i am presbyterian i want to convert ..

[humble_in_doubt]

Just another paraphrasing of scholastic theology.

Lower forms of life cooperate with each other purely out of survival instinct as a species and not out of any moral sense or knowledge of what is right and wrong. In the animal kingdom creatures do not feel that they ought to cooperate with each other for the good of the pack or herd or out of consideration for each other. A dominant male lion, for instance, will confront and chase off another male lion so that it can mate with the lioness the weaker lion was with. And before it mates with her, it kills the cubs that were produced by the former lion.

Good Fella:

well thought out post (you certainly gave me some homework). I do apologize but I had to cut out some of your post due to character limits. I do, however, understand your position, it’s certainly a common tool of apologetics to elude to our conscience. However, with regard to the lion … how much better were our cave men ancestors? I suspect not much.

I think what separates us from lower creatures is intelligence, which by and large is due to brain size (and this is a general rule applicable to all creatures). The only real intangible isn’t whether or not we had the intellectual capacity to form a conscience, but rather emotion (which is also common to many mammals).

Lewis’ logic seems adequate on its face … but upon deeper reflection I came to reject it. Paul would say evidence of god is evident by observing his creation (i.e. nature and the universe) … I’m paraphrasing of course; but I just don’t see it that way. If we want to use that mode of logic (which frankly I don’t think is a valid way to answer the ultimate question … does god exist) then why not also look at how difficult it is to harmonize biblical revelation with reality (and this doesn’t even begin to look at its internal inconsistencies).

I explained why I feel as I do earlier (I won’t rehash that stuff); but please know that I have considered the line of reasoning you’re presenting here. It’s not illogical to think as you do … I just don’t believe it’s the “most” logical way of thinking. Not that I claim a monopoly on logic, but I do firmly believe in this area I’m right. I can’t explain everything, nor am I dim witted enough to try. I just know the preponderance of the evidence weighs against religion.

Oh btw I think it’s cool that you find value in C.S. Lewis (who was a protestant … or Anglican to be more precise). There’s quite a few protestants and Catholics on this site who seem very narrow minded to me. It’s good to know there’s at least a few who aren’t.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

No, prudish is not the word I would have used (it has a negative connotation); it has more to do with who I am as a Christian, the values of which I hold, and the promise I made to God. This has nothing to do with me being uptight and/or priggish, because I’m not, I just want to follow the way of my faith and confine matters of the heart/body/soul to marriage. I have no doubt that my wedding day will be one of my most memorable moments. I look forward to it in fact.

I’m not saying you’re a prude (I even did say it’s probably not the best word to use, though it might apply to atheist women who won’t … oops I think I’ll shut up).

 

[josie_L]

I’m not saying you’re a prude (I even did say it’s probably not the best word to use, though it might apply to atheist women who won’t … oops I think I’ll shut up).

Oh, please don’t shut up . . . . . . you were just getting to the good part.

 

[Eucharisted]

I am 15 now ia m what i am becouse of my parents, but i want to convert to catholicsm or orthodox…becouse they came earlier…uhhh how do i propose of doing so?

Well, first you figure out which diocese you’re in, than you go to a parish and sign up for baptismal prep classes. Then you get prepared for baptism, and then you get baptized. (This is the modern equivalent of what the early Catholic Church did to prepare people for baptism)

Dioceses around the world: katolsk.no/utenriks/index_en.htm

I recommend praying the Our Father in the meantime. It is the perfect Christian prayer!

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Oh, please don’t shut up . . . . . . you were just getting to the good part.

It’s a Catholic forum for goodness sake Josie … I don’t want to get booted? We have a funny word for this in law … it’s called “prurient” (and I suspect the moderators don’t want me delving too deeply into shall we say my depravity).

Every time I use a religious word like “depravity” I imagine some demagogue (like Pope Leo X or John Calvin) standing on a podium that’s like ten feet high, slamming his hammer in judgment … sending me off to the dungeon for torture prior to being burned alive. Sorry (it’s been a tough week & I’m about two Jack & Cokes deep right now in my hotel room waiting for pizza because of course I can’t drive now ).

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Well, first you figure out which diocese you’re in, than you go to a parish and sign up for baptismal prep classes. Then you get prepared for baptism, and then you get baptized. (This is the modern equivalent of what the early Catholic Church did to prepare people for baptism)

Dioceses around the world: katolsk.no/utenriks/index_en.htm

I recommend praying the Our Father in the meantime. It is the perfect Christian prayer!

the kid is already a Presbyterian … so I assume he’s been baptized (and the CC recognizes all Christian baptisms made in the name of the father, son, and HS). So he would not have to be re-baptized (in fact the CC will not re-baptize anyone… just look at the creed “one baptism” for the forgiveness of sins). I think you mean to say confirmation.

 

[Augie1530]

best advice is set up a meeting time with a priest you trust and feel comfortable talking with and ask him every thing you think of about Christianity and the Church and ask him about books he would recommend you to read and also read your bible and pray about it

 

[josie_L]

It’s a Catholic forum for goodness sake Josie … I don’t want to get booted? We have a funny word for this in law … it’s called “prurient” (and I suspect the moderators don’t want me delving too deeply into shall we say my depravity).

Every time I use a religious word like “depravity” I imagine some demagogue (like Pope Leo X or John Calvin) standing on a podium that’s like ten feet high, slamming his hammer in judgment … sending me off to the dungeon for torture prior to being burned alive. Sorry (it’s been a tough week & I’m about two Jack & Cokes deep right now in my hotel room waiting for pizza because of course I can’t drive now ).

Depravity, you say, my, this is getting more interesting by the minute.

P.S. You know you can always PM me, I’m a good listener.

 

[danonwaveland]

lesonal,

I plead guilty to skipping pages 2-10 of this thread. Sorry. But while you are reading up on Catholicism, praying and thinking things over, let me suggest that you find a church near you that has Eucharistic Adoration. Visit it, if you can, once a week and spend some face time with the Lord. One hour is great, but that may not be possible under your circumstances. In any case, pray and listen to Him. Don’t expect blinding light, angelic voices, etc., during these visits, but keep coming back. You’ll know His peace and joy and He will lead you where He wants you to be. By the way, Eucharistic Adoration is proof that, yes, Catholics do have a personal relationship with Jesus.

In any case, God bless you. You’re in our prayers.

Dan

P.S.: In case someone on pages 2-10 didn’t mention it, check out “The Journey Home” on EWTN, the Catholic cable channel. If you don’t get cable, go to ewtn.com and check out the live shows. I think you can call up the show anytime on line to watch it. “The Joureny Home” is hosted by a Presbyterian minister who converted to Catholicism and talks about the faith journeys of others who have come home to the Church. God bless.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

best advice is set up a meeting time with a priest you trust and feel comfortable talking with and ask him every thing you think of about Christianity and the Church and ask him about books he would recommend you to read and also read your bible and pray about it

I say wait until you’re a little older than 15 and uglier before visiting a priest …

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Depravity, you say, my, this is getting more interesting by the minute.

P.S. You know you can always PM me, I’m a good listener.

ahh I’m never ashamed of my depravity (if you want to call it that). The way I see it is people shouldn’t do stuff they will only admit to in private. Like Luther said … if you’re gonna sin, then sin boldly.

 

[josie_L]

ahh I’m never ashamed of my depravity (if you want to call it that). The way I see it is people shouldn’t do stuff they will only admit to in private. Like Luther said … if you’re gonna sin, then sin boldly.

But is sinning good for you Humble? And do you truly feel free when you sin?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

But is sinning good for you Humble? And do you truly feel free when you sin?

OK I’m awake now. Ummm … when it comes to sin I don’t define sin under biblical terms (since obviously unbelief is a sin). So really sin is not a word I would use to describe my conduct (even when it’s less than perfect). For example last night I had a few drinks, certainly nothing I feel bad about (in fact it was quite fun). Drinking too much in one sitting, or too frequently, is obviously a problem (but I don’t do that … or at least at this point in life ).

I’ll leave defining sin to theologians. As for me I try to follow the highest ideals humanity has managed to come up through our millions of years of intellectual development and evolution. I think those standards are better than what any religion has come up with … because they’re not locked in a time warp (albeit I also think the religious concept of “sin” is man made as well).

However, if you want to discuss this in theological terms & asked me to comment on statements like “sin boldly” … I would say Luther’s words were good ones. Indeed if you’re so ashamed of your sin that you will only admit to it within the confines of a private confessional (i.e. you don’t “sin boldly” but rather “sin timidly” because of shame) then you’re probably crossing over the line of mere human imperfection into conduct that is truly harmful to others.

Many would say that there’s much more molestation in our society today. However, I think there’s less; and it’s merely reported by the media these days (so we’re simply more aware of it). To follow on a biblical theme, light is the best disinfectant. When people can harm others in private they’re much more likely to continue in their despicable conduct. However, if there is no rock they slide under, no dark corners where they can hurt others with impunity … then they will be tempered.

So yes if you’re a sinner (which we all are) then if you’re to sin then better you sin boldly. If there’s something you’re doing that is so shameful … then figure out a way to stop doing it and to rid yourself of the psychological compulsion to do it (because poor conduct usually starts out with deviant thoughts and a deviant predisposition). If you’re a child molester for which there is no cure … then better you kill yourself then continue living out your despicable existence.

 

[josie_L]

OK I’m awake now. Ummm … when it comes to sin I don’t define sin under biblical terms (since obviously unbelief is a sin). So really sin is not a word I would use to describe my conduct (even when it’s less than perfect). For example last night I had a few drinks, certainly nothing I feel bad about (in fact it was quite fun). Drinking too much in one sitting, or too frequently, is obviously a problem (but I don’t do that … **or at least at this point in life ). **

That is not amusing in the least. Don’t even entertain the thought.

I’ll leave defining sin to theologians. As for me I try to follow the highest ideals humanity has managed to come up through our millions of years of intellectual development and evolution. I think those standards are better than what any religion has come up with … because they’re not locked in a time warp (albeit I also think the religious concept of “sin” is man made as well).

Oh, really, then what are these “highest ideals humanity has managed to come up with” through the evolutionary process?

However, if you want to discuss this in theological terms & asked me to comment on statements like “sin boldly” … I would say Luther’s words were good ones. Indeed if you’re so ashamed of your sin that you will only admit to it within the confines of a private confessional (i.e. you don’t “sin boldly” but rather “sin timidly” because of shame) then you’re probably crossing over the line of mere human imperfection into conduct that is truly harmful to others.

I don’t believe this is what Luther meant when he said “sin boldly” rather I think he was trying to state that where sin is serious grace will abound all the more. He also stated that nothing we do could separate us from Him who saved us.

“13. If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.”

This is the exact opposite of what Paul taught in Romans 6:1&2.

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? May it never be! We who died to sin, how could we live in it any longer?

Let’s be free!

So yes if you’re a sinner (which we all are) then if you’re to sin then better you sin boldly.

I very well know I’m a sinner, but there are limitations to the sins I commit (venial as opposed to mortal). And I am conscious of when I have done a wrong, I do not pretend to myself that it is not sin. To sin boldly is to sin. period.

 

[jam070406]

I very well know I’m a sinner, but there are limitations to the sins I commit (venial as opposed to mortal). And I am conscious of when I have done a wrong, I do not pretend to myself that it is not sin. To sin boldly is to sin. period.

Heaven forbid I ever “sin boldly”. This is willful disobediance against God. Putting a person in mortal sin and loss of Faith. And we know where that leads.
God said if you love me you’ll obey my commandments. One can only conclude that if one sins boldly it is because they love themselves alittle too much and are blinded from the Truth.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I very well know I’m a sinner, but there are limitations to the sins I commit (venial as opposed to mortal). And I am conscious of when I have done a wrong, I do not pretend to myself that it is not sin. To sin boldly is to sin. period.

well … of course Luther also said things like “we are not called to a life of ease, but to a struggle against our passions.” So I disagree with your assessment of Luther’s famous maxim “sin boldly” (you’re not looking deep enough into Luther’s words, but rather your just skimming the surface enough for your own purposes, which is to discredit him).

I suppose the CC does an adequate job of smoothing out the inconsistencies in scripture with pretty elaborate philosophy (drawing heavily on Aristotle). However, I think this simply reflects the differences in how southern Europeans approach things (versus northern Europeans). Just compare the philosophy of men like Immanuel Kant to Aristotle (and you’ll see what I mean). The German seems more predisposed to excellence in engineering (which means their philosophy tends to be more pragmatic and geared towards the real human experience rather than speaking in platitudes as the Greeks did). Of course these differences are merely cultural (as I believe every type of human, who obviously has no deformities, is capable of learning and excelling at anything they put their mind to).

I think the English, followed by us (Americans) worked out these differences in, as Paul would say, “the most excellent way.” Men like John Locke, Adam Smith, Emerson, our founders, etc. really developed the best and most self-perfecting system of governance, law, and how humans can peacefully and happily coexist … in human history. There’s many others in our history who have contributed to our excellence (men like Justice Blackstone come to mind). Take the common law, always evolving, yet in a prudent way. Our method isn’t like the Germans or southern Europeans. We don’t need to operate under a system of absolutes. Adam Smith’s “invisible hand of the market” hasn’t been an easy concept for many around the world to wrap their minds around. For most people it seems easier and even more efficient to have a centralized mode of control over the economy, society, etc. However, human development is usually obstructed when we become overly attached to absolutes. This is not to say there’s no such thing as “objective morality” (because there must be). However, the protestant approach to this problem seems better IMO. Moral absolutes should be very minimal (rather than as extensive as the CC proposes).

I of course find limited value in religion. It is certainly valuable to know about it from a historical perspective … and it contains some valuable lessons from our history. However, at the same time it’s a moral system locked in a time warp, invented by men who had a very limited concept of liberty.

 

[jam070406]

well … of course Luther also said things like “we are not called to a life of ease, but to a struggle against our passions.” So I disagree with your assessment of Luther’s famous maxim “sin boldly” (you’re not looking deep enough into Luther’s words, but rather your just skimming the surface enough for your own purposes, which is to discredit him).

I suppose the CC does an adequate job of smoothing out the inconsistencies in scripture with pretty elaborate philosophy (drawing heavily on Aristotle). However, I think this simply reflects the differences in how southern Europeans approach things (versus northern Europeans). Just compare the philosophy of men like Immanuel Kant to Aristotle (and you’ll see what I mean). The German seems more predisposed to excellence in engineering (which means their philosophy tends to be more pragmatic and geared towards the real human experience rather than speaking in platitudes as the Greeks did). Of course these differences are merely cultural (as I believe every type of human, who obviously has no deformities, is capable of learning and excelling at anything they put their mind to).

I think the English, followed by us (Americans) worked out these differences in, as Paul would say, “the most excellent way.” Men like John Locke, Adam Smith, Emerson, our founders, etc. really developed the best and most self-perfecting system of governance, law, and how humans can peacefully and happily coexist … in human history. There’s many others in our history who have contributed to our excellence (men like Justice Blackstone comes to mind). Take the common law, always evolving, yet in a prudent way. Our method isn’t like the Germans or southern Europeans. We don’t need to operate under a system of absolutes. Adam Smith’s “invisible hand of the market” hasn’t been an easy concept for many around the world to wrap their minds around. For most people it seems easier and even more efficient to have a centralized mode of control over the economy, society, etc. However, human development is usually obstructed when we become overly attached to absolutes. This is not to say there’s no such thing as “objective morality” (because there must be). However, the protestant approach to this problem seems better IMO. Moral absolutes should be very minimal (rather than as extensive as the CC proposes).

I of course find limited value in religion. It is certainly valuable to know about it from a historical perspective … and it contains some valuable lessons from our history. However, at the same time it’s a moral system locked in a time warp, invented by men who had a very limited concept of liberty.

There’s a pretty good German in the office of Papacy in Rome right now.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

There’s a pretty good German in the office of Papacy in Rome right now.

you’re missing my point my friend (and actually Benedict is from southern Germany anyway, while Luther was a Saxon … like my dad’s half of me ).

I solved the internal war within me with logic … a uniquely American brand of logic at that!

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Heaven forbid I ever “sin boldly”. This is willful disobediance against God. Putting a person in mortal sin and loss of Faith. And we know where that leads.
God said if you love me you’ll obey my commandments. One can only conclude that if one sins boldly it is because they love themselves alittle too much and are blinded from the Truth.

so then how do you sin when you sin?

 

[jam070406]

you’re missing my point my friend (and actually Benedict is from southern Germany anyway, while Luther was a Saxon … like my dad’s half of me ).

I solved the internal war within me with logic … a uniquely American brand of logic at that!

Naw, it was just me trying to be funny.
Apparantly, I failed to get a chuckle out of you.