Did Jesus have siblings?

[Major_Tom]

Cool. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Major_Tom]

Really?

Would you allow a White Supremacist pastor come and preach at your church, MT? (If “freedom of beliefs” is truly treasured by you and your church).

No. One of the core statements of the faith asserts the inherent worth and dignity of all people. Thus, no place for white supremacy.

Now speaking of white supremacists… that reminds me of a nationally know R.C. priest in this area that said a lot of things on a national radio program, Depression-area, that would make a lot of people blanche. His name was Father Charles Coughlin, and he had a bit of a nasty anti-Semitic streak to him. I would not hold him up as an indictment of Catholicism, as he is just one man. Similarly, I would be reluctant to throw out all of Protestantism based on the wierd-o denominations that you’re alluding to.

And, since you claim that you believe there is only one God…
How do you know this?

Again, how is it that you come to your belief, if you’re not certain that Scripture is inspired?

Do you believe God is Love? If so, why?

Do you believe we’re made in the image and likeness of God? If so, why?

Well, I suppose that I believe based on a combination of reason and intuition/emotion. At the most basic level, I see God manifested as nature. Nature is there, it will be there when I’'m gone… just as it will for the whole of the universe. It’s possible that we were created in its image, but since it’s asexual, “his image” is symbolic.

When it comes to intervention and revelation in our world, I continue to pursue the question without any concrete, 100% belief. God may intervene, he may not. May answer our prayers directly, elliptically, or not at all. Do we come up with our own answers when we prayer, and attribute the answers to the intervention of God? Very possibly. I do like to pray, as I feel that it does connect with the outer world, spiritual world, my parents who are no longer of this world, etc.

In confessing my doubts, I don’t think this weakens my observations; on the contrary, I think it’s an important step in simply acknowledging what I don’t know, or am doubtful of. (Contrast this with maintaining a blustery, ill-thought out belief system simply to look and seem devout to you).

Based on previous posts, I’m surmising that you place significant importance on the authority and structure of the Church. Fine. But that motivation just doesn’t have the same import to me. I’m fine with the idea that there is not a hierarchical structure in place to weed out heresy, etc. From the Catholic point of view, this is a wide open possibility for the devil, heresies and all other kind of mishief to enter my mind, but I don’t place quite the same level of risk on that than the Church does.

I don’t offer this as a theology to recruit someone, simply my personal conclusions after years of reflection. Odd, it seems that every book I read leads to ever more ideas to explore! Must be a hallmark of getting older to realize that you aren’t going to learn it all…!

I found that trying to wrap my head around Catholic doctrine and dogma simply got in the way for me. Or summarized in a song lyric: “They’ve forgotten the message and worship the creed”.

Also, still waiting for your source for the Middle Ages crossing yourself thing.

I’m working on it…!

 

[Major_Tom]

I feel that God would want us to use our brains and not follow slavishly any church or theology. Well, that’s my honest view. .

For what it’s worth, this whole post, and your earlier ones, are excellent. I wish that I’d written them!

 

[PRmerger]

One more pitch for ‘Big Tent’ ChristianityGod bless Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox - and I would add Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jains Sikhs, and all sorts of other people of every creed, color and country. .

But not White Supremacists?

 

[PRmerger]

No. One of the core statements of the faith asserts the inherent worth and dignity of all people. Thus, no place for white supremacy.

So, you are allowed to have “core statements” yet Catholicism is intolerant and exclusive when it has “core statements”?

 

[PRmerger]

One more pitch for ‘Big Tent’ Christianity

What I find so puzzling, and bemusing, about this “Big Tent” Christianity is the philosophy that “we accept all, except those that we disagree with.”

 

[Major_Tom]

But not White Supremacists?

I sense fixation with white supremacy…

Wow, after all he posted, that’s your only comment?

Broadly speaking, whadja think of Roy’s post? Do you find any commonality whatsoever?

Didn’t Pope John Paul II make a concerted effort to reach out to those beyond the Catholic fold? Was that a mistake, or, if you had a private council with the man, would you have sat, arms folded, looking at him askance, repeating, “What about white supremacists…?”

 

[Major_Tom]

So, you are allowed to have “core statements” yet Catholicism is intolerant and exclusive when it has “core statements”?

You frame it as an either/or, which it is not.

For a sense of scale: we have seven core beliefs. I could use the Cathechism as a tire stop for my car. And that is the merest fraction of the total of doctrine of dogma. Aiming to discuss, explore, expound, etc. on issues is awesome… but I maintain that, at times, the doctrine can be stultifying if the user misses the forest for the trees.

 

[PRmerger]

I sense fixation with white supremacy…

I could add Satanists, Polygamists, Wife-Beaters, Animal-Haters to the mix –are they welcome to bring their philosophies/theologies to your Church?

I already know the answer, of course.

I think, Major Tom (I sense in you a humility and a willingness to be open to the Truth) that you see the huge hypocrisy in your paradigm: we accept all, except those we don’t accept.

 

[inkaneer]

Pope John Paul II reached out but he did not compromise the truth. He would have welvcomed the white supremists providing they repented first. He would take the same stance with you too. JPII would not compromise the faith with anyone.

 

[PRmerger]

You frame it as an either/or, which it is not.

Huh?

I asked why you can have core beliefs but when Catholicism does the same you object to this.

For a sense of scale: we have seven core beliefs. I could use the Cathechism as a tire stop for my car. And that is the merest fraction of the total of doctrine of dogma. Aiming to discuss, explore, expound, etc. on issues is awesome… but I maintain that, at times, the doctrine can be stultifying if the user misses the forest for the trees.

Ah. So it’s not that one has core doctrines, but it’s the number of core doctrines that one believes in to which you object?

Really?

It sounded before as if you felt that having a dogma or doctrine was exclusionary and intolerant.

Now, that it’s been shown that you yourself have dogmas and doctrines, your objection changes?

 

[Major_Tom]

I could add Satanists, Polygamists, Wife-Beaters, Animal-Haters to the mix –are they welcome to bring their philosophies/theologies to your Church?

I already know the answer, of course.

I think, Major Tom (I sense in you a humility and a willingness to be open to the Truth) that you see the huge hypocrisy in your paradigm: we accept all, except those we don’t accept.

Fair enough point. Now to begin… would you genuinely include “Animal-Haters” in the same moral/theology rating scale of goodness? I’ll add rapists and drug abusers. I would certainly hope not. If so, though, you’re painting the world into two categories: us, correct Catholics who have a shot at the Kingdom; and the rest of y’all: sure it’s technically POSSIBLE that you can get to the Kingdom, but I wouldn’t bet on it. If this is your paradigm, fine… but if it is, I challenge you to be consistent…

… Perhaps you should ban all non-Catholics from this site! We may poison the well! Seriously. I would wager $5 that Sir Knight would be able to find the appropriate scriptural citation within 5 minutes that would allow it. (Sir Knight, this is not intended as a sleight).

It’s interesting that Roy mentioned world religions that have some measure of history and community to them, and you leap to criminals in your example. Would those people be welcome in our congregation? Certainly, just as you would welcome them into your pews (unless you excommunicated them for some reason). You would hope that there is some spark within that can be redeemed. We would do the same. Do you agree that we have something in common?

Would criminals be allowed to take the pulpit and expound on the merits of their criminal-ness? Nope. Because those beliefs are not consistent with respect of individuals. It’s not that we have NO standards.

More in a sec…

 

[Major_Tom]

Pope John Paul II reached out but he did not compromise the truth. He would have welvcomed the white supremists providing they repented first. He would take the same stance with you too. JPII would not compromise the faith with anyone.

Thanks for the response.

So if the Pope is unwilling to compromise on the truth, what, then, is his reason for outreach? Must be to convert? Just so I have the picture painted clearly, he enters the room, and is prepared to talk, but not listen to a thing. What would he have to learn, since he holds the truth?

Do you think he would enjoy a conversation with Roy? If you caught the Pope at the right moment, and asked him “With respect, I know you’re not SUPPOSED to do this… but if you had to handicap Roy’s odds of achieving the Kingdom compared to your average Catholic… what odds would you give?”

 

[PRmerger]

Similarly, I would be reluctant to throw out all of Protestantism based on the wierd-o denominations that you’re alluding to.

Calling a denomination “weird-o” does not really reconcile with this statement you made here:

Then good for you! No, seriously, good for you. Ideally, religion should be a tool that allows you to focus on being all that you can be. If Catholicism works for you, sweet.

Again, it exposes the hypocrisy in your belief, “Whatever works for you, is great”, because what you’re leaving unsaid is, “except for beliefs I find weird-o”

 

[PRmerger]

Fair enough point. Now to begin… would you genuinely include “Animal-Haters” in the same moral/theology rating scale of goodness?

I don’t put any of them on a moral/theology rating scale, Tom.

If so, though, you’re painting the world into two categories: us, correct Catholics who have a shot at the Kingdom; and the rest of y’all: sure it’s technically POSSIBLE that you can get to the Kingdom, but I wouldn’t bet on it. If this is your paradigm, fine… but if it is, I challenge you to be consistent…

Again, Tom, this shows your gaping ignorance of Catholic teaching. What you stated above does not represent the CC’s paradigm.

It’s interesting that Roy mentioned world religions that have some measure of history and community to them, and you leap to criminals in your example.

You can call someone’s religious beliefs “criminal”? Again, the hypocrisy, Tom! If this is the truth they’ve found, then according to your paradigm, you should say, “Knock yourself out, White Supremacist! Come preach at my church.”

Remember, you said this just a little while ago:

Then good for you! No, seriously, good for you. Ideally, religion should be a tool that allows you to focus on being all that you can be. If Catholicism works for you, sweet.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, I suppose that I believe based on a combination of reason and intuition/emotion.

I appreciate your thoughtfulness in answering this.

Some questions:

1. In your study/contemplation of the Godhead, have you ever come upon a revelation that was beyond your reason/intuition?
2. As you understand Goodness and what is required of us a moral human beings, have you come to any conclusions which you find…distasteful?

I am certain you can see why I’ve asked these 2 questions.
If you answer yes to #1, you are self-refuting. If you answer no, then you are creating a god limited by your own finite imagination, are you not? If this god you contemplate can not be beyond your reason, then this deity is not really much of a god, correct? You are merely creating a god in your *own *image.

As for #2, my belief is that if you have created a morality which obligates you to nothing you find contrary, nothing you find distasteful, then, again, you are creating a deity in your own image who obligates you to only good feelings and hand-holding. Pretty lame, don’t you think?

God is love, BTW, cannot be a conclusion reached by reason/intuition/emotion. If you believe it, you believe it because the Scriptures tell you this.

No philosopher ever came up with that paradigm on his own, that’s for certain!

 

[PRmerger]

So if the Pope is unwilling to compromise on the truth, what, then, is his reason for outreach? Must be to convert?

To spread the Good News, of course!

Just so I have the picture painted clearly, he enters the room, and is prepared to talk, but not listen to a thing.

Where do you get this picture? From your early Catholic catechesis? Didn’t we already determine that your catechesis was dreadful?

Of course a good teacher knows he must listen to his students!

Do you think he would enjoy a conversation with Roy?

Tom, Tom, Tom, Pope B16 has had conversations with a thousand Roys in his lifetime as a theologian. Have you not read any of his books/writings? His scholarship comes from dialogue and discussions with a multitude of individuals, from a multitude of generations, cultures, backgrounds and religions.

If you caught the Pope at the right moment, and asked him “With respect, I know you’re not SUPPOSED to do this… but if you had to handicap Roy’s odds of achieving the Kingdom compared to your average Catholic… what odds would you give?”

Most likely his response would be something like: I do not judge. It is the Lord Who judges.

 

[PRmerger]

Certainly, just as you would welcome them into your pews (unless you excommunicated them for some reason).

LOL!

Isn’t this whole conversation about how your (and Roy’s) “Big Tent” Christianity excommunicates some (i.e. those whose paradigms you find objectionable). It seems that you agree that you *would *excommunicate White Supremacists, yes?

Don’t you find this particularly egregious, in light of your “if it works for you, sweet!” philosophy (naturally, with the unsaid codicil: “as long as I don’t find it objectionable, of course!”)

 

[Major_Tom]

Huh?

I asked why you can have core beliefs but when Catholicism does the same you object to this.

Ah. So it’s not that one has core doctrines, but it’s the number of core doctrines that one believes in to which you object?

Really?

It sounded before as if you felt that having a dogma or doctrine was exclusionary and intolerant.

Now, that it’s been shown that you yourself have dogmas and doctrines, your objection changes?

It sounds like you frame it as: your church has rules. So does mine. So we’re identical in that regard.

I would disagree. It’s a sense of scale. Again, stack the Cathechism and other written techings next to a single sheet of paper.

Also, the core principles (on our side) have a lot of subjectivity to how they are individually implemented. Yours does not. One example: you have a policy on being “open to life”. There is great specifity as to what EXACTLY that means, and what is allowed and not.

How did we get on the topic again…?

 

[Major_Tom]

LOL!

Isn’t this whole conversation about how your (and Roy’s) “Big Tent” Christianity excommunicates some (i.e. those whose paradigms you find objectionable). It seems that you agree that you *would *excommunicate White Supremacists, yes?

Don’t you find this particularly egregious, in light of your “if it works for you, sweet!” philosophy (naturally, with the unsaid codicil: “as long as I don’t find it objectionable, of course!”)

Hmm, not picking up what you’re laying down… my ‘excommunication’ was a slight dig, didn’t mean to derail things.

Would you accept criminals into your fold? Not the kind that are wanted on felonies, but former criminals, drug users? Of course you would. You hope to show a path to God, don’t you, just like Jesus did with Mary Magdalene and the other ‘outcasts’.