pro_universal's reasons for leavin the Catholic Church

[lazylong6]

Trimurti and the holy trinity is really the same thing… trimurti is the holy trinity in the hindu religion.
“You reap what you sow” is “karma” in the hindu religion…
can you not see the synonyms in the words guru, saint and buddha?
was Jesus a Catholic? Catholic is just another branch of Christianity that is made out of other seperated branches that conflict with each other. Can you imagine a tree that have branches like that? ( by a tree i mean…God.)
when you read only one type of thing you fail to recognize god in all religions. and fail to recognize there is only One Universal Religion. Don’t see the seperation of religion but the unity that underlines it, of everybook on religion i read… i see god… no matter the source of wisdom… wisdom cannot be tainted by a group… no matter how much influence it have over society/…

I may make mistakes typeing … this.

 

[pro_universal]

]
there is a buffet of relgions though, that are all about the perverbial you, so you should have no problem finding one.

What in my post indicates I’m looking for a self-worshipping religion?

Is wanting to use rational thought a “me me me” desire?

If you ever genuinely see them, the answers are there if you want to find them, but they are not answers that will reflect Your way or agenda, or any man’s way or agenda, but they will reflect the Way, the Truth, and the Life according to Jesus.

and yes, faith will help to

Peace of the Lord be with you

Well, that’s certainly your opinion and you’re entitled to it. I don’t believe it though.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I do agree. But using my faculties on these questions leads me away from the Catholic Church, not towards it. My issue with trinitarian doctrine is that if we apply reasoning to it, it doesn’t turn out to make sense. The human reasoning which you acknowledge was given to us in order to discern true from false tells us that this teaching is inconsistent.

No. Not really.

I can get into this further if you wish.

pro_universal:

I agree with you here on this point, but the problem is, supporters of “death to the pope” and terrorists are clearly a minority on their side.

Really? That’s actually a somewhat false claim pro_universal.

Perhaps not all Muslims are calling for the pope’s death-- but there are a lot of them doing this.

In addition to this, there are many Muslims, even moderate Muslims, calling for the resignation of the pope if I recall correctly.

pro_universal:

On the Catholic side, are people who hold these views towards Islam a minority?

I’ve been listening to EWTN a lot lately. I’ve yet to hear one leader actually voice an opinion that is even remotely similar to the views expressed by some posters here at this forum.

I’ve also searched through dozens of Muslim-Catholic ecumenical thoughts/documents from the higher up of the Catholic faith-- and I’ve still yet to read one leader actually voice an opinion that is even remotely similar to the views expressed by some posters here at this forum

How exactly are you discerning this majority amongst Catholics?

pro_universal:

I certainly don’t think so, and even though they don’t speak for the magesterium of the Church, the magesterium certainly is not doing a good job of correcting them.

Isn’t this exactly what many Catholics claim against moderate Muslims-- that they’re not speaking up enough to stop the violence?

Think about what you’re claming here.

pro_universal:

The Pope’s recent use of a quote defaming Islam is a good example.

All’s he said was the truth. And he honetly can’t be blamed for the reactions of extremists who would read anything out of context and use it for an excuse to muder.

pro_universal:

Instead of setting people on the path towards respecting Islam, many Catholics (especially right here on this forum) took the quote to mean that their anti-Islam tirades were justified and sanctioned by the Church.

Hmmm…you kind of slipped an extra in there.

You’re essentially claiming that the pope issued this speech with the virtual intention to incite anti-Islam tirades-- and the evidence you’re presenting for the popes virtual intentions are the anti-Islam tirades you’re reading here on this forum?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

pro_universal:

For one, I’m not convinced that the Magesterium really has an interest in condemning this type of speech anymore.

Well…to be fair…you can pretty much think whatever you want to think regarding the intentions of the Magisterium-- it doesn’t make it any more true if the original claim is false.

You’ve already apparently drawn your own conclusions regarding the trinity for example. You know full well that you are ultimately under the convictions of your own conscience when it come’s to God’s judgement.

pro_universal:

But in addition, Catholicism makes a special claim…its membership is supposed to be worthy to consume God every sunday.

No actually, we’re not worthy.

In fact, our liturgy specifcally says…

Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.

The Eucharist also provides healing for the broken soul regardless of whether we are fully aware of it or not-- so I’m not sure if you are actually understanding the Catholic faith you’ve left behind.

It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.

pro_universal:

Yet you can search the Church for opinions on Muslims and warfare, and you will find attitudes similar to those expressed here. There’s even a Priest claiming that Muslim cities should be hit by nuclear weapons (cestusdei, is his posting hame.)

And do you think his opinion reflects the Magisterium’s position on this matter?

Furthermore, can you show me some Catholic priests or Catholic demonstrators covered in masks standing beside mosques holding signs which say something foolish like “death to the caliphs” or something along these lines?

Come off it pro_universal.

What you’re claiming here – and the extent to which you’re willing to overlook the sins of Islam when compared to the sins of Catholicism – is extremely lop-sided.

If you don’t like the Church, that’s your right to choose so. But don’t give me this **** about ‘fairly contrasting’ Catholicism with Islam if all you can point to are posters on an internet forum who are really, really, really ticked off with Islam in general right now.

Beyond that, you’re basically grasping at conspiracy theories and essentially justifying your own affinity with Islam at the Church’s expense.

pro_universal:

Ask yourself this: would people who take the substance of God into their bodies every week, and someone who is an authorized representative of Jesus on earth, say these things?

Most certainly yes.

God’s love for us is poured out in the sacrament of the Eucharist, where Christ is truly present for us, giving us life and healing. Through a deeper love and closer relationship with Jesus, you acquire the strength, healing and peace to make it through your pilgrimage of life and to achieve your ultimate goal - Heaven and the Beatific Vision.

So, unless you’re claiming that people have to be either perfect before participating in the Eucharist or else the Eucharist perfects a person completely after their participation in the Eucharist, I’m not really understanding you’re claim at this point.

It is the very moment that you are participating in Eucharist that the Lord’s presence comes to you-- and there are many such moments in the Eucharist.

Consider one person’s investigation into our Catholic Eucharist. I think they state it so succinctly when he talks about these moments where we suddenly get what God is trying to show us, where the veil over our eyes is pulled aside and we catch a glimpse into the very heart of eternity. Although in every sense superior to the other six sacraments, the Eucharist is only approached, in this sense, by baptism in its rich potential for such an encounter into regeneration

Our efforts at teaching are but letters on the page – it is not until the Living Word infuses them with presence that they burst to life in our veins invigorating our spirituality and passion for God. Those travelers to Emmaus found their hearts burning within them. Yet, it was not until the Living Word Jesus was recognized that the words propelled them to change their course of action.

I suspect that many here are still working on being open to this part of their encounter with the Eucharistic healing of their soul through its manifestation with Christ Crucified himself. And I would hope that you would not judge them harshly lest you be judged just as harshly by the unsubstantiated claims you’re making against them through the Eucharist right now.

Just saying.

 

[pro_universal]

No. Not really.

I can get into this further if you wish.

You have mine and Contarini’s discusson above. Please do go into it.

Perhaps not all Muslims are calling for the pope’s death-- but there are a lot of them doing this.

Certainly not in numbers as high as the number of Catholics condemning Islam.

In addition to this, there are many Muslims, even moderate Muslims, calling for the resignation of the pope if I recall correctly.

I don’t see how this is a problem. It’s not sinister, and he did use a quote that was extremely insulting without disowning the quote.

I’ve also searched through dozens of Muslim-Catholic ecumenical thoughts/documents from the higher up of the Catholic faith-- and I’ve still yet to read one leader actually voice an opinion that is even remotely similar to the views expressed by some posters here at this forum

There’s Cardinal Pell here in Australia for one, and my claim wasn’t about the leadership. My claim is that most Catholics out there have these views, and the leadership is either silent or, in the case of the Pope’s Speech, mildly encouraging.

Isn’t this exactly what many Catholics claim against moderate Muslims-- that they’re not speaking up enough to stop the violence?

Certainly, but the difference is that I’m quite right to claim that no program exists to combat anti-Muslim sentiments in the Church.

Those who claim that Muslims aren’t speaking out against violence are wrong. Every single major organization in Islam condemns terrorism openly and explicitly, and they do so anew whenever acts of terror occur.

Where are the Church’s statements condemning attacks on Islam by American and European public figures?

All’s he said was the truth. And he honetly can’t be blamed for the reactions of extremists who would read anything out of context and use it for an excuse to muder.

Using a quote that says Muhammad was all violence, and then not saying anything about the truth of that quote, is certainly offensive, whether you agree with it or not.

If you think his whole speech was “the truth”, then you must admit that the people here who are condemning Islam have stronger roots in the Magesterium than you do. The speech used the quote to support a point, not to refute the content of the quote.

You’re essentially claiming that the pope issued this speech with the virtual intention to incite anti-Islam tirades-- and the evidence you’re presenting for the popes virtual intentions are the anti-Islam tirades you’re reading here on this forum?

No, that’s not what I’m essentially claiming. It’s not even remotely close to what I’m claiming.

What I did claim is:

1. Catholics in general are intolerant of Muslims and willing to believe that Islam is evil and condones all kinds of evil practices.

And

1. The Magesterium is either silent on this trend, or it gives mild encouragment in the form of speeches that defame Islam.

 

[pro_universal]

Well…to be fair…you can pretty much think whatever you want to think regarding the intentions of the Magisterium-- it doesn’t make it any more true if the original claim is false.

I have no idea what they secretly intend, but I certainly have an idea of what they are saying in public.

You’ve already apparently drawn your own conclusions regarding the trinity for example. You know full well that you are ultimately under the convictions of your own conscience when it come’s to God’s judgement.

They’re not really my conclusions. As far as I know, there isn’t a single non-Christian thinker who has taken up the subject and concluded that the trinity is anything other than contradictory.

The Eucharist also provides healing for the broken soul regardless of whether we are fully aware of it or not-- so I’m not sure if you are actually understanding the Catholic faith you’ve left behind.

Well, I certainly understand it, I just don’t believe it. You are more worthy than protestants and non Catholics to eat God’s flesh. And there are conditions of worthiness, like confession, to take the host.

So while I agree, you are not claiming to be ultimately worthy of God in the sense of being a Saint, you are certainly claiming a special presence of God above the presence he has in other people when you eat the eucharist.

And do you think his opinion reflects the Magisterium’s position on this matter?

Furthermore, can you show me some Catholic priests or Catholic demonstrators covered in masks standing beside mosques holding signs which say something foolish like “death to the caliphs” or something along these lines?

Holding infantile signs isn’t the only way to be intolerant or to foster intolerance. This is a false dilemma; the Church can say offensive things about Islam without protests. Just read the Pope’s speech; he used a quote that claimed Muhammad only brought violence, and didn’t disown or in any way criticize the claims of the quote.

What you’re claiming here – and the extent to which you’re willing to overlook the sins of Islam when compared to the sins of Catholicism – is extremely lop-sided.

It certainly is, but this is a lopsided world these days.

God’s love for us is poured out in the sacrament of the Eucharist, where Christ is truly present for us, giving us life and healing. Through a deeper love and closer relationship with Jesus, you acquire the strength, healing and peace to make it through your pilgrimage of life and to achieve your ultimate goal - Heaven and the Beatific Vision.

Yes, I understand. Christ’s flesh is devoured by us, but at the same time, not devoured, since it both is really and is not really Christ’s flesh that we eat. And that’s not contradictory.

I suspect that many here are still working on being open to this part of their encounter with the Eucharistic healing of their soul through its manifestation with Christ Crucified himself. And I would hope that you would not judge them harshly lest you be judged just as harshly by the unsubstantiated claims you’re making against them through the Eucharist right now.

I certainly don’t think they are evil, or that the Church is evil. The moral teachings of the Catholic Church are very good.

The failure is in the execution and development of the theology and lifestyle.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

What I did claim is:

Yes. I get it.

Basically, in your opinion, whatever claims are placed against Islam are to be considered offensive and politically incorrect, whereas any claims against Christianity are considered fair and justly deserved.

You realize that I was really trying to help you in this thread, right?

Anyway, I pray the Lord will bless you in your search pro_universal. As for me, based upon your responses, it seems fairly clear to me that you’re not really interested in an even minded dialogue between faiths. As such, I’m fairly well shaking the dust off my sandals for this thread.

Enjoy your defense of Islam pro_universal.

With one-sided misrepresentations like the ones your presenting in defense of this religion, posters in this thread are going to rip right through you.

 

[exoflare]

Yes. I get it.

Basically, in your opinion, whatever claims are placed against Islam are to be considered offensive and politically incorrect, whereas any claims against Christianity are considered fair and justly deserved.

You realize that I was really trying to help you in this thread, right?

Anyway, I pray the Lord will bless you in your search pro_universal. As for me, based upon your responses, it seems fairly clear to me that you’re not really interested in an even minded dialogue between faiths. As such, I’m fairly well shaking the dust off my sandals for this thread.

Enjoy your defense of Islam pro_universal.

With one-sided misrepresentations like the ones your presenting in defense of this religion, posters in this thread are going to rip right through you.

It took you until now to realize this?? :nope:

 

[pro_universal]

Yes. I get it.

Basically, in your opinion, whatever claims are placed against Islam are to be considered offensive and politically incorrect, whereas any claims against Christianity are considered fair and justly deserved.

This is unfair and untrue. I have stated repeatedly on this thread and others that I respect and admire the Catholic tradition of moral teaching. That doesn’t mean I believe it’s God’s Church, but it’s certainly a good institution which helps millions of people and also teaches solid moral principles.

Saying that Muhammad only brought evil is certainly offensive (true or not, you can’t doubt that this is an offensive way to make a point), and also untrue. You’ll note that there isn’t much discussion of legitimate, reasoned criticisms of Islam here…because every such thread turns into a “Muhammad is evil” extravaganza.

You realize that I was really trying to help you in this thread, right?

Of course I do. And I hope I helped you to understand more about these issues as well.

Anyway, I pray the Lord will bless you in your search pro_universal. As for me, based upon your responses, it seems fairly clear to me that you’re not really interested in an even minded dialogue between faiths. As such, I’m fairly well shaking the dust off my sandals for this thread.

Enjoy your defense of Islam pro_universal.

With one-sided misrepresentations like the ones your presenting in defense of this religion, posters in this thread are going to rip right through you.

Well, I’m quite happy to deal with being “ripped through.” These days being unpopular in some circles is a sure sign that you are actually thinking.

 

[TheGarg]

What in my post indicates I’m looking for a self-worshipping religion?

Is wanting to use rational thought a “me me me” desire?

yes, a religion base on rational thought as you see it is a self-worshipping religion, and is a “me me me” desire.

Well, that’s certainly your opinion and you’re entitled to it. I don’t believe it though.

I didnt figure you would

 

[pro_universal]

TheGarg,

To be clear, I don’t believe in a religion that is one of only rational thought. You’re right, that would be a “me me me” religion.

What I also don’t believe in is a religion that is clearly contrary to rational thought. Mystery is a part of the human condition. But my problem with Christian theology isn’t that it is too mysterious; it is that it is clearly contradictory.

The best explaination I’ve heard for the problem with Christian theology was given to me by a Muslim, and it’s basically what I agree happened. Jesus was out there preaching a good message, and he was so admired by his followers that they wanted to increase his reputation (not because they were bad people, but because humans naturally do this with great leaders.) So not through sinister motives or fault, but through the natural human tendency to deify concrete things and especially other people, they decided Jesus was God and started telling bigger and bigger stories about him.

This is a story that’s been repeated throughout human history. Divine status and magical powers are ascribed even to cult leaders who are bad people, so it shouldn’t be surprising that in primitive times, people would want to say a good person like Jesus was divine. But that is the result of a human tendency to worship other humans…not the workings of divine revelation.

 

[thistle]

TheGarg,

To be clear, I don’t believe in a religion that is one of only rational thought. You’re right, that would be a “me me me” religion.

What I also don’t believe in is a religion that is clearly contrary to rational thought. Mystery is a part of the human condition. But my problem with Christian theology isn’t that it is too mysterious; it is that it is clearly contradictory.

The best explaination I’ve heard for the problem with Christian theology was given to me by a Muslim, and it’s basically what I agree happened. Jesus was out there preaching a good message, and he was so admired by his followers that they wanted to increase his reputation (not because they were bad people, but because humans naturally do this with great leaders.) So not through sinister motives or fault, but through the natural human tendency to deify concrete things and especially other people, they decided Jesus was God and started telling bigger and bigger stories about him.

This is a story that’s been repeated throughout human history. Divine status and magical powers are ascribed even to cult leaders who are bad people, so it shouldn’t be surprising that in primitive times, people would want to say a good person like Jesus was divine. But that is the result of a human tendency to worship other humans…not the workings of divine revelation.

What a load of rubbish!!
We have Jesus who is God the Son and then you have Mohammed the false prophet and brutal killer!!

 

[pro_universal]

What a load of rubbish!!
We have Jesus who is God the Son and then you have Mohammed the false prophet and brutal killer!!

Yep, I’m convinced. Your response proves that Christianity is true. It’s just so…well reasoned and calm.

I mean, when you say it like that, how could anyone deny that your religion is perfectly logical?

Blew my hair back. Wow.

 

[thistle]

Yep, I’m convinced. Your response proves that Christianity is true. It’s just so…well reasoned and calm.

I mean, when you say it like that, how could anyone deny that your religion is perfectly logical?

Blew my hair back. Wow.

I made the statement simply to point out the difference between the founders of the two religions. What always intrigues me is that muslims think they know more about Jesus than Christians. What arrogance!
Why anyone would leave a faith founded on love and forgiveness to join a violent one founded by a murdering terrorist is just unbelievable.

 

[pro_universal]

I made the statement simply to point out the difference between the founders of the two religions. What always intrigues me is that muslims think they know more about Jesus than Christians. What arrogance!
Why anyone would leave a faith founded on love and forgiveness to join a violent one founded by a murdering terrorist is just unbelievable.

Well, certainly that would be unbelievable if it were the case.

But the problem is that Christianity hasn’t always been loving and forgiving, and as far as I’m aware no major religion was founded by a murdering terrorist.

So you’re puzzled apparently by a class of converts that doesn’t exist.

 

[THEKING]

TheGarg,

To be clear, I don’t believe in a religion that is one of only rational thought. You’re right, that would be a “me me me” religion.

What I also don’t believe in is a religion that is clearly contrary to rational thought. Mystery is a part of the human condition. But my problem with Christian theology isn’t that it is too mysterious; it is that it is clearly contradictory.

The best explaination I’ve heard for the problem with Christian theology was given to me by a Muslim, and it’s basically what I agree happened. Jesus was out there preaching a good message, and he was so admired by his followers that they wanted to increase his reputation (not because they were bad people, but because humans naturally do this with great leaders.) So not through sinister motives or fault, but through the natural human tendency to deify concrete things and especially other people, they decided Jesus was God and started telling bigger and bigger stories about him.

This is a story that’s been repeated throughout human history. Divine status and magical powers are ascribed even to cult leaders who are bad people, so it shouldn’t be surprising that in primitive times, people would want to say a good person like Jesus was divine. But that is the result of a human tendency to worship other humans…not the workings of divine revelation.

can we apply the same on Muhammad? Waraqa Ben Nawfal taught Muhammad to become the priest of Mecca when Waraqa dies. Muhammad preached but his followers made him a prophet and even attributed miracles to him when in fact he did none according to his book…how is that?

 

[THEKING]

Well, certainly that would be unbelievable if it were the case.

But the problem is that Christianity hasn’t always been loving and forgiving, and as far as I’m aware no major religion was founded by a murdering terrorist.

So you’re puzzled apparently by a class of converts that doesn’t exist.

that’s what we call putting your head in the sand. The point being made is that the founders of Christianity, Jesus and then his disciples were in contrast to Muhammad and his strict followers. If you don’t see the difference, then there is no reason explaining to you that the sky is blue cuz you want to see it orange.

 

[THEKING]

Yep, I’m convinced. Your response proves that Christianity is true. It’s just so…well reasoned and calm

. he is saying what the Bible said. Or maybe you consider it corrupt? that’s the only conclusion i got.

Btw, saying that people tend to exxagerate is not wrong…but saying that JEWS exagerate by claiming a human being to be God is really strange. Or maybe Jesus lied about himself?

Is the Bible corrupt? is that what you’re saying?

 

[M_Oliver]

he is saying what the Bible said. Or maybe you consider it corrupt? that’s the only conclusion i got.

 

[cestusdei]

Also Thomas said to Jesus, “my Lord and my God”. Jesus was both Man and God.