Catholic Souls can become God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Todd520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
the bottom line is that Catholics believe we are gods only insofar as we share in Christ’s divinity.

Mormons beleive they become gods and get their own planets. They will have peokple subservient to them as gods. They will become part of the council of the gods that Joe talked about.
 
SirThomasMore said:
the bottom line is that Catholics believe we are gods only insofar as we share in Christ’s divinity.
Click to expand...
Well you also described it as this mormon sees it, along with several other LDS posters on this forum.

I still think you suppose too much what all Mormon’s think.
 
Todd520 said:
Well you also described it as this mormon sees it, along with several other LDS posters on this forum.

I still think you suppose too much what all Mormon’s think.
Click to expand...
It seems you understand neither Catholicism or Mormonism(for lack a more acceptable word). You don’t understand Catholic theology and you keep running over to MADB to find out what LDS belief is on a given topic. I think before you lecture on either belief you should study it and be able to present it correctly. You have not demonstrated an ability to present either religion correctly. This is underscored by your total lack of understanding of the Catholic faith (points having to be explained by believing Catholics) and your reliance on MADB to give you proper understanding of LDS belief. If you are going to be LDS fine but quit being the LDS “paladin” against Catholicism, you don’t understand either faith well enough to present an acceptable point. If you want to join the LDS fine then study that faith but leave off on critiquing the Catholic faith, a faith you obviously don’t understand and one you can’t defend from an LDS point of view because you don’t understand either religion. I understand a converts enthusiasm but you are wasting your time here if you think you can convince anyone on this forum that the LDS view is correct. It is particularly pathetic of you to do this when you have to run to your teacher (MADB) to give a coherent statement of LDS belief while in the same sentence show your utter lack of understanding of the Catholic faith.

I also think it is rather gossipy and presumptuous of you to run off to another board and say and I quote you: "Since many Catholics don’t know their own faith". I am continually amazed at the number of practicing LDS who weren’t taught about JS’s multiple wives, read NOM for a while, they really didn’t know. But the reality here is not that “many Catholics don’t know their own faith” or that LDS don’t know their history, but that you don’t understand the Catholic faith, and demonstrate it on any of the the points you brought up.

But after spending time on MADB, MD, FLAK, NOM, PM I can understand that the gossipy thing can take over. I ended up looking at the LDS MADB because of two sets of arrogant and in one case belligerent LDS missionaries. Many posters on MADB (Pahoran included) convinced me that my experience with missionaries (arrogance and belligerence) was not unusual And it is was a believing LDS (Why me who pretended to be Catholic) member who lead me here with his derogatory description of CAF.
 
zaffiroborant said:
It seems you understand neither Catholicism or Mormonism(for lack a more acceptable word). You don’t understand Catholic theology and you keep running over to MADB to find out what LDS belief is on a given topic. I think before you lecture on either belief you should study it and be able to present it correctly. You have not demonstrated an ability to present either religion correctly. This is underscored by your total lack of understanding of the Catholic faith (points having to be explained by believing Catholics) and your reliance on MADB to give you proper understanding of LDS belief. If you are going to be LDS fine but quit being the LDS “paladin” against Catholicism, you don’t understand either faith well enough to present an acceptable point. If you want to join the LDS fine then study that faith but leave off on critiquing the Catholic faith, a faith you obviously don’t understand and one you can’t defend from an LDS point of view because you don’t understand either religion. I understand a converts enthusiasm but you are wasting your time here if you think you can convince anyone on this forum that the LDS view is correct. It is particularly pathetic of you to do this when you have to run to your teacher (MADB) to give a coherent statement of LDS belief while in the same sentence show your utter lack of understanding of the Catholic faith.

I also think it is rather gossipy and presumptuous of you to run off to another board and say and I quote you: "Since many Catholics don’t know their own faith". I am continually amazed at the number of practicing LDS who weren’t taught about JS’s multiple wives, read NOM for a while, they really didn’t know. But the reality here is not that “many Catholics don’t know their own faith” or that LDS don’t know their history, but that you don’t understand the Catholic faith, and demonstrate it on any of the the points you brought up.

But after spending time on MADB, MD, FLAK, NOM, PM I can understand that the gossipy thing can take over. I ended up looking at the LDS MADB because of two sets of arrogant and in one case belligerent LDS missionaries. Many posters on MADB (Pahoran included) convinced me that my experience with missionaries (arrogance and belligerence) was not unusual And it is was a believing LDS (Why me who pretended to be Catholic) member who lead me here with his derogatory description of CAF.
Click to expand...
I’m afraid i have to agree with you totally on this.

I tried to give Todd the benefit of the doubt from the beginning of this thread, but based upon further observation of the thread at madb, I can see I was wrong, and that my initial suspicions were correct.
 
zaffiroborant said:
It seems you understand neither Catholicism or Mormonism(for lack a more acceptable word). You don’t understand Catholic theology and you keep running over to MADB to find out what LDS belief is on a given topic. I think before you lecture on either belief you should study it and be able to present it correctly. You have not demonstrated an ability to present either religion correctly. This is underscored by your total lack of understanding of the Catholic faith (points having to be explained by believing Catholics) and your reliance on MADB to give you proper understanding of LDS belief. If you are going to be LDS fine but quit being the LDS “paladin” against Catholicism, you don’t understand either faith well enough to present an acceptable point. If you want to join the LDS fine then study that faith but leave off on critiquing the Catholic faith, a faith you obviously don’t understand and one you can’t defend from an LDS point of view because you don’t understand either religion. I understand a converts enthusiasm but you are wasting your time here if you think you can convince anyone on this forum that the LDS view is correct. It is particularly pathetic of you to do this when you have to run to your teacher (MADB) to give a coherent statement of LDS belief while in the same sentence show your utter lack of understanding of the Catholic faith.

I also think it is rather gossipy and presumptuous of you to run off to another board and say and I quote you: "Since many Catholics don’t know their own faith". I am continually amazed at the number of practicing LDS who weren’t taught about JS’s multiple wives, read NOM for a while, they really didn’t know. But the reality here is not that “many Catholics don’t know their own faith” or that LDS don’t know their history, but that you don’t understand the Catholic faith, and demonstrate it on any of the the points you brought up.

But after spending time on MADB, MD, FLAK, NOM, PM I can understand that the gossipy thing can take over. I ended up looking at the LDS MADB because of two sets of arrogant and in one case belligerent LDS missionaries. Many posters on MADB (Pahoran included) convinced me that my experience with missionaries (arrogance and belligerence) was not unusual And it is was a believing LDS (Why me who pretended to be Catholic) member who lead me here with his derogatory description of CAF.
Click to expand...
Wow…you nailed it
 
Todd520 said:
I have been repeatedly told in CAF that LDS are not Christian because we presume to become gods/God/like god after we die.

Now I read in the Catholic Catechism that Catholics also believe a soul can become God/gods.

Is the Catechism wrong or are some posters un-catechized?
(I unerstand the purpose of the Catechism is to clearly state beliefs so that interpretation errors are not possible.)
Click to expand...
Thanks for the intersting debate. I’ll try to summarize it and aswer my original question
  • The Catechism is correct in stating man “might become God.”
  • However, it does not articulate how man’s nature as god will be different than the divine nature of God.
  • The specifics of this difference are the subject of theological discussion/debate
 
=Todd520;6967955]Thanks for the intersting debate. I’ll try to summarize it and aswer my original question
  • The Catechism is correct in stating man “might become God.”
  • However, it does not articulate how man’s nature as god will be different than the divine nature of God.
  • The specifics of this difference are the subject of theological discussion/debate
Click to expand...
While this debate is an intelectual endeavor it ignores the more important fact that LDS:

Do not accept Jesus as God

Do not accept the Trinity

Do not accept the Bible except for carefully selected “Culls” for the sake of debate

Do not accept the realities of heaven or hell

Profess that the soul dies, BUT the BODY LIVES forever…

ALL OF THESE are of FAR GREATER consequence then simple termonology which they simply don’t understand.

Love and prayers,
Pat
 
PJM, you are completetly off topic, and rude.:mad::mad:

My thread was on a specific area of Catholic belief. Please start your own thread if you want to air a laundry list LDS faults.
 
Todd520;6968058]PJM, you are completetly off topic, and rude.:mad::mad:
Click to expand...
My thread was on a specific area of Catholic belief. Please start your own thread if you want to air a laundry list LDS faults.
Click to expand...
Sorry friend, BUT the truth is not rude.

It’s not off topic as it has to do with your beleifs verses mine.

You choose to keep the debate intelectual, why I prefer factual. And I did respond in an earlier post your specific point, in depth.

I don’t recall you responding to that post?

Love and prayers friend,
Pat
 
PJM,
why do you get so defensive when I’m trying to understand the Truth of Catholic teachings.

I believe that Catholic teachings stand very strongly on their own merit and don’t require introducing slander or blatant lies on LDS into the discussion.
 
Todd, it might do you well to read, instead of getting so defensive.
 
Todd520 said:
Thanks for the intersting debate. I’ll try to summarize it and aswer my original question
  • The Catechism is correct in stating man “might become God.”
  • However, it does not articulate how man’s nature as god will be different than the divine nature of God.
  • The specifics of this difference are the subject of theological discussion/debate
Click to expand...
Well I’ve asked for the thread to be closed since my original OP has been answered.
 
Todd,

I am afraid you aren’t being completely honest with your position on this subject.

You do realize that we have seen your thread on MADB, where you state:
  1. “Since many Catholics don’t know their own faith, pointing to their Catachism will prove instructive.”
    You may be speaking for yourself here, but obviously not for “many Catholics”
2."As a defensive measure when LDS beliefs are being attacked as “un-Christian” or “un-Biblical,” I think it is highly appropriate to reference their own faith, and then welcome their explanation of the True meaning "
This is a total mischaracterization of this thread, and you know it. Nobody “attacked” your beliefs here, and you know that. In fact, people have done their best to try and answer your questions.

As I said in my original post to you on this thread, it appears you already had an answer in mind, and you have proven me correct.

I have to ask you one other question. You said you went to Catholic school, Altar boy, etc. How long were you an inactive Catholic before you became LDS?
 
PJM said:
While this debate is an intelectual endeavor it ignores the more important fact that LDS:

Do not accept Jesus as God
Click to expand...
We accept that Jesus is God, a divine Person, who is a separate Person from the Father. What we do not accept is the Trinitarian notion of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost being of the same substance. We have no problems with calling Jesus God or “a God” since He is clearly a distinct Person from the Father.
Do not accept the Trinity
Click to expand...
See above.
Do not accept the Bible except for carefully selected “Culls” for the sake of debate
Click to expand...
Sorry, we accept the Bible. We also accept that there are discrepancies between manuscripts, Septuagint vs. MT, etc. and therefore meanings may have been changed due to various reasons. Anyone familiar with textual criticism and variances among manuscripts (as well as the great role of the DSS) would know this.

Interestingly, many Evangelical churches qualify their belief in the inerrancy of the Bible by claiming that they believe that the Bible is inerrant in the “original manuscripts”. This hints at what Latter-day Saints believe.
Do not accept the realities of heaven or hell
Click to expand...
Sorry, we fully accept the reality of Heaven and Hell. We believe that there are different degrees of glory in Heaven, and we typically call “Hell” Outer Darkness.
Profess that the soul dies, BUT the BODY LIVES forever…
Click to expand...
Uh what? You must be thinking of another church. We believe that the soul is eternal.
 
Todd520 said:
Thanks for the intersting debate. I’ll try to summarize it and aswer my original question
  • The Catechism is correct in stating man “might become God.”
  • However, it does not articulate how man’s nature as god will be different than the divine nature of God.
  • The specifics of this difference are the subject of theological discussion/debate
Click to expand...
I opened a seperate thread with a narrow focus BECAUSE, I didn’t want to have yet another all encompasing debate on LDS faults, just because I’m LDS.
This post was about understanding specific Catholic Doctrine, let’s leave it there.

I stand by my summary as accurate of the points raised.
 
Todd520 said:
I opened a seperate thread with a narrow focus BECAUSE, I didn’t want to have yet another all encompasing debate on LDS faults, just because I’m LDS.
This post was about understanding specific Catholic Doctrine, let’s leave it there.

I stand by my summary as accurate of the points raised.
Click to expand...
Again, you are not being completely honest on the issue now are you? See below.
Todd520 said:
I opened a seperate thread because my question was quickly buried by long posts, The topic is important/informative and deserving of a seperate post.
Click to expand...
Also, you posted your question on the other thread, and approximately 90 minutes later you started this thread. In that 90 minutes, there were exactly 0 (zero) responses to your question, so as you see, it was not “quickly buried by long posts”.

Further review of that thread shows only 3 responses to your post at all, and none of them were “long posts”.

Time to start showing a little honesty here, don’t you think?
 
Todd520 said:
I opened a seperate thread with a narrow focus BECAUSE, I didn’t want to have yet another all encompasing debate on LDS faults, just because I’m LDS.
This post was about understanding specific Catholic Doctrine, let’s leave it there.

I stand by my summary as accurate of the points raised.
Click to expand...
so? You have already proven you will stand by incorrect issues
 
TPG,
  • My beliefs have been in a state of constant attack and ridicule here
  • A deeper understanding of the Catholic faith is only a GOOD THING, for all.
  • I have been completely open about why I wanted clarification on this Catholic doctrine, so I resent being called dishonest
  • Again, this subject deserved a seperate thread, so it could be properly discussed. You have the choice of engaging or not.
STM,
No person has corrected or disputed my summary bullets, so I still stand by them.

I am happy to improve their accuracy or correct mistakes, it’s just that every subsequent post has been about something BESIDES my summary.
Todd520 said:
Thanks for the intersting debate. I’ll try to summarize it and aswer my original question
  • The Catechism is correct in stating man “might become God.”
  • However, it does not articulate how man’s nature as god will be different than the divine nature of God.
  • The specifics of this difference are the subject of theological discussion/debate
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top