L
Liberian
Guest
Excellent answer!There are indeed two religions that are right, only not simultaneously
Judaism, before Christ was born.
And after that, the Church that he founded: the Catholic Church.
Alma
- Liberian
- Status
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
:bigyikes:
M
michaelgazin
Guest
The question is like saying âhypothetically, if 2+2 had two answers, what would the second answer be.â Its an impossible question at its very root. Religions all exist specifically because they conflict in some way with already established theological doctrines in the present institutions. It is impossible for two conflicting doctrines to be trueâŚever.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
If you are talking theory, then often 2+2=4.
If you are talking real life, it isnât as simple. For example, in post #18 above, I pointed out that in ârealâ life sometimes:
2 + 2 = 2.77
Things arenât always as they seem. Mathematics is a symbolic language that has its ideals, but those ideals are not always accurate representations of âtruth.â
Alan
G
Ghosty
Guest
But itâs your question that is faulty
An answer to an erroneous question is either an erroroneous conclusion, or it completely ignores the premise of the question. I donât really see any way around that in this case.
Therein lies the error to your question. Godâs message, if Jesus is indeed who He claimed to be, is that Jesus Himself is the whole Truth, nothing but the Truth, end of story. John 18:37 reads:
He would if their religion proposed things contrary to what Christ taught, as Shintoism does with animistic worship. Now the question is, do you mean âhas truthâ, or âis trueâ? Theologically speaking, those are two very different categories, and it might serve your question to clarify.
Then this figure would not be Jesus as Catholics know Him, and he would not be the Messiah as Jews know him, completely invalidating the apparent premise of your question. Catholics would not recognize such a figure as Jesus/Christ, and your question seemed to presume that Catholicism would be one of the âtrueâ faiths.What if he showed up as Buddha, and he was hanging out with Vishnu? I never speculated about the nature of the return, that is for the responders.
I donât have a problem with speculation at all, I just have a problem with the way the question is formed. Itâs not clear whether or not you are assuming that the Catholic Church would be one of the true faiths, in which case there could be no other completely true religion, or whether you mean that Jesus would not be what Catholics expect, in which case Catholics would not recognize the âimposterâ.As always, when you run out of constructive statements, you turn to attack the question. It is a mere speculation and not at all as complicated as you want to make it. I hope you are not this difficult in real life Ghosty.
continuedâŚ
G
Ghosty
Guest
Honestly, I think the problem is either a poorly formed question (and Iâm not saying that asking such questions is invalid, Iâm just saying that the way itâs constructed leads only to erroneous answers or answers to a question not actually asked), or a misunderstanding of Jewish/Catholic theology. You see, Jesus is not simply a guru, a great teacher, that Christians grabbed on to, Heâs the Judaic Messiah. Being the Messiah He fits certain expectations and roles, and if He doesnât fit those expectations roles, Heâs not the Christ, and not worthy of such honor. Jesus is nothing without the Judaic tradition; He canât be viewed apart from it, and the Judaic tradition precludes the scenario that youâre presenting. You can hardly be faulted if it is indeed a misunderstanding on your part, as you didnât even know of the Book of Tobit until a few days ago 
Now, the reason youâre seeing so many answers saying Anglican/Orthodox/Jewish is actually a reflection of the Judaic Theology, and those are the three groups you would likely hear if you asked any Catholic around the world. The reason is that Orthodox, and to a FAR lesser extent Anglicans, are Apostalic, meaning those traditions come directly from the same line as the Catholic Church. The Anglicans have adopted heresy, however, so they arenât really a part of the same tradition wholly, but they are the most like the Apostalic Tradition of any heretical group. The Orthodox, on the other hand, donât differ from the Catholics in theology at all, and so they are refered to as schismatic, meaning we have a temporal seperation but not a spiritual one. We live in the same house, the Orthodox are just sitting in their room with the loud music playing (and theyâd say the same about us).
Jews are seemingly unique, but really not, and thatâs something that needs to be cleared up. You refer to them as a non-Christian faith, which is technically true, but ignores the real connection. Technically speaking, Apostalic Christianity (Orthodox and Catholic) is a Jewish Tradition, a line within Judaism. Catholicism is a Judaic faith, and thatâs our defining characteristic. There is nothing in Catholicism that is necessarily theologically excluded in Judaism. We accept Christ, and so do they. The difference is that we think Jesus is the Christ, and they believe the Christ has not yet been revealed. The spectrum of beliefs in Judaism pertaining to the Christ, however, can include the Catholic perspective, albeit not yet actualized. So, Judaism and Catholicism are part of the exact same tree, Judaism is the root and trunk, however, and Catholicism is the branch; the Catholic Church not only readily admits this, itâs a part of our revealed dogma and Scripture.
So to summarize, Anglicanism is Catholicism with some minor errors thrown in, Orthodoxy is Catholicism that is not on good terms with the other Catholics (and they would say the same about us), and Judaism is the inerrant, but incomplete (in the way that a healthy trunk is incomplete without branches) faith on which all are based.
I hope that clears things up. God bless!
Now, the reason youâre seeing so many answers saying Anglican/Orthodox/Jewish is actually a reflection of the Judaic Theology, and those are the three groups you would likely hear if you asked any Catholic around the world. The reason is that Orthodox, and to a FAR lesser extent Anglicans, are Apostalic, meaning those traditions come directly from the same line as the Catholic Church. The Anglicans have adopted heresy, however, so they arenât really a part of the same tradition wholly, but they are the most like the Apostalic Tradition of any heretical group. The Orthodox, on the other hand, donât differ from the Catholics in theology at all, and so they are refered to as schismatic, meaning we have a temporal seperation but not a spiritual one. We live in the same house, the Orthodox are just sitting in their room with the loud music playing (and theyâd say the same about us).
Jews are seemingly unique, but really not, and thatâs something that needs to be cleared up. You refer to them as a non-Christian faith, which is technically true, but ignores the real connection. Technically speaking, Apostalic Christianity (Orthodox and Catholic) is a Jewish Tradition, a line within Judaism. Catholicism is a Judaic faith, and thatâs our defining characteristic. There is nothing in Catholicism that is necessarily theologically excluded in Judaism. We accept Christ, and so do they. The difference is that we think Jesus is the Christ, and they believe the Christ has not yet been revealed. The spectrum of beliefs in Judaism pertaining to the Christ, however, can include the Catholic perspective, albeit not yet actualized. So, Judaism and Catholicism are part of the exact same tree, Judaism is the root and trunk, however, and Catholicism is the branch; the Catholic Church not only readily admits this, itâs a part of our revealed dogma and Scripture.
So to summarize, Anglicanism is Catholicism with some minor errors thrown in, Orthodoxy is Catholicism that is not on good terms with the other Catholics (and they would say the same about us), and Judaism is the inerrant, but incomplete (in the way that a healthy trunk is incomplete without branches) faith on which all are based.
I hope that clears things up. God bless!
G
Ghosty
Guest
Alan: I donât think anyone is talking in the higher levels of math, and I think thatâs pretty clear.
Weâre talking about holding up two fingers on one hand, and two on the other, and counting how many fingers youâre holding up
Weâre talking about holding up two fingers on one hand, and two on the other, and counting how many fingers youâre holding up
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
It is not about higher levels of math. It is real world relativistic behavior.Alan: I donât think anyone is talking in the higher levels of math, and I think thatâs pretty clear.
Weâre talking about holding up two fingers on one hand, and two on the other, and counting how many fingers youâre holding up
Math is a language and system of symbols. The fact that within this symbolic language 2+2=4 does not change the fact that the âreal worldâ truth that these symbols point to, do not always add that way.
The âreal worldâ isnât always as neat and clean as simplistic statements about symbols.
You say the adding two fingers plus two fingers = four fingers.
OK, thatâs fine, but it just âhappensâ to work that way when adding fingers. It doesnât work that way when adding other things, such as velocity.
Under Newtonian physics, people didnât know any better. They thought if an object approached them from one direction at 2 mph and on from the opposite direction at 2 mph, then they see each other approaching at 4 mph. Well, as far as they could measure that was true, but it isnât quite exactly true.
If you add other units than fingers or oranges or mph or kph, and use some larger units, you find that this apparently âabsoluteâ belief of Newtonian physics breaks down enough that the measurement differences are significant. In this case, I have chosen my units to be hundreds of million of kilometers per hour, in which case no two items can approach each other at faster than 3. In the case of 2x10^8 m/s, if I add one comign from the south to one coming from the north, they approach each other at 2.77x10^8 m/s. That is not a quirk of mathematics, but of nature of the physical universe created by God. It is unimaginable that things work this way, and that in fact the clocks in the moving object run at different speeds than the one that is standing still. Yet, our limited minds had no idea of this throughout all of history until Einstein asked himself a silly question, âI wonder what it would be like to ride on a light beam?â
When we use symbols to point to God, such as His name, and make simplistic assumptions about Him, how do we know they are truly absolute, and that we are exactly and completely informed about them? It seems presumptuous to tell a person his question is unanswerable, especially considering that at least one poster has already answered it correctly. It takes a willingness and an ability to get âoutside the boxâ of the ways we normally think.
Symbols, such as the words used for Church teachings, can have absolute meanings. The truth they point to is beyond our comprehension:
1 Cor 8:2:
Alan
G
Ghosty
Guest
We arenât talking about velocity. Thatâs a tangent. You understood the point that was being made, so why do you insist on diverting the discussion? To paraphrase a great saint and doctor of the Church, we are not speaking of mathematical principles, but spiritual ones.
Completely and entirely irrelevant. Thanks for the math lesson though
B
Bishopite
Guest
Ok say Jesus came back to earth tommorow, and he said that TWO religions were rightâŚbased on what you know about scripture and other faiths, who would catholics say the second correct church would be? It can be protestant groups or any religion, I am just interested in your reasoning. Thanks all.
In all honesty God couldnât ask that question. To say that one set of beliefs of one Church or religion were true and another set of beliefs of another Church or religion are also true is the error of non-contradiction, a philosophical impossibilty; and God canât contradict Himself. Truth in its absolute sense is an either or, i.e., you are either pregnant or you arenât and you canât simultanously be âbothâ at the same time. With all due deference your question is a false presupossition to start with. Catholics most certainly could say that other religions have âtruthsâ in them that reflect the fullness on truth found only in the one holy Catholic Church and some of them i.e. the Orthodox and Protestant Churches are Christian because they have the essential tenants of the Christian faith about who God is (Trinity) who Jesus is (2nd person of the Trinity, fully God and man and a valid baptism.
P.S.
I say TOUGH because you HAVE to pick someone elseâŚsaying no one âŚor catholics and orthodox catholics doesnât countâŚreally think.
Again, all due respect to you but your question is hypothetically impossible and couldnât be logically nor rationally possible because of Godâs nature. It would be equivilant to saying that God came back to the Earth and asked which group that rejects Him should go to heaven along with those who do trust in Him; both recieiving and eternal reward. It would be a contradiction and a false premise since we either follow Him or we donât.
Now, if you are trying to convey the idea that other religions have truths and others outside of the fullness of truth found only in the Catholic faith also can have eternal life, then that is absolutely possible and probable. Scripture says in Luke 12 that those who are given much, much is required and those who are given little, little it required. Surely this passage is speaking of Godâs grace and if we are faithful to what we know and if what we know is very little because God hasnât revealed them to us, then we arenât culpable to those things of grace that we havenât been given. If we do know and reject Gods grace then we are culpable. If there is one religion that has the fullness of truth and another that has differing doctrines having the fullness of truth is impossible
God bless.
RC
In all honesty God couldnât ask that question. To say that one set of beliefs of one Church or religion were true and another set of beliefs of another Church or religion are also true is the error of non-contradiction, a philosophical impossibilty; and God canât contradict Himself. Truth in its absolute sense is an either or, i.e., you are either pregnant or you arenât and you canât simultanously be âbothâ at the same time. With all due deference your question is a false presupossition to start with. Catholics most certainly could say that other religions have âtruthsâ in them that reflect the fullness on truth found only in the one holy Catholic Church and some of them i.e. the Orthodox and Protestant Churches are Christian because they have the essential tenants of the Christian faith about who God is (Trinity) who Jesus is (2nd person of the Trinity, fully God and man and a valid baptism.
P.S.
I say TOUGH because you HAVE to pick someone elseâŚsaying no one âŚor catholics and orthodox catholics doesnât countâŚreally think.
Again, all due respect to you but your question is hypothetically impossible and couldnât be logically nor rationally possible because of Godâs nature. It would be equivilant to saying that God came back to the Earth and asked which group that rejects Him should go to heaven along with those who do trust in Him; both recieiving and eternal reward. It would be a contradiction and a false premise since we either follow Him or we donât.
Now, if you are trying to convey the idea that other religions have truths and others outside of the fullness of truth found only in the Catholic faith also can have eternal life, then that is absolutely possible and probable. Scripture says in Luke 12 that those who are given much, much is required and those who are given little, little it required. Surely this passage is speaking of Godâs grace and if we are faithful to what we know and if what we know is very little because God hasnât revealed them to us, then we arenât culpable to those things of grace that we havenât been given. If we do know and reject Gods grace then we are culpable. If there is one religion that has the fullness of truth and another that has differing doctrines having the fullness of truth is impossible
God bless.RC
N
Nan_S
Guest
Hey! Did anyone notice where Wormwood went?
That figures. C.S. Lewisâ junior devil starts us arguing with each other, then walks away laughing.
http://bestsmileys.com/lol/4.gif
That figures. C.S. Lewisâ junior devil starts us arguing with each other, then walks away laughing.
http://bestsmileys.com/lol/4.gif
S
StCsDavid
Guest
I guess I would have to vote for our Jewish bretheren as being the other âcorrectâ religion. Eventhough Christianity is the fullfillment of Judaism, if a Jew did not receive the grace from God to recognize that, and practiced the faith according to the old covenant, that would be more correct in my view than the Protestants who accepted Christ but turned their backs on His church. I mean no offense to my Protestant friends, but the question is which religion is âmore correct.â Only Judaism and the Catholic Chruch were created by God. The other faiths were created by man.
N
NonDenom
Guest
Hi Cats
First of all you are assuming that the Catholic church is the one correct church. I dissagree with you there. Second you are wrong in assuming that a paticular Denomination is the one that is going to Heaven. If we do not obey the commands of Christ I donât care what denom you belong to.
Thanks.
B
BibleReader
Guest
Hi, Wormwood.
Judaism.
Reasoning: God never revokes a covenant.
J
Joseph_Bilodeau
Guest
No.
J
Joseph_Bilodeau
Guest
If you are refering to me, your assessment is not correct. I did not âtype a paragraph about how * not going to replyâ. I replied by explaining why I think this kind of hypothetical question about Jesus is faulty. A reply is not limited to the constraints of the question asked.
By declinining to answer the question as it was asked I avoided being stuck in the sort of dilema posed by a âhave you stopped beating your wife yet?â kind of question. In this question, either answer, yes or no, suggests that I have in fact beat my wife and no provision exists within the form of the question to express the truth that I have never beat my wife.*
J
jd121961
Guest
Jesus died on the cross for me. I knew this at a very young age; however, I know I donât always do what was pleasing in His sight. I used to approach people with urgency and a desire for them to repent immediately. I still have that desirer, but my approach has changed. Iâm assuming that Christians (Catholics and non-Catholics) have a single goal: to be pleasing in the eyes of Jesus Christ. Paul written, â1 Corinthians - 1) Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2) And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3) And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profited me nothing.â
Why are Catholics and non-Catholics fighting against each other when so many people need our help?
It seems we have forgotten our first love. We spend lots of time trying to prove positions instead of sharing Jesus Christ. God is love. Letâs be like Christ, and share passion, truth and love to those who donât know Him and/or understand Him.
A Preacher said, âGod loves His glory more than us, but it is His glory that is the source of His love for us.â
Mother Teresa said, âKeep the joy of loving God in your heart and share this joy with all you meet especially your family. Be holy â let us pray.â
With age comes wisdom, let us get wiser in our Christian walk.
Pride isnât all that great!
Why are Catholics and non-Catholics fighting against each other when so many people need our help?
It seems we have forgotten our first love. We spend lots of time trying to prove positions instead of sharing Jesus Christ. God is love. Letâs be like Christ, and share passion, truth and love to those who donât know Him and/or understand Him.
A Preacher said, âGod loves His glory more than us, but it is His glory that is the source of His love for us.â
Mother Teresa said, âKeep the joy of loving God in your heart and share this joy with all you meet especially your family. Be holy â let us pray.â
With age comes wisdom, let us get wiser in our Christian walk.
Pride isnât all that great!
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
No, we arenât talking about velocity, something we can observe. We were talking about things we cannot observe, which in my opinion means we should be even more careful.
Does using inaccurate statements as a metaphor for truth count as a spiritual issue? If a person is ignorant and/or reckless in the statements he makes about the physical universe, which we can all see with our eyes and feel and taste, and about mathematics, which man has made up and bears no intrinsic truth value except as designed and agreed upon by man, then I call into question their expertise in speaking of matters that are beyond our ability to even see.
If one of my students walked up to me after class and asked, âMr. Siegman, could 2+2 ever add up to anything except 4â then my answer would be, âyes, certainly it can.â Depending on what class Iâm teaching, I might add, âbut in this class we wonât get into those other examples.â
This actually points out one of the biggest beefs I have with the way we teach our children. My first battle with authority, ever, was over a nun who would not give me credit for answering -1 to the question, 1-2 on a test. We were supposed to say it is impossible. I didnât care about the credit as I was already way over 100% in the class but I asked â for the benefit of the class â that we could at least admit there is a way to do it but we just havenât learned it yet. I ended up in the principleâs office.
The following year when they began teaching negative numbers to these same kids, they wondered why the kids had difficulty with the concept, as if brainwashing them for a year that It Is Impossible To Do didnât have anything to do with it. Duhh.
Same thing as with so-called âimaginaryâ numbers. We tell kids for years they cannot take the square root of a negative number, then wonder why they find it scary when we teach them to do it.
Similarly, we teach kids these simplifications such as 2+2=4 and explicitly or implicitly imply that somehow The Real World Really Works That Way. Well guess what? It doesnât. If you donât believe in relativity, then just try adding 2 cups water plus 2 cups sugar, and see if you get four cups of sugar water.
To me a statement such as 2+2 can never be anything except 4 is as ignorant as my first grade teacher, who said that 2 cannot be subtracted from 1. Notice I didnât say âstupid,â just ignorant. I blame it on poor catechesis in mathematics. People think they understand something and donât realize itâs really a view that only works within a certain box that does NOT represent the universe. This had been a problem ever since the implementation of âNew Mathâ about the time I was going to school. We went from a procedural approach to an âunderstandingâ approach, and the teachers were not prepared for it. Consequently, a whole generation of math students, good at neither procedures or concepts, has grown up and now produced its own math teachers who perpetuate the confusion.
Is it âdivertingâ the discussion to point out that the premises on which so-called âabsoluteâ statements are being espoused in order to attack/avoid the actual question are false?
Alan
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Youâre welcome for the math lesson, and for the extra rant free of charge. :bowdown2:Completely and entirely irrelevant. Thanks for the math lesson though
If you think itâs irrelevant, then I feel compelled to continue in verbosity because I think you are worth the extra effort.
That OP asked a question that sounded silly, at first, to many people. Some of them tried to force themselves to imagine how to answer such a question, and others tried to give philosophical thoughts they came up with while trying to imagine it. All of these things are fascinating.
Equally fascinating are those who came on to say itâs a stupid question. These are the people, I suspect, who can only Think Inside The Box. These are people whose facts I would check up on, because they lack creativity and would sooner tell a person what an idiot he is, then realize there just might be higher truths in the universe than that person thinks, and by telling another their imaginative questions are stupid and not worthy of discussion, they have revealed their unwillingness to step into the Cloud of the Unknowing. The donât even fear what is beyond their grasp, because they donât accept there is anything beyond their grasp.
Now, a hint for those who still wish to bash the questioner:
If you want to say itâs an impossible question, then just say so. Let your yes be yes and your no be no and all that. When you first of all, take what would appear to an unbiased observer as an attitude, then you had better be awfully right or Iâll be right here with the rest of the people who are trying to knock you off that High Horse.
I found it to be a fascinating question, and the answers even more fascinating, including the 2+2=4 stuff. If the 2+2=4 people had not been attacking the question â and consequently attacking something that has brought some good to me â and doing so in a condescending way, then neither would I have nitpicked them about their ignorance of the Real World and the mathematics we use to model it.
Essentially, this is yet another free lesson Iâm offering in Effective Apologetics. You think you want to be an apologist, well donât use lame comparisons and condescending attitude at the same time, or some wise guy like me is going to Make It His Lifeâs Work to prove you wrong. When you attack me, I can usually contain it. When you attack others whom I consider friends, and in so doing make erroneous statement in areas where I am qualified to speak, then I am working for a cause beyond myself and will take a dollarâs worth of time to try to get across my :twocents:
Alan
M
marvin
Guest
Joseph Bilodeau:
I concur.
- Status