T
Todd520
Guest
Do you have any catholic friends? I’m sure they’d love to take you, even if they were lapsed.
I agree it would be a much better experience to ‘go with’ someone instead of just showing up.
- Status
I agree it would be a much better experience to ‘go with’ someone instead of just showing up.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Then you are in the right place, facetious! Post questions here, read and post more questions, then read some more.
Also, reading the tracts on Catholic.com on the basic “issues” non-Catholics have with Catholicism: praying to the saints, honoring Mary, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist will be really helpful.
And reading what the Early Church Fathers taught is also helpful. These are the Christians who sat at the feet of the Apostles. While their writings are not inspired, they are certainly a clue about how the early Christians believed and worshipped. (Hint: it was very Catholic!)
Finally, listening to Catholic Answers (see if they’re on the radio in your area or listen to it online.)
If you seek, you will find.
What not to do:
-base your entry into Catholicism on how the average clueless-Joe-Catholic-in-the-pew treats you
-base your entry into Catholicism on what others tell you the Catholic Church teaches–see for yourself and read the Scriptures, the Catechism, watch EWTN…
P
PRmerger
Guest
Note, Bluegoat, I am not asking for your opinion about what is an essential and what is non-essential. I am asking for a verse that shows all of us Christians that this is an essential teaching. And another verse that says, “Coming up is a non-essential teaching” (or words to that effect
)I have posed this question multiple times on the CAFs and no Non-Catholic Christian has ever been able to provide a list of essentials that agrees with another Non-Catholic Christan’s list of essentials.
Not to mention, I’m not actually asking for a list of essentials. I’m asking for verses which tell us that they *are *essential. And that other points are not essential.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Fair enough. You are correct that when I brake for a dog running across the street it’s more of a conditioned response than an act of free will.
Although I would say that the fact that I brake for this creature, and not for a plastic bag, is in a sense an indication of my free will in that I choose to follow the “be good stewards of the earth” teaching of Christianity.
S
Sufjon
Guest
Although I would probably break for a plastic bag as well the dog because I might not have time to tell what it was that came out in front of me. Yes, most of us try to do the right thing, but being a Christian isn’t a prerequisite for that. I am good for goodness sake, because that is the only course that makes sense. Anyway, thank you for trying to follow the idea.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yet you wouldn’t break if you knew it was a plastic bag (and, of course, wouldn’t harm your car or impair your driving in any way). It is a moral impetus which drives your decision then?
Oh! No good Catholic here ought to say that being a Christian is a pre-requisite for being good! There are plenty of atheists out there that I’d rather have at my back than any so-called Christians!
One ought to become a Christian because it is TRUE, not because it makes someone good.
Also, I find that saying “just be good for goodness sake” a bit puzzling. It’s like saying, “I’m going to jump for jumping’s sake.”
S
Sufjon
Guest
Hi PRmerger: I do like the way you think. You’re pretty open minded. What I meant by being good for goodness sake is that for the sake of goodness, if nothing else, I try to be good. If nothing else, It seems to make life more synchronistic. When you think things through, being good only makes sense. I respect that you believe that being Christian is true. If I thought I could ever find out what Jesus really said and did, I might be in the same place. I too am very open to the idea of a God. I’m just not sure it’s the way people make it out to be. It’s fine in my opinion for others to think of Him in any way that they do. For some reason He is requiring me to look further.Y
Oh! No good Catholic here ought to say that being a Christian is a pre-requisite for being good! There are plenty of atheists out there that I’d rather have at my back than any so-called Christians!
One ought to become a Christian because it is TRUE, not because it makes someone good.
Also, I find that saying “just be good for goodness sake” a bit puzzling. It’s like saying, “I’m going to jump for jumping’s sake.”
Thanks!
Sufjon
P
PRmerger
Guest
The best essay I’ve ever read on “being good fo goodness sake” is by C.S. Lewis: Man or Rabbit?
Click here for a link, if you’re so inclined.
As for finding out what Jesus really said and did, of course a healthy skepticism is warranted on this. Did Jesus really rise from the dead? Did Jesus really say to eat his flesh and drink his blood?
I do hope that the degree of trust (vs skepticism) that you give to other things you would apply to Christianity. That is, I’m certain that you believe that the capital of the Philippines is Manila, even though you’ve probably never been there firsthand. You accept it, because you accept the authority of _______ (fill in the blank with: textbook, Mrs. Suarez from Avery School’s 4th grade, the google website, an atlas, whatever)
Yet I find it puzzling that many agnostics want something more as far as “proof” when it comes to Jesus’ words.
Something to think about, I suppose.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
S
Sufjon
Guest
S
Sufjon
Guest
Hi PRMerger: No, I haven’t been to Manila, but here aren’t many different versions as to the meaning of the capitol of the Philippines, and the basis of the information available to me about Manila isn’t from varied texts, thousands of years old, all of which are copies of copies of copies of copies, with no known originals, compounded by the fact that there were other versions that didn’t get included. The fact that there are such variations as to the meaning of even those among the professed believers of them make it even more difficult to draw conclusions. Do I dispute any of them? No. I want to know what is true.The best essay I’ve ever read on “being good fo goodness sake” is by C.S. Lewis: Man or Rabbit?
Click here for a link, if you’re so inclined.
As for finding out what Jesus really said and did, of course a healthy skepticism is warranted on this. Did Jesus really rise from the dead? Did Jesus really say to eat his flesh and drink his blood?
I do hope that the degree of trust (vs skepticism) that you give to other things you would apply to Christianity. That is, I’m certain that you believe that the capital of the Philippines is Manila, even though you’ve probably never been there firsthand. You accept it, because you accept the authority of _______ (fill in the blank with: textbook, Mrs. Suarez from Avery School’s 4th grade, the google website, an atlas, whatever)
Yet I find it puzzling that many agnostics want something more as far as “proof” when it comes to Jesus’ words.
Something to think about, I suppose.
Thanks again
B
Bluegoat
Guest
Takes all kinds I guess.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
There are a few threads around on this already.Perhaps.
If you care to start a thread on this I may join you there.
Fine, however, you gave it as an example.
You are missing the point again. You are trying to justify sorting “denominations” based on a particular method of counting - seemingly based on nothing more than names. I am saying that if you look at the related groupings, they will in many cases agree on what the essentials are, and see them as Structurally based. I am not saying what they consider as essential - I am saying that if you look at Calvinists as a whole, you will see a l lot of agreement on theology, and on what is essential or not. (One of the things they do not consider essential is a central authority of the kind found in Catholicism. )
No, I am not confusing them. What you have described is, of course, the Latin Catholic position, but less often the Eastern Catholic position. And even when they agree in theory, in an actual discussion of theology that tends to fall away. Which is rather my point. (To be honest, I think the position of Eastern Catholicism is completely untenable, so I don’t see how one can reconcile many of their theological expressions as merely “different ways of saying the same thing”. It seems to me to be a serious problem from a Catholic perspective.)
I haven’t found that to be actually true. Many Eastern Catholics accept the formula of the papacy having the role it did before the schism!:hypno: And that is considered acceptable by Rome!
P
PRmerger
Guest
What does this mean, Bluegoat?
B
Bluegoat
Guest
It means that people have different perceptions of other people, which sometimes seem to conflict, and that is probably a good thing, or at least not bad.
For example, I think my PM, Stephen Harper, is a bad man who subverts the democratic process for partisan ends. I spoke to someone else recently who thinks that he is the greatest PM we have ever had, and that everybody thinks he is great. Which leaves me
but perhaps there is something I am missing.
P
PRmerger
Guest
As far as ancient manuscripts and historical documents go, my understanding is that there are no ancient texts with as much confirmation and corroboration as the Christian Scriptures.
"January 11, 49 B.C. is one of the most famous dates in the history of ancient Rome, even of the ancient world. On that date Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River, committing himself and his followers to civil war. Few, if any, historians doubt that the event happened. On the other hand, numerous skeptics claim that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are myth and have no basis in historical fact. Yet, as historian Paul Merkley pointed out two decades ago in his article, “The Gospels as Historical Testimony,” far less historical evidence exists for the crossing of the Rubicon than does for the events depicted in the Gospels:
Code:
There are no firsthand testimonies to Caesar’s having crossed the Rubicon (wherever it was). Caesar himself makes no mention in his memoirs of crossing any river. Four historians belonging to the next two or three generations do mention a Rubicon River, and claim that Caesar crossed it. They are: Velleius Paterculus (c.19 B.C.–c.A.D. 30); Plutarch (c.A.D. 46–120); Suetonius (75–160); and Appian (second century). All of these evidently depended on the one published eyewitness account, that of Asinius Pollio (76 B.C.–c. A.D. 4)—which account has disappeared without a trace. No manuscript copies for any of these secondary sources is to be found earlier than several hundred years after their composition. (The Evangelical Quarterly 58, 319-336)
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, then, the conclusion I’m getting is that you disagree with Sufjon’s perception; you believe that I am NOT open-minded and don’t appreciate my comments?
Is this correct, Bluegoat?
I’m just wanting to make sure we’re on the same page here and I’m not misunderstanding your comment. It seems like a diss, but I just want to make sure.
S
Sufjon
Guest
My skepticism is not so much the basics of the historical facts, but in the discrepancies among the gospels as well as in the details, which in the case of Christianity have profound bearings on the meanings. There is also the matter of differing interpretations of the meanings. They are also profoundly different. My belief is not that there is no truth n any of it, Somewhere in there lies the truth, or at least I think so. My only objective is to know what that is. I have no notion or theory of my own, or leanings toward one vs the other.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Can you be specific about which discrepancies among the gospels you’re addressing?
I understand how the matter of differing interpretations of Scripture could be an obstacle for you. This is a grim illustration of why the paradigm, wrought by the Protestant Reformation, of “The Holy Spirit will lead me to the correct interpretation of Scripture” is so diabolically dangerous. It presents a great stumbling block to those who are sincerely seeking the truth of Christianity. IOW, you, Sufjon, are quite right to pause when you see the 40,000 (or 12,000 or 26,000) different denominations which have arisen from each church claiming it has the correct interpretation of God’s revelation.
Now, when one considers each of these differing interpretations of Scripture–some overlapping, some contradictory–one ought to consider whether these doctrines are aligned **with the Church **which gave them these Scriptures. It was the Catholic Church which came first.
S
Sufjon
Guest
Hi PRmerger: there are some inconsistencies between the gospels. Mostly significantly different accounts of some of the same events, but I can send a list of some of them sometime when I have more time. I understand the problems you mentioned about people thinking that the Holy Spirit lead them to one interpretation or another, but I don’t know of a church that doesn’t claim to have been guided by the Holy Spirit. That kind of makes my head spin. I know that your church was the first tightly organized version of a Christian Church, although most biblical historians suggest that they weren’t the first Christians. My sense is that the resulting Roman Church was the result of a few centuries of refining conclusions on exactly what it was people had encountered in this Jesus of Nazareth. There were different schools of thought at first, Gnostics or Coptics, Jews who followed Jesus, ect., ect. One school of a more Pauline persuasion eventually became predominant, so that’s the side that pretty much wrote the history. Not surprisingly, it favored their view. While the other views were known of for thousands of years, the actual content of those writings in any level of detail or first hand accounts have only recently been available. To me, they make as much sense as the Catholic version. They can’t both be 100% correct. This is one reason why I look for answers. Talking to people like yourself is actually a big help to me.Can you be specific about which discrepancies among the gospels you’re addressing?
I understand how the matter of differing interpretations of Scripture could be an obstacle for you. This is a grim illustration of why the paradigm, wrought by the Protestant Reformation, of “The Holy Spirit will lead me to the correct interpretation of Scripture” is so diabolically dangerous. It presents a great stumbling block to those who are sincerely seeking the truth of Christianity. IOW, you, Sufjon, are quite right to pause when you see the 40,000 (or 12,000 or 26,000) different denominations which have arisen from each church claiming it has the correct interpretation of God’s revelation.
Now, when one considers each of these differing interpretations of Scripture–some overlapping, some contradictory–one ought to consider whether these doctrines are aligned **with the Church **which gave them these Scriptures. It was the Catholic Church which came first.
- Status