only one correct religion with the truth?

[TexanKnight]

To believe that there is not only ONE true Church is to think Jesus was wrong when he said there is ONE faith, ONE hope, ONE baptism. Or perhaps that Jesus was wrong when he asked the Father to make us all ONE.

Or perhaps, you believe that so many denominations teaching different doctrines and using different Sacraments was what Jesus had in mind when He spoke about His Church?

It seems that, logically, God intended for there to be only ONE Church that had all truth and authority. That is not to suggest that the other splinter groups do not have SOME truth. A piece broken off of the Main still has characteristics of the main.

But there is only ONE Church that has all truth and authority.

 

[Lokadottir]

To believe that there is not only ONE true Church is to think Jesus was wrong when he said there is ONE faith, ONE hope, ONE baptism. Or perhaps that Jesus was wrong when he asked the Father to make us all ONE.

Hi

Or perhaps, you believe that so many denominations teaching different doctrines and using different Sacraments was what Jesus had in mind when He spoke about His Church?

Religion is like a pair of jeans. Good luck fitting everyone into the same pair.

It seems that, logically, God intended for there to be only ONE Church that had all truth and authority. That is not to suggest that the other splinter groups do not have SOME truth. A piece broken off of the Main still has characteristics of the main.

Wait… which God are we talking about again? Odin? Yahweh? Hephaestus? Only the first one pertains to me at all.
The problem with this argument is firstly the assumption that the only option of religion is Christianity. I’m not Christian nor do I follow Jesus so your argument is irrelevant.

 

[Contarini]

No, not a cheap shot. Merely an illustration that the metaphysical is hardly bounded by physical laws and if you believe in one thing that is not bounded by physical rules why can’t other metaphysical things like truth be the same? The last part is a bit tongue in cheek because I’ve mentioned that the trinity is hardly logical and its no wonder there are varying opinions amongst denominations.

What exactly is illogical about it?

Physical laws and laws of logic are not the same thing at all.

Edwin

 

[Lokadottir]

What exactly is illogical about it?

Physical laws and laws of logic are not the same thing at all.

Edwin

3 persons in one god. They aren’t roles but three distinct persons in one god. That is inherently AT LEAST as illogical as multiple contradictory truths existing.

 

[TexanKnight]

Hi

Religion is like a pair of jeans. Good luck fitting everyone into the same pair.

Wait… which God are we talking about again? Odin? Yahweh? Hephaestus? Only the first one pertains to me at all.
The problem with this argument is firstly the assumption that the only option of religion is Christianity. I’m not Christian nor do I follow Jesus so your argument is irrelevant.

that is a silly rebuttal. The issue is truth. Just because you do not accept truth does not make truth irrelevant.

That is like saying, "since I do not accept gravity, then your belief in gravity is irrelevant.

But thanks for playing. See Vanna for your parting gift

 

[Lokadottir]

that is a silly rebuttal. The issue is truth. Just because you do not accept truth does not make truth irrelevant.

That is like saying, "since I do not accept gravity, then your belief in gravity is irrelevant.

But thanks for playing. See Vanna for your parting gift

Gravity can be proved through repeatable experiments.Your “truths” not so much.

 

[TexanKnight]

Gravity can be proved through repeatable experiments.Your “truths” not so much.

Actually, that is not true.

The issue is not whether I can prove my truths, but whether you would accept my proof. Like anyone, you are free to accept or reject, the evidence.

But, your rejection does not make the evidence any less real or the truth any less true.

And frankly, your presence here is evidence. I, for example, would not spend time on something I did accept or believe in. You come to a Catholic board to say you do not believe in a God that we say exists.

Odd…unless the God exists. The absence of something is an odd thing to spend time proving…

 

[Lokadottir]

Actually, that is not true.

The issue is not whether I can prove my truths, but whether you would accept my proof. Like anyone, you are free to accept or reject, the evidence.

But, your rejection does not make the evidence any less real or the truth any less true.

And frankly, your presence here is evidence. I, for example, would not spend time on something I did accept or believe in. You come to a Catholic board to say you do not believe in a God that we say exists.

Odd…unless the God exists.

I’m not denying his existence. I just don’t honor him. I love being a differing opinion and I love religious discussion. On forums I can do so as openly pagan.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

3 persons in one god. They aren’t roles but three distinct persons in one god. That is inherently AT LEAST as illogical as multiple contradictory truths existing.

How is it illogical exactly? Also you do not have the trinitarian formula down. Its three persons in one substance. What is illogical about it?

 

[Darryl_B]

I’m not denying his existence. I just don’t honor him. I love being a differing opinion and I love religious discussion. On forums I can do so as openly pagan.

I see what you mean, but isn’t it better to be able to apologize what you believe rather than apologize what you don’t?

 

[tonyfish58]

To believe that there is not only ONE true Church is to think Jesus was wrong when he said there is ONE faith, ONE hope, ONE baptism. Or perhaps that Jesus was wrong when he asked the Father to make us all ONE.

Or perhaps, you believe that so many denominations teaching different doctrines and using different Sacraments was what Jesus had in mind when He spoke about His Church?

It seems that, logically, God intended for there to be only ONE Church that had all truth and authority. That is not to suggest that the other splinter groups do not have SOME truth. A piece broken off of the Main still has characteristics of the main.

But there is only ONE Church that has all truth and authority.

I would suggest it is not at all about saying Jesus is wrong in what He said, far from this in fact. Jesus was 100% correct in all He said!

It is man that makes doctrine and man that makes His own meaning of this Truth.

You said the following hinting that Christs Words have not been considered “Or perhaps that Jesus was wrong when he asked the Father to make us all ONE”.

The Father has come to make us all one, If we look at the Word with different intent, then it can have a different outcome in meaning. This is a choice we all can make.

Regards Tony

 

[Darryl_B]

Gravity can be proved through repeatable experiments.Your “truths” not so much.

Gravity is only repeatable if one is just an observer outside the system and one uses a third party object to observe the results. If I was to jump out of an airplane without a parachute to prove the existence of gravity, I cannot repeat the experiment.

It is the same with Catholic teaching, the “experiment” can only be performed once.

 

[Lokadottir]

Gravity is only repeatable if one is just an observer outside the system and one uses a third party object to observe the results. If I was to jump out of an airplane without a parachute to prove the existence of gravity, I cannot repeat the experiment.

It is the same with Catholic teaching, the “experiment” can only be performed once.

But I can watch you splat.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

I really don’t think it’s morally right for any one religion to say they are the only true religion and that everyone else is wrong. If any one religion claims to be the only truth, then they must surely be a lie? What do you think?

If there are many Gods, reason would have it that the many forms or religions we see today would substantiate this fact.But creation and our own God created reasoning powers ,own but one God who is over all .

This truth equates with one revealed,( In the holy Bible )Communication ,conveyed to man from God ,and this especially relating to the state(dead in tresspasses and sins) of mankind before the holy creator ,God.

With the first evidence ( or offering to God from man) seen in the scriptures, All subsequent religions in essence,together with the true,can be observed.

Genesis 4:3-5

Cain offered the sweat of his brow ( the fruit of the ground)
Abel offered the “fat of the firstlings”( who managed a flock)
Although the offering is important,the state of being of those who offer is seen in this passage to have primary consideration: notice it was unto Cain first ,God had no respect to,and also to his offering second.

Before Abel offered his offering( a shadow or representation in view of God the Fathers own sacrifice of his beloved son ) God “had respect unto Abel”.
His blood sacrifice was a witness to his state of believing God would provide a sacrifice on his behalf( substitutionary )

Ever since there has only been two religions ( before the eyes of God)
His complete sacrifice on the cross(of Golgotha) or
Men in denying their states( and their approaching death) offering up ,through the works of their own hands , that which is rooted in their own self deception (denying their fallen states)
To a God of their own imagination(or according to promulgation of their own lusts).

 

[Lokadottir]

If there are many Gods, reason would have it that the many forms or religions we see today would substantiate this fact.But creation and our own God created reasoning powers ,own but one God who is over all .

This truth equates with one revealed,( In the holy Bible )Communication ,conveyed to man from God ,and this especially relating to the state(dead in tresspasses and sins) of mankind before the holy creator ,God.

With the first evidence ( or offering to God from man) seen in the scriptures, All subsequent religions in essence,together with the true,can be observed.

Genesis 4:3-5

Cain offered the sweat of his brow ( the fruit of the ground)
Abel offered the “fat of the firstlings”( who managed a flock)
Although the offering is important,the state of being of those who offer is seen in this passage to have primary consideration: notice it was unto Cain first ,God had no respect to,and also to his offering second.

Before Abel offered his offering( a shadow or representation in view of God the Fathers own sacrifice of his beloved son ) God “had respect unto Abel”.
His blood sacrifice was a witness to his state of believing God would provide a sacrifice on his behalf( substitutionary )

Ever since there has only been two religions ( before the eyes of God)
His complete sacrifice on the cross(of Golgotha) or
Men in denying their states( and their approaching death) offering up ,through the works of their own hands , that which is rooted in their own self deception (denying their fallen states)
To a God of their own imagination(or according to promulgation of their own lusts).

watches awkwardly while sitting next to an altar to Thor
You DO realize that the Poetic Edda says that man and woman were formed from an ash and an elm tree by Odin, Vili, and Ve? So OBVIOUSLY that means my Gods are real and yours are fake!
I mean really your using a book to defend your god because your god said it was accurate through that book!

 

[eddie_too]

perhaps we should look at it from this perspective.

Jesus spent three years in constant communication with His twelve apostles. He was teaching them about God’s creation and God’s will for His creation. His teachings invovled more than the dogmas of the RC faith. they included teachings about sin and human nature, fallen human nature and His own perfect, not fallen human nature. for three years, God Himself was the teacher. from the stories passed on to us, we learn that even Jesus had students among the twelve who had difficulty grasping everything they were being taught.

now, here we are, two thousand years later. here we are, discussing the meaning and nature of creation and creation’s relationship with its Creator.

why do we presuppose that we can effectively understand and know all that Jesus taught without the aids He provided to us exactly for the reason of helping us grow in Him?

even for a pagan, the knowledge exists that the followers of Jesus taught very specific, precise dogmas and doctrines from the very beginning of His Church.

even the protestant as well as the pagan know that there exists a history of the Lord’s Church from its very begiinnings.

even the bahai as well as the protestants and the pagans know that all that Jesus taught the apostles could not be written down and that consequently, much of what Jesus taught was passed from generation to generation orally.

and yet, despite this knowledge that Jesus’ teachings are far greater and fuller than we know, we reject the mechanisms He (Perfect Being Himself) created so that we could reap the graces brought to the world by His Passion, Death and Resurrection.

this occurs even in the catholic believer, who has inherited the fullness of truth, who does not engage in an active, sacramental life.

why then do we presume that we in our, some cases, extremely limited knowledge and understanding are qualfied to teach others what Jesus taught the apostles?

even more puzzling is why we presume to teach contrary to the duly, authorized successors to the apostles?

there is nothing wrong with discussion and debates about religion and religious teachings if they are discussions and debates about more fully understanding the teachings of the RCC.

but to willfully ignore or contradict all that Jesus taught His apostles in the three years of public ministry is not a wise nor productive approach if the objective is to grow in God’s grace.

 

[Stilldreamn]

I’m not denying his existence. I just don’t honor him. I love being a differing opinion and I love religious discussion. On forums I can do so as openly pagan.

Are you openly pagan outside of forums?

 

[Lokadottir]

Are you openly pagan outside of forums?

Pretty much yeah. I don’t run around shouting it. I don’t introduce myself by going “Hi I’m a polyamorous bisexual Norse Pagan!” But yes I’m open. Just not in front of my teachers.

 

[eddie_too]

just remember, sacred scripture alone is inadequate for knowing and understanding all of the Lord’s teachings.

 

[Contarini]

3 persons in one god. They aren’t roles but three distinct persons in one god. That is inherently AT LEAST as illogical as multiple contradictory truths existing.

If God were a god, you would have a point. Since He isn’t, you don’t.

Edwin