go beyond just a 2 second consideration and human understanding?

So, Orthodoxy is illogical?
I agree there are certain hard mysterious aspects. Do you believe that Transubstantiation explains them?

Really what I’m asking is, when Jesus told Peter he would be “the rock” and whatnot, and when Jesus said that “whose sins you forgive are forgiven, whose sins you retained” did this mean anything?

Yes.

Now I know everything about Catholicism doesn’t have to be “accepted” to be considered a “true” Christian (I guess?) But consider this: Our service to God and religion is supposed to be the central aspect to our lives. So why settle for anything less than perfection and how God wanted things to be? I mean, why would Jesus “pray for them all to be one” and focus so much on unity if it didn’t matter? I challenge you to ask yourself, are you going to “call another man Father”, or follow your one Father, Christ, and the Church he founded?

A strawman choice.

I mean sure, we can do good things in the name of “non denominational” or “Bible” Christianity, but I mean, we can also do it in the name of Catholicism- in the name of the ACTUAL Church Christ founded. But, never mind that, because I guess the word “Catholic” offends people these days or something, perhaps because Catholics typically don’t try and kill people for drawing a cartoon satirizing it?

It doesn’t offend me. Triumphalism does, to a degree.

I dunno guys. It just seems pretty logical to me that if God actually did come down to earth in the form of Jesus Christ, he’d leave a visible human Church type thing that is guided by the Holy Spirit. I mean, I don’t think it’d be up in the air. Like, I don’t think that Jesus would come down to earth, live out his life, let a few decades pass before the Holy Spirit divinely guided the authors of the NT, and then just, have people not practice Christianity properly until the Protestant Reformation and then everything else that his sprung since then.

Who makes this claim. The Lutheran Church accepts the first seven councils. Kind of contradicts your premise.

If we can, let’s take it from this point of view and not start throwing around oversimplified Bible verses.

I dunno maybe I’m wrong. If there’s nothing at least partially true to my pathetic argument than just tell me and I’ll stop talking. I’m just trying to reduce the amount of Bible throwing around and just take things from a simplified perspective.

Let’s start with the first 7 councils, and see what we can work on from there. I think the Orthodox and Anglicans might join us on that discussion.

Jon

 

[dianaiad]

Isn’t LDS automatically not true since, for example, the book of abraham has been proven to just be a couple of unrelated egyptian funeral texts?

Those same ridiculous things don’t exist in Catholicism.

Hello?

Mormon here.

Fifth generation, 61 year old True believing Mormon here. Since I exist, then no, it is not at all ‘automatic.’ Certainly not in my view.

Just as it is not automatic that Catholicism is proven true because you believe it is. I am very aware that you don’t think my beliefs are true. Nor am I under any delusion that my simply declaring that my beliefs ARE true will settle the matter for you.

All I ask is that you return the favor. Reality is what it is. You are not LDS, you are Catholic. Therefore it is clear that Mormonism hasn’t been proven true. I get that. The problem is that it works the other way, too; I’m LDS, and not Catholic. That means that Catholicism hasn’t been obviously proven true.

I ask only that you recognize that there ARE people out there that honestly believe what they do, that their beliefs do not march with yours, and that they are sincere; that is, they don’t really think that the Catholics have it right but are just being stubborn about it.

 

[SnakeMauler]

Hello?

Mormon here.

Fifth generation, 61 year old True believing Mormon here. Since I exist, then no, it is not at all ‘automatic.’ Certainly not in my view.

Just as it is not automatic that Catholicism is proven true because you believe it is. I am very aware that you don’t think my beliefs are true. Nor am I under any delusion that my simply declaring that my beliefs ARE true will settle the matter for you.

All I ask is that you return the favor. Reality is what it is. You are not LDS, you are Catholic. Therefore it is clear that Mormonism hasn’t been proven true. I get that. The problem is that it works the other way, too; I’m LDS, and not Catholic. That means that Catholicism hasn’t been obviously proven true.

I ask only that you recognize that there ARE people out there that honestly believe what they do, that their beliefs do not march with yours, and that they are sincere; that is, they don’t really think that the Catholics have it right but are just being stubborn about it.

Right, but its not the same thing. I mean if it’s proven that a guy forges a translation that at least proves that theres a high chance it isn’t true.

 

[dianaiad]

Right, but its not the same thing. I mean if it’s proven that a guy forges a translation that at least proves that theres a high chance it isn’t true.

the problem is, m’friend, that there is no such proof. Sorry.

 

[SnakeMauler]

the problem is, m’friend, that there is no such proof. Sorry.

pomotheo.com/2006/uncategorized/death-blow-to-mormonism-the-book-of-abraham-is-a-fake/

Pwned.