Christianity and The Truth

[lynnareyno]

Originally Posted by Neil LA
crusadewatch.org/index.ph…38&Item id=90

I can see that any intellectual discussion is fruitless when such websites are being cited as authority.

Bye!

PEACE AND LOVE

 

[Neil_LA]

Oh. I thought you were saying:

Yes…If you actually study what the Gita says as opposed to what the Bible says, the expression of God in the Bible, vs the expression of God in the Gita is much more violent and spiteful.

 

[paarsurrey]

That is the issue here. Why do Catholics need to be so special? Why can’t a Hindu be just as special? I believe that they are. Or maybe a Hindu is even more correct. Is that possible?

Hi

Unless one compares both the faiths with reasons; and then convinces the other one heart and soul, it would be just a claim without reason. Claims and Reasons must be from the scriptures one believes in.

Thanks
paarsurrey.wordpress.com/

 

[Neil_LA]

It doesn’t “defend itself” from those who are wrong about it. It tries to help them to underdstand where they are incorrect about it.

Catholic Christianity is simply a small set of truths with which one is convinced is true or not, which has been revealed to ALL of mankind by the witness of a few persons.

Those who believe that don’t “DEFEND” their faith. They merely witness to their faith in those facts.

God “defends” our faith by giving us reasons, via graces, for believing what we believe.

All people (individuals) try to show other people why the things they believe are believable when those beliefs are (in any way) questioned.

Christians seem a bit “pushy” about telling other people the wonders that they’ve found in Christianity because we’ve been told that it is good to share good things. This is called charity.

All people do this, and it is in fact the same action as the ubiquitous desire of all people to help others as they’ve been helped (helped to see truths).

Christians believe that God has worked in a general way to reveal Himself by “natural law”, from which all people worldwide (universe-wide?) create “forces” and “personifications” which populate their beliefs about “God-stuff”, thereby creating their various religions.

Christians believe that God has created a “point source” of most fully informed revelation of His “goal” which He has given us over time.

The “movement” of that source forms the “line” which is Adam to Noah to Abram/Abraham to David to Jesus to “The Church” (which in reality is all “The Church”).

That other people would find that they are not “on the line” is “objectionable” and annoying is understandable. But when they say that they MUST be as equally “priveledged” as ANY other people as regards “God-stuff” they are saying the spiritual equivalent of, “ALL individuals should be equally beautiful, talented and RICH, or I shall be annoyed!”

If you, as a hindu, or anyone as a whatever else, don’t feel that you’ve got “THE” fullness of the truth, but only “A” fullness of the truth equally as much as anyone else, could your “modesty” in your claim be, in fact, justifiably “modest” in relation to what we have as Christians?

Why is it “unacceptable” that ONE LINE OF PEOPLE, just as one individual person in ANY society, be priveledged to recieve the most full exposure of revelation directly from God?

Well…I can’t accept that God would “choose” one people as opposed to another because it would show partiality. I can’t believe God would create the entire world and then just focus on one little group of people. That is insanity in my book. But then I guess the “god” of the Bible seems to be insane rather frequently.

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi Neil LA. Peace.

Like you, I am no scholar. I am a mere construction worker sweating it out daily… who also is still struggling with my English. There are so many good people here- they’ll understand us.

So, you’ve been a… Catholic? Baptized Christian then, correct?
Did you know that to be a Christian is to believe in Jesus Christ?
That to believe in Jesus Christ is to believe in His words?

Hi

Not that all is recorded in Bible that Jesus said so and so is necessarily said by Jesus. Anonymous scribes wrote the account of Jesus life and ascribed that Jesus said such and such things; there is no certainty that Jesus said those words. So here is a fallacy which breaks the chain of your sentences. Sorry

Thanks
paarsurrey.wordpress.com/

 

[Neil_LA]

So, you’re more interested in “seeing the fighting stop” than the truth?

That is called a false peace.

I agree (as does the Church) that ALL actual revelations of God, both those given via the gift of “natural law” and otherwise, are ACTUALLY good and true!

But both the “natural law” manifestations of God’s truth and goodness and His direct revelations (biblical scripture and traditions) are very prone to the human weakness of misinterpretation. Who is to decide what is the correct interpretation?

Thus, the necessity of The Church.

Of course I am interested in the truth. I just don’t understand why you don’t see it and keep clinging to delusions.

The explainations given in the CCC wrap everything up in a nice little package and explain everything in an apparently clear way.

That does not mean its true and not a delusion.

As to who is to decide what is the correct interpretation: why not interpert things for yourself.

You’re a thinking person. Why do you assume your interpretations are not valid? Or that you’re so “weak?”

 

[LDNCatholic]

That is insanity in my book. But then I guess the “god” of the Bible seems to be insane rather frequently.

Remember where you are Neil. Blaspheming against God like that is terribly disrespectful to the Catholics on this board, not to mention other Christians.

 

[paarsurrey]

Namesake-
You said:

First of all…Catholic do not demand anything from anyone. Catholics believe that our faith is true and other religions believe that their faith is true. Why does that make Catholics any more arrogant than others? I am so sick of the arrogance card being thrown at Catholics. If we didn’t believe in Catholicism then we would join another religion. And why demand proof from us? Are we asking proof from you? Why do you even care what we believe? Your eternal salvation, damnation or nothingness is between you and God. If you ask our opinion or the beliefs of the Catholic Church we will share them with you. But if you don’t believe in the Church, then why does it matter to you what it believes?
We are happy to answer any questions about our faith. But it’s very tedious and down right rude to give answers and then be told that those answers don’t count because you don’t believe in our scriptures. Believe whatever you want to, but don’t tell us Catholics what we believe. We are happy to share our beliefs with anyone and explain where our beliefs came from and what they mean. That is, if you want an honest intellectual discussion, not just an opportunity to rant and spout anti-Catholic rhetoric.
I love the Catholic Church because I believe that it is true, if I didn’t then I would ( and almost did) join another religion. That is fact not arrogance!

Hi

I think your approach is also very good. I appreciate it also.

Thanks
paarsurrey.wordpress.com/

 

[Neil_LA]

Remember where you are Neil. Blaspheming against God like that is terribly disrespectful to the Catholics on this board, not to mention other Christians.

Yes, you are right. I am sorry. I will be more respectful going forward. Please forgive me

I guess one does have to remember the cultural context that the scriptures (of whichever faith) have arisen in.

Maybe the culture of the ancient near-east was such that they needed a form of God that would “whip them into shape.”

I really am not totally anti-Christian or anti-Catholic. (believe it or not)

The Church has done much good in the world. I see that. I believe that the present Pope is a very good man and I actually do like him. (again feel free to believe me or not)

I just continue to have problems with much (not all) of what the Church teaches, especially that it only contains the fullness of truth.

I also continue to have issues with Christian evangalism of other countries and cultures. This often seems to appear that the one doing the evangelizing thinks that the other person doesn’t know or believe in God while in fact the person could very well have a vital relationship with God, but it might be in a different form that I Christian could relate to.

I am also perfectly happy to say that Hinduism isn’t perfect either. I’m sure that if I was able to go to India, my views on Hinduism could change quite radically.

I know that these issues can’t really ever be resolved, especially here. But I really have enjoyed the discourse and debate here and I thank everyone for engaging with me

 

[Neil_LA]

Namesake-
You said:

First of all…Catholic do not demand anything from anyone. Catholics believe that our faith is true and other religions believe that their faith is true. Why does that make Catholics any more arrogant than others? I am so sick of the arrogance card being thrown at Catholics. If we didn’t believe in Catholicism then we would join another religion. And why demand proof from us? Are we asking proof from you? Why do you even care what we believe? Your eternal salvation, damnation or nothingness is between you and God. If you ask our opinion or the beliefs of the Catholic Church we will share them with you. But if you don’t believe in the Church, then why does it matter to you what it believes?
We are happy to answer any questions about our faith. But it’s very tedious and down right rude to give answers and then be told that those answers don’t count because you don’t believe in our scriptures. Believe whatever you want to, but don’t tell us Catholics what we believe. We are happy to share our beliefs with anyone and explain where our beliefs came from and what they mean. That is, if you want an honest intellectual discussion, not just an opportunity to rant and spout anti-Catholic rhetoric.
I love the Catholic Church because I believe that it is true, if I didn’t then I would ( and almost did) join another religion. That is fact not arrogance!

That is reasonable…Ok…I will ask you an honest question. What has convinced you that the Bible is true and the the Catholic Church is true? Of course anybody is free to answer. And to the Muslims here, what made you decide to become Muslim as opposed to Catholic?

I will try my best to hear what you have to say with an open heart and mind.

 

[LDNCatholic]

Yes, you are right. I am sorry. I will be more respectful going forward. Please forgive me

Of course, everyone has a slip up from time to time.

I really am not totally anti-Christian or anti-Catholic. (believe it or not)

The Church has done much good in the world. I see that. I believe that the present Pope is a very good man and I actually do like him. (again feel free to believe me or not)

I believe you, no reason to believe otherwise.

I just continue to have problems with much (not all) of what the Church teaches, especially that it only contains the fullness of truth.

I also continue to have issues with Christian evangalism of other countries and cultures. This often seems to appear that the one doing the evangelizing thinks that the other person doesn’t know or believe in God while in fact the person could very well have a vital relationship with God, but it might be in a different form that I Christian could relate to.

But Christians are called to evangelise. That is not unique to Abrahamic religions. The Buddhists sent missionaries all over, if some sources are to be believed, as far as the Levant and Ancient Mediterranean, no problem with that.

I am also perfectly happy to say that Hinduism isn’t perfect either. I’m sure that if I was able to go to India, my views on Hinduism could change quite radically.

Depends what part of India you visited, and whether the Hinduism you come across is authentic or just a bunch of warm fuzzies and fortune cookie philosophy made for middle class westerners. As a vegitarian the animal sacrifices of some of Kali’s followers might disturb you.

 

[Neil_LA]

Of course, everyone has a slip up from time to time.

I believe you, no reason to believe otherwise…

Thank you, you’ve very kind

But Christians are called to evangelise. That is not unique to Abrahamic religions. The Buddhists sent missionaries all over, if some sources are to be believed, as far as the Levant and Ancient Mediterranean, no problem with that.

That’s true. I guess that in my mind, Christian mission is tied to European colonialism. I’m sure that the reality is more complex. I just tend to feel that there is a certain “Americo-Eurocentrism” in the world and I also believe that there is also a “Christocentrism” that is apparent.

It seems to me that the general perception of other religions and other cultures by Christian (I know I’m making a generalization) is that they are infierior and lacking of value.

Frequently when there is coverage in the media about Africa or India, it is only negative, which seems to be saying “look at these backward people, they can’t get it together.”

And when Christian missionaries go into other countries, it really looks like they are trying to change the cultures that they find there and bring it to EuroAmerican culture that is more “developed” or “advanced.”

My understanding of Buddhist mission is that it never seeked to replace or uproot the host culture. Indeed it seems that Buddhism adapted itself to the culture and became a part of the culture and wasn’t something foreign that was imposed.

I just find it difficult to separate much of the militant Chirstian terminology that I hear with the apparent desire for conquest.

 

[LDNCatholic]

That’s true. I guess that in my mind, Christian mission is tied to European colonialism. I’m sure that the reality is more complex. I just tend to feel that there is a certain “Americo-Eurocentrism” in the world and I also believe that there is also a “Christocentrism” that is apparent.

Well the Irish were often very prominent missionaries, and the Irish have never had an Empire.

And of course there is an ‘‘American-Eurocentrism’’ in your world, you are an American and I am just guessing here so forgive me if I am mistaken, but you are probably of European origin. That is your experience of the world around you, ask a Mongolian goat herder or a Siberian nomad how influenced they are by America and their experience would likely be very different. ‘‘America? Whats that?’’ comes to mind.

 

[Neil_LA]

Well the Irish were often very prominent missionaries, and the Irish have never had an Empire.

And of course there is an ‘‘American-Eurocentrism’’ in your world, you are an American and I am just guessing here so forgive me if I am mistaken, but you are probably of European origin. That is your experience of the world around you, ask a Mongolian goat herder or a Siberian nomad how influenced they are by America and their experience would likely be very different. ‘‘America? Whats that?’’ comes to mind.

That’s reasonable.

I wonder if Genghis Khan tried to convert other people to his religion.

Was he Buddhist? Mongolians are Buddhist, right?

From the Wikipedia entry on “Mongolian Empire” subheading “Religion”

“Mongols were highly tolerant of most religions, and typically sponsored several at the same time. At the time of Genghis Khan, virtually every religion had found converts, from Buddhism to Christianity and Manichaeanism to Islam. To avoid strife, Genghis Khan set up an institution that ensured complete religious freedom, though he himself was a shamanist. Under his administration, all religious leaders were exempt from taxation, and from public service”

I guess that’s the thing. It seems to me that Christianity has always (historically) been intolerant of other religions. Is it not true that even in Europe, the Church suppressed the indiginous (Pagan) religious traditions?

I wonder how tolerant the Irish monks were of the native Celtic religion?

I admit that native European (pre-Christian) religion is something that I don’t know much about.

 

[LDNCatholic]

That’s reasonable.
I wonder if Genghis Khan tried to convert other people to his religion.
Was he Buddhist? Mongolians are Buddhist, right?

I think he followed traditional Mongolian Shamanism. I don’t think he tried to convert people to his religion but that said he was not particularly religious, rejecting Taoism because their potions could not make him immortal.

I guess that’s the thing. It seems to me that Christianity has always (historically) been intolerant of other religions. Is it not true that even in Europe, the Church suppressed the indiginous (Pagan) religious traditions?

Forgetting of course two facts:

1. The tolerant peaceful indiginous Pagans originally massacred the Christians (Christians vs the lions anyone?)
2. Most of the Christians in Europe were indiginous, it wasn’t a case of foreign invasion.

I wonder how tolerant the Irish monks were of the native Celtic religion?
I admit that native European (pre-Christian) religion is something that I don’t know much about.

The Irish pretty much converted en masse without much fuss or bloodshed (for that time anyway), there wasn’t much of a struggle.

But that isn’t the point, the point was that Christianity went hand in hand with colonialism.

 

[Neil_LA]

I think he followed traditional Mongolian Shamanism. I don’t think he tried to convert people to his religion but that said he was not particularly religious, rejecting Taoism because their potions could not make him immortal.

Forgetting of course two facts:

1. The tolerant peaceful indiginous Pagans originally massacred the Christians (Christians vs the lions anyone?)
2. Most of the Christians in Europe were indiginous, it wasn’t a case of foreign invasion.

The Irish pretty much converted en masse without much fuss or bloodshed (for that time anyway), there wasn’t much of a struggle.

But that isn’t the point, the point was that Christianity went hand in hand with colonialism.

Those are fair points. I guess that the trauma that the Church went through at the begining of its history might have influenced the way it viewed others. I can understand why others might be percieved as a threat.

Going back to my original question, I can understand how this persecution in the begining of its history would cause the Church to be defensive and want to protect itself from error. It could be very frightening to feel that you are under attack and can’t survive easily and safely.

Changing the subject a bit…I would be interested to hear your (and others) story as to how you came to the Church and how you became to be convinced of its truth.

Also I would like to know if you accept everything it teaches without question and what struggles you might have had or continue to have with your faith.

Thank you!

 

[LDNCatholic]

Changing the subject a bit…I would be interested to hear your (and others) story as to how you came to the Church and how you became to be convinced of its truth.

Also I would like to know if you accept everything it teaches without question and what struggles you might have had or continue to have with your faith.

Thank you!

I was born to a Catholic mother and an Atheist (officially Anglican/Methodist) father. My mother raised me as a Catholic, I was never a ‘‘bad’’ Catholic but I followed just because it was the ‘‘done thing’’, when I was about 13 I had an intensely scary experience in which my immediate response was to pray, whether the threat was real or percieved is now irrelevant, the important part was that I immediately placed my trust in God.

After studying the religions around me (Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Protestant sects and Catholicism) I almost converted a few times, but thinking back on it I have always prayed with the Sign of the Cross, an invocation of the Trinity, and I have never had a prayer go unanswered, so I am convinced that God, as presented by the Catholic Church, is the one who is listening.

It is not a case of ‘‘God if you answer me I’ll believe in you’’, It is a case of ‘‘You have always revealed yourself to me through the Church I have no reason to think of you in another way’’

I have had questions, but I look into it and usually always end up agreeing with the Church.

 

[Neil_LA]

I was born to a Catholic mother and an Atheist (officially Anglican/Methodist) father. My mother raised me as a Catholic, I was never a ‘‘bad’’ Catholic but I followed just because it was the ‘‘done thing’’, when I was about 13 I had an intensely scary experience in which my immediate response was to pray, whether the threat was real or percieved is now irrelevant, the important part was that I immediately placed my trust in God.

After studying the religions around me (Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Protestant sects and Catholicism) I almost converted a few times, but thinking back on it I have always prayed with the Sign of the Cross, an invocation of the Trinity, and I have never had a prayer go unanswered, so I am convinced that God, as presented by the Catholic Church, is the one who is listening.

It is not a case of ‘‘God if you answer me I’ll believe in you’’, It is a case of ‘‘You have always revealed yourself to me through the Church I have no reason to think of you in another way’’

I have had questions, but I look into it and usually always end up agreeing with the Church.

Thank you so much for sharing. I really appreciate it!

I wonder if someone raised in a totally atheistic environment would pray when faced with a terrifying experince…

I’m sure that someone who is faced with a severe threat would need a powerful form of God to pray to.

I wonder what happens when a Buddhist has such a situation. Do they pray to Shakyamuni as if he were God? I suspect that they do, but technically Buddha isn’t God.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Read what His Holiness, the Dalai Lama has to say about this. Pretty cool stuff I believe.

The Dalai Lama explicitly denies God as a person.

That directly contradicts the Monotheistic faiths of Christianity, Judaism (religious Judaism), Islam, Zoroastrianism and Sikh Dharma–and traditional paganism-polytheism as well.

Such opposed positions cannot be reconciled with each other.

retreating into panthesim or monism is a philosphical refuge–a faulty one.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Ok, back to the subject.

“Why is Christianity (in general true) and Catholic Christianity (specificaly) most true”–thats not a direct quote, but seems to be Neil LA’s general query.

"Aut deus aut homo malus"

That’s latin for "Either God or a bad man"

Either Jesus of Nazareth, an actual historical person who lived on Earth in a certain time and place was and is God–God in the monotheistic exclusive sense and meaning–or he was an evil or deluded human being.

Yep, CS Lewis’s “trilema” (or quadlema or quinlema depending how you define the “bad” part) though by no means did Lewis come up with it–its at least as old as St Augustine of Hippo (5th Century AD).