only one correct religion with the truth?

[Tom_Baum]

If it is as you propose, that this is “also what the Church teaches”, please cite the document that says our salvation comes ONLY from the Jews.

Amen! Very Catholic, this!

Doesn’t the “Church” teach that salvation comes only thru Jesus’s Church?

Doesn’t the “Church” teach that Jesus is the Saviour?

Didn’t the Incarnation come thru the Jews?

Wasn’t Jesus a Jew?

Seems pretty obvious and as far as citing “the document”, I would say that it would probably be “all of the documents” that point to this.

 

[PRmerger]

Doesn’t the “Church” teach that salvation comes only thru Jesus’s Church?

Doesn’t the “Church” teach that Jesus is the Saviour?

Didn’t the Incarnation come thru the Jews?

Wasn’t Jesus a Jew?

Sure.

But your conclusion, “Therefore, the Church teaches that salvation comes ONLY through Jews” is a non-sequitur.

The Church doesn’t teach this, and for you to proclaim that it does is to proclaim one’s ignorance of Church teaching.

Using your logic one could also proclaim, since Jesus was a 33 yr old man you would say, “Therefore, the Church teaches that salvation comes ONLY through 33 yr old men!” :whacky:

 

[Tom_Baum]

There is no need to create a dichotomy.

Again, you would not know about God, except for the fact that the CC told you who He is, what He did for you, and that you can achieve salvation through Him and His Body.

Is there some other way you know about Jesus, except for the Catholic Church?

Perhaps you got some info from Eusebius and Tacitus?

If so, then your info about Jesus would be very, very limited to some obscure facts such as: he lived in Palestine in the 1st century and was a Jew who was crucified by the Romans.

That’s all you would know about Jesus were it not for the CC.

Amen!

So without the CC, you would not have any instrument of salvation.

Amen!

What is it that you believe about God that couldn’t be called “dogma”, Tom?

Could you say something about God that isn’t dogma?

Well, now! Here you are proclaiming your dogma!

And yet, curiously, you seem to object to others proclaiming dogma.

Why do you reserve for yourself what you deny in others?

And yet another example of you professing a dogma.

Why do you permit yourself to espouse dogmas and proclaim these beliefs, but not the CC?

I have never told anyone to not proclaim dogma, I just happen to believe that God is more important that all of the dogma in the world.

I have never told anyone that they MUST believe what I say or write, so how can you say that I am presenting what I write as dogma.

I DO try to differentiate between knowing and believing even tho there seem to be many who seem to think that (know and believe) mean the exact same thing, to me they do not.

Unless I have made a mistake in saying or writing something, when I say or write that I KNOW something that is exactly what I mean but I am not saying that one must believe this even tho I know it to be true.

Some people seem to take offense at this, if they do than they can take their offense to God since it was God Who revealed what little I KNOW to me.

I don’t know much but I do know a little.

There is plenty that I believe and hope for and as I have said many times, maybe we should hope beyond what we believe is hopeable.

Who knows, maybe when Jesus said, “With God ALL THINGS are possible”, He was trying to get thru to us.

I have said that some people are more interested, it seems, in dogma than God, I am not saying this as a dogma, only an observation.

I also happen to think that Mary’s “pondering” should be an inspiration to us to do some “pondering” of our own.

God didn’t create us to be parrots.

 

[Sochi]

What you are proposing above, your own religious dogma that I have bolded above, sounds like “lawyerizm” and legalism as well.

Why do you reserve for yourself the right to propose legalistic rules while denying Catholics this right?

If you actually read what I said, you will soon see that I don’t make such a reservation. So, other than the line from a song, please highlight the text where I quoted lines and pages referring to scriptural and ecclesiastic authority to prove a point as distinct from offering my own observation. Where in the above did I barrage you with third party references to “prove” my point? Also, how do you construe some of the ideas I put forth as “religious” when I hear them from atheists and agnostics as well?

Widening the definition of a word so far as to include something hardly like its original meaning is hardly a useful argument. That is only a poor attempt at legitimizing an accurately named situation. With all you “logic,” I would have expected better of you. All you have done is pretty much proved my point. Thank you.

We’ve all seen the phenomenon where someone is called on a point of order, etiquette, or just common sense, and they are SO defensive that instead of just answering in kind, or in a kindly way, they make it into an ethnic issue: "you’re just saying that because I’m (fill in the blank.) So many of the legalistic people on here of any religion are trigger happy that way, when all that was meant was a simple observation applicable as completely independent of the “ethnic” issue. You have proved to be a good example of that, as I have no intention of attacking your or anyone’s particular faith. I still, decades after leaving the church, have friends who are Catholic priests. We just don’t talk by quoting scripture, dogma and tenet at each other, Dear PR. We actually converse.

If you are still convinced of your position, please submit your argument to a prof at some university who is versed in semiotics, linguistics, or General Semantics. Such an experet will actually diagram an illustration for you so you can see how it works. Let me know. Thanks.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Sure.

But your conclusion, “Therefore, the Church teaches that salvation comes ONLY through Jews” is a non-sequitur.

The Church doesn’t teach this, and for you to proclaim that it does is to proclaim one’s ignorance of Church teaching.

Using your logic one could also proclaim, since Jesus was a 33 yr old man you would say, “Therefore, the Church teaches that salvation comes ONLY through 33 yr old men!” :whacky:

Using “my logic” I do proclaim that salvation comes ONLY thru a man, not men, Who was reportedly 33 years old when He died for humanity on a cross and He was born a Jew, lived as a Jew and died a Jew.

By the way, what do you think that the Jews were chosen for?

I believe that the Jews were chosen to be the “vehicle” for the Incarnation.

Jesus wasn’t a Gentile, was He?

According to Judaism, as far as I know, there were Jews and there were Gentiles, actually all who weren’t Jewish were Gentiles.

Salvation didn’t come thru the Gentiles and if one believes that there is salvation than it had to come thru the Jews, specifically thru one Jew, Jesus.

Jesus had human Jewish ancestors since Jesus did not just fall out of the sky, so to speak, it was thru the Jews that Jesus came to be, for Him to be able to do what He did on the cross therefore since it was thru the Jews that Jesus came to be, it was thru the Jews that Salvation came to be.

It was thru humanity and the Divine that Salvation came to be.

 

[Sochi]

What you are proposing above, your own religious dogma that I have bolded above, sounds like “lawyerizm” and legalism as well.

Why do you reserve for yourself the right to propose legalistic rules while denying Catholics this right?

Just as side note, so that you can feel that there is some substance to your argument, here is a

“Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.” ~Ralph Waldo Emmerson.

Respectful debate is healthy, an art lost by many who hold their truth hostage.

 

[PRmerger]

I have never told anyone to not proclaim dogma, I just happen to believe that God is more important that all of the dogma in the world.

And that proclamation, Tom, is…a dogma.

You are simply allowing yourself to have dogmas, and proclaim them, while objecting to others doing the same thing.

I have never told anyone that they MUST believe what I say or write, so how can you say that I am presenting what I write as dogma.

Because you are proclaiming it as a truth.

If it’s true, then I should believe it,right?

And that makes it a dogma that you’re proclaiming.

But you don’t get to go around proclaiming truths about God while denying others that right as well.

 

[PRmerger]

God didn’t create us to be parrots.

Indeed.

And that’s another dogma you are proclaiming.

(It happens to be consonant this time with Catholic teaching, so there you go. )

 

[PRmerger]

If you actually read what I said, you will soon see that I don’t make such a reservation. So, other than the line from a song, please highlight the text where I quoted lines and pages referring to scriptural and ecclesiastic authority to prove a point as distinct from offering my own observation. Where in the above did I barrage you with third party references to “prove” my point? Also, how do you construe some of the ideas I put forth as “religious” when I hear them from atheists and agnostics as well?

Widening the definition of a word so far as to include something hardly like its original meaning is hardly a useful argument. That is only a poor attempt at legitimizing an accurately named situation. With all you “logic,” I would have expected better of you. All you have done is pretty much proved my point. Thank you.

We’ve all seen the phenomenon where someone is called on a point of order, etiquette, or just common sense, and they are SO defensive that instead of just answering in kind, or in a kindly way, they make it into an ethnic issue: "you’re just saying that because I’m (fill in the blank.) So many of the legalistic people on here of any religion are trigger happy that way, when all that was meant was a simple observation applicable as completely independent of the “ethnic” issue. You have proved to be a good example of that, as I have no intention of attacking your or anyone’s particular faith. I still, decades after leaving the church, have friends who are Catholic priests. We just don’t talk by quoting scripture, dogma and tenet at each other, Dear PR. We actually converse.

If you are still convinced of your position, please submit your argument to a prof at some university who is versed in semiotics, linguistics, or General Semantics. Such an experet will actually diagram an illustration for you so you can see how it works. Let me know. Thanks.

I am sorry to say this, Sochi, but all of the above sounds like proscriptions you have made for how we are to dialogue.

And, that seems to be a paradigm you reserve for yourself while denying others this (here, read Catholic others).

I don’t believe it is judicious to say, "I get to make some rules for how we ought to act, and how we should practice, but when the Catholic Church does this, it’s considered legalism and “lawyerizm”.

You are doing exactly what you object to in Catholicism.

 

[marywarfield]

Using “my logic” I do proclaim that salvation comes ONLY thru a man, not men, Who was reportedly 33 years old when He died for humanity on a cross and He was born a Jew, lived as a Jew and died a Jew.

By the way, what do you think that the Jews were chosen for?

I believe that the Jews were chosen to be the “vehicle” for the Incarnation.

Jesus wasn’t a Gentile, was He?

According to Judaism, as far as I know, there were Jews and there were Gentiles, actually all who weren’t Jewish were Gentiles.

Salvation didn’t come thru the Gentiles and if one believes that there is salvation than it had to come thru the Jews, specifically thru one Jew, Jesus.

Jesus had human Jewish ancestors since Jesus did not just fall out of the sky, so to speak, it was thru the Jews that Jesus came to be, for Him to be able to do what He did on the cross therefore since it was thru the Jews that Jesus came to be, it was thru the Jews that Salvation came to be.

It was thru humanity and the Divine that Salvation came to be.

It is incorrect Church teaching to claim salvation comes
ONLY through the Jews Tom. Only being the operative
word. Salvation comes ONLY through Jesus Christ
and the fact that He was Jewish cannot be ignored
anymore than the fact that He is descended from
the Royal House of David. Having said that our
salvation or anyone’s salvation is not dependent on
the Jews. Their salvation, rather is dependent on
Christ in His Church like anyone else. However
the Jews are in a unique position among all
other peoples because according to the
Catechism:

"The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”,328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.“329 " (CCC 839).”

 

[PRmerger]

Using “my logic” I do proclaim that salvation comes ONLY thru a man, not men, Who was reportedly 33 years old when He died for humanity on a cross and He was born a Jew, lived as a Jew and died a Jew.

And this is very Catholic!

And you know this ONLY because the Church told you so!

By the way, what do you think that the Jews were chosen for?

Union with God.

I believe that the Jews were chosen to be the “vehicle” for the Incarnation.

Yep.

And it’s because the CC told you this that you know it!

Jesus wasn’t a Gentile, was He?

No. He was a Jew.

According to Judaism, as far as I know, there were Jews and there were Gentiles, actually all who weren’t Jewish were Gentiles.

Yes.

Salvation didn’t come thru the Gentiles and if one believes that there is salvation than it had to come thru the Jews, specifically thru one Jew, Jesus.

Yes.

Very Catholic, this.

Jesus had human Jewish ancestors since Jesus did not just fall out of the sky, so to speak, it was thru the Jews that Jesus came to be, for Him to be able to do what He did on the cross therefore since it was thru the Jews that Jesus came to be, it was thru the Jews that Salvation came to be.

It was thru humanity and the Divine that Salvation came to be.

Yes! And thank the Catholic Church for preserving these truths so you can now proclaim them!

 

[Sochi]

I am sorry to say this, Sochi, but all of the above sounds like proscriptions you have made for how we are to dialogue.

And, that seems to be a paradigm you reserve for yourself while denying others this (here, read Catholic others).

I don’t believe it is judicious to say, "I get to make some rules for how we ought to act, and how we should practice, but when the Catholic Church does this, it’s considered legalism and “lawyerizm”.

You are doing exactly what you object to in Catholicism.

https://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9ohb3w7GL1qa6ipw.gif

As seems your habit, you continue to misread me in order to sustain and protect your misunderstanding. This isn’t about the Church, it is about forms of argument used by anyone, in any context as exemplified here by some few Who do that. End of story.

 

[PRmerger]

Just as side note, so that you can feel that there is some substance to your argument, here is a Respectful debate is healthy, an art lost by many who hold their truth hostage.

Amen!

 

[Sochi]

Amen!

You’re funny!

 

[PRmerger]

It is incorrect Church teaching to claim salvation comes
ONLY through the Jews Tom. Only being the operative
word.

Egg-zactly.

Salvation comes ONLY through Jesus Christ

Yep.

Pretty much the only “ONLY” we have in Catholicism is this: Salvation comes ONLY through Jesus Christ, and is made manifest ONLY through His Body, the Catholic Church."

The rest of the “ONLYs” are really false dichotomies (i.e. Scripture ONLY. Faith ONLY. Science ONLY. King James translation ONLY. Latin ONLY. Latin Masses ONLY. Communion on the tongue ONLY). None of them need be ONLYs, except man has interjected ONLYs where there need be none.

 

[PRmerger]

As seems your habit, you continue to misread me in order to sustain and protect your misunderstanding. This isn’t about the Church, it is about forms of argument used by anyone, in any context as exemplified here by some few Who do that. End of story.

The above is irrelevant.

You are, again, telling us how we should do things, while objecting to Catholics (here, read the Church, or members here on the CAF, or anyone, really) declaring there is a certain way to believe, a certain way to practice.

Why do you get to do this but not us?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Cardinal Newman on One Church

…There is such a thing as religious truth, and therefore there is such a thing as religious error. We learn that religious truth is one—and therefore that all views of religion but one are wrong. . . . our religious creeds and professions at this day are many; but Truth is one: therefore they cannot all be right, or rather almost all of them must be wrong. That is, the multitude of men are wrong, so far as they differ; and as they differ, not about trivial points, but about great matters, it follows that the multitude of men, whether by their own fault or not, are wrong even in the greater matters of religion.

…Doubtless if men sought the truth with one tenth part of the zeal with which they seek to acquire wealth or secular knowledge, their differences would diminish year by year. Doubtless if they gave a half or a quarter of the time to prayer for Divine guidance which they give to amusement or recreation, or which they give to dispute and contention, they would ever be approximating to each other. We differ in opinion; therefore we cannot all be right; many must be wrong; many must be turned from the truth; and why is this, but on account of that undeniable fact which we see before us, that we do not pray and seek for the Truth?

…Some men will tell us that this difference of opinion in religious matters which exists, is a proof, not that the Truth is withheld from us on account of our negligence in seeking it, but that religious truth is not worth seeking at all, or that it is not given us. The present confused and perplexed state of things, which is really a proof of God’s anger at our negligence, these men say is a proof that religious truth cannot be obtained; that there is no such thing as religious truth; that there is no right or wrong in religion; that, provided we think ourselves right, one set of opinions is as good as another; that we shall all come right in the end if we do but mean well, or rather if we do not mean ill. That is, we create confusion by our negligence and disobedience, and then excuse our negligence by the existence of that confusion. It is no uncommon thing, I say, for men to say, “that in religious matters God has willed that men should differ,” and to support their opinion by no better argument than the fact that they do differ; and they go on to conclude that therefore we need not perplex ourselves about matters of faith, about which, after all, we cannot be certain.

…How are the sheep of Christ’s flock scattered abroad in the waste world! He came to gather them together in one; but they wander again and faint by the way, as having lost their Shepherd. What religious opinion can be named which some men or other have not at some time held? All are equally confident in the truth of their own doctrines, though the many must be mistaken.

(Parochial and Plain Sermons, Vol. 8, Sermon 13: “Truth Hidden When Not Sought After,” 1843)

 

[marywarfield]

Egg-zactly.

Yep.

Pretty much the only “ONLY” we have in Catholicism is this: Salvation comes ONLY through Jesus Christ, and is made manifest ONLY through His Body, the Catholic Church."

The rest of the “ONLYs” are really false dichotomies (i.e. Scripture ONLY. Faith ONLY. Science ONLY. King James translation ONLY. Latin ONLY. Latin Masses ONLY. Communion on the tongue ONLY). None of them need be ONLYs, except man has interjected ONLYs where there need be none.

Oh my so WELL SAID! think I love you. Lol

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I think what really disappoints me on here is that I hold with the song that says “They will know that we are Christians by our Love!” Yes so much of what I see on here is legalizing, useless proofing by lines and verses, pedigrees, etc. Does anyone here really find that attractive? Convincing?

The ones on here who have really moved me are those who are able to demonstrate understanding from experience in such a way as to point to foundational virtues that religion might include, but are not themselves necessarily religious, as the Golden Rule in its forms which are found in many times and cultures regardless of religion. People who can demonstrate understanding and compassion beyond their personal faith, or lack of it, and make connections and fell barriers, as does Music, those people have some understanding that all the quoting and legalizations and scriptural verifications used as weapons are vacant of. This is why to some extent Pope Francis is such a breath of fresh air, drawing many to favor by simple goodness. Lawyerizm in religious argument is, to be kind, less than attractive–and, really, very much beside the point.

Let’s see, the OP is a Christian (ergo citing the Christian holy text is rather relevant to the discussion), the title of the thread and the text in the OP implies a discussion based on “legalizing, useless proofing by lines and verses, pedigrees, etc” of the claims of religions on their being the vehicle by which to learn the Truth and the general subject of the Truth as can be discovered through religion and philosophy. “Lawyerizm in religious argument” is kind of required if one wishes to hold a discussion the OP was clearly after.

To not engage in “lawyerizm” and instead focus on “people who can demonstrate understanding and compassion” would be like trying to hold a discussion about the validity of the claims of the scientific method being the sole vehicle for learning and understanding the aspects of the Truth that can be discovered by science by only discussing how nice and friendly some scientists are and completely ignoring the methodology, development of the scientific method, etc as just “legalizing” and “useless proofing.”

 

[PRmerger]

Oh my so WELL SAID! think I love you. Lol

Awww, shucks!