Comparison between Christianity and other religions

  • Thread starter Thread starter faithfilledques
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As opposed to just smiling and looking away? Does a parent do that when they see their child doing something they think will bring misfortune to them? Would you think highly of the parent who didn’t warn of the dangers, but instead just let the child do anything they felt like doing?

When a hurricane is coming, don’t they “yell” about the danger? Or do they just say, “well, I wouldn’t stay here, but if you want to, go right ahead” and never say why?

The whole point of Christianity is the effort to save, not merely themselves, but everyone. That means warning them of what they are being saved from and not merely being satisfied that everyone ELSE won’t be around to enjoy the Heaven to come.
There’s a difference between a person yelling at another they are going to hell, which is an insult, and a parent correcting a child. It is mystifying how you could think that hateful slander is the same as loving protection. Terrorists should be applauded for warning the world of their lack of salvation. Or crusaders. Or witch hunters.
 
There’s a difference between a person yelling at another they are going to hell, which is an insult, and a parent correcting a child. It is mystifying how you could think that hateful slander is the same as loving protection. Terrorists should be applauded for warning the world of their lack of salvation. Or crusaders. Or witch hunters.
There is the difference between causing harm and warning of it. You presume a cause that isn’t there. You point out, equivocate, those who cause harm by excuse of their belief and equate it to those who simply warn of harm. If and when any Christian beats someone in an effort to try to save them from Hell, then yes, they are very out of line. No one, no Christian Church argues with that.

Your mind insists to you that the idea of Hell is a myth and therefore those who warn of it must be doing so for ulterior motives. But that is a presumption on your part. And you trying to warn people to not believe in Hell is not different than the Christian trying to warn them of it. In effect, you are saying, “WARNING! WARNING! Christian liars and deceivers present!!”.

The other religions don’t usually call it “Hell” but they ALL still believe that there are consequences for ill behavior and those consequences can be for the rest of your life and/or for eternity. The difference is that the Christian attempts to make it clear to you as to why you should leave the area where the hurricane is expected, whereas the other religions just try to say, “Oh but its nicer over there. But if you don’t want to come, you get what you deserve for not listening to me”. Or they say, in some cases, “because you are not going to leave, we are going to drag your backside out of here, because we KNOW what is good for you, so come with us or ELSE!”

In either case, “insult” is only your own projection of presumed intent while you blatantly insult Christians.
 
‘Yggdrasil’? Isn’t that the ‘World Tree’ in Norse myth…? Nice.
Yep, the tree motif is one of the nicest. “I am the vine and you are the branches.” There’s also the rod of Jesse and whatnot.
Speaking of the Norse, I think Odin voluntarily allowed himself to be hung from Yggdrasil for nine days, so that he could attain wisdom (much like Jesus hanging from the cross).
Saint Paul even fit the cross itself in with arboralia, making a reference to Deuteronomy 21: “cursed is every one who hangs from a tree.” Medieval legends spoke of the wood for the cross being taken from the Tree of Knowledge: from that which brought the Fall, so also the Redemption.
I haven’t read this text yet, but have heard a bit about it. Speaking as a former Catholic, I wonder if Lewis might have the order reversed. Why couldn’t the Christ story be yet another manifestation of a common story that’s been told by so many different people? Does it have to reign ‘on top’?
Good question. I think Lewis was suggesting that the Christ story is infused with a cosmic drama that the other myths lack. The death and rebirth of Horus and Dionysus are mostly about seasons and crops (in the pedestrian sense)—or, at best, in the esoteric sense, they’re used to illustrate the spiritual transformation that goes on in the initiatory ceremonies of the pagan cults. These deities didn’t need to incarnate themselves as human in order to do what they did. Christianity raises the stakes considerably by having the father god himself become incarnate and sacrificed—and subsumes everyone into the story in the process of doing so. If it’s a manifestation of a common myth then it’s at least, in Jungian terms, far more “integrated” than the others.
 
Good question. I think Lewis was suggesting that the Christ story is infused with a cosmic drama that the other myths lack. The death and rebirth of Horus and Dionysus are mostly about seasons and crops (in the pedestrian sense)—or, at best, in the esoteric sense, they’re used to illustrate the spiritual transformation that goes on in the initiatory ceremonies of the pagan cults. These deities didn’t need to incarnate themselves as human in order to do what they did. Christianity raises the stakes considerably by having the father god himself become incarnate and sacrificed—and subsumes everyone into the story in the process of doing so. If it’s a manifestation of a common myth then it’s at least, in Jungian terms, far more “integrated” than the others.
Interesting point. Thanks for sharing…
 
Something else to consider in comparing these religions is the issue of how each treats their disfavored.

The Jews have the custom of tearing cloths, pronouncing as DEAD and ostracizing the wayward son never to return. Muslims have in their Scriptures that to even associate with a non-believer deserves not only ostracizing, but being put to death. Fortunately neither take those things too terribly seriously any more (except in the more inner circles), but they are on the books as a proper way to behave.

But then look anywhere in the OT, the Christian “New Covenant”, for anything that implies such behavior. Jesus proposes to bring those dead back to life and restore them to their families, to forgive even your worst enemies if they merely have a change of heart. The Catholic has the seldom practiced excommunication, which I personally scrutinize very seriously, but even in that practice, if one but proves his change of heart, he is accepted back, not put to death or declared dead.

Just the spirit of those issues and how they are handled tells a lot.

I think worrying about whether a Christian yelled at their homosexual child is a pretty insignificant concern in comparison.
 
Perhaps the most serious comparison between the Abramic religions involves what happens when they become the only or the highest reigning religion in the world. To look at that perspective it helps to see them as a system of governance. For as long as a system can remain in harmony with itself, it cannot perish. Any world system perishing is a very serious danger for all of humanity as the conflicts that arise get deadly on a worldwide scale. Thus the system to favor for the world order, is one that is not likely to fall into disharmony with itself and also not likely to require misery of any of the population so as to maintain that harmony.

The system proposed by Judaism is one that separates the good from the bad. It is a system of judgment and is where you got the word “judge”. In the Judaic system, one acquires judgments and condemnations through perceived sins, errors, misbehavior. Each perception of a sin leaves a mark on the individual. Each mark makes it harder to avoid more sin and much easier to be perceived as sinning even if actually not doing so. Thus within such a system, one tends to spiral down and at times merely because someone arranged for a perception of sin whether one occurred or not and thus lives a life of condemnation from which he cannot escape.

Thus there is always a division between the perceived righteous and the perceived sinners. Such a system must keep the sinners oppressed and incapable of disrupting the comparative heavenly harmony of the righteous while the sinners must endure a life in Gehenna, Hell, else the system falls into disharmony and perishes. But this leaves the system in constant contention and judgment within itself and if left alone, without adversary, eventually turns against itself to the point of disruption. It would require perfect perception of sin in order to never fail. Judgment when turned on itself, destroys itself.

Thus Judaism requires an adversary so as to give greater impetus for unity and less dependence on perfection within. As long as there is an enemy to fight and blame for oppression, the system can maintain itself. But that means if left alone, the system must produce an enemy so as to have impetus for unity, thus conflict either from outsiders or sinners is required by the system, else there is nothing to judge and the system falls apart by virtue of too much peace and having no requirement for the system to exist. This would mean an eternal state of conflict either self imposed or due to natural consequence of having no impetus to unify.

Islam as a system, is not so concerned with judgment, but maintains its unity through respect and the fear that brings it. Once again, in order to maintain itself, if left alone, it must give impetus for fear so as to maintain the respect required to maintain the unity of those in comparative, fear free heaven. This too leads to an eternal state of misery for the larger portion of the populous as they must be always in a state of fear and discomfort else respect is lost and the system fails. But fear when turned on itself dissolves itself.

Secularism is similar to both of these.

But Christianity, as a system, has a different method for maintaining its harmony. The focus for unity in Christianity is not judgment nor fear, but of love for the good. As an isolated system, void of an enemy, Christianity must maintain perception of good so as to compel unity. Perception of good means that not only does a danger have to be seen, but a clear path for avoiding or dismissing the danger must also be seen. As long as the path to the good or hope can be easily seen and traversed, the perceived danger need not be great nor even felt. This means that merely the rational proposal of potential danger can be used in the presence of a clear solution so as to give impetus for unity. Fear need not be required by the system and judgment is required to be forgiving in Christianity and thus there is no requirement by the system itself to even have an actual Hell state, but merely the perceived potential.

This system allows for that heavenly state to exist for all concern throughout the system even if the system is left alone without actual adversary. Thus a long term harmony state is viable and self supporting. Love when turned on itself, creates more of itself.

Fear scatters
Hope gathers


Where Christianity has failed as a system is in understanding exactly how to achieve the perception of good by merely the perceived potential of bad. Because the system produces relative harmony for its leaders (as they all do), they are not strongly persuaded to ensure the actual purity and accuracy of the system (not the people) and thus corruption invades in the presence of a beguiling adversary. Christianity has never really been left alone and because it does not emphasize accuracy in achieving the perfection of its aim, it leaves the door open for others to bring corruption into it, taking advantage of its lack of careful precision, yet it cannot close its door.

Thus as an overview, Judaism, Islam, and Secularism all require either fear or judgment or both. This means that an eternal system of loving harmony cannot be achieved by any of those. Christianity does not rely on either. But Christianity, although capable of maintaining an eternal state of loving harmony, does not pursue the precision required to achieve it and thus cannot demonstrate the ensured good that it proposes and depends upon.

Just some thoughts… 😃
 
While some denominations may use “threats of Hell”, using “feelings” won’t help us when we should be using faith and reason.

Christ and His Church proclaim our free will to do good and avoid evil, and all the helps we need to achieve our eternal reward – participation in Christ’s Sacrifice, His Body and Blood, six other sacraments, infallible teaching.

Non-Catholics may be saved if they try to know the Will of God and follow their consciences. All have the opportunity to turn to God up to the moment of death.
Something that is distressing me is that many of the Catholics I am reading from on these forums seem to be saying that Catholics have the only true religion. According to scripture there is only one true religion: “to care for the widowed and fatherless and to keep oneself unstained from this world.”

One cannot take scripture out of context, but I think this is an important scripture to consider. Did not Christ also say that He had “other sheep than this” (tribes/ sheep ?). I know the Eucharist as being the Life saving, life giving substance of life, and I do not refute the grace, the blessing of the other Sacraments.

Our protestant brothers and sisters may have a straighter walk, than some of us. Even non-Christians can be more christian than some of Christians. I’m sorry I just get tired of fighting the injustice of superiority, my own or anyone else’s. No one will ever understand fully the grace of the Sacraments and it is only a closer and closer walk with Him that would enable us to come nearer. It is only through humility and prayer that we can change ourselves and pray for others that they follow paths of righteousness.

To receive unworthily is grave danger, and I do not want to think of the many that do this. No greater love is this than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. Christ died for each and everyone. Mother Teresa (sp.) and Pope John Paul II were both modern day saints, in loving their fellow man and striving for agape love. Catholics have the fullness of the Eucharist. These two dear leaders of our Church received their life force from the Eucharist.

It* is *through the grace of the Sacraments that we make it throught this life. Over all however it is more important to know and pray the love of God for oneself and others, than anything that might be ritual. I am careful with that word, but it is prayer from the heart that turns the Hand of God. I apologize if I have offended you in any way. Perhaps if you could pray for me, I do not always know how to grasp the concept of infallibility (as Catholic as I am), but the Lord’s Will be done. 😉
 
faithfilledques
I do not always know how to grasp the concept of infallibility (as Catholic as I am), but the Lord’s Will be done
Every Catholic faithful to Christ knows that His Catholic Church is the only true religion, because it has the fullness of His teaching, and of His sanctification. Vatican II taught the mind of Christ that She is “the sole Church of Christ which we profess in the Creed to be one, holy catholic and apostolic.” Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, # 8].

You quote from Her Sacred Scriptures as though She doesn’t know how to interpret them, but you do --why? James is stressing that faith without works is dead – we must be doers and not just hearers of the Word.

You will only grasp infallibility when you study the CCC on infallibility – which is that any doctrine on faith or morals defined by the pope to the whole Church is infallible. That is how we can be sure what is right and what is wrong – like contraception, euthanasia etc.

It is because so many Catholics don’t make the effort to know and be able to explain and defend their faith, and offer it to others, that so many others never really know Jesus in the fullness of His revelation.
 
faithfilledques
it is prayer from the heart that turns the Hand of God. I apologize if I have offended you in any way. Perhaps if you could pray for me
You are so right! And of course you haven’t offended me. I shall pray, and have, prayed for you and ask you to do the same for me. Keep up the good fight with St Paul.
God bless
 
There is the difference between causing harm and warning of it. You presume a cause that isn’t there. You point out, equivocate, those who cause harm by excuse of their belief and equate it to those who simply warn of harm. If and when any Christian beats someone in an effort to try to save them from Hell, then yes, they are very out of line. No one, no Christian Church argues with that.

Your mind insists to you that the idea of Hell is a myth and therefore those who warn of it must be doing so for ulterior motives. But that is a presumption on your part. And you trying to warn people to not believe in Hell is not different than the Christian trying to warn them of it. In effect, you are saying, “WARNING! WARNING! Christian liars and deceivers present!!”.

The other religions don’t usually call it “Hell” but they ALL still believe that there are consequences for ill behavior and those consequences can be for the rest of your life and/or for eternity. The difference is that the Christian attempts to make it clear to you as to why you should leave the area where the hurricane is expected, whereas the other religions just try to say, “Oh but its nicer over there. But if you don’t want to come, you get what you deserve for not listening to me”. Or they say, in some cases, “because you are not going to leave, we are going to drag your backside out of here, because we KNOW what is good for you, so come with us or ELSE!”

In either case, “insult” is only your own projection of presumed intent while you blatantly insult Christians.
You really think a person who tells you you’re going to hell is actually being a nice person and warning you, instead of an expression of hate. dayeight.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/god-hates-fags.jpg
 
You will only grasp infallibility when you study the CCC on infallibility –
I believe that you are correct; you’ll only understand it when you study the full CCC teaching. But for me, the full body of teachings, etc. presents a circular logic. The church is the foundation because Jesus made Peter the foundation, who in turn passed it on; we know that the Holy Spirit shepherds the Church to keep it from error, etc.

But if you take out, or lessen, any of the many points in that chain of reasoning, the whole thing falls apart quite quickly. I hold doubt about the complete accuracy of the translation and natural bias of the Gospels’ authors; about the details of the teachings on the Trinity; about the explanation of how God has expressed his grace to all people (but not necessarily thru Jesus, since not everyone knows of him? then why isn’t his grace alone enough?). Pile it all up, and I have enough doubt to doubt infallibility.

I’m not trying to change your mind, just trying to give you some insight about how us non-infallibility people see it. I can imagine it must be frustrating for some of you… “why don’t these people get it?” 🙂
 
Doubt is the tool of Satan.

Since Jesus of Nazareth was very clear on conferring His authority to Peter to bind and loose with the Keys of His Kingdom, the doubt originates with the fact that He had the authority and power of God. “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” Since his resurrection was witnessed by many who then, after previously denying Him and running away – like Peter himself, even after the Transfiguration, died as witnesses and followers for Him – without the divinity of Jesus – yes, you have nothing.

No other religious founder claimed to be God – not Mohammed of Islam, not in Hinduism, not in Buddhism, not in Taoism, not in Confucianism.

On the Gospels, no one has been able to break their historicity, yet you assume that one or more “main points” could be false – without any evidence.

The multitude of saints, the humanly inexplicable events at Fatima, recorded in disbelief but truthfully by journalists, the medically examined cures at Lourdes – miracles – all have to be doubted in the mad rush to evade reality.

You might look at that great convert John Henry Cardinal Newman: With an unhealthy doubt, “a person suspends judgment even when the evidence is conclusive and completely adequate. This is skepticism, intellectual cowardice……A difficulty is a problem, a not-seeing how two realities fit together….a situation we do not yet understand and perhaps will never understand. It is a limitation on our knowledge, a passing or permanent limitation.”

John Henry Cardinal Newman said “ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, as I understand the subject; difficulty and doubt are incommensurate.” (Apologia pro vita Sua). [Fr Dubay, *Faith And Certitude, Ignatius Press, 1995, p 82-4].
 
faithfilledques:

There is one Religion, the rest are bogus. If we recognize them as bona fide religions then our quest becomes similar to trying to find comparitive qualities in a mona lisa fake as compared to the original, and we will always find qualities in the fake that don’t measure up.

We have the option to discuss differences among fakes, as long as we don’t make a distinction between fakes and the true item and that is what we attempt to do for some reason over and over again. Personally who cares.? We don’t put diamonds in a cheap costume jewellry box, we place it aside in a special place for safekeeping. If we discuss costume jewellry we don’t put our diamonds in the same class for discussion. The distinction is missed in this secular generation.

We need to change perspective. There are not many legit religions as if we were searching for a suitable club to join of many that are sanctioned. They are in fact lost community groups of brothers and sisters each with a unique commonality of defect that need to find their way back to the true Collective.

God changed choice of worship 2000 years ago, and since we are directed to join that True Church.

M2C

Andy
 
Doubt is the tool of Satan.

Since Jesus of Nazareth was very clear on conferring His authority to Peter to bind and loose with the Keys of His Kingdom, the doubt originates with the fact that He had the authority and power of God. “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” Since his resurrection was witnessed by many who then, after previously denying Him and running away – like Peter himself, even after the Transfiguration, died as witnesses and followers for Him – without the divinity of Jesus – yes, you have nothing.

No other religious founder claimed to be God – not Mohammed of Islam, not in Hinduism, not in Buddhism, not in Taoism, not in Confucianism.

On the Gospels, no one has been able to break their historicity, yet you assume that one or more “main points” could be false – without any evidence.

The multitude of saints, the humanly inexplicable events at Fatima, recorded in disbelief but truthfully by journalists, the medically examined cures at Lourdes – miracles – all have to be doubted in the mad rush to evade reality.

You might look at that great convert John Henry Cardinal Newman: With an unhealthy doubt, “a person suspends judgment even when the evidence is conclusive and completely adequate. This is skepticism, intellectual cowardice……A difficulty is a problem, a not-seeing how two realities fit together….a situation we do not yet understand and perhaps will never understand. It is a limitation on our knowledge, a passing or permanent limitation.”

John Henry Cardinal Newman said “ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, as I understand the subject; difficulty and doubt are incommensurate.” (Apologia pro vita Sua). [Fr Dubay, *Faith And Certitude
, Ignatius Press, 1995, p 82-4].

Far too many points to handle all in the scope of this original posting… 🙂

Yes I doubt the Catholic faith. I sincerely believe that doubt to be well-founded, hence my belief in it, just as you are a sincere believer in your faith.

I think the Satan influence is way too over-played in your faith. I ate too much fat for lunch… was that Satan’s influence on me? I trust my own instinct and logic, and endeavor to be humble enough to be open to other ideas.

And no, I cannot ‘prove’ that the Gospels are incorrect. But then, this would be strange logic. I don’t seek out things that I don’t believe in, and spend my time endeavoring to prove them wrong. I read a variety of inspirations, and gravitate to the ones that seem innately interesting/correct (as I would say most people do).

“No other religious founder claimed to be God – not Mohammed of Islam, not in Hinduism, not in Buddhism, not in Taoism, not in Confucianism.”

OK. But again, that doesn’t hold much sway with me. Again, I don’'t start with the premise that A: There must be ONE god… who can make the best case? All of you could be wrong!

“evidence is conclusive and completely adequate. This is skepticism, intellectual cowardice”.

I’ll give you the benfit of the doubt and assume that you are eagerly trying to make a point, and not accusing me of ‘intellectual cowardice’.🙂

Short of writing a dissertation, all I can say is that I possess “healthy doubt” (not “unhealthy doubt”), and I hope you possess healthy doubt as well.

I admit I get a little irritated with tones similar to this: that all non-belief is based on the influence of Satan or willful ignorance, and then completely shut out the possibility of other explanations.
 
Major Tom
that all non-belief is based on the influence of Satan or willful ignorance, and then completely shut out the possibility of other explanations.
Not from me. But you should know whether your doubt is intellectual cowardice, I quoted from Fr Dubay an authority on the subject of Faith and Certitude.

Fr Dubay qualifies a healthy doubt as “a sensible person does well to suspend judgment either because he is ignorant of the matter under consideration or because he sees no conclusive evidence for a sure affirmation or a sure denial.” (Faith And Certitude, p 83).
So, no, the faithful Catholic has no doubt, and he takes the time and trouble to clarify any difficulties.

“They attain truth who love it. One of the chief immoralities is an indifference to truth. It is worse than sexual perversion, said Jesus Himself. Those who reject His representatives are more guilty than perverted Sodom and Gomorrah (Mt 10:14-15). Indifference to truth is nothing less than an indifference to reality and to the Author of reality…One of the too little noticed traits of the saints is their utter commitment to truth.” (p 189-190).

Objective certitude “has three traits. First it is an enlightened assent. One not only knows something, but he also knows why he knows it, and he sees the objective reasons why it is so….[Second] certitude excludes a reasonable fear of being wrong…[Third] certitude is unchangeable. Because it is based on objective reality it is permanent.” (p 81-2)

Our certainty within the Church derives from objective historical facts; the testimony of the apostolic Church witnesses to the Christ-redemption from which came the New Testament.

The Catholic Church then gradually built western civilization based on faith and reason – which is why science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else.
 
so after labourously and teadlessly and needlessly reading through all the posts that have gone before.I am forced to wonder exactly what Catholics have been taught or not taught or accepted.One post stated that the Jews did not accept the notion of Original sin and yet John the Baptist as a jew stated “behold the lamb of God who takes away the original sin of the world” and as the sacrifical goat takes away our other sins.Cause for wonder and concern is that it has not been realised,for reasons unknown, that Christianity is unique.Unlike other religions it is not a religion of perfection or paradise by works but by faith and grace and mercy - twinc
 
Not from me. But you should know whether your doubt is intellectual cowardice, I quoted from Fr Dubay an authority on the subject of Faith and Certitude.

Fr Dubay qualifies a healthy doubt as “a sensible person does well to suspend judgment either because he is ignorant of the matter under consideration or because he sees no conclusive evidence for a sure affirmation or a sure denial.” (Faith And Certitude, p 83).
So, no, the faithful Catholic has no doubt, and he takes the time and trouble to clarify any difficulties.

“They attain truth who love it. One of the chief immoralities is an indifference to truth. It is worse than sexual perversion, said Jesus Himself. Those who reject His representatives are more guilty than perverted Sodom and Gomorrah (Mt 10:14-15). Indifference to truth is nothing less than an indifference to reality and to the Author of reality…One of the too little noticed traits of the saints is their utter commitment to truth.” (p 189-190).

Objective certitude “has three traits. First it is an enlightened assent. One not only knows something, but he also knows why he knows it, and he sees the objective reasons why it is so….[Second] certitude excludes a reasonable fear of being wrong…[Third] certitude is unchangeable. Because it is based on objective reality it is permanent.” (p 81-2)

Our certainty within the Church derives from objective historical facts; the testimony of the apostolic Church witnesses to the Christ-redemption from which came the New Testament.

The Catholic Church then gradually built western civilization based on faith and reason – which is why science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else.
Although I whole heartedly agree with all that you posted and quoted, it seems that the catechism and certain Papal decrees dictate some issues that carry the threat of excommunication for believing otherwise (something I have just discovered in the past week).
James_S_Saint said:
Well I have now been shown dogma and catechism doctrine that says that if anyone proclaims certain questionable understandings, they are to be excommunicated. I realize that excommunication doesn’t come that easy, but the threat is there and thus merely discussing the possibility of God, the cosmos, or time being anything other than dogma, just to clarify and solidify the dogma, opens the door to potential and perhaps accidental belief in what has been declared heresy. That means that any catholic engaged in open discussion on any of those 3 topics is risking excommunication because they might accidentally come to believe something that is in conflict with Church doctrine.

Unfortunately I happen to know with extreme clarity that at least one of those understandings is mis-spoken in the dogma and to me is paramount to saying that the Church insists that 2+2=3 regardless of all other conjectures to the contrary. Whether I am right or not, merely the discussion of it might lead to a personal apostate of an individual from the CC. To truly understand something one must discuss what that something is as well as postulate what it isn’t. Clarity can only come from contrast. The alternative is to not discuss any of those topics, and probably others, and let all Catholics merely do as told and avoid attempting to understand or engage in discussion.
 
The Catholic Church then gradually built western civilization based on faith and reason – which is why science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else.
Ummm, off the top of my head, the Egyptians were extremely advanced in astronomy, the Arab world gave us algebra if I’m not mistaken, the Chinese gunpowder and paper… science arose nowhere but Christian Europe ?!:confused:
 
James S Saint
any catholic engaged in open discussion on any of those 3 topics is risking excommunication because they might accidentally come to believe something that is in conflict with Church doctrine.
Good to know you agree with what I’ve posted.
Don’t know to what specifics you refer, but for a faithful Catholic a dogma is believed on divine and Catholic faith (Canon 750 #1). Yes, Christ gave His Church, through His first pope Peter, the power of binding and loosing so a public promotion of disbelief in a dogma or infallible doctrine could result in excommunication after investigation and caution. There is nothing “accidental” involved, and one mission of the Catholic laity is to proclaim and explain.

twinc,
BTW John the Baptist was the last and greatest of the Jewish prophets, sent to proclaim the coming of the Messiah.
 
Good to know you agree with what I’ve posted.
Don’t know to what specifics you refer, but for a faithful Catholic a dogma is believed on divine and Catholic faith (Canon 750 #1). Yes, Christ gave His Church, through His first pope Peter, the power of binding and loosing so a public promotion of disbelief in a dogma or infallible doctrine could result in excommunication after investigation and caution. There is nothing “accidental” involved, and one mission of the Catholic laity is to proclaim and explain.

twinc,
BTW John the Baptist was the last and greatest of the Jewish prophets, sent to proclaim the coming of the Messiah.
btw the jews knew all about Adam and Eve in their OT Genesis - twinc
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top