Wow! I just hit the nail right on the head didnt I?!? this explains you ignoring the truths told to you or the lack of sincere investigation done by you! Which also means you never considered becoming catholic as you posted in your original post. seriousely why are the jews coming on here bashing gods poeple in order to make themselves feel better, ot atleast try to feel better which I am sure they do not acomplish.
I understand the reluctance to read through a long thread, so let me make it easy; Read post #134 and its links and then also #161 (about 8 in total).
James, I think what people object to most is your perceived assertion that, if they don’t know the correct interpretation of this particular verse-or agree with you on it-then they somehow don’t know the faith. But for a Catholic, the understanding of our faith is not based on personal interpretation of scripture or even scripture at all first and foremost-it’s based on the teachings of the Church.
Oh, I am aware of that. But as I explained many times, I am trying to see the CC clearly by honestly observing the “fruit of the tree”.
So are you looking for a discussion on Church authority or on the meaning of the text? I am confused–the discussion seems to be morphing?
You are picking out part of the dictionary definition and ignoring the rest. The word “interpret” does not carry any necessary connotation of “twisting to satisfy personal belief.” To decide that “hate” means a literal feeling of loathing is certainly a “judgment.” I’m sorry, but the dictionary definition you yourself cited clearly shows that *any *decision as to what something means is interpretation. That should be obvious to anyone who routinely uses the English language, as you obviously do. You are twisting language in order to make a bogus point.
You can’t ask that until you have defended your initial interpretive decision. You are unwilling to do that, so there’s no reason for me to care about anything else you have to say about the passage. You obviously don’t take the interpretive task seriously.
Yes it has. I considered the topic to be over long ago actually, but new readers pop in and do not realize what has transpired. Read from #183.
The discussion was to find out if you, for example were ever taught of the actual context or whether you were merely given excuses such as “misinterpretation”. If you read those links, you will find that the context is far more than what you have pointed out.
Actually, by understanding what is really meant by “carrying your cross”, I really do think that ALL Christians “should” be doing that (or trying to).
Granted. This method of “seeing” the CC is one of “knowing the tree by its fruits”. You are one of its fruits, as are all the others. I consider this method to be more honest as long as I don’t take it as conclusive in itself (which I don’t).
I thank you for that and the same for you.
James,
I think you’re reading a verse in a hyper-literal sense without any ear towards how it was understood in the early Church. I mean, do we see groups of early Christians renouncing and hating their families? Or do we see them, like St. Augustine towards his mother, St. Monica, waxing poetic with fond thoughts towards their families? The early Christians, that is, those who were around when Jesus said it, understood His Semitism better than you or I (you see this hate/love thing used through the Bible, like “Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated,” in a way not understood to be literal).
As I stated, I am well aware of that.
Oh, I don’t know about that one. “Judge a tree by the fruit is bears.” In the case of a Church, as it is all about behavior, the behavior it instigates, regardless of theory, tells the truth of its authority in reality.
Peace,Yes it has. I considered the topic to be over long ago actually, but new readers pop in and do not realize what has transpired. Read from #183.
The discussion was to find out if you, for example were ever taught of the actual context or whether you were merely given excuses such as “misinterpretation”. If you read those links, you will find that the context is far more than what you have pointed out.
I wasnt actualy trying to give an actual context or explanation of the passages meaning – your original post seemed to imply a strictly literal interpretation
Actually, by understanding what is really meant by “carrying your cross”, I really do think that ALL Christians “should” be doing that (or trying to).
I would agree but my point was applying the literaal type intreptation you seemed to insist on in the original posts–would have us all carrying wooden crosses around–and I don’t believe that is what Christ meant. That was the point.
Granted. This method of “seeing” the CC is one of “knowing the tree by its fruits”. You are one of its fruits, as are all the others. I consider this method to be more honest as long as I don’t take it as conclusive in itself (which I don’t).
Can you explain what you mean by “This method of ‘seeing’ the CC is one of ‘knowing the tree by its fruits.’”? I would think the Catholic Church should be known and evaluated by its teaching. It is that that Christ promised would be guided and protected by the Holy Spirit. I may be mistaken but I don’t remember Christ promising the Church only saintly members. I would pray that you do not base any of your conclusions about the Catholic Church on a poor sinful man such as myself. I pray that you study the Bible, study the Catechism of the Catholic Church and above all pray–pray as you never have for guidance–for the truth to be revealed to you, but please dont use me as any indication as to the truth or lack of truth of the Catholic Church. I am simply a man trying to live that teaching the best I can.
I thank you for that and the same for you.
No. Let’s not.
Hello Again,As I stated, I am well aware of that.
Oh, I don’t know about that one. “Judge a tree by the fruit is bears.” In the case of a Church, as it is all about behavior, the behavior it instigates, regardless of theory, tells the truth of its authority in reality.
If Jesus had done all of the “right things” yet no one was really healed or gained sight, would you conclude that he really did do the “right things”?
On the other hand, if people really are healed, then even though the theory might be lacking, it cannot be argued that something was done right.
So it is with every Church.
A Church can be said to be “in process” and thus many will not be quite healed - yet. But what they have come to believe and what they have been led to do all reflect the true ability of the Church to heal. If it cannot heal, for whatever reason, then I know something very relevant.
The “Truth” of a Church’s doctrine is the seed of that healing. By that Truth not being complete, many things cannot be healed and many more illnesses will rise. I need not see what that doctrine is to see the fruit it bears. The Church has had 2000 years to display its abilities.
But I do not judge in blindness of its challenge. I am not really judging at all. Such is not mine to do. But what IS mine to do is to assess the reality of what is there, not attempt to assess merely the theory of it.
Equally, I and everyone, are obligated to see both the “pro and con” of everything seemingly relevant. I am well aware of the adversary, probably more so than the Church. But that does not relieve my obligation to perceive as accurately as I can, the real and complete (Holy) situation, and move from there each day and at every moment.
Well…I think it is important for everyone here to know the bigger picture about your intentions on this thread! you are not a christian cincerely searching for answers, but a jew attempting to disqualify Gods church while also taking childish jabs on his poeple.
Just as an example to perhaps display the point;
Now if that was true of Jesus, what actual power would he have? Did the healed people become perfect followers before they got healed? Did the dead merely listen to Gospel before they arose?