Can she be saved?

[Shin]

How do you know something that cannot be proven? We can bring in a devout Jehovah’s Witness, Buddhist, or Shinto, and they’d swear up and down, like you, that they KNOW that their religion is correct. That “history demonstrates it”. It’s naive and arrogant to think that your side has all the right answers and everyone else is sad and unfortunate.

Yes, God’s existence is as proven to me as gravity’s is. I could deny it no less. I have often as not in fact said as much, ‘gravity’ being the comparison I make too. I have had plenty of personal experience as well as reliable reading of history.

And I have -read- plenty of -real- history, from the martyrs, fathers, Romans, of all kind, not simply commentary on it. So I know from the sources – God’s religion is the Catholic Church. It is clearly revealed.

Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. all rely on personal intepretations of scripture or mystical experiences, which can be real spiritual experiences but sent by Hell rather than God. But I rely on history. That is why my Faith is sound. It is based on the truth of what really happened.

And anyone can have this kind of Faith, they simply have to read the writings of the early Fathers, the pioneers of Christianity, the martyrs, the saints, and see their virtue and witness for God.

 

[prettylarge]

There are some very good Catholic answers here. I would only like to point out that Martin Luther created a new religion when he added the word “alone” to Paul’s letter to the Romans.

Martin Luther wanted it to say, “We are saved by faith alone” to justify the pain he was feeling in his life.

That right there calls into question all Protestant religions that believe we are saved by faith alone.

Catholics believe it is only through grace alone that we are saved. We believe that faith without works is dead.

But to minimalism religion to the “Golden Rule” is sort of like telling a child that asks how does a computer work, “Well you just plug it in and push the keys.” This is not ‘how’ it works, there are many more things involved. Catholicism can be summed up with the Golden Rule, but it is not defined by it.

Well according to Paul there is no way to salvation but through works. It is in Romans. He says that you can be righteous through the law, but it is impossible and no one is. He also says that all sins will be forgiven for believers. He says that once you truly accept Jesus though, it is impossible to live in sin, because believers have died to sin. That is not to say that believers won’t sin, but that they will try their hardest not to. If they don’t, they aren’t true believers and it will lead to death.

 

[prettylarge]

Oh that is quite not the case. We have the history of its foundation by Jesus Christ, God Himself. We have the witnesses of virtue and grace found nowhere else, the saints, their miracles, the unchanging dogmas.

Nothing else like it.

Unchanging dogma? Is that a joke. 50 years ago mass was said in latin everywhere. Is that still the case?

What about when John Paul II apologized for the crusades and inquisition…as well as tons of other stuff. Those were formerly promoted by the Church. So if you apologize for something, you admit you were wrong. So obviously the dogma changes. You don’t know much about the history of the church, do you?

 

[chessmane4e5]

How do you know something that cannot be proven? We can bring in a devout Jehovah’s Witness, Buddhist, or Shinto, and they’d swear up and down, like you, that they KNOW that their religion is correct. That “history demonstrates it”. It’s naive and arrogant to think that your side has all the right answers and everyone else is sad and unfortunate.

"If you are a Jehovah’s Witness, your religion was founded by Charles Taze Russell in Pennsylvania in the 1870s.

"If you are a Buddhist, your religion split from Hinduism, and was founded by Buddha, Prince Siddhartha Gautama of India, about 500 B.C

Shinto incorporates spiritual practices derived from many local and regional prehistoric traditions, but did not emerge as a formal centralized religious institution until the arrival of Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism, beginning in the 6th century.

So, we can look at Charles Russell’s teaching and see. We can read what the Buddha said, and we know who Shintoism was formed. But all these lack one very important thing. Jesus Christ was crucified, died, was buried, and rose from the grave 3 days later. Buddha himself wrote that he was not a god, that he was man. Jesus claimed to be God and it seems to me that he proved it.

But how do I know he rose from the dead? Good question.

The apostles. I have already said this before to you. After Jesus died, why would the apostles lie and say he was resurrected? Were they all insane? What did they stand to gain? By claiming this they stood to lose their lives, yet they did it anyway. So either they are insane or they are telling the truth. To me, this evidence is far more convincing that any other religion I have studied. Could I still be wrong? Sure anything is possible, but it doesn’t seem likely and it sure doesn’t make every other religion “equal” to the claims of Christianity.

 

[prettylarge]

Yes, God’s existence is as proven to me as gravity’s is. I could deny it no less. I have often as not in fact said as much, ‘gravity’ being the comparison I make too. I have had plenty of personal experience as well as reliable reading of history.

And I have -read- plenty of -real- history, from the martyrs, fathers, Romans, of all kind, not simply commentary on it. So I know from the sources – God’s religion is the Catholic Church. It is clearly revealed.

**Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. all rely on personal intepretations of scripture or mystical experiences, which can be real spiritual experiences but sent by Hell rather than God. **But I rely on history. That is why my Faith is sound. It is based on the truth of what really happened.

And anyone can have this kind of Faith, they simply have to read the writings of the early Fathers, the pioneers of Christianity, the martyrs, the saints, and see their virtue and witness for God.

OK, I can’t argue with you if your arguments hold no weight. If the proof of God is the same strength as the proof of gravity, why are LOTS of people claiming that God does not exist, and atheists are the fastest growing ‘religious’ group in America? I have yet to see any opponents of gravity.

Also, I love your opinion that the spiritual experiences of Jehovah’s witness are sent from hell. There is no more proof of that than that the pope’s messages are from hell. Because there is absolutely no evidence for either.

 

[Shin]

Unchanging dogma? Is that a joke. 50 years ago mass was said in latin everywhere. Is that still the case?

What about when John Paul II apologized for the crusades and inquisition…as well as tons of other stuff. Those were formerly promoted by the Church. So if you apologize for something, you admit you were wrong. So obviously the dogma changes. You don’t know much about the history of the church, do you?

You don’t even know what dogma is, but you are telling me this. None of this is dogma. Not Latin, not crusades, not inquisitions. So…

You do not know what you are talking about.

 

[prettylarge]

"If you are a Jehovah’s Witness, your religion was founded by Charles Taze Russell in Pennsylvania in the 1870s.

"If you are a Buddhist, your religion split from Hinduism, and was founded by Buddha, Prince Siddhartha Gautama of India, about 500 B.C

Shinto incorporates spiritual practices derived from many local and regional prehistoric traditions, but did not emerge as a formal centralized religious institution until the arrival of Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism, beginning in the 6th century.

So, we can look at Charles Russell’s teaching and see. We can read what the Buddha said, and we know who Shintoism was formed. But all these lack one very important thing. Jesus Christ was crucified, died, was buried, and rose from the grave 3 days later. Buddha himself wrote that he was not a god, that he was man. Jesus claimed to be God and it seems to me that he proved it.

But how do I know he rose from the dead? Good question.

The apostles. I have already said this before to you. After Jesus died, why would the apostles lie and say he was resurrected? Were they all insane? What did they stand to gain? By claiming this they stood to lose their lives, yet they did it anyway. So either they are insane or they are telling the truth. To me, this evidence is far more convincing that any other religion I have studied. Could I still be wrong? Sure anything is possible, but it doesn’t seem likely and it sure doesn’t make every other religion “equal” to the claims of Christianity.

Buddhists have been known to fly. There is just as much evidence of that than there is of Jesus resurrecting. If you say that the devil made them fly, maybe the devil appeared to the apostles as Jesus. Same reasoning right there…as in it is based on nothing.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And in the early years of Christianity Mass was said in Greek. (and in the Orthodox churches I would imagine it still is). Your point being?

SOME of the Mass today is in the vernacular. The Kyrie is still Greek as it has always been, and there are many other parts which are said–yes, even in the N.O. or “Ordinary Form”. . .in Latin. The Sanctus, the Gloria, the Agnus Dei, at the least.

If you can’t differentiate between saying the very same words in many different languages, and that God is Three Divine Persons in One God, (IOW, that liturgy is liturgy no matter whether you speak it in Latin, English, SerboCroatian or Klingon, as opposed to the dogma which is the infallible and unchanging truth), then you really need to go right back to the most elementary studies you can find–RCIA, the Baltimore Catechism, etc. If you’re trying to guzzle steak when your body is still not capable of digesting anything other than milk, you’ll just wind up choking.

 

[prettylarge]

You don’t even know what dogma is, but you are telling me this. None of this is dogma. Not Latin, not crusades, not inquisitions. So…

You do not know what you are talking about.

"Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from. "

From Wikipedia.

So at the time of the crusades, the established belief of the church was the crusades was moral and ethical. Pope John Paul II apologized for it, admitting it was wrong. So how is that not changing dogma???

 

[Shin]

Buddhists have been known to fly. There is just as much evidence of that than there is of Jesus resurrecting. If you say that the devil made them fly, maybe the devil appeared to the apostles as Jesus. Same reasoning right there…as in it is based on nothing.

Actually, no the historical evidence between miracles in Christianity and purported miracles in other religions is quite different, if you actually -read- history.

The character of one vs. the other, the amount, the direct evidence, the recent evidence – the contrast is large. All in favor of Christianity’s miracles.

A Christian also learns to know what actions are exclusive to God for miracles, and what can be done by other spiritual agencies.

The clear historical evidence one can start with would be for example, St. Joan of Arc, the Miracle of Fatima, the appearance of Our Lady at Zeitun, books such as ‘Saints Who Have Raised the Dead’…

 

[chessmane4e5]

Unchanging dogma? Is that a joke. 50 years ago mass was said in latin everywhere. Is that still the case?

And before that in Greek. Jesus spoke in Aramaic. Uh-oh, we are all in trouble

Seriously, the language of the mass is not dogma.

“The Church’s magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.” (CCC 88)

Not sure if this helps. But can you find actual dogma that the church has changed?

 

[Shin]

"Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from. "

From Wikipedia.

So at the time of the crusades, the established belief of the church was the crusades was moral and ethical. Pope John Paul II apologized for it, admitting it was wrong. So how is that not changing dogma???

Please read about what dogma means for Catholics from Catholic sources, how it is defined, and so forth. Do not tell Catholics what their dogma is or has been.

No, going on crusades has nothing to do with dogma, one way or the other.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Buddhists have been known to fly. There is just as much evidence of that than there is of Jesus resurrecting. If you say that the devil made them fly, maybe the devil appeared to the apostles as Jesus. Same reasoning right there…as in it is based on nothing.

Not quite the same. The devil (maybe through possession) making someone fly and the devil pretending to be God, teaching in His name, dying and resurrecting is not only implausible but impossible.

1. Buddha is right, and some can fly.
2. Therefore there is no god, so no devil
3. If no devil, how can he possess Jesus?
4. Jesus was really God
5. Therefore the devil does exist
6. Therefore the devil could try and deceive people with different religions

This is all based on logic.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Just a little Scripture that I often meditate on when I hear arguments such as the most recent ones here:

Wisdom 1:

Think of the Lord with uprightness, and seek him with *sincerity of heart.
*Because He is found by those who *do not put Him to the test, and manifests Himself to those who do not distrust Him.
*For perverse thoughts separate men from God, and when His power is tested it convicts the foolish; because wisdom will not enter a deceitful soul, nor dwell in a body enslaved to sin.

 

[prettylarge]

Actually, no the historical evidence between miracles in Christianity and purported miracles in other religions is quite different, if you actually -read- history.

The character of one vs. the other, the amount, the direct evidence, the recent evidence – the contrast is large. All in favor of Christianity’s miracles.

A Christian also learns to know what actions are exclusive to God for miracles, and what can be done by other spiritual agencies.

The clear historical evidence one can start with would be for example, St. Joan of Arc, the Miracle of Fatima, the appearance of Our Lady at Zeitun, books such as ‘Saints Who Have Raised the Dead’…

There is just as much historical evidence of miracles from other faiths too. You are just ignorant of them.

 

[prettylarge]

And before that in Greek. Jesus spoke in Aramaic. Uh-oh, we are all in trouble

Seriously, the language of the mass is not dogma.

“The Church’s magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.” (CCC 88)

Not sure if this helps. But can you find actual dogma that the church has changed?

THE CRUSADES. They were once supported by the church. In 2000 Pope John Paul II apologized for them, admitting they were wrong. How is that not a change in dogma???

 

[prettylarge]

Please read about what dogma means for Catholics from Catholic sources, how it is defined, and so forth. Do not tell Catholics what their dogma is or has been.

No, going on crusades has nothing to do with dogma, one way or the other.

So the beliefs of the church are not dogma? What is Catholic “dogma” then?

If the pope was infallible, then morality constantly changes, because popes are contradicting past popes.

 

[prettylarge]

Not quite the same. The devil (maybe through possession) making someone fly and the devil pretending to be God, teaching in His name, dying and resurrecting is not only implausible but impossible.

1. Buddha is right, and some can fly.
2. Therefore there is no god, so no devil
3. If no devil, how can he possess Jesus?
4. Jesus was really God
5. Therefore the devil does exist
6. Therefore the devil could try and deceive people with different religions

This is all based on logic.

That is not logical in the least. Just because Buddhists can fly doesn’t mean that God doesn’t exist.

 

[chessmane4e5]

"Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from. "

From Wikipedia.

So at the time of the crusades, the established belief of the church was the crusades was moral and ethical. Pope John Paul II apologized for it, admitting it was wrong. So how is that not changing dogma???

Again, it was not dogma. Pope John Paul II apologized because those that participated in the wars were wrong. They were misguided, they abused their power, they were sinners just like everyone else.

 

[chessmane4e5]

That is not logical in the least. Just because Buddhists can fly doesn’t mean that God doesn’t exist.

Did you know that the Buddha was an atheist?

If the Buddha is right, then their is no God.

If the Buddha was wrong…well logically we can not infer.

How is that illogical? I have taken logic classes so I am pretty sure my logic is sound.